# Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc results, bins and discussion



## Nizzen

Newest Asus MB Raptor Lake beta bioses:






RaptorLake Resources


i will use this as a collection of test bioses/tools/info targeted towards Raptorlake + z69/790 NOTE for Z690: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake (if you are on dual bioses then you need to do this to both bioses) 1) d/l and install ME driver...



rog.asus.com







Sp 13900k/KF bins:

Nizzen SP 110 P119 / E93 KF / SP 88 MC
Nizzen SP 100 P110 / E80 K
sugi0lover SP 114 P124 / E94
Falk SP 106 P113 / E94.
RobertoS SP ? P119/E102
Roooo SP? P110/E88
Talon 2016 SP106 P115/E88
Miguelios SP106 P116/E88
nickolp1974 SP 103 P111/ E88
Miguelios _SP 106 P116/ E88
Xarot SP 97 P106/E81
Owikh84. SP 101 P110/E83
Bilco SP 101 P110/E83 
PBaF _SP 103 P113/E85
Carillo SP 103 P113/E83 / SP 77 MC
Shkiz0 SP 105 P115/E85 


New toys to play with soon 

Looks like 13600k is almost beating 5950x in rendering 









Intel Core i5-13600K 14 Core Raptor Lake ES CPU Tested, 40% Faster Than Core i5-12600K & Beats The Ryzen 9 5950X In Cinebench


The latest benchmarks of Intel's mainstream Core i5-13600K 14-Core Raptor Lake Desktop CPU have leaked out and it's a beast.




wccftech.com







Test cpu:



P cores: Sync x57
Actual VRM Vcore Voltage: 1.345v bios set
Loadline Calibration: LLC level 6.
VRM Switching frequency: Spread Spectrum Disabled: Sw rate 300-500 khz

MSI Beta bioses:





User test Bios,attention to the date - Google Drive







drive.google.com


----------



## newls1

ill be waiting for a 13900K for sure........ Just wondering is the 14900K will have 1 P core and 56 E-Cores...


----------



## Lionvibez

newls1 said:


> ill be waiting for a 13900K for sure........ Just wondering is the 14900K will have 1 P core and 56 E-Cores...


----------



## Ichirou

Raptor Lake is a joke. All Intel did was bin the cores a bit better and slap on more E-cores. This is useless for gamers, especially if they don't overclock. 

Maybe people who do need the cores for multicore workloads might consider it, but that extra cost to upgrade and to also cool the chip so it doesn't throttle... That's also disregarding the wattage necessary. 

I'm more curious about the IMC, if anything. Has it improved, or is it still a total dice roll?


----------



## Nizzen

Ichirou said:


> Raptor Lake is a joke. All Intel did was bin the cores a bit better and slap on more E-cores. This is useless for gamers, especially if they don't overclock.
> 
> Maybe people who do need the cores for multicore workloads might consider it, but that extra cost to upgrade and to also cool the chip so it doesn't throttle... That's also disregarding the wattage necessary.
> 
> I'm more curious about the IMC, if anything. Has it improved, or is it still a total dice roll?


Pretty nice upgrade from 4770k or 3800x 

Pretty much all cpu's is a joke if the upgrade is small. I'm not upgrading for the sake of upgrading, but for the sake of overclocking new toys 

Extra cache wil help for min fps like the 5800x3d.

Like everything else: If you don't like it, don't buy it.

My perfect cpu is a bit like 7980xe was from the start: "Best" in singlethread (tuned 4000mhz memory sub 50ns) and best multicore performance. One cpu to rule them all.
Old 980x was in the same league.


----------



## opt33

Raptors higher cache/clocks improving minimum fps at 4k is enticing enough for me, especially if 4080ti/4090ti is released later this year in adequate supply. Enjoyed gaming with stable OC's but now bored, so time to OC new toys.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Ichirou said:


> Raptor Lake is a joke. All Intel did was bin the cores a bit better and slap on more E-cores. This is useless for gamers, especially if they don't overclock.
> 
> Maybe people who do need the cores for multicore workloads might consider it, but that extra cost to upgrade and to also cool the chip so it doesn't throttle... That's also disregarding the wattage necessary.
> 
> I'm more curious about the IMC, if anything. Has it improved, or is it still a total dice roll?


People in tweeter seem to care too much from Cinebench score. This is just fuel for AMD. Watch AMD release 32-cores just to get back at intel for a pointless battle.


----------



## Ichirou

ZealotKi11er said:


> People in tweeter seem to care too much from Cinebench score. This is just fuel for AMD. Watch AMD release 32-cores just to get back at intel for a pointless battle.


This is precisely it. All I see is: more E-cores, and higher turbo clocks.
The cache was increased, but doesn't seem to do anything.

Hence, I'm more looking forward to seeing what the IMCs are like.


----------



## postem

Ichirou said:


> Raptor Lake is a joke. All Intel did was bin the cores a bit better and slap on more E-cores. This is useless for gamers, especially if they don't overclock.
> 
> Maybe people who do need the cores for multicore workloads might consider it, but that extra cost to upgrade and to also cool the chip so it doesn't throttle... That's also disregarding the wattage necessary.
> 
> I'm more curious about the IMC, if anything. Has it improved, or is it still a total dice roll?


There is a substantial l2 increase.
This alone means better performance on cache sensitive games or applications


----------



## Ichirou

postem said:


> There is a substantial l2 increase.
> This alone means better performance on cache sensitive games or applications


Will be looking forward to seeing benchmarks with similar setups then. Same E-core count and core multipliers, on various programs/games.

For now, all we have is this:


----------



## Nizzen

Ichirou said:


> This is precisely it. All I see is: more E-cores, and higher turbo clocks.
> The cache was increased, but doesn't seem to do anything.
> 
> Hence, I'm more looking forward to seeing what the IMCs are like.


No gain?
Look at min fps here 

Run 7000+ tweaked ddr5 , and the results will be pretty decent 








Minimum framerates of games evaluated on an engineering sample of Intel's Core i9-13900K have improved.


Recently, an Intel 13th Generation Core CPU was evaluated. The future K-series CPU will be a 24-core, 32-thread processor with no power limits. This is not a retail processor, but rather a qualifying ...




www.guru3d.com


----------



## Ichirou

Nizzen said:


> No gain?
> Look at min fps here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minimum framerates of games evaluated on an engineering sample of Intel's Core i9-13900K have improved.
> 
> 
> Recently, an Intel 13th Generation Core CPU was evaluated. The future K-series CPU will be a 24-core, 32-thread processor with no power limits. This is not a retail processor, but rather a qualifying ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.guru3d.com


You do realize that's comparing 4.9 GHz with 5.5 GHz, right?


----------



## Nizzen

Ichirou said:


> You do realize that's comparing 4.9 GHz with 5.5 GHz, right?


There is no all core 5.5ghz vs 4.9ghz here, so the gain isn't from just the cpu frequency 
How many % is 4.9 to 5.5? IF it would be magical all core?
~12%

Difference in min fps in 1080p was ~28%

Looks to me that the cache is doing some magic


----------



## Damage Inc

It's the Alder Lake with extra e-cores. If the IMC quality hasn't increased significantly, I'll be skipping this one until the next socket with faster e-cores and better per clock performance.


----------



## Nizzen

Damage Inc said:


> It's the Alder Lake with extra e-cores. If the IMC quality hasn't increased significantly, I'll be skipping this one until the next socket with faster e-cores and better per clock performance.


Did you look at post from guru3d?


----------



## SuperMumrik

I will get one for sure! 
Looks interestingly enough if there's a imc improvement since I'm "done" with my adl chip 😎


----------



## Ichirou

Nizzen said:


> There is no all core 5.5ghz vs 4.9ghz here, so the gain isn't from just the cpu frequency
> How many % is 4.9 to 5.5? IF it would be magical all core?
> ~12%
> 
> Difference in min fps in 1080p was ~28%
> 
> Looks to me that the cache is doing some magic


Testing methodology is still moot until the 13900K is clocked down to the same settings as the 12900K.
Even if it's only one core boosting up, that still exaggerates results, as many games still use one core.


----------



## Nizzen

Ichirou said:


> Testing methodology is still moot until the 13900K is clocked down to the same settings as the 12900K.
> Even if it's only one core boosting up, that still exaggerates results, as many games still use one core.


Show me one of the tested games using on core. Try to show me one game made the last 5 years that use ONE core 

I can't wait to play that game with 5.8ghz 😉


----------



## xarot

I am a bit worried about the possible cooling issues with these chips. Probably eating more watts than 12900KS, but how big is the die?


----------



## Nizzen

xarot said:


> I am a bit worried about the possible cooling issues with these chips. Probably eating more watts than 12900KS, but how big is the die?


Die is never big enough for us overclockers, that's for shure 🤓🤟


----------



## Damage Inc

Nizzen said:


> Show me one of the tested games using on core. Try to show me one game made the last 5 years that use ONE core
> 
> I can't wait to play that game with 5.8ghz 😉


That's not what he said. If the 13900k is set to turbo higher than the 12900k by default even if it's just a single core, then the results will be skewed in favor of the 13900k. You would need to clock both to the exact same frequency on and disable some or all e-cores to get a real picture. Second, I need to see how this Raptor Lake handles DDR5 frequencies, timings and of course, IMC max frequency. If it does 7000MT/s and beyond easy, then it's not a bad upgrade, if it doesn't, it's just ADL with more Gracemont e-cores which I don't need.


----------



## Nizzen

Damage Inc said:


> That's not what he said. If the 13900k is set to turbo higher than the 12900k by default even if it's just a single core, then the results will be skewed in favor of the 13900k. You would need to clock both to the exact same frequency on and disable some or all e-cores to get a real picture. Second, I need to see how this Raptor Lake handles DDR5 frequencies, timings and of course, IMC max frequency. If it does 7000MT/s and beyond easy, then it's not a bad upgrade, if it doesn't, it's just ADL with more Gracemont e-cores which I don't need.


*"Even if it's only one core boosting up, that still exaggerates results, as many games still use one core."*

Real picture now is that Raptor Lake is about 25%+ faster in min fps in some games with 12% higher boostclock, IF the boostclock on 12900k was set to 4900mhz (LoL) and 13900k 5.5ghz. That is what the leak is saying. Right?

It's a reason I allways test things myself. Not trusting anyone


----------



## newls1

extra cache is what im after.... Ill delid it and slap my direct die supercool block on it.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Damage Inc said:


> That's not what he said. If the 13900k is set to turbo higher than the 12900k by default even if it's just a single core, then the results will be skewed in favor of the 13900k. You would need to clock both to the exact same frequency on and disable some or all e-cores to get a real picture. Second, I need to see how this Raptor Lake handles DDR5 frequencies, timings and of course, IMC max frequency. If it does 7000MT/s and beyond easy, then it's not a bad upgrade, if it doesn't, it's just ADL with more Gracemont e-cores which I don't need.


I bet you can get Zen4 3D + crappy 4800 ddr5 but need raptor to be paired with the fastest memory out there to come close in gaming.


----------



## dagget3450

ZealotKi11er said:


> People in tweeter seem to care too much from Cinebench score. This is just fuel for AMD. Watch AMD release 32-cores just to get back at intel for a pointless battle.


I recall AMD pushing Cinebench numbers not too long ago, now if they start using "real world" performance in the marketing like intel did then, I will LOL at them.

I do recall on here i think it was people posting remarks about how irrelevant Cinebench scores were when AMD was pushing the scores for marketing.

One thing that i can see as people here mentioned is the repeat and increase of these silly E-cores.... I just can't convince myself to spend a bunch of cash on a cpu and then get to disabling more than half of its cores. Which will be happening i am guessing if its a repeat of alder lake.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

dagget3450 said:


> I recall AMD pushing Cinebench numbers not too long ago, now if they start using "real world" performance in the marketing like intel did then, I will LOL at them.
> 
> I do recall on here i think it was people posting remarks about how irrelevant Cinebench scores were when AMD was pushing the scores for marketing.
> 
> One thing that i can see as people here mentioned is the repeat and increase of these silly E-cores.... I just can't convince myself to spend a bunch of cash on a cpu and then get to disabling more than half of its cores. Which will be happening i am guessing if its a repeat of alder lake.


Yeah. The E-Core thing is very different. Also intel could release 4C+16E/6C+16E and stomp AMD in MT no question asked.


----------



## Arni90

Ichirou said:


> Raptor Lake is a joke. All Intel did was bin the cores a bit better and slap on more E-cores. This is useless for gamers, especially if they don't overclock.


Ah yes, unlike the 12900K, which made so much more sense for gaming 🤣


----------



## Neo_Morpheus

I heard something about you can disable the E-cores and use a part of the cache (2mb) from each E-core. That could stack up for gaming against the 58003XD?


----------



## Arni90

Neo_Morpheus said:


> I heard something about you can disable the E-cores and use a part of the cache (2mb) from each E-core. That could stack up for gaming against the 58003XD?


Wishful thinking, if the L2 could act as L3, it would be called L3


----------



## Nizzen

ZealotKi11er said:


> I bet you can get Zen4 3D + crappy 4800 ddr5 but need raptor to be paired with the fastest memory out there to come close in gaming.


So you are saying zen 4 3d is 50% faster than zen 3 3D? In cpubound gaming?
Or what are you actual saying?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Nizzen said:


> So you are saying zen 4 3d is 50% faster than zen 3 3D? In cpubound gaming?
> Or what are you actual saying?


Zen 3d beats ADL in cache abound games but loses in Frequency reliant games. That alone with no IPC improvement if they increase the clocks clocks for Zen4 3d end up 10% faster than ADL. AMD could also pick the best of both worlds if they cant get the clks as high for Zen4 3d. They could have a ccd with 5.5ghz no 3d, and ccd 4.5ghz with 3d.


----------



## Nizzen

ZealotKi11er said:


> Zen 3d beats ADL in cache abound games but loses in Frequency reliant games. That alone with no IPC improvement if they increase the clocks clocks for Zen4 3d end up 10% faster than ADL. AMD could also pick the best of both worlds if they cant get the clks as high for Zen4 3d. They could have a ccd with 5.5ghz no 3d, and ccd 4.5ghz with 3d.


Guess we have to wait and see


----------



## mokrunka

newls1 said:


> ill be waiting for a 13900K for sure........ Just wondering is the 14900K will have 1 P core and 56 E-Cores...


Yes, TDP will be 950W. Time to upgrade the house to 220v!


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Nizzen said:


> Guess we have to wait and see


Personally I am done picking which CPU is faster because with most online games I play, the bottleneck is always the internet lag spikes. Cant fix that with a fast CPU/RAM/GPU.


----------



## Nizzen

ZealotKi11er said:


> Personally I am done picking which CPU is faster because with most online games I play, the bottleneck is always the internet lag spikes. Cant fix that with a fast CPU/RAM/GPU.


You picket almost the slowest gaming cpu at that time with 3700X, so I understand that


----------



## Netarangi

Ichirou said:


> Raptor Lake is a joke. All Intel did was bin the cores a bit better and slap on more E-cores. This is useless for gamers, especially if they don't overclock.
> 
> Maybe people who do need the cores for multicore workloads might consider it, but that extra cost to upgrade and to also cool the chip so it doesn't throttle... That's also disregarding the wattage necessary.
> 
> I'm more curious about the IMC, if anything. Has it improved, or is it still a total dice roll?


Would it still be worth upgrading 12700kf to a 13900 on release? As you may remember, my IMC is limiting my ram overclock and I'd be keen to tinker a bit more with a better cpu


----------



## Ichirou

Netarangi said:


> Would it still be worth upgrading 12700kf to a 13900 on release? As you may remember, my IMC is limiting my ram overclock and I'd be keen to tinker a bit more with a better cpu


Eh, it's really hard to say. I'd say that decision lies upon your shoulders. Do you need the E-cores? The additional cache?
Those is what the 13th Gen basically boils down to. One could argue that the IMC quality will likely improve due to better manufacturing, but there is still no guarantee.

Plus, it's probably going to cost quite a bit again, and a 13900KS might end up coming out as well, along with tons of overclockers who will likely hop on to bin chips, so...
I'd advise just staying on the sidelines until the very end (when the 14th Gen starts to be announced), and then upgrade to a good bin chip at a bargain then.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Nizzen said:


> You picket almost the slowest gaming cpu at that time with 3700X, so I understand that


Having a faster CPU for 4K60 did not help much. This was an upgrade from 3770K for BF5 and it helped a lot. Since then I have had 5900x, 5950x and now 12900k.


----------



## dagget3450

ZealotKi11er said:


> Yeah. The E-Core thing is very different. Also intel could release 4C+16E/6C+16E and stomp AMD in MT no question asked.


To be honest I am fearing this may end up being our future lol. I see further segmentation of the consumer market. See they split off the prosumer segment with absurdly expensive prices. CPU core speed locks and memory locks aren't enough. Now they are going to make a sub prosumer/power user market where you can get 5 billion tiny cores and have great cinebench scores. On the other hand they will make fat cache CPUs for gaming, and what does that mean for us? More segmentation and higher prices....


----------



## airisom2

So, the question for someone like me is do I get all the performance now with a dead end platform or do I bet on AM5. 

13900K
+Will likely beat 7950X in ST and MT.
+2nd gen DDR5 IMC, so hopefully breaking 7000+ more reliably on 1DPC boards will be achievable.
+More mature platform
+m.2 5.0
?Rumors of a 5.7/5.8 boost clock, but most likely 5.5
?Maybe unofficial AVX-512 support
-Hot/Power hungry
-16 5.0 lanes, so it'll drop to 5.0 x8 with an x4 5.0 m.2
-Up to 20% price jump on Intel chips
-No real IPC change, but cache bump should help in some games.
-Probably has the same IHS mounting issues as ADL, so separate bracket will probably be needed.
-Z790 dead end chipset
-Most likely no AVX-512
-Hetero arch. woes 

7950X
+Probably cheaper
+AVX-512 support even if it's not as good as Intel's (2x 256 vs 1x 512 so efficiency loss *rumor)
+24 5.0 lanes
+m.2 5.0
+USB 4
+Long life socket
?Promising DDR5 IMC
?5nm thermal density especially with 3D version
-Non-3D version will lose to 13900K most likely
-Early adopter woes
-Initial m.2 5.0 and usb 4 will be expensive and probably be beat by last gen in some areas. 

The 13900K has the performance numbers people like, but AM5 has a nicer chipset. Zen 4 3D will be the real upgrade people are looking for right now, but that will probably be a Zen 4+ refresh in late Q1 early Q2. If EPYC is still hogging all of the 3DVC, then it's possible that there won't be multiple SKUs again, especially with thermal and TDP constraints on a dual CCX 3D chip on 5nm. We'll see, but I'm not going to wait on it. 

I'll probably grab a 13900K with some good DDR5 and Z790 Tachyon and call it a day. M.2 4.0 is plenty fast, and usb 4/m.2 5.0 will need at least a year of maturing before they're viable. I think AM5 will really shine with Zen 5.


----------



## gecko991

The numbers so far are interesting though only time will show the gains.


----------



## spin5000

If the 13900K stock single core boost is 5.8 GHz, I bet they're saving 6.x for a KS model rather than the 14900K. It'll be easier to sell the KS model and a nice way (from an Intel & marketing POV) to end the node / gen with a model hitting 6 GHz for the first time ever.

It really sucks when there's no IPC increase. Isn't the 13900K a new architecture?

Was Intel 7th gen (Kaby Lake), and 8th gen the last time an Intel CPU had no (let's say less than 2%) IPC increase over the previous gen, or did 9th gen and 10th gen also have no IPC increase VS 6th gen?


----------



## spin5000

airisom2 said:


> So, the question for someone like me is do I get all the performance now with a dead end platform or do I bet on AM5.
> 
> 13900K
> +Will likely beat 7950X in ST and MT.
> 
> 7950X...
> -Non-3D version will lose to 13900K most likely


Not sure about highly multi-threaded workloads due to the 13900K's core increase over the 12900K's but with regards to, let's say, disabling e-cores to get the absolute maximum out of the p-core clocks, the cache / uncore / ring clock, and the L3 cache (and possibly L2, I'm not sure), wouldn't you think the AMD 7950x would destroy RpL? Isn't it expected that the performance increase of AMD 7000-series over 5000-series is going to be way bigger than the performance increase of Intel 13000 series over 12000 series?



airisom2 said:


> -Probably has the same IHS mounting issues as ADL, so separate bracket will probably be needed.


Please excuse my ignorance but isn't it just a matter of putting more tabs around the CPU so that when the ILM lever gets tightened down, the pressure is applied evenly via all the tab pressure-points around the CPU (and they can even use 2 ILM levers like, for eg., Intel HEDT to help even further)?


----------



## Ichirou

spin5000 said:


> If the 13900K stock single core boost is 5.8 GHz, I bet they're saving 6.x for a KS model rather than the 14900K. It'll be easier to sell the KS model and a nice way (from an Intel & marketing POV) to end the node / gen with a model hitting 6 GHz for the first time ever.
> 
> It really sucks when there's no IPC increase. Isn't the 13900K a new architecture?
> 
> Was Intel 7th gen (Kaby Lake), and 8th gen the last time an Intel CPU had no (let's say less than 2%) IPC increase over the previous gen, or did 9th gen and 10th gen also have no IPC increase VS 6th gen?


Pretty sure the 13th Gen is literally just the 12th Gen but with some more cylinders and a turbocharger added to it.

5.5 GHz as a boost clock is most likely going to be marketing again. Probably yet another single-core boost clock that can't be cooled by ordinary folk.
I imagine the rest of the cores are running at 5.2 GHz or something.


----------



## Section31

airisom2 said:


> So, the question for someone like me is do I get all the performance now with a dead end platform or do I bet on AM5.
> 
> 13900K
> +Will likely beat 7950X in ST and MT.
> +2nd gen DDR5 IMC, so hopefully breaking 7000+ more reliably on 1DPC boards will be achievable.
> +More mature platform
> +m.2 5.0
> ?Rumors of a 5.7/5.8 boost clock, but most likely 5.5
> ?Maybe unofficial AVX-512 support
> -Hot/Power hungry
> -16 5.0 lanes, so it'll drop to 5.0 x8 with an x4 5.0 m.2
> -Up to 20% price jump on Intel chips
> -No real IPC change, but cache bump should help in some games.
> -Probably has the same IHS mounting issues as ADL, so separate bracket will probably be needed.
> -Z790 dead end chipset
> -Most likely no AVX-512
> -Hetero arch. woes
> 
> 7950X
> +Probably cheaper
> +AVX-512 support even if it's not as good as Intel's (2x 256 vs 1x 512 so efficiency loss *rumor)
> +24 5.0 lanes
> +m.2 5.0
> +USB 4
> +Long life socket
> ?Promising DDR5 IMC
> ?5nm thermal density especially with 3D version
> -Non-3D version will lose to 13900K most likely
> -Early adopter woes
> -Initial m.2 5.0 and usb 4 will be expensive and probably be beat by last gen in some areas.
> 
> The 13900K has the performance numbers people like, but AM5 has a nicer chipset. Zen 4 3D will be the real upgrade people are looking for right now, but that will probably be a Zen 4+ refresh in late Q1 early Q2. If EPYC is still hogging all of the 3DVC, then it's possible that there won't be multiple SKUs again, especially with thermal and TDP constraints on a dual CCX 3D chip on 5nm. We'll see, but I'm not going to wait on it.
> 
> I'll probably grab a 13900K with some good DDR5 and Z790 Tachyon and call it a day. M.2 4.0 is plenty fast, and usb 4/m.2 5.0 will need at least a year of maturing before they're viable. I think AM5 will really shine with Zen 5.


I think that wise. 12900k then rest for 1-2years so late 2023-2024 and restart planning for upgrade cycle myself


----------



## Arni90

For people who want DDR5-7000+, wait for Hynix AGBD-based sticks. Hynix AGBD is what the frequency WR has been done with.



airisom2 said:


> 7950X
> +Probably cheaper
> +AVX-512 support even if it's not as good as Intel's (2x 256 vs 1x 512 so efficiency loss *rumor)
> +24 5.0 lanes
> +m.2 5.0
> +USB 4
> +Long life socket
> ?Promising DDR5 IMC
> ?5nm thermal density especially with 3D version
> -Non-3D version will lose to 13900K most likely
> -Early adopter woes
> -Initial m.2 5.0 and usb 4 will be expensive and probably be beat by last gen in some areas.


Let me add another negative
+Unlikely to benefit from expensive 2 DIMM XOC boards
-Overclocking likely significantly limited by AGESA's artificial restrictions to frequency like on AM4.
-Memory compatibility restricted by AGESA


----------



## airisom2

spin5000 said:


> Not sure about highly multi-threaded workloads due to the 13900K's core increase over the 12900K's but with regards to, let's say, disabling e-cores to get the absolute maximum out of the p-core clocks, the cache / uncore / ring clock, and the L3 cache (and possibly L2, I'm not sure), wouldn't you think the AMD 7950x would destroy RpL? Isn't it expected that the performance increase of AMD 7000-series over 5000-series is going to be way bigger than the performance increase of Intel 13000 series over 12000 series?


Well, if you disable 16 e cores on a processor and compare an 8 p core to a 16 core, then I would wager the 16 core would win overall. There really isn't much point in overclocking the 13900K unless you have the cooling for it. I think undervolting and tightening memory will be the route most people take.



> Please excuse my ignorance but isn't it just a matter of putting more tabs around the CPU so that when the ILM lever gets tightened down, the pressure is applied evenly via all the tab pressure-points around the CPU (and they can even use 2 ILM levers like, for eg., Intel HEDT to help even further)?


You are correct that more surface area to clamp down on will even the pressure, but I don't see Intel making any big changes to the package because thehy have to retain compatibility with the socket. Remember, these have to be compatible with Z690 as well, and there are tolerances to keep in mind.


----------



## Section31

Arni90 said:


> For people who want DDR5-7000+, wait for Hynix AGBD-based sticks. Hynix AGBD is what the frequency WR has been done with.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me add another negative
> +Unlikely to benefit from expensive 2 DIMM XOC boards
> -Overclocking likely significantly limited by AGESA's artificial restrictions to frequency like on AM4.
> -Memory compatibility restricted by AGESA


Im waiting for lunarlake before i consider upgrading. Next up is 5000 hopper or rdna4


----------



## jomama22

Arni90 said:


> For people who want DDR5-7000+, wait for Hynix AGBD-based sticks. Hynix AGBD is what the frequency WR has been done with.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me add another negative
> +Unlikely to benefit from expensive 2 DIMM XOC boards
> -Overclocking likely significantly limited by AGESA's artificial restrictions to frequency like on AM4.
> -Memory compatibility restricted by AGESA


Not sure why you are saying it's artificial, it's just the lottery like anything else. If you weren't to latch fclk and mclk, you can easily get ddr4 at the same 4800+ mhz as Intel. 2 dimm boards help in this area.

It's been known for a while now that you need a binned chip to be hitting latched fclk and mclk of 2000 and greater.

Memory compatibility isn't restricted by agesa. Agesa has only been affecting pbo/co overclocking. Easy enough to use older bios' pre 1.2.0.0(my 5950x had 0 issues using 5150 ST).


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Ichirou said:


> Pretty sure the 13th Gen is literally just the 12th Gen but with some more cylinders and a turbocharger added to it.
> 
> 5.5 GHz as a boost clock is most likely going to be marketing again. Probably yet another single-core boost clock that can't be cooled by ordinary folk.
> I imagine the rest of the cores are running at 5.2 GHz or something.


My 12900K at stock when playing games its always 4.9GHz. I never see those single core boots clocks. This was not an issue with 5900X.


----------



## Nizzen

ZealotKi11er said:


> My 12900K at stock when playing games its always 4.9GHz. I never see those single core boots clocks. This was not an issue with 5900X.


If the game is using more than 2 cores, boost will often ve the all core boost. This is 4.9ghz with bone stock 12900k. Unlock powerlimit only, and boost goes up higher.
5900x is boost up and down every milisecond. Better gaming performance to set all core 4700mhz.
Anyway, memory performance is way more important than cpu frequency boost (in cpubound games) , so stock cpu with high frequency and tuned memory is the classic winner


----------



## Lord Alzov

mokrunka said:


> Yes, TDP will be 950W. Time to upgrade the house to 220v!


In Russia 240v on HOuse lol. For best overclock!


----------



## Nizzen

Lord Alzov said:


> In Russia 240v on HOuse lol. For best overclock!


Same here in Norway


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Nizzen said:


> If the game is using more than 2 cores, boost will often ve the all core boost. This is 4.9ghz with bone stock 12900k. Unlock powerlimit only, and boost goes up higher.
> 5900x is boost up and down every milisecond. Better gaming performance to set all core 4700mhz.
> Anyway, memory performance is way more important than cpu frequency boost (in cpubound games) , so stock cpu with high frequency and tuned memory is the classic winner


I have pretty bad ddr5 from launch (5200 cl38)


----------



## Netarangi

Nizzen said:


> If the game is using more than 2 cores, boost will often ve the all core boost. This is 4.9ghz with bone stock 12900k. Unlock powerlimit only, and boost goes up higher.
> 5900x is boost up and down every milisecond. Better gaming performance to set all core 4700mhz.
> Anyway, memory performance is way more important than cpu frequency boost (in cpubound games) , so stock cpu with high frequency and tuned memory is the classic winner


When you say set all core to 4.7, do you mean go into bios and sync all cores just to 4.7? Is this the maximum it will boost to or does it sit at 4.7 constantly?


----------



## jomama22

Lord Alzov said:


> In Russia 240v on HOuse lol. For best overclock!


That is not how that works lmao. The only thing you get with 240v is better PSU efficiency because of the reduction of waste heat generated from the higher amperage 120v necessitates. What comes out of the PSU isn't any different no matter where you are on the 110v-250v range (what just about all switching psu's will take for input voltage).

Let's also just ignore the fact that the only thing that may, but probably won't, help is if you were to have a medical grade voltage conditioner that generates a perfect sinusoidal waveform.


----------



## rluker5

Arni90 said:


> For people who want DDR5-7000+, wait for Hynix AGBD-based sticks. Hynix AGBD is what the frequency WR has been done with.


Do you have any idea on when that will come out?
I've still got some release Kingston Value ram I want to upgrade with my 12700k and have suspicions that supply will tighten a little before the new DDR5 cpus are released.
I wouldn't mind picking up ram a little early. If nothing else I could see what it does with my Alder before I get Raptor.

And if the Hynix AGBD is coming out after Zen4, Raptor, any good suggestions on good Hynix 32GB kits under $400? TBH I'd rather settle for "quite good" while it is available than try for "even better" when I can't get it, if it comes to that again. But ideally I will be able get my hands on that "even better" stuff.


----------



## tubs2x4

Ichirou said:


> Pretty sure the 13th Gen is literally just the 12th Gen but with some more cylinders and a turbocharger added to it.
> 
> 5.5 GHz as a boost clock is most likely going to be marketing again. Probably yet another single-core boost clock that can't be cooled by ordinary folk.
> I imagine the rest of the cores are running at 5.2 GHz or something.


12 gen is boosted. 13 gen will just have better head gaskets and studs with a little higher boost psi haha


----------



## tubs2x4

ZealotKi11er said:


> I have pretty bad ddr5 from launch (5200 cl38)


Would that be micron mem for that speed?


----------



## z390e

Nizzen said:


> My perfect cpu is a bit like 7980xe was from the start: "Best" in singlethread (tuned 4000mhz memory sub 50ns) and best multicore performance.


I was always a fan of the Extreme CPU's wonder if they will bring them back ever. I think the last was 10 series? i9-10980XE?

RIP my 4960x one of my favorite CPUs


----------



## Nizzen

z390e said:


> I was always a fan of the Extreme CPU's wonder if they will bring them back ever. I think the last was 10 series? i9-10980XE?
> 
> RIP my 4960x one of my favorite CPUs


Yep the REAL Hedt cpu's


----------



## ZealotKi11er

tubs2x4 said:


> Would that be micron mem for that speed?


I never checked. Could be the worse kind.


----------



## LazyGamer

spin5000 said:


> Was Intel 7th gen (Kaby Lake), and 8th gen the last time an Intel CPU had no (let's say less than 2%) IPC increase over the previous gen, or did 9th gen and 10th gen also have no IPC increase VS 6th gen?


For the -S CPUs, everything from 6000- to 10000-series was just Skylake. Maybe more cache, maybe some tweaks to clockspeeds, better boost algorithms - but all Skylake underneath.


----------



## Arni90

jomama22 said:


> Not sure why you are saying it's artificial, it's just the lottery like anything else. If you weren't to latch fclk and mclk, you can easily get ddr4 at the same 4800+ mhz as Intel. 2 dimm boards help in this area.
> 
> It's been known for a while now that you need a binned chip to be hitting latched fclk and mclk of 2000 and greater.
> 
> Memory compatibility isn't restricted by agesa. Agesa has only been affecting pbo/co overclocking. Easy enough to use older bios' pre 1.2.0.0(my 5950x had 0 issues using 5150 ST).


Why does FCLK wall at 1866/1900 MHz for absolutely every Matisse/Vermeer chip? That's an AGESA limitation.
Why does 2000 MHz sometimes just drop performance massively on Vermeer? That's an AGESA limitation.
Why does Curve Optimizer stop at 30? That's an AGESA limitation.
Why can't I adjust the actual shape of the V/F curve? That's another AGESA limitation.

smh, there are even threads on this forum discussing the FCLK issues at length, with no solution.

Every single Vermeer I've come across will boot 2000 MHz FCLK regardless of CCD count, the problem is that performance sometimes goes up, and sometimes drops massively, compared to 1866/1900 MHz. Most will boot 2100 MHz, though at that point you need an exceedingly good bin to gain performance instead of seeing it drop to Pentium 4 speeds


----------



## spin5000

LazyGamer said:


> For the -S CPUs, everything from 6000- to 10000-series was just Skylake. Maybe more cache, maybe some tweaks to clockspeeds, better boost algorithms - but all Skylake underneath.


Oh. Now I'm curious. What about before that? What other Intel CPU - beginning with Sandy Bridge - is basically the same CPU as the previous but just with a frequency-increase (and possibly more cores & cache)? Devil's Canyon, yes?

I'm pretty sure Sandy Bridge (2nd gen) to Ivy Bridge (3rd gen) to Haswell (4th gen) were all different CPUs underneath.

So Raptor Lake is actually still just Alder Lake underneath just like Intel 6th - 10th gen and like Haswell to Devil's Canyon?


----------



## Raphie

The 3 levers are #cores #Mhz #Cache
What kind of improvement do you expect when measuring same number cores at same clockspeed, none!
It's a non dicsussion.


----------



## postem

spin5000 said:


> Oh. Now I'm curious. What about before that? What other Intel CPU - beginning with Sandy Bridge - is basically the same CPU as the previous but just with a frequency-increase (and possibly more cores & cache)? Devil's Canyon, yes?
> 
> I'm pretty sure Sandy Bridge (2nd gen) to Ivy Bridge (3rd gen) to Haswell (4th gen) were all different CPUs underneath.
> 
> So Raptor Lake is actually still just Alder Lake underneath just like Intel 6th - 10th gen and like Haswell to Devil's Canyon?


They were. But since Skylake every other was just iterative, on same uarch, even if you consider some expressive gains with increased core count since coffee lake.

Until Skylake Intel had tick tock uarch / node shrink on alternating gens.

Alder lake is definitely new and meteor is a new completely uarch with node shrink and new packaging foveros. It's gonna be a massive change for Intel.


----------



## Nizzen

*ECSM_Official*
The Intel Z790+Intel RPL K series will be released at the Intel Innovation 2022 performance ban on 9/28, and the official release time will be the week of 10/17.

H760/B760+non-K will be lifted at CES 2023 on 1/5/2023, and the official release time will be in the second half of January. It is confirmed that there will be no H710, and the H610 PCH will continue to be used.

At present, all Intel 600 series motherboards are compatible with RPL CPU, and RPL is also compatible with DDR4 and DDR5 at the same time. The first CPU models of Intel Innovation 2022 are i9-13900K/KF 8P+16E, i7-13700K/KF 8P+8E, i5-13600K/KF 6P+8E. The Z790 chipset has a total of 20x PCIe 4+8x PCIe 3, and the CPU is still 16x PCIe 5+4x PCIe 4.
The big change is that DDR5 has been upgraded from the original JEDEC 4800 to JEDEC 5600.









 Launch and availability dates for Intel Raptor Lake have been uncovered - October 17th


According to leaker Enthusiastic Citizen, Intel has set a launch date for their upcoming desktop CPU series. Intel Raptor Lake processors would be available on October 17, around three weeks after the...




www.guru3d.com


----------



## stahlhart

Are there any reliable power numbers for RPL at this point -- is the 13900K still pretty much going to need to be under non-AIO water to reach its full potential?


----------



## Nizzen

stahlhart said:


> Are there any reliable power numbers for RPL at this point -- is the 13900K still pretty much going to need to be under non-AIO water to reach its full potential?


Ln2 or bust 

*full potential....

I used Arctic aio from the beginning with 12900k No problem. There is no reason 13900k isn't going well with aio as well. Not everyone play Cinebench @ 7ghz 24/7


----------



## z390e

Big AIO fan just for ease of use. Basically 10m of plug-and-play. However I think "full potential" is debatable with the Arctic. 

I run the 420 AIO and its easy to setup, looks nice and runs great...BUT.... 

If I was running something like Supercool Computers Direct-Die waterblock I am 100% certain I could hit much higher CPU speeds surely one maybe two bins higher. Add a chiller to that and extreme speeds are much more accessible but with corresponding effort/mess/cost.


----------



## stahlhart

I realize now, and should have realized earlier, that "full potential" means different things to different people -- I guess that when I wrote that I was in my own myopic world and thinking "a decent overclock at Intel's rated PBP without the need for PL1/PL2 limits and without exceeding TJMax and throttling, and with stock off the shelf non-custom cooling", which I think pretty much describes my current build (and which sounds like it puts me in the same camp as @z390e). I would like to go 13900K, but my gut feeling is that RPL is going to run a little hotter and limit me to 13700K or possibly even 13600K if I were just going to do the planned CPU/memory/motherboard swap.


----------



## Nizzen

stahlhart said:


> I realize now, and should have realized earlier, that "full potential" means different things to different people -- I guess that when I wrote that I was in my own myopic world and thinking "a decent overclock at Intel's rated PBP without the need for PL1/PL2 limits and without exceeding TJMax and throttling, and with stock off the shelf non-custom cooling", which I think pretty much describes my current build (which sounds like it puts me in the same camp as @z390e ). I would like to go 13900K, but my gut feeling is that RPL is going to run a little hotter and limit me to 13700K or possibly even 13600K if I were just going to do the planned CPU/memory/motherboard swap.


I can almost guarantee that Arctic 420 is good enough cooling for 13900k, if you aren't living in the desert with 55c ambient and playing avx 512 24/7

If you play cinebench 24/7, just don't overclock as high. For gaming, you can overclock that sucker to the "max"


----------



## stahlhart

Nizzen said:


> I can almost guarantee that Arctic 420 is good enough cooling for 13900k, if you aren't living in the desert with 55c ambient and playing avx 512 24/7
> 
> If you play cinebench 24/7, just don't overclock as high. For gaming, you can overclock that sucker to the "max"


Sounds like a plan, then.  

I want a second shot at overclocking DDR5.


----------



## postem

stahlhart said:


> Sounds like a plan, then.
> 
> I want a second shot at overclocking DDR5.


Im just crossing my fingers for better IMC, and especially better DDR4 imc, but perhaps im am asking too much.


----------



## stahlhart

postem said:


> Im just crossing my fingers for better IMC, and especially better DDR4 imc, but perhaps im am asking too much.


The main mistake that I made was not doing enough research on current motherboards and chipsets (I upgraded from a seven-year-old Haswell-E build, and I was way behind on everything) to realize that performance was better on the two-socket variants, and then was also stuck with limited options for compatible DDR5 kits at the time I built. I got really good stability, but only up to 6000. It's possible that there are 6400 kits that I could get working now, but I'd sooner start over with the right board and try to reach further. The missus will inherit this one, and her 12600K/board/memory will go to another family member. Everyone wins.


----------



## LazyGamer

stahlhart said:


> and I was way behind on everything) to realize that performance was better on the two-socket variants, and then was also stuck with limited options for compatible DDR5 kits at the time I built.


Apparently, all of this has happened before, and all of it will probably happen again....

And if you happened to want Thunderbolt on such a board, let alone 10Gbit ethernet - well, get ready to pay up. And run ASRock, apparently.

I will say though that I've gotten a G.Skill kit with Samsung ICs sold as 5600 C36 up to 6200 C36 (both XMP timings) on my MSI MEG Z690 ACE (four-slot board). Haven't had much luck in tightening the timings at that speed, still trying to figure that all out.


----------



## postem

stahlhart said:


> The main mistake that I made was not doing enough research on current motherboards and chipsets (I upgraded from a seven-year-old Haswell-E build, and I was way behind on everything) to realize that performance was better on the two-socket variants, and then was also stuck with limited options for compatible DDR5 kits at the time I built. I got really good stability, but only up to 6000. It's possible that there are 6400 kits that I could get working now, but I'd sooner start over with the right board and try to reach further. The missus will inherit this one, and her 12600K/board/memory will go to another family member. Everyone wins.


I was following buildzoid and almost none boards can run 6600 effectively, other than unify-x or tachyon. That was one of the reasons i decided to wait further for DDR5, there is still no sight of good memories running 7000+ XMP, Raptor will be 5600 native but still, no good memory modules running at better frequencies.


----------



## LazyGamer

Really just need better memory controllers. Zen4, Raptor Lake?


----------



## postem

LazyGamer said:


> Really just need better memory controllers. Zen4, Raptor Lake?


Some ppl were saying ZEN 4 would do DDR5 With "gear 1", which is completely surreal. AMD memory was always tied to IF


----------



## Nizzen

7200c32 64GB


----------



## Burke888

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/i...-and-without-power-management-settings,3.html

It looks like based on this R23 Cinebench score that the 13900k scores about the same as a 12900ks for singled threaded performance at 2290? With this in mind, would it be better to go with the new AMD series? Or is the IPC gain from AMD's new CPUs speculated to still not even match the 12900k? I'm guessing here, but I can see perhaps Intel having a slight IPC edge late October 2022. But then sometime next year, AMD perhaps taking the crown and still using the same motherboard they released in September '22. Whereas any future Intel releases would require a new motherboard. Curious as to others opinions as I would like to upgrade my 9900k. 

I game using a 4k 144Hz panel and have an RTX 3090 currently. Mostly play Escape From Tarkov, so I think I would benefit from better IPC as the game isn't well threaded.


----------



## Nizzen

Burke888 said:


> https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/i...-and-without-power-management-settings,3.html
> 
> It looks like based on this R23 Cinebench score that the 13900k scores about the same as a 12900ks for singled threaded performance at 2290? With this in mind, would it be better to go with the new AMD series? Or is the IPC gain from AMD's new CPUs speculated to still not even match the 12900k? I'm guessing here, but I can see perhaps Intel having a slight IPC edge late October 2022. But then sometime next year, AMD perhaps taking the crown and still using the same motherboard they released in September '22. Whereas any future Intel releases would require a new motherboard. Curious as to others opinions as I would like to upgrade my 9900k.
> 
> I game using a 4k 144Hz panel and have an RTX 3090 currently. Mostly play Escape From Tarkov, so I think I would benefit from better IPC as the game isn't well threaded.


4k gaming?
Wait 4 years to have Way faster gpu's to make todays games cpu bound in 4k


----------



## stahlhart

_When the power constraints in the motherboard's UEFI setup software are unlocked (i.e. PL1/PL2 set to an unattainable 4096 W), the processor's package power peaks at *345 W* (a 36% increase in peak power-draw)_


----------



## Nizzen

stahlhart said:


> _When the power constraints in the motherboard's UEFI setup software are unlocked (i.e. PL1/PL2 set to an unattainable 4096 W), the processor's package power peaks at *345 W* (a 36% increase in peak power-draw)_


345w is nothing


----------



## stahlhart

Nizzen said:


> 345w is nothing


I know you think it's funny, but I have concerns about this.


----------



## Nizzen

stahlhart said:


> I know you think it's funny, but I have concerns about this.


Bigger die = more easy to cool 

If you are concerned about it, then don't play AvX 512 24/7 when overclocked on aircooling


----------



## z390e

Burke888 said:


> I game using a 4k 144Hz panel and have an RTX 3090 currently. Mostly play Escape From Tarkov, so I think I would benefit from better IPC as the game isn't well threaded.


I get max FPS (144) @4k for my monitor (144hz) on Escape from Tarkov _*on every map but lighthouse*_ with 3080ti + 12900ks and DLSS quality on, fwiw.


----------



## z390e

stahlhart said:


> I know you think it's funny, but I have concerns about this.



most people in the y-cruncher thread are pulling 350w+ and @sniperpowa was pulling down over 1000w on his top 6 y-cruncher run.

You can handle that level of power for bursts with the right cooling but its the continuous usage at that power/heat/voltage level imo that causes degradation.


----------



## z390e

Core i9-13900K breaks 40K points in Cinebench R23 with unlimited power and 5.8 GHz clock - VideoCardz.com


Intel Core i9-13900K compared with and without power limiting settings Leaker OneRaichu shares new benchmark results featuring the flagship Raptor Lake CPU. The 24-core and 32-thread Raptor Lake processor scores 2290 points in single-core Cinebench R23 test and 35693 points in multi-core. It...




videocardz.com





40616 r23 score (not mine) from the article


----------



## stahlhart

z390e said:


> most people in the y-cruncher thread are pulling 350w+ and @sniperpowa was pulling down over 1000w on his top 6 y-cruncher run.
> 
> You can handle that level of power for bursts with the right cooling but its the continuous usage at that power/heat/voltage level imo that causes degradation.


For me, it's a matter of knowing whether or not my cooling can handle it without the CPU throttling. Worst I ever see is about 220W on my 12700K. If that jumps to 345W, can I still validate overclocking/stability at a point that makes the upgrade worthwhile, or are the temperatures going to be uncontrollable?

I know that for normal usage it isn't an issue. I just prefer to conclusively validate results with accepted methods like we describe here rather than just call it good enough or "game stable".


----------



## z390e

There is a guy currently pulling down 505w with a 12900K on HwBot.

Its going to be very interesting to see how much power these 13900K's pull down with full OC


----------



## iraff1

airisom2 said:


> So, the question for someone like me is do I get all the performance now with a dead end platform or do I bet on AM5.
> 
> 13900K
> +Will likely beat 7950X in ST and MT.
> +2nd gen DDR5 IMC, so hopefully breaking 7000+ more reliably on 1DPC boards will be achievable.
> +More mature platform
> +m.2 5.0
> ?Rumors of a 5.7/5.8 boost clock, but most likely 5.5
> ?Maybe unofficial AVX-512 support
> -Hot/Power hungry
> -16 5.0 lanes, so it'll drop to 5.0 x8 with an x4 5.0 m.2
> -Up to 20% price jump on Intel chips
> -No real IPC change, but cache bump should help in some games.
> -Probably has the same IHS mounting issues as ADL, so separate bracket will probably be needed.
> -Z790 dead end chipset
> -Most likely no AVX-512
> -Hetero arch. woes
> 
> 7950X
> +Probably cheaper
> +AVX-512 support even if it's not as good as Intel's (2x 256 vs 1x 512 so efficiency loss *rumor)
> +24 5.0 lanes
> +m.2 5.0
> +USB 4
> +Long life socket
> ?Promising DDR5 IMC
> ?5nm thermal density especially with 3D version
> -Non-3D version will lose to 13900K most likely
> -Early adopter woes
> -Initial m.2 5.0 and usb 4 will be expensive and probably be beat by last gen in some areas.
> 
> The 13900K has the performance numbers people like, but AM5 has a nicer chipset. Zen 4 3D will be the real upgrade people are looking for right now, but that will probably be a Zen 4+ refresh in late Q1 early Q2. If EPYC is still hogging all of the 3DVC, then it's possible that there won't be multiple SKUs again, especially with thermal and TDP constraints on a dual CCX 3D chip on 5nm. We'll see, but I'm not going to wait on it.
> 
> I'll probably grab a 13900K with some good DDR5 and Z790 Tachyon and call it a day. M.2 4.0 is plenty fast, and usb 4/m.2 5.0 will need at least a year of maturing before they're viable. I think AM5 will really shine with Zen 5.


I am in the market for a new cpu, am on 5950x now.
What do you think about a 13900k on windows 10? Do you really need windows 11 thread scheduler to get the performance it offers or is it more marketing than anything? I really dont want to "upgrade" to windows 11 just yet, i usually stick with the previous version for as long as possible.


----------



## Nizzen

iraff1 said:


> I am in the market for a new cpu, am on 5950x now.
> What do you think about a 13900k on windows 10? Do you really need windows 11 thread scheduler to get the performance it offers or is it more marketing than anything? I really dont want to "upgrade" to windows 11 just yet, i usually stick with the previous version for as long as possible.


You don't want a new cpu, that's 100% for shure


----------



## iraff1

Nizzen said:


> You don't want a new cpu, that's 100% for shure


I want to put the 5950x in my server  But yeah i'm doing alright on this one, building is fun tho!


----------



## airisom2

Well I'm not really qualified to answer your question. Your best bet is to wait until we get reviews on these processors and take it from there. I'm just speculating and my predictions could be wrong. In the end, reviews will tell me what product will work best for me.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Seems like better average latency for Raptor lake, the penalty for switching between P and E cores is much lower than Alder Lake.
Disabling e-cores to game will maybe be a thing of the past with RL


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1561908308277366785


----------



## LunaP

My biggest concern so far from reading up on the 12th gen to current is just issues people have been having w/ E-cores in games and applications. Is that something thats still an issue or has intel been good at rolling out fixes for that? 

Looking at moving to the 13900k from my current rig if the 4090/ti is too bottlenecked as my systems already at its limit.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Intel 13th Gen Core “Raptor Lake” CPUS have been listed by Canadian retailer, i9-13900K for 726 USD



> The Core i9-13900K is listed for 941 CAD, which is around 726 USD. This is a higher price than i9-12900K from the same store who sell it for 631 USD. It is still cheaper than the KS-variant offering higher clocks (824 USD) though. Overall, the Core i9 series get a 95 to 100 USD price increase at this one retailer.














> Raptor Lake i7-series are listed for 511/483 USD, which is more expensive than Alder Lake models at 436/411 USD. That’s respectively an increase of 75 USD for 1x700K model and 72 USD for SKU without integrated graphics.
> 
> Finally, new Core i5 series are listed at 355/327 USD, which is again respectively higher than predecessors at 308/259 USD (an increase of 47-68 USD).


----------



## Talon2016

domdtxdissar said:


> Intel 13th Gen Core “Raptor Lake” CPUS have been listed by Canadian retailer, i9-13900K for 726 USD
> 
> 
> View attachment 2570027


Looks good. Now drop the CPUs already so we can buy them.


----------



## tps3443

I might make a move when the 13900K drops. I’ve been wanting to put a 12900KS on my water chiller for a little bit now.

I really wish I could afford to buy like (5) 12900KS chips and keep the best one lol.


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> I might make a move when the 13900K drops. I’ve been wanting to put a 12900KS on my water chiller for a little bit now.
> 
> I really wish I could afford to buy like (5) 12900KS chips and keep the best one lol.


Why not wait for the 13900K? What's the point in having a 12900KS, it doesn't have AVX512 anyway. 13900K finalized specs were leaked. 5.5 ghz all core boost (it's all over the internet now). You need a very golden 12900KS for that and that requires a lot of voltage.


----------



## Solohuman

Have no interest in these until I face a game whereby I'm cpu limited & at 1440p/144hz I think that's going to take quite some time yet...


----------



## Nizzen

Solohuman said:


> Have no interest in these until I face a game whereby I'm cpu limited & at 1440p/144hz I think that's going to take quite some time yet...


List is long that are cpubound in 1440p, unless you are using a slow gpu 

Edit: looks like you are...


----------



## sblantipodi

z390e said:


> Core i9-13900K breaks 40K points in Cinebench R23 with unlimited power and 5.8 GHz clock - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900K compared with and without power limiting settings Leaker OneRaichu shares new benchmark results featuring the flagship Raptor Lake CPU. The 24-core and 32-thread Raptor Lake processor scores 2290 points in single-core Cinebench R23 test and 35693 points in multi-core. It...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videocardz.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40616 r23 score (not mine) from the article


this score is a fake, who can cool down a 350W CPU?
to cool down 350W you need liquid nitrogen.

it seems that intel will have hard time with Zen 4, AMD shows a +57% on vray over 12900K, 
I don't think that 13900K could be even comparable to this.

I think that my next upgrade will be a 7950X...

what do you think guys?
will 13900K be comparable with 7950X in multicore?


----------



## LazyGamer

sblantipodi said:


> this score is a fake, who can cool down a 350W CPU?


That's just a decent custom loop...


----------



## xarot

350W would be child's play for example with X299 chips but then with 12900K/13900K it comes down to the efficiency of thermal transfer between the die, IHS and waterblock and also the size of the actual die on the CPU. If the die is small, it is a lot harder to cool than a huge die even if the chip didn't consume that much of power.


----------



## RandalFlagg

So what do you all think of Z790 vs Z690? 

Is there going to be any sort of benefit to waiting for Z790 from an OC and especially DDR5 performance perspective, or is this a good time to pick up a discounted Z690 without sacrificing anything? I just haven't seen much about what Z790 will bring to the table, and there are things like the EVGA Classified going for $299 right now.


----------



## LazyGamer

RandalFlagg said:


> So what do you all think of Z790 vs Z690?
> 
> Is there going to be any sort of benefit to waiting for Z790 from an OC and especially DDR5 performance perspective, or is this a good time to pick up a discounted Z690 without sacrificing anything? I just haven't seen much about what Z790 will bring to the table, and there are things like the EVGA Classified going for $299 right now.


No idea what Intel is doing for Z790 - not even sure if there's going to be any chipset difference at all. Probably the biggest difference will be the lessons learned by board makers with DDR5 and Z690, hopefully applied to Z790 boards alongside hopefully improved memory controllers on Raptor Lake CPUs.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Think Z690 board will have this so called "extreme mode", 350w for 13900k by default for motherboards with strong VRM's.
Maybe they have alittle better memory layout also ?


----------



## domdtxdissar

Not sure if posted:

Cinebench R23 ST and MT at Stock 250W

ST: 2290
MT: 35,693 









At 345 Watts

ST: 2288
MT: 40616


----------



## IronAge

xarot said:


> 350W would be child's play for example with X299 chips but then with 12900K/13900K it comes down to the efficiency of thermal transfer between the die, IHS and waterblock and also the size of the actual die on the CPU. If the die is small, it is a lot harder to cool than a huge die even if the chip didn't consume that much of power.


RKL i9 has larger Die than ADL i9, so should be a little better for heat transfer due to larger surface.


----------



## LazyGamer

IronAge said:


> RKL i9 has larger Die than ADL i9, so should be a little better for heat transfer due to larger surface.


That, and if there's been any improvement in VF curves i.e. overall efficiency and specific clockspeeds.


----------



## th3illusiveman

Jesus... 350w on a CPU alone... that's nuts.. lol


----------



## satinghostrider

th3illusiveman said:


> Jesus... 350w on a CPU alone... that's nuts.. lol


That's only if you enable PL3. Stock should be PL2 which will be around 200W.


----------



## Nizzen

th3illusiveman said:


> Jesus... 350w on a CPU alone... that's nuts.. lol


7950x is same and harder too cool. 😉


----------



## domdtxdissar

Intel Raptor Lake-S lineup has been leaked



> According to the leaked spec sheet, Intel is preparing four Core i9 SKUs: 13900K, 13900KF, 13900 and 13900F. The F-variants lack an integrated GPU solution, but are otherwise the same chips. All i9 processors feature 24 cores in total: 8 Performance cores and 16 Efficient cores. The difference between K and non-K series is obviously the base TDP, either 125W or 65W.
> 
> The flagship Core i9-13900K(F) CPU will feature a turbo clock of 5.8 GHz (Thermal Velocity Boost for 1 core). For Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 maximum boost drops to 5.7 GHz and for TBMT 2.0 that speeds is 5.4 GHz. It is worth noting that Thermal Velocity Boost will be exclusive to Core i9 series. Meanwhile, the 65W variant will boost up to 5.6 GHz with TVB and 5.5/5.2 GHz with TB 3.0 and 2.0 respectively.













> The intel i7 series will also feature four models, but the main difference here is a smaller cluster of Efficient cores (8 instead of 16). Furthermore, i7-K series models will boost up to 5.4 GHz while i7-non-K models such as 13700(F) will operate up to 5.1 GHz.
> 
> Finally, i5-13600K/KF models are to be equipped with 6 Performance cores and 8 Efficient cores. One should expect maximum boost clock up to 5.1 GHz. There is no non-K model listed here, but there is i5-13400F featuring 1/4 of the Efficient core cluster (4 cores). This 10-core CPU has a boost up to 4.6 GHz according to the leaked information.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Nizzen said:


> 7950x is same and harder too cool. 😉



*F1 alpha bios* = hard to cool with air cooler that could not handle puny 120w
R23 = 29649 MT
Aida Latency 6000MT/s 40-40-40-76 = 89ns

*F4 bios* @ stock 230w PPT
R23 = 38984 360 AIO
R23 = 38300 280 AIO
Aida Latency 6000MT/s 40-40-40-76 = 64.5ns (lower than Intel gen12 with on-die memory controller and same settings no?)

*F6 bios* which is the current: (no idea why leakers are hiding real performance number with old AF bioses)
rumors say 40k @ 230w PPT with good water cooling.
Aida Latency @ ??

Believe it or not, seems like Lisa were sandbagging massively again and Zen4 is actually looking better and better for every leak


----------



## Sam_Oslo

domdtxdissar said:


> Intel Raptor Lake-S lineup has been leaked


This leak at this time? Intel seams to be trying to pick up a good fight with AMD 7000-series. In case that's good news, it will result in better and cheaper CPUs, from both camps.

Good DDR5 sticks probably won't be here before next year, judging based on the evolution of DDR4. It's not a bad idea to use the current DDR4 kits and wait for the real deal. So, this DDR4-suppport may appeal to many current AMD users, at least to those who have good DDR4 sticks.


----------



## Nizzen

Sam_Oslo said:


> This leak at this time? Intel seams to be trying to pick up a good fight with AMD 7000-series. In case that's good news, it will result in better and cheaper CPUs, from both camps.
> 
> Good DDR5 sticks probably won't be here before next year, judging based on the evolution of DDR4. It's not a bad idea to use the current DDR4 kits and wait for the real deal. So, this DDR4-suppport may appeal to many current AMD users, at least to those who have good DDR4 sticks.


Good ddr5?

When Hynix 16GB is 105$ per dimm that oc to 6800mhz easy, and it's not good? A-die is possible to buy that does 7800-8000mhz... I think there are good sticks out for cheap now


----------



## Sam_Oslo

Nizzen said:


> Good ddr5?
> 
> When Hynix 16GB is 105$ per dimm that oc to 6800mhz easy, and it's not good? A-die is possible to buy that does 7800-8000mhz... I think there are good sticks out for cheap now


Yeah, I have been looking at these "Hynix 16GB is 105$ per dimm" and they look really promising compared to the rest of the bunch, for now. But the evolution of DDR4 was a really long process, so I don't think we have seen the real deal yet. The release of AMD-7000 can push forward the next step of DDR5-evolution in next year, hopefully.


----------



## LazyGamer

Nizzen said:


> When Hynix 16GB is 105$ per dimm that oc to 6800mhz easy, and it's not good? A-die is possible to buy that does 7800-8000mhz... I think there are good sticks out for cheap now


I mean, if I could get 2x 32GB running at 7000MT/s on my four-slot board, _that_ would be good DDR5 

(working on a kit from Kingston with M-die ICs, and well, 5800MT/s is probably the limit)


----------



## Nizzen

LazyGamer said:


> I mean, if I could get 2x 32GB running at 7000MT/s on my four-slot board, _that_ would be good DDR5
> 
> (working on a kit from Kingston with M-die ICs, and well, 5800MT/s is probably the limit)


2x32GB a-die is maybe the solution for your cravings


----------



## LazyGamer

Nizzen said:


> 2x32GB a-die is maybe the solution for your cravings


We'll see - the board is an MSI Z690 ACE, so Unify non-X with a few more trimmings, and it can boot 2x 16GB M-die at 6600MT/s - but only stabilizes at 6200MT/s. The 2x 32GB M-die kit boots at 6200MT/s, but seems to stabilize at 5800MT/s. It can also stabilize 2x 16GB with Samsung ICs at 6200MT/s, but with higher voltage and looser timings than Hynix M-die.

Could also just be the limit of this 12700k!


----------



## energie80

cant find a die ddr5


----------



## Nizzen

energie80 said:


> cant find a die ddr5


Every memory overclocker in the world want a-die now. This doesn't make it more easy or cheaper. Maybe after Raptor Lake launch, there are a-die out from G.skill, Team, Corsair... Honestly I don't know.
I just bought a-die from a fellow overclocker 

You need to try harder "they said"

Someone made it:
(not mine)


----------



## energie80

send me some


----------



## Arni90

Nizzen said:


> Good ddr5?
> 
> When Hynix 16GB is 105$ per dimm that oc to 6800mhz easy, and it's not good? A-die is possible to buy that does 7800-8000mhz... I think there are good sticks out for cheap now


While it is possible to overclock Hynix M-die to 6800 MT/s, it's not easy unless you have a Z690 Dark or one of the unicorn Z690 Apex boards. My Z690 Unify-X certainly won't run anything more than 6600 stable, and that 6600 took some work.


----------



## energie80

Was going to buy the unify 🤣


----------



## Arni90

energie80 said:


> Was going to buy the unify 🤣


At this point, there's no point in buying a Z690 board or Alder Lake if you want the best. Wait for Z790 and Raptor Lake.


----------



## domdtxdissar

*Another Intel Core i9-13900K “Raptor Lake” CPU gets tested ahead of October launch*




> The CPU was tested on MSI Z690 GODLIKE motherboards and compared with Core i9-12900K CPU. The system was equipped with Colorful Gamer RGB DDR5-4800 and GeForce RTX 3090 GPU. EJ used Phanteks Glacier One 360 MP solution featuring Asetek AIO cooler. Their mini-review is focusing on comparison between 16-core i9-12900K Alder Lake and 24-core i9-13900K Raptor Lake CPUs.


In Prime95, Raptor Lake running all cores at 5.2 GHz saturates at 378W and 85°C. Judging from the video, this appears to be the Maximum Turbo Boost limit set to 440W.









The sample was then tested in most popular CPU test: CPU-Z and Cinebench. Intel 13th Gen CPU is a clear winner here in all tests. The performance appears to match what was already shared.











































This sample is clearly not optimized for gaming, though. The performance is all over the price for some titles tested at 1080p resolution. In some cases, Raptor Lake is indeed faster, but there are instances where it is totally opposite. In fact, even with the Performance unlocked to 5.5 GHz, the CPU ends up slower than 5.2 GHz.


----------



## energie80

Arni90 said:


> At this point, there's no point in buying a Z690 board or Alder Lake if you want the best. Wait for Z790 and Raptor Lake.


Can’t wait another month 😵‍💫


----------



## Sam_Oslo

domdtxdissar said:


> In Prime95, Raptor Lake running all cores at 5.2 GHz saturates at 378W and 85°C. Judging from the video, this appears to be the Maximum Turbo Boost limit set to 440W.


Those numbers sounds very hot and power hungry, but early Zen 4 leaks are indicating a jump in TDP too. AMD have reduced the node to 5nm and it should get more power efficient, but everybody seams to be pushing excessive currents into the CPU-war.

EDIT: I think we have to master the art of undervolting to get the best out of the next generation.


----------



## Arni90

energie80 said:


> Can’t wait another month 😵‍💫


Plenty of people on HWBot looking to get rid of binned Alder Lake chips and motherboards now. You'd at least get a decent price for decent bins


----------



## energie80

Arni90 said:


> Plenty of people on HWBot looking to get rid of binned Alder Lake chips and motherboards now. You'd at least get a decent price for decent bins


Thanks I’ll do a look


----------



## Nizzen

Raptor Lake support:

MemTweakIt_20220317









MemTweakIt_20220317.zip


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## ocisdead

Any new leaks proving whether or not z790 boards will still need the $13 Thermalright "Intel went full capitalism on the ILM" DLC?


----------



## sblantipodi

is there some rumors on DLVR?
will it help in reaching high frequency at lower temperature?

I don't understand one thing... from the news we read online it seems that Raptor will use up to 350W but how can you cool 350W?

you can't cool 250W with a good 360mm AIO, how can you cool 350W?

there is something I don't understand and that it illogical to me.


----------



## sblantipodi

domdtxdissar said:


> In Prime95, Raptor Lake running all cores at 5.2 GHz saturates at 378W and 85°C. Judging from the video, this appears to be the Maximum Turbo Boost limit set to 440W.
> View attachment 2570984


with alder 250W is not possible with a 360mm AIO.
how can they push 378W at 85°C on raptor?


----------



## LazyGamer

sblantipodi said:


> with alder 250W is not possible with a 360mm AIO.


I've done it - with a 12700k even.


----------



## Netarangi

Me too, good paste and thermalright bracket helps. Not sure how well the 13900 will do but excited to see


----------



## RandalFlagg

sblantipodi said:


> with alder 250W is not possible with a 360mm AIO.
> how can they push 378W at 85°C on raptor?


Why would that not be possible on Alder Lake? My 240mm can handle ~200W sustained on a 10850K. I would think a 280mm could handle 225W, and a 360 shouldn't even break a sweat at those levels.


----------



## cstkl1

domdtxdissar said:


> *Another Intel Core i9-13900K “Raptor Lake” CPU gets tested ahead of October launch*
> 
> 
> 
> In Prime95, Raptor Lake running all cores at 5.2 GHz saturates at 378W and 85°C. Judging from the video, this appears to be the Maximum Turbo Boost limit set to 440W.
> View attachment 2570984
> 
> 
> The sample was then tested in most popular CPU test: CPU-Z and Cinebench. Intel 13th Gen CPU is a clear winner here in all tests. The performance appears to match what was already shared.
> View attachment 2570985
> View attachment 2570986
> 
> 
> View attachment 2570987
> 
> 
> View attachment 2570990
> 
> 
> View attachment 2570991
> 
> 
> This sample is clearly not optimized for gaming, though. The performance is all over the price for some titles tested at 1080p resolution. In some cases, Raptor Lake is indeed faster, but there are instances where it is totally opposite. In fact, even with the Performance unlocked to 5.5 GHz, the CPU ends up slower than 5.2 GHz.
> View attachment 2570988
> 
> View attachment 2570989


dis gen + upcoming gpu. + electric cars. man my house electricity bill be sky rocking


----------



## tubs2x4

sblantipodi said:


> with alder 250W is not possible with a 360mm AIO.
> how can they push 378W at 85°C on raptor?


If the rumored die pics are true a bigger die likely transfer more heat to ihs then likely be able to pull more power and less heat.


----------



## Thunderclap

sblantipodi said:


> is there some rumors on DLVR?
> will it help in reaching high frequency at lower temperature?
> 
> I don't understand one thing... from the news we read online it seems that Raptor will use up to 350W but how can you cool 350W?
> 
> you can't cool 250W with a good 360mm AIO, how can you cool 350W?
> 
> there is something I don't understand and that it illogical to me.


It's not illogical at all. Raptor Lake has a 23% larger die size (257mm2) compared to Alder Lake (209mm2) and because it has a larger die size, the heat density is much lower since it's not concentrated in such a small area, hence the CPU becomes overall easier to cool. Couple that with further optimizations Intel might and most likely have done, and you have your answer.

The exact reason(s) why I decided to skip the 12900K and wait for the 13900K instead. With that being said, a 360mm AIO should be more than enough for keeping it at stock levels, especially with a slight undervolt.


----------



## nickolp1974

Is the IHS the same as ADL does anyone know?? Just wondering if i will be able to use this Rokitcool delid tool??


----------



## Exilon

Raichu shared multiple 13900K GB5 runs at stock (although that's already 5.8GHz)





Z690 Taichi Razer Edition - Geekbench Browser


Benchmark results for a Z690 Taichi Razer Edition with an Intel Core i9-13900K processor.



browser.geekbench.com


----------



## Ichirou




----------



## sblantipodi

are there some comparisons with AMD?
AMD showed off that 7950X is 57% faster than 12900K in Vray.

do you think that 13900K can compete in multi threaded loads?


----------



## energie80

13900 was made to compete in multi thread


----------



## Exilon

sblantipodi said:


> AMD showed off that 7950X is 57% faster than 12900K in Vray.


5950X PBO is already like 35% faster than a 12900KS in V-Ray. It's quite pointless to take marketing slides at face value and set that as the bar for anything.


----------



## postem

sblantipodi said:


> this score is a fake, who can cool down a 350W CPU?
> to cool down 350W you need liquid nitrogen.
> 
> it seems that intel will have hard time with Zen 4, AMD shows a +57% on vray over 12900K,
> I don't think that 13900K could be even comparable to this.
> 
> I think that my next upgrade will be a 7950X...
> 
> what do you think guys?
> will 13900K be comparable with 7950X in multicore?


GPUs have more area, but its almost always being cooled with air. A 420 AIO can tame 350W, but as nodes shinks, as zen4, it becomes much harder to cool over a smaller die area


----------



## postem

ocisdead said:


> Any new leaks proving whether or not z790 boards will still need the $13 Thermalright "Intel went full capitalism on the ILM" DLC?


Honestly, dont expect any changes to the ilm. It works most of the time, and it keeps cpus within spec. Consider its the same socket and ilm for all kind of boards including those cheap office machines, so you cant really use a ilm that costs like X299 or threadripper when it eat the margins for those i3 cpus.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

,


----------



## postem

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm testing The z790 and 13900k and I can tell you... 12900KS is a kid comparing to the 13900k...


Can you share anything about raptor Imc?


----------



## gecko991

Very noice Roberto, better IMC one would think.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

.


----------



## Ichirou




----------



## Netarangi

F


----------



## Ichirou

Netarangi said:


> Is there a set expected release date for the 13900 yet? Roberto you tease, got me all excited now!


Sometime October
Preorders available at the same time Ryzen 7000 releases, so September 27


----------



## RobertoSampaio

,


----------



## Netarangi

F


----------



## Exilon

RobertoSampaio said:


> You are right... At full load ring is running 4.6


Do you still have control of L2 cache voltage? How high can the ring go?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

,


----------



## Talon2016

F


----------



## Ichirou




----------



## RobertoSampaio

,


----------



## crpcookie

Man that's amazing. Intel pushing 10nm to its max on a refreshed architecture and it's still able to compete with the competition on a much better TSMC 5nm process.


----------



## nickolp1974

RobertoSampaio said:


> It's not a typo... LOL...
> The CPU is insane
> I'm testing the OCTVB with max freq of 6.5GHZ... and adaptive voltage 1.45v...
> I received a CPU with P-core sp119.
> 
> View attachment 2571251


thx for sharing Roberto, certainly wet my appetite for RPL now. I was nearly tempted to go with the red team, but i dont think so now.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

,


----------



## Ichirou




----------



## Exilon

Welp, day 1 pre-order for me it is then. Hope I don't get the worst possible P-cores like I did with my 12900K


----------



## RobertoSampaio

,


----------



## Ichirou

Exilon said:


> Welp, day 1 pre-order for me it is then. Hope I don't get the worst possible P-cores like I did with my 12900K


Yeah, same here. Hope I get the best possible P-cores like I never did with my 12900K's 


RobertoSampaio said:


> I use to test with Gb5 and realbench...
> Cb23 and prime 95 is a good test for the cooling system... LOL...
> But it's my preference... Sometimes your system pass with cb23 but fail with gb5 or rb...


Would still be curious to see Cinebench numbers


----------



## RobertoSampaio

,


----------



## Falkentyne

deleted


----------



## fat4l

Looking good. All core delided 5.8G?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

,


----------



## xarot

It's already all over wccftech. 

Feeling bad for RobertoSampaio, maybe he gave us too much. I hope he doesn't get into trouble.


----------



## domdtxdissar

xarot said:


> Feeling bad for RobertoSampaio, maybe he gave us too much. I hope he doesn't get into trouble.


I dont think he will get into any trouble for writing this fan fiction 🤣 😇


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi guys, If you could delete all thing I said, and you quote I 'll appreciate...
All I said was known thing, but Its better to remove.


----------



## Netarangi

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi guys, If you could delete all thing I said, and you quote I 'll appreciate...
> All I said was known thing, but Its better to remove.


F


----------



## Arni90

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi guys, If you could delete all thing I said, and you quote I 'll appreciate...
> All I said was known thing, but Its better to remove.


You should contact the moderators: Contact us

Surely you've signed some form of NDA? You can get in serious trouble when you share this stuff.
Considering the great writeup you did on how all the different options in the ASUS BIOS works, you've gotten a fair amount of respect here. Why risk the priviliges you've received for some internet points?


----------



## Bexak

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi guys, If you could delete all thing I said, and you quote I 'll appreciate...
> All I said was known thing, but Its better to remove.


F


----------



## owikh84

ASUS ROG Maximus Z790 motherboard has been pictured, equipped with Core i9-13900K CPU and $20 cooler - VideoCardz.com


----------



## energie80

that was fast


----------



## sblantipodi

RandalFlagg said:


> Why would that not be possible on Alder Lake? My 240mm can handle ~200W sustained on a 10850K. I would think a 280mm could handle 225W, and a 360 shouldn't even break a sweat at those levels.


going from 180W to 200W is much easyer for an AIO than going from 200W to 220W.
250W is a instant throttle on every 360mm AIO, if not instant the throttle will arrive soon at 250W.


----------



## sblantipodi

owikh84 said:


> ASUS ROG Maximus Z790 motherboard has been pictured, equipped with Core i9-13900K CPU and $20 cooler - VideoCardz.com


are there really people that wants to buy an Asus after all we have seen on Z690? xD


----------



## LazyGamer

sblantipodi said:


> 250W is a instant throttle on every 360mm AIO, if not instant the throttle will arrive soon at 250W.


Wrong again...



sblantipodi said:


> are there really people that wants to buy an Asus after all we have seen on Z690? xD


Yes?

Depends on what boards they make and the cost, more than anything else.


----------



## Ichirou

Oof, I've edited my posts to help, but not sure if that's good enough at this point in time...


----------



## centvalny

NDA!


----------



## IronAge

it is too late and all over the internet now.


----------



## Netarangi

Thanks for sharing anyways man! Hope you don't get in any ****..


----------



## edkieferlp

sblantipodi said:


> going from 180W to 200W is much easyer for an AIO than going from 200W to 220W.
> 250W is a instant throttle on every 360mm AIO, if not instant the throttle will arrive soon at 250W.


When it comes to cooling the wattage, TDP is not enough to judge the outcome of a specific cooler.
You also have to figure in die area too, 13xxx, in general, is larger dies so for the same TDP will be easier to cool.

There are other factors to but that simplifies it.


----------



## sblantipodi

Edit. Roberto is my friend.


----------



## gecko991

Roberto is cool we keep it on the dl.


----------



## Netarangi

gecko991 said:


> Roberto is cool we keep it on the dl.


Nothing was even posted here, don't know what you're talking about


----------



## RandalFlagg

sblantipodi said:


> going from 180W to 200W is much easyer for an AIO than going from 200W to 220W.
> 250W is a instant throttle on every 360mm AIO, if not instant the throttle will arrive soon at 250W.


If you know how to read this screenshot then you know you are wrong. This is on a cheap Z490 Prime with 10850K 5.1Ghz all core (-1 AVX is why its running at 5Ghz) and a 240mm Arctic Freezer II in a cheap Montech case. Absolutely nothing high end here, at least not for a Z490.

220-235W for about 1 minute straight with package temp 84-88C. There's no instantaneous thermal throttle in the 220-235W range here with a 240mm AIO (234W shown when this was snapshotted).


----------



## domdtxdissar

Intel's "official" slides for Raptor Lake, courtesy Igor's Lab.








Intel Raptor Lake - Argumentation Aids from the blue Foil King for the Sale of their new CPUs | igor'sLAB


How does Intel actually want to sell the new Raptor Lake CPUs? Today's sales foils, which I show you as a picture gallery, suggest that the blue foil king sees enough strong arguments to give the…




www.igorslab.de






> In case anyone is wondering if that’s all for today: No! At 2 p.m. sharp, there will be a product launch with two test samples, one of which is a hot candidate for an absolute top spot in its crawl group and the other of which at least doesn’t send cold shivers down your spine. But you’ll have to come back again, but you like to do that, I know you do.


Not quite sure i understand what he is saying, but i think igors will preview 7950x vs 13900k later today (?)

_edit_
We can expect something atleast:


----------



## postem

sblantipodi said:


> are there really people that wants to buy an Asus after all we have seen on Z690? xD


Im on tuf z690 and im pretty happy with it, 4133 DDR and i think i can get even higher on gear1. My 12700K managed to get 4000 too on this board.

I get asus got very $$$ this gen, even more than before, and the whole hero trouble, but im considering getting it if it manages to get decent ddr5 clocks, or MSI, probably next year, this year i will just drop the cpu on the board.


----------



## postem

sblantipodi said:


> going from 180W to 200W is much easyer for an AIO than going from 200W to 220W.
> 250W is a instant throttle on every 360mm AIO, if not instant the throttle will arrive soon at 250W.


The area of my 2080ti cooler is doing 300W and the cooler area is substantially smaller than my 420AIO, and the temps are much better than the cpu. Having a much bigger area to spread heat is more efficient than a tiny cpu, that is why i think zen4 will have big trouble with heat


----------



## LazyGamer

postem said:


> I get asus got very $$$ this gen, even more than before, and the whole hero trouble, but im considering getting it if it manages to get decent ddr5 clocks, or MSI, probably next year, this year i will just drop the cpu on the board.


ASUS' QC issues were a problem (not just the Hero, but also the Apex), yet they did a pretty good job overall IMO.


----------



## edkieferlp

LazyGamer said:


> ASUS' QC issues were a problem (not just the Hero, but also the Apex), yet they did a pretty good job overall IMO.


I think one big problem is with Z690 you had so many things get upgraded.
new P/E core CPU, new MB to support DDR5 along with bios. Memory manufacturers new to DDR5 and users expectation might of been to much for such many changes.
One of the main reasons I went with DDR4, other than the price I knew it was a known, stable product.


----------



## edkieferlp

postem said:


> The area of my 2080ti cooler is doing 300W and the cooler area is substantially smaller than my 420AIO, and the temps are much better than the cpu. Having a much bigger area to spread heat is more efficient than a tiny cpu, that is why i think zen4 will have big trouble with heat


I think we can expect Zen4 to run hotter with higher clocks and tiny chiplets that are offset from the center with what looks to be a slightly smaller IHS but maybe thicker.

For sure it will run hotter than Zen3, I wonder how they will handle the 7800x3D


----------



## LazyGamer

edkieferlp said:


> I think one big problem is with Z690 you had so many things get upgraded.
> new P/E core CPU, new MB to support DDR5 along with bios. Memory manufacturers new to DDR5 and users expectation might of been to much for such many changes.


I agree, but at the same time, some got it right, even ASUS - for example, ASUS' Extreme has been shown to run 4x 16GB DDR5 at 6000+, and the Hero should be able to do that too, assuming no flipped capacitor. Their issues with the Apex were concerning, but good copies of the board run really, really well.

MSI did very well all around. Gigabyte... generally did not. Couldn't tell you about ASRock one way or the other.


----------



## edkieferlp

LazyGamer said:


> I agree, but at the same time, some got it right, even ASUS - for example, ASUS' Extreme has been shown to run 4x 16GB DDR5 at 6000+, and the Hero should be able to do that too, assuming no flipped capacitor. Their issues with the Apex were concerning, but good copies of the board run really, really well.
> 
> MSI did very well all around. Gigabyte... generally did not. Couldn't tell you about ASRock one way or the other.


right but also because of the price of high-end MB's guys just expect more, when in reality lower priced MB can run just as fast, you just loose features. Most all of the MB are over built as far as VRM, so even a cheaper can support top chip pretty well.

Little off topic I saw some info posted that AMD AM5 DDR5 supported freq are 2 slots 5600, 4 slots 3600. I guess we will see how they actually clock for users.


----------



## LazyGamer

edkieferlp said:


> right but also because of the price of high-end MB's guys just expect more, when in reality lower priced MB can run just as fast, you just loose features. Most all of the MB are over built as far as VRM, so even a cheaper can support top chip pretty well.


100%. For memory performance, the ITX Z690 boards are a steal; otherwise, any of the 'entry-level' Z690 boards are pretty potent.



edkieferlp said:


> Little off topic I saw some info posted that AMD AM5 DDR5 supported freq are 2 slots 5600, 4 slots 3600. I guess we will see how they actually clock for users.


I don't have any predictions, but I expect AMD boards to have the same challenges with four slots.


----------



## postem

LazyGamer said:


> 100%. For memory performance, the ITX Z690 boards are a steal; otherwise, any of the 'entry-level' Z690 boards are pretty potent.
> 
> 
> I don't have any predictions, but I expect AMD boards to have the same challenges with four slots.


Unless you really need extreme OC, or really good memory OC capabilities or extended features like ROG bios, im pretty happy with tuf z690.

I can say for sure unless these z790 manages to get more easily around 7000MT on DDR5 i will keep another gen on DDR4 until im forced to change.


----------



## edkieferlp

postem said:


> Unless you really need extreme OC, or really good memory OC capabilities or extended features like ROG bios, im pretty happy with tuf z690.
> 
> I can say for sure unless these z790 manages to get more easily around 7000MT on DDR5 i will keep another gen on DDR4 until im forced to change.


I am on TUF Z690 wifi D4 too, I was really surprised by how many settings are now in bios. I came from ASUS Z77 and that didn't have 1/4 of the settings.
V/F voltage points TVB, **** load of memory settings, it really almost overwhelming. The main thing I wish all boards had postcodes, I would maybe tweak a little more if I had that.


----------



## LazyGamer

postem said:


> Unless you really need extreme OC, or really good memory OC capabilities or extended features like ROG bios, im pretty happy with tuf z690.


I'll say that I wound up on MSI's MEG Z690 ACE for three reasons:

I wanted a board with Thunderbolt
I wanted to be able to have four NVMe drives while still being able to use the last PCIe slot for 10Gbit
I started with a Gigabyte board that killed three G.Skill DDR5 kits... MSI's Ace is similar to ASUS' Hero, which also suffered from issues.
Thunderbolt was only added to DDR5 boards for Z690; I contemplated just going to Rocket Lake briefly due to that. Also looked at AMD, but Thunderbolt on AMD is pretty iffy.



edkieferlp said:


> The main thing I wise all boards had postcodes, I would maybe tweak a little more if I had that.


I was surprised when the Strix Z690-A I initially picked up didn't have a post code reader; didn't really need it for DDR4, but DDR5 would have been a nightmare without it!


----------



## Netarangi

Looks like there's a few of us on Asus TUF D4. Be interesting to see how 13th gen performs amongst us.

I'll be keeping my current mobo and ram for now, next upgrade after 13900 will be 4080 and then ddr5 sometime next year


----------



## Revv23

LazyGamer said:


> I agree, but at the same time, some got it right, even ASUS - for example, ASUS' Extreme has been shown to run 4x 16GB DDR5 at 6000+, and the Hero should be able to do that too, assuming no flipped capacitor. Their issues with the Apex were concerning, but good copies of the board run really, really well.
> 
> MSI did very well all around. Gigabyte... generally did not. Couldn't tell you about ASRock one way or the other.


As Rock couldn't even run DDR4 XMP LOL.

I had to switch it out for MSI. (Edit - My 1st MSI board after 20 years in the hobby. Might be my most rock solid board ever. )


----------



## RandalFlagg

With all of this talk of motherboards for Raptor Lake, anyone out there using an Asus Prime-A D5 or Z690 Prime TUF D5? Any thoughts on those? I'm snagging parts for Raptor Lake, already picked up DDR5, new case, adapter for my AIO, and a PCIe 4 x4 m.2. Now hunting for a DDR5 motherboard with some moderate OC capability and durability. 

I'm used to Asus, so I have a preference there, and from what I see ASRock and Gigabyte are to be avoided. Does that sound accurate? Gigabyte in particular has some really good deals, which are tempting, but I read too much about them still being in BIOS hell.


----------



## Ichirou

RandalFlagg said:


> I'm used to Asus, so I have a preference there, and from what I see ASRock and Gigabyte are to be avoided. Does that sound accurate? Gigabyte in particular has some really good deals, which are tempting, but I read too much about them still being in BIOS hell.


Yes. Avoid ASRock and Gigabyte. Get ASUS or MSI, depending on what features you need, or cost (ASUS is probably going to be much more expensive...)


----------



## bastian

Ichirou said:


> Yes. Avoid ASRock and Gigabyte. Get ASUS or MSI, depending on what features you need, or cost (ASUS is probably going to be much more expensive...)


Its a shame, as Gigabyte does better in terms of build and cooling than MSI, but the Gigabyte BIOS and updates are crap.


----------



## tubs2x4

RandalFlagg said:


> With all of this talk of motherboards for Raptor Lake, anyone out there using an Asus Prime-A D5 or Z690 Prime TUF D5? Any thoughts on those? I'm snagging parts for Raptor Lake, already picked up DDR5, new case, adapter for my AIO, and a PCIe 4 x4 m.2. Now hunting for a DDR5 motherboard with some moderate OC capability and durability.
> 
> I'm used to Asus, so I have a preference there, and from what I see ASRock and Gigabyte are to be avoided. Does that sound accurate? Gigabyte in particular has some really good deals, which are tempting, but I read too much about them still being in BIOS hell.


I have a prime-a ddr5 board since Jan of this year. Been working good with 12700k and 6200mhz ddr5 solid on it. Never tried faster ram speed. I have an issue with the onboard nic… super slow data rates but I wasn’t going to rma for that. Just bought a pcie x 1 network card. Had $35 credited to my account (paid for ethernet card) from gettting scammed on Amazon thru third party seller with a video card. I was refunded by Amazon so happy they stepped up. Other than that board been good.


----------



## sblantipodi

postem said:


> Im on tuf z690 and im pretty happy with it, 4133 DDR and i think i can get even higher on gear1. My 12700K managed to get 4000 too on this board.
> 
> I get asus got very $$$ this gen, even more than before, and the whole hero trouble, but im considering getting it if it manages to get decent ddr5 clocks, or MSI, probably next year, this year i will just drop the cpu on the board.


do you think that raptor will run good enough on Z690 without particular problems?
I'm "concerned" that the lack of DLVR can reduce performances on Z690.


----------



## IronAge

LazyGamer said:


> ASUS' QC issues were a problem (not just the Hero, but also the Apex), yet they did a pretty good job overall IMO.


Extreme has also been fuqed up.

i had two under my hands and none of them would do more than 5600 when released, after some UEFI updates DDR5 6000 been achievable with them and that's it.

Together with the unreasonable RMA policy for these failed early batches i am having a hard time deciding to buy from Asus again.


----------



## postem

RandalFlagg said:


> With all of this talk of motherboards for Raptor Lake, anyone out there using an Asus Prime-A D5 or Z690 Prime TUF D5? Any thoughts on those? I'm snagging parts for Raptor Lake, already picked up DDR5, new case, adapter for my AIO, and a PCIe 4 x4 m.2. Now hunting for a DDR5 motherboard with some moderate OC capability and durability.
> 
> I'm used to Asus, so I have a preference there, and from what I see ASRock and Gigabyte are to be avoided. Does that sound accurate? Gigabyte in particular has some really good deals, which are tempting, but I read too much about them still being in BIOS hell.


I tried to find tuf d5 here but they are rarer than unicorns. I only found it on amazon US, but for the price i could grab a strix locally here. If somehow z790 ddr5 goes at least 7000mt i might consider a revised version.

Wait for z790, almost certain it will have better signal and compatibility with ddr5.

Asrock has been trash for several gens, and gigabyte really shat on bed on z690


----------



## edkieferlp

I didn't even think there was a D5 TUF, nothing shows on ASUS MB section listing.


----------



## LazyGamer

edkieferlp said:


> I didn't even think there was a D5 TUF, nothing shows on ASUS MB section listing.


Well, apparently it exists: TUF GAMING Z690-PLUS WIFI｜Motherboards｜ASUS Global


----------



## postem

edkieferlp said:


> I didn't even think there was a D5 TUF, nothing shows on ASUS MB section listing.


It's slightly more $ over D4 variant but it wasn't much popular or at least not saw in many markets. It's available on Amazon us


----------



## RandalFlagg

edkieferlp said:


> I didn't even think there was a D5 TUF, nothing shows on ASUS MB section listing.


It exists, Asus official website is broke. It's like it adds a filter you didn't select or something, half their boards don't show up. 

My problem is that the Asus boards have in general not come down from MSRP. This is one of the best deals I've seen on it, keeping in mind that at MC you can get this + CPU and get $20 off, effective price here is $259. 

My problem here is that this Asus board is now more than boards like the Gigabyte below. That Gigabyte should by all rights be a better board, it's normally $370, but I suppose there is a reason it is so heavily discounted. 

I also don't know what to expect on Z690 supply as Raptor Lake releases, I've been watching their stock levels and MC keeps running out of stock and replenishing on these things. They must be selling well. I know that doesn't fit current narratives about PC sales but it's what I see.


----------



## Arni90

bastian said:


> Its a shame, as Gigabyte does better in terms of build and cooling than MSI, but the Gigabyte BIOS and updates are crap.


It doesn't matter if MSI is technically worse in terms of VRM when the VRMs of Z690 are so ridiculously overkill that it doesn't matter.


----------



## postem

Arni90 said:


> It doesn't matter if MSI is technically worse in terms of VRM when the VRMs of Z690 are so ridiculously overkill that it doesn't matter.


I think only gigabyte z690 bottom of barrel or crappy ones from biostar or asrock have weaker vrms


----------



## Ichirou

RandalFlagg said:


> It exists, Asus official website is broke. It's like it adds a filter you didn't select or something, half their boards don't show up.
> 
> My problem is that the Asus boards have in general not come down from MSRP. This is one of the best deals I've seen on it, keeping in mind that at MC you can get this + CPU and get $20 off, effective price here is $259.
> 
> My problem here is that this Asus board is now more than boards like the Gigabyte below. That Gigabyte should by all rights be a better board, it's normally $370, but I suppose there is a reason it is so heavily discounted.
> 
> I also don't know what to expect on Z690 supply as Raptor Lake releases, I've been watching their stock levels and MC keeps running out of stock and replenishing on these things. They must be selling well. I know that doesn't fit current narratives about PC sales but it's what I see.
> 
> View attachment 2571624
> View attachment 2571625


For a few generations now, Gigabyte's been largely relying on slapping down high quality components onto their boards, but their software is just hot garbage.
And as Arni90 says, VRMs have been improving significantly for generations now, so there's no longer a concern with them not being up to spec for modern CPUs.


----------



## tps3443

sblantipodi said:


> is there some rumors on DLVR?
> will it help in reaching high frequency at lower temperature?
> 
> I don't understand one thing... from the news we read online it seems that Raptor will use up to 350W but how can you cool 350W?
> 
> you can't cool 250W with a good 360mm AIO, how can you cool 350W?
> 
> there is something I don't understand and that it illogical to me.


Its all about how large the die is. I had a 7980XE that would consume 1,000+ watts easily all by its self running 4.5Ghz during AVX512 loads. Or running stock it would use 350+ wattts under load and run in the 50’s Celsius range.

But the chip could maintain these temps easily with such a massive die. 


We have GPU’s that pull 500-700+ watts and we can cool them down. But my 3090 has a huge die.

So, it’s really all about how the CPU is built and how it is designed.


----------



## domdtxdissar

13900KS 6ghz incoming next year to do battle with the 7950x3d ? 😇










__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1569218496369655808
_edit_
Slow news 








Intel confirms plans to launch 6 GHz stock Raptor Lake CPU (Core i9-13900KS incoming?) - VideoCardz.com


Intel Raptor Lake CPU to hit 6 GHz stock, 8 GHz world record confirmed At Intel Tech Tour in Israel, the company confirmed its plans for the Raptor Lake series. Intel Raptor Lake series only exist because Meteor Lake wouldn’t be ready on time, stated an Intel VP at the event. The company also...




videocardz.com


----------



## Talon2016

domdtxdissar said:


> 13900KS 6ghz incoming next year to do battle with the 7950x3d ? 😇
> View attachment 2571902
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1569218496369655808
> _edit_
> Slow news
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel confirms plans to launch 6 GHz stock Raptor Lake CPU (Core i9-13900KS incoming?) - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> Intel Raptor Lake CPU to hit 6 GHz stock, 8 GHz world record confirmed At Intel Tech Tour in Israel, the company confirmed its plans for the Raptor Lake series. Intel Raptor Lake series only exist because Meteor Lake wouldn’t be ready on time, stated an Intel VP at the event. The company also...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videocardz.com


It says 6Ghz 2022, so not coming next year? It should be out in 2022.


----------



## Hfhjfg

6Ghz single core / 5.5Ghz multicore at stock? 😯
My overclocked 12900k is crying about these numbers 😭
Annihilation as is.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Talon2016 said:


> It says 6Ghz 2022, so not coming next year? It should be out in 2022.


Intel marketing... questionable at best.
(raptor lake released in 2022)

Everything points to this 6ghz KS SKU being a 2023 product


----------



## domdtxdissar

Also: (not that it should be news to anyone)









How to Choose a Gaming CPU - Intel








How to Choose a Gaming CPU - Intel (stored image of the page)

_edit_
Slownews 🤣 









Intel accidentally confirms 13th Gen "Raptor Lake" 13900K/13700K/13600K CPUs - VideoCardz.com


Intel confirms three Raptor Lake K-series CPUs The 13th Gen Core series heading for launch. Over at the Intel website, one could find three unreleased processors from the 13th series briefly listed. As soon as it was discovered by hardware leaker @momomo_us, Intel removed this information, and...




videocardz.com







> The only thing that requires attention are listed Performance core boost frequency, which are lower than the leaks have suggested. What Intel is presenting here is P-Core Turbo, not Turbo Boost Max 3.0 or Thermal Velocity Boost, which are up to 400 MHz higher for some models (13900K).


----------



## domdtxdissar

Some info showed on cpubenchmark.net









PassMark - Intel Core i5-13400 - Price performance comparison

PassMark - Intel Core i5-13500 - Price performance comparison

_slownews_

















Intel Core i5-13600K, Core i5-13500, Core i5-13400 CPU Benchmarks Leak Out, Faster Than 12600K In $170-$200 US Price Range


Performance benchmarks of Intel's mainstream Core i5-13600K, Core i5-13500 & Core i5-13400 CPUs have leaked out.




wccftech.com


----------



## Groove2013

Ichirou said:


> One could argue that the IMC quality will likely improve due to better manufacturing, but there is still no guarantee.


Even if IMC is +- same (I doubt), having your RAM at same frequency and timings, will still result in lower ns in Aida64 thanks to higher cores and cache frequency.
And additionally to that if the IMC will be better than on ADL, then ns in Aida64 will be even lower + noticably more cache.


----------



## domdtxdissar

First review of retail Intel Core i9-13900K “Raptor Lake” CPU emerges









First review of retail Intel Core i9-13900K "Raptor Lake" CPU emerges - VideoCardz.com


Unlimited Core i9-13900K tested Over at Bilibili, one can find a comprehensive review of a retail version of the Core i9-13900K processor, the flagship Raptor Lake desktop CPU that is supposedly coming out next month. The review is a collaboration between ECSM_Official and OneRaichu, and it is...




videocardz.com



















In Cinebench R23 tests, Core i9-13900K is faster by 13% with Performance (Raptor Cove) cores compared to 12900K (Golden Cove). Interestingly, even the performance of the Efficient cores has increased by 14%, although the same architecture is used (Gracemont). It is worth noting that not only the frequency has been increased for Raptor Lake CPUs, but also the size of the L3 cache has. *ECSM confirms that with unlimited (350w) i9-13900K can brake 40K points in Cinebench R23*, which is 47% higher than 12900K with uncapped power.
















The reviewer concluded that i9-13900K brings 10% higher framerates than 12900K in CPU-bound games (CSGO, Ashes of the Singularity), but also improves frame times for the slowest 0.1% frames. Below is CSGO performance with unlimited i9-13900K and i912900K running with DDR5 and DDR4 memory

*ECSM is to provide more test results later: with default PL2 limit and later on Z790 motherboard*. The conclusion is that i9-13900K has 12% better single-threaded performance and multi-threaded ‘greatly improved to compete with AMD Zen4

From the linked *Bilibili* post:

Testing platform:

CPU1: Intel Core i9 13900K
CPU2: Intel Core i9 12900KF
DRAM: DDR5-6000 CL30-38-38-76, *DDR4-3600 CL17-19-19-39*, Trefi=262143, other parameters=Auto.
Motherboard: Z690 Taichi Razer Editon and Z790****
BIOS version: 12.01 and ****
GPU: AMD Radeon RX 6900 XTXH OC 2700MHz
Cooling: NZXT Kraken X73 作者：
















_2 extra stops on rings bus = higher memory latency by the looks of things.. L3 bandwidth much improved tho 















_
Compared with Intel Core i9 12900K, due to the change of Ring bus structure and design, when Ecore is under load, Ringbug Frequency will no longer drop from 4700 MHz to 3600 MHz. The change is mainly from 5000 MHz. Changed to 4600 MHz, at this time Ringbus latency will no longer be a burden on core access latency. Coupled with possible changes in Ring bus topology, the core latency of Intel Core i9 13900K has an interesting change.

That is, there is no longer an obvious access penalty for the communication between P and E, and the communication speed between almost all cores is maintained at a consistent level, about 30-33 ns, except for the small cores in the same Cluster. There is a certain access delay penalty due to the bus snoop, and the E core delay in the same cluster is also slightly improved.


----------



## domdtxdissar

*IPC test:*

Based on the performance test, we used SPEC CPU 2017 1.1.8 and Geekbench 5.4.4 to conduct the corresponding IPC test, and also tested the default frequency and 3.6Ghz, for reference only.

SPEC CPU 2017:
OS: WSL2-Ubuntu 20.04
Compiler: GCC/Gfortran/G++ 10.3.0
Test parameters: -O3, the corresponding test and cfg are attached to the network disk, link: 百度网盘 请输入提取码 Extraction code: pa37, welcome to use the test.
P core part: 








We first tested the single-thread performance at the *default frequency*, and we can see that the *improvement is about 12.5*% 









*Further, we conducted a 3.6GHz co-frequency test, and we can see that the co-frequency performance of the two cores of RPC/GLC is basically the same,* while RPC has a relatively lower memory access latency due to its larger L2 cache. 

IPC of the E core: 









Due to the obvious optimization of the internal cache part and the further optimization of the core access delay, the IPC of *Ecore *has changed significantly, and the average *IPC improvement is about 6%.*

In addition to the GCC part, we also tested *SPECint2017* with the combination of Clang 10+Gfortran 12. In the following table, we removed the score of the 548.exchange2_r project, which is only used to compare the performance of the C/C++ project for comparison with the mobile terminal mobile phone SOC for comparison.

It is important to note that the memory used in this review is not JEDEC-spec, as performance is slightly different than when using JEDEC memory. 








We first tested the single-threaded performance at the default frequency, and we can see that the *improvement is about 13% under the defualt frequency.* 

Further, we conducted a *3.6GHz co-frequency test*, which is consistent with the results of SPEC2017. It can be seen that the co-frequency p*erformance of the two cores of RPC/GLC is basically the same* 

IPC of the E core









Since the investigation of Geekbench is more inclined to the ALU part, and the investigation of the internal cache is relatively weak, the results here are slightly different from those in SPEC2017. In GB5, the int part of Ecore is almost unchanged, while the FP part is the same as that of SPEC2017.* The results are close, about a 6% improvement.*


----------



## domdtxdissar

*Game test:*

In order to ensure the fairness and uniformity of the test, the demo and frame number statistics that come with the game are used, and each game runs the demo five times, and takes the average value. Invalid, make up the test once. If the frame number statistics of the game itself include decimals, the decimals of the corresponding number of digits will be reserved, otherwise, they will be rounded up. 









In high-frame games that focus on more CPUs, such as Ashes of Singularity, CSGO, etc., *the improvement of 13900K compared to 12900K can be 10%+*. If the graphics card is replaced with a higher-end model, then this gap will continue to be enlarged.

Intel's magic modification of the Ring bus reduces the access latency of Ecore. At the same time, the Ring frequency of RPL is decoupled from Ecore, so there will no longer be the problem that the Ring slows down significantly when the ADL is loaded with small cores.

*However, the RPL will still slow down. The 13900K will be downclocked from Auto 5000MHz to 4600MHz, but the improvement is much larger than that of the 12900K, but it means that you can still improve the game performance by turning off Ecore.* 

*Energy efficiency test:*

We first performed a simple power consumption test:

In the AIDA64 FPU scenario, the power consumption of 13900K DDR5 is about 253w, and the core frequencies at this time are about ** and **.

*In the Z690 motherboard and the August BIOS, the power consumption after unlocking the power wall is about 343w*, the voltage at this time is around 1.4V, and the core frequency is about 5.5 GHz for the P core and 4.3 GHz for the E core. 









*Conclusion:*

One year after the release of the Alder lake product, Intel obtained a new generation of Raptor lake with higher frequency and better energy efficiency by further relaxing the CPP's 10nm Enhanced Super Fin plus (Intel 7+) process. By increasing the frequency and the number of small cores, while increasing the single-threaded performance by about 12%, the multi-threaded performance has been greatly improved to compete with the new Zen 4 released by AMD this year.

No matter who will die in this generation and who will become the king of single-threaded/multi-threaded performance in this generation, I think this should be the best era of semiconductor development in the past decade.

Because this is the most competitive era, it is also the most beneficial era for consumers. With fierce competition, there will be continuous progress, no matter what the field is. 作者：ECSM_Official Raptor Lake S，再进一步！Intel i9 13900K 全面评测 出处：bilibili


----------



## energie80

13900k vs 12900ks any idea?


----------



## yzonker

Nice jump in TS/TSE,


----------



## domdtxdissar

*TLDR:*

13900k compared to 12900k:

~12% higher ST / gaming performance
~ 42% higher MT performance at "unlimited mode"
Power usage have increased from 236w to 343w to reach performance numbers above


P-core IPC increase is basically nothing ~1-3%
E-core IPC increase is ~6%
Most of performance increase comes from higher clockspeeds
Seem to be higher memory latency in aida because of the more stops on the ringbus, but the L1,L2 and L3 bandwidth is increased substantially.
Ecore only downlock the ringbus to 4.6ghz instead of 3.6ghz when they are in use


----------



## Nizzen

energie80 said:


> 13900k vs 12900ks any idea?


NDA


----------



## tubs2x4

Deleted.


----------



## tubs2x4

Why ecores if turning them off to access alll the cache is better for gaming? With a bigger die no room for 2 more p cores and no ecores with more cache? make it a power hog and people will buy it. Ha


----------



## z390e

The comment about e-cores disabled...has anyone ever really broken down which games will actually benefit from disabling e-cores on ADL or RL, and how much they will benefit?


----------



## Hfhjfg

I suspect disabling e_cores will only have effect for cyber sport games when game needs only few cores and min possible mem latency.


----------



## LazyGamer

z390e said:


> The comment about e-cores disabled...has anyone ever really broken down which games will actually benefit from disabling e-cores on ADL or RL, and how much they will benefit?


Very few, and it looks like that's not going to be an issue for Raptor Lake as mixed E-core and P-core usage won't incur the same latency penalties as Alder Lake.


----------



## Nizzen

z390e said:


> The comment about e-cores disabled...has anyone ever really broken down which games will actually benefit from disabling e-cores on ADL or RL, and how much they will benefit?


I'm getting abit higher fps in BF 2042 with e-cores off 

Well over 200fps in both scenarioes in 1080p "high fps mode"


----------



## Luggage

z390e said:


> The comment about e-cores disabled...has anyone ever really broken down which games will actually benefit from disabling e-cores on ADL or RL, and how much they will benefit?


It’s old and not very hardcore but HUB tested a bunch of games.


----------



## MIXEDGREENS

With all the improvements I'm feeling pretty stupid for biting on alder lake. If they ship RPL with rigidity improvements and a stronger IMC as well I'm selling this POS rig for cheap and letting someone else deal with it.


----------



## tubs2x4

MIXEDGREENS said:


> With all the improvements I'm feeling pretty stupid for biting on alder lake. If they ship RPL with rigidity improvements and a stronger IMC as well I'm selling this POS rig for cheap and letting someone else deal with it.


Alwasy going to be something new and better or marketing says it’s better haha. Have to wait and See what reviews are like to get official real world results.


----------



## Groove2013

Nizzen said:


> I'm getting abit higher fps in BF 2042 with e-cores off
> 
> Well over 200fps in both scenarioes in 1080p "high fps mode"


most probably higher cache frequency?


----------



## LazyGamer

Groove2013 said:


> most probably higher cache frequency?


That's what we see in a lot of cases - this increases realized memory bandwidth and lowers memory latency as well too.



MIXEDGREENS said:


> With all the improvements I'm feeling pretty stupid for biting on alder lake. If they ship RPL with rigidity improvements and a stronger IMC as well I'm selling this POS rig for cheap and letting someone else deal with it.


And if you'd waited for Raptor Lake, then see the improvements for Cannon Lake, or see the 3D cache versions of Zen 4...?

Alder Lake is still the highest single-thread performance you can get today.


----------



## Ichirou

energie80 said:


> 13900k vs 12900ks any idea?





tubs2x4 said:


> Alwasy going to be something new and better or marketing says it’s better haha. Have to wait and See what reviews are like to get official real world results.


There's already dozens of leaks from different sources. Just check those.

Engineering processes for RPL have improved, so they have extremely golden 12900KS bins, pretty much.
The 13900KS being slated for a 6.0 GHz boost clock will likely be the best CPU anyone will be able to get for a DDR4 board.

DDR5 users don't fall under this category, though. Since that's the new generation and will continue to improve with future CPUs.
If you're a DDR5 user, skip a generation or three if you already have a 12th Gen.


----------



## Groove2013

LazyGamer said:


> That's what we see in a lot of cases - this increases realized memory bandwidth and lowers memory latency as well too.


that's why I have cache frequency of my 12900KS at 5.1 GHz and E-cores off.

runs noticably faster and less heat/power.


----------



## tubs2x4

Ichirou said:


> There's already dozens of leaks from different sources. Just check those.
> 
> Engineering processes for RPL have improved, so they have extremely golden 12900KS bins, pretty much.
> The 13900KS being slated for a 6.0 GHz boost clock will likely be the best CPU anyone will be able to get for a DDR4 board.
> 
> DDR5 users don't fall under this category, though. Since that's the new generation and will continue to improve with future CPUs.
> If you're a DDR5 user, skip a generation or three if you already have a 12th Gen.


Could be. Have to wait and see how the retail cpus perform. 
I agree about 12gen it will be good for a long time. Gpu on the other hand will likely need one upgrade.


----------



## LazyGamer

Groove2013 said:


> that's why I have cache frequency of my 12900KS at 5.1 GHz and E-cores off.


I've considered doing the same with my 12700K, but it's such a poor sample that I'd just rather have the extra cores most of the time, since it doesn't do >5.0GHz stable. Just wants too much voltage to pass e.g. YPrime.

Also not able to push memory much, so I've left the ring clock alone too.


----------



## Nizzen

Groove2013 said:


> most probably higher cache frequency?


This with a notch lower latency maybe


----------



## Nizzen

Beta dark bios for rpl https://cdn.evga.com/BIOS/Z690/E699_flashtool_200.zip (do not flash for adl!)


----------



## Groove2013

Nizzen said:


> This with a notch lower latency maybe


same for me )))


----------



## Groove2013

I'm at 41.7 ns in Aida64 with my 12900KS znd 4000 MHz CL14 gear 1.

hope I'll be able to go even lower than that with 13900KS.


----------



## Groove2013

Nizzen said:


> This with a notch lower latency maybe


if cache frequency is really decoupled ftom E-cores, then no need anymore to disable them, unless there is still latency penalty from having them on, despite no impact on cache frequency.


----------



## MIXEDGREENS

LazyGamer said:


> That's what we see in a lot of cases - this increases realized memory bandwidth and lowers memory latency as well too.
> 
> 
> And if you'd waited for Raptor Lake, then see the improvements for Cannon Lake, or see the 3D cache versions of Zen 4...?
> 
> Alder Lake is still the highest single-thread performance you can get today.





tubs2x4 said:


> Alwasy going to be something new and better or marketing says it’s better haha. Have to wait and See what reviews are like to get official real world results.


You're both right. I think I'm just salty I spent the money on a 360mm aio and it performs like a hyper 212  

That damn core to core latency though.


----------



## tps3443

I’m just glad I held out. I managed to find a god like 11900K sample right before 12th Gen and DDR5 was even available, and I pretty much forgot about PC hardware all this time and I just enjoyed my computer for work/gaming/etc without even thinking about 12th Gen very much. People were trading their children for any kind of DDR5 they could find. While Z690 board prices were soaring.

Now that 12th Gen is falling back in to the shadows. I managed to pick up one of the best Z690 (2) Dimm motherboards and great DDR5 for very very cheap. I can slap in a 13900K and enjoy the MASSIVE improvements with minimal cost. 

Going from even a 5.5Ghz (All-Core) 11900K to a stock 13900K is about a 80-85% boost in multithreaded. And at least 25% single threaded. But if I upgrade to a 12900K/KS it’s like still a HUGE 70-75% boost in multithreaded. And about a 12-14% single thread boost. 

I feel like people with highclocked 12900KS CPU’s or even a stock 12900K. They may consider waiting until Intel 14th Gen. It’s really not a huge improvement over 12th Gen.


----------



## energie80

10%


----------



## LazyGamer

tps3443 said:


> It’s really not a huge improvement over 12th Gen.


You could say that about every single generational leap, and it really depends on what you're doing as to whether or not it's 'worth it'. Well, unless you were running a Bulldozer CPU from AMD .


----------



## fat4l

Groove2013 said:


> that's why I have cache frequency of my 12900KS at 5.1 GHz and E-cores off.
> 
> runs noticably faster and less heat/power.


Is this really faster than having ecores enabled ? 

Its P cores + high cache vs ecores enabled


----------



## Falkentyne

fat4l said:


> Is this really faster than having ecores enabled ?
> 
> Its P cores + high cache vs ecores enabled


Depends on what game or application you're running. 
With Stockfish, e-cores enabled gives much faster hash rate than e-cores disabled, regardless of how much you yeet the cache.


----------



## tps3443

If you run a R20 benchmark does that benchmark just use the P cores? And windows background stuff is using the E cores?

This seems really smart to me. Is this how 12th/13th Gen really work?


----------



## edkieferlp

tps3443 said:


> If you run a R20 benchmark does that benchmark just use the P cores? And windows background stuff is using the E cores?
> 
> This seems really smart to me. Is this how 12th/13th Gen really work?


No, for me with Win10/12600k CBxx uses all cores.
If it did run on just P cores the score would be much lower as even on 12600k with only 4 E cores, there not much background for them to do.


----------



## Telstar

RandalFlagg said:


> So what do you all think of Z790 vs Z690?
> 
> Is there going to be any sort of benefit to waiting for Z790 from an OC and especially DDR5 performance perspective, or is this a good time to pick up a discounted Z690 without sacrificing anything? I just haven't seen much about what Z790 will bring to the table, and there are things like the EVGA Classified going for $299 right now.


I'm waiting for reviews.
DLVR may or may not work on z690. At this point we better wait and see. There will still be good deals after z90 launch.


----------



## airisom2

I don't think that there will be much gains from 1DPC Z690 to Z790, but we'll see soon. 

But Hynix A-Die has me wondering something. HWBot binning and igor's results put a-die at around 7500 cl34 on a 12900K give or take. With RPL having a better memory controller, 8000 can be a possibility on 1DPC boards. So with that said, I wonder how it will compete against a 7950X 3D with 6000. +2000MHz is nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## Ichirou

airisom2 said:


> I don't think that there will be much gains from 1DPC Z690 to Z790, but we'll see soon.
> 
> But Hynix A-Die has me wondering something. HWBot binning and igor's results put a-die at around 7500 cl34 on a 12900K give or take. With RPL having a better memory controller, 8000 can be a possibility on 1DPC boards. So with that said, I wonder how it will compete against a 7950X 3D with 6000. +2000MHz is nothing to sneeze at.


Hynix M-Die works up to 8,000 MHz or so, unless you go hardcore.
Only place to source it is Taobao, though.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I’m just glad I held out. I managed to find a god like 11900K sample right before 12th Gen and DDR5 was even available, and I pretty much forgot about PC hardware all this time and I just enjoyed my computer for work/gaming/etc without even thinking about 12th Gen very much. People were trading their children for any kind of DDR5 they could find. While Z690 board prices were soaring.
> 
> Now that 12th Gen is falling back in to the shadows. I managed to pick up one of the best Z690 (2) Dimm motherboards and great DDR5 for very very cheap. I can slap in a 13900K and enjoy the MASSIVE improvements with minimal cost.
> 
> Going from even a 5.5Ghz (All-Core) 11900K to a stock 13900K is about a 80-85% boost in multithreaded. And at least 25% single threaded. But if I upgrade to a 12900K/KS it’s like still a HUGE 70-75% boost in multithreaded. And about a 12-14% single thread boost.
> 
> I feel like people with highclocked 12900KS CPU’s or even a stock 12900K. They may consider waiting until Intel 14th Gen. It’s really not a huge improvement over 12th Gen.


It's a logical jump if you want the best for DDR4, though. AMD doesn't support DDR4, and the only thing better than ADL is RPL.


----------



## Nizzen

Ready-set-
















😇


----------



## nickolp1974

Nizzen said:


> Ready-set-
> View attachment 2573196
> 
> View attachment 2573197
> 
> 😇


Splaves rejects???


----------



## fray_bentos

tps3443 said:


> I can slap in a 13900K and enjoy the MASSIVE improvements with minimal cost.


How is forking out for a new 13900K a minimal cost?


----------



## Rbk_3

Telstar said:


> I'm waiting for reviews.
> DLVR may or may not work on z690. At this point we better wait and see. There will still be good deals after z90 launch.


My biggest concern is the newest Bios on my Z690 Edge. I tried the latest bios on MSI website that supports the 13th GEN CPUS and I cant even post at 4000 16-16-16-36 while on the previous bios I am fully stable at 4133 16-16-16-36.


----------



## Telstar

Yes, I think there will take some time to optimize the bioses for RPL


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> My biggest concern is the newest Bios on my Z690 Edge. I tried the latest bios on MSI website that supports the 13th GEN CPUS and I cant even post at 4000 16-16-16-36 while on the previous bios I am fully stable at 4133 16-16-16-36.


Nice, saves me time from having to test out the new BIOS version.

Might need to upgrade to a Z790 DDR4 board after all if MSI doesn't release another BIOS after the 13th Gen launches.


----------



## tps3443

fray_bentos said:


> How is forking out for a new 13900K a minimal cost?


Honestly it’s not lol. But, you know what I mean. I will be running a MSI Unify-X (2) Dimm mobo, 32GB Corsair DDR5 6000, and a 13900K for about $1,000 dollars in total for everything. I’d say that’s minimal cost. That doesn’t include selling any of my old hardware either.

None of us are really in this hobby for minimal cost though. It’s fun, but too damn expensive. Here I am catching a break and saving some cash, and then Nvidia starts waving RTX4090’s. Now I want to give away my 3090 Kingpin Hydro Copper for a fraction of what I paid.

Save now or get bent over later. All we can do is try our best. We are always losing LOL.


----------



## LazyGamer

Ichirou said:


> Might need to upgrade to a Z790 DDR4 board after all if MSI doesn't release another BIOS after the 13th Gen launches.


I've yet to hear if any of these are coming.


----------



## Ichirou

LazyGamer said:


> I've yet to hear if any of these are coming.


Both ASUS and MSI have announced Z790 DDR4 boards. EVGA will not be releasing DDR4.
It's safe to assume ASRock and Gigabyte will have Z790 DDR4 boards as well, but I can't imagine them being decent.


----------



## Telstar

LazyGamer said:


> I've yet to hear if any of these are coming.


The MSI Edge has been leaked:








[OFFICIAL] MSI Z790 Owners Thread


MSI has officially announced their Z790 line-up, for both the 12th and 13th Gen and both DDR4 and DDR5. https://www.msi.com/Landing/intel-13th-gen-raptor-lake-z790-b760-motherboard Discuss.




www.overclock.net


----------



## LazyGamer

Ichirou said:


> Both ASUS and MSI have announced Z790 DDR4 boards. EVGA will not be releasing DDR4.
> It's safe to assume ASRock and Gigabyte will have Z790 DDR4 boards as well, but I can't imagine them being decent.


Someone was saying the opposite when the first news started trickling out, I stand corrected


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Telstar said:


> The MSI Edge has been leaked:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [OFFICIAL] MSI Z790 Owners Thread
> 
> 
> MSI has officially announced their Z790 line-up, for both the 12th and 13th Gen and both DDR4 and DDR5. https://www.msi.com/Landing/intel-13th-gen-raptor-lake-z790-b760-motherboard Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Ya, and this was leaked today: ASUS, MSI and ASRock Intel Z790 motherboards for 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake" CPUs have been leaked - VideoCardz.com


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


> Nice, saves me time from having to test out the new BIOS version.
> 
> Might need to upgrade to a Z790 DDR4 board after all if MSI doesn't release another BIOS after the 13th Gen launches.


Looks like they released another one since I tried. I tried the one from July.


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> Looks like they released another one since I tried. I tried the one from July.


Oh. I tested that BIOS as well and it was the second-worst BIOS ever, just above the second BIOS ever released (which constantly froze even in the UEFI).

I thought you had tested the September BIOS, lol.


----------



## Groove2013

Ichirou said:


> Both ASUS and MSI have announced Z790 DDR4 boards. EVGA will not be releasing DDR4.
> It's safe to assume ASRock and Gigabyte will have Z790 DDR4 boards as well, but I can't imagine them being decent.


Z790 Edge DDR4, but no Z790 Strix - only TUF and Prime...


----------



## Telstar

Groove2013 said:


> Z790 Edge DDR4, but no Z790 Strix - only TUF and Prime...


the z690 strix is quite good, isnt it? at least a 2022 one.


----------



## RandalFlagg

Ichirou said:


> Hynix M-Die works up to 8,000 MHz or so, unless you go hardcore.
> Only place to source it is Taobao, though.


You mean A-die? I thought a lot of M-Die were maxing out around 6600 with an occasional 7200 lotto win.


----------



## Ichirou

RandalFlagg said:


> You mean A-die? I thought a lot of M-Die were maxing out around 6600 with an occasional 7200 lotto win.


Right, yeah. I kinda hate the notation since it's not particularly *notable.*


----------



## Gadfly

RandalFlagg said:


> You mean A-die? I thought a lot of M-Die were maxing out around 6600 with an occasional 7200 lotto win.


I bought two g.skill 6600 kits, both did 7000C30 1T at 1.55v


----------



## Talon2016

13th gen listed at Newegg.

$649.99 13900K
$449.99 13700K
$329.99 13600K


----------



## nickolp1974

Talon2016 said:


> 13th gen listed at Newegg.
> 
> $649.99 13900K
> $449.99 13700K
> $329.99 13600K


Not there now or not what I can see


----------



## Talon2016

nickolp1974 said:


> Not there now or not what I can see











Intel Core i9-13900K - Core i9 13th Gen Raptor Lake 24-Core (8P+16E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.0 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.2 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513900 - Newegg.com


Buy Intel Core i9-13900K - Core i9 13th Gen Raptor Lake 24-Core (8P+16E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.0 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.2 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513900K with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!




www.newegg.com













Intel Core i7-13700K - Core i7 13th Gen Raptor Lake 16-Core (8P+8E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.4 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.5 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513700K - Newegg.com


Buy Intel Core i7-13700K - Core i7 13th Gen Raptor Lake 16-Core (8P+8E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.4 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.5 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513700K with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!




www.newegg.com













Intel Core i5-13600K - Core i5 13th Gen Raptor Lake 14-Core (6P+8E) 3.5 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513600K - Newegg.com


Buy Intel Core i5-13600K - Core i5 13th Gen Raptor Lake 14-Core (6P+8E) 3.5 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513600K with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!




www.newegg.com


----------



## nickolp1974

Talon2016 said:


> Intel Core i9-13900K - Core i9 13th Gen Raptor Lake 24-Core (8P+16E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.0 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.2 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513900 - Newegg.com
> 
> 
> Buy Intel Core i9-13900K - Core i9 13th Gen Raptor Lake 24-Core (8P+16E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.0 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.2 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513900K with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newegg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i7-13700K - Core i7 13th Gen Raptor Lake 16-Core (8P+8E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.4 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.5 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513700K - Newegg.com
> 
> 
> Buy Intel Core i7-13700K - Core i7 13th Gen Raptor Lake 16-Core (8P+8E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.4 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.5 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513700K with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newegg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i5-13600K - Core i5 13th Gen Raptor Lake 14-Core (6P+8E) 3.5 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513600K - Newegg.com
> 
> 
> Buy Intel Core i5-13600K - Core i5 13th Gen Raptor Lake 14-Core (6P+8E) 3.5 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513600K with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newegg.com


Thanks found a screenshot posted at videcardz also


----------



## nickolp1974

I'll be happy at those prices if correct, although our weak pound v dollar will see them a bit higher unless magically it sorts itself out in the next month.any info circulating yet in board prices??


----------



## RichKnecht

I was going to get a 12900K to replace my 10980XE, but I decided to hold out for the 13900K, especially if there will be DDR4 boards to use with it. I have a nice G-Skill b-die kit that I would like to keep


----------



## edkieferlp

RichKnecht said:


> I was going to get a 12900K to replace my 10980XE, but I decided to hold out for the 13900K, especially if there will be DDR4 boards to use with it. I have a nice G-Skill b-die kit that I would like to keep


Don't forget the 13700k will have the same core count setup as what 12900k but with a higher boost, ring etc if you wanted to save a little and depending on your workloads.


----------



## nickolp1974

whats the announcement about at 5 (2pm pacific time)??


----------



## domdtxdissar

Intel innovation 2022 is live now:

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/events/on-event-series/innovation.html

7950X ($699) -> 13900K ($660)
7900X ($549) -> 13700K ($450)
7700X ($399) -> 13600K ($330)
7600X ($299) -> 13500? ($269?)


----------



## Talon2016

domdtxdissar said:


> Intel innovation 2022 is live now:
> 
> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/events/on-event-series/innovation.html
> 
> 7950X ($699) -> 13900K ($660)
> 7900X ($549) -> 13700K ($450)
> 7700X ($399) -> 13600K ($330)
> 7600X ($299) -> 13500? ($269?)


I wouldn't put a 13600K against a 7700X considering it's a lot closer in price to the 7600X based on retail price alone. Doesn't even take into account the price of motherboards and DDR5 required for AM5.


----------



## Talon2016

ORDERS ARE LIVE!

Got a 13900K ordered. Ships Oct 20.


----------



## Arni90

Talon2016 said:


> ORDERS ARE LIVE!
> 
> Got a 13900K ordered. Ships Oct 20.


Same in Norway/Sweden/Denmark on Proshop


----------



## edkieferlp

Talon2016 said:


> I wouldn't put a 13600K against a 7700X considering it's a lot closer in price to the 7600X based on retail price alone. Doesn't even take into account the price of motherboards and DDR5 required for AM5.


why not, it will be down on clock as Intel lowers it down 2 bins from 13900k, it will have 6 P/8E for 20threads, should be close depending on workload and 13600 should OC good, well should have some headroom.
I would guess or hope you could get at least a few cores running at like 5.5ghz, which would help a lot in game workloads.


----------



## 2500k_2

@Nizzen Place the first picture in the first post of this topic. If you like it of course xD


----------



## domdtxdissar

Talon2016 said:


> I wouldn't put a 13600K against a 7700X considering it's a lot closer in price to the 7600X based on retail price alone. Doesn't even take into account the price of motherboards and DDR5 required for AM5.


Prices from proshop in norwegian kroner:

7950X 9290kr vs 13900K 8499kr
7900X 7290kr vs 13700K 6099kr
7700X 5290kr
7600X 3990kr vs 13600K 4099kr
Think that will be the "fairest" comparison..


----------



## Talon2016

domdtxdissar said:


> Prices from proshop in norwegian kroner:
> 
> 7950X 9290kr vs 13900K 8499kr
> 7900X 7290kr vs 13700K 6099kr
> 7700X 5290kr
> 7600X 3990kr vs 13600K 4099kr
> Think that will be the "fairest" comparison..


OK so in the United States we will use a different comparison then because we don't have those prices and the 13600K is more directly comparable, and a cheaper overall platform vs the 7600x.


----------



## domdtxdissar

2500k_2 said:


> View attachment 2573555
> 
> View attachment 2573557
> 
> View attachment 2573554
> 
> View attachment 2573556
> 
> @Nizzen Place the first picture in the first post of this topic. If you like it of course xD


Wow thats a first.. Intel admitting the 5800x3d is beating both the 12900k and 13900k in some games ?


----------



## Luggage

domdtxdissar said:


> Wow thats a first.. Intel admitting the 5800x3d is beating both the 12900k and 13900k in some games ?
> View attachment 2573559


Yea but they tried to sneak it through with minimal indicators


----------



## Falkentyne

domdtxdissar said:


> Wow thats a first.. Intel admitting the 5800x3d is beating both the 12900k and 13900k in some games ?
> View attachment 2573559


At 95C, remember.


----------



## nickolp1974

Talon2016 said:


> ORDERS ARE LIVE!
> 
> Got a 13900K ordered. Ships Oct 20.


same, £699 in UK, boards should be live also in next day or 2


----------



## edkieferlp

Falkentyne said:


> At 95C, remember.


Yeah, that is to high for my tastes, will be very hard to tell heating issues when you are up that high with workloads in seconds. It may be designed to run at 95 but that can't change physics

Since 7000 seems to run like GPU they should of have a temp slider so users could lower that 95c even if performance goes down a bit.


----------



## Ichirou

Anyone know which Canadian retailers are offering preorders? Seems like there's no news anywhere.
Nevermind, found it:









Intel Core i9-13900K - Core i9 13th Gen Raptor Lake 24-Core (8P+16E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.0 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.2 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513900 - Newegg.com


Buy Intel Core i9-13900K - Core i9 13th Gen Raptor Lake 24-Core (8P+16E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.0 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.2 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513900K with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!




www.newegg.ca












Intel Core i9-13900KF - Core i9 13th Gen Raptor Lake 24-Core (8P+16E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.0 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.2 GHz LGA 1700 125W Desktop Processor - BX8071513900KF - Newegg.com


Buy Intel Core i9-13900KF - Core i9 13th Gen Raptor Lake 24-Core (8P+16E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.0 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.2 GHz LGA 1700 125W Desktop Processor - BX8071513900KF with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!




www.newegg.ca




Strangely enough, the KF doesn't have a preorder limit, and costs almost $100 CAD less lol

Also, the box is different. Not sure why.


----------



## Kana Chan

Increased v/f curve with the newer design+process.


----------



## Arni90

Falkentyne said:


> At 95C, remember.


The 5800X3D isn't that hot, but Intel's prices look a lot more interesting than AMD's


----------



## Spicedaddy

Ichirou said:


> Anyone know which Canadian retailers are offering preorders? Seems like there's no news anywhere.
> Nevermind, found it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900K - Core i9 13th Gen Raptor Lake 24-Core (8P+16E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.0 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.2 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513900 - Newegg.com
> 
> 
> Buy Intel Core i9-13900K - Core i9 13th Gen Raptor Lake 24-Core (8P+16E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.0 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.2 GHz LGA 1700 125W Intel UHD Graphics 770 Desktop Processor - BX8071513900K with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newegg.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900KF - Core i9 13th Gen Raptor Lake 24-Core (8P+16E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.0 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.2 GHz LGA 1700 125W Desktop Processor - BX8071513900KF - Newegg.com
> 
> 
> Buy Intel Core i9-13900KF - Core i9 13th Gen Raptor Lake 24-Core (8P+16E) P-core Base Frequency: 3.0 GHz E-core Base Frequency: 2.2 GHz LGA 1700 125W Desktop Processor - BX8071513900KF with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newegg.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strangely enough, the KF doesn't have a preorder limit, and costs almost $100 CAD less lol
> 
> Also, the box is different. Not sure why.


That's Newegg price gougeing. It's the same price as 12900K that launched for 749$ CAD. Exchange rate being crappy makes 13900K maybe 799-849$.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Intel Core i9-13900KS Special Edition 6GHz CPU to launch next year

But i'm pretty sure it wont be enough against Zen4 3d..










> The new part, most likely called Core i9-13900KS will launch next year, and it will be limited in volume. The KS-series SKUs are pre-binned processors, offering the best power efficiency and stable operation at higher clocks. Last year, Intel launched its Core i9-12900KS model, which is the fastest SKU in Alder Lake-S series, offering 5.5 GHz with all cores out of the box.


----------



## Carillo

Anyone ordering z790 Asus motherboard this generation ? 🤭


----------



## Groove2013

@Ichirou have compared my Strix Z690 DDR4 vs. Strix Z790 DDR4 and 0 actual/hardware difference, other than chipset and slightly different visual design


----------



## Spicedaddy

799$ CAD seems the official MSRP for 13900K.

Want MSFS benchmarks!!


----------



## nickolp1974

Carillo said:


> Anyone ordering z790 Asus motherboard this generation ? 🤭


yeah if they bring out an Apex, surely they have learnt there lesson and resolved issues


----------



## domdtxdissar

*Performance Index 13th Gen Intel® Core™ Desktop Processors












*
13th Gen Intel® Core™ Desktop Processors - 1 | Performance Index

Anyone else see something funky there ? 😇



Spoiler: Intel marketing™



Did they manually set PPT limit to 105w for the 5950x ? (stock 5950x power limit is 142w)
Same PPT limit for both 5800x3d and 16core 5950x ? against 13900k @ 253watt ?


----------



## Talon2016

Looks like Intel used their stock supported max memory speed of 5600 for their performance metrics. While AMD used an overclock to their own personal “sweet spot” of 6000 CL30 instead of max supported 5200.

Im expecting gaming performance to improve to even greater numbers after we use proper memory since Intel 13th Gen and Z790 can go much further than 5600. I’ve already got 7400 CL32 stable on my 12900KS and 690 Dark with my A-Die.


----------



## Nizzen

I ordered 7950x and 13900k today. Just wanted to upgrade my 12900k and 5950x


----------



## Ichirou

13900K/KF is now visible at Canada Computer as well, but cannot be preordered yet. (Can still preorder on Newegg.)





Search results for "13900k" at Canada Computers &amp Electronics


Search results for "13900k" at Canada Computers &amp Electronics




www.canadacomputers.com





For some reason, it's cheaper on CC.


----------



## Carillo

Ordered 13900k today. 7999 NOK from Komplett in Norway. No z790 pre-order possible her. In Thailand it seems they can be preordered.


----------



## tps3443

Ordered the 13900KF on Newegg. $629.99 USD!

What a deal! Coming from a 11900K, this should be interesting.

I almost purchased the 13700KF because it’s only $429.99. And it is pretty much a 12900KS. But I went all in.


----------



## Ichirou

Groove2013 said:


> @Ichirou have compared my Strix Z690 DDR4 vs. Strix Z790 DDR4 and 0 actual/hardware difference, other than chipset and slightly different visual design


There's probably some newer features on the Z790 board, but probably nothing particularly meaningful to most people.
The only reason why you'd want to upgrade is if you experience incompatibility with your Z690 board. Or if you are on DDR5.


----------



## fray_bentos

domdtxdissar said:


> *Performance Index 13th Gen Intel® Core™ Desktop Processors
> View attachment 2573586
> View attachment 2573590
> *
> 13th Gen Intel® Core™ Desktop Processors - 1 | Performance Index
> 
> Anyone else see something funky there ? 😇
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Intel marketing™
> 
> 
> 
> Did they manually set PPT limit to 105w for the 5950x ? (stock 5950x power limit is 142w)
> Same PPT limit for both 5800x3d and 16core 5950x ? against 13900k @ 253watt ?
> View attachment 2573585


Irrelevant since none of those CPUs are going to be pulling >105 W whilst gaming, or at least I hope they won't!


----------



## bottjeremy

Scored a 13900KF preorder. Going to plop in my Gigabyte DDR4 Gaming-X board (replacing 12600K) to see how it performs. Planning to upgrade to a DDR5 board once they go on sale. Will post some data as soon as I can.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

13900k preorderd!










One thing I've noticed for a while now, you have to get the first of the new cpus to get excellent chance of a good clocker.


----------



## Carillo

MrTOOSHORT said:


> 13900k preorderd!
> 
> View attachment 2573603
> 
> 
> One thing I've noticed for a while now, you have to get the first of the new cpus to get excellent chance of a good clocker.


Absolutely true. 12900k´s are entering low 60 sp rating nowadays 😂


----------



## tps3443

MrTOOSHORT said:


> 13900k preorderd!
> 
> View attachment 2573603
> 
> 
> One thing I've noticed for a while now, you have to get the first of the new cpus to get excellent chance of a good clocker.


I heard the same thing from someone with 11th Gen. “Buy early for best chance on a good bin”

So, I pre-ordered early as well. Managed to grab a 13900KF for $630. I also purchased a Z690 Unify-X and DDR5 a few weeks ago for $475. I was preparing to upgrade. Should make for a big BOOST against my golden 11900K.


IM EXCITED!!!

It’s a great time to be alive! And I am glad to be here with you guys/gals for the upcoming AMD and Intel CPU’s. I skipped 12th Gen, and I’ve been waiting for this day to come.


----------



## whitearmor

Nizzen said:


> I ordered 7950x and 13900k today. Just wanted to upgrade my 12900k and 5950x


Please share the place where you been able to preorder in EU, seems out of stock for me everywhere. Thanks!

Edit: nvm my foolishness! found it on caseking


----------



## Netarangi

Ivr got a 12700KF and wanting to upgrade again this cycle.. Am I almost guaranteed a better IMC if I get an i9? It's basically the only thing motivating my upgrade


----------



## gecko991

I am grabbing one asap.


----------



## Ichirou

Netarangi said:


> Ivr got a 12700KF and wanting to upgrade again this cycle.. Am I almost guaranteed a better IMC if I get an i9? It's basically the only thing motivating my upgrade


It should be better. If you're concerned, buy from a store that allows returns.


----------



## Netarangi

Ichirou said:


> It should be better. If you're concerned, buy from a store that allows returns.


13900KF is only $610 USD here in New Zealand! I was expecting $800+, definitely grabbing one!


----------



## tps3443

Anyone who’s buying 13th Gen, should look at the 13700KF as an option too. It’s going to outperform even a well binned 12900KS which is impressive. Cannot beat it for $430 dollars.

The 13700K is pretty much a slightly faster 12900KS.


I almost purchased a 13700KF.


----------



## dante`afk

nickolp1974 said:


> yeah if they bring out an Apex, surely they have learnt there lesson and resolved issues


/s


----------



## owikh84

I will wait for pre-binned 13900K.  Don't want to take the risk of low SP chip.


----------



## Groove2013

Ichirou said:


> There's probably some newer features on the Z790 board, but probably nothing particularly meaningful to most people.
> The only reason why you'd want to upgrade is if you experience incompatibility with your Z690 board. Or if you are on DDR5.


might be same like with Z490 for 11900K. but since I already have the board, worth to try.
can always switch to Z790.
will wait for 13900K*S*.


----------



## Luggage

edkieferlp said:


> Yeah, that is to high for my tastes, will be very hard to tell heating issues when you are up that high with workloads in seconds. It may be designed to run at 95 but that can't change physics
> 
> Since 7000 seems to run like GPU they should of have a temp slider so users could lower that 95c even if performance goes down a bit.


No slider but there is a setting in bios you can lower to whatever.


----------



## Carillo

13900k price went up 6% ( Komplett) today. Probably to accommodate the US currency rapidly increasing.


----------



## xarot

Asus Z790 Extreme price woot.  The shop is actually owned by Caseking.






Tuotehaku - Jimms.fi


Tuotehaku




www.jimms.fi


----------



## LazyGamer

xarot said:


> Asus Z790 Extreme price woot.  The shop is actually owned by Caseking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuotehaku - Jimms.fi
> 
> 
> Tuotehaku
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jimms.fi


Translates to US$1500 - which is weird given that the X670E Extreme is only US$1000? But then that's 1 269,90 € / ~US$1225.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Why they charge lower price than the competitor this round? It concerns me a little bit.


----------



## Ichirou

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Why they charge lower price than the competitor this round? It concerns me a little bit.


To try and stop AMD from getting more sales, since they released first.


----------



## Ichirou

@bscool @Falkentyne

Couldn't find it available for preorder at Amazon, BestBuy, or Memory Express (for Canadians). It's still only Newegg and Canada Computers.
Newegg still doesn't permit returns for CPUs at this time, so they are final sale. Exchange/RMA only for them.
Canada Computer offers a 15-day return policy for all CPUs.









asus z790 | Newegg.ca


Search Newegg.ca for asus z790. Get fast shipping and top-rated customer service.




www.newegg.ca









Search results for "asus z790" at Canada Computers &amp Electronics


Search results for "asus z790" at Canada Computers &amp Electronics




www.canadacomputers.com




Prices for some ASUS Z790 boards are available above, in CAD. Doesn't seem to have the full selection, and I don't see the Strix Z790-A (DDR4).


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> @bscool @Falkentyne
> 
> Couldn't find it available for preorder at Amazon, BestBuy, or Memory Express (for Canadians). It's still only Newegg and Canada Computers.
> Newegg still doesn't permit returns for CPUs at this time, so they are final sale. Exchange/RMA only for them.
> Canada Computer offers a 15-day return policy for all CPUs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asus z790 | Newegg.ca
> 
> 
> Search Newegg.ca for asus z790. Get fast shipping and top-rated customer service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newegg.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Search results for "asus z790" at Canada Computers &amp Electronics
> 
> 
> Search results for "asus z790" at Canada Computers &amp Electronics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canadacomputers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prices for some ASUS Z790 boards are available above, in CAD. Doesn't seem to have the full selection, and I don't see the Strix Z790-A (DDR4).


Can you just use your Z690 motherboard, and save some money?


----------



## tubs2x4

tps3443 said:


> Can you just use your Z690 motherboard, and save some money?


Yes


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Can you just use your Z690 motherboard, and save some money?


Yes. And no.
There is no knowing how well the 13th Gen will perform on an older generation board, at least at launch. The BIOS usually needs to be updated and optimized.
I'll test out the 13900K on my Z690 Edge first, but if it turns out to be really unstable, I will likely upgrade to a Z790 board.
Motherboard makers tend to focus on their newer generation boards first, and push out updates to older generation BIOSes later on.


----------



## Sam_Oslo

The 13700K is an interesting killer of the Alder Lake's top dog. 

The 13700K is actually a 12900KS with better cache, improved pre-fetch, and better I MC? 

And all this for $409? then the 12900KS is dead.


----------



## LazyGamer

Sam_Oslo said:


> The 13700K is an interesting killer of the Alder Lake's top dog.
> 
> The 13700K is actually a 12900KS with better cache, improved pre-fetch, and better I MC?
> 
> And all this for $409? then the 12900KS is dead.


Higher ring speeds too - obviously still waiting for real benchmarks, meaning from folks here more than sites and tubers, but hopefully there'll be no performance hit in benchmarks or otherwise to leaving the E-cores enabled.

I have my eye on that one myself.


----------



## tps3443

Sam_Oslo said:


> The 13700K is an interesting killer of the Alder Lake's top dog.
> 
> The 13700K is actually a 12900KS with better cache, improved pre-fetch, and better I MC?
> 
> And all this for $409? then the 12900KS is dead.


I was so close to just buying a 13700K instead, and saving my money. It’s a BEAST! I ended up going for the 13900KF though. Why not go all in? Lol.


----------



## Sam_Oslo

LazyGamer said:


> Higher ring speeds too - obviously still waiting for real benchmarks, meaning from folks here more than sites and tubers, but hopefully there'll be no performance hit in benchmarks or otherwise to leaving the E-cores enabled.
> 
> I have my eye on that one myself.


Yeah, the specification of 13700K looks really good. Not only compared to 12900KS, but compared to 13900K too, because E-cores are very new and seams to still need some debugging. A 13700K with disabled E-cores can be a really good option.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Yes. And no.
> There is no knowing how well the 13th Gen will perform on an older generation board, at least at launch. The BIOS usually needs to be updated and optimized.
> I'll test out the 13900K on my Z690 Edge first, but if it turns out to be really unstable, I will likely upgrade to a Z790 board.
> Motherboard makers tend to focus on their newer generation boards first, and push out updates to older generation BIOSes later on.


I was worried about this too. Because I’ll be using a Z690. But I don’t think it’s gonna be like that fiasco with 11th Gen on Z490. If you think
about it, 10th Gen and 11th Gen were very very different from each other. Especially with the addition of VCCIO2 or VCCIO Aux and gears for the memory etc. But, I think 12th and 13th are similar enough to where we won’t see these major headaches.


----------



## tps3443

I find it fascinating that INTEL is the cheapest to run! And also more than likely the fastest!

If it wasn’t for competition, the 13900K would be $1,099 and a whole lot slower.


----------



## Sam_Oslo

tps3443 said:


> I find it fascinating that INTEL is the cheapest to run! And also more than likely the fastest!
> 
> If it wasn’t for competition, the 13900K would be $1,099 and a whole lot slower.


It's not like Intel to be the cheapest.  

This good deal can have 2 reasoners: Either the Raptor Lake is a real underdog, or Intel has started a good price-war. We have to wait and see some good tests for Raptor Lake to find out the answer, but if Raptor Lake is as good as Intel's leaks are indicating, then this is the start of a really good good price-war and we can expect to see better and cheaper CPUs from both camps.


----------



## fray_bentos

Sam_Oslo said:


> It's not like Intel to be the cheapest.
> 
> This good deal can have 2 reasoners: Either the Raptor Lake is a real underdog, or Intel has started a good price-war. We have to wait and see some good tests for Raptor Lake to find out the answer, but if Raptor Lake is as good as Intel's leaks are indicating, then this is the start of a really good good price-war and we can expect to see better and cheaper CPUs from both camps.


Inflation and exchange rates says no.


----------



## LazyGamer

I think Intel is just doing some friendly marketplace trolling. I doubt AMD expected to keep launch prices!


----------



## Telstar

Sam_Oslo said:


> A 13700K with disabled E-cores can be a really good option.


That thought has crossed my mind too.


----------



## Sam_Oslo

fray_bentos said:


> Inflation and exchange rates says no.


Yeah, it gets expensive in British pound, but it's a good deal in USD. 

Actually the USD has been going up compared to all other currencies, especially the British pound.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Ichirou said:


> @bscool @Falkentyne
> 
> Couldn't find it available for preorder at Amazon, BestBuy, or Memory Express (for Canadians). It's still only Newegg and Canada Computers.
> Newegg still doesn't permit returns for CPUs at this time, so they are final sale. Exchange/RMA only for them.
> Canada Computer offers a 15-day return policy for all CPUs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asus z790 | Newegg.ca
> 
> 
> Search Newegg.ca for asus z790. Get fast shipping and top-rated customer service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newegg.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Search results for "asus z790" at Canada Computers &amp Electronics
> 
> 
> Search results for "asus z790" at Canada Computers &amp Electronics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canadacomputers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prices for some ASUS Z790 boards are available above, in CAD. Doesn't seem to have the full selection, and I don't see the Strix Z790-A (DDR4).


Thanks, canceled with Newegg and went with Canada Computers. Saved $177.


----------



## tubs2x4

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Thanks, canceled with Newegg and went with Canada Computers. Saved $177.


Says in pic that pre order price not guaranteed.


----------



## Netarangi

tps3443 said:


> I was so close to just buying a 13700K instead, and saving my money. It’s a BEAST! I ended up going for the 13900KF though. Why not go all in? Lol.


I thought i7's were i9's that didn't make the cut. With this logic, wouldn't an i9 always be better?

I thought I'd go with 13900 this time to ensure I get a cpu that's faster than a 13700 but if what I said above is false then I'll save the couple hundred and get the 13700


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

tubs2x4 said:


> Says in pic that pre order price not guaranteed.


I seen that. Guess taking a chance. I Like the return policy and free shipping. Another thing I want to point out, Newegg took the preorder with no charge to credit card right now. Canada Computers did.

Im thinking the price will be what I paid right now since they took payment now.


----------



## tps3443

13900KF is actually a worse value compared to the normal 13900K.

You get that cheap crappy looking packaging, and most importantly you lose the IGP.

With a savings of only $20 bucks. The 13900KF for $629.99 is questionable.

I have never used my current CPU’s IGP, but I know it’s there if I need it. I feel like I should have just purchased the 13900K instead of the 13900KF.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> 13900KF is actually a worse value compared to the normal 13900K.
> 
> You get that cheap crappy looking packaging, and most importantly you lose the IGP.
> 
> With a savings of only $20 bucks. The 13900KF for $629.99 is questionable.
> 
> I have never used my current CPU’s IGP, but I know it’s there if I need it. I feel like I should have just purchased the 13900K instead of the 13900KF.


To each's own. The savings are more pronounced if you're in a country like Canada, since it becomes more like $40 + tax.


----------



## LazyGamer

I bought one 'F' CPU from Intel. Never again, just too useful, and I'm glad that AMD is on board too now.


----------



## LazyGamer

Ichirou said:


> To each's own. The savings are more pronounced if you're in a country like Canada, since it becomes more like $40 + tax.


If you have spare GPUs about... but if you don't? Even a bottom-tier GPU will cost more than that NIB.


----------



## Ichirou

LazyGamer said:


> I bought one 'F' CPU from Intel. Never again, just too useful, and I'm glad that AMD is on board too now.


They kind of had no choice. Only their APUs were capable of clocking memory frequency high without an FCLK penalty.
Ryzen 7000 basically just improved upon their APUs for that alone. If not, they wouldn't have been able to dive into DDR5 territory.


----------



## tps3443

LazyGamer said:


> I bought one 'F' CPU from Intel. Never again, just too useful, and I'm glad that AMD is on board too now.


If I could go back, I would have just bought the 13900K. I didn’t really think about it. I just saw a cheaper price, and went for it. 

The 13900K is $711 after taxes.
The 13900KF is $674 after taxes.


----------



## tps3443

*UPDATE: *


My MSI Unify-X Z690 does NOT support iGPU’s anyways apparently. So, never mind!!! Lol. I guess the 13900KF worked out for good reason.

If something happens to my 3090KP, I’ll be F’ed anyways regardless. Or I can always just use my other 11900K/Z590 Dark rig.


----------



## LazyGamer

tps3443 said:


> My MSI Unify-X Z690 does NOT support iGPU’s anyways apparently.


Yeah... can't have everything apparently!

My Ace has exactly one, and it's the only rear USB-C port. The two TB4 ports are passthrough for GPU only. It does work though - running a 4k monitor off of it.


----------



## tps3443

LazyGamer said:


> Yeah... can't have everything apparently!
> 
> My Ace has exactly one, and it's the only rear USB-C port. The two TB4 ports are passthrough for GPU only. It does work though - running a 4k monitor off of it.


These Unify Z690 boards physically don’t support iGPU at all. The ACE does, but none of the Unify motherboards.










Still a super awesome motherboard though! Can’t wait to finally use it with my 13900KF on my 1/2HP water chiller.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Well I jumped on board the 13900K, finally moving from my 10900k.
The 13900k is $1099AUD locally, I never thought I'd see ROG Hero boards above $1000AUD


----------



## LazyGamer

tps3443 said:


> These Unify Z690 boards physically don’t support iGPU at all. The ACE does, but none of the Unify motherboards.


Yeah, I tried to say that without saying it and failed above. I can't think of a single board that has every feature I'd actually want, and most have features I don't. If there was an 'Ace-X', it'd be close though!


----------



## tps3443

LazyGamer said:


> Yeah, I tried to say that without saying it and failed above. I can't think of a single board that has every feature I'd actually want, and most have features I don't. If there was an 'Ace-X', it'd be close though!



I’m not too picky on motherboards. And I have never used an MSI motherboard before. I need Wi-Fi/BT, USB-C for VR head sets, mechanical power and reset buttons built right on the motherboard “I don’t use a case” I also need a bios reset button, and I want 2 memory slots for lowest timings+highest frequency.

Everything else is an added plus, or not needed.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I’m not too picky on motherboards. And I have never used an MSI motherboard before. I need Wi-Fi/BT, USB-C for VR head sets, mechanical power and reset buttons built right on the motherboard “I don’t use a case” I also need a bios reset button, and I want 2 memory slots for lowest timings+highest frequency.
> 
> Everything else is an added plus, or not needed.


MSI can pretty much do anything ASUS/EVGA can do. So pick based on features.
The only thing ASUS really has above others is their SP quality readout.

I admire the ability to individually overclock each core on the MSI boards. Great for min-maxing.


----------



## fray_bentos

schoolofmonkey said:


> Well I jumped on board the 13900K, finally moving from my 10900k.
> The 13900k is $1099AUD locally, I never thought I'd see ROG Hero boards above $1000AUD


Finally moving on from a 10900K, that must have been a tough whole two years for you.


----------



## Ichirou

ASUS Maximus Z790 Hero is priced at $860 CAD.
MSI Edge Z790 DDR4 is priced at $500 CAD.

These prices suck.


----------



## Nizzen

Ichirou said:


> ASUS Maximus Z790 Hero is priced at $860 CAD.
> MSI Edge Z790 DDR4 is priced at $500 CAD.
> 
> These prices suck.


Sell old hardware and buy new. Then it's cheaper to buy the new hardware. LOL


----------



## schoolofmonkey

fray_bentos said:


> Finally moving on from a 10900K, that must have been a tough whole two years for you.


Check out some of my older posts, it's the only time in years I haven't bought the latest Intel CPU, missed 2 generations, I fell behind, found a alternate hobby for a bit, JDM cars are WAY more expensive to "overclock" than the latest PC hardware


----------



## IronAge

tps3443 said:


> The 13700K is pretty much a slightly faster 12900KS.


12700K used to have higher VID and a low SP rating on Asus boards. 

And since Intel is already binning Dies for 13900KS the better bins will not be used for 13700K, you get what you pay for.


----------



## IronAge

Ichirou said:


> MSI can pretty much do anything ASUS/EVGA can do. So pick based on features.


EVGA Dark uses 14 Layer PCB, qualitywise that puts it above the other mobos.


----------



## Sam_Oslo

IronAge said:


> 12700K used to have higher VID and a low SP rating on Asus boards.
> 
> And since Intel is already binning Dies for 13900KS the better bins will not be used for 13700K, you get what you pay for.


"you get what you pay for" is for others, but we overclockers are used to get much more than we pay for. That's why it's important to find a CPU with a good silicon/ good bins.

I don't know how Intel is doing it in this round. Are they really cherry picking good bins for 13900KS? In case it will be tricky to find a good 13900K too. We must find out more about this.


----------



## IronAge

i bought some early 12700K, and not a single one of them got a SP rating above 80, best had 78, average SP rating for early 12900K much higher.

but since the release of 13900KS is closer i am sure it will be harder to get an above average 13900K, good luck to the early buyers.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Sam_Oslo said:


> "you get what you pay for" is for others, but we overclockers are used to get much more than we pay for. That's why it's important to find a CPU with a good silicon/ good bins.
> 
> I don't know how Intel is doing it in this round. Are they really cherry picking good bins for 13900KS? In case it will be tricky to find a good 13900K too. We must find out more about this.


I believe the first set of 13900k's released will be good ones. Free advertisement at first to get the hype up. Then the crap 13900k will be left after Intel keeps the good ones for KS release.

So preorder now, or just wait for the KS early 2023.


----------



## IronAge

Many of the late 12900K batches got SP80+ ratings since the 12900KS came out, i hope some 13700K buyers will post the SP ratings here, do not need more E-Cores.


----------



## Sam_Oslo

MrTOOSHORT said:


> I believe the first set of 13900k's released will be good ones. Free advertisement at first to get the hype up. Then the crap 13900k will be left after Intel keeps the good ones for KS release.
> 
> So preorder now, or just wait for the KS early 2023.


Good Point. It has always been a good idea to get the first batc. I personally have always bought CPU in first day, form the down of overclocking times. Because the first batch of these high-end CPUs will usually end up in the hands of enthusiasts in these forums and play a big role in hyping, marketing and advertising for the rest of the bunch, espescially for the big marked of lower and CPUs. 

But since the 13900KS is already announced, it can get really tricky in this round. We have to wait and see SP ratings from end users to make sure. Somebody should start a new thread with title: Post the SP raing of your 13900k and 13700k.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Sam_Oslo said:


> Good Point. It has always been a good idea to get the first batc. I personally have always bought CPU in first day, form the down of overclocking times. Because the first batch of these high-end CPUs will usually end up in the hands of enthusiasts in these forums and play a big role in hyping, marketing and advertising for the rest of the bunch, espescially for the big marked of lower and CPUs.
> 
> But since the 13900KS is already announced, it can get really tricky in this round. We have to wait and see SP ratings from end users to make sure. Somebody should start a new thread with title: Post the SP raing of your 13900k and 13700k.


I wish there was another way to find out...its only available for asus mobos.


----------



## Sam_Oslo

Uncle Dubbs said:


> I wish there was another way to find out...its only available for asus mobos.


Yeah, that will limit the result, but is better than nothing. People will soon start posting the sensor readings of their overclocking results too, and that will give a good indication too. Anyways, time is limited and we have to find out before this first bath runs out of the marked.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Sam_Oslo said:


> Yeah, that will limit the result, but is better than nothing. People will soon start posting the sensor readings of their overclocking results too, and that will give a good indication too. Anyways, time is limited and we have to find out before this first bath runs out of the marked.


Ya, I'm going to wait and see how everything does, latency and bandwidth havent been better the last two gens but this may be the last ddr4 gen and worth an upgrade to a good mobo and KS chip instead of a 40xx series gpu.


----------



## Sam_Oslo

IronAge said:


> Many of the late 12900K batches got SP80+ ratings since the 12900KS came out, i hope some 13700K buyers will post the SP ratings here, do not need more E-Cores.


Yeah, we "do not need more E-Cores.". That's why the 13700K is a very interesting option for overclocking, if it has the same biding as a good 13900K. 

Finding the silicon quality of this first batch of 13700K will be very interesting.


----------



## IronAge

Sam_Oslo said:


> Yeah, we "do not need more E-Cores.". That's why the 13700K is a very interesting option for overclocking, if it has the same biding as a good 13900K.
> 
> Finding the silicon quality of this first batch of 13700K will be very interesting.


never had luck with i7, got several 11700K and 12700K and none of them been even close to my worst i9. 

if Intel needs 2 monthes to bin dies for 6GHz 13900KS you can guess it for yourself.

so it is more like waiting for confirmation of anticipated silicon quality.


----------



## kill_a_wat

To be frank, if you are dead set on the best RL silicon, given we don’t have all the information needed to decide you will buy both the 13900K and 13900KS.


----------



## gtz

So I just decided to go for Raptor Lake. I was going to go 7950X but the boards I like are 700+. I had a work trip a few days ago in Dallas and even worked out so I could go to Microcenter on the 27th. Had everything in my cart and decided it was not worth it. Will pre order a 13900K and a EVGA Classified Z690 for 300 on Amazon. No 300 dollar board from the X670 line comes even close to the 300 dollar classified.

Edit:

EVGA has the Z690 Classy for 284.99 (with code). I don't think you will find a better board for the price.


----------



## Telstar

Sam_Oslo said:


> Yeah, we "do not need more E-Cores.". That's why the 13700K is a very interesting option for overclocking, if it has the same biding as a good 13900K.
> 
> Finding the silicon quality of this first batch of 13700K will be very interesting.


I'm not sure if I'll get one of the first ones, since preorder prices here are a ripoff. 
But I'm gonna be happy with stock frequencies. Voltage and power are another matter...


----------



## Arni90

Sam_Oslo said:


> Yeah, we "do not need more E-Cores.". That's why the 13700K is a very interesting option for overclocking, if it has the same biding as a good 13900K.
> 
> Finding the silicon quality of this first batch of 13700K will be very interesting.


13700K is likely going to be the worst, just like the 12700K was.

I suspect a large portion of the 12700K chips were technically 100% functional, but came with 1 disabled E-core cluster for market segmentation. While a smaller portion of 12700K models could be "genuine" in that one E-core cluster was non-functional, it's not as likely. The E-cores are almost certainly not aggressively binned on the 12900K or 12900KS.

The 12600K will probably consist of some of the 12700K binning rejects as well, but then the offending P-core is likely to be disabled, leaving it with 6 good P-cores instead 6-7 good and 1-2 "average" P-cores. The case of all the cores being functional, but not able to go the extra 100 MHz to reach 12700K speeds is very unlikely.


----------



## gtz

Hey guys if you are in the US you can preorder the 13900K from Antonline for 619.99.

Cheapest I found.


----------



## Ichirou

gtz said:


> View attachment 2573829
> 
> 
> Hey guys if you are in the US you can preorder the 13900K from Antonline for 619.99.
> 
> Cheapest I found.


Yikes, American retailers are already upcharging people above MSRP?

Kind of glad Canada Computers here is offering it at MSRP then.


----------



## gtz

Ichirou said:


> Yikes, American retailers are already upcharging people above MSRP?
> 
> Kind of glad Canada Computers here is offering it at MSRP then.


That is actually the cheapest.

Both Newegg and BandH are higher.


















I think 619 will be the norm, the 589 price is what the retailer pays per 1000units. The 12900K also was over 600 when it launched.


----------



## Ichirou

gtz said:


> That is actually the cheapest.
> 
> Both Newegg and BandH are higher.
> 
> View attachment 2573831
> 
> View attachment 2573830
> 
> 
> I think 619 will be the norm, the 589 price is what the retailer pays per 1000units. The 12900K also was over 600 when it launched.


Newegg was higher here as well. No other store has it listed at the moment.


----------



## tps3443

gtz said:


> View attachment 2573829
> 
> 
> Hey guys if you are in the US you can preorder the 13900K from Antonline for 619.99.
> 
> Cheapest I found.


My 13900KF was only $145! LOL 










*JUST KIDDING I APPLIED A GIFT CARD LOL*


----------



## IronAge




----------



## Sam_Oslo

Arni90 said:


> 13700K is likely going to be the worst, just like the 12700K was.
> 
> I suspect a large portion of the 12700K chips were technically 100% functional, but came with 1 disabled E-core cluster for market segmentation. While a smaller portion of 12700K models could be "genuine" in that one E-core cluster was non-functional, it's not as likely. The E-cores are almost certainly not aggressively binned on the 12900K or 12900KS.
> 
> The 12600K will probably consist of some of the 12700K binning rejects as well, but then the offending P-core is likely to be disabled, leaving it with 6 good P-cores instead 6-7 good and 1-2 "average" P-cores. The case of all the cores being functional, but not able to go the extra 100 MHz to reach 12700K speeds is very unlikely.


OK, Thx for a good clarification based on 127000K experience.  So, the 13700K is likely going to be the worst, too. The price difference between 13700K and 13900K is too small for these kind of likelihood. Is not worth it.

I guess t the real choice will be between 13900K and 13900KS then. But nobody knows how the inflation and currency-wars will effect the real price of 13900KS in Europe in next year.


----------



## Groove2013

Ichirou said:


> ASUS Maximus Z790 Hero is priced at $860 CAD.
> MSI Edge Z790 DDR4 is priced at $500 CAD.
> 
> These prices suck.


hopefully your Z690 Edge DDR4 will be fine, since 13th gen is similar to 12th, unlike 11th vs. 10th gen.


----------



## Telstar

Groove2013 said:


> hopefully your Z690 Edge DDR4 will be fine, since 13th gen is similar to 12th, unlike 11th vs. 10th gen.


Yeah, that's my reasoning about z790 mobos. At least the Edge is priced fair (yes, I'm looking at you Asus).


----------



## Ichirou

Groove2013 said:


> hopefully your Z690 Edge DDR4 will be fine, since 13th gen is similar to 12th, unlike 11th vs. 10th gen.


Yeah, Z790 board prices are ridiculous.
Even if I were to sell my Edge for a decent price and upgrade to a Z790, that'd be like $200-300 CAD of a loss to swallow, just for an improvement in the BIOS, not the hardware.

I can genuinely see a lot of people deliberately buying a Z690 board just to save money.


----------



## LazyGamer

Ichirou said:


> just for an improvement in the BIOS, not the hardware.


If anything, wouldn't potential improvements be the opposite? What can MSI put into a Z790 BIOS that would be superior to the Z690, when only the speed of a few PCIe lanes is changing?

Rather, if the memory topology is better implemented on the board itself resulting to higher memory speeds / lower timings, wouldn't that be a hardware improvement?

I'll grant that the BIOS would need to be able to take advantage of any positive change to physical memory trace layout, of course.


----------



## yzonker

gtz said:


> That is actually the cheapest.
> 
> Both Newegg and BandH are higher.
> 
> View attachment 2573831
> 
> View attachment 2573830
> 
> 
> I think 619 will be the norm, the 589 price is what the retailer pays per 1000units. The 12900K also was over 600 when it launched.


Yup, the guy on Mohr's Law is Dead stated the same thing. It's not the MSRP.


----------



## Telstar

Ichirou said:


> Even if I were to sell my Edge for a decent price and upgrade to a Z790, that'd be like $200-300 CAD of a loss to swallow, just for an improvement in the BIOS, not the hardware.
> 
> I can genuinely see a lot of people deliberately buying a Z690 board just to save money.


Yes, I'm thinking that. But I think the z790 edge has minor improvements (VRM) and some QOL features that the z690 lacked.
Asus strix instead has just a different heasink look.


----------



## Telstar

yzonker said:


> Yup, the guy on Mohr's Law is Dead stated the same thing. It's not the MSRP.


I hadly believe anything that guy says.





z790 edge ddr4 369
z690 edge ddr4 280


----------



## Ichirou

LazyGamer said:


> If anything, wouldn't potential improvements be the opposite? What can MSI put into a Z790 BIOS that would be superior to the Z690, when only the speed of a few PCIe lanes is changing?
> 
> Rather, if the memory topology is better implemented on the board itself resulting to higher memory speeds / lower timings, wouldn't that be a hardware improvement?
> 
> I'll grant that the BIOS would need to be able to take advantage of any positive change to physical memory trace layout, of course.


I'll wait for others to field test the boards first before I hop on ship 
DDR5 I can understand, but DDR4 has largely been based on CPU IMC, NOT the memory slots.


----------



## Telstar

Ichirou said:


> I'll wait for others to field test the boards first before I hop on ship


Me too.


----------



## RobertoSampaio




----------



## gecko991

Gonna run one on a Apex short term.


----------



## RandalFlagg

Ichirou said:


> ASUS Maximus Z790 Hero is priced at $860 CAD.
> MSI Edge Z790 DDR4 is priced at $500 CAD.
> 
> These prices suck.


Might be exchange rates, I don't see it state side. Prices look up about $10-$20 over Z690 MSRP on average, but some are the same or lower. Like the Asus Prime Z790-A is the same price, but now includes Wifi where the Z690 version didn't have that. In most cases I'm seeing more VRM power stages too, so it's not like there's no value for the extra $10 or $20.


----------



## RandalFlagg

So, anyone know what's up with the higher speeds on the new Z790s?

I noticed, zooming in on a few of the motherboards, a lot of extra circuitry around the DIMMs. Seen this on several boards.

Z790 Carbon :









Z690 Carbon :


----------



## jvidia

Are you guys going to DDR4 or DDR5 boards?


----------



## RichKnecht

jvidia said:


> Are you guys going to DDR4 or DDR5 boards?


I’ll be going with a DDR4 board if at all possible as I want to move over as much as I can from my 10980XE X299 machine.


----------



## jvidia

I think that with tuned DDR4, the 13th gen like the 12th gen was, will be superior than using it with DDR5.

Waiting for the 13th gen + Z790 DDR5 vs DDR4 reviews but I think this reality won't change.


----------



## RichKnecht

jvidia said:


> I think that with tuned DDR4, the 13th gen like the 12th gen was, will be superior than using it with DDR5.
> 
> Waiting for the 13th gen + Z790 DDR5 vs DDR4 reviews but I think this reality won't change.


I'm hoping this 64GB G-Skill b-die kit will OC like it did when I was using it on the Omega with the 10980XE.


----------



## jvidia

RichKnecht said:


> I'm hoping this 64GB G-Skill b-die kit will OC like it did when I was using it on the Omega with the 10980XE.


How many sticks? 2 or 4 ?


----------



## RichKnecht

jvidia said:


> How many sticks? 2 or 4 ?


 4. It was a little tricky on X299, but when I dialed it in,it worked great.


----------



## whitearmor

MrTOOSHORT said:


> I believe the first set of 13900k's released will be good ones. Free advertisement at first to get the hype up. Then the crap 13900k will be left after Intel keeps the good ones for KS release.
> 
> So preorder now, or just wait for the KS early 2023.


I picked the KF version because of this, maybe they will bin only K’s for KS, leaving KF’s as them is. Waiting for the release, so we can make some kind of sheet, and find out the truth x)


----------



## Ichirou

jvidia said:


> I think that with tuned DDR4, the 13th gen like the 12th gen was, will be superior than using it with DDR5.
> 
> Waiting for the 13th gen + Z790 DDR5 vs DDR4 reviews but I think this reality won't change.


Reviews are pointless when every reviewer just compares XMP and not manually overclocked memory settings.
On XMP, DDR5 will beat DDR4 on paper in pretty much every case right now, since 3,800+ MHz CL14 Samsung B-die kits are no longer existent.


RichKnecht said:


> I'm hoping this 64GB G-Skill b-die kit will OC like it did when I was using it on the Omega with the 10980XE.





RichKnecht said:


> 4. It was a little tricky on X299, but when I dialed it in,it worked great.


Going to be dicey with Samsung B-die. Speaking from experience and pooled knowledge. But sub-4,000 MHz should be fine on Gear 1.


whitearmor said:


> I picked the KF version because of this, maybe they will bin only K’s for KS, leaving KF’s as them is. Waiting for the release, so we can make some kind of sheet, and find out the truth x)


Back with the 12th Gen, Intel started heavily binning the K's after the KS was announced. But in the earlier days of the 12th Gen, the K's weren't touched.
I imagine the same will happen this time around, but just a bit earlier. Still, the first few batches should be okay.


----------



## LazyGamer

Ichirou said:


> Reviews are pointless when every reviewer just compares XMP and not manually overclocked memory settings.


Louder for the folks in the back!


----------



## Ichirou

LazyGamer said:


> Louder for the folks in the back!


REVIEWS ARE POINTLESS WHEN EVERY REVIEWER JUST COMPARES XMP AND NOT MANUALLY OVERCLOCKED MEMORY SETTINGS


----------



## whitearmor

Ichirou said:


> Back with the 12th Gen, Intel started heavily binning the K's after the KS was announced. But in the earlier days of the 12th Gen, the K's weren't touched.
> I imagine the same will happen this time around, but just a bit earlier. Still, the first few batches should be okay.


I’m upgrading from old 8700k, so don’t know much about the situation with the alder lake, and judging only by the posts I can find here, so thanks for info! Still a little bit afraid that the best silicon was saved for early batches of 13900k, and I just outsmarted myself with the KF preorder xd


----------



## Ichirou

whitearmor said:


> I’m upgrading from old 8700k, so don’t know much about the situation with the alder lake, and judging only by the posts I can find here, so thanks for info! Still a little bit afraid that the best silicon was saved for early batches of 13900k, and I just outsmarted myself with the KF preorder xd


Yes, the KF's will never be touched since they are manufactured separately. You just need to couple your own GPU with it. If anything, their quality tends to _improve_ over time, as manufacturing processes improve across the board with the KS's coming into play.


----------



## jvidia

Ichirou said:


> Yes, the KF's will never be touched since they are manufactured separately. You just need to couple your own GPU with it. If anything, their quality tends to _improve_ over time, as manufacturing processes improve across the board with the KS's coming into play.


You are talking about the i9's only or the i5's also ?


----------



## Ichirou

jvidia said:


> You are talking about the i9's only or the i5's also ?


There aren't any KS's for lower end models. So those don't get affected.


----------



## jvidia

Thanks!


----------



## Telstar

Would be a good idea to get a 13700KF? Besides saving the 30 bucks I mean. I don't do video encoding and this system will never need to use an igpu. Otherwise, I just disable it in the bios.


----------



## Ichirou

Telstar said:


> Would be a good idea to get a 13700KF? Besides saving the 30 bucks I mean. I don't do video encoding and this system will never need to use an igpu. Otherwise, I just disable it in the bios.


Check the benchmarks and decide for yourself.
K/KF difference won't matter for binning. It's just the lack of an iGPU.


----------



## Groove2013

jvidia said:


> I think that with tuned DDR4, the 13th gen like the 12th gen was, will be superior than using it with DDR5.
> 
> Waiting for the 13th gen + Z790 DDR5 vs DDR4 reviews but I think this reality won't change.





Ichirou said:


> Reviews are pointless when every reviewer just compares XMP and not manually overclocked memory settings.
> On XMP, DDR5 will beat DDR4 on paper in pretty much every case right now


dual rank DDR4 (43.8 ns) 4100 MHz CL15 (2×16 GB Samsung B-DIE)
vs.
single rank DDR5 (47.7 ns) 7600 MHz CL36 (2×16 GB Hynix A-DIE)
in several games with 3090 Ti.


----------



## Groove2013

dual rank DDR5 (49 ns) 6333 MHz CL30 (4×16 GB Hynix M-DIE) higher bandwidth
vs.
single rank DDR5 (51.8 ns) 6333 MHz CL30 (2×16 GB Hynix M-DIE) lower bandwidth


----------



## Falkentyne

Groove2013 said:


> SNIP


Can you please stop linking that deranged troll's videos? Thank you.


----------



## jvidia

Falkentyne said:


> Can you please stop linking that deranged troll's videos? Thank you.


???


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> I'll wait for others to field test the boards first before I hop on ship
> DDR5 I can understand, but DDR4 has largely been based on CPU IMC, NOT the memory slots.


I’m hoping its a good experience


whitearmor said:


> I picked the KF version because of this, maybe they will bin only K’s for KS, leaving KF’s as them is. Waiting for the release, so we can make some kind of sheet, and find out the truth x)



I went this route as well. We’ll see how it goes.


----------



## tps3443

jvidia said:


> ???


A lot of people cannot stand that guy is all. He’s loud and obnoxious. I watch his videos from time to time, but no often.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> A lot of people cannot stand that guy is all. He’s loud and obnoxious. I watch his videos from time to time, but no often.


This is true. It's obvious that that is the personality he's trying to portray, though.


----------



## dante`afk

?

he's not portraying anything.

that's what he is.


----------



## Arni90

tps3443 said:


> A lot of people cannot stand that guy is all. He’s loud and obnoxious. I watch his videos from time to time, but no often.


If he was only loud and obnoxious, it would have been fine. He's also previously claimed that anyone who achieves better results than him or uses higher voltages than him are "XOCers"

He recommended to "aim for nanoseconds" in AIDA64, rather than actually benchmarking the results of setting FCLK > 1900 MHz on Zen 3.

He's also known for setting wildly unstable settings in his $500 "OC consultancy service"

He's outright aggressive against people in his own echo-chamber when he doesn't feel like he's getting paid properly.



Seriously, just ignore the idiot, it's better for everyone.


----------



## cstkl1

jufes is fine, the way he communicates is just him, his content has some merit. as for those people paying him. willing buyer willing seller. entertaining content.

hardware numbers produce actually similar video but delivers in a different way and he doesnt claim he is above board fae knowledge etc. his content more realistic to everybody

everybody video has some merit and its targeting an audience. so good for them dude.

he seems to worship @Nizzen . lol. not sure what happen in the private discord.. 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## jvidia

What i like in is content is the "direct to the bone" comparisons without bullshits.

I don't have to like his style or personality.
I watch him for the content results.

My issue with DDR4 vs DDR5 is that atm I'm building from scratch a system and in my country a good 32 GB kit of DDR4 4000 to correctly tune a DDR4 system is at the same price of a good 32gb kit of DDR5 6400 CL32.

Also choosing DDR4 now as a new system is a dead end path in upgradability.

As to my goal with this new system its easy .... Wanna get some fun tuning it (even not being an XOC guy) and play some CSGO @1440p 165Mhz. That's it.

Just trying to have fun in this hobby that I'm in for almost 30 years.


----------



## Krzych04650

I can understand why people don't like him because of his behavior, not to even mention those $500 consults with e-sports stable settings that are going to crash on first loading screen in AAA game, but the truth of the matter is that barely anyone does proper Max OC vs Max OC benchmarks, so he is very useful. His tests are basically exactly what we would do if we had both platforms available to us, tune to the max and then compare. If not for guys like him or Hardware Numb3rs it would be really hard to get any relevant numbers without buying both platforms and comparing on our own.

Hardware Numb3rs is especially interesting, he is playing with phase change cooling now. He benches only WoW but this is very scalable CPU bound game so you don't really need anything more. I suggest everyone watching his 5800X3D review. Everyone is showing how much faster 5800X3D is in this game, including Intel itself in recent RPL slides, and it is 22% faster on stock vs stock in his initial tests, but the margins shrink to 12% after some memory tuning, and then 12900K actually pulls 5% ahead with full OC. This is a perfect example of stock/mainstream techtuber numbers vs actual numbers that you get when you put effort into tuning.


----------



## Telstar

Krzych04650 said:


> I can understand why people don't like him because of his behavior


I didnt know him before I saw the linked videos. I watched a couple. I don't see a problem with him - he's got an attitude and a very strong opinion about ram latency vs bw, which I also had in the past (to a point). J2C can get much easier to my nerves.
It's a pity I dont play any of the games he tested there.


----------



## jvidia

The mainstream tech YouTubers with affiliate links and sponsored videos have a problem... All they want is their viewers to always buy the greatest and latest stuff.

That's why they never explore tuning a system because they would end in situations where not always the newer stuff is the best buy as we enthusiasts know but the main public of those chanels don't.

I consider those chanels as TV programs, nothing more.

And then there are the other YouTubers that are enthusiasts and not "sellers".


----------



## EastCoast

Telstar said:


> I didnt know him before I saw the linked videos. I watched a couple.* I don't see a problem with him* - he's got an attitude and a very strong opinion about ram latency vs bw, which I also had in the past (to a point). J2C can get much easier to my nerves.
> It's a pity I dont play any of the games he tested there.


You see what you want to see. I understand it but I won't agree with you. Even his own echo-chamber calls him a nvidia/intel shill during his live streams. And I find it odd that you missed the part of him trying to defend himself after being called out for his level of hate for AMD in his yt video from 5 days ago. Which punches a lot of holes in your defense of him. And, there is that attitude that no one else is right but him.

But what I don't understand is why don't you see that he's doing it for the money? His affiliate links, his $500+ consults, his paid for discord, etc. All reek of this. If you like him because of it then that's on you. But don't try to sugar coat it. You should have just as strong opinion about him as he does about everything people criticizes him for.

His demeanor does seem to attract a lot of beta persona's willing to give him money though. And most, if not all, who defend or love him don't comprehend that he's the very XOC'er that he's "calling" everyone else who knows more than him. And, cannot, on average achieve IE: 4100mhz CL15, 12900k 5.XX Mhz OC's to begin with. As he doesn't actually go in the bios and show you anything. Claiming that someone will "steal" his content. But for $500...

So, what are you actually learning from him? When was the last time he's gone in the bios and showed you "how to" in the past few videos? If very little to none what are you gaining from him other then skewed benchmark results and biased one sided PC part opinions that he wants you to buy through his affiliate links? To say he's no better then the others is an understatement.


----------



## Telstar

EastCoast said:


> You see what you want to see. I understand it but I won't agree with you. Even his own echo-chamber calls him a nvidia/intel shill during his live streams. And I find it odd that you missed the part of him trying to defend himself after being called out for his level of hate for AMD in his yt video from 5 days ago.


Not sure why you are pointing out to me, and this topic is way off anyway. 

I watched only 2 videos of his, not the one you refer to here. I'm not interested in the rest. 
All streamers and tubers do it for money and everyone has biases. So what? Unless one cheats on some benchmarks, I'll watch what interests me and consider the data among the rest.
Will I lose 3 fps for not getting a ddr5 7000? Maybe. I'm happier that my old ram will perform the same if not better with ADL/RPL? Yes.

BTW my reasons for not going ryzen are not related to the performance.


----------



## EastCoast

Telstar said:


> Not sure why you are pointing out to me, and this topic is way off anyway.
> 
> I watched only 2 videos of his, not the one you refer to here. I'm not interested in the rest.


That is because that last 2 videos show him clearly defending himself after calling him out for his hate for AMD. It was in the first 2 minutes (or so) of the video. It's very hard to forget/ignore/miss. That's why I said you see what you want to see. When you claim you saw nothing wrong with his video. Sure, there is something wrong when he has to consistently defend himself for his hatred (as it's not the 1st time). Even if all you knew about him was those 2 videos that is something that stands out.

Be that as it may, he's the kind of person you engage with/entertain when you need a justification for a hardware preference. For a more objective view point of 13th Gen Intel you get insight from other's who've tested the platform.



Edit:


Spoiler: Here is one example



Oh, I remember the back when the 6000 series came out.

LOL

But I digress. I think it's important to point out some of the obvious anemic, reprobate view point(s). Which is why you are better off looking else where for cpu (as well as gpu) results.


----------



## Telstar

EastCoast said:


> For a more objective view point of 13th Gen Intel you get insight from other's who've tested the platform.


I will, trust me, I will.


----------



## Ichirou

FWIW, unstable overclocks do in fact affect results. So if he's only benching with boot-only overclocks, then none of those serve any merit.


----------



## yzonker

The Frame Chaser guy is one of those people that says several smart things and then says/does something dumb/incorrect and tears it all down. Just like his recent a-die video where he downplays its significance relative to DDR4 by stating it probably won't be available in retail for a long time. All the while the Teamgroup 7200 kit is already listed on Newegg. I posted it in the comments but I'm pretty sure I was ignored. Lol. 

I did like his 3080ti/3090/3090ti comparison where he tried to equalize power and max OCs to show there really is almost no difference between those cards. As I recall it still had flaws in the way he was manipulating the VF curve though. Working from memory, but it was something like that. 

I have a 3080Ti FTW3 and 3090 Trinity, both running a 1kw bios and the difference between them in benchmarks is about 1%.


----------



## Ichirou

yzonker said:


> The Frame Chaser guy is one of those people that says several smart things and then says/does something dumb/incorrect and tears it all down. Just like his recent a-die video where he downplays its significance relative to DDR4 by stating it probably won't be available in retail for a long time. All the while the Teamgroup 7200 kit is already listed on Newegg. I posted it in the comments but I'm pretty sure I was ignored. Lol.
> 
> I did like his 3080ti/3090/3090ti comparison where he tried to equalize power and max OCs to show there really is almost no difference between those cards. As I recall it still had flaws in the way he was manipulating the VF curve though. Working from memory, but it was something like that.
> 
> I have a 3080Ti FTW3 and 3090 Trinity, both running a 1kw bios and the difference between them in benchmarks is about 1%.


It really depends on the game or workload. So YMMV. Gains will be more or less pronounced depending.


----------



## cstkl1

CallMeODZ said:


> at least jewfus isnt on suicide watch like jayz2cents
> jay spent how many years cultivating a relationship with evga to get seeded kingpin cards for free xoc high scores
> now that idiot has to bin his own cards and put some effort into making a LN2 pot unless he can find a new kok2suk
> 
> jay is actually so autistic im 90% sure he is the reason evga decided to stop making gpus, to keep him from jamming customer support with his 1000 issues of each card needing to be walked through the changes to make videos


he tries to be diff than linus which has the perfect blend of content. 

jay just rambling most of the time with no useful info


----------



## Ichirou

cstkl1 said:


> he tries to be diff than linus which has the perfect blend of content.
> 
> jay just rambling most of the time with no useful info


Jayz mostly regurgitates whatever others have said, or his homies have shared with him.
He's only good with water cooling.

But at least he's better than Bitwit, who genuinely knows nothing about overclocking but somehow rose to fame.
Keeps bragging about X or Y being a first experience for him when it's all old knowledge.


----------



## tps3443

19 days to go everyone.


----------



## RandalFlagg

tps3443 said:


> A lot of people cannot stand that guy is all. He’s loud and obnoxious. I watch his videos from time to time, but no often.


He's loud and obnoxious to be sure, but he's generally not wrong in criticizing mainstream 'fake tech' sites and tubers. 

I have never understood the point of taking something like a Hero or Maximus, a $100 Noctua or $150 AIO, and fitting it with JEDEC RAM and stock power limits. 

It basically takes your high end DIY build and turns it into a Dell Inspiron. 

Yet this is exactly what 75% of fake enthusiast mainstream tubers and so-called tech sites do. 

If one wants to compare such systems, there's a couple really good sites to do that - PC World and CNET. And I'm not kidding, if you're going all stock you compare the models not the chips, and they do very good reviews along those lines.


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> 19 days to go everyone.


Not everyone hehe 😇


----------



## LazyGamer

yzonker said:


> Just like his recent a-die video where he downplays its significance relative to DDR4 by stating it probably won't be available in retail for a long time.


*TWO YEARS*. I cringed every time.


yzonker said:


> I have a 3080Ti FTW3 and 3090 Trinity, both running a 1kw bios and the difference between them in benchmarks is about 1%.


This is why I settled on a 3080 12GB FTW3 - cut down die from the faster cards, but with the same PCB and 450W power delivery. Card actually can pull that, even cut down as it is. Of course, now it's under a WC HK V, so no worries 🍻


----------



## tps3443

LazyGamer said:


> *TWO YEARS*. I cringed every time.
> 
> This is why I settled on a 3080 12GB FTW3 - cut down die from the faster cards, but with the same PCB and 450W power delivery. Card actually can pull that, even cut down as it is. Of course, now it's under a WC HK V, so no worries 🍻


These RTX Ampere cards can suck some power for sure. I started playing Resident Evil The village yesterday and I’m continuously pulling 580 watts, and it peaks up to 625 watts sometimes. GPU boost is holding 2,175Mhz/and 22,500gbps on the memory.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> These RTX Ampere cards can suck some power for sure. I started playing Resident Evil The village yesterday and I’m continuously pulling 580 watts, and it peaks up to 625 watts sometimes. GPU boost is holding 2,175Mhz/and 22,500gbps on the memory.


The 3000 series has terrible scaling. It's no longer the 1000 or 2000 series with its linear scaling anymore.


----------



## Alexshunter

Sam_Oslo said:


> "you get what you pay for" is for others, but we overclockers are used to get much more than we pay for. That's why it's important to find a CPU with a good silicon/ good bins.
> 
> I don't know how Intel is doing it in this round. Are they really cherry picking good bins for 13900KS? In case it will be tricky to find a good 13900K too. We must find out more about this.


That is why need to order F version, we know at least they marked down because the faulty IGP and chance not because the week CPU cores.


----------



## affxct

Jufes is a genius low-level sociopath. He literally managed to convince a community of people that he was the one impartial figure who wasn't doing it for the money (lol) and that his results are unequivocally fair and that anyone who disagrees with him is either dumb, delusional, an XOCer, a shill, or any other arbitrary term you'd like to think of.

He doesn't believe in sharing settings because he thinks they will be copied, he admittedly doesn't know how to set tertiaries or secondaries ("because they don't affect FPS"), he makes outrageous claims about D5 4-DIMM boards, how D5 ranks work, how good D5 is somehow $300+, and a whole host of other things like AMD drivers (he uses MSI AB).

He claims to not be a scummy shill but routinely bans people on his cult Discord and his YT comments to prevent others from realizing that he's actually just a weirdo. Absolute genius tbh. Dude's making at least $30K per month UNTAXED off of 'overclocking' while I'm sitting hear OCing people's PCs for free. Maybe I'm the idiot.

With all of the above just said, I actually found him when he had under 5K YT subs, and around 15-20 videos uploaded early in 2021. I really really liked his content until he became a money-hungry jerk who routinely slanders people. Even then I only began disliking him after a friend of mine informed me about how he was being a prick in Discord and banning everyone for silly reasons. That and when he started to act really weird on YT. I swear this dude has no ability to comprehend the fact that he is actively trying to end peoples' livelihoods with his outrageous bias takes. It genuinely astounds me that people as self-absorbed as him exist.

Edit: there's more. I uploaded a screenshot from his comments where he literally tries to convince Steve that it's all harmless and part of the game. This response came after he slanders Steve again the very next day. Dude you can't make this stuff up. It plays out like a Netflix series.


----------



## tubs2x4

affxct said:


> Jufes is a genius low-level sociopath. He literally managed to convince a community of people that he was the one impartial figure who wasn't doing it for the money (lol) and that his results are unequivocally fair and that anyone who disagrees with him is either dumb, delusional, an XOCer, a shill, or any other arbitrary term you'd like to think of.
> 
> He doesn't believe in sharing settings because he thinks they will be copied, he admittedly doesn't know how to set tertiaries or secondaries ("because they don't affect FPS"), he makes outrageous claims about D5 4-DIMM boards, how D5 ranks work, how good D5 is somehow $300+, and a whole host of other things like AMD drivers (he uses MSI AB).
> 
> He claims to not be a scummy shill but routinely bans people on his cult Discord and his YT comments to prevent others from realizing that he's actually just a weirdo. Absolute genius tbh. Dude's making at least $30K per month UNTAXED off of 'overclocking' while I'm sitting hear OCing people's PCs for free. Maybe I'm the idiot.
> 
> With all of the above just said, I actually found him when he had under 5K YT subs, and around 15-20 videos uploaded early in 2021. I really really liked his content until he became a money-hungry jerk who routinely slanders people. Even then I only began disliking him after a friend of mine informed me about how he was being a prick in Discord and banning everyone for silly reasons. That and when he started to act really weird on YT. I swear this dude has no ability to comprehend the fact that he is actively trying to end peoples' livelihoods with his outrageous bias takes. It genuinely astounds me that people as self-absorbed as him exist.
> 
> Edit: there's more. I uploaded a screenshot from his comments where he literally tries to convince Steve that it's all harmless and part of the game. This response came after he slanders Steve again the very next day. Dude you can't make this stuff up. It plays out like a Netflix series.


I can’t imagine paying some one $500 to “tune” my computer… likely could sell your current vid card plus use that $500 toward a better card and get nice jump in fps. Ha.


----------



## affxct

tubs2x4 said:


> I can’t imagine paying some one $500 to “tune” my computer… likely could sell your current vid card plus use that $500 toward a better card and get nice jump in fps. Ha.


I think he himself has made the point before that his service is only for people with maxed out rigs hoping to get the absolute best FPS, he can't always lie after all. In order to sell his personality he needs to give you some level of truth to get you to trust him XD.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> The 3000 series has terrible scaling. It's no longer the 1000 or 2000 series with its linear scaling anymore.


Well, I’m running the game at 2560x1440P maxed out with 200% resolution scaling on top of all that. It looks great!

I don’t care much about power consumption. It’s only a side effect of performance most of the time. We only keep parts for a short period of time, better use them to their utmost fullest!


----------



## RandalFlagg

affxct said:


> I think he himself has made the point before that his service is only for people with maxed out rigs hoping to get the absolute best FPS, he can't always lie after all. In order to sell his personality he needs to give you some level of truth to get you to trust him XD.


So you think HW Unboxed was right when they said low-end buyers should get DDR5-4800 'for the future', that it would somehow give them an upgrade path as DDR5 gets faster/cheaper, and FrameChasers was wrong for calling it out? 

And that he did the test on a 12100, which crippled DDR4 further such that it couldn't run gear 1? 
DDR5-3600 C16 is cheaper than the DDR5-4800 he used (about 1/2 its price) and is significantly faster. You need 6000 to start beating typical mid range DDR4.

And you'll be lucky to get 6000 to work on a low end build, which usually means a $150 motherboard.










In my opinion, that video Steve made showed that he was basically shilling for AMD. He clearly did that to push cheap DDR5 as being 'ok' for lower end builds just as AMD is releasing a costly DDR5 only platform, contradicting his own previous videos and most of what is known about DDR4vsDD5 memory scaling. 

Anyone who went along with Steve's video for a low end rig is going to wind up buying memory twice, and two motherboards, to get back to where they could have started for less. 

That's not Juffes that wrecked that guy's reputation, he did that to himself.


----------



## EastCoast

RandalFlagg said:


> So you think HW Unboxed was right when they said low-end buyers should get DDR5-4800 'for the future', that it would somehow give them an upgrade path as DDR5 gets faster/cheaper, and FrameChasers was wrong for calling it out?
> 
> And that he did the test on a 12100, which crippled DDR4 further such that it couldn't run gear 1?
> DDR5-3600 C16 is cheaper than the DDR5-4800 he used (about 1/2 its price) and is significantly faster. You need 6000 to start beating typical mid range DDR4.
> 
> And you'll be lucky to get 6000 to work on a low end build, which usually means a $150 motherboard.
> 
> View attachment 2574225
> 
> 
> In my opinion, that video Steve made showed that he was basically shilling for AMD. He clearly did that to push cheap DDR5 as being 'ok' for lower end builds just as AMD is releasing a costly DDR5 only platform, contradicting his own previous videos and most of what is known about DDR4vsDD5 memory scaling.
> 
> Anyone who went along with Steve's video for a low end rig is going to wind up buying memory twice, and two motherboards, to get back to where they could have started for less.
> 
> That's not Juffes that wrecked that guy's reputation, he did that to himself.


There is enough to blame on both sides. Right now DDR5 is in a volatile state. And this is not being explained properly. Meaning that timing and frequency will improve as it beings to mature. Some DDR5 isn't that much different then jedec specifications right now. And that's a red flag for buying DDR5 right now. However, you shouldn't be buying new, expensive DDR4 kits either. Yes, prices are dropping but I don't agree with that guy for telling those betas to buy DDR4 for a dead platform either. Again, there is enough blame to go around here. Because if you noticed he was using DDR4 4100 CL15. And I believe some would need a "consult" to get that kind of timing. He's simply marketing you.




Right now, we simple have to wait to see more mature ddr5. Right now, there isn't a game out there that is struggling with Ryzen 5000 series or Intel 12th gen cpus. So, why the rush to upgrade? There is no real need for gaming. Therefore, if gaming is all you do...you can afford to wait it out a bit. That's the right answer IMO.


----------



## RandalFlagg

EastCoast said:


> There is enough to blame on both sides. Right now DDR5 is in a volatile state. And this is not being explained properly. Meaning that timing and frequency will improve as it beings to mature. Some DDR5 isn't that much different then jedec specifications right now. And that's a red flag for buying DDR5 right now. However, you shouldn't be buying new, expensive DDR4 kits either. Yes, prices are dropping but I don't agree with that guy for telling those betas to buy DDR4 for a dead platform either. Again, there is enough blame to go around here. Because if you noticed he was using DDR4 4100 CL15. And I believe some would need a "consult" to get that kind of timing. He's simply marketing you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, we simple have to wait to see more mature ddr5. Right now, there isn't a game out there that is struggling with Ryzen 5000 series or Intel 12th gen cpus. So, why the rush to upgrade? There is no real need for gaming. Therefore, if gaming is all you do...you can afford to wait it out a bit. That's the right answer IMO.


I'm talking about what HW Unboxed said - they said someone buying a 12100 budget build should get DDR5-4800.

That's just stupid. It's an extra $50 vs DDR4-3600 C16 and is slower. His supposed upgrade path for such a build is a mirage, you're unlikely to get any sub $200 motherboard to hit 6000 let alone higher speeds in 2023 or 2024 that he talks about. 

Almost everyone who has a lick of sense knows this already. 

If you want to know what FC did that was unethical, it was taking credit for calling him out. HW Unboxed was already being crucified in their comments before FC said anything.

Personally I think a current high end build or even midrange should be DDR5. On that aspect I disagree with FC. However, I don't play e-sports titles that FC focuses on. 

For low end builds DDR4 is absolutely the king and there is no benefit to DDR5 in that space, the low end motherboards simply can't run DDR5 fast enough to beat DDR4.


----------



## EastCoast

RandalFlagg said:


> I'm talking about what HW Unboxed said - they said someone buying a 12100 budget build should get DDR5-4800.
> 
> That's just stupid. It's an extra $50 vs DDR4-3600 C16 and is slower. His supposed upgrade path for such a build is a mirage, you're unlikely to get any sub $200 motherboard to hit 6000 let alone higher speeds in 2023 or 2024 that he talks about.
> 
> Almost everyone who has a lick of sense knows this already.
> 
> If you want to know what FC did that was unethical, it was taking credit for calling him out. HW Unboxed was already being crucified in their comments before FC said anything.
> 
> Personally I think a current high end build or even midrange should be DDR5. On that aspect I disagree with FC. However, I don't play e-sports titles that FC focuses on.
> 
> For low end builds DDR4 is absolutely the king and there is no benefit to DDR5 in that space, the low end motherboards simply can't run DDR5 fast enough to beat DDR4.


FC is also incorrect. Because you failed to realize one aspect of this. *What's the GOAL?* Why would someone be interesting in upgrading? Is it possible to believe that the majority of the time is mostly for gaming. And, if not just gaming something related to productivity? If so, what's out right now is more then sufficient for that. Yes, there was a time were cpu's were holding back performance in some/most games. But those days are over. We've come full circle. And now have to rely on 720/1080p resolutions just to see what kind of performance cpu uplift we are seeing in games.

Because there is no way around it. DDR5 is designed for more throughput. And game developers would need to code their engines in order to take advantage of that. Doing so would offset (somewhat) the higher latencies with DDR5. But as it stands now with consoles controlling the gaming market and the fact they use GDDR6 there is no comparison between throughput:

*DDR5 3200-8400....25.6-67.2 GB/s (max, using the latest future ddr5)
GDDR6..........480-560 GB/s*

Again, no comparison. So how do developer code their engines for DDR5 then? One for GDDR6 and another for DDR5? Not impossible but not very practical nor cost efficient either. But who knows right? But until then buying ddr5 now doesn't net you anything specific about a game's engine that you would benefit from. Sure, you might see a few fps benefit. But that's not what I am talking about. Developers being able to take advantage of the bandwidth to increase fidility, immersion and responsiveness in an open world environment for example.

IE: Take a ship out in space next to the moon.
It comes towards earth as it gets larger and larger.
Enter the atmosphere and go through the clouds as you see "re-entry effects".
Fly through the clouds, see specifically land masses, mountains, highways full of cars, etc.
Get closer to a city populated with mpcs, cars, buses, jumbo jets.
While off in the distance you see a military army approach full of soldiers, tanks, jets coming at you on mass firing missles, shells, etc.
All done without any hitching or pausing, for example. All cinematic and smooth as if it was pre-rendered.

Until we start seeing stuff like this there is no need to bother. So, again, they are both to blame. One for telling you to buy DDR5 platforms knowing they will need to buy again. And the other for telling you to buy DDR4 for a dead platform.

The right answer is to hold on to what you have for now if gaming with some light productivity is your focus.


----------



## affxct

RandalFlagg said:


> So you think HW Unboxed was right when they said low-end buyers should get DDR5-4800 'for the future', that it would somehow give them an upgrade path as DDR5 gets faster/cheaper, and FrameChasers was wrong for calling it out?
> 
> And that he did the test on a 12100, which crippled DDR4 further such that it couldn't run gear 1?
> DDR5-3600 C16 is cheaper than the DDR5-4800 he used (about 1/2 its price) and is significantly faster. You need 6000 to start beating typical mid range DDR4.
> 
> And you'll be lucky to get 6000 to work on a low end build, which usually means a $150 motherboard.
> 
> View attachment 2574225
> 
> 
> In my opinion, that video Steve made showed that he was basically shilling for AMD. He clearly did that to push cheap DDR5 as being 'ok' for lower end builds just as AMD is releasing a costly DDR5 only platform, contradicting his own previous videos and most of what is known about DDR4vsDD5 memory scaling.
> 
> Anyone who went along with Steve's video for a low end rig is going to wind up buying memory twice, and two motherboards, to get back to where they could have started for less.
> 
> That's not Juffes that wrecked that guy's reputation, he did that to himself.


Woah. That's quite a stretch of deduction, with all due respect. I don't believe I ever said any of that. For that reason I'm not even sure I really have a response for you. I will say, if you want a deep-dive into the HUB situation, just ask. I'd he happy to give my opinion if that's what you mean (not sure why you'd necessarily want it). What I'm not going to do is reply as though I somehow ever said to buy Micron X16 DIMMs. Like wut. I will say though, the comment I made calling him a cult leader and all that - that's all besides the HUB situation. The only take away from the HUB situation is his whole meme comment response where he tries to convince Steve that it's all in good fun. The rest of it is neither here nor there, I don't particularly side with either of them. I'd approach it with an entirely different perspective.


----------



## RandalFlagg

affxct said:


> Woah. That's quite a stretch of deduction, with all due respect. I don't believe I ever said any of that. For that reason I'm not even sure I really have a response for you.


So do you think HW Unboxed did a bias garbage piece, or no?

Or you just want to launch personal attacks on some guy on YouTube, was that the only point? 

What exactly was your point, because it sounded to me like you were supporting "Steve"'s reputation by attacking Juffes.

You know it is ok and perfectly possible that they are both garbage.


----------



## RandalFlagg

EastCoast said:


> ... The right answer is to hold on to what you have for now if gaming with some light productivity is your focus.


That's a huge over generalization. I could list 20 scenarios where it's wrong. For example, what if I make a living off my PC and it just blew up? What if I'm on a 2600K and I can't run a powerpoint on teams to my manager to save my rear? 

People upgrade when they want/need to upgrade, not based on something stupid like DDR5 vs DDR4.


----------



## affxct

RandalFlagg said:


> So do you think HW Unboxed did a bias garbage piece, or no?
> 
> Or you just want to launch personal attacks on some guy on YouTube, was that the only point?
> 
> What exactly was your point, because it sounded to me like you were supporting "Steve"'s reputation by attacking Juffes.
> 
> You know it is ok and perfectly possible that they are both garbage.


Steve's video was poorly done, I've said that on many occasions (Twitter and my personal YT). I don't think Steve approached it from a good angle, does that make him an AMD shill though? Sweet Jesus how did we get there 🤣?

Grey areas exist my guy. These big techtubers do make technical errors because they're simply too busy to do enough research and they don't have to given that their audience isn't really there for any of that. With that said, our buddy Jufes thinks that 4-DIMM boards cut off at 6133. Why that number? No idea. Is it true? Not even remotely.

Anyhow XD, Jufes is still a master sociopath cult leader and he's making a killing off of his consults. Honestly, he's a stellar businessman.

Also though, why does a YouTuber have to be either a supreme entity that we worship or straight garbage, and why does someone have to give supremely perfect advice or they're just a shill? Genuinely bro I think perhaps you should avoid techtubers entirely. The techtuber you're searching for simply doesn't exist. Not even Buildzoid or Luumi are perfect. Stay safe man.

HOWEVER:
TEAMGROUP Elite Plus DDR5 32GB (2x16GB) 4800MHz PC5-38400 CL40 Unbuffered Non-ECC 1.1V UDIMM 288 Pin Desktop Memory Module Ram (Silver) - TPSD532G4800HC40DC01 at Amazon.com
Patriot Signature Line Series DDR5 32GB (2 x 16GB) 4800MHz UDIMM Kit - PSD532G4800K at Amazon.com

2x16GB D5 Hynix M-die can be had for literally 70% of the cheapest 2x16 D4 Samsung B-die. So like, that whole price to performance blah blah blah argument is completely nonsensical. 4800 M-die can do 6400-6800 without issue. This doesn't even factor in 64GB users. Have you ever checked out the price of a matched 64GB kit of B-die? Let alone tried to find one in stock? That doesn't even consider the fact that running quad rank Samsung B-die is a nightmare and a half.

2x32GB of M-die can be had for 280 and it'll clock to 6400 without issue on basically any *not-broken* Z690 board. The value discussion is in favor of D4 because of the existence of the MSI Z690 Pro-A and exclusively because of it. Depending on your region, if you can't access a $150 Pro-A because of distributor costs (MSI like to scam non-NA customers) then you're screwed going down that rabbit hole anyway. Where I live you can literally buy a used Strix Z690-F or ASRock Taichi for the same or less than you'd pay for a Pro-A, Strix Z690-A or MSI Edge (all distributor factors).


----------



## Groove2013

@Ichirou I've seen in Asus support section that if I update the BIOS of my Strix Z690 to support 13th gen, I won't be able to downgrade, even using USB BIOS Flashback.

the question is whether 13th gen BIOS is still supporting 12th gen and whether it's not worse concerning RAM OC.


----------



## EastCoast

RandalFlagg said:


> That's a huge over generalization. I could list 20 scenarios where it's wrong. For example, what if I make a living off my PC and it just blew up? What if I'm on a 2600K and I can't run a powerpoint on teams to my manager to save my rear?
> 
> People upgrade when they want/need to upgrade, not based on something stupid like DDR5 vs DDR4.


And all of it will be a direct result of FOMO. And, you really don't understand the term "gaming and light productive" don't you? Making your assertion incorrect. So, in the future, try to grasp an understanding of what you've quoted.

Furthermore, it doesn't change the fact that one should hold off on upgrading until DDR5 is a bit more mature. Nor does it change the fact that it's pretty silly to still invest in a dead platform. Unless, you have money to throw away this doesn't really apply. But if you are more self conscious with your spending habits and only wants to do this "one time". Holding off until the light is green (sort of speaking) is the best option.


----------



## RandalFlagg

EastCoast said:


> And all of it will be a direct result of FOMO. And, you really don't understand the term "gaming and light productive" don't you? Making your assertion incorrect. So, in the future, try to grasp an understanding of what you've quoted.


And you missed the part about 'light productivity', making your statement false.
In the future, try to work on your reading comprehension before responding.
Yes others can be trite right back.
But go right on thinking that people upgrade based on your thoughts about the future of DDR5.


----------



## RandalFlagg

affxct said:


> Steve's video was poorly done, I've said that on many occasion (Twitter and my personal YT). I don't think Steve approached it from a good angle, does that make him an AMD shill though? Sweet Jesus how did we get there 🤣?
> 
> Grey areas exist my guy. These big techtubers do make technical errors because they're simply too busy to do enough research and they don't have to given that their audience isn't really there for any of that. With that said, our buddy Jufes thinks that 4-DIMM boards cut off at 6133. Why that number? No idea. Is it true? Not even remotely.
> 
> Anyhow XD, Jufes is still a master sociopath cult leader and he's making a killing off of his consults. Honestly, he's a stellar businessman.
> 
> Also though, why does a YouTuber have to be either a supreme entity that we worship or straight garbage, and why does someone have to give supremely perfect advice or they're just a shill? Genuinely bro I think perhaps you should avoid techtubers entirely. The techtuber you're searching for simply doesn't exist. Not even Buildzoid or Luumi are perfect. Stay safe man.


So you posted an entire rant about Juffes, and nothing else. 

And you say _I_ should avoid youtube?


----------



## EastCoast

RandalFlagg said:


> And you missed the part about 'light productivity', making your statement false.
> In the future, try to work on your reading comprehension before responding.
> Yes others can be trite right back.
> But go right on thinking that people upgrade based on your thoughts about the future of DDR5.


Copy Pasta!!!!
You are only repeating what I've just told you. And, poorly executed I might add. But you really need to spend more time comprehending posts instead of arguing with people for the sake of it.



RandalFlagg said:


> For example, what if I make a living off my PC...


If you are doing it "for a living" then it's no longer "light productivity". Think about that for a minute. Your own example clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding in the term light productivity. And you want to argue that some how you believe that making such a statement is. 

You really need to calm down here. Stop picking fights with people whom you don't agree with and learn to show some respect for the conversation we are trying to have with each other. As the saying goes Iron Sharpens Iron. And what better way to get something out of all this "as a consumer" by understanding differences that you would other wise be unaware of if it wasn't for discussions like this.


----------



## Telstar

Groove2013 said:


> @Ichirou I've seen in Asus support section that if I update the BIOS of my Strix Z690 to support 13th gen, I won't be able to downgrade, even using USB BIOS Flashback.
> the question is whether 13th gen BIOS is still supporting 12th gen and whether it's not worse concerning RAM OC.


It should, I have read people using 2004 on asus forums. The only issues were with ram oc. 
Probably after a few months there will be a "best" ADL and a "best" RPL version for each z690 boards or familes thereof.


----------



## affxct

RandalFlagg said:


> So you posted an entire rant about Juffes, and nothing else.
> 
> And you say _I_ should avoid youtube?


I'm so confused. Why can't I post a rant about him if a lot of what I'm saying makes sense? As if I'm not allowed to mention him unless I'm blowing or I'm supporting one of his enemies. Idk man. I enjoy poking fun at him. He literally tells people who disagree with him to "go touch grass," "go touch some breasts," and "go play outside." He's a big boy who talks a mighty big game and I'm just an XOC Andy, I'm sure he can take it .










After all, it's all just part of the game, isn't it? That's what he said.


----------



## Groove2013

most of posts above haven't contributed to the current topic, like at all. only cluttering the topic with no value behind them.


----------



## Ichirou

Groove2013 said:


> @Ichirou I've seen in Asus support section that if I update the BIOS of my Strix Z690 to support 13th gen, I won't be able to downgrade, even using USB BIOS Flashback.
> 
> the question is whether 13th gen BIOS is still supporting 12th gen and whether it's not worse concerning RAM OC.


Yikes. Feels like a gamble then. Don't update unless you're getting a 13900K.


----------



## affxct

Groove2013 said:


> most of posts above haven't contributed to the current topic, like at all. only cluttering the topic with no value behind them.


I apologize. Kinda saw everyone ranting about FC and had to throw my 2c in. Then someone asked me a question and it would've been weird if I just ignored him.


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> I'm so confused. Why can't I post a rant about him if a lot of what I'm saying makes sense? As if I'm not allowed to mention him unless I'm blowing or I'm supporting one of his enemies. Idk man. I enjoy poking fun at him. He literally tells people who disagree with him to "go touch grass," "go touch some breasts," and "go play outside." He's a big boy who talks a mighty big game and I'm just an XOC Andy, I'm sure he can take it .
> 
> View attachment 2574239
> 
> 
> After all, it's all just part of the game, isn't it? That's what he said.


Two low-tier overclocking YouTubers trying to gain clout. Neither of which are particularly good at their craft and only try to push their own one-sided deductions.
There's a reason why they don't have millions of followers.

Makes people like Linus, Steve, etc. look better, really.


----------



## tubs2x4

affxct said:


> I apologize. Kinda saw everyone ranting about FC and had to throw my 2c in. Then someone asked me a question and it would've been weird if I just ignored him.


Why do you have the icon of the guy you don’t like much in your profile? Haha


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> Two low-tier overclocking YouTubers trying to gain clout. Neither of which are particularly good at their craft and only try to push their own one-sided deductions.
> There's a reason why they don't have millions of followers.
> 
> Makes people like Linus, Steve, etc. look better, really.


If you're referring to me, the only reason I mentioned him here is that everyone else was talking about him earlier and because I don't think he's good for the community. For that reason I'll always add my 2c as a viewer. In terms of using him for clout - I don't advertise/link my channel and I'm not really a YouTuber at all. In fact I don't think anyone from OCN has ever seen my content. I have had a thumbnail that directly references him and Steve on one occasion, and that was for obvious reasons.


----------



## EastCoast

Groove2013 said:


> most of posts above haven't contributed to the current topic, like at all. only cluttering the topic with no value behind them.


Raptor Lake won't be released until Oct 20. 18 days at the time of this post. This entire thread discussion hasn't contributed to the current topic to be honest. We are talking Post #2 to whatever future posts made.


----------



## Ichirou

EastCoast said:


> Raptor Lake won't be released until Oct 20. 18 days at the time of this post. This entire thread discussion hasn't contributed to the current topic to be honest. We are talking Post #2 to whatever future posts made.


Well, the whole YouTuber debate _has_ contributed one thing: take YouTuber opinions with a grain of salt.


----------



## Groove2013

Ichirou said:


> Yikes. Feels like a gamble then. Don't update unless you're getting a 13900K.


I'll wait for KS and for your feedback with Z690 Edge D4 vs. 13th gen and RAM OC.


----------



## Groove2013

won't pay 540€ for a Strix D4 Z790, since I already own the Z690 "identical" model and also won't go for DDR5, yet, considering its price and what it brings vs. already owned good DDR4.


----------



## Wilco183

Groove2013 said:


> I'll wait for KS and for your feedback with Z690 Edge D4 vs. 13th gen and RAM OC.


13900k pre-ordered, but considering canceling and waiting for KS...mid March availability I suppose. If I'd scored your nice KS instead of mine (SP89), I'd be content until 14th gen.


----------



## affxct

Wilco183 said:


> 13900k pre-ordered, but considering canceling and waiting for KS...mid March availability I suppose. If I'd scored your nice KS instead of mine (SP89), I'd be content until 14th gen.


Here's to hoping for a December KS. I don't have any issue with it, except for the fact that they never warn us.


----------



## Wilco183

affxct said:


> Here's to hoping for a December KS. I don't have any issue with it, except for the fact that they never warn us.


12900K/KS timeline was like 5 months diff for launches. If December, they're already snatching from the 13900Ks lol.


----------



## affxct

Wilco183 said:


> 12900K/KS timeline was like 5 months diff for launches. If December, they're already snatching from the 13900Ks lol.


I guess from a marketing standpoint it doesn't make sense, but I believe it's what they _should_ do. It's like, so many of the forum members here would pay the extra money, why make them buy a CPU they won't need for more than a few months? Trust me, I get it. I just don't understand why it has to be like that. It's not as though the individuals who buy KS chips won't be buying on release anyway. It's so painfully obvious that it's just insane to me.


----------



## whitearmor

Wilco183 said:


> 12900K/KS timeline was like 5 months diff for launches. If December, they're already snatching from the 13900Ks lol.


And that’s why I’m in doubt. Already preordered KF cause I heard that K’s being binned for KS, but thinking about it’s manufacturing process like something was wrong with silicon, and that lead to the iGPU being dead, doesn’t seem like a good sign for me. I’m not an engineer tho, so I’d be grateful if someone can enlighten me about this


----------



## affxct

whitearmor said:


> And that’s why I’m in doubt. Already preordered KF cause I heard that K’s being binned for KS, but thinking about it’s manufacturing process like something was wrong with silicon, and that lead to the iGPU being dead, doesn’t seem like a good sign for me. I’m not an engineer tho, so I’d be grateful if someone can enlighten me about this


I ask myself the same thing sometimes. When in doubt, buy KF lmao.


----------



## Alexshunter

whitearmor said:


> And that’s why I’m in doubt. Already preordered KF cause I heard that K’s being binned for KS, but thinking about it’s manufacturing process like something was wrong with silicon, and that lead to the iGPU being dead, doesn’t seem like a good sign for me. I’m not an engineer tho, so I’d be grateful if someone can enlighten me about this


Does not need to overthink, nothing worse than a binned for bad processor and that is guaranteed for lower K versions. I ordered KF too,


----------



## Ichirou

Alexshunter said:


> Does not need to overthink, nothing worse than a binned for bad processor and that is guaranteed for lower K versions. I ordered KF too,
> 
> View attachment 2574245


13700 and below are not affected because they don't have KS versions.


----------



## Wilco183

affxct said:


> I guess from a marketing standpoint it doesn't make sense, but I believe it's what they _should_ do. It's like, so many of the forum members here would pay the extra money, why make them buy a CPU they won't need for more than a few months? Trust me, I get it. I just don't understand why it has to be like that. It's not as though the individuals who buy KS chips won't be buying on release anyway. It's so painfully obvious that it's just insane to me.


Yup, totally with you on this. My 12900k was a mediocre SP82, a POS by this forum's namesake standards. Should've/could've called it a day, but wound up buying a KS. So yeah, I'd probably pay price and a half now for a good KS instead of twice again. 

Funny though, part of my internal argument rationale in buying the KS was not upgrading to 13900. Good thing I didn't put it in writing 🙃.


----------



## LazyGamer

affxct said:


> 2x32GB of M-die can be had for 280 and it'll clock to 6400 without issue on basically any *not-broken* Z690 board.


Have a Kingston Beast kit right here, 2x 32GB M-die - XMP is 5600, and well, it will boot 6000MT/s, but it ain't stable beyond XMP with current BIOS versions. 2x 16Gb M-die isn't stable beyond 6200MT/s either. This on an MSI MEG Z690 ACE and with a 12700K.

Maybe I'll grab a 13700K and try that.



Ichirou said:


> 13700 and below are not affected because they don't have KS versions.


Aren't they all the same dies, just down-binned from 13900K to 13700K and 13600K? And then the KFs are with the iGPU disabled in hardware - but does that mean that they're likely to be better in other aspects? And couldn't Intel be binning for the KS from the start?

This all seems like a very dubious lottery for me


----------



## whitearmor

LazyGamer said:


> Aren't they all the same dies, just down-binned from 13900K to 13700K and 13600K? And then the KFs are with the iGPU disabled in hardware - but does that mean that they're likely to be better in other aspects? And couldn't Intel be binning for the KS from the start?


Yeah, I'm already desperate enough to pick up K and KF, to keep which one is better


----------



## Ichirou

LazyGamer said:


> Aren't they all the same dies, just down-binned from 13900K to 13700K and 13600K? And then the KFs are with the iGPU disabled in hardware - but does that mean that they're likely to be better in other aspects? And couldn't Intel be binning for the KS from the start?


They are indeed poorer bins of the 13900K/KF. But they are not expected to perform above spec. That is not their intention.
You shouldn't be buying a 13700 or lower in hopes that they'll overclock better than a 13900. Doesn't work like that.

It's already been debunked. The lack of an iGPU does not help with overclocking (assuming you provide your own GPU to make it an even comparison).
Intel separated the voltages for them since ADL. It's just silicon lottery at the end of the day.


----------



## LazyGamer

Ichirou said:


> They are indeed poorer bins of the 13900K/KF. But they are not expected to perform above spec. That is not their intention.
> You shouldn't be buying a 13700 or lower in hopes that they'll overclock better than a 13900. Doesn't work like that.


'Poorer' in some way - like a defective core, or defective iGPU, or VF curve poor - I don't think we can state definitively what criteria Intel uses to down-bin CPU dies. I'd imagine that a higher defect rate correlates with a poorer VF curve, but if that's universal, then the KF SKUs wouldn't be a better bet either.



Ichirou said:


> It's just silicon lottery at the end of the day.


That's my conclusion - and why I avoid the 'F' SKUs personally. IGPs come in handy.


----------



## affxct

LazyGamer said:


> Have a Kingston Beast kit right here, 2x 32GB M-die - XMP is 5600, and well, it will boot 6000MT/s, but it ain't stable beyond XMP with current BIOS versions. 2x 16Gb M-die isn't stable beyond 6200MT/s either. This on an MSI MEG Z690 ACE and with a 12700K.
> 
> Maybe I'll grab a 13700K and try that.
> 
> 
> Aren't they all the same dies, just down-binned from 13900K to 13700K and 13600K? And then the KFs are with the iGPU disabled in hardware - but does that mean that they're likely to be better in other aspects? And couldn't Intel be binning for the KS from the start?
> 
> This all seems like a very dubious lottery for me


I hate to say it like this, but if the spec sheet claims 6666 and you can't even do 6200 reliably, that kinda doesn't reflect favorably on the Ace. 2x32 is DR but it shouldn't necessarily mean be that big of a deal. There are a lot of reliable Z690 boards that likely would not exhibit this issue hence my specification.


----------



## Ichirou

LazyGamer said:


> 'Poorer' in some way - like a defective core, or defective iGPU, or VF curve poor - I don't think we can state definitively what criteria Intel uses to down-bin CPU dies. I'd imagine that a higher defect rate correlates with a poorer VF curve, but if that's universal, then the KF SKUs wouldn't be a better bet either.
> 
> 
> That's my conclusion - and why I avoid the 'F' SKUs personally. IGPs come in handy.


Yep. For a 13700 or lower, the choice between K or KF shouldn't matter in any way besides whether or not you need an iGPU. And price.


----------



## LazyGamer

affxct said:


> I hate to say it like this, but if the spec sheet claims 6666 and you can't even do 6200 reliably, that kinda doesn't reflect favorably on the Ace. 2x32 is DR but it shouldn't necessarily mean be that big of a deal. There are a lot of reliable Z690 boards that likely would not exhibit this issue hence my specification.


What I'm saying is that _this is common_ for DDR5, as it was for DDR4 at least before that. Have to keep in mind that XMP is an overclock, and the hassle of a board RMA isn't a guarantee that one could get higher speeds - the memory ICs and the CPU IMC also get a say in that!


----------



## LazyGamer

Ichirou said:


> Yep. For a 13700 or lower, the choice between K or KF shouldn't matter in any way besides whether or not you need an iGPU. And price.


Why would it matter for a 13900K, though?


----------



## whitearmor

LazyGamer said:


> Why would it matter for a 13900K, though?


Mainly because of KS being binned K’s, and that’s a shame we have to deal with it(


----------



## Ichirou

LazyGamer said:


> Why would it matter for a 13900K, though?





whitearmor said:


> Mainly because of KS being binned K’s, and that’s a shame we have to deal with it(


^ This. As whitearmor says, the KSes will eventually be cherry-picked Ks.
Maybe not now since the 13900K just launched and Intel will try to ensure first batches are the best (for reviewers and influencers, etc.), but not long after, they'll start the binning process.


----------



## Wilco183

Ichirou said:


> ^ This. As whitearmor says, the KSes will eventually be cherry-picked Ks.
> Maybe not now since the 13900K just launched and Intel will try to ensure first batches are the best (for reviewers and influencers, etc.), but not long after, they'll start the binning process.


Leaving the farm a bit. KS is a cherry-picked K. What else is done to this chip? Is it reworked further, or is just a different lid slapped on it and off to market?


----------



## whitearmor

Wilco183 said:


> Leaving the farm a bit. KS is a cherry-picked K. What else is done to this chip? Is it reworked further, or is just a different lid slapped on it and off to market?


Guess I can remember 9900KS having slightly changed IMC, otherwise you’re right AFAIK


----------



## Ichirou

Wilco183 said:


> Leaving the farm a bit. KS is a cherry-picked K. What else is done to this chip? Is it reworked further, or is just a different lid slapped on it and off to market?


There _might_ be improved manufacturing processes (like when Intel introduced the 12900KS and the E-cores were significantly better), but I don't think it will be huge this time around.
Chances are, they're just going to look for 13900Ks that can stably run a single core at 60x.

Vcore-wise, I don't think it will change much. Back with the 12900s, any chip that could run 54x all-core or better (regardless of Vcore) was considered golden.
All other chips simply couldn't run 54x on all-core no matter what the Vcore was.

In this particular case, it's really just seeing which chips play ball when set to higher clocks. I expect the Vcore range to be pretty much the same.
So yes, I would not be surprised if it's really just an extra letter on the IHS.


----------



## Wilco183

whitearmor said:


> Guess I can remember 9900KS having slightly changed IMC, otherwise you’re right AFAIK





Ichirou said:


> There _might_ be improved manufacturing processes (like when Intel introduced the 12900KS and the E-cores were significantly better), but I don't think it will be huge this time around.
> Chances are, they're just going to look for 13900Ks that can stably run a single core at 60x.
> 
> Vcore-wise, I don't think it will change much. Back with the 12900s, any chip that could run 54x all-core or better (regardless of Vcore) was considered golden.
> All other chips simply couldn't run 54x on all-core no matter what the Vcore was.
> 
> In this particular case, it's really just seeing which chips play ball when set to higher clocks. I expect the Vcore range to be pretty much the same.
> So yes, I would not be surprised if it's really just an extra letter on the IHS.


Makes good sense. I think something was done with the 12900KS, otherwise the SP score before and after plucking would mean the same thing, instead of what became accepted knowledge that the KS score was actually 10ish points higher than Asus bios reading. I could be throttling though.


----------



## Netarangi

Ichirou said:


> Yikes. Feels like a gamble then. Don't update unless you're getting a 13900K.


@Groove2013 I have asus tuf z690 and was able to run _better _OC on my 12700kf. However I have heard more people having issues with 2004.

It's true you can't downgrade so probably best not to upgrade bios unless you're getting 13th gen

Edit: Typo'd half of this on mobile


----------



## Ichirou

Netarangi said:


> It's true you can't downgrade so probably best not to upgrade bios unless you're getting 13th gen


Don't fix what isn't broken


----------



## dante`afk

cancelled my 13900k preorders.

given that the 5800X3D is beating the 13900k here and there, the 7000 X3D series will make RL obsolete imho.


----------



## LazyGamer

dante`afk said:


> given that the 5800X3D is beating the 13900k here and there, the 7000 X3D series will make RL obsolete imho.


I'm of two minds on this one - the main problem AMD faces with the X3D SKUs is that they may not make any difference at all. Really depends on a lot of factors, i.e., increased cache on Raptor Lake and non-X3D parts as well as DDR5 closing the gap, and adding the 3D cache putting further limits on clockspeeds. And if AMD isn't willing to go dual-CCD with their Zen 4 X3D part(s) like they kept the Zen 3 part to one SKU, then it won't be competitive in anything _but _gaming, if that.

The other side is - how much more performance is there to eek out? It'd be exciting to see AMD make enough progress for the X3D SKUs to have a real benefit over non-X3D Zen 4, the 5800X3D, and Raptor Lake.


----------



## whitearmor

dante`afk said:


> cancelled my 13900k preorders.
> 
> given that the 5800X3D is beating the 13900k here and there, the 7000 X3D series will make RL obsolete imho.


Maybe it'll be in the casual gaming titles, but my bet that RL will be slightly better in the esports(dota for me), as most of them scaling really good with DDR5, and clock speeds. Keeping my fingers crossed on it.


----------



## Hfhjfg

Ichirou said:


> There _might_ be improved manufacturing processes (like when Intel introduced the 12900KS and the E-cores were significantly better), but I don't think it will be huge this time around.
> Chances are, they're just going to look for 13900Ks that can stably run a single core at 60x.
> 
> Vcore-wise, I don't think it will change much. Back with the 12900s, any chip that could run 54x all-core or better (regardless of Vcore) was considered golden.
> All other chips simply couldn't run 54x on all-core no matter what the Vcore was.
> 
> In this particular case, it's really just seeing which chips play ball when set to higher clocks. I expect the Vcore range to be pretty much the same.
> So yes, I would not be surprised if it's really just an extra letter on the IHS.


Agree! ADL golden chips can do +500-600Mhz in MT workloads. So we can expect similar results for RTL.

up to 6Ghz all cores and up to 6.4Ghz single core.
average chips will do 5.8 MT / 6.1 ST.


----------



## Nizzen

dante`afk said:


> cancelled my 13900k preorders.
> 
> given that the 5800X3D is beating the 13900k here and there, the 7000 X3D series will make RL obsolete imho.


Better wait a few generations. Sidegrades isn't worth it unless you want the fun of it. 12900k will serve you a long time in games


----------



## Ichirou

Hfhjfg said:


> Agree! ADL golden chips can do +500-600Mhz in MT workloads. So we can expect similar results for RTL.
> 
> up to 6Ghz all cores and up to 6.4Ghz single core.
> average chips will do 5.8 MT / 6.1 ST.


Those are some lofty numbers you're presuming.
I doubt they would be achievable under any realistic Vcore, even with a good 13900KS.
But benching only, maybe.


----------



## Alexshunter

Ichirou said:


> Yep. For a 13700 or lower, the choice between K or KF shouldn't matter in any way besides whether or not you need an iGPU. And price.


So lets think, how is the binning happening,
Each processors have to be examined, how many cores and IGP are working. If from 8 P Cores one missing, that can only be 13600K. If P Cores are good, but has missing E Cores can be 13700K. For 13900K needed all CPU cores working and that is lot because of the many E cores. So by 13700K is good chance, it only had a couple of missing E cores and everything else is all right and in this scenario your theory is right for the money possible to buy a good CPU. However those all Cores working processors (13900K/KS) will be tested for MHz and the best ones can be KS. Also very possible certain those all core processors MHz wise will not even good for to be 13900K, needed to sell as 13700K. And this option will be sucks to buy, because than no overclocking room.
And to further think, the 13600K/KF have to have some P cores defects anyway. Even if we buy the KF probably something was also wrong with P cores, otherwise it would have been 13700KF or 13900KF. In the better case was no MHz problem, just simply did not work one or two P Cores.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

dante`afk said:


> cancelled my 13900k preorders.
> 
> given that the 5800X3D is beating the 13900k here and there, the 7000 X3D series will make RL obsolete imho.


For you it´s the better choice, i think it will be nearly the same Performance(+/- some %) with ramoc, you don´t need new DDR5 for max. performance and the price for a good board is cheaper.
The ramoc is with so much cache not so heavy important.
For me is the 13900k the better option, so i can use my selected 2x16gb4000C14 on a "cheap" Z690 Strix by good performance .


----------



## th3illusiveman

whitearmor said:


> Maybe it'll be in the casual gaming titles, but my bet that RL will be slightly better in the esports(dota for me), as most of them scaling really good with DDR5, and clock speeds. Keeping my fingers crossed on it.


Thing is, those titles are already running at 300 Fps+ even on slower clocked X3D parts. The Vcache really comes in handy on those badly optimized games that have low fps. AMD just need to get the clockspeeds to around 5Ghz and im sure with the higher L2 and fast DDR5 those new X3D parts will scale ridiculously well.


----------



## dante`afk

Nizzen said:


> Better wait a few generations. Sidegrades isn't worth it unless you want the fun of it. 12900k will serve you a long time in games


that aside, we all here want the newest shiniest piece of hardware right on release day to play around. me included.

but personally this time I don't think its worth my time until we have the full picture, I'll see what x3d has to offer, if its beating RL in more occasions than 5800x3d did, then here we go. if it doesnt, 13900k(s) it is.




whitearmor said:


> Maybe it'll be in the casual gaming titles, but my bet that RL will be slightly better in the esports(dota for me), as most of them scaling really good with DDR5, and clock speeds. Keeping my fingers crossed on it.


I wouldn't be surprised if the 5800x3d still beats the 13900k in dota2 by a large margin


----------



## EastCoast

affxct said:


> I'm so confused. Why can't I post a rant about him if a lot of what I'm saying makes sense? As if I'm not allowed to mention him unless I'm blowing or I'm supporting one of his enemies. Idk man. I enjoy poking fun at him. He literally tells people who disagree with him to "go touch grass," "go touch some breasts," and "go play outside." He's a big boy who talks a mighty big game and I'm just an XOC Andy, I'm sure he can take it .
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warzone Secrets, LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2574239
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all, it's all just part of the game, isn't it? That's what he said.


Funny how he stop responding so feverishly after this post. Gee, I wonder why? Is it possible people like him are starting to see they are being marketed like cattle into believing something that is not true?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the end of the day people will be people and do what they want with their money. But the question/conversation must be had that what they are investing in will be end of line in the next 9-12 months. And, if they plan on getting meteor lake have they devised a plan on how they are going to do it other then repeat what they did just a few months ago?

Lets not kid ourselves a decent MB/CPU/Ram platform is going to cost around $1k if not more. If they try to buy cheap now and plan on buying meteor lake aren't you being a hypocrite for arguing against those telling you to wait a few more months?

Lets say you have a motherboard that allows you to just buy the cpu. For some, if not all, once you update the bios you cannot go back to 12th gen cpus. So you are stuck with a raptor lake with DDR4 setup. And, you won't know what kind of performance uplift you will get in the games you play until you do (based on the ram/gpu you have). Not everyone has a 3090, LOL.

What do I mean by that and why am I laughing? Glad you ask. Because you, the one who doesn't have a pc setup like you see in those reviews, don't have a top tier z690 platform. Your $80 DDR4 and your 3060/3070 won't take advantage of/won't fully utilize your 13900k with your DDR4. But because some of you saw those graphs you believe you will still get a % of those performance matrices when in fact you really don't know. Until you get it and realize it's not as rosy as you thought. 

But hey, even I am guessing as well right? So go ahead. Find out for yourself if buying the 13900k over your 12900kf is really worth it. But for some of you, it's a one way bios update.


----------



## affxct

dante`afk said:


> that aside, we all here want the newest shiniest piece of hardware right on release day to play around. me included.
> 
> but personally this time I don't think its worth my time until we have the full picture, I'll see what x3d has to offer, if its beating RL in more occasions than 5800x3d did, then here we go. if it doesnt, 13900k(s) it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if the 5800x3d still beats the 13900k in dota2 by a large margin


5800X3D is a cheat code. I wonder what 7950X3Ds will be capable of. Heat will be a major factor though.


----------



## LazyGamer

EastCoast said:


> What do I mean by that and why am I laughing? Glad you ask. Because you, the one who doesn't have a pc setup like you see in those reviews, don't have a top tier z690 platform. Your $80 DDR4 and your 3060/3070 won't take advantage of/won't fully utilize your 13900k with your DDR4. But because some of you saw those graphs you believe you will still get a % of those performance matrices when in fact you really don't know. Until you get it and realize it's not as rosy as you thought.


Raptor Lake comes with:

Higher clock speeds
More L3 cache
Higher ring speeds
Higher E-core speeds
All of these combine to make better use of available memory bandwidth, and to alleviate any strain from memory latency. So if the 5800X3D can keep up with Alder Lake just by using more cache with eight Zen 3 cores and whatever DDR4, why can't Raptor Lake?


----------



## EastCoast

LazyGamer said:


> Raptor Lake comes with:
> 
> Higher clock speeds
> More L3 cache
> Higher ring speeds
> Higher E-core speeds
> All of these combine to make better use of available memory bandwidth, and to alleviate any strain from memory latency. So if the 5800X3D can keep up with Alder Lake just by using more cache with eight Zen 3 cores and whatever DDR4, why can't Raptor Lake?


All of which work in unison with z790 with better DDR5 ram not the z690 with cheaper DDR4/high lat ram kits with lower end gpus. Power management between z690 skus alone is going to determine if they can even OC the 13900k stable or boost to the same levels or not. Some are going to be shocked when they are stuck at stock stable going this route. Cheaper z690 MB's using lower end power managements designed for 12th gen will beg to differ. Not everyone here has top in ddr4 ram. Something I've mentioned in the post you replied to.

Furthermore, cpus are not 1st prior when upgrading. It's more the 2nd or 3rd option. Therefore, you have to factor in those who will do this with 2000 series gpus and lower end 3000 series gpus.

Overall, you are only basing this on the marketed "benchmark results" and not actual use cases. Again, not everyone has exact or even close to what the testbed's used in those results. So, it stands to reason they will not get exactly what they saw when staying on last gen mb/ram and lower end gpus in games.

It's really not hard to comprehend. Sure, you can tell them to upgrade their z690 mb platform so they can get close to those results. But why really? * It's really doing them a disservice on 2 dead platforms.*

There is one thing you left out in your highlights. Both the z690 and z790 are EOL. And will be replaced next year by something else. EOL actually does mean something. Sure, you can ignore it as a personal decision but it doesn't lose it's credibility. And lets be honest isn't this cliche to ignore the elephant in the room here? Only because it doesn't align with what you want to "value".


----------



## Ichirou

If you're purely gaming, and already have an AM4 board, it can make sure to fetch a 5800X3D.
But as soon as you introduce mixed workloads into the equation, it will no longer be as appealing as a choice compared to an upcoming 13th Gen.

Once again, buy based on needs and budget.


----------



## EastCoast

It's a real shame we've spent 27 pages of discussion about 13th gen raptor lake. Almost 3 months of talk and some are still waiting to actually buy the cpu. To this date there is no user data on OC'ing, memory tuning, binning all because the cpu hasn't been released yet. 

But with each passing day we get closer to the 2023. And with each passing day after Jan 1, 2023 we get closer to meteor lake.


----------



## affxct

EastCoast said:


> It's a real shame we've spent 27 pages of discussion about 13th gen raptor lake. Almost 3 months of talk and some are still waiting to actually buy the cpu. To this date there is no user data on OC'ing, memory tuning, binning all because the cpu hasn't been released yet.
> 
> But with each passing day we get closer to the 2023. And with each passing day after Jan 1, 2023 we get closer to meteor lake.


You're right that Meteor Lake is the actual upgrade. I do think Raptor Lake will be good though. A somewhat decent upgrade over ADL.


----------



## Cuthalu

EastCoast said:


> Lets say you have a motherboard that allows you to just buy the cpu. For some, if not all, once you update the bios you cannot go back to 12th gen cpus. So you are stuck with a raptor lake with DDR4 setup.


Where does this myth originate from? There's already people running Raptor Lake bios updates on their Alder Lakes.


----------



## LazyGamer

EastCoast said:


> All of which work in unison with z790 with better DDR5 ram not the z690 with cheaper DDR4/high lat ram kits with lower end gpus.


Why do you believe that to be the case?



EastCoast said:


> Power management between z690 skus alone is going to determine if they can even OC the 13900k stable or boost to the same levels or not.


Anything above trash-tier can push >300W into the socket without blinking. That's been the case for generations of Zx90 boards.



EastCoast said:


> Some are going to be shocked when they are stuck at stock stable going this route.


Stock for a 13900K ain't exactly slow!



EastCoast said:


> Not everyone here has top in ddr4 ram. Something I've mentioned in the post you replied to.


Which additional cache and lower latency on 13th-gen helps mitigate.



EastCoast said:


> Furthermore, cpus are not 1st prior when upgrading. It's more the 2nd or 3rd option. Therefore, you have to factor in those who will do this with 2000 series gpus and lower end 3000 series gpus.


The thread is about Raptor Lake.



EastCoast said:


> Overall, you are only basing this on the marketed "benchmark results" and not actual use cases.


Actually I'm basing it on the improvements that Intel has made to Raptor Lake, as well as the effects of additional cache on current games as demonstrated by the 5800X3D. But thanks for assuming something else on your own!



EastCoast said:


> It's really not hard to comprehend. Sure, you can tell them to upgrade their z690 mb platform so they can get close to those results. But why really? It's really doing them a disservice on a dead platform.


They want improvements, they get improvements, where's the disservice now?


----------



## Spicedaddy

I think it'll be a good upgrade if you already have an expensive Z690 mb and DDR5. My last system was Skylake, the upgrade path for Z170 was Kaby Lake... (Same CPU, they only upgraded the GPU lol)


----------



## EastCoast

Cuthalu said:


> Where does this myth originate from? There's already people running Raptor Lake bios updates on their Alder Lakes.


Don't challenge me. I only post that info as I have facts striaght from the source. Asus's own website states it. This isn't some random post that I need to quote you on. The only myth is that you didn't try to find out for yourself.



> Version 2004
> 
> 2022/09/16 11.21 MBytes
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS Z690 HERO EVA BIOS 2004
> "1. Improve system performance
> 2. Update ME version to 16.1.25.1885v2
> 3. Many ME updates and optimizations for the next-gen CPU are included. *This version does NOT allow rolling back to the previous versions, not even via USB BIOS FlashBack™, to ensure better compatibility.*
> 
> Before running the USB BIOS Flashback tool, please rename the BIOS file (MZ690HE.CAP) using BIOSRenamer."





LazyGamer said:


> Why do you believe that to be the case?
> Anything above trash-tier can push >300W into the socket without blinking. That's been the case for generations of Zx90 boards.
> Stock for a 13900K ain't exactly slow!
> Which additional cache and lower latency on 13th-gen helps mitigate.
> The thread is about Raptor Lake.
> Actually I'm basing it on the improvements that Intel has made to Raptor Lake, as well as the effects of additional cache on current games as demonstrated by the 5800X3D. But thanks for assuming something else on your own!
> They want improvements, they get improvements, where's the disservice now?


You really are not saying anything that I've not already addressed. I don't have to prove that I've said it. Making this circular argument on your part. The facts I've provided to you haven't changed. The x690 and x790 are dead platforms.


----------



## LazyGamer

EastCoast said:


> You really are not saying anything that I've not already addressed.


...so it's all about you, then?


----------



## Cuthalu

EastCoast said:


> Don't challenge me. I only post that info as I have facts striaght from the source. Asus's own website states it. This isn't some random post that I need to quote you on. The only myth is that you didn't try to find out for yourself.


Where do they state you can't run Alder Lake on it? Also, there's no such limitations on this MSI board, and not on any other by MSI afaik.


----------



## EastCoast

Cuthalu said:


> Where do they state you can't run Alder Lake on it? Also, there's no such limitations on this MSI board, and not on any other by MSI afaik.


Ask for proof why if you use a x690 mb to go to 13900k your stuck and can't go back to a bios more stable for 12th gen.
I quote Asus's 2004 bios instructions telling users they can't roll back/go back to previous bios. Telling you that the compatibility is more inline for 13900k not the 12th gen.
Still asks for proof claiming randoms about MSI


> Lets say you have a motherboard that allows you to just buy the cpu.* For some*, if not all, once you update the bios you cannot go back to 12th gen cpus. So you are stuck with a raptor lake with DDR4 setup.


Requotes, the quote that he quoted of me
??
Profit


----------



## Telstar

EastCoast said:


> All of which work in unison with z790 with better DDR5 ram not the z690 with cheaper DDR4/high lat ram kits.


The cache helps reducing the dependency on memory, therefore it will improve performance also with ddr4. The zen3x3d was an example of this.


----------



## EastCoast

Telstar said:


> The cache helps reducing the dependency on memory, therefore it will improve performance also with ddr4. The zen3x3d was an example of this.


Isn't the gaming performance you are looking for a result of the sum of the parts used and not the cpu alone? You are heavily relying on the cache to offset 
-lower end ram
-lower end gpu
To provide performance gains that would otherwise not be if higher end parts are used. Or using the same platform as found in those reviews.

What I said, that is not part of your quote to me is that everyone reviewing those results do not have the same testbed used to provide those results. And to complicate the issue there is no real guarantee of being able to get anything better then stock frequencies/performance when you do update the bios on those lower end z690 mbs. That's the crux of the problem.


----------



## Falkentyne

And each day we get closer to Meteor Lake, we get closer to Lunar Lake.


----------



## Falkentyne

EastCoast said:


> Don't challenge me. I only post that info as I have facts striaght from the source. Asus's own website states it. This isn't some random post that I need to quote you on. The only myth is that you didn't try to find out for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are not saying anything that I've not already addressed. I don't have to prove that I've said it. Making this circular argument on your part. The facts I've provided to you haven't changed. The x690 and x790 are dead platforms.


I'm sorry but you are wrong.

You DO realize some of us have samples right?
No offense, but if you're going to spread wrong information, at least back it up with facts. If you don't have a RPL in hand, you can't run around telling others they can't use ADL on a certain BIOS.

Bioses 2004 and newer will support both CPU's. The only issue that ever happened was back when people on Z490 were bricking their boards by installing RKL on bioses that only partially supported the chip then the flash bricking the ME because the ME didn't properly support Rocket Lake yet (there was a thread about this). I had no problems using both RKL and CML on a ME and BIOS that was fully updated.

It's issues like this that caused Asus to lock out flashing older bioses after upgrading to 2004.


----------



## EastCoast

Falkentyne said:


> I'm sorry but you are wrong.
> 
> You DO realize some of us have samples right?
> No offense, but if you're going to spread wrong information, at least back it up with facts. If you don't have a RPL in hand, you can't run around telling others they can't use ADL on a certain BIOS.
> 
> Bioses 2004 and newer will support both CPU's. The only issue that ever happened was back when people on Z490 were bricking their boards by installing RKL on bioses that only partially supported the chip then the flash bricking the ME because the ME didn't properly support Rocket Lake yet (there was a thread about this). I had no problems using both RKL and CML on a ME and BIOS that was fully updated.
> 
> It's issues like this that caused Asus to lock out flashing older bioses after upgrading to 2004.


This makes your assertion wrong. Regardless of how you sugar coat it. They've clearly locked out rolling back. So stop spreading false information. The quote is actually from their own website Furthermore, the bios before 2004 was completely stable for 12th gen. There is a huge thread over there of people trying to flash back from 2004 and cannot.

And furthermore, your reason as to why is inadequate to say the least.



> Downgrade from 2004 is NOT POSSIBLE. There are new security module related changes in the BIOS (which is why Intel ME must also be updated) and this prevents downgrade. BIOS flashback is NOT the same as using a hardware programmer, just because flashback can work without a CPU or RAM installed--there are still EC (Embedded Controller) checks to make sure the BIOS version you are trying to flash back is compatible. (It's the EC that allows the system to even be powered on in the first place, or which controls the primary/secondary BIOS toggle button switch). 2004 will flag all previous bioses as incompatible (the blue flash LED will flash 5 times instead of 2, then stop to signal incompatible bios version, while 2 flashes then stopping means no properly renamed bios found or bad USB file format, etc).
> 
> UEFI is the first region. That is what all of you see when you enter the BIOS. Some people insert their own graphics into the UEFI, like weeb chicks and stuff. The second are the "GOP" modules and other moduless (capsules), PCIE and all sorts of other devices that your system and windows needs. The third is the embedded controller (EC). if the EC gets bricked you are never turning that motherboard on again. The EC contains all the low level code necessary to even power on the motherboard, switch BIOS versions or to even initialize the BIOS. The fourth is the other firmwares (Aura/LED, Intel management engine, etc).
> 
> The EC And LED firmwares are contained in the BIOS and must match between versions. That's why if you've ever had two different BIOS versions on BIOS 1 and 2 and switch between them, you sometimes get the message "BIOS is updating". That's usually the EC updating. LED firmware shows a different message. Sometimes Intel ME is updated, sometimes it requires manual updating. But due to changes in the firmware, it isn't always possible to downgrade, as trying to downgrade can completely brick the system. And the embedded controller--if it gets bricked, is beyond 95% of users ability here to flash.


So, if you want to make claim that I'm wrong at least get the information right as to why. There is an old saying: the 1 finger you point at me claiming I'm wrong always has 3 more point right back at you.


----------



## Falkentyne

EastCoast said:


> This makes your assertion wrong. Regardless of how you sugar coat it. They've clearly locked out rolling back. So stop spreading false information. The quote is actually from their own website Furthermore, the bios before 2004 was completely stable for 12th gen. There is a huge thread of people trying to flash back from 2004 and cannot.
> 
> And furthermore, your reason as to why is inadequate to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> So, if you want to make claim that I'm wrong at least get the information right as to why.


Way to throw a strawman into an argument to make you look like the man of the hour.
2004 has some issues. That doesn't mean that ADL is permanently locked out. Do you really think 2004 is the last BIOS ever? And the ring ratio issue can be solved by disabling undervolt protection (and this isn't just on Asus boards either).


----------



## EastCoast

Falkentyne said:


> Way to throw a strawman into an argument to make you look like the man of the hour.
> 2004 has some issues. That doesn't mean that ADL is permanently locked out. Do you really think 2004 is the last BIOS ever? And the ring ratio issue can be solved by disabling undervolt protection (and this isn't just on Asus boards either).


There is no strawman. The more stable bios builds for 12th gen is prior 2004. So stop spreading lies. Stop the bull! People wanted to roll back to the prior bios and cannot. Therefore, you are stuck with the bios even if it means not having the same OC, functionality, etc using 12th gen regardless if it gets you into desktop or not.

It's one of the largest thread on that forum and for good reason. They want to go back to the prior bios.


----------



## Falkentyne

EastCoast said:


> There is no strawman. The more stable bios builds for 12th gen is prior 2004. So stop spreading lies. Stop the bull! People wanted to roll back to the prior bios and cannot. Therefore, you are stuck with the bios even if it means not having the same OC, functionality, etc using 12th gen regardless if it gets you into desktop or not.
> 
> It's one of the largest thread on that forum and for good reason. They want to go back to the prior bios.


You don't control me. If you don't like what I say, block me. but I'm going to counter your posts with facts, since unlike you, I have the CPU in hand.


----------



## D-EJ915

With a dual bios board it shouldn't be an issue anyway, run one for 12th one for 13th issue solved lol. If this were EVGA and their terrible cross-generation support it'd be different.


----------



## LazyGamer

D-EJ915 said:


> With a dual bios board it shouldn't be an issue anyway, run one for 12th one for 13th issue solved lol. If this were EVGA and their terrible cross-generation support it'd be different.


EVGA has three BIOSs, at least on the Z690 K|ngp|n? Or just talking about 13th-gen not likely to be well-supported on their Z690 boards?


----------



## D-EJ915

LazyGamer said:


> EVGA has three BIOSs, at least on the Z690 K|ngp|n? Or just talking about 13th-gen not likely to be well-supported on their Z690 boards?


I mean they don't support cross generation like at all, if you want 13th gen you'll have to get the Z790 board.


----------



## Bilco

So any idea if the the z690 apex will do the new IMC justice on the 13900k with ddr5 or is z790 apex required?


----------



## EastCoast

Falkentyne said:


> You don't control me. If you don't like what I say, block me. but I'm going to counter your posts with facts, since unlike you, I have the CPU in hand.


You're right I'm not trying to control you. I think I've accomplished rebuking you though. Claiming to be someone who already has the CPU Yet not know what you're talking about discredit yourself. The only one that's in control of that is you.

But hey we can all learn something right? But that could only be done when looked at from critical thinking not from emotion. I am not bothered by what you say about me but it must be accurate. We also know just because you say you have the cpu doesn't make everything you post gospel.


----------



## yahfz

EastCoast said:


> You really are not saying anything that I've not already addressed.


Exactly. So why are you even here? Not only you haven't said anything useful but you're also disrupting this thread.



EastCoast said:


> Lets say you have a motherboard that allows you to just buy the cpu. For some, if not all, once you update the bios you cannot go back to 12th gen cpus.


This is just wrong, YOU CAN go back to 12th gen CPUs. You're generalizing this just because Asus had a bios regression that makes overclocking worse, like lol? You act like Asus is the only company in the world and that the BIOS 2004 will be the last one, what a stupid comment.

All in all It's extremely obvious that your only goal here is to attempt to trigger people with all the passive aggressive comments/emojis and add nothing of value. My guess is that you're just too young and you don't have the social maturity to tell when and where you can be the "edgy haha im funny smirk smirk fr fr" type of dude? But what do I know XD


----------



## EastCoast

Spoiler: Snip






yahfz said:


> Exactly. So why are you even here? Not only you haven't said anything useful but you're also disrupting this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just wrong, YOU CAN go back to 12th gen CPUs. You're generalizing this just because Asus had a bios regression that makes overclocking worse, like lol? You act like Asus is the only company in the world and that the BIOS 2004 will be the last one, what a stupid comment.
> 
> All in all It's extremely obvious that your only goal here is to attempt to trigger people with all the passive aggressive comments/emojis and add nothing of value. My guess is that you're just too young and you don't have the social maturity to tell when you can be the "edgy haha im funny smirk smirk fr fr" type of dude? But what do I know






Lol
Ive clarified on my response and explained my position in my prior post. I didn't make claim to a hardware limitation but an issue with the bios. Making a lot of what you say an aberration of your own straw man. This is truly an example of a straw man.

As it stands now you are simply throwing out personal attacks. With unsubstantiated claims. I stated my disposition and you can either agree with it or not but there's no reason to try to personally attack me because of it.

Making up lies doesn't change the fact that I do not see/find a Z690 motherboard for a 13 900 K CPU with DDR 4 is of any benefit when in a few months they're going to release meteor lake CPU's on a new platform. Z690 and Z790 platforms are eol. And it is more so the closer to 2023 we get.


----------



## Wilco183

EastCoast said:


> Spoiler: Snip
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Ive rclarified on my response and explained my position in my prior post. I didn't make claim to a hardware limitation but an issue with the bios. Making a lot of what you say an aberration of your own straw man. This is truly an example of a straw man.
> 
> As it stands now you are simply throwing out personal attacks. With unsubstantiated claims. I stated my disposition and you can either agree with it or not but there's no reason to try to personally attack me because of it.
> 
> Making up lies doesn't change the fact that I do not see find AZ690 motherboard for a 13 900 K CPU with DDR 4 is of any benefit when in a few months they're going to release meteor lake CPU's on a new platform. Z690 and Z790 platforms are eol. Special come next year.


Your earlier narrative pushing was somewhat thoughtful. You got real sloppy today.


----------



## Groove2013

just ignore him and don't respond to him, like at all. problem solved. don't feed him.


----------



## yzonker

D-EJ915 said:


> I mean they don't support cross generation like at all, if you want 13th gen you'll have to get the Z790 board.


They haven't in the past or are you specifically referring to Z690? They do have a beta bios for 13th gen. Obviously time will tell as far as how well it works of course.


----------



## gtz

My z


D-EJ915 said:


> I mean they don't support cross generation like at all, if you want 13th gen you'll have to get the Z790 board.


My Z690 Classified already has a Beta bios that supports 13th gen.


Also, I have not really read the entire thread. But will 13th gen going to support AVX512? Just curious.


----------



## Netarangi

EastCoast said:


> This makes your assertion wrong. Regardless of how you sugar coat it. They've clearly locked out rolling back. So stop spreading false information. The quote is actually from their own website Furthermore, the bios before 2004 was completely stable for 12th gen. There is a huge thread over there of people trying to flash back from 2004 and cannot.
> 
> And furthermore, your reason as to why is inadequate to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> So, if you want to make claim that I'm wrong at least get the information right as to why. There is an old saying: the 1 finger you point at me claiming I'm wrong always has 3 more point right back at you.


Just a side note, they added the "no rollback" disclaimer about 2 weeks after the release.. Bad form from ASUS on that one.


----------



## Ichirou

gtz said:


> Also, I have not really read the entire thread. But will 13th gen going to support AVX512? Just curious.


Not a single 13th Gen chip has AVX-512. If you want AVX-512, you'll have to find an early batch 12900K/KF.
But they're kind of meh at this point in time, since the top-binned chips max out around 5.5 GHz all-core, which is easily beaten by a decent 13900K/KF/KS.


----------



## EastCoast

Netarangi said:


> Just a side note, they added the "no rollback" disclaimer about 2 weeks after the release.. Bad form from ASUS on that one.


Of course. Thats only part of the reason for that mega thread they have on the 2004 bios.

But i would not be surprised if other mb manufactures follow suite. Surely there are more bios updates to come as they tweak, fix and make chamges for compitable with raptor lake on z690.

I just hope they have the decency to let you know ahead of time and explain why its not roll backable.


----------



## LazyGamer

gtz said:


> Also, I have not really read the entire thread. But will 13th gen going to support AVX512? Just curious.


Like @Ichirou said, earlier Alder Lake examples didn't have AVX512 disabled - but you did have to disable the E-cores for it to work, which is the case for my 12700K.

What I don't know is, what's the usecase for AVX512, if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## Ichirou

LazyGamer said:


> Like @Ichirou said, earlier Alder Lake examples didn't have AVX512 disabled - but you did have to disable the E-cores for it to work, which is the case for my 12700K.
> 
> What I don't know is, what's the usecase for AVX512, if you don't mind me asking?


Very limited; more useful for computational/industrial uses. But you'd be fetching an XE or something instead for that.
That's probably Intel's reasoning for cutting AVX-512 support. But it doesn't really make sense when the 12/13th Gen is the first (and) last for this socket.
Really should've left them enabled to promote as a feature. Now AMD has an edge in that regard.


----------



## gtz

LazyGamer said:


> Like @Ichirou said, earlier Alder Lake examples didn't have AVX512 disabled - but you did have to disable the E-cores for it to work, which is the case for my 12700K.
> 
> What I don't know is, what's the usecase for AVX512, if you don't mind me asking?


Y-cruncher of course!!!!! All about the benchmarks.

In all seriousness, I am a beta tester for the company I work for and the software development team reached out to me a while back (I guess I complained the most along with 20 or so employees) on how they can make a program I use better. My first response was make it multi threaded but for our use case it remained single threaded. So then I suggested adding every instruction set that will let it rip thru the calculations faster (including AVX256 and 512). They somewhat implemented 256 since all of the systems deployed can utilize it.


----------



## tps3443

16 days left?


gtz said:


> Y-cruncher of course!!!!! All about the benchmarks.
> 
> In all seriousness, I am a beta tester for the company I work for and the software development team reached out to me a while back (I guess I complained the most along with 20 or so employees) on how they can make a program I use better. My first response was make it multi threaded but for our use case it remained single threaded. So then I suggested adding every instruction set that will let it rip thru the calculations faster (including AVX256 and 512). They somewhat implemented 256 since all of the systems deployed can utilize it.


AVX512 benching was fun with my really good 11900K I have to admit. I also enjoyed it on my 7980XE.


----------



## tps3443

16 days to go before 13900K/KF EVERYONE!!!!!

I’m so looking forward to upgrading my once top tier 11900K rig.

I use my system for work every day, numerous apps open, gaming, benching, overclocking etc. I do it all with it.

Being totally honest, my current setup freaking flies and all that. But I’m anxious to see any difference first hand with multithreaded gains. I’m sure it’ll be there too. I’m expecting at least a 23%-30% single threaded gains, and roughly a 100% or larger multithreaded gain.

Definitely a worthy upgrade.


----------



## gtz

tps3443 said:


> 16 days left?
> 
> 
> AVX512 benching was fun with my really good 11900K I have to admit. I also enjoyed it on my 7980XE.


Those 18 cores dominated that bench since they could get sub 50 when tuned. But sadly a stock 7950X now beats them.

Yeah I followed you when I saw the results you were getting with your 11900K. I almost got one just to try out, but did not want to risk getting one with a bad IMC.


----------



## tps3443

gtz said:


> Those 18 cores dominated that bench since they could get sub 50 when tuned. But sadly a stock 7950X now beats them.
> 
> Yeah I followed you when I saw the results you were getting with your 11900K. I almost got one just to try out, but did not want to risk getting one with a bad IMC.


Yeah I recently bought a couple more 11900K’s. And they were not the greatest. It seems plausible that buying CPU’s at launch probably gives the best bins.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Falkentyne said:


> You don't control me. If you don't like what I say, block me. but I'm going to counter your posts with facts, since unlike you, I have the CPU in hand.


So did I make the right choice handing off my 10900k for the 13900k 
I'll annoy you again when I hit the overclocking wall


----------



## tps3443

schoolofmonkey said:


> So did I make the right choice handing off my 10900k for the 13900k
> I'll annoy you again when I hit the overclocking wall


That’s a huge upgrade for ST and MT performance.


----------



## Alexshunter

Is somebody tried the new per core tuning? is it working only in Z790 or also in B660?


----------



## tps3443

@gtz 

Maybe the Xeon w-3175X with Dominus or SR3 would be able to outpace the 7950X. That would be interested to see. I‘ve almost gone that route before. I’d love to test out a 3175X even to this day for purely fun. 28/56 Skylake-X cores unlocked with some really good 4000CL15 with “Hexa” channel memory.


----------



## Nizzen

Groove2013 said:


> just ignore him and don't respond to him, like at all. problem solved. don't feed him.


Wonder why "guru3d" people come here on this forums, just to make trouble... There is litterally no contribution to the community doing so.


----------



## Hfhjfg

Alexshunter said:


> Is somebody tried the new per core tuning? is it working only in Z790 or also in B660?


Looks promising. Per-core voltage tuning will help a lot for seeking max multicore load frequency.
The biggest problem of the max MT OC on ADL is that all cores work on a same voltage of the worst core.

If with RTL they really fix this - it will be a huge upgrade for all OCers.

For ex. my current 12900k have 0.04v delta worst to best core. So when working 5.4 all cores 7 of 8 cores just adding heat without any real benefit. Making they work with a lower voltage can improve overall CPU temperature and help reaching higher frequency.


----------



## Ichirou

Hfhjfg said:


> Looks promising. Per-core voltage tuning will help a lot for seeking max multicore load frequency.
> The biggest problem of the max MT OC on ADL is that all cores work on a same voltage of the worst core.
> 
> If with RTL they really fix this - it will be a huge upgrade for all OCers.
> 
> For ex. my current 12900k have 0.04v delta worst to best core. So when working 5.4 all cores 7 of 8 cores just adding heat without any real benefit. Making they work with a lower voltage can improve overall CPU temperature and help reaching higher frequency.


@Alexshunter
You can already tweak each individual core multiplier in the BIOS with MSI motherboards.
On the 12900KF I have, I set the cores to something like, 52/52/53/53/53/52/53/53 (five 53x and three 52x).
They will constantly run at those individual clocks with the same set voltage.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> @Alexshunter
> You can already tweak each individual core multiplier in the BIOS with MSI motherboards.
> On the 12900KF I have, I set the cores to something like, 52/52/53/53/53/52/53/53 (five 53x and three 52x).
> They will constantly run at those individual clocks with the same set voltage.


I think he means setting the cores to all different voltages.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> I think he means setting the cores to all different voltages.


Wouldn't changing each core multiplier individually more or less... achieve the same result, though?


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

Are there any educated guess or idea if our Z690 ( 2 dimm boards ) with RPL IMC boost might able to do better compared to ADL memory overclocking ?


----------



## jeiselramos

Streamroller said:


> Are there any educated guess or idea if our Z690 ( 2 dimm boards ) with RPL IMC boost might able to do better compared to ADL memory overclocking ?


will be the first thing I do with the apex


----------



## kill_a_wat

Will people still be using Thermalright, TG etc contact frames for 13th gen and Z790? I haven't come across any info suggesting that this issue has been corrected/improved upon


----------



## Alexshunter

Ichirou said:


> @Alexshunter
> You can already tweak each individual core multiplier in the BIOS with MSI motherboards.
> On the 12900KF I have, I set the cores to something like, 52/52/53/53/53/52/53/53 (five 53x and three 52x).
> They will constantly run at those individual clocks with the same set voltage.


 That is awesome, cannot i do that with Asus? How do you figure out the weaker cores?


----------



## Alexshunter

Falkentyne said:


> I think he means setting the cores to all different voltages.


Yeah, or i would add extra voltage for the weaker cores.


----------



## Cuthalu

Does anyone know if Z690 boards will continue to support TVB for 13700/13600K, or will it be locked out? (I know it's not officially supported for those models.)


----------



## Telstar

Alexshunter said:


> Is somebody tried the new per core tuning? is it working only in Z790 or also in B660?


It works even in my z390.


----------



## LazyGamer

Is this per-core voltage tuning something that we'll need Intel XTU installed to use?


----------



## IronAge

Per Core VC is something Asus HEDT S2066 Board have got several years ago in UEFI as well, even my X299 Dark got it after about a dozen UEFI Updates. 

so sooner or later it should be available in UEFI too, Z790 maybe sooner, Z690 maybe later.


----------



## bastian

Cuthalu said:


> Does anyone know if Z690 boards will continue to support TVB for 13700/13600K, or will it be locked out? (I know it's not officially supported for those models.)


TVB will still work on Z690 for Raptor. You just probably won't get the new 350w Extreme power mode. Which I think is only for 13900KS anyway.


----------



## Ichirou

Streamroller said:


> Are there any educated guess or idea if our Z690 ( 2 dimm boards ) with RPL IMC boost might able to do better compared to ADL memory overclocking ?


Most likely, for DDR4 at least. Simply because the IMCs should be stronger. But DDR5, no guarantee. 


kill_a_wat said:


> Will people still be using Thermalright, TG etc contact frames for 13th gen and Z790? I haven't come across any info suggesting that this issue has been corrected/improved upon


I don't see why not. 


Alexshunter said:


> That is awesome, cannot i do that with Asus? How do you figure out the weaker cores?


Not sure about the BIOS level. Haven't tried. 

Lots and lots of trial and error hammering the chip over and over with y-cruncher runs with each tweaked core.


----------



## chispy

Finally caved in and pre-order a 13900k on newegg for my ASRock Z690 Aqua OC 2 dimm board final built. Will update how it goes for ddr5 ocing on this 2 dimm board with the new cpu 13900k.


----------



## LazyGamer

chispy said:


> Finally caved in and pre-order a 13900k on newegg for my ASRock Z690 Aqua OC 2 dimm board final built. Will update how it goes for ddr5 ocing on this 2 dimm board with the new cpu 13900k.


I couldn't convince myself to pick one of those up - looking forward to your results!


----------



## Ichirou

LazyGamer said:


> I couldn't convince myself to pick one of those up - looking forward to your results!


Well you already know what the 13900K/KF and even the 13900KS can achieve. The question is whether or not you want those numbers.
If I wasn't impatient, I'd just wait until the 13900KS. But I'm kind of done waiting around.


----------



## Falkentyne

kill_a_wat said:


> Will people still be using Thermalright, TG etc contact frames for 13th gen and Z790? I haven't come across any info suggesting that this issue has been corrected/improved upon


Yes we are using them.


----------



## LazyGamer

Ichirou said:


> Well you already know what the 13900K/KF and even the 13900KS can achieve. The question is whether or not you want those numbers.
> If I wasn't impatient, I'd just wait until the 13900KS. But I'm kind of done waiting around.


I meant the ASRock Z690 Aqua OC 

Only board that has every feature I actually want - well, except the Aqua part...

Kind of wish ASRock did a 'Taichi OC'.


----------



## DBCooper1

chispy said:


> Finally caved in and pre-order a 13900k on newegg for my ASRock Z690 Aqua OC 2 dimm board final built. Will update how it goes for ddr5 ocing on this 2 dimm board with the new cpu 13900k.


You can save 60 bucks by doing your pre-order with central computers. I dont think they charge tax unless your in CA...









Intel Core i9-13900K 13th Gen Processor 8P Cores 16E Cores 32 Threads 5.8GHz P-Core Boost 4.7GHz E-Core Boost Box BX8071513900K


#html-body [data-pb-style=FDK3L1M]{display:none}#html-body [data-pb-style=SK5RKWE]{justify-content:flex-start;display:flex;flex-direction:column;background-position:left top;background-size:cover;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-attachment:scroll}#html-body...




www.centralcomputer.com


----------



## gtz

DBCooper1 said:


> You can save 60 bucks by doing your pre-order with central computers. I dont think they charge tax unless your in CA...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900K 13th Gen Processor 8P Cores 16E Cores 32 Threads 5.8GHz P-Core Boost 4.7GHz E-Core Boost Box BX8071513900K
> 
> 
> #html-body [data-pb-style=FDK3L1M]{display:none}#html-body [data-pb-style=SK5RKWE]{justify-content:flex-start;display:flex;flex-direction:column;background-position:left top;background-size:cover;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-attachment:scroll}#html-body...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.centralcomputer.com


Never ordered from central computers, are they legit?


----------



## CptSpig

gtz said:


> Never ordered from central computers, are they legit?


Yes, got my 12900K from Central Computer.


----------



## IronAge

@LazyGamer

Got one Aqua OC here, actually even got it for a reasonable price, around 850$ and still returned it since the handling of the monoblock bothered me, so i got a refund.

not so clever move from ASRock not sell it as "OC Formula".


----------



## bastian

Are board partners playing chicken with each other or is there supply issues as to why many of the high-end Z790 boards are not ready for launch/pre-order? No Godlike, ACE, Apex, Extreme, Unify, etc.....


----------



## IronAge

they prefer selling twice to the guys that can not hold back their money. now buy 2DPC + 13900K, when 1DPC + 13900KS is available please buy again.


----------



## xarot

I have preordered Asus Z790 Extreme, hopefully not another RAM fiasco.


----------



## IronAge

i doubt it when even the Z790 Hero can do 7800-8000 with A-Dies.






十銓DDR5-7200XMP CL34-4242-84 1.4V_哔哩哔哩_bilibili


十銓DDR5 7200XMP CL34 4242 84 1.4V 不要再被台灣無良廠商OLOY 跟 專薛大陸人錢的某大 合作的什麼MPOWER騙了!!!!! MDIE OLOY6200 還被騙不夠 ADIE一起湊來騙!!!!!!! 鹹魚一組1500R海力士ADIE普條 8400/8500空冷雙通不放參數隨便開 OLOY一組32XX 29XX的 不就最少要能開 8800雙通 >, 视频播放量 1960、弹幕量 1、点赞数 16、投硬币枚数 8、收藏人数 6、转发人数 7, 视频作者 OCHIANG, 作者简介...




www.bilibili.com


----------



## Bluerain

Will Z690 boards get better RAM OC capabilities from the improved IMC in raptor lake?


----------



## Ichirou

Bluerain said:


> Will Z690 boards get better RAM OC capabilities from the improved IMC in raptor lake?


DDR4, yes. DDR5, uncertain. (BIOS willing, that is.)


----------



## bastian

Ichirou said:


> DDR4, yes. DDR5, uncertain. (BIOS willing, that is.)


BIOS is only one optimization. The new Z790 DDR5 boards no doubt have some improved hardware tracing as well.


----------



## IronAge

We will see if cherry picked Z690 Apex will beat retail Z790 Apex.


----------



## Ichirou

bastian said:


> BIOS is only one optimization. The new Z790 DDR5 boards no doubt have some improved hardware tracing as well.


It's common knowledge that the biggest issue holding DDR5 overclocking back was the motherboard, not so much the CPU.
People needed heavily binned boards just to boot higher frequencies.

Whereas on DDR4, the boards could easily boot high frequencies on Gear 1 (much higher compared to previous generations), but the CPU could not stabilize them.
Many CPUs couldn't even boot above 4,133 MHz and necessitated IMC binning in order to do so.


----------



## bastian

Ichirou said:


> It's common knowledge that the biggest issue holding DDR5 overclocking back was the motherboard, not so much the CPU.
> People needed heavily binned boards just to boot higher frequencies.
> 
> Whereas on DDR4, the boards could easily boot high frequencies on Gear 1 (much higher compared to previous generations), but the CPU could not stabilize them.
> Many CPUs couldn't even boot above 4,133 MHz and necessitated IMC binning in order to do so.


Yes, I personally never saw this. But it does appear later Z690 revisions improved things, along with BIOS updates. I suspect Z790 will be less of a headache.


----------



## Ichirou

bastian said:


> Yes, I personally never saw this. But it does appear later Z690 revisions improved things, along with BIOS updates. I suspect Z790 will be less of a headache.


It's more for DDR5 frequencies at 6,800+ MHz. Below, it didn't really matter what board you had.


----------



## satinghostrider

Golden Question : Apex 2022 Unicorn boards and A-Die? 😁😁😁


----------



## Netarangi

kill_a_wat said:


> Will people still be using Thermalright, TG etc contact frames for 13th gen and Z790? I haven't come across any info suggesting that this issue has been corrected/improved upon


Yes, it's the tension from the ILM and the shape of the cpu that causes the bending. Neither of these have changed(as far as I'm aware with the z790 boards).


----------



## Rbk_3

Newegg.ca has the MSI boards launching Oct. 28th and Asus Oct 21. Newegg.com has them both Oct 20. 

Is that an error or is Canada really not getting them for launch?


----------



## bastian

Rbk_3 said:


> Newegg.ca has the MSI boards launching Oct. 28th and Asus Oct 21. Newegg.com has them both Oct 20.
> 
> Is that an error or is Canada really not getting them for launch?


I don't understand why they are launching the Z790 boards on the 13900k release date anyway. They should just release them now. Probably some stupid Intel rule.


----------



## Telstar

bastian said:


> I don't understand why they are launching the Z790 boards on the 13900k release date anyway. They should just release them now. Probably some stupid Intel rule.


Yeah, I think the embargo is the same day.


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> Newegg.ca has the MSI boards launching Oct. 28th and Asus Oct 21. Newegg.com has them both Oct 20.
> 
> Is that an error or is Canada really not getting them for launch?


Newegg CA is just a subsidiary of Newegg US, so it wouldn't be surprising that they get stock later.


----------



## pastuch

Ichirou said:


> DDR4, yes. DDR5, uncertain. (BIOS willing, that is.)


Ichi why are you so confident that the DDR4 boards will support higher IMC? Care to elaborate?


----------



## Ichirou

pastuch said:


> Ichi why are you so confident that the DDR4 boards will support higher IMC? Care to elaborate?


Because the current ASUS/MSI DDR4 boards can already boot up to 4,400 MHz Gear 1 with a golden IMC.
It's just that no IMC can stabilize it right now because they're simply too weak.


----------



## yzonker

Seems more likely to me the DDR5 IMC's will improve the most just because the tech is so much newer and probably has more room for improvement. But obviously I'm not really basing that on anything else. Just seems like the older tech tends to stagnate and the new stuff gets the love.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Because the current ASUS/MSI DDR4 boards can already boot up to 4,400 MHz Gear 1 with a golden IMC.
> It's just that no IMC can stabilize it right now because they're simply too weak.


You know, I’m kinda with you there. Imagine like DDR4 4400-4700 on a 13900K in Gear (1). I think that would probably destroy anything DDR5 available.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> You know, I’m kinda with you there. Imagine like DDR4 4400-4700 on a 13900K in Gear (1). I think that would probably destroy anything DDR5 available.


Well, 4,300-4,400 MHz is currently the max bootable in Gear 1 DDR4. However, only the top 1% of chips can actually stabilize 4,300 MHz.

For 4,200-4,266 MHz, that depends much more on die, but overall I'd give an estimate of about 5% of chips. My 12900KF being one of them.
The average 12900K/KF/KS can stabilize 4,000-4,133 MHz Gear 1 right now.

If RPL turns out to have sizable improvement in IMC, 4,200-4,300 MHz Gear 1 stable should be possible for a lot more chips.


----------



## Ichirou

Might be old news, but here are confirmed supported XMP profiles for the Z790 Maximus and Apex boards:








They'll support 7,600 MHz out of the box. Whereas Z690 struggled beyond 7,200 MHz.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Might be old news, but here are confirmed supported XMP profiles for the Z790 Maximus and Apex boards:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They'll support 7,600 MHz out of the box. Whereas Z690 struggled beyond 7,200 MHz.


I feel like 13900K and Z690 2 dimm will probably overclock memory nearly as good. Z790 might give an edge. I just feel like the IMC will be the biggest factor here.

Should I maybe consider swapping out my Unify-X (2) Dimm board for a Z790 board? I just feel like it’s a waste of money for negligible improvement. The unify X was already hitting some crazy numbers right?

I want to grab some of the Team group 7200Mhz Hynix A die DDR5. And hopefully push for as high as it’ll go. 

Any opinions on this? Should I stick with what I’ve got?


----------



## Groove2013

since you already have the Unify X, you can see how far it goes with 13th gen and A-DIE.


----------



## WayWayUp

those 7600 gskill sticks with new apex and 13900k will probably be able to easily push 8000 with some OC'ing
Right now tho im more concerned with cas latency. Can we do 28-30 with high clocks?

This is where ddr5 will finally separate itself from ddr4 and show a clear advantage everywhere

It will take a long time though for ddr5 to match latency while doubling same clocks. Perhaps by the time we see 14900k and ddr5 matures some more
With ddr4 right now I'm doing 4400 cl15 easily without pushing it hard at all.
we would need to see 8800 cl30 to feel like we finally matched ddr4 while getting the advantage of double MT rate


----------



## EastCoast

Alleged leaks of the 13900k vs 12900k in a few games included 3dmark. We will find out the truth soon enough but it does mirror what's been said before about it vs 12900k. 
The last graph does seem to mirror Intel's own slide.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> Yes, the KF's will never be touched since they are manufactured separately. You just need to couple your own GPU with it. If anything, their quality tends to _improve_ over time, as manufacturing processes improve across the board with the KS's coming into play.



So the KFs are manufactured separately??? I thought the KFs had were same as Ks, but iGPU was defective?? Is that not true and they are made separately with no iGPU and thus may overclock better as it is not in the way??


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> So the KFs are manufactured separately??? I thought the KFs had were same as Ks, but iGPU was defective?? Is that not true and they are made separately with no iGPU and thus may overclock better as it is not in the way??


Yes. They do not have any iGPUs built in from the start.
They will not overclock any better/worse for now. But once the 13900KS comes around and Intel starts to bin the K's, there will be a gradual decrease of strong K chips.

Enabling/not enabling the iGPU has no effect on overclocking as it is separately powered. And even then, you would generally be using your own GPU.


----------



## tubs2x4

WayWayUp said:


> those 7600 gskill sticks with new apex and 13900k will probably be able to easily push 8000 with some OC'ing
> Right now tho im more concerned with cas latency. Can we do 28-30 with high clocks?
> 
> This is where ddr5 will finally separate itself from ddr4 and show a clear advantage everywhere
> 
> It will take a long time though for ddr5 to match latency while doubling same clocks. Perhaps by the time we see 14900k and ddr5 matures some more
> With ddr4 right now I'm doing 4400 cl15 easily without pushing it hard at all.
> we would need to see 8800 cl30 to feel like we finally matched ddr4 while getting the advantage of double MT rate


 What percent of retail cpus would be able to run stable 4400?


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> Yes. They do not have any iGPUs built in from the start.
> They will not overclock any better/worse for now. But once the 13900KS comes around and Intel starts to bin the K's, there will be a gradual decrease of strong K chips.
> 
> Enabling/not enabling the iGPU has no effect on overclocking as it is separately powered. And even then, you would generally be using your own GPU.



Wow never knew that. Why does Intel even build ones without an iGPU if it is something that can be disabled anyways. I have no use for one, but wonder why they would build one without one when it has no impact on gamers as they disable it anyways. There is money savings but only like $30 to $50 bucks for KF variant. Though why does Intel not build an 8 P core only Raptor Lake CPU with no e-cores and same 36MB L3 cache and charge less for it?? There would be a big market for that as many find e cores useless and will disable them anyways. And probably overclock better to.


----------



## LazyGamer

Ichirou said:


> Yes. They do not have any iGPUs built in from the start.


I'm going to request some thorough sourcing here. Even in this thread, KF CPUs have been described as having their iGPUs _disabled_, not as being separately manufactured dies. If the latter was the case, they'd be much more expensive as they're produced in much lower volumes. It doesn't track on the surface, let alone near a decade of releases.


----------



## Luggage

Ichirou said:


> Yes. They do not have any iGPUs built in from the start.
> They will not overclock any better/worse for now. But once the 13900KS comes around and Intel starts to bin the K's, there will be a gradual decrease of strong K chips.
> 
> Enabling/not enabling the iGPU has no effect on overclocking as it is separately powered. And even then, you would generally be using your own GPU.


If this is true for gen 13 it is the first gen…
Gen 12 has two ADL-S dies, 8+8 and 6+0, no separate dies for IGP or no IGP.









Alder Lake - Microarchitectures - Intel - WikiChip


Alder Lake (ADL) is Intel's successor to both Tiger Lake and Rocket Lake, an Intel 7-process based microarchitecture for mainstream workstations, desktops, and mobile devices. Alder Lake is Intel's first 10-nanometer-class proper successor to all prior generation of processors - spanning from...




en.wikichip.org






__
https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/qhbbow


----------



## Wolverine2349

LazyGamer said:


> Raptor Lake comes with:
> 
> Higher clock speeds
> More L3 cache
> Higher ring speeds
> Higher E-core speeds
> All of these combine to make better use of available memory bandwidth, and to alleviate any strain from memory latency. So if the 5800X3D can keep up with Alder Lake just by using more cache with eight Zen 3 cores and whatever DDR4, why can't Raptor Lake?



I think you mean to say why can't Raptor Lake keep up with Zen 4 X3D if the Alder Lake trades blows in gaming with Zen 3 X3D. I would agree it probably should but remains to be seen until both are out.


----------



## LazyGamer

Wolverine2349 said:


> I think you mean to say why can't Raptor Lake keep up with Zen 4 X3D if the Alder Lake trades blows in gaming with Zen 3 X3D. I would agree it probably should but remains to be seen until both are out.


More that, we don't know how having _even more_ L3 cache than Raptor Lake and Zen 4 will affect performance. The 5800X3D is successful because of that limitation on previous Zen 3 and Alder Lake (and older) parts, right?

So I agree that it's anybody's guess as to how effective Zen 4 X3D will be over Raptor Lake and Zen 4, since both parts have made advancements upon their predecessors in the same niche as the 5800X3D.


----------



## EastCoast

What's interesting is the belief that the 13900k won't be much faster than 12900k game averages. Suggesting that it maybe game dependent to see the biggest gains. If this turns out to be true what are implications between both OC'd DDR4 4000 CL15 memory? And, if there is any tangible benefit is both OC with the 13900k using DDR5? 

Hope to see those results eventually when benchmarks are released.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Well Raptor Lake does look exciting the P cores of course if it is really true that there is a 12% IPC uplift like this article at TomsHardware says:



https://www.tomshardware.com/news/core-i9-13900k-early-review-shows-big-gains-over-core-i9-12900k



Though Intel is stating 15% single threaded performance gain and clock speeds are much higher. So if 12% IPC gains on P cores are true, then I would expect more than 15% single thread performance gain if they really can hit 5.8GHz.

If it indeed has a real 12% IPC uplift that all but wipes out AMD's Zen 4 13% IPC gain that nearly caught Alder Lake Golden Cove cores, but was still a few percent behind at same clock speed. So if 12% IPC gain for Raptor Lake P cores is true, then IPC advantage of Raptor Lake P cores over Zen 4 will be same as Alder Lake P cores over Zen 3 which was 16-17% IPC advantage at same clock speed at least per CPU-Z benchmark and Cinebench.

Do you believe the 12% IPC uplift for Raptor Cove P cores is true or much less than that?? Cause only TomsHardware article seems to suggest it where no other sources I have seen mention it??


----------



## sniperpowa

tps3443 said:


> @gtz
> 
> Maybe the Xeon w-3175X with Dominus or SR3 would be able to outpace the 7950X. That would be interested to see. I‘ve almost gone that route before. I’d love to test out a 3175X even to this day for purely fun. 28/56 Skylake-X cores unlocked with some really good 4000CL15 with “Hexa” channel memory.


I have a 3175x and a 7950x I haven’t been home to test yet but I will soon. I’m not sure if the 7950x can beat it though we’ll see.


----------



## pastuch

EastCoast said:


> What's interesting is the belief that the 13900k won't be much faster than 12900k game averages. Suggesting that it maybe game dependent to see the biggest gains. If this turns out to be true what are implications between both OC'd DDR4 4000 CL15 memory? And, if there is any tangible benefit is both OC with the 13900k using DDR5?
> 
> Hope to see those results eventually when benchmarks are released.


Honestly, 90% of games don't need top end cpus anyway but Warzone 2 is going to need a monster. The giant maps and buildings demand bonkers amounts of textures. Warzone 1 is still the most demanding CPU game I've ever seen and based on the COD Next event it looks like Warzone 2 will be more of the same.


----------



## tps3443

pastuch said:


> Honestly, 90% of games don't need top end cpus anyway but Warzone 2 is going to need a monster. The giant maps and buildings demand bonkers amounts of textures. Warzone 1 is still the most demanding CPU game I've ever seen and based on the COD Next event it looks like Warzone 2 will be more of the same.


Have you ever played Death Stranding? Give it a try. This was Sony’s first port to PC. And they did an amazing job too. I had a [email protected] all 18/36 cores, DDR4 Quad channel 4000Mhz CL15. And that game would push 70-80% usage on all (36) threads at 1080P constantly 1440P would still push 60-70%. It was one of the few CPU’s at the time that could even run the game smoothly besides a AMD 5950X that came well after the games launch.

Anything less than a 16/32 and you would get dropped frames because your GPU usage is always tanking due to your CPU getting hammered to death.

People on normal systems complained a lot.


This is a few screenshots of my 5.5Ghz 11900K during gameplay. I’ll say it’s still very very smooth and pushed the frame rates really really high, but GPU usage did drop off Simply due to being out of CPU.

My 3090 Kingpin wasn’t even overclocked. It can push it stock as it is. I have never seen a game use a CPU like Death Stranding does.

Below is with DLSS OFF, and 2560X1440P maxed out graphics.


----------



## D-EJ915

yzonker said:


> They haven't in the past or are you specifically referring to Z690? They do have a beta bios for 13th gen. Obviously time will tell as far as how well it works of course.


Experience from z490 and rocket lake, they released a beta bios then ceased support, all official bios only had support for 10th gen.


----------



## 2500k_2




----------



## domdtxdissar

16 thread workloads are worstcase for Gen12/13 8P cores vs 16P cores from competitor..

^^ my old 5950x in chess benchmark


----------



## domdtxdissar

24cores (8C+16c) / 32 threads in action


----------



## EastCoast

What does this video show exactly? I thought I would see benchmarks but none were shown.


----------



## HyperC

my guess is encoding with all the cores and using more steady core usage with E cores. So is pre-ordering generally better bins out the gate thinking of doing the 13700k/f


----------



## EastCoast

HyperC said:


> my guess is encoding with all the cores and using more steady core usage with E cores. So is pre-ordering generally better bins out the gate thinking of doing the 13700k/f


Not that I know of. 1st batch is usually something they had ready for months. It's the later batches that might get revisions, etc.


----------



## domdtxdissar

I don't speak Korean either. My understanding is that if you are rendering on screen then all 24 cores and 32 threads are involved. If you hide the rendering in the background tab, it renders only all 16c/16T "Raptormont" E-cores and 8C Raptor Cove P-cores are ready, e.g. to play the latest game.


----------



## Betroz

domdtxdissar said:


> I don't speak Korean either. My understanding is that if you are rendering on screen then all 24 cores and 32 threads are involved. If you hide the rendering in the background tab, it renders only all 16c/16T "Raptormont" E-cores and 8C Raptor Cove P-cores are ready, e.g. to play the latest game.


There probably will be a performance/latency hit while gaming like that anyways, but cool feature though. So...5 years from now we still have 8 P-cores and maybe 64 E-Cores


----------



## Luggage

domdtxdissar said:


> 16 thread workloads are worstcase for Gen12/13 8P cores vs 16P cores from competitor..
> 
> ^^ my old 5950x in chess benchmark
> View attachment 2574702


Yea - 8c16t


----------



## domdtxdissar

OCCT have shared some results for the 13900k


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1578210243871313921








Could crush those scores


----------



## IronAge

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/core-i9-13900k-soars-to-82-ghz-leaving-ryzen-7000-in-the-dust



Oopsie.

 @ Intel Gaming



> Four teams of streamers and modders are building *with 13th Gen i9-12900k* CPUs and MSI Z790 motherboards.





Spoiler


----------



## Wolverine2349

To me Raptor Lake is exciting to be used as an 8 core monster CPU as the e-cores would be shut off to avoid hybrid arch.

How do you think using it as an 8 core CPU clock would compare to Ryzen 7700X in gaming at same clock speed static set clock?? Or how about Ryzen 7000 X3D??


----------



## Exilon

Turning off what's basically a 3900X's worth of compute seems wasteful since the ring downclocking is fixed. The difference was already marginal on Alder Lake with raised L2 voltage to push the ring to 40x or so. I reckon you can get 48-50x on Raptor Lake with same L2 voltages.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Exilon said:


> Turning off what's basically a 3900X's worth of compute seems wasteful since the ring downclocking is fixed. The difference was already marginal on Alder Lake with raised L2 voltage to push the ring to 40x or so. I reckon you can get 48-50x on Raptor Lake with same L2 voltages.



Its not a waste as there is no other option to get the best potential 8 core CPU as Intel has no 8 core part without the e-cores. The e-cores are useless and cause more problems than they are worth.

The extra cache on top SKU is worth it alone as they boost performance of using it as 8 core CPU.

Hate the e-waste cores but those P cores are so darn awesome!!


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> Its not a waste as there is no other option to get the best potential 8 core CPU as Intel has no 8 core part without the e-cores. The e-cores are useless and cause more problems than they are worth.
> 
> The extra cache on top SKU is worth it alone as they boost performance of using it as 8 core CPU.
> 
> Hate the e-waste cores but those P cores are so darn awesome!!


FWIW, 13900K leaks have already exposed the cache as being able to clock up to 46x even with the E-cores on, so there's really no reason to turn them off just to boost it up to 50-51x. You'd probably benefit more by leaving them on, as more and more modern games are designed to capitalize on multicore.

That +5x difference in cache might result in a roughly equivalent +1x difference in core speed, but there's a benefit to having the OS and any background programs running faster as well.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> FWIW, 13900K leaks have already exposed the cache as being able to clock up to 46x even with the E-cores on, so there's really no reason to turn them off just to boost it up to 50-51x. You'd probably benefit more by leaving them on, as more and more modern games are designed to capitalize on multicore.
> 
> That +5x difference in cache might result in a roughly equivalent +1x difference in core speed, but there's a benefit to having the OS and any background programs running faster as well.
> 
> Just my two cents.



Not a fan of hybrid arch, but love the p cores so to me they are great 8 core super chips. Plus P cores can be clocked much higher in a static manual overclock with much less power consumption if the e-cores are not in the way to just push a lot more heat

6GHz all core on NH-D15 could be possible with the e-cores off.

Though if you can clock the ring to 50-51 and 6GHz all core with e-cores off how do you think it will do in gaming workloads compared to the upcoming 7700X3D


----------



## tps3443

13 days left before we get our 13900K/KF CPU’s.


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> Not a fan of hybrid arch, but love the p cores so to me they are great 8 core super chips. Plus P cores can be clocked much higher in a static manual overclock with much less power consumption if the e-cores are not in the way to just push a lot more heat
> 
> 6GHz all core on NH-D15 could be possible with the e-cores off.
> 
> Though if you can clock the ring to 50-51 and 6GHz all core with e-cores off how do you think it will do in gaming workloads compared to the upcoming 7700X3D


The P-cores will likely clock similarly with/without the E-cores. All disabling the E-cores does is reduce heat.

6.0 GHZ all-core on an NH-D15? That's an unrealistically lofty estimate. I wouldn't even expect it to be possible without a full custom loop and a binned chip.

Performance compared to AMD would boil down heavily to the difference in RAM, really. But most people would likely be using a sub-7,000 MHz kit.


----------



## Groove2013

Ichirou said:


> But most people would likely be using a sub-7,000 MHz kit.


or sub 4400


----------



## Ichirou

Groove2013 said:


> or sub 4400


Well, he was comparing Intel with AMD, and Ryzen 7000 is DDR5-only, so it only made sense to make that comparison.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> The P-cores will likely clock similarly with/without the E-cores. All disabling the E-cores does is reduce heat.
> 
> 6.0 GHZ all-core on an NH-D15? That's an unrealistically lofty estimate. I wouldn't even expect it to be possible without a full custom loop and a binned chip.
> 
> Performance compared to AMD would boil down heavily to the difference in RAM, really. But most people would likely be using a sub-7,000 MHz kit.



Yeah performance compared to AMD would be down to RAM difference I am sure. Though if both have same speed DDR5 RAM how do you think 13900K with e-cores off clocked 5.5GHz all core would do in gaming compared to 8 core Zen 4 X3D part with the 92MB L3 cache. Raptor Lake at same clock speed probably beats regular Zen 4, but what about the 3D cache variants that come out.


----------



## Arni90

Wolverine2349 said:


> Not a fan of hybrid arch, but love the p cores so to me they are great 8 core super chips. Plus P cores can be clocked much higher in a static manual overclock with much less power consumption if the e-cores are not in the way to just push a lot more heat


Why is it that almost everyone who's "not a fan of hybrid arch" haven't touched the stuff? Besides the obvious that anyone who tries out a P+E core system finds out the E-cores are quite capable, and the benefits of disabling the E-cores are so miniscule that it doesn't matter.


----------



## Ichirou

Arni90 said:


> Why is it that almost everyone who's "not a fan of hybrid arch" haven't touched the stuff? Besides the obvious that anyone who tries out a P+E core system finds out the E-cores are quite capable, and the benefits of disabling the E-cores are so miniscule that it doesn't matter.


It made more sense with the 12th Gen since there weren't too many E-cores, and they were of poorer quality overall.
But 13th Gen; no meaningful reason to disable them. Unless you know 100% for sure that you're only gaming with it, and the games you play never use over 16 cores.


----------



## z390e

yzonker said:


> The Frame Chaser guy is one of those people that says several smart things and then says/does something dumb/incorrect and tears it all down.


good lord I thought I was the only one, I posted some comments on his one video, I think it was the DDR4 vs DDR5 one, but his settings were not the same and you could see it in the screenshots. 
With a voice that people listen to that much, I'd hope these streamers were more accuracy focused, like GN is, but they really seem to be the outlier. All the other streamers _seem_ to find ways to fit in talking out of their asses.


----------



## cstkl1

tps3443 said:


> 13 days left before we get our 13900K/KF CPU’s.


eminent truth on quality of SP. with the arrival of KS next year. .. how wide is the current silicon lottery?? (dont use ES cpu as they are skewed most of the times vs retail)


----------



## RichKnecht

Wondering if replacing my 10980XE with a 13900K makes sense. My X299 MB took a dump so either I buy a new MB for the 10980 or move to a 13900K. Almost went with a 12900K as my local MC has great deals on them right now, but decided to wait.


----------



## Ichirou

cstkl1 said:


> eminent truth on quality of SP. with the arrival of KS next year. .. how wide is the current silicon lottery?? (dont use ES cpu as they are skewed most of the times vs retail)


I don't think the difference in quality is going to be as significant as it was with the 12900K/KF and the 12900KS.
RPL isn't a new architecture; it's just binned cores with improved manufacturing processes.

I imagine whatever slightly stronger 13900K's that Intel bins later will get reserved as 13900KS's.

I'd say that, if I normalized the average baseline chip to P-SP 100, the KS might be like, P-SP 105, with 12900KS-equivalent scaling.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Arni90 said:


> Why is it that almost everyone who's "not a fan of hybrid arch" haven't touched the stuff? Besides the obvious that anyone who tries out a P+E core system finds out the E-cores are quite capable, and the benefits of disabling the E-cores are so miniscule that it doesn't matter.



The hybrid arch sucks for Windows scheduling and the gimmicks. And WIN11 is crap.

And some people want all of the same core type and no need really for more than 8 super powered cores. Unfortunately Intel does not have an 8 only P core chip with no e-cores. And AMD Zen 4 cores not as good of cores as Intel P cores nevermind they are so dense they run so hot.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> It made more sense with the 12th Gen since there weren't too many E-cores, and they were of poorer quality overall.
> But 13th Gen; no meaningful reason to disable them. Unless you know 100% for sure that you're only gaming with it, and the games you play never use over 16 cores.



Do any games really use more than 8 cores and 16 threads. Very few if any use more than 6 cores 12 threads let alone 8 cores and 16 threads. Though 8 cores 16 threads of super powered cores is good future proof.

With AMD you can yeah get more than 8 good cores, but not on one CCD/ring and a latency spike penalty for threads to cross communicate CCXs. That will change with Zen 5 supposedly up to 16 cores.


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> Do any games really use more than 8 cores and 16 threads. Very few if any use more than 6 cores 12 threads let alone 8 cores and 16 threads. Though 8 cores 16 threads of super powered cores is good future proof.


That's... what I just said. If you fall under the category of being a gamer who plays games that don't utilize more than eight cores, then that's fine.
Otherwise the benefits of leaving the E-cores enable far outweigh limiting the chip.

It's all use-case at the end of the day.


----------



## Telstar

Wolverine2349 said:


> The hybrid arch sucks for Windows scheduling and the gimmicks. And WIN11 is crap.


Nah, w11 is just fine. And you cant get direct storage on w10...


----------



## Nizzen

Wolverine2349 said:


> Do any games really use more than 8 cores and 16 threads. Very few if any use more than 6 cores 12 threads let alone 8 cores and 16 threads. Though 8 cores 16 threads of super powered cores is good future proof.
> 
> With AMD you can yeah get more than 8 good cores, but not on one CCD/ring and a latency spike penalty for threads to cross communicate CCXs. That will change with Zen 5 supposedly up to 16 cores.


Death stranding and turn based games. Some games using all cores avaiable when loading new maps etc.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Nizzen said:


> Death stranding and turn based games. Some games using all cores avaiable when loading new maps etc.



I have also seen and heard of Cyber Punk using more than 8 cores. However does it just use them because it can or does it actually provide meaningful performance improvement. You look at the system requirements of Death Stranding and they only require 4 core minimum and a weak 6 core is recommended in Ryzen 5 1600.


----------



## Formula383

Arni90 said:


> Why is it that almost everyone who's "not a fan of hybrid arch" haven't touched the stuff? Besides the obvious that anyone who tries out a P+E core system finds out the E-cores are quite capable, and the benefits of disabling the E-cores are so miniscule that it doesn't matter.


Well i have a 12900k and can say with out a doubt the e cores are very slow compared to the p cores and i would have been much happier with 10 p cores over the 8 "extra" e cores. The only time the e cores are really worth anything is when if you manually set them to use certain things but even then the p cores easily hand those tasks with very little load to them. I guess if you wanted to do rendering on them while using your pc OK maybe, however to anyone who has done rendering knows this is likely not a great idea for any meaningful project. 

Also why not make a 7980xe replacement? intel is just like nope we dont want your money. super lame imo.
I guess intel just figures the e cores are the replacement for high core count workloads, and thats fine for some things but not all.

Also is anyone talking about how the 13th gen has doubled L2 cache? 
If its true, i'm guessing it is? then i would guess that is how they helped performance so much with out increasing the L3 cache per core and will that cache be enough to help take advantage of the higher clocks. i'm also guessing the extra cache is helping to give more die area to reduce core temps for higher clock speeds. (or maybe just using more dead die area in the core to help with hot spots i really dont know) The 12900k does not really need more than 5ghz to get its performance. going higher has little to no effect on game fps. so will the extra p core speed even help in game performance according to there own chart it was very little or even slightly worse in one game.

However I do think it will be interesting how much better the new e cores will be both in terms of performance and core counts. they might even be good enough for some 1080p x264 live streaming however i think the nvenc already does a really good job if your game is not eating all your cpu/memory resources. But so far mixing e cores with p cores for live streaming is just a big no go if you care about quality. Not a huge deal as i bought the cpu for its P core gaming. but would have been nice to use them too.


----------



## nickolp1974

Maybe longer before I can test mine, depends when the better OC boards are released, still no news yet? Apex, dark etc


tps3443 said:


> 13 days left before we get our 13900K/KF CPU’s.


----------



## energie80

Dark 790 announced


----------



## PhoenixMDA

tps3443 said:


> 13 days left before we get our 13900K/KF CPU’s.


I´m excited which week we get, the reviewer bundle´s are week 33 (15.8-21.8.22).


----------



## tps3443

12 days.


----------



## Arni90

Formula383 said:


> Well i have a 12900k and can say with out a doubt the e cores are very slow compared to the p cores and i would have been much happier with 10 p cores over the 8 "extra" e cores. The only time the e cores are really worth anything is when if you manually set them to use certain things but even then the p cores easily hand those tasks with very little load to them. I guess if you wanted to do rendering on them while using your pc OK maybe, however to anyone who has done rendering knows this is likely not a great idea for any meaningful project.
> 
> Also why not make a 7980xe replacement? intel is just like nope we dont want your money. super lame imo.
> I guess intel just figures the e cores are the replacement for high core count workloads, and thats fine for some things but not all.
> 
> Also is anyone talking about how the 13th gen has doubled L2 cache?
> If its true, i'm guessing it is? then i would guess that is how they helped performance so much with out increasing the L3 cache per core and will that cache be enough to help take advantage of the higher clocks. i'm also guessing the extra cache is helping to give more die area to reduce core temps for higher clock speeds. (or maybe just using more dead die area in the core to help with hot spots i really dont know) The 12900k does not really need more than 5ghz to get its performance. going higher has little to no effect on game fps. so will the extra p core speed even help in game performance according to there own chart it was very little or even slightly worse in one game.
> 
> However I do think it will be interesting how much better the new e cores will be both in terms of performance and core counts. they might even be good enough for some 1080p x264 live streaming however i think the nvenc already does a really good job if your game is not eating all your cpu/memory resources. But so far mixing e cores with p cores for live streaming is just a big no go if you care about quality. Not a huge deal as i bought the cpu for its P core gaming. but would have been nice to use them too.


Why does it matter if the E-cores are very slow? Every workload imaginable will be bound in one of two ways:
1. Single-threaded performance
2. Multi-threaded performance

In the case of #1, you really don't need a lot of fast cores, you need 2, maybe 3, extremely fast cores.
In the case of #2, you want as much total performance as possible, in which case the E-cores are posting far more impressive performance per mm^2 than a P-core.

Even in the worst case of vectorized FP32 workloads, 4 E-cores can still give 2x the performance per clock compared to a P-core. Sure, the P-core runs 25% faster and is smaller in area, but the E-core cluster is still going to perform better relative to area, and at a lower power draw.



If you're primarily gaming, E-cores on or off doesn't make any significant difference until you actually lock the ring frequency to extremely high numbers. You're far better off disabling HT, and leaving E-cores enabled, than disabling E-cores and running with HT.

As for no 7980XE successor? You wouldn't want 4 GHz Ice Lake, while Sapphire Rapids is still struggling to ramp up.

Larger L2 cache will not make a big difference to performance, most software are either limited by L3 capacity or L1 latency. L2 exists mostly to reduce power draw.


----------



## Nizzen

13900k/kf looks to be a winner. Very fast in everything  It's like when the 7980xe was new with tweaked 4000 memory. 125GB/s bandwidth and sub 50ns was the key for high performance 6? years ago. My 7980xe is still alive, and the performance is pretty strong. Powerdraw is VERY strong LOL


----------



## Wolverine2349

Arni90 said:


> Why does it matter if the E-cores are very slow? Every workload imaginable will be bound in one of two ways:
> 1. Single-threaded performance
> 2. Multi-threaded performance
> 
> In the case of #1, you really don't need a lot of fast cores, you need 2, maybe 3, extremely fast cores.
> In the case of #2, you want as much total performance as possible, in which case the E-cores are posting far more impressive performance per mm^2 than a P-core.
> 
> Even in the worst case of vectorized FP32 workloads, 4 E-cores can still give 2x the performance per clock compared to a P-core. Sure, the P-core runs 25% faster and is smaller in area, but the E-core cluster is still going to perform better relative to area, and at a lower power draw.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're primarily gaming, E-cores on or off doesn't make any significant difference until you actually lock the ring frequency to extremely high numbers. You're far better off disabling HT, and leaving E-cores enabled, than disabling E-cores and running with HT.
> 
> As for no 7980XE successor? You wouldn't want 4 GHz Ice Lake, while Sapphire Rapids is still struggling to ramp up.
> 
> Larger L2 cache will not make a big difference to performance, most software are either limited by L3 capacity or L1 latency. L2 exists mostly to reduce power draw.



I thought HT these days were good. Its been around for years and shceudlers know how to use it well.


Arni90 said:


> Why does it matter if the E-cores are very slow? Every workload imaginable will be bound in one of two ways:
> 1. Single-threaded performance
> 2. Multi-threaded performance
> 
> In the case of #1, you really don't need a lot of fast cores, you need 2, maybe 3, extremely fast cores.
> In the case of #2, you want as much total performance as possible, in which case the E-cores are posting far more impressive performance per mm^2 than a P-core.
> 
> Even in the worst case of vectorized FP32 workloads, 4 E-cores can still give 2x the performance per clock compared to a P-core. Sure, the P-core runs 25% faster and is smaller in area, but the E-core cluster is still going to perform better relative to area, and at a lower power draw.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're primarily gaming, E-cores on or off doesn't make any significant difference until you actually lock the ring frequency to extremely high numbers. You're far better off disabling HT, and leaving E-cores enabled, than disabling E-cores and running with HT.
> 
> As for no 7980XE successor? You wouldn't want 4 GHz Ice Lake, while Sapphire Rapids is still struggling to ramp up.
> 
> Larger L2 cache will not make a big difference to performance, most software are either limited by L3 capacity or L1 latency. L2 exists mostly to reduce power draw.



For gaming HT matters much more than e cores. The Windows 10 scheduler knows how to deal with HT and HT has been around for over 20 years. Hybrid arch is new and schedulers do not know how to deal with it I would think.

Would extra L3 cache make performance much better in general that Raptor Lake is going to have??


----------



## Nizzen

Wolverine2349 said:


> I thought HT these days were good. Its been around for years and shceudlers know how to use it well.
> 
> 
> 
> For gaming HT matters much more than e cores. The Windows 10 scheduler knows how to deal with HT and HT has been around for over 20 years. Hybrid arch is new and schedulers do not know how to deal with it I would think.
> 
> Would extra L3 cache make performance much better in general that Raptor Lake is going to have??


We want you to make a video showing HT matters much more in gaming than E-cores  Start with Alder Lake 

PS: Numbers are too small to bother


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> 13900k/kf looks to be a winner. Very fast in everything  It's like when the 7980xe was new with tweaked 4000 memory. 125GB/s bandwidth and sub 50ns was the key for high performance 6? years ago. My 7980xe is still alive, and the performance is pretty strong. Powerdraw is VERY strong LOL


You already have yours right?

I can’t wait to get my 13900KF.

I had a 7980XE direct die at 5Ghz on Quad Channel DDR4 4000CL15 memory 44-45NS latency. It was incredibly fast. I do like my 11900K and Z590 Dark much better than the HEDT X299 Dark platform though, and the 11900K does feel substantially faster while working during the day on it. But, that’s why I’m excited about the 13900K. It is going to double my multithreaded performance of my 5.5Ghz 11900K. And I will have the best of both worlds. 13900KF is substantially faster than even a 7980XE (18/36) at 5Ghz, and the Intel 13th Gen provides the fastest single threaded performance right now.


With cheap Z690 motherboards available everywhere, and how affordable you can get a 13900K. It is probably the best option right now.

I’m ready to test it out though. Feel the difference first hand. I have never tested or even ran 12th Gen at all. I skipped it all together. So coming from 11th Gen, I’m in for a HUGE jump in performance.


*13900K will double my 5.5Ghz 11900K*


----------



## tps3443

Has anyone here tested the ASrock Aqua OC Z690?


It seems like a great motherboard. 12 later PCB, 2 Dimms, OLED readout, awesome looking monoblock.

These even include their own leak test kit.

This thing would probably work well with a 13900K/KF


----------



## bscool

.


tps3443 said:


> Has anyone here tested the ASrock Aqua OC Z690?
> 
> 
> It seems like a great motherboard. 12 later PCB, 2 Dimms, OLED readout, awesome looking monoblock.
> 
> These even include their own leak test kit.
> 
> This thing would probably work well with a 13900K/KF
> 
> View attachment 2575138
> 
> View attachment 2575140
> 
> View attachment 2575139
> 
> View attachment 2575137
> 
> View attachment 2575141


I havent used it just seen feedback from some that have and it seems like it is a hit and miss, kinda like 2021 Apex. Some are good and some not so good.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Has anyone here tested the ASrock Aqua OC Z690?
> 
> 
> It seems like a great motherboard. 12 later PCB, 2 Dimms, OLED readout, awesome looking monoblock.
> 
> These even include their own leak test kit.
> 
> This thing would probably work well with a 13900K/KF
> 
> View attachment 2575138
> 
> View attachment 2575140
> 
> View attachment 2575139
> 
> View attachment 2575137
> 
> View attachment 2575141


ASRock and Gigabyte were overall terrible for Z690. Some hardcore overclockers made do in competitions, but they were sponsored so they had no choice.
BIOS issues, and board overheating, etc.

Stick with ASUS/MSI/EVGA.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> ASRock and Gigabyte were overall terrible for Z690. Some hardcore overclockers made do in competitions, but they were sponsored so they had no choice.
> BIOS issues, and board overheating, etc.
> 
> Stick with ASUS/MSI/EVGA.


I thought the Asus Z690 motherboards were garbage?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I thought the Asus Z690 motherboards were garbage?


Only specifically the Apex 2021 revision. Which is what most of the boards on the second-hand markets are.
They had a faulty second memory slot which would overclock poorly.
Those who had the 2022 revision were fine since ASUS later corrected it.
But then they promptly killed sales and locked off RMAs I guess because of the losses involved with all the RMAs.


----------



## Wilco183

tps3443 said:


> I thought the Asus Z690 motherboards were garbage?


Specifically, the '21 Apex and initial tranche of Heros coupled with bios aggravations for some. I have a 2nd round Hero and Strix A d4...have been totally content with both boards, bios, and ram meeting at least QVL listing.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Only specifically the Apex 2021 revision. Which is what most of the boards on the second-hand markets are.
> They had a faulty second memory slot which would overclock poorly.
> Those who had the 2022 revision were fine since ASUS later corrected it.
> But then they promptly killed sales and locked off RMAs I guess because of the losses involved with all the RMAs.


AFAIK, Asus doesn't have their own fabrication factories, so Asus themselves were not responsible directly.
It was their partner (either a Pegatron subsidiary or a Vietnam based factory) and they were probably completely blindsided by this.
Note that Pegatron is NOT part of Asus. They were spun off from them over 15 years ago and are their own manufacturing company now. 
Calling Pegatron part of Asus is as bad as calling Asrock part of Asus, even if they were originally an Asus division long ago.
The only motherboard manufacturers that actually silkscreen and completely fab their own motherboards in house are MSI and Gigabyte.

Regardless, you can guarantee their Z790 boards will be extremely good.


----------



## affxct

yzonker said:


> Seems more likely to me the DDR5 IMC's will improve the most just because the tech is so much newer and probably has more room for improvement. But obviously I'm not really basing that on anything else. Just seems like the older tech tends to stagnate and the new stuff gets the love.


The two IMCs on ADL chips are the same two IMCs that handle both D4 and D5. With D4 they handle each channel, and with D5 they sort of interleave between the subchannels. There aren't two discrete IMCs for D4 and D5 though.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Falkentyne said:


> AFAIK, Asus doesn't have their own fabrication factories, so Asus themselves were not responsible directly.
> It was their partner (either a Pegatron subsidiary or a Vietnam based factory) and they were probably completely blindsided by this.
> Note that Pegatron is NOT part of Asus. They were spun off from them over 15 years ago and are their own manufacturing company now.
> Calling Pegatron part of Asus is as bad as calling Asrock part of Asus, even if they were originally an Asus division long ago.
> The only motherboard manufacturers that actually silkscreen and completely fab their own motherboards in house are MSI and Gigabyte.
> 
> Regardless, you can guarantee their Z790 boards will be extremely good.



Surprised to hear Asus does not use their own fabrication process. Given Asus has much better quality than the other 2, I would think they would have cause if its in house don't you know more about how things work.

Gigabyte and MSI seem much worse in terms of reliability yet their fabs are in house. Wow!!


----------



## Falkentyne

Wolverine2349 said:


> Surprised to hear Asus does not use their own fabrication process. Given Asus has much better quality than the other 2, I would think they would have cause if its in house don't you know more about how things work.
> 
> Gigabyte and MSI seem much worse in terms of reliability yet their fabs are in house. Wow!!


It's the same thing as Nvidia or Intel having TSMC produce their chips.
Nvidia designed the FE, but they don't make the FE. One of their OEM's, which has a fabbing plant, does. I think Pallit or Foxconn or something. If Pallit uses a substandard part substitute or a defective machine and a batch of cards' VRM's catch on fire, who gets blamed? Nvidia, of course!


----------



## Wolverine2349

Falkentyne said:


> It's the same thing as Nvidia or Intel having TSMC produce their chips.
> Nvidia designed the FE, but they don't make the FE. One of their OEM's, which has a fabbing plant, does. I think Pallit or Foxconn or something. If Pallit uses a substandard part substitute or a defective machine and a batch of cards' VRM's catch on fire, who gets blamed? Nvidia, of course!



Yes that's true but in Intel's case, they have almost always used their own FABs where as AMD always used a 3rd party. Many believed that because Intel had their own in house fab that was a big reason why for so many years they were much better performance and quality and reliability than AMD as part of their much better and bigger resources.


----------



## LazyGamer

Wolverine2349 said:


> Gigabyte and MSI seem much worse in terms of reliability yet their fabs are in house. Wow!!


Gigabyte I get - well, anything recent at least - but MSI?


----------



## IronAge

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1579458130349797376
Me wants too. 🤤


----------



## TwinTurbo

Falkentyne said:


> AFAIK, Asus doesn't have their own fabrication factories, so Asus themselves were not responsible directly.
> It was their partner (either a Pegatron subsidiary or a Vietnam based factory) and they were probably completely blindsided by this.
> Note that Pegatron is NOT part of Asus. They were spun off from them over 15 years ago and are their own manufacturing company now.
> Calling Pegatron part of Asus is as bad as calling Asrock part of Asus, even if they were originally an Asus division long ago.
> The only motherboard manufacturers that actually silkscreen and completely fab their own motherboards in house are MSI and Gigabyte.
> 
> *Regardless, you can guarantee their Z790 boards will be extremely good.*


That's a strong statement...care to expound on that?

I'm genuinely asking as I haven't had an Asus board in a while and am currently using a Gigabyte Z390. Apparently Gigabyte has gone downhill since then. Just curious if you have some insight.


----------



## LazyGamer

TwinTurbo said:


> That's a strong statement...care to expound on that?
> 
> I'm genuinely asking as I haven't had an Asus board in a while and am currently using a Gigabyte Z390. Apparently Gigabyte has gone downhill since then. Just curious if you have some insight.


I have two Gigabyte boards - a Z390 ITX and a B550 ITX. Both quite nice unless you install Gigabyte's software (but that goes for _all_ of them).

I also had a Gigabyte Z690 Aero D - had literally everything I wanted in a board. But in two months time it'd killed three separate kits of G.Skill RGB DDR5, and the board wasn't stable with the pair of XPG DDR5 sticks I started out with either.

Same CPU is working great in an MSI MEG Z690 ACE, which is basically an up-kitted MEG Z690 Unify (adds Thunderbolt, second NIC, and video out), with the same memory SKUs as well as some others. Same CPU also worked in the ASUS Strix Z690-A DDR4 I got in a combo with it.

At the same time, you have folks like Buildzoid abusing Gigabyte boards and still getting competitive results. I'll also note that I picked up my Gigabyte B550 ITX board after having returned the problematic Z690 Aero D; I can't say that I have a poor opinion of Gigabyte outside of their DDR5 boards, but as with DDR4, they're likely to improve over time.


----------



## chispy

tps3443 said:


> Has anyone here tested the ASrock Aqua OC Z690?
> 
> 
> It seems like a great motherboard. 12 later PCB, 2 Dimms, OLED readout, awesome looking monoblock.
> 
> These even include their own leak test kit.
> 
> This thing would probably work well with a 13900K/KF
> 
> View attachment 2575138
> 
> View attachment 2575140
> 
> View attachment 2575139
> 
> View attachment 2575137
> 
> View attachment 2575141


I have and they are at the very top of the high end of z690 boards , without a doubt a fine choice for a 13900k built. Go for it . Very stable and no problems to report , solid as a rock 💪


----------



## Falkentyne

TwinTurbo said:


> That's a strong statement...care to expound on that?
> 
> I'm genuinely asking as I haven't had an Asus board in a while and am currently using a Gigabyte Z390. Apparently Gigabyte has gone downhill since then. Just curious if you have some insight.


I have one, as do several other testers.
You've already seen that guy from Taiwan who has both an Extreme and either has or is friends with someone doing 8800 MT/s on an Apex (but someone broke NDA to post that screenshot).


----------



## 2500k_2

Falkentyne said:


> doing 8800 MT/s on an Apex


daily stable?


----------



## Ichirou

2500k_2 said:


> daily stable?


Most likely not.


----------



## energie80

I’m actually 6800 cl30 with Hynix m on unify x z690 wondering if moving to z790 or not 😵‍💫


----------



## Groove2013

Ichirou said:


> Most likely not.


most interesting is what part in this plays Raptor IMC and what A-DIE


----------



## Ichirou

energie80 said:


> I’m actually 6800 cl30 with Hynix m on unify x z690 wondering if moving to z790 or not 😵‍💫


DDR5 users who already have a 12th Gen should skip the 13th Gen for the 14th or 15th.

CPU IMCs, motherboards, and DDR5 will only keep getting better from here on out.
It only makes sense to grab a 13th Gen if you are a DDR4 user and need to max out.


----------



## energie80

Will upgrade to a 13900k for the moment even if my 12900ks going strong at 5400mhz all cores 😅


----------



## energie80

Will upgrade to a 13900k for the moment even if my 12900ks going strong at 5400mhz all cores


----------



## TwinTurbo

LazyGamer said:


> I have two Gigabyte boards - a Z390 ITX and a B550 ITX. Both quite nice unless you install Gigabyte's software (but that goes for _all_ of them).
> 
> I also had a Gigabyte Z690 Aero D - had literally everything I wanted in a board. But in two months time it'd killed three separate kits of G.Skill RGB DDR5, and the board wasn't stable with the pair of XPG DDR5 sticks I started out with either.
> 
> Same CPU is working great in an MSI MEG Z690 ACE, which is basically an up-kitted MEG Z690 Unify (adds Thunderbolt, second NIC, and video out), with the same memory SKUs as well as some others. Same CPU also worked in the ASUS Strix Z690-A DDR4 I got in a combo with it.
> 
> At the same time, you have folks like Buildzoid abusing Gigabyte boards and still getting competitive results. I'll also note that I picked up my Gigabyte B550 ITX board after having returned the problematic Z690 Aero D; I can't say that I have a poor opinion of Gigabyte outside of their DDR5 boards, but as with DDR4, they're likely to improve over time.


They were great in the Z390 era, but too many issues lately for me to go that route again. I do hope they rebound, however.



Falkentyne said:


> I have one, as do several other testers.
> You've already seen that guy from Taiwan who has both an Extreme and either has or is friends with someone doing 8800 MT/s on an Apex (but someone broke NDA to post that screenshot).


I appreciate your input based on firsthand experience.


----------



## Telstar

IronAge said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1579458130349797376
> Me wants too. 🤤


I wish evga made a ddr4 board


----------



## Ichirou

Telstar said:


> I wish evga made a ddr4 board


They refuse to. I actually contacted them on Twitter; says no plans whatsoever.
It's probably for the same reasons why AMD chose to ignore DDR4 as well. EOL technology.


----------



## Telstar

It makes sense (less for AMD), esp with their low volumes.


----------



## newls1

This thread will be getting real busy soon as the release of the raptor is nearing. Anyone else who owns the 12900KS going to wait for the 13900KS release? Im pretty sure once a "KS" owner, always a KS owner!


----------



## energie80

Not sure if I can resist 😵‍💫


----------



## morph.

Falkentyne said:


> I have one, as do several other testers.
> You've already seen that guy from Taiwan who has both an Extreme and either has or is friends with someone doing 8800 MT/s on an Apex (but someone broke NDA to post that screenshot).


@Falkentyne Are you able to divulge if the older gen boards, specifically the Asus z690 formulas/Hero's can run 13th gen without too much of a disadvantage/issues with overclocking the CPU & memory, please? I got a 13900k on pre-order, hoping to just slap it into my z690 formula with a contact frame and the updated bios allowing decent headroom for overclocking and not being overly limited/disadvantaged being on the older chipset platform. Much appreciated if you can!


----------



## Falkentyne

morph. said:


> Are you able to divulge if the older gen boards, specifically the Asus z690 formulas/rog's can run 13th gen without too much of a disadvantage/issues with overclocking the CPU & memory?


I can tell you that the Z790 + QS chip can run my 5600 Micron Ripjaws sticks at 5800 at the same timings and voltages I used for 5600 on the Z690 and a 12900K QS, that is the same daily 36/39/36/48 with tweaked subs I used for months. In fact at 1.35/1.40v, it actually seems even more stable than 1.38/1.43v @ 5600 was on the Z690. 5800 was impossible to stabilize on z690+12900K QS without loosening too much stuff. If beggar micron can be improved like that, you may want to hold onto your butts to see how A-die (or even good M-die) performs (no, I don't have it, unless someone wants to buy me a set, I can't afford that).

No, unfortunately, I can't tell you if that's from the CPU or the motherboard. That would require too many mounts and installs and since I'm using LM on the IHS as well, I don't want to risk bending pins or having an accident, sorry.


----------



## morph.

Falkentyne said:


> I can tell you that the Z790 + QS chip can run my 5600 Micron Ripjaws sticks at 5800 at the same timings and voltages I used for 5600 on the Z690 and a 12900K QS, that is the same daily 36/39/36/48 with tweaked subs I used for months. In fact at 1.35/1.40v, it actually seems even more stable than 1.38/1.43v @ 5600 was on the Z690. 5800 was impossible to stabilize on z690+12900K QS without loosening too much stuff. If beggar micron can be improved like that, you may want to hold onto your butts to see how A-die (or even good M-die) performs (no, I don't have it, unless someone wants to buy me a set, I can't afford that).
> 
> No, unfortunately, I can't tell you if that's from the CPU or the motherboard. That would require too many mounts and installs and since I'm using LM on the IHS as well, I don't want to risk bending pins or having an accident, sorry.


Interesting thank you. I wonder how your mem oc goes with the other way around, say the 13th gen chip with the z690 mobo haha... Guess I'll just have to cross my fingers and toes and wait anxiously. It just costs phenomenally too much to update the motherboard every iteration these days, especially enthusiast-grade ones. Plus way too much effort with a hard loop I'm getting lazier and lazier these days with cutting and bending tubes that or I'm more time-poor with a 2yo in the house running around.


----------



## Ichirou

morph. said:


> Interesting thank you. I wonder how your mem oc goes with the other way around, say the 13th gen chip with the z690 mobo haha... Guess I'll just have to cross my fingers and toes and wait anxiously. It just costs phenomenally too much to update the motherboard every iteration these days, especially enthusiast-grade ones. Plus way too much effort with a hard loop I'm getting lazier and lazier these days with cutting and bending tubes that or I'm more time-poor with a 2yo in the house running around.


Z690 boards will be stuck in the 7000-8000 MHz max range for DDR5.
But there are no restrictions for DDR4, since it's strictly IMC limited for that.


----------



## morph.

Ichirou said:


> Z690 boards will be stuck in the 7000-8000 MHz max range for DDR5.
> But there are no restrictions for DDR4, since it's strictly IMC limited for that.


If it can go up to 8000MHz that would suffice for another year I guess... What's the reasoning for the max ddr5 range is it limited by the z690 chipset not say CPU microcode or imc?


----------



## Ichirou

morph. said:


> If it can go up to 8000MHz that would suffice for another year I guess... What's the reasoning for the max ddr5 range is it limited by the z690 chipset not say CPU microcode or imc?


Memory slots just aren't strong enough for the most part.

CPU IMC plays a small part, but Igor's Lab debunked that a _long time ago_ when they were provided with a binned Apex that could boot their RAM into the mid-7000s easily with pretty much every 12900K they binned.

And yet, virtually nobody else with an Apex (even 2022 revision) could do that. They'd just cap off at around 7,200 MHz or so.

Plus, Hynix M-die itself kind of caps off around that point too due to a voltage limiter built into the RAM itself. Hynix A-die is actually just M-die without the voltage limiter.
At least, that's what the Taobao Hynix A-die seller claims is the case. He doesn't call it "M-die" or "A-die" but Hynix M-die with and without voltage limits.
Not sure how people broke 10,000 MHz though. Probably hacked the RAM or something. I wouldn't know.


----------



## Shonk

Are there any confirmed detailed specs yet
Im super tempted to upgrade my 12900k

My current build is a Z690 Aorus Elite AX DDR4 with 2 x 32GB Micron B Die @ 3900 16-18-18-36-CR1 @1.35V

All core 4.9 ADL to 5.5?
Uncore 3.6 ADL to 4.6?
Is 5.8 Single Core TVB or normal Turbo 3.0
etc..

I did consider replacing the board also but there's hardly any diff just the pcie x4 slots are 4.0 now
I have Intel 900P 480GB + Intel 800P 118GB Optane drives in them anyway
and the fact the Gigabyte Z790 DDR4 boards are 8+8 Parallel in comparison to mine being 16 Phase
Its a downgrade for my usecase


----------



## Ichirou

Shonk said:


> Are there any confirmed detailed specs yet
> Im super tempted to upgrade my 12900k
> 
> My current build is a Z690 Aorus Elite AX DDR4 with 2 x 32GB Micron B Die @ 3900 16-18-18-36-CR1
> 
> All core 4.9 ADL to 5.5?
> Uncore 3.6 ADL tol 4.6?
> Is 5.8 Single Core TVB or normal Turbo 3.0
> etc..


You more or less have it right. I'm pretty sure it's just standard single core boosting up to 58x.


----------



## morph.

Ichirou said:


> Memory slots just aren't strong enough for the most part.


Interesting point, can't say I've followed it too much but I did hear about motherboard binning too which is crazy... As well as memory tracing and whatnot.


----------



## morph.

Shonk said:


> Are there any confirmed detailed specs yet
> Im super tempted to upgrade my 12900k
> 
> My current build is a Z690 Aorus Elite AX DDR4 with 2 x 32GB Micron B Die @ 3900 16-18-18-36-CR1 @1.35V
> 
> All core 4.9 ADL to 5.5?
> Uncore 3.6 ADL to 4.6?
> Is 5.8 Single Core TVB or normal Turbo 3.0
> etc..
> 
> I did consider replacing the board also but there's hardly any diff just the pcie x4 slots are 4.0 now
> I have Intel 900P 480GB + Intel 800P 118GB Optane drives in them anyway
> and the fact the Gigabyte Z790 DDR4 boards are 8+8 Parallel in comparison to mine being 16 Phase
> Its a downgrade for my usecase


IMHO probably not worth replacing your board this late in the 1700 socket cycle. it's possible the 14th gen would be another socket type so z890 is probably the better chipset to jump to once that's avail. But falkentyne has seen very good improvements with at least the Asus z790s.


----------



## carlhil2

I pre-ordered that TG [email protected] ram from New Egg. just hope that I get to enjoy those speeds with the z790 Hero...


----------



## 2500k_2

del


----------



## Spicedaddy

I'm waiting for benchmarks but I'll probably upgrade my 12900K. 

Keeping the Z690 Hero and 2x16GB DDR5-5600 from last year.


----------



## tps3443

chispy said:


> I have and they are at the very top of the high end of z690 boards , without a doubt a fine choice for a 13900k built. Go for it . Very stable and no problems to report , solid as a rock 💪


Thank you. I figured it was solid. I have not found anything bad being said about the Aqua OC. It’s not a bad price for $800 considering all you get with it.

These prices for Z790 Hero are just crazy in comparison.


The Asrock Z590 Formula OC Was also one of the best motherboards for 11900K. From what I understand Asrock has their 2 dimm boards right for overclocking, and the formula OC heritage carried in to the Aqua OC.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Thank you. I figured it was solid. I have not found anything bad being said about the Aqua OC. It’s not a bad price for $800 considering all you get with it.
> 
> These prices for Z790 Hero are just crazy in comparison.
> 
> 
> The Asrock Z590 Formula OC Was also one of the best motherboards for 11900K. From what I understand Asrock has their 2 dimm boards right for overclocking, and the formula OC heritage carried in to the Aqua OC.


Just keep in mind that ASRock's BIOSes have a bit of a learning curve involved, since they name most stuff different from other brands.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Just keep in mind that ASRock's BIOSes have a bit of a learning curve involved, since they name most stuff different from other brands.


I really like the aesthetics of it, I’m at the point now where it’s just a want because it’s awesome and looks cool LOL. And I really do feel like it would most likely OC better than other high end Z690 motherboards. Changing bios is something I did not want to do at all. for the past (3) systems I am accustomed to EVGA Dark bios, but even if I don’t buy the Aqua OC, I’ll be changing bios anyways, because I’ve got a MSI Unify-X and some DDR5 waiting on my 13900KF to arrive.

With Z790 right around the corner, I’ll be looking out for a price drop on the Z690 Aqua OC. They are very limited of only (500) made in the world.


----------



## tps3443

9 days to go.


----------



## Nizzen

Ichirou said:


> Memory slots just aren't strong enough for the most part.
> 
> CPU IMC plays a small part, but Igor's Lab debunked that a _long time ago_ when they were provided with a binned Apex that could boot their RAM into the mid-7000s easily with pretty much every 12900K they binned.
> 
> And yet, virtually nobody else with an Apex (even 2022 revision) could do that. They'd just cap off at around 7,200 MHz or so.
> 
> Plus, Hynix M-die itself kind of caps off around that point too due to a voltage limiter built into the RAM itself. Hynix A-die is actually just M-die without the voltage limiter.
> At least, that's what the Taobao Hynix A-die seller claims is the case. He doesn't call it "M-die" or "A-die" but Hynix M-die with and without voltage limits.
> Not sure how people broke 10,000 MHz though. Probably hacked the RAM or something. I wouldn't know.


It looks like there are 2 types of A-die.
-High voltage a-die that scales with voltage 1.6v+++ (this is what I have)
-Low voltage a-die that run like 7000mhz with 1.35v easy. 

Ps: I could be wrong


----------



## Ichirou

Ordered another 13900K, this time from BestBuy instead (to add some variance, since I know for a fact that different stores get different batches):








Gonna keep the better one, which is most likely going to be from BestBuy rather than Canada Computers, but who knows.
Also, I don't really expect CC to deliver on time.


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> Ordered another 13900K, this time from BestBuy instead (to add some variance, since I know for a fact that different stores get different batches):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna keep the better one, which is most likely going to be from BestBuy rather than Canada Computers, but who knows.
> Also, I don't really expect CC to deliver on time.


Where did you find the Best Buy pre-order? I've been looking.


----------



## lordkahless

don1376 said:


> Where did you find the Best Buy pre-order? I've been looking.


I think that was for Canada. Doesn't look like there is a pre order in the US yet.


----------



## don1376

lordkahless said:


> I think that was for Canada. Doesn't look like there is a pre order in the US yet.


OK, thanks.


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> Where did you find the Best Buy pre-order? I've been looking.


I didn't see it available on BB for weeks, and then just randomly took a look today and saw it.


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> I didn't see it available on BB for weeks, and then just randomly took a look today and saw it.


Thanks, I even called Bestbuy in US and she couldn't even tell me if they are going to offer pre-order in US. Reason why I'm trying to order from them is because I have a $600 gift card with them. I'll just have to keep checking. Thanks


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> Thanks, I even called Bestbuy in US and she couldn't even tell me if they are going to offer pre-order in US. Reason why I'm trying to order from them is because I have a $600 gift card with them. I'll just have to keep checking. Thanks


Maybe you could just pop in on the 20th? A couple of hours is not likely to affect batch quality.


----------



## Jeges

It's crazy fast even at stock speeds


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> Maybe you could just pop in on the 20th? A couple of hours is not likely to affect batch quality.


True


----------



## gtz

Jeges said:


> It's crazy fast even at stock speeds
> 
> View attachment 2575420


Damn 40K, multi threaded score is beastly. It is crazy that this is a desktop SKU and not a HEDT.


----------



## ITAngel

I just got the 12900K not long ago to hold me over but I plan to move to the 13900K eventually. For me this is important for content creation under Unreal Engine 5 and Unity Engine etc... Not much looking to overclock just would love to have those 24 cores available. I like the idea of E-cores to keep the power down when you doing coding/web browsing etc... =)


----------



## pastuch

Ichirou said:


> Ordered another 13900K, this time from BestBuy instead (to add some variance, since I know for a fact that different stores get different batches):
> 
> Gonna keep the better one, which is most likely going to be from BestBuy rather than Canada Computers, but who knows.
> Also, I don't really expect CC to deliver on time.


Me too Ichi, thanks for sharing. I ordered the 13000kf for $759.

1. Why the 13900k over the 13900kf?
2. How will you identify which CPU is the better overclocker without opening the box? 

My orders are the same, one Canada Computers and one Bestbuy, my last two Ryzens from Canada Computers were absolute ****ters with terrible IMC so I may just cancel the CC order and stick with bestbuy.


----------



## Ichirou

pastuch said:


> Me too Ichi, thanks for sharing. I ordered the 13000kf for $759.
> 
> 1. Why the 13900k over the 13900kf?
> 2. How will you identify which CPU is the better overclocker without opening the box?
> 
> My orders are the same, one Canada Computers and one Bestbuy, my last two Ryzens from Canada Computers were absolute ****ters with terrible IMC so I may just cancel the CC order and stick with bestbuy.


I had a poor 12900K bin with CC as well. Chances are, Intel gives them worse batches over time. But since the 13th Gen will be a new release, it shouldn't be affected heavily.
Canada Computers accepts open-box returns. So you can just test it first and if it doesn't seem that great, keep the BestBuy one.

It isn't hard to get a good idea of what is a good bin or not at this point in time. I already know what to expect based on voltage numbers a friend (who shall not be named) gave me. Besides, I'm more concerned about the DDR4 IMC, not the cores.

As for why the K over the KF, I just like the box.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> I had a poor 12900K bin with CC as well. Chances are, Intel gives them worse batches over time. But since the 13th Gen will be a new release, it shouldn't be affected heavily.
> Canada Computers accepts open-box returns. So you can just test it first and if it doesn't seem that great, keep the BestBuy one.
> 
> It isn't hard to get a good idea of what is a good bin or not at this point in time. I already know what to expect based on voltage numbers a friend (who shall not be named) gave me. Besides, I'm more concerned about the DDR4 IMC, not the cores.
> 
> As for why the K over the KF, I just like the box.



Plus it is less expensive even if only by $30. And who cares about the iGPU.


----------



## pastuch

Wolverine2349 said:


> Plus it is less expensive even if only by $30. And who cares about the iGPU.


The Canadian pricing makes no sense but I like it. The 13900KF is the only CPU in the stack selling below US MSRP. Every other chip is more than the USA by a few percent. 

13900KF is $759 CAD which is $550 USD. It's actually selling below the US MSRP, which is 564 USD. This fact alone made me buy one over a 13700kf, it's $550 which is $398, US MSRP is $384. 
13900K is $850 CAD which is $616 USD. This is comparatively a bad deal because US MSRP is $589 USD.


----------



## Ichirou

pastuch said:


> The Canadian pricing makes no sense but I like it. The 13900KF is the only CPU in the stack selling below US MSRP. Every other chip is more than the USA by a few percent.
> 
> 13900KF is $759 CAD which is $550 USD. It's actually selling below the US MSRP, which is 564 USD. This fact alone made me buy one over a 13700kf, it's $550 which is $398, US MSRP is $384.
> 13900K is $850 CAD which is $616 USD. This is comparatively a bad deal because US MSRP is $589 USD.


BestBuy does have price protection, so you can always match it against CC after the 20th. CC has both for exactly MSRP right now.


----------



## HyperC

Im just hoping for 5.4ghz all core @ 1.20v with 4400mhz ram gear 1 and having my cpu on the 22nd  ... What is everyone's expectations on the lotto


----------



## Ichirou

HyperC said:


> Im just hoping for 5.4ghz all core @ 1.20v with 4400mhz ram gear 1 and having my cpu on the 22nd  ... What is everyone's expectations on the lotto


4,400 MHz Gear 1 is a bit of a lofty estimate. Especially when most 12th Gen chips capped off at 4,133 MHz stable.
You should be happy if 4,266-4,300 MHz stable is achievable with reasonable VCCSA. The chips are still the same, just better binned.


----------



## Falkentyne

HyperC said:


> Im just hoping for 5.4ghz all core @ 1.20v with 4400mhz ram gear 1 and having my cpu on the 22nd  ... What is everyone's expectations on the lotto


5.5 ghz all core is stock. Why are you hoping for under stock?
Of course there seems to be an argument about this.
Older Intel slides showed 5.5 ghz P core turbo boost, while newer slides showed "up to 5.4 ghz turbo boost". I have no idea what's right or wrong.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> 5.5 ghz all core is stock. Why are you hoping for under stock?
> Of course there seems to be an argument about this.
> Older Intel slides showed 5.5 ghz P core turbo boost, while newer slides showed "up to 5.4 ghz turbo boost". I have no idea what's right or wrong.


Intel initially wanted to promise 5.5 GHz all-core, but eventually pulled that down to 5.4 GHz.
It could be due to them wanting to limit thermals or voltage. Or maybe the chips overall aren't as consistently binned as we believe.
Whatever the reasoning may be, it definitely indicates a weakness in the chip.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Intel initially wanted to promise 5.5 GHz all-core, but eventually pulled that down to 5.4 GHz.
> It could be due to them wanting to limit thermals or voltage. Or maybe the chips overall aren't as consistently binned as we believe.
> Whatever the reasoning may be, it definitely indicates a weakness in the chip.


Someone in Japan posted an interview with an intel engineer over on chiphell.
They said, take the same vcore you ran a 12900 KS at at stock (5.2 ghz) and add 200 mhz to it.

Or, take a 12900KS at 5.2 ghz and subtract 50mv vcore for the same 5.2 ghz (despite more e cores).

What were average 12900K's doing at 5.2 ghz (NOT delidded or on 10 Moras with 20 fans) for average _load_ die sense vcore? Load, not bios voltage set.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Hoping for 13900K(KF) or 13700K(KF) that can achieve fast enough all P core clock with e-cores shut off to at least match 1440P gaming performance with the 8 core Zen 4 3D cache when paired with an RTX 4090.

Waiting for reviews and some more info on upcoming AMD Zen 4 3D cache variants to predict whether go Intel Raptor Lake or go AMD 3D V Cache route to power a 4090 gaming.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Intel initially wanted to promise 5.5 GHz all-core, but eventually pulled that down to 5.4 GHz.
> It could be due to them wanting to limit thermals or voltage. Or maybe the chips overall aren't as consistently binned as we believe.
> Whatever the reasoning may be, it definitely indicates a weakness in the chip.



*Maximum operating frequency increased by 600MHz from 5.2GHz to 5.8GHz*
*With the same 5.2GHz operation, the core voltage can be lowered by 50mV*
*With the same core voltage, the operating frequency can be increased by 200MHz*









Tech Tourで判明したRaptor Lakeの内部構造　インテル CPUロードマップ (2/3)


前回はZen 4の内部構造の説明だったので、今回はRaptor Lakeの内部構造を説明したい。




ascii.jp


----------



## morph.

Does anyone know when review embargos get lifted?

Genuinely curious how well the 13900k vs 12900k pairs with a 4090 at 1440p.

Seems like with a 12900k with a 4090 is approximately 65% > 3090 at 1440p and 80% > 3090 at 4k.

Finger in air guess the gap/scaling with a 13900k & 4090hopefully around 75% > at1440p vs a 3090.


----------



## dante`afk

you'll see 1-5% gain with the settings you posted.


----------



## morph.

dante`afk said:


> you'll see 1-5% gain with the settings you posted.


well hopefully I can push the 13900k a bit more relatively to stock to open that gain gap a bit more.


----------



## Formula383

Wolverine2349 said:


> I thought HT these days were good. Its been around for years and shceudlers know how to use it well.
> For gaming HT matters much more than e cores. The Windows 10 scheduler knows how to deal with HT and HT has been around for over 20 years. Hybrid arch is new and schedulers do not know how to deal with it I would think.
> Would extra L3 cache make performance much better in general that Raptor Lake is going to have??





Arni90 said:


> Why does it matter if the E-cores are very slow? Every workload imaginable will be bound in one of two ways:
> 1. Single-threaded performance
> 2. Multi-threaded performance
> In the case of #1, you really don't need a lot of fast cores, you need 2, maybe 3, extremely fast cores.
> In the case of #2, you want as much total performance as possible, in which case the E-cores are posting far more impressive performance per mm^2 than a P-core.
> Even in the worst case of vectorized FP32 workloads, 4 E-cores can still give 2x the performance per clock compared to a P-core. Sure, the P-core runs 25% faster and is smaller in area, but the E-core cluster is still going to perform better relative to area, and at a lower power draw.
> If you're primarily gaming, E-cores on or off doesn't make any significant difference until you actually lock the ring frequency to extremely high numbers. You're far better off disabling HT, and leaving E-cores enabled, than disabling E-cores and running with HT.
> As for no 7980XE successor? You wouldn't want 4 GHz Ice Lake, while Sapphire Rapids is still struggling to ramp up.
> Larger L2 cache will not make a big difference to performance, most software are either limited by L3 capacity or L1 latency. L2 exists mostly to reduce power draw.


Worse yet the e cores get used by things that should be priority all the time. i use process lasso so i can change that but its less than ideal. how many tasks do you really want to be done slower? like who buys a 12900k to be efficient? Its not even like the p cores are really inefficient when you consider how much faster they get the work done. Sure if you push the clocks they can use more power but even then they really are not that hungry for most tasks.

You cant always use fast cores with slow cores with out making the fast cores wait for the slow cores. so no its not just a simple 1-2 category. e cores are extremely good for benchmarking like cenibench and that is exactly the reason intel is using them to save die space and cost while maintaining parity with amd for marketing.

Who in the world would actually want half of there cpu to be slow like skylake urach that has been around for 8 years? Just give me the real cores and i'll do what i want with them. idgaf about benchmarks they are almost all useless to real world anyways.

And is the reason i will be going with am5 for the 3dcache cpu why? because it does it all. not interested in am5 with out 3d cache ether its no wonder they are suffering from weak sales. the new 7000 cpus are slower in games than the 5800x3d. who is going to buy that? these companies are just in total disconnect with what people care about. they think they can just BS everyone with marking. guess what that only works so long.

And yes the l3 cache will help but intel needs both more p cores and way more l3. but if they can make parity with less they will do it.


----------



## Formula383

morph. said:


> Does anyone know when review embargos get lifted?
> 
> Genuinely curious how well the 13900k vs 12900k pairs with a 4090 at 1440p.
> 
> Seems like with a 12900k with a 4090 is approximately 65% > 3090 at 1440p and 80% > 3090 at 4k.
> 
> Finger in air guess the gap/scaling with a 13900k & 4090hopefully around 75% > at1440p vs a 3090.


7000x3d will be your best bet for the 4090, but the 4090 is more of a 4k card or a 1440p with RT enabled. Dunno what the new amd gpu's are going to be but i'm guessing they will be fairly competitive. I say hold off if you can as prices are likely to fall.

The 13900k is only good if you plan on saving money buy using ddr4 imho (basicly just a super binned 12900k with a little extra l3 cache expect around 5~10%uplift from the cache)

I mean sure you will have some games that get much higher average frames from the clocks speed however those games will already be very high fps to start with. so who cares if you get another 50fps when your already at 300~400fps? the lows wont change very much and games that dont run super high fps wont be able to make use of the cores speed anyway.


----------



## Nizzen

Formula383 said:


> Worse yet the e cores get used by things that should be priority all the time. i use process lasso so i can change that but its less than ideal. how many tasks do you really want to be done slower? like who buys a 12900k to be efficient? Its not even like the p cores are really inefficient when you consider how much faster they get the work done. Sure if you push the clocks they can use more power but even then they really are not that hungry for most tasks.
> 
> You cant always use fast cores with slow cores with out making the fast cores wait for the slow cores. so no its not just a simple 1-2 category. e cores are extremely good for benchmarking like cenibench and that is exactly the reason intel is using them to save die space and cost while maintaining parity with amd for marketing.
> 
> Who in the world would actually want half of there cpu to be slow like skylake urach that has been around for 8 years? Just give me the real cores and i'll do what i want with them. idgaf about benchmarks they are almost all useless to real world anyways.
> 
> And is the reason i will be going with am5 for the 3dcache cpu why? because it does it all. not interested in am5 with out 3d cache ether its no wonder they are suffering from weak sales. the new 7000 cpus are slower in games than the 5800x3d. who is going to buy that? these companies are just in total disconnect with what people care about. they think they can just BS everyone with marking. guess what that only works so long.
> 
> And yes the l3 cache will help but intel needs both more p cores and way more l3. but if they can make parity with less they will do it.


Looks like you haven't tested any cpu's for yourself 
Pleace try again


----------



## Ichirou

morph. said:


> Does anyone know when review embargos get lifted?
> 
> Genuinely curious how well the 13900k vs 12900k pairs with a 4090 at 1440p.
> 
> Seems like with a 12900k with a 4090 is approximately 65% > 3090 at 1440p and 80% > 3090 at 4k.
> 
> Finger in air guess the gap/scaling with a 13900k & 4090hopefully around 75% > at1440p vs a 3090.


Same as launch, but some countries in the East get to post sooner due to faster timezone.


----------



## Nizzen

Ichirou said:


> Same as launch, but some countries in the East get to post sooner due to faster timezone.


Faster timezone? 100mph VS 120mph?


----------



## Jeges

Fun fact, 5.7-5.8 ac is easily achivable with proper cooling


----------



## IronAge

@Jeges 

Can you show UEFI VID Points ?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Jeges said:


> Fun fact, 5.7-5.8 ac is easily achivable with proper cooling


What kind of easy cooling are we talking? 😂


----------



## morph.

Formula383 said:


> 7000x3d will be your best bet for the 4090, but the 4090 is more of a 4k card or a 1440p with RT enabled. Dunno what the new amd gpu's are going to be but i'm guessing they will be fairly competitive. I say hold off if you can as prices are likely to fall.
> 
> The 13900k is only good if you plan on saving money buy using ddr4 imho (basicly just a super binned 12900k with a little extra l3 cache expect around 5~10%uplift from the cache)
> 
> I mean sure you will have some games that get much higher average frames from the clocks speed however those games will already be very high fps to start with. so who cares if you get another 50fps when your already at 300~400fps? the lows wont change very much and games that dont run super high fps wont be able to make use of the cores speed anyway.


Not entirely sure I can agree with your statement. AFAIK the overclockability of AMD is much lower than the i9's in general and that in itself is a big hindrance to chasing or gaining more frames.


----------



## morph.

Jeges said:


> Fun fact, 5.7-5.8 ac is easily achivable with proper cooling


With e-cores enabled as well? Hopefully, my custom loop with triple 360 rads will be classified "proper cooling".


----------



## LazyGamer

morph. said:


> With e-cores enabled as well? Hopefully, my custom loop with triple 360 rads will be classified "proper cooling".


I'm gonna need another rad...


----------



## Wolverine2349

Jeges said:


> Fun fact, 5.7-5.8 ac is easily achivable with proper cooling



Are you saying 5.7 to 5.8 all P core on 13900K(KF) is easily achievable??


----------



## energie80

i think something like 5.5


----------



## Ichirou

MO-RA users unite!


----------



## Nizzen

Wolverine2349 said:


> Are you saying 5.7 to 5.8 all P core on 13900K(KF) is easily achievable??


58 very easy. 60 easy in games.

Is my guess


----------



## Wolverine2349

Nizzen said:


> 58 very easy. 60 easy in games.
> 
> Is my guess


Even on a good air cooler like NH-D15S. Of course I intend to shut off the e-cores.


----------



## Formula383

morph. said:


> Not entirely sure I can agree with your statement. AFAIK the overclockability of AMD is much lower than the i9's in general and that in itself is a big hindrance to chasing or gaining more frames.


Cpu speed does not matter if you can not get the data to the core fast enough. Today cpu's come "overclocked" out of the box. ie above what clock is needed to achieve optimal performance. This is ok but does use a bit more power. But pushing for higher clock speed will net you very little in actual performance. if you want your system to be fast you have to tune the memory. This is also one nice thing about 3d cache on the cpu it helps to reduce the number of hits the ram takes meaning even with less optimized timings it can still perform quite well. ie a very nice performance out of box. ofc you can still optimize the ram but the gains will be far less than a standard cpu with out a huge l3~l4 cache. If the data can make it to the core then cpu clocks will matter, and you can see this with benchmarks like cinebench higher clocks means more performance, and even some games that have proper optimization scale well with clock speed. the only thing is those games already run in the hundreds of fps so extra core speed is just not needed to have a smooth playing game.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Formula383 said:


> Cpu speed does not matter if you can not get the data to the core fast enough. Today cpu's come "overclocked" out of the box. ie above what clock is needed to achieve optimal performance. This is ok but does use a bit more power. But pushing for higher clock speed will net you very little in actual performance. if you want your system to be fast you have to tune the memory. This is also one nice thing about 3d cache on the cpu it helps to reduce the number of hits the ram takes meaning even with less optimized timings it can still perform quite well. ie a very nice performance out of box. ofc you can still optimize the ram but the gains will be far less than a standard cpu with out a huge l3~l4 cache. If the data can make it to the core then cpu clocks will matter, and you can see this with benchmarks like cinebench higher clocks means more performance, and even some games that have proper optimization scale well with clock speed. the only thing is those games already run in the hundreds of fps so extra core speed is just not needed to have a smooth playing game.



Many of today's CPU do boost and are overclocked out of box, but manual tuning especially for Intel yields better performance. Well AMD manual overclocking through BIOS seems more limited and less stable than Intel where as Intel you can achieve best results that way it seems. AMD you need to use PBO and CO and such and even then no guarantee all core all the time clock speeds.

Though with regards to faster CPU speed will not help much with gaming performance and needing to tune the memory. Do you think fast DDR5 like up to 7600MHz Gear 2 and fast clock speeds on Raptor Lake will allow it to not bottleneck RTX 4090?? And the 13900K(KF) do you think the extra L3 cache being 36MB will make a bug difference as well in being able to feed extra data like the Zen 3D versions do with Extra L3 cache. I know it is a much smaller amount 36MB compared to 96MB, but still a decent uplift especially as it seems Intel uses much less L3 cache in general than AMD for their IPC and performance of the CPUs compared to AMD.

I mean look at AMD they had 32MB of L2 cache on 8 core Zen 2 CPUs all the way back. Where as it took Intel until Alder Lake to even put 30MB L3 cache on a CPU. And yet Tiger Lake variants were similar in IPC to Zen 3 despite having much less L3 cache. And Golden cove beat it by 16-17% with slightly less L3 cache.

I wonder how much better 36MB L3 cache will be with e-cores off. Or was that cache just added because of the extra e-cores being in the design and will not provide benefit for the P cores if the e-cores are shut off.


----------



## Jeges

Uncle Dubbs said:


> What kind of easy cooling are we talking? 😂


For comparison it's just a 360 liquidfreezer II









so basically any custom loop


----------



## pastuch

Good deals on some Lian Li Gallahad AIOs right now in Canada. Is an AIO for $191 CAD really worth it over the NHD-15 I was planning on using? I just got the free bracket for the NHD-15 from Noctua. I'm assuming the answer is no. Trying to keep this upgrade under $1k CAD. Got 4x8 bdie already. 

Also, if you were me would you buy?
1. MSI Z690-a DDR4 
2. MSI Z690 Tomahawk DDR4

The only advantage I can see to the Tomahawk is the higher quality on-board audio which I would actually use but only with the default windows audio driver for lower latency.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Jeges said:


> For comparison it's just a 360 liquidfreezer II
> View attachment 2575638
> 
> 
> so basically any custom loop



Wow 5.5GHZ all P cores and the e-cores 4300MHz. Impressive How do yo have a 13900K when they are not out yet. Is that an engineering sample??

And you are able to keep them in the 30s with Cinebench running?? Wow!!


----------



## Falkentyne

Jeges said:


> For comparison it's just a 360 liquidfreezer II
> View attachment 2575638
> 
> 
> so basically any custom loop


Nice results, but
Show me a 5.8 ghz sync'd P-core run on a Liquid Freezer II 360 when you're already at 82C at 5.5 ghz.
I matched your vcore (VR VOUT) and your IOUT (Current IOUT) at 5.5 ghz (i'm guessing you used 1.260v set + Mode 3 LLC, and MSI is setting 0.01 mohm AC/DC Loadline (Not the same as loadline calibration!!) probably since your VID isn't changing) so these results are reasonable.

I challenge you to do it and get under 100C on a LF II 360. I'm going to take a guess that, depending on your scaling, you're going to need more than 1.3v VR VOUT load and you're going to be at 100C or higher, but I could be wrong. Show me? 



Wolverine2349 said:


> Wow 5.5GHZ all P cores and the e-cores 4300MHz. Impressive How do yo have a 13900K when they are not out yet. Is that an engineering sample??
> 
> And you are able to keep them in the 30s with Cinebench running?? Wow!!


He's currently sitting there idle. He ran the test, look at the "maximum" (amps/watts) column in hwinfo and minimum (vcore VR OUT vdroop). The VR VOUT and Current IOUT should give it away.
I'm guessing that his BIOS settings are "1.260v set, Mode 3 LLC", assuming MSI and Asus Vdroop on Mode 3 and LLC6 are the same (or very close to it), since his VR VOUT idle is 1.242v.


----------



## Jeges

Wolverine2349 said:


> Wow 5.5GHZ all P cores and the e-cores 4300MHz. Impressive How do yo have a 13900K when they are not out yet. Is that an engineering sample??
> 
> And you are able to keep them in the 30s with Cinebench running?? Wow!!


You know when you start a 10 min loop and stop the bench it keep saying "running".


----------



## Jeges

Falkentyne said:


> Nice results, but
> Show me a 5.8 ghz sync'd P-core run on a Liquid Freezer II 360 when you're already at 82C at 5.5 ghz.
> I matched your vcore (VR VOUT) and your IOUT (Current IOUT) at 5.5 ghz (i'm guessing you used 1.260v set + Mode 3 LLC, and MSI is setting 0.01 mohm AC/DC Loadline (Not the same as loadline calibration!!) probably since your VID isn't changing) so these results are reasonable.
> 
> I challenge you to do it and get under 100C on a LF II 360. I'm going to take a guess that, depending on your scaling, you're going to need more than 1.3v VR VOUT load and you're going to be at 100C or higher, but I could be wrong. Show me?
> 
> 
> 
> He's currently sitting there idle. He ran the test, look at the "maximum" (amps/watts) column in hwinfo and minimum (vcore VR OUT vdroop). The VR VOUT and Current IOUT should give it away.
> I'm guessing that his BIOS settings are "1.260v set, Mode 3 LLC", assuming MSI and Asus Vdroop on Mode 3 and LLC6 are the same (or very close to it), since his VR VOUT idle is 1.242v.


Bios setting is 1.25 LLC3 the chip can do the same at 1.225 just added "25mv for extra stability. I'll keep the AIO until i get my 4090 later i'll show my results with a custom loop.


----------



## Falkentyne

Jeges said:


> Bios setting is 1.25 LLC3 the chip can do the same at 1.225 just added "25mv for extra stability. I'll keep the AIO until i get my 4090 later i'll show my results with a custom loop.


Got it.
Can you check your PM please?
And please kindly see if you can pass a 5.8 ghz R23 run!


----------



## HyperC

I can't wait to see what I can do once my cpu and liquid metal comes in, I modded my xspc thread ripper block and using just paste atm temps are same vs neo pro with liquid metal


----------



## th3illusiveman

morph. said:


> Does anyone know when review embargos get lifted?
> 
> Genuinely curious how well the 13900k vs 12900k pairs with a 4090 at 1440p.
> 
> Seems like with a 12900k with a 4090 is approximately 65% > 3090 at 1440p and 80% > 3090 at 4k.
> 
> Finger in air guess the gap/scaling with a 13900k & 4090hopefully around 75% > at1440p vs a 3090.


The lower scaling at lower resolutions may also be engine limits which no CPU can overcome. You'd need DLSS3 for those use cases.


----------



## LazyGamer

th3illusiveman said:


> The lower scaling at lower resolutions may also be engine limits which no CPU can overcome. You'd need DLSS3 for those use cases.


Or just more intensive games!


----------



## xioaxi

Falkentyne said:


> And please kindly see if you can pass a 5.8 ghz R23 run!


Is this your way of saying your 13900k runs hot at 5.8GHz?


----------



## Falkentyne

xioaxi said:


> Is this your way of saying your 13900k runs hot at 5.8GHz?


I can't do 5.8 ghz without a custom loop...


----------



## Formula383

Wolverine2349 said:


> Many of today's CPU do boost and are overclocked out of box, but manual tuning especially for Intel yields better performance. Well AMD manual overclocking through BIOS seems more limited and less stable than Intel where as Intel you can achieve best results that way it seems. AMD you need to use PBO and CO and such and even then no guarantee all core all the time clock speeds.
> 
> Though with regards to faster CPU speed will not help much with gaming performance and needing to tune the memory. Do you think fast DDR5 like up to 7600MHz Gear 2 and fast clock speeds on Raptor Lake will allow it to not bottleneck RTX 4090?? And the 13900K(KF) do you think the extra L3 cache being 36MB will make a bug difference as well in being able to feed extra data like the Zen 3D versions do with Extra L3 cache. I know it is a much smaller amount 36MB compared to 96MB, but still a decent uplift especially as it seems Intel uses much less L3 cache in general than AMD for their IPC and performance of the CPUs compared to AMD.
> 
> I mean look at AMD they had 32MB of L2 cache on 8 core Zen 2 CPUs all the way back. Where as it took Intel until Alder Lake to even put 30MB L3 cache on a CPU. And yet Tiger Lake variants were similar in IPC to Zen 3 despite having much less L3 cache. And Golden cove beat it by 16-17% with slightly less L3 cache.
> 
> I wonder how much better 36MB L3 cache will be with e-cores off. Or was that cache just added because of the extra e-cores being in the design and will not provide benefit for the P cores if the e-cores are shut off.


There are any number of variables in "bottlenecking" a gpu. in many games the cpu will "bottleneck" the gpu just as many games the gpu will bottleneck the cpu. ie the system is only as fast as the slowest part of the system for that workload. in most games even with older gpu's people are memory bound, either from the l3 cache being too small or the latency to the memory takes too long.

As for DDR5 it will be a bit yet before we see anything that will compete with DDR4 b-die. Thats not to say you cant still have a fast machine with ddr5 its just not as good for latency. latency is very critical in todays systems with multi core cpu's as they can easily handle many things until the IO to the memory is to great and then things stal and become a **** show. hence why latency matters so much. and why clock speed does not really matter as there are other things that are the bottleneck first.

Now with the 7000 am5 cpu's with 3d cache should significantly reduce the number of times an app will require to reach out to system memory at all. meaning you wont require as aggressive timings to achieve like performance of a cpu with out 3d cache. ie higher latency wont affect performance nearly as much. meaning you wont need super insane expensive memory to get really good performance. not that having better latency memory would be a bad thing it just wont matter as much. 

Also keep in mind bottlenecking is HIGHLY dependent on the work or in your case game you are trying to play. the 4090 is really the first true RT card we have seen, its able to provide above 60fps at 1440p with RT enabled with out the need for DLSS. So if you enjoy using RT in games the 4090 will be a must have as your cpu in most games will have very little trouble matching the 4090's fps with RT on.

Instead of wondering will this cpu bottleneck my gpu. ask what is my target fps in each game you play with xxx settings applied. then find a cpu that will deliver those fps. then do the same thing for the gpu. what games are you playing and what fps are you looking for at what settings for each game. 

For me and the games i play its hard to get enough cpu fps so i will be waiting until the 7000 am5 cpus come out with 3d cache (i'm on the 12900k rn and its pretty good for 175fps gaming that i do in most games just not all). i think for the most played games (not single player AAA games) any modern ish gpu will be fine for 1440p with out RT. for years to come. and sure you might turn down a setting here and there but not a huge deal if it saves you 800$ for like 3~5 years.


----------



## Formula383

Wolverine2349 said:


> Many of today's CPU do boost and are overclocked out of box, but manual tuning especially for Intel yields better performance. Well AMD manual overclocking through BIOS seems more limited and less stable than Intel where as Intel you can achieve best results that way it seems. AMD you need to use PBO and CO and such and even then no guarantee all core all the time clock speeds.


I never use PBO i have no interest in letting ai control my clocks. altho it is a neat feature its just not how i use my cpu. Tune the clock speed for your load - temp - wattage you desire. then set a temp limit for the cores, this helps maintain stability with out needing as much voltage. Also regulates sudden bursty avx or other workloads that can happen ie using chrome will auto scan and it can be very hot using all threads to do so. If that happens it will hit my thermal limit and slow down as to not crash my system from high heat low vcore.

Same can be done with intel cpus. PBO is rubbish imho. unless its been changed to function better its just a waste of my time. Now if the limits did exactly what they said they did it would be better (and maybe they do now?) but even then i would rather set 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 core work load core speeds like you can with intel if you desire to do so. but honestly i dont even do that with my intel cpu. its just not something i need to do with how i use my pc.

So why dont i care about PBO? core speed is just not the limit of gaming performance most of the time and if it is the limit of the performance the fps is probably already very high. second reason is PBO is optimized to run 1 core very fast, only problem is when the cpu gets more work even for a brief moment it drops that clock speed down. and most games will always use around 3~4 cores and spike up to 6~8 cores at times that or some other app is using cpu time and this just means that my clocks are never steady state. ie causing lower clocks than just an all core clock when ever the cpu is asked to do more, arguably maybe the worst time for a cpu to slow its clock speeds down. and if i'm already seeing less scaling at once i hit 4.5ghz why bother with pushing to 4.9ghz when i could just run 4.7 and call it good? i mean to each there own have fun doing what you like to do. just my 2c.


----------



## centvalny

Nice to see early results from peeps with nda and early samples


----------



## energie80

Formula383 said:


> There are any number of variables in "bottlenecking" a gpu. in many games the cpu will "bottleneck" the gpu just as many games the gpu will bottleneck the cpu. ie the system is only as fast as the slowest part of the system for that workload. in most games even with older gpu's people are memory bound, either from the l3 cache being too small or the latency to the memory takes too long.
> 
> As for DDR5 it will be a bit yet before we see anything that will compete with DDR4 b-die. Thats not to say you cant still have a fast machine with ddr5 its just not as good for latency. latency is very critical in todays systems with multi core cpu's as they can easily handle many things until the IO to the memory is to great and then things stal and become a **** show. hence why latency matters so much. and why clock speed does not really matter as there are other things that are the bottleneck first.
> 
> Now with the 7000 am5 cpu's with 3d cache should significantly reduce the number of times an app will require to reach out to system memory at all. meaning you wont require as aggressive timings to achieve like performance of a cpu with out 3d cache. ie higher latency wont affect performance nearly as much. meaning you wont need super insane expensive memory to get really good performance. not that having better latency memory would be a bad thing it just wont matter as much.
> 
> Also keep in mind bottlenecking is HIGHLY dependent on the work or in your case game you are trying to play. the 4090 is really the first true RT card we have seen, its able to provide above 60fps at 1440p with RT enabled with out the need for DLSS. So if you enjoy using RT in games the 4090 will be a must have as your cpu in most games will have very little trouble matching the 4090's fps with RT on.
> 
> Instead of wondering will this cpu bottleneck my gpu. ask what is my target fps in each game you play with xxx settings applied. then find a cpu that will deliver those fps. then do the same thing for the gpu. what games are you playing and what fps are you looking for at what settings for each game.
> 
> For me and the games i play its hard to get enough cpu fps so i will be waiting until the 7000 am5 cpus come out with 3d cache (i'm on the 12900k rn and its pretty good for 175fps gaming that i do in most games just not all). i think for the most played games (not single player AAA games) any modern ish gpu will be fine for 1440p with out RT. for years to come. and sure you might turn down a setting here and there but not a huge deal if it saves you 800$ for like 3~5 years.


What is your latency with ddr4 bdie?


----------



## Nizzen

@Formula383 Show us some game benchmarks with ddr4, so we can compare with trash ddr5 

Start with tombraider 1080p. This should be easy win for your ddr4.


----------



## Xeq54

I also just received 13900KF early. Wont have time to play with it until friday evening though.


----------



## 6hartmann

Jeges said:


> For comparison it's just a 360 liquidfreezer II
> View attachment 2575638
> 
> 
> so basically any custom loop


would be interesting to see single core scores.


----------



## gtz

Falkentyne said:


> I can't do 5.8 ghz without a custom loop...


Can't wait until I get mine, this CPU is going to be running on a 2 360s, 1 240, 1 120. So if I get 5.8 on the p cores and still keep the e cores on I will be a happy camper. Would be a decent upgrade, ran my original 12900KF at 5.3P/41E/43 cache.


----------



## Xeq54




----------



## 6hartmann

Xeq54 said:


>


jealous!


----------



## Wolverine2349

Formula383 said:


> There are any number of variables in "bottlenecking" a gpu. in many games the cpu will "bottleneck" the gpu just as many games the gpu will bottleneck the cpu. ie the system is only as fast as the slowest part of the system for that workload. in most games even with older gpu's people are memory bound, either from the l3 cache being too small or the latency to the memory takes too long.
> 
> As for DDR5 it will be a bit yet before we see anything that will compete with DDR4 b-die. Thats not to say you cant still have a fast machine with ddr5 its just not as good for latency. latency is very critical in todays systems with multi core cpu's as they can easily handle many things until the IO to the memory is to great and then things stal and become a **** show. hence why latency matters so much. and why clock speed does not really matter as there are other things that are the bottleneck first.
> 
> Now with the 7000 am5 cpu's with 3d cache should significantly reduce the number of times an app will require to reach out to system memory at all. meaning you wont require as aggressive timings to achieve like performance of a cpu with out 3d cache. ie higher latency wont affect performance nearly as much. meaning you wont need super insane expensive memory to get really good performance. not that having better latency memory would be a bad thing it just wont matter as much.
> 
> Also keep in mind bottlenecking is HIGHLY dependent on the work or in your case game you are trying to play. the 4090 is really the first true RT card we have seen, its able to provide above 60fps at 1440p with RT enabled with out the need for DLSS. So if you enjoy using RT in games the 4090 will be a must have as your cpu in most games will have very little trouble matching the 4090's fps with RT on.
> 
> Instead of wondering will this cpu bottleneck my gpu. ask what is my target fps in each game you play with xxx settings applied. then find a cpu that will deliver those fps. then do the same thing for the gpu. what games are you playing and what fps are you looking for at what settings for each game.
> 
> For me and the games i play its hard to get enough cpu fps so i will be waiting until the 7000 am5 cpus come out with 3d cache (i'm on the 12900k rn and its pretty good for 175fps gaming that i do in most games just not all). i think for the most played games (not single player AAA games) any modern ish gpu will be fine for 1440p with out RT. for years to come. and sure you might turn down a setting here and there but not a huge deal if it saves you 800$ for like 3~5 years.



So do you think the 7000 AMD CPUs with 3D cache should significantly outperform 13900K(KF) in gaming workloads with regards to smooth FPS meaning much better strong 1% and 0.1% lows?? Or not much difference.

And how big a difference will the extra L3 cache is Cor ei9 1390K(KF) will make from 12700K and 12900K which only have 25MB and 30MB respectively where 13900K will have 36MB. This is under assumption e-waste cores are shut off and all 8 P cores have full access with no competition to the full L3 cache. How big a jump in game play smoothness will the 36MB L3 cache provide over 25MB and 30MB?? And will the 36MB L3 cache allow 13900K(KF) with e-waste cores shut down and ring clocked high enable it to compete well as in trade blows or even beat Ryzen 7000 3D cache in gaming?? Or is Ryzen 7000 3D cache going to win handily regardless in your opinion??


----------



## Wolverine2349

Formula383 said:


> I never use PBO i have no interest in letting ai control my clocks. altho it is a neat feature its just not how i use my cpu. Tune the clock speed for your load - temp - wattage you desire. then set a temp limit for the cores, this helps maintain stability with out needing as much voltage. Also regulates sudden bursty avx or other workloads that can happen ie using chrome will auto scan and it can be very hot using all threads to do so. If that happens it will hit my thermal limit and slow down as to not crash my system from high heat low vcore.
> 
> Same can be done with intel cpus. PBO is rubbish imho. unless its been changed to function better its just a waste of my time. Now if the limits did exactly what they said they did it would be better (and maybe they do now?) but even then i would rather set 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 core work load core speeds like you can with intel if you desire to do so. but honestly i dont even do that with my intel cpu. its just not something i need to do with how i use my pc.
> 
> So why dont i care about PBO? core speed is just not the limit of gaming performance most of the time and if it is the limit of the performance the fps is probably already very high. second reason is PBO is optimized to run 1 core very fast, only problem is when the cpu gets more work even for a brief moment it drops that clock speed down. and most games will always use around 3~4 cores and spike up to 6~8 cores at times that or some other app is using cpu time and this just means that my clocks are never steady state. ie causing lower clocks than just an all core clock when ever the cpu is asked to do more, arguably maybe the worst time for a cpu to slow its clock speeds down. and if i'm already seeing less scaling at once i hit 4.5ghz why bother with pushing to 4.9ghz when i could just run 4.7 and call it good? i mean to each there own have fun doing what you like to do. just my 2c.



I agree I think PBO is a gimmick and never use it and prefer static overclocking. With Intel easy peasy. With AMD, much static overclocking harder and more limited though not sure on Zen 4 how it is. But PBO is variable clock speed and I do not like that. I want all score same clock speed all the time. Though open to limited overclocking ability for Ryzen 7000 3D cache versions if they give the gaming performance desired out of the box.


----------



## FlanK3r

Falkentyne said:


> Got it.
> Can you check your PM please?
> And please kindly see if you can pass a 5.8 ghz R23 run!


its not possible, he is not alone, who has CPU and AIO cooler 
My 7950X can run 5500 CCD0 Cinebench, my 13900KF---NDA, but really not 5800 MHz  
But both CPUs are so strong, its crazy to watch renders  I need CPus only for benchamrking, mainrig for daily work, fun etc is based on older 3800X Ryzen and C7H board.


----------



## Rbk_3

pastuch said:


> Good deals on some Lian Li Gallahad AIOs right now in Canada. Is an AIO for $191 CAD really worth it over the NHD-15 I was planning on using? I just got the free bracket for the NHD-15 from Noctua. I'm assuming the answer is no. Trying to keep this upgrade under $1k CAD. Got 4x8 bdie already.
> 
> Also, if you were me would you buy?
> 1. MSI Z690-a DDR4
> 2. MSI Z690 Tomahawk DDR4
> 
> The only advantage I can see to the Tomahawk is the higher quality on-board audio which I would actually use but only with the default windows audio driver for lower latency.


I just bought that Lian Li AIO, fantastic unit. I would definitely spring for 2x16 B-Die if it's not too late, these boards are daisy chained and you will have a much better time overclocking 2x16. On my Z690 Edge I got mine to 4133 CL15.


----------



## Rbk_3

Jeges said:


> For comparison it's just a 360 liquidfreezer II
> View attachment 2575638
> 
> 
> so basically any custom loop


Sweet so we can actually run the ring at a decent frequency this time with ecores enabled?


----------



## Ichirou

Xeq54 said:


> I also just received 13900KF early. Wont have time to play with it until friday evening though.


In the mail, I'm guessing?


Rbk_3 said:


> Sweet so we can actually run the ring at a decent frequency this time with ecores enabled?


Yes, around 45-46x average.


----------



## Herald

Wolverine2349 said:


> So do you think the 7000 AMD CPUs with 3D cache should significantly outperform 13900K(KF) in gaming workloads with regards to smooth FPS meaning much better strong 1% and 0.1% lows?? Or not much difference.
> 
> And how big a difference will the extra L3 cache is Cor ei9 1390K(KF) will make from 12700K and 12900K which only have 25MB and 30MB respectively where 13900K will have 36MB. This is under assumption e-waste cores are shut off and all 8 P cores have full access with no competition to the full L3 cache. How big a jump in game play smoothness will the 36MB L3 cache provide over 25MB and 30MB?? And will the 36MB L3 cache allow 13900K(KF) with e-waste cores shut down and ring clocked high enable it to compete well as in trade blows or even beat Ryzen 7000 3D cache in gaming?? Or is Ryzen 7000 3D cache going to win handily regardless in your opinion??


Why would you shut down the ecores is something that eludes me.


----------



## Formula383

Nizzen said:


> @Formula383 Show us some game benchmarks with ddr4, so we can compare with trash ddr5
> 
> Start with tombraider 1080p. This should be easy win for your ddr4.


ddr5 is not trash its just not on parity with ddr4 in terms of latency so in games that are latency bound its going to be worse. Why do i have to work for you? your googlefu broken? i'm not going to change your mind. if you like ddr5 great. idgaf 

ddr4 has had more time to mature is all it was slow af when it first came out too. ddr5 will get there it just takes some time


----------



## TwinTurbo

I'm pretty jealous of y'all getting 13900Ks early. I'll have to arrive early at Microcenter on 10/20 and swing elbows fighting the masses for mine, while hoping I can grab one of the Asus boards, too. Keep posting info, fellas. Some of us have to live vicariously through you for now...


----------



## Ichirou

Formula383 said:


> ddr5 is not trash its just not on parity with ddr4 in terms of latency so in games that are latency bound its going to be worse. Why do i have to work for you? your googlefu broken? i'm not going to change your mind. if you like ddr5 great. idgaf
> 
> ddr4 has had more time to mature is all it was slow af when it first came out too. ddr5 will get there it just takes some time


To be fair, the gap is tightening as DDR5 is reaching higher frequencies and DDR4 is still limited by its IMC.
If the 13th Gen IMCs can run 4,300+ MHz on Gear 1 stable, they're going to remain competitive. Otherwise, once 8,000+ MHz becomes standard, they'll fall behind.


----------



## Ichirou

TwinTurbo said:


> I'm pretty jealous of y'all getting 13900Ks early. I'll have to arrive early at Microcenter on 10/20 and swing elbows fighting the masses for mine, while hoping I can grab one of the Asus boards, too. Keep posting info, fellas. Some of us have to live vicariously through you for now...


It's more common in other countries with looser restrictions on maintaining the release date. Some stores just want to get sales. Or you know somebody who can hook you up early.


----------



## Formula383

Wolverine2349 said:


> So do you think the 7000 AMD CPUs with 3D cache should significantly outperform 13900K(KF) in gaming workloads with regards to smooth FPS meaning much better strong 1% and 0.1% lows?? Or not much difference.
> 
> And how big a difference will the extra L3 cache is Cor ei9 1390K(KF) will make from 12700K and 12900K which only have 25MB and 30MB respectively where 13900K will have 36MB. This is under assumption e-waste cores are shut off and all 8 P cores have full access with no competition to the full L3 cache. How big a jump in game play smoothness will the 36MB L3 cache provide over 25MB and 30MB?? And will the 36MB L3 cache allow 13900K(KF) with e-waste cores shut down and ring clocked high enable it to compete well as in trade blows or even beat Ryzen 7000 3D cache in gaming?? Or is Ryzen 7000 3D cache going to win handily regardless in your opinion??


no one knows definitely until we get the cpus in hand. the 5800x3d was said to be around 15% faster than the 5800x on average and is slightly faster than the 12900k. the 7x00x3d is said to be around 30% faster on average than the 7x00x cpus, that are roughly on par with the 5800x3d (win some loose some)

The12900k to 13900k should be around 5~10% faster. But that all depends on the game.

total latency on the 7000 cpus will always be slightly worse than the intel monolithic die, but as you add more cache it will minimize the negative effect that latency has. there are many things at play here when we start talking about .1% lows. The question also arises does the .1% low even matter as its really just how the game is made, and no matter what we do its going to be bad in some games. the best way to know is to feel it. aka buy both sell the one you dont want. 

end of the day any modern cpu that has been tuned will provide decent game play and you will be pretty happy with, that is unless you have a target in a specif game. if you need a cpu now get one. either the 7000 series so you can update to the 3d cache cpu or the 13900k so you can save some money with ddr4. both are going to be good. yes i think the 3d will be better but thats 3 months from now. and in 8~14 months intel will likely have a new cpu out again that might be better we dont know.


----------



## energie80

Formula383 said:


> ddr5 is not trash its just not on parity with ddr4 in terms of latency so in games that are latency bound its going to be worse. Why do i have to work for you? your googlefu broken? i'm not going to change your mind. if you like ddr5 great. idgaf
> 
> ddr4 has had more time to mature is all it was slow af when it first came out too. ddr5 will get there it just takes some time


----------



## domdtxdissar

Guy from anandtech forum have gotten his 13900k










> Ok, I must say I did not expect 337W. Here are the results. It ran at 85°C with Arctic Liquid Freezer II 240.
> 
> EDIT: Now I got 40 774. P cores run at 5500 MHz and E cores at 4300 MHz.


----------



## TwinTurbo

Ichirou said:


> It's more common in other countries with looser restrictions on maintaining the release date. Some stores just want to get sales. Or you know somebody who can hook you up early.


Yeah, I know how it goes and am used to it. Just getting a little antsy to get my components. Ended up taking the 20th and 21st off work in hopes of being able to get everything I need to complete the build.


----------



## Ichirou

TwinTurbo said:


> Yeah, I know how it goes and am used to it. Just getting a little antsy to get my components. Ended up taking the 20th and 21st off work in hopes of being able to get everything I need to complete the build.


Have you considered preordering it?


----------



## Formula383

energie80 said:


> View attachment 2575857


thats not bad, typically ddr5 can hit around 48ns and ddr4 can hit around 42ns. depending the quality of the parts it can be slightly less or more.

here is a photo from dofus on the interwebs DDR5 "a-die"







.


----------



## Formula383

Its not that ddr5 is bad, its just not as good yet. and its not that you cant get higher averages in some games with ddr5 ofc you can it has more MT/s but it wont have as good in the lows in the games where you need it. its been proven idk why everyone wants to push for ddr5 as the best. it will be in time. its close rn. if you like it use it. i'm just not interested in paying more for worse latency. if you dont care about latency then you do you.


----------



## energie80

Formula383 said:


> thats not bad, typically ddr5 can hit around 48ns and ddr4 can hit around 42ns. depending the quality of the parts it can be slightly less or more.
> 
> here is a photo from dofus on the interwebs DDR5 "a-die"
> View attachment 2575864
> .


i need a die


----------



## Exilon

AIDA latency is misleading because it is measuring at one unspecified bandwidth.
Here's what a DDR4 latency vs bandwidth graph looks like from MLC:



Code:


Inject  Latency Bandwidth
Delay   (ns)    MB/sec
==========================
 00000  302.37    57234.7
 00002  300.18    57302.3
 00008  323.62    56523.3
 00015  313.86    56490.6
 00050  231.46    57313.0
 00100  215.34    57183.3
 00200  183.83    56897.7
 00300  100.44    55340.0
 00400   66.90    47722.8
 00500   58.24    39625.2
 00700   51.75    29735.7
 01000   48.56    21792.1
 01300   47.50    17289.1
 01700   46.68    13721.7
 02500   45.98     9873.7
 03500   45.33     7507.2
 05000   44.93     5733.4
 09000   44.62     3842.8
 20000   44.27     2534.3

The latency ramps significantly as demand on the memory bus increases like an hockey stick graph. DDR5's smaller 32-bit channels and higher bandwidth allows it to maintain near-idle latencies for longer than DDR4 which allows it to have lower than DDR4 latency for some applications.

What it'll really come down to is how much future games (and let's be honest, it's games that care) manage multithreading and BVH tree construction for raytracing. For engines where a single thread dominates the workload and memory bandwidth usage is low, DDR4 will remain competitive.


----------



## Ichirou

Exilon said:


> AIDA latency is misleading because it is measuring at one unspecified bandwidth.
> Here's what a DDR4 latency vs bandwidth graph looks like from MLC:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Inject  Latency Bandwidth
> Delay   (ns)    MB/sec
> ==========================
> 00000  302.37    57234.7
> 00002  300.18    57302.3
> 00008  323.62    56523.3
> 00015  313.86    56490.6
> 00050  231.46    57313.0
> 00100  215.34    57183.3
> 00200  183.83    56897.7
> 00300  100.44    55340.0
> 00400   66.90    47722.8
> 00500   58.24    39625.2
> 00700   51.75    29735.7
> 01000   48.56    21792.1
> 01300   47.50    17289.1
> 01700   46.68    13721.7
> 02500   45.98     9873.7
> 03500   45.33     7507.2
> 05000   44.93     5733.4
> 09000   44.62     3842.8
> 20000   44.27     2534.3
> 
> The latency ramps significantly as demand on the memory bus increases like an hockey stick graph. DDR5's smaller 32-bit channels and higher bandwidth allows it to maintain near-idle latencies for longer than DDR4 which allows it to have lower than DDR4 latency for some applications.
> 
> What it'll really come down to is how much future games (and let's be honest, it's games that care) manage multithreading and BVH tree construction for raytracing. For engines where a single thread dominates the workload and memory bandwidth usage is low, DDR4 will remain competitive.


Great explanation.


----------



## Nizzen

Formula383 said:


> Its not that ddr5 is bad, its just not as good yet. and its not that you cant get higher averages in some games with ddr5 ofc you can it has more MT/s but it wont have as good in the lows in the games where you need it. its been proven idk why everyone wants to push for ddr5 as the best. it will be in time. its close rn. if you like it use it. i'm just not interested in paying more for worse latency. if you dont care about latency then you do you.


What game has better lows with ddr4? I just want to learn and compare. Maybe you are right, but impossible for us to know if you don't say what games. This is making the forums better.

Clames without any hard facts is worth nothing in my oppinion 

We are ready to compare with 7k and 8k ddr5


----------



## Wolverine2349

Herald said:


> Why would you shut down the ecores is something that eludes me.


Cause I hate the hybrid arch and the e-cores being there and I use Windows 10 and not 11. They have no 8 core counterpart that is an unlocked K model with no e-cores. Heck they do not even have a K unocked 6 core counterpart with no e-cores Only a locked 6 P core only which is the 12400.


----------



## nickolp1974

What sort of Ram speeds would you likely achieve on a 790 hero???, with the lack of info on all the 2 dimm boards I'm tempted to grab one instead otherwise I'll have nothing to test the 13900k with when it arrives next week


----------



## Wolverine2349

Formula383 said:


> no one knows definitely until we get the cpus in hand. the 5800x3d was said to be around 15% faster than the 5800x on average and is slightly faster than the 12900k. the 7x00x3d is said to be around 30% faster on average than the 7x00x cpus, that are roughly on par with the 5800x3d (win some loose some)
> 
> The12900k to 13900k should be around 5~10% faster. But that all depends on the game.
> 
> total latency on the 7000 cpus will always be slightly worse than the intel monolithic die, but as you add more cache it will minimize the negative effect that latency has. there are many things at play here when we start talking about .1% lows. The question also arises does the .1% low even matter as its really just how the game is made, and no matter what we do its going to be bad in some games. the best way to know is to feel it. aka buy both sell the one you dont want.
> 
> end of the day any modern cpu that has been tuned will provide decent game play and you will be pretty happy with, that is unless you have a target in a specif game. if you need a cpu now get one. either the 7000 series so you can update to the 3d cache cpu or the 13900k so you can save some money with ddr4. both are going to be good. yes i think the 3d will be better but thats 3 months from now. and in 8~14 months intel will likely have a new cpu out again that might be better we dont know.



Yeah have thought of just going for whole AM5 platform because then I can upgrade to 3D cache CPU in a few months. Do you also think it will allow an upgrade to Zen 5 when it drops?? Cause we know on Intel side Raptor Lake is the last stand for the Z690 and Z790 motherboards and their next CPU Meteor Lake will require new mobo and socket. I am sure Zen 5 will also be AM5, but could they require new mobos for it??


----------



## domdtxdissar

domdtxdissar said:


> Guy from anandtech forum have gotten his 13900k
> View attachment 2575859


More from same guy:



> Here are the numbers at 160 and 250W power limits: 32 716 and 38 318. Temperatures hit 51 and 67°C. I did not observe frequencies.
> 
> I am sorry but I do not have time today for more.


----------



## Ichirou

domdtxdissar said:


> More from same guy:
> 
> 
> View attachment 2575868
> 
> View attachment 2575869


Seems like poor sample, or voltage isn't optimized.


----------



## Formula383

nickolp1974 said:


> What sort of Ram speeds would you likely achieve on a 790 hero???, with the lack of info on all the 2 dimm boards I'm tempted to grab one instead otherwise I'll have nothing to test the 13900k with when it arrives next week


i guess with the am5 boards quad rank (4dimm x16. 64gb total) is helping with latency. i wonder if its the same on intel?


----------



## Formula383

Exilon said:


> AIDA latency is misleading because it is measuring at one unspecified bandwidth.
> Here's what a DDR4 latency vs bandwidth graph looks like from MLC:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Inject  Latency Bandwidth
> Delay   (ns)    MB/sec
> ==========================
> 00000  302.37    57234.7
> 00002  300.18    57302.3
> 00008  323.62    56523.3
> 00015  313.86    56490.6
> 00050  231.46    57313.0
> 00100  215.34    57183.3
> 00200  183.83    56897.7
> 00300  100.44    55340.0
> 00400   66.90    47722.8
> 00500   58.24    39625.2
> 00700   51.75    29735.7
> 01000   48.56    21792.1
> 01300   47.50    17289.1
> 01700   46.68    13721.7
> 02500   45.98     9873.7
> 03500   45.33     7507.2
> 05000   44.93     5733.4
> 09000   44.62     3842.8
> 20000   44.27     2534.3
> 
> The latency ramps significantly as demand on the memory bus increases like an hockey stick graph. DDR5's smaller 32-bit channels and higher bandwidth allows it to maintain near-idle latencies for longer than DDR4 which allows it to have lower than DDR4 latency for some applications.
> 
> What it'll really come down to is how much future games (and let's be honest, it's games that care) manage multithreading and BVH tree construction for raytracing. For engines where a single thread dominates the workload and memory bandwidth usage is low, DDR4 will remain competitive.


it is but also i think its used because it does seem to represent better latency in gaming and is easy to compare results. altho ddr4 to ddr5 might not directly be the same yet seems to still hold some truth from what i have seen. 

But you are 100% right the workloads change the latency.


----------



## Formula383

energie80 said:


> i need a die


from what i understand and i dont really know. but what i hear is that A-die is just voltage "unlocked" on the ram stick m-die. i think its m die lol w/e the normal letter is for hynix haha i'm getting old :/

either way it sounds like its not really being sold in the US yet. i have no idea if that is true or not.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Seems like poor sample, or voltage isn't optimized.


His numbers are meaningless because we don't even know what voltage he is running at, what motherboard, or even the CPU's native VID. So without knowing vcore, the temps are meaningless.
From Jeges' post, we can at least take a "rough" idea of his CPU, not just because of vcore (he's using manual override) but because MSI sets the ac/dc loadlines to 0.01 mohms whenever you use fixed vcore. If dcll ('vdroop on VID) were not 0.01 mohm, you would see a lower to much lower VID at full load compared to idle VID. So we can estimate the SP quality once we have known SP samples and native VID's on Asus boards, but that is a bit of a wild swing, because the e cores' SP also influences total score. Asus currently sets ACLL to 0.01 on fixed vcore but sets DCLL to your LLC mohms value (rather than 0.01 mohm), so anyone who already has a CPU can compare the quality of Jeges and theirs by setting both ACLL and DCLL to 0.01 manually (in MSI Bios idk what they use for raw values but on Gigabyte it's 1 to 6249 rather than 0.01 to 62.49).

Jeges VID is 1.370v at 5.5 / 4.3 / 4.5, with 0.01 ac/dc, so if your own chip has a lower VID when you match these values, your SP or CPU Force should be higher, and lower if your VID is higher.
If SP or CPU Force is not known, the only thing you can do is set ac/dc LL to 0.01 mohms then check 5.5 ghz VID in windows. Then do "vmin" stress testing under CB R23 (or stockfish chess if you can cool the thing).

QS chips are not representative of retail, you don't know if the overall chip quality is worse, despite the SP values, compared to retail, or if the chips were LN2 abused, or if QS is better than retail.
You still need to know vmin (VR VOUT or die sense vcore), where you can pass CB R23 for 30 minutes loop without a BSOD.
Obviously, someone with a custom loop will be yeeting the clocks due to insane temp scaling, but for AIO, try to find what minimum load vcore you can pass R23 for 30 min at either 5.6 or 5.7 ghz P cores as thats enough to get some good baselines while not having the temps so low to make it silly.


----------



## Formula383

Exilon said:


> What it'll really come down to is how much future games (and let's be honest, it's games that care) manage multithreading and BVH tree construction for raytracing. For engines where a single thread dominates the workload and memory bandwidth usage is low, DDR4 will remain competitive.


Yes this is exactly correct.

what do we know about game devs? they are interested in cost to make a game. do extra frames sell more games? no not really. Some games are really well optimized and they are great and ddr5 is king for those because they do not require lowest latency to work.

How ever pick just about any other game that is not tested in the main stream benchmarks and you will see latency matters. and its not just for gaming.

I just helped a mate out with his 5950x 3070ti and streaming. he had 3600 corsair vengeance or w.e standard corsair garbo ram with an asus b550 mobo. 2x16gb and xmp was running at 16 18 18. But he was unable to get decent quality from his nvenc encoder for streaming and it would often pause and hitch (even at 720p 30). so we did x264 and the stream was better but his game would really suffer bad frame drops. even tho we used lasso to divide CCD's.

After he got some b-die and we did some custom tuning at 3600(quite aggressive). he is now able to not only stream 1080p 60 but its not lagging at all and his in game frames went up by around 20% while streaming using nvenc. the stream quality is quite good better than most i have seen and i was impressed by how much better nvenc is when you have the latency to support it. Worst part is OBS will not tell you that your dropping frames i guess the driver must mask what nvenc is doing to the system in some way.


----------



## Formula383

Wolverine2349 said:


> Yeah have thought of just going for whole AM5 platform because then I can upgrade to 3D cache CPU in a few months. Do you also think it will allow an upgrade to Zen 5 when it drops?? Cause we know on Intel side Raptor Lake is the last stand for the Z690 and Z790 motherboards and their next CPU Meteor Lake will require new mobo and socket. I am sure Zen 5 will also be AM5, but could they require new mobos for it??


I Would think amd is going to stay on this socket for at least 2 cpu releases, possibly 4. but anything can happen. imo i think the 7000 cpus with 3d cache are going to be very good and likely hold you well for at least 8 years tbh. We might get faster cpu's but idk that we will really need them to get the performance we want. but its all a crap shoot and we wont know until i happens.


----------



## Revv23

I love this site... guys arguing over 46ns ddr5 vs 42ns ddr4 like it's some major difference. 

Don't ever change OC.net. <3


----------



## Formula383

Revv23 said:


> I love this site... guys arguing over 46ns ddr5 vs 42ns ddr4 like it's some major difference.
> 
> Don't ever change OC.net. <3


lol its not the difference, its the idea that ddr5 is better for gaming and its not. on top of that prices are not better either. so saying ddr5 is the goat is simply not true. no matter the difference. and you are right couple ns either way wont matter until it does. thats kinda how latency works. its not a big deal until it is too slow and all of a sudden your pc stutters and you miss your shot etc. so its very hard to quantify the difference in a few ns either way. but lower is factually better for gaming and multi tasking. It was the same thing way back in the day everyone said memory speed and latency meant nothing for gaming. oh how wrong they were. For the people who care (probably most of us on this site) the info matters.


----------



## pastuch

Rbk_3 said:


> I just bought that Lian Li AIO, fantastic unit. I would definitely spring for 2x16 B-Die if it's not too late, these boards are daisy chained and you will have a much better time overclocking 2x16. On my Z690 Edge I got mine to 4133 CL15.


Thanks, just bought the Lian Li AIO for $169 at canada computers which was $20 less than Amazon.


----------



## pastuch

Exilon said:


> AIDA latency is misleading because it is measuring at one unspecified bandwidth.
> Here's what a DDR4 latency vs bandwidth graph looks like from MLC:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Inject  Latency Bandwidth
> Delay   (ns)    MB/sec
> ==========================
> 00000  302.37    57234.7
> 00002  300.18    57302.3
> 00008  323.62    56523.3
> 00015  313.86    56490.6
> 00050  231.46    57313.0
> 00100  215.34    57183.3
> 00200  183.83    56897.7
> 00300  100.44    55340.0
> 00400   66.90    47722.8
> 00500   58.24    39625.2
> 00700   51.75    29735.7
> 01000   48.56    21792.1
> 01300   47.50    17289.1
> 01700   46.68    13721.7
> 02500   45.98     9873.7
> 03500   45.33     7507.2
> 05000   44.93     5733.4
> 09000   44.62     3842.8
> 20000   44.27     2534.3
> 
> The latency ramps significantly as demand on the memory bus increases like an hockey stick graph. DDR5's smaller 32-bit channels and higher bandwidth allows it to maintain near-idle latencies for longer than DDR4 which allows it to have lower than DDR4 latency for some applications.
> 
> What it'll really come down to is how much future games (and let's be honest, it's games that care) manage multithreading and BVH tree construction for raytracing. For engines where a single thread dominates the workload and memory bandwidth usage is low, DDR4 will remain competitive.


Warzone 2 is going to be an amazing game to identify if DDR4 can keep up. Right now in Warzone, DDR4 is clearly superior to DDR5 due to the lower latency but I have my doubts about the new game. Until someone else makes a new and better Battle Royale game with a quick TTK, it's the only game I play and build for. Me and about 10 million other people.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Formula383 said:


> I Would think amd is going to stay on this socket for at least 2 cpu releases, possibly 4. but anything can happen. imo i think the 7000 cpus with 3d cache are going to be very good and likely hold you well for at least 8 years tbh. We might get faster cpu's but idk that we will really need them to get the performance we want. but its all a crap shoot and we wont know until i happens.



Even if they stay on same AM5 socket is there a likelihood they require a new motherboard anyway for new CPU releases down the road?? Or will any motherboard with AM5 work??


----------



## pastuch

Nizzen said:


> What game has better lows with ddr4? I just want to learn and compare. Maybe you are right, but impossible for us to know if you don't say what games. This is making the forums better.
> 
> Clames without any hard facts is worth nothing in my oppinion
> 
> We are ready to compare with 7k and 8k ddr5


Warzone


----------



## LazyGamer

Formula383 said:


> lol its not the difference, its the idea that ddr5 is better for gaming and its not. on top of that prices are not better either. so saying ddr5 is the goat is simply not true. no matter the difference. and you are right couple ns either way wont matter until it does. thats kinda how latency works. its not a big deal until it is too slow and all of a sudden your pc stutters and you miss your shot etc. so its very hard to quantify the difference in a few ns either way. but lower is factually better for gaming and multi tasking. It was the same thing way back in the day everyone said memory speed and latency meant nothing for gaming. oh how wrong they were. For the people who care (probably most of us on this site) the info matters.


You're talking about first-word access latency - and this isn't the latency that really matters, it's just the latency hit from a CPU cache miss. Everything after that first word is faster on DDR5, not _just_ because DDR5 is around twice as fast, but also because it's built _different_.

Take the same amount of effort - stock, XMP, tuned, binned and tuned, uncooled, ambient, sub-ambient, etc., and you'll get better results with DDR5 _unless_ you're comparing a cache-starved but otherwise GPU-bound game against a 5800X3D - which is actually slower than a 5800X _except_ in cache-bound scenarios.

Again, outside of the 5800X3D and games that have heavy CPU cache requirements, DDR5 is better for gaming with a similar level of effort. Raptor Lake and Z790 (what this thread is about) are going to really drive that point home.


----------



## morph.

pastuch said:


> Right now in Warzone, DDR4 is clearly superior to DDR5 due to the lower latency


Source? For my understanding, how exactly are the measurements of latency translated/measured and then concluded from DDR4vs5?

I'm sure there are more issues than a couple of ns for 99% of people who are in the ms's, not ns's. Not mine but as an example:










Warzone for me is pegged at 160-175fps at 3440x1440.


----------



## Wolverine2349

LazyGamer said:


> You're talking about first-word access latency - and this isn't the latency that really matters, it's just the latency hit from a CPU cache miss. Everything after that first word is faster on DDR5, not _just_ because DDR5 is around twice as fast, but also because it's built _different_.
> 
> Take the same amount of effort - stock, XMP, tuned, binned and tuned, uncooled, ambient, sub-ambient, etc., and you'll get better results with DDR5 _unless_ you're comparing a cache-starved but otherwise GPU-bound game against a 5800X3D - which is actually slower than a 5800X _except_ in cache-bound scenarios.
> 
> Again, outside of the 5800X3D and games that have heavy CPU cache requirements, DDR5 is better for gaming with a similar level of effort. Raptor Lake and Z790 (what this thread is about) are going to really drive that point home.


So are you saying there is a negative to the extra cache 5800X3D has even if it is run with same exact all core clock speed DDR4 RAM speed for apps that are not cache starved??


----------



## ViTosS

It's not true that DDR4 is better than DDR5, considering both heavily tuned, if I remember correctly the best DDR4 we saw since early 12900k launch here was from @Carillo, it was 4300Mhz CL14 1T and he wasn't able to pass 370fps in SOTTR benchmark, while if you go in the SOTTR thread woul will see @jomama22 DDR5 doing 385fps, I think 7000Mhz CL30 1T or something like that, so your only chance to have DDR4 being better than DDR5 (at least on SOTTR benchmark) is having more than 4300Mhz in Gear 1 and even tighter timings than that, and 7000Mhz CL30 1T is old with M-Die, people are getting 8000Mhz with A-Die now, so DDR4 is already defeated...


----------



## Formula383

LazyGamer said:


> You're talking about first-word access latency - and this isn't the latency that really matters, it's just the latency hit from a CPU cache miss. Everything after that first word is faster on DDR5, not _just_ because DDR5 is around twice as fast, but also because it's built _different_.
> 
> Take the same amount of effort - stock, XMP, tuned, binned and tuned, uncooled, ambient, sub-ambient, etc., and you'll get better results with DDR5 _unless_ you're comparing a cache-starved but otherwise GPU-bound game against a 5800X3D - which is actually slower than a 5800X _except_ in cache-bound scenarios.
> 
> Again, outside of the 5800X3D and games that have heavy CPU cache requirements, DDR5 is better for gaming with a similar level of effort. Raptor Lake and Z790 (what this thread is about) are going to really drive that point home.


Correct, but i'm not just looking at it from a single point of view. i'm taking information i have seen tested. If you tune b-die vs the new ddr5 ic's its just not as good for gaming in most cases. other than with RT in some games where the extra bandwidth is really used. and even then its not super crazy difference if your looking at lows. And you should be looking at the 1% lows average fps really does not tell you anything about how smooth a game plays. just that is able to sustain that fps the majority of the time. but if your dropping frames all the time its still going to feel like trash.

DDR5 is GREAT but the ic quality is just not on par with b-die of ddr4 thats it. i dont know how you guys cant understand it lol. go look it up. the info is all over the place if you look for it. not to mention the imc limit of running under 8000MT on ddr5 is not doing it any favors. Also dont forget many games will run just as good on ddr5 as speed often helps to cover or mask frame drops. But that does not translate into smoother performance if the latency is bad the game is going to feel bad. its really not that big of a deal for most people as they dont even bother to enable xmp or if they do thats it. nothing more. so can you game with crappy latency yea ofc you can. does that mean i want to? hell no.


----------



## LazyGamer

Wolverine2349 said:


> So are you saying there is a negative to the extra cache 5800X3D has even if it is run with same exact all core clock speed DDR4 RAM speed for apps that are not cache starved??


Well, the negative is that it *does not* run at the exact same core clocks, and that this is a limitation of AMDs 3D cache. Thus the CPU is slower; further, since the 3D cache adds latency, main memory accesses are slower.

So anything that doesn't fit in the cache of the 5800X but does fit into the cache of the 5800X3D, the 5800X3D is faster. And that's it.

But if you're talking about DDR4 vs. DDR5, you have to recognize that the latency advantages of DDR5 in gaming can be mitigated by having significantly more cache.


----------



## Falkentyne

ViTosS said:


> It's not true that DDR4 is better than DDR5, considering both heavily tuned, if I remember correctly the best DDR4 we saw since early 12900k launch here was from @Carillo, it was 4300Mhz CL14 1T and he wasn't able to pass 370fps in SOTTR benchmark, while if you go in the SOTTR thread woul will see @jomama22 DDR5 doing 385fps, I think 7000Mhz CL30 1T or something like that, so your only chance to have DDR4 being better than DDR5 (at least on SOTTR benchmark) is having more than 4300Mhz in Gear 1 and even tighter timings than that, and 7000Mhz CL30 1T is old with M-Die, people are getting 8000Mhz with A-Die now, so DDR4 is already defeated...


And this is part of the problem.
People getting all argumentative about 385 FPS vs 370 FPS is just completely utterly stupid.
You can NOT see the difference between 385 FPS and 370 FPS. It's all plain and simple ego and nothing more. Sure it's great to have more performance, but is your life or your way of living suddenly going to evaporate because you're 10 FPS below a DDR5 user? It's not like RTX 3090 vs 4090 when you're getting 75% faster rasterization...now that's an upgrade worth getting if you are at a high enough resolution (or if you're running CP 2077 at 1080p and max details since you aren't getting even 120 FPS with a 4090). Switching from a DDR4 to a DDR5 board for 370 to 385 FPS is a sign that you need to see a therapist.


----------



## Formula383

ViTosS said:


> It's not true that DDR4 is better than DDR5, considering both heavily tuned, if I remember correctly the best DDR4 we saw since early 12900k launch here was from @Carillo, it was 4300Mhz CL14 1T and he wasn't able to pass 370fps in SOTTR benchmark, while if you go in the SOTTR thread woul will see @jomama22 DDR5 doing 385fps, I think 7000Mhz CL30 1T or something like that, so your only chance to have DDR4 being better than DDR5 (at least on SOTTR benchmark) is having more than 4300Mhz in Gear 1 and even tighter timings than that, and 7000Mhz CL30 1T is old with M-Die, people are getting 8000Mhz with A-Die now, so DDR4 is already defeated...


case and point lol everyone looks at average fps and thats it. when in reality it shows you nothing about how a game plays.

and yes in that game it might play better, but it cost you more for the ram and for the mobo, and it was only a 4% gain on the averages that mean **** all to start with lol. 

If all you care about is showing the highest number ddr5 is IT. THE BEST. who needs over 240fps? unless you have a 500hz monitor and then sure but no way are you feeding constant frames at even 240fps in most games. so the point is lower latency is going to give you the better overall performing pc in a vast variety of games. and it cost you less. how is that a bad thing lol. you all up on that hype train like its the REAL deal. i mean i'm glad you have something you enjoy. but dont act like its the next best thing before it is. once latency is on par your right it will be.


----------



## LazyGamer

Formula383 said:


> Correct, but i'm not just looking at it from a single point of view. i'm taking information i have seen tested. If you tune b-die vs the new ddr5 ic's its just not as good for gaming in most cases. other than with RT in some games where the extra bandwidth is really used. and even then its not super crazy difference if your looking at lows. And you should be looking at the 1% lows average fps really does not tell you anything about how smooth a game plays. just that is able to sustain that fps the majority of the time. but if your dropping frames all the time its still going to feel like trash.


That's the thing; what we're seeing is that, worst case for best DDR4 + tuning vs. _release_ DDR5 is effectively a draw and depends more on game choice. Not the pattern we saw going from DDR2 to DDR3, or DDR3 to DDR4.

I wouldn't advocate for anyone with great DDR4 to toss it for DDR5 for the difference, and saying that either would 'feel like trash' is silly hyperbole. We're talking differences just outside the margin of error, both are _fast _in terms of keeping frametimes low. Just that DDR5 is equal or better, again, game dependent.



Formula383 said:


> DDR5 is GREAT but the ic quality is just not on par with b-die of ddr4 thats it. i dont know how you guys cant understand it lol. go look it up. the info is all over the place if you look for it. not to mention the imc limit of running under 8000MT on ddr5 is not doing it any favors. Also dont forget many games will run just as good on ddr5 as speed often helps to cover or mask frame drops. But that does not translate into smoother performance if the latency is bad the game is going to feel bad. its really not that big of a deal for most people as they dont even bother to enable xmp or if they do thats it. nothing more. so can you game with crappy latency yea ofc you can. does that mean i want to? hell no.


This has been addressed above and really needs to die.

*There is not a 'latency' difference that an end-user could perceive.*

Single-digit nanosecond differences for first-word accesses do not translate directly into perceptible tens of milliseconds.


----------



## LazyGamer

Formula383 said:


> case and point lol everyone looks at average fps and thats it.


You're preaching to the wrong choir.


----------



## ViTosS

People who likes to OC RAM if they play in 4k is mostly useless, comparing with XMP timings (maybe not that much with 4090 now), I think it's just a hobby thing... But if they care to having the highest fps possible allied to 360hz monitor it's really game changer...


----------



## Wolverine2349

LazyGamer said:


> Well, the negative is that it *does not* run at the exact same core clocks, and that this is a limitation of AMDs 3D cache. Thus the CPU is slower; further, since the 3D cache adds latency, main memory accesses are slower.
> 
> So anything that doesn't fit in the cache of the 5800X but does fit into the cache of the 5800X3D, the 5800X3D is faster. And that's it.
> 
> But if you're talking about DDR4 vs. DDR5, you have to recognize that the latency advantages of DDR5 in gaming can be mitigated by having significantly more cache.



For games though even with fast DDR5 like on Zen 4, will the extra 3D cache be significant or no?? Like are most games starved for extra cache and use the extra L3 cache on CPUs regardless of RAM type and speed??


----------



## Formula383

Wolverine2349 said:


> For games though even with fast DDR5 like on Zen 4, will the extra 3D cache be significant or no?? Like are most games starved for extra cache and use the extra L3 cache on CPUs regardless of RAM type and speed??


do you feel like 30% on average is going to be significant or not?


----------



## LazyGamer

ViTosS said:


> People who likes to OC RAM if they play in 4k is mostly useless, comparing with XMP timings (maybe not that much with 4090 now), I think it's just a hobby thing... But if they care to having the highest fps possible allied to 360hz monitor it's really game changer...


Not _just_ OC, but also tune the timings.

Mostly to make sure that you're not sandbagging your frametimes. We're talking about _tuned_ DDR4 vs. _tuned _DDR5 which produce similar maximum frametimes (the 1.0% and 0.1% lows); XMP is the same as JEDEC just at higher speeds - tuned for maximum compatibility, not for a particular system or for use with enthusiast boards and CPUs.


----------



## LazyGamer

Formula383 said:


> do you feel like 30% on average is going to be significant or not?


Do you feel that coefficients without a point of reference have any significance?


----------



## Formula383

@Wolverine2349 build the 7600x system with 4 channels of 16gb ddr5 this will help you get the best latency with out the need for super high MT/s when the 3d chips come out pick on up.


----------



## Formula383

delete


----------



## o1dschoo1

Formula383 said:


> case and point lol everyone looks at average fps and thats it. when in reality it shows you nothing about how a game plays.
> 
> and yes in that game it might play better, but it cost you more for the ram and for the mobo, and it was only a 4% gain on the averages that mean **** all to start with lol.
> 
> If all you care about is showing the highest number ddr5 is IT. THE BEST. who needs over 240fps? unless you have a 500hz monitor and then sure but no way are you feeding constant frames at even 240fps in most games. so the point is lower latency is going to give you the better overall performing pc in a vast variety of games. and it cost you less. how is that a bad thing lol. you all up on that hype train like its the REAL deal. i mean i'm glad you have something you enjoy. but dont act like its the next best thing before it is. once latency is on par your right it will be.


I'm curious on your PC specs lol.... Most people don't have it in them to daily 1.6v on bdie and that's what it takes to match good ddr5...


----------



## Wolverine2349

Formula383 said:


> do you feel like 30% on average is going to be significant or not?



30% on average is of course significant. Is that what the uplift is going to be for Zen 4 3D cache variants in games??


----------



## Formula383

Wolverine2349 said:


> 30% on average is of course significant. Is that what the uplift is going to be for Zen 4 3D cache variants in games??


in some cases the 5800x3d was over 100% faster in the 1% lows than the 5800x
AMD said on average the 5800x3d was 15% faster than the 5800x in games

AMD mentioned they thought the uplift from the 3d cache for the 7000 series would be significantly better around 30% on average. its only our guess as too how much better it will be for each game. 

This would make sense if they can make use of the new higher core clocks with the 3d cache.


----------



## Nizzen

ViTosS said:


> It's not true that DDR4 is better than DDR5, considering both heavily tuned, if I remember correctly the best DDR4 we saw since early 12900k launch here was from @Carillo, it was 4300Mhz CL14 1T and he wasn't able to pass 370fps in SOTTR benchmark, while if you go in the SOTTR thread woul will see @jomama22 DDR5 doing 385fps, I think 7000Mhz CL30 1T or something like that, so your only chance to have DDR4 being better than DDR5 (at least on SOTTR benchmark) is having more than 4300Mhz in Gear 1 and even tighter timings than that, and 7000Mhz CL30 1T is old with M-Die, people are getting 8000Mhz with A-Die now, so DDR4 is already defeated...


----------



## o1dschoo1

Wolverine2349 said:


> 30% on average is of course significant. Is that what the uplift is going to be for Zen 4 3D cache variants in games??


Wrong answer.


----------



## LazyGamer

Formula383 said:


> AMD mentioned they thought the uplift from the 3d cache for the 7000 series would be significantly better around 30% on average. its only our guess as too how much better it will be for each game.


Which while not impossible, does seem absurd - they increased the cache on the 7000-series from the 5000-series, which should _reduce_ the advantage of using a 3D cache part.

This is also one of the big draws of Intel's 13th-gen - more cache over 12th-gen, so lower frametimes all around.


----------



## o1dschoo1

Formula383 said:


> in some cases the 5800x3d was over 100% faster in the 1% lows than the 5800x
> AMD said on average the 5800x3d was 15% faster than the 5800x in games
> 
> AMD mentioned they thought the uplift from the 3d cache for the 7000 series would be significantly better around 30% on average. its only our guess as too how much better it will be for each game.
> 
> This would make sense if they can make use of the new higher core clocks with the 3d cache.


Amd also overshot ipc gains. I don't believe any of their benches


----------



## Formula383

LazyGamer said:


> Which while not impossible, does seem absurd - they increased the cache on the 7000-series from the 5000-series, which should _reduce_ the advantage of using a 3D cache part.
> 
> This is also one of the big draws of Intel's 13th-gen - more cache over 12th-gen, so lower frametimes all around.


did they? you mean the L2 cache? the L3 stayed the same and afik the 3d will be the same again. but L2 wont have much if any effect on game performance. at least as far as i have seen.


----------



## th3illusiveman

LazyGamer said:


> Which while not impossible, does seem absurd - they increased the cache on the 7000-series from the 5000-series, which should _reduce_ the advantage of using a 3D cache part.
> 
> This is also one of the big draws of Intel's 13th-gen - more cache over 12th-gen, so lower frametimes all around.


It actually makes sense when you think about it. The next X3D part will the significantly higher RAM bandwidth to play with (removing the previous DDR4 bottleneck in feeding the cache), more L2 cache to streamline delivery of data from the L3 to the cores and faster clock speeds to boot. It will be a beast! If they can manage a 5GHz boost clock on the 7800X3D, intel will have no chance even with their 6GHz13900KS.


----------



## Formula383

o1dschoo1 said:


> Amd also overshot ipc gains. I don't believe any of their benches


IPC is a marketing term, its all relative to the work being done. if they stated ipc in games then ok but thats still a pretty broad statement.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Formula383 said:


> did they? you mean the L2 cache? the L3 stayed the same and afik the 3d will be the same again. but L2 wont have much if any effect on game performance. at least as far as i have seen.



L3 cache is higher as well. 12900K had 30 MB L3 cache. and 13900K will have 36MB L3 cache.

12700K had 25MB L3 cache and 13700K will have 30MB L3 cache.


----------



## Formula383

LazyGamer said:


> Which while not impossible, does seem absurd - they increased the cache on the 7000-series from the 5000-series, which should _reduce_ the advantage of using a 3D cache part.
> 
> This is also one of the big draws of Intel's 13th-gen - more cache over 12th-gen, so lower frametimes all around.


I was talking about the zen chips having more cache... and i guess you knew that lol rip i need to stop trying to multi task its clearly not working well for me haha

yes intel added more cache l2 and l3 and the l3 will help in terms of fps. the problem is its by such a small amount.


----------



## Falkentyne




----------



## domdtxdissar

domdtxdissar said:


> More from same guy:
> 
> 
> View attachment 2575868
> 
> View attachment 2575869


Nobody have asked but my PBO enabled Zen4 is getting these Cinebench R23 MT numbers at the following packet power limits: (PPT)

38.7k points @ 122w







33.5k points @ 80w







24.8k points @ 50w







18.5k points @ 35w







At unlimited i'm at ~42.2k with custom watercooling


----------



## toncij

th3illusiveman said:


> It actually makes sense when you think about it. The next X3D part will the significantly higher RAM bandwidth to play with (removing the previous DDR4 bottleneck in feeding the cache), more L2 cache to streamline delivery of data from the L3 to the cores and faster clock speeds to boot. It will be a beast! If they can manage a 5GHz boost clock on the 7800X3D, intel will have no chance even with their 6GHz13900KS.


It depends. Not all games will benefit from the VCache and all games and anything else benefits from the clock related increase, so while X3D is nice, core-count limit and clock limit are a diminishing return out of very specific use-cases.


----------



## Nizzen

,


domdtxdissar said:


> Nobody have asked but my PBO enabled Zen4 is getting these Cinebench R23 MT numbers at the following packet power limits: (PPT)
> 
> 38.7k points @ 122w
> View attachment 2575931
> 
> 33.5k points @ 80w
> View attachment 2575932
> 
> 24.8k points @ 50w
> View attachment 2575933
> 
> 18.5k points @ 35w
> View attachment 2575934
> 
> At unlimited i'm at ~42.2k with custom watercooling


Looks to be about the same as 13900k then.

I ran CB a few times with 7950x. This "game" is boring...
Just can't get excited about this "game" anymore


----------



## toncij

Nizzen said:


> ,
> 
> Looks to be about the same as 13900k then.
> 
> I ran CB a few times with 7950x. This "game" is boring...
> Just can't get excited about this "game" anymore


13900K runs 40k stock from the get go and significantly better single-core at 2200. 13900KS expected at 45k and 2250.


----------



## domdtxdissar

toncij said:


> 13900K runs 40k stock from the get go and significantly better single-core at 2200. 13900KS expected at 45k and 2250.


As far as i understand from the user on Anandtech forum, "stock" is actually 335w with a 240AIO @ ~15 degrees room temp. (would be higher with better cooling)
--> motherboard vendors have enabled "unlimited" powersettings as default settings for the 13'gen atleast on this motherboard



> Ok, I must say I did not expect 337W. Here are the results. It ran at 85°C with Arctic Liquid Freezer II 240.
> 
> EDIT: Now I got 40 774. P cores run at 5500 MHz and E cores at 4300 MHz.





> I did not set anything in the BIOS, it is F8 bios on GB Z690 Gaming X DDR4 motherboard.


BTW here is one geekbench5 run from him, but he were getting strangely low MT scores.. (famous thread-director at work here?)






Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z690 GAMING X DDR4 - Geekbench Browser


Benchmark results for a Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z690 GAMING X DDR4 with an Intel Core i9-13900K processor.



browser.geekbench.com




ST seem fine tho


----------



## toncij

domdtxdissar said:


> As far as i understand from the user on Anandtech forum, "stock" is actually 335w with a 240AIO @ ~15 degrees room temp. (would be higher with better cooling)
> --> motherboard vendors have enabled "unlimited" powersettings as default settings for the 13'gen atleast on this motherboard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW here is one geekbench5 run from him, but he were getting strangely low MT scores.. (famous thread-director at work here?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z690 GAMING X DDR4 - Geekbench Browser
> 
> 
> Benchmark results for a Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z690 GAMING X DDR4 with an Intel Core i9-13900K processor.
> 
> 
> 
> browser.geekbench.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ST seem fine tho
> View attachment 2575947


yeah, MT is suspiciously low, like it totally failed at some point?
Not enough voltage?

Single thread looks only 10% over my 12900KS? That's also strange. ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser


----------



## Luggage

Nizzen said:


> View attachment 2575915


Almost beating a tuned 5800x3d 








Benchmark Competition: Shadow of the Tomb Raider


I've got a new GPU to replace my 1080 ti, so I tried again. Messed with SMT on and off (off is better) and also ReBar/SAM (on is better), pushed BCLK by just 2 Mhz and a little OC on the GPU aswell. I don't want to push harder than this due to not knowing the limits of the hardware, so this is...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Nizzen

Luggage said:


> Almost beating a tuned 5800x3d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benchmark Competition: Shadow of the Tomb Raider
> 
> 
> I've got a new GPU to replace my 1080 ti, so I tried again. Messed with SMT on and off (off is better) and also ReBar/SAM (on is better), pushed BCLK by just 2 Mhz and a little OC on the GPU aswell. I don't want to push harder than this due to not knowing the limits of the hardware, so this is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Where is min fps?
Edit: looks like it is lower 
Maybe I should try to overclock the cpu and run ht=off next time...


----------



## Wolverine2349

Well for Ryzen 7000 3D VCahce, may not have to wait until 2023.



https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-zen-4-ryzen-7000-release-date-specifications-pricing-benchmarks-all-we-know-specs



Says one model will come to market this year.


----------



## ViTosS

Luggage said:


> Almost beating a tuned 5800x3d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benchmark Competition: Shadow of the Tomb Raider
> 
> 
> I've got a new GPU to replace my 1080 ti, so I tried again. Messed with SMT on and off (off is better) and also ReBar/SAM (on is better), pushed BCLK by just 2 Mhz and a little OC on the GPU aswell. I don't want to push harder than this due to not knowing the limits of the hardware, so this is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


It's not fair to compare 6900XT or 6950XT with 3090, the first two will always have higher FPS in 1080p or 720p low, even in a bottleneck scenario.


----------



## Luggage

ViTosS said:


> It's not fair to compare 6900XT or 6950XT with 3090, the first two will always have higher FPS in 1080p or 720p low, even in a bottleneck scenario.


Sorry I don’t know what GPU @Nizzen have, and the comment was tongue in cheek - I think @tcclaviger was on his chiller


----------



## Luggage

Nizzen said:


> Where is min fps?
> Edit: looks like it is lower
> Maybe I should try to overclock the cpu and run ht=off next time...
> 
> View attachment 2575978


Yes plz.


----------



## domdtxdissar

More from the anandtech forum guy:



> I updated the MB bios to 20b, the power unlimited run (it really seems it is the default setting) draw 344W, reached 91°C and CNB score was 40 858.
> 
> The next run reached 94°C and the score was lower, it probably started to throttle. The third run was 97°C and score dropped even more.
> 
> It seems that the new bios really squeezes the last drop from the CPU performance, my little AIO is probably not up to the task. I need to check what happens at lower power draw limits.


240AIO in sub 20 degrees ambient is not enough tame this beast



> After I updated the BIOS to 20b and increased the RAM frequency to 3600 MHz, here are the results at different power limits. I also recorded frequency of P and E cores and total PC power draw.


And new geekbench5 at unlimited power






Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z690 GAMING X DDR4 - Geekbench Browser


Benchmark results for a Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z690 GAMING X DDR4 with an Intel Core i9-13900K processor.



browser.geekbench.com


----------



## Betroz

domdtxdissar said:


> 240AIO in sub 20 degrees ambient is not enough tame this beast


When we need custom loop watercooling to cool a new CPU at *stock*, or at minimum a 360mm AIO, then things are moving in the wrong direction...


----------



## Exilon

You don't have to run it at 350W mode.


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> When we need custom loop watercooling to cool a new CPU at *stock*, or at minimum a 360mm AIO, then things are moving in the wrong direction...


What the hell is he running?
95C at stock in R23 at 5.5 ghz? How is that even possible?


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> What the hell is he running?
> 95C at stock in R23 at 5.5 ghz? How is that even possible?


I'm honestly leaning towards a poor bin plus unoptimized voltage.


----------



## toncij

12900KS can get to 95°C easily on 360 AIO at stock. It's expected. It's simply a hot CPU. 13900K has 8 more E-cores. What do you expect?


----------



## Nizzen

toncij said:


> 12900KS can get to 95°C easily on 360 AIO at stock. It's expected. It's simply a hot CPU. 13900K has 8 more E-cores. What do you expect?


More easy to cool due to bigger die 

Asus MB: Use vid " AI best case scenario"
Cpu wil run colder than ever before


----------



## tubs2x4

How did preorder prices for 12900k compare to the after launch day prices?


----------



## Alexshunter

Nizzen said:


> Where is min fps?
> Edit: looks like it is lower
> Maybe I should try to overclock the cpu and run ht=off next time...
> 
> View attachment 2575978


What is this benchmark, why sonmany using?


----------



## Nizzen

Alexshunter said:


> What is this benchmark, why sonmany using?


Shadow of the Tombraider benchmark. We like to use it because it scales good with memory and cpu overclocking/tuning


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> Shadow of the Tombraider benchmark. We like to use it because it scales good with memory and cpu overclocking/tuning


Yes, but no one needs 300+ fps in a game like that. A game like Warzone benefits much more from high fps (even more than Battlefield), and a game like that SHOULD be benchmarked more, but does it have a build in benchmark? It's almost impossible to benchmark multiplayer games I guess, and that is a shame.


----------



## energie80

most bugged game of the history


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> Yes, but no one needs 300+ fps in a game like that. A game like Warzone benefits much more from high fps (even more than Battlefield), and a game like that SHOULD be benchmarked more, but does it have a build in benchmark? It's almost impossible to benchmark multiplayer games I guess, and that is a shame.


For better compare, we need in game benchmark. Tombraider is a game that scales with hardware, so it's better than a syntetic benchmark to show actual gme performance. This game even works with 3090 nvlink sli 
We haven't got 300+ fps for many years in this game. 

We need a new tombraider game LOL

For myself I benchmark BF 2042 to see if faster memory/core helps. It's a very good game to test memory/ cpu stbility too.


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> For myself I benchmark BF 2042 to see if faster memory/core helps. It's a very good game to test memory/ cpu stbility too.


Yes. I don't know why DICE did it, but BFV seams to use more cores/threads than BF2042.  
So which one is a better CPU test....


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Yes. I don't know why DICE did it, but BFV seams to use more cores/threads than BF2042.
> So which one is a better CPU test....


vermintide ii cata any campaign map 😝😝😝😝😝


----------



## cstkl1

this will be cpu heavy when its full multiplayer and max difficulty


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> Yes. I don't know why DICE did it, but BFV seams to use more cores/threads than BF2042.
> So which one is a better CPU test....


Only cpu, BF V is better. Cpu is gettig 6-7 c hotter in BF V 

Maybe that's why we are getting WAY higher fps in BF V vs BF 2042? It's using cpu more...
It's like 400-450fps vs 230-270fps.


----------



## Xeq54

So, finally installed it.

SP96
P108
E73


----------



## Nizzen

Xeq54 said:


> So, finally installed it.
> 
> SP96
> P108
> E73


12900ks?
If so, wrong thread


----------



## kill_a_wat

Interesting curious to see what others are getting. Thanks for posting


----------



## Xeq54

Nizzen said:


> 12900ks?
> If so, wrong thread


13900KF


----------



## Nizzen

Xeq54 said:


> 13900KF


Nice 

Will post retail as soon as it arrives


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Xeq54 said:


> So, finally installed it.
> 
> SP96
> P108
> E73


Can you say us which week the chip is?The reviewer chip´s are 33(233).And how high it´s possible to boot 2x16GB DDR4 in Gear1,
That´s for me the 2 important´s things^^

P.s.
Biosversion 1720 or 2004?


----------



## Xeq54

Nizzen said:


> Nice
> 
> Will post retail as soon as it arrives


Mine is also a retail sample bought normally from store. So the results are relevant.

Quick cinebench run, stock, with unlocked powerlimits, but all voltages on Auto, LLC Auto:








Bios 2004, batch 235


----------



## Betroz

Xeq54 said:


> Quick cinebench run, stock, with unlocked powerlimits, but all voltages on Auto, LLC Auto:


93C load, was that with an AIO or custom loop?


----------



## ::>_<::

Xeq54 said:


> Mine is also a retail sample bought normally from store. So the results are relevant.
> 
> Quick cinebench run, stock, with unlocked powerlimits, but all voltages on Auto, LLC Auto:
> 
> View attachment 2576125
> 
> Bios 2004, batch 235


Seems a bit hot. Are you using stock ilm, or using some kind of anti-bending loading mechanism ?


----------



## IronAge

Would like to see early 13700K/KF ... what kind of P-Core rating these have.


----------



## This is a hat.

Xeq54 said:


> Mine is also a retail sample bought normally from store. So the results are relevant.
> 
> Quick cinebench run, stock, with unlocked powerlimits, but all voltages on Auto, LLC Auto:
> 
> View attachment 2576125
> Bios 2004, batch 235


Ring bus looks good, too.


----------



## Xeq54

::>_<:: said:


> Seems a bit hot. Are you using stock ilm, or using some kind of anti-bending loading mechanism ?


Well it consumed 330Watts peak during cinebench, so 93peak temp is pretty ok I think. I am using custom water loop with Thermal Grizzly contact frame instead of the original ILM.


----------



## Betroz

So...both AMD and Intel are onboard with "the new normal" of HOT chips in order to sell their illusion of improvement over previous gen. Have they reached the limit of X86 performance soon maybe?


----------



## LazyGamer

Betroz said:


> So...both AMD and Intel are onboard with "the new normal" of HOT chips in order to sell their illusion of improvement over previous gen. Have they reached the limit of X86 performance soon maybe?


No... and no.


----------



## Betroz

LazyGamer said:


> No... and no.


I'm not saying that the 13900K is not faster than a 12900K, but when the TDP and temps ramp up to the point where aircooling becomes difficult at stock settings, we have a problem. Of course users can alter this by undervolting or reducing the powerlimit themselves, but that require people to know these things.


----------



## Falkentyne

Xeq54 said:


> Well it consumed 330Watts peak during cinebench, so 93peak temp is pretty ok I think. I am using custom water loop with Thermal Grizzly contact frame instead of the original ILM.


Your temps shouldn't be this high on a custom loop. I matched your full auto settings on a Liquid Freezer II 360 and don't get this hot (note: Your P core SP is just slightly below mine. What is driving your total SP down is your low E-core SP, 73 is pretty low).

Can you run the test again and check the vcore shown during load? I'm curious what this value is.

Also, make sure you expand hwinfo64 so that the individual DTS core temps of each core are shown.

Also please state if this motherboard is a maximus or a Strix please--this will affect whether the vcore shown is accurate or not.

Posting the vcore after the run is pointless if you are at stock because it will show something like 0.700v minimum so the 'load' vcore wont be shown You would have to disable c-states manually to get a proper "minimum" load vcore.
Another thing you can do is to set sync all P cores to x55. I _think_ this will disable c-states also, and should drop your load voltage as well, because then two cores won't peak at x58 (this x58 peak on two cores will raise your total vcore at x55).


----------



## PhoenixMDA

It can be that he has the Strix A D4, 4000mhz mem....


----------



## Falkentyne

PhoenixMDA said:


> It can be that he has the Strix A D4, 4000mhz mem....


Ok if that's a strix, let's start with something reasonable.

Try setting manual (Actual VRM Vcore voltage) 1.30v, Loadline Calibration LLC Level 6 (LLC6) and Sync all P cores: 55
Then post your individual core temps during the run.

If you're stable, you can start going lower from here.

If you're at higher than 90C from this, check your mount. You should be way below this.

I'm still curious what the load vcore was on his original auto settings run though, as well as his temp delta spread on the P-cores.


----------



## Xeq54

I have z690 Maximus HERO.

The Vcore shown during Load in Cinebench run is 1.305
The run with all on AUTO:








Run with Manual 1.3v LLC6 and sync P 55 as falkentyne mentioned:


----------



## Falkentyne

Xeq54 said:


> I have z690 Maximus HERO.
> 
> The Vcore shown during Load in Cinebench run is 1.305
> 
> View attachment 2576149


Yikes.
Please set your vcore manually. Seems like vcore is not being tuned correctly on auto settings. 97c is rather expected at that vcore.
1.305v load is not what is expected. Are all bios settings at pure defaults? What loadline calibration was being set automatically? I wonder if proper values were being set for AC/DC loadline, because CPU VID load of 1.310v is not expected results. (Vcore should match VID on auto settings, so that would explain the high vcore if VID at full load didn't drop properly).

You can try clearing CMOS and then doing pure stock (nothing but XMP set) and see if the vcore behavior is still the same.

You're at risk of slow degradation with a load vcore that high.

Your Auto vcore should be 1.234v-1.243v during load for your native VID's based on that P core SP.

Can you please manually set 1.30v bios set, in actual vrm vcore voltage, LLC6 (Digi vrm+ vcore loadline calibration) and then test again?
This should drop it down to below 1.2v load safely.
You should get much lower temps then. You should even be able to do 1.285v set easily or even lower, depending on how good that loop is.


----------



## xarot

Delid needed? Hopefully not another thermal disaster like 12900ks.


----------



## Nizzen

xarot said:


> Delid needed? Hopefully not another thermal disaster like 12900ks.


Allways delid and run direct die.


----------



## Xeq54

Falkentyne said:


> Yikes.
> Please set your vcore manually. Seems like vcore is not being tuned correctly on auto settings. 97c is rather expected at that vcore.
> 1.305v load is not what is expected. Are all bios settings at pure defaults? What loadline calibration was being set automatically? I wonder if proper values were being set for AC/DC loadline, because CPU VID load of 1.310v is not expected results. (Vcore should match VID on auto settings, so that would explain the high vcore if VID at full load didn't drop properly).
> 
> You can try clearing CMOS and then doing pure stock (nothing but XMP set) and see if the vcore behavior is still the same.
> 
> You're at risk of slow degradation with a load vcore that high.
> 
> Your Auto vcore should be 1.234v-1.243v during load for your native VID's based on that P core SP.
> 
> Can you please manually set 1.30v bios set, in actual vrm vcore voltage, LLC6 (Digi vrm+ vcore loadline calibration) and then test again?
> This should drop it down to below 1.2v load safely.
> You should get much lower temps then. You should even be able to do 1.285v set easily or even lower, depending on how good that loop is.


Yeah already made that run, check my previous post, ive updated it, temps are much better. The auto voltage is definitely broken somehow. I had LLC3 when it was on Auto (including AC/DC loadline on Auto) so I dont really get why it was like that. Fixed 1.3 with LLC6 and sync all cores at 55 looks like this now:


----------



## Falkentyne

xarot said:


> Delid needed? Hopefully not another thermal disaster like 12900ks.


No. His auto vcore is being set too high. 1.305v is not expected.
There are a few specific settings I would want him to test but NDA makes it hard. But first I want a full clear CMOS, then set XMP only.
Then I want a 'sync all cores" P core set at x55 manually (instead of auto), then auto vcore as before, and then I would like to see a R23 run.

His load vcore with all auto except 'sync all p cores =x55' should be somewhere between 1.81v-1.190v load.


----------



## Falkentyne

Xeq54 said:


> Yeah already made that run, check my previous post, ive updated it, temps are much better. The auto voltage is definitely broken somehow. I had LLC3 when it was on Auto (including AC/DC loadline on Auto) so I dont really get why it was like that. Fixed 1.3 with LLC6 looks like this now:
> 
> View attachment 2576151


Nice.
Now that's more like it. Good temps and great core deltas.

Can you do one more favor for me?

Set manually LLC to level 4.
Set actual VRM Vcore voltage back to auto.
(make sure both the 'Vcore value' and "vcore setting" are auto. I found different results if you set vcore value to auto with vcore setting to "manual", but only 9mv difference).
then set sync all p cores to x55.

Run the r23 test again and post what load vcore you get.
You should get somewhere close to 1.181v-1.190v-1.199v.

I have a nasty feeling it's going to show 1.261v. I really hope I'm wrong...


----------



## LazyGamer

Falkentyne said:


> His load vcore with all auto except 'sync all p cores =x55' should be somewhere between 1.81v-1.190v load.


Just for comparisons' sake - my 12700K seems to want 1.35v under load, however you get there - just to run 5.0GHz on the P-cores. I may stick it back in the Strix-A DDR4 I got it with just to see what the P-core readout is!

(and I say that because I'm really considering swapping it out for a 13700K, just for all the small improvements, including v/f)


----------



## Xeq54

Falkentyne said:


> Nice.
> Now that's more like it. Good temps and great core deltas.
> 
> Can you do one more favor for me?
> 
> Set manually LLC to level 4.
> Set actual VRM Vcore voltage back to auto.
> (make sure both the 'Vcore value' and "vcore setting" are auto. I found different results if you set vcore value to auto with vcore setting to "manual", but only 9mv difference).
> then set sync all p cores to x55.
> 
> Run the r23 test again and post what load vcore you get.
> You should get somewhere close to 1.181v-1.190v-1.199v.
> 
> I have a nasty feeling it's going to show 1.261v. I really hope I'm wrong...


LLC4, Vcore changed to Auto and Auto, load vcore jumped to 1.3+ again. Something is fishy I am probably missing something.


----------



## LazyGamer

Betroz said:


> I'm not saying that the 13900K is not faster than a 12900K, but when the TDP and temps ramp up to the point where aircooling becomes difficult at stock settings, we have a problem. Of course users can alter this by undervolting or reducing the powerlimit themselves, but that require people to know these things.


At stock, the CPUs should run as fast as they can with _stable_ settings, which also means fairly hot - because not enough voltage isn't a problem the CPU can solve itself while it absolutely can throttle down under thermal limits.

As an example, like many here and like many techtubers have shown, if you forget to pull the protector off the bottom of a new heatsink, you get some pretty terrible thermal performance.

So I can state that a Dark Rock Pro 4 can dissipate 88W from a 10900K with the protector in place. *Stably*. In CBR23. What caused me to notice first was how slow CBR23 was running!


----------



## Falkentyne

Xeq54 said:


> LLC4, Vcore changed to Auto and Auto, load vcore jumped to 1.3+ again. Something is fishy I am probably missing something.


Did you set 'sync all p cores' to x55? This is very different than this being on auto.

after you confirm this, the last thing I want you to do is to set your E core ratio to x42, to see if your vcore drops drastically.

Trying to determine what's causing this problem. Because your e-core predicted voltage is 1.235v set + LLC4, but the e core native VID is still high.


----------



## Xeq54

Falkentyne said:


> Did you set 'sync all p cores' to x55? This is very different than this being on auto.
> 
> after you confirm this, the last thing I want you to do is to set your E core ratio to x42, to see if your vcore drops drastically.
> 
> Trying to determine what's causing this problem. Because your e-core predicted voltage is 1.235v set + LLC4, but the e core native VID is still high.


Yes, Performance core ratio - Sync all cores. All core ratio limit - 55. I tried fresh cmos reset > just set the cores as above, llc4 and XMP1. Vcore is 1.4 in idle and 1.3-1.32 in load. I dont get it.


----------



## Falkentyne

Xeq54 said:


> Yes, Performance core ratio - Sync all cores. All core ratio limit - 55. I tried fresh cmos reset > just set the cores as above, llc4 and XMP1. Vcore is 1.4 in idle and 1.3-1.32 in load. I dont get it.


Ok. what happens if you reduce the e core ratio to x42 or x41?

This should not reduce the vcore because you're way above the predicted value already. 

Anyway, if your idle vcore and VID are about 1.40v your vcore at full load should be dropping from 1.40v idle to 1.24v load. 1.40v to 1.30v sounds like too low vdroop or something is going on with the AC loadlines, but since you set LLC4 manually, it's not the vdroop (since when you set manual vcore, everything worked as expected).

I got 1.368v idle and 1.19v load (Sync all P cores=x55, everything else auto like yours).

since your VID is 15mv higher than mine, your native VID and vcore should be 15mv higher.

This won't require a restart, but at your "1.3v load" settings, can you open hwinfo64, uncheck "sensors only", go to the "CPU" section under central processor, and tell me what your AC/DC Loadline mohm values are set at?

ACLL should be 0.27 mohm and DCLL should be 0.98 mOhm.


----------



## Xeq54

Falkentyne said:


> Ok. what happens if you reduce the e core ratio to x42 or x41?
> This should not reduce the vcore because you're way above the predicted value already.


Tried another CMOS reset and what you asked:
Sync P cores x55, Ecores Auto + LLC4 + Auto Voltage: Load 1.225v/Idle 1.403v
Sync P cores x55, Sync E cores x42 + LLC4 + Auto Voltage: Load 1.225v/Idle 1.403v

No change with the reduced E core frequency.


----------



## Falkentyne

Xeq54 said:


> Tried another CMOS reset and what you asked:
> Sync P cores x55, Ecores Auto + LLC4 + Auto Voltage: Load 1.225v/Idle 1.403v
> Sync P cores x55, Sync E cores x42 + LLC4 + Auto Voltage: Load 1.225v/Idle 1.403v
> 
> No change with the reduced E core frequency.


Oh so it's working correctly now?
So the CMOS reset fixed everything.
1.225v load is what I get also (with sync all cores=x55). (actually I get 1.19v load, but the difference between 1.225v to 1.19v, is the difference between your P core and my P core native VID, so that's working correctly).

So my 2nd guess was right.
Your AC Loadline was being yeeted somehow, and seems to have been fixed after the CMOS reset (I hope).


----------



## Xeq54

Falkentyne said:


> Oh so it's working correctly now?
> So the CMOS reset fixed everything.
> 1.225v load is what I get also (with sync all cores=x55). (actually I get 1.19v load, but the difference between 1.225v to 1.19v, is the difference between your P core and my P core native VID, so that's working correctly).
> 
> So my 2nd guess was right.
> Your AC Loadline was being yeeted somehow, and seems to have been fixed after the CMOS reset (I hope).


I celebrated early, there seems to be something wrong with the bios or I dont understand something:

If I set Auto Voltage, LLC4 Sync all P cores to 55 > R23 run Vcore is 1.225 - OK
If I set Auto Voltage, LLC4 P cores Auto > R23 run Vcore is 1.3-1.32 - NOT OK
If I set Auto Voltage, LLC4 P cores Auto, Limit individual cores to 55x > R23 run Vcore is1.3-1.32 - NOT OK

So even though in all three cases, the CPU runs R23 at P55/E43, the Vcore is correct only if I have all P cores fixed to 55x


----------



## Falkentyne

Xeq54 said:


> I celebrated early, there seems to be something wrong with the bios or I dont understand something:
> 
> If I set Auto Voltage, LLC4 Sync all P cores to 55 > R23 run Vcore is 1.225 - OK
> If I set Auto Voltage, LLC4 P cores Auto > R23 run Vcore is 1.3-1.32 - NOT OK
> If I set Auto Voltage, LLC4 P cores Auto, Limit individual cores to 55x > R23 run Vcore is1.3-1.32 - NOT OK
> 
> So even though in all three cases, the CPU runs R23 at P55/E43, the Vcore is correct only if I have all P cores fixed to 55x


got it.
Can you please check the AC loadline in the extended hwinfo64 settings? (make sure you're using the newest versions).
Going to guess that your 1.225v and 1.31v will report different ACLL values.


----------



## Xeq54

Falkentyne said:


> got it.
> Can you please check the AC loadline in the extended hwinfo64 settings? (make sure you're using the newest versions).
> Going to guess that your 1.225v and 1.31v will report different ACLL values.


You are right, first one is with sync 55x, second is auto.

















Should I set these values manually in bios ? ACLL 0.2 and DCLL 0.98 ?

EDIT: Yep, forced AC/DC LL to 0.2/0.98 and now the voltage sits around 1.2 in R23 load. Geez what a silly bios bug, thought this was fixed in one of the first bios updates for this board back when Alder Lake launched.


----------



## Falkentyne

Xeq54 said:


> You are right, first one is with sync 55x, second is auto.
> View attachment 2576163
> 
> View attachment 2576162
> 
> 
> Should I set these values manually in bios ? ACLL 0.2 and DCLL 0.98 ?
> 
> EDIT: Yep, forced AC/DC LL to 0.2/0.98 and now the voltage sits around 1.2 in R23 load. Geez what a silly bios bug, thought this was fixed in one of the first bios updates for this board back when Alder Lake launched.


Ok I was finally able to reproduce this, but I got 1.252v instead of 1.305v load.
The AC Loadlines are functioning as expected however.

Indeed, setting sync all cores to x55 changes ACLL to 0.268 mohm. Full auto gives 0.50 ACLL.

Note that at all auto, you are using LLC3, although the BIOS says it's LLC4. LLC3 is "Intel default" which LLC4 is Asus recommended.
(LLC4 set manually or after sync all cores will show DCLL 0.98 mohm, LLC3 will be 1.1 mohm DCLL).

I think if you set sync all cores, it uses LLC4 instead, but LLC3 vs LLC4 is only about 9-18mv gap.

Can you kindly (sorry for this!) please post your V/F curve shown in your BIOS (not the AI settings, you posted those earlier, but the V/F)? Especially the 5.8 ghz V/F point.

Mine is 1.398v at 5.8, and 1.368v at 5.7.

I suspect it's the 5.8 ghz V/F point (i am not sure about the 5.7) which is pulling the vcore up. The next one below that is the 5.4 one, which I believe is the point designed for heavy AVX (5.5 ghz with a -1 offset, although Asus disables the AVX offset).

When you sync all cores to x55, it will only use the x55 point


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Ok I was finally able to reproduce this, but I got 1.252v instead of 1.305v load.
> The AC Loadlines are functioning as expected however.
> 
> Indeed, setting sync all cores to x55 changes ACLL to 0.268 mohm. Full auto gives 0.50 ACLL.
> 
> Note that at all auto, you are using LLC3, although the BIOS says it's LLC4. LLC3 is "Intel default" which LLC4 is Asus recommended.
> (LLC4 set manually or after sync all cores will show DCLL 0.98 mohm, LLC3 will be 1.1 mohm DCLL).
> 
> I think if you set sync all cores, it uses LLC4 instead, but LLC3 vs LLC4 is only about 9-18mv gap.
> 
> Can you kindly (sorry for this!) please post your V/F curve shown in your BIOS (not the AI settings, you posted those earlier, but the V/F)? Especially the 5.8 ghz V/F point.
> 
> Mine is 1.398v at 5.8, and 1.368v at 5.7.
> 
> I suspect it's the 5.8 ghz V/F point (i am not sure about the 5.7) which is pulling the vcore up. The next one below that is the 5.4 one, which I believe is the point designed for heavy AVX (5.5 ghz with a -1 offset, although Asus disables the AVX offset).
> 
> When you sync all cores to x55, it will only use the x55 point


Random hijack, but how does one determine the ideal AC/DC LL values for non-ASUS boards?
Just start at some low value for both and keep dropping them gradually until stability fails?


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Random hijack, but how does one determine the ideal AC/DC LL values for non-ASUS boards?
> Just start at some low value for both and keep dropping them gradually until stability fails?


Ideal AC loadlines are based on socket impedance (CPU to VRM) and according to an Intel engineer, this is motherboard specific.

It also depends on what LLC you're using as well (in general, the droopier the LLC, the higher the ACLL should be), but a value of 0.3 mOhms isn't too bad to use, but I wouldn't go above 0.6 mohms at loosest LLC (Mode 8 MSI, Mode 1 Asus, Standard/Normal Gigabyte).

DC Loadline should be set to the same value as the loadline calibration resistance. AC/DC being both set to the exact same value is some sort of bad habit from the Skylake days, probably coming from laptops, because at that time, AC Loadline was the complete inverse of Loadline Calibration, with the exception of "Inrush current", e.g. if you had LLC of 1.6 mohms of vdroop, an AC Loadline of 1.6 mohms would boost native VID by Amps * ACLL mohms, and then LLC would drop it right back down--leaving you only with "Thermal velocity boost temp VID scaling" left--this is what laptops did.
The drawback of this method was that inrush current could potentially create extra droop before ACLL could boost the VID back up to compensate--you would never see this in prime95 or R23 testing, but just booting up Battlefield 5, if your base starting VID wasn't high enough, could cause a BSOD due to massive transient violent load changes.

AC Loadline's behavior was changed on Z490 and newer. To this day, I still haven't figured out exactly how it works, but @RobertoSampaio thinks it's some sort of offset to native VID, but how the resistance plays into it, I don't know. I do know if you dare set AC Loadline to 1.1 mOhms, you are getting 1.6v VCORE IDLE at your max turbo ratio.


----------



## Xeq54

Falkentyne said:


> Can you kindly (sorry for this!) please post your V/F curve shown in your BIOS (not the AI settings, you posted those earlier, but the V/F)? Especially the 5.8 ghz V/F point.
> 
> Mine is 1.398v at 5.8, and 1.368v at 5.7.
> 
> I suspect it's the 5.8 ghz V/F point (i am not sure about the 5.7) which is pulling the vcore up. The next one below that is the 5.4 one, which I believe is the point designed for heavy AVX (5.5 ghz with a -1 offset, although Asus disables the AVX offset).
> 
> When you sync all cores to x55, it will only use the x55 point


My 5800MHZ V/F point is at 1.424v so slightly higher than yours.

Though I still dont understand why the AC/DC LL jumping from 0.2 to 0.5 is correct behavior ? Why should the LLC setting and AC/DC LL change by itself ?
And even if I accept it changes itself from LLC4 to LLC3, the AC_LL should be 0.25 at LLC3, not 0.5
I would expect it to stay how I set it, and the selected LLC level should use the corresponding AC_LL value regardless of the max clock, should it not? Thats how I always understood it.

Thanks for the help btw.


----------



## Falkentyne

Xeq54 said:


> My 5800MHZ V/F point is at 1.424v so slightly higher than yours.
> 
> Though I still dont understand why the AC/DC LL jumping from 0.2 to 0.5 is correct behavior ? Why should the LLC setting and AC/DC LL change by itself ?
> And even if I accept it changes itself from LLC4 to LLC3, the AC_LL should be 0.25 at LLC3, not 0.5
> I would expect it to stay how I set it, and the selected LLC level should use the corresponding AC_LL value regardless of the max clock, should it not?
> 
> Thanks for the help btw.


What's your 5.7 ghz VID?
The rise in vcore is pretty expected because when you set P cores to "Auto", the system has to allow for a 5.8 ghz 2 core load, so it has to have enough vcore so that if you run CB R23 on a single thread, you won't BSOD. I suspect there is some sort of interpolation between the 5.5 to 5.8 ghz points going on.

You have to ask @RobertoSampiao about the individual PLL's, where by core usage vcore can be set independently based on which core are sleeping, he deals with that. I play Stockfish chess so by core usage is useless to me.

Anyway just set your P cores to 5.5 ghz synched and call it a day. Remember that auto settings are tuned for worst case scenario and MUST work on 100% of CPU samples without fail.
You could also manually set your ACLL to 0.28 mOhms too. I'm a fixed vcore person since Stockfish hates CPU's even more than Linpack hates CPU's.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Ideal AC loadlines are based on socket impedance (CPU to VRM) and according to an Intel engineer, this is motherboard specific.
> 
> It also depends on what LLC you're using as well (in general, the droopier the LLC, the higher the ACLL should be), but a value of 0.3 mOhms isn't too bad to use, but I wouldn't go above 0.6 mohms at loosest LLC (Mode 8 MSI, Mode 1 Asus, Standard/Normal Gigabyte).
> 
> DC Loadline should be set to the same value as the loadline calibration resistance. AC/DC being both set to the exact same value is some sort of bad habit from the Skylake days, probably coming from laptops, because at that time, AC Loadline was the complete inverse of Loadline Calibration, with the exception of "Inrush current", e.g. if you had LLC of 1.6 mohms of vdroop, an AC Loadline of 1.6 mohms would boost native VID by Amps * ACLL mohms, and then LLC would drop it right back down--leaving you only with "Thermal velocity boost temp VID scaling" left--this is what laptops did.
> The drawback of this method was that inrush current could potentially create extra droop before ACLL could boost the VID back up to compensate--you would never see this in prime95 or R23 testing, but just booting up Battlefield 5, if your base starting VID wasn't high enough, could cause a BSOD due to massive transient violent load changes.
> 
> AC Loadline's behavior was changed on Z490 and newer. To this day, I still haven't figured out exactly how it works, but @RobertoSampaio thinks it's some sort of offset to native VID, but how the resistance plays into it, I don't know. I do know if you dare set AC Loadline to 1.1 mOhms, you are getting 1.6v VCORE IDLE at your max turbo ratio.


Well, I run my board at LLC Mode 4 (which just below flat and introduces a little Vdroop but not much). What do you think I should start with on both?
And from what I'm taking out of your explanation, AC/DC LL = lower is better.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Well, I run my board at LLC Mode 4 (which just below flat and introduces a little Vdroop but not much). What do you think I should start with on both?
> And from what I'm taking out of your explanation, AC/DC LL = lower is better.


DC Loadline is used for power measurements only. Intel actually modified their ADL specification sheet as of August 2022 and finally mentioned this specifically. So DCLL should always be set to the vdroop of the board. Previously, they said ACLL=power supply and DCLL=power measurements and mentioned something about a VRTT tool and that was that

Your board's flat LLC is Mode 1, NOT Mode 3.
If you're using socket sense, mode 3 "looks" flat because there's going to be resistance from the socket to the super I/O chip. Resistance will cause a rise in voltage measured, because the voltage will drop across the power plane (the CPU will be using less voltage than what the sensor is picking up--and you see what the sensor is picking up). So your vcore that you see on a super I/O Vcore sensor could be anywhere to higher to much higher than what you're actually using.

To get a proper reading you need to use the VR VOUT value if present in HWinfo64 in the VRM Section, or have die sense reading. (you could also hook up a wire to a VCC_Sense pin on a CPU pad itself, and a second wire to VSS_Sense, to ground, and wire them to something but good luck with that).


----------



## Netarangi

Falkentyne said:


> Ok I was finally able to reproduce this, but I got 1.252v instead of 1.305v load.
> The AC Loadlines are functioning as expected however.
> 
> Indeed, setting sync all cores to x55 changes ACLL to 0.268 mohm. Full auto gives 0.50 ACLL.
> 
> Note that at all auto, you are using LLC3, although the BIOS says it's LLC4. LLC3 is "Intel default" which LLC4 is Asus recommended.
> (LLC4 set manually or after sync all cores will show DCLL 0.98 mohm, LLC3 will be 1.1 mohm DCLL).
> 
> I think if you set sync all cores, it uses LLC4 instead, but LLC3 vs LLC4 is only about 9-18mv gap.
> 
> Can you kindly (sorry for this!) please post your V/F curve shown in your BIOS (not the AI settings, you posted those earlier, but the V/F)? Especially the 5.8 ghz V/F point.
> 
> Mine is 1.398v at 5.8, and 1.368v at 5.7.
> 
> I suspect it's the 5.8 ghz V/F point (i am not sure about the 5.7) which is pulling the vcore up. The next one below that is the 5.4 one, which I believe is the point designed for heavy AVX (5.5 ghz with a -1 offset, although Asus disables the AVX offset).
> 
> When you sync all cores to x55, it will only use the x55 point


Hey, is there a guide for this level of tuning? I'd like to tune my 12700kf further than just setting voltage and all core sync.


----------



## Falkentyne

Netarangi said:


> Hey, is there a guide for this level of tuning? I'd like to tune my 12700kf further than just setting voltage and all core sync.


You have to look at the loadline guide thread posted by robertsampiao.
I don't deal with this. Too confusing.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Yes RobertSampaio has testet really detailed that since CML with tvb and so on, he has much experience with that.

I hope he write an big guide for raptorlake.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

@Xeq54, If you want I can help you....

You can start reading this









ASUS MAXIMUS Z690 EXTREME & i9-12900K GUIDE - Load...


Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- For Z790/13900K click here Introduction: In a world increasingly concerned with natural resources, the watchword is...




www.overclock.net






And watching these videos...























Intel is no longer making CPUs that run better with fixed voltage and syncing all cores...
Voltage adjustments are best made now using load lines and VF curves...

I'm not saying that it's not possible to sync all cores and set a fixed voltage...
Please, don't get me wrong...
I'm not criticizing the traditional overclocking method. It works !!!

And you know that I'm not a fan of brute force, even because today's CPUs already have processing power where overclocking is unnecessary.
We overclock for "sport"... LOL

But you can imagine Intel engineers looking at a traditional overclock method knowing that there is so much boost technology in their CPUs, like TVB, TVB Enhanced, speedsetp, speedshift, turboboost_3.0, voltage optimizations, etc...

I'm thinking to write a guide focusing in "switching from 'Sync all cores' and 'fexed voltage' to 'By core usage', 'adaptive voltage' and TVB overclock methods".

Imagine who delided the CPU, has a very good cooler system that makes it possible to run full load at high frequency, start using the improved technology to change the boost patterns to reach even higher frequencies when there is a thermal opportunity. This is beautiful!!!


----------



## Falkentyne

Specification sheets are now online.



https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getContent/743844




https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getContent/743846



Looks like max safe vcore is 1.182v @ 306 amps < 100C.
They give 306A for both 13700K and 13900K. 12900K was 280A so maybe Intel is smoking some Romulan Ale.

With a 1.1 mohm loadline (they say 1.5v + offset=1.72v but we all know that's 1.520v + 200mv from RKL and CML).


ICCMAX is the maximum current processor can draw, typically seen running a
virus application (stress applications specifically designed to push the SoC to
maximum Power).

ICCMax.app is less than IccMax and is the electrical current Drawn by the SoC
(per power rail) while running a typical user realistic application(s) scenario at
P0nmax and Tjmax.

It Corresponds to Pmax.App, The SoC VR and system input power. Source must be
able to sustain this current for at least 10 ms


----------



## Alexshunter

Guy, how possibel to know if newegg out of stock of 13700K/KF and Bhpphoto have them? Both takes preorder, but unsure if they will ship 20th.


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> Intel is no longer making CPUs that run better with fixed voltage and syncing all cores...
> Voltage adjustments are best made now using load lines and VF curves...


Does that apply to the "old" 10900K aswell or is it new with 12900K/13900K?


----------



## Kocicak

Xeq54 said:


> .... I dont get it.


 Is it worth messing with it for long hours when the BIOS may not be the final official one? BTW did you get the chip at the green monster?


----------



## domdtxdissar

Time to stir the pot in here 😅


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1581294442475966465


----------



## Nizzen

domdtxdissar said:


> Time to stir the pot in here 😅
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1581294442475966465
> View attachment 2576299
> 
> View attachment 2576300


What was the goal here? See how much faster 7700x max oc vs "stock" cpu's?


----------



## domdtxdissar

Nizzen said:


> What was the goal here? See how much faster 7700x max oc vs "stock" cpu's?


Share performance numbers for unreleased 13600K/13700K's in the gen13 forum thread ? 
I'm not the author of the data nor the HXL twitter guy if you have a problem with a Zen4 part being included in the chart (?)

But by the looks of things:
13600k is ~14% faster then 12600k in CS benchmark
13700k is ~ 3.7 faster then 12700k in CS benchmark (what's happening here?)

5100/4900 = ~4% faster clockspeed for the 13600k
5300/4900 = ~8.1% faster clockspeed 13700k

Numbers look kinda strange, bandwidth limitation for the 13700k ?


----------



## bhav

I'll be getting one later as I'd like a software bundle this time, I would very much like to find out first if the 13900k overclocks any much better than the 13700k, and the differences in Civ 6 and Anno 1800 as those are the type of games I play that care about CPU.

Anno 1800 in particular gets 25 min frames on a 10900k & 1080 Ti, up to 45 min frames on a 12900k & 1080 Ti at 1440p. But it might be difficult to find a specific comparison for this between the 13700k and 13900k as reviews are rarely that detailed.


----------



## stefxyz

Why shouldn’t the guy Post benchmarks? If he just bought the cpu he can do whatever he wants if he didn’t sign a non disclosure agreement.


----------



## Nizzen

domdtxdissar said:


> Share performance numbers for unreleased 13600K/13700K's in the gen13 forum thread ?
> I'm not the author of the data nor the HXL twitter guy if you have a problem with a Zen4 part being included in the chart (?)
> 
> But by the looks of things:
> 13600k is ~14% faster then 12600k in CS benchmark
> 13700k is ~ 3.7 faster then 12700k in CS benchmark (what's happening here?)
> 
> 5100/4900 = ~4% faster clockspeed for the 13600k
> 5300/4900 = ~8.1% faster clockspeed 13700k
> 
> Numbers look kinda strange, bandwidth limitation for the 13700k ?


Was a bit small on my phone. Tnx for summary 

Core Clockspeed doesn't really matter much in gaming. Memory performance is meta


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> Core Clockspeed doesn't really matter much in gaming. Memory performance is meta


Yes, but to reach high mem speeds we need to run high SA and IO voltages, and not everybody is comfortable with 1.40v IO and 1.65v SA... At least not for 24/7 use and if you want the CPU to last for more than 3 years...


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> Yes, but to reach high mem speeds we need to run high SA and IO voltages, and not everybody is comfortable with 1.40v IO and 1.65v SA... At least not for 24/7 use and if you want the CPU to last for more than 3 years...


Luckily we use ~0.95-1.1v vccSA for alderlake @ 7000mhz ddr5 then 

Strange you are afraid that the cpu is going to die within 3 years, when there is the best "warranty" in the world in Norway. 5 years return if broken by law....


----------



## Ichirou

Alexshunter said:


> Guy, how possibel to know if newegg out of stock of 13700K/KF and Bhpphoto have them? Both takes preorder, but unsure if they will ship 20th.


You'll probably be fine with just the 13700.
Order from both stores, refund whichever doesn't ship, or one of them if you get both.

I'm not sure if Newegg offers refunds after shipping though, so contact them if it doesn't arrive on the 20th.


----------



## HyperC

Isn't newegg shipping on the 20th? I know for a fact I got 0 tracking or label created


----------



## Telstar

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm thinking to write a guide focusing in "switching from 'Sync all cores' and 'fexed voltage' to 'By core usage', 'adaptive voltage' and TVB overclock methods".


I would be interested, since it's the way I'm going.


----------



## Alexshunter

HyperC said:


> Isn't newegg shipping on the 20th? I know for a fact I got 0 tracking or label created


Should arrive on 20th and not just starting to ship them.


----------



## Luggage

Telstar said:


> I would be interested, since it's the way I'm going.


He can name it PBO3:intel edition


----------



## Nono31

domdtxdissar said:


> Share performance numbers for unreleased 13600K/13700K's in the gen13 forum thread ?
> I'm not the author of the data nor the HXL twitter guy if you have a problem with a Zen4 part being included in the chart (?)
> 
> But by the looks of things:
> 13600k is ~14% faster then 12600k in CS benchmark
> 13700k is ~ 3.7 faster then 12700k in CS benchmark (what's happening here?)
> 
> 5100/4900 = ~4% faster clockspeed for the 13600k
> 5300/4900 = ~8.1% faster clockspeed 13700k
> 
> Numbers look kinda strange, bandwidth limitation for the 13700k ?


This results are pretty deceptive. Need to see how it will evolve in official test.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RobertoSampaio said:


> @Xeq54, If you want I can help you....
> 
> You can start reading this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ASUS MAXIMUS Z690 EXTREME & i9-12900K GUIDE - Load...
> 
> 
> Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- For Z790/13900K click here Introduction: In a world increasingly concerned with natural resources, the watchword is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And watching these videos...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel is no longer making CPUs that run better with fixed voltage and syncing all cores...
> Voltage adjustments are best made now using load lines and VF curves...
> 
> I'm not saying that it's not possible to sync all cores and set a fixed voltage...
> Please, don't get me wrong...
> I'm not criticizing the traditional overclocking method. It works !!!
> 
> And you know that I'm not a fan of brute force, even because today's CPUs already have processing power where overclocking is unnecessary.
> We overclock for "sport"... LOL
> 
> But you can imagine Intel engineers looking at a traditional overclock method knowing that there is so much boost technology in their CPUs, like TVB, TVB Enhanced, speedsetp, speedshift, turboboost_3.0, voltage optimizations, etc...
> 
> I'm thinking to write a guide focusing in "switching from 'Sync all cores' and 'fexed voltage' to 'By core usage', 'adaptive voltage' and TVB overclock methods".
> 
> Imagine who delided the CPU, has a very good cooler system that makes it possible to run full load at high frequency, start using the improved technology to change the boost patterns to reach even higher frequencies when there is a thermal opportunity. This is beautiful!!!


There is…a lot of info here, almost too complicated. Isn’t this all explaining how the chips behave now by default as long as temps are within the spec so it doesn’t throttle down? The prob is, lots of the time we’re using more than 2 cores even in games…and temps may just auto clip the frequency…like efficiency is nice but pretty sure all core would outperform this all the time wouldnt it? Like, it shouldn’t be this complicated to get good overclock for stuff we’re paying a lot for…at the end of the day we want more frames…I dunno. Seems complicated.


----------



## Falkentyne

Uncle Dubbs said:


> There is…a lot of info here, almost too complicated. Isn’t this all explaining how the chips behave now by default as long as temps are within the spec so it doesn’t throttle down? The prob is, lots of the time we’re using more than 2 cores even in games…and temps may just auto clip the frequency…like efficiency is nice but pretty sure all core would outperform this all the time wouldnt it? Like, it shouldn’t be this complicated to get good overclock for stuff we’re paying a lot for…at the end of the day we want more frames…I dunno. Seems complicated.


You have a good point also. There's absolutely nothing wrong with setting a fixed vcore, LLC4/5/6 and sync all cores. Sometimes people just want to play video games and not spend all day BSOD'ing, idle freeze, corrupting firmware after BIOS auto switch (this has been fixed btw), and so on. People have busy lives and don't always want to spend time trying to understand all this per core math, AC/DC Loadlines and so on. The important thing is that the option is there, and it CAN help you increase frames in CPU limited games for sure (of course one can also argue what's the point of getting 400 FPS if you're already getting 380 FPS?)

The one thing you always need to remember is that your overclock is ALWAYS going to be limited by the WORST CORES in your CPU. NOT the best cores. You may end up buying a poopoo sample that won't do anymore than 5.4 ghz on all cores (apparently, 5.4 ghz is stock now) no matter how much voltage you throw at it, and then you do @RobertoSampaio 's test and determine that ONE CPU CORE is limiting your entire overclock. (you can find out what core this is by running Prime95 small FFT AVX1, or Y-cruncher "SFT" and notice which core crashes--if prime95 BSOD's, Y-cruncher SFT may be a better option, as the same core will always crash first.

If you disable that core in your BIOS and suddenly you're doing another 100 mhz ezpz, then you know.

At that point, you can limit the clock speed of the bad core(s) and boost the clock of the good cores and this can give you hopefully better, measurable results in the end.
Note that voltage control for individual cores is a completely different ball game (if all cores are active and not sleeping, they're going to share the same voltage no matter what).


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Falkentyne said:


> You have a good point also. There's absolutely nothing wrong with setting a fixed vcore, LLC4/5/6 and sync all cores. Sometimes people just want to play video games and not spend all day BSOD'ing, idle freeze, corrupting firmware after BIOS auto switch (this has been fixed btw), and so on. People have busy lives and don't always want to spend time trying to understand all this per core math, AC/DC Loadlines and so on. The important thing is that the option is there, and it CAN help you increase frames in CPU limited games for sure (of course one can also argue what's the point of getting 400 FPS if you're already getting 380 FPS?)
> 
> The one thing you always need to remember is that your overclock is ALWAYS going to be limited by the WORST CORES in your CPU. NOT the best cores. You may end up buying a poopoo sample that won't do anymore than 5.4 ghz on all cores (apparently, 5.4 ghz is stock now) no matter how much voltage you throw at it, and then you do @RobertoSampaio 's test and determine that ONE CPU CORE is limiting your entire overclock. (you can find out what core this is by running Prime95 small FFT AVX1, or Y-cruncher "SFT" and notice which core crashes--if prime95 BSOD's, Y-cruncher SFT may be a better option, as the same core will always crash first.
> 
> If you disable that core in your BIOS and suddenly you're doing another 100 mhz ezpz, then you know.
> 
> At that point, you can limit the clock speed of the bad core(s) and boost the clock of the good cores and this can give you hopefully better, measurable results in the end.
> Note that voltage control for individual cores is a completely different ball game (if all cores are active and not sleeping, they're going to share the same voltage no matter what).


Ya like it kinda makes sense about a bunk core, but in order for the adaptive approach to work, you’d have to keep the thermals within a certain range, but we can already set per core p clocks anyways now…(e.g. [email protected],[email protected] etc). I’m still stuck on 10th gen, do they 12th (thus presumably 13th) have a per p core sp rating sense or is it asus only for the p/e cores as a whole? I could see some use in identifying which cores are best and using those appropriately but that process should be aided via bios recognition.


----------



## Exilon

Luggage said:


> He can name it PBO3:intel edition


Adaptive boost?


----------



## kill_a_wat

Frame Chasers posted an early review


----------



## th3illusiveman

kill_a_wat said:


> Frame Chasers posted an early review


Doesnt Jenson have a stove similar to that? Kept thinking the dude was gonna pull a 4090 out of the oven lol. Also, doesn't team viewer skew results?


----------



## Bilco

th3illusiveman said:


> Doesnt Jenson have a stove similar to that? Kept thinking the dude was gonna pull a 4090 out of the oven lol. Also, doesn't team viewer skew results?


I'm sure it does, his 12900k also is direct die cooled I believe, so unless you are going to go all out with the memory tweaking and IHS removal the 13900k is still looking pretty damn good. The question is, is the price difference worth it to you if you already have a 12900k. Might be justifiable after resale. I'm wondering if I should swap my 2021 Apex out for a MSI unify or z790... pretty turned off with how ASUS handled the 1 faulty memory DIMM.


----------



## th3illusiveman

Bilco said:


> I'm sure it does, his 12900k also is direct die cooled I believe, so unless you are going to go all out with the memory tweaking and IHS removal the 13900k is still looking pretty damn good. The question is, is the price difference worth it to you if you already have a 12900k. Might be justifiable after resale. I'm wondering if I should swap my 2021 Apex out for a MSI unify or z790... pretty turned off with how ASUS handled the 1 faulty memory DIMM.


obviously do what you please with your money, but i highly doubt you'd see alot of benefit in anything except heavily multithreaded applications - but there will be a higher power bill to suit.

For gaming only, i see little reason for a 12 gen owner to look at Raptor lake. It should always be noted that the gaming CPU benchs you see are custom made to show the largest differences between units. Dial up the resolution and quality settings and the end user will see almost no difference between an AMD 5K, 7K and intels 12K and 13K series CPUS in a blind test.


----------



## Cuthalu

Bilco said:


> I'm sure it does, his 12900k also is direct die cooled I believe, so unless you are going to go all out with the memory tweaking and IHS removal the 13900k is still looking pretty damn good. The question is, is the price difference worth it to you if you already have a 12900k. Might be justifiable after resale. I'm wondering if I should swap my 2021 Apex out for a MSI unify or z790... pretty turned off with how ASUS handled the 1 faulty memory DIMM.


There's also a ram difference, 7200 M-die (RPL) vs 7600 A-die (ALD), and he doesn't show the latencies of RPL. Not exactly apples to apples max oc vs max oc.


----------



## IronAge

if RPL will probably give you like 3ms better latency with the same settings, makes it worth updating ? 

I am eager to see the ratings of 13700K/KF, i do not expect retails samples to be as good as QS tho.


----------



## Arni90

Uncle Dubbs said:


> There is…a lot of info here, almost too complicated. Isn’t this all explaining how the chips behave now by default as long as temps are within the spec so it doesn’t throttle down? The prob is, lots of the time we’re using more than 2 cores even in games…and temps may just auto clip the frequency…like efficiency is nice but pretty sure all core would outperform this all the time wouldnt it? Like, it shouldn’t be this complicated to get good overclock for stuff we’re paying a lot for…at the end of the day we want more frames…I dunno. Seems complicated.


Let me break it down for you real simple:

Every Intel CPU has preprogrammed VID table for different multipliers
*AC loadline* is a multiplier that adds some value on top of the preprogrammed VID for any frequency. Increasing this value adds VCore at higher frequencies without impacting idle voltages. You might find this to work best at a slightly lower value than stock.
*AVX Guardband *increases VID whenever an AVX workload is detected. You might find this works best at a lower value from stock.
*LLC* adjusts the voltage droop, increasing this value reduces the VCore difference between cold and hot workloads.
*VID offset* adds or subtracts a flat voltage from all frequencies.
*Adaptive VCore* sets the VID for the highest multiplier, but is still subject to the extra VID afforded by AC Loadline and AVX Guardband.
*DC Loadline* affects only power measurements, and should really be left alone unless you're anal about getting correct power draw figures. As an experiment, try setting it to 1000, and watch as your power readout plummets to 0W under load.

The method Roberto recommends in his guide is to: 
1. Tune high single core boost frequency, adjust adaptive voltage and AC Loadline until necessary VCore is hit.
2. Set an appropriate all-core boost frequency while keeping LLC settings at a droopy value, like 1 or 2 for ASUS, or 8 for MSI.
3. Increase all-core frequency further with TVB
4. If overheating, more droopy LLC or ???
5. If crashing, disable TVB, increase AC Loadline, Adaptive voltage, or increase LLC compensation.

What most people here do is:
1. Find limits of cooling by adjusting VCore and LLC settings.
2. Raise CPU multipliers to the limit of chosen stability test.
Optional: Try out TVB and higher boost frequency for lower thread counts and gaming.

You might get slightly more performance from Roberto's method, but it's hardly necessary.


----------



## bhav

Has this been posted here yet?






Only 100 mhz P core overclock on 13900k, 5.5 stock to 5.6 all core.

Its looking like they are already pushed to their max, 13900k using top silicon, 13700ks unlikely to OC to 13900k speeds.

I stopped watching after the overclocks, ram went from 6800 on a 12900k to 7400 though so it has a much better imc.


----------



## Rbk_3

Man, I mainly play Warzone I should have just kept my 12900KS. Live and learn.


----------



## energie80

do you think the z690 2 dimms mobo can handle 7400 ddr5?


----------



## bhav

Rbk_3 said:


> Man, I mainly play Warzone I should have just kept my 12900KS. Live and learn.


Never upgrade before reviews.

I pre ordered a 12600 non k before any reviews, completely blocked my ram OCs. Also missed out on software bundles.

Unless its a new system you need right now, wait for reviews, even software bundles.


----------



## themad

energie80 said:


> do you think the z690 2 dimms mobo can handle 7400 ddr5?


I am also wondering kinda the same. Would a 13900k and some 7400 ddr5 make any significant improvements over 12900k and 6400 ddr5 on a z690 board?
We might need to wait a few more days-weeks for the answer I guess...


----------



## energie80

im actually on unify x 12900ks all cores 5400 and ddr5 6800cl30.
that guy from the youtube video is using unifyx with 7600mhz ddr5


----------



## LazyGamer

themad said:


> I am also wondering kinda the same. Would a 13900k and some 7400 ddr5 make any significant improvements over 12900k and 6400 ddr5 on a z690 board?
> We might need to wait a few more days-weeks for the answer I guess...


You're going to need to wait, even though you don't want to 

[I'm also in this boat]


----------



## bhav

energie80 said:


> do you think the z690 2 dimms mobo can handle 7400 ddr5?


Premium 2 dimm mobos are actually better for memory OC, its why I've used Asus Strix ITX boards for quite a while now. Fewer dimms and shorter path between cpu and dimm channels improve stability when pushing higher frequency and aggressive timings.

I had 4600CL15 1.72v running for daily on my 10900k < Disclaimer totally not safe do not try at home. Samsung B die would probably melt with that voltage, DDR5 needs waaaay lower.

Its a shame I have to get an atx board for a decent ddr4 z790.


----------



## Arni90

bhav said:


> I had 4600CL15 1.72v running for daily on my 10900k < Disclaimer totally not safe do not try at home. Samsung B die would probably melt with that voltage, DDR5 needs waaaay lower.


New B-die sticks will happily scale with voltage up to 1.90V or so, but you might not be able to use all the memory on the IC at that point. Most memory controllers tap out before B-die stops scaling.


----------



## bhav

Arni90 said:


> New B-die sticks will happily scale with voltage up to 1.90V or so, but you might not be able to use all the memory on the IC at that point. Most memory controllers tap out before B-die stops scaling.



Good to know, Im not allowed to encourage that much voltage on most forums because imc degradation, ram will die and such, and dont want someone actually doing that and bye bye ram and cpu.

Ive been running at 'unsafe' dram volts since coffee lake, still not had problems.

I've taken the micron up to 1.8v but it stopped scaling around 1.75v, and asrocks custom 1.75v bios they sent me did nothing.

So the Z790 is to see if I can push 4800CL16 or 5000+ CL18.


----------



## stefxyz

I hope he missed something or Performance overhead otherwise zen5 sales will inprorove soon. This is just a 12900k with slightly higher clocks and some (for gaming mostly useless) extra e cores. Was hoping for a bit more due to optimized cache…


----------



## affxct

stefxyz said:


> I hope he missed something or Performance overhead otherwise zen5 sales will inprorove soon. This is just a 12900k with slightly higher clocks and some (for gaming mostly useless) extra e cores. Was hoping for a bit more due to optimized cache…


D5 speed went up by a crap ton and the chip itself has 36MB of L3 and significantly more L2, something is afoot with his numbers. 1% doesn't make any logical sense. I saw much higher even in the other leaked reviews. I'll definitely be getting a 13700K to test again my 12900K. Will be more or less apples to apples.


----------



## Arni90

stefxyz said:


> I hope he missed something or Performance overhead otherwise zen5 sales will inprorove soon. This is just a 12900k with slightly higher clocks and some (for gaming mostly useless) extra e cores. Was hoping for a bit more due to optimized cache…


The 2MB of L2 and 6MB of L3 cache might improve IPC slightly compared to Alder Lake, but the main upgrade is simply frequency.

I'm mostly excited to finally hit 6 GHz on ambient outside of frequency validation.


----------



## affxct

Arni90 said:


> The 2MB of L2 and 6MB of L3 cache might improve IPC slightly compared to Alder Lake, but the main upgrade is simply frequency.
> 
> I'm mostly excited to finally hit 6 GHz on ambient outside of frequency validation.


The L2 increase going from the 12900K -> 13700K is 50% (16 vs 24). The E-cores also gain L2 for what it's worth.

Correction: 12900K has 14.


----------



## PBaF

kill_a_wat said:


> Frame Chasers posted an early review


This guy for real? Never heard of him and he's asking $500 for his "consulting" services according to his site. 
Seems like a scammer.


----------



## IronAge

Imagine @Falkentyne charching for his consultancy on this forum, and he would earn it way more than this guy.


----------



## affxct

IronAge said:


> Imagine @Falkentyne charching for his consultancy on this forum, and he would earn it way more than this guy.


@7empe deserves some kind of an award for the amount of Z690 Apex testing he did in the ROG thread.


----------



## WayWayUp

he also clocked the guys m die to 7200 but compared against his a die 7400 12900ks combo

the memory controller seems much more up to task. I'm very interested in the new 7600 A die ram sticks with a z790 apex. I think 8000 is inevitable but i want to see if 8200 or even 8400 is doable. If with 30 cas as well it would mean ddr5 has finally caught up to ddr4 latency but with double the speed


----------



## affxct

WayWayUp said:


> he also clocked the guys m die to 7200 but compared against his a die 7400 12900ks combo
> 
> the memory controller seems much more up to task. I'm very interested in the new 7600 A die ram sticks with a z790 apex. I think 8000 is inevitable but i want to see if 8200 or even 8400 is doable


8400 requires a 2100MHz IMC for G2, and I dunno if the Apex is the board I'd pick. Probably just better off with a Dark tbh. At $450 the Z690 Dark still seems like the board to buy. Z790 Dark will likely cost $700-800.


----------



## IronAge

Dark will have 10G Lan too and even more PCB Layers, should be a winner, @CENS already has a sample.


----------



## affxct

IronAge said:


> Dark will have 10G Lan too and even more PCB Layers, should be a winner, @CENS already has a sample.


I'm curious about the layer think but I've always struggled to understand the 10G thing. Do people in NA/EU actually have 10Gbps internet already?


----------



## tubs2x4

stefxyz said:


> I hope he missed something or Performance overhead otherwise zen5 sales will inprorove soon. This is just a 12900k with slightly higher clocks and some (for gaming mostly useless) extra e cores. Was hoping for a bit more due to optimized cache…


Then cheaper intel cpus to buy then.


----------



## WayWayUp

I thought there were icp improvements on the P cores
Even if running at same clocks there should have been a difference
I’ll wait for real reviews
I’m not sure how the guy was even telling him what to do remotely but if there was any kind of screen sharing going on that would reduce cpu performance..


----------



## rluker5

WayWayUp said:


> he also clocked the guys m die to 7200 but compared against his a die 7400 12900ks combo
> 
> the memory controller seems much more up to task. I'm very interested in the new 7600 A die ram sticks with a z790 apex. I think 8000 is inevitable but i want to see if 8200 or even 8400 is doable. If with 30 cas as well it would mean ddr5 has finally caught up to ddr4 latency but with double the speed


Hopefully he caught the 76 he had the tRCD set to on the 13900k. That is twice what I have with lesser memory.

Edit: Adds over 10ns latency with 6400. So that tosses a big question mark in his results. Great ram or micron equivalent.


----------



## RandalFlagg

PBaF said:


> This guy for real? Never heard of him and he's asking $500 for his "consulting" services according to his site.
> Seems like a scammer.


I've watched him on and off for the past year+. 

A channel like that has its place, it gives you an idea of "max OC on RAM and CPU" performance. It's sort of the extreme opposite of these sites that run around using JEDEC spec memory for their benchmarks.

That said, he is comparing his 5.4Ghz golden die 12900K able to run DDR5-7600 to a random 13900K with max stable DDR5-7200 and only got 5.6Ghz (5.5 is stock) on that. Golden is by definition what, under 5% of chips?

The random 13900K basically beat his golden 12900K by 1-2% in the games he tested with a 3090 Ti.

So, I don't think his video is showing anything that common sense wouldn't tell someone anyway. If you are the lucky <5% who have a 5.4Ghz all core DDR5-7600 stable capable 12900K, the average 13900K will not do much for you at max OC.

But I imagine a more normal limitation for a random 12900K is 5.2Ghz all core and DDR5-6800.


----------



## xarot

13900K should be a beast of a CPU in MT. Fired up my old Xeon W-3175X (28c/56t) and Dominus Extreme on air yesterday, at stock I am getting around 33K in CB23. W-3175X getting around 40K at 4.5 GHz but that's water chiller territory.

Preordered and paid 13900K and Asus Z790 Extreme, I wonder how long it takes for the mobo to arrive. Sold my very good 12900KS and Z690 Extreme locally. Only a few days until launch


----------



## Arni90

affxct said:


> The L2 increase going from the 12900K -> 13700K is 50% (16 vs 24). The E-cores also gain L2 for what it's worth.
> 
> Correction: 12900K has 14.


I was a bit unclear in the last post. Adding up L2 doesn't make sense, at least not for people here who primarily game. Any single thread on a 12900K will have up to 31.25 MB of cache, while a 13900K can provide up to 38 MB, that's what will matter for gaming performance.

A larger L2 is supposedly more important for power consumption than performance, as it will reduce L3 accesses, which will lower power draw.


----------



## LazyGamer

xarot said:


> 13900K should be a beast of a CPU in MT.


What's wild is that the 13900K is seeing similar MT performance to the 7950X.

I'd always been tempted to grab AMDs top-of-stack consumer CPU for daily use, and I've always been deterred by their platform issues - a never-ending story on their part going back to the first Athlons.


----------



## pastuch

LazyGamer said:


> What's wild is that the 13900K is seeing similar MT performance to the 7950X.
> 
> I'd always been tempted to grab AMDs top-of-stack consumer CPU for daily use, and I've always been deterred by their platform issues - a never-ending story on their part going back to the first Athlons.


X570 Tuf owner here, best motherboard I've ever had. Overclocked well with 3 different CPUs and I had zero stability issues. I got the memory latency with 4x8gb Bdie down to 53ns and I was tied to a poor IMC on the 5600x. Only two reasons I'm switching to Intel, AMD made the idiotic decision to stop supporting DDR4 on the 7 series and I don't want to wait until 2023 for the new X3D chips. I would never buy a non-X3D CPU from AMD ever again, the 1% lows gains in games like Warzone are insane. Still, Intel is the king of Warzone and it's all I play.

Actually I have to admit, the 7950x is doing some wild memory latency numbers with DDR5. Check this out:








Share your AIDA 64 cache and memory benchmark here


Heh, ya well..... Back to some unaltered calculations.... Will represent the calculation ran at 10240 across 3 benchmarks. Of course there's variance. Performance Mark was never really accurate (lowest time) Chips and Cheese is nice because it tells you each calculation and the latency for each...




www.techpowerup.com


----------



## EastCoast

You lot need to stop watching Frame Chasers. That same video has been spammed several times in this thread alone and it's ridiculous. 

He's winding you all up for his next video. And, I can almost tell that when he gets the cpu himself he's going to get vastly different results. And completely ignore the results he got in this spammed video with some random quip comment. That has been his m.o. If you think he's going to downplay Intel in any form you got another thing coming.


----------



## Falkentyne

RandalFlagg said:


> I've watched him on and off for the past year+.
> 
> A channel like that has its place, it gives you an idea of "max OC on RAM and CPU" performance. It's sort of the extreme opposite of these sites that run around using JEDEC spec memory for their benchmarks.
> 
> That said, he is comparing his 5.4Ghz golden die 12900K able to run DDR5-7600 to a random 13900K with max stable DDR5-7200 and only got 5.6Ghz (5.5 is stock) on that. Golden is by definition what, under 5% of chips?
> 
> The random 13900K basically beat his golden 12900K by 1-2% in the games he tested with a 3090 Ti.
> 
> So, I don't think his video is showing anything that common sense wouldn't tell someone anyway. If you are the lucky <5% who have a 5.4Ghz all core DDR5-7600 stable capable 12900K, the average 13900K will not do much for you at max OC.
> 
> But I imagine a more normal limitation for a random 12900K is 5.2Ghz all core and DDR5-6800.


"Apparently" 5.4 ghz is stock, but we need to see if that's related to an AVX offset, or if Intel changed something at the last minute, because the early slides showed 5.5 ghz P cores but the current ones show 5.4 ghz...


----------



## tubs2x4

EastCoast said:


> You lot need to stop watching Frame Chasers. That same video has been spammed several times in this thread alone and it's ridiculous.
> 
> He's winding you all up for his next video. And, I can almost tell that when he gets the cpu himself he's going to get vastly different results. And completely ignore the results he got in this spammed video with some random quip comment. That has been his m.o. If you think he's going to downplay Intel in any form you got another thing coming.


“As always… time will tell”


----------



## Xeq54

Spent some more time witht he 13900KF
5.7 GHZ all P core seems impossible with my sample on a custom loop, it is either unstable or throttles with more voltage.

58 2 core boost / 56 all P core / 45 all E core is easy though(301W R23 peak):








What is nice is that Ring is now 4.4-4.5ghz with E cores active and 5ghz with E cores off.


----------



## Exilon

Xeq54 said:


> Spent some more time witht he 13900KF
> 5.7 GHZ all P core seems impossible with my sample on a custom loop, it is either unstable or throttles with more voltage.
> 
> 58 2 core boost / 56 all P core / 45 all E core is easy though(301W R23 peak):
> View attachment 2576481
> 
> 
> What is nice is that Ring is now 4.4-4.5ghz with E cores active and 5ghz with E cores off.


Try raising L2 voltage and see how high you can get it. With 12th gen, you could get 4.2-4.4 ring with E-cores enabled at 1.35v L2
Looks like 13th gen stock L2 voltage is now 1.25v when active which explains some of the boost but not all of it so I'd expect maybe 4.7-4.8 possible with increased L2.


----------



## Ichirou

RandalFlagg said:


> I've watched him on and off for the past year+.
> 
> A channel like that has its place, it gives you an idea of "max OC on RAM and CPU" performance. It's sort of the extreme opposite of these sites that run around using JEDEC spec memory for their benchmarks.
> 
> That said, he is comparing his 5.4Ghz golden die 12900K able to run DDR5-7600 to a random 13900K with max stable DDR5-7200 and only got 5.6Ghz (5.5 is stock) on that. Golden is by definition what, under 5% of chips?
> 
> The random 13900K basically beat his golden 12900K by 1-2% in the games he tested with a 3090 Ti.
> 
> So, I don't think his video is showing anything that common sense wouldn't tell someone anyway. If you are the lucky <5% who have a 5.4Ghz all core DDR5-7600 stable capable 12900K, the average 13900K will not do much for you at max OC.
> 
> But I imagine a more normal limitation for a random 12900K is 5.2Ghz all core and DDR5-6800.


5.4 GHz all-core is more like 15-20% of chips.
His 7,600 MHz wasn't stress tested and is just boot stable, which means nothing as it will cause stutters and inconsistent performance. Many people who run 7,200 MHz stable can boot 7,600 MHz as well.

He spreads misinformation. Gotta take whatever he does and says with a grain of salt.

But if we really do give him the benefit of the doubt, the only reason why the difference is seemingly minor is because gaming workloads in general don't really capitalize on anything but the GPU, as most don't use that many cores or need that much memory bandwidth.


----------



## Exilon

Arni90 said:


> I was a bit unclear in the last post. Adding up L2 doesn't make sense, at least not for people here who primarily game. Any single thread on a 12900K will have up to 31.25 MB of cache, while a 13900K can provide up to 38 MB, that's what will matter for gaming performance.
> 
> A larger L2 is supposedly more important for power consumption than performance, as it will reduce L3 accesses, which will lower power draw.


13th gen L3 can run in non-inclusive mode so data resident in L2 of a core will reduce pressure on L3. i.e. if your game throws 6 threads of render workers at the CPU, 12MB of L2 will be available that isn't taking up space in L3. I'd expect performance improvements over 12th gen to vary wildly based on the application profile and whether E-cores are on or off.

If it were only a L2 size increase, IPC improvements would be a given but it looks like the +1 cycle on L2 has eaten up most of the straightforward performance improvements. Kind of a shame they couldn't keep the same cycles like they did on the E-cores which got a +5% IPC according to Raichu from 2->4MB L2.


----------



## affxct

Arni90 said:


> I was a bit unclear in the last post. Adding up L2 doesn't make sense, at least not for people here who primarily game. Any single thread on a 12900K will have up to 31.25 MB of cache, while a 13900K can provide up to 38 MB, that's what will matter for gaming performance.
> 
> A larger L2 is supposedly more important for power consumption than performance, as it will reduce L3 accesses, which will lower power draw.


Ok you got me. This I didn't really process. Mmm. Have you seen the leaked reviews out of Asia though? 13600K and 13700K show promise.


----------



## Revv23

LazyGamer said:


> You're going to need to wait, even though you don't want to
> 
> [I'm also in this boat]


When performance is game changing the leaks come pouring out. 

It seems pretty obvious 13th gen is same P-core with more mhz and more e-cores. 

Not saying that's bad, as 12th gen was such a huge jump forward. I expect this to be more incremental vs 12th gen. (except for MT obviously)

It would be nice to see if the IMC can push our ddr4/5 a little further.


----------



## Falkentyne

Xeq54 said:


> Spent some more time witht he 13900KF
> 5.7 GHZ all P core seems impossible with my sample on a custom loop, it is either unstable or throttles with more voltage.
> 
> 58 2 core boost / 56 all P core / 45 all E core is easy though(301W R23 peak):
> View attachment 2576481
> 
> 
> What is nice is that Ring is now 4.4-4.5ghz with E cores active and 5ghz with E cores off.


What's the load vcore for those settings? You seem to have some power saving enabled so your "minimum" vcore is below 1v (along with some of the cores dropping to 4100 mhz), which isn't telling us what the "minimum load" vcore is. Those temps seem rather toasty for 5.6.

Also why is your Atom L2 voltage (both clusters) showing up between 1.20-1.225v?

As far as 5.7 ghz:

Try the following settings.
Core PLL: 0.975v
PLL Termination: 1.150v
CPU Standby: 1.150v.

Then see if you can run 5.7 ghz.


----------



## LazyGamer

Revv23 said:


> It seems pretty obvious 13th gen is same P-core with more mhz and more e-cores.


...and cache and a higher ring speed and...



Revv23 said:


> It would be nice to see if the IMC can push our ddr4/5 a little further.


...and a better IMC.

Cumulative improvements should be pretty broad, but the big improvements outside of raw MT should be visible in the lows due to latency improvements and in the averages due to increased clockspeeds.


----------



## Silvio1

pastuch said:


> X570 Tuf owner here, best motherboard I've ever had. Overclocked well with 3 different CPUs and I had zero stability issues. I got the memory latency with 4x8gb Bdie down to 53ns and I was tied to a poor IMC on the 5600x. Only two reasons I'm switching to Intel, AMD made the idiotic decision to stop supporting DDR4 on the 7 series and I don't want to wait until 2023 for the new X3D chips. I would never buy a non-X3D CPU from AMD ever again, the 1% lows gains in games like Warzone are insane. Still, Intel is the king of Warzone and it's all I play.
> 
> Actually I have to admit, the 7950x is doing some wild memory latency numbers with DDR5. Check this out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Share your AIDA 64 cache and memory benchmark here
> 
> 
> Heh, ya well..... Back to some unaltered calculations.... Will represent the calculation ran at 10240 across 3 benchmarks. Of course there's variance. Performance Mark was never really accurate (lowest time) Chips and Cheese is nice because it tells you each calculation and the latency for each...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techpowerup.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576465


CPU Clock 6.05ghz ? Is that single core, custom water cooling ? Edit: nvm ignore...


----------



## Falkentyne

Revv23 said:


> When performance is game changing the leaks come pouring out.
> 
> It seems pretty obvious 13th gen is same P-core with more mhz and more e-cores.
> 
> Not saying that's bad, as 12th gen was such a huge jump forward. I expect this to be more incremental vs 12th gen. (except for MT obviously)
> 
> It would be nice to see if the IMC can push our ddr4/5 a little further.


Oh it's quite more than that  Skylake is getting its revenge  You'll see.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Arni90 said:


> Let me break it down for you real simple:
> 
> Every Intel CPU has preprogrammed VID table for different multipliers
> *AC loadline* is a multiplier that adds some value on top of the preprogrammed VID for any frequency. Increasing this value adds VCore at higher frequencies without impacting idle voltages. You might find this to work best at a slightly lower value than stock.
> *AVX Guardband *increases VID whenever an AVX workload is detected. You might find this works best at a lower value from stock.
> *LLC* adjusts the voltage droop, increasing this value reduces the VCore difference between cold and hot workloads.
> *VID offset* adds or subtracts a flat voltage from all frequencies.
> *Adaptive VCore* sets the VID for the highest multiplier, but is still subject to the extra VID afforded by AC Loadline and AVX Guardband.
> *DC Loadline* affects only power measurements, and should really be left alone unless you're anal about getting correct power draw figures. As an experiment, try setting it to 1000, and watch as your power readout plummets to 0W under load.
> 
> The method Roberto recommends in his guide is to:
> 1. Tune high single core boost frequency, adjust adaptive voltage and AC Loadline until necessary VCore is hit.
> 2. Set an appropriate all-core boost frequency while keeping LLC settings at a droopy value, like 1 or 2 for ASUS, or 8 for MSI.
> 3. Increase all-core frequency further with TVB
> 4. If overheating, more droopy LLC or ???
> 5. If crashing, disable TVB, increase AC Loadline, Adaptive voltage, or increase LLC compensation.
> 
> What most people here do is:
> 1. Find limits of cooling by adjusting VCore and LLC settings.
> 2. Raise CPU multipliers to the limit of chosen stability test.
> Optional: Try out TVB and higher boost frequency for lower thread counts and gaming.
> 
> You might get slightly more performance from Roberto's method, but it's hardly necessary.


Just one correction...
AC_LL increases the VID in heavy loads, not at high frequencies.
At high frequencies and light loads, there is no effect. 
At heavy loads it compensates the Vcore droop, increasing the VID as you can see below...

_VID = raw-vid + (AC_LL * Amp) - (DC_LL * Amp)_


----------



## Wolverine2349

Exilon said:


> 13th gen L3 can run in non-inclusive mode so data resident in L2 of a core will reduce pressure on L3. i.e. if your game throws 6 threads of render workers at the CPU, 12MB of L2 will be available that isn't taking up space in L3. I'd expect performance improvements over 12th gen to vary wildly based on the application profile and whether E-cores are on or off.
> 
> If it were only a L2 size increase, IPC improvements would be a given but it looks like the +1 cycle on L2 has eaten up most of the straightforward performance improvements. Kind of a shame they couldn't keep the same cycles like they did on the E-cores which got a +5% IPC according to Raichu from 2->4MB L2.



Which sucks as e-cores stink and they gave the p-cores no improvement.

I have heard disabling e-cores does reduce cache on CPU. Though should that not matter because L3 cache is the same and only shared cache. And isn't L1 and L2 cache all private on Alder Lake and Raptor Lake meaning L1 and L2 is only lost on e-cores, but the P cores get no benefit form that other L2 cache as it is private to only the e-cores?? Or does it not work that way??


----------



## slayer6288

Ichirou said:


> 5.4 GHz all-core is more like 15-20% of chips.
> His 7,600 MHz wasn't stress tested and is just boot stable, which means nothing as it will cause stutters and inconsistent performance. Many people who run 7,200 MHz stable can boot 7,600 MHz as well.
> 
> He spreads misinformation. Gotta take whatever he does and says with a grain of salt.
> 
> But if we really do give him the benefit of the doubt, the only reason why the difference is seemingly minor is because gaming workloads in general don't really capitalize on anything but the GPU, as most don't use that many cores or need that much memory bandwidth.


I don't like the guy either but to assume he didn't check the ram stability and just booted is spreading false information as well as he showed it in one of his videos. Don't spread fud.


----------



## Ichirou

slayer6288 said:


> I don't like the guy either but to assume he didn't check the ram stability and just booted is spreading false information as well as he showed it in one of his videos. Don't spread fud.


Cool story. Source?


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> Just one correction...
> AC_LL increases the VID in heavy loads, not at high frequencies.
> At high frequencies and light loads, there is no effect.
> At heavy loads it compensates the Vcore droop, increasing the VID as you can see below...
> 
> _VID = raw-vid + (AC_LL * Amp) - (DC_LL * Amp)_


This doesn't happen in 10th-12th gen at all. This is only for 9th gen and older.
Anyone can test this (please don't do this).
Disable C-states
Set AC Loadline to 1.1 mohms (Asus=1.1, Gigabyte: 110, MSI, not sure).
Set Vcore to Auto or adaptive.
Set CPU to max turbo ratio (x52 12900K K/KS, x49 10900K, 11900K).
Boot to BIOS.
Your CPU Vcore at NO LOAD will be 1.6v.

AC Loadline on 10th-12th gen adds some weird sort of fixed offset to the VID.
I tested this already.
Example, with 1.1 ACLL, CPU Vcore idle will be 1.58v
CPU load vcore will drop normally based on LLC.

If this formula were correct, CPU vcore would be no higher than max VID base VID (Plus a few mv).
Max base VID Can be found by setting ACLL and DCLL to 0.01 mohms (lowest value allowed)--you can do this on fixed vcore and just look at VID in windows safely without risk (on auto or adaptive modes you may end up BSOD'ing as vcore may be too low to do anything).

As I said don't do this. I tripped the breaker once testing a _1 core_ load on a 10900K in CPU-Z once because it made an old Seasonic SS-1000XP trip for some reason (or maybe the motherboard tripped, idk).


----------



## domdtxdissar

Silvio1 said:


> CPU Clock 6.05ghz ? Is that single core, custom water cooling ? Edit: nvm ignore...


What are you doing on this forum if you don't like my custom watercooling ?  


http://imgur.com/a/rlI8N18


----------



## Ichirou

domdtxdissar said:


> What are you doing on this forum if you don't like my custom watercooling ?
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/rlI8N18


That random as hell extra rad is random as hell, lol
I attached a full blown 1080mm radiator from AliExpress to the backside of my MO-RA though.


----------



## Exilon

My watercooling loop is already at +7C over ambient at full CPU/GPU load. I could double by radiators and get maybe a 2C drop for another $400 in equipment. The real bottleneck is getting heat off of the die. If only they sold high-bin lots with only a substrate brace in place of the IHS for direct die cooling...


----------



## HyperC

That's all you got? just a mora ... Sidenote I think frame chasers dude is okay different then script scared peps, I truly hope he is wrong about 3% gains tho


----------



## tubs2x4

Ichirou said:


> gaming workloads in general don't really capitalize on anything but the GPU, as most don't use that many cores or need that much memory bandwidth.


So ddr4 should be good then still?


----------



## Ichirou

tubs2x4 said:


> So ddr4 should be good then still?


Depends entirely on use-case and whether or not you manually overclock. So it's not a straight yes/no answer but a maybe.
If you've got a solid 4,000+ MHz Gear 1 RAM setup, I wouldn't bother investing in DDR5 as the difference would be minor, unless you absolutely need that extra bandwidth.


----------



## Luggage

HyperC said:


> That's all you got? just a mora ... Sidenote I think frame chasers dude is okay different then script scared peps, I truly hope he is wrong about 3% gains tho


He’s got a mountain stream and Norwegian winter as well 

The good thing about external rads is you don’t have to freeze you ass of to bench in winter, nor sit with sweaty balls in summer 



http://imgur.com/mI0i5ua


----------



## Ichirou

Just contacted some friends at BestBuy and they said that they might not even get stock on the 20th. So it might be on a store-to-store basis, or online preorder only.


----------



## HyperC

ohnoes this isn't looking good.. bad news reviews might not ship timely so by the time I get my shipment from supercomputer and my delid kit from rockitcool snail mail I should just return my 13700kf? LOL


----------



## Ichirou

HyperC said:


> ohnoes this isn't looking good.. bad news reviews might not ship timely so by the time I get my shipment from supercomputer and my delid kit from rockitcool snail mail I should just return my 13700kf? LOL


Your writing is kind of confusing, but if I understood your meaning correctly, the safest approach is to preorder chips from multiple different vendors, and then refund any extras/late arrivals. A little annoying to deal with, but you don't lose any money that way, and some stores generally give priority to online orders.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Luggage said:


> He’s got a mountain stream and Norwegian winter as well
> 
> The good thing about external rads is you don’t have to freeze you ass of to bench in winter, nor sit with sweaty balls in summer
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/mI0i5ua


A heater for the winter... LOLOLOL


----------



## gecko991

I am still using Thermochill.


----------



## WayWayUp

Now that silicon lottery closed down is there any company that sells pre binned CPUs?
Or did Intel kill this with the way they now handle chips i.e. xx700k with bad chips and gold samples with xx900ks


----------



## Revv23

LazyGamer said:


> ...and cache and a higher ring speed and...
> 
> 
> ...and a better IMC.
> 
> Cumulative improvements should be pretty broad, but the big improvements outside of raw MT should be visible in the lows due to latency improvements and in the averages due to increased clockspeeds.


For sure, but my point is I'm not expecting some huge IPC gain or something, I'm expecting 5-10% stock to stock perf gain from 12900 to 13900, which is roughly the increase in clocks. I'll be first in line to buy one if I'm wrong. (Hopefully)


----------



## Ichirou

WayWayUp said:


> Now that silicon lottery closed down is there any company that sells pre binned CPUs?
> Or did Intel kill this with the way they now handle chips i.e. xx700k with bad chips and gold samples with xx900ks


Just buy a 13900KS, lol.


----------



## LazyGamer

Revv23 said:


> For sure, but my point is I'm not expecting some huge IPC gain or something, I'm expecting 5-10% stock to stock perf gain from 12900 to 13900, which is roughly the increase in clocks. I'll be first in line to buy one if I'm wrong. (Hopefully)


I guess that's part of it too. It's the same uarch, so no, there shouldn't be IPC gains except where cache limited. These are really 'single-thread' gains though, accounting for cache increases, latency decreases across the die, and increased clockspeeds.


----------



## yt93900

Ichirou said:


> Just buy a 13900KS, lol.


Do you think they're holding the KS back until Q1 2023 waiting for X3D Zen4?


----------



## Luggage

RobertoSampaio said:


> A heater for the winter... LOLOLOL


No I mean you sit inside in the cozy warmth and have the rad outside - instead of going out in the snow with your pc and chair


----------



## Ichirou

yt93900 said:


> Do you think they're holding the KS back until Q1 2023 waiting for X3D Zen4?


I don't work at Intel, so I don't know. Maybe?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Luggage said:


> No I mean you sit inside in the cozy warmth and have the rad outside - instead of going out in the snow with your pc and chair


You have no idea how I like when I have weather around 16C...
I really dont like high temperatures...
If I could I'd live in a place at 16~18C all the time...
Here, my room temp is 30C almost time...
Water temp always around 35C... 

2am and my walls are 29C...


----------



## xarot

ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 APEX Emolevy - Intel Z790 - Intel LGA1700 socket - DDR5 RAM - ATX


989,90 € Emolevy, ATX, Intel LGA1700 Socket, Intel Z790, 2 x PCI-Express 5.0 x16, Dual <strong>DDR5-5600</strong> - 2 x DIMM slots, 6 x SATA-600 / 4 x M.2 NVMe PCI-Express 4.0 / 1 x M.2 NVMe PCI-Express 5.0 (2242 / 2260 / 2280), USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type A & C, 2 x DisplayPort 1.4 / HDMI 2.1 / 2 x...




www.proshop.fi


----------



## HyperC

Ichirou said:


> Your writing is kind of confusing, but if I understood your meaning correctly, the safest approach is to preorder chips from multiple different vendors, and then refund any extras/late arrivals. A little annoying to deal with, but you don't lose any money that way, and some stores generally give priority to online orders.


No part of it was scarasm I ordered my delid kit 12th and paid extra for shipping still nothing rockitcool 😬 not really concerned about the intel shipping


----------



## Jimbodiah

For gaming, couldn't you switch off all the E cores and just benefit from the extra binning/IPC? 

The extra cores of the 13900K is why I am considering the 13700K as I don't do any rendering etc anyway and just less heat then. (I don't OC as a hobby, just to get some more fps and then stick it in a corner).


----------



## yt93900

xarot said:


> ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 APEX Emolevy - Intel Z790 - Intel LGA1700 socket - DDR5 RAM - ATX
> 
> 
> 989,90 € Emolevy, ATX, Intel LGA1700 Socket, Intel Z790, 2 x PCI-Express 5.0 x16, Dual <strong>DDR5-5600</strong> - 2 x DIMM slots, 6 x SATA-600 / 4 x M.2 NVMe PCI-Express 4.0 / 1 x M.2 NVMe PCI-Express 5.0 (2242 / 2260 / 2280), USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type A & C, 2 x DisplayPort 1.4 / HDMI 2.1 / 2 x...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.proshop.fi


Press F to pay respects for the pricing, that's €400 premium over the previous Apex. Hope nobody is going to pay this, while the CPU prices seem stable, mfg's are price gouging MB's to oblivion.


----------



## ChaosAD

yt93900 said:


> Press F to pay respects for the pricing, that's €400 premium over the previous Apex. Hope nobody is going to pay this, while the CPU prices seem stable, mfg's are price gouging MB's to oblivion.


I honestly I can't understand why you say something like this. Only 400 euros uplift in price from the garbage z690 apex, which 3/4 of the production wasn't function as it should, seems completely reasonable 😂 The sad thing is that people will still buy it.


----------



## LazyGamer

Jimbodiah said:


> For gaming, couldn't you switch off all the E cores and just benefit from the extra binning/IPC?


You could just leave them on too. They won't affect gaming much if at all; and if you have anything else running like any normal desktop user would, they provide a place to offload those processes onto.



Jimbodiah said:


> The extra cores of the 13900K is why I am considering the 13700K as I don't do any rendering etc anyway and just less heat then. (I don't OC as a hobby, just to get some more fps and then stick it in a corner).


Same here, from a 12700K, and same reason I didn't grab a 12900K, though I do regret that somewhat given how poorly my 12700K overclocks.

Still, the ring bus, cache, and memory overclocking changes for 13th-gen seem to make it worth it.


----------



## LazyGamer

ChaosAD said:


> I honestly I can't understand why you say something like this. Only 400 euros uplift in price from the garbage z690 apex, which 3/4 of the production wasn't function as it should, seems completely reasonable 😂 The sad thing is that people will still buy it.


Folks would buy a Z690 Apex _today_ if they could be guaranteed to get a good one. Demand for a Z790 Apex already exists.


----------



## Avacado

RobertoSampaio said:


> You have no idea how I like when I have weather around 16C...
> I really dont like high temperatures...
> If I could I'd live in a place at 16~18C all the time...
> Here, my room temp is 30C almost time...
> Water temp always around 35C...
> 
> 2am and my walls are 29C...
> View attachment 2576604


#Feelsbadman


----------



## yt93900

ChaosAD said:


> I honestly I can't understand why you say something like this. Only 400 euros uplift in price from the garbage z690 apex, which 3/4 of the production wasn't function as it should, seems completely reasonable 😂 The sad thing is that people will still buy it.


They should give folks who bought the rev.1 €400 trade-in discount on the Z790 model )))


----------



## dragn09

is the die height the same as 12th gen? asking because of direct die cooling


----------



## sugi0lover

dragn09 said:


> is the die height the same as 12th gen? asking because of direct die cooling


Yes. Supercool Diret Die INTEL GEN12 still works good for GEN13.


----------



## lordkahless

Should we be using contact frames from 12th gen on 13th gen?


----------



## Avacado

lordkahless said:


> Should we be using contact frames from 12th gen on 13th gen?


Yes, won't hurt.


----------



## dragn09

sugi0lover said:


> Yes. Supercool Diret Die INTEL GEN12 still works good for GEN13.


nice i guess the smd being on other sides are no problem too?


----------



## Avacado

Shouldn't matter, everything should have conformal coating on it when you delided in the first place.


----------



## sugi0lover

dragn09 said:


> nice i guess the smd being on other sides are no problem too?


No problem~

[Update] Oh, I forgot mentioning this. There is one part you need to use kapton tape to prevent direct die ihs from contacting that part. I used the pic from the internet to show which part it is.


----------



## Nono31

Wolverine2349 said:


> Which sucks as e-cores stink and they gave the p-cores no improvement.
> 
> I have heard disabling e-cores does reduce cache on CPU. Though should that not matter because L3 cache is the same and only shared cache. And isn't L1 and L2 cache all private on Alder Lake and Raptor Lake meaning L1 and L2 is only lost on e-cores, but the P cores get no benefit form that other L2 cache as it is private to only the e-cores?? Or does it not work that way??


You are right and wrong in same time.
P core have improve, they have almost twice l2 cache than before. Thats huge.
L3 is share so if you disable e core its ok you keep the same amount of it.
Each core 8P and X Ecore have each one amount of l1 and l2 cache. So for exemple with csgo game, its work with 8core, putting more has not effect. So you select 8 Pcore with 2 mo l2 cache by core and you keep if you want just some Ecore for running windows and others task behind. Its the same with amd.16 core of 7950x are no effect on CSGO. Exra core and extra l2 cache are not used.
7950x and 7900x have interest over 7700x with csgo because the two first one have double amo t of l3 cache than the third. And oc potential is higher in for the first next come the second....


----------



## Ichirou

Jimbodiah said:


> For gaming, couldn't you switch off all the E cores and just benefit from the extra binning/IPC?
> 
> The extra cores of the 13900K is why I am considering the 13700K as I don't do any rendering etc anyway and just less heat then. (I don't OC as a hobby, just to get some more fps and then stick it in a corner).


Yes, but why don't you just get a 12th Gen in that case?


sugi0lover said:


> Yes. Supercool Diret Die INTEL GEN12 still works good for GEN13.


Does the delid kit still work the same?


----------



## sugi0lover

Ichirou said:


> Yes, but why don't you just get a 12th Gen in that case?
> 
> Does the delid kit still work the same?


Yes. You can expect big temp drop


----------



## nickolp1974

sugi0lover said:


> Yes. You can expect big temp drop


Does the same apply just using stock ihs after delid and LM?


----------



## sugi0lover

nickolp1974 said:


> Does the same apply just using stock ihs after delid and LM?


Yes. You can use the original ihs after delid and LM or direct die and LM.


----------



## bhav

I'm not so sure of switching off e cores. I had a 12600 non k first and then the 12600k.

12600k is obviously better in everything I threw at both chips, but the 12600 is just 500 Mhz less at stock.

If switching e cores off was to give a noticable benefit, there maybe should be cases where the 12600 outperforms the 12600k, otherwise its less difference than clock speed, which at 4k doesn't even do anything.

I saw the 12900k e cores on and off comparisons, there were differences in favour of e cores off, but at 1080p medium settings. Its the same thing as a couple hundred MHZ more on ram or 1 less CL value.

Theres a few cases tested on youtube comparisons where e cores on = lower temps in gaming, because the P cores aren't being stressed as much, but its rare, as is improvements with e cores on.

So its the same thing as with ram, some titles prefer e cores off, some prefer on, and actually people used to do the same with HT on and off as well.

Now another issue thats come up with 13700k vs 13900k - the 13900k obviously uses golden binned silicon, the 13700k 13900k failed silicon. So 13900k is likely to have a much stronger IMC than the 13700k, getting a 13700k and expecting the same CPU and ram overclocks is playing the silicon lottery and most likely you won't win.

So its not just £200 more for 8 more e cores, its also to ensure better CPU and Ram settings. Also even if review samples of the 13700k manage to overclock as well, the one I end up with could be a dud. So I think it will be better to play it safe and go with the 13900k.

I've never done delidding / lapping / liquid metal and never want to risk it on a high end chip. Bend protector is easier, and I'll just use 420mm arctic AIO and the MX5 it comes with. When I had an 8700k that hit 95+c at stock in the all mesh core v1, I just got an RMA from Intel and swapped to a 9700k instead of delidding. Same case and AIO currently running 5.1 pcore 12600k at the same temps as a stock 8700k.


----------



## asdkj1740

for 13900k is prime 95 avx2 sfft still work as stablility test?


----------



## Ichirou

asdkj1740 said:


> for 13900k is prime 95 avx2 sfft still work as stablility test?


Run y-cruncher's Component Stress Test with all tests enabled for at least one loop. It's better overall.


----------



## asdkj1740

Ichirou said:


> Run y-cruncher's Component Stress Test with all tests enabled for at least one loop. It's better overall.


thanks i will give it a try later.
any voltage / frequency recommendation for reference , in general?

some vrm controller has some crazy vdroop with different LLC level on z790.
does raa229131 on z790 perform the same in terms of LLC with 13900k?


----------



## Falkentyne

asdkj1740 said:


> for 13900k is prime 95 avx2 sfft still work as stablility test?


Please don't do this without a custom loop.


----------



## Ichirou

asdkj1740 said:


> thanks i will give it a try later.
> any voltage / frequency recommendation for reference , in general?
> 
> some vrm controller has some crazy vdroop with different LLC level on z790.
> does raa229131 on z790 perform the same in terms of LLC with 13900k?


Depends on the motherboard.
But in general, if we're going by CPU Package Power in HWiNFO, don't exceed 280W or so unless you can cool that beast to under 80-85C.
There's a possibly more accurate wattage readout though. @Falkentyne can fill you in on the details.


----------



## asdkj1740

Falkentyne said:


> Please don't do this without a custom loop.


any safe voltage / cpu temp recommendation for aio in general??


----------



## asdkj1740

Ichirou said:


> Depends on the motherboard.
> But in general, if we're going by CPU Package Power in HWiNFO, don't exceed 280W or so unless you can cool that beast to under 80-85C.
> There's a possibly more accurate wattage readout though. @Falkentyne can fill you in on the details.


even r23 multi test for default 13900k on z790 can already pass 300w and ~90c. 
seriously? 280w 85c or lower? 
this gen is strange, so strange...
thanks for the info.


----------



## Ichirou

The 13th Gen chips are just better binned and manufactured 12th Gen chips. So they should have the same kind of tolerances, but maybe slightly more lax due to the larger die.
Overall, if you can keep it under 80C, it's probably okay. Less is better.


----------



## Avacado

asdkj1740 said:


> any safe voltage / cpu temp recommendation for aio in general??


I would try to stay <1.3v and <85c


----------



## asdkj1740

Avacado said:


> I would try to stay <1.3v and <85c


for r23 multi i saw 5.5g for pcores and 4g for ecores, it is quite hard to achieve <1.3v and <85c...
what stress test you are using ?


----------



## Avacado

asdkj1740 said:


> for r23 multi i saw 5.5g for pcores and 4g for ecores, it is quite hard to achieve <1.3v and <85c...
> what stress test you are using ?


I am not, I don't have a 13900k yet, they haven't been released. He asked what voltage and temps he should TRY to stick to on AIO cooling and I told him the truth. I have custom direct die for my 12900KF and usually go above 5.5GHz and 1.5v for benching.


----------



## bhav

For stability testing I've stopped using small FTTs as gaming doesn't push a CPU that much.

OCCT's CPU test set to large FTTs has been enough to ensure 24/7 stability in games and temperatures under tjmax. 

420mm aio, open case, bend corrector and MX5 should be more than enough for my needs, and 13900k's dont OC much anyway, I might want to undervolt and maintain stock speed set to all cores (5.5 not 5.8).

Arc GPUs are already being sold with a 4 game bundle, COD and pick 3 from a list, so it shouldn't take long for them to add that to 13th gen chips.


----------



## slayer6288

Ichirou said:


> Cool story. Source?


It is not my job to go through all his videos to show you that you were wrong and spreading misinformation you clown. Grow up and do that yourself and make sure next time you post you know what you are talking about first.


----------



## bhav

Avacado said:


> I would try to stay <1.3v and <85c


This also depends on LLC. At max LLC and 1.225v, my 12600k runs a lot hotter than 1.34v LLC3.

The voltages are boosted by the LLC, so I realized to stop using the highest setting, and the third was also lower temps than 1.28v LLC second highest (my motherboards all have flipped LLC value, 1 is high on some, 5 is high on others).

So try using the middle LLC even if it means setting higher voltage in bios.

5 Ghz P core settings I can stay under 80c ... 5.1 under 95c, well erm, its still below TJmax, but thats on an nzxt 140mm rad.


----------



## Falkentyne

asdkj1740 said:


> any safe voltage / cpu temp recommendation for aio in general??





https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getcontent/743844





https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getContent/743846?explicitVersion=true



<245 amps for daily (Cinebench R23 or lower @ <1.250v @ 245A), 307 amps for virus mode (prime95 small FFT AVX, stockfish, linpack, y-cruncher <1.182v @ 307A)
Using loadline slope 1520mv - (1.1 mohm * Amps) = Vcore target.

Of course it's your chip, do whatever you want with it, feel free to disagree with me or throw 1.38v load into it in Y-cruncher SFT test, just don't complain if it degrades..


----------



## Falkentyne

asdkj1740 said:


> for r23 multi i saw 5.5g for pcores and 4g for ecores, it is quite hard to achieve <1.3v and <85c...
> what stress test you are using ?


This was already achieved at 5.5 / 4.3 R23 at 1.172v load (VR VOUT) at 82C by a MSI user.


----------



## asdkj1740

Falkentyne said:


> https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getcontent/743844
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getContent/743846?explicitVersion=true
> 
> 
> 
> <245 amps for daily (Cinebench R23 or lower @ <1.250v @ 245A), 307 amps for virus mode (prime95 small FFT AVX, stockfish, linpack, y-cruncher <1.182v @ 307A)
> Using loadline slope 1520mv - (1.1 mohm * Amps) = Vcore target.
> 
> Of course it's your chip, do whatever you want with it, feel free to disagree with me or throw 1.38v load into it in Y-cruncher SFT test, just don't complain if it degrades..


thanks for the advice.
i just wonder it seems the mobo vendors once again provide excessive amount of voltage on launch bios again.


----------



## WayWayUp

when are the reviews coming, tomorrow?


----------



## Groove2013

...


----------



## bhav

asdkj1740 said:


> thanks for the advice.
> i just wonder it seems the mobo vendors once again provide excessive amount of voltage on launch bios again.


Never use auto volts. even at stock.

When running at stock I use negative offset, even just 0.02v. When doing this make sure the CPU is still boosting, as too much undervolt makes them stop boosting.

My 12600 non k stopped boosting at -0.05v, but that was on H board so they would have been using intel spec voltage.

Stock volt was 1.2, boost stopped at 1.15, came back at 1.18.


----------



## asdkj1740

Falkentyne said:


> This was already achieved at 5.5 / 4.3 R23 at 1.172v load (VR VOUT) at 82C by a MSI user.


that's sick, mine cant even run r23 when voltage is lower than 1.25v


----------



## Nizzen

asdkj1740 said:


> that's sick, mine cant even run r23 when voltage is lower than 1.25v


Msi MB?


----------



## Ichirou

slayer6288 said:


> It is not my job to go through all his videos to show you that you were wrong and spreading misinformation you clown. Grow up and do that yourself and make sure next time you post you know what you are talking about first.


Cool story bro. Cool story. Still waiting on you to back up your claims.


----------



## Falkentyne

asdkj1740 said:


> that's sick, mine cant even run r23 when voltage is lower than 1.25v


Huh? Retail or QS? What motherboard? That 1.25v might be overreported inaccurate vcore and a lot lower than shown.


----------



## gtz

Anybody know if antonline ships out prior the release to receive it on the 21st? I know Newegg used to do it.


----------



## Ichirou

gtz said:


> Anybody know if antonline ships out prior the release to receive it on the 21st? I know Newegg used to do it.


At this point in time, there's a chance that it might actually be a paper launch, since some stores won't even have stock.
I contacted some of my friends at BestBuy; they told me explicitly they won't have it on time for release.

Just order at multiple stores, cross your fingers, and refund any extras/late shipments.


----------



## raad11

I'm gonna jump to this as soon as it comes out. Thanks to Falkentyne and RobertoSampaio I had my 12900K running at 5.5 peak boost, 5.3 all-core on light loads and 5.2 all-core. The 5.2 wasn't entirely stable and that became annoying when I had to run Handbrake because every once in a while it would crash, but I'm on Windows 10 so it always just ran Handbrake on e-cores by default anyway so I just let it. I never hit a full load on this chip otherwise. I remember it was tricky to oc because it wasn't any more stable on 5.1 than 5.2 all core.

Nonetheless, I'd like that performance to be guaranteed and use my main desktop a lot more for stuff other than gaming so a 5.5 all-core turbo out of the box sounds great. The increased ring speed should add stability (testing the ring oc on the 12900K was just one more annoying step) and the extra cache can't hurt for gaming!

I don't suppose you guys got your hands on early units and are planning on writing an updated guide to similarly oc-ing the 13900K? I'm perfectly content to leave it at the stock all core turbo this time (I'm still conditioned to Skylake numbers so 5.5 sounds sky-high for me) but I'd like to see if it can boost to peak (5.8) on all cores for light loads like gaming. Hell, it may do that with just a click of the button in XTU but I like to do things efficiently in the BIOS.


----------



## raad11

I hope the IMC and new BIOS can keep my DDR4 memory OC (4000CL14).

I don't think it'll do any better than a good 12900K. I don't see why Intel would have invested any time whatsoever into improving the DDR4 performance when they should have been focused on DDR5 to hurry along mass adoption. The DDR4 performance was already good enough on 12900K.


----------



## raad11

Ichirou said:


> At this point in time, there's a chance that it might actually be a paper launch, since some stores won't even have stock.
> I contacted some of my friends at BestBuy; they told me explicitly they won't have it on time for release.
> 
> Just order at multiple stores, cross your fingers, and refund any extras/late shipments.


Damn, I may have to go to a Microcenter on the 20th then. I had a preorder at NewEgg and they shipped out on first day with 12900K last year.


----------



## bhav

raad11 said:


> I hope the IMC and new BIOS can keep my DDR4 memory OC (4000CL14).
> 
> I don't think it'll do any better than a good 12900K. I don't see why Intel would have invested any time whatsoever into improving the DDR4 performance when they should have been focused on DDR5 to hurry along mass adoption. The DDR4 performance was already good enough on 12900K.


Thats the only reason I wont get the 13700k now as I don't want a worse IMC. I don't need the extra e cores, but 13700k might have a weaker IMC than even my current 12600k.


----------



## cstkl1

since its out there in china it be weird ocn doesnt know. again just leavin it here. 🤣


----------



## NBPDC505

raad11 said:


> Damn, I may have to go to a Microcenter on the 20th then. I had a preorder at NewEgg and they shipped out on first day with 12900K last year.


Planning to be there first thing Thursday myself. Expecting to see some of the same people from the 4090 launch again.


----------



## Ichirou

cstkl1 said:


> View attachment 2576708
> 
> 
> since its out there in china it be weird ocn doesnt know. again just leavin it here. 🤣


China/Taiwan tends to release stuff earlier to the public, since they are local markets after all.


----------



## Netarangi

lordkahless said:


> Should we be using contact frames from 12th gen on 13th gen?


Yep nothings changed on that side


----------



## Rbk_3

Called Canada Computers and they still couldn't confirm if my preorder will be there Thursday.

My 4090 was so here is hoping they come through again


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> Called Canada Computers and they still couldn't confirm if my preorder will be there Thursday.
> 
> My 4090 was so here is hoping they come through again


NVIDIA and Intel are two different companies, so it's like trying to compare apples to oranges.


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


> NVIDIA and Intel are two different companies, so it's like trying to compare apples to oranges.


Yea, but normally they have way more stock at CPU launches than they do GPU launches. 
I was the first to preorder both at my store.


----------



## RandalFlagg

Ichirou said:


> Cool story bro. Cool story. Still waiting on you to back up your claims.


This is the video where he got ahold of some of the a-die and got it stable at 7600. He also compared it to his 4100 C15 setup.


----------



## Rbk_3

RandalFlagg said:


> This is the video where he got ahold of some of the a-die and got it stable at 7600. He also compared it to his 4100 C15 setup.


I mainly play Warzone so definitely just sticking with BDie. Hoping to be able to lock in at 240 FPS at all times but we will have to see what the new map is like.


----------



## energie80

Rbk_3 said:


> I mainly play Warzone so definitely just sticking with BDie. Hoping to be able to lock in at 240 FPS at all times but we will have to see what the new map is like.


What is your latency? I do play Warzone only and doing 280/300 fps 1440p on caldera with ddr5


----------



## RandalFlagg

Rbk_3 said:


> I mainly play Warzone so definitely just sticking with BDie. Hoping to be able to lock in at 240 FPS at all times but we will have to see what the new map is like.


That guy definitely prefers his b-die to any kind of DDR5. 

Me personally I just built a 12700KF rig with DDR5-6000, last night. Was going to wait for 13700K, but got the 12700KF on amazon for $302 so I couldn't pass that up. 

Haven't even turned on XMP yet, had to fight with the m.2 drivers.


----------



## Ichirou

RandalFlagg said:


> This is the video where he got ahold of some of the a-die and got it stable at 7600. He also compared it to his 4100 C15 setup.


I see what he did now. Apart from the fact that he covered up a ton of stuff (not sure why he even did that, don't see what there is to be secretive about), he's running the kit loosened to CL36, making it effectively worse than 7,200 MHz CL30, which is what most overclockers are running their tightened Hynix DDR5 kits at, and is what is actually managing to surpass DDR4 on the top-end.


----------



## bhav

13700k is back into consideration!

3800CL13 G1 on my micron B die is only 59k read and a lame 59ns latency.

4800CL17 G2 is 75k read and 64ns latency.

So this kit wants to be run in G2 not G1.


----------



## TheBrandon

I have a production machine that has 32gb of ram and with a 3900 I've been looking for an excuse to throw my main gaming 5950x in and upgrade. I figured as good of a time as any to move to DDR5 and was really interested in 13900k. I am having a tough time talking myself into it currently with leaks and so on. I plan to upgrade my 3090 once I can compare RDNA3 and 4000 series. Looking forward to see numbers folks here share. Definitely a bit annoyed embargo's until launch day.


----------



## gtz

Ichirou said:


> At this point in time, there's a chance that it might actually be a paper launch, since some stores won't even have stock.
> I contacted some of my friends at BestBuy; they told me explicitly they won't have it on time for release.
> 
> Just order at multiple stores, cross your fingers, and refund any extras/late shipments.


Not really worried, if it does not ship I will just cancel. Been eyeing a cheap 12900 (non k) locally.


----------



## bhav

gtz said:


> Not really worried, if it does not ship I will just cancel. Been eyeing a cheap 12900 (non k) locally.


Be aware that 12th gen non K have locked SA voltage of 0.95v.

I couldn't even get 3600CL16 to work without BSOD on a 12600, and this has been reported by a lot of other people on reddit as well.

Not sure if 13th gen non K will also have locked SA voltage.


----------



## gtz

bhav said:


> Be aware that 12th gen non K have locked SA voltage of 0.95v.
> 
> I couldn't even get 3600CL16 to work without BSOD on a 12600, and this has been reported by a lot of other people on reddit as well.
> 
> Not sure if 13th gen non K will also have locked SA voltage.


Are you sure? On my 12100F I am running 1.15. I'm only running my RAM at 6250 (1560 IMC Gear 2) vs your 3600 (1800 IMC Gear 1).


----------



## bhav

gtz said:


> Are you sure? On my 12100F I am running 1.15. I'm only running my RAM at 6250 (1560 IMC Gear 2) vs your 3600 (1800 IMC Gear 1).


Oh sorry, if you're running DDR5 it doesn't make any difference.

The locked SA volts only limit DDR4 clocks.


----------



## 2500k_2

bhav said:


> The locked SA volts only limit DDR4 clocks.





Spoiler: 4000 cr1 12500 gear 1














Are you sure?


----------



## bhav

2500k_2 said:


> Spoiler: 4000 cr1 12500 gear 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576739
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure?


Very:


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/sluk4z

You got lucky with IMC if you can do that on a non k 12th gen.

Better source, 100% irrefutible:









Why Is System Agent (SA) Voltage Locked on Non-K 12th Generation...


Explains that System Agent (SA) voltage is locked on non-K SKU Processors for a good starter experience of memory overclocking, not a replacement for the Pro/Best features of a K-SKU/Z-series combination.




www.intel.com


----------



## Netarangi

Avacado said:


> I would try to stay <1.3v and <85c


I have my 12700kf at 1.39v in bios and it runs about 1.24v when under load, eg during cb23.

Is this okay or am I frying it?


----------



## 2500k_2

bhav said:


> Very:


anyway 0.96v is enough for 6700 cr2 or 6666 cr1. And 6666 cr1 is very difficult to overcome ddr4. So there is little point in the ddr4 y platform (unless you have a good set of samsung / micron revision B on hand)


Spoiler: 12600 6700cr2 97 °C /bclk OC

















Spoiler: 12600 6666_cr1 / stock avx512off

















Spoiler: 6666_28_cr1 latensy


----------



## bhav

2500k_2 said:


> anyway 0.96v is enough for 6700 cr2 or 6666 cr1. And 6666 cr1 is very difficult to overcome ddr4. So there is little point in the ddr4 y platform (unless you have a good set of samsung / micron revision B on hand)
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 12600 6700cr2 97 °C /bclk OC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576740
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 12600 6666_cr1 / stock avx512off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576741
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 6666_28_cr1 latensy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576743
> 
> View attachment 2576742


Yes I have a very good set of micron B die, currently got it to 4800 16-22-22-48 G2. I needed to push 1.68v 1.25v SA for CL16, 1.7v 1.3v SA for 22-22.

My 12600k IMC will only go up to 3800CL13, been testing again all day, 3800CL13 is still 59ns latency 59k read, 4800CL16 currently up to 75k read 67ns latency.

Latency is crap on it though, it just wants to do high frequency.

12600 non k I tested both b and e die (4200CL16 on Z490), neither would work without bsod at 3600CL16 so I had to sell the chip and go for 12600k instead.

Not sure I need 13900k now as G1 latency is too crap on this kit. 5000CL19 still throws out errors on Asrock Z690, MSI Z790 might be able to push 5000+.

I went from 4600CL15 <42ns latency on the Z490 to having to deal with all this gears crap.


----------



## 2500k_2

bhav said:


> 4800CL16 currently up to 75k read 67ns latency.





Spoiler: 5400_gea2_hynix


----------



## bhav

2500k_2 said:


> Spoiler: 5400_gea2_hynix
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576747


Yea well my kit was £180, that kit was £500+. I run at 4k so zero actual difference.

Current prices wise this is whats comparable:






Up to +20 FPS on DDR4 in some of the games.

Thats 4800CL21 DDR4 too.

This £180 is the most I've ever spent on ram, DDR5 prices = noty.

Ram isnt anything like CPU or GPU, you pay double for <5% improvement.

When I bought the e die for £150 (2x16 3200CL16), Samsung B die 2x16 3200CL14 was £320. The difference between those is probably the same as the difference between micron B die and current £350 6000CL36 DDR5. Never worth it.

I'll buy DDR5 when something like 8000CL30 is <£200.

Back when DDR4 launched, I was using Elpida 2000CL6 capable sticks from my I7 980 up to I7 5820k. My 980 IMC only did 1866, 1.65v CL7 for 24/7, 1,8v CL6 bench stable. 1.9v on better IMC = 2000CL6, but CL6 voltage was suicidal on those. Those were £80 x 3 for 6x2 Gb.


----------



## Spiriva

I couldnt resist! Its gonna be fun to pair it with the Strix 4090!










(8490kr = €776 or $764)


----------



## Groove2013

Ichirou said:


> I see what he did now. Apart from the fact that he covered up a ton of stuff (not sure why he even did that, don't see what there is to be secretive about), he's running the kit loosened to CL36, making it effectively worse than 7,200 MHz CL30, which is what most overclockers are running their tightened Hynix DDR5 kits at, and is what is actually managing to surpass DDR4 on the top-end.


he said in the vid he didn't want to go up with voltage high, so it's 1.4 or 1.45 V only, thus CL36.
it was also doing 7700 MHz, but again, at voltage he was not comfortable with, so higher than 1.4-1.45 V


----------



## Codiee1337

Guys, this 13900KF is f*cking insane.
Check out my submissions: **** (HWBOT)








3DMark scores
Fire Strike Extreme








Time Spy Extreme:









Have a nice day


----------



## Falkentyne

Codiee1337 said:


> Guys, this 13900KF is f*cking insane.
> Check out my submissions: **** (HWBOT)
> View attachment 2576773
> 
> 3DMark scores
> Fire Strike Extreme
> View attachment 2576771
> 
> Time Spy Extreme:
> View attachment 2576772
> 
> 
> Have a nice day


i don't know what frequency and settings you're using but that's an atrocious R23 MT score. I can match that score at 5.7 ghz with stock ring and e cores. What was the actual all core frequency?
Would be nice to have some hwinfo64 screens up too to get an idea of the core speeds and voltages (with c-states disabled).


----------



## 2500k_2

Falkentyne said:


> i don't know what frequency and settings you're using but that's an atrocious R23 MT score. I can match that score at 5.7 ghz with stock ring and e cores. What was the actual all core frequency?
> Would be nice to have some hwinfo64 screens up too to get an idea of the core speeds and voltages (with c-states disabled).


Max effective clock 5100. Write benchmate


----------



## domdtxdissar

Falkentyne said:


> i don't know what frequency and settings you're using but that's an atrocious R23 MT score. I can match that score at 5.7 ghz with stock ring and e cores. What was the actual all core frequency?
> Would be nice to have some hwinfo64 screens up too to get an idea of the core speeds and voltages (with c-states disabled).


This seem to be his MT run:








Autoclocking with maximum ~5.7ghz effective clock

Score seems very normal to me.. (?)


----------



## cstkl1

asdkj1740 said:


> thanks i will give it a try later.
> any voltage / frequency recommendation for reference , in general?
> 
> some vrm controller has some crazy vdroop with different LLC level on z790.
> does raa229131 on z790 perform the same in terms of LLC with 13900k?


LLC3 0.24/1.1 works best for me . depends on your cpu but this gives me die sense load 1.128v


----------



## cstkl1

Codiee1337 said:


> Guys, this 13900KF is f*cking insane.
> Check out my submissions: **** (HWBOT)
> View attachment 2576773
> 
> 3DMark scores
> Fire Strike Extreme
> View attachment 2576771
> 
> Time Spy Extreme:
> View attachment 2576772
> 
> 
> Have a nice day


nice


----------



## Codiee1337

Falkentyne said:


> i don't know what frequency and settings you're using but that's an atrocious R23 MT score. I can match that score at 5.7 ghz with stock ring and e cores. What was the actual all core frequency?
> Would be nice to have some hwinfo64 screens up too to get an idea of the core speeds and voltages (with c-states disabled).


I’ll answer in an hour, drove 2x2.5 hours for these bench, the 42k one was with Asus AI, haven’t got time for more, cause had to travel back to be on a uni class….
On multicore, it was 5.5Ghz P core, and if I remember correctly, 4.7Ghz E core, 4.7Ghz Ring. There is more in this processor based on the voltage (1.28-1.32).  (Asus AI chose very agressive LLC in my opinion to be stable)


----------



## nickolp1974

Codiee1337 said:


> I’ll answer in an hour, drove 2x2.5 hours for these bench, the 42k one was with Asus AI, haven’t got time for more, cause had to travel back to be on a uni class….
> On multicore, it was 5.5Ghz P core, and if I remember correctly, 4.7Ghz E core, 4.7Ghz Ring. There is more in this processor based on the voltage (1.28-1.32).  (Asus AI chose very agressive LLC in my opinion to be stable)


What's your SP rating on the 69 apex p & e cores??


----------



## Codiee1337

nickolp1974 said:


> What's your SP rating on the 69 apex p & e cores??


*100 SP rating.*
I don't know its because its really a 100 SP rating cpu or its because the BIOS doesn't know how to deal with it and sets it at 100 default?


----------



## nickolp1974

Codiee1337 said:


> *100 SP rating.*
> I don't know its because its really a 100 SP rating cpu or its because the BIOS doesn't know how to deal with it and sets it at 100 default?


No idea @Falkentyne may know?? Although still currently under NDA so maybe can't comment, What's your p core rating


----------



## domdtxdissar

One slide also surfaced, dont know if real or not, but i will share it 

🔹️13900K vs 🔸️7950X, Intel benchmarks:








Hope this puts some pressure on AMD releasing v-cache version of Zen4 earlier, even if very limited quantity.. (i want one to play with )


----------



## Codiee1337

nickolp1974 said:


> No idea @Falkentyne may know?? Although still currently under NDA so maybe can't comment, What's your p core rating


Because I hadn't had time to OC it properly. I couldn't even try to reach a better score... I just used the Asus AI OC feature. I'm a University student, this is my big brothers PC. (I personally built it for him with my two hands, acquired the CPU from his money, acquired a GPU from his money on launch date for example, basically I helped him get a new PC, but its from his money), because of that and I live in Hungary and in Debrecen, I had to travel to Budapest (brother lives there) 3 times (2 times (back and forth) via Train, and 1 time with car (200km) just to build his PC. Because I had 8AM classes in Debrecen on the University, I didn't have time for more sadly..  I think it could be OC'd to 5.8GHz AllCore fixed and 6.2GHz (P core) Single Core. With more tweaking a 6.2-6.0-5.8-5.6GHz stable OC can be achieved with 12900KS voltages(?) I guess. We'll see more tomorrow, and I'll OC the processor according to the independent reviews and my own experience. 
Few things to note here: CPU CONTACT FRAME IS INEVITABLE FOR OVERCLOCK. 
AIO IS ALSO INEVITABLE EVEN FOR STOCK USAGE! 
DELIDING AND POLISHING WILL ACHIEVE BETTER RESULTS! 

*P.S: DON'T DRIVE 200KM WHILE TIRED AFTER ASSEMBLING PC AND BENCHING IT AND SLEEPING 3 HOURS! *


----------



## Codiee1337

One more bench for you guys, because in the past I played Counter Strike competetively (even organised LANs, and I know a lot of configuration FPS numbers I wanted to bench CSGO in my common settings (shadows high, everything low, msaa 8x, antistropic filtering x16, 1024x768) I benched CS:GO actually. And I have a picture about it. From this number alone, it doesn't seem, that the Source engine is being CPU limited. Max FPS was around 2400, lowest around 600.

This is on 64 tick local server.









And this is on 128 tick local server.









P.S: Please, don't blame phone screenshot XD I was tired, didn't want to fiddle around saving the screenshot..


----------



## Codiee1337

Picture before installation for proof:


----------



## Dogzilla07

@Codiee1337 

That's awesome, just need 1000Hz monitors now 😅


----------



## IronAge

13700K/KF VID / SP ratings screens wanted.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Codiee1337 said:


> Picture before installation for proof:
> View attachment 2576799


Which number is on the cpu?


----------



## domdtxdissar

Codiee1337 said:


> One more bench for you guys, because in the past I played Counter Strike competetively (even organised LANs, and I know a lot of configuration FPS numbers I wanted to bench CSGO in my common settings (shadows high, everything low, msaa 8x, antistropic filtering x16, 1024x768) I benched CS:GO actually. And I have a picture about it. From this number alone, it doesn't seem, that the Source engine is being CPU limited. Max FPS was around 2400, lowest around 600.
> 
> This is on 64 tick local server.
> View attachment 2576795
> 
> 
> And this is on 128 tick local server.
> 
> View attachment 2576797
> 
> P.S: Please, don't blame phone screenshot XD I was tired, didn't want to fiddle around saving the screenshot..


As a comparison, this is my cpu from the other vendor. (some guys get their knickers in a twist when they see mention of the competitor in this thread)

1080p low








1080p high







Very close results considering different platforms


----------



## cstkl1

Codiee1337 said:


> Picture before installation for proof:
> View attachment 2576799


y u didnt wait for z790??


----------



## newls1

am i correct in thinking the 13900 can be delidded exactly the same as the 12900k? Same tool and all? any one confirm this. IF I get a 13900k tomorrow at microcenter, ill have to delid it with my rocketcool 12gen tool cause my supercool waterblock wont work otherwise on it!!! So I guess I might be part of the short few showing delid shot of one if the 12gen delid tool will work?


----------



## nickolp1974

newls1 said:


> am i correct in thinking the 13900 can be delidded exactly the same as the 12900k? Same tool and all? any one confirm this. IF I get a 13900k tomorrow at microcenter, ill have to delid it with my rocketcool 12gen tool cause my supercool waterblock wont work otherwise on it!!! So I guess I might be part of the short few showing delid shot of one if the 12gen delid tool will work?


@sugi0lover confirmed you could a few pages back


----------



## ScomComputers

Codiee1337 said:


> Guys, this 13900KF is f*cking insane.
> Check out my submissions: **** (HWBOT)
> View attachment 2576773
> 
> 3DMark scores
> Fire Strike Extreme
> View attachment 2576771
> 
> Time Spy Extreme:
> View attachment 2576772
> 
> 
> Have a nice day


Nice Mate! But the where is the hwinfo ?


----------



## newls1

nickolp1974 said:


> @sugi0lover confirmed you could a few pages back


thank you sir


----------



## Kocicak

newls1 said:


> am i correct in thinking the 13900 can be delidded exactly the same as the 12900k?


Is not the die itself larger on 13900K?


----------



## nickolp1974

Kocicak said:


> Is not the die itself larger on 13900K?


Yes so it may take a bit more force/heating


----------



## Avacado

Netarangi said:


> I have my 12700kf at 1.39v in bios and it runs about 1.24v when under load, eg during cb23.
> 
> Is this okay or am I frying it?


I think you are fine as long as you are happy with your temps.


----------



## Kocicak

I was thinking more about the free movement of the IHS without hitting the die.


----------



## sugi0lover

Kocicak said:


> Is not the die itself larger on 13900K?


When embargo expires tomorrow, I will post the video link that you can see all the works and the results of temp. You can use the 12th gen delid tool and direct die for the 13th gen as well.


----------



## kill_a_wat

Can anyone confirm when the embargo expires?


----------



## nickolp1974

kill_a_wat said:


> Can anyone confirm when the embargo expires?


Ment to be today for reviews just not sure on time


----------



## yt93900

AFAIK the NDA lifts at 15.00 CET on the 20th, the same moment they become available in shops.


----------



## newls1

sugi0lover said:


> When embargo expires tomorrow, I will post the video link that you can see all the works and the results of temp. You can use the 12th gen delid tool and direct die for the 13th gen as well.


AWESOME! Thank you for letting me know this. Im going to try to get the 13900k tomorrow at MC and delid the sucker with my 12th gen rocketcool tool, and using my Supercool direct die waterblock that im currently using on my 12900KS and have AMAZING TEMPS, can you maybe just let me know will the efforts be worth it like they were on 12th gen please??!!


----------



## sugi0lover

newls1 said:


> AWESOME! Thank you for letting me know this. Im going to try to get the 13900k tomorrow at MC and delid the sucker with my 12th gen rocketcool tool, and using my Supercool direct die waterblock that im currently using on my 12900KS and have AMAZING TEMPS, can you maybe just let me know will the efforts be worth it like they were on 12th gen please??!!


Yes. Big drop


----------



## Falkentyne




----------



## Papusan

sugi0lover said:


> Yes. Supercool Diret Die INTEL GEN12 still works good for GEN13.


How is the lid vs the one on Alder lake (K/KS)? Any changes? And have you measured the weight and thickness? Thanks.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> View attachment 2576841


Looks like there are people selling binned chips in China already. But those SP values don’t all look great. Might be similar to initial 12900K/KF release again.


----------



## Shonk

Have been undecided on if im upgrading
Clicked order a few mins ago before i change my mind..


----------



## HyperC

Asus has a new bios posted


----------



## bhav

Did anyone get a Z790 yet? They were in stock yesterday, and then suddenly all on pre order again earlier today, I sent an email to ask if mine was reserved to be shipped when the case arrives, wont have a reply until tomorrow.


----------



## nickolp1974

bhav said:


> Did anyone get a Z790 yet? They were in stock yesterday, and then suddenly all on pre order again earlier today, I sent an email to ask if mine was reserved to be shipped when the case arrives, wont have a reply until tomorrow.


nope and my 13900k also hasn't been sent because the £1.99 backplate i ordered is out of stock and they ship together


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

Can i have link for new Unify-X beta bios ?


----------



## tps3443

Jeges said:


> Fun fact, 5.7-5.8 ac is easily achivable with proper cooling


I have great cooling. This is exactly what I wanna hear. Too bad Newegg is a slow Turtle.. They’ll probably ship 1-2 days after launch, then we hit a weekend. I’ll be lucky to get my 13900KF sometime next week.

I have only been waiting since 9/27 lol.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I have great cooling. This is exactly what I wanna hear. Too bad Newegg is a slow Turtle.. They’ll probably ship 1-2 days after launch, then we hit a weekend. I’ll be lucky to get my 13900KF sometime next week.
> 
> I have only been waiting since 9/27 lol.


At this point in time, you'll be lucky if you get it at all, since there is a chance of a paper launch.
BestBuy and Canada Computers has already announced to people that they won't have stock on launch for many stores.


----------



## energie80

Streamroller said:


> Can i have link for new Unify-X beta bios ?


Official now


----------



## Cuthalu

Ichirou said:


> At this point in time, you'll be lucky if you get it at all, since there is a chance of a paper launch.
> BestBuy and Canada Computers has already announced to people that they won't have stock on launch for many stores.


That could be specific to those two. In Finland there's already abundant amount of K's in stock and plenty of KF's.


----------



## Falkentyne

Better than Jufes


----------



## Ichirou

Cuthalu said:


> That could be specific to those two. In Finland there's already abundant amount of K's in stock and plenty of KF's.


Well yes, it depends entirely on retailer or location.
But point is, it's not fully stocked everywhere. Same happened for the RTX 3000 series. Some got it, some didn't.


----------



## Spicedaddy

Ichirou said:


> Well yes, it depends entirely on retailer or location.
> But point is, it's not fully stocked everywhere. Same happened for the RTX 3000 series. Some got it, some didn't.


I preordered a 12900K from BB and CC last year. Best Buy didn't have anything on launch. CC shipped it on Friday and I got it next Monday. (release was a Thursday like this year)

If I hadn't preordered, I could've had one on launch day by doing store pickup at CC. So that's what I'm doing this year. Just check CC's web site tomorrow, I think there will be stock.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> At this point in time, you'll be lucky if you get it at all, since there is a chance of a paper launch.
> BestBuy and Canada Computers has already announced to people that they won't have stock on launch for many stores.


Well, I pre-ordered day 1, right after they became available on the Newegg website so I should be pretty early in the Queue. I am also in the US. Hopefully what you are saying is not the case though. Intel has been pretty good with keeping inventory in processors these past launches, as they do make their own silicon. I ordered in the morning of 9/27. 

I’m really bored with my 11900K.


----------



## Exilon

That isn't even QS and is missing about 10% ST perf. Why even bother "reviewing" pre-QS samples 1 day before release?


----------



## Exilon

Btw, Andrei calculated stock ST SPEC2017FP scores from Raichu's data


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1582730597453418496


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Looks like there are people selling binned chips in China already. But those SP values don’t all look great. Might be similar to initial 12900K/KF release again.








13900K以及KF特挑。【intel吧】_百度贴吧


13900K以及KF..现10颗13900k 拆了看sp 分 大小核心 有需要的可以联系 仅在z790hero最新bios看分不测超频电压 13900kf目前2个 sp100加 13900kfsp 109 13900k1




tieba.baidu.com


----------



## yt93900

Translated but nothing interesting has been written so far.


----------



## tps3443

Hey everyone, another thought to keep in mind. I did check the 13900K/KF on Newegg periodically ever since 9/27. And it did go in and then out of stock at least 7-8 times. So they were most likely going by their available inventory. They would sell out, then say “Out of stock” then it would go back to “Pre-Order” I assume Newegg orders these things in a quantity of (1000) and they are probably ordering thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of them at a time. So they were selling out, and updating the pre-order button. Otherwise, why would they mark it “Out of stock”?

Anyways, hopefully those of us who pre-ordered will get our tracking numbers tomorrow.


----------



## HyperC

@ *Falkentyne, did I miss the clockspeeds of the 12900k or they both running @5.8 

not sure about the newegg thing I chatted with rep said no info other than shipping tomorrow*


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


> Well yes, it depends entirely on retailer or location.
> But point is, it's not fully stocked everywhere. Same happened for the RTX 3000 series. Some got it, some didn't.


CC is showing tons of stock in store for the lower CPUs that didn’t sell out preorders.If you preordered for instore pick up should be good to go for tomorrow.
z790s on the other hand don’t look promising


----------



## bhav

Wow 5.8 Ghz 12900k ....

No brain, you DO NOT want to put your pentium cooler on one of those and watch the house burn down.

... But then you'll have nowhere to live!

... Pentium cooler on 13900k happening very soon.

Well I don't have pentium cooler, but I keep the box when I sell my CPUs and ...










I don't need a new AIO for my 13900k!

Its meme hour time on reddit now.


----------



## Exilon

I reckon you can still get ~100W out of that cooler if you let the CPU ram against TjMax and max the fan speed


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> I reckon you can still get ~100W out of that cooler if you let the CPU ram against TjMax and max the fan speed


And I dont need a new motherboard as I still have my H670!

Cancelling the Z790.

Hmm, well still need to to pick a pentium or I3 for it when 13th gen non Ks release. Another boxed cooler to add to my collection soon.

I3 13400 is looking very nice.


----------



## Exilon

13400 is just a 12600K on discount 1 year later.


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> 13400 is just a 12600K on discount 1 year later.


Yea, but it depends on the pricing of the non Ks if I get a refresh 13th gen or just a 12th gen.


----------



## Neo_Morpheus

I ordered and waiting delivery on a 13700KF and a Z790 MSI PRO and had some spare 32gb DDR5, just to get my lows up for smoother gaming and it looks like its just beating out the 12900k, which is going to end up fractionally cheaper, and I should be able to OC it even further and try and catch up with those monstrous 13900k results what the..


----------



## tps3443

I happen to catch a picture of this wild raptor. It was knee deep in AMD blood, and crapping out selfish green Nvidia. It appeared it was trying to claw its way to the top of the food chain.

I present the “Raptor Lake”


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> I happen to catch a picture of this wild raptor. It was knee deep in AMD blood, and crapping out selfish green Nvidia. It appeared it was trying to claw its way to the top of the food chain.
> 
> I present the “Raptor Lake”
> 
> View attachment 2576930


Did you draw this?


----------



## tps3443

Falkentyne said:


> Did you draw this?


No, I only colored it. My son wanted to color dinosaurs tonight. Raptors Only remind me of one thing lately.


----------



## Neo_Morpheus

I slipped over on some green crap trying to keep up with the Raptor  Back off to base camp..


----------



## Exilon

Neo_Morpheus said:


> I ordered and waiting delivery on a 13700KF and a Z790 MSI PRO and had some spare 32gb DDR5, just to get my lows up for smoother gaming and it looks like its just beating out the 12900k, which is going to end up fractionally cheaper, and I should be able to OC it even further and try and catch up with those monstrous 13900k results what the..


900 subs and no proof of hardware => fake


----------



## Antsu

Ichirou said:


> At this point in time, you'll be lucky if you get it at all, since there is a chance of a paper launch.
> BestBuy and Canada Computers has already announced to people that they won't have stock on launch for many stores.


Damn, some other Finn already beat me to the punch, but I'd like to add that this is the first time I've seen it like this since atleast 4790K. Usually we've gotten like 10 chips to the whole country, which ofc sell out instantly. Also, I don't think I've ever seen a single KF even being stocked on day 1, now there is plenty available. Maybe someone ****ed up the cargo ships and EU got the cargo ship you were supposed to get. 

PS. on 8700K launch we got 5 whole CPUs to the country, me and my friend both got one, and they were beyond terrible. Needed delid and 1.500V to hit 5Ghz OCCT stable.


----------



## yzonker

Well this sucks. I had a pre-order at Newegg for the 13900k, but my damn credit card company flagged it and declined the transaction and Newegg canceled my order!!! Time to get a different CC I guess and dump Bank of America.


----------



## Nizzen

13900k retail sendt


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> 13900k retail sendt


NDA for benchmarks lifts today at 15:00 our time?


----------



## energie80

Betroz said:


> NDA for benchmarks lifts today at 15:00 our time?


yes


----------



## domdtxdissar

Betroz said:


> NDA for benchmarks lifts today at 15:00 our time?


As far as i know, yes


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> NDA for benchmarks lifts today at 15:00 our time?


After 15.00 +1, you can ask me about anything LOL


----------



## yt93900

Also preordered 13900K, hoping they will be better than the late models where Intel is keeping the best for the KS but they probably already do.
Will be replacing the Z690 Dark as well with something more subtle and easier for use. Might #yolo the Z790 Maximus Extreme.


----------



## arabus

Betroz said:


> NDA for benchmarks lifts today at 15:00 our time?


Same bench







.


----------



## IronAge

Retail CPUs arriving, V/F Screens hitting german forums, best SP seen so far for P-Cores 111 (13900K) VID around 1.41.


----------



## newls1

when might the KS come out?


----------



## yt93900

Q1 2023 I've heard.


----------



## Pinto

IronAge said:


> Retail CPUs arriving, V/F Screens hitting german forums, best SP seen so far for P-Cores 111 (13900K) VID around 1.41.


Mine is well above that 😁


----------



## IronAge

Pinto said:


> Mine is well above that 😁


Try CMOS/Bios reset, something gotto be wrong there.


----------



## Falkentyne

Pinto said:


> Mine is well above that 😁


Please run cinebench r23 on this, to verify this chip because this is better than even Gnasherrr's golden binned sample, so I find this hard to believe. No one has a SP this high.
Set 1.250v in bios, LLC 6, and try to pass cinebench R23 with sync all pcores 57, with a 30 minute loop.


----------



## Pinto

Falkentyne said:


> Please run cinebench r23 on this, to verify this chip because this is better than even Gnasherrr's golden binned sample, so I find this hard to believe. No one has a SP this high.
> Set 1.250v in bios, LLC 6, and try to pass cinebench R23 with sync all pcores 57, with a 30 minute loop.


Don't have time to do a 30mn pass, it's lunch time in france, i've to go work. But 5.7ghz 1.25v already done.


----------



## Pinto

6.2ghz boost with ai optimizer


----------



## RichKnecht

My local MC opens at 9 and I am wondering if I should just go a 13900K ($569) and switch from my 10980XE or do I just stick it out and wait fro 14th gen? Not like my 10980 sucks...


----------



## Falkentyne

Pinto said:


> Don't have time to do a 30mn pass, it's lunch time in france, i've to go work. But 5.7ghz 1.25v already done.


Yeah that's load voltage though. That's easy  You need to set bios voltage to 1.250v with LLC6. That should droop down to like 1.15v load if the loadlines are the same as on ADL.
That will determine if that SP is real or bugged if you can pass that.
UNLESS........Is that a maximus or strix board? If it's a strix that means no die sense vcore so load will report almost the same as idle on LLC6....


----------



## Pinto

Falkentyne said:


> Yeah that's load voltage though. That's easy  You need to set bios voltage to 1.250v with LLC6. That should droop down to like 1.15v load if the loadlines are the same as on ADL.
> That will determine if that SP is real or bugged if you can pass that.
> UNLESS........Is that a maximus or strix board? If it's a strix that means no die sense vcore so load will report almost the same as idle on LLC6....


Will try that when i'll come back home. It's a Z690 Extreme


----------



## Alexshunter

So newegg just preparing my processors for shipping. Damn they are, should have arrive today.


----------



## TwinTurbo

Sitting in MicroCenter's parking lot waiting for them to open. They have 13900K for $569, and I'm hoping to grab an Asus Z790 depending on which models they have available.


----------



## yt93900

EU is such a scam then, you guys pay $569, here it's €769


----------



## Alexshunter

TwinTurbo said:


> Sitting in MicroCenter's parking lot waiting for them to open. They have 13900K for $569, and I'm hoping to grab an Asus Z790 depending on which models they have available.


How can be microcenter cheaper than newegg? And I wonder newegg's price guarantee?


----------



## TwinTurbo

$569 isn't "normal" here though. Microcenter has always had low CPU prices, but they're in store only.


----------



## TwinTurbo

Alexshunter said:


> How can be microcenter cheaper than newegg? And I wonder newegg's price guarantee?


Doubt newegg will match because MC doesn't have CPUs for that price via online sales.


----------



## dev1ance

Early video:


----------



## sugi0lover

13900K is finally out and here is my quick experience with it

CPU : 13900K (SP 114, P-SP 124, E-SP 94, No delid yet)
MB : Z790 Apex
Ram : Basic Hynix A-Die 16GB x2
Cooling : MORA 420 (CPU, RAM, VGA)



Spoiler: 13900K SP

















Spoiler: Z790 Apex

















Spoiler:  My Stable Setup Performance Test



Easy daily stable OC setup.
All cores P 5.9Ghz, E 4.7Ghz, C 4.9Ghz , 1.24v under load / Ram 8000 CL32 OC, water temp around 26C
Cache 5.1Ghz with E cores on also stable













Spoiler: 8000 CL32 Stability Test



Stable 8000 cl32 on Z790 Apex.


















Spoiler: CINE R23 at water temp 22C



All cores P 6.0Ghz, E 4.8Ghz, C 5.0Ghz / Ram 8000 CL32 OC













Spoiler: y-cruncher at water temp 20C

















Spoiler: 3DMark FireStrike Normal Physics score

















Spoiler: Linx Gflops Test



Even though errored out, big gflops score at all cores P 5.9, E 4.7, C4.9 + Ram 8000 CL32













Spoiler: Stable 8200 CL34 WIP



Stable 8200 CL34 on Z790 Apex. woking more on tightening ram timings.





















Spoiler: 8600 CL34 Booting Test



8600 CL34 (16GB x 2), P 5.9/ E4.7/ C4.9 easy bootable
8800 CL34 was also bootable to bios~













Spoiler: P57_E45_C45_Cine 20Min at high water temp 32C



I got asked to raise water temp to 32C like AIO and run all cores P 57/E45/C5 with no ram oc for Cine 20Min.
- core voltages at load 1.137v and max temp below 80c for 20min Cine running






















Spoiler: Original vs Delid vs Direct Die Temp



All above tests were done with original igs.
Below is delid and direct die results.
My friend did all the works and plz see how he did the 13th gen delid work at the below video (will update)
To summarize, from original ihs to delid&LM, 14C dropped.
From delid&LM to direct die&LM, another 9C dropped, so total 23C dropped from the original to direct die.

Prime95 AVX On, Small fft
- original ihs








- delid & liquid metal








- direct die & liquid metal


----------



## nickolp1974

sugi0lover said:


> 13900K is finally out and here is my quick experience with it
> 
> CPU : 13900K (SP 114, P-SP 124, E-SP 94, No delid yet)
> MB : Z790 Apex
> Ram : Basic Hynix A-Die 16GB x2
> Cooling : MORA 420 (CPU, RAM, VGA)
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 13900K SP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576936
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Z790 Apex
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576995
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler:  My Stable Setup Performance Test
> 
> 
> 
> Easy daily stable OC setup.
> All cores P 5.9Ghz, E 4.7Ghz, C 4.9Ghz , 1.24v under load / Ram 8000 CL32 OC, water temp around 26C
> Cache 5.1Ghz with E cores on also stable
> View attachment 2576937
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 8000 CL32 Stability Test
> 
> 
> 
> Stable 8000 cl32 on Z790 Apex.
> View attachment 2576946
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CINE R23 at water temp 22C
> 
> 
> 
> All cores P 6.0Ghz, E 4.8Ghz, C 5.0Ghz / Ram 8000 CL32 OC
> View attachment 2576947
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: y-cruncher at water temp 20C
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 3DMark FireStrike Normal Physics score
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576950
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Linx Gflops Test
> 
> 
> 
> Even though errored out, big gflops score at all cores P 5.9, E 4.7, C4.9 + Ram 8000 CL32
> View attachment 2576951
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Stable 8200 CL34 WIP
> 
> 
> 
> Stable 8200 CL34 on Z790 Apex. woking more on tightening ram timings.
> View attachment 2576952
> 
> View attachment 2576953
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 8600 CL34 Booting Test
> 
> 
> 
> 8600 CL34 (16GB x 2), P 5.9/ E4.7/ C4.9 easy bootable
> 8800 CL34 was also bootable to bios~
> View attachment 2576954
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: P57_E45_C45_Cine 20Min at high water temp 32C
> 
> 
> 
> I got asked to raise water temp to 32C like AIO and run all cores P 57/E45/C5 with no ram oc for Cine 20Min.
> - core voltages at load 1.137v and max temp below 80c for 20min Cine running
> View attachment 2576955
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576956
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Original vs Delid vs Direct Die Temp
> 
> 
> 
> All above tests were done with original igs.
> Below is delid and direct die results.
> My friend did all the works and plz see how he did the 13th gen delid work at the below video (will update)
> To summarize, from original ihs to delid&LM, 14C dropped.
> From delid&LM to direct die&LM, another 9C dropped, so total 23C dropped from the original to direct die.
> 
> Prime95 AVX On, Small fft
> - original ihs
> View attachment 2576957
> 
> - delid & liquid metal
> View attachment 2576958
> 
> - direct die & liquid metal
> View attachment 2576959


Nice CPU!!


----------



## RichKnecht

Alexshunter said:


> How can be microcenter cheaper than newegg? And I wonder newegg's price guarantee?


Microcenter is always cheaper than Newegg IMO. When I bought my 10980XE, I paid $819 when Newegg had them for $1049.


----------



## yt93900

Z790 Extreme ordered, yolo to the max. Gotta warm up those phases with 300W+


----------



## yzonker

Well I think I snagged a 13900k from BestBuy. I'd honestly rather buy it from them than Newegg anyway. Although I don't like either of them tbh.


----------



## dante`afk

your best buy opens at 9am already?


----------



## dante`afk

sugi0lover said:


> 13900K is finally out and here is my quick experience with it
> 
> CPU : 13900K (SP 114, P-SP 124, E-SP 94, No delid yet)
> MB : Z790 Apex
> Ram : Basic Hynix A-Die 16GB x2
> Cooling : MORA 420 (CPU, RAM, VGA)
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 13900K SP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576936
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Z790 Apex
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576995
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler:  My Stable Setup Performance Test
> 
> 
> 
> Easy daily stable OC setup.
> All cores P 5.9Ghz, E 4.7Ghz, C 4.9Ghz , 1.24v under load / Ram 8000 CL32 OC, water temp around 26C
> Cache 5.1Ghz with E cores on also stable
> View attachment 2576937
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 8000 CL32 Stability Test
> 
> 
> 
> Stable 8000 cl32 on Z790 Apex.
> View attachment 2576946
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CINE R23 at water temp 22C
> 
> 
> 
> All cores P 6.0Ghz, E 4.8Ghz, C 5.0Ghz / Ram 8000 CL32 OC
> View attachment 2576947
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: y-cruncher at water temp 20C
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 3DMark FireStrike Normal Physics score
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576950
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Linx Gflops Test
> 
> 
> 
> Even though errored out, big gflops score at all cores P 5.9, E 4.7, C4.9 + Ram 8000 CL32
> View attachment 2576951
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Stable 8200 CL34 WIP
> 
> 
> 
> Stable 8200 CL34 on Z790 Apex. woking more on tightening ram timings.
> View attachment 2576952
> 
> View attachment 2576953
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 8600 CL34 Booting Test
> 
> 
> 
> 8600 CL34 (16GB x 2), P 5.9/ E4.7/ C4.9 easy bootable
> 8800 CL34 was also bootable to bios~
> View attachment 2576954
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: P57_E45_C45_Cine 20Min at high water temp 32C
> 
> 
> 
> I got asked to raise water temp to 32C like AIO and run all cores P 57/E45/C5 with no ram oc for Cine 20Min.
> - core voltages at load 1.137v and max temp below 80c for 20min Cine running
> View attachment 2576955
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576956
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Original vs Delid vs Direct Die Temp
> 
> 
> 
> All above tests were done with original igs.
> Below is delid and direct die results.
> My friend did all the works and plz see how he did the 13th gen delid work at the below video (will update)
> To summarize, from original ihs to delid&LM, 14C dropped.
> From delid&LM to direct die&LM, another 9C dropped, so total 23C dropped from the original to direct die.
> 
> Prime95 AVX On, Small fft
> - original ihs
> View attachment 2576957
> 
> - delid & liquid metal
> View attachment 2576958
> 
> - direct die & liquid metal
> View attachment 2576959



nice pre binned board and cpu again.

now everyone is orienting themselves on results like this and buying on mass cpus trying to achieve the same.

intels marketing scheme is on full march.


----------



## Falkentyne

My chip: QS 13900KF
SP 106
P cores SP: 113
E cores sp; 94

Liquid freezer II 360
Results limited by AIO temps

Stockfish chess vmin @ 5.2 ghz:
1.048v load

Prime95 small FFT AVX1 at 5.5 ghz vmin without 10 minute bsod:
1.157V load (temp limited), core PLL set to 0.975v, 93C

Prime95 FMA3 AVX2 small FFT @ 5.4 ghz: 1.110v-1.101v

AVX512: Pray to the Volcano God and Hope a Meteor kills all the Raptors.

5.5g:
R23 vmin: 1.137v loop, 1.128v run
Stockfish: 1.157v-1.166v load

5.6g: r23 loop @ 1.190v, core pll 0.975v

Max Stockfish stable: 5.6 ghz 1.208v-1.217v load, E cores x45, Ring x47 (Core PLL 0.975v for 1.208v), 95C
5.7g not possible because of vcore and temp limitations

Max R23 loop: 5.7 ghz, 1.234v-1.243v load, E cores x45, (Core PLL 0.975v used for 1.234v)
Max R23 suicide: 5.8 ghz, 1.295v+ load
Max minecraft stable: @ 5.7 ghz @ R23 settings

Max minecraft suicide: 5.8 @ 1.295v load


----------



## yt93900

Does the AIO get saturated or is it just the typical IHS problem of CPU not being able to get rid of the heat quick enough?


----------



## TwinTurbo

Grabbed a 13900K and Z790 Hero. Going to be a fun weekend. Now for the long drive home...


----------



## SuperMumrik

Seems like I will get my 13900 tomorrow.
Has anyone tested what's the best bios for raptor lake + m-dies on z690 apex? 🤩


----------



## IronAge

yt93900 said:


> EU is such a scam then, you guys pay $569, here it's €769


Its the weakness of the EU currency due to the war in UA and energy crisis, and US prices are without VAT, he has to add sales tax AFAIK.


----------



## Falkentyne

yt93900 said:


> Does the AIO get saturated or is it just the typical IHS problem of CPU not being able to get rid of the heat quick enough?


i'm using thermalright bracket.
AIO is just saturated and IHS isn't helping.
Delidding and re-sealing with LM is like 17C drop according to @sugi0lover


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Any gaming benchmark?


----------



## Talon2016

Got my 13900K from Microcenter $569 wooo! Cancelled that Newegg scalp job price immediately after check out. 

Asus Hero Z690 shows SP106 on latest BIOS from yesterday. P cores 115 and E cores 88. Think I got a decent chip out of the gates? Also IMC is definitely better. 7400 CL34 booted on the Hero board and haven't even tried higher yet, just first stab worked at auto everything.


----------



## Ichirou

Talon2016 said:


> Got my 13900K from Microcenter $569 wooo! Cancelled that Newegg scalp job price immediately after check out.
> 
> Asus Hero Z690 shows SP106 on latest BIOS from yesterday. P cores 115 and E cores 88. Think I got a decent chip out of the gates? Also IMC is definitely better. 7400 CL34 booted on the Hero board and haven't even tried higher yet, just first stab worked at auto everything.


Average I would say, compared to engineering samples. Not sure if it's directly comparable though.


----------



## bass junkie xl

Ichirou said:


> Average I would say, compared to engineering samples. Not sure if it's directly comparable though.


TO early to say i have seen some sp 102 - 105s , im a sit back wait
4090 vs 12900 ks @ 54 / 5.1 ring ionly see less then 10 fps difrence , we need some ddr 4 13900k results


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

Looking for someone who did test ADL vs RPL IMC comparison on M dies and if IMC of RPL is far better and more stable on Z690 platform


----------



## 2500k_2




----------



## LazyGamer

sugi0lover said:


> Z790 Apex


This board still isn't listed by ASUS. Are they always this secretive with the Apex?


----------



## yzonker

dante`afk said:


> your best buy opens at 9am already?


They had them for delivery initially.


----------



## Falkentyne

To test your binned chips, please start at 5.7 ghz (Sync'd P cores) and start at 1.250v BIOS set Vcore, Loadline Calibration LLC6 (Asus), Mode 3 (MSI), Turbo (Gigabyte).
And try to loop Cinebench R23 for at least 15 minutes (30m is stable) without WHEA errors or BSOD's.

If you fail, raise vcore by 10mv until stable.
If stable, lower vcore by 10mv.

Then post your vmin (or at least, bios settings and LLC if you don't have VR VOUT/Die sense load vcore).


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

LazyGamer said:


> This board still isn't listed by ASUS. Are they always this secretive with the Apex?


When you are in mainland, you have " benefits " and " power "


----------



## dante`afk

yzonker said:


> They had them for delivery initially.


damn hard scalping price of 690$ lol


----------



## carlhil2

Went to MC this morning


----------



## yzonker

dante`afk said:


> damn hard scalping price of 690$ lol








Intel Core i9-13900K 13th Gen 24 cores 8 P-cores + 16 E-cores 36M Cache, 3 to 5.8 GHz LGA1700 Unlocked Desktop Processor BX8071513900K - Best Buy


Shop Intel Core i9-13900K 13th Gen 24 cores 8 P-cores + 16 E-cores 36M Cache, 3 to 5.8 GHz LGA1700 Unlocked Desktop Processor at Best Buy. Find low everyday prices and buy online for delivery or in-store pick-up. Price Match Guarantee.




www.bestbuy.com


----------



## LazyGamer

yzonker said:


> Intel Core i9-13900K 13th Gen 24 cores 8 P-cores + 16 E-cores 36M Cache, 3 to 5.8 GHz LGA1700 Unlocked Desktop Processor BX8071513900K - Best Buy
> 
> 
> Shop Intel Core i9-13900K 13th Gen 24 cores 8 P-cores + 16 E-cores 36M Cache, 3 to 5.8 GHz LGA1700 Unlocked Desktop Processor at Best Buy. Find low everyday prices and buy online for delivery or in-store pick-up. Price Match Guarantee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bestbuy.com


Lol...


----------



## Nizzen

My testsetup:
13900kf SP p-core 119
Asus Apex z790
Asus 3090 strix oc White (just for the pictures)


----------



## opt33

Talon2016 said:


> Got my 13900K from Microcenter $569 wooo! Cancelled that Newegg scalp job price immediately after check out.
> 
> Asus Hero Z690 shows SP106 on latest BIOS from yesterday. P cores 115 and E cores 88. Think I got a decent chip out of the gates? Also IMC is definitely better. 7400 CL34 booted on the Hero board and haven't even tried higher yet, just first stab worked at auto everything.


one of main reasons I want 13900 is better imc, couldnt be worse than my 12900k which cant handle dual channel above 6800.

my newegg order says shipping today arrive mon/tues next week, tried local best buy stores but they dont have them, have to order them to send to local store.


----------



## dante`afk




----------



## yt93900

Nizzen said:


> My testsetup:
> 13900kf SP p-core 119
> Asus Apex z790
> Asus 3090 strix oc White (just for the pictures)


ASUS Employee spotted. _Ahem, ahem (clears throat) WHEN RELEASE? WHAT MSRP?_


----------



## Rbk_3

Lame Canada Computers didn’t get at 13900k in just the i5 and i7s


----------



## themad

nickolp1974 said:


> Ment to be today for reviews just not sure on time





Nizzen said:


> My testsetup:
> 13900kf SP p-core 119
> Asus Apex z790
> Asus 3090 strix oc White (just for the pictures)


The Apex z790 looks amazing. Any Idea of retail price? $1k?


----------



## yt93900

The Extreme is €1250 in EU and you can get €150 cashback so I'd expect 1000-1100 for the Apex.


----------



## tps3443

Newegg has packaged my order preparing for ship at like 3AM this morning. I bought a 13900KF I will take the $629.99 pricing lol. MC is a 9+ hour round trip drive. It would cost far more to go get it now in the end. Food, gas, etc. and probably end up with a dang MC credit card with a 4090 financed if I did that this morning. I’m absolutely sure of it. 

I saved not going to MC!


----------



## Carillo

sugi0lover said:


> 13900K is finally out and here is my quick experience with it
> 
> CPU : 13900K (SP 114, P-SP 124, E-SP 94, No delid yet)
> MB : Z790 Apex
> Ram : Basic Hynix A-Die 16GB x2
> Cooling : MORA 420 (CPU, RAM, VGA)
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 13900K SP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576936
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Z790 Apex
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576995
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler:  My Stable Setup Performance Test
> 
> 
> 
> Easy daily stable OC setup.
> All cores P 5.9Ghz, E 4.7Ghz, C 4.9Ghz , 1.24v under load / Ram 8000 CL32 OC, water temp around 26C
> Cache 5.1Ghz with E cores on also stable
> View attachment 2576937
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 8000 CL32 Stability Test
> 
> 
> 
> Stable 8000 cl32 on Z790 Apex.
> View attachment 2576946
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CINE R23 at water temp 22C
> 
> 
> 
> All cores P 6.0Ghz, E 4.8Ghz, C 5.0Ghz / Ram 8000 CL32 OC
> View attachment 2576947
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: y-cruncher at water temp 20C
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 3DMark FireStrike Normal Physics score
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576950
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Linx Gflops Test
> 
> 
> 
> Even though errored out, big gflops score at all cores P 5.9, E 4.7, C4.9 + Ram 8000 CL32
> View attachment 2576951
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Stable 8200 CL34 WIP
> 
> 
> 
> Stable 8200 CL34 on Z790 Apex. woking more on tightening ram timings.
> View attachment 2576952
> 
> View attachment 2576953
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 8600 CL34 Booting Test
> 
> 
> 
> 8600 CL34 (16GB x 2), P 5.9/ E4.7/ C4.9 easy bootable
> 8800 CL34 was also bootable to bios~
> View attachment 2576954
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: P57_E45_C45_Cine 20Min at high water temp 32C
> 
> 
> 
> I got asked to raise water temp to 32C like AIO and run all cores P 57/E45/C5 with no ram oc for Cine 20Min.
> - core voltages at load 1.137v and max temp below 80c for 20min Cine running
> View attachment 2576955
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576956
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Original vs Delid vs Direct Die Temp
> 
> 
> 
> All above tests were done with original igs.
> Below is delid and direct die results.
> My friend did all the works and plz see how he did the 13th gen delid work at the below video (will update)
> To summarize, from original ihs to delid&LM, 14C dropped.
> From delid&LM to direct die&LM, another 9C dropped, so total 23C dropped from the original to direct die.
> 
> Prime95 AVX On, Small fft
> - original ihs
> View attachment 2576957
> 
> - delid & liquid metal
> View attachment 2576958
> 
> - direct die & liquid metal
> View attachment 2576959


Insane results! Good job! How does A-die scale with temp ?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Pinto said:


> Mine is well above that 😁


That for a Bios you have on the Board?My is also higher as the most.


----------



## Carillo

Would be fun if OP made a Sp-rating leaderboard on the first page like in the old days  Anyone got under SP 100 ?

Both 13900K and 13900KF arriving tomorrow. Aiming for SP 79


----------



## Nizzen

Benchmark mode:


----------



## whitearmor

yt93900 said:


> The Extreme is €1250 in EU and you can get €150 cashback so I'd expect 1000-1100 for the Apex.


If Apex is 850€ in EU, I would grab it in a second, ASUS pls!


----------



## Carillo

whitearmor said:


> If Apex is 850€ in EU, I would grab it in a second, ASUS pls!





whitearmor said:


> If Apex is 850€ in EU, I would grab it in a second, ASUS pls!


1000 euro in Norway included taxes


----------



## yt93900

Any ETA @Carillo ?


----------



## Arni90

Nizzen said:


> My testsetup:
> 13900kf SP p-core 119
> Asus Apex z790
> Asus 3090 strix oc White (just for the pictures)


Wait, what?
The Z790 Apex isn't even in stock yet, how did you get it?


----------



## Carillo

yt93900 said:


> Any ETA @Carillo ?


No date


----------



## Carillo

Arni90 said:


> Wait, what?
> The Z790 Apex isn't even in stock yet, how did you get it?


He is a professional overclocker working for Asus


----------



## whitearmor

Carillo said:


> 1000 euro in Norway included taxes


Well, guess I gotta shell out on this, board looking like an engineering piece of art. The question is will it be useful if I’ll get ****ty SP CPU = )


----------



## o1dschoo1

Any results on 13600k?


----------



## yt93900

ROG MAXIMUS Z790 APEX | ROG Maximus | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Global


The ROG Maximus Z790 Apex supercharges builds with its huge 24-stage power solution, hyperspeed DDR5 memory, and next-gen PCIe 5.0 connectivity. It features five M.2 SSD slots with heatsinks, two PCIe® 5.0 x16 slots, USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 support, WiFi 6E, AI Overclocking, AI Cooling II, AI...



rog.asus.com




Just edited the hyperlink and guess what, the Apex page is live  Interesting that the Extreme, which is 4xDIMM is rated up to 7800+ and the Apex _"only"_ up to "8000+" for 2xDIMM.


----------



## Nizzen

Ichirou said:


> Raptor Lake is a joke. All Intel did was bin the cores a bit better and slap on more E-cores. This is useless for gamers, especially if they don't overclock.
> 
> Maybe people who do need the cores for multicore workloads might consider it, but that extra cost to upgrade and to also cool the chip so it doesn't throttle... That's also disregarding the wattage necessary.
> 
> I'm more curious about the IMC, if anything. Has it improved, or is it still a total dice roll?


Raptor Lake is a joke. Nothing to see here...


----------



## D-EJ915

Asus hired MSI titanium board team for Apex? lol


----------



## Nizzen

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Any gaming benchmark?


Look at min fps in cpu game:









Bf 2042 128p multiplayer:


----------



## ::>_<::

Will get my 13900k mascot very soon!
(just waiting for a suitable z790 mobo


----------



## pastuch

Probably going to cancel my 13900kf order and return it all. For Warzone the 5800x3d is just too competitive. The performance numbers below use **** ram speeds for the DDR4 too. My bdie will do 4000c16 with 4x8gb dimms on my mobo if the IMC on the 5800x3d can keep up.






Option 1:
Canadian Price Comparison (Includes taxes):
5800x3d $565 (Keep existing Tuf X570, 4x8gb bdie and NHD-15)
Minus the cost of a 5600x and 16gbs of non-bdie DDR4 (265 CAD used market).
Total cost would be $300

Option 2:
13900KF $859
MSI Pro 690-a $281
Lian-li Gallahad $192
Minus $500 CAD (Optimistic) for X570 mobo, ram, CPU and Noctua (Non-bdie DDR4 3600 spare)
Total $1332 - $500 = $832

Option 3:
Wait for Zen 5 X3D.


----------



## Nizzen

pastuch said:


> Probably going to cancel my 13900kf order and return it all. For Warzone the 5800x3d is just too competitive. The performance numbers below use **** ram speeds for the DDR4 too. My bdie will do 4000c16 with 4x8gb dimms on my mobo if the IMC on the 5800x3d can keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Option 1:
> Canadian Price Comparison (Includes taxes):
> 5800x3d $565 (Keep existing Tuf X570, 4x8gb bdie and NHD-15)
> Minus the cost of a 5600x and 16gbs of non-bdie DDR4 (265 CAD used market).
> Total cost would be $300
> 
> Option 2:
> 13900KF $859
> MSI Pro 690-a $281
> Lian-li Gallahad $192
> Minus $500 CAD (Optimistic) for X570 mobo, ram, CPU and Noctua (Non-bdie DDR4 3600 spare)
> Total $1332 - $500 = $832
> 
> Option 3:
> Wait for Zen 5 X3D.


Ps: that youtube channel has fake benchmarks...


----------



## gtz

tps3443 said:


> Newegg has packaged my order preparing for ship at like 3AM this morning. I bought a 13900KF I will take the $629.99 pricing lol. MC is a 9+ hour round trip drive. It would cost far more to go get it now in the end. Food, gas, etc. and probably end up with a dang MC credit card with a 4090 financed if I did that this morning. I’m absolutely sure of it.
> 
> I saved not going to MC!


Same here, if I lived near a microcenter I would be broke lol.

Antonline is also preparing my chip for shipment. Looks like I will get it early next week.


----------



## raad11

Yeah I canceled my NewEgg order and got one from Microcenter for over $100 less. I think I'm gonna just use AI Optimizer's settings but unlike with 12900K I'm primarily worried about keeping power/temps for all-core load situations under control. Can probably undervolt at stock all-core turbo and use TVB to boost it to the higher settings for all other situations.

300+ watts is ridiculous lol

I'll probably work on it tonight and let yall know if my DDR4 OC still works or can be improved.


----------



## pastuch

Nizzen said:


> Ps: that youtube channel has fake benchmarks...


Thanks, I'll wait a couple days to see what happens with Modern Warfare 2/Warzone 1 benchmarks since that's going to be the standard for the next couple years.


----------



## raad11

gtz said:


> Same here, if I lived near a microcenter I would be broke lol.
> 
> Antonline is also preparing my chip for shipment. Looks like I will get it early next week.


Can confirm. Bought a 4090, a Macbook Air for the missus, and now this this 13900K in the span of a week. Maxed out my MC credit card for the 5% off lol.


----------



## Bakerman

Nizzen said:


> Sp 13900k/KF bins:
> 
> Nizzen SP 110 P119 / E93
> sugi0lover SP 114 P124 / E94
> Falk SP 106 P113 / E94.
> RobertoS SP ? P119/E102
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New toys to play with soon
> 
> Looks like 13600k is almost beating 5950x in rendering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i5-13600K 14 Core Raptor Lake ES CPU Tested, 40% Faster Than Core i5-12600K & Beats The Ryzen 9 5950X In Cinebench
> 
> 
> The latest benchmarks of Intel's mainstream Core i5-13600K 14-Core Raptor Lake Desktop CPU have leaked out and it's a beast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wccftech.com


You guys are lucky! - SP98 P107 E80


----------



## TheBrandon

pastuch said:


> Probably going to cancel my 13900kf order and return it all. For Warzone the 5800x3d is just too competitive..


Another option is to consider the performance on Warzone's replacement or are you planning on just playing the old one? I would be looking for some MW2 campaign benchmarks which I'd think we'd be seeing any time now to get an idea of how WZ 2.0 performs since they're running on the new, updated engine. 

5800X3D is a good deal.


----------



## tps3443

Newegg has shipped my 13900KF


----------



## Ichirou

@sugi0lover has a golden bin again, why am I not surprised ;P

Amazon CA doesn't even have the 13900K listed right now.
No news from BestBuy or Canada Computers yet.


----------



## carlhil2

I paid $100 more for the 12900k. MC FTW...


----------



## RichKnecht

gtz said:


> Same here, if I lived near a microcenter I would be broke lol.
> 
> Antonline is also preparing my chip for shipment. Looks like I will get it early next week.


I live 10 minutes from my MC and it is lethal, I stop in every time I pass by and I always buy something.


----------



## Carillo

RichKnecht said:


> I live 10 minutes from my MC and it is lethal, I stop in every time I pass by and I always buy something.


My closest microcenter ( komplett) is 16 hours ( both ways ) away. I never get new hardware on launch 😂


----------



## nickolp1974

Bakerman said:


> You guys are lucky! - SP98 P107 E80


not lucky, there all testers for Asus?


----------



## Falkentyne

Arni90 said:


> Wait, what?
> The Z790 Apex isn't even in stock yet, how did you get it?


Same way I got extreme.
He was one of our QA and validation testers.


----------



## acoustic

Have my 13900K, got it at microcenter this morning. On MSI so no SP stuff.


----------



## Betroz

Crazy that people need a custom loop to tame these new CPU's, or set a custom power limit in BIOS + a small undervolt if you only have a "puny" AIO.


----------



## yt93900

Direct die w. 360-420 AIO would work wonders too. However, not possible at the moment.


----------



## acoustic

yt93900 said:


> Direct die w. 360-420 AIO would work wonders too. However, not possible at the moment.


The IHS seems the same as 12th gen.. I'm wondering if the de-lid tool will work with it


----------



## Carillo

yt93900 said:


> Direct die w. 360-420 AIO would work wonders too. However, not possible at the moment.


Why not possible ? It’s allready done


----------



## energie80

It’s the same


----------



## Carillo

acoustic said:


> The IHS seems the same as 12th gen.. I'm wondering if the de-lid tool will work with it


It will fit. Only a couple of smd’s close to the die you need to insulate


----------



## tubs2x4

yt93900 said:


> EU is such a scam then, you guys pay $569, here it's €769


That’s the cost for your 5 year warranty


----------



## acoustic

Carillo said:


> It will fit. Only a couple of smd’s close to the die you need to insulate


Interesting. Time to borrow some nail polish.. lol


----------



## yt93900

Carillo said:


> Why not possible ? It’s allready done


Not possible as in - hardware damaging. Most AiO's have pure copper base that will suck up the LM over time. Ive had a golden 9900K that run DD on an AiO (H150i I think).


----------



## Jeges

acoustic said:


> Have my 13900K, got it at microcenter this morning. On MSI so no SP stuff.


May i know your cpu force?


----------



## acoustic

Jeges said:


> May i know your cpu force?


134, lol. I think that's bad. Yours?


----------



## tubs2x4

Nizzen said:


> Look at min fps in cpu game:
> View attachment 2577012
> 
> 
> Bf 2042 128p multiplayer:


Want to turn your ram down to 6400 and see the diff between sottr Bench 6400-7800 If you don’t mind with all the rest the same?


----------



## don1376

Ordered my 13900k from Best Buy an hour ago. Be here tomorrow!


----------



## nmkr

short r23 looptest with an intel ES (SP 107 (p119/e84)
57/44/45, load volts around 1.181v with 24c water 










also imc had a bit of an uplift, can run my mdie gskill sets now 7400 memstable










all tests powered with an asus apex z790


----------



## Exilon

How high can the ring go if you raise L2 voltage to 1.35v?


----------



## Ichirou

Hoping to hear from people with 13900K/KF DDR4 IMC results


----------



## Ichirou

Exilon said:


> How high can the ring go if you raise L2 voltage to 1.35v?





Falkentyne said:


> II: Overclocking Frequency Changes.
> 
> Due to changes in the cache and latency and E core bus systems, you can expect much higher clocks than what was achievable on a 12900KS.
> 
> 5.6 ghz P cores can be expected if you can cool it.
> With E cores disabled, Ring can reach 5.1 ghz.
> With E cores enabled, 4.9 ghz ring is possible with enough voltage.
> E cores can go up to x47 but this requires a lot of core voltage.
> Single core fmax is 6-6.2 ghz.


----------



## TheHoodedPortal

Ichirou said:


> Hoping to hear from people with 13900K/KF DDR4 IMC results


Will be running DR B-die on a z690 TUF with my 13900K when i get it


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

> also imc had a bit of an uplift, can run my mdie gskill sets now 7400 memstable


Finally the answer m die users want


----------



## nickolp1974

Ichirou said:


> Hoping to hear from people with 13900K/KF DDR4 IMC results


i'm Hoping to hear from people with ** RETAIL ** 13900K/KF, a few nice samples kicking about. Getting myself ready for tomorrows sub 100 club


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Thanks Falkentyne for helping me ...
My special thanks to Shamino, Cstkl1, Nizzen, Sugi0lover and Asus.

I'm going to write a “tune guide” for the Z790 and Raptor Lake as soon as possible... 

Here are some of my results of overclocking TVB:

Max Frequency P63x/E48x
Max Effective 6GHz.
Full load: P55x/E46x


































































































Asus, Z790 and Raptor Lake: World record overclocking...


Thank you to Shamino and the Asus ROG team for allowing me to test their Maximus Z790 Extreme sample and 13900KF QS CPU. DISCLAIMER: QS CPU’s may be final silicon but there can still be changes going from QS to retail. QS is not always indicative of retail chips, so results on retail may be...




www.overclock.net


----------



## roooo

Ok folks...got my 13900K today and slapped it onto my Z690 Hero with latest 2103 BIOS.

However, I can't seem to get my GSkill 6400C32 working properly - unless I load optimized defaults, the machine won't POST and is stuck with Q-Code 23. Any suggestions? I had cleared CMOS etc. and did not use any saved profiles. Neither XMP1 nor XMP2 nor manual mem settings with 5400 MHz will work. Any ideas?!

Edit: Have been running these sticks with my 12900KS on the same board without any issues.

Cheers,
r.


----------



## Groove2013

@sugi0lover can you tell use what's done to have the cache at 5.1 GHz with E-cores enabled?


----------



## Ichirou

Groove2013 said:


> @sugi0lover can you tell use what's done to have the cache at 5.1 GHz with E-cores enabled?


Lots of Vcore to boost the E-core multipliers and L2 Cache Voltage to make it easier to run the ring higher.
100% impossible without a custom water loop.


----------



## Jeges

acoustic said:


> 134, lol. I think that's bad. Yours?


Mine got 156, so yours should be way better.
What is the minimal voltage (LLC3) required to pass cinebench r23
at stock?


----------



## asdkj1740

i just checked some reviews, it seems for some reason all z790 come with a relatively high vcore for 13900k, near 1.35v.
lots of reviewers encountered cpu temps hitting tjmax=100c.


----------



## acoustic

Jeges said:


> Mine got 156, so yours should be way better.
> What is the minimal voltage (LLC3) required to pass cinebench r23
> at stock?


Haven't tested it yet. Trying to get 7600 to POST lol. I'll report once I do. I'll likely de-lid it tomorrow too.


----------



## Carillo

roooo said:


> Ok folks...got my 13900K today and slapped it onto my Z690 Hero with latest 2103 BIOS.
> 
> However, I can't seem to get my GSkill 6400C32 working properly - unless I load optimized defaults, the machine won't POST and is stuck with Q-Code 23. Any suggestions? I had cleared CMOS etc. and did not use any saved profiles. Neither XMP1 nor XMP2 nor manual mem settings with 5400 MHz will work. Any ideas?!
> 
> Edit: Have been running these sticks with my 12900KS on the same board without any issues.
> 
> Cheers,
> r.


Tried holding clear cmos for 10 seconds + ? What SP rating ? 😊


----------



## roooo

Carillo said:


> Tried holding clear cmos for 10 seconds + ? What SP rating ? 😊


Sure, did that. Cranked up DIMM and MC voltages but still stuck with code 23.

SP is 110/88, not too shabby, but with memory stuck at 4800...?!


----------



## Groove2013

Ichirou said:


> Lots of Vcore to boost the E-core multipliers and L2 Cache Voltage to make it easier to run the ring higher.
> 100% impossible without a custom water loop.


then E-cores off )))
wondering if 5.2 GHz pr more is possible with E-cores off...


----------



## Ichirou

roooo said:


> Sure, did that. Cranked up DIMM and MC voltages but still stuck with code 23.
> 
> SP is 110/88, not too shabby, but with memory stuck at 4800...?!


Sounds like a motherboard and/or BIOS issue...


----------



## Ichirou

Groove2013 said:


> then E-cores off )))
> wondering if 5.2 GHz pr more is possible with E-cores off...


Well, I managed to run 5.1 GHz on my 12900KF already, although I dialed it back down to 5.0 GHz.
So I can imagine 5.2+ GHz is definitely doable on a 13900K/KF.

And IIRC I believe sugi already did 5.2 GHz on his golden 12900K.


----------



## roooo

Ichirou said:


> Sounds like a motherboard and/or BIOS issue...


Well, both board and BIOS have been running fine with the same sticks and the 12900KS. I don't understand it. Anyone know what Code 23 means? At least it's not in the manual.


----------



## roooo

Tried upping VDD and VDDQ to 1.45V, SA to 1.2V, MC to 1.25V and IVR to 1.43V and getting code 23 pretty instantly after reboot. I have reset BIOS to optimized defaults, so no fancy settings or CPU overclock atm.


----------



## Spicedaddy

roooo said:


> Well, both board and BIOS have been running fine with the same sticks and the 12900KS. I don't understand it. Anyone know what Code 23 means? At least it's not in the manual.


Did you try reseating the CPU?


----------



## Ichirou

BestBuy Canada Live Chat:


> Upon looking into your order, I see that your product has been backordered as it ran out of stock due to high demand and we were unable to fulfil the stock once your order was placed. Our marketing team has contacted the manufacturer but, we have not received a definite restocking time frame from them as of now.
> 
> Please be assured that, our inventory team will update you via email within 5-7 business days as per the restocking after which your order will be sent out for shipping. I request you to follow our website and product page to know about any restocking updates and once restocked your order will be shipped to get it delivered.


Welp, guess Canadians are mega screwed for the time being. Lots of places won't have stock.


----------



## xarot

Apex comes in white now? 

13900K as per reviews is constantly hitting 100c when all cores are loaded so looks like delid is a must not an option. TPU even allowed it to run at 117c lol. In my book it is thus even worse than 12900k from thermal management perspective eek.

Wanted to be done with LM crap but oh well. :/


----------



## Ichirou

xarot said:


> Apex comes in white now?
> 
> 13900K as per reviews is constantly hitting 100c when all cores are loaded so looks like delid is a must not an option. TPU even allowed it to run at 117c lol. In my book it is thus even worse than 12900k from thermal management perspective eek.
> 
> Wanted to be done with LM crap but oh well. :/


Genuinely makes me question degradation.


----------



## dante`afk

Groove2013 said:


> @sugi0lover can you tell use what's done to have the cache at 5.1 GHz with E-cores enabled?


no offense, but don't orientate yourself by clocks posted by him and the others getting the honeyspoon directly from asus/intel.

you have 3, 4 people here spilling the honey to make everyone else thirsty.


----------



## pastuch

TheHoodedPortal said:


> Will be running DR B-die on a z690 TUF with my 13900K when i get it


This guy ran C14 DDR4000 against Gskill 6000 on the 13900k and found basically identical performance. This seems like the rare case where the DDR5 kit wasn't as high end as the DDR4 choice.


----------



## Ichirou

pastuch said:


> This guy ran C14 DDR4000 against Gskill 6000 on the 13900k and found basically identical performance. This seems like the rare case where the DDR5 kit wasn't as high end as the DDR4 choice.


4000 CL14 G1 is more or less equivalent to 7000 CL30 G2. Only main difference is bandwidth limit being higher on DDR5.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

xarot said:


> Apex comes in white now?
> 
> 13900K as per reviews is constantly hitting 100c when all cores are loaded so looks like delid is a must not an option. TPU even allowed it to run at 117c lol. In my book it is thus even worse than 12900k from thermal management perspective eek.
> 
> Wanted to be done with LM crap but oh well. :/


I think it's a question of loadlines adjustments...


----------



## roooo

Spicedaddy said:


> Did you try reseating the CPU?


Thanks - just tried that, but no change.


----------



## Spicedaddy

Has anybody had a i9 preorder ship from Canada Computers? It looks like only Newegg has shipped i9, they get stock from the US I guess.

There's not 1 store in Canada that shows i9 in stock, probably hasn't arrived yet.


----------



## yt93900

Ichirou said:


> Genuinely makes me question degradation.


Meh, how long are you going to hammer your CPU with 100% (AVX) load at 250W+ power? Looks like it's sitting at a happy 50-60*C in games.
Memory testing like TM5 is quite light on the CPU and it looks like it might actually be more worthwile to undervolt/slight underclock.


----------



## Carillo

Ichirou said:


> Genuinely makes me question degradation.


First of all , the reviewers have allready explainded reasons for high temp is bios setting unnecessary high v-core on auto, and second of all, are you planning to play cinebench 24/7 ?


----------



## Ichirou

Spicedaddy said:


> Has anybody had a i9 preorder ship from Canada Computers? It looks like only Newegg has shipped i9, they get stock from the US I guess.
> 
> There's not 1 store in Canada that shows i9 in stock, probably hasn't arrived yet.


Probably only Newegg has stock right now. But a zero return policy to boot, so final sale. That deters some people.


yt93900 said:


> Meh, how long are you going to hammer your CPU with 100% (AVX) load at 250W+ power? Looks like it's sitting at a happy 50-60*C in games.
> Memory testing like TM5 is quite light on the CPU and it looks like it might be more worthwile to undervolt/slight underclock.


It's much more common amongst people who work in production/industrial. Not everyone is a gamer.


----------



## yt93900

Spicedaddy said:


> Has anybody had a i9 preorder ship from Canada Computers? It looks like only Newegg has shipped i9, they get stock from the US I guess.
> 
> There's not 1 store in Canada that shows i9 in stock, probably hasn't arrived yet.


We're getting screwed over again with artificial shortages, really getting boring now. I had preordered mine in the Netherlands and it's also been delayed, yet another shop claims to have 12 in stock....so I ordered 2 and will pick the best one.


----------



## roooo

So...after reseating my CPU, the SP rating jumped from 110/88 to 138/106. Is this...um...normal?


----------



## Falkentyne

roooo said:


> So...after reseating my CPU, the SP rating jumped from 110/88 to 138/106. Is this...um...normal?


Yeah. This has happened to a few people. Four people now have posted SP 138 P cores. One of them after upgrading to 2004 Bios (on Z690). Seems like 138 is the highest possible that can be reported.


----------



## roooo

Falkentyne said:


> Yeah. This has happened to a few people. Four people now have posted SP 138 P cores. One of them after upgrading to 2004 Bios (on Z690). Seems like 138 is the highest possible that can be reported.


Ok. What is the latest BIOS for the Z690 Hero and where can I find it? I'm having issues with my previously stable sticks now refusing to POST with code 23 on the 2103 BIOS.


----------



## Jeges

roooo said:


> Ok folks...got my 13900K today and slapped it onto my Z690 Hero with latest 2103 BIOS.
> 
> However, I can't seem to get my GSkill 6400C32 working properly - unless I load optimized defaults, the machine won't POST and is stuck with Q-Code 23. Any suggestions? I had cleared CMOS etc. and did not use any saved profiles. Neither XMP1 nor XMP2 nor manual mem settings with 5400 MHz will work. Any ideas?!
> 
> Edit: Have been running these sticks with my 12900KS on the same board without any issues.
> 
> Cheers,
> r.


I guess it's normal, i had the same issue with my 13900kf and one of my friend experienced the same with his 7950x. Same settings required more DRAM VDD / VDDQ to work properly.


----------



## roooo

Um...something's fishy here. Aside from not being able to get my sticks running even at increased voltages, one of my NVME drives apparently went missing. ***?!


----------



## tps3443

I wish I had an Asus motherboard. I never know my SP. Never.. It’s kind of frustrating. But in the end we have to test the CPU anyways. But I would like to know just for fun. I have a MSI Unify-X. I’m not really interested in dumping a fortune in to a new Asus Z790 motherboard.

I really wish more board partners would get in on this though. Maybe make the SP a standard quality measurement?

Especially like EVGA Dark Kingpin boards.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I wish I had an Asus motherboard. I never know my SP. Never.. It’s kind of frustrating. But in the end we have to test the CPU anyways. But I would like to know just for fun. I have a MSI Unify-X. I’m not really interested in dumping a fortune in to a new Asus Z790 motherboard.
> 
> I really wish more board partners would get in on this though. Maybe make the SP a standard quality measurement?
> 
> Especially like EVGA Dark Kingpin boards.


Yeah, it's stupid how it isn't universal yet. But I imagine there might be some BS about patents or some crap holding makers back. I wouldn't know for sure; just taking a wild guess.


----------



## D-EJ915

tps3443 said:


> I wish I had an Asus motherboard. I never know my SP. Never.. It’s kind of frustrating. But in the end we have to test the CPU anyways. But I would like to know just for fun. I have a MSI Unify-X. I’m not really interested in dumping a fortune in to a new Asus Z790 motherboard.
> 
> I really wish more board partners would get in on this though. Maybe make the SP a standard quality measurement?
> 
> Especially like EVGA Dark Kingpin boards.


SP is just visual rating from AI overclocking so no way they are going to tell other people how to use it lol.


----------



## Ichirou

D-EJ915 said:


> SP is just visual rating from AI overclocking so no way they are going to tell other people how to use it lol.


Actually, the formula is pretty easy to calculate. And everyone has the VIDs already. The board manufacturers can easily make an SP clone.


----------



## Talon2016

I'm confused with those having issues with Asus Hero boards and 13th gen. I am running 7466 CL34 on my Hero and 13900K LOL. Latest BIOS from last night.


----------



## raad11

RobertoSampaio said:


> ...


What is the latest version of OCTool and where can I get it?


pastuch said:


> This guy ran C14 DDR4000 against Gskill 6000 on the 13900k and found basically identical performance. This seems like the rare case where the DDR5 kit wasn't as high end as the DDR4 choice.


CPUZ says it's in Gear 2 for DDR4 also?


----------



## bhav

Prices on 13900k went up to £730 for in stock from £699 pre order.

Don't need it yet anyway, software bundle first please.

Usually after every shop has them in stock with software bundles, they come back down to pre order launch price.

Actually a lesser known etailer has 1 in stock for £699.75, so its just the popular ones with stock overcharging.

So theres no difference at 1440p+ between 13900k and 13600k, and only 2FPS more than 12th gen hmmmm.

Buy 13700k and stay in gear 2 ram, or bother with a 13900k for better G1 IMC chance ...

13600k too expensive for 6c/12t compared to 13700k.


----------



## Nizzen

Talon2016 said:


> I'm confused with those having issues with Asus Hero boards and 13th gen. I am running 7466 CL34 on my Hero and 13900K LOL. Latest BIOS from last night.
> View attachment 2577062


What is your SP total and p and e-cores? 
Need to update post #1


----------



## crpcookie

Is the 13900k really only doing 37k in R23 out of the box? I'm hitting 40k without touching anything but setting the fan speed. All auto-OC settings are turned off.


----------



## dev1ance

crpcookie said:


> Is the 13900k really only doing 37k in R23 out of the box? I'm hitting 40k without touching anything but setting the fan speed. All auto-OC settings are turned off.


Seems like 40k is doable, just varies depending on the testing sites it seems. Some hit 40k, some are like 36-38k. Hell, even LTT was doing 40k stock so it's baffling. Go figure but I wonder if it has to do with high stock voltages.


----------



## bhav

The first few reviews I read didn't include Civ 6:









Intel Core i9-13900K and i5-13600K Review: Raptor Lake Brings More Bite







www.anandtech.com





13900k better than 13600k there, but in the reviews I found for Anno 1800 it was only 2FPS difference.

No reviews for 13700k?


----------



## dev1ance

bhav said:


> The first few reviews I read didn't include Civ 6:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900K and i5-13600K Review: Raptor Lake Brings More Bite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.anandtech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 13900k better than 13600k there, but in the reviews I found for Anno 1800 it was only 2FPS difference.
> 
> No reviews for 13700k?


Some 13700k reviews here:








Intel 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake" Desktop CPU Review Roundup | VideoCardz.com


Featured, INTEL Core 13000, Review Roundup Intel Raptor Lake reviews are here Today, Intel lifts the embargo on Raptor Lake reviews. Intel Raptor Lake Reviews Media Intel 13th Gen Core CPU Tested




videocardz.com





AI OC with custom loops testing 13600k/13700k/13900k:


----------



## roooo

Alright ladies and gentlemen - it appears I either have a faulty 13900K or some weird issue with 2103 BIOS on the Z690 Hero.

Symptoms:

1. Trying to boot anything higher than ~4800 on memory will not POST and hangs with Code 23
2. One (or even two) NVME drives are missing in both BIOS and Windows.

Both symptoms are not present after I slapped my 12900KS back in, but re-appeared after I installed the 13900K again.

I've got another 13900K coming tomorrow and hopefully will be able to tell who's at fault.


Cheers,
r.


----------



## bhav

The 3 13700k reviews I found so far are 1080p only though.


----------



## roooo

By the way - is there anyone here running the 13900K on the Z690 Hero?


----------



## cstkl1

dev1ance said:


> Seems like 40k is doable, just varies depending on the testing sites it seems. Some hit 40k, some are like 36-38k. Hell, even LTT was doing 40k stock so it's baffling. Go figure but I wonder if it has to do with high stock voltages.


loadline. v/f, diesense.


----------



## cstkl1

roooo said:


> By the way - is there anyone here running the 13900K on the Z690 Hero?


ezflash ?


----------



## bigfootnz

roooo said:


> By the way - is there anyone here running the 13900K on the Z690 Hero?


I'll do test bench on my hero Z690, when I receive CPU, then I'll put in Unify-X.


----------



## nickolp1974

apart from sugi has anyone delidded yet???


----------



## roooo

cstkl1 said:


> ezflash ?


Sorry - but what do you mean by that?


----------



## bhav

Bunch of people obviously now asking whether to stay on 3600CL16 or get DDR5.

You know what my reply is ... SET VOLTAGE TO MAX AND CRANK THAT BABY UP TO 4000CL1!!!

Well, I say to try OC for 3733CL14 to anyone in that situation.


----------



## Netarangi

Any feedback on the i9 imc for ddr4? Planning on upgrading mostly for a better imc


----------



## cstkl1

roooo said:


> Sorry - but what do you mean by that?


when u flash the bios . was it via ezflash or i/o biosflashback?


----------



## bhav

Also all the reviews that did include 'D4 3600' without mentioning the timings, I bet they were using CL18 single rank lol.


----------



## roooo

cstkl1 said:


> when u flash the bios . was it via ezflash or i/o biosflashback?


Ah ok. I used EZ Flash from inside the 1403 BIOS to flash 2103.


----------



## cstkl1

roooo said:


> Ah ok. I used EZ Flash from inside the 1403 BIOS to flash 2103.


oh ok. dats the best way. hmm not sure then


----------



## roooo

cstkl1 said:


> oh ok. dats the best way. hmm not sure then


Does the 2004 BIOS already support the 13900K? Or would it be a bad idea going with that version?


----------



## roooo

Please delete.


----------



## Falkentyne

dev1ance said:


> Seems like 40k is doable, just varies depending on the testing sites it seems. Some hit 40k, some are like 36-38k. Hell, even LTT was doing 40k stock so it's baffling. Go figure but I wonder if it has to do with high stock voltages.


I get 40800 at stock if I set "Sync all P-cores" to x55 and disable C-states. Also load vcore is 30mv lower=lower temps, if I sync P cores to x55 rather than having the auto P cores boost x2 to 58 (on extremely light loads).

For some reason, I only get 40300-40500 if I leave P-cores and C-states at auto (I did NOT test C-states disabled with P-cores at Auto, you can do that if you want). Vcore at auto, only thing set are my XMP and RAM related voltages.

This is in windows 11.

Sounds like people getting worse scores than this are either NOT using W11 22H2, or are using winblows 10.


----------



## raad11

Netarangi said:


> Any feedback on the i9 imc for ddr4? Planning on upgrading mostly for a better imc


I'm honestly not expecting it to be any better, except maybe in Gear 2? I don't think I'll have time to test it extensively except to make sure my old OC carries over, but anyone else with DDR4, make sure to test Gear 2.

But even then, I would be surprised if the DDR4 imc is any different from Alder Lake's.


----------



## raad11

Falkentyne said:


> I get 40800 at stock if I set "Sync all P-cores" to x55 and disable C-states. Also load vcore is 30mv lower=lower temps, if I sync P cores to x55 rather than having the auto P cores boost x2 to 58 (on extremely light loads).
> 
> For some reason, I only get 40300-40500 if I leave P-cores and C-states at auto (I did NOT test C-states disabled with P-cores at Auto, you can do that if you want). Vcore at auto, only thing set are my XMP and RAM related voltages.
> 
> This is in windows 11.
> 
> Sounds like people getting worse scores than this are either NOT using W11 22H2, or are using winblows 10.


I've been hearing rumors on Reddit that Win 10 22H2 gets the same improved thread scheduling as Win 11 22H2. Have you or anyone else heard the same? I'm fairly sure that's BS but don't know


----------



## bhav

I think I'm the only person with DDR4 running it in gear 2 and I will test that eventually, but I would like to see G1 results before I buy as thats whats limiting my 12600k.

I have 3800CL13 / 4800CL16 done on my 12600k in case you missed it.


----------



## raad11

bhav said:


> I think I'm the only person with DDR4 running it in gear 2 and I will test that eventually, but I would like to see G1 results before I buy as thats whats limiting my 12600k.
> 
> I have 3800CL13 / 4800CL16 done on my 12600k in case you missed it.


Damn, that's good! Do you have the Aida64 results by any chance for the 4800CL16?


----------



## bhav

raad11 said:


> Damn, that's good! Do you have the Aida64 results by any chance for the 4800CL16?


Yes and they're both crap. Aida reported 59ns at 3800CL13 G1, and 67ns at 4800CL16 G2. Intel latency checker reported 61ns at 4800CL16. Thats because my dimms are micron B die SR, not DR.

Dual rank dimms with Samsung B die will only max out at 4800CL18, SR can push 5000+ but I need the better board for that.

The CL16 wasn't 24/7 stable yet, but might be on the new Z790 board. I'll be repeating with the same chip - 12600k on the Z790 before buying a 13th gen.

I run it at 4800CL17 1.6v 24/7 stable currently.

My dual rank micron E die maxes out at 4200CL16, but is good for G1 as it does both 4000CL15 and 3733CL14, which is my recommendation for the interleaving latency gain.


----------



## roooo

cstkl1 said:


> oh ok. dats the best way. hmm not sure then


By the way - I'm also seeing the dramatically reduced MT performance others reported as well. In CPU-Z, it's only about 25% of that of the 12900KS.


----------



## cstkl1

intel i9 13900k : Stock
z790 Apex : 0605
Gskill 6600 2x16gb @ 7400c32 1.55v
SA,txvddq,mc voltage auto

WINDOWS 11 first release version

CB23 : 41059
CB20 : 15675
CB15 : 6270

ran one time only


----------



## cstkl1

edit will upload later better pic. img got reduced


----------



## acoustic

Need a magnifying glass for your pic @cstkl1 LOL


----------



## cstkl1

acoustic said:


> Need a magnifying glass for your pic @cstkl1 LOL


sorry when i transfered da pic got compressed. 
pc running more ram test atm


----------



## cstkl1

roooo said:


> By the way - I'm also seeing the dramatically reduced MT performance others reported as well. In CPU-Z, it's only about 25% of that of the 12900KS.


did u reinstall windows?


----------



## roooo

cstkl1 said:


> did u reinstall windows?


No, and I won't ;-) Performance is fine with the 12900KS.


----------



## Carillo

nickolp1974 said:


> apart from sugi has anyone delidded yet???


I will delidd and post pictures tomorrow


----------



## Pinto

roooo said:


> Alright ladies and gentlemen - it appears I either have a faulty 13900K or some weird issue with 2103 BIOS on the Z690 Hero.
> 
> Symptoms:
> 
> 1. Trying to boot anything higher than ~4800 on memory will not POST and hangs with Code 23
> 2. One (or even two) NVME drives are missing in both BIOS and Windows.
> 
> Both symptoms are not present after I slapped my 12900KS back in, but re-appeared after I installed the 13900K again.
> 
> I've got another 13900K coming tomorrow and hopefully will be able to tell who's at fault.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> r.


Got the same problem try to upgrade your ME firmware it solve the problem for me.






[FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)


Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)



rog.asus.com


----------



## sugi0lover

sugi0lover said:


> 13900K is finally out and here is my quick experience with it
> 
> CPU : 13900K (SP 114, P-SP 124, E-SP 94, No delid yet)
> MB : Z790 Apex
> Ram : Basic Hynix A-Die 16GB x2
> Cooling : MORA 420 (CPU, RAM, VGA)
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 13900K SP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576936
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Z790 Apex
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576995
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler:  My Stable Setup Performance Test
> 
> 
> 
> Easy daily stable OC setup.
> All cores P 5.9Ghz, E 4.7Ghz, C 4.9Ghz , 1.24v under load / Ram 8000 CL32 OC, water temp around 26C
> Cache 5.1Ghz with E cores on also stable
> View attachment 2576937
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 8000 CL32 Stability Test
> 
> 
> 
> Stable 8000 cl32 on Z790 Apex.
> View attachment 2576946
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CINE R23 at water temp 22C
> 
> 
> 
> All cores P 6.0Ghz, E 4.8Ghz, C 5.0Ghz / Ram 8000 CL32 OC
> View attachment 2576947
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: y-cruncher at water temp 20C
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 3DMark FireStrike Normal Physics score
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576950
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Linx Gflops Test
> 
> 
> 
> Even though errored out, big gflops score at all cores P 5.9, E 4.7, C4.9 + Ram 8000 CL32
> View attachment 2576951
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Stable 8200 CL34 WIP
> 
> 
> 
> Stable 8200 CL34 on Z790 Apex. woking more on tightening ram timings.
> View attachment 2576952
> 
> View attachment 2576953
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 8600 CL34 Booting Test
> 
> 
> 
> 8600 CL34 (16GB x 2), P 5.9/ E4.7/ C4.9 easy bootable
> 8800 CL34 was also bootable to bios~
> View attachment 2576954
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: P57_E45_C45_Cine 20Min at high water temp 32C
> 
> 
> 
> I got asked to raise water temp to 32C like AIO and run all cores P 57/E45/C5 with no ram oc for Cine 20Min.
> - core voltages at load 1.137v and max temp below 80c for 20min Cine running
> View attachment 2576955
> 
> 
> View attachment 2576956
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Original vs Delid vs Direct Die Temp
> 
> 
> 
> All above tests were done with original igs.
> Below is delid and direct die results.
> My friend did all the works and plz see how he did the 13th gen delid work at the below video (will update)
> To summarize, from original ihs to delid&LM, 14C dropped.
> From delid&LM to direct die&LM, another 9C dropped, so total 23C dropped from the original to direct die.
> 
> Prime95 AVX On, Small fft
> - original ihs
> View attachment 2576957
> 
> - delid & liquid metal
> View attachment 2576958
> 
> - direct die & liquid metal
> View attachment 2576959


Here is the delid and direct die work done by my friend.


----------



## bhav

So I've decided on what to do.

If my ram is hardcapped at 4800CL17 for stability on the same CPU and Z790, I'll have to go for the 13900k for better G1 IMC.

If I can stabilize 4800CL16 or 5000+CL18 with the new board, I'll be happy to gamble on a 13700k and stay in G2 if my G1 doesn't improve.


----------



## roooo

Pinto said:


> Got the same problem try to upgrade your ME firmware it solve the problem for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)
> 
> 
> Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com


YOU ARE THE MAN!!! 

This really solved the issues, THANK YOU SO MUCH!

Cheers,
r.


----------



## Pinto

roooo said:


> YOU ARE THE MAN!!!
> 
> This really solved the issues, THANK YOU SO MUCH!
> 
> Cheers,
> r.


Great!


----------



## Talon2016

Nizzen said:


> What is your SP total and p and e-cores?
> Need to update post #1


SP106. SP115 and SP88 on E cores


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> edit will upload later better pic. img got reduced


How's the SP on your retail chip? How does it compare to QS this time around?
you said with ADL that QS was worse than retail.
Looks like RPL QS is pretty good now?


----------



## sugi0lover

Groove2013 said:


> @sugi0lover can you tell use what's done to have the cache at 5.1 GHz with E-cores enabled?


Unlike the 12th Gen, the 13th Gen doesn't need to disble e cores to raise cache. You can raise both e cores and cache at the same time.



dante`afk said:


> no offense, but don't orientate yourself by clocks posted by him and the others getting the honeyspoon directly from asus/intel.
> 
> you have 3, 4 people here spilling the honey to make everyone else thirsty.


I am sorry if I made you think that way.
I and my friend have spent lots of money and time binning good hardware every generation and I got 13900K ES only this time.
But I and my friend are binning retail 13900K ourselves spending our time and money.
I show every details like cpu sp, temp, cooling, so people can epect the performance based on that.
If I want to do the product marketting, I don't need to show everything. I just show the result, then people can think they can achieve that too because they don't know what kind of hardware they need.
Even after finding binned parts, it doesn't automatically oc good for me. I need to put lots of efforts into getting my oc result.
I will really appreciate if you can respect other people's hard work. Let's enjoy what makes us happy~


----------



## whitearmor

sugi0lover said:


> Here is the delid and direct die work done by my friend.


Must be sweating bullets, while delidding this gem. Seems like it really needs so much enthusiasm and dedication. Appreciation to you and this man!


----------



## cstkl1

bhav said:


> So I've decided on what to do.
> 
> If my ram is hardcapped at 4800CL17 for stability on the same CPU and Z790, I'll have to go for the 13900k for better G1 IMC.
> 
> If I can stabilize 4800CL16 or 5000+CL18 with the new board, I'll be happy to gamble on a 13700k and stay in G2 if my G1 doesn't improve.


bdie? 5-5066c17 is not easy. its more of bdie limit


----------



## bscool

pastuch said:


> This guy ran C14 DDR4000 against Gskill 6000 on the 13900k and found basically identical performance. This seems like the rare case where the DDR5 kit wasn't as high end as the DDR4 choice.


He is running the ddr4 in gear 2 so take that for what it is worth.


----------



## bscool

roooo said:


> Ok. What is the latest BIOS for the Z690 Hero and where can I find it? I'm having issues with my previously stable sticks now refusing to POST with code 23 on the 2103 BIOS.


I dont have 13th gen but I did notice issues bios 2103 with TRFC related timings needed to be loosen from previous bioses on z690 Apex with 12900k. Something is off with them for me on that bios. Edit I replaced u code with 15 so that could be something to do with it havent tested it much.

2004 should work with 13th gen also and didnt have this issue.


----------



## bhav

cstkl1 said:


> bdie? 5-5066c17 is not easy. its more of bdie limit


Nope, micron B die 2x16 SR, it used to come pre binned up to 5100.

They removed the 4800 and 5100 bins because no one could run that back then, so any 4400 kit might do that.


----------



## bhav

bscool said:


> He is running the ddr4 in gear 2 so take that for what it is worth.


Well I mean I'm wasting time daily trying to explain this to these tech channel ram newbs:

'Its a really bad review because the 4000 DDR4 was running in gear 2.

People are pushing gear 1 DDR4 up to 4400 on good IMCs, Gear 2 DDR4 can go up to 5333. I've personally done DDR4 at 4600CL15 on 10900k (gear 1 equivilent), 4800CL16 on gear 2 with 12600k on a kit that cost just £180 for 2x16 (micron B die).

You need low timings too for DDR4, 3733CL14, 4000CL15, (GEAR 1 FOR UP TO 4000!), 4800CL18, 5333CL20 (GEAR 2 NEEDS 4800+!) for a proper DDR4 comparison, these settings are easy to achieve on mid to end gen DDR4, and what overclockers that are staying on DDR4 are running.

Why is there not a single tech channel that knows how to overclock ram? '

*___*

No one listens to me though because 'you don't know anything about overclocking ram'.

Theres obviouly no point to buying new DDR4 if you dont have it, you build a new PC for DDR5.

This is for all the people already running even mediocre bins on samsung and micron DDR4.

I wish XS wasn't dead.

Running 4000 or less at gear 2 is like using just 1 stick of ram IMO.


----------



## Netarangi

bhav said:


> Well I mean I'm wasting time daily trying to explain this to these tech channel ram newbs:
> 
> 'Its a really bad review because the 4000 DDR4 was running in gear 2.
> 
> People are pushing gear 1 DDR4 up to 4400 on good IMCs, Gear 2 DDR4 can go up to 5333. I've personally done DDR4 at 4600CL15 on 10900k (gear 1 equivilent), 4800CL16 on gear 2 with 12600k on a kit that cost just £180 for 2x16 (micron B die).
> 
> You need low timings too for DDR4, 3733CL14, 4000CL15, (GEAR 1 FOR UP TO 4000!), 4800CL18, 5333CL20 (GEAR 2 NEEDS 4800+!) for a proper DDR4 comparison, these settings are easy to achieve on mid to end gen DDR4, and what overclockers that are staying on DDR4 are running.
> 
> Why is there not a single tech channel that knows how to overclock ram? '
> 
> *___*
> 
> No one listens to me though because 'you don't know anything about overclocking ram'.
> 
> Theres obviouly no point to buying new DDR4 if you dont have it, you build a new PC for DDR5.
> 
> This is for all the people already running even mediocre bins on samsung and micron DDR4.
> 
> I wish XS wasn't dead.
> 
> Running 4000 or less at gear 2 is like using just 1 stick of ram IMO.


Because they're very very low level people that just appeal to the masses, who also don't know much about tech other than "wow this graphic card is expensive it must be good".

Most of the big channels don't actually know all that much and just run off hype, not data.

Obviously some good ones out there eg. Gamers nexus


----------



## Revv23

Just got mine from micro center, going to run it in my MSI z690 EDGE DDR4 until I figure out the rest of the build. 

should be a fun weekend. 

You have to ask for the discount they have it listed on the shelf @ $729


----------



## bhav

Netarangi said:


> Obviously some good ones out there eg. Gamers nexus


LTT also covered dual and single rank, gear 1 and 2 and all that. Linus himself had no idea about these things, but other people on his staff do.


----------



## Carillo

I did som extensive testing with ddr4 vs ddr5 when i had both boards, and for me it was NOT average fps that was the issue, it was the 1% lows. DDR5 had much more consistency in frame times...I did most testing in BF2042 big multiplayer maps using a rtx 3090, ddr4 4133 c14 gear 1 vs 6800 c30 tight. Just sharing my experience


----------



## Luggage

Falkentyne said:


> I get 40800 at stock if I set "Sync all P-cores" to x55 and disable C-states. Also load vcore is 30mv lower=lower temps, if I sync P cores to x55 rather than having the auto P cores boost x2 to 58 (on extremely light loads).
> 
> For some reason, I only get 40300-40500 if I leave P-cores and C-states at auto (I did NOT test C-states disabled with P-cores at Auto, you can do that if you want). Vcore at auto, only thing set are my XMP and RAM related voltages.
> 
> This is in windows 11.
> 
> Sounds like people getting worse scores than this are either NOT using W11 22H2, or are using winblows 10.


You call that running at stock?


----------



## tps3443

Can anyone help me out? I want to run bare die… But I’m just not finding a direct die frame. Can I just run the 13900K without ILM and without IHS like I did with 10th Gen and 11th Gen? I imagine with so many more pins, pressure would maybe cause issues like LGA 2066 did.

I have a Optimus Signature V2 Nickel block. I plan to delid, should I just slap the IHS back on and LM between the IHS and cold plate for best performance instead of paste? And not worry over direct die?

No die frames is kinda frustrating.

I have 1/2 HP chiller plumbed in to my loop with Mora3 sized rad daily, but I still would prefer best heat transfer too.


----------



## yahfz

sugi0lover said:


> Here is the delid and direct die work done by my friend.


Great stuff as always sugi, keep it up! I'll go ahead and say you're probably one of the best members in this forum. You don't have a huge ego despite always having the best bins/setups, always contributes, always helps users when you can. Thumbs up from me my friend


----------



## Shonk

Anyone got a screenshot of a gigabyte board's stock multipliers like below on my 12900K

havnt got my 13900K yet


----------



## cstkl1

tps3443 said:


> Can anyone help me out? I want to run bare die… But I’m just not finding a direct die frame. Can I just run the 13900K without ILM and without IHS like I did with 10th Gen and 11th Gen? I imagine with so many more pins, pressure would maybe cause issues like LGA 2066 did.
> 
> I have a Optimus Signature V2 Nickel block. I plan to delid, should I just slap the IHS back on and LM between the IHS and cold plate for best performance instead of paste? And not worry over direct die?
> 
> No die frames is kinda frustrating.
> 
> I have 1/2 HP chiller plumbed in to my loop with Mora3 sized rad daily, but I still would prefer best heat transfer too.


all the new substrates are pretty thin.


----------



## sniperpowa

My 13900k arrives tomorrow hopefully it’s not a junk overclocker like my 12900k preorder.


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> Can anyone help me out? I want to run bare die… But I’m just not finding a direct die frame. Can I just run the 13900K without ILM and without IHS like I did with 10th Gen and 11th Gen? I imagine with so many more pins, pressure would maybe cause issues like LGA 2066 did.
> 
> I have a Optimus Signature V2 Nickel block. I plan to delid, should I just slap the IHS back on and LM between the IHS and cold plate for best performance instead of paste? And not worry over direct die?
> 
> No die frames is kinda frustrating.
> 
> I have 1/2 HP chiller plumbed in to my loop with Mora3 sized rad daily, but I still would prefer best heat transfer too.


Just run with LM and IHS resealed. That's like a 13-17C drop already. That's good enough.
DD is another 6C drop but you'll gain so much more from the simple delid and LM, it's not worth the hassle if you can't find a DD mount.

Remember to sand the underside edges of the IHS down about 0.2mm (sanding it down to the copper is good enough) to compensate for the TIM depth that was removed.
You'll know you did it right when you can spin the IHS on top of the clean die like a spinning top, with the edges of the IHS not contacting the substrate.

And make sure you use the Thermalright bracket or the aliexpress/superbuy fibreglass bracket, because you're removing z-height from the entire package--you don't want to be left with bad contact pressure with the original ILM.


----------



## newls1

roooo said:


> YOU ARE THE MAN!!!
> 
> This really solved the issues, THANK YOU SO MUCH!
> 
> Cheers,
> r.


what issues did this solve, im having strange issues with my 13900k on my msi board with a constant BSOD setting ram past 6933 no matter what voltage i set...


----------



## gerardfraser

13700KF messing around,not sure if good yet.only on crap 360AIO set 62/57all core


----------



## bhav

Ok so I have a theory regarding the IMC and gears.

Is the max IMC frequency in gear 2 the same as the max you can get in gear 1?

Would a chip that maxes out at ddr5 8000 G2 due to IMC limit therefore max out at ddr4 4000 G1?

If so this could be the reason stopping a lot of people getting past 7600 in G2?

Lookit the crazy ram man and his crazy ram theories.


----------



## acoustic

Pretty sure the DDR4 and DDR5 IMC are separate entities; you can have a horrendous DDR4 IMC, but have a really good DDR5 one, on the same chip.


----------



## bhav

acoustic said:


> Pretty sure the DDR4 and DDR5 IMC are separate entities; you can have a horrendous DDR4 IMC, but have a really good DDR5 one, on the same chip.


Oh right, so I can't use DDR5 results to assess DDR4 potential.


----------



## bscool

acoustic said:


> Pretty sure the DDR4 and DDR5 IMC are separate entities; you can have a horrendous DDR4 IMC, but have a really good DDR5 one, on the same chip.


Can confirm weakest ddr4 IMC(4000 gear 1 vs best 4300 best DR b die) is very good on ddr5.

Sample size of 4 12900k/kf/ks and igorslab found the same with IMC difference between ddr4 and ddr5 do not correlate.

Searching a real jack of all trades – Intel 12th Gen Alder Lake IMC binning with DDR4, DDR5 and SP values and interesting findings | igor'sLAB (igorslab.de)


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm testing a new OCTVB setting and decided to make a video with one of my preferred games... PlanetSide2
















and BF-V


----------



## Rbk_3

bhav said:


> Yes and they're both crap. Aida reported 59ns at 3800CL13 G1, and 67ns at 4800CL16 G2. Intel latency checker reported 61ns at 4800CL16. Thats because my dimms are micron B die SR, not DR.
> 
> Dual rank dimms with Samsung B die will only max out at 4800CL18, SR can push 5000+ but I need the better board for that.
> 
> The CL16 wasn't 24/7 stable yet, but might be on the new Z790 board. I'll be repeating with the same chip - 12600k on the Z790 before buying a 13th gen.
> 
> I run it at 4800CL17 1.6v 24/7 stable currently.
> 
> My dual rank micron E die maxes out at 4200CL16, but is good for G1 as it does both 4000CL15 and 3733CL14, which is my recommendation for the interleaving latency gain.


Damn 59ns? My 4000 CL14 is like 44ns on 12900k. An extra 15ns latency?


----------



## raad11

Bleh, SP 109 on P-Cores. I mean, it's not terrible.

Have a question about my cooling, how hot should this chip get at 255 watts and at 300-310 watts? Like during one CB23 multithreaded run, mine hit 40217 (all settings in BIOS on Auto, RAM at 2133) and CPU Package just touched 95 C at the last seconds of the run (just one core hit that, the next highest hit 92, then 90 after that). CPUZ stress test hit 255 watts and temps hit 80s and climbed to high 80s after a while, would start approaching 90 C after maybe 1-2 minutes.

Does this sound normal? I'm not using one of those LGA1700 contact frames, I'm just wondering if I should before I close up the computer and put it back in position.


----------



## tubs2x4

raad11 said:


> Bleh, SP 109 on P-Cores. I mean, it's not terrible.
> 
> Have a question about my cooling, how hot should this chip get at 255 watts and at 300-310 watts? Like during one CB23 multithreaded run, mine hit 40217 (all settings in BIOS on Auto, RAM at 2133) and CPU Package just touched 95 C at the last seconds of the run (just one core hit that, the next highest hit 92, then 90 after that). CPUZ stress test hit 255 watts and temps hit 80s and climbed to high 80s after a while, would start approaching 90 C after maybe 1-2 minutes.
> 
> Does this sound normal? I'm not using one of those LGA1700 contact frames, I'm just wondering if I should before I close up the computer and put it back in position.


might help some but all reviews are showing this cpu is hot. watching some people gaming its running like 60-70c gaming. not sure on their cooler. maybe knock it down 0.050mv on core voltage and see what happens. tech yes city did that on the 13900 and seemed to work.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

raad11 said:


> Bleh, SP 109 on P-Cores. I mean, it's not terrible.
> 
> Have a question about my cooling, how hot should this chip get at 255 watts and at 300-310 watts? Like during one CB23 multithreaded run, mine hit 40217 (all settings in BIOS on Auto, RAM at 2133) and CPU Package just touched 95 C at the last seconds of the run (just one core hit that, the next highest hit 92, then 90 after that). CPUZ stress test hit 255 watts and temps hit 80s and climbed to high 80s after a while, would start approaching 90 C after maybe 1-2 minutes.
> 
> Does this sound normal? I'm not using one of those LGA1700 contact frames, I'm just wondering if I should before I close up the computer and put it back in position.


What MB are u using?
You need to calibrate the loadlines...
Mine run R23 P55x/E46x Vcore=1.137v / 240W. Max temp 90C at core 5
Running with AF-II 420


----------



## raad11

RobertoSampaio said:


> What MB are u using?
> You need to calibrate the loadlines...
> Mine run R23 P55x/E46x Vcore=1.137v / 240W. Max temp 90C at core 5
> Running with AF-II 420


That sounds close enough to my temps at that power.

I haven't touched anything yet. Should I set the same loadline values as in your Z690/12900K guide? I think it was like LLC1 with 0.60/1.75 or something. How do I figure what Adaptive Voltage to go with?

IIRC, set Adaptive Voltage, set the loadlines, then set the core ratios, and then start tuning VF curve. Right?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

raad11 said:


> That sounds close enough to my temps at that power.
> 
> I haven't touched anything yet. Should I set the same loadline values as in your Z690/12900K guide? I think it was like LLC1 with 0.60/1.75 or something. How do I figure what Adaptive Voltage to go with?
> 
> IIRC, set Adaptive Voltage, set the loadlines, then set the core ratios, and then start tuning VF curve. Right?


What MB are you using? Z690?
And yes... That is the procedure...
With Z790 I'm using LLC#4, DC_LL=1,02 and AC_LL=0.01(no correction). But Z790/13900k is not as Z690/12900k... you will need to do some tests.


----------



## bhav

Rbk_3 said:


> Damn 59ns? My 4000 CL14 is like 44ns on 12900k. An extra 15ns latency?



It turns out I messed up, one of the background apps was ruining the scores. After I closed all utilities and such I dropped from 63 to 54 at the gear 2 settings.

So 61 was at 4800CL16 which is slightly unstable, when I tested again at CL17 it was 63nm, when I close all the background apps its between 53-54.

So the G1 might be more around 49-51.

I just couldn't understand it at first, even people with the same ram in 2xSR were getting much better.

After I closed all apps I tried reopening them 1 by 1. I suspected it was Asrock's dragon lan but it wasn't. Only app I didn't open was nvidia settings?

Or maybe its dragon lan running in conjunction with the browser, I dunno, I'll try and isolate the issue tomorrow.


----------



## Falkentyne

raad11 said:


> Bleh, SP 109 on P-Cores. I mean, it's not terrible.
> 
> Have a question about my cooling, how hot should this chip get at 255 watts and at 300-310 watts? Like during one CB23 multithreaded run, mine hit 40217 (all settings in BIOS on Auto, RAM at 2133) and CPU Package just touched 95 C at the last seconds of the run (just one core hit that, the next highest hit 92, then 90 after that). CPUZ stress test hit 255 watts and temps hit 80s and climbed to high 80s after a while, would start approaching 90 C after maybe 1-2 minutes.
> 
> Does this sound normal? I'm not using one of those LGA1700 contact frames, I'm just wondering if I should before I close up the computer and put it back in position.


SP 109 on P cores is a bit above average.
The majority of CPU's have a P core SP of 105 and below (total SP of 100 and below).


----------



## LazyGamer

bhav said:


> I just couldn't understand it at first, even people with the same ram in 2xSR were getting much better.


Always worth it to do a safe mode sanity check IMO. Seems to be the best way to check with a loaded desktop OS, instead of having to use a dedicating OC'ing OS.


----------



## tps3443

My OG 9/27 13900K Pre-Order is showing that it will be delivered on Saturday!! AWESOME!!


----------



## Bilco

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm testing a new OCTVB setting and decided to make a video with one of my preferred games... PlanetSide2
> 
> View attachment 2577098
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and BF-V


Bro, use that minimap


----------



## raad11

Falkentyne said:


> Ok if that's a strix, let's start with something reasonable.
> 
> Try setting manual (Actual VRM Vcore voltage) 1.30v, Loadline Calibration LLC Level 6 (LLC6) and Sync all P cores: 55
> Then post your individual core temps during the run.
> 
> If you're stable, you can start going lower from here.
> 
> If you're at higher than 90C from this, check your mount. You should be way below this.
> 
> I'm still curious what the load vcore was on his original auto settings run though, as well as his temp delta spread on the P-cores.


I hit 84-85 on 2 cores during a CB23 MT run with these settings. I guess I'll install the contact frame and see if it makes a difference. I have an Arctic LF AIO.


RobertoSampaio said:


> What MB are you using? Z690?
> And yes... That is the procedure...
> With Z790 I'm using LLC#4, DC_LL=1,02 and AC_LL=0.01(no correction). But Z790/13900k is not as Z690/12900k... you will need to do some tests.


Yeah Strix Z690-A D4.

Why is AC at 0.01? I thought at LLC4 it should be something like 0.20/0.98.

Do you recommend trying LLC1 on this combo? 13900K + Z690?


Falkentyne said:


> SP 109 on P cores is a bit above average.
> The majority of CPU's have a P core SP of 105 and below (total SP of 100 and below).


Well, that makes me feel better  I'm not as invested in that this time I guess, I don't want to change all core speed from 55 or maybe 56 max. I just want it to TVB to 58 on all P-Cores.


----------



## sugi0lover

For those who are interested in Contact Frame with the 13th gen, here is result.










https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/thermalright-lga1700-bcf-contact-frame


----------



## RobertoSampaio

raad11 said:


> I hit 84-85 on 2 cores during a CB23 MT run with these settings. I guess I'll install the contact frame and see if it makes a difference. I have an Arctic LF AIO.
> Yeah Strix Z690-A D4.
> 
> Why is AC at 0.01? I thought at LLC4 it should be something like 0.20/0.98.
> 
> Do you recommend trying LLC1 on this combo? 13900K + Z690?
> 
> Well, that makes me feel better  I'm not as invested in that this time I guess, I don't want to change all core speed from 55 or maybe 56 max. I just want it to TVB to 58 on all P-Cores.


I really dont know how 13900k will run in the z690...
With z790 the LLC#4 keep enough voltage with AC_LL=0.01
I always star at LLC#3 and go lowering AC_LL...
If you want, send me an MP and I can help you to analyze your tests and suggesting some settings


----------



## cstkl1

bhav said:


> Ok so I have a theory regarding the IMC and gears.
> 
> Is the max IMC frequency in gear 2 the same as the max you can get in gear 1?
> 
> Would a chip that maxes out at ddr5 8000 G2 due to IMC limit therefore max out at ddr4 4000 G1?
> 
> If so this could be the reason stopping a lot of people getting past 7600 in G2?
> 
> Lookit the crazy ram man and his crazy ram theories.


ddr4 - the limitation and hynix chipset development on there has ended
ddr5 - still on going. today adie, tomorrow??

Hynix Adie on asus is really friendly. with gskill ones i been testing its literally plug play. reduce tcl increase voltage, test reduce timing in memtweakit. reenter value in bios. test again.

very simple.

ddr5 as usual pushing boundaries for max stability needs to be active cool to test them. they dont fare well like ddr4 on passive


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> I really dont know how 13900k will run in the z690...
> With z790 the LLC#4 keep enough voltage with AC_LL=0.01
> I always star at LLC#3 and go lowering AC_LL...
> If you want, send me an MP and I can help you to analyze your tests and suggesting some settings


same here llc3 dc 1.1 .. keep reducing ac. starting point 0.35


----------



## nickolp1974

Falkentyne said:


> Just run with LM and IHS resealed. That's like a 13-17C drop already. That's good enough.
> DD is another 6C drop but you'll gain so much more from the simple delid and LM, it's not worth the hassle if you can't find a DD mount.
> 
> Remember to sand the underside edges of the IHS down about 0.2mm (sanding it down to the copper is good enough) to compensate for the TIM depth that was removed.
> You'll know you did it right when you can spin the IHS on top of the clean die like a spinning top, with the edges of the IHS not contacting the substrate.
> 
> And make sure you use the Thermalright bracket or the aliexpress/superbuy fibreglass bracket, because you're removing z-height from the entire package--you don't want to be left with bad contact pressure with the original ILM.


what are you using to reseal??


----------



## raad11

sugi0lover said:


> For those who are interested in Contact Frame with the 13th gen, here is result.
> View attachment 2577107
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/thermalright-lga1700-bcf-contact-frame


Made a 1-2 C difference for me. The Thermalright contact frame. Delta looks good over Cores 2-7 but Cores 0-1 run cooler than the rest. Same as with stock ILM. My stock ILM wasn't bad though, my temps on the 12900K were always pretty good.


cstkl1 said:


> same here llc3 dc 1.1 .. keep reducing ac. starting point 0.35


Where do you determine starting points from? I mean, besides you guys just telling me now


----------



## GQNerd

Ice Cube Voice: *Today was a good day... *

Both at MSRP.. well, 13900k was 599 USD

Gonna be a fun weekend!


----------



## nickolp1974

RobertoSampaio said:


> What MB are u using?
> You need to calibrate the loadlines...
> Mine run R23 P55x/E46x Vcore=1.137v / 240W. Max temp 90C at core 5
> Running with AF-II 420


For loadlines can we still use the impedances as a start point from your ADL guide, i'll be on a 790 Hero


----------



## th3illusiveman

Miguelios said:


> Ice Cube Voice: *Today was a good day... *
> 
> Both at MSRP.. well, 13900k was 599 USD
> 
> Gonna be a fun weekend!
> 
> View attachment 2577112


you lucky bastard! Have an awesome weekend!


----------



## Falkentyne

nickolp1974 said:


> what are you using to reseal??


I haven't delidded anything since my 9900K.
If I were going to reseal I would use 4 very small drops of RTV silicone in each corner of the corner of the IHS edges, that way if there was a problem with the LM application, I could easily undo it and fix it with finger removal.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

My temps are not so good... High delta...
1 pass r23 (water at 33C)


----------



## RobertoSampaio

nickolp1974 said:


> For loadlines can we still use the impedances as a start point from your ADL guide, i'll be on a 790 Hero


 Yes... Its a start point... and try to lower AC_LL max you can...


----------



## nickolp1974

Falkentyne said:


> I haven't delidded anything since my 9900K.
> If I were going to reseal I would use 4 very small drops of RTV silicone in each corner of the corner of the IHS edges, that way if there was a problem with the LM application, I could easily undo it and fix it with finger removal.


thanks, thats a good shout with just the corners, i normally don't bother resealing but i didn't know if it made a difference. It can sometimes be a PITA with it not being sealed.


----------



## nickolp1974

RobertoSampaio said:


> Yes... Its a start point... and try to lower AC_LL max you can...


Thanks, looking forward to having a play later when it all arrives.

Anyone tried the original Dell greens on this platform yet??? @Nizzen .There all i have at the moment was wondering if anyone had any results


----------



## Nizzen

nickolp1974 said:


> Thanks, looking forward to having a play later when it all arrives.
> 
> Anyone tried the original Dell greens on this platform yet??? @Nizzen .There all i have at the moment was wondering if anyone had any results


Will try them soon again. Haven't tried them on this new plattform. Nice request


----------



## raad11

I have no idea why but my P-Core 1 (from 0-7) runs like 5-7 C cooler than the rest. P-Core 0 is like 2-3 C cooler. The rest are all the same. It was like this both with stock ILM and Thermalright contact frame.

For example, max temps:

P-Core 0: 78 C
P-Core 1: 74-75 C
P-Cores 2 thru 7: 80 C

Anyone else see something like this?


----------



## nickolp1974

Nizzen said:


> Will try them soon again. Haven't tried them on this new plattform. Nice request


you are welcome


----------



## raad11

Also when copying over my RAM settings, I set VDDQ and VCCSA at 1.4v each (previously at 1.48/1.44 respectively with a 12900K and yes, I tested these extensively before). Those were fine on the 12900K but 1.4v isn't dangerously high on Raptor Lake, is it?


----------



## nickolp1974

raad11 said:


> I have no idea why but my P-Core 1 (from 0-7) runs like 5-7 C cooler than the rest. P-Core 0 is like 2-3 C cooler. The rest are all the same. It was like this both with stock ILM and Thermalright contact frame.
> 
> For example, max temps:
> 
> P-Core 0: 78 C
> P-Core 1: 74-75 C
> P-Cores 2 thru 7: 80 C
> 
> Anyone else see something like this?


i had an 11c difference on my 12900KS


----------



## RobertoSampaio

raad11 said:


> I have no idea why but my P-Core 1 (from 0-7) runs like 5-7 C cooler than the rest. P-Core 0 is like 2-3 C cooler. The rest are all the same. It was like this both with stock ILM and Thermalright contact frame.
> 
> For example, max temps:
> 
> P-Core 0: 78 C
> P-Core 1: 74-75 C
> P-Cores 2 thru 7: 80 C
> 
> Anyone else see something like this?


Same here








Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


My OG 9/27 13900K Pre-Order is showing that it will be delivered on Saturday!! AWESOME!!




www.overclock.net


----------



## raad11

RobertoSampaio said:


> Same here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> 
> My OG 9/27 13900K Pre-Order is showing that it will be delivered on Saturday!! AWESOME!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Lol well that's just like mine. Weird af. Anyone else's like this?


----------



## Nizzen

raad11 said:


> Also when copying over my RAM settings, I set VDDQ and VCCSA at 1.4v each (previously at 1.48/1.44 respectively with a 12900K and yes, I tested these extensively before). Those were fine on the 12900K but 1.4v isn't dangerously high on Raptor Lake, is it?


VCCSA @ 1.4v is needed for maybe 11000mhz ddr5 😅
1.1-1.2v SA is enough for 7600mhz. Some does less too with a-die.


----------



## Antsu

Very normal from what I've seen. One logical explanation is just the location of the core on the die. A core next to cold silicon like disabled iGPU will have a much easier time than a core sandwiched between two other cores.


----------



## raad11

Nizzen said:


> VCCSA @ 1.4v is needed for maybe 11000mhz ddr5 😅
> 1.1-1.2v SA is enough for 7600mhz. Some does less too with a-die.


Lol should have clarified I have DDR4. RAM is at 4000 14-15-15-28 with tightened secondaries and tertiaries. At least, that's what I used with the 12900K. 2xDR B-Die. Pushing Gear 1 really stresses the IMC voltages


----------



## Antsu

Edit: nevermind


----------



## Nizzen

raad11 said:


> Lol should have clarified I have DDR4. RAM is at 4000 14-15-15-28 with tightened secondaries and tertiaries. At least, that's what I used with the 12900K. 2xDR B-Die. Pushing Gear 1 really stresses the IMC voltages


I ran 1.53v SA on z490 Apex for 4700c17 1t ddr4 for 1.5 years. Cpu didn't die or degraded.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

If you want to take a look at my settings...
Its stable running OCTVB max freq P-63x / E-48x / R-54x






ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser


Benchmark results for an ASUS System Product Name with an Intel Core i9-13900K processor.



browser.geekbench.com


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> I ran 1.53v SA on z490 Apex for 4700c17 1t ddr4 for 1.5 years. Cpu didn't die or degraded.


Same here. I think 1.500V IO/SA is totally safe daily 24/7. I did have a 10900K randomly die on me playing around with memory overclocking at 5000MHz+ with heavy 1.58-1.60V IO/SA voltages though. It started acting freaking crazy in the bios. It went from worse, to no post at all in a matter of 10-15 reboots, and then it was just dead as a door nail. I have never went past 1.500V IO/SA since that day lol.

My golden sample 11900K after 15 months has shown zero degradation with 1.5V IO/SA daily, and 1.5V Vcore daily. It runs 4000+ Gear (1) CL14 with 2x16GB and 5.5Ghz on all cores daily.

Ready to finally replace it with this 13900K. Gonna be a nice jump in MT performance that’s for sure. Learning curve for sure with new platform and DDR5.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Same here. I think 1.500V IO/SA is totally safe. I did have a 10900K randomly die with 1.58-1.60V IO/SA voltages though. It started acting freaking crazy in the bios. It went from worse, to no post at all in a matter of 10-15 reboots, and just dead as a door nail. I have never went past 1.500V IO/SA since then.
> 
> My golden 11900K after 15 months has shown zero degradation with 1.5V IO/SA daily. It runs 4000+ Gear (1) CL14 with 2x16GB 5.5Ghz all cores daily.
> 
> Ready to finally replace it with this 13900K. Gonna be a nice jump in MT performance that’s for sure.


The new safe limit for Z690/Z790 is only 1.35V VCCSA now... FYI. There have already been reports of IMCs dying at just 1.40V (with a manual overclock).
But it's much easier with DDR5 since it doesn't need a whole lot of VCCSA. Only DDR4 does.


----------



## Antsu

Ichirou said:


> The new safe limit for Z690/Z790 is only 1.35V VCCSA now... FYI. There have already been reports of IMCs dying at just 1.40V (with a manual overclock).
> But it's much easier with DDR5 since it doesn't need a whole lot of VCCSA. Only DDR4 does.


Meh. I've had no issues with running 1.490V since launch, but as always YMMV.

And if the chip dies... Let's just say there used to be a joke on Finnish forums that if you got a bad sample, send it max VCCSA and just say it suddenly died. I don't think anyone actually did that in reality tho


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> Same here. I think 1.500V IO/SA is totally safe daily 24/7. I did have a 10900K randomly die on me playing around with memory overclocking at 5000MHz+ with heavy 1.58-1.60V IO/SA voltages though. It started acting freaking crazy in the bios. It went from worse, to no post at all in a matter of 10-15 reboots, and then it was just dead as a door nail. I have never went past 1.500V IO/SA since that day lol.
> 
> My golden sample 11900K after 15 months has shown zero degradation with 1.5V IO/SA daily, and 1.5V Vcore daily. It runs 4000+ Gear (1) CL14 with 2x16GB and 5.5Ghz on all cores daily.
> 
> Ready to finally replace it with this 13900K. Gonna be a nice jump in MT performance that’s for sure. Learning curve for sure with new platform and DDR5.


Auto vccio is pretty bad I think, when oc high on ddr4. Static io is safe.


----------



## xarot

Woud like to get a temporary z690 board for testing while waiting for z790 delivery and sell it later. Asus Prime z690 ddr5 for example good enough? Looking to update BIOS without cpu.

For anyone delidding how to remove the solder without the rockit cool removal stuff? Just use lm and let them mix? Last time I destroyed a carpet and almost a few of our floorboards with that rockit solder removal stuff. It came off the syringe like a rocket. Wife still remembers


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Please can anyone test how much voltage he need only PCore´s ECore´s disable.
The Z690 Strix D4 Bios is so buggy with that you can do like nothing, CPU handle like non K, no higher BoostClock possible and no more Watt as 230W.
I get at 5,[email protected],19V LLC5 Bios that are 1,154V CB23 whea´s, thats the boarder at me.
I want to know is the readed SP 117 correct or not, at this moment no other possiblity.


----------



## 2500k_2

PhoenixMDA said:


> Please can anyone test how much voltage he need only PCore´s ECore´s disable.
> The Z690 Strix D4 Bios is so buggy with that you can do like nothing, CPU handle like non K, no higher BoostClock possible and no more Watt as 230W.
> I get at 5,[email protected],19V LLC5 Bios that are 1,154V CB23 whea´s, thats the boarder at me.
> I want to know is the readed SP 117 correct or not, at this moment no other possiblity.
> View attachment 2577118


congratulations on your purchase. asus strix d4 is a great board. what is your limit in gear 1? I understand you have not studied in detail yet but share the first results of the memory controller in gear1


----------



## PhoenixMDA

2500k_2 said:


> congratulations on your purchase. asus strix d4 is a great board. what is your limit in gear 1? I understand you have not studied in detail yet but share the first results of the memory controller in gear1


First test with the MCE Update all works...
4200G1 seems good no high voltage need, for 4266/4300 i must bump sa over 1,4V to get this stable that make no sense at this moment.
I must look what is possible, thats my first value i have take.


----------



## Arni90

PhoenixMDA said:


> Please can anyone test how much voltage he need only PCore´s ECore´s disable.
> The Z690 Strix D4 Bios is so buggy with that you can do like nothing, CPU handle like non K, no higher BoostClock possible and no more Watt as 230W.
> I get at 5,[email protected],19V LLC5 Bios that are 1,154V CB23 whea´s, thats the boarder at me.
> I want to know is the readed SP 117 correct or not, at this moment no other possiblity.
> View attachment 2577118


Someone earlier here with a Z690 Hero had to update the ME to get proper performance, maybe you have to as well?


----------



## GQNerd

I didn't wait for the weekend... lol

Quick and Dirty OC on a Meh Mboard (z690 prime A) and RAM (Kingston Mdie at paltry 6400)
_Both will be updated_

CPU is SP 106 - Running 5.7 Pcore, 4.6 Ecore, 4.7 Cache
Cooling: Custom loop, EK velocity2 block, single 360 RAD...

Temps are pretty Good, surprisingly... 

Max Power Draw was ~275w











and now, a few hrs of sleep...


----------



## newls1

nice OC... what Vcore anddid you have to add more ecore voltage?


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> I ran 1.53v SA on z490 Apex for 4700c17 1t ddr4 for 1.5 years. Cpu didn't die or degraded.


Yes, with your cooling the IMC did'nt degrade, but with an AIO it might?
Besides 1.5 years is not THAT long life cycle for a CPU


----------



## bhav

PhoenixMDA said:


> First test with the MCE Update all works...
> 4200G1 seems good no high voltage need, for 4266/4300 i must bump sa over 1,4V to get this stable that make no sense at this moment.
> I must look what is possible, thats my first value i have take.


Is that on a dual rank kit??? Wow


----------



## CENS

Ambient memory


----------



## Fissa

Someone share their overclock settings on a MSI Z690? I'm upgrading from a 9900k seems lots of things changed.

To me it seems there is not much point to manual overclocking cpu since you aren't going to go over 5.8 ghz on all cores on a normal watercooling setup? Stock settings 2 cores boost to 5.8ghz.


----------



## bhav

Fissa said:


> Someone share their overclock settings on a MSI Z690? I'm upgrading from a 9900k seems lots of things changed.
> 
> To me it seems there is not much point to manual overclocking cpu since you aren't going to go over 5.8 ghz on all cores on a normal watercooling setup? Stock settings 2 cores boost to 5.8ghz.


The issue is that intel are already maxing out the 13900ks. If I get one of those I'lll see what it does on overclock ofc, but for 24/7 leave it on 5.5 all core with undervolt, though I will be using an arctic 420 AIO and anti bend bracket.

If I get a 13700k I'll want to overclock it to 5.5 all core to match.

12600k on 140mm aio is just enough to keep 5.1 p core under tjmax. Just remembered I reduced to 5.0 because sub 80 peaks better.

Also at 4k, overclocking the CPU is meh.


----------



## Groove2013

@PhoenixMDA what is your previous CPU?
I also have Z690 Strix-A D4 and 12900KS that can't do more than 4000 MHz 14-15-14-28 (2×16 GB) at 1.6 V and 1.228 SA and 1.3 V VDDQ TX.


----------



## nickolp1974

Like a kid at Xmas looking out the window, got about an hour to wait 😁


----------



## bhav

nickolp1974 said:


> Like a kid at Xmas looking out the window, got about an hour to wait 😁


Now they'll deliver to the wrong house and they'll keep it and not give it back tee hee.

Oh god when my 1080 Ti was delivered to the wrong house and wrong signature


----------



## RobertoSampaio

The best so far... stable....


----------



## Rbk_3

PhoenixMDA said:


> First test with the MCE Update all works...
> 4200G1 seems good no high voltage need, for 4266/4300 i must bump sa over 1,4V to get this stable that make no sense at this moment.
> I must look what is possible, thats my first value i have take.
> View attachment 2577129


4200 15-70-15-14? 🤪


----------



## SuperMumrik

Should we de-lid tonight? @Carillo 😆


----------



## bhav

Hmmmm I really really want to push 4200+ G1 too, even if I can get 5000+G2 on the new board, BUT I DON'T NEED 16 E CORES!

But I might even be able to get 4400-4600 G1 back on a 13900k and the crazy voltages I pump.

WHY 16 E CORES FOR SO MUCH COST???

I think I would regret buying a 13700k and getting a crap IMC even more though.


----------



## Nizzen

SuperMumrik said:


> Should we de-lid tonight? @Carillo 😆
> 
> View attachment 2577156


Make it x3 LOL


----------



## tibcsi0407

RobertoSampaio said:


> The best so far... stable....
> 
> View attachment 2577149
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577150
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577151
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577152
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577153
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577148
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577147
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577154


Nice one! How much is your SP? Also, did you delid\relid the CPU?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Groove2013 said:


> @PhoenixMDA what is your previous CPU?
> I also have Z690 Strix-A D4 and 12900KS that can't do more than 4000 MHz 14-15-14-28 (2×16 GB) at 1.6 V and 1.228 SA and 1.3 V VDDQ TX.


I don´t have only my 10900k before and now 13900k.
I think it´s perhaps possible to get 4400G1 stable with the right value´s and a good imc/ram.For a cheap upgrade is that not bad 🤷‍♂️.
DDR5 i think is now not defeat able with DDR4, but perf/price i think good choice.

Here that is stock clock and my first ramoc try´s.


----------



## Rbk_3

PhoenixMDA said:


> I don´t have only my 10900k before and now 13900k.
> I think it´s perhaps possible to get 4400G1 stable with the right value´s and a good imc/ram.For a cheap upgrade is that not bad 🤷‍♂️.
> DDR5 i think is now not defeat able with DDR4, but perf/price i think good choice.
> 
> Here that is stock clock and my first ramoc try´s.
> View attachment 2577160


Any idea why Aida is showing such odd timings?

Either way good to see, I could do 4400 16-16-16-36 with my kit on my 10900k but only 4133 16-16-16-36 on my 12900k


----------



## bhav

PhoenixMDA said:


> I don´t have only my 10900k before and now 13900k.
> I think it´s perhaps possible to get 4400G1 stable with the right value´s and a good imc/ram.For a cheap upgrade is that not bad 🤷‍♂️.
> DDR5 i think is now not defeat able with DDR4, but perf/price i think good choice.
> 
> Here that is stock clock and my first ramoc try´s.


How does the ram OC compare to your 10900k?

I had 4600CL15 working 99% stable on my 10900k, though its unlikely I'll get that high on G1 now.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Rbk_3 said:


> Any idea why Aida is showing such odd timings?
> 
> Either way good to see, I could do 4400 16-16-16-36 with my kit on my 10900k but only 4133 16-16-16-36 on my 12900k


It's easier with CL15 to raise up with the 13900k in my first test's.Over 4200 i must change the tcwl from 14 to 15, it's similar that values i must change like my cml.

@bhav
I think arround 4000-4400+ it's all possible G1, a question of the right timings and HW.
I have not enough HW testet to say that is the avg ram clock G1.
My cml ramOC i get higher up to [email protected] 4700Cl16-17 with normal 1,593V Vdimm.


----------



## yt93900

My 13900K just arrived SRMBH X236F217 batch.


----------



## Betroz

bhav said:


> I had 4600CL15 working 99% stable on my 10900k


Ehh at 1.8 vdimm...?


----------



## zebra_hun

PhoenixMDA said:


> I don´t have only my 10900k before and now 13900k.
> I think it´s perhaps possible to get 4400G1 stable with the right value´s and a good imc/ram.For a cheap upgrade is that not bad 🤷‍♂️.
> DDR5 i think is now not defeat able with DDR4, but perf/price i think good choice.
> 
> Here that is stock clock and my first ramoc try´s.
> View attachment 2577160


Nice result 
Can you a Tomb Raider 1080 lowest benchen? If you have got time. I want to know the d4 gaming performanche.
Thx


----------



## nickolp1974

SP 103 p111 e88


----------



## yt93900

Can we get an approximation from the VID? I have a Z690 DARK so no way to get SP out.


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> Ehh at 1.8 vdimm...?


1.72


----------



## gtz

I feel like a little kid, can't wait until tomorrow to get the new chip.


----------



## GQNerd

newls1 said:


> nice OC... what Vcore anddid you have to add more ecore voltage?


Left the Vcore on Auto.. LLC 6, didn't have to add any voltage to Ecores (though I might have to in order to clock them any higher)


----------



## Oleksii1977

My 13700k SP114 - CB23 passes 5.8Ghz PCore / 4.4Ghz Ecore / 4.6Ghz Ring , vcore in load - 1.28V


----------



## Falkentyne

Oleksii1977 said:


> My 13700k SP114 - CB23 passes 5.8Ghz PCore / 4.4Ghz Ecore / 4.6Ghz Ring , vcore in load - 1.28V


Maximus or Strix?
what cooling are you using?

I haven't seen many if any SP results from 13700K.


----------



## jvidia

Any DDR4 memory OC improvement with the Z790 chipset?

And do you still advise DDR4 over DDR5 to use with Raptor Lake for gaming ?


----------



## bhav

jvidia said:


> Any DDR4 memory OC improvement with the Z790 chipset?
> 
> And do you still advise DDR4 over DDR5 to use with Raptor Lake for gaming ?


Only if you already have DDR4, its not worth buying a new DDR4 setup as you won't be able to upgrade, and all ram prices are just dumb currently.


----------



## yt93900

Installed the 13900K on the Z690 DARK, RAM won't POST at 7200MHz anymore, dammit. Did a few CMOS clears - nope, just won't do it, even at 1.2 SA.
It defaults to 5600MHz 46-46-46-90-136-2T by the way.
Reseated the CPU and the Thermalright frame - nope, it won't even post at XMP anymore. FFS.

+
Temps are juicy, 292W in standard CPU-Z bench. Big OOF on the power draw and temps, cooler is an LFII 420mm, GC-Extreme TIM. This is 'stock' for the Z690 DARK, only enabled the CPU C-States manually as it seems a bit bugged in the BIOS where it won't use the full boost unless the C-States are manually set to enabled from auto.

What do you think about the VID, return/bad/mediocre/good?










*And this is what happens when you try Y-cruncher on a board with no power limit:
*


Spoiler














Yet the AIO was able to keep the package at ~340-360W all the time and it didn't throttle below 5.0 on the P-cores. Anyway, didn't want to hammer it any further, point has been made. I'd say 400W must be doable if you'd direct die it on a 420 AiO and use some high speed fans.


----------



## Ichirou

PhoenixMDA said:


> First test with the MCE Update all works...
> 4200G1 seems good no high voltage need, for 4266/4300 i must bump sa over 1,4V to get this stable that make no sense at this moment.
> I must look what is possible, thats my first value i have take.
> View attachment 2577129


Oof, this is just one single chip so it is still a small sample size, but that is not promising to hear. It seems like the IMC hasn't improved. Or just barely. @bhav
My estimates for the 13th Gen DDR4 IMC are more conservative now.
4,300 MHz stable might be what golden kits can do. 4,400+ should be a dream, but bootable on more chips compared to before.

*My baseline predictions for DDR4 IMC (with a 13900): Minimum 4,100 MHz stable, 4,400 max bootable.*
Before on the 12th Gen: Minimum 4,000 MHz stable, 4,300 max bootable.


----------



## bhav

4200G1 is still good enough, thats basically the minimum I was wanting, otherwise just push G2.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> 4200G1 is still good enough, thats basically the minimum I was wanting, otherwise just push G2.


As long as you are content.


----------



## nickolp1974

Quick dirty test as we have guests and i'm being unsociable  1.39v set LLC6 all manual 58p 46e 45c
Edit: on 790 Hero


----------



## bhav

Another thing that makes comparisons difficult is most people use DR sticks, its very rare for DR DDR4 to get past 4200.

SR is also easier on the IMC, though why Intel seem to have downgraded the DDR4 IMC since 10900k is anybodies guess.


----------



## yt93900

For the sake of comparison, 13900K on Z690 DARK, only C-states enabled in BIOS, everything else on AUTO/untouched:


Spoiler














Either this is the worst 13900K around so far, or the board is being pessimistic with voltages. Hope to get the Z790 Extreme tomorrow, maybe that one will be a bit more civilized but I'm afraid it will be an RMA case if I can't post 7200MHz RAM anymore.


----------



## nickolp1974

yt93900 said:


> For the sake of comparison, 13900K on Z690 DARK, only C-states enabled in BIOS, everything else on AUTO/untouched:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577222
> 
> 
> 
> Either this is the worst 13900K around so far, or the board is being pessimistic with voltages. Hope to get the Z790 Extreme tomorrow, maybe that one will be a bit more civilized but I'm afraid it will be an RMA case if I can't post 7200MHz RAM anymore.


Temps are high for stock, what cooler??


----------



## yt93900

Arctic 420mm AiO. Look at the package power, 375W


----------



## Ichirou

Just received notice from Canada Computers: they changed my order from "Back Order" to "Processing".
Looks like we will get betting stock after all. But it might be late.

No news from BestBuy besides what we already know, though.


----------



## Revv23

yt93900 said:


> Not possible as in - hardware damaging. Most AiO's have pure copper base that will suck up the LM over time. Ive had a golden 9900K that run DD on an AiO (H150i I think).


Just don't use LM then LOL. Get some white goop that isnt conductive.


----------



## yt93900

Tried Kryonaut back then, didn't work that well on direct die.


----------



## jeiselramos

nickolp1974 said:


> Temps are high for stock, what cooler??


375w 1.3v, seems like overvolted


----------



## nickolp1974

yt93900 said:


> Tried Kryonaut back then, didn't work that well on direct die.


Have you tried manually setting voltage? Keep all settings same and try 1.25v


----------



## bhav

I got a typical reply from the channel testing DDR4 at 4000G2 against DDR5 'We're testing what people would be running at home'.

In that case why even recommend K series CPUs and simply advise all the people at home to buy non K and run at stock speeds and XMP profile?

Also anyone 'at home' can buy a 4800CL18 or 5333CL20 DDR4 kit if they wanted to, in fact too many people might waste their money on those not being able to tell at all how they compare to DDR5.

Theres some kind of bias throughout the tech industry to always favour the latest and greatest, because yes, everyone running a system 'at home' for facebook, emails and the sims totally needs to buy a 13900k and DDR5 right now!


----------



## Revv23

bhav said:


> Why is there not a single tech channel that knows how to overclock ram? '
> 
> *___*
> 
> 
> 
> I wish XS wasn't dead.



It's been that way since Hipro5 was teaching us about the magic of 4V on BH5... Remember we had to overclock the 3.3v rail on our PSU to feed the ram? 

Cheers to the good ole days :cheers: I still post there a few times per year.


----------



## yt93900

nickolp1974 said:


> Have you tried manually setting voltage? Keep all settings same and try 1.25v


Yes, immediate crash in R23.


----------



## Falkentyne

nickolp1974 said:


> Have you tried manually setting voltage? Keep all settings same and try 1.25v


Nick those are excellent 5.8 results. What cooler do you have?
Can you survive a 30 min loop?


----------



## sniperpowa

I scored 37 010 in Time Spy Not bad


----------



## nickolp1974

Falkentyne said:


> Nick those are excellent 5.8 results. What cooler do you have?
> Can you survive a 30 min loop?


On custom 2 x 360x45. Tried for lowest vcore so probably not, just a touch more maybe. Guests have gone in the morning so back to testing


----------



## jvidia

bhav said:


> Only if you already have DDR4, its not worth buying a new DDR4 setup as you won't be able to upgrade, and all ram prices are just dumb currently.


Upgrade in the future using the DDR5 that I could buy now on a new system, is that it?
Or upgrade the DDR5 in the current system fo faster DDR5 mem kit later?

If you are talking "scenario" 1, aren't the current DDR5 kits quickly become obsolete in a near future?


----------



## bhav

jvidia said:


> Upgrade in the future using the DDR5 that I could buy now in a new system, is that it?
> Or upgrade the DDR5 in the current system fo faster DDR5 mem kit later?
> 
> But aren't the current DDR5 kits quickly become obsolete in a near future?



The ram itself. You can simply sell whichever ram you buy now when better is out.

I sold 3 sets of DDR4 on my way up to getting micron E die after that.


----------



## Oleksii1977

Falkentyne said:


> Maximus or Strix?
> what cooling are you using?
> 
> I haven't seen many if any SP results from 13700K.


Asus Maximus Formula - bios 2103
Watercooling - watecool Aquacomputer Cuplex Next Vision + MORA360
Power consumption with 5.6Ghz P-Core 4.4Cghz E-Core 4.6Ghz Ring only 200Wt in CB23 (vcore 1.16 in Load)


----------



## raad11

Just ran my pre-existing DDR4 timings and VDDQ/VCCSA at 1.35v passed TM5 no problems which is already an improvement from the 12900K (where I ran those at 1.48/1.44). Gonna try tightening timings or upping speed later.


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


> Just received notice from Canada Computers: they changed my order from "Back Order" to "Processing".
> Looks like we will get betting stock after all. But it might be late.
> 
> No news from BestBuy besides what we already know, though.



Called my store and the guy said they should be getting their shipment in store today so hopefully I can go pick it up after work. Said I had the only preorder at the store.


----------



## sniperpowa

5.7p-core 4.5 e-core


----------



## gtz

sniperpowa said:


> I scored 37 010 in Time Spy Not bad


What do you get if you disable hyper threading or only disable 2 e cores?

Regular timespy does not scale well once it has 32 cores or more. For example both the 10980XE and 5950X score better with hyperthreading disabled(prob the 7950x as well, I just never tested one personally).


----------



## z390e

nickolp1974 said:


> Quick dirty test as we have guests and i'm being unsociable


Oddly I heard this comment in my wife's voice.


----------



## sniperpowa

gtz said:


> What do you get if you disable hyper threading or only disable 2 e cores?
> 
> Regular timespy does not scale well once it has 32 cores or more. For example both the 10980XE and 5950X score better with hyperthreading disabled(prob the 7950x as well, I just never tested one personally).


I’ll play with it I have the highest 13900k score on timespy so far. My w3175x, 5950x and 7950x I always disable hyperthreading.


----------



## Netarangi

Ichirou said:


> Oof, this is just one single chip so it is still a small sample size, but that is not promising to hear. It seems like the IMC hasn't improved. Or just barely. @bhav
> My estimates for the 13th Gen DDR4 IMC are more conservative now.
> 4,300 MHz stable might be what golden kits can do. 4,400+ should be a dream, but bootable on more chips compared to before.
> 
> *My baseline predictions for DDR4 IMC (with a 13900): Minimum 4,100 MHz stable, 4,400 max bootable.*
> Before on the 12th Gen: Minimum 4,000 MHz stable, 4,300 max bootable.


Will report back in a few hours. Went to pick one up yesterday but their courier didn't show up the whole day lol..


----------



## bastian

Ichirou said:


> Just received notice from Canada Computers: they changed my order from "Back Order" to "Processing".
> Looks like we will get betting stock after all. But it might be late.
> 
> No news from BestBuy besides what we already know, though.


My 13900k from CC has been processing since Sept 28 lol. It doesn't mean anything. Looks like CC got no good stock of it. Luckily Newegg Canada came through and my 13900k is on its way.


----------



## Ichirou

bastian said:


> My 13900k from CC has been processing since Sept 28 lol. It doesn't mean anything. Looks like CC got no good stock of it. Luckily Newegg Canada came through and my 13900k is on its way.


----------



## sniperpowa

My chip is sp99. P-core 109 and e-core 81


----------



## RobertoSampaio

tibcsi0407 said:


> Nice one! How much is your SP? Also, did you delid\relid the CPU?


Sp113... And using an AF-2 420mm


----------



## Arni90

As usual, tech tuber claims of the 13900K running hot at stock are somewhat overblown.
This was done with 15C water temperature, so not quite relevant for most people, but if I'm getting 73C with 15C water, I'd estimate you're at 90C with 30C water.

Not delidded yet, just a regular Alphacool Eisblock.
Z690 Unify-X with auto LLC, auto AC/DC loadline (80/80), and auto voltage.


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


>


The instore pickup is backfiring on me. Nothing yet


----------



## Falkentyne

Arni90 said:


> As usual, tech tuber claims of the 13900K running hot at stock are somewhat overblown.
> This was done with 15C water temperature, so not quite relevant for most people, but if I'm getting 73C with 15C water, I'd estimate you're at 90C with 30C water.
> 
> Not delidded yet, just a regular Alphacool Eisblock.
> Z690 Unify-X with auto LLC, auto AC/DC loadline (80/80), and auto voltage.


Can you disable c-states and lock all p cores to x55?
See if that reduces your VR VOUT (and temps) and raises your R23 by 500 points.


----------



## tps3443

I saw on Newegg the Team Group 7200 Hynix A-Die is back in stock! I grabbed a set Just in time for the 13900KF.







Are you a human?







www.newegg.com






7200C34 kits back in stock!!!
Hynix A-Die


If you’ve got a 13th Gen you’ll need some fast ram. 😁


----------



## Arni90

Falkentyne said:


> Can you disable c-states and lock all p cores to x55?
> See if that reduces your VR VOUT (and temps) and raises your R23 by 500 points.


All right, water temp dropped to 10C since I turn on the fans on my MO-RA3 

Here are two runs back-to-back. The colder-running one was without C-states and P-cores set to 55x locked, the other was complete auto.

This isn't a clean OS, and running HWiNFO eats a bit of score.


----------



## tootall123

My 1900k is SP133. P-core 144 and E-core 111


----------



## bastian

Rbk_3 said:


> The instore pickup is backfiring on me. Nothing yet


Yeah, I should have said mine was pre-order for in store pickup. Anyway, I cancelled as I have one coming from Newegg now.


----------



## whitearmor

Arni90 said:


> All right, water temp dropped to 10C since I turn on the fans on my MO-RA3
> 
> Here are two runs back-to-back. The colder-running one was without C-states and P-cores set to 55x locked, the other was complete auto.
> 
> This isn't a clean OS, and running HWiNFO eats a bit of score.


Wow, that's really useful, thanks!

Wonder what's gonna be the result with 5C water, my attic is ready to transform into bench room dx


----------



## Rbk_3

There was one available for pick up at the Vaughn store for a few min just now. It’s an hour away from my store.


----------



## sugi0lover

tootall123 said:


> My 1900k is SP133. P-core 144 and E-core 111
> View attachment 2577272
> 
> View attachment 2577271


I see many people having SP bugs on Z690. They usually have very high SP like yours.
not sure yours is bug or not. To be sure, you gotta check if your CPU can run Cine all cores 6.0Ghz and higher easily.


----------



## asdkj1740

sugi0lover said:


> I see many people having SP bugs on Z690. They usually have very high SP like yours.
> not sure yours is bug or not. To be sure, you gotta check if your CPU can run Cine all cores 6.0Ghz and higher easily.


all p core 6g in r23 ....?


----------



## Arni90

Bruh...








Arni90`s Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate score: 43212 cb with a Core i9 13900K


The Core i9 13900K @ 5900MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate benchmark. Arni90ranks #null worldwide and #null in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




hwbot.org





5.9 GHz


----------



## Nizzen

tootall123 said:


> My 1900k is SP133. P-core 144 and E-core 111
> View attachment 2577272
> 
> View attachment 2577271


SP is bugged on some motherboards. What MB and bios are you using?
SP P-core 145 should run Cinebench r23 @ 6400mhz easy.


----------



## bhav

Gosh how much cooling does 6.0 all cores need?

I was hoping for that when these chips were announced, but don't think even a 420 AIO in open frame could handle that.

I'm not interested in custom loops, delids, laps or LM, will just see what I can do on the arctic 420 and MX5 with a bend corrector.

Ok so maybe I might manage 5.8, but I'm fine with 5.5 all core. Even 5.0 to 5.1 on my 12600k is a huge bump in voltage and temps (1.28 > 1.34 LLC3 needed).


----------



## sugi0lover

asdkj1740 said:


> all p core 6g in r23 ....?


Yes. My P SP 123 can run all p cores 6g in r23 easily. His P SP shows 145, so I expect it can run a lot higher clock easily if it's not a bug sp.
I am not saying he is lying. I see many SP bugs right now, so I suggest another way to check it.
If it's real SP, I really congrats him.


----------



## Arni90

sugi0lover said:


> Yes. My P SP 123 can run all p cores 6g in r23 easily. His P SP shows 145, so I expect it can run a lot higher clock easily if it's not a bug sp.
> I am not saying he is lying. I see many SP bugs right now, so I suggest another way to check it.
> If it's real SP, I really congrats him.


I expect you'll be binning more chips furiously to beat him


----------



## bhav

And then I'll get just 1 chip with SP over 9000 and post 6.2 Ghz at stock volts and have my 4600CL15 G1 back again and win all the benchmarks!!!

Welp, thats the dream.

Maybe I only overclock ram because I can't beat anyones CPU or GPU scores lol.


----------



## sugi0lover

Arni90 said:


> I expect you'll be binning more chips furiously to beat him


About 40 retail 13900K, all P SP were lower than 120.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Remember guys. This game is PAY TO WIN.


----------



## Falkentyne

tootall123 said:


> My 1900k is SP133. P-core 144 and E-core 111
> View attachment 2577272
> 
> View attachment 2577271


Did you have an Alder Lake CPU in this board previously?


----------



## Falkentyne

Arni90 said:


> All right, water temp dropped to 10C since I turn on the fans on my MO-RA3
> 
> Here are two runs back-to-back. The colder-running one was without C-states and P-cores set to 55x locked, the other was complete auto.
> 
> This isn't a clean OS, and running HWiNFO eats a bit of score.


Just like I thought.
The vcore is higher with auto vcore because it has to allow for the x58 ratio limit to be stabilized (no x58 would be stable at 1.128v load), so this isn't an Asus or MSI problem at all, just how SVID has to operate.
When you lock the x55 ratio, the higher V/F is no longer used so the vcore will be lower as it's now based on the x55 VID rather than the x58 VID (Possibly interpolated vcore).


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Ichirou said:


>



See worried for nothing the past couple days.

Mine shipped too!


----------



## Falkentyne

tootall123 said:


> My 1900k is SP133. P-core 144 and E-core 111
> View attachment 2577272
> 
> View attachment 2577271


I know you're going to be mad about this, because no one I've asked to do this has done this. I assume everyone is using custom loops that take 1 hour to take apart and drain now 
But can you please do the following steps exactly as I tell them?

1) Power off and unplug the PSU or turn off the PSU rocker switch in the back of the PSU.
2) Press the clear CMOS button on the rear I/O for 30 seconds continuous. If there is no button and only an onboard jumper, use a spare LN2 jumper block or a screwdriver flathead and short the pins for 30 seconds.
3) Remove the CPU from the socket (do NOT plug in the PSU before doing this).
4) Repeat step #2, do another full 30 second CMOS clear.
5) Reinstall the CPU, do thermal paste work, hook up the PSU again.
6) Boot to BIOS and check the SP value.

Yes I am fully aware, NO ONE wants to do this, but if there's a bug that needs to be fixed, I need some help here.


----------



## Arni90

asdkj1740 said:


> all p core 6g in r23 ....?


That's possible on my chip at least: Arni90`s Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate score: 25225 cb with a Core i9 13900K (8P)


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> Yes I am fully aware, NO ONE wants to do this, but if there's a bug that needs to be fixed, I need some help here.


I mean no one would even check in their MSI bios to see if ram volts can go higher than 1.6v for me so good luck.


----------



## Arni90

bhav said:


> I mean no one would even check in their MSI bios to see if ram volts can go higher than 1.6v for me so good luck.


I could go to 2.2 V on Z690-A PRO DDR4


----------



## acoustic

Arni90 said:


> That's possible on my chip at least: Arni90`s Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate score: 25225 cb with a Core i9 13900K (8P)


Maybe you have a good bin! Congrats


----------



## bhav

Arni90 said:


> I could go to 2.2 V on Z690-A PRO DDR4


Thanks.


----------



## Arni90

acoustic said:


> Maybe you have a good bin! Congrats


It's definitely not as good as sugi0lover, I have colder water and run more voltage


----------



## jeiselramos

Falkentyne said:


> I know you're going to be mad about this, because no one I've asked to do this has done this. I assume everyone is using custom loops that take 1 hour to take apart and drain now
> But can you please do the following steps exactly as I tell them?
> 
> 1) Power off and unplug the PSU or turn off the PSU rocker switch in the back of the PSU.
> 2) Press the clear CMOS button on the rear I/O for 30 seconds continuous. If there is no button and only an onboard jumper, use a spare LN2 jumper block or a screwdriver flathead and short the pins for 30 seconds.
> 3) Remove the CPU from the socket (do NOT plug in the PSU before doing this).
> 4) Repeat step #2, do another full 30 second CMOS clear.
> 5) Reinstall the CPU, do thermal paste work, hook up the PSU again.
> 6) Boot to BIOS and check the SP value.
> 
> Yes I am fully aware, NO ONE wants to do this, but if there's a bug that needs to be fixed, I need some help here.


I'll do that if you want on my z690 apex when my 13900K arrives


----------



## affxct

Genuine question; aren’t we supposed to be opting for 13900KFs because of the KS?


----------



## Nizzen

affxct said:


> Genuine question; aren’t we supposed to be opting for 13900KFs because of the KS?


Why when the lottery is random, no matter K and KF.

It's random to someone proof otherwise


----------



## affxct

Nizzen said:


> Why when the lottery is random, no matter K and KF.
> 
> It's random to someone proof otherwise


But surely Intel can’t bin KF chips?


----------



## bhav

affxct said:


> But surely Intel can’t bin KF chips?


IMO the K and KF are the same bins, just with igpu disabled. I doubt Intel produce enough chips with faulty igpu to provide enough stock for the KFs. And if a KF does have faulty igpu, other parts of the silicon might be worse as well (MY PRECIOUS IMC!)


----------



## snakeeyes111

Intel hates me.... ^^


----------



## bhav

So it does seem that 13900ks are not all golden bin like I thought they would be (lesser silicon for 13700k I thought).

KS chips are never worth it.


----------



## adolf512

affxct said:


> Genuine question; aren’t we supposed to be opting for 13900KFs because of the KS?


I did go for 13900KF partly for that reason but we don't really know if the 13900KF actually overclocks better on average yet. 






13900KF vs 13700KF vs 7950x vs 7700x vs 5800x3d


Is alder lake better for gaming? Obviously raptor lake will beat AMD at least in gaming but what about the older alder lake? https://www.techspot.com/review/2535-amd-ryzen-7950x/ Anandtech did not make an aggregate so i will have to take the geometric mean myself (5% low) 12900K: 141.63...



vintologi.com


----------



## affxct

The plot thickens I guess. I dunno if the 13700KF is a bad idea then.


----------



## Falkentyne

snakeeyes111 said:


> View attachment 2577284
> 
> 
> Intel hates me.... ^^


If that's a Z790 board, or reading accurately on Z690, your P core SP is above average.
70% of chips have a total SP of 100 and below, which is usually a P core SP of 105 and lower. Yours is above average, why are you complaining?
Quick and dirty test if you're on a 360 AIO and better:

Set Sync all P cores to x57. E cores to x44, Ring to x47.
Vcore to 1.320v set + LLC level 6 (goal: pass BELOW 1.350v bios set + LLC level 6, = 1.243v load), Load vcore will be 1.217.

Loop Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes (one loop should be over 42,000 CB).
If you pass, congratulations on an above average chip.

Every 10 points of E core lower SP drives the total SP about 3-4 points lower. So if your E core SP were 96, that chip would be total SP 106-SP 108.

_Edit_ if you pass this test, (1.320v BIOS set to 1.340v set + LLC level 6), set your E cores to x45 and try again, to see if your E cores are limiting you.


----------



## snakeeyes111

It was just joke. E-cores bad, pcores good 

Ecores 45x limit for r23

Pcores 57 @ 1.217v no loop just one run


----------



## Falkentyne

snakeeyes111 said:


> It was just joke. E-cores bad, pcores good
> 
> Ecores 45x limit for r23
> 
> Pcores 57 @ 1.217v no loop just one run


Can you try looping it for 30 minutes?  Pretty please? Don't worry I'm studying chess on Stockfish, I won't be going anywhere.


----------



## snakeeyes111

Later, running 6.2 SC atm


----------



## snakeeyes111

Wont work. Reach Templimit after a few rounds.


----------



## newls1

how is this r23 with my 13900?


----------



## Falkentyne

snakeeyes111 said:


> Wont work. Reach Templimit after a few rounds.


Oof. What cooler are you using?
I reach 96C after 30 minutes at 1.335v bios set + LLC6 (SP113 P cores). Liquid Freezer II 360 with liquid metal on the IHS (not delidded), 26C ambient temp.


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> how is this r23 with my 13900?
> View attachment 2577296


Update your HWinfo64.
That version is ancient.
You should have a VR VOUT sensor present which will show accurate vcore (similar to Asus).
Other than that that's very good cooling. You should be able to do 5.8 ghz without a problem.


----------



## bxbuki

bhav said:


> Gosh how much cooling does 6.0 all cores need?
> 
> I was hoping for that when these chips were announced, but don't think even a 420 AIO in open frame could handle that.
> 
> I'm not interested in custom loops, delids, laps or LM, will just see what I can do on the arctic 420 and MX5 with a bend corrector.
> 
> Ok so maybe I might manage 5.8, but I'm fine with 5.5 all core. Even 5.0 to 5.1 on my 12600k is a huge bump in voltage and temps (1.28 > 1.34 LLC3 needed).


mx5 is bad i compared with gelid gc extreme on my 12600k its 5-7c better arctic 360


----------



## bhav

bxbuki said:


> mx5 is bad i compared with gelid gc extreme on my 12600k its 5-7c better


I can't see that in any reviews though, they are mostly the same.

Just that the cooler comes with a small tube of MX5, so I'll use that on the main build, and use the big tube of MX4 I still have on the other builds.


----------



## kaTus

13900K SP104 / PCores 113/ECores 88


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> Update your HWinfo64.
> That version is ancient.
> You should have a VR VOUT sensor present which will show accurate vcore (similar to Asus).
> Other than that that's very good cooling. You should be able to do 5.8 ghz without a problem.


shoot, i had no idea my version was out of date. I will find the latest version sunday when I get back home from work. Thank you! Also, you really think i have a shot @ 5.8 all core @ 1.350v??Ill certainly try it, but i did not yet cause I didnt want to get my hopes up and get disappointed LOL! My cooling is a direct die waterblock (Supercool) with LM. This CPU does run 6-7c hotter then the 12900ks though, that cpu would idle @ 19-21c and this once idles 26-27c... no idea why?! Might have to see if a remount and redue of LM application makes any difference but removing this waterblock IS A HUGE PITA and takes FOREVER..


----------



## Codiee1337

13900KF (Currently under OC)


----------



## Talon2016

Got an SP 106 and SP99. SP99 is going back to Microcenter seeing as most chips are above 100 from what I'm seeing.


----------



## Ichirou

Talon2016 said:


> Got an SP 106 and SP99. SP99 is going back to Microcenter seeing as most chips are above 100 from what I'm seeing.


Honestly, test it first. The SP score is only a rough estimate based on VIDs, which may or may not be accurately estimated by Intel.
See what it can achieve first. You have it in your hands anyway.


----------



## Falkentyne

Talon2016 said:


> Got an SP 106 and SP99. SP99 is going back to Microcenter seeing as most chips are above 100 from what I'm seeing.


Test your chips first.
Start on 5.7 ghz P cores, 4.5 ghz E cores, 4.7 ghz cache.
Start on 1.300v bios set, LLC 6 (Asus), Mode 3 (MSI), Turbo (Gigabyte), they should be similar resistance.
Use newest hwinfo64 so you can get VR VOUT readings if it's not an Asus board.
Then you want to loop Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes without a WHEA error (the skylake errors are back) or BSOD.
If you crash, raise vcore by 10mv and try again.

Record the minimum set vcore you need to pass 30min then return the worst chip (and tell us what your findings are, for science, please).

Of course if a chip passes right away, then lower by 10mv.


----------



## acoustic

SKYLAKE WHEA ERRORS ARE BACK?

Oh **** no. Please god no..


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> SKYLAKE WHEA ERRORS ARE BACK?
> 
> Oh **** no. Please god no..


Don't worry. They actually do something this time.
Remember there were various structure changes with Raptor Lake internally.

They tell you if you yeeted the clock speeds and didn't use enough voltage.

You don't get L0 or Parity Errors unless you're truly unstable.
If you get a CPU Translation Lookaside Buffer Error or a L0 error, you're really lucky that didn't turn into a Clock Watchdog Timeout.

The first errors that may appear are PCIE Bus errors. These can be mitigated by raising VCCIN (CPU Aux voltage), up to 1.860v.

Once you find your absolute minimum vMin, you can gain about 5 or 10mv more by raising CPU PLL Trim Voltage to 0.975v (+75mv offset on Gigabyte boards).
Do not confuse this with VCC SFR (PLL Termination) which starts at 1.050v.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Don't worry. They actually do something this time.
> Remember there were various structure changes with Raptor Lake internally.
> 
> They tell you if you yeeted the clock speeds and didn't use enough voltage.
> 
> You don't get L0 or Parity Errors unless you're truly unstable.
> If you get a CPU Translation Lookaside Buffer Error or a L0 error, you're really lucky that didn't turn into a Clock Watchdog Timeout.
> 
> The first errors that may appear are PCIE Bus errors. These can be mitigated by raising VCCIN (CPU Aux voltage), up to 1.860v.
> 
> Once you find your absolute minimum vMin, you can gain about 5 or 10mv more by raising CPU PLL Trim Voltage to 0.975v (+75mv offset on Gigabyte boards).
> Do not confuse this with VCC SFR (PLL Termination) which starts at 1.050v.


^ This.
WHEA errors are kind of like early warnings indicating low voltage.
If there aren't a _ton of them (like one or two), _you might be able to get away with just ignoring them to keep the Vcore lower, since the OS does know how to correct them.
But if you're bombarded with dozens, that's a clear indication that you gotta bump it up.
One of the biggest culprits of WHEA errors tends to be too high cache/ring clock, so sometimes it might be better to dial it down to rule it out as a culprit first.


----------



## nirurin

I don't know how easy it is to do, but would someone be able to do a 'low power' test, and say what their cinebench run score is when limited to around 165watts? 

I know there's some big numbers in this thread, but looking close at the pictures they also seem to be sucking down 340+ watts, not something I'd plan to do irl


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> Don't worry. They actually do something this time.
> Remember there were various structure changes with Raptor Lake internally.
> 
> They tell you if you yeeted the clock speeds and didn't use enough voltage.
> 
> You don't get L0 or Parity Errors unless you're truly unstable.
> If you get a CPU Translation Lookaside Buffer Error or a L0 error, you're really lucky that didn't turn into a Clock Watchdog Timeout.
> 
> The first errors that may appear are PCIE Bus errors. These can be mitigated by raising VCCIN (CPU Aux voltage), up to 1.860v.
> 
> Once you find your absolute minimum vMin, you can gain about 5 or 10mv more by raising CPU PLL Trim Voltage to 0.975v (+75mv offset on Gigabyte boards).
> Do not confuse this with VCC SFR (PLL Termination) which starts at 1.050v.


Falk..

You know how hard I fought with the 10900K and Metro Exodus. I hear "Skylake WHEA is back" and I about had a ****ing heartattack LOL!


----------



## owikh84

13900K SP101 (P110/E83)
Batch X235J860


----------



## Codiee1337

Falkentyne said:


> Test your chips first.
> Start on 5.7 ghz P cores, 4.5 ghz E cores, 4.7 ghz cache.
> Start on 1.300v bios set, LLC 6 (Asus), Mode 3 (MSI), Turbo (Gigabyte), they should be similar resistance.
> Use newest hwinfo64 so you can get VR VOUT readings if it's not an Asus board.
> Then you want to loop Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes without a WHEA error (the skylake errors are back) or BSOD.
> If you crash, raise vcore by 10mv and try again.
> 
> Record the minimum set vcore you need to pass 30min then return the worst chip (and tell us what your findings are, for science, please).
> 
> Of course if a chip passes right away, then lower by 10mv.


**** my life... This is so boring to watch XD

103 SP (112 P, 85 E)


----------



## Ichirou

Codiee1337 said:


> **** my life... This is so boring to watch XD
> 
> 103 SP (112 P, 85 E)
> 
> View attachment 2577341
> View attachment 2577342


That's why you have another PC or phone to use while the benchmarks are going on


----------



## Codiee1337

Ichirou said:


> That's why you have another PC or phone to use while the benchmarks are going on


I’m listening to Futurama and browsing reddit on my phone lol. But its still boring to wait for a fail u know.. Or a WHEA T_T


----------



## bhav

Codiee1337 said:


> I’m listening to Futurama and browsing reddit on my phone lol. But its still boring to wait for a fail u know.. Or a WHEA T_T


Try having to test ram OCs with hours of memtest.


----------



## Codiee1337

Codiee1337 said:


> I’m listening to Futurama and browsing reddit on my phone lol. But its still boring to wait for a fail u know.. Or a WHEA T_T





Codiee1337 said:


> **** my life... This is so boring to watch XD
> 
> 103 SP (112 P, 85 E)
> 
> View attachment 2577341
> View attachment 2577342


Do you guys have any idea for lowering temps?
360mm CORSAIR AIO, with contact frame.
Besides lowering Vcore, or it is what it is?


----------



## bhav

Codiee1337 said:


> Do you guys have any idea for lowering temps?
> 360mm CORSAIR AIO, with contact frame.
> Besides lowering Vcore, or it is what it is?


Undervolt? Lap? Delid? Arctic AIO instead? Liquid metal? Open frame case?

Oh, faster louder fans!


----------



## Codiee1337

bhav said:


> Undervolt? Lap? Delid? Arctic AIO instead? Liquid metal? Open frame case?
> 
> Oh, faster louder fans!


Fans maxed out, 1.335 gives WHEA errors, 1.345 is fine.
Delid mybe(?)

Arctic? LOL is Arctic 360mm better than Corsair and NZXT? ***? 
LM Can be an option.
(For now I don't want to delid, this processor isn't mine, this is my brothers, I'll get mine around December, probably gonna get a **** one -.-")


----------



## tps3443

sugi0lover said:


> About 40 retail 13900K, all P SP were lower than 120.


And here I am excited about just getting my single pre ordered 13900KF tomorrow.

Thats okay though. I gotta Mora3 sized rad, 1/2 horse chiller, Optimus Signature V2 Nickel block ready as backup.


----------



## Talon2016

Falkentyne said:


> Test your chips first.
> Start on 5.7 ghz P cores, 4.5 ghz E cores, 4.7 ghz cache.
> Start on 1.300v bios set, LLC 6 (Asus), Mode 3 (MSI), Turbo (Gigabyte), they should be similar resistance.
> Use newest hwinfo64 so you can get VR VOUT readings if it's not an Asus board.
> Then you want to loop Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes without a WHEA error (the skylake errors are back) or BSOD.
> If you crash, raise vcore by 10mv and try again.
> 
> Record the minimum set vcore you need to pass 30min then return the worst chip (and tell us what your findings are, for science, please).
> 
> Of course if a chip passes right away, then lower by 10mv.


Even CPUZ was enough to crash it at 1.3v LLC6.

Not even 1.35v would pass CB23. 1.375v immediately throttles.

I’ll keep the SP106 chip but RIP the other chip. Should have been tossed in the 13850K pile.


----------



## bhav

Codiee1337 said:


> Fans maxed out, 1.335 gives WHEA errors, 1.345 is fine.
> Delid mybe(?)
> 
> Arctic? LOL is Arctic 360mm better than Corsair and NZXT? ***?
> LM Can be an option.
> (For now I don't want to delid, this processor isn't mine, this is my brothers, I'll get mine around December, probably gonna get a **** one -.-")


Do you check reviews? Corsair AIOs perform the worst. Arctic Freezer 2 is usually the best.

Hmmm well, arctic 420 is better than corsair 420.

Corsair 360 is better than arctic 360 from checking a few reviews.

So new case and arctic 420!

Or a custom loop.


----------



## Falkentyne

Codiee1337 said:


> **** my life... This is so boring to watch XD
> 
> 103 SP (112 P, 85 E)
> 
> View attachment 2577341
> View attachment 2577342


1.252v load.
This looks like you tried 1.360v bios set, LLC6 in this particular test?

Because 1.355v bios set "should" give fluctuating 1.243-1.252v back and forth load with 1.243v as minimum. But you minimized out at 1.252v.
You are stable but this vcore (1.252v load) is beyond the limit of a 360 AIO at 5.7 ghz.

_HOWEVER_ the difference in vdroop could also be attributed to me using tweaked RAM timings ,like TRRD_L / _S=4 and tFAW=16, which speeds up AVX2 instructions (especially gflops in Linpack/LinX). I assume you're at XMP, but hard to say (if you can confirm). Because 255 amps looks like 1.360v set, just let me know, doesn't matter that much 

So you said 1.345v passed? That's about on point for your SP, almost exactly (I get similar results).
You can safely use 1.345v as your max game stable set vcore and 5.7 for frequency because no games will get this hot on your system. This will also pass Minecraft with flying colors.


----------



## Falkentyne

Talon2016 said:


> Even CPUZ was enough to crash it at 1.3v LLC6.
> 
> Not even 1.35v would pass CB23. 1.375v immediately throttles.
> 
> I’ll keep the SP106 chip but RIP the other chip. Should have been tossed in the 13850K pile.


Nice work. This is exactly in line with what I saw on the Quazarzone binning live stream test on launch day (they do this every launch).
They had an SP 11X (? maybe it was 109 or 113 I forgot) CPU (unknown P core SP) "almost" pass 4 loops of R23 at 5.7 ghz, 1.240v set, LLC7, before R23 crashed on the 4th loop. (I did for comparison with my SP 106, 4 loops at 1.270v set, as they would have passed at 1.250v set, but they didn't do any more tests.

Their 5.6 ghz test with that CPU passed 3 loops (out of 3) at 1.20v set + LLC7, but crashed on the third loop at 1.18v set LLC7. Mine BSOD'd at 1.20v set LLC7 on the third loop and passed three at 1.22v.

Then they tried a SP 103 CPU at 1.240v set LLC7 at 5.7 ghz (the same setting where the higher SP CPU "almost" finished 4 loops, and it was an insta-crash (R23 just stopped rendering in 1 second).


----------



## don1376

I did this on my 13900k I received today. 57P,45E,47R @ 1.3v LLC3 (DC_LL 35). VR OUT during tests showed 1.272v and Core VIDS showed 1.275v across all P and E cores and max temp reported by HWinfo was 94c. Unify X. What would you roughly estimate my SP rating to be around?

Edit: some reason my quote didn't post. It was the 30 min R23 test.


----------



## HyperC

Maybe I missed this before but I know my 12600k never showed mixed fused ratios shows P4 and P5 fuse max core ratios higher @54 others @53


----------



## johnksss

Here is my crappy try at it. lol Memory is stock.









My Shamancy memory over clock!🤦‍♂️Epic Fail!😄


----------



## bhav

Oh one thing i found with my 12600k was that higher base voltage on LLC3 gave lower temps than lower voltage on the higher settings.


----------



## Ichirou

johnksss said:


> Here is my crappy try at it. lol Memory is stock.
> View attachment 2577345
> 
> 
> My Shamancy memory over clock!🤦‍♂️Epic Fail!😄
> View attachment 2577352
> 
> 😄


Temps?


----------



## johnksss

Ichirou said:


> Temps?


Right there in the picture....


----------



## Ichirou

johnksss said:


> Right there in the picture....





johnksss said:


> Right there in the picture....


Anywhere from 86-97C on the worst core?
Custom water loop, or some Arctic 420?


----------



## johnksss

Ichirou said:


> Anywhere from 86-97C on the worst core?
> Custom water loop, or some Arctic 420?


My setup is in my signature...
MSI MEG Z690 Unify-X ~ 13900K ~ Hydro Copper ~ EVGA 3090 K|ngP|n (Zotac 4090)~ G.Skill Trident Z5 6400 Mhz ~ Samsung 980 Pro ~ 1650W Thermaltake GF3 ~ AACH100HP Hydroponic Water Chiller ~ Praxis Wet Bench Flat.

I'm just going with I have a crappy sample when it comes to low voltage and call it a day.

I check voltages and they do not match Hwinfo vs CPUZ so I have no clue who is lying or telling the truth. Watts do not match and nor does the temps.
Water temp is 18C right now.


----------



## nickolp1974

so thinking of delidding, i know i will get lower temps but is there a way i can check that it will reach a higher frequency beforehand? My KS still couldn't reach to the next freq bin with a delid so its put me off a bit. That had such a wall at 5.4ghz.

currently at for R23 5.8 1.39v set, 1.271 load LLC6 temp 85c, tried 5.9ghz at 1.44v, crashed 75% through test at 93c. Is it ok to go to TJmax for quick run??


----------



## Falkentyne

johnksss said:


> My setup is in my signature...
> MSI MEG Z690 Unify-X ~ 13900K ~ Hydro Copper ~ EVGA 3090 K|ngP|n (Zotac 4090)~ G.Skill Trident Z5 6400 Mhz ~ Samsung 980 Pro ~ 1650W Thermaltake GF3 ~ AACH100HP Hydroponic Water Chiller ~ Praxis Wet Bench Flat.
> 
> I'm just going with I have a crappy sample when it comes to low voltage and call it a day.
> 
> I check voltages and they do not match Hwinfo vs CPUZ so I have no clue who is lying or telling the truth. Watts do not match and nor does the temps.
> Water temp is 18C right now.


CPU Package Power is Amps * VID. VID doesn't match vcore when you use manual vcore, or when the "DC Loadline" mohms value doesn't match the LLC (Mode) mohms value when on adaptive or auto vcore. I don't have the MSI steps but Mode 3 should be somewhere close to LLC6 on Asus, which is about 0.48 mOhms. I don't know if MSI exposes the AC and DC Loadline values (AC Loadline influences the base VID on auto or adaptive modes, an AC Loadline of 1.1 mohms could give you 1.58v idle, while an ACLL of 0.01 mOhms could give you the CPU's native VID (subtracted what DC Loadline * Amps reduces the final VID reported in windows to).

AC and DCLL both set to 0.01 mOhms will give you the CPU's native VID.

If VID is higher than actual true vcore (not what you see on sensors), package power will be higher than expected.
I believe HWinfo newest builds have support for VR VOUT on Unify-X, but I'm not sure how accurate their VR VOUT is. But you have to use VCC_Sense in BIOS I think, for that to be accurate, I'm pretty sure, I don't have that board.


----------



## GQNerd

Waiting on Z790 board.. at least I can still check SP on this 690 PrimeA:

sp 106, p 116, e 88

Not too shabby


----------



## tibcsi0407

RobertoSampaio said:


> Sp113... And using an AF-2 420mm


Thank you! Could you please post a screenshot from the last minute of a 10 minutes stress from CB23 with Hwinfo values?


----------



## sugi0lover

Here is the quick SP comparison bet Z690 and Z790 with the same 13900K, SP the same.
But I see SP bug occasionally on Z690.



Spoiler: SP Comparison



[Z690, SP104 / P-SP 115 / E-SP 83]









[Z790, SP104 / P-SP 115 / E-SP 83]


----------



## Nizzen

Miguelios said:


> Waiting on Z790 board.. at least I can still check SP on this 690 PrimeA:
> 
> sp 106, p 116, e 88
> 
> Not too shabby
> 
> View attachment 2577359


K o kf?


----------



## sugi0lover

Nizzen said:


> K o kf?


13900K


----------



## tubs2x4

Miguelios said:


> Waiting on Z790 board.. at least I can still check SP on this 690 PrimeA:
> 
> sp 106, p 116, e 88
> 
> Not too shabby
> 
> View attachment 2577359


so your 4 dimm prime-a does 6600 stable?


----------



## Ichirou

sugi0lover said:


> Here is the quick SP comparison bet Z690 and Z790 with the same 13900K, SP the same.
> But I see SP bug occasionally on Z690.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: SP Comparison
> 
> 
> 
> [Z690, SP104 / P-SP 115 / E-SP 83]
> View attachment 2577361
> 
> 
> [Z790, SP104 / P-SP 115 / E-SP 83]
> View attachment 2577362


What BIOS, my friend?


----------



## sniperpowa

My dark board is falling apart from all the ln2 and asus took my apex and refunded me after 3 bad boards. So I broke out a z690 formula very impressed with raptor lake on watercooling and little tune. I just need a 2 dimmer! NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-13900K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG MAXIMUS Z690 FORMULA (3dmark.com)


----------



## sugi0lover

Ichirou said:


> What BIOS, my friend?


Z690 apex bios 2103


----------



## Slackaveli

Jealous. My Unify-x is updated and ready to rock. What are you Unify-X z690 guys getting on the 6400 gskill m-die kit on Raptor?


----------



## GQNerd

tubs2x4 said:


> so your 4 dimm prime-a does 6600 stable?


Running 2x16GB, but yes.. 

** On latest BIOS and w/13900k... previous stable on this board with 12900k was 6400


----------



## tootall123

Falkentyne said:


> I know you're going to be mad about this, because no one I've asked to do this has done this. I assume everyone is using custom loops that take 1 hour to take apart and drain now
> But can you please do the following steps exactly as I tell them?
> 
> 1) Power off and unplug the PSU or turn off the PSU rocker switch in the back of the PSU.
> 2) Press the clear CMOS button on the rear I/O for 30 seconds continuous. If there is no button and only an onboard jumper, use a spare LN2 jumper block or a screwdriver flathead and short the pins for 30 seconds.
> 3) Remove the CPU from the socket (do NOT plug in the PSU before doing this).
> 4) Repeat step #2, do another full 30 second CMOS clear.
> 5) Reinstall the CPU, do thermal paste work, hook up the PSU again.
> 6) Boot to BIOS and check the SP value.
> 
> Yes I am fully aware, NO ONE wants to do this, but if there's a bug that needs to be fixed, I need some help here.


No problem,I need to try reseating the cpu anyway as I’m having issues getting xmp to work at the moment. Z690i Strix MIT


----------



## tootall123

P - 144
E - 110

after reseating.

using 2103 bios


----------



## nickolp1974

When delidding how long would you leave a hairdryer on the CPU for??


----------



## Netarangi

Asus TUF z690 d4
NZXT Kraken x73 
ddr4 b die, mostly stock at the moment since I updated bios

VCore 1.33 bios

Pls guide me on what I can change


----------



## newls1

Slackaveli said:


> Jealous. My Unify-x is updated and ready to rock. What are you Unify-X z690 guys getting on the 6400 gskill m-die kit on Raptor?


currently @ 7000MHz @ 32/40/40/28 @ 1.510v with the 13900k. the 12900ks couldnt even post @ 6933, non the less post @ 7000. The mem controller in 13th gen seems pretty good!


----------



## newls1

nickolp1974 said:


> When delidding how long would you leave a hairdryer on the CPU for??


i used a heatgun not a hair drier so my heat is a little more intense, but i kept my heatgun on the IHS till I couldnt hold it anymore then tossed it into the delid tool and did my business. done it 2 times now with 100% success.


----------



## nickolp1974

are there any OC tools that work in the OS?? the intel tool controls tab wont work


----------



## bhav

I've seen a bunch of results from people with different clocks running per core, never knew you could do that, is that with separate multiplier set per core?

So might I be able to leave all cores at stock and overclock just one so t least the main core is overclocked for games with weak multithread optimization?

If I remember,, XTU lets you change the primary cores too.


----------



## newls1

5.7 and 5.8GHz all core overclock people in here... what Vcore are you needing?


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

Hey guys

My 13700KF Cpu force 2 is = 163 on unify X

How is RPL force rating in z690 msi platform 13900K's 13700K's
i think i have trash chip


----------



## nickolp1974

newls1 said:


> 5.7 and 5.8GHz all core overclock people in here... what Vcore are you needing?


R23 1.39v set LLC6 1.271v load x58 x46e x45c


----------



## sgru

Is it worth going to Z790 to get better mem clocks? To me it appears it's only down to the mem controller on the CPU.


----------



## kill_a_wat

newls1 said:


> 5.7 and 5.8GHz all core overclock people in here... what Vcore are you needing?


For 5.7Ghz R23 I run 1.31v LLC6, x57 (P core) x46 (E core) x51 (Ring)


----------



## don1376

don1376 said:


> I did this on my 13900k I received today. 57P,45E,47R @ 1.3v LLC3 (DC_LL 35). VR OUT during tests showed 1.272v and Core VIDS showed 1.275v across all P and E cores and max temp reported by HWinfo was 94c. Unify X. What would you roughly estimate my SP rating to be around?
> 
> Edit: some reason my quote didn't post. It was the 30 min R23 test.


Bump, anyone have a rough guess what my sp rating would be around. Thinking of trying to lower cpu volts by 10mv and see if will pass 30 min loop again.


----------



## bhav

So I'm still confused about AIO reviews, why is the Arctic 420 performing the best out of the 420s, but their 360 is worse than other 360s?

In particular, the corsair 420 sees hardly any gains over their own 280 and 360 AIOs ( I already have the corsair 280 in my lian li case).


----------



## toncij

bhav said:


> So I'm still confused about AIO reviews, why is the Arctic 420 performing the best out of the 420s, but their 360 is worse than other 360s?
> 
> In particular, the corsair 420 sees hardly any gains over their own 280 and 360 AIOs ( I already have the corsair 280 in my lian li case).


is there at all any benefit going 420 over 360?


----------



## don1376

�




Falkentyne said:


> Test your chips first.
> Start on 5.7 ghz P cores, 4.5 ghz E cores, 4.7 ghz cache.
> Start on 1.300v bios set, LLC 6 (Asus), Mode 3 (MSI), Turbo (Gigabyte), they should be similar resistance.
> Use newest hwinfo64 so you can get VR VOUT readings if it's not an Asus board.
> Then you want to loop Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes without a WHEA error (the skylake errors are back) or BSOD.
> If you crash, raise vcore by 10mv and try again.
> 
> Record the minimum set vcore you need to pass 30min then return the worst chip (and tell us what your findings are, for science, please).
> 
> Of course if a chip passes right away, then lower by 10mv.


Rerunning this test now at 1.28v set in bios, LLC Mode 3 (DC_LL 35 Unify X). 5 mins into it so far. HWinfo shows VR OUT @ 1.253 and core VIDS @ 1.255 across all P and E cores. max temp 92c. Now almost 10 mins into test. Wish I knew SP rating on this CPU. Has to be pretty good.

GB3 is up to 114076 mulicore from 85669 with 12900k, and thats before final cpu OC and ram running at XMP.

Edit: My CPU Force rating is 153. 13900k


----------



## affxct

bhav said:


> So I'm still confused about AIO reviews, why is the Arctic 420 performing the best out of the 420s, but their 360 is worse than other 360s?
> 
> In particular, the corsair 420 sees hardly any gains over their own 280 and 360 AIOs ( I already have the corsair 280 in my lian li case).


That’s good to hear. Kinda relieved.


----------



## bhav

toncij said:


> is there at all any benefit going 420 over 360?


Only with the Arctic









The Arctic Cooling Liquid Freezer II 240 & 420 AIO Coolers Review: Big and Effective







www.anandtech.com





Its somehow the best AIO.

No other brand has reached that much improvement between 360 and 420. It also comes with fans that go up to 3000RPM, the only issue might be finding another 3 of those fans for push / pull which I would like to do if it fits.

For 360 and less the arctic ones aren't as good as others.

Well actually that one review shows the arctic 240 on par with the Corsair 420. Other ones don't though, but every review so far of the Arctic 420 puts it in top spot.


----------



## SoLdieR9312

Maximus Z790 Hero Bios 0502
i9-13900k SP99 P109 E80


----------



## phillyman36

Anyone using a Noctua d15 with a 13900k? I'm not going to overclock, just gaming and some handbrake/non professional video editing/dvd burning. Do I really need an aio or do you think the d15 will throttle?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I must say my first settings in Gear1 was Full unstable, i have take the time and my first daily is finished.
Perhaps interesting for people with DDR4.
P.S.
Latency is bad because of Aquasuit software is runing.


----------



## don1376

phillyman36 said:


> Anyone using a Noctua d15 with a 13900k? I'm not going to overclock, just gaming and some handbrake/non professional video editing/dvd burning. Do I really need an aio or do you think the d15 will throttle?


Believe thats going to depend on quality of chip you get.


----------



## Ichirou

PhoenixMDA said:


> I must say my first settings in Gear1 was Full unstable, i have take the time and my first daily is finished.
> Perhaps interesting for people with DDR4.
> P.S.
> Latency is bad because of Aquasuit software is runing.
> 
> View attachment 2577435


Nice! 4,300 MHz at 1.31V VCCSA.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Nice! 4,300 MHz at 1.31V VCCSA.


Is it just 12th and 13th gen needing this much VCCSA?

My 10900k did 4200 on about 1.2, and 4600 on 1.28.


----------



## morph.

I'm finally back online scored an SP101 chip this time round....!
Quick look with previous posts plenty of 100+ SP chips this time...


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Is it just 12th and 13th gen needing this much VCCSA?
> 
> My 10900k did 4200 on about 1.2, and 4600 on 1.28.


Gen 12/13 is incomparable to all previous generations. 

On Gear 2, you dont need to bin the DDR4 IMC since pretty much every chip can do 5,000+ MHz. Gear 1 is where the difficulty lies. 


morph. said:


> I'm finally back online scored an SP101 chip this time round....!
> Quick look with previous posts plenty of 100+ SP chips this time...


Yeah, only SP 110+ is golden. SP 100+ is just above average.


----------



## Raphie

So does the IMC yield further than the 12900K(s) ? I'm at 6800Mhz with my Gskill Z5 6400 on Unify-X, not sure if worth the upgrade?


----------



## bass junkie xl

Ichirou said:


> Nice! 4,300 MHz at 1.31V VCCSA.


damn ! has anyone tried 4400 cl @ anything in dual rank / single rank yet ?


----------



## tubs2x4

Miguelios said:


> Running 2x16GB, but yes..
> 
> ** On latest BIOS and w/13900k... previous stable on this board with 12900k was 6400


Good to know. Thx


----------



## Ichirou

Raphie said:


> So does the IMC yield further than the 12900K(s) ? I'm at 6800Mhz with my Gskill Z5 6400 on Unify-X, not sure if worth the upgrade?


Test the Unify-X out first before testing an upgrade.


----------



## Raphie

Can boot and AIDA 7000, but not stable (yet) though. (testing at 1.46v)


----------



## affxct

Raphie said:


> So does the IMC yield further than the 12900K(s) ? I'm at 6800Mhz with my Gskill Z5 6400 on Unify-X, not sure if worth the upgrade?


So here’s the thing. It seems that it’s a lot harder to set IMC settings on 13th-Gen (or perhaps we just don’t have the necessary test data), but the goal would be to at least match your ADL RAM settings, or perhaps best them by around 200MT/s. From some testing I’ve observed, I can only deduce that RPL has some meaningful IPC improvements. The architecture itself is so lightning fast that you don’t need to extract performance from faster RAM. As long as you can do 6800-7000, even a 13700K should be a very respectable upgrade. With that said, it depends how much you can sell your 12900KS for.


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> So here’s the thing. It seems that it’s a lot harder to set IMC settings on 13th-Gen (or perhaps we just don’t have the necessary test data), but the goal would be to at least match your ADL RAM settings, or perhaps best them by around 200MT/s. From some testing I’ve observed, I can only deduce that RPL has some meaningful IPC improvements. The architecture itself is so lightning fast that you don’t need to extract performance from faster RAM. As long as you can do 6800-7000, even a 13700K should be a very respectable upgrade. With that said, it depends how much you can sell your 12900KS for.


Well said. The improvement in the cores and quantity of them alone is a huge performance improvement even if you kept the same RAM settings as before on ADL.


----------



## bhav

bass junkie xl said:


> damn ! has anyone tried 4400 cl @ anything in dual rank / single rank yet ?


Just 1 person on XS claimed they have 4400 G1 on 12900k, and then their screenshots didn't work.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Just 1 person on XS claimed they have 4400 G1 on 12900k, and then their screenshots didn't work.


It's probably the same Korean who posted about it a few times on Reddit. He had an average chip. It was just the golden IMC that was worth mentioning which could stabilize 4,400 MHz. But that's a 1 in 100,000 chip.


----------



## newls1

kill_a_wat said:


> For 5.7Ghz R23 I run 1.31v LLC6, x57 (P core) x46 (E core) x51 (Ring)


51 Ring HOLY COW


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> It's probably the same Korean who posted about it a few times on Reddit. He had an average chip. It was just the golden IMC that was worth mentioning which could stabilize 4,400 MHz. But that's a 1 in 100,000 chip.


Location USA, OMG there are two people in the world with 4400G1 on 12900k!


----------



## tps3443

johnksss said:


> My setup is in my signature...
> MSI MEG Z690 Unify-X ~ 13900K ~ Hydro Copper ~ EVGA 3090 K|ngP|n (Zotac 4090)~ G.Skill Trident Z5 6400 Mhz ~ Samsung 980 Pro ~ 1650W Thermaltake GF3 ~ AACH100HP Hydroponic Water Chiller ~ Praxis Wet Bench Flat.
> 
> I'm just going with I have a crappy sample when it comes to low voltage and call it a day.
> 
> I check voltages and they do not match Hwinfo vs CPUZ so I have no clue who is lying or telling the truth. Watts do not match and nor does the temps.
> Water temp is 18C right now.


Mines out for delivery. I’m in the final count down.

Also, you have a 1HP chiller? Very nice. Is it much louder than the 1/2hp?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Location USA, OMG there are two people in the world with 4400G1 on 12900k!


Well, there are probably several hundred thousand 12th Gen chips in the wild now. 1 out of 100,000 is quite a low percentage. If we were to consider the number of chips that everyday joes have which _could_ run 4,400+ Gear 1 but they are simply unaware of it/never tried/just use XMP, then it might be more like 1 out of 1,000 instead.


----------



## newls1

Raphie said:


> So does the IMC yield further than the 12900K(s) ? I'm at 6800Mhz with my Gskill Z5 6400 on Unify-X, not sure if worth the upgrade?


YES


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Well, there are probably several hundred thousand 12th Gen chips in the wild now. 1 out of 100,000 is quite a low percentage. If we were to consider the number of chips that everyday joes have which _could_ run 4,400+ Gear 1 but they are simply unaware of it/never tried/just use XMP, then it might be more like 1 out of 1,000 instead.


Did you get your 13900K yet?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Did you get your 13900K yet?


It's in the mail, slated for Monday I believe.
You betcha I'm going to test the Hell out of it.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> It's in the mail, slated for Monday I believe.
> You betcha I'm going to test the Hell out of it.


So you guys in Canada were only like 1-2 days behind us. That’s great. I think the only people waiting were the ones who decided to buy online on day 1 Launch. After reading reviews and all that.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> So you guys in Canada were only like 1-2 days behind us. That’s great. I think the only people waiting were the ones who decided to buy online on day 1 Launch. After reading reviews and all that.


Are you sticking with DDR4? Or jumping on the DDR5 train?
If not for the need of 64 GB for work, I might've ditched DDR4 as well.


----------



## Slackaveli

newls1 said:


> currently @ 7000MHz @ 32/40/40/28 @ 1.510v with the 13900k. the 12900ks couldnt even post @ 6933, non the less post @ 7000. The mem controller in 13th gen seems pretty good!


Awesome! Thanks for the reply. It seems that the IMC was indeed the wall preventing 7000 for me as well. Although it does appear that it is the virtual limit of m-die as well. Works for me but I'll snag one of the A-die kits at some point.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Are you sticking with DDR4? Or jumping on the DDR5 train?
> If not for the need of 64 GB for work, I might've ditched DDR4 as well.


I already have DDR5 6000 that I can run today with my 13900KF temporarily. And I actually ordered some DDR5 7200 Hynix-A die last night for long term use overclocking.

I never ran 12th Gen, only 10/11th Gen.


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> Is it just 12th and 13th gen needing this much VCCSA?
> 
> My 10900k did 4200 on about 1.2, and 4600 on 1.28.


I only run 1.2v SA on my 12700k and it's running 6800c30


----------



## Falkentyne

tootall123 said:


> P - 144
> E - 110
> 
> after reseating.
> 
> using 2103 bios


Did you actually follow my steps or did you only just reseat it without doing what I outlined?


----------



## tps3443

@Ichirou

I have seen the dual rank Hynix A die on eBay. Although, it will be mainstream soon. Gskill has already released 64GB kits that are 2x32GB DDR5 6400 C32


----------



## bhav

Slackaveli said:


> I only run 1.2v SA on my 12700k and it's running 6800c30


The DDR5 imc is a lot better which is why.

Intel downgraded the DDR4 IMC since introducing gears on 11th gen.


----------



## Slackaveli

Falkentyne said:


> Did you actually follow my steps or did you only just reseat it without doing what I outlined?


you know the answer to that lol. Seems like he doesnt really want to know.


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> The DDR5 imc is a lot better which is why.
> 
> Intel downgraded the DDR4 IMC since introducing gears on 11th gen.


Aw. Makes sense.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> The DDR5 imc is a lot better which is why.
> 
> Intel downgraded the DDR4 IMC since introducing gears on 11th gen.


I skipped 12th Gen only because I had a top 1% bin 11900K. It is a gaming monster. It had a really good IMC. Better than a lot of Alderlake IMC’s even. The setup worked out great for over a year. But it’s getting retired as a work PC since the launch of 13th Gen.


----------



## snakeeyes111

@Falkentyne Just 280er radi + Heatkiller. May chip is hotter then yours. Dont know.


E-cores off


----------



## snakeeyes111

If i Touch the Radiator, its rly Hot 😅. Think water reach over 35degree.

Airflow isnt perfect. U can see bench on hwbot.


----------



## Netarangi

13900kf runs spicy asf on my ****ty 360mm X73 Kraken. 1.3v at 5.5ghz for now while I tinker with dram.

Have so far got to 4200mhz cl15 gm1 cr2. My 12700kf could only boot up to 3800mhz at the same settings.


----------



## toncij

Ichirou said:


> Well said. The improvement in the cores and quantity of them alone is a huge performance improvement even if you kept the same RAM settings as before on ADL.





snakeeyes111 said:


> @Falkentyne Just 280er radi + Heatkiller. May chip is hotter then yours. Dont know.
> 
> Not so sure if it's the same for 12900KS. Would love to see a comparison. Especially on Z690 Apex or Unify-X.
> Someone claimed to run 7200 DDR5 on it successfully with 13900K. That might give some edge.
> Regarding cores, since my 12900KS runs 5700 easily, not so sure.
> 
> E-cores off
> View attachment 2577461


This is exactly the same as my 12900KS - 20k MT. Something fishy?
Where did I see 20k?
24k is super - 25% over 12900KS.

I'm running a Capellix H170i in a Fractal Torrent (800 RPM).


----------



## Ichirou

toncij said:


> This is exactly the same as my 12900KS - 20k MT. Something fishy?
> Where did I see 20k?
> 24k is super - 25% over 12900KS.
> 
> I'm running a Capellix H170i in a Fractal Torrent (800 RPM).


It doesn't really make sense to disable the E-cores this time around, considering that a high ring is still achievable with them on.
Only issue being cooling.


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


> It doesn't really make sense to disable the E-cores this time around, considering that a high ring is still achievable with them on.
> Only issue being cooling.


Even on W10?


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> Even on W10?


On W10, they're just treated as additional cores.


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


> On W10, they're just treated as additional cores.


Maybe it is time to give in and get W11


----------



## tootall123

Falkentyne said:


> Did you actually follow my steps or did you only just reseat it without doing what I outlined?


No did exactly what you requested.

im still having issues with the memory so need to remove it all again, I’m happy to repeat.

what is it you’re hoping to achieve or expect from this process out of interest?


----------



## Falkentyne

tootall123 said:


> No did exactly what you requested.
> 
> im still having issues with the memory so need to remove it all again, I’m happy to repeat.
> 
> what is it you’re hoping to achieve or expect from this process out of interest?


your SP score is glitched.
It's impossible to have an P core SP this high.
This would be a world record chip.
If you believe this SP is actually real then you must do some specific tests in cinebench.

You must set this exact vcore. This is a starting point for world record SP holder chips on AIO's.

1.250v bios set, LLC Level 6.
Sync all P cores: x57
E cores: x45

VRM switching freq: 300-500.

This will give you about 1.15v full load.
You must try to loop Cinebench R23, for 30 minutes, without a BSOD or application crash or a WHEA error appearing in hwinfo64
1 single run is not sufficient. It must be a 30 minutes loop.

If failed, raise vcore by 10mv and try again.

If you need a vcore higher than 1.30v bios set + LLC6 to pass x57, your SP is nowhere close to that.

Report the final bios set vcore (and load vcore while R23 is running) that you need to pass R23 for 30 minutes.
Your CPU MUST NOT be delidded or "sub-ambient" cooling as otherwise we can't compare other people's results.

If you can actually pass this at 1.25v bios set + LLC6, you can sell that chip for $2,000-$2500....


----------



## tootall123

Falkentyne said:


> your SP score is glitched.
> It's impossible to have an P core SP this high.
> This would be a world record chip.
> If you believe this SP is actually real then you must do some specific tests in cinebench.
> 
> You must set this exact vcore. This is a starting point for world record SP holder chips on AIO's.
> 
> 1.250v bios set, LLC Level 6.
> Sync all P cores: x57
> E cores: x45
> 
> VRM switching freq: 300-500.
> 
> This will give you about 1.15v full load.
> You must try to loop Cinebench R23, for 30 minutes, without a BSOD or application crash or a WHEA error appearing in hwinfo64
> 1 single run is not sufficient. It must be a 30 minutes loop.
> 
> If failed, raise vcore by 10mv and try again.
> 
> If you need a vcore higher than 1.30v bios set + LLC6 to pass x57, your SP is nowhere close to that.
> 
> Report the final bios set vcore (and load vcore while R23 is running) that you need to pass R23 for 30 minutes.
> Your CPU MUST NOT be delidded or "sub-ambient" cooling as otherwise we can't compare other people's results.
> 
> If you can actually pass this at 1.25v bios set + LLC6, you can sell that chip for $2,000-$2500....


I’ll repeat the previous instructions and attempt the above and get back to you.


----------



## tps3443

tootall123 said:


> I’ll repeat the previous instructions and attempt the above and get back to you.


I have seen a lot of people with high SP, then they reseat the CPU or update bios and it’s back to normal SP rating. I mean, if you really do have a CPU that good! Then wow!!Congratulations. You won the lottery. You can confidently skip the 13900KS all together haha lol.


----------



## johnksss

@Falkentyne Well I found out mine is 101 P110/E85. So I did not win the lottery, but My Unify-X did boot my shiny new G.Skill Trident Z5's 7600's at rated speed with no errors.


----------



## Groove2013

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583895670960058368


----------



## tps3443

Tear down time!!!

13900KF here.


----------



## johnksss

tps3443 said:


> Tear down time!!!
> 
> 13900KF here.
> View attachment 2577480
> 
> View attachment 2577481


I thought you were going to show it all tucked in in a seatbelt.


----------



## bhav

I envy American houses with all that much open land around them.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

zebra_hun said:


> Nice result
> Can you a Tomb Raider 1080 lowest benchen? If you have got time. I want to know the d4 gaming performanche.
> Thx


Here is your bench CPU is @stock clock [email protected] with ECore´s HT and rbar on....all standard.
I think i can be satisfied with that and it´s really stable🙌.

Really more i think is with fast DDR5 possible.


----------



## Tadaschi

Wow! first run of my delided 13900k 6ghz 3 cores / 5.6ghz all p cores / 4.6ghz all e cores / ring 4.5ghz
MSI Z690 Unify-X 
MSI RTX 4090 with Waterblock
6800 cl34
mora 3 420
hotest core max temp 87C 

Enough to get 13th on firestrike extreme


----------



## bhav

Just out of curiosity, I had look at 12900KS price to gauge how much more a 13900KS might cost.

They cost the same as a 13900K lol.

Price difference between 12900k and KS currently £100, but at launch its probably way higher/

I mean I'd wait for and take a 13900KS if it was £100 more, but I doubt it.

And yea, launch price was $230 more than 12900K so nvm waiting for that garbage.


----------



## cstkl1

Intel i9 13900k : 55|45|51 @llc3 auto
Asus Z790 Apex : 0605
G.Skill 6600c36 : 7800c36 @1.45v
SA/MC/txvdq : Auto


----------



## Tadaschi

Tadaschi said:


> SI RTX 4090 with Waterblock
> 6800 cl34





cstkl1 said:


> Intel i9 13900k : 55|45|51 @llc3 auto
> Asus Z790 Apex : 0605
> G.Skill 6600c36 : 7800c36 @1.45v
> SA/MC/txvdq : Auto


Are you running 7800 on Hynix M-Die?


----------



## tps3443

Old setup VS. New setup.


----------



## cstkl1

Tadaschi said:


> Are you running 7800 on Hynix M-Die?


adie


----------



## cstkl1

tps3443 said:


> Old setup VS. New setup.
> 
> View attachment 2577497


dat reminds me. need to order some qdc + frame thingy before ram block comes.


----------



## Nizzen

Tadaschi said:


> Are you running 7800 on Hynix M-Die?


7800 m-die is like 1.8v+ 😅
I can't even finsh 7400c32 trfc 340 with 1.75v 🤣


----------



## tootall123

Falkentyne said:


> your SP score is glitched.
> It's impossible to have an P core SP this high.
> This would be a world record chip.
> If you believe this SP is actually real then you must do some specific tests in cinebench.
> 
> You must set this exact vcore. This is a starting point for world record SP holder chips on AIO's.
> 
> 1.250v bios set, LLC Level 6.
> Sync all P cores: x57
> E cores: x45
> 
> VRM switching freq: 300-500.
> 
> This will give you about 1.15v full load.
> You must try to loop Cinebench R23, for 30 minutes, without a BSOD or application crash or a WHEA error appearing in hwinfo64
> 1 single run is not sufficient. It must be a 30 minutes loop.
> 
> If failed, raise vcore by 10mv and try again.
> 
> If you need a vcore higher than 1.30v bios set + LLC6 to pass x57, your SP is nowhere close to that.
> 
> Report the final bios set vcore (and load vcore while R23 is running) that you need to pass R23 for 30 minutes.
> Your CPU MUST NOT be delidded or "sub-ambient" cooling as otherwise we can't compare other people's results.
> 
> If you can actually pass this at 1.25v bios set + LLC6, you can sell that chip for $2,000-$2500....


Just to confirm, I’ve reseated the chip and followed your instructions. Still showing as 145/111.

I’ll try your OC settings and report back.


----------



## Falkentyne

tootall123 said:


> Just to confirm, I’ve reseated the chip and followed your instructions. Still showing as 145/111.
> 
> I’ll try your OC settings and report back.


Awaiting your results.
Because a P core 145 chip is a world record.
You should be able to pass a 30 minute loop at 1.250v bios set + LLC 6.
Note: P cores x57, E cores x45, should give you about >42000 R23 score.
(you can disable "EC SupporT" in HWinfo64--this will improve your scores by about 250 points).


----------



## Tadaschi

Nizzen said:


> 7800 m-die is like 1.8v+ 😅
> I can't even finsh 7400c32 trfc 340 with 1.75v 🤣


I think the same, my best is 6800 cl34 1.45v 24/7 on water


----------



## bxbuki

bhav said:


> I can't see that in any reviews though, they are mostly the same.
> 
> Just that the cooler comes with a small tube of MX5, so I'll use that on the main build, and use the big tube of MX4 I still have on the other builds.


I tested many of them on amd and intel gelid is the best trust me. I found this forum because im waiting for 13900k and i am scared of that 100c will see what temps i will get with arctic 360 i have now mx4 mx5 CM nano and gelid i will test them all .


----------



## bhav

bxbuki said:


> I tested many of them on amd and intel gelid is the best trust me. I found this forum because im waiting for 13900k and i am scared of that 100c will see what temps i will get with arctic 360 i have now mx4 mx5 CM nano and gelid i will test them all .


Would love to see a comparison, I can always start with MX5 and buy gelid later.


----------



## fitzy334

I was wondering if it worth it to upgrade my 9900k cpu to a 13900k? I plan to get a RTX 4080 to play at 4k.


----------



## LukeT32

fitzy334 said:


> I was wondering if it worth it to upgrade my 9900k cpu to a 13900k? I plan to get a RTX 4080 to play at 4k.


100% worth it. I had a 9900k at 5.1ghz with a 3090ti and on my ultra wide I was CPU bottled necked.. Playing warzone GPU usage was averaging about 80%.... Just finished my 13900k build last night. No OC yet and easily getting 40+ FPS more and staying at 99% GPU usage.


----------



## tps3443

fitzy334 said:


> I was wondering if it worth it to upgrade my 9900k cpu to a 13900k? I plan to get a RTX 4080 to play at 4k.


Well, I dunno.. My stock 13900KF is only like 160% faster than a 9900K in multithreaded.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Is there any difference between the K and KF other than KF has no iGPU??

Like because there is no iGPU on the KF would it maybe overclock better and run cooler. Is the iGPU fused off, or just disabled during the binning??


----------



## bhav

For anyone interested, DDR4 4000CL14 in gear 2 (sigh) vs DDR5 6000CL36:









Intel 13600K and 13900K DDR4 vs DDR5 Showdown | Introduction and Test Setup | CPU & Mainboard


Introduction and Test Setup




overclock3d.net





Very close results, DDR4 winning in some, but this indicates that 4000G1 and 4800G2 would likely beat DDR5 in most cases.


----------



## Alexshunter

Is possible already to buy hynix a die ddr5 on acceptable price?


----------



## bass junkie xl

bhav said:


> For anyone interested, DDR4 4000CL14 in gear 2 (sigh) vs DDR5 6000CL36:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel 13600K and 13900K DDR4 vs DDR5 Showdown | Introduction and Test Setup | CPU & Mainboard
> 
> 
> Introduction and Test Setup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> overclock3d.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very close results, DDR4 winning in some, but this indicates that 4000G1 and 4800G2 would likely beat DDR5 in most cases.


why gear 2 ?


----------



## bhav

bass junkie xl said:


> why gear 2 ?


Tech sites are noobs. I tried registering to comment, but awaiting approval.

They didnt know about gears at all, just set the ram to 4000CL14, and the IMC is at 1000.


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> Is there any difference between the K and KF other than KF has no iGPU??
> 
> Like because there is no iGPU on the KF would it maybe overclock better and run cooler. Is the iGPU fused off, or just disabled during the binning??


No.


Alexshunter said:


> Is possible already to buy hynix a die ddr5 on acceptable price?


No.


----------



## bhav

Well I left them a polite feedback message instead thanking them for the first decent DDR4 vs DDR5 comparison on 13th gen, but just to point out there might have been an error made as the DDR4 was running in gear 2, due to the IMC showing 1000 in the CPUZ screenshot.

So now they're never going to validate my account are they lol.


----------



## This is a hat.

Recently,"bisobiso" says he tests his z790 kingpin.
He said that the memory OC threshold for both A and M dies seems to have risen by about 400-500 MHz in the 13th generation + Z790 kingpin compared to the 12th generation + Z690 kingpin .


















(a room temperature test)

EVGA Z790 DARK K|NGP|N - 메모리 OC > 오버클럭 | 쿨엔조이 (coolenjoy.net)


----------



## tubs2x4

Slackaveli said:


> I only run 1.2v SA on my 12700k and it's running 6800c30


What’s your ram timings and voltage for that 6809c30?


----------



## Tadaschi

Second run of delided 13900k 6.1ghz 3 cores / 5.7ghz all p cores / 4.6ghz all e cores / ring 5ghz
MSI Z690 Unify-X
MSI RTX 4090 with Waterblock
6800 cl34
mora 3 420
hottest core max temp stil only 87C


----------



## Xodrik

So I'm looking for some advice on how to proceed. Jumped from 12600KF to the 13900k. (Kind of a silly jump but I'm going all out in hopes of stepping away from upgrades for 4-5 years.)

I'm on a Z690 Unify-X, latest BIOS.

I've successfully completed R23 with 5.7P / 4.5E / 5.0R at 1.31v LLC 4. My score was still sub 40k (39k~) with XMP DDR5 6000 CL 34 memory. (Manual tune will come after CPU OC is stable, previously ran 6666Mt/s CL 32 with tight tertiary)

My Temps are pretty wild, I'll pull roughly 320w and my 360mm AiO barely manages the single run under 100c. I haven't dared Try a loop. 

The weird part is that my IDLE Temps are hovering around 50c. I'm used to AIOs sitting at the very least sub 40 if not low 30s at ambient room temp. My thoughts are that the IHS isn't transferring heat well through the TIM.

Should I even consider delidding this chip? I feel like it's a decent chip but the thermal issues are keeping me from being able to push anymore - unless it's behaving normally and I simply don't fully know how to tune the voltages for ADL/RPL. 

I can provide pictures when I'm back home, out of town on business for another day but I'm at a loss for how to improve these results. First time posting - thank you in advance for any feedback.


----------



## tps3443

FUN FUN!! First time on Z690. This 13900KF is fast for sure.

This is: 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, 4.7Ghz Cache. @1.315V MSI LLC #3.

I just followed @Falkentyne recommendations on a prior post, and adjusted from there.


No stability testing done yet. I’m just playing around right now.


----------



## Exilon

Xodrik said:


> So I'm looking for some advice on how to proceed. Jumped from 12600KF to the 13900k. (Kind of a silly jump but I'm going all out in hopes of stepping away from upgrades for 4-5 years.)
> 
> I'm on a Z690 Unify-X, latest BIOS.
> 
> I've successfully completed R23 with 5.7P / 4.5E / 5.0R at 1.31v LLC 4. My score was still sub 40k (39k~) with XMP DDR5 6000 CL 34 memory. (Manual tune will come after CPU OC is stable, previously ran 6666Mt/s CL 32 with tight tertiary)
> 
> My Temps are pretty wild, I'll pull roughly 320w and my 360mm AiO barely manages the single run under 100c. I haven't dared Try a loop.
> 
> The weird part is that my IDLE Temps are hovering around 50c. I'm used to AIOs sitting at the very least sub 40 if not low 30s at ambient room temp. My thoughts are that the IHS isn't transferring heat well through the TIM.
> 
> Should I even consider delidding this chip? I feel like it's a decent chip but the thermal issues are keeping me from being able to push anymore - unless it's behaving normally and I simply don't fully know how to tune the voltages for ADL/RPL.
> 
> I can provide pictures when I'm back home, out of town on business for another day but I'm at a loss for how to improve these results. First time posting - thank you in advance for any feedback.


At 320W I'd consider using that thermalright frame. You can probably get 5-10C at that power level.


----------



## Xodrik

Exilon said:


> At 320W I'd consider using that thermalright frame. You can probably get 5-10C at that power level.


I should have mentioned I am indeed using a bracket, helped with temp issues on my 12600kf! 

I've also unseated and reseated the frame and cooler 3 times. Verified the pump is running fast and even maxed out my fans to see if that would alleviate some of the issue.


----------



## Xodrik

Tadaschi said:


> Second run of delided 13900k 6.1ghz 3 cores / 5.7ghz all p cores / 4.6ghz all e cores / ring 5ghz
> MSI Z690 Unify-X
> MSI RTX 4090 with Waterblock
> 6800 cl34
> mora 3 420
> hottest core max temp stil only 87C
> View attachment 2577592


Is the delidding process difficult for 13th gen? More than likely just need to use LM under the IHS to help my chip breathe a little!


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> View attachment 2577593
> 
> 
> 
> FUN FUN!! First time on Z690. This 13900KF is fast for sure.
> 
> This is: 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, 4.7Ghz Cache. @1.315V MSI LLC #3.
> 
> I just followed @Falkentyne recommendations on a prior post, and adjusted from there.
> 
> 
> No stability testing done yet. I’m just playing around right now.


You might actually have a SP 110+ chip right there.


----------



## gtz

tps3443 said:


> View attachment 2577593
> 
> 
> 
> FUN FUN!! First time on Z690. This 13900KF is fast for sure.
> 
> This is: 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, 4.7Ghz Cache. @1.315V MSI LLC #3.
> 
> I just followed @Falkentyne recommendations on a prior post, and adjusted from there.
> 
> 
> No stability testing done yet. I’m just playing around right now.


Is that with your chiller or water loop only. Just curious to set up my expectations.


----------



## Ichirou

gtz said:


> Is that with your chiller or water loop only. Just curious to set up my expectations.


Well, he only ran it for a minute. And it should be doable with just a MO-RA, at 1.31V MSI LLC3. But anything more, and you might struggle due to the extra E-cores.
It seems to be an SP 110+ chip though.


----------



## tps3443

gtz said:


> Is that with your chiller or water loop only. Just curious to set up my expectations.


Yes, but the water temp was not very cold. 70-72F nothing crazy. I haven’t even laid in to this thing much yet. I feel like it has more in it for sure. I’m thinking delid will be totally worth it. And I will indeed delid this chip. 

5.8Ghz was first OC attempt. I’ll try higher tomorrow.

I’ve also got some DDR5 7200 Hynix-A Die that will be here Monday!


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> It doesn't really make sense to disable the E-cores this time around, considering that a high ring is still achievable with them on.
> Only issue being cooling.





Groove2013 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583895670960058368


I have to wonder if turning the E-cores off here is hurting CapFrameX here or not. 16MB of L2 cache is a lot to turn off.








Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test: Benchmarks in Games


Intel Raptor Lake im Test: Benchmarks in Games / Leistung in Spielen (720p, RTX 3090 Ti) / CPU-Gaming-Leistung im absoluten CPU-Limit




www.computerbase.de















With the changes to the ring bus and the E-cores getting 15% better performance per core, I'd love to see a SPECint 2017 2-copy run on 1 P-core vs 2 E-cores. The test should give some good idea about whether it's better to double-stuff a P-core or let it fill E-cores before using HT.


----------



## gtz

I know this is a long shot but does anybody have the latest BIOS 2.01 for the EVGA Z690 Classified? EVGA's website is down.

Edit:

Got it


----------



## cstkl1

z790


Exilon said:


> I have to wonder if turning the E-cores off here is hurting CapFrameX here or not. 16MB of L2 cache is a lot to turn off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test: Benchmarks in Games
> 
> 
> Intel Raptor Lake im Test: Benchmarks in Games / Leistung in Spielen (720p, RTX 3090 Ti) / CPU-Gaming-Leistung im absoluten CPU-Limit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.computerbase.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577607
> 
> 
> 
> With the changes to the ring bus and the E-cores getting 15% better performance per core, I'd love to see a SPECint 2017 2-copy run on 1 P-core vs 2 E-cores. The test should give some good idea about whether it's better to double-stuff a P-core or let it fill E-cores before using HT.


rpl dont have to turn off ecores

adl y we turn then off to get high cache

rpl even with ecore cache can go high 5.1ghz on stock


----------



## sniperpowa

5.8 pcore 4.6 e core. Sp 99 on z690 formula.


----------



## acoustic

CapFrameX is one of those YouTubers that I can't wait to disappear.

Yikes, I confused CapFrame with FrameChasers. It's been a long day+night of OCing. Have mercy 😂


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> View attachment 2577593
> 
> 
> 
> FUN FUN!! First time on Z690. This 13900KF is fast for sure.
> 
> This is: 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, 4.7Ghz Cache. @1.315V MSI LLC #3.
> 
> I just followed @Falkentyne recommendations on a prior post, and adjusted from there.
> 
> 
> No stability testing done yet. I’m just playing around right now.


So what is min v core during the run?


----------



## Nizzen

acoustic said:


> CapFrameX is one of those YouTubers that I can't wait to disappear.


Explain?
Never watched them, bu is it bad?


----------



## acoustic

Nizzen said:


> Explain?
> Never watched them, bu is it bad?


Totally confused CapFrameX and FrameChasers.. meant FrameChasers. Lol


----------



## bhav

Judging from peoples results so far, it looks like Gigabyte are adding an amazing feature to their boards - how to start more fires in 10 minutes 101:









Gigabyte announces "Instant 6 GHz" feature for Intel Core i9-13900K CPUs on Z790 motherboards - VideoCardz.com


Striking 6GHz on Intel i9-13900K by GIGABYTE Instant 6GHz! Update BIOS now for the exceptional performance of future processors October 21st, 2022 – GIGABYTE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd, a leading manufacturer of motherboards, graphics cards, and hardware solutions, today announced the Instant 6GHz...




videocardz.com





Its the return of motherboards killing CPUs with too much voltage.

All those 'people at home' using their 1 click overclock because their motherboard lets them, so many fires!


----------



## cstkl1

acoustic said:


> CapFrameX is one of those YouTubers that I can't wait to disappear.


eh.. 
🫢


----------



## cstkl1

bhav said:


> Judging from peoples results so far, it looks like Gigabyte are adding an amazing feature to their boards - how to start more fires in 10 minutes 101:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gigabyte announces "Instant 6 GHz" feature for Intel Core i9-13900K CPUs on Z790 motherboards - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> Striking 6GHz on Intel i9-13900K by GIGABYTE Instant 6GHz! Update BIOS now for the exceptional performance of future processors October 21st, 2022 – GIGABYTE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd, a leading manufacturer of motherboards, graphics cards, and hardware solutions, today announced the Instant 6GHz...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videocardz.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its the return of motherboards killing CPUs with too much voltage.
> 
> All those 'people at home' using their 1 click overclock because their motherboard lets them, so many fires!


their r23 lost almost 20k. lol


----------



## bhav

Instant 6 ghz yay! Instant 4000 XMP ram yay'

_Gear 2_


----------



## sniperpowa

About matches My W-3175x with HT turned off. 
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-13900K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG MAXIMUS Z690 FORMULA (3dmark.com)


----------



## Shonk

So the Stock multipliers per active core are

P Cores 58,58,55,55,55,55,55,55
E Cores 43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43 

Doesnt anyone find it weird its not something like 

P Cores 58,58,*57,56*,55,55,55,55

like they always have in the past


----------



## acoustic

cstkl1 said:


> eh..
> 🫢


Confused the two. It's been a long night lol


----------



## Ichirou

sniperpowa said:


> 5.8 pcore 4.6 e core. Sp 99 on z690 formula.
> View attachment 2577613
> View attachment 2577614


Nice, so even average samples can hit 58x all-core so long as you juice it with enough Vcore. Good to know.


bhav said:


> Judging from peoples results so far, it looks like Gigabyte are adding an amazing feature to their boards - how to start more fires in 10 minutes 101:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gigabyte announces "Instant 6 GHz" feature for Intel Core i9-13900K CPUs on Z790 motherboards - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> Striking 6GHz on Intel i9-13900K by GIGABYTE Instant 6GHz! Update BIOS now for the exceptional performance of future processors October 21st, 2022 – GIGABYTE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd, a leading manufacturer of motherboards, graphics cards, and hardware solutions, today announced the Instant 6GHz...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videocardz.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its the return of motherboards killing CPUs with too much voltage.
> 
> All those 'people at home' using their 1 click overclock because their motherboard lets them, so many fires!


Well, Gigabyte is desperate now that their reputation's been ruined with Z690.
I wonder if they'll get hit with lawsuits for deceptive marketing that ends up killing consumer chips.


----------



## Exilon

Shonk said:


> So the Stock multipliers per active core are
> 
> P Cores 58,58,55,55,55,55,55,55
> E Cores 43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43,43
> 
> Doesnt anyone find it weird its not something like
> 
> P Cores 58,58,*57,56*,55,55,55,55
> 
> like they always have in the past


I assume it helps binning if they just have to bin by 55x and then find two cores for 58x that can do it at an acceptable VID


----------



## Exilon

acoustic said:


> Totally confused CapFrameX and FrameChasers.. meant FrameChasers. Lol


Funnily enough, it's probably because they recently had a Twitter spat about FrameChaser's "13900K is 0% faster" video.


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> So what is min v core during the run?


1.313V under R23 load. I don’t think it’s any sort of super fantastic chip. Especially after looking at Sugi0luvers chip. I think it’s really just a standard chip. But that’s okay with me. I’m sick of worrying over golden samples anyways. It is a 13900KF. I can’t afford to go after numerous samples.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Exilon said:


> I have to wonder if turning the E-cores off here is hurting CapFrameX here or not. 16MB of L2 cache is a lot to turn off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test: Benchmarks in Games
> 
> 
> Intel Raptor Lake im Test: Benchmarks in Games / Leistung in Spielen (720p, RTX 3090 Ti) / CPU-Gaming-Leistung im absoluten CPU-Limit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.computerbase.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577607
> 
> 
> 
> With the changes to the ring bus and the E-cores getting 15% better performance per core, I'd love to see a SPECint 2017 2-copy run on 1 P-core vs 2 E-cores. The test should give some good idea about whether it's better to double-stuff a P-core or let it fill E-cores before using HT.



You say turning off 16MB L2 cache?? I mean if the e-cores are not used and L2 cache is private to the e-core clusters or P core clusters, how is it hurting performance at all. I mean is L2 cache used and shared among cores? I never heard that and thought only L3 was and L1 and L2 are completely private per core and if the core is not used neither is its L1 and L2 cache??


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Nice, so even average samples can hit 58x all-core so long as you juice it with enough Vcore. Good to know.
> 
> Well, Gigabyte is desperate now that their reputation's been ruined with Z690.
> I wonder if they'll get hit with lawsuits for deceptive marketing that ends up killing consumer chips.


Well false advertising is already illegal in the UK and EU.

Gets me stuff like £50 back when an advertised 7400 M.2 only runs at 7100 max with no disclaimer that it wont do that 100% of the time (plus the box said 7000 and not the advertised 7400).

Lawsuits are unlikely to happen as the contract is between the customer and retailer as I learned.

IMO falsely advertised items should be full refund no return needed. Thats what it needs to teach companies to stop using deceptive marketing.

Seagate were a complete joke. 'It says 7400 on the specification because some high end motherboards can get that, but 7000 on the box because most people will get that' or such bullshit. Its the same thing as a sabrent, but overcharged with false advertising is what they meant.

Say you get a motherboard, install it, set everything up then find out the specification was falsely advertised. You now have to take it back out, return it, and wait for a replacement. BS.


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> 1.313V under R23 load. I don’t think it’s any sort of super fantastic chip. Especially after looking at Sugi0luvers chip. I think it’s really just a standard chip. But that’s okay with me. I’m sick of worrying over golden samples anyways. It is a 13900KF. I can’t afford to go after numerous samples.


MSI LLC3 (Mode 3) is AFAIK, 0.35 mohms of LLC (someone said that their DC Loadline changed to 0.35 when they used LLC3).
But if you use the "Vcore" sensor under socket sense, it will look like flat resistance (load vcore won't change more than 16mv from BIOS vcore)--that is because of resistance from socket to sensor causing a 'voltage rise' which erases the true vdroop.

Note: Asus LLC6 is 0.49 mohms and LLC7 is 0.245 mOhms.

So let's do some math.

1.315v = 1315mv
Let's assume this is 250 amps of current
1315mv - ( 250 * 0.35) = 1227.5mv=1.227v.

That's 1.227v load at 5.8 ghz.
This chip is probably over 120 SP on the P cores by themselves.

You should be able to see true Vcore by using newest version of HWinfo64/beta build and looking for "VR VOUT" on your sensors. BIOS must be set to "VCC_SENSE" I believe.
But MSI does weird stuff with their VCC_Sense in the past---they actually changed the loadlines once.


----------



## Wolverine2349

sniperpowa said:


> 5.8 pcore 4.6 e core. Sp 99 on z690 formula.
> View attachment 2577613
> View attachment 2577614


What kind of cooling are you using and what are the temps are power usage CPU gets to? Can it pass Linpack EXTREME and Prime95 Small FFTs with AVX disabled or even start a test with AVX enabled without crashing right away so you can stop it before temps get out of control or at least it throttles without crashing instantly??


----------



## sniperpowa

Wolverine2349 said:


> What kind of cooling are you using and what are the temps are power usage CPU gets to? Can it pass Linpack EXTREME and Prime95 Small FFTs with AVX disabled or even start a test with AVX enabled without crashing right away so you can stop it before temps get out of control or at least it throttles without crashing instantly??


I haven’t tried prime95 or linpack yet. I did 30 min loop of r23 max temp 88c 1.28v at 5.7 4.6 Ive just been benching and testing voltage scaling. Chip seems really good for being average I guess.


----------



## chibi

13900k nov 16 eta for me, looking forward to reading this thread until it comes in.


----------



## Exilon

Wolverine2349 said:


> You say turning off 16MB L2 cache?? I mean if the e-cores are not used and L2 cache is private to the e-core clusters or P core clusters, how is it hurting performance at all. I mean is L2 cache used and shared among cores? I never heard that and thought only L3 was and L1 and L2 are completely private per core and if the core is not used neither is its L1 and L2 cache??


Why do you say E-cores are not used? 










This is Warhammer 3 using 2 clusters of E-cores and all 8 P-cores filled with 1 heavy weight thread. E-cores will be used before sibling threads unless the program is flagged to not use them.


----------



## tps3443

This was the extended (10 Minute run) R23 I will try the 30 minute longer run next. Probably tomorrow. Power is about 340 watts. So, I’m not sure if that’s good or bad for 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, and 4.7Ghz Cache. (Using DDR5 6400 Samsung B-Die at the moment)


----------



## bhav

So I just also realised how much it would suck if my golden IMC 10900k went to waste if I simply ebayed it after getting the 13900k. I'll try putting it on here, I'm thinking price between a 12600 non K and 12600k is fair, especially for a golden chip? Posted links to my XS threads on the ram OCs in the 10900k thread.

It was actually 1.15v SA for 4200CL16 DR, which I found in my old XS threads, 1.28v for 4600Cl15. Got me a bunch of top 99th percentile ram scores with the first kit when I first got it. I just saw some reddit thread of someone needing 1.5v SA for just 3800 and thought of offering it here first before ebay.

I absolutely hate these 12th and 13th IMCs compared to having had that.


----------



## SuperMumrik

Playing around with my sp104 13900k with 12C'ish water.
Paste print is terrible, but won't be using direct-die cooling until I have tested a few more cpu's


----------



## Netarangi

1) My i9 throttles at 5.7ghz 1.33v, LLC6, X73 Kraken 360.

Could this be a bad paste or bad chip? Runs 80 degrees at 5.5ghz 1.3v

2) Intel MLC isn't working now


----------



## Madness11

Guys, on the z690 13900k work slower more then 25% then z790??? Or it's fake , read some news


----------



## Ichirou

Netarangi said:


> 1) My i9 throttles at 5.7ghz 1.33v, LLC6, X73 Kraken 360.
> 
> Could this be a bad paste or bad chip? Runs 80 degrees at 5.5ghz 1.3v
> 
> 2) Intel MLC isn't working now
> 
> View attachment 2577637


You are expecting a lot out of only 360mm.


----------



## johnksss

Madness11 said:


> Guys, on the z690 13900k work slower more then 25% then z790??? Or it's fake , read some news


If it does, it's not slowing me down any....


----------



## affxct

W


bhav said:


> So I just also realised how much it would suck if my golden IMC 10900k went to waste if I simply ebayed it after getting the 13900k. I'll try putting it on here, I'm thinking price between a 12600 non K and 12600k is fair, especially for a golden chip? Posted links to my XS threads on the ram OCs in the 10900k thread.
> 
> It was actually 1.15v SA for 4200CL16 DR, which I found in my old XS threads, 1.28v for 4600Cl15. Got me a bunch of top 99th percentile ram scores with the first kit when I first got it. I just some some reddit thread of someone needing 1.5v SA for just 3800 and thought of offering it here first before ebay.
> 
> I absolutely hate these 12th and 13th IMCs compared to having had that.


ADL is a dual IMC so it does data transfer more efficiently. You should have higher bandwidth on ADL/RPL with D4 than CML. It’s curious people think there are two different IMCs for each memory generation. In reality there are two IMCs on every ADL/RPL and both are active at all times. For D4 one handles CHA and the other CHB, and with D5 they interleave. It’s a very interesting design but it leaves the door open for one of the IMCs to die (has happened a couple times).


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

What should my SA voltage for 13700KF and ( 6800-7000 m die rams ) daily safe ? Default is = 1.290 on Unify X. 1.1v SA is OK ?


----------



## snakeeyes111

BTW im looping 5,5 /4.3. Works much better with my coolingsetup ^^. But temps climb up to 75degree @ 1.128v after 5min loop.


----------



## snakeeyes111

WHEA Error, after 7min.... need to raise voltage. 1.137v try again


----------



## affxct

Streamroller said:


> What should my SA voltage for 13700KF and ( 6800-7000 m die rams ) daily safe ? Default is = 1.290 on Unify X. 1.1v SA is OK ?


SA is chilled up to 1.35, but for 6800-7000 you genuinely wouldn’t even _need_ more than 1V on many chip samples. Keep in mind that 6800 is only 1700MHz IMC clock. Maybe up to 1.25V, but that should be plenty even for 7000.


----------



## affxct

snakeeyes111 said:


> BTW im looping 5,5 /4.3. Works much better with my coolingsetup ^^. But temps climb up to 75degree @ 1.128v after 5min loop.


75c!? Are you trying to melt the silicon? 🤪


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

affxct said:


> SA is chilled up to 1.35, but for 6800-7000 you genuinely wouldn’t even _need_ more than 1V on many chip samples. Keep in mind that 6800 is only 1700MHz IMC clock. Maybe up to 1.25V, but that should be plenty even for 7000.


Unfortunately my unify X wont allow me to change SA voltage. Disabled xmp and such. Locked to 1.290SA Override mode aswell Cant do 1.100 for example


----------



## affxct

Streamroller said:


> Unfortunately my unify X wont allow me to change SA voltage. Disabled xmp and such. Locked to 1.290SA Override mode aswell Cant do 1.100 for example


That is rather strange. Well as long as it doesn’t auto above 1.35, you’re still in a safe range.


----------



## newls1

Streamroller said:


> What should my SA voltage for 13700KF and ( 6800-7000 m die rams ) daily safe ? Default is = 1.290 on Unify X. 1.1v SA is OK ?


yeah... 1.15 should be plenty


----------



## snakeeyes111

Maybe not enough flow, dont know. But it works. 

Time for Ln2


----------



## snakeeyes111




----------



## cstkl1

Madness11 said:


> Guys, on the z690 13900k work slower more then 25% then z790??? Or it's fake , read some news


fake.


----------



## affxct

Madness11 said:


> Guys, on the z690 13900k work slower more then 25% then z790??? Or it's fake , read some news


True, everyone buy Z790 Apex’s or else!


----------



## kaTus

After checking out 13900K's binning results, i totally understand why Silicon Lottery decided to quit the business


----------



## Rbk_3

chibi said:


> 13900k nov 16 eta for me, looking forward to reading this thread until it comes in.


Where did you order from? Surely you can get one much sooner than that


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

Intel XTU is showing my SA is 1.120V. I set 1.120 from Bios BUT hwinfo4 and bios shows locked 1.290.

Which one is correct ? Is my bios glitched


----------



## LazyGamer

Streamroller said:


> Intel XTU is showing my SA is 1.120V. I set 1.120 from Bios BUT hwinfo4 and bios shows locked 1.290.


Or XTU is glitched?

XTU seems to work... sometimes. Other times the system does the opposite, or just ignores input from XTU - and now you have to guess as to whether it's reacting to XTU inputs or BIOS settings.

I stopped using it as I don't like to guess.


----------



## gtz

Uhmmm

Holy ****

This CPU at stock runs at 86C during a CB23 run!!!!!!! The BIOS is giving it 1.41 volts. Time to tweak voltages and increase fan speeds.


----------



## Tadaschi

After this i just cancel my z790 motherboard order lol
13900k delided 6.1ghz 3 cores / 5.8ghz all P cores / 4.6ghz E cores / ring 5ghz
MSI UNIFY-X
32gb 6800 cl34-42-42-28-72 G2 (m-die)
MORA 3 PRO 420

running tests to check how stable


----------



## Netarangi

Ichirou said:


> You are expecting a lot out of only 360mm.


Yeah I guess. I'm happy with the performance nonetheless


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

LazyGamer said:


> Or XTU is glitched?
> 
> XTU seems to work... sometimes. Other times the system does the opposite, or just ignores input from XTU - and now you have to guess as to whether it's reacting to XTU inputs or BIOS settings.
> 
> I stopped using it as I don't like to guess.


XTU is reacting to Bios settings. Exactly the same values. But in bios or hwinfo its showing 24/7 1.290v


----------



## LazyGamer

Streamroller said:


> XTU is reacting to Bios settings. Exactly the same values. But in bios or hwinfo its showing 24/7 1.290v


But which one is it? What's "correct"? That's the problem I have with it.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

PSU restart fixed it. Thanks to @DanGleeballs <3


----------



## Tadaschi

Tadaschi said:


> After this i just cancel my z790 motherboard order lol
> 13900k delided 6.1ghz 3 cores / 5.8ghz all P cores / 4.6ghz E cores / ring 5ghz
> MSI UNIFY-X
> 32gb 6800 cl34-42-42-28-72 G2 (m-die)
> MORA 3 PRO 420
> 
> running tests to check how stable
> View attachment 2577646


R23 10 minutes no problem
raptor lake is better that i expected


----------



## gtz

tps3443 said:


> 1.313V under R23 load. I don’t think it’s any sort of super fantastic chip. Especially after looking at Sugi0luvers chip. I think it’s really just a standard chip. But that’s okay with me. I’m sick of worrying over golden samples anyways. It is a 13900KF. I can’t afford to go after numerous samples.


I hope EVGA is just over shooting vcore because I might have a below average chip. My voltage hovered between 1.37-1.4 at stock during my CB23 run.


----------



## Xodrik

gtz said:


> I hope EVGA is just over shooting vcore because I might have a below average chip. My voltage hovered between 1.37-1.4 at stock during my CB23 run.


What are your idle temps? I'm almost positive I'm going to delid, my chip is running similar to yours. Just getting extremely hot at stock and even tuned.


----------



## gtz

Xodrik said:


> What are your idle temps? I'm almost positive I'm going to delid, my chip is running similar to yours. Just getting extremely hot at stock and even tuned.


My idle temps are low-mid 20c. I'm tuning now, seems am able to knock out around 20c.


----------



## Tadaschi

it run 6.2ghz until 3 cores


----------



## opt33

Streamroller said:


> Unfortunately my unify X wont allow me to change SA voltage. Disabled xmp and such. Locked to 1.290SA Override mode aswell Cant do 1.100 for example


SA voltage sometimes gets locked on auto value, ie bios bug. 2 ways to get it unlocked. 
1) F6 restore defaults, reboot, it will unlock. Then enable xmp, then manually set SA prior to rebooting on xmp. on manual it will never get locked. that way always works. 
2) sometimes you can unlock it by disabling xmp with sa on auto, reboot, then if value goes back down, reenable xmp and again set sa manually. 
I never change the sa auto/manual/override button always leave that on auto, just type manual voltage in sa on box below. On 13900kf im running mine at 1.15 as well.


----------



## opt33

single cinebench r23 run at all stock on my 13900kf (only xmp enabled and mdie 6800c32), temps on custom water 81-87c on pcores except one pcore at 76c. may remount block a few times and see if spread changes on temps.


----------



## newls1

Apparently my 13900k still has room in it. 5.8Ghz all core 1.350v R23 load @ 1.305ish.....


----------



## xarot

Got my 13900K and it's only SP97  P106/E81.

Actually a bit surprised of the temps so far and thinking this chip looks a bit like my good 12900KS before BCF/delid. Using the Enforce All Limits option on my NH-D15 with a crappy mount and single stick of RAM and it is hitting 100c on ONE core after 10 minutes. Using the Z690 Strix D4 board I grabbed today but the NH-D15 only fits sideways and blocking use of all but one RAM slot. Delid, better TIM job and bending corrector frame would sure help a bit. Maybe I'll switch my temporary 10900K away tonight from main rig if I bother.

Thinking if each review used "remove all limits" or "Asus optimized" setting when they hit 100c on cores? Because that's not how it should be run at stock. And basically when using remove all limits on my 12900KS it easily became a furnace as well, but with delid and bcf it could easily take 280~300 watts.

Edit. E82 -> E81


----------



## Telstar

xarot said:


> Got my 13900K and it's only SP97  P106/E82.


P106 is ok, who cares for the ecores?


----------



## nickolp1974

newls1 said:


> Apparently my 13900k still has room in it. 5.8Ghz all core 1.350v R23 load @ 1.305ish.....
> 
> View attachment 2577678


room??? what are your temps for that??


----------



## Wolverine2349

Exilon said:


> Why do you say E-cores are not used?
> 
> View attachment 2577626
> 
> 
> This is Warhammer 3 using 2 clusters of E-cores and all 8 P-cores filled with 1 heavy weight thread. E-cores will be used before sibling threads unless the program is flagged to not use them.



Almost all games do not use them except maybe your example of Warzone and Spiderman Rematsered. I have read Spiderman remastered is one of the rare games that uses them for texture decompression or something. I know Hitman 3 is supposed to use them for the audio engine and was one of the few games to, but it has higher FPS including even the 1% and 0.1% lows without them ironically.

And the point being is the extra cache on the e-cores helpful and ever used if the e-core CPU is never used?? Like will the L2 cache on the e-cores benefit the p cores even if the e-core is not used at all by a program but the P cores are. And no the e-cores running other background tasks does not count. I am talking specifically about a program benefitting form extra L2 cache sitting on the e-cores that only runs on P cores without the e-core using any CPU cycles. Cause you can always keep background tasks to a minimum and even 4 cores and 8 threads or even 2 cores and 4 threads is easily enough for Windows to run with its light background tasks taking like no CPU usage. Its been that way where even single core CPUs from decades ago could multi task fine and no issues.


----------



## bhav

So I mean going back to the most CPU intensive game there is, Anno 1800, I got some decent replies on their subreddit.

Basically disable HT and E cores to get a higher P core OC. Its the same old same old, all over again.

And yes, they reckon that purely for maximum perf in that game, 13900k for higher OC.

It is multithreaded, but all the extra threads and e cores are too low performance compared to simply pushing up the P cores, pretty sure it would be same in Civ 6 and other such CPU intensive strategy games.

Anyone here tried disabling both e cores and HT for higher P core clocks?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Falkentyne said:


> MSI LLC3 (Mode 3) is AFAIK, 0.35 mohms of LLC (someone said that their DC Loadline changed to 0.35 when they used LLC3).
> But if you use the "Vcore" sensor under socket sense, it will look like flat resistance (load vcore won't change more than 16mv from BIOS vcore)--that is because of resistance from socket to sensor causing a 'voltage rise' which erases the true vdroop.
> 
> Note: Asus LLC6 is 0.49 mohms and LLC7 is 0.245 mOhms.
> 
> So let's do some math.
> 
> 1.315v = 1315mv
> Let's assume this is 250 amps of current
> 1315mv - ( 250 * 0.35) = 1227.5mv=1.227v.
> 
> That's 1.227v load at 5.8 ghz.
> This chip is probably over 120 SP on the P cores by themselves.
> 
> You should be able to see true Vcore by using newest version of HWinfo64/beta build and looking for "VR VOUT" on your sensors. BIOS must be set to "VCC_SENSE" I believe.
> But MSI does weird stuff with their VCC_Sense in the past---they actually changed the loadlines once.


Do you know if this works the same for z490? I have an msi and my vcore is set to override mode at 1.38:

1380mv - ( 250 * 0.35) = 1292.5mv=1.292mv.

I dont have a vvense setting I can see in bios or vrout in hwinfo, but vid readouts are like 1.4 under load in hwinfo. Not sure where the 250 amp variable is from either.


----------



## Falkentyne

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Do you know if this works the same for z490? I have an msi and my vcore is set to override mode at 1.38:
> 
> 1380mv - ( 250 * 0.35) = 1292.5mv=1.292mv.
> 
> I dont have a vvense setting I can see in bios or vrout in hwinfo, but vid readouts are like 1.4 under load in hwinfo. Not sure where the 250 amp variable is from either.


Depends on what the loadline mode steps translate to in mohms. You could get that info from MSI if you reach the right person.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

opt33 said:


> SA voltage sometimes gets locked on auto value, ie bios bug. 2 ways to get it unlocked.
> 1) F6 restore defaults, reboot, it will unlock. Then enable xmp, then manually set SA prior to rebooting on xmp. on manual it will never get locked. that way always works.
> 2) sometimes you can unlock it by disabling xmp with sa on auto, reboot, then if value goes back down, reenable xmp and again set sa manually.
> I never change the sa auto/manual/override button always leave that on auto, just type manual voltage in sa on box below. On 13900kf im running mine at 1.15 as well.


Thanks for detailed explanation. PSU restart worked.


----------



## tps3443

opt33 said:


> single cinebench r23 run at all stock on my 13900kf (only xmp enabled and mdie 6800c32), temps on custom water 81-87c on pcores except one pcore at 76c. may remount block a few times and see if spread changes on temps.
> View attachment 2577675


Your power usage looks really high for stock.


----------



## opt33

tps3443 said:


> Your power usage looks really high for stock.


cpu package power on mine is consistently ~350W at stock/auto with single run cb23, 345W quoted in reviews with power limits removed like MSI does at stock. Is yours significantly different at stock?


----------



## tps3443

opt33 said:


> cpu package power on mine is consistently ~350W at stock/auto with single run cb23, 345W quoted in reviews with power limits removed like MSI does at stock. Is yours significantly different at stock?


Yeah, I’m on on MSI Unity-X

5.8Ghz P-Cores
4.5Ghz E-Cores
4.7Ghz Cache/Ring

Peak power during R23 after 10 minutes is 340 watts.

I am running a 1,080x45 radiator though and (2) D5’s, and the Thermalright frame, Optimus Signature V2 Nickel block.

Maybe check your mount just to be sure. And try manual override voltage. I’d find the lowest possible at highest OC.


----------



## toncij

Falkentyne said:


> What the hell is he running?
> 95C at stock in R23 at 5.5 ghz? How is that even possible?


Too hot? Too slow? 


Madness11 said:


> Guys, on the z690 13900k work slower more then 25% then z790??? Or it's fake , read some news


Total bull - Z690 and Z790 are identical perf. wise.


kaTus said:


> After checking out 13900K's binning results, i totally understand why Silicon Lottery decided to quit the business


Why?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Yeah, I’m on on MSI Unity-X
> 
> 5.8Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 4.7Ghz Cache/Ring
> 
> Peak power during R23 after 10 minutes is 340 watts.
> 
> I am running a 1,080x45 radiator though and (2) D5’s, and the Thermalright frame, Optimus Signature V2 Nickel block.
> 
> Maybe check your mount just to be sure. And try manual override voltage. I’d find the lowest possible at highest OC.


Yeah, you've got a lucky chip. You don't even need to bin it anymore unless you're looking for insane memory overclocks, or 6.0 GHz.
But @Falkentyne would warn, we really shouldn't be hammering these chips with 300W+ or 1.38V+.
People are gonna do it anyway though.

Once I get my chip, if its DDR4 IMC is better than my 12900KF, I'll test its theoretical max, and then dial it back down for a conservative daily.
Memory matters more for me, and I have no intentions on killing the chip over time since I don't plan to adopt DDR5 for quite a while.


----------



## nickolp1974

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, you've got a lucky chip. You don't even need to bin it anymore unless you're looking for insane memory overclocks, or 6.0 GHz.
> But @Falkentyne would warn, we really shouldn't be hammering these chips with 300W+ or 1.38V+.
> People are gonna do it anyway though.
> 
> Once I get my chip, if its DDR4 IMC is better than my 12900KF, I'll test its theoretical max, and then dial it back down for a conservative daily.
> Memory matters more for me, and I have no intentions on killing the chip over time since I don't plan to adopt DDR5 for quite a while.


Probably something new next year so what does it matter??? 😁


----------



## bhav

Also just realized if I'd have gone for a higher end ATX DDR4 Z690 back in April, then I wouldn't have gotten the case I've pre ordered. Cheapest DDR4 itx asrock board & 12600k were enough to hold out for 13th gen and Z790.

Only thing Z790 might help for is better DDR4 clocks, but if running at G1 its a pointless metric as well.

Go Go Gear 2 6000+ DDR4! (plz, I needs more records).


----------



## Ichirou

nickolp1974 said:


> Probably something new next year so what does it matter??? 😁


It matters if you're sticking to DDR4.
64+ GB is still much stronger on DDR4 than it is on DDR5. And I don't think that'll change for quite some time.


----------



## Falkentyne

Looks like that guy with the SP145 reported p-cores vanished after he said he was going to test x57 1.25v set LLC6. Gee I wonder why....


----------



## nickolp1974

Ichirou said:


> It matters if you're sticking to DDR4.
> 64+ GB is still much stronger on DDR4 than it is on DDR5. And I don't think that'll change for quite some time.


At the end of the day most are just testing there new CPU's, when everyone has done willy waving etc most will dial back to more conservative levels. An undervolted stock is plenty fast enough.


----------



## bhav

nickolp1974 said:


> Probably something new next year so what does it matter??? 😁


DDR4 4000G2 beat DDR5 6000 in a noob review thats why lol.

13900k & DDR4 go go go!


----------



## Avacado

Falkentyne said:


> Looks like that guy with the SP145 reported p-cores vanished after he said he was going to test x57 1.25v set LLC6. Gee I wonder why....


Missed that one, can you link it?


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Hello most dudes in the new thread.

Can anyone tell me what's the decent golden bin at the moment for 13900K?

Will old direct die work on 13900K?

What all core OC is achievable now as well? For a golden chip?

Also, Z690 will OC ram about same as Z790 or it's best to buy new mobo?

4090 I have OCs like a champ, just need a CPU now.


----------



## Falkentyne

Avacado said:


> Missed that one, can you link it?











Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


Did you actually follow my steps or did you only just reseat it without doing what I outlined? No did exactly what you requested. im still having issues with the memory so need to remove it all again, I’m happy to repeat. what is it you’re hoping to achieve or expect from this process out of...




www.overclock.net


----------



## yt93900

Got an Asus board, these are the SP values of my 13900K.
Replace or keep, what do you think?


https://i.postimg.cc/1z7cK19H/20221023-180609.jpg


General value is SP103.


----------



## nickolp1974

yt93900 said:


> Got an Asus board, these are the SP values of my 13900K.
> Replace or keep, what do you think?
> 
> 
> https://i.postimg.cc/1z7cK19H/20221023-180609.jpg


They must have disappeared, did you forget image?


----------



## dante`afk

Talon2016 said:


> Got an SP 106 and SP99. SP99 is going back to Microcenter seeing as most chips are above 100 from what I'm seeing.


Filthy


----------



## nickolp1974

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Hello most dudes in the new thread.
> 
> Can anyone tell me what's the decent golden bin at the moment for 13900K?
> 
> Will old direct die work on 13900K?
> 
> What all core OC is achievable now as well? For a golden chip?
> 
> Also, Z690 will OC ram about same as Z790 or it's best to buy new mobo?
> 
> 4090 I have OCs like a champ, just need a CPU now.











Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


Q1 2023 I've heard.




www.overclock.net





Delid and direct die the same


----------



## yt93900

nickolp1974 said:


> They must have disappeared, did you forget image?


Fixed!
+
Z790 ROG Extreme trained 7200 C34's in 1 try though, not bad for a 4xDIMM board...EVGA definitely has a problem with their 2.01 BIOS atm.


----------



## nickolp1974

yt93900 said:


> Fixed!
> +
> Z790 ROG Extreme trained 7200 C34's in 1 try though...EVGA definitely has a problem with their 2.01 BIOS atm.


I'd keep, same global sp as mine but I'm at 111p and 83e, I'm happy with it


----------



## opt33

tps3443 said:


> Yeah, I’m on on MSI Unity-X
> 
> 5.8Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 4.7Ghz Cache/Ring
> 
> Peak power during R23 after 10 minutes is 340 watts.
> 
> I am running a 1,080x45 radiator though and (2) D5’s, and the Thermalright frame, Optimus Signature V2 Nickel block.
> 
> Maybe check your mount just to be sure. And try manual override voltage. I’d find the lowest possible at highest OC.


Your chip is just better bin than mine with lower vid/vrout, would be interesting to see your vid/wattage at stock/auto. I was just running at stock to see temps, havent started ocing yet. But yes, can always lower vcore over intels set vin/voltage and drop wattage.


----------



## EastCoast

EastCoast said:


> You lot need to stop watching Frame Chasers. That same video has been spammed several times in this thread alone and it's ridiculous.
> 
> He's winding you all up for his next video. And, I can almost tell that when he gets the cpu himself he's going to get vastly different results. And completely ignore the results he got in this spammed video with some random quip comment. That has been his m.o. *If you think he's going to downplay Intel in any form you got another thing coming.*


He went from this:





To This:





You don't have to watch the videos just look at the thumbnails.
He went from saying that a 13900k is 0% better then a 12900k
To Saying...
A 13700k is faster then a 12900k

Some of you are gullible, admit it. You give way to much fan service to this channel. And is part of the reason why most of us don't use these type of channels.

Now I am sure you know what to expect when he reviews the 13900k, right?


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

nickolp1974 said:


> Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> 
> Q1 2023 I've heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delid and direct die the same


Amazing I glad I kept my delid tool and my two direct die coolers.

What bin should be acceptable?
P cores 115 and e cores?

Also, is 6.0Ghz achievable? Or is it not like 12900K era where it's difficult?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, you've got a lucky chip. You don't even need to bin it anymore unless you're looking for insane memory overclocks, or 6.0 GHz.
> But @Falkentyne would warn, we really shouldn't be hammering these chips with 300W+ or 1.38V+.
> People are gonna do it anyway though.
> 
> Once I get my chip, if its DDR4 IMC is better than my 12900KF, I'll test its theoretical max, and then dial it back down for a conservative daily.
> Memory matters more for me, and I have no intentions on killing the chip over time since I don't plan to adopt DDR5 for quite a while.


Yeah definitely, just 1.315V puts out some serious juice for sure. Run em stock and be happy.

These processors don’t even need overclocking at all, and I can genuinely say that and believe it. Right out of the box, they are 5.5 all cores and 5.8 boost. And not just that they perform with peak performance, with no tweaking even needed. What’s the point ya know lol? That is BLISTERING. That would be any 12900KS owners dream right there. And these 13900K’s are just boot and go like that.

I have some DDR5 7200 Hynix A-Die that will be here tomorrow. If I can get DDR5 8000 or close to it, this should definitely good enough for gaming.

I know DDR4 still has its advantages. But DDR5 is changing very fast. And it will slowly blast past DDR4 and leave a large gap. Think about DDR3 when DDR4 first came out. They had 2,400Mhz DDR3 and you could overclock it much faster than that. But common DDR4 was like 2133-2400 higher latency and it slowly grew to 5333+ after about 7-8 years. The rate of DDR5 seems to be moving faster Than DDR4 though.
Hynix A die is becoming mainstream and we already have 7200/7600/7800 sticks available from Team Group and G.Skill.

This is the only cpu I have owned that’s not bottlenecking my 3090 KP HC. So I’m happy with it. RDR2 would tank GPU usage on my [email protected] during heavy city areas and I would lose about 40+ fps. Anyways, this chip is a beast. I thought my 11900K was sufficient and I was definitely lying to my self Lol.


----------



## dante`afk

bhav said:


> I envy American houses with all that much open land around them.


you shouldn’t, places like this have like no neighbors an hour away and annual hurricanes destroying your property


----------



## nickolp1974

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Amazing I glad I kept my delid tool and my two direct die coolers.
> 
> What bin should be acceptable?
> P cores 115 and e cores?


Mine is 103sp with 111p and 83e and on my 2x 360 rads not delidded, yet!! I can manage 58 core, 46 e cores and 50 cache, but most likely 57 will be daily, with your cooling set up and direct die 58 should be easy. And that's on my above average CPU??


----------



## tps3443

Falkentyne said:


> Looks like that guy with the SP145 reported p-cores vanished after he said he was going to test x57 1.25v set LLC6. Gee I wonder why....


Yeah I figured that would be the case. I don’t even know my SP. I kinda just go by feel of hand when overclocking. Testing two chips you can easily feel the difference without an SP to cloud judgment. Of course, I’d love to know my SP, but your guess is as good as mine lol. 😎


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> I know DDR4 still has its advantages. But DDR5 is changing very fast. And it will slowly blast past DDR4 and leave a large gap.


The problem is that there were no new boards to test DDR3 vs DDR4 after Intel 4th gen, so no one can tell for sure how much longer DDR3 may have been better for.

Now as per the results in this review, if thats DDR4 4000 G2, then how much better is G1? How much better is 4800 / 5000+ G2?









Intel 13600K and 13900K DDR4 vs DDR5 Showdown | Introduction and Test Setup | CPU & Mainboard


Introduction and Test Setup




overclock3d.net





I buy the new DDR standard when I want to upgrade the CPU and it no longer supports the last one, simple as that.

DDR4 technically never 'blasted past' DDR3 as there was no way to compare since Intel 5th gen.

What if you could still get DDR3 on 13th gen? And with current advancements so maybe 3000CL8? IMO that would still be better than DDR4 and DDR5.

Ram is just weird. Bandwidth goes up, latency goes down, performance goes down.


----------



## tps3443

dante`afk said:


> you shouldn’t, places like this have like no neighbors an hour away and annual hurricanes destroying your property


I didn’t know that. I’ve lived here since 2017. When did I get destructive hurricanes?


----------



## asdkj1740

LukeT32 said:


> 100% worth it. I had a 9900k at 5.1ghz with a 3090ti and on my ultra wide I was CPU bottled necked.. Playing warzone GPU usage was averaging about 80%.... Just finished my 13900k build last night. No OC yet and easily getting 40+ FPS more and staying at 99% GPU usage.






there is a review testing 9900k vs 13900k with 4090.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

nickolp1974 said:


> Mine is 103sp with 111p and 83e and on my 2x 360 rads not delidded, yet!! I can manage 58 core, 46 e cores and 50 cache, but most likely 57 will be daily, with your cooling set up and direct die 58 should be easy. And that's on my above average CPU??


Did anyone manage 6.0Ghz on P cores?


----------



## bhav

dante`afk said:


> you shouldn’t, places like this have like no neighbors an hour away and annual hurricanes destroying your property


No neighbors would be great. Hurricanes no.


----------



## bhav

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Did anyone manage 6.0Ghz on P cores?


Well, you did see this right?









Gigabyte announces "Instant 6 GHz" feature for Intel Core i9-13900K CPUs on Z790 motherboards - VideoCardz.com


Striking 6GHz on Intel i9-13900K by GIGABYTE Instant 6GHz! Update BIOS now for the exceptional performance of future processors October 21st, 2022 – GIGABYTE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd, a leading manufacturer of motherboards, graphics cards, and hardware solutions, today announced the Instant 6GHz...




videocardz.com





Apparently every 13900k can 6 Ghz (on two cores).

More exploding gigabyte components, no.1 brand for pyromaniacs!


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> No neighbors would be great. Hurricanes no.


It is great. I have never had hurricane damage where I live. Been here since 2017. There was a hurricane in 2016 at my previous home but it was just power outage for a day or so no trees down.

I think he’s exaggerating this greatly.


----------



## affxct

I think you will all hit 6GHz on your 13900Ks. 🥹


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

bhav said:


> Well, you did see this right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gigabyte announces "Instant 6 GHz" feature for Intel Core i9-13900K CPUs on Z790 motherboards - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> Striking 6GHz on Intel i9-13900K by GIGABYTE Instant 6GHz! Update BIOS now for the exceptional performance of future processors October 21st, 2022 – GIGABYTE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd, a leading manufacturer of motherboards, graphics cards, and hardware solutions, today announced the Instant 6GHz...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videocardz.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently every 13900k can 6 Ghz (on two cores).
> 
> More exploding gigabyte components, no.1 brand for pyromaniacs!


Yeah that's questionable at best. I'll stick to standard OCing haha


But on average, can anyone here do 6.0Ghz or 5.9Ghz or range between bins let's say 110-120P core can max out at e.g. 5.7 all core and 5.8Ghz is lucky?

My 12900KS does 5.8Ghz on 3 cores.


----------



## bhav

6.2 Ghz 3 cores



Tadaschi said:


> it run 6.2ghz until 3 cores
> View attachment 2577655


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

bhav said:


> 6.2 Ghz 3 cores


Ah so single core is like through the roof 2500 or something like that.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

bhav said:


> 6.2 Ghz 3 cores


What's your SP rating?


----------



## Falkentyne

yt93900 said:


> Fixed!
> +
> Z790 ROG Extreme trained 7200 C34's in 1 try though, not bad for a 4xDIMM board...EVGA definitely has a problem with their 2.01 BIOS atm.


 E cores of 76? That's gotta be the lowest i've seen yet 
But that just means you need more vcore to clock them higher when you yeet them.


----------



## bhav

TheNaitsyrk said:


> What's your SP rating?


Its not mine, I quoted someone elses for you

Per core OC seems to be the way to go with these, OC the cores with lowest temps more.


----------



## Arni90

Falkentyne said:


> Looks like that guy with the SP145 reported p-cores vanished after he said he was going to test x57 1.25v set LLC6. Gee I wonder why....


I can actually run 57x P-cores with 1.28V LLC3 on my Z690 Unify-X, VR VOUT is hitting 1.18V at that point.
How high would you estimate me to be?


----------



## bhav

That much SP for just 5.7 all core jeez.

Isn't stock 5.5 all core?


----------



## Ichirou

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Hello most dudes in the new thread.
> 
> Can anyone tell me what's the decent golden bin at the moment for 13900K?
> 
> Will old direct die work on 13900K?
> 
> What all core OC is achievable now as well? For a golden chip?
> 
> Also, Z690 will OC ram about same as Z790 or it's best to buy new mobo?
> 
> 4090 I have OCs like a champ, just need a CPU now.





TheNaitsyrk said:


> Amazing I glad I kept my delid tool and my two direct die coolers.
> 
> What bin should be acceptable?
> P cores 115 and e cores?
> 
> Also, is 6.0Ghz achievable? Or is it not like 12900K era where it's difficult?





TheNaitsyrk said:


> Did anyone manage 6.0Ghz on P cores?





TheNaitsyrk said:


> Yeah that's questionable at best. I'll stick to standard OCing haha
> 
> 
> But on average, can anyone here do 6.0Ghz or 5.9Ghz or range between bins let's say 110-120P core can max out at e.g. 5.7 all core and 5.8Ghz is lucky?
> 
> My 12900KS does 5.8Ghz on 3 cores.


Range is SP 80 to 120, 100 being the median average.
SP 110+ is golden.

Up to 5.8 GHz all-core is doable with custom loops. Delid and optionally direct die if you want better longevity.
5.9 GHz all-core and above is P-core only, or ridiculous degradation voltage.

Test your Z690 board first. You might not need an upgrade.

The 13900KS will have one core reaching 6.0 GHz, but you can probably get that from a strong 13900K bin.


tps3443 said:


> Yeah definitely, just 1.315V puts out some serious juice for sure. Run em stock and be happy.
> 
> These processors don’t even need overclocking at all, and I can genuinely say that and believe it. Right out of the box, they are 5.5 all cores and 5.8 boost. And not just that they perform with peak performance, with no tweaking even needed. What’s the point ya know lol? That is BLISTERING. That would be any 12900KS owners dream right there. And these 13900K’s are just boot and go like that.
> 
> I have some DDR5 7200 Hynix A-Die that will be here tomorrow. If I can get DDR5 8000 or close to it, this should definitely good enough for gaming.
> 
> I know DDR4 still has its advantages. But DDR5 is changing very fast. And it will slowly blast past DDR4 and leave a large gap. Think about DDR3 when DDR4 first came out. They had 2,400Mhz DDR3 and you could overclock it much faster than that. But common DDR4 was like 2133-2400 higher latency and it slowly grew to 5333+ after about 7-8 years. The rate of DDR5 seems to be moving faster Than DDR4 though.
> Hynix A die is becoming mainstream and we already have 7200/7600/7800 sticks available from Team Group and G.Skill.
> 
> This is the only cpu I have owned that’s not bottlenecking my 3090 KP HC. So I’m happy with it. RDR2 would tank GPU usage on my [email protected] during heavy city areas and I would lose about 40+ fps. Anyways, this chip is a beast. I thought my 11900K was sufficient and I was definitely lying to my self Lol.


7,600+ MHz at any meaningful CAS latency warrants a ton of VDIMM which people can only cool with water.
So we're not stabilizing 8,000+ MHz on the consumer end any day soon. Unless you loosen the timings quite a lot.


affxct said:


> I think you will all hit 6GHz on your 13900Ks. 🥹


13900KS is just one core at 6.0 GHz, which should be achievable with most above average 13900K's right now.
Assuming you pump a ton of Vcore into it, obviously. But I don't think Intel cares. They want to win the processor race for now.


----------



## Falkentyne

Arni90 said:


> I can actually run 57x P-cores with 1.28V LLC3 on my Z690 Unify-X, VR VOUT is hitting 1.18V at that point.
> How high would you estimate me to be?


Can you loop it 30 minutes? Big difference between completing 1 run and a 30 minute loop 
And vmin for 30mins of cinebench r23 (at the same bios set vcore) isn't enough to pass stockfish BMI2/AVX2 builds at all, but may be good enough for gaming.
If you can pass 30 min loop i'd say P core rating of 115+.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Ichirou said:


> Range is SP 80 to 120, 100 being the median average.
> SP 110+ is golden.
> 
> Up to 5.8 GHz all-core is doable with custom loops. Delid and optionally direct die if you want better longevity.
> 5.9 GHz all-core and above is P-core only, or ridiculous degradation voltage.
> 
> Test your Z690 board first. You might not need an upgrade.
> 
> The 13900KS will have one core reaching 6.0 GHz, but you can probably get that from a strong 13900K bin.
> 
> 7,600+ MHz at any meaningful CAS latency warrants a ton of VDIMM which people can only cool with water.
> So we're not stabilizing 8,000+ MHz on the consumer end any day soon.
> 
> 
> 13900KS is just one core at 6.0 GHz, which should be achievable with most above average 13900K's right now.
> Assuming you pump a ton of Vcore into it, obviously. But I don't think Intel cares. They want to win the processor race for now.


Thanks a lot. I wanted to get a general idea of how it works and what to expect now.


----------



## bhav

So I'm thinking leave 6 cores at stock, and overclock the two best ones as far as they will go when I get mine, as most things only care about single core performance anyway.


----------



## yt93900

I have no clue anymore, the 13900K runs even worse on the ROG Z790 Extreme in terms of temperatures than on the DARK. In Cinebench R23 i shoots like crazy to 102-103*C w. 307W package.

It's already throttling in CPU-Z benchmark...


----------



## nickolp1974

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Did anyone manage 6.0Ghz on P cores?


yes the link i gave you did @sugi0lover


----------



## yt93900

I think the Arctic Freezer II doesn't fit the new LGA1700 somehow.
No clue what is wrong, you can see the backplate is bending towards the mounting holes and the standoffs are not even fully screwed in. Almost like the socket backplate is too thick, however I compared it to the DARK one - same thickness. I don't get it, to me - it should stop at the rubber bumpers before bending but the bumpers don't even touch the PCB in my case.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

opt33 said:


> Your chip is just better bin than mine with lower vid/vrout, would be interesting to see your vid/wattage at stock/auto. I was just running at stock to see temps, havent started ocing yet. But yes, can always lower vcore over intels set vin/voltage and drop wattage.


What do you think for my chip. 13700KF

1.286-1295 vOUT( vcc sense) at 5.4 all core 4.4e -47 ring VID is 1.313


----------



## Falkentyne

yt93900 said:


> I have no clue anymore, the 13900K runs even worse on the ROG Z790 Extreme in terms of temperatures than on the DARK. In Cinebench R23 i shoots like crazy to 102-103*C w. 307W package.
> 
> It's already throttling in CPU-Z benchmark...


Why dont you have the load (active load) vcore shown?
Dark supports VR VOUT on the newest hwinfo64 so you can compare dark and maximus.


----------



## Falkentyne

yt93900 said:


> I think the Arctic Freezer II doesn't fit the new LGA1700 somehow.
> No clue what is wrong, you can see the backplate is bending towards the mounting holes and the standoffs are not even fully screwed in. Almost like the socket backplate is too thick, however I compared it to the DARK one - same thickness. I don't get it, to me - it should stop at the rubber bumpers before bending but the bumpers don't even touch the PCB in my case.


Did you align the mounting nuts properly?
You have to make sure the nut spokes are aligned correctly into the corners and only then put the rubber washers on them.
I found, oddly enough, that not each "spoke" on the hex nut is identical, I tested each groove until I found the one that fit the best.

I had no problems with either Z690 or Z790 extreme after doing this.
Though I'm using the thermalright frame also, that doesn't affect the backplate.


----------



## bhav

In general though this is a problem with arctic AIOs, the mount is usually too big to fit on a lot of boards.

Its the one reason why corsair AIOs are better, compatibility with most if not all mobos.


----------



## yt93900

Yeah the problem is in the mounting, that's obvious. I've installed it a few times already on different boards and never noticed this.
So strange, almost like the socket backplate is too thick as the mounting holes from the Arctic backplate aren't even flush on the MB PCB but either recessed.









20221023 194119 — Postimages







postimg.cc


----------



## Falkentyne

yt93900 said:


> Yeah the problem is in the mounting, that's obvious. I've installed it a few times already on different boards and never noticed this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 20221023 194119 — Postimages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postimg.cc


I have this same setup (LF II 360, 1700 mount and thermalright bracket) and no problems whatsoever like this.
In fact my mount is good enough that I use liquid metal instead of thermal paste.

From eyeballing your CPU, it looks like the thermalright bracket isnt low enough...maybe it's the picture angle, or maybe you need to remove the thermal paste so i can see better, but it looks like the IHS isn't high enough above the edges of the frame. Did you screw it down to resistance? (it has to be bottomed out, so full resistance). Mine seeems to be just above 1 DVD in thickness in height (frame to IHS top), maybe between 1.2 to 2mm, idk the exact.

I also said that you have to align the backplate nuts correctly. I found that only 1 'position' of turn per each nut is correct, and you have to test each turn by sliding the nut into the diagonal corner of the backplate and "eyeball" the fit until you see a perfect fit, then put the rubber washer on top.

I did this and have no problems. You barely have any contact at all. Either the backplate nuts are not aligned correctly, or you didn't screw in the thermalright frame to full resistance. (unlike the grizzly frame, you screw these down fully).


----------



## bhav

Maybe try sending a support ticket to arctic for longer screws?

Then again I already tried sending a query about motherboard compatibility for the 420 AIO and they don't respond.


----------



## yt93900

@Falkentyne
Yes, the IHS is above the bracket. Same pressure on the TR frame as I used before on the DARK - full resistance but not using a screwdriver, just finger tight.
Never had this issue before and I used it on the Z690 Apex and Dark.
Just tried the backplate nut through the mounting hole and without the backplate itself, it's just a tiny bit above the PCB, so that's not the problem.


----------



## bscool

Arctic really needs to change the mounting screws though. They love to cut into the MB and plastic washers. If they made the bottom round that touches MB would help a lot. Many AIO and custom block do this. That is my main issue with Arctic AIOs.


----------



## yt93900

Fully agreed, they must change them, and get rid of the sticky plastic washers.


----------



## Ichirou

Just get some proper washers from Home Depot yourself, lol... It's not that hard to measure or bring one in to compare.


----------



## Falkentyne

yt93900 said:


> @Falkentyne
> Yes, the IHS is above the bracket. Same pressure on the TR frame as I used before on the DARK - full resistance but not using a screwdriver, just finger tight.
> Never had this issue before, just tried the backplate nut through the mounting hole and without the backplate itself, it's just a tiny bit above the PCB, so that's not the problem.


This is bizarre.
Are the 'top' black nuts fully screwed down? Are you sure you are using the socket 1700 ones?
Your picture you took is identical in spread pattern to people who used the 1151 nuts on the z690 apex/extreme (or who used the 1151 backplate even though the board has both spacings, the IHS depth is different than Z490/Z590 boards).

Each black top nut should fully screw down all the way to where it contacts the 'paper' washer (not talking about the rubber ones) completely, and it should be visually apparent (with enough light) when it's fully screwed in. Please check this. Remember the 1151 nuts are 1mm shorter than the 1700 ones.
_EDIT_

I just looked at your picture and saw the RAM slots
Your bad contact is closest to the EPS12VS right??

Got it. You need to push down harder on the block. The edge of the long bracket contacts the heatsink and there is no space. You have to actually push it down even more until it gets past that resistance and goes all the way down. This gets easier to do after a few insertions as part of the metal gets worn. But please verify the black nuts are fully screwed down before you do this.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Falkentyne said:


> I have no clue anymore, the 13900K runs even worse on the ROG Z790 Extreme in terms of temperatures than on the DARK. In Cinebench R23 i shoots like crazy to 102-103*C w. 307W package.
> 
> It's already throttling in CPU-Z benchmark...


I managed to cool 335W 12900KS, average 80c. What are you cooling it with?


----------



## adolf512

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Did anyone manage 6.0Ghz on P cores?


I haven't seen anything prime95 stable yet but it should be possible with some samples at least.


----------



## Ichirou

adolf512 said:


> I haven't seen anything prime95 stable yet but it should be possible with some samples at least.


It'll be doable with the E-cores off. It just gets too hot.
All-core will be harder than a few cores.


----------



## adolf512

Ichirou said:


> It'll be doable with the E-cores off. It just gets too hot.
> 
> All-core will be harder than a few cores.


Cannot you just undervolt the e-cores if needed? 

But yea you need a good custom loop for that. I actually have one that is decommissioned but i don't feel like restarting it now.


----------



## yt93900

Falkentyne said:


> This is bizarre.
> Are the 'top' black nuts fully screwed down? Are you sure you are using the socket 1700 ones?
> Your picture you took is identical in spread pattern to people who used the 1151 nuts on the z690 apex/extreme (or who used the 1151 backplate even though the board has both spacings, the IHS depth is different than Z490/Z590 boards).
> 
> Each black top nut should fully screw down all the way to where it contacts the 'paper' washer (not talking about the rubber ones) completely, and it should be visually apparent (with enough light) when it's fully screwed in. Please check this. Remember the 1151 nuts are 1mm shorter than the 1700 ones.
> _EDIT_
> 
> I just looked at your picture and saw the RAM slots
> Your bad contact is closest to the EPS12VS right??
> 
> Got it. You need to push down harder on the block. The edge of the long bracket contacts the heatsink and there is no space. You have to actually push it down even more until it gets past that resistance and goes all the way down. This gets easier to do after a few insertions as part of the metal gets worn. But please verify the black nuts are fully screwed down before you do this.


This is concerning:








20221023 202309 — Postimages







postimg.cc




The nuts are recessed so the bolts (with the thread on both sides) will eventually eat into the PCB.
I'll go take a look at the accesory pack but I've had the exact same setup running on the Dark just yesterday.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Falkentyne said:


> Depends on what the loadline mode steps translate to in mohms. You could get that info from MSI if you reach the right person.


But this result would be the true voltage the cpu gets - which is what we need to be concerned about re vcore. It’s weird that msi doesn’t have this sensor or some so system. I’m on the fence about the edge or the strix d4 if I’m gonna do this upgrade.


----------



## Ichirou

adolf512 said:


> Cannot you just undervolt the e-cores if needed?
> 
> But yea you need a good custom loop for that. I actually have one that is decommissioned but i don't feel like restarting it now.


The E-cores share Vcore with the P-cores. Clocking them down won't really do anything since the watts are being pumped into the chip anyway.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

bhav said:


> Also just realized if I'd have gone for a higher end ATX DDR4 Z690 back in April, then I wouldn't have gotten the case I've pre ordered. Cheapest DDR4 itx asrock board & 12600k were enough to hold out for 13th gen and Z790.
> 
> Only thing Z790 might help for is better DDR4 clocks, but if running at G1 its a pointless metric as well.
> 
> Go Go Gear 2 6000+ DDR4! (plz, I needs more records).


This is what I was hoping for haha. It seeing anyone posting results for their ddr4 oc on z790 tho…to me I think it’ll max out around 5000 for dr…I think the edge board is rated 5333+ for sr - except for maybe a water block….I’m talking daily.


----------



## tps3443

I ran R23 for 30 minutes. It passed. 

P-Cores 5.8Ghz
E-Cores 4.5Ghz
Cache/Ring 4.8Ghz

Corsair Vengeance [email protected] 6600C36

Max power 332 watts.

VID Max 1.315V 

1 Minute left of the 30 minutes!!!


----------



## Exilon

yt93900 said:


> This is concerning:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 20221023 202309 — Postimages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postimg.cc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nuts are recessed so the bolts (with the thread on both sides) will eventually eat into the PCB.
> I'll go take a look at the accesory pack but I've had the exact same setup running on the Dark just yesterday.


You aren't the only one with thermal problems on an Arctic AIO. From looking at the Intel subreddit, the AIO temperature problems are either dying Apaltek AIOs from MSI/Fractal/etc or fully functional Arctic AIOs that perform way worse than expected. One poster is hitting 100C at 320W immediately and I reckon the setup has the same problem as you.


----------



## monster93

I also got an i9 13900K this week. Its _SP is 103_ according to the BIOS of my Z690 Apex. With ASUS's AI-optimized feature, its P-Cores and E-cores boost to *6.1Ghz *and *4.6 Ghz, *respectively.
I haven't tested under-volting and manual OC yet.
I can also confirm that the memory controller seems to be improved compared to Alder lake CPUs. My G.Skill 6400Mhz runs fine now w/o extra voltage! On 12900KS, it needed a bit extra voltage to become stable!


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

monster93 said:


> I also got an i9 13900K this week. Its _SP is 103_ according to the BIOS of my Z690 Apex. With ASUS's AI-optimized feature, its P-Cores and E-cores boost to *6.1Ghz *and *4.6 Ghz, *respectively.
> I haven't tested under-volting and manual OC yet.
> I can also confirm that the memory controller seems to be improved compared to Alder lake CPUs. My G.Skill 6400Mhz runs fine now w/o extra voltage! On 12900KS, it needed a bit extra voltage to become stable!





> the memory controller seems to be improved compared to Alder lake CPU


Exactly the reason i wait 5 months for CPU without buying a ADL cpu months ago. Glad my decision is the correct one. My 6800 M die stable ( still testing ) with 1.44 dram voltage while my friend ADL + m die is stable with 1.55 dram voltage.


----------



## yt93900

Exilon said:


> You aren't the only one with thermal problems on an Arctic AIO. From looking at the Intel subreddit, the AIO temperature problems are either dying Apaltek AIOs from MSI/Fractal/etc or fully functional Arctic AIOs that perform way worse than expected. One poster is hitting 100C at 320W immediately and I reckon the setup has the same problem as you.


Weird, isn't it? I've used an LF II 360's for months, then the 420 but this is the first board (Z790 Extreme) where this happens.
I think I will have to order the H170i but it's crazy expensive, almost twice the price of the Arctic here.


----------



## bhav

Uncle Dubbs said:


> This is what I was hoping for haha. It seeing anyone posting results for their ddr4 oc on z790 tho…to me I think it’ll max out around 5000 for dr…I think the edge board is rated 5333+ for sr - except for maybe a water block….I’m talking daily.



Someone showed my current ram running at 5800 on msi z690, though no idea if it was stable or anything.

It might have been 2x8 though. Theres the new extremely overpriced 2x8 Kingston 5333 DDR4, but its a pointless purchase and only 16 Gb.

Now if they made 5333 2x16 SR for under £200 I'd buy that to play with.


----------



## tps3443

Higher image quality. R23 (30 Minutes)

5.8Ghz P-Cores.
4.5Ghz E-Cores
4.8Ghz Cache/Ring

332 watts

CPU has a little more left in it. Especially the cache! Maybe the E-Cores too. Very fast!


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> You aren't the only one with thermal problems on an Arctic AIO. From looking at the Intel subreddit, the AIO temperature problems are either dying Apaltek AIOs from MSI/Fractal/etc or fully functional Arctic AIOs that perform way worse than expected. One poster is hitting 100C at 320W immediately and I reckon the setup has the same problem as you.


Crap, I want the arctic 420 aio too. Corsair costs so much more and less performance in reviews.

Lets hope someone else makes a better 420 aio in the next month.


----------



## Falkentyne

yt93900 said:


> This is concerning:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 20221023 202309 — Postimages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postimg.cc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nuts are recessed so the bolts (with the thread on both sides) will eventually eat into the PCB.
> I'll go take a look at the accesory pack but I've had the exact same setup running on the Dark just yesterday.


Looks like the nut is fully screwed in.
Did you see my last post edit?
When I looked at your spread, I recognized this from my system previously.
Your problem is that the block isn't fully pushed down. The part closest to the EPS12V cables (top left) is contacting the heatsink. If you push it down more you will hear it 'snap' past it and then it will go fully down. If it goes fully down to max pressure on the black nut, but the black nut isn't fully screwed down, and it still doesn't make full contact with the CPU, then of course the same thing will happen but that doesn't seem to be the problem.

I noticed this on my very first install of the liquid freezer II back on the Z490 board. The very edge of the long bracket was contacting the heatsink edge and had to be yeeted down past that interruption. It wasn't the black nut post causing the problem, it was contacting the very edge of the VRM heatsink.

Of course, back then, the intel ILM just made things worse (and on Z690 before I bought the TR bracket).

You can test this without even screwing it down or using thermal paste.
Just take a dab of toothpaste, 5 dabs, one in the middle of the CPU, one "close" to each corner.
Then push down straight down manually with your hands and then immediately pull the heat block off (without tilting it). Then you'll see if the spread will be even.

The backplate itself just gives the black nut something to screw down onto. If I had a second LF II, I would test it to see if it would work with the Noctua Secu-firm2 mount (like the Eisbaer Extreme 280 does--very tight fit but it does). When I buy a LF II 420, I'll mess with that and test it on the Z690 board (that's in the closet) before installing it on the Z790 (since the backplate is already on).


----------



## yt93900

I've tried it and this was as much as I could screw the 4 bolts/standoffs in by hand, If I'd use a tool, the bolts would probably eat into the PCB. That's why I was thinking the socket backplate being too thick because the backplate was also visibly bending in the corners at that point.
The 4 thumb nuts were fully screwed in with a screwdriver.


----------



## acoustic

13900K / Unify-X custom loop with Thermalright contact frame

CPU FORCE 134
5.7 P / 4.5 E
1.30v Set @ LLC3 , 1.275v VR VOUT

Passes 30min CB23. Might actually have a decent bin on my hands. Going to try dropping to 1.280v set and see what happens..

I'm a little concerned with continuing to push 300w+ at such high temperatures, though..


----------



## Falkentyne

yt93900 said:


> I've tried it and this was as much as I could screw the 4 bolts/standoffs in by hand, If I'd use a tool, the bolts would probably eat into the PCB. That's why I was thinking the socket backplate being too thick because the backplate was also visibly bending in the corners at that point.
> The 4 thumb nuts were fully screwed in with a screwdriver.


nono, the screw tension isn't the problem.
When you put the LF II onto the CPU, didn't you notice that the top left corner didn't seem to go down all the way?
On Z490, there was apparently no problem. When I looked on Z490, there was about 0.5mm of air clearance between the edge of the long bracket (that screws into the pump block) and the VRM heatsink itself.

But on Rocket Lake (Z590 Extreme), there was even LESS clearance. And by less, I mean literally NEGATIVE clearance. The very edge of the LF II bracket was contacting the VRM heatsink. I had to manually push it past it to push it firmly down. Then it screwed in no problem.
Z690 and Z790 had the same clearance issue as Z590.
Your spread pattern seems to be showing that it's that exact corner causing the problem.

ANOTHER thing you can try is to VERY MILDLY bend both edges of the long bracket VERY SLIGHTLY upwards. That would give like 0.5mm more spacing for the bracket to latch onto the post downwards, but you would have to be VERY careful when you do this, and do both sides to have balance.


----------



## Telstar

Ichirou said:


> The E-cores share Vcore with the P-cores. Clocking them down won't really do anything since the watts are being pumped into the chip anyway.


Are you sure?


----------



## adolf512

Ichirou said:


> The E-cores share Vcore with the P-cores. Clocking them down won't really do anything since the watts are being pumped into the chip anyway.


Clocking them down would still reduce the power consumption but you don't gain any efficiently from that then. 

Would have been better to have a separate voltage for the e-cores i think.


----------



## acoustic

@Falkentyne 

Looks like I've got 5.7 P/4.5 E @ 1.255v (1.28v SET MSI LLC3) stable in CB23.

Do you have another method of testing processor bin that doesn't require 30min of degrading the chip with 300w @ 85c? 😂


----------



## Falkentyne

Telstar said:


> Are you sure?


If the E cores are at stock, disabling them gives you exactly 0 mhz more on the P-cores.
Yes, temps will obviously be lower but not by that much.
Any stability increase you get are PURELY from the vdroop being less--vcore being higher under load--because there is less current, fewer cores, so the P-cores have slightly higher load voltage.
In my testing with E cores disabled, at best I gained 15mv. Absolutely nowhere near enough for another multiplier.

Depending on your E core SP, the E cores have a minimum vcore needed just like the P cores.
If you start pushing them, you need to increase total vcore if your vcore isn't high enough to sustain the E core freq.

For example on my cpu, Ecore #1 (the first one) gives out in Y-cruncher at 5.2 ghz (P cores) at 1.066v load in the "SFT" test with E cores at stock (4.3 ghz) after a few loops. (it reports logical core #16 has crashed). The P cores need lower vcore than this. Just 5mv higher set vcore and it passes for 30+ minutes.

My E core SP is 94.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> @Falkentyne
> 
> Looks like I've got 5.7 P/4.5 E @ 1.255v (1.28v SET MSI LLC3) stable in CB23.
> 
> Do you have another method of testing processor bin that doesn't require 30min of degrading the chip with 300w @ 85c? 😂


y-cruncher's main test with as much memory populated as possible. It's shorter, and needs more Vcore than R23/P95.


----------



## monster93

With the CPU-Z test, my 13900K boosts up to *6.2Ghz* (Thanks to ASUS' AI-optimized feature)


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> @Falkentyne
> 
> Looks like I've got 5.7 P/4.5 E @ 1.255v (1.28v SET MSI LLC3) stable in CB23.
> 
> Do you have another method of testing processor bin that doesn't require 30min of degrading the chip with 300w @ 85c? 😂


You aren't running prime95 FMA3 small FFT's like buildzoid keeps doing in his videos. Cinebench R23 won't degrade at 1.28v set + LLC3. 
In fact that should still be equal to or below "ICCMAX.App", which is Intel recommendation for 24/7 operation (245 amps).

ICCMAX (virus mode) is 302 amps. That's when you start getting worried. When you start trying to pass Prime95 small FFT FMA3 at 5.5 ghz....(because that's going to be 310 amps or higher).

I tested this at 5.4 ghz at 1.10v load. FMA3 was pushing 295 amps....


----------



## Ichirou

Telstar said:


> Are you sure?


Yes. SkatterBench explains it better.


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> You aren't running prime95 FMA3 small FFT's like buildzoid keeps doing in his videos. Cinebench R23 won't degrade at 1.28v set + LLC3.
> In fact that should still be equal to or below "ICCMAX.App", which is Intel recommendation for 24/7 operation (245 amps).
> 
> ICCMAX (virus mode) is 302 amps. That's when you start getting worried. When you start trying to pass Prime95 small FFT FMA3 at 5.5 ghz....(because that's going to be 310 amps or higher).
> 
> I tested this at 5.4 ghz at 1.10v load. FMA3 was pushing 295 amps....


Sweet! Thanks for that. Yeah, pushing 230-233A in CB23 @ 1.280v set.

Where does your 13900K land on the CB23 scale with the 5.7P/4.5E test?


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> Sweet! Thanks for that. Yeah, pushing 230-233A in CB23 @ 1.280v set.
> 
> Where does your 13900K land on the CB23 scale with the 5.7P/4.5E test?


I think I got 42,383 or something.

@*yt93900 did you understand what I was trying to tell you?
your problem may not be the nuts, although I can't be 100% sure. If the nut is already screwed down and not turning anymore and there is no "air space" between the bottom of the black nut and the paper washer, it is down enough.

However, on the socket 1700 bracket, I found a "minor" problem with how the backplate nuts go into the backplate. 
There are 'grooves' for the cutouts of the chrome "hex" nut. The problem I found is two things, which are not explained correctly in the online arctic manual:

1. The "hex" corner will only fit into the backplate corner correctly with one specific turn point of the chrome hex screw. You can visually look at it and tell when it is properly aligned and perfect. Then you move it all the way snugly into the corner and it should be perfect from looking at the backside of the chrome hex nut's position, relative to the black backplate "cut-out" for the chrome hex nut.

2. If it's not properly aligned, it won't go into the proper position, or it won't get 'pushed' up (towards the front part of the motherboard) properly. It was a bit annoying when I first assembled this on Z690 to figure out how this was supposed to work. But I think from your replies, you already checked this.*

Your problem is just in the top left corner--that's the corner that "contacts" the bracket and stops the bracket from pushing completely down onto the "peg", unless you apply downwards pressure to force the bracket past the section of the VRM heatsink that is contacting it. You apply this pressure with your hands, not with screws.

You can also do a very very very minor bend upwards of both sides of the bracket, to give yourself a little more "depth". Extremely minor. You can use a glass table or mirror and examine how much you're bending. You should do both sides to make sure the pressure is even. Like, less than 1 degree of bend (on both sides).


----------



## stalessa

i do not understand why we have to delid the CPU ourselves to get better temps..

Why Intel does not sell their CPU with a better IHS at stock same as delidded..?

i don't feel like buying a 13900k for this reason,

it seems lazy on Intel part to sell us a flagship CPU that we need to delid ourselves to get good temperatures..

Also we need to replace the LGA 1700 bracket with a contact frame because is does not work well...

What are people working at Intel doing?

People buying flagship CPU should not have to loose warranty delidding CPU and changing motherboards sockets..


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> I think I got 42,383 or something


Hah, I meant vMin for stability


----------



## Raphie

The bracket only fits one way, the way it’s mounted now it looks like a cool paste pool. There is a 2mm gap right bottom at least. fully plastered, that just can’t work. Wrong assembly.


----------



## X909

What's the default Ring clock on the 13900k?


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> Hah, I meant vMin for stability


1.225v with Core PLL=0.975v and VCCIN=1.86v.


----------



## Exilon

bhav said:


> Crap, I want the arctic 420 aio too. Corsair costs so much more and less performance in reviews.
> 
> Lets hope someone else makes a better 420 aio in the next month.





yt93900 said:


> Weird, isn't it? I've used an LF II 360's for months, then the 420 but this is the first board (Z790 Extreme) where this happens.
> I think I will have to order the H170i but it's crazy expensive, almost twice the price of the Arctic here.


There's an advisory from Arctic. A whole lot of Z690 boards needs a part of the AIO waterblock removed for fit issues. I assume Z790 would have the same issues.


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> 1.225v with Core PLL=0.975v and VCCIN=1.86v.


Seems my vMin with everything auto is 1.275v set MSI LLC3. 1.250v VR VOUT under load. Have another ~10min on CB23 to say for sure, though.

not sure where this lands me in SP rating, but seems above average.


----------



## newls1

nickolp1974 said:


> room??? what are your temps for that??


Hottest core touched 71 / 72c and that was only 1 core, all the rest were in the 60s. The chip is delidded with a supercool direct die mount waterblock


----------



## yt93900

@Exilon 
This is the new, reworked model, roughly 2 months old. I will try with the toothpaste to see how it spreads but this doesn't bode confidence at all, really don't want to bend the board and might get the H170i at that point to play it safe.
It didn't feel like it wanted to snap into place when wiggling it a bit.


----------



## kaTus

Why?
[/QUOTE]
new chips are so highly binned that it doesnt make sense anymore. I remember 10900K/11900K with SP ~50-60. Now it is hard to get 13900K below 95.


----------



## Talon2016

dante`afk said:


> Filthy


Well instead my brother took the SP99 off my hands. MC restocked this morning and grabbed a 3rd sample. SP101, but heavily weighed to the P cores. Good with me. Going to test it today.

So far I've had:

SP106 with P115 and E88

SP 99 with P and E -- will update this when he installed because apparently I forgot to screenshot this one.

SP101 with P112 and E81


----------



## Thunderclap

bhav said:


> Crap, I want the arctic 420 aio too. Corsair costs so much more and less performance in reviews.
> 
> Lets hope someone else makes a better 420 aio in the next month.


There is one already, but for whatever reason people don't even know it exists, it seems... This one:

Alphacool Core Ocean T38 AIO 420mm

I tried to compare it to the Liquid Freezer II:


Comes in the same 120/240/280/360/420 sizes as the Liquid Freezer II
38mm thick radiators (from Alphacool's industrial line) the same size as the radiators on the Liquid Freezer II
Better pump - 3500RPM vs. 2000RPM on the Liquid Freezer II
Better fans - Higher CFM on the 120mm models / Higher CFM and H2O on the 140mm models
The most surprising one: They are cheaper across the board compared to the already great value of the Liquid Freezer II
Only disadvantage I found: They seem to come with only 2 years warranty compared to the 6 years warranty on the Liquid Freezer II

I think this is as good as an AIO can get currently, I will most likely be picking up the 420mm model next month when I decide if I go with 13700K or 13900K  Until then I hope some reviews of it will come out or maybe someone to compare it to the Liquid Freezer II and see how much of an improvement (if any?) there is. I think it should be able to easily handle the 13900K at stock, especially with a contact frame, even a somewhat reasonable overclock should be okay.


----------



## bhav

Thunderclap said:


> There is one already, but for whatever reason people don't even know it exists, it seems... This one:
> 
> Alphacool Core Ocean T38 AIO 420mm
> 
> I tried to compare it to the Liquid Freezer II:
> 
> 
> Comes in the same 120/240/280/360/420 sizes as the Liquid Freezer II
> 38mm thick radiators (from Alphacool's industrial line) the same size as the radiators on the Liquid Freezer II
> Better pump - 3500RPM vs. 2000RPM on the Liquid Freezer II
> Better fans - Higher CFM on the 120mm models / Higher CFM and H2O on the 140mm models
> The most surprising one: They are cheaper across the board compared to the already great value of the Liquid Freezer II
> Only disadvantage I found: They seem to come with only 2 years warranty compared to the 6 years warranty on the Liquid Freezer II
> 
> I think this is as good as an AIO can get currently, I will most likely be picking up the 420mm model next month when I decide if I go with 13700K or 13900K  Until then I hope some reviews of it will come out or maybe someone to compare it to the Liquid Freezer II and see how much of an improvement (if any?) there is. I think it should be able to easily handle the 13900K at stock, especially with a contact frame, even a somewhat reasonable overclock should be okay.


One of the reasons of the Arctic warranty is the thickness of the hoses which prevents evaporation. The thin tubes on the Alphacool look like no more coolant left after 2 years.

Actually I was thinking of their other one called eisbaer, which just looks cheap. The core ocean one looks a lot better and padded tubes.


----------



## Falkentyne

Thunderclap said:


> There is one already, but for whatever reason people don't even know it exists, it seems... This one:
> 
> Alphacool Core Ocean T38 AIO 420mm
> 
> I tried to compare it to the Liquid Freezer II:
> 
> 
> Comes in the same 120/240/280/360/420 sizes as the Liquid Freezer II
> 38mm thick radiators (from Alphacool's industrial line) the same size as the radiators on the Liquid Freezer II
> Better pump - 3500RPM vs. 2000RPM on the Liquid Freezer II
> Better fans - Higher CFM on the 120mm models / Higher CFM and H2O on the 140mm models
> The most surprising one: They are cheaper across the board compared to the already great value of the Liquid Freezer II
> Only disadvantage I found: They seem to come with only 2 years warranty compared to the 6 years warranty on the Liquid Freezer II
> 
> I think this is as good as an AIO can get currently, I will most likely be picking up the 420mm model next month when I decide if I go with 13700K or 13900K  Until then I hope some reviews of it will come out or maybe someone to compare it to the Liquid Freezer II and see how much of an improvement (if any?) there is. I think it should be able to easily handle the 13900K at stock, especially with a contact frame, even a somewhat reasonable overclock should be okay.


That really depends.
The Eisbaer Extreme 280 AIO had one of the worst mounting systems in the history of mankind (not only could the backplate snap in half, you were better off using the Noctua Secufirm2 backplate with this!!), and their 360 RGB model wasn't any better. Did you guys realize their backplate is NOT metal? The Arctic is completely metal, just like the Noctua ones are.

And looking at the backplate:
seems to be as atrocious as ever. Looks like almost the exact same mounting system as their Eisbaer series. Atrocious.



https://www.alphacool.com/download/manual/13054_Alphacool_Core_Ocean_T38_AIO_420mm_Manual.pdf



I won't take my chances on this.


----------



## Slackaveli

Ichirou said:


> It doesn't really make sense to disable the E-cores this time around, considering that a high ring is still achievable with them on.
> Only issue being cooling.


Exactly. Maybe instead turning off HT for gaming will be the way.


----------



## bhav

The few reviews I did find all point out the Alphacools have the worst mounting. Couldn't find comparisons but in this test an AMD CPU runs at 101c at 230w:









Test Alphacool Core Ocean T38 AIO 360 mm et 420 mm


Alphacool lance aujourd’hui une nouvelle série de CPU AIO d’entrée de gamme, intitulée Alphacool Core Ocean T38 AIO.




pausehardware.com





Used Google translate to read it.


----------



## bhav

Slackaveli said:


> Exactly. Maybe instead turning off HT for gaming will be the way.


Anyone tried this yet and seen if it lowers temps?


----------



## Wolverine2349

> Range is SP 80 to 120, 100 being the median average.
> SP 110+ is golden.
> 
> Up to 5.8 GHz all-core is doable with custom loops. Delid and optionally direct die if you want better longevity.
> *5.9 GHz all-core and above is P-core only, or ridiculous degradation voltage.*
> 
> Test your Z690 board first. You might not need an upgrade.
> 
> The 13900KS will have one core reaching 6.0 GHz, but you can probably get that from a strong 13900K bin.


By saying 5.9GHz all core and above is P-core only, you mean P-cores enabled only with e-cores disabled??

If so for all those saying no need to disable e-cores on ring cause ring clocks high now, well better P core clocks and better thermals and lower vcore for higher P core clocks.


----------



## Slackaveli

johnksss said:


> @Falkentyne Well I found out mine is 101 P110/E85. So I did not win the lottery, but My Unify-X did boot my shiny new G.Skill Trident Z5's 7600's at rated speed with no errors.


Fabulous. I await my kit.


----------



## Thunderclap

Falkentyne said:


> That really depends.
> The Eisbaer Extreme 280 AIO had one of the worst mounting systems in the history of mankind (not only could the backplate snap in half, you were better off using the Noctua Secufirm2 backplate with this!!), and their 360 RGB model wasn't any better. Did you guys realize their backplate is NOT metal? The Arctic is completely metal, just like the Noctua ones are.
> 
> And looking at the backplate:
> seems to be as atrocious as ever. Looks like almost the exact same mounting system as their Eisbaer series. Atrocious.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.alphacool.com/download/manual/13054_Alphacool_Core_Ocean_T38_AIO_420mm_Manual.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> I won't take my chances on this.


Hmm, interesting... I don't have any previous experience with Alphacool AIOs, so that's good to know, thank you! Would you say it's not worth the risk/reward, especially when I plan to use it with a Thermalright contact frame? I guess that would mean my best bet is still the ARCTIC LFII 420mm for max performance as far as AIOs go...


----------



## HyperC

*@ tps3443 you need that much system agent voltage ?*


----------



## nickolp1974

newls1 said:


> Hottest core touched 71 / 72c and that was only 1 core, all the rest were in the 60s. The chip is delidded with a supercool direct die mount waterblock


nice, how much of a drop did you see?


----------



## Slackaveli

Tadaschi said:


> Are you running 7800 on Hynix M-Die?


yeah thats fkn insane


----------



## bhav

Thunderclap said:


> Hmm, interesting... I don't have any previous experience with Alphacool AIOs, so that's good to know, thank you! Would you say it's not worth the risk/reward, especially when I plan to use it with a Thermalright contact frame? I guess that would mean my best bet is still the ARCTIC LFII 420mm for max performance as far as AIOs go...


Arctic 6 warranty also means if anything does go wrong or it degrades you get a replacement, so it also has less risk.


----------



## Wolverine2349

> 7,600+ MHz at any meaningful CAS latency warrants a ton of VDIMM which people can only cool with water.
> So we're not stabilizing 8,000+ MHz on the consumer end any day soon. Unless you loosen the timings quite a lot.


I have always wondered baout DDR4 and DDR5 RAM speeds and the IMC. I mean only DDR4 can run in Gear1 and DDR5 no matter how lowly clocked cannot do Gear 1.

So would 7200MHz DDR5 run the IMC at the same speed in Gear 2 as DDR4 3600MHz does in Gear1?

Since Gear 1 is 1:1 and DDR4 3600MHz (1800MHz single rate) means IMC runs at 1800MHz correct??

And since Gear 2 is 1:2 ratio and effective speed of 7200MHz RAM is 3600MHz single data rate and Gear 2 IMS runs at half speed of the single data rate RAM speed, the IMC would also run at 1800MHz. So therefore is it important to have at least 7200MHz (3600MHz single data rate) DDR5 to match the speed of the CPU IMC being equal so thus no penalty there and RAM with DDR5 compared to Gear 1 3600MHz (1800MHz single data rate) plus all the other benefits DDR5 offers, or no does it not work like that??


----------



## Slackaveli

tubs2x4 said:


> What’s your ram timings and voltage for that 6809c30?


30-40-40-28 325. 1.52v


----------



## bhav

Wolverine2349 said:


> I have always wondered baout DDR4 and DDR5 RAM speeds and the IMC. I mean only DDR4 can run in Gear1 and DDR5 no matter how lowly clocked cannot do Gear 1.
> 
> So would 7200MHz DDR5 run the IMC at the same speed in Gear 2 as DDR4 3600MHz does in Gear1?
> 
> Since Gear 1 is 1:1 and DDR4 3600MHz (1800MHz single rate) means IMC runs at 1800MHz correct??
> 
> And since Gear 2 is 1:2 ratio and effective speed of 7200MHz RAM is 3600MHz single data rate and Gear 2 IMS runs at half speed of the single data rate RAM speed, the IMC would also run at 1800MHz. So therefore is it important to have at least 7200MHz (3600MHz single data rate) DDR5 to match the speed of the CPU IMC being equal so thus no penalty there and RAM with DDR5 compared to Gear 1 3600MHz (1800MHz single data rate) plus all the other benefits DDR5 offers, or no does it not work like that??


Gear 1 doesn't affect DDR5 because it treats gear 2 like gear 1 for DDR4.

DDR5 gains an extra something per something, so its effectively both treating gear 2 as gear 1, and CL32 for example as CL16.

The problem is the IMC is still nerfed in gear 2.

But then despite those advantages, its losing or barely performing about the same as DDR4 4000CL14 in gear 2?

I just don't get ram performance. Just never buy a new DDR standard while the last one still works, buy end of gen kits at discount prices instead.

Still mad at myself for not having gotten 2 ballistix max 4400 kits. I was only using 2 slot boards at the time which is why.

As for the IMC yes, at 8000 DDR5 the IMC is the same as 4000 DDR4 G1.

Remembering that DDR4 vs DDR5 comparisons did 4000G2 vs 6000G2, a properly tuned G1 kit would be keeping up fine with <8000 DDR5.

DDR5 needs to be above double the frequency of a tuned DDR4 kit and the timings need to get a lot better!


----------



## tps3443

HyperC said:


> *@ tps3443 you need that much system agent voltage ?*


I reduced it to 1.15V. Thanks for noticing. Sorry, I’m new to Z690. Unify-X Z690 was dumping all that automatically.

Also, what about CPU VDDQ and CPU VDD2? What’s should work for these? I’m trying to reduce power where I can If possible.










@Falkentyne


----------



## Slackaveli

acoustic said:


> CapFrameX is one of those YouTubers that I can't wait to disappear.
> 
> Yikes, I confused CapFrame with FrameChasers. It's been a long day+night of OCing. Have mercy 😂


Hairchasers lol


----------



## yt93900

By the way, I've ordered the H170i, really, really not trusting that Arctic mount on the ASUS Z790. Arctic has a very rigid, metal BP and I'm afraid I'm going to damage something in process, most probably the standoffs biting into the PCB and ruining the board.
Been lurking on Reddit and saw many more complaining about that Arctic 12th gen mounting kit:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/s5ht9z

Never had issues with mine before but now it's not worth gambling with such an expensive MB like the Extreme...


----------



## Falkentyne

Thunderclap said:


> Hmm, interesting... I don't have any previous experience with Alphacool AIOs, so that's good to know, thank you! Would you say it's not worth the risk/reward, especially when I plan to use it with a Thermalright contact frame? I guess that would mean my best bet is still the ARCTIC LFII 420mm for max performance as far as AIOs go...


Regardless of whether their new cooler cools better than the Arctics, it still requires a third arm growing out of your stomach to attach the block to the backplate if it's in a case already (unless you use double sided sticky tape).


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> So I just also realised how much it would suck if my golden IMC 10900k went to waste if I simply ebayed it after getting the 13900k. I'll try putting it on here, I'm thinking price between a 12600 non K and 12600k is fair, especially for a golden chip? Posted links to my XS threads on the ram OCs in the 10900k thread.
> 
> It was actually 1.15v SA for 4200CL16 DR, which I found in my old XS threads, 1.28v for 4600Cl15. Got me a bunch of top 99th percentile ram scores with the first kit when I first got it. I just saw some reddit thread of someone needing 1.5v SA for just 3800 and thought of offering it here first before ebay.
> 
> I absolutely hate these 12th and 13th IMCs compared to having had that.


Ive sold MANY MANY binned cpu on Ebay. List it as binned, tell it's stats, and upcharge for it. Somebody will want it.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I reduced it to 1.15V. Thanks for noticing. Sorry, I’m new to Z690. Unify-X Z690 was dumping all that automatically.
> 
> Also, what about CPU VDDQ and CPU VDD2? What’s should work for these? I’m trying to reduce power where I can If possible.
> View attachment 2577756
> 
> 
> 
> @Falkentyne


One by one, lower until unstable.


----------



## Slackaveli

Tadaschi said:


> After this i just cancel my z790 motherboard order lol
> 13900k delided 6.1ghz 3 cores / 5.8ghz all P cores / 4.6ghz E cores / ring 5ghz
> MSI UNIFY-X
> 32gb 6800 cl34-42-42-28-72 G2 (m-die)
> MORA 3 PRO 420
> 
> running tests to check how stable
> View attachment 2577646


monsterous. z690 Unify-X MR!


----------



## Slackaveli

Xodrik said:


> What are your idle temps? I'm almost positive I'm going to delid, my chip is running similar to yours. Just getting extremely hot at stock and even tuned.


Man, I dont really have a need for 16 e-cores so i went with this theory-

Better to buy 3 13700k and keep the best silicon and resell the others than it is to take a chance on one 13900k which is $800 here. I only had $1350 on my Credit Card *****. I couldnt even afford 2 13900k to bin one.
Anyway, Im that ghetto MFer on a 13700k now, but, it'll be a good one, by God. Tell y'all Tuesday when they arrive.


----------



## Ichirou

Slackaveli said:


> Man, I dont really have a need for 16 e-cores so i went with this theory-
> 
> Better to buy 3 13700k and keep the best silicon and resell the others than it is to take a chance on one 13900k which is $800 here. I only had !350 on my Credit Card ***. I couldnt even afford 2 13900k to bin one.
> Anyway, Im that ghetto MFer on a 13700k now, but, it'll be a good one, by God. Tell y'all Tuesday when they arrive.


Definitely smart. If you're willing to go through the effort.
Some people need a ton of cores for multitasking, though.


----------



## Slackaveli

Telstar said:


> P106 is ok, who cares for the ecores?


whatever the e-cores are SP wise, they still beat a HT thread. 8 p-cores OC'd, HT OFF, A-Die, and ecores ON sounds like the best gaming set-up to me. Am I right guys already testing?


----------



## Arni90

bhav said:


> Gear 1 doesn't affect DDR5 because it treats gear 2 like gear 1 for DDR4.
> 
> DDR5 gains an extra something per something, so its effectively both treating gear 2 as gear 1, and CL32 for example as CL16.
> 
> The problem is the IMC is still nerfed in gear 2.
> 
> But then despite those advantages, its losing or barely performing about the same as DDR4 4000CL14 in gear 2?
> 
> I just don't get ram performance. Just never buy a new DDR standard while the last one still works, buy end of gen kits at discount prices instead.
> 
> Still mad at myself for not having gotten 2 ballistix max 4400 kits. I was only using 2 slot boards at the time which is why.
> 
> As for the IMC yes, at 8000 DDR5 the IMC is the same as 4000 DDR4 G1.
> 
> Remembering that DDR4 vs DDR5 comparisons did 4000G2 vs 6000G2, a properly tuned G1 kit would be keeping up fine with <8000 DDR5.
> 
> DDR5 needs to be above double the frequency of a tuned DDR4 kit and the timings need to get a lot better!


...

You keep writing a lot of stuff about gear ratios and memory, with no data to back it up, and going against all the results people who actually do test this stuff have found. You don't even have DDR4 B-die, how in the world have you convinced yourself that you are suddenly some kind of expert?

I know of one benchmark where DDR4 still beats DDR5: PYPrime 2B, and in that case it's mostly because there's currently no DDR5 IC capable of pushing tRCD to similar latencies as Samsung 8Gb B-die. Everything else, even SuperPI 32M, is running faster with DDR5 at this point.


----------



## tps3443

Slackaveli said:


> Man, I dont really have a need for 16 e-cores so i went with this theory-
> 
> Better to buy 3 13700k and keep the best silicon and resell the others than it is to take a chance on one 13900k which is $800 here. I only had $1350 on my Credit Card ***. I couldnt even afford 2 13900k to bin one.
> Anyway, Im that ghetto MFer on a 13700k now, but, it'll be a good one, by God. Tell y'all Tuesday when they arrive.


Lots of people are buying the 13700K/KF. It’s an amazing deal. But you know most people’s mind set, may as well grab a 13900K..Here in the US, the 13700K is 2/3rd the price of a 13900K so people are gonna pay the extra 1/3.

Especially at a MC, 13900K is like $569.99. 13900KF is probably $530 at MC.


----------



## Slackaveli

Ichirou said:


> Definitely smart. If you're willing to go through the effort.
> Some people need a ton of cores for multitasking, though.


Yeah, for sure. For me I mostly game- usually @ [email protected] 175Hz. My 12700k was kind of a POS dog bc it wants 1.33v for 5ghz lol. But it did have a good IMC (6800c30 daily for almost a year now) and was purchased as a placeholder for what I intended to buy, 13900k. 
Hopefully one of these three will be worth a +100 Mhz or even better a +266MT/s compared to the other 2. Last time I bought 3 was 10900k and I ended up with 2 top 10% bins and flipped the second best one for almost double price on Ebay.

Intel chips have a great resell valus anyway, but binned ones especially. Many folks will pay a few hundred more for a top bin even on an old system if that gives them a boost without having to rebuild the whole system.

I bet the guy with the great 10900k gets $600+ out of it still on Ebay.


----------



## Slackaveli

Arni90 said:


> ...
> 
> You keep writing a lot of stuff about gear ratios and memory, with no data to back it up, and going against all the results people who actually do test this stuff have found. You don't even have DDR4 B-die, how in the world have you convinced yourself that you are suddenly some kind of expert?
> 
> I know of one benchmark where DDR4 still beats DDR5: PYPrime 2B, and in that case it's mostly because there's currently no DDR5 IC capable of pushing tRCD to similar latencies as Samsung 8Gb B-die. Everything else, even SuperPI 32M, is running faster with DDR5 at this point.


The Copium-dreams of the last-gen ram crowd are getting more and more narcotic.


----------



## bhav

Arni90 said:


> ...
> 
> You keep writing a lot of stuff about gear ratios and memory, with no data to back it up, and going against all the results people who actually do test this stuff have found. You don't even have DDR4 B-die, how in the world have you convinced yourself that you are suddenly some kind of expert?
> 
> I know of one benchmark where DDR4 still beats DDR5: PYPrime 2B, and in that case it's mostly because there's currently no DDR5 IC capable of pushing tRCD to similar latencies as Samsung 8Gb B-die. Everything else, even SuperPI 32M, is running faster with DDR5 at this point.


Theres a difference between expert and experience.

I've been asking for the last few weeks if people have real world figures in actual gaming for G1 vs G2 vs DDR5, and no one has delivered.

I'm not talking about Aida, super pi etc and theoretical scores, Im looking for real world performance in gaming.

The limited comparisons you do find for gaming are not at all favouring DDR5, and Ive posted everything you currently can find in gaming results and DDR4 is still showing stronger performance (even when badly tuned and not even running in G1).

This is constantly an issue, people only comparing benchmarks and not at considering actual real world performance. Outside of one game (spiderman), there are non that are scaling with DDR5s increased theoretical performance, and this is exactly the same thing as what happened with DDR3 to DDR4, DDR2 to DDR3, DDR1 to DDR2.

So if any time you are not running Aida test, what does it matter if the rest of your performance is actually worse?


----------



## Slackaveli

tps3443 said:


> Lots of people are buying the 13700K/KF. It’s an amazing deal. But you know most people’s mind set, may as well grab a 13900K..Here in the US, the 13700K is 2/3rd the price of a 13900K so people are gonna pay the extra 1/3.
> 
> Especially at a MC, 13900K is like $569.99. 13900KF is probably $530 at MC.


If I wasnt a 4 hour drive away from Microcenter and had one in town I absolutely would have a 13900k lol. But for $780 vs $420 ... 8 more ecores, +200mhz, and a blob more of cache (while being a nice amount of gain) just wasnt enough for me to pay $350 more for. Purely a monetary consideration, though. If I had had enough on my card at that moment to get at least 2 13900k to compare I probably would have lol. But just so happens it was enough for 3 13700k to compare. Yolo.

And I guess Ive left myself open to being tempted by 13900ks is for any reason I find my self fomo-ing.


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> Theres a difference between expert and experience.
> 
> I've been asking for the last few weeks if people have real world figures in actual gaming for G1 vs G2 vs DDR5, and no one has delivered.
> 
> I'm not talking about Aida, super pi etc and theoretical scores, Im looking for real world performance in gaming.
> 
> The limited comparisons you do find for gaming are not at all favouring DDR5, and Ive posted everything you currently can find in gaming results.
> 
> This is constantly an issue, people only comparing benchmarks and not at considering actual real world performance. Outside of one game (spiderman), there are non that are scaling with DDR5s increased theoretical performance, and this is exactly the same thing as what happened with DDR3 to DDR4, DDR2 to DDR3, DDR1 to DDR2.
> 
> So if any time you are not running Aida test, what does it matter if the rest of your performance is actually worse?


----------



## Slackaveli

nickolp1974 said:


> At the end of the day most are just testing there new CPU's, when everyone has done willy waving etc most will dial back to more conservative levels. An undervolted stock is plenty fast enough.


And until then, ** For Harambe, Gentleman.


----------



## bhav

Slackaveli said:


> View attachment 2577762
> View attachment 2577763


Right, so now what happens when you add 4000-4133C14 G1 to that, and if anywhere has done it, 4800CL18 G2?

Unfortunately this still hasn't been done, and anytime some tech site tries, the ram is set to 4000G2.


----------



## GQNerd

Swapped the 13900k over to the Unify X and can do 5.8 All P core, 4.6 E core, 4.8 Ring

(Gonna have to RMA/swap the board as these DIMM slots are atrociously bad...)

Despite that, still good #'s

_SP106, Pcore 116, Ecore 88








_


----------



## bhav

Look at this for example, this is DDR4 4000CL14 at G2 against DDR5 6000CL36:










Tech sites refuse to tune any of the ram and just apply XMP profile, so what would happen if that DDR4 was set to G1 or overclocked to 4800CL18? Feel free to add 7000+ DDR5 tuned as well, I would like to be able to tell when DDR5 will be worth paying for.

None of this can currently be found, the only G1 comparisons are all done at 3600.

People keep running 6800 / 7000+ Tuned DDR5 against 3600CL14, thats like saying 'a 13900k is better than a 13600k see'.


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> Just get some proper washers from Home Depot yourself, lol... It's not that hard to measure or bring one in to compare.


So funnily enough, alternative washers don’t allow you to get as tight of a fit as the plastic ones and it was borking my training badly the first day I used my LF II. I stick the gluey part to the stand-off and allow the smooth plastic to touch the board to avoid making a mess.


----------



## newls1

Just wondering. Is y-cruncher cpu intensive or just memory intensive


----------



## affxct

yt93900 said:


> By the way, I've ordered the H170i, really, really not trusting that Arctic mount on the ASUS Z790. Arctic has a very rigid, metal BP and I'm afraid I'm going to damage something in process, most probably the standoffs biting into the PCB and ruining the board.
> Been lurking on Reddit and saw many more complaining about that Arctic 12th gen mounting kit:
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/s5ht9z
> 
> Never had issues with mine before but now it's not worth gambling with such an expensive MB like the Extreme...


This might sound dumb, but what I usually do with the Arctic is rest the MB on a box of some sort while the backplate presses into position, but keep the board balanced and level and then eyeball until each hole looks exactly level with each stand-off. I usually stick the washers to the screws beforehand. Thereafter screw them in slowly in an X pattern until they’re all equally fingertip tight. Should be all good then. Another consideration is removing the PCB cover if your socket has caps below it. The Dark doesn’t but boards like the Taichi, and most Strix/Maximus boards do.


----------



## affxct

newls1 said:


> Just wondering. Is y-cruncher cpu intensive or just memory intensive


Both


----------



## tps3443

Miguelios said:


> Swapped the 13900k over to the Unify X and can do 5.8 All P core, 4.6 E core, 4.8 Ring
> 
> (Gonna have to RMA/swap the board as these DIMM slots are atrociously bad...)
> 
> Despite that, still good #'s
> 
> _SP106, Pcore 116, Ecore 88
> 
> View attachment 2577769
> _


Seeing this, makes me think my chip is actually really really good. 

Hey, what is your max power draw? Also, lower your SA VID Unify X sets it way too high! 1.15V is plenty for Raptor lake.


----------



## HyperC

Y cruncher pulls an extra 23 watts for me HOTT, I dunno why people say r23 30 min loop I did it and then and Y cruncher and BSOD clockdog


----------



## gtz

Alright guys, I got an average or below average chip. But that is ok because compared to my 12900K and 12100F, this thing is a beast especially in voltage scaling.

First let me say that the EVGA Classified Z690 is a very quirky board, at stock it was feeding my chip 1.41 vcore (with only one run of CB23 it hit 87-89C, and after 15min 96C) and will not allow you to set a static vcore (will boot loop or crash in the splash screen). But once you figure out the quirks it plays nice.

My chip does stock (5.5P/4.4E/4.6R) with 1.278 vcore. At this voltage this thing runs extremely cool on my loop. Maxes out @ 74C. What I like about this is the performance you get vs my old decent 12900KF. Only 230-260w vs my old 12900KF at 5.3P/4.3E/4.2R peaking at 370w. That in its own make this a win.

But like I said, I think I lost out in the lottery. But settled for a 24/7 speed of 5.6P/4.4E/4.7R, need 1.325vcore to stabilize and maxes out at 86C. I can also YOLO it but my system is brought to its knees at 5.7P/4.4E/4.8R, it needs 1.385 vcore just to run benchmarks and tops out at 91c after a single run. This will be my benchmark profile.


----------



## GQNerd

tps3443 said:


> Seeing this, makes me think my chip is actually really really good.
> 
> Hey, what is your max power draw? Also, lower your SA VID Unify X sets it way too high! 1.15V is plenty for Raptor lake.


Yea, seems pretty on-par with mine!! no complaints here for Pcore SP of 116 (validated on z690PrimeA)

Max draw was ~320w

I needed the SA high to boot my RAM @ 6800-7000.. as I mentioned, the slots are really weak.

That said, I could probably lower it.. but not where my focus is right now.


----------



## tps3443

gtz said:


> Alright guys, I got an average or below average chip. But that is ok because compared to my 12900K and 12100F, this thing is a beast especially in voltage scaling.
> 
> First let me say that the EVGA Classified Z690 is a very quirky board, at stock it was feeding my chip 1.41 vcore (with only one run of CB23 it hit 87-89C, and after 15min 96C) and will not allow you to set a static vcore (will boot loop or crash in the splash screen). But once you figure out the quirks it plays nice.
> 
> My chip does stock (5.5P/4.4E/4.6R) with 1.278 vcore. At this voltage this thing runs extremely cool on my loop. Maxes out @ 74C. What I like about this is the performance you get vs my old decent 12900KF. Only 230-260w vs my old 12900KF at 5.3P/4.3E/4.2R peaking at 370w. That in its own make this a win.
> 
> But like I said, I think I lost out in the lottery. But settled for a 24/7 speed of 5.6P/4.4E/4.7R, need 1.325vcore to stabilize and maxes out at 86C. I can also YOLO it but my system is brought to its knees at 5.7P/4.4E/4.8R, it needs 1.385 vcore just to run benchmarks and tops out at 91c after a single run. This will be my benchmark profile.


These CPU’s bone stock are amazing! I have no more bottle neck with my heavy OCed 3090 Kingpin HC. Constantly high 96-100% GPU usage. My 5.5Ghz 11900K was tanking GPU usage in numerous games when the action got heavy. I would lose up to 40+ fps alone when this happen too.

Its a nice upgrade when your old CPU dips to the low 80’s fps range, and the new cpu will hold 120+ Fps range in the same games and areas.


----------



## stalessa

bhav said:


> , I would like to be able to tell when DDR5 will be worth paying for.


A DDR4 motherboard is a complete mistake for performance, only good for budget option..
people having both motherboards clearly noticed the DDR5 motherboard to be faster and more responsive.

DDR5 has now double the bandwidth of DDR4, its not like it does nothing..

Bandwidth matters for many applications,

Games and applications are going to be optimized for high bandwidth soon,
and the DDR4 Bandwidth bottleneck with newer CPU is going to be even more apparent.


----------



## Ichirou

newls1 said:


> Just wondering. Is y-cruncher cpu intensive or just memory intensive


CPU and IMC intensive. RAM, not so much. You use TM5 with anta777 ABSOLUT for that. Or Karhu.


HyperC said:


> Y cruncher pulls an extra 23 watts for me HOTT, I dunno why people say r23 30 min loop I did it and then and Y cruncher and BSOD clockdog


Yes, y-cruncher is much harder to pass than R23. And if you use the Component Stress Test with all tests enabled, it's like 2x harder than the main test.


----------



## Falkentyne

Miguelios said:


> Yea, seems pretty on-par with mine!! no complaints here for Pcore SP of 116 (validated on z690PrimeA)
> 
> Max draw was ~320w
> 
> I needed the SA high to boot my RAM @ 6800-7000.. as I mentioned, the slots are really weak.
> 
> That said, I could probably lower it.. but not where my focus is right now.


Why did you change boards?
What other board did you use? It was not capable of 5.8 ghz on the P-cores?
What was the problem with the CPU overclock on that board? If you don't mind mine asking, what Vcore (Bios set) and LLC level did you use on the old board (which failed), and what vcore and LLC level did you use on the new board?

_note_ you have "latest activity" disabled in your profile so I can't search your old posts to find the answer.


----------



## newls1

Ichirou said:


> CPU and IMC intensive. RAM, not so much. You use TM5 with anta777 ABSOLUT for that. Or Karhu.
> 
> Yes, y-cruncher is much harder to pass than R23. And if you use the Component Stress Test with all tests enabled, it's like 2x harder than the main test.


So I did 4 back to back y cruncher 2.5 tests then immediately did 4 back to back r23 runs and all when well. Good sign of stability? Just can’t believe I’m at 5.8 on the P’s and at 1.35v 1.305ish load


----------



## GQNerd

Falkentyne said:


> Why did you change boards?
> What other board did you use? It was not capable of 5.8 ghz on the P-cores?
> What was the problem with the CPU overclock on that board? If you don't mind mine asking, what Vcore (Bios set) and LLC level did you use on the old board (which failed), and what vcore and LLC level did you use on the new board?



Original board was Asus z690 Prime A.. Had 5.7P/4.6E/4.6RING stable and scoring 42,300k in R23
Was running 1.310 Vcore w/LLC6

I really hit a brick wall at 5.7 Pcore.. I saw people with worse SP, or worse Pcore than mine, and wanted that oh so sweet "5.8"... 

I was already going to sell/RMA the Unify X cause I've had RAM issues since last gen w/12900k.. But dusted it off to try 5.8

Unify X running 1.35 vcore, with Load line 3... (I also set a -0.020 undervolt with XTU once in OS)


Still fine-tuning, cause I think I can bring the max power draw down... not too worried about temps, even tho I'm on a custom loop with a single pump and single 360 rad.


Open to any suggestions for the Unify X you may have, but pretty happy so far.


----------



## Ichirou

newls1 said:


> So I did 4 back to back y cruncher 2.5 tests then immediately did 4 back to back r23 runs and all when well. Good sign of stability? Just can’t believe I’m at 5.8 on the P’s and at 1.35v 1.305ish load


I usually fail on the fifth consecutive run with the main test. That's when things start to kick in.
If you want a proper single test, do the Component Stress Test with all tests enabled, and pass one loop. It needs the most Vcore to pass.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Arni90 said:


> ...
> 
> You keep writing a lot of stuff about gear ratios and memory, with no data to back it up, and going against all the results people who actually do test this stuff have found. You don't even have DDR4 B-die, how in the world have you convinced yourself that you are suddenly some kind of expert?
> 
> I know of one benchmark where DDR4 still beats DDR5: PYPrime 2B, and in that case it's mostly because there's currently no DDR5 IC capable of pushing tRCD to similar latencies as Samsung 8Gb B-die. Everything else, even SuperPI 32M, is running faster with DDR5 at this point.


I'm not a part of this discussion but i think CS benchmark is one of the places where DDR4 actually is better then DDR5, atleast for Alder Lake by looks of things (?)


----------



## Wolverine2349

Arni90 said:


> ...
> 
> You keep writing a lot of stuff about gear ratios and memory, with no data to back it up, and going against all the results people who actually do test this stuff have found. You don't even have DDR4 B-die, how in the world have you convinced yourself that you are suddenly some kind of expert?
> 
> I know of one benchmark where DDR4 still beats DDR5: PYPrime 2B, and in that case it's mostly because there's currently no DDR5 IC capable of pushing tRCD to similar latencies as Samsung 8Gb B-die. Everything else, even SuperPI 32M, is running faster with DDR5 at this point.



Is G.Skill Samsung b.die 16GB X 2 DDR4 3600MHz CL 14-15-15-35 at default xmp settings the stuff you are referring to. Or does it have to be manually tweaked to he better than any DDR5.


----------



## Falkentyne

Miguelios said:


> Original board was Asus z690 Prime A.. Had 5.7P/4.6E/4.6RING stable and scoring 42,300k in R23
> Was running 1.310 Vcore w/LLC6
> 
> I really hit a brick wall at 5.7 Pcore.. I saw people with worse SP, or worse Pcore than mine, and wanted that oh so sweet "5.8"...
> 
> I was already going to sell/RMA the Unify X cause I've had RAM issues since last gen w/12900k.. But dusted it off to try 5.8
> 
> Unify X running 1.35 vcore, with Load line 3... (I also set a -0.020 undervolt with XTU once in OS)
> 
> 
> Still fine-tuning, cause I think I can bring the max power draw down... not too worried about temps, even tho I'm on a custom loop with a single pump and single 360 rad.
> 
> 
> Open to any suggestions for the Unify X you may have, but pretty happy so far.


Thanks, let's do some maths.
Asus Prime-A (I think, assuming they use the same LLC as the Strix/Maximus) LLC6 should be 0.49 mohms, unless there are only 7 LLC levels and LLC6 is 0.245 mohms with LLC7 flat (0).
Let's assume .49 and 250 amps. This may be a bit on the high side though.

1310mv - (0.49 * 250)=1187.5mv=1.187v load. This is definitely possible on a SP116 P core chip if you can cool it enough, but may not be 30 min loop stable. 1.208v-1.217v is more reasonable.
If it's 0.24 mohms: 1310mv - (0.24 * 250)=1250mv=1.250v. Definitely more vcore than what a SP116 P core chip would need for 5.7.

For UnifyX: if Mode 3 LLC is 0.35 mohm: would mean 1.262v for 5.8 ghz. (1350 - (.35 * 250), assuming it was still 250 amps.

If your Prime-A was indeed 0.49 mohms LLC and you were running at 1.187v load for 5.7 (again I am not sure of the LLC level mohm values on that board, only on the Strix and Maximus), then you would have needed about 1.385v bios set + LLC6 for 5.8 ghz, to match what you are doing on your Unify-X. (1385mv - (250 * .49)=1.262v

Did you go this high on your prime board bios vcore for this attempt?


----------



## bhav

stalessa said:


> Games and applications are going to be optimized for high bandwidth soon,


I mean people have been saying this for years, same between DDR3 and 4, and its so far happened in one single game.

People gave up comparing bandwidth for how long now and only rely on latency.

Having said that, I can get my DDR4 bandwidth up to 75k currently, maybe more on next mobo, we will see.

Its no problem for me to simply buy next gen and DDR5 if it does turn out to be a lot better, but as with every ram generation before this, thats still yet to happen.


----------



## Slackaveli

yt93900 said:


> ely h





stalessa said:


> i do not understand why we have to delid the CPU ourselves to get better temps..
> 
> Why Intel does not sell their CPU with a better IHS at stock same as delidded..?
> 
> i don't feel like buying a 13900k for this reason,
> 
> it seems lazy on Intel part to sell us a flagship CPU that we need to delid ourselves to get good temperatures..
> 
> Also we need to replace the LGA 1700 bracket with a contact frame because is does not work well...
> 
> What are people working at Intel doing?
> 
> People buying flagship CPU should not have to loose warranty delidding CPU and changing motherboards sockets..


stay slow, i guess


----------



## Arni90

Wolverine2349 said:


> Is G.Skill Samsung b.die 16GB X 2 DDR4 3600MHz CL 14-15-15-35 at default xmp settings the stuff you are referring to. Or does it have to be manually tweaked to he better than any DDR5.


I'm talking about 4000 12-11-11-14-CR1 with subtimings floored, you're not going to be able to run with all memory enabled at that point.


----------



## jvidia

Arni90 said:


> I'm talking about 4000 12-11-11-14-CR1 with subtimings floored, you're not going to be able to run with all memory enabled at that point.


What memory does 4000 cl12?


----------



## jvidia

bhav said:


> I mean people have been saying this for years, same between DDR3 and 4, and its so far happened in one single game.
> 
> People gave up comparing bandwidth for how long now and only rely on latency.
> 
> Having said that, I can get my DDR4 bandwidth up to 75k currently, maybe more on next mobo, we will see.
> 
> Its no problem for me to simply buy next gen and DDR5 if it does turn out to be a lot better, but as with every ram generation before this, thats still yet to happen.


So ddr4 is still the way to go with Raptor Lake?
Like 4000 CL16 with subtimings tuned?


----------



## bhav

jvidia said:


> So ddr4 is still the way to go with Raptor Lake?
> Like 4000 CL16 with subtimings tuned?


More like 4000CL15 DR or 4000-4133CL14 SR, and only if you already have such a kit otherwise its not worth wasting money on compared to DDR5. The price differences currently don't warrant buying new DDR4 instead of DDR5.


----------



## Ichirou

jvidia said:


> What memory does 4000 cl12?


2.0V of VDIMM.


jvidia said:


> So ddr4 is still the way to go with Raptor Lake?
> Like 4000 CL16 with subtimings tuned?


Only if you're running 64+ GB. Otherwise, DDR5 is going to be stronger than DDR4 as long as it's 7,000+ MHz.


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> Look at this for example, this is DDR4 4000CL14 at G2 against DDR5 6000CL36:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech sites refuse to tune any of the ram and just apply XMP profile, so what would happen if that DDR4 was set to G1 or overclocked to 4800CL18? Feel free to add 7000+ DDR5 tuned as well, I would like to be able to tell when DDR5 will be worth paying for.
> 
> None of this can currently be found, the only G1 comparisons are all done at 3600.
> 
> People keep running 6800 / 7000+ Tuned DDR5 against 3600CL14, thats like saying 'a 13900k is better than a 13600k see'.


bc 6000c36 is hilariously high latency. like 65-70ns. Compared to 6800c30's 50ns.


----------



## X61

yt93900 said:


> By the way, I've ordered the H170i, really, really not trusting that Arctic mount on the ASUS Z790. Arctic has a very rigid, metal BP and I'm afraid I'm going to damage something in process, most probably the standoffs biting into the PCB and ruining the board.


@yt93900, see if this helps: ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II | LGA1700 Kit Installation

*Check if the metal standoffs you use are the ones which are 13mm long*.



Falkentyne said:


> Each black top nut should fully screw down all the way to where it contacts the 'paper' washer (not talking about the rubber ones) completely, and it should be visually apparent (with enough light) when it's fully screwed in. Please check this. Remember the 1151 nuts are 1mm shorter than the 1700 ones.


I think it's the opposite:


----------



## bhav

Slackaveli said:


> bc 6000c36 is hilariously high latency. like 65-70ns. Compared to 6800c30's 50ns.


I know, as I said, these sites are dumb and only use XMP settings.

I want to see a proper roundup of the best DDR4 vs all the DDR from 6000-7600+ including tuned.

Yes the 7000+ tuned will be better. But I want to see the actual difference in games to see exactly how much. If its only like 2FPS more on average then so what? If its 10FPS then great, I'll be upgrading after 13900k sooner than planned. Also what does it matter if it even does at 1440p and 4k, not just 1080p.

And I would like 4000CL14 G1 and 4800CL18 G2 included too. I've appealed to gamers nexus now if they could do this, most likely they wont but at least I'm trying to make a proper comparison happen.


----------



## jvidia

Ichirou said:


> 2.0V of VDIMM.
> 
> Only if you're running 64+ GB. Otherwise, DDR5 is going to be stronger than DDR4 as long as it's 7,000+ MHz.


That's too expensive and almost unavailable.
DDR5 boards are way expensive too.
For gaming only I think nothing beats a well tuned kit of 2x8 Viper Steel 4000 cl16.


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> I know, as I said, these sites are dumb and only use XMP settings.
> 
> I want to see a proper roundup of the best DDR4 vs all the DDR from 6000-7600+ including tuned.
> 
> Yes the 7000+ tuned will be better. But I want to see the actual difference in games to see exactly how much. If its only like 2FPS more on average then so what? If its 10FPS then great, I'll be upgrading after 13900k sooner than planned.
> 
> And I would like 4000CL14 G1 and 4800CL18 G2 included too. I've appealed to gamers nexus now if they could do this, most likely they wont but at least I'm trying to make a proper comparison happen.


We'll see it soon. But certainly not from the bigger reviewers.


----------



## jvidia

bhav said:


> I know, as I said, these sites are dumb and only use XMP settings.
> 
> I want to see a proper roundup of the best DDR4 vs all the DDR from 6000-7600+ including tuned.
> 
> Yes the 7000+ tuned will be better. But I want to see the actual difference in games to see exactly how much. If its only like 2FPS more on average then so what? If its 10FPS then great, I'll be upgrading after 13900k sooner than planned. Also what does it matter if it even does at 1440p and 4k, not just 1080p.
> 
> And I would like 4000CL14 G1 and 4800CL18 G2 included too. I've appealed to gamers nexus now if they could do this, most likely they wont but at least I'm trying to make a proper comparison happen.


Me 2!


----------



## bhav

jvidia said:


> That's too expensive and almost unavailable.
> DDR5 boards are way expensive too.
> For gaming only I think nothing beats a well tuned kit of 2x8 Viper Steel 4000 cl16.


Its too expensive now. You were meant to buy it when DDR5 dropped and 2x16 DDR4 Micron B die 4400 dropped to £180 while DDR5 started at £400.

Now if you dont already have good DDR4, you buy DDR5.


----------



## affxct

Slackaveli said:


> bc 6000c36 is hilariously high latency. like 65-70ns. Compared to 6800c30's 50ns.












I think secondaries and tertiaries are the biggest factor tbh (next to data rate).


----------



## bhav

Looking at prices right now, DDR4 is a joke. You can't even get 2x16 3600CL16 for a good price, its the same price for 2x16 3600CL17-18 and DDR5 4800-5200.

You get whichever DDR5 4800-5200 has the Hynix dies, I can't remember which is better M or A?


----------



## affxct

bhav said:


> Looking at prices right now, DDR4 is a joke. You can't even get 2x16 3600CL16 for a good price, its the same price for 2x16 3600CL17-18 and DDR5 4800-5200.
> 
> You get whichever DDR5 4800-5200 has the Hynix dies, I can't remember which is better M or A?


M and A are both good, but you only get M from certain 4800 kits, and some of the Fury Beast 6000C40 (speaking of cheap kits only). For cheap A-die you’re looking at OEM sticks from Asia XD.

Speaking of cheap RAM, I absolutely need my RPL chip to manage 7400 with this kit so that I can say I did 7400 with $160 DDR5. My current kit is the only medium W I took with this platform. Kinda got rekt selling my ADATA Casters though.


----------



## cstkl1

@shamino1978 AI oc also really on point
tested few games all ok


----------



## bhav

affxct said:


> M and A are both good, but you only get M from certain 4800 kits, and some of the Fury Beast 6000C40 (speaking of cheap kits only). For cheap A-die you’re looking at OEM sticks from Asia XD.
> 
> Speaking of cheap RAM, I absolutely need my RPL chip to manage 7400 with this kit so that I can say I did 7400 with $160 DDR5. My current kit is the only medium W I took with this platform. Kinda for rekt selling my ADATA Casters though.


Yea you buy the cheap 4800 or 6000 with hynix then, and overclock it yourself. Simple.


----------



## affxct

cstkl1 said:


> View attachment 2577804
> 
> View attachment 2577805
> 
> @shamino1978 AI oc also really on point
> tested few games all ok


Honest question; don’t you guys find that AI OC jacks up operating voltage to quite a significant degree? I’ve messed around with AI OC and IABT a few times and both seem to run core voltage a little too high for even my liking. Not sure if perhaps it was related to the chip’s VID.


----------



## affxct

bhav said:


> Yea you buy the cheap 4800 or 6000 with hynix then, and overclock it yourself. Simple.


5200 is almost always Micron, so that’s something to look out for. Otherwise, there are still a few 4800 kits that ship with Hynix; unfortunately a lot of vendors have smartened up and have stopped shipping Hynix.


----------



## bhav

affxct said:


> Honest question; don’t you guys find that AI OC jacks up operating voltage to quite a significant degree? I’ve messed around with AI OC and IABT a few times and both seem to run core voltage a little too high for even my liking. Not sure if perhaps it was related to the chip’s VID.


I don't know why people use it, on past Asus boards it used to kill CPUs. Yes the voltages on these auto tune settings are always far higher than what you can get with manual tuning.

Its for all those 'people at home' that simply hit XMP and leave their 4000 DDR4 in gear 2.


----------



## cstkl1

affxct said:


> Honest question; don’t you guys find that AI OC jacks up operating voltage to quite a significant degree? I’ve messed around with AI OC and IABT a few times and both seem to run core voltage a little too high for even my liking. Not sure if perhaps it was related to the chip’s VID.


u can adjust via ac/dc but the prefered one is llc4 so just adjust ac.


----------



## bhav

affxct said:


> 5200 is almost always Micron, so that’s something to look out for. Otherwise, there are still a few 4800 kits that ship with Hynix; unfortunately a lot of vendors have smartened up and have stopped shipping Hynix.


You have to buy before it gets binned like I did with my micron E die. Both Samsung B die and that only went up to 2x16 3200 at the time, samsung was just twice the price. That was the time to buy either before they started getting binned into higher frequencies.


----------



## Talon2016

You can grab 2x16gb SK Hynix 5600 CL46 1.1v on Amazon for $100.99 per stick right now. I overclocked them to 7000 CL32 on a Dark board and 12900KS. I assume with 13th gen they would go even further now.


----------



## digitalfrost

Code:


	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58
1	104	98	92	86	80	76	68	61	55	49
2	100	94	88	82	76	70	64	57	51	45
3	96	90	84	78	72	66	60	53	47	41
4	92	86	80	74	68	62	56	49	43	37
5	88	82	76	70	64	58	52	45	39	33
6	84	78	72	66	60	54	48	41	35	29
7	80	74	68	62	56	50	44	37	31	25
8	76	70	64	58	52	46	40	33	27	21

Anyone got the table for RPL?


----------



## jvidia

affxct said:


> 5200 is almost always Micron, so that’s something to look out for. Otherwise, there are still a few 4800 kits that ship with Hynix; unfortunately a lot of vendors have smartened up and have stopped shipping Hynix.


Fury Renegade 6400 CL32 are good for OC?


----------



## jvidia

Talon2016 said:


> You can grab 2x16gb SK Hynix 5600 CL46 1.1v on Amazon for $100.99 per stick right now. I overclocked them to 7000 CL32 on a Dark board and 12900KS. I assume with 13th gen they would go even further now.


That's another problem ... a good board to OC DDR5 has to be a 2 dimm slot one, and that => $$$$$$$

4 dimm DDR5 boards seem to suck for memory OC


----------



## jvidia

digitalfrost said:


> Code:
> 
> 
> 49    50    51    52    53    54    55    56    57    58
> 1    104    98    92    86    80    76    68    61    55    49
> 2    100    94    88    82    76    70    64    57    51    45
> 3    96    90    84    78    72    66    60    53    47    41
> 4    92    86    80    74    68    62    56    49    43    37
> 5    88    82    76    70    64    58    52    45    39    33
> 6    84    78    72    66    60    54    48    41    35    29
> 7    80    74    68    62    56    50    44    37    31    25
> 8    76    70    64    58    52    46    40    33    27    21
> 
> Anyone got the table for RPL?


What's that?


----------



## LazyGamer

jvidia said:


> 4 dimm DDR5 boards seem to suck for memory OC


Less so for Raptor Lake and Z790 apparently - hard to argue that it's 'worth it' this go around versus with Alder Lake and Z690, which were truly limited in four-DIMM configurations.


----------



## affxct

jvidia said:


> Fury Renegade 6400 CL32 are good for OC?


Should be. All Hynix is decent, and Kingston tend to use PMIC thermal pads, so temperatures should be in check. My Fury Beast sticks run much colder than my Adata sticks did, so the Renegades should be decent, unless they messed up. Don’t buy the RGB though, non-RGB has air gaps in the heatsinks that will help for active airflow.


----------



## affxct

LazyGamer said:


> Less so for Raptor Lake and Z790 apparently - hard to argue that it's 'worth it' this go around versus with Alder Lake and Z690, which were truly limited in four-DIMM configurations.


Z690 Heros doing 760034 and Extremes doing 7400 hehe


----------



## bhav

jvidia said:


> That's another problem ... a good board to OC DDR5 has to be a 2 dimm slot one, and that => $$$$$$$
> 
> 4 dimm DDR5 boards seem to suck for memory OC


Is this still the case with 4 slot boards with 2 slots populated?

First time in a long time I'm buying a 4 slot board cos there arent any good 2 slot DDR4.

Otherwise I'd have gotten the asus strix itx as usual.

When I do go to DDR5 it will be back to 2 slot boards.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Slackaveli said:


> Exactly. Maybe instead turning off HT for gaming will be the way.



I doubt that as how do the threads know how to deal with the much slower cores of e-cores. With HT, the threads have full access to the strong cores even if they have to share them.

I once wondered the same thing and tested it and games stuttered badly on WIN10.


----------



## tps3443

Are we jacking up the tREFI high as it goes on DDR5? I see it goes in to the 200,000 thousands.


----------



## cstkl1

affxct said:


> Z690 Heros doing 760034 and Extremes doing 7400 hehe


evga classified z690??


----------



## bscool

'


affxct said:


> Honest question; don’t you guys find that AI OC jacks up operating voltage to quite a significant degree? I’ve messed around with AI OC and IABT a few times and both seem to run core voltage a little too high for even my liking. Not sure if perhaps it was related to the chip’s VID.


I have tested it on 4 different 12900k/kf/ks and I think it does a really good job for an "auto" OC. The better the bin the better it does. I fine tune it using llc and cooler rating.

Not saying it is better than manual tune but for the simplicity it is very good on 12th gen. Much better than past gens for me.

MB tested on z690 Strix d4 and 2 z690 Apex.

Edit I see 13th gen thread so my post is irrelevant


----------



## Wolverine2349

Arni90 said:


> I'm talking about 4000 12-11-11-14-CR1 with subtimings floored, you're not going to be able to run with all memory enabled at that point.




Meaning it is not actually stable and no RAM is at those settings unless you disable some of it


----------



## bhav

Hah, and the DDR5 knowledge drop just came in handy right away, someone on reddit asking why people are saying not to buy 5200, and get the 5600.


----------



## Wilco183

Any chip losers out there wanna try and beat this? 5559 heavy...sure thing, I'll get right on it. When do the Keep Spending launch?


----------



## sugi0lover

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Did anyone manage 6.0Ghz on P cores?


My friend who did the delid job of my cpu could do all cores 6.1Ghz easily on his Z690 system & not as good cooling system as mine.


Spoiler: Cine All cores 6.1Ghz 























He could also boot up to 6.5Ghz but crashed while capturing it. Here is all core 6.4Ghz on his Z690 and custom loop.


Spoiler: all cores 6.4Ghz boot















Anyway, I have seen more than 100 retail 13900K and the highest SP so far except those buggy SP is SP110 (P120, E92)
General SP over 100 is not that hard to see, but most 13900K are around 95~99.


Spoiler: 13900K SP110


----------



## bhav

Oh welp, now my brain is doing that thing again ....

'SELL 12600K AND BUY 13600K FOR SECOND PC'

Nooo cos my 13900k will go in there after the next upgrade!

Stupid brain, shut up.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Are we jacking up the tREFI high as it goes on DDR5? I see it goes in to the 200,000 thousands.


Yes, you can max it out. But most people seem to struggle long before that happens.


sugi0lover said:


> My friend who did the delid job of my cpu could do all cores 6.1Ghz easily on his Z690 system & not as good cooling system as mine.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Cine All cores 6.1Ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577814
> 
> View attachment 2577815
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could also boot up to 6.5Ghz but crashed while capturing it. Here is all core 6.4Ghz on his Z690 and custom loop.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: all cores 6.4Ghz boot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577819
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I have seen more than 100 retail 13900K and the highest SP so far except those buggy SP is SP110 (P120, E92)
> General SP over 100 is not that hard to see, but most 13900K are around 95~99.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 13900K SP110
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577816


With all of the SP bugs now, it's hard to tell what is genuine or not, and there is no way for people to properly verify the claims.
I imagine a lot of people will try to scam others on marketplaces by showing screenshots of inaccurate SP...

The only guaranteed method now is to do actual benchmarks to find Vmin.


----------



## gtz

tps3443 said:


> Are we jacking up the tREFI high as it goes on DDR5? I see it goes in to the 200,000 thousands.


I have not messed with memory yet. But on my old 12900K my old kit maxed out around 70000, would get random errors above that.


----------



## Exilon

X61 said:


> @yt93900, see if this helps: ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II | LGA1700 Kit Installation
> 
> *Check if the metal standoffs you use are the ones which are 13mm long*.
> 
> I think it's the opposite:


Asking customers to differentiate 1mm differences in standoffs is a terrible UX decision from Arctic. They should've made the upgrade kit standoffs zinc plated or something to differentiate it by color. It wouldn't have added anything to the cost.


----------



## bscool

Exilon said:


> Asking customers to differentiate 1mm differences in standoffs is a terrible UX decision from Arctic. They should've made the upgrade kit standoffs zinc plated or something to differentiate it by color. It wouldn't have added anything to the cost.


Yeah so easy for people to mix them up. I know somoene I helped did this and they were saying how bad the Arctic is. Was user error using wrong standoffs.

I bet there are people using a couple of each(lga 1200 and lga1700) and they wonder why their cooler doesnt sit flat


----------



## bhav

Ok that will be annoying. I do assume that new arctic coolers come with the 1700 plate in the box?


----------



## bscool

bhav said:


> Ok that will be annoying. I do assume that new arctic coolers come with the 1700 plate in the box?


It should, would have to be a really old model that sat on the shelf for a long time to not have the lga1700 kit.


----------



## bhav

Oh that reminds me to ask, are the fans on the non RGB and RGB version the same speed and pressure?

I'd like the RGB but not if its slower fans.

NVM, checked on their website and they are the same.


----------



## LazyGamer

affxct said:


> Z690 Heros doing 760034 and Extremes doing 7400 hehe


With Alder Lake though? Raptor Lake I'd expect (that's part of the point, Z790 is 'better' but still depends on CPU and memory ICs).


----------



## Exilon

Wolverine2349 said:


> I doubt that as how do the threads know how to deal with the much slower cores of e-cores. With HT, the threads have full access to the strong cores even if they have to share them.
> 
> I once wondered the same thing and tested it and games stuttered badly on WIN10.


W10 isn't a supported OS and won't fill the threads in the correct order. In W11, it already fills E-cores before double stuffing P-cores so HT is essentially doing nothing on the bigger 6+8, 8+8, 8+16 configurations unless you're running some app that scales to N-threads.. where E-cores will win anyways. 

Why does it do that? Because 1 E-core + 1 P-core will be faster than double stuffing a P-core in most cases with the P-core having full IPC since it's not sharing a thread. Using the E-core cluster also enables using the 2/4MB L2 cluster to reduce cache thrash at P-core L2 and L3. 

See this chart. The Raptor Cove would need to maintain at least a 81% per-thread performance when double-stuffed to keep up with P-core + E-core handling 1 thread each. 
6.81 * 5.5 * *81%* * 2 < (6.81 * 5.5 + 5.53 * 4.3) 
6.81 * 5.5 * *82%* * 2 > (6.81 * 5.5 + 5.53 * 4.3) 
This is well above the typical yield for hyperthreading which is why the fill order isn't P-cores, sibling threads, and then E-cores. It's P-cores, E-cores, and then sibling threads.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583097773540274176


----------



## newls1

just hit my best R23 and Y-Cruncher now @ 5.8 P-core / 4.6E-core / 47Ring. Cant love a processor anymore then this


----------



## Ichirou

newls1 said:


> just hit my best R23 and Y-Cruncher now @ 5.8 P-core / 4.6E-core / 47Ring. Cant love a processor anymore then this
> 
> View attachment 2577838
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577839


You gotta run y-cruncher with maximum memory populated to properly stress test.
There's a reason why I recommend the vanilla version instead of the one that comes bundled with BenchMate. Only that one has the Component Stress Test.


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> Oh that reminds me to ask, are the fans on the non RGB and RGB version the same speed and pressure?
> 
> I'd like the RGB but not if its slower fans.
> 
> NVM, checked on their website and they are the same.


You can replace the fans. The fan mounts are standard. You're going to need daisy extensions if you're going to replace them with Noctuas though. And for the 3000 RPM versions, you need 2 headers because only 2 of the industrial fans should go on one regular header. (or you can just be a Giga Chad and put all three industrial fans on W+Pump).


----------



## Exilon

bhav said:


> Oh that reminds me to ask, are the fans on the non RGB and RGB version the same speed and pressure?


The ARGB editions have an outer ring which should make the fans a little more effective by reducing tip leakages


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> You can replace the fans. The fan mounts are standard. You're going to need daisy extensions if you're going to replace them with Noctuas though. And for the 3000 RPM versions, you need 2 headers because only 2 of the industrial fans should go on one regular header. (or you can just be a Giga Chad and put all three industrial fans on W+Pump).


Oh thank you, I forgot about that. Its in the vented closet so I can get more powerful fans, depending on whether I can hear the stock ones at full or not.

I'll get the non rgb for less, and change fans if needed.

I'll need to open the closet doors when pushing it for benchies, for 24/7 just thinking 6 core stock, 2 core OC.

Open frame case still not in stock yet though.


----------



## LazyGamer

Falkentyne said:


> And for the 3000 RPM versions, you need 2 headers because only 2 of the industrial fans


People are still using Noctua industrials...? Good as it gets for 140mm?


----------



## bhav

Ok yea which are the best 140mm fans for airflow? RPM adjustable would be needed so I set them as high as I can maintain in closet near silence, or I get a controller for that?

6x140 on the Core P3 pro.


----------



## Exilon

LazyGamer said:


> People are still using Noctua industrials...? Good as it gets for 140mm?


I've had better results with Arctic P14s and Thermaltake's Toughfans. The Noctua NF-A14 geometry isn't optimal for radiators.


----------



## LazyGamer

Exilon said:


> I've had better results with Arctic P14s and Thermaltake's Toughfans. The Noctua NF-A14 geometry isn't optimal for radiators.


Yeah, Arctic's for cheap, Toughfans for not as much... but probably better behaved. Wish Phanteks made their new fan in 140mm, the 120mm versions are great.


----------



## bhav

Arctic P14 is only 1700RPM though, the fans on the AIO go up to 3000?

I had a delta fan somewhere, bought it for my first or second build ages ago thinking it would be good.

I nearly went deaf. Oops.


----------



## Exilon

The Arctic P-fans are strange. The P12 is meh but the P14 ARGB seems to keep up with the best of them, possibly because most of the 140mm blade geometries are terribly optimized for radiators. What ever happened to that $60K fan tester that GamersNexus bought?



bhav said:


> Arctic P14 is only 1700RPM though, the fans on the AIO go up to 3000?


Which AIO? At 3000RPM you're gonna have a bad time with noise unless it's in a different room.


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> Which AIO? At 3000RPM you're gonna have a bad time with noise unless it's in a different room.


The stock fans on arctic go up to 3000.

As I mentioned, its in a closet.


----------



## LazyGamer

bhav said:


> I had a delta fan somewhere, bought it for my first or second build ages ago thinking it would be good.


I put a salvaged 40mm Delta on my RAM earlier this year... at 7000RPM, could hear it across _the house_


----------



## Slackaveli

Wolverine2349 said:


> Is G.Skill Samsung b.die 16GB X 2 DDR4 3600MHz CL 14-15-15-35 at default xmp settings the stuff you are referring to. Or does it have to be manually tweaked to he better than any DDR5.


"Better than ddr5"... LOL. No, dude. It's virtually the same latency but half the bandwidth. ddr5 is better with M-die; it's way better now that A-die is out.


----------



## Exilon

bhav said:


> The stock fans on arctic go up to 3000.



That seems to be a listing error
It's referring to the 40mm fan on the waterblock for the VRMs


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> That seems to be a listing error
> It's referring to the 40mm fan on the waterblock for the VRMs


Oh 

Yea they are P14s.


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> Yea you buy the cheap 4800 or 6000 with hynix then, and overclock it yourself. Simple.


I sold my 32gb 3800c14 for $349 then bought 32gb 6400c32 for $349.
EZ


----------



## Wolverine2349

Slackaveli said:


> "Better than ddr5"... LOL. No, dude. It's virtually the same latency but half the bandwidth. ddr5 is better with M-die; it's way better now that A-die is out.



I had thought and misread the post whom I was quoting I thought they were saying well tuned DDR4 was still better than DDR5.


----------



## Slackaveli

jvidia said:


> That's another problem ... a good board to OC DDR5 has to be a 2 dimm slot one, and that => $$$$$$$
> 
> 4 dimm DDR5 boards seem to suck for memory OC


absolutely .
Unify-X, Apex, or Dark only.


----------



## bhav

Slackaveli said:


> I sold my 32gb 3800c14 for $349 then bought 32gb 6400c32 for $349.
> EZ


Just you wait for my 6000 MT DDR4 CL24!

I can dream :x


----------



## Wolverine2349

Exilon said:


> W10 isn't a supported OS and won't fill the threads in the correct order. In W11, it already fills E-cores before double stuffing P-cores so HT is essentially doing nothing on the bigger 6+8, 8+8, 8+16 configurations unless you're running some app that scales to N-threads.. where E-cores will win anyways.
> 
> Why does it do that? Because 1 E-core + 1 P-core will be faster than double stuffing a P-core in most cases with the P-core having full IPC since it's not sharing a thread. Using the E-core cluster also enables using the 2/4MB L2 cluster to reduce cache thrash at P-core L2 and L3.
> 
> See this chart. The Raptor Cove would need to maintain at least a 81% per-thread performance when double-stuffed to keep up with P-core + E-core handling 1 thread each.
> 6.81 * 5.5 * *81%* * 2 < (6.81 * 5.5 + 5.53 * 4.3)
> 6.81 * 5.5 * *82%* * 2 > (6.81 * 5.5 + 5.53 * 4.3)
> This is well above the typical yield for hyperthreading which is why the fill order isn't P-cores, sibling threads, and then E-cores. It's P-cores, E-cores, and then sibling threads.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583097773540274176
> View attachment 2577828



What about on a Ryzen 7950X?? It has 16 power cores. I you turn off SMT on that, would it give the same or even better result?? Though cross CCD latency is it an issue at all as there are 2 8 core CCD chiplets. Though there is also a latency crossing from P to e-core on Intel though they are on same ring??


----------



## Slackaveli

Ichirou said:


> Yes, you can max it out. But most people seem to struggle long before that happens.
> 
> With all of the SP bugs now, it's hard to tell what is genuine or not, and there is no way for people to properly verify the claims.
> I imagine a lot of people will try to scam others on marketplaces by showing screenshots of inaccurate SP...
> 
> The only guaranteed method now is to do actual benchmarks to find Vmin.


Yeah, I PROMISE people are getting cooked on reseller sites bc of the SP bug already.


----------



## Slackaveli

Wolverine2349 said:


> I had thought and misread the post whom I was quoting I thought they were saying well tuned DDR4 was still better than DDR5.


It's not, with the caveat being 4266c14 and such ddr4 tunes can still hang well, but the A-Die ddr5 ended the last of the latency advantage and it's over double the bandwidth now. 7600c34 ish.


----------



## zlatanselvic

I just snagged a 13700k - coming from a 10900k at 5.2ghz all core.

How are the 13700k’s favoring in OC. I didn’t need the extra E cores. I just game on my pc.


----------



## bhav

Wolverine2349 said:


> I had thought and misread the post whom I was quoting I thought they were saying well tuned DDR4 was still better than DDR5.


Well tuned DDR5 > Well tuned DDR4 > XMP garbage.

I was only looking at XMP garbage reviews and asking for tuned vs tuned.


----------



## Exilon

Wolverine2349 said:


> What about on a Ryzen 7950X?? It has 16 power cores. I you turn off SMT on that, would it give the same or even better result?? Though cross CCD latency is it an issue at all as there are 2 8 core CCD chiplets. Though there is also a latency crossing from P to e-core on Intel though they are on same ring??


7950X is losing to 7700X in gaming in general because of CCD latency and fabric bottleneck. There is no hard rule for SMT on/off because sometimes it's better to take the CCD latency so you can have more compute and other times not.

The only additional latency for E-core is locking a cache line *within *the same cluster likely because they're sharing some resource. There is no additional latency between P-core and E-core.









Source for 13900K:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583091641765679109


----------



## Slackaveli

Exilon said:


> W10 isn't a supported OS and won't fill the threads in the correct order. In W11, it already fills E-cores before double stuffing P-cores so HT is essentially doing nothing on the bigger 6+8, 8+8, 8+16 configurations unless you're running some app that scales to N-threads.. where E-cores will win anyways.
> 
> Why does it do that? Because 1 E-core + 1 P-core will be faster than double stuffing a P-core in most cases with the P-core having full IPC since it's not sharing a thread. Using the E-core cluster also enables using the 2/4MB L2 cluster to reduce cache thrash at P-core L2 and L3.
> 
> See this chart. The Raptor Cove would need to maintain at least a 81% per-thread performance when double-stuffed to keep up with P-core + E-core handling 1 thread each.
> 6.81 * 5.5 * *81%* * 2 < (6.81 * 5.5 + 5.53 * 4.3)
> 6.81 * 5.5 * *82%* * 2 > (6.81 * 5.5 + 5.53 * 4.3)
> This is well above the typical yield for hyperthreading which is why the fill order isn't P-cores, sibling threads, and then E-cores. It's P-cores, E-cores, and then sibling threads.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583097773540274176
> View attachment 2577828


So, then while likely unnecessary because it's being properly scheduled anyway, but HT off* Ecores on* is certainly better than ecores off* HT on* like people ran on Alder Lake- esp the 12700k guys- as I was saying earlier. Awesome CPU, Intel.

Looks like 13900k owners, 13700k owners, and 13600k owners will all be quite happy with their purchases.


----------



## bhav

Slackaveli said:


> So, then while likely unnecessary because it's being properly scheduled anyway, but HT off* Ecores on* is certainly better than ecores off* HT on* like people ran on Alder Lake- esp the 12700k guys- as I was saying earlier. Awesome CPU, Intel.
> 
> Looks like 13900k owners, 13700k owners, and 13600k owners will all be quite happy with their purchases.


Does HT off lower temps and allow higher P core? Any results from anyone thats tried this?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Does HT off lower temps and allow higher P core? Any results from anyone thats tried this?


Yes, and not guaranteed.
It all boils down to Vcore and cooling.
But you're really not going to get much further than 6.0 GHz without a mixture of binning, an insane loop and a delid or direct die.


----------



## Slackaveli

zlatanselvic said:


> I just snagged a 13700k - coming from a 10900k at 5.2ghz all core.
> 
> How are the 13700k’s favoring in OC. I didn’t need the extra E cores. I just game on my pc.


Great choice. Seems like most hit 5.4 all core, some up to 5.6. No need to disable the ecores this time around as they are pretty damn good now and have plenty of cache and no latency hit.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Yes, and not guaranteed.
> It all boils down to Vcore and cooling.
> But you're really not going to get much further than 6.0 GHz without a mixture of binning, an insane loop and a delid or direct die.


But I require 8 Ghz P core for anno!


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> Does HT off lower temps and allow higher P core? Any results from anyone thats tried this?


if you are right on the cusp of that next bin it can help get you there. Could allow for lower voltages/temps by a small amount as well. So, yeah, both, but don't expect too much.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Exilon said:


> 7950X is losing to 7700X in gaming in general because of CCD latency and fabric bottleneck. There is no hard rule for SMT on/off because sometimes it's better to take the CCD latency so you can have more compute and other times not.
> 
> The only additional latency for E-core is locking a cache line *within *the same cluster likely because they're sharing some resource. There is no additional latency between P-core and E-core.
> View attachment 2577852
> 
> 
> Source for 13900K:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583091641765679109



Is there the same issue with the Ryzen 5900X and 5950X having dual CCDs and the fabric bottleneck??


----------



## Slackaveli

Wolverine2349 said:


> Is there the same issue with the Ryzen 5900X and 5950X having dual CCDs and the fabric bottleneck??


Yeah apparently so. 7950x performs better with one CCD disabled in most games. Also, that means there won't be some 16-core 3dx part coming to best Raptor, either. Best they can do is an 8-core one CCD one, with gains less than from 5800x3d vs 5800x with the ddr5 and the other cache improvements already on zen 4.


----------



## BoredErica

Has anyone done any articles/tests on freq scaling based on temps? Maybe I can get 7-10c reduction with the mounting bracket for $10. But what does 7c mean for clocks?


----------



## Ichirou

BoredErica said:


> Has anyone done any articles/tests on freq scaling based on temps? Maybe I can get 7-10c reduction with the mounting bracket for $10. But what does 7c mean for clocks?


In my experience with the Thermalright bracket, I didn't get any actual decrease in temps.
What happened instead was that I could drop my Vcore by -0.02V and remain stable at the exact same settings in y-cruncher CST.

So a small gain, but significant in the overall picture.


----------



## bhav

The bracket has 2 variables:

1) How uneven the IHS is

2) Bending over time

If you get a IHS thats flat, it doesn't make any immediate difference. If you get a IHS thats crooked, it makes a huge immediate difference.

Now with the stock mount, the central pressure can cause the IHS to bend over time, gradually reducing cooling performance and increasing temps. The bend protector stops this from happening and is its main purpose.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> Yes, and not guaranteed.
> It all boils down to Vcore and cooling.
> But you're really not going to get much further than 6.0 GHz without a mixture of binning, an insane loop and a delid or direct die.



Though I imagine HT makes far less of a difference in P core heat and overclock ability than e-cores on or off.


----------



## Exilon

Wolverine2349 said:


> Is there the same issue with the Ryzen 5900X and 5950X having dual CCDs and the fabric bottleneck??


I don't think so or we didn't observe it in the benchmarks. AMD didn't upgrade the fabric bandwidth for Zen4 so maybe DDR5's additional bandwidth is spiking cross-CCD latencies for some games, or maybe it's just a firmware/os issue that hasn't been addressed yet.... or maybe it's always been there and a 3090 wasn't fast enough to trigger the issue.

2022







vs 2021








But that's enough about AMD in the Raptor Lake thread.


----------



## zlatanselvic

Slackaveli said:


> Great choice. Seems like most hit 5.4 all core, some up to 5.6. No need to disable the ecores this time around as they are pretty damn good now and have plenty of cache and no latency hit.


Glad to hear it. I plan on Delidding and doing a sandwich setup of liquid metal with a copper IHS, and the 12th gen bracket deal.

CPU will be on a single push pull 360 rad solo.

Seems like the 13700k is a 12900ks+


----------



## Wolverine2349

Slackaveli said:


> Yeah apparently so. 7950x performs better with one CCD disabled in most games. Also, that means there won't be some 16-core 3dx part coming to best Raptor, either. Best they can do is an 8-core one CCD one, with gains less than from 5800x3d vs 5800x with the ddr5 and the other cache improvements already on zen 4.



Would you say a 13900K e-cores off and well clocked P cores with HT on will perform in gaming better or similar to an 8 core 16 thread 7800X3D?? A little worse perhaps?


----------



## bhav

Wolverine2349 said:


> Would you say a 13900K e-cores off and well clocked P cores with HT on will perform in gaming better or similar to an 8 core 16 thread 7800X3D?? A little worse perhaps?


It depends on the game. Only one that actually matters for CPU is Anno 1800, 4k with a 12900k and 4090, it still runs at 30-60 FPS in the late game. People are turning everything off that leads to higher P core for this one game.

If the games you play are already running up to or above your refresh rate, it doesn't matter. The only other thing that pushes CPU much is Civ 6 turn times, but they are already good enough on current CPUs at stock.


----------



## Slackaveli

Wolverine2349 said:


> Would you say a 13900K e-cores off and well clocked P cores with HT on will perform in gaming better or similar to an 8 core 16 thread 7800X3D?? A little worse perhaps?


I think better or the same. I'd be shocked if it lost. But that is the question, iddnit? And 1% lows is the more important metric than average FPS in that matchup.


----------



## Wolverine2349

bhav said:


> It depends on the game. Only one that actually matters for CPU is Anno 1800, 4k with a 12900k and 4090, it still runs at 30-60 FPS. People are turning everything off that leads to higher P core for this one game.
> 
> If the games you play are already running up to or above your refresh rate, it doesn't matter.


I plan to play at 1440P and have 240Hz refresh rate native G sync monitor.


----------



## bhav

Wolverine2349 said:


> I plan to play at 1440P and have 240Hz refresh rate native G sync monitor.


Oh 200+ FPS on a 1440p is a whole other level of get all the CPU and GPU and ram tuning you can.

4k 120hz is just lame, CPU and ram tuning dont do anything except for Anno which only scales with CPU and not GPU.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Slackaveli said:


> I think better or the same. I'd be shocked if it lost. But that is the question, iddnit? And 1% lows is the more important metric than average FPS in that matchup.



Exactly 1% lows and 0.1% lows matter more especially the severe dips. It seems all AMD CPUs seem to dip to like 5FPS on 0.1% lows in some games when I watch benchmarks. Is that is what is referred to as AMDrip??

Not sure if a bug or not or if the 5800X3d is affected or not. Though I believe some YouTube video said not to wait for 7000X3D due to AMDrip and just go with Intel Raptor Lake.


----------



## bhav

Wolverine2349 said:


> Exactly 1% lows and 0.1% lows matter more especially the severe dips. It seems all AMD CPUs seem to dip to like 5FPS on 0.1% lows in some games when I watch benchmarks. Is that is what is referred to as AMDrip??


10900k @ 5.2 Ghz, 4600CL15 ram, 1080 Ti overclocked however much it would go, 1440p ... 'Why is my Anno dipping to <25 FPS???'.

Lame game. Too many calculations per second. Too advanced for current CPUs. Initially I complained it wasnt optimized or used all the cores? Oh its using them already, and calculating every action of every population's work output and rate and what not.

Wow I reached 5000 population! ... PC dies.


----------



## Arni90

affxct said:


> Honest question; don’t you guys find that AI OC jacks up operating voltage to quite a significant degree? I’ve messed around with AI OC and IABT a few times and both seem to run core voltage a little too high for even my liking. Not sure if perhaps it was related to the chip’s VID.


AI OC gave perfectly adequate voltage on Z590, but I haven't tested Z690 or Z790.



Wolverine2349 said:


> I doubt that as how do the threads know how to deal with the much slower cores of e-cores. With HT, the threads have full access to the strong cores even if they have to share them.
> 
> I once wondered the same thing and tested it and games stuttered badly on WIN10.


If you want examples of poorly optimized games, those which are written with the assumption that every thread is equally fast are at the top of the list.



BoredErica said:


> Has anyone done any articles/tests on freq scaling based on temps? Maybe I can get 7-10c reduction with the mounting bracket for $10. But what does 7c mean for clocks?


I managed about +150 MHz in Cinebench R23 with a delid: https://hwbot.org/submission/5105530_
That was a gain of roughly 20C at equivalent VCore


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Ichirou said:


> 2.0V of VDIMM.
> 
> Only if you're running 64+ GB. Otherwise, DDR5 is going to be stronger than DDR4 as long as it's 7,000+ MHz.


I think it's not good to go to high with VDimm/Vddq Voltage, on my Z690 Strix D4 the Board set the MC Voltage at the same value!!!.
I dont know it but if there are no big changes and the MC voltage is like the io voltage in earlier gen, its not so good to raise over 1,6V vdimm.At 1,65V Vdimm/also MC Voltage goes in Red.
So im better carefull if i have no other Informations, in Intel Specs documents for 13'er no max. value's for it. 

You say SA killt over 1,4V the IMC...why???, give it any dead 12900k or so.In bios it goes later in Red as MC Voltage.


----------



## Netarangi

Tips to lower temps on Asus boards?


----------



## affxct

LazyGamer said:


> With Alder Lake though? Raptor Lake I'd expect (that's part of the point, Z790 is 'better' but still depends on CPU and memory ICs).


The IMC matters, but performance like that is reflective of board performance too. As is Gigabyte’s new 7950 MT/s topology. 4-DIMMs are really not bad tbh.


----------



## affxct

cstkl1 said:


> evga classified z690??


Probably not, someone was seeing good results around 6800 with Samsung on the EVGA forum though. ASUS 4-DIMM boards that are not suffering from QC issues are super good, full admittance from me. Like they could boot 6400 across 4x16 even. My only gripe with ASUS was consistency between samples and the way they handled the situation.


----------



## xarot

Swapped out my 10900K temporary setup to 13900K+Asus Strix Wifi D4 board + 4000 CL19 RAM. Using Optimus Foundation block, no frame so far, power limits unlocked in BIOS + XMP, two cores went past 90c on 10 minute CB23 benching. Actually pleasantly surprised of the temps so far, was expecting cores to go to 100c as per some reviews that tried custom water cooling. I briefly tested the contact with Noctua before Optimus and the paste trace looked like terrible, so gonna install the TR frame today. Might actually steer away from delidding, if frame can get core temps sub 90c. Also looking to maybe use the stock TDP for MT and just fine-tune the single-core perf to 6 GHz if it's possible. My loop is not so good because the PC could only be placed next to one of the radiators in the house so water temps are not very optimal as winter is coming in my country.

Also @Nizzen you can add my poor chip to the end of the list: SP97/P106/E81


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

sugi0lover said:


> My friend who did the delid job of my cpu could do all cores 6.1Ghz easily on his Z690 system & not as good cooling system as mine.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Cine All cores 6.1Ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577814
> 
> View attachment 2577815
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could also boot up to 6.5Ghz but crashed while capturing it. Here is all core 6.4Ghz on his Z690 and custom loop.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: all cores 6.4Ghz boot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577819
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I have seen more than 100 retail 13900K and the highest SP so far except those buggy SP is SP110 (P120, E92)
> General SP over 100 is not that hard to see, but most 13900K are around 95~99.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 13900K SP110
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577816


What about RAM speeds on 4 slot mobo? Is it worth upgrading to Z790?

I'll be aiming again for a high bin CPU, and see what my 12 rads can do on direct die with it.

I just wonder if it's worth replacing my Z690 Formula for something else to get better ram speeds.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

sugi0lover said:


> My friend who did the delid job of my cpu could do all cores 6.1Ghz easily on his Z690 system & not as good cooling system as mine.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Cine All cores 6.1Ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577814
> 
> View attachment 2577815
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could also boot up to 6.5Ghz but crashed while capturing it. Here is all core 6.4Ghz on his Z690 and custom loop.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: all cores 6.4Ghz boot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577819
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I have seen more than 100 retail 13900K and the highest SP so far except those buggy SP is SP110 (P120, E92)
> General SP over 100 is not that hard to see, but most 13900K are around 95~99.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 13900K SP110
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2577816


Also, in your opinion, if I search for a binned CPU, what would you think is the stopping point for the P cores? 115+?


----------



## bhav

TheNaitsyrk said:


> What about RAM speeds on 4 slot mobo? Is it worth upgrading to Z790?
> 
> I'll be aiming again for a high bin CPU, and see what my 12 rads can do on direct die with it.
> 
> I just wonder if it's worth replacing my Z690 Formula for something else to get better ram speeds.


It depends on if you are limited by your IMC currently. If your ram won't go further due to the memory controller, a new motherboard won't change that. If you can go further but not get stable despite the settings like increasing timings / voltage IO, this could be either the motherboard or the rams limit.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

bhav said:


> It depends on if you are limited by your IMC currently. If your ram won't go further due to the memory controller, a new motherboard won't change that. If you can go further but not get stable despite the settings like increasing timings / voltage IO, this could be either the motherboard or the rams limit.


Seems like I should try Z690 Formula 1st and then change if I get limited I suppose.

I've got 4 sticks of 6400Mhz CL32 TridentZ, but I don't know what type of die it is and I'm not sure if its worth keeping. I know upcoming sticks will be A die like 7800Mhz, but my ones are probably M-die


----------



## Slackaveli

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Seems like I should try Z690 Formula 1st and then change if I get limited I suppose.
> 
> I've got 4 sticks of 6400Mhz CL32 TridentZ, but I don't know what type of die it is and I'm not sure if its worth keeping. I know upcoming sticks will be A die like 7800Mhz, but my ones are probably M-die


that's M-die for sure. Should be able to get 7000-72000mts out of it.


----------



## sugi0lover

TheNaitsyrk said:


> What about RAM speeds on 4 slot mobo? Is it worth upgrading to Z790?
> 
> I'll be aiming again for a high bin CPU, and see what my 12 rads can do on direct die with it.
> 
> I just wonder if it's worth replacing my Z690 Formula for something else to get better ram speeds.


I saw some good result with 4 slot Hero at DDR5 forum... like 7800Mhz OC.
so I think you can expect high ram oc even on 4 slot mobo at 13900K + Z790



TheNaitsyrk said:


> Also, in your opinion, if I search for a binned CPU, what would you think is the stopping point for the P cores? 115+?


I see more than 10 P-core 115+, so maybe aim for P120 or below.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Slackaveli said:


> that's M-die for sure. Should be able to get 7000-72000mts out of it.


Yeah those might be needing upgrading shortly.


----------



## GQNerd

SP106/P116/E88
5.8 P, 4.7 E, 4.8 Ring

That's all for tonight, have work in 5 hrs..


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Miguelios said:


> 5.8 P, 4.7 E, 4.8 Ring
> 
> That's all for tonight, have work in 5 hrs..
> 
> View attachment 2577891


What's the SP of your chip?


----------



## GQNerd

TheNaitsyrk said:


> What's the SP of your chip?


Edited the op
SP106


----------



## sugi0lover

I see 13th Gen some SP bugs on 690 board.
If you upgrade from bios 2004 to 2103, SP seems okay.
But if you skipped bios 2004 and updated from the previous bios to 2103, SP bug happends because of ME not updating properly.
If that happens on 2103, just update ME and take out the cpu and put it back.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

sugi0lover said:


> I see 13th Gen some SP bugs on 690 board.
> If you upgrade from bios 2004 to 2103, SP seems okay.
> But if you skipped bios 2004 and updated from the previous bios to 2103, SP bug happends because of ME not updating properly.
> If that happens on 2103, just update ME and take out the cpu and put it back.


What is your comment of MSI side of SP rating ? FORCE lower = better is not correct or bugged on RPL-Z690


----------



## sugi0lover

Streamroller said:


> What is your comment of MSI side of SP rating ? FORCE lower = better is not correct or bugged on RPL-Z690


Unlike SP, I heard CPU Force changes, but the left one was just average 13900K (not sure of SP), and the right one is mine (SP 114) on my friend's Z690 Unify.

[Update] The lower, the better SIlicon quality.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

sugi0lover said:


> Unlike SP, I heard CPU Force changes, but the left one was just average 13900K (not sure of SP), and the right one is mine (SP 114) on my friend's Z690 Unify.
> View attachment 2577893


Yes thats why i wanted a opinion of yours. Its not a reliable method of telling or coming into conclusion. There is a SP100+ 13900K owner reports as force 147. We can understand its a good chip due to low voltages at 5.5ghz. But according to FORCE " it should be " average chip. My 13700KF reporting 161 force but can do 5400 all core true voltage 1.295 -(286) on vOUT VCC sense


----------



## newls1

sugi0lover said:


> Unlike SP, I heard CPU Force changes, but the left one was just average 13900K (not sure of SP), and the right one is mine (SP 114) on my friend's Z690 Unify.
> View attachment 2577893


didnt even know MSI had this.... so is this similiar to asus' SP rating? Are the 2 numbers comparable?


----------



## Ichirou

sugi0lover said:


> Unlike SP, I heard CPU Force changes, but the left one was just average 13900K (not sure of SP), and the right one is mine (SP 114) on my friend's Z690 Unify.
> View attachment 2577893


So your golden chup actually got a worse CPU Force score than the average chip?

Seems like even that isn't very reliable.


----------



## yt93900

Exilon said:


> Asking customers to differentiate 1mm differences in standoffs is a terrible UX decision from Arctic. They should've made the upgrade kit standoffs zinc plated or something to differentiate it by color. It wouldn't have added anything to the cost.


Yep, obviously I measured and checked all the parts, I have 2 of these AIO's, the other being the 360mm and the 1700 mounts are absolutely identical. The thing just doesn't want to work on that ASUS Z790. I had the exact same cooler and mounting kit working on other Z690.
I don't want to bother with it anymore, the H170i is getting delivered today.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Miguelios said:


> Edited the op
> SP106


P core high like 118+?


----------



## sugi0lover

newls1 said:


> didnt even know MSI had this.... so is this similiar to asus' SP rating? Are the 2 numbers comparable?


Yes it has been there for a while. The lower the better, but i heard it keeps changing even with the same cpu.


Ichirou said:


> So your golden chup actually got a worse CPU Force score than the average chip?
> 
> Seems like even that isn't very reliable.


The lower, the better silicon quality


----------



## Ozone_3950

Ichirou said:


> Raptor Lake is a joke. All Intel did was bin the cores a bit better and slap on more E-cores. This is useless for gamers, especially if they don't overclock.
> 
> Maybe people who do need the cores for multicore workloads might consider it, but that extra cost to upgrade and to also cool the chip so it doesn't throttle... That's also disregarding the wattage necessary.
> 
> I'm more curious about the IMC, if anything. Has it improved, or is it still a total dice roll?


Then gamers shouldn't get an enthusiast chip. K SKUs have always been the OC enthusiast lineup, with the locked chips being way more suitable for gamers as they're cheaper, and make sense to be on cheaper boards since they cannot be OC'd.

Raptorlake actually seems insane, as they clock insanely well and have very good IMCs. I've not seen much about DDR5 but 7800MHz looks pretty easy on decent ICs. However, I have seen 4400MHz G1 on dual rank Samsung B-Die on a 13700K which is insanely impressive. Overall I think Raptorlake isn't much of a "joke".


----------



## cstkl1

z690 asus. please use bios 2103.


Streamroller said:


> Yes thats why i wanted a opinion of yours. Its not a reliable method of telling or coming into conclusion. There is a SP100+ 13900K owner reports as force 147. We can understand its a good chip due to low voltages at 5.5ghz. But according to FORCE " it should be " average chip. My 13700KF reporting 161 force but can do 5400 all core true voltage 1.295 -(286) on vOUT VCC sense


most 13900k does 5.5vmin under 1.2 die sense load.


----------



## Kubko

Hey, I've seen there are some bugs associated with Intel ME (if not updated to latest version). Is it possible to check whether mine is up to date before I move to 13th gen? I have ROG Z690-A D4 mobo with latest bios (I believe its v2103). Thanks


----------



## bscool

Kubko said:


> Hey, I've seen there are some bugs associated with Intel ME (if not updated to latest version). Is it possible to check whether mine is up to date before I move to 13th gen? I have ROG Z690-A D4 mobo with latest bios (I believe its v2103). Thanks


Check in Hwinfo or main page in bios shows it also.

From Shamino "*NOTE for Z690*: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake"






RaptorLake Resources


i will use this as a collection of test bioses/tools/info targeted towards Raptorlake + z69/790 NOTE for Z690: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake (if you are on dual bioses then you need to do this to both bioses) 1) d/l and install ME driver...



rog.asus.com


----------



## affxct

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Yeah those might be needing upgrading shortly.


At this point in time if you can score a cheap Hynix kit at sub $200, running 7200-7400 with a 13900K is way better value than paying 2X for the A-die TG kit and getting 7600-7800 stable. Arguably if you can keep some of the timings low at 7400, because of tRFC and 1T (Dark), you might actually be able to compete well at 7400-1T with tight timings vs A-die with slightly loser timings at 7600. Obviously once A-die hits 7800-8400 it begins to run away, but you get the point.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

affxct said:


> At this point in time if you can score a cheap Hynix kit at sub $200, running 7200-7400 with a 13900K is way better value than paying 2X for the A-die TG kit and getting 7600-7800 stable.


I am currently running 2x sticks of what I have at 6800 CL30 on older BIOS of Z690 Formula, so perhaps these will clock higher with better IMC etc, so might be worth checking it 1st I suppose.


----------



## bigfootnz

bscool said:


> Check in Hwinfo or main page in bios shows it also.
> 
> From Shamino "*NOTE for Z690*: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RaptorLake Resources
> 
> 
> i will use this as a collection of test bioses/tools/info targeted towards Raptorlake + z69/790 NOTE for Z690: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake (if you are on dual bioses then you need to do this to both bioses) 1) d/l and install ME driver...
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com


Not sure is this ME firmware provided by @shamino1978 on Asus forum typo in name as it is labeled v16.1.25.1885, but latest ME firmware on Asus web site is v16.1.25.1917 just as per attached photo.

Link for the v.16.1.25.1917

I can confirm that Asus firmware 2103 come with ME v16.1.25.1917. Also latest MSI A81.U4 for Unify-X has same ME v16.1.25.1917


----------



## affxct

TheNaitsyrk said:


> I am currently running 2x sticks of what I have at 6800 CL30 on older BIOS of Z690 Formula, so perhaps these will clock higher with better IMC etc, so might be worth checking it 1st I suppose.


They’ll definitely clock ever so slightly better with RPL (board dependent too), but realistically you can take whatever your max M-die RPL tune and add 400MT/s to it. To get 8K+ stable would be exceedingly difficult irrespective of A-die. I honestly think the value argument becomes significant because M-die kits these days (even 6400C32) wouldn’t sell for more than 200 on the used market tbh.


----------



## bscool

bigfootnz said:


> Not sure is this ME firmware provided by @shamino1978 on Asus forum typo in name as it is labeled v16.1.25.1885, but latest ME firmware on Asus web site is v16.1.25.1917 just as per attached photo.
> 
> Link for the v.16.1.25.1917
> 
> I can confirm that Asus firmware 2103 come with ME v16.1.25.1917. Also latest MSI A81.U4 for Unify-X has same ME v16.1.25.1917


Asus official firmware is older. Same as if you look at you MB support page. I used the newer one like you but either should work.

Your link is to private user(Mokichu) updates as far as I know. Unless he works for Asus but I havent heard that if he does.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

affxct said:


> They’ll definitely clock ever so slightly better with RPL (board dependent too), but realistically you can take whatever your max M-die RPL tune and add 400MT/s to it. To get 8K+ stable would be exceedingly difficult irrespective of A-die. I honestly think the value argument becomes significant because M-die kits these days (even 6400C32) wouldn’t sell for more than 200 on the used market tbh.


So, you think I should just stick with my current sticks and see what happens / or sell them (even though it's cheap) and just buy something else?


----------



## affxct

TheNaitsyrk said:


> So, you think I should just stick with my current sticks and see what happens / or sell them (even though it's cheap) and just buy something else?


I’d honestly just keep them till cheap A-die options become available.


----------



## Raphie

Once more…









MSI MEG Z690 boards get CPU Force 2 tool for better OC support


It will be a week and a half until MSI unveils its new Alder Lake motherboards, which will take place on November 2. Overclocking should be improved with the introduction of a new function for the MEG...




www.guru3d.com


----------



## 2500k_2




----------



## bigfootnz

bscool said:


> Asus official firmware is older. Same as if you look at you MB support page. I used the newer one like you but either should work.
> 
> Your link is to private user(Mokichu) updates as far as I know. Unless he works for Asus but I havent heard that if he does.


Not sure what are his links to Asus, but his post is sticky thread on Asus forum with links to all latest drivers/firmwares to most of the latest Intel chipsets.


If he is providing some unofficial drivers they would not be sticky tread on Asus forum.


----------



## bscool

bigfootnz said:


> Not sure what are his links to Asus, but his post is sticky thread on Asus forum with links to all latest drivers/firmwares to most of the latest Intel chipsets.
> 
> 
> If he is providing some unofficial drivers they would not be sticky tread on Asus forum.


So why dont the Asus MB drivers use the same as he posts? Makes no sens to me if he is an offical Asus employee.

You might be right but some of @Falkentyne posts are sticky also and he doesnt work for Asus other than as a tester.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

bigfootnz said:


> Not sure is this ME firmware provided by @shamino1978 on Asus forum typo in name as it is labeled v16.1.25.1885, but latest ME firmware on Asus web site is v16.1.25.1917 just as per attached photo.
> 
> Link for the v.16.1.25.1917
> 
> I can confirm that Asus firmware 2103 come with ME v16.1.25.1917. Also latest MSI A81.U4 for Unify-X has same ME v16.1.25.1917


Also confirm unify X link page have 16.1 1917 hotfix 25 version


----------



## Codiee1337

13700K, I don't know the SP yet, waiting on PSU and NZXT cooler to build my test rig up with this CPU, this is my daily board currently (Z690 Tomahawk). It gave a nice overvoltage (in my opinion)


----------



## bigfootnz

bscool said:


> So why dont the Asus MB drivers use the same as he posts? Makes no sens to me if he is an offical Asus employee.
> 
> You might be right but some of @Falkentyne posts are sticky also and he doesnt work for Asus other than as a tester.


Aren’t all official drivers on any MB web site always outdated? Best examples are Intel Wi-Fi, LAN and Bluetooth drivers. They are always outdated comparing to official Intel website. So, should we ignore latest drivers from Intel web site and use outdated drivers from any MB vendors?

Also, how you know that he is not official Asus employee? I’m not saying that he is not, as I do not know, but I know for sure that Asus moderators trust him as they have made his posts sticky.


----------



## Cuthalu

Codiee1337 said:


> View attachment 2577906
> 
> 13700K, I don't know the SP yet, waiting on PSU and NZXT cooler to build my test rig up with this CPU, this is my daily board currently (Z690 Tomahawk). It gave a nice overvoltage (in my opinion)


That pic is so small it's impossible to see any of the values.


----------



## kill_a_wat

Quick 5.8P/4.6E/51C CB R23 single run with my 13900K. CBR23 (Priority set to Realtime), RAM at XMP: 










Short 10 min CB R23 heat test (RAM OC still in progress): 










Cooling - Custom H20 + Kingpin KPX thermal compound + TG Frame. I still hit 90c+...







.


----------



## bscool

bigfootnz said:


> Aren’t all official drivers on any MB web site always outdated? Best examples are Intel Wi-Fi, LAN and Bluetooth drivers. They are always outdated comparing to official Intel website. So, should we ignore latest drivers from Intel web site and use outdated drivers from any MB vendors?
> 
> Also, how you know that he is not official Asus employee? I’m not saying that he is not, as I do not know, but I know for sure that Asus moderators trust him as they have made his posts sticky.


So ignore what @shamino1978 says/posted since he is the one posting the diver ME I posted. We are going in circles. Do as you like.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

affxct said:


> I’d honestly just keep them till cheap A-die options become available.


I like your answer


----------



## Codiee1337

Cuthalu said:


> That pic is so small it's impossible to see any of the values.


Sorry, ****ed it up.
Zoom into it. Please.








Somehow it doesn't want to work goood. LINK TO ACTUAL PICTURE


----------



## bigfootnz

bscool said:


> So ignore what @shamino1978 says/posted since he is the one posting the diver ME I posted. We are going in circles. Do as you like.


Why you are trying to twist my words? Where did I say to ignore his post? Only what I said is that there is maybe typo with his post and nothing else? Then I’ve provided info with direct link for newer ME, if his original post is with older one, which is exactly same ME firmware like with latest Asus or MSI bios.

Only person who was disputing something is you saying that posts made by Mokichu, which are sticky on Asus forum, that he is maybe not Asus employee which you do not know.

But hey, you have already decided that we should trust only official post on Asus web site, which has caused problems for lots of users which are using older ME.


----------



## bscool

bigfootnz said:


> Why you are trying to twist my words? Where did I say to ignore his post? Only what I said is that there is maybe typo with his post and nothing else? Then I’ve provided info with direct link for newer ME, if his original post is with older one, which is exactly same ME firmware like with latest Asus or MSI bios.
> 
> Only person who was disputing something is you saying that posts made by Mokichu, which are sticky on Asus forum, that he is maybe not Asus employee which you do not know.
> 
> But hey, you have already decided that we should trust only official post on Asus web site, which has caused problems for lots of users which are using older ME.


I said I dont know if he works for them but I didnt think he did. But the way he behaved in the past he got upset and deleted his posts and left the board for a while it didnt seem like the behavior of an employee.

Also i said I updated to the same one you did and posted the pic showing it in my post.









Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


Hey, I've seen there are some bugs associated with Intel ME (if not updated to latest version). Is it possible to check whether mine is up to date before I move to 13th gen? I have ROG Z690-A D4 mobo with latest bios (I believe its v2103). Thanks




www.overclock.net


----------



## bscool

@bigfootnz Realtek Audio UAD & HDA no downloads. Mokichu?

Post 5


----------



## sblantipodi

Hi, my 13900K should arrive tomorrow.
I will use it with a 360mm AIO from corsair.

I would not like to se the CPU in constant throttle so I would like to reduce the max TDP to 250W or less.

What is the correct method to limit the CPU max wattage?

Should I set a power limit on my Asus Z690 Extreme board or simply downvolt and reduce the CPU frequency?


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

sblantipodi said:


> Hi, my 13900K should arrive tomorrow.
> I will use it with a 360mm AIO from corsair.
> 
> I would not like to se the CPU in constant throttle so I would like to reduce the max TDP to 250W or less.
> 
> What is the correct method to limit the CPU max wattage?
> 
> Should I set a power limit on my Asus Z690 Extreme board or simply downvolt and reduce the CPU frequency?


Dont worry about it too much,if you use it for gaming 1440p above. I have H150i capellix ( fans at 870 rpm ) the cpu is hovering around 33-44c. Power draw is 50-70w in 4K 

if you use for benchmark, you need fans like T30,A25-12. U can do 1.25 vcore 5.400 for example and forget about temps


----------



## sblantipodi

Streamroller said:


> Dont worry about it too much,if you use it for gaming 1440p above. I have H150i capellix ( fans at 870 rpm ) the cpu is hovering around 33-44c. Power draw is 50-70w in 4K
> 
> if you use for benchmark, you need fans like T30,A25-12. U can do 1.25 vcore 5.400 for example and forget about temps


My wife will use this CPU for rendering from time to time so I would like to correctly set the CPU.
what's your suggestion?

should I set max core frequency to 5.4GHz, 1.250Vcore and forget about it?


----------



## bhav

Streamroller said:


> Dont worry about it too much,if you use it for gaming 1440p above. I have H150i capellix ( fans at 870 rpm ) the cpu is hovering around 33-44c. Power draw is 50-70w in 4K
> 
> if you use for benchmark, you need fans like T30,A25-12. U can do 1.25 vcore 5.400 for example and forget about temps


I completely forgot, everyone here reporting temps is talking about benchmarks and super high loads.

So if you use just for gaming you can likely push those cores a lot higher.


----------



## xarot

sblantipodi said:


> Hi, my 13900K should arrive tomorrow.
> I will use it with a 360mm AIO from corsair.
> 
> I would not like to se the CPU in constant throttle so I would like to reduce the max TDP to 250W or less.
> 
> What is the correct method to limit the CPU max wattage?
> 
> Should I set a power limit on my Asus Z690 Extreme board or simply downvolt and reduce the CPU frequency?


Use the "Enforce all limits" option and it should be max. 252W.


----------



## Wolverine2349

My local Micro Center just got in stock 25 13900Ks this morning and I am ready to pull the trigger.

So question is what would be the best DDR5 to pair it with?? Is it A.Die or M.Die or something else. Which would be easiest to run with low timings (XMP out of the box) and at 7200MHz while keeping it within acceptable temps on pure air next to a Noctua NH-D15S or Dark Rock Pro 4 CPU air cooler as that cooler is close to RAM slots?

And what would be best Z790 motherboard. I am leaning towards one of the ROG Strix boards which fortunately appear to be compatible with large dual tower air coolers per Noctua website unlike the Stix Z690 counterparts which had a shroud slightly in the way.


----------



## bscool

Wolverine2349 said:


> My local Micro Center just got in stock 25 13900Ks this morning and I am ready to pull the trigger.
> 
> So question is what would be the best DDR5 to pair it with?? Is it A.Die or M.Die or something else. Which would be easiest to run with low timings and at 7200MHz while keeping it within acceptable temps on pure air next to a Noctua NH-D15S or Dark Rock Pro 4 CPU air cooler?


You wont be running m die at 7200 without a crazy fan on them or water cooling the dims so A die.

A die can run much lower voltages, higher clocks but not as tight of timings.


----------



## Wolverine2349

bscool said:


> You wont be running m die at 7200 without a crazy fan on them or water cooling so A die. A die can run much lower voltages.



Thanks for the tip. What is the primary difference between M die and A die. Is M die generally better performing with lower timings, but much hotter and higher voltages??

And would A die be able to run at CL32 at 7200MHz or no. And if not, would going down to a 6400 or 6600MHz at CL32 be better than whatever higher CL 7200MHz needs to run at??


----------



## bscool

Wolverine2349 said:


> Thanks for the tip. What is the primary difference between M die and A die. Is M die generally better performing with lower timings, but much hotter and higher voltages??
> 
> And would A die be able to run at CL32 at 7200MHz or no. And if not, would going down to a 6400 or 6600MHz at CL32 be better than whatever higher CL 7200MHz needs to run at??


M die can run tighter timings but not as high of clocks and needs more voltage so runs warmer. Just a guess you will be lucky to get 6600 to 6800 on m die withoout a fan directly on them. Also depends on MB you go with. 4 dimmer even lower clocks.

A die can run lower voltages but uses looser timings but clocks higher. I would think/guess that 7000 to 7200c32-40-40 ish should work for A die even on 4 dimmer without a fan on them. That might be optimistic I havent really tested ddr5 without a fan on them.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

bscool said:


> M die can run tighter timings but not as high of clocks and needs more voltage so runs warmer. Just a guess you will be lucky to get 6600 to 6800 on m die withoout a fan directly on them. Also depends on MB you go with. 4 dimmer even lower clocks.
> 
> A die can run lower voltages but uses looser timings but clocks higher. I would think/guess that 7000 to 7200c32-40-40 ish should work for A die even on 4 dimmer without a fan on them. That might be optimistic I havent really tested ddr5 without a fan on them.


I'm running 6800Mhz CL30 on Z690 Formula comfortably. So I'd assume if I had Z790 Apex or something it would perhaps go to 7200+ or higher CL30. Especially with improved IMC of 13900k.


----------



## QXE

5.8 P/4.5 E/5.0 Ring 1.275 load for y-cruncher SFT. I have also tested prime95 small fft, OCCT Small AVX2 and Linpack extended. Y-cruncher induced higher droop than all of them and y-cruncher ran the hottest.


----------



## Kubko

deleted


----------



## Kubko

bscool said:


> Check in Hwinfo or main page in bios shows it also.
> 
> From Shamino "*NOTE for Z690*: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RaptorLake Resources
> 
> 
> i will use this as a collection of test bioses/tools/info targeted towards Raptorlake + z69/790 NOTE for Z690: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake (if you are on dual bioses then you need to do this to both bioses) 1) d/l and install ME driver...
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com


Thanks, after flashing firmware I'm on version 16.1.25.1917 too. Should I reflash bios now as well?


----------



## bscool

TheNaitsyrk said:


> I'm running 6800Mhz CL30 on Z690 Formula comfortably. So I'd assume if I had Z790 Apex or something it would perhaps go to 7200+ or higher CL30. Especially with improved IMC of 13900k.


He is running air cooler with no fan on dims so I doubt it but maybe. Dim temps might work for daily but not memory stress test that most want to run and post results


----------



## bscool

Kubko said:


> Thanks, after flashing firmware I'm on version 16.1.25.1917 too. Should I reflash bios now as well?


Shouldnt need to if you are already on 2103.


----------



## Telstar

Slackaveli said:


> So, then while likely unnecessary because it's being properly scheduled anyway, but HT off* Ecores on* is certainly better than ecores off* HT on* like people ran on Alder Lake- esp the 12700k guys- as I was saying earlier. Awesome CPU, Intel.


I definitely wanna try disabling HT. Can you compare some scores, idk CB23 single thread maybe?


----------



## Wolverine2349

bscool said:


> M die can run tighter timings but not as high of clocks and needs more voltage so runs warmer. Just a guess you will be lucky to get 6600 to 6800 on m die withoout a fan directly on them. Also depends on MB you go with. 4 dimmer even lower clocks.
> 
> A die can run lower voltages but uses looser timings but clocks higher. I would think/guess that 7000 to 7200c32-40-40 ish should work for A die even on 4 dimmer without a fan on them. That might be optimistic I havent really tested ddr5 without a fan on them.



Do you know what is the DDR5 speed needed to match DDR4 overall latency. I know DDR5 has high bandwidth regardless, but what speed and timings are needed to match or exceed DDR4 3600MHz CL14 latency. I know obviously no DDR5 runs at CL14 or close, but have heard like certain DDR5 at certain speed at CL32 is same latency as CL16 DDR4 3600 or something while having of course superior bandwidth??


----------



## bscool

Wolverine2349 said:


> Do you know what is the DDR5 speed needed to match DDR4 overall latency. I know DDR5 has high bandwidth regardless, but what speed and timings are needed to match or exceed DDR4 3600MHz CL14 latency. I know obviously no DDR5 runs at CL14 or close, but have heard like certain DDR5 at certain speed at CL32 is same latency as CL16 DDR4 3600 or osmething while having of course superior bandwidth??


Does it matter. You can only run what you can run anyway.

If I said it tak 8000c30 what are you going to do. 🙃 I think if you can run 6000+ with tight timings it should be as good or better. But who knows, I dont, just guessing.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

bscool said:


> Does it matter. You can only run what you can run anyway.
> 
> If I said it tak 8000c30 what are you going to do. 🙃 I think if you can run 6000+ with tight timings it should be as good or better. But who knows, I dont, just guessing.


If you're running TimeSpy and stuff like that you probably want the speed, latency is a bonus.


----------



## Wolverine2349

TheNaitsyrk said:


> I'm running 6800Mhz CL30 on Z690 Formula comfortably. So I'd assume if I had Z790 Apex or something it would perhaps go to 7200+ or higher CL30. Especially with improved IMC of 13900k.



Yeah true are 4 dimm boards worse for RAM even at XMP settings even if you only run 2 sticks??

Problem with 2 DIMM boards is one of the dimms is co close to the heat pipes of a Noctua NH-D15S it would be tucked like right under it even though it fits and wonder if that would badly heat up the RAM. Where as 4 DIMM boards you populate the 2 sticks in the 2nd slot form CPU socket and first slot which mobo manuals refer to as Channel A1 and B1 I think.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Wolverine2349 said:


> Yeah true are 4 dimm boards worse for RAM even at XMP settings even if you only run 2 sticks??
> 
> Problem with 2 DIMM boards is one of the dimms is co close to the heat pipes of a Noctua NH-D15S it would be tucked like right under it even though it fits and wonder if that would badly heat up the RAM. Where as 4 DIMM boards you populate the 2 sticks in the 2nd slot form CPU socket and first slot which mobo manuals refer to as Channel A1 and B1 I think.


Yeah, 4 dimm boards are worse for Z690, not sure about Z790. Heard it's better but 2 dimm will still dominate.


----------



## johnksss

Yeah, I'm not so sure about that anymore....
I grabbed a used ROG Strix Z690-E gaming Wifi from Microcenter and threw in my 13900k (sp101) 7600 G.skills and it booted right on up and stable(Now I could not tell you about having 4 sticks in though). Where I could not even boot up 6400 and 12900K (sp99) on Asus Extreme Z690 board stable first or 20th try.


----------



## bhav

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Yeah, 4 dimm boards are worse for Z690, not sure about Z790. Heard it's better but 2 dimm will still dominate.


Its generally always been this way, the sole reason I downsized to Asus Strix ITX boards. MSI also have decent 2 slot ITX boards at a lower price now, if I did want to get DDR5 I wouldn't hesitate to purchase either. The only downside is fewer M.2 slots, does anyone even use more than a single GPU in the PCI-E slots anymore?

Now my new ATX board does say up to 5333 2xSR. I'm gonna be pissed if it doesn't even do the same as my 2 slot budget asrock board.

Why no one will make normal priced ATX boards with just 2 ram slots is what I don't get.


----------



## Silent Scone

bscool said:


> I said I dont know if he works for them but I didnt think he did. But the way he behaved in the past he got upset and deleted his posts and left the board for a while it didnt seem like the behavior of an employee.
> 
> Also i said I updated to the same one you did and posted the pic showing it in my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> 
> Hey, I've seen there are some bugs associated with Intel ME (if not updated to latest version). Is it possible to check whether mine is up to date before I move to 13th gen? I have ROG Z690-A D4 mobo with latest bios (I believe its v2103). Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


He's not an employee, just a power user. The threads are helpful, though.


----------



## bottjeremy

13700KF testing here.
Focusing on single core speeds only.. Running 60,60,59,59,55,55,55,55 right now.
I am able to run at 6.1ghz but have to dump a lot of voltage into the chip for stability. 6ghz is quite easy. What have been your max clocks so far?


----------



## Ichirou

Ozone_3950 said:


> Then gamers shouldn't get an enthusiast chip. K SKUs have always been the OC enthusiast lineup, with the locked chips being way more suitable for gamers as they're cheaper, and make sense to be on cheaper boards since they cannot be OC'd.
> 
> Raptorlake actually seems insane, as they clock insanely well and have very good IMCs. I've not seen much about DDR5 but 7800MHz looks pretty easy on decent ICs. However, I have seen 4400MHz G1 on dual rank Samsung B-Die on a 13700K which is insanely impressive. Overall I think Raptorlake isn't much of a "joke".


You quoted a really old post. My opinion's long changed since then, and has been ever since leaks started coming out.


----------



## Ichirou

sugi0lover said:


> Yes it has been there for a while. The lower the better, but i heard it keeps changing even with the same cpu.
> 
> The lower, the better silicon quality


I don't think I saw that on my Edge. I'll check again, but perhaps it is something specific to the higher end DDR5 boards?


----------



## Ichirou

Raphie said:


> Once more…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI MEG Z690 boards get CPU Force 2 tool for better OC support
> 
> 
> It will be a week and a half until MSI unveils its new Alder Lake motherboards, which will take place on November 2. Overclocking should be improved with the introduction of a new function for the MEG...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.guru3d.com


Oh, so it's a new feature. No wonder I've never seen it before.

MSI really shouldn't explained that it should be lower, not higher, though. And the article explains that it'll fluctuate depending on real-world performance.


----------



## Raphie

yes, if you read the MSI MB manuals it's very well explained too.
It's about hitting the optimal config, with as less friction as possible, then the bar goes down.
The more ****ty the config is, the more the bar goes up.
So a 154 got a HUGE opportunity for BIOS settings improvement
A 70 score is bleeding edge.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Raphie said:


> yes, if you read the MSI MB manuals it's very well explain too.
> It's about hitting the optimal config, with as least friction as possible, then the bar goes down.
> The more ****ty the config is, the more the bar goes up.
> So a 154 got a HUGE opportunity for BIOS settings improvement
> A 70 score is bleeding edge.


At least they are doing something but this seems complicated, guess I’ll have to rtfm if I get a new msi board. Like, of course it’s backwards and fluctuates! 😂🤷‍♂️


----------



## jvidia

bhav said:


> ...MSI also have decent 2 slot ITX boards at a lower price now, ...


wich ones?

Once and for all, what I'd like to see is a comparison test using the same CPU on 4 dimm slot Z690/Z790 motherboards:

tuned B-die DDR4 >= 4000Mhz

and

tuned M-die DDR5 >= 6400Mhz

A-die for now is still a reality not available to 99% of people.

DDR5 is very interesting but besides being expensive, they have worse latency than DDR4, and to get them running well you need motherboards with 2 dimm slots which besides being expensive have another problem... the memories get too close together and overheat if they don't have an active cooling.


----------



## Ichirou

Raphie said:


> yes, if you read the MSI MB manuals it's very well explained too.
> It's about hitting the optimal config, with as less friction as possible, then the bar goes down.
> The more ****ty the config is, the more the bar goes up.
> So a 154 got a HUGE opportunity for BIOS settings improvement
> A 70 score is bleeding edge.


I haven't seen it on my Edge, so it must've been added in in recent BIOSes.


----------



## adolf512

someone has already reached 6ghz all cores in cinebench it seems (not really surprising)









Seby9123`s Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate score: 45138 cb with a Core i9 13900K


The Core i9 13900K @ 6035.2MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate benchmark. Seby9123ranks #26 worldwide and #22 in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




hwbot.org


----------



## Ichirou

adolf512 said:


> someone has already reached 6ghz all cores in cinebench it seems (not really surprising)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seby9123`s Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate score: 45138 cb with a Core i9 13900K
> 
> 
> The Core i9 13900K @ 6035.2MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate benchmark. Seby9123ranks #26 worldwide and #22 in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hwbot.org


Binned chip on water. Memory seems to be clocked low though.


----------



## bhav

Regarding 'gamers shouldn't get a K chip', I have to point out I previously agreed with this when I initially bought a 12600 non k for my new 4K rig.

Intel stated 'memory overclocking now available on non K and non Z', so I thought 'awesome, thats all I need'.

Except SA voltage was also locked to 0.95.

I don't need clock speeds or mega CPU in the exception of a single game, 12600 actually ran everything at 4K with great performance, overclocking basically does zero at 4k.

My ram threw out bsods at 3600CL16. I just couldn't. Went back to 12600k and 13900k next. I need my overclocking.


----------



## adolf512

Ichirou said:


> Binned chip on water. Memory seems to be clocked low though.


Yea it's not actually that impressive, shouldn't be too difficult to beat.


----------



## Bluerain

Just got mine.


----------



## Ichirou

Old news, but the 13900K is available at Amazon Canada at a premium price.

Intel Core i9-13900K Desktop Processor 24 cores (8 P-cores + 16 E-cores) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz Intel Core i9-13900K Desktop Processor 24 cores (8 P-cores + 16 E-cores) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz : Amazon.ca: Electronics

Returns are possible within 30 days, so I'm going to fetch a chip and test bin it with the free shipping option.

Too bad it'll only arrive after Oct. 30 though.

*So at the moment, I will be binning three 13900K's for the cores and DDR4 IMC. One each from Canada Computers, BestBuy, and now Amazon. *


----------



## bhav

jvidia said:


> wich ones?


Just the one - 
*MSI MPG Z790I Edge WIFI*


----------



## Wolverine2349

bhav said:


> Regarding 'gamers shouldn't get a K chip', I have to point out I previously agreed with this when I initially bought a 12600 non k for my new 4K rig.
> 
> Intel stated 'memory overclocking now available on non K and non Z', so I thought 'awesome, thats all I need'.
> 
> Except SA voltage was also locked to 0.95.
> 
> I don't need clock speeds or mega CPU in the exception of a single game, 12600 actually ran everything at 4K with great performance, overclocking basically does zero at 4k.
> 
> My ram threw out bsods at 3600CL16. I just couldn't. Went back to 12600k and 13900k next. I need my overclocking.


Yeah always best to buy K parts unless your budget is extremely tight. Its not like the K parts are that expensive except the flagship i9 models usually.

The non-K parts are very inexpensive these days. It used to be to get unlocked CPU, you had to buy top end model and a massive premium ex[pensive price. Now the K parts are released earlier as enthusiast chips and they are not cheap but not that expensive either except top end i9.

Where as the non-k parts are very budget options or the higher tier non0K parts are only like $30 to $60 less than the K counterpart.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Old news, but the 13900K is available at Amazon Canada at a premium price.
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900K Desktop Processor 24 cores (8 P-cores + 16 E-cores) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz Intel Core i9-13900K Desktop Processor 24 cores (8 P-cores + 16 E-cores) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz : Amazon.ca: Electronics
> 
> Returns are possible within 30 days, so I'm going to fetch a chip and test bin it with the free shipping option.
> 
> Too bad it'll only arrive after Oct. 30 though.
> 
> *So at the moment, I will be binning three 13900K's for the cores and DDR4 IMC. One each from Canada Computers, BestBuy, and now Amazon. *


I remember I did this just one time. UK trade law says you can open and use anything, and return in 14 days if unhappy, and Scan computers advertised as such on their website.

Think it was the first 5820k chip I got, nothing I could do to get it stable at 4.2 Ghz on a £500 motherboard, didn't want said chip on such a high end board.

So I tried to use that rule to get another chip.

'You cannot return CPUs after the box has been opened / overclocking isn't guaranteed / warranty is voided if overclocking what are we going to do with a used chip if you send it back blah blah' 1-2 hours arguing on the phone until 'the manager' said 'yes we have to allow that'.

Shut up and follow the law.

OCUK no problems or arguments returning anything for any reason in 14 days, same with Amazon but 30 days. And it was just once I've done it so its not 'you cannot abuse this feature'

If you advertise returns for any reason within 14-30 days, don't cry when someone asks for it.

Oh and the replacement did 4.3 Ghz no issues which was fine.

When I get my 13900k, all I expect is at least 4000 G1. If it doesn't do that, or is somehow worse than my 12600k, back it goes for a refund. I'll make it easier and say 'same board, same ram, 12600k runs XMP, 13900k wont'.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> I remember I did this just one time. UK trade law says you can open and use anything, and return in 14 days if unhappy, and Scan computers advertised as such on their website.
> 
> Think it was the first 5820k chip I got, nothing I could do to get it stable at 4.2 Ghz on a £500 motherboard, didn't want said chip on such a high end board.
> 
> So I tried to use that rule to get another chip.
> 
> 'You cannot return CPUs after the box has been opened / overclocking isn't guaranteed / warranty is voided if overclocking what are we going to do with a used chip if you send it back blah blah' 1-2 hours arguing on the phone until 'the manager' said 'yes we have to allow that'.
> 
> Shut up and follow the law.
> 
> OCUK no problems or arguments returning anything for any reason in 14 days, same with Amazon but 30 days. And it was just once I've done it so its not 'you cannot abuse this feature'
> 
> If you advertise returns for any reason within 14-30 days, don't cry when someone asks for it.


Yeah, I'm doing it for those three stores I listed since they have free shipping and no restock fees on returns. 

As for BestBuy's unopened-only policy, I know people working in my local store, so they'll let me refund it no problem. But they just don't have stock at all right now.


----------



## t0yz

Are there any tests with 13000 chips and prime95 with AVX2, like SmallFFTs and the sort? 
Kinda dying of curiosity to see the power draw and clocks, as the temps I assume to be 100C.
Cheers


----------



## Ichirou

t0yz said:


> Are there any tests with 13000 chips and prime95 with AVX2, like SmallFFTs and the sort?
> Kinda dying of curiosity to see the power draw and clocks, as the temps I assume to be 100C.
> Cheers


Not yet, everyone's just doing easy Cinebench R23 tests and padding their multipliers right now lol


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> Old news, but the 13900K is available at Amazon Canada at a premium price.


They're available in Amazon US at $744 being sold by Amazon.com themselves and somehow climbing the best seller list at #6 now








On Newegg, 12700K sales have picked up despite the 13600K being cheaper and faster probably because it's i5 vs i7
Buyers can be a bit🙃 Reminds me of how 11th gen sales picked up after 12th gen launched.


----------



## Ichirou

Exilon said:


> They're available in Amazon US at $744 being sold by Amazon.com themselves and somehow climbing the best seller list at #6 now
> View attachment 2577965
> 
> On Newegg, 12700K sales have picked up despite the 13600K being cheaper and faster probably because it's i5 vs i7
> Buyers can be a bit🙃 Reminds me of how 11th gen sales picked up after 12th gen launched.


Sometimes there are sales or people noticing newer generation chips late. Or they misread the titles.
You would be surprised to realize how many people are 40+ and buying PC parts for their kids, but only knowing news from 1-2 years ago from their other 40+ friends.

On a side note: I haven't really found any other store in Canada that offers free returns and free shipping. I believe I've covered all of them so far.
There might be some smaller online stores, but I wouldn't trust them to have an easy returns process.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Sometimes there are sales or people noticing newer generation chips late. Or they misread the titles.
> You would be surprised to realize how many people are 40+ and buying PC parts for their kids, but only knowing news from 1-2 years ago from their other 40+ friends.
> 
> On a side note: I haven't really found any other store in Canada that offers free returns and free shipping. I believe I've covered all of them so far.
> There might be some smaller online stores, but I wouldn't trust them to have an easy returns process.


Well you still see people even here and on reddit asking / planning on buying a 12700k / 12900k. Ofc everyone points out 13600k > 12700k, 13700k > 12900k, and both cost less.

UK stores running today only discounts on 12900k for £580 while a 13700k is £499. People still buy it because they think 900k > 700k. 12900KS is reduced to the same price as a 13900k lol.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

13900k can do 5.7ghz p 4.5 e and ring and voltage is 1.265v on asrock aqua oc, mem at 7800c32 and it was cooled by 240aio. Is it good chip or just average guys?


----------



## gtz

Exilon said:


> They're available in Amazon US at $744 being sold by Amazon.com themselves and somehow climbing the best seller list at #6 now
> View attachment 2577965
> 
> On Newegg, 12700K sales have picked up despite the 13600K being cheaper and faster probably because it's i5 vs i7
> Buyers can be a bit🙃 Reminds me of how 11th gen sales picked up after 12th gen launched.


This goes way back. I remember building a PC back in mid 2000s. I was going with a Core 2 Duo 6300, guy was like you are trying to rip me off I want a Pentium. Tried to explain Pentium was no longer the flagship, did not believe me. So he got downgraded to a Pentium D 925. Crazy thing was the 900 series pentium d's weren't that much cheaper.


----------



## Ichirou

Thanh Nguyen said:


> 13900k can do 5.7ghz p 4.5 e and ring and voltage is 1.265v on asrock aqua oc, mem at 7800c32 and it was cooled by 240aio. Is it good chip or just average guys?


Anything cooled by a *240mm AIO* is a good chip XD


----------



## GQNerd

Really happy with this Chip! *44k!
*
_*SP106/P116/E88*_

5.8 All Pcore (6.0 Single core), 4.7 E core, 4.8 Ring

(This is all on a custom loop with 1xpump and 1x360mm Rad, no chiller etc.)

Might be worth de-lidding? Or... I could just leave this and enjoy.


----------



## Ichirou

Miguelios said:


> Really happy with this Chip! *44k!*
> 
> _*SP106/P116/E88*_
> 
> 5.8 All Pcore (6.0 Single core), 4.7 E core, 4.8 Ring
> 
> (This is all on a custom loop with 1xpump and 1x360mm Rad, no chiller etc.)
> 
> Might be worth de-lidding? Or... I could just leave this and enjoy.
> 
> View attachment 2577967


If you want to daily that at over 85C, you should consider a delid.


----------



## gtz

Thanh Nguyen said:


> 13900k can do 5.7ghz p 4.5 e and ring and voltage is 1.265v on asrock aqua oc, mem at 7800c32 and it was cooled by 240aio. Is it good chip or just average guys?


I say good chip. My needs 1.37ish to be 5.7 pcore stable.


----------



## AngryLobster

Talon2016 said:


> You can grab 2x16gb SK Hynix 5600 CL46 1.1v on Amazon for $100.99 per stick right now. I overclocked them to 7000 CL32 on a Dark board and 12900KS. I assume with 13th gen they would go even further now.


Mind sharing your timings/settings? I ordered a set of these a few days ago and they're set to arrive tomorrow.


----------



## Ozone_3950

Ichirou said:


> You quoted a really old post. My opinion's long changed since then, and has been ever since leaks started coming out.


Fair enough. I'm trying to get a 13600K right now, since even they are insane.


----------



## jvidia

bhav said:


> Just the one -
> *MSI MPG Z790I Edge WIFI*


Nice board ... the fan on the VRM tho .....


----------



## bhav

jvidia said:


> Nice board ... the fan on the VRM tho .....


Even Asus Strix ITX have that, the thing is the board is too small for more VRMs, so they use fewer 105A ones instead of more 60+A ones on ATX. When pushing high OCs on ITX, those VRMs get a lot hotter than on an ATX board, plus the heatsinks are smaller. Its a necessary feature when shrinking down to ITX and still wanting a high OC board.

Also worth noting that Arctic AIO mounts wont fit on most ITX boards.


----------



## Spiriva

I just installed the 13900KF on my hero z690, using the "Thermal Grizzly Intel 12th Gen CPU Contact Frame".


----------



## jvidia

bhav said:


> Even Asus Strix ITX have that, the thing is the board is too small for more VRMs, so they use fewer 105A ones instead of more 60+A ones on ATX. When pushing high OCs on ITX, those VRMs get a lot hotter than on an ATX board, plus the heatsinks are smaller. Its a necessary feature when shrinking down to ITX and still wanting a high OC board.
> 
> Also worth noting that Arctic AIO mounts wont fit on most ITX boards.


On the ATX side there are no DDR5 dual dimm slot boards afordable?


----------



## RichKnecht

Anyone running a 13900K on a DDR4 board with 4 sticks (64GB)?


----------



## bhav

jvidia said:


> On the ATX side there are no DDR5 dual dimm slot boards afordable?


Affordable or not, I don't see as single one.

Asus sometimes put out 2 dimm ATX, they are always high end everything for overclocking boards.


----------



## Groove2013

sugi0lover said:


> I saw some good result with 4 slot Hero at DDR5 forum... like 7800Mhz OC.
> so I think you can expect high ram oc even on 4 slot mobo at 13900K + Z790


4 slot mobo, sure, but only with 2 sticks.
he has 4 sticks.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> Anyone running a 13900K on a DDR4 board with 4 sticks (64GB)?


Keep an eye out for Ichirou's upcoming 13900k.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Anyone running a 13900K on a DDR4 board with 4 sticks (64GB)?





bhav said:


> Keep an eye out for Ichirou's upcoming 13900k.


I'll let you know what I find with my testing once my chip(s) arrive. I'm the only one who runs 4x16 GB DDR4.


----------



## bhav

Not sure I could ever be bothered with trying 1 chip from each store and keeping the best like some people do, also if you do that a lot of stores keep track of past returns for years so might consider it abuse even if its 5 years apart.

Just if I get a 13900k that doesn't do 4000G1, back it goes because it wont run XMP.


----------



## Falkentyne

t0yz said:


> Are there any tests with 13000 chips and prime95 with AVX2, like SmallFFTs and the sort?
> Kinda dying of curiosity to see the power draw and clocks, as the temps I assume to be 100C.
> Cheers





Ichirou said:


> Not yet, everyone's just doing easy Cinebench R23 tests and padding their multipliers right now lol


Oh someone here did some prime95 fma3 small fft tests for sure at 5.5 ghz.
You don't want to know the results.

Just don't do it. Period.
AVX1 small fft is bad enough.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> I'll let you know what I find with my testing once my chip(s) arrive. I'm the only one who runs 4x16 GB DDR4.


Great. Right now I am running a 10980XE with a nice set of b-die Trident-Z but I am thinking of leaving X299 for something that may be a bit faster.


----------



## Luggage

Ichirou said:


> You gotta run y-cruncher with maximum memory populated to properly stress test.
> There's a reason why I recommend the vanilla version instead of the one that comes bundled with BenchMate. Only that one has the Component Stress Test.


I’m pretty sure you can run the yc exe from the folder in the benchmate directory. Stress test with 1-7-0 for a couple of hours (normal zen curve optimizer testing  )
But yea the benchmark is a benchmark to check performance not a stress test.
Nobody would call one r23 run a stress test I hope*
* unless you want der8uer “3 r23 runs stable”


----------



## bhav

I've always been fine with running OCCT's memtest at 90%, and before that memtest, just have to run it for hours though.


----------



## Avacado

Luggage said:


> *unless you want der8uer “3 r23 runs stable”


----------



## Groove2013

Falkentyne said:


> Oh someone here did some prime95 fma3 small fft tests for sure at 5.5 ghz.
> You don't want to know the results.
> 
> Just don't do it. Period.
> AVX1 small fft is bad enough.


I only do a complete run of Prime95 custom non-AVX FFTs in-place and that's enough for gaming and to find RAM and RAM related voltages.

no need AVX stress tests that only increase the needed vcore/temp/power draw, since I don't render/stream.


----------



## Falkentyne

Groove2013 said:


> I only do a complete run of Prime95 custom non-AVX FFTs in-place and that's enough for gaming and to find RAM and RAM related voltages.


Literally, 5.4 ghz (P cores) at 1.10v die sense load in small FFT FMA3 is over 300 freaking amps. 
THREE HUNDRED.

AVX1 at 5.4g is like 260 (just above ICCMax.app, which is Intel's daily limit for 24/7, at 245A).


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Not sure I could ever be bothered with trying 1 chip from each store and keeping the best like some people do, also if you do that a lot of stores keep track of past returns for years so might consider it abuse even if its 5 years apart.
> 
> Just if I get a 13900k that doesn't do 4000G1, back it goes because it wont run XMP.


Depends on the store. Most here in Canada don't care. But Amazon (according to a friend of mine who worked in the CS department internally) told me that they do have a flagging system in place to monitor profile people doing too many returns, especially on expensive items, to determine if they should blacklist customers for losing them too much money.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Depends on the store. Most here in Canada don't care. But Amazon (according to a friend of mine who worked in the CS department internally) told me that they do have a flagging system in place to monitor profile people doing too many returns, especially on expensive items, to determine if they should blacklist customers for losing them too much money.


Amazon do yes, thing is I've done a lot of returns with them, but I place loads of orders so it cancels out. Gigabyte mobo that was returned for zero ram OC I mean wont even run 3200 basic ram for example. And I believe they do it based on returns per year.


----------



## Electrosoft

Spiriva said:


> I just installed the 13900KF on my hero z690, using the "Thermal Grizzly Intel 12th Gen CPU Contact Frame".


P and E cores? Should be righteous.....


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Amazon do yes, thing is I've done a lot of returns with them, but I place loads of orders so it cancels out. Gigabyte mobo that was returned for zero ram OC I mean wont even run 3200 basic ram for example. And I believe they do it based on returns per year.


They monitor monthly. But their thresholds are very generous. They're only concerned about people who are _constantly _returning stuff.


----------



## Falkentyne

Electrosoft said:


> P and E cores? Should be righteous.....


I think the word you're looking for is "Glorious"?


----------



## nickolp1974

Not so sure that delid went well! re installed SP dropped from 103 to 97 yet P cores remain the same at 111 but the ecore value has dropped by 10, could be a contact frame pressure thing??? i can also no longer pass x58, temps higher! obviously need to recheck cpu. 
Normally after delid the die is shiny but on this it was dull. i scrapped excess solder off with a blade and then used LM to clean it up. Then reapplied LM to both surfaces, drop of rtv sealent to corners.
sanded underside of ihs so it just moves on top of die. Any pointers??


----------



## kmellz

So uh, anyone had their 13900KF just... ****ing die? 
Booted up just fine, some bios settings and then into windows to check stuff, back to bios and started with DRAM stuff, some reboots into fail-safety settings mode.... then just not booting at all. Eventually threw in the old one, worked  Switched around, same thing, so yeahhhhh that sucks!
Back it goes...


----------



## bhav

nickolp1974 said:


> Not so sure that delid went well! re installed SP dropped from 103 to 97 yet P cores remain the same at 111 but the ecore value has dropped by 10, could be a contact frame pressure thing??? i can also no longer pass x58, temps higher! obviously need to recheck cpu.
> Normally after delid the die is shiny but on this it was dull. i scrapped excess solder off with a blade and then used LM to clean it up. Then reapplied LM to both surfaces, drop of rtv sealent to corners.
> sanded underside of ihs so it just moves on top of die. Any pointers??


From all the delid pics I've seen, they're all dull and covered in grey gloop.

I take it these chips arent using soldered IHS?

Oh nvm, you said it was soldered, I thought that was the best?


----------



## Groove2013

Falkentyne said:


> Literally, 5.4 ghz (P cores) at 1.10v die sense load in small FFT FMA3 is over 300 freaking amps.
> THREE HUNDRED.
> 
> AVX1 at 5.4g is like 260 (just above ICCMax.app, which is Intel's daily limit for 24/7, at 245A).


As I already said, I do *non-*AVX Prime95 + on my 12900KS I have E-cores off.


----------



## LazyGamer

Ozone_3950 said:


> Then gamers shouldn't get an enthusiast chip. K SKUs have always been the OC enthusiast lineup, with the locked chips being way more suitable for gamers as they're cheaper, and make sense to be on cheaper boards since they cannot be OC'd.


This is rather much misinformation. The K SKUs many times have higher boost clockspeeds as well as more cores in some cases - they're literally different configurations. They'll be faster than the non-K SKUs _even without manual overclocking_.


----------



## Electrosoft

Falkentyne said:


> I think the word you're looking for is "Glorious"?


Amongst my people, we use the word "righteous" for things that are very good and quite visibly above par 

"That mac and cheese is righteous!"
"Whoa, that sweet potato pie is righteous!"


----------



## Spiriva

Electrosoft said:


> P and E cores? Should be righteous.....












So far i tried a 6ghz all core oc.


----------



## Slackaveli

affxct said:


> The IMC matters, but performance like that is reflective of board performance too. As is Gigabyte’s new 7950 MT/s topology. 4-DIMMs are really not bad tbh.


Bc of that I bet the Z790 AORUS TACHYON is a monster with it's 2-DIMM design and the topology/shielding improvements Gigabyte has implemented.


----------



## Ichirou

Spiriva said:


> So far i tried a 6ghz all core oc.


SP is probably wrong since VIDs are all the exact same. @sugi0lover


----------



## Arkama

kmellz said:


> So uh, anyone had their 13900KF just... ****ing die?  Booted up just fine, some bios settings and then into windows to check stuff, back to bios and started with DRAM stuff, some reboots into fail-safety settings mode.... then just not booting at all. Eventually threw in the old one, worked  Switched around, same thing, so yeahhhhh that sucks! Back it goes...


 I just received my 13900KF for the Z690 TUF D4 which used to have the 12900k. I couldn't boot stock or with the 12900k settings out of the box without the latest bios update. Then I spent the last hour understanding *** was going on. As soon as I edit VDDQ TX, it doesn't matter the input 1.5 or 1.3. I can't post at all. I'm still fiddling with it. hwinfo shows 1.2 VDDQ TX so I'm puzzled.

EDIT: I had to manually update the ME version. It was stuck to an old one. That fixed everything.


----------



## Slackaveli

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Yeah those might be needing upgrading shortly.


same kit; same boat


----------



## tabbycph2

With my 13900K SP 99 (112/73) I can run 6 Ghz on P cores (Hyper threading off) and E cores standard 4.3 Ghz. 1.47 volt LLC 6 that tranlate to 1.3 volt under load in windows 11.
Im running custom water with a Phobya Xtreme 200 Radiator, with 8X20 cm fans.


----------



## DeX

13600KF SP95 on Z690-A Strix
Freezer II AIO 280
Batch: X234K429

R23 10 min loop (lazyness)

58/45/47 (HT Off)
1.35v LLC6 - 1.33 Load
Max temp - 96C with 10C core to core delta (sad...) with Thermalright bracket evenly torqued


----------



## Slackaveli

TheNaitsyrk said:


> I am currently running 2x sticks of what I have at 6800 CL30 on older BIOS of Z690 Formula, so perhaps these will clock higher with better IMC etc, so might be worth checking it 1st I suppose.


same i run on z690 unify-x, 6800c30 w tight subs. That Formula is a monster for a 4-DIMM mobo!


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Well, I’ve gone ahead and o


Ichirou said:


> Old news, but the 13900K is available at Amazon Canada at a premium price.
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900K Desktop Processor 24 cores (8 P-cores + 16 E-cores) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz Intel Core i9-13900K Desktop Processor 24 cores (8 P-cores + 16 E-cores) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz : Amazon.ca: Electronics
> 
> Returns are possible within 30 days, so I'm going to fetch a chip and test bin it with the free shipping option.
> 
> Too bad it'll only arrive after Oct. 30 though.
> 
> *So at the moment, I will be binning three 13900K's for the cores and DDR4 IMC. One each from Canada Computers, BestBuy, and now Amazon. *


I didn't see this before when I searched up until last night, so thanks. I’ve gone ahead and ordered one along with the z790 MSI edge ddr4 board from newegg. Should all come by Nov 2 or so. This is a cheaper upgrade than a 4090 and lots more to play around with. I’ll just keep everything else and sell my z490 tomahawk, 10850k and dh15.
The Artic LF II 360 will be enough to cool this right…I’m just hoping for 5.5 all pcore gaming rig.

What paste and thermal bracket are people recommending so I can get the right stuff?


----------



## Spiriva

Ichirou said:


> SP is probably wrong since VIDs are all the exact same. @sugi0lover


I did the steps that @Falkentyne mentioned before when i changed my 12900k for this 13900kf. Im waiting for the Apex z790 to be available in Scandinavia, ill check what the SP rating say on the Apex z790 motherboard when i get my hands on it.


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Well, I’ve gone ahead and o
> 
> I didn't see this before when I searched up until last night, so thanks. I’ve gone ahead and ordered one along with the z790 MSI edge ddr4 board from newegg. Should all come by Nov 2 or so. This is a cheaper upgrade than a 4090 and lots more to play around with. I’ll just keep everything else and sell my z490 tomahawk, 10850k and dh15.
> The Artic LF II 360 will be enough to cool this right…I’m just hoping for 5.5 all pcore gaming rig.
> 
> What paste and thermal bracket are people recommending so I can get the right stuff?


Thermalright 12th Gen bracket on AliExpress for $10.

Paste... There's a lot. Noctua NT-H2 is fine if you want a long-term one for a custom water loop.


Spiriva said:


> I did the steps that @Falkentyne mentioned before when i changed my 12900k for this 13900kf. Im waiting for the Apex z790 to be available in Scandinavia, ill check what the SP rating it say on that one motherboard when i get my hands on it.


Yeah, typically, the VIDs should never be flat. There's always variance. It's usually a huge red flag that it is an incorrect reading.


----------



## Slackaveli

tabbycph2 said:


> With my 13900K SP 99 (112/73) I can run 6 Ghz on P cores (Hyper threading off) and E cores standard 4.3 Ghz. 1.47 volt LLC 6 that tranlate to 1.3 volt under load in windows 11.
> Im running custom water with a Phobya Xtreme 200 Radiator, with 8X20 cm fans.
> View attachment 2577998


Monstrous


----------



## kmellz

Arkama said:


> I just received my 13900KF for the Z690 TUF D4 which used to have the 12900k. I couldn't boot stock or with the 12900k settings out of the box without the latest bios update. Then I spent the last hour understanding *** was going on. As soon as I edit VDDQ TX, it doesn't matter the input 1.5 or 1.3. I can't post at all. I'm still fiddling with it. hwinfo shows 1.2 VDDQ TX so I'm puzzled.


Well at least yours still boots! I've got the latest bios, latest ME everywhere etc.. tried resetting bios, flashback, etc, nothing. Then old cpu in, works instantly


----------



## Slackaveli

Wolverine2349 said:


> Do you know what is the DDR5 speed needed to match DDR4 overall latency. I know DDR5 has high bandwidth regardless, but what speed and timings are needed to match or exceed DDR4 3600MHz CL14 latency. I know obviously no DDR5 runs at CL14 or close, but have heard like certain DDR5 at certain speed at CL32 is same latency as CL16 DDR4 3600 or something while having of course superior bandwidth??


6800c30 more or less equals 4000c14


----------



## Bluerain

I guess my VID table isn't correct either since it's flat?








Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


Just got mine.




www.overclock.net


----------



## Falkentyne

Spiriva said:


> I did the steps that @Falkentyne mentioned before when i changed my 12900k for this 13900kf. Im waiting for the Apex z790 to be available in Scandinavia, ill check what the SP rating say on the Apex z790 motherboard when i get my hands on it.


You have to make sure intel management engine firmware is updated first, then you have to remove cpu, clear cmos and reinsert CPU, to fix SP


----------



## Ichirou

Bluerain said:


> I guess my VID table isn't correct either since it's flat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> 
> Just got mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Yeah, it shouldn't be flat.


----------



## Spiriva

Falkentyne said:


> You have to make sure intel management engine firmware is updated first, then you have to remove cpu, clear cmos and reinsert CPU, to fix SP


Thats the steps i did, i wanted to get a accurate reading  
Apex z790 should be here at around 15th of November, I will use this cpu in that motherboard and check if the SP changed, and report back!


----------



## bigfootnz

Spiriva said:


> Thats the steps i did, i wanted to get a accurate reading
> Apex z790 should be here at around 15th of November, I will use this cpu in that motherboard and check if the SP changed, and report back!


This SP is just estimate how good your CPU can OC. If you do that OC test as @Falkentyne suggested P x57, E x44 Ring x47 and set voltage 1.32v+LLC6 and do 30 min R23 test. If you pass this then your SP reading should be correct.


----------



## newls1

tabbycph2 said:


> With my 13900K SP 99 (112/73) I can run 6 Ghz on P cores (Hyper threading off) and E cores standard 4.3 Ghz. 1.47 volt LLC 6 that tranlate to 1.3 volt under load in windows 11.
> Im running custom water with a Phobya Xtreme 200 Radiator, with 8X20 cm fans.
> View attachment 2577998


are you NOT stable at those settings with hyperthreading ON? Can you run y-cruncher and R23 back to back runs? Very jealous here LOL!


----------



## Ichirou

newls1 said:


> are you NOT stable at those settings with hyperthreading ON? Can you run y-cruncher and R23 back to back runs? Very jealous here LOL!


I think you mean y-cruncher's Component Stress Test with all tests enabled. Not the main test with just 2.5b lol.
Two completely different beasts for stability.


----------



## Bluerain

Falkentyne said:


> You have to make sure intel management engine firmware is updated first, then you have to remove cpu, clear cmos and reinsert CPU, to fix SP


I just tried this and the table didn't change.


----------



## Groove2013

ordered Z790 Strix D4 mobo and a platinum 1500 W Corsair HXi PSU, because I don't know whether only my 10 years old 860 W platinum Corsair AXi died or also my Z690 Strix D4 and no idea about my 3090 Ti, 12900KS, Intel Optane 900P PCI-E SSD and 2×16 GB DDR4 3800 CL14 RAM.

just went to McDonalds with PC on and when I came back it was off and with electric smell and couldn't turn it on once since.

connected the PSU to my 11900K + Z590 Apex and also not turning on.
so it's 100% the PSU, but who knows, maybe the mobo also, because I wasn't able to tell if the electric smell came from mobo or PSU or both, since it had enough time to go away and difficult to judge mobo or PSU or both are smelling like that.
3090 Ti also kinda smells similar. I don't know.


----------



## Groove2013

@Ichirou haven't you already received some of your 13900K?
need to know how their IMCs perform with DDR4.


----------



## Slackaveli

jvidia said:


> wich ones?
> 
> Once and for all, what I'd like to see is a comparison test using the same CPU on 4 dimm slot Z690/Z790 motherboards:
> 
> tuned B-die DDR4 >= 4000Mhz
> 
> and
> 
> tuned M-die DDR5 >= 6400Mhz
> 
> A-die for now is still a reality not available to 99% of people.
> 
> DDR5 is very interesting but besides being expensive, they have worse latency than DDR4, and to get them running well you need motherboards with 2 dimm slots which besides being expensive have another problem... the memories get too close together and overheat if they don't have an active cooling.


Except they dont have worse latency unless you run them slow and loose. Thats a oft-repeated (and annoying) trope.


----------



## Ichirou

Groove2013 said:


> @Ichirou haven't you already received some of your 13900K?
> need to know how their IMCs perform with DDR4.


No. I given a tracking number stating it was shipped, but no updates as of yet.


----------



## affxct

Slackaveli said:


> Bc of that I bet the Z790 AORUS TACHYON is a monster with it's 2-DIMM design and the topology/shielding improvements Gigabyte has implemented.


It might be a monster yeah. It’s definitely entirely possible.


----------



## slash621

RichKnecht said:


> Anyone running a 13900K on a DDR4 board with 4 sticks (64GB)?


I'll be trying this over the weekend.


----------



## adolf512

tabbycph2 said:


> With my 13900K SP 99 (112/73) I can run 6 Ghz on P cores (Hyper threading off) and E cores standard 4.3 Ghz. 1.47 volt LLC 6 that tranlate to 1.3 volt under load in windows 11.
> Im running custom water with a Phobya Xtreme 200 Radiator, with 8X20 cm fans.
> View attachment 2577998


Nice oc

Do you need to turn off HT for it to be stable?

how hard have you done stability testing?


----------



## dante`afk




----------



## gecko991

Noice.


----------



## toncij

So what is the consensus on the boards and 4-DIMMs? Can 13th gen even run 4 DIMMs and can it do it at 6000, 7000... ?


----------



## Slackaveli

adolf512 said:


> Nice oc
> 
> Do you need to turn off HT for it to be stable?
> 
> how hard have you done stability testing?


I think for gaming HT off, 6Ghz p-cores, and ecores on* and fed with ddr5 7200mts+ will be insane. Even Meteor Lake might have trouble beating that.


----------



## Slackaveli

toncij said:


> So what is the consensus on the boards and 4-DIMMs? Can 13th gen even run 4 DIMMs and can it do it at 6000, 7000... ?


Yeah, man, it looks like they fixed the topology issues largely. Still can't go wrong with 2-dimm boards but people are reporting 1st try booting 7600 kits on xmp on 4-dimm mobos. Usually 2-Dimm is a free 200mts.. on Alder Lake it was more like +400-600mts vs most 4-dimmers. As an aside, it appears Gigabyte Tachyon might be an amazing board. Obviously Apex is as well. Haven't seen anything on the Unify-X z790 yet.


----------



## Ichirou

Slackaveli said:


> Yeah, man, it looks like they fixed the topology issues largely. Still can't go wrong with 2-dimm boards but people are reporting 1st try booting 7600 kits on xmp on 4-dimm mobos. Usually 2-Dimm is a free 200mts.. on Alder Lake it was more like +400-600mts vs most 4-dimmers. As an aside, it appears Gigabyte Tachyon might be an amazing board. Obviously Apex is as well. Haven't seen anything on the Unify-X z790 yet.


I think he means four sticks, not four slots.
Four sticks should still be pretty screwed even with IMC improvements. I'm not expecting more than 6,600 MHz on a golden IMC.


----------



## sblantipodi

I still don't understand if it has sense of buying a 13900K without a custom loop.

If I enforce all limit the CPU will goes to 250W and 250W can't be managed with an AIO, you need a custom loop for that wattage.

So, does it have sense in using a 13900K without a custom loop?

Is there someone with a 13900K and an AIO that can comment on this please?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

It all depends on the type of load you are going to carry out...

You need a heavy-duty solution if you're going to run a load that strains all cores for a long time...

And there are some air coolers that manage 250W






AK620 - DeepCool


Achieve dominant cooling and silent efficiency with the DeepCool AK620 High Performance CPU Cooler equipped with six copper heat pipes stacked with a dense dual-tower fin array and two 120 FDB fans. - DEEPCOOL is dedicated to provide the best Laptop Cooler,CPU coolers, Computer Chassis and PC...



global.deepcool.com


----------



## tps3443

I reseated my cpu, fresh paste, re mount of waterblock, reset bios, and started a new overclock on a new OS with the latest bios installed on my Unify-X.

5.8Ghz P-Cores
4.5Ghz E-Cores
4.7Ghz cache/ring.
1.275V in bios.

My max power in R23 is only 303 watts!!
Max package temp= 75C
Core VID max= 1.243v

MSI Unify-X FORCE2= 132


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> I reseated my cpu, fresh paste, re mount of waterblock, reset bios, and started a new overclock on a new OS.
> 
> I can do
> 5.8Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 4.7Ghz cache/ring.
> 1.275V in bios.
> 
> My max power in R23 is only 303 watts!!
> Max package temp= 75C
> 
> MSI Unify-X FORCE2= 132


What is vmin under load?
My does cb23 @ 5700 1.208v min (min voltage in hwinfo)
291w

I need delid, because 5800 all core is hot 🤣


----------



## bhav

sblantipodi said:


> I still don't understand if it has sense of buying a 13900K without a custom loop.


I mean if all you use your PC for is to run cinebench and Prime 95 type stuff all day then sure.

Gaming? Its not going to get anywhere near that hot on an AIO.


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> What is vmin under load?
> My does cb23 @ 5700 1.208v min (min voltage in hwinfo)
> 291w
> 
> I need delid, because 5800 all core is hot 🤣


V min is 1.219 @5.8


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> V min is 1.219 @5.8


Delidded or you maybe don't need? 😅
Forgot to mention. I use water temp 25c.


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> Delidded or you maybe don't need? 😅
> Forgot to mention. I use water temp 25c.


It’s not delidded. I just tested 5.7Ghz Vmin is 1.199 through R23. I have 1.255V set in bios “Guessing what to enter”. I only tested 1 minute run so not sure if so can go less, or maybe it needs more.

Still dialing it in.

Yes, I have a water chiller but I dont run crazy cold water. Usually just lock in ambient water temps which is around 70-72F.

Anyways, what’s your SP? It sounds like your chip is a solid sample for sure.


----------



## Bexak

Falkentyne said:


> You have to make sure intel management engine firmware is updated first, then you have to remove cpu, clear cmos and reinsert CPU, to fix SP


This is how my Z690 Hero reports:










Here was my update procedure:

1. 12900k installed in Z690 Hero. 
2. Updated BIOS to v2103
3. Cleared CMOS
4. Installed 13900k
5. Powered on, cleared CMOS once more
6. Core VIDS all stuck on 1.429 as above, with presumably faulty SP reading

Any ideas where to go from here?

I can get 5.7Ghz Pcore, 4.6Ghz E core, 4.5Ghz Cache with 1.368v manually set, but would like to fix my VID's!


----------



## bhav

My attempt at making a dumb meme


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> It’s not delidded. I just tested 5.7Ghz Vmin is 1.199 through R23. I have 1.255V set in bios “Guessing what to enter”. I only tested 1 minute run so not sure if so can go less, or maybe it needs more.
> 
> Still dialing it in.
> 
> Yes, I have a water chiller but I dont run crazy cold water. Usually just lock in ambient water temps which is around 70-72F.
> 
> Anyways, what’s your SP? It sounds like your chip is a solid sample for sure.


Sp 110 total p 119


----------



## toncij

Slackaveli said:


> Yeah, man, it looks like they fixed the topology issues largely. Still can't go wrong with 2-dimm boards but people are reporting 1st try booting 7600 kits on xmp on 4-dimm mobos. Usually 2-Dimm is a free 200mts.. on Alder Lake it was more like +400-600mts vs most 4-dimmers. As an aside, it appears Gigabyte Tachyon might be an amazing board. Obviously Apex is as well. Haven't seen anything on the Unify-X z790 yet.





Ichirou said:


> I think he means four sticks, not four slots.
> Four sticks should still be pretty screwed even with IMC improvements. I'm not expecting more than 6,600 MHz on a golden IMC.


Both actually.

I have access to GSkill 6400cl32 2x16 and 6000cl30 2x32. Not sure if it's more about the sticks or IMC.
Wondering how much those can reach with 13900K on an Apex 690. From all info I can get, there should be zero difference board-wise since Apex is already electrically a superb board.


----------



## kill_a_wat

Is this SP readout issue apply to Z690 users? So those users need to follow a specific procedure make sure the SP prediction is correct? That would be a pain for Z690 users and very error prone and potentially misleading when trying to share their SP numbers


----------



## Ichirou

toncij said:


> Both actually.
> 
> I have access to GSkill 6400cl32 2x16 and 6000cl30 2x32. Not sure if it's more about the sticks or IMC.
> Wondering how much those can reach with 13900K on an Apex 690. From all info I can get, there should be zero difference board-wise since Apex is already electrically a superb board.


I don't think the maximum achievable frequency will increase by much with four DIMMs. DDR5 is just not four-stick friendly. Especially with T-Topology being dead.


kill_a_wat said:


> Is this SP readout issue apply to Z690 users? So those users need to follow a specific procedure make sure the SP prediction is correct? That would be a pain for Z690 users and very error prone and potentially misleading when trying to share their SP numbers


Both Z690 and Z790. It's just a mess right now. No way to know what's genuine or not.
Second-hand marketplaces are definitely going to be filled with a ton of scams, unintentional or not.

Only true way to find out the chip's relative quality is to do a R23 run and compare it to all others.


----------



## kill_a_wat

tps3443 said:


> I reseated my cpu, fresh paste, re mount of waterblock, reset bios, and started a new overclock on a new OS with the latest bios installed on my Unify-X.
> 
> 5.8Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 4.7Ghz cache/ring.
> 1.275V in bios.
> 
> My max power in R23 is only 303 watts!!
> Max package temp= 75C
> Core VID max= 1.243v
> 
> MSI Unify-X FORCE2= 132


Similar to my power draw at 5.8Ghz. My SP is 110 (121 P/ 88 E)


----------



## Wilco183

sblantipodi said:


> I still don't understand if it has sense of buying a 13900K without a custom loop.
> 
> If I enforce all limit the CPU will goes to 250W and 250W can't be managed with an AIO, you need a custom loop for that wattage.
> 
> So, does it have sense in using a 13900K without a custom loop?
> 
> Is there someone with a 13900K and an AIO that can comment on this please?


You'll be able to manage it. Switched some pieces around and currently using 13900k in Strix A with Ryujin II 360. No tweaks other than XMP with limits enforced... at idle, windows only = 37C ( +5C compared to 12900ks with MCE enabled with same setup). CB 20 = 82C. CB23 10 minutes = 88C. Also consider that my SP94 chip is below average and then some.


----------



## bscool

Arkama said:


> I just received my 13900KF for the Z690 TUF D4 which used to have the 12900k. I couldn't boot stock or with the 12900k settings out of the box without the latest bios update. Then I spent the last hour understanding *** was going on. As soon as I edit VDDQ TX, it doesn't matter the input 1.5 or 1.3. I can't post at all. I'm still fiddling with it. hwinfo shows 1.2 VDDQ TX so I'm puzzled.


DId you do ME firmware update? No idea if that helps or not but is needed for 13th gen CPU on z690 Asus.

Way behind reading so if someone already replied to you I havent seen it.






RaptorLake Resources


i will use this as a collection of test bioses/tools/info targeted towards Raptorlake + z69/790 NOTE for Z690: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake (if you are on dual bioses then you need to do this to both bioses) 1) d/l and install ME driver...



rog.asus.com


----------



## newls1

tps3443 said:


> I reseated my cpu, fresh paste, re mount of waterblock, reset bios, and started a new overclock on a new OS with the latest bios installed on my Unify-X.
> 
> 5.8Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 4.7Ghz cache/ring.
> 1.275V in bios.
> 
> My max power in R23 is only 303 watts!!
> Max package temp= 75C
> Core VID max= 1.243v
> 
> MSI Unify-X FORCE2= 132


curious.... I go to check my "Force Rating" in the bios, and i get an error that says something like "Cant read rating on overclocked system" or something close to that.... WTH?!


----------



## Falkentyne

Bexak said:


> This is how my Z690 Hero reports:
> 
> View attachment 2578032
> 
> 
> Here was my update procedure:
> 
> 1. 12900k installed in Z690 Hero.
> 2. Updated BIOS to v2103
> 3. Cleared CMOS
> 4. Installed 13900k
> 5. Powered on, cleared CMOS once more
> 6. Core VIDS all stuck on 1.429 as above, with presumably faulty SP reading
> 
> Any ideas where to go from here?
> 
> I can get 5.7Ghz Pcore, 4.6Ghz E core, 4.5Ghz Cache with 1.368v manually set, but would like to fix my VID's!


"If" that SP is reading correctly, your VIDs at least still match the P core SP for a 107. Depending on the core calibration the vid's may be up to 30mv apart between the cores on different chips, some may just have 2 cores 10mv lower (the two best) and the other 6 all the same at 10mv above the best two. 

If you are at complete defaults (auto sync cores, LLC level 4 set), I'm guessing the prediction would say 1.529v @ LLC4 on the right.


----------



## bscool

Bexak said:


> This is how my Z690 Hero reports:
> 
> View attachment 2578032
> 
> 
> Here was my update procedure:
> 
> 1. 12900k installed in Z690 Hero.
> 2. Updated BIOS to v2103
> 3. Cleared CMOS
> 4. Installed 13900k
> 5. Powered on, cleared CMOS once more
> 6. Core VIDS all stuck on 1.429 as above, with presumably faulty SP reading
> 
> Any ideas where to go from here?
> 
> I can get 5.7Ghz Pcore, 4.6Ghz E core, 4.5Ghz Cache with 1.368v manually set, but would like to fix my VID's!


Update ME firmware if you havent RaptorLake Resources


----------



## sblantipodi

bhav said:


> I mean if all you use your PC for is to run cinebench and Prime 95 type stuff all day then sure.
> 
> Gaming? Its not going to get anywhere near that hot on an AIO.


I use for code compilation and my wife uses it for rendering from time to time.


----------



## bhav

sblantipodi said:


> I use for code compilation and my wife uses it for rendering from time to time.


Ah sorry, I forget that there are many professional PC users who also enjoy overclocking.

In that case maybe a custom loop would serve you well?


----------



## sblantipodi

Wilco183 said:


> You'll be able to manage it. Switched some pieces around and currently using 13900k in Strix A with Ryujin II 360. No tweaks other than XMP with limits enforced... at idle, windows only = 37C ( +5C compared to 12900ks with MCE enabled with same setup). CB 20 = 82C. CB23 10 minutes = 88C. Also consider that my SP94 chip is below average and then some.


Ok I'll try it, thanks!


----------



## cstkl1

bhav said:


> Ah sorry, I forget that there are many professional PC users who also enjoy overclocking.
> 
> In that case maybe a custom loop would serve you well?


my torrent/plex now much better. 🤣


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> Sp 110 total p 119


No kidding! Wow. That’s amazing! 




newls1 said:


> curious.... I go to check my "Force Rating" in the bios, and i get an error that says something like "Cant read rating on overclocked system" or something close to that.... WTH?!


You’ve gotta reset your bios, you can’t have LLC applied or anything that can alter voltage. Then run it again.


----------



## adolf512

Slackaveli said:


> I think for gaming HT off, 6Ghz p-cores, and ecores on* and fed with ddr5 7200mts+ will be insane. Even Meteor Lake might have trouble beating that.


Do you get better framerate from turning off HT with ecores on in some games?

E cores actually scale better than HT with the number of threads so there isn't much point in enabling HT if you only play videogames.


----------



## tps3443

I am trying to OC ring with my 13900KF. What is considered good?


----------



## newls1

tps3443 said:


> I am trying to OC ring with my 13900KF. What is considered good?


i stopped @ 4.7. far improvement over alder lake, so I was happy. I honestly didnt try any faster cause for whatever reason faster ring wasnt helping any for my aida64 Latency score.


----------



## sugi0lover

Ichirou said:


> SP is probably wrong since VIDs are all the exact same. @sugi0lover


I am not sure that SP is buggy or not, but unlike the 12th gen, I saw some of 13900K samples with all VIDs being the same .
The first time I saw that, I thought it was buggy, now I see those 13900K with same VIDs frequently.
So I don't think we can assume it's buggy or not by seeing the same VIDs anymore.

And I found out the SP calculation logic for 13900K, (P-core SP x 16 + E-Core SP x 8 ) / 24 = General SP.
I tried to apply this logic to 13900K samples and the calculation has been right.


----------



## Wilco183

sblantipodi said:


> Ok I'll try it, thanks!


I do though have that sense of hardware inadequacy at times of having to "enforce limits". As a workaround, you can tweak and even adjust power in bios with MCE enabled. I limited to 280W to run CB23...can't crack 39,000, but didn't throttle. Still working it.


----------



## Slackaveli

tps3443 said:


> I reseated my cpu, fresh paste, re mount of waterblock, reset bios, and started a new overclock on a new OS with the latest bios installed on my Unify-X.
> 
> 5.8Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 4.7Ghz cache/ring.
> 1.275V in bios.
> 
> My max power in R23 is only 303 watts!!
> Max package temp= 75C
> Core VID max= 1.243v
> 
> MSI Unify-X FORCE2= 132


yeah thats a dope chip, man.


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> I mean if all you use your PC for is to run cinebench and Prime 95 type stuff all day then sure.
> 
> Gaming? Its not going to get anywhere near that hot on an AIO.


Even when in a totally cpu bound game.


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> My attempt at making a dumb meme
> 
> View attachment 2578033


change it to 31 fps lol


----------



## bhav

Slackaveli said:


> Even when in a totally cpu bound game.


The only game that sets my CPUs on fire is frostpunk. So if it can run that, its fine in everything else.


----------



## Slackaveli

adolf512 said:


> Do you get better framerate from turning off HT with ecores on in some games?
> 
> E cores actually scale better than HT with the number of threads so there isn't much point in enabling HT if you only play videogames.


I still have testing to do, but in some games it will.


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> The only game that sets my CPUs on fire is frostpunk. So if it can run that, its fine in everything else.


yeah that one is very cpu bound.


----------



## adolf512

Slackaveli said:


> I still have testing to do, but in some games it will.


process lasso might be the better option if you benefit from HT in some multithreaded tasks you do.


----------



## Ichirou

So... Amazon Canada shipped my 13900K, but through a logistics company called Landmark, which picked up the chip from... Ohio?
It seems they don't have any local stock over here, and will take some time to actually arrive. My expected shipment date is Nov. 10...


----------



## ViTosS

Ichirou said:


> So... Amazon Canada shipped my 13900K, but through a logistics company called Landmark, which picked up the chip from... Ohio?
> It seems they don't have any local stock over here, and will take some time to actually arrive. My expected shipment date is Nov. 10...


Here in Brazil they will only have the 13900k mid November =(, I can't wait to OC RAM and check SP


----------



## tps3443

Anyone with an MSI bios please share your ”CPU FORCE 2” results? And your Asus SP rating if you have it available. Thanks.


----------



## bigfootnz

tps3443 said:


> Anyone with an MSI bios please share your ”CPU FORCE 2” results? And your Asus SP rating if you have it available. Thanks.


I'll be able to provide both ratings but only in week time. I got my CPU only today and first will do bench test on Z690 Hero. After that I'll put it in my main rig with Unify-X


----------



## satinghostrider

bscool said:


> Update ME firmware if you havent RaptorLake Resources


I wonder if you need to do for both bios on the board. Because I predominantly use only 1 bios all the time and don't switch.


----------



## bscool

satinghostrider said:


> I wonder if you need to do for both bios on the board. Because I predominantly use only 1 bios all the time and don't switch.


As far as I can tell flashing/updating ME firmware on 1 nios did both. At least when I just tested it the other day on my Apex, I checked both and flashed and no difference.

Flash it and swtich bios and should see the same #, unless I am loosing it 

I thought updating both bios ME would change the bottom FITC version but it didnt, that must be the original or a backup, not sure but it didnt change after updatiting both.

Pic is of my Strix since not on Apex now.


----------



## Falkentyne

satinghostrider said:


> I wonder if you need to do for both bios on the board. Because I predominantly use only 1 bios all the time and don't switch.


There is only one ME chip and one Embedded controller chip on the board.
That's the reason why when you switch from primary to secondary bios on the maximus boards, it updates the embedded controller and/or the Aura/LED firmware to match the BIOS compatibility version (the EC is always kept at the newest version), as those not part of the dual bios.


----------



## HyperC

I had to update both bios flash still showed older ME... The ring clock on this thing keeps going though reminds me of the the good old 8700k days


----------



## satinghostrider

bscool said:


> As far as I can tell flashing/updating ME firmware on 1 nios did both. At least when I just tested it the other day on my Apex, I checked both and flashed and no difference.
> 
> Flash it and swtich bios and should see the same #, unless I am loosing it
> 
> I thought updating both bios ME would change the bottom FITC version but it didnt, that must be the original or a backup, not sure but it didnt change after updatiting both.
> 
> Pic is of my Strix since not on Apex now.


Thanks for confirming in kind. Wonder if some of the test bios @shamino1978 posted are anything to do with the SP fix over 2103. I'm preparing my system for RPL and not sure to flash to 2004 then 2103 or straight to the beta 002 bios.


----------



## satinghostrider

Falkentyne said:


> There is only one ME chip and one Embedded controller chip on the board.
> That's the reason why when you switch from primary to secondary bios on the maximus boards, it updates the embedded controller and/or the Aura/LED firmware to match the BIOS compatibility version (the EC is always kept at the newest version), as those not part of the dual bios.


Yes, this makes sense because I noticed my aura RGB shutdown effect was reset after flashing the ME.


----------



## bscool

satinghostrider said:


> Thanks for confirming in kind. Wonder if some of the test bios @shamino1978 posted are anything to do with the SP fix over 2103. I'm preparing my system for RPL and not sure to flash to 2004 then 2103 or straight to the beta 002 bios.


My 13900k SP is the exact same on bios 2103 on Apex and Srix.

So it is not bugged for me SP 101 overall and all Vids and P and E SP the same on both Strix and Apex.

Just quick tesing in ddr5 and ddr4 IMC is pretty good. ddr4 can run 4300 gear 1 so about the same as my 12th gen.

On Apex I flashed from 2004 to 2103 and on Strix d4 went from 1601 to 2103 so no issue for me.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> So... Amazon Canada shipped my 13900K, but through a logistics company called Landmark, which picked up the chip from... Ohio?
> It seems they don't have any local stock over here, and will take some time to actually arrive. My expected shipment date is Nov. 10...


Mine too, I think that where they make em and they’re sending a school bus to get em.


----------



## satinghostrider

bscool said:


> My 13900k SP is the exact same on bios 2103 on Apex and Srix.
> 
> So it is not bugged for me SP 101 overall and all Vids and P and E SP the same on both Strix and Apex.
> 
> Just quick tesing in ddr5 and ddr4 IMC is pretty good. ddr4 can run 4300 gear 1 so about the same as my 12th gen.
> 
> On Apex I flashed from 2004 to 2103 and on Strix d4 went from 1601 to 2103 so no issue for me.


Thanks. I'm upgrading from 9902 BIOS which was sometime last December 2021 so that's my worry. ME is updated to the latest version 1917 successfully though.


----------



## dante`afk

🥳🥳


----------



## yzonker

Wow, the EVGA bios that was supposed to fix mem OC'ing bricked a bunch of us. And worse yet, in the process of swapping back to my 12900k to get it working again on another bios switch position, I think I managed to bend a pin. .

So looks like I'm in the market for a Z790 board now. It sure as hell isn't going to be EVGA again. That company just needs to go ahead and die.


----------



## Netarangi

Is there a new version of Intel MLC? Using the same one I used for 12th gen but it isn't reading my latency correctly at all, instead it thinks I have 7ns.. Will upload screenshot when home


----------



## This is a hat.

'bisobiso' says "the problem of RAM over the 13th generation and Z-690 kingpin has been solved with a new bios that is scheduled to be released.I'm not 100% sure, but the difference between the Z-790 and Z-690..."









( Z690 KP +13900K + A Die)
EVGA Z690 Dark KP + 13900K + 하이닉스 A 다이 테스트 > 오버클럭 | 쿨엔조이 (coolenjoy.net)



Is the sale still going on?


----------



## bscool

Netarangi said:


> Is there a new version of Intel MLC? Using the same one I used for 12th gen but it isn't reading my latency correctly at all, instead it thinks I have 7ns.. Will upload screenshot when home


What OS and do you have all driver updated?

I just used my old 12th gen Win 10 OS but had bugs so reinstalled all driver(ME driver, Chipset and Serial IO.) and it works for me.

Just ran these while browsing and replyin to you so not tune and just starting testing new CPU.

Also looks like new Adia fixed for 13th gen ddr4 bug.


----------



## Papusan

bscool said:


> *As far as I can tell flashing/updating ME firmware on 1 bios did both*. At least when I just tested it the other day on my Apex, I checked both and flashed and no difference.
> 
> Flash it and swtich bios and should see the same #, unless I am loosing it
> 
> I thought updating both bios ME would change the bottom FITC version but it didnt, that must be the original or a backup, not sure but it didnt change after updatiting both.
> 
> Pic is of my Strix since not on Apex now.


What is correct? *NOTE for Z690*: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake *(if you are on dual bioses then you need to do this to both bioses)*





RaptorLake Resources


i will use this as a collection of test bioses/tools/info targeted towards Raptorlake + z69/790 NOTE for Z690: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake (if you are on dual bioses then you need to do this to both bioses) 1) d/l and install ME driver...



rog.asus.com


----------



## bscool

Papusan said:


> What is correct? *NOTE for Z690*: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake *(if you are on dual bioses then you need to do this to both bioses)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RaptorLake Resources
> 
> 
> i will use this as a collection of test bioses/tools/info targeted towards Raptorlake + z69/790 NOTE for Z690: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake (if you are on dual bioses then you need to do this to both bioses) 1) d/l and install ME driver...
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com


Oh good catch. I guess do both but if Shamino says that, but then Falk above said only 1.

So I have no idea. Cant hurt anything doing both, I wouldnt think. I did both.









Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


So... Amazon Canada shipped my 13900K, but through a logistics company called Landmark, which picked up the chip from... Ohio? It seems they don't have any local stock over here, and will take some time to actually arrive. My expected shipment date is Nov. 10... Here in Brazil they will only...




www.overclock.net


----------



## cstkl1

hope classified/taichi/godlike can do 8kc32 like extreme


----------



## Papusan

bscool said:


> Oh good catch. I guess do both but if Shamino says that, but then Falk above said only 1.
> 
> So I have no idea. Cant hurt anything doing both, I wouldnt think. I did both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> 
> So... Amazon Canada shipped my 13900K, but through a logistics company called Landmark, which picked up the chip from... Ohio? It seems they don't have any local stock over here, and will take some time to actually arrive. My expected shipment date is Nov. 10... Here in Brazil they will only...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


We need proper confirmation for this. And yep, I have seen @Falkentyne reply on this. Hence I asked


----------



## Falkentyne

Papusan said:


> We need proper confirmation for this. And yep, I have seen @Falkentyne reply on this. Hence I asked


ME only needs to be updated once. It's a separate chip or its stored in a completely separate location of flash memory, which is why the ME is never updated DURING a master BIOS flash. If I'm wrong, someone needs to step in and tell me.


----------



## dante`afk

are 100c within a second normal in CB23 with AC Liquid Freezer II on just 1.25v ?


----------



## morph.

Did anyone get the new ATC (Asrock Timing Configurator handy)? My current one errors when I launch it with the 13900k.


----------



## morph.

dante`afk said:


> are 100c within a second normal in CB23 with AC Liquid Freezer II on just 1.25v ?
> 
> View attachment 2578097


It's pretty quick for me with a custom loop & TG Contact frame talking like a couple of seconds. Some ppl disable MCE or enforce power limits to stop that.


----------



## ViTosS

dante`afk said:


> are 100c within a second normal in CB23 with AC Liquid Freezer II on just 1.25v ?
> 
> View attachment 2578097


Try Thermalright contact frame, I wouldn't even risk putting the CPU in stock mobo ILM, avoid bending from the beginning


----------



## dante`afk

ViTosS said:


> Try Thermalright contact frame, I wouldn't even risk putting the CPU in stock mobo ILM, avoid bent from the beginning


I have the frame here but not installed yet.

I'll delid the cpu tomorrow, put liquid metal on it, copper IHS, contact frame and custom loop in my main rig.


----------



## Papusan

Falkentyne said:


> ME only needs to be updated once. It's a separate chip or its stored in a completely separate location of flash memory, which is why the ME is never updated DURING a master BIOS flash. If I'm wrong, someone needs to step in and tell me.


I just switched to second bios. Me is still the old.








Edit. Had to flash the new ME. And on the way flash bios 1304 on second bios as well.


----------



## bscool

morph. said:


> Did anyone get the new ATC (Asrock Timing Configurator handy)? My current one errors when I launch it with the 13900k.











*Official* Intel DDR5 OC and 24/7 daily Memory Stability...


amazon had it in stock afaik 309usd now. just not sure which batch. Only one I can find is G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB Series (Intel XMP) 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin SDRAM DDR5 6600 CL34-40-40-105 1.40V Dual Channel Desktop Memory F5-6600J3440G16GA2-TZ5RK (Matte Black) at Amazon.com Part# doesn't...




www.overclock.net


----------



## morph.

bscool said:


> *Official* Intel DDR5 OC and 24/7 daily Memory Stability...
> 
> 
> amazon had it in stock afaik 309usd now. just not sure which batch. Only one I can find is G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB Series (Intel XMP) 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin SDRAM DDR5 6600 CL34-40-40-105 1.40V Dual Channel Desktop Memory F5-6600J3440G16GA2-TZ5RK (Matte Black) at Amazon.com Part# doesn't...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Legend thanks mate.


----------



## Netarangi

bscool said:


> *Official* Intel DDR5 OC and 24/7 daily Memory Stability...
> 
> 
> amazon had it in stock afaik 309usd now. just not sure which batch. Only one I can find is G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB Series (Intel XMP) 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin SDRAM DDR5 6600 CL34-40-40-105 1.40V Dual Channel Desktop Memory F5-6600J3440G16GA2-TZ5RK (Matte Black) at Amazon.com Part# doesn't...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


You beat me to this one


----------



## Falkentyne

Papusan said:


> I just switched to second bios. Me is still the old.
> View attachment 2578100
> 
> 
> Edit. Had to flash the new ME. And on the way flash bios 1304 on second bios as well.


Guess I learn something every day!


----------



## Papusan

dante`afk said:


> are 100c within a second normal in CB23 with AC Liquid Freezer II on just 1.25v ?
> 
> View attachment 2578097


Whats the Cpu package power? Luumi say AC Liquid Freezer II is good for up to 300W.

And the paste imprint isn't very good. You have to try a few mounts with the AC Liquid Freezer II to make it better. I used the AC Liquid Freezer II before. Not easy to make good contact due the cooler isn't perfect for Z690 Apex. I removed the cover to make better fits. Also modded the the metal fasteners themselves (cut length and drill slightly bigger holes for easier attachment). The lack of space around the Cpu socket is quite awful design.


----------



## Falkentyne

dante`afk said:


> are 100c within a second normal in CB23 with AC Liquid Freezer II on just 1.25v ?
> 
> View attachment 2578097


Apex right?

Three very important things.

First, when you are installing the backplate, make VERY sure that the chrome "Tri" nut on the backplate is aligned perfectly into the corner. I found that, even though there seem to be "3" positions, only 1 seems to have a perfect fit. Then you slide it into the corner. The fit will be clear when you slide it into the corner, with which position is best. Then you can finger tighten the black nuts on the motherboard side afterwards--make sure you screw them all the way down.

2. The edge of the VRM heatsink close to the EPS12V plugs will contact the edge of the long bracket and prevent the LFII from going all the way down. This applies to the Apex and Extreme. You need to make sure it goes all the way down by pushing down on that edge, in case the very edge is contacting the motherboard VRM heatsink. It will push past it with a little force and go all the way down. This was not necessary on Z490 Extreme (there was about 0.5mm of clearance) but on Z590 and Z690 and Z790, there was no clearance at all, so force must be used. Make sure you use your hand to push it all the way down--don't use the thumb screws. 
You can remove the front cover on the block but I don't think that's the problem here, as that only affects "backwards" installation (VRM fan facing towards video card).

3. Thermalright anti-bend frame is still the best option in the end (even better if you install it instantly to avoid any bending at all of the package).


----------



## Spiriva

sugi0lover said:


> I am not sure that SP is buggy or not, but unlike the 12th gen, I saw some of 13900K samples with all VIDs being the same .
> The first time I saw that, I thought it was buggy, now I see those 13900K with same VIDs frequently.
> So I don't think we can assume it's buggy or not by seeing the same VIDs anymore.
> 
> And I found out the SP calculation logic for 13900K, (P-core SP x 16 + E-Core SP x 8 ) / 24 = General SP.
> I tried to apply this logic to 13900K samples and the calculation has been right.


This morning I did the steps that Falkentyne suggested again, but the SP rating stay the same for me. 111/121/91, 1.364v on all cores.
I did fallow the steps exactly as he typed them. I dont know if my SP rating is wrong or not, but I guess I will find out for sure when I get the Apex z790 and see what the SP rating says on that motherboard.









3DMark.com search


3DMark.com search




www.3dmark.com


----------



## satinghostrider

Falkentyne said:


> Guess I learn something every day!


I will try to switch to the other bios and check if it's the new ME or old ME on my 2022 Apex. Give me an hour or two.


----------



## Ichirou

This is a hat. said:


> 'bisobiso' says "the problem of RAM over the 13th generation and Z-690 kingpin has been solved with a new bios that is scheduled to be released.I'm not 100% sure, but the difference between the Z-790 and Z-690..."
> 
> View attachment 2578084
> 
> ( Z690 KP +13900K + A Die)
> EVGA Z690 Dark KP + 13900K + 하이닉스 A 다이 테스트 > 오버클럭 | 쿨엔조이 (coolenjoy.net)
> 
> 
> 
> Is the sale still going on?


8400 MHz...


----------



## Slackaveli

dante`afk said:


> I have the frame here but not installed yet.
> 
> I'll delid the cpu tomorrow, put liquid metal on it, copper IHS, contact frame and custom loop in my main rig.


wait, wut? a "copper IHS"? how? Where? DADDY WANT lol.


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> 8400 MHz...


Here’s 8533 GB3


----------



## affxct

cstkl1 said:


> hope classified/taichi/godlike can do 8kc32 like extreme


Not gonna happen tbh.


----------



## Slackaveli

What can be expected with A-die on z690 Unify-x?


----------



## bigfootnz

Another Sp reading with all same VID, I've done twice like @Falkentyne has suggested and every time SP and VID was the same. I've tried again to flash bios 2103 but reading is the same.


----------



## satinghostrider

bigfootnz said:


> Another Sp reading with all same VID, I've done twice like @Falkentyne has suggested and every time SP and VID was the same. I've tried again to flash bios 2103 but reading is the same.
> 
> View attachment 2578132


What board are you using?


----------



## bigfootnz

satinghostrider said:


> What board are you using?


Hero Z690


----------



## satinghostrider

bigfootnz said:


> Hero Z690


I only see a newest 0002 bios posted for Apex and I'm not sure what that one does. Definitely newer than 2103 perhaps wait and see if Shamini releases these test bios for Z690 boards in coming weeks to try.


----------



## bigfootnz

satinghostrider said:


> I only see a newest 0002 bios posted for Apex and I'm not sure what that one does. Definitely newer than 2103 perhaps wait and see if Shamini releases these test bios for Z690 boards in coming weeks to try.


I'm not worried to much about SP reading, as this is just indication how good OC CPU is. At the moment I'm testing OC with poor 280 AIO. It can barely pass 5.7P with 1.35 LLC6 and max temp 95C. Now onto mem OC to see is it and how much better with DDR5 OC comparing with 12900KS.


----------



## Bexak

Falkentyne said:


> "If" that SP is reading correctly, your VIDs at least still match the P core SP for a 107. Depending on the core calibration the vid's may be up to 30mv apart between the cores on different chips, some may just have 2 cores 10mv lower (the two best) and the other 6 all the same at 10mv above the best two.
> 
> If you are at complete defaults (auto sync cores, LLC level 4 set), I'm guessing the prediction would say 1.529v @ LLC4 on the right.


That picture is at complete defaults, LLC is 4 at default I believe on auto.


----------



## Bexak

bscool said:


> Update ME firmware if you havent RaptorLake Resources


I've done this (though after BIOS update and CPU install). Maybe it needs to be done before, hmm.


----------



## tabbycph2

newls1 said:


> are you NOT stable at those settings with hyperthreading ON? Can you run y-cruncher and R23 back to back runs? Very jealous here LOL!


No not stable with HT on, but working on it.


----------



## tabbycph2

adolf512 said:


> Nice oc
> 
> Do you need to turn off HT for it to be stable?
> 
> how hard have you done stability testing?


Its not ht stable, but its 30 min prime95 non avx and avx stable.


----------



## VULC

.


----------



## VULC

Nizzen said:


> Sp 13900k/KF bins:
> 
> Nizzen SP 110 P119 / E93
> sugi0lover SP 114 P124 / E94
> Falk SP 106 P113 / E94.
> RobertoS SP ? P119/E102
> Roooo SP? P110/E88
> Talon 2016 SP106 P115/E88
> Miguelios SP106 P116/E88
> nickolp1974 SP 103 P11?/ E88
> Miguelios _SP 106 P116/ E88
> Xarot SP 97 P106/E81
> Owikh84. SP 101 P110/E83_
> 
> 
> New toys to play with soon
> 
> Looks like 13600k is almost beating 5950x in rendering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i5-13600K 14 Core Raptor Lake ES CPU Tested, 40% Faster Than Core i5-12600K & Beats The Ryzen 9 5950X In Cinebench
> 
> 
> The latest benchmarks of Intel's mainstream Core i5-13600K 14-Core Raptor Lake Desktop CPU have leaked out and it's a beast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wccftech.com


SP 105 Info:


----------



## satinghostrider

satinghostrider said:


> I will try to switch to the other bios and check if it's the new ME or old ME on my 2022 Apex. Give me an hour or two.


@bscool @Falkentyne 

Switched to my backup bios and can confirm ME does not update. 
Pls find attached screenshot.


----------



## Falkentyne

bigfootnz said:


> Another Sp reading with all same VID, I've done twice like @Falkentyne has suggested and every time SP and VID was the same. I've tried again to flash bios 2103 but reading is the same.
> 
> View attachment 2578132


This does not mean that the SP is fake. Some chips have the exact same VID on all 8.
if you have a P-core SP of 130-140 then it's always fake.

Test your chip at sync all P cores: x57.
Fixed vcore (Actual VRM Vcore voltage) 1.340v, LLC: level 6.
Run Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes (loop), check for CPU Cache L0 errors, BSOD or Internal parity errors.
If you pass this then your SP is accurate.


----------



## bscool

Edit.


----------



## bscool

satinghostrider said:


> @bscool @Falkentyne
> 
> Switched to my backup bios and can confirm ME does not update.
> Pls find attached screenshot.
> 
> View attachment 2578138


If you look at Hwinfo does it show that same info? For some reason I thought it showed it updated but I have been messing with so much stuff lately cant remember 🙃


----------



## Falkentyne

bscool said:


> If you look at Hwinfo does it show that same info? For some reason I thought it showed it updated but I have been messing with so much stuff lately cant remember 🙃


I updated my ME firmware, switched to the secondary bios and the firmware was the updated one.


----------



## bigfootnz

Falkentyne said:


> This does not mean that the SP is fake. Some chips have the exact same VID on all 8.
> if you have a P-core SP of 130-140 then it's always fake.
> 
> Test your chip at sync all P cores: x57.
> Fixed vcore (Actual VRM Vcore voltage) 1.340v, LLC: level 6.
> Run Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes (loop), check for CPU Cache L0 errors, BSOD or Internal parity errors.
> If you pass this then your SP is accurate.


I've tried that but with 280 AIO I'm getting Internal parity errors with 1.34V. Not sure is it due to temp 95C (280 AIO) or what. I've managed to pass with 1.35V LLC6, with load voltage 1.234v and ocassional dip to 1.225v and 230A current. Is this normal to have this dips to 1.225v with 1.35V LLC6?

But 5.7P is just too much for 280 AIO, I'll leave 5.7P until I put it in my main rig with custom loop.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

I can see a lot of high SP chips, is it really that easy to get something decent this gen?

I'm always dreading getting something, because I know it will be a lot of buying and returning and waiting for refunds.


----------



## Raphie

SP is overrated, stop worrying about it, doesn’t mean jack **** in real world.


----------



## cstkl1

btw been testing silicon lottery @fa


affxct said:


> Not gonna happen tbh.


msi / giga should be contending


----------



## VULC

SP doesn't scale in games after 5.4ghz all core the node is tapped out. This was a user production CPU update. Max OC vs Max OC the 12900k performs the same in games.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Raphie said:


> SP is overrated, stop worrying about it, doesn’t mean jack **** in real world.


Worked for my 12900KS, wouldn't be able to get 5.6Ghz out of it until I got SP96.


----------



## Raphie

96 is still mediocre no? 5.6 is mostly cooling.


----------



## Nizzen

VULC said:


> SP doesn't scale in games after 5.4ghz all core the node is tapped out. This was a user production CPU update. Max OC vs Max OC the 12900k performs the same in games.


Memory performance is meta in games, so pretty much use stock cpu. MAX tweak on memory for best gaming performance


----------



## sugi0lover

The OC result posted at Korean PC forum (not my result)
It's 13900KF (original, no delid) with very high SP and I think the SP is not buggy after seeing the oc result.
Ram oc is also done on 4 slot Z790 Extreme, but he said he needs some time tuning higher ram OC.



Spoiler: The highest SP 13900KF

















Spoiler: CineR23 all core P60 / E48 / C52 at Vcore 1.32v LLC7 

















Spoiler: Ram OC (Z690 Extreme 4 slot board)


----------



## VULC

Nizzen said:


> Memory performance is meta in games, so pretty much use stock cpu. MAX tweak on memory for best gaming performance


His talking SP not memory. 😄 Second of all I don't run stock I run a lower voltage to get the highest all core. Stock pumps default voltages into this things makes them run inefficient.


----------



## cstkl1

bigfootnz said:


> Another Sp reading with all same VID, I've done twice like @Falkentyne has suggested and every time SP and VID was the same. I've tried again to flash bios 2103 but reading is the same.
> 
> View attachment 2578132


thats correct vid. nice cpu. anything below 1.4 atm i think are good.


----------



## Nizzen

VULC said:


> His talking SP not memory. 😄 Second of all I don't run stock I run a lower voltage to get the highest all core. Stock pumps default voltages into this things makes them run inefficient.


I know, SP isn't important for gamers, but memory performance/imc quality is more important.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Raphie said:


> 96 is still mediocre no? 5.6 is mostly cooling.


No it's not. P-Core SP 105 max seen was like 108 or something on KS.

But that's beside the point I was making.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

sugi0lover said:


> The OC result posted at Korean PC forum (not my result)
> It's 13900KF (original, no delid) with very high SP and I think the SP is not buggy after seeing the oc result.
> Ram oc is also done on 4 slot Z790 Extreme, but he said he needs some time tuning higher ram OC.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: The highest SP 13900KF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578145
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CineR23 all core P60 / E48 / C52 at Vcore 1.32v LLC7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578146
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Ram OC (Z690 Extreme 4 slot board)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578147


OH WOW. That might mean my Z690 Formula might be abolutely fine, and the limiting factor for 12th gen was the IMC.....

What do you think?


----------



## sugi0lover

TheNaitsyrk said:


> OH WOW. That might mean my Z690 Formula might be abolutely fine, and the limiting factor for 12th gen was the IMC.....
> 
> What do you think?


I see the 13th gen's imc got improved for both ddr4 and ddr5 since people doing higher ram oc with the 13th gen and thier Z690 mb.
But I wonder how much Z790 mb can help additional oc.


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> Here’s 8533 GB3
> View attachment 2578128


Oof, maybe EVGA boards are better than ASUS ones now.


----------



## VULC

What's a tight latency figure for these CPUs? I'm getting 46ns anyone have an idea of the rough average?


----------



## nickolp1974

After delid my VID is also all the same at 1.408, temps also not improved so defo an issue, global SP dropped from 103 to 97 yet p cores the same at 111. It maybe the cleaner I'm using on the die, just a PCB spray cleaner so I'll get some acetone and also polish the die this time. Can someone remind me of pressure for themalright anti bend frame and the waterblock, an ek quantum velocity.

Edit. I never took note of the vid before delid.


----------



## kill_a_wat

Is anyone using LM (no delid) instead of normal thermal compound? I’m curious to know what the temp difference will be and if it’s worthwhile


----------



## VULC

kill_a_wat said:


> Is anyone using LM (no delid) instead of normal thermal compound? I’m curious to know what the temp difference will be and if it’s worthwhile


Not worth the 5 degrees.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

kill_a_wat said:


> Is anyone using LM (no delid) instead of normal thermal compound? I’m curious to know what the temp difference will be and if it’s worthwhile


You would have to sand down and polish the IHS and the cooler super flat in order for it to make any significant impact.

I had 10980XE and after sand down and polish (delid is not an option with these) it allowed me to OC it 5.1Ghz on all 18 cores. 5.2Ghz with HT off and it wasn't crashing thankfully.


----------



## VULC

Every 10 degrees is 100mhz total waste of time.


----------



## Falkentyne

bigfootnz said:


> I've tried that but with 280 AIO I'm getting Internal parity errors with 1.34V. Not sure is it due to temp 95C (280 AIO) or what. I've managed to pass with 1.35V LLC6, with load voltage 1.234v and ocassional dip to 1.225v and 230A current. Is this normal to have this dips to 1.225v with 1.35V LLC6?
> 
> But 5.7P is just too much for 280 AIO, I'll leave 5.7P until I put it in my main rig with custom loop.


It's temps. My P113 is the same. You can stabilize a bit more at 1.345v set by setting VCCIN (Input voltage) to 1.86v and Core PLL to 0.975v.


----------



## Nizzen

Falkentyne said:


> It's temps. My P113 is the same. You can stabilize a bit more at 1.345v set by setting VCCIN (Input voltage) to 1.86v and Core PLL to 0.975v.


What is normal core pll value?


----------



## adolf512

tabbycph2 said:


> Its not ht stable, but its 30 min prime95 non avx and avx stable.


Then it makes sense to turn HT off. 

The 16 e-cores makes HT less useful since you need to have more than 24 threads load to get any benefit from it.


----------



## energie80

any gaming test with HT off?


----------



## VULC

O


Nizzen said:


> What is normal core pll value?


0.9v


----------



## bigfootnz

Falkentyne said:


> It's temps. My P113 is the same. You can stabilize a bit more at 1.345v set by setting VCCIN (Input voltage) to 1.86v and Core PLL to 0.975v.


I assume that temp is main problem. In my experience as soon as temp reach 95C any OC config it is not any more stable. I saw this your's info about VCCIN and Core PLL previously and I'm using it already, thanks. I've found that P56 E44 Ring 47 need only 1.28V LLC6 which is 1.172V load. With 280 AIO average temps were high 70/ low 80. For every day use this is keeper.

Now back to mem OC, Currently I'm trying to 6800 with Hero Z690. Previously I was not able to boot neither 6800 nor stabilize 6600 with multiple CPU's. With Hero Z690 in my case limit was due ADL+Z690 4 dimm board.









Let's see can I stabilize 6800 with Z690 Hero.


----------



## VULC

bigfootnz said:


> I assume that temp is main problem. In my experience as soon as temp reach 95C any OC config it is not any more stable. I saw this your's info about VCCIN and Core PLL previously and I'm using it already, thanks. I've found that P56 E44 Ring 47 need only 1.28V LLC6 which is 1.172V load. With 280 AIO average temps were high 70/ low 80. For every day use this is keeper.
> 
> Now back to mem OC, Currently I'm trying to 6800 with Hero Z690. Previously I was not able to boot neither 6800 nor stabilize 6600 with multiple CPU's. With Hero Z690 in my case limit was due ADL+Z690 4 dimm board.
> 
> View attachment 2578172
> 
> 
> Let's see can I stabilize 6800 with Z690 Hero.


What load are you testing with?


----------



## bigfootnz

VULC said:


> What load are you testing with?


CB R23 30 minutes


----------



## VULC

bigfootnz said:


> CB R23 30 minutes


Droops to 1.17v? That's crazy what SP is it?


----------



## bigfootnz

VULC said:


> Droops to 1.17v? That's crazy what SP is it?











Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


What can be expected with A-die on z690 Unify-x?




www.overclock.net


----------



## RichKnecht

TheNaitsyrk said:


> You would have to sand down and polish the IHS and the cooler super flat in order for it to make any significant impact.
> 
> I had 10980XE and after sand down and polish (delid is not an option with these) it allowed me to OC it 5.1Ghz on all 18 cores. 5.2Ghz with HT off and it wasn't crashing thankfully.


How does the 13900K compare to the 10980XE. Thinking of making the switch.


----------



## VULC

bigfootnz said:


> Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> 
> What can be expected with A-die on z690 Unify-x?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Something wrong with my cooler I'm on 116, 85.


----------



## Daemon_xd

Do you guys think z690 Extreme with 13900k will be a good combo? There aren't any z790 boards at my area yet and I want to upgrade from my old i7 8700k in order to not bottleneck RTX 4090 that arrives very soon


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

RichKnecht said:


> How does the 13900K compare to the 10980XE. Thinking of making the switch.


When I had my 10980XE at 5.1Ghz all core, it maxed out 5091 multi in Cinebench R15 and 231 score in single core.
12900KS at 5.6Ghz did 4880ish multi and 329 single core at 5.8Ghz.

I imagine 13900K will do 6000+ Cinebench R15 and 340 single core so it's defo worth the switch imo. Just for the single core alone tbh.


----------



## Kubko

Getting my 13900K tomorrow, hope the IMC will be good at least as was my SP76 12900K. Was really unlucky chip for any overclocking, but atleast I could run my dual rank 32GB DDR4 bdie at 1.28sa 4000MT 14-16-12-21 fully tightened stable.


----------



## vMax65

Hi all, need some help regarding vcore which I have to admit I am struggling with on Raptor Lake. I have a 13700K on a Asus Strix Z690-A D4 motherboard and a H150i 360mm AIO. Temps seem fine even with an all P core 5.5GHz and E Core at 4.4GHz roughly maxing out in the 80 degrees C but even with an offset of 0.0080v this never seems to stick. I want an adaptive vcore but am struggling with how to do this as I am sure I can have a lower max vcore threshold. Any help on a starting point with vcore settings?


----------



## gtz

RichKnecht said:


> How does the 13900K compare to the 10980XE. Thinking of making the switch.


The 12900K/F/S beat it in every metric except in AVX-512 applications. But I personally still preferred the my 10980XE over my 12900KF. The 13900K/F mops the floor with it. This is coming from a guy that loves X299. If Intel ever releases a new HEDT line up I will try it.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

gtz said:


> The 12900K/F/S beat it in every metric except in AVX-512 applications. But I personally still preferred the my 10980XE over my 12900KF. The 13900K/F mops the floor with it. This is coming from a guy that loves X299. If Intel ever releases a new HEDT line up I will try it.


Same I had 10980XE for as long as possible.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Guys I just took a gamble, £130 Z690 Apex from E-Bay. 3 bent pins but not missing. All accessories and box present.

Manufacture date Nov 2021 so RAM might not be playing ball but we'll see.


----------



## bhav

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Guys I just took a gamble, £130 Z690 Apex from E-Bay. 3 bent pins but not missing. All accessories and box present.
> 
> Manufacture date Nov 2021 so RAM might not be playing ball but we'll see.


If it wasn't advertised as having bent pins report it as a scam.


----------



## Exilon

adolf512 said:


> Then it makes sense to turn HT off.
> 
> The 16 e-cores makes HT less useful since you need to have more than 24 threads load to get any benefit from it.


Might be better to just set a TVB offset at 70c and 80c if it's that close to being stable. HT-on throughput at -2x multi will win while for <24T workloads it will still boost to full multiplier


----------



## Xiph

vMax65 said:


> Hi all, need some help regarding vcore which I have to admit I am struggling with on Raptor Lake. I have a 13700K on a Asus Strix Z690-A D4 motherboard and a H150i 360mm AIO. Temps seem fine even with an all P core 5.5GHz and E Core at 4.4GHz roughly maxing out in the 80 degrees C but even with an offset of 0.0080v this never seems to stick. I want an adaptive vcore but am struggling with how to do this as I am sure I can have a lower max vcore threshold. Any help on a starting point with vcore settings?


To get voltages down, set SVID behaviour to "Best case scenario" or manually adjust AC LL down. You can see default AC/DC values for specific loadline level in hwinfo. Before adjusting AC LL, set IA VR Voltage Limit to something like 1500, so typoes with AC loadline do not overvolt and kill cpu.

I have same mb+cpu. My SP is 79 and 5.5.Ghz R23 is too much even though my cooling is much better. How much is yours SP?


----------



## don1376

Netarangi said:


> Is there a new version of Intel MLC? Using the same one I used for 12th gen but it isn't reading my latency correctly at all, instead it thinks I have 7ns.. Will upload screenshot when home


I get the same.


----------



## Rbk_3

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Guys I just took a gamble, £130 Z690 Apex from E-Bay. 3 bent pins but not missing. All accessories and box present.
> 
> Manufacture date Nov 2021 so RAM might not be playing ball but we'll see.


Jeez, I thought I was getting a deal when I found a Z690 Tomahawk on Amazon Wearhouse deals for $160, no bent pins though.


----------



## Falkentyne

Nizzen said:


> What is normal core pll value?


0.900v


----------



## VULC

Getting 90 degrees all core R23 with only P Cores enabled HT On @ 5.6Ghz. I'm on an LFII 420mm. Does anyone have a comparison on temps? Core 3 is a dud that hits 90 degrees. The next highest are 88 and 87.


----------



## morph.

@RobertoSampaio are you planning in creating a CPU OC guide for the 13th gen like your fabulous 12th gen?

Having a baby and a year away from overclocking seems to have me starting from scratch again >_<" so I might have to wait a while till a good guide comes up and or skatterbench's one for core usage / modern oc methods not just sync all cores.


----------



## don1376

kill_a_wat said:


> Is anyone using LM (no delid) instead of normal thermal compound? I’m curious to know what the temp difference will be and if it’s worthwhile


I am, Temps are about 8c lower compared to my 12900k. That's with 13900k at 5.7 all core and 12900k at 5.2 all core. Also lapped cpu and waterblock.


----------



## nickolp1974

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Guys I just took a gamble, £130 Z690 Apex from E-Bay. 3 bent pins but not missing. All accessories and box present.
> 
> Manufacture date Nov 2021 so RAM might not be playing ball but we'll see.


Probably wacked the socket in anger!!


----------



## nickolp1974

morph. said:


> @RobertoSampaio are you planning in creating a CPU OC guide for the 13th gen like your fabulous 12th gen?
> 
> Having a baby and a year away from overclocking seems to have me starting from scratch again >_<" so I might have to wait a while till a good guide comes up and or skatterbench's one for core usage / modern oc methods not just sync all cores.


He's on it now, he already started a thread


----------



## bhav

I know I've been complaining about noob reviews when it comes to ram but seriously tomshardware *** is this

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/a...-paste-reduced-temps#xenforo-comments-3782550

'You cannot cool CPU without thermal paste ' .... Liquid metal would like to have a word with you.

Also isn't salt corrosive? Any variance was most likely due to fact it was a random tiktok mene video with improper mounting.

I dont actually blame tiktok here, its a dumb site but I like dumb memes. But anyone using tiktok as a news source? Lol.


----------



## adolf512

Exilon said:


> Might be better to just set a TVB offset at 70c and 80c if it's that close to being stable. HT-on throughput at -2x multi will win while for <24T workloads it will still boost to full multiplier


The issue with TVP is that it introduces another variable which makes stability testing more difficult. It might be better just to use a power-limit (not have the clock depend on frequency) and use good cooling.


----------



## vMax65

Xiph said:


> To get voltages down, set SVID behaviour to "Best case scenario" or manually adjust AC LL down. You can see default AC/DC values for specific loadline level in hwinfo. Before adjusting AC LL, set IA VR Voltage Limit to something like 1500, so typoes with AC loadline do not overvolt and kill cpu.
> 
> I have same mb+cpu. My SP is 79 and 5.5.Ghz R23 is too much even though my cooling is much better. How much is yours SP?


Thanks for the quick response. My SP rating is 83 probably not the greatest! Temps do not seem to be an issue as I am running Cinbencgh R23 with a max temp wen overclocked to 5.5GHz at 83 degrees but finding the sweetspot for vcore is turning out to be a bit harder I will try your suggestions..


----------



## vMax65

Xiph said:


> To get voltages down, set SVID behaviour to "Best case scenario" or manually adjust AC LL down. You can see default AC/DC values for specific loadline level in hwinfo. Before adjusting AC LL, set IA VR Voltage Limit to something like 1500, so typoes with AC loadline do not overvolt and kill cpu.
> 
> I have same mb+cpu. My SP is 79 and 5.5.Ghz R23 is too much even though my cooling is much better. How much is yours SP?


Okay just tested it out again with 'Best Case' SVID behaviour and a -0.0050 offset. This reduced vcore to 1.27 whilst running Cinebench...will keep testing and come back with anything I learn...


----------



## asdkj1740

Slackaveli said:


> Yeah, man, it looks like they fixed the topology issues largely. Still can't go wrong with 2-dimm boards but people are reporting 1st try booting 7600 kits on xmp on 4-dimm mobos. Usually 2-Dimm is a free 200mts.. on Alder Lake it was more like +400-600mts vs most 4-dimmers. As an aside, it appears Gigabyte Tachyon might be an amazing board. Obviously Apex is as well. Haven't seen anything on the Unify-X z790 yet.


there is no plan for z790 unify.


----------



## asdkj1740

Falkentyne said:


> There is only one ME chip and one Embedded controller chip on the board.
> That's the reason why when you switch from primary to secondary bios on the maximus boards, it updates the embedded controller and/or the Aura/LED firmware to match the BIOS compatibility version (the EC is always kept at the newest version), as those not part of the dual bios.


which chip is for ME?


----------



## asdkj1740

cstkl1 said:


> hope classified/taichi/godlike can do 8kc32 like extreme


it is said that it is not too fair to ask for that...


----------



## asdkj1740

dante`afk said:


> are 100c within a second normal in CB23 with AC Liquid Freezer II on just 1.25v ?
> 
> View attachment 2578097


it has been the cases since on z690. arctic liquid freezer ii lga1700 mounting really sucks.


----------



## VULC

vMax65 said:


> Thanks for the quick response. My SP rating is 83 probably not the greatest! Temps do not seem to be an issue as I am running Cinbencgh R23 with a max temp wen overclocked to 5.5GHz at 83 degrees but finding the sweetspot for vcore is turning out to be a bit harder I will try your suggestions..


What cooler are you using?


----------



## vMax65

VULC said:


> What cooler are you using?


The Corsair H150i Elite LCD. NZXT H7 Flow case: Live in the UK so tends to be cool any way but also decent airflow..


----------



## VULC

asdkj1740 said:


> it has been the cases since on z690. arctic liquid freezer ii lga1700 mounting really sucks.


I'm having the same issues with the LFII 420mm but my temps aren't as bad. 5.6 all core with TVB+2 on light loads, vdroop to 1.27v R23, and E Cores off. I get 90 degrees on 1 core the remainder are 77 degrees to 88. Is there a work around to get this mounted right?


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

bhav said:


> If it wasn't advertised as having bent pins report it as a scam.


~I was all legit.

So fingers crossed.


----------



## asdkj1740

VULC said:


> I'm having the same issues with the LFII 420mm but my temps aren't as bad. 5.6 all core with TVB+2 on light loads, vdroop to 1.27v R23, and E Cores off. I get 90 degrees on 1 core the remainder are 77 degrees to 88. Is there a work around to get this mounted right?


should have held a petition to ask for a better/easier mounting from arctic.


----------



## toncij

Regarding board quality, chipset has zero to do with memory overclockability. It's your IMC and board tracing, the electrical quality of the board. Some impact is from the board BIOS, but most it physical and 2-DIMM slot boards were always a little better.
I just hoped for acceptable 4-DIMM


vMax65 said:


> The Corsair H150i Elite LCD. NZXT H7 Flow case: Live in the UK so tends to be cool any way but also decent airflow..
> View attachment 2578194


Very nice case. Which one is this? Corsair x000 of some sort?


----------



## vMax65

toncij said:


> Regarding board quality, chipset has zero to do with memory overclockability. It's your IMC and board tracing, the electrical quality of the board. Some impact is from the board BIOS, but most it physical and 2-DIMM slot boards were always a little better.
> I just hoped for acceptable 4-DIMM
> 
> Very nice case. Which one is this? Corsair x000 of some sort?


Thanks, the case is the new-ish NZXT H7 Flow which is actually great on the airflow side and is easy to build in, also was really good on price!...just liked the clean design and the fact it can take a 360mm AIO in the top...








H7 Flow | High Airflow Gaming PC Case


This sleek case will keep any build cool and comfortable while offering plenty of space.




nzxt.com


----------



## vMax65

VULC said:


> I'm having the same issues with the LFII 420mm but my temps aren't as bad. 5.6 all core with TVB+2 on light loads, vdroop to 1.27v R23, and E Cores off. I get 90 degrees on 1 core the remainder are 77 degrees to 88. Is there a work around to get this mounted right?


I had the Liquid Freezer II 360mm and it is a great AIO, probably the best when it comes to performance and price, but I had major issues with fitting it and the screws that hold both metal side legs screw into plastic and one gave way...so moved back to the Corsair which though a bit pricier never had any issues on mounting...


----------



## SeniorHames

Hey Guys,

I'm a noob here. Read through about 40 pages of this thread, taking up half of my day yesterday and Sunday, to try to figure out how to get the most out of my 13900K.I tried an undervolt, running it on stock settings and I also tried a 6.0ghz oc. I can't get this thing tame temp and voltage wise to play along. I have no idea what I'm doing. I havent had any BSOD but the package was pulling over 400w at 6.0ghz and c23 hit 110-113c within 20 seconds. MX4 with a thermalright bracket. The mount and paste are good on the AIO. If anyone is willing to help me get this thing performing as good as it can while not doing its best space heater impression, it would be very much appreciated. I haven't seen many here with asrock boards, so I feel a little in the dark trying to follow your guys settings.

13900K
Z690 Steel Legend D5
Lian Li Galahad 360 with Noctua Push/Pull config
Corsair 5000D case
RTX 4090


----------



## Avacado

SeniorHames said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> I'm a noob here. Read through about 40 pages of this thread, taking up half of my day yesterday and Sunday, to try to figure out how to get the most out of my 13900K.I tried an undervolt, running it on stock settings and I also tried a 6.0ghz oc. I can't get this thing tame temp and voltage wise to play along. I have no idea what I'm doing. I havent had any BSOD but the package was pulling over 400w at 6.0ghz and c23 hit 110-113c within 20 seconds. MX4 with a thermalright bracket. The mount and paste are good on the AIO. If anyone is willing to help me get this thing performing as good as it can while not doing its best space heater impression, it would be very much appreciated. I haven't seen many here with asrock boards, so I feel a little in the dark trying to follow your guys settings.
> 
> 13900K
> Z690 Steel Legend D5
> Lian Li Galahad 360 with Noctua Push/Pull config
> Corsair 5000D case
> RTX 4090


It's not that you are a noob per say, it's that most people on this forum are misinformed. These chips are already at the limits of their ability from the factory. If anyone thinks that they are going to achieve higher clocks than what it would boost to under auto with just an AIO, you're crazy. In order to overclock these chips, it's the same requirement as with 12th gen. It requires extreme measures. BCF, LM, delid, lap, custom loop etc... I have not begun to play with my 13900k yet, but even delidded with LM, I suspect I'll have a hard time not thermal throttling at 6GHz under synthetic benchmarks at full load such as Y-Cruncher, x265 etc...

If you really want help tuning that, the best I could offer would be to catch me or a few of the guys on EHW discord while we are streaming. It's really, really hard to help people doing this very difficult tuning through a message board.


----------



## Revv23

SeniorHames said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> I'm a noob here. Read through about 40 pages of this thread, taking up half of my day yesterday and Sunday, to try to figure out how to get the most out of my 13900K.I tried an undervolt, running it on stock settings and I also tried a 6.0ghz oc. I can't get this thing tame temp and voltage wise to play along. I have no idea what I'm doing. I havent had any BSOD but the package was pulling over 400w at 6.0ghz and c23 hit 110-113c within 20 seconds. MX4 with a thermalright bracket. The mount and paste are good on the AIO. If anyone is willing to help me get this thing performing as good as it can while not doing its best space heater impression, it would be very much appreciated. I haven't seen many here with asrock boards, so I feel a little in the dark trying to follow your guys settings.
> 
> 13900K
> Z690 Steel Legend D5
> Lian Li Galahad 360 with Noctua Push/Pull config
> Corsair 5000D case
> RTX 4090



did you update bios on your motherboard?
what is your core voltage settings? 

either 
1 .your mount isnt as good as you think
2. your mobo isn't honest about voltage
3. you have voltage set way too high

IME steel legend was very bad bios for overclocking when ADL launched. I ended up replacing mine, but they may be better now a year later


----------



## SeniorHames

Revv23 said:


> did you update bios on your motherboard?
> what is your core voltage settings?
> 
> either
> 1 .your mount isnt as good as you think
> 2. your mobo isn't honest about voltage
> 3. you have voltage set way too high
> 
> IME steel legend was very bad bios for overclocking when ADL launched. I ended up replacing mine, but they may be better now a year later


1. Its the same as my 12900K and my 12400F (my temp cpu to flash the bios). 12400F was 19-21c at idle and 38-41c under load.
2. Very possible but buildzoid did a few videos on these boards with solid reviews. I haven't seen anyone else complain about this specific D5 board from them either. I could have a bad one though.
3. With a 100mv or 50mv negative offset, It barely changes. I have seen it hit 1.53v and I have gotten it down to 1.26v but at the sacrifice of a lot of performance.

The C23 scores you guys are getting are no where near mine. The best I've seen is about 36k while you guys are in the 40k range. I'm using G.Skill 6400 CL32. 2x16gb sticks. Not sure what I should look into or if I can post anything here.

My bios is the newest revision 8.03 from asrock (2022/9/29) - "Support Intel 13th Generation Processors."


----------



## Revv23

SeniorHames said:


> 1. Its the same as my 12900K and my 12400F (my temp cpu to flash the bios). 12400F was 19-21c at idle and 38-41c under load.
> 2. Very possible but buildzoid did a few videos on these boards with solid reviews. I haven't seen anyone else complain about this specific D5 board from them either. I could have a bad one though.
> 3. With a 100mv or 50mv negative offset, It barely changes. I have seen it hit 1.53v and I have gotten it down to 1.26v but at the sacrifice of a lot of performance.
> 
> The C23 scores you guys are getting are no where near mine. The best I've seen is about 36k while you guys are in the 40k range. I'm using G.Skill 6400 CL32. 2x16gb sticks. Not sure what I should look into or if I can post anything here.
> 
> My bios is the newest revision 8.03 from asrock (2022/9/29) - "Support Intel 13th Generation Processors."


1. so you haven't tried remounting it?
2. I reviewed the one I own for myself. Maybe I had a bad one though. 


3. Bingo! 1.53 is massively more than normal cooling can handle. Seems most are staying around 1.35ish.


----------



## Ichirou

My chip from Canada Computers has still yet to arrive because Canada Post is being stupid.
But I have gotten firm confirmation from CC that they will offer the 15-day return window starting from the date of the chip's arrival.


----------



## Csavez™

What nice inclusions it has, congratulations "intel"! 13900k sp97 p106/e81


----------



## mmpol

HI Guys I just tested 13900k on evga dark
I got 8 P cores e cores turn off got 5.8 stable at 1.33 v under load anyone know what kinda sp is that?
Btw anyone know is Supercool DirectDie waterbloock will work no prob with 13th gen?


----------



## Ichirou

mmpol said:


> Btw anyone know is Supercool DirectDie waterbloock will work no prob with 13th gen?


It will work.


----------



## tps3443

This is my 13900KF in action.
5.8Ghz P-Cores
4.5Ghz E-Cores
4.7Ghz Cache


*Chiller= OFF

I replaced my cold plate on Optimus Sig V2 and saw a very nice temp drop. No need for the chiller lol.









13900KF 5.8Ghz R23







youtube.com




*


----------



## Slackaveli

VULC said:


> What's a tight latency figure for these CPUs? I'm getting 46ns anyone have an idea of the rough average?


thats VERY tight. Id say max tight.


----------



## Csavez™

tps3443 said:


> This is my 13900KF in action.
> 5.8Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 4.7Ghz Cache
> 
> 
> *Chiller= OFF
> 
> I replaced my cold plate on Optimus Sig V2 and saw a very nice temp drop. No need for the chiller lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 13900KF 5.8Ghz R23
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youtube.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


It gives me more points with p5.7ghz. Something in your setting is wrong.
Red is the 10-minute throttling test.


----------



## tps3443

Csavez™ said:


> It gives me more points with p5.7ghz. Something in your setting is wrong.


The videos purpose is for temps, power, VID, etc only. Not benching for numbers. I have a lot of back ground stuff going, I work from home.


----------



## Ichirou

Slackaveli said:


> thats VERY tight. Id say max tight.


AIDA numbers are screwed now for 13th Gen. 46ns might not actually be 46ns. And Intel MLC seems to be sort of messed up for people as well.
FWIW, people with 4,300 CL14 Gear 1 stable with SR sticks could achieve 40ns in AIDA. 4,300 CL15 with DR should be more or less equivalent.


----------



## Csavez™

tps3443 said:


> The videos purpose is for temps, power, VID, etc only. Not benching for numbers. I have a lot of back ground stuff going, I work from home.


But you put music underneath! 
I think everyone would be happier with the pictures than a video with music that cannot be enlarged!


----------



## raad11

I'm still messing around but so far to me it seems the DDR4 IMC is almost identical to the 12900K. That is to say, it overlaps with the range/variance we saw among 12900K chips. You may get a better IMC just as how you may get a better IMC from buying another 12900K (and we saw some people get great results out of the 12900K with DDR4 overclocking).

I'm getting virtually same results as I did with my 12900K, but just at lower SA/VDDQ voltages. 4000 14-16-15-28-2T works. 4100/4133 will boot with those timings, but throw errors. 4133 won't boot with tCL 15 for some strange reason, just as happened with the 12900K. Probably due to the secondary/tertiary timings I have. Which I take to mean the IMC is really close to the original.

This is 2xDR 16GB btw. I had better results on the 12900K with 2xSR 8GB sticks (that worked at 4100 tCL 15 which, for some reason, got higher benchmark numbers than tCL 14). My old posts in the 12900K from last year cover what my experiences were.


----------



## Slackaveli

asdkj1740 said:


> there is no plan for z790 unify.


oh wow. Wild.
Probably should have snagged a Dark Kingpin z690 when they were $499 for a month- now they are back up to $800!
I wish someone would test out a z790 Tachyon.


----------



## raad11

Btw, what voltage should I change for cache? L2 and Cache SVID? Or just Cache SVID? What would the latter show up as in Hwinfo64?


----------



## Ichirou

raad11 said:


> I'm still messing around but so far to me it seems the DDR4 IMC is almost identical to the 12900K. That is to say, it overlaps with the range/variance we saw among 12900K chips. You may get a better IMC just as how you may get a better IMC from buying another 12900K (and we saw some people get great results out of the 12900K with DDR4 overclocking).
> 
> I'm getting virtually same results as I did with my 12900K, but just at lower SA/VDDQ voltages. 4000 14-16-15-28-2T works. 4100/4133 will boot with those timings, but throw errors. 4133 won't boot with tCL 15 for some strange reason, just as happened with the 12900K. Probably due to the secondary/tertiary timings I have. Which I take to mean the IMC is really close to the original.
> 
> This is 2xDR 16GB btw. I had better results on the 12900K with 2xSR 8GB sticks (that worked at 4100 tCL 15 which, for some reason, got higher benchmark numbers than tCL 14). My old posts in the 12900K from last year cover what my experiences were.


Yes, that's what I've predicted so far based on what people have been finding.
+100 MHz max boot/min stable frequency.

The range for the 12900K/KF/KS was 4,000-4,300 MHz.


----------



## tps3443

Csavez™ said:


> But you put music underneath!
> I think everyone would be happier with the pictures than a video with music that cannot be enlarged!


Sorry you didn’t like the video. 😏


----------



## tps3443

Slackaveli said:


> oh wow. Wild.
> Probably should have snagged a Dark Kingpin z690 when they were $499 for a month- now they are back up to $800!
> I wish someone would test out a z790 Tachyon.


For that much money, you’d be better off buying the Asrock Aqua OC it is a 2 Dimm board, full coverage monoblock, and more PCB (12) layers than the Dark KP (Only 10 layer). From what I’ve gather it will easily match or OC even better.

I can’t believe EVGA is doing that right now. Release a new bios to fix their own problems, and jack the price wth…


----------



## Csavez™

tps3443 said:


> Sorry you didn’t like the video. 😏


I'd appreciate it if you could post a picture.


----------



## Slackaveli

Ichirou said:


> AIDA numbers are screwed now for 13th Gen. 46ns might not actually be 46ns. And Intel MLC seems to be sort of messed up for people as well.
> FWIW, people with 4,300 CL14 Gear 1 stable with SR sticks could achieve 40ns in AIDA. 4,300 CL15 with DR should be more or less equivalent.


I only have M-die and max on 12-series was 6800c30 for me, which results in ~50ns. I personally havent seen better than 46ns on ddr5.


----------



## Ichirou

Slackaveli said:


> I only have M-die and max on 12-series was 6800c30 for me, which results in ~50ns. I personally havent seen better than 46ns on ddr5.


Ah yeah, 46+ ns seemed standard for 7,000+ MHz tightened on DDR5.
Things might change as we push for 8,000+ MHz tightened, though.


----------



## tps3443

Csavez™ said:


> I'd appreciate it if you could post a picture.


I will after work or maybe on lunch if I have time, I have remote systems, VM’s open etc at the moment.

My Optimus Sig cold plate was clogged to the max, I ended up putting in a brand new Optimus cold plate I had on hand already. So temps are much much better now. 5.8Ghz ambient liquid is so easy now.


*OLD COLD PLATE.


*


----------



## Fissa

Whats the stock vcore on this 13900k? it uses whatever it pleases and varies?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I will after work or maybe on lunch if I have time, I have remote systems, VM’s open etc at the moment.
> 
> My Optimus Sig cold plate was clogged to the max, I ended up putting in a brand new Optimus cold plate I had on hand already. So temps are much much better now. 5.8Ghz ambient liquid is so easy now.
> 
> 
> *OLD COLD PLATE.
> 
> 
> *


Holy mother of god


Fissa said:


> Whats the stock vcore on this 13900k? it uses whatever it pleases and varies?


Yes


----------



## sniperpowa

Passed 10min loop r23 5.8 p-core 4.6 e core 49 ring on sp99 13900k max temp 94c


----------



## Fissa

Ichirou said:


> Holy mother of god
> 
> Yes


Sad. Then I got a dud. It uses 1.37 core vid at stock speeds.


----------



## Ichirou

Fissa said:


> Sad. Then I got a dud. It uses 1.37 core vid at stock speeds.


The VIDs are meaningless. Manually overclock it.


----------



## Exilon

SeniorHames said:


> My bios is the newest revision 8.03 from asrock (2022/9/29) - "Support Intel 13th Generation Processors."


Yes, but did you update the ME firmware as well?

Intel Management Engine driver ver:16.1.25.1917_CONS


Don't use any of the auto-OC software.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> I will after work or maybe on lunch if I have time, I have remote systems, VM’s open etc at the moment.
> 
> My Optimus Sig cold plate was clogged to the max, I ended up putting in a brand new Optimus cold plate I had on hand already. So temps are much much better now. 5.8Ghz ambient liquid is so easy now.
> 
> 
> *OLD COLD PLATE.
> 
> 
> *


I pretty much have no idea what this is (custom loop stuff I guess), but I need it deleting : puke:


----------



## paulkemp

Betroz said:


> I'm not saying that the 13900K is not faster than a 12900K, but when the TDP and temps ramp up to the point where aircooling becomes difficult at stock settings, we have a problem. Of course users can alter this by undervolting or reducing the powerlimit themselves, but that require people to know these things.


Do we have any idea on how the 13600 performs with powerlimit (PL1/PL2) and undervolting? Considering this cpu with an aircooler and a small SFF case and I am afraid of the watt usage and potential temps. Have it been tested by someone here?


----------



## Csavez™

tps3443 said:


> I will after work or maybe on lunch if I have time, I have remote systems, VM’s open etc at the moment.
> 
> My Optimus Sig cold plate was clogged to the max, I ended up putting in a brand new Optimus cold plate I had on hand already. So temps are much much better now. 5.8Ghz ambient liquid is so easy now.
> 
> 
> *OLD COLD PLATE.
> 
> 
> *


How long did it take?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Holy mother of god
> 
> Yes


Optimus Sig V2 waterblocks act as filters over time, you can barely get a needle through the fins to clean them. That one in the pic was about 18 months running on just clear distilled with additives. They clog up and heavily restrict flow over time. It will be cleaned and used again once this one clogs up.


----------



## VULC

vMax65 said:


> The Corsair H150i Elite LCD. NZXT H7 Flow case: Live in the UK so tends to be cool any way but also decent airflow..
> View attachment 2578194


Yeah my case is open air


asdkj1740 said:


> should have held a petition to ask for a better/easier mounting from arctic.


I see lol. I have an Asus board so I can use LGA 1200 as it has both mounting holes.


----------



## sniperpowa

GB3 Mdie 6933 1T my A-die will be here tomorrow!


----------



## energie80

What is actually considered a good rpl overclock? I’m running p58e46r48 just installed 😅


----------



## raad11

Had the weirdest damn problem. It either happened during a failed POST for memory OC or during testing Cache OC, but it locked itself to 53x max turbo... ignoring all my settings. Which was my previous all core setting from my 12900K. I've changed the BIOS since then. I had to clear the CMOS to get it to unstick.

Z690-A Rog Strix D4


----------



## energie80

raad11 said:


> Had the weirdest damn problem. It either happened during a failed POST for memory OC or during testing Cache OC, but it locked itself to 53x max turbo... ignoring all my settings. Which was my previous all core setting from my 12900K. I've changed the BIOS since then. I had to clear the CMOS to get it to unstick.
> 
> Z690-A Rog Strix D4


Happened to me too with unifyx


----------



## Oleksii1977

My result for 5.6Ghz all core (up to 6.2Ghz for two core, but working as 6-6.1Ghz).


----------



## tps3443

sniperpowa said:


> GB3 Mdie 6933 1T my A-die will be here tomorrow!
> View attachment 2578314


ME TOO!!!! Delivery tor tomorrow.

$427.99 with taxes. It’d better be the good stuff!


----------



## Avacado

Oleksii1977 said:


> My result for 5.6Ghz all core (up to 6.2Ghz for two core, but working as 6-6.1Ghz).
> View attachment 2578325


Your E-Cores aren't going to last long at 1.518v FYI. Thats one of the reasons that I love the EVGA Dark, you can separate P/E core voltage. Impressive result though. Just save the picture because you won't be able to run those settings much longer at that voltage.

*Edit, just saw that was VID not Vcore. What is your true voltage? 1.425v? Still a bit high for 24/7 E core use.


----------



## Nizzen

energie80 said:


> What is actually considered a good rpl overclock? I’m running p58e46r48 just installed 😅


It depends of what you are doing with the overclock. Sitting idle in overclock.net forums, isn't very impressive for p58 🤪😘


----------



## bigfootnz

VULC said:


> Something wrong with my cooler I'm on 116, 85.





VULC said:


> I'm having the same issues with the LFII 420mm but my temps aren't as bad. 5.6 all core with TVB+2 on light loads, vdroop to 1.27v R23, and E Cores off. I get 90 degrees on 1 core the remainder are 77 degrees to 88. Is there a work around to get this mounted right?


I do not think that there is anything wrong with your cooler if you are hitting 90C with 1.27v load voltage if you have Maximus board. I need 1.234v load for 5.7P and hit 95C on 280 AIO. But if you are on Stix board then maybe you have problem with cooler mount, as in this case you load is around 1.19v (around 80mV less than readout).


----------



## raad11

raad11 said:


> Had the weirdest damn problem. It either happened during a failed POST for memory OC or during testing Cache OC, but it locked itself to 53x max turbo... ignoring all my settings. Which was my previous all core setting from my 12900K. I've changed the BIOS since then. I had to clear the CMOS to get it to unstick.
> 
> Z690-A Rog Strix D4





energie80 said:


> Happened to me too with unifyx


it's happening when I'm messing with Ring/Cache ratio and voltages


----------



## raad11

raad11 said:


> it's happening when I'm messing with Ring/Cache ratio and voltages


Whenever I set ring to 53x it does it


----------



## Ichirou

raad11 said:


> Whenever I set ring to 53x it does it


That's because nobody's really managing to get the ring above 51x lol.
You're trying to push something that easily requires 1.45V+ Vcore or more.


----------



## raad11

Ichirou said:


> That's because nobody's really managing to get the ring above 51x lol.
> You're trying to push something that easily requires 1.45V+ Vcore or more.


I mean, I'd expect a crash or instability but that's just a weird reaction, not what I expected to happen if it failed lol. It would boost on light load to normal ratios then under load drop to 53x all core and 45-46 ring. So weird


----------



## bhav

I can't actually find any setting for the ring on my asrock board. Maybe because its a cheap board, or maybe its called something else?


----------



## Rbk_3

raad11 said:


> I mean, I'd expect a crash or instability but that's just a weird reaction, not what I expected to happen if it failed lol. It would boost on light load to normal ratios then under load drop to 53x all core and 45-46 ring. So weird


What's the best way to test for ring? I always just did it in games and when my 1% lows started to go up I backed it off


----------



## Oleksii1977

Avacado said:


> Your E-Cores aren't going to last long at 1.518v FYI. Thats one of the reasons that I love the EVGA Dark, you can separate P/E core voltage. Impressive result though. Just save the picture because you won't be able to run those settings much longer at that voltage.
> *Edit, just saw that was VID not Vcore. What is your true voltage? 1.425v? Still a bit high for 24/7 E core use.


with Adaptive Vcore and TVB - when full all core loading Vcore=1.199-1.208В (5.6GHz all PCore and 4.6Ghz ECore), when loading for 1-2 core Vcore=1.45-1.52V for this core and 6.0-6.2Ghz (ECore 4.6Ghz)


----------



## bigfootnz

Rbk_3 said:


> What's the best way to test for ring? I always just did it in games and when my 1% lows started to go up I backed it off


For me good tests are OCCT and Karhu RAM test with CPU cache enabled


----------



## Rbk_3

bigfootnz said:


> For me good tests are OCCT and Karhu RAM test with CPU cache enabled


I find those don't produce errors even after game performence is affected.


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> What's the best way to test for ring? I always just did it in games and when my 1% lows started to go up I backed it off


y-cruncher's Component Stress Test with all tests enabled.


----------



## grilli4nt

Hello all, I am new here and been following this thread, very interesting readin. I have just gotten myself a 13900k, and wondering what mobo I should get. Currently where I live I can get a Maximus Hero z790 at a slightly lower price than the z790 Aorus Master. About 40 usd cheaper. I have been using a z390 gigabyte aorus ultra for many years and kinda like the gigabyte bios, but I don't mind switching to Asus.

I understand Gigabyte sticks out with the 10GB ethernet, but I'm not too bothered. I'd like the board that should give me the best overclock possibilities, both for CPU and RAM, and stability in general. For instance, I saw the Gigabyte specs has a slighly higher VRM spec (amps and amount) than the Hero. I'm not a hard core OCer and will probably not in the near future start with custom loop etc, but I'm thinking of buying a new tower and install a 360 or 420 AIO (currently I have a Noctua dh15) and I like playing around getting the most out of my systems. I don't mind the looks or RGB, the computer is placed against a wall with the open side against it anyway.

The computer is purely for gaming.

Is it possible to crown a winner of these two boards or are both sort of the same, but with some different standing out features?


----------



## Ichirou

grilli4nt said:


> Hello all, I am new here and been following this thread, very interesting readin. I have just gotten myself a 13900k, and wondering what mobo I should get. Currently where I live I can get a Maximus Hero z790 at a slightly lower price than the z790 Aorus Master. About 40 usd cheaper. I have been using a z390 gigabyte aorus ultra for many years and kinda like the gigabyte bios, but I don't mind switching to Asus.
> 
> I understand Gigabyte sticks out with the 10GB ethernet, but I'm not too bothered, will . I'd like the board that should give me the best overclock possibilities, both for CPU and RAM, and stability in general. I'm not a hard core OCer and will probably not in the near future start with custom loop etc, but I'm thinking of buying a new tower and install a 360 or 420 AIO (currently I have a Notcua dh15). I don't mind the looks or RGB, the computer is placed against a wall with the open side against it anyway.
> 
> The computer is purely for gaming.
> 
> Is it possible to crown a winner of these two boards or are both sort of the same, but with some different standing out features?


As long as you avoid Gigatrash, you'll be good.
If you want good value with good overclocking, go with MSI.
If you want best overclocking, ASUS or EVGA.
ASRock is niche and would depend on features.


----------



## sblantipodi

my SP103 arrived today, it does 6GHz on two cores without problems at 250W max tdp only.

I undervolted the CPU to stay under 250W with a easy 5.4GHz/4.3GHz all core. 
CPU rocks and can be cooled by a 360mm AIO.

the only disappointment comes from the RAM, I can't go past 5.2GHz on 4 sticks that is the exact same frequency I was using on alder lake.


----------



## tps3443

grilli4nt said:


> Hello all, I am new here and been following this thread, very interesting readin. I have just gotten myself a 13900k, and wondering what mobo I should get. Currently where I live I can get a Maximus Hero z790 at a slightly lower price than the z790 Aorus Master. About 40 usd cheaper. I have been using a z390 gigabyte aorus ultra for many years and kinda like the gigabyte bios, but I don't mind switching to Asus.
> 
> I understand Gigabyte sticks out with the 10GB ethernet, but I'm not too bothered. I'd like the board that should give me the best overclock possibilities, both for CPU and RAM, and stability in general. For instance, I saw the Gigabyte specs has a slighly higher VRM spec (amps and amount) than the Hero. I'm not a hard core OCer and will probably not in the near future start with custom loop etc, but I'm thinking of buying a new tower and install a 360 or 420 AIO (currently I have a Noctua dh15) and I like playing around getting the most out of my systems. I don't mind the looks or RGB, the computer is placed against a wall with the open side against it anyway.
> 
> The computer is purely for gaming.
> 
> Is it possible to crown a winner of these two boards or are both sort of the same, but with some different standing out features?


MSI Unify-X Z690 all day long if you can find one where you live for an affordable price. It’s gonna overclock as good as anything else on the market, works like magic with my 13900KF. And they‘re not very expensive either, the price to performance is amazing, the bios is awesome, and they go very hard on overclocking. If you go with Asus, I would just grab a new Z790 Hero, or new Z790 Strix and you should be just fine. But these new Z790 Asus boards are so expensive. 

I would avoid Gigabyte/Aorus. I personally hate their bios layout.


----------



## tps3443

@Ichirou 

Have you tested your 13900K? How is DDR4?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> 
> Have you tested your 13900K? How is DDR4?


----------



## grilli4nt

tps3443 said:


> MSI Unify-X Z690 all day long if you can find one where you live for an affordable price. It’s gonna overclock as good as anything else on the market, works like magic with my 13900KF. And they‘re not very expensive either, the price to performance is amazing, the bios is awesome, and they go very hard on overclocking. If you go with Asus, I would just grab a new Z790 Hero, or new Z790 Strix and you should be just fine. But these new Z790 Asus boards are so expensive.
> 
> I would avoid Gigabyte/Aorus. I personally hate their bios layout.


Ok thanks, I'll go for Asus then. Currently the 13900k is plugged into an asus z790 Strix Gaming-F, as this had a quite nice discount (it was about 200usd cheaper than the gaming-E). However, I'm thinking twice because I'm lacking a PCIe 5.0 NVMe slot which I guess could be nice to get in a year or two (I expect this build not to be upgraded in a few years), and now when seeing also the Hero on a good discount I might return this under the return policy and switch to the Hero.

Despite the NVMe slot, would you say it's a big difference in terms of performance / OC between the gaming-F and Hero?

Regarding the Unify-X, it costs around 100usd less than the Hero right now. I figure I can go z790 anyway since Im going from a z390?


----------



## Ichirou

grilli4nt said:


> Ok thanks, I'll go for Asus then. Currently the 13900k is plugged into an asus z790 Strix Gaming-F, as this had a quite nice discount (it was about 200usd cheaper than the gaming-E). However, I'm thinking twice because I'm lacking a PCIe 5.0 NVMe slot which I guess could be nice to get in a year or two (I expect this build not to be upgraded in a few years), and now when seeing also the Hero on a good discount I might return this under the return policy and switch to the Hero.
> 
> Despite the NVMe slot, would you say it's a big difference in terms of performance / OC between the gaming-F and Hero?


Honestly, most boards have had similar overclocking capabilities.
You'd never reach the point where a board would produce a significant difference unless you're going LN2, or doing hardcore memory overclocking and need to push for the top 1%. It's just that some boards (and brands) are known for being crap, and make overclocking difficult or impossible.
Just go for features and value.


----------



## digitalfrost

Falkentyne said:


> https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getcontent/743844
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getContent/743846?explicitVersion=true
> 
> 
> 
> <245 amps for daily (Cinebench R23 or lower @ <1.250v @ 245A), 307 amps for virus mode (prime95 small FFT AVX, stockfish, linpack, y-cruncher <1.182v @ 307A)
> Using loadline slope 1520mv - (1.1 mohm * Amps) = Vcore target.
> 
> Of course it's your chip, do whatever you want with it, feel free to disagree with me or throw 1.38v load into it in Y-cruncher SFT test, just don't complain if it degrades..


So these Iccmax values are really interesting to me. My 13700k can do 6Ghz on the 2 best cores with ~1.40v. I play a lot of CPU intensive games, one of the reasons I got this CPU. However setting the 245A iccmax, my CPU will downclock to 5.2-5.3Ghz even during gaming. Can it really be Tarkov and Cyberpunk pull 245A from the CPU? I can see the electrical design point limit being active in HWiNFO during gaming and if raise the iccmax to 307 ampere I can see the CPU clock higher. Is this realistic or does my board somehow skew these values?

I have an MSI Pro Z690-A so I cannot read out VRM values directly.










You see 5.5Ghz, 1.30v, 126W. If my math is correct this is only 96A. This was with 307A Iccmax. Now I lower the Iccmax to 245A:










Just why? This is even less ampere. I've tuned the DC_LL to my LLC so the power figures should be correct (I run 20 AC_LL / 100 DC_LL with LLC8). Vcore is read from VCC Sense.

Here's Tarkov with 307A. 1.33v, 5.5Ghz, 86W.










245A, 1.24V, 5.1Ghz, 74.W










These numbers do not add up at all? Do the normal rules not apply here?

I = (P / V) right?


----------



## asdkj1740

grilli4nt said:


> Hello all, I am new here and been following this thread, very interesting readin. I have just gotten myself a 13900k, and wondering what mobo I should get. Currently where I live I can get a Maximus Hero z790 at a slightly lower price than the z790 Aorus Master. About 40 usd cheaper. I have been using a z390 gigabyte aorus ultra for many years and kinda like the gigabyte bios, but I don't mind switching to Asus.
> 
> I understand Gigabyte sticks out with the 10GB ethernet, but I'm not too bothered. I'd like the board that should give me the best overclock possibilities, both for CPU and RAM, and stability in general. For instance, I saw the Gigabyte specs has a slighly higher VRM spec (amps and amount) than the Hero. I'm not a hard core OCer and will probably not in the near future start with custom loop etc, but I'm thinking of buying a new tower and install a 360 or 420 AIO (currently I have a Noctua dh15) and I like playing around getting the most out of my systems. I don't mind the looks or RGB, the computer is placed against a wall with the open side against it anyway.
> 
> The computer is purely for gaming.
> 
> Is it possible to crown a winner of these two boards or are both sort of the same, but with some different standing out features?


1. the MSRP of gigabyte z790 aorus master is much lower than asus m15h's MSRP.
2. gigabyte z790 aorus master seems not bad at all on ddr5 oc this time.


----------



## asdkj1740

Ichirou said:


> As long as you avoid Gigatrash, you'll be good.
> If you want good value with good overclocking, go with MSI.
> If you want best overclocking, ASUS or EVGA.
> ASRock is niche and would depend on features.


dont be that rude please.


----------



## asdkj1740

grilli4nt said:


> Ok thanks, I'll go for Asus then. Currently the 13900k is plugged into an asus z790 Strix Gaming-F, as this had a quite nice discount (it was about 200usd cheaper than the gaming-E). However, I'm thinking twice because I'm lacking a PCIe 5.0 NVMe slot which I guess could be nice to get in a year or two (I expect this build not to be upgraded in a few years), and now when seeing also the Hero on a good discount I might return this under the return policy and switch to the Hero.
> 
> Despite the NVMe slot, would you say it's a big difference in terms of performance / OC between the gaming-F and Hero?
> 
> Regarding the Unify-X, it costs around 100usd less than the Hero right now. I figure I can go z790 anyway since Im going from a z390?


strix f seems to be the best 6 layers mobo rated at 7800mhz ddr5 oc, 200mhz higher than gigabyte 6 layers mobo like aero g (not in qvl though).


----------



## grilli4nt

asdkj1740 said:


> strix f seems to be the best 6 layers mobo rated at 7800mhz ddr5 oc, 200mhz higher than gigabyte 6 layers mobo like aero g (not in qvl though).


Allright, based on what I'm hearing so far I should probably stick to the strix-f then. Not sure the additional ~230 USD for me to switch to the Hero is worth it. Thanks for good feedback. I'll get back with some 13900k numbers a bit later to add to the statistics.


----------



## sblantipodi

what is the IMC VDD that shows HwInfo on your overclocked DDR5?









this IMC V can't let me go past 5.2GHz on 4 sticks.

can I try to higher it?

what are the recommended values for raptor lake?


----------



## Falkentyne

digitalfrost said:


> So these Iccmax values are really interesting to me. My 13700k can do 6Ghz on the 2 best cores with ~1.40v. I play a lot of CPU intensive games, one of the reasons I got this CPU. However setting the 245A iccmax, my CPU will downclock to 5.2-5.3Ghz even during gaming. Can it really be Tarkov and Cyberpunk pull 245A from the CPU? I can see the electrical design point limit being active in HWiNFO during gaming and if raise the iccmax to 307 ampere I can see the CPU clock higher. Is this realistic or does my board somehow skew these values?
> 
> I have an MSI Pro Z690-A so I cannot read out VRM values directly.
> 
> View attachment 2578353
> 
> 
> You see 5.5Ghz, 1.30v, 126W. If my math is correct this is only 96A. This was with 307A Iccmax. Now I lower the Iccmax to 245A:
> 
> View attachment 2578354
> 
> 
> Just why? This is even less ampere. I've tuned the DC_LL to my LLC so the power figures should be correct (I run 20 AC_LL / 100 DC_LL with LLC8). Vcore is read from VCC Sense.
> 
> Here's Tarkov with 307A. 1.33v, 5.5Ghz, 86W.
> 
> View attachment 2578359
> 
> 
> 245A, 1.24V, 5.1Ghz, 74.W
> 
> View attachment 2578361
> 
> 
> These numbers do not add up at all? Do the normal rules not apply here?
> 
> I = (P / V) right?


I don't have a MSI board so I can't directly help you with this. I CAN tell you that none of these problems happen on any of the Maximus Z790 boards (we all tested them during embargo).
Are you using adaptive or v/f offset voltage modes? If you're using "fixed" vcore mode, I have no idea why you're playing with the AC/DC loadline values, they're ignored on fixed vcore, as you only control vcore by the starting base vcore and the Mode LLC level (mode 3-4 tend to be best, with mode 3 having about 0.35 mohms of loadline slope droop, mode 4 has more droop, not sure how much).

I know on Z690, MSI has a problem where Current Excursion Protection is ENABLED by default on these boards when NOT on fixed vcore mode, which means if your LOAD VCORE is too low for what the board expects, in relation to the V/F point (AC loadline and "MAYBE" DC loadline and "Maybe" LLC itself come into play here as well, i can NOT help with this, please don't ask me), your CPU will throttle. There should be a BIOS setting to disable CEP.

I suggest asking your post this in the specific MSI motherboard thread sections.

CEP is "supposed" to be disabled by default when using "Fixed" vcore modes. Note: Changing the base VID is not the same thing as 'fixed' vcore mode. I know that Gigabyte has "Fixed" and "Override" vcore mode in their BIOS with no explanation to what "override" really does---it "overrides" the native CPU "base" VID, while "Fixed" changes vcore the "traditional direct way.".


----------



## Bilco

Nizzen said:


> Sp 13900k/KF bins:
> 
> Nizzen SP 110 P119 / E93
> sugi0lover SP 114 P124 / E94
> Falk SP 106 P113 / E94.
> RobertoS SP ? P119/E102
> Roooo SP? P110/E88
> Talon 2016 SP106 P115/E88
> Miguelios SP106 P116/E88
> nickolp1974 SP 103 P11?/ E88
> Miguelios _SP 106 P116/ E88
> Xarot SP 97 P106/E81
> Owikh84. SP 101 P110/E83_
> 
> 
> New toys to play with soon
> 
> Looks like 13600k is almost beating 5950x in rendering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i5-13600K 14 Core Raptor Lake ES CPU Tested, 40% Faster Than Core i5-12600K & Beats The Ryzen 9 5950X In Cinebench
> 
> 
> The latest benchmarks of Intel's mainstream Core i5-13600K 14-Core Raptor Lake Desktop CPU have leaked out and it's a beast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wccftech.com


SP 101 P110/E83


----------



## Falkentyne

Bilco said:


> SP 101 P110/E83


Slightly above average chip.
As long as you are NOT on air cooling, please try to see if you can pass this stress test.

Cinebench R23: 30 minutes loop "test stability".
Bios settings:

P cores: Sync x57
Actual VRM Vcore Voltage: 1.345v bios set
Loadline Calibration: LLC level 6.
VRM Switching frequency: Spread Spectrum Disabled: Sw rate 300-500 khz

Look for CPU Cache L0 errors or Internal Parity Errors in the bottom of HWinfo sensors window. Or BSOD's.


----------



## digitalfrost

Falkentyne said:


> I don't have a MSI board so I can't directly help you with this. [...]


I am using VF Offset for the OC ratio and I have CEP disabled.


----------



## raad11

Rbk_3 said:


> What's the best way to test for ring? I always just did it in games and when my 1% lows started to go up I backed it off


I've just been running Aida64 cache benchmark several times, then their stability test with cache for 10 minutes, then a few CB23 runs, then the rest is gaming/normal use. I've always found out very quickly when cache wasn't stable, it does cause random crashes at the very least.



Falkentyne said:


> I don't have a MSI board so I can't directly help you with this. I CAN tell you that none of these problems happen on any of the Maximus Z790 boards (we all tested them during embargo).
> Are you using adaptive or v/f offset voltage modes? If you're using "fixed" vcore mode, I have no idea why you're playing with the AC/DC loadline values, they're ignored on fixed vcore, as you only control vcore by the starting base vcore and the Mode LLC level (mode 3-4 tend to be best, with mode 3 having about 0.35 mohms of loadline slope droop, mode 4 has more droop, not sure how much).
> 
> I know on Z690, MSI has a problem where Current Excursion Protection is ENABLED by default on these boards when NOT on fixed vcore mode, which means if your LOAD VCORE is too low for what the board expects, in relation to the V/F point (AC loadline and "MAYBE" DC loadline and "Maybe" LLC itself come into play here as well, i can NOT help with this, please don't ask me), your CPU will throttle. There should be a BIOS setting to disable CEP.
> 
> I suggest asking your post this in the specific MSI motherboard thread sections.
> 
> CEP is "supposed" to be disabled by default when using "Fixed" vcore modes. Note: Changing the base VID is not the same thing as 'fixed' vcore mode. I know that Gigabyte has "Fixed" and "Override" vcore mode in their BIOS with no explanation to what "override" really does---it "overrides" the native CPU "base" VID, while "Fixed" changes vcore the "traditional direct way.".


Is there a CEP setting in Asus BIOS? What's it called and where is it? I don't recall ever having seen it


----------



## bottjeremy

digitalfrost said:


> So these Iccmax values are really interesting to me. My 13700k can do 6Ghz on the 2 best cores with ~1.40v. I play a lot of CPU intensive games, one of the reasons I got this CPU. However setting the 245A iccmax, my CPU will downclock to 5.2-5.3Ghz even during gaming. Can it really be Tarkov and Cyberpunk pull 245A from the CPU? I can see the electrical design point limit being active in HWiNFO during gaming and if raise the iccmax to 307 ampere I can see the CPU clock higher. Is this realistic or does my board somehow skew these values?
> 
> I have an MSI Pro Z690-A so I cannot read out VRM values directly.
> 
> View attachment 2578353
> 
> 
> You see 5.5Ghz, 1.30v, 126W. If my math is correct this is only 96A. This was with 307A Iccmax. Now I lower the Iccmax to 245A:
> 
> View attachment 2578354
> 
> 
> Just why? This is even less ampere. I've tuned the DC_LL to my LLC so the power figures should be correct (I run 20 AC_LL / 100 DC_LL with LLC8). Vcore is read from VCC Sense.
> 
> Here's Tarkov with 307A. 1.33v, 5.5Ghz, 86W.
> 
> View attachment 2578359
> 
> 
> 245A, 1.24V, 5.1Ghz, 74.W
> 
> View attachment 2578361
> 
> 
> These numbers do not add up at all? Do the normal rules not apply here?
> 
> I = (P / V) right?


My perception is that 13th gen needs a little bit more time to mature with Windows, BIOS, and with tools and drivers. 

What I've noticed is that E-Cores are being used in places I don't normally see as compared to my 12600k. Maybe a fresh Windows install would help for me or others? 

On my Z690, I downloaded the new Raptor Lake drivers from Giga and installed them over old and got the ME firmware update, but things still kind of off. Performance seems pretty solid though overall.


----------



## Sai1

asdkj1740 said:


> strix f seems to be the best 6 layers mobo rated at 7800mhz ddr5 oc, 200mhz higher than gigabyte 6 layers mobo like aero g (not in qvl though).


Where can I find information that there are exactly 6 layers? I choose between msi 790 carbon and Strix e, very similar specs, but msi has exactly 8 layers indicated on their website. What's better?


----------



## raad11

bottjeremy said:


> My perception is that 13th gen needs a little bit more time to mature with Windows, BIOS, and with tools and drivers.
> 
> What I've noticed is that E-Cores are being used in places I don't normally see as compared to my 12600k. Maybe a fresh Windows install would help for me or others?
> 
> On my Z690, I downloaded the new Raptor Lake drivers from Giga and installed them over old and got the ME firmware update, but things still kind of off. Performance seems pretty solid though overall.


I am noticing some strange behavior under Windows 10 that I didn't see with my 12900K either. More usage of P-Cores, particularly the fastest P-Core. More idle power usage when things are open in the background and cores constantly sprinting to top speed even though I can't figure out which app is causing it. With the 12900K, it just lay there dormant, cores at like 800MHz-1200MHz or whatever it was, no matter what I had minimized in background.


----------



## Revv23

Sai1 said:


> Where can I find information that there are exactly 6 layers? I choose between msi 790 carbon and Strix e, very similar specs, but msi has exactly 8 layers indicated on their website. What's better?


Layers are mostly marketing. Like PWM phases. There is a point at the bleeding edge where these things might make a difference, but for 99% of us it wont. MSI and asus are both good brands I would just go with whichever best meets your needs on preference, price & features.


----------



## Netarangi

Ichirou said:


> My chip from Canada Computers has still yet to arrive because Canada Post is being stupid.
> But I have gotten firm confirmation from CC that they will offer the 15-day return window starting from the date of the chip's arrival.


Bro that's some bs! Hopefully it arrives soon.


----------



## energie80

Experiencing higher latency over my old 12900ks with ecores off with e cores on even with 47x ring


----------



## gtz

Fissa said:


> Sad. Then I got a dud. It uses 1.37 core vid at stock speeds.


Don't feel bad, mine uses 1.41v at stock. But still happy with the performance uptick over my 10980XE.


----------



## Exilon

raad11 said:


> Is there a CEP setting in Asus BIOS? What's it called and where is it? I don't recall ever having seen it


It's called this under the page where you can find the power limits "IA CEP Enable"


----------



## Exilon

energie80 said:


> Experiencing higher latency over my old 12900ks with ecores off with e cores on even with 47x ring


AIDA? That's a bug in AIDA


----------



## energie80

Yea latest Aida


----------



## bhav

Revv23 said:


> Layers are mostly marketing. Like PWM phases. There is a point at the bleeding edge where these things might make a difference, but for 99% of us it wont. MSI and asus are both good brands I would just go with whichever best meets your needs on preference, price & features.


So to add to this, the 'medium range' MSI and Asus boards are 6 layers like my new Mag Tomahawk.

Asrock itx/ax is 8 layers.

The 8 layer one is the worse one, no idea why they even bother with 8 layers on a budget board.

In terms of phases, most of the asus Z790s use 16+1 60A. The MSI ones use 16+1+1 80-90A ones while also costing less. So at that point I pick the cheaper board with better specification, even if the phases don't do anything.

16+1+1 90A on my £325 Tomahawk, 16+1 60A on £335+ Asus TUF and upwards. Pro-A £299-£319 for 80A.

I picked the tomahawk for the external clear cmos button though, not the VRMs.


----------



## owikh84

tps3443 said:


> Anyone with an MSI bios please share your ”CPU FORCE 2” results? And your Asus SP rating if you have it available. Thanks.


My 13900K is SP101 (P110/E83) on ASUS. 
MSI shows CPU Force 2 149.


----------



## tps3443

owikh84 said:


> My 13900K is SP101 (P110/E83) on ASUS.
> MSI shows CPU Force 2 149.
> 
> View attachment 2578385


Thanks! Please everyone keep them coming! Trying to find an idea on Force Rating/ and SP rating.


PS: My MSI Unify-X force rating is 132, don’t really know what that equates to Lol. But I feel like it’s a great sample.


----------



## Unkzilla

Some quick results for my 13600kf -

1.25v 5.6ghz pcore - e cores disabled

1.31v 5.6ghz pcore - e cores enabled (default)

1.30v 5.7ghz pcore - e cores disabled

All of the above pass 1hr OCCT

Assume 1.36v or slightly above would let me enable e cores and 5.7ghz on pcore but it's too hard to cool


----------



## Falkentyne

raad11 said:


> I've just been running Aida64 cache benchmark several times, then their stability test with cache for 10 minutes, then a few CB23 runs, then the rest is gaming/normal use. I've always found out very quickly when cache wasn't stable, it does cause random crashes at the very least.
> 
> 
> Is there a CEP setting in Asus BIOS? What's it called and where is it? I don't recall ever having seen it


Yeah it's in internal power management.

Auto defaults to disabled.
If you enable it on auto vcore, you have to play with the AC loadline value and determine at what point of reducing the ACLL, the CPU starts "phantom throttling" (I assume you can test this by running CB R23 or CPU-Z bench and seeing when the scores start dropping). because CEP thinks it's being undervolted. (note: undervolting via v/f offset satisfies CEP. It's just improper settings of ACLL and LLC). Unfortunately, there is no way to change AC Loadline values in the OS (LLC can be changed).

DCLL is prediction of droop on VID, but I don't know if changing DC Loadline also causes CEP to get violated or not.


----------



## VULC

Can do with +2 TVB.

Asus Board
No E Cores Gaming PC
5.6Ghz LLC 2 75 degrees 1.18v
5.7Ghz LLC 4 85 degrees 1.25v


----------



## bscool

.


owikh84 said:


> My 13900K is SP101 (P110/E83) on ASUS.
> MSI shows CPU Force 2 149.
> 
> View attachment 2578385


Have you noticed the CPU Force score on MSI is based on temps?

I see guys that run MSI in discord said it depends on cooling and temps so they said it is not reliable.

I only had it on z590 Unify X and never paid attention to it.

@tps3443 has chiller he could test it and see if temps do actually change it.


----------



## adolf512

Unkzilla said:


> Some quick results for my 13600kf -
> 
> 1.25v 5.6ghz pcore - e cores disabled
> 
> 1.31v 5.6ghz pcore - e cores enabled (default)
> 
> 1.30v 5.7ghz pcore - e cores disabled
> 
> All of the above pass 1hr OCCT
> 
> Assume 1.36v or slightly above would let me enable e cores and 5.7ghz on ecore but it's too hard to cool


The difference is probably due to vdroop. Try more aggressive LLC.


----------



## Unkzilla

adolf512 said:


> The difference is probably due to vdroop. Try more aggressive LLC.


I'm yet to play around with that, I'm using a msi z690 pro with auto LLC. I believe it's pretty much flat eg vcore specified in bios is what the chip is receiving under load . May try higher vcore with different LLC


----------



## opt33

mine say force 2 140.... bios description says lower number better. maybe test min vcore at given llc or min vrout for cb for 57/58 vs force num on msi.


----------



## kill_a_wat

tps3443 said:


> This is my 13900KF in action.
> 5.8Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 4.7Ghz Cache
> 
> 
> *Chiller= OFF
> 
> I replaced my cold plate on Optimus Sig V2 and saw a very nice temp drop. No need for the chiller lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 13900KF 5.8Ghz R23
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youtube.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


So that is 1.306v 5.8Ghz under load? I'm not familiar with MSI boards and if the vCore in CPUz is accurate (die sense etc). I think SP 110+ (P core 120+) can do 5.8Ghz around 1.23-1.24v


----------



## affxct

bhav said:


> I know I've been complaining about noob reviews when it comes to ram but seriously tomshardware *** is this
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/a...-paste-reduced-temps#xenforo-comments-3782550
> 
> 'You cannot cool CPU without thermal paste ' .... Liquid metal would like to have a word with you.
> 
> Also isn't salt corrosive? Any variance was most likely due to fact it was a random tiktok mene video with improper mounting.
> 
> I dont actually blame tiktok here, its a dumb site but I like dumb memes. But anyone using tiktok as a news source? Lol.


My buddy upgraded to D5 because I spotted him some sick deals in my country. Long story short I might take his B-die and Z690-A off him and do some comparisons with my 13700K for D4 vs D5 max OC. Maybe. Probably will. My goodness benchmarking is boring. You would not believe.


----------



## tps3443

bscool said:


> .
> 
> Have you noticed the CPU Force score on MSI is based on temps?
> 
> I see guys that run MSI in discord said it depends on cooling and temps so they said it is not reliable.
> 
> I only had it on z590 Unify X and never paid attention to it.
> 
> @tps3443 has chiller he could test it and see if temps do actually change it.


MSI FORCE2 Is not temp based, I lowered my water to 39F, and it didn’t lower it or increase It. Numbers stay the same.


----------



## bscool

tps3443 said:


> MSI FORCE2 Is not temp based, I lowered my water to 39F, and it didn’t lower it or increase It. Numbers stay the same.


Did you reboot or clear bios? Ill ask them what the deal is.


----------



## acoustic

@bscool 

When the chip was warm, my CPU FORCE 2 rose from 134 (normal, actual number) to 135. It's not a big difference but it did change the number.

Unless you were sub-ambient, I'd imagine it's not going to be a difference worth noting.


----------



## bscool

acoustic said:


> @bscool
> 
> When the chip was warm, my CPU FORCE 2 rose from 134 (normal, actual number) to 135. It's not a big difference but it did change the number.
> 
> Unless you were sub-ambient, I'd imagine it's not going to be a difference worth noting.


Yeah I figure most are going to be running ambient just didnt see anyone mention it being temp based.


----------



## Ichirou

So, is the verdict that CPU Force 2 on MSI is an accurate enough prediction of SP? Or are there too many environmental factors to consider?


----------



## sugi0lover

Wow, 13900KF with the highest SP got delided and see what it can do, nice temp. (not my result)

SP 118, P127, E101
OC to P61/E48/C52 Vcore 1.385v LLC7 Water Temp 20C / Mem 8,000



Spoiler: Delid and the result


----------



## bscool

Good to know because enough people run chiller or put rads by AC or outside. So CPU Force is then skewed. If they check it when cold.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> So, is the verdict that CPU Force 2 on MSI is an accurate enough prediction of SP? Or are there too many environmental factors to consider?


Accurate for 99% of users, I think. It's just figuring out what CPU Force 2 number equates to in ASUS SP.

I have Force 2 134, which is one of the lowest I've seen in the Unify-X thread. I can run 30min CB23 @ 1.280v set (1.25v get) MSI LLC3, 5.7P/4.5E. The only thing I don't know, is how MSI deals with E Core rating. Not sure if Force Rating takes E Core VID into account, or if it's simply P Coree VID


----------



## kill_a_wat

sugi0lover said:


> Wow, 13900KF with the highest SP got delided and see what it can do, nice temp. (not my result)
> 
> SP 118, P127, E101
> OC to P61/E48/C52 Vcore 1.385v LLC7 Water Temp 20C / Mem 8,000
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Delid and the result
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578406
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578407


24 karat gold 13900K


----------



## Ichirou

sugi0lover said:


> Wow, 13900KF with the highest SP got delided and see what it can do, nice temp. (not my result)
> 
> SP 118, P127, E101
> OC to P61/E48/C52 Vcore 1.385v LLC7 Water Temp 20C / Mem 8,000
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Delid and the result
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578406
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578407


How many chips did he have to bin to get that one?

Oh wait, it says Engineering Sample in CPU-Z. So it was prebinned.


----------



## VULC

sugi0lover said:


> Wow, 13900KF with the highest SP got delided and see what it can do, nice temp. (not my result)
> 
> SP 118, P127, E101
> OC to P61/E48/C52 Vcore 1.385v LLC7 Water Temp 20C / Mem 8,000
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Delid and the result
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578406
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578407


----------



## sniperpowa

This Is all my sp99 chip can do without going cold. Guess I’ll fill my dewars tomorrow.


----------



## tps3443

bscool said:


> Good to know because enough people run chiller or put rads by AC or outside. So CPU Force is then skewed. If they check it when cold.


No. CPU force seems to be very consistent every time you check it. Mine bounces around a little +/- 1 points. Running really cold water does not generate a lower force 2 number. I tried it already. It cannot skew the results.


----------



## acoustic

bscool said:


> Good to know because enough people run chiller or put rads by AC or outside. So CPU Force is then skewed. If they check it when cold.


I would be curious to see what a chip under LN2 would read vs ambient.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> No. CPU force seems to be very consistent every time you check it. Mine bounces around a little +/- 1 points. Running really cold water does not generate a lower force 2 number. I tried it already. It cannot skew the results.


Does adjusting core multipliers or Vcore alter the score? Or any kind of overclocking for that matter?
Or is the Force reading basically the same throughout (give or take 1)?

E.g. is there any difference between 58x all-core and 55x all-core?


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> Accurate for 99% of users, I think. It's just figuring out what CPU Force 2 number equates to in ASUS SP.
> 
> I have Force 2 134, which is one of the lowest I've seen in the Unify-X thread. I can run 30min CB23 @ 1.280v set (1.25v get) MSI LLC3, 5.7P/4.5E. The only thing I don't know, is how MSI deals with E Core rating. Not sure if Force Rating takes E Core VID into account, or if it's simply P Coree VID



*COLD 7C*









*HOT 32C*


----------



## opt33

acoustic said:


> Accurate for 99% of users, I think. It's just figuring out what CPU Force 2 number equates to in ASUS SP.
> 
> I have Force 2 134, which is one of the lowest I've seen in the Unify-X thread. I can run 30min CB23 @ 1.280v set (1.25v get) MSI LLC3, 5.7P/4.5E. The only thing I don't know, is how MSI deals with E Core rating. Not sure if Force Rating takes E Core VID into account, or if it's simply P Coree VID


with my force 2 140, I duplicated your settings 1.28v set (1.25vrout with cb) msi llc3, 5.7/4.5e. I was hoping for cb crash instead of bsod since I know I need 1.27 vrout to just run cb 3 times at 57pcore, as luck would have it only crashed cb first run and no bsod. I still need to test further but im going to be 1.27-1.28 range msi vrout for 57


----------



## sniperpowa

acoustic said:


> I would be curious to see what a chip under LN2 would read vs ambient.


I never remember seeing a difference on sp with ln2 I guess I really don’t pay attention at that point.


----------



## bscool

sniperpowa said:


> I never remember seeing a difference on sp with ln2 I guess I really don’t pay attention at that point.


Not SP, CPU Force on MSI. Are you on MSI?


----------



## opt33

Ichirou said:


> Does adjusting core multipliers or Vcore alter the score? Or any kind of overclocking for that matter?
> Or is the Force reading basically the same throughout (give or take 1)?
> 
> E.g. is there any difference between 58x all-core and 55x all-core?


wont give you score unless you are at stock, if overclocked just get message to go back to stock cpu for score.


----------



## Ichirou

opt33 said:


> wont give you score unless you are at stock, if overclocked just get message to go back to stock cpu for score.


Ah, I see. So it should be an accurate readout then.

I wonder if it's available on the MSI Edge, or if it's strictly the Unify-X.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Does adjusting core multipliers or Vcore alter the score? Or any kind of overclocking for that matter?
> Or is the Force reading basically the same throughout (give or take 1)?
> 
> E.g. is there any difference between 58x all-core and 55x all-core?


You can only check FORCE 2 at stock settings.



Ichirou said:


> Ah, I see. So it should be an accurate readout then.
> 
> I wonder if it's available on the MSI Edge, or if it's strictly the Unify-X.


Should be on any MEG series board, afaik.


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> *COLD 7C*
> View attachment 2578417
> 
> 
> *HOT 32C*
> View attachment 2578418


Was the chip at 7C or was the water?


----------



## newls1

energie80 said:


> Experiencing higher latency over my old 12900ks with ecores off with e cores on even with 47x ring


exact same issue here too! Im even using faster speeds then my 12900KS allowed but with all the same timings so my latency should have dropped, yet with this 13900K im about 4 points higher on the latency score. 12900KS was 49/50 @ 6800..... On this 13900k @ 7000 im 54/55.... what gives??!! Is there another program to check latency with?


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> Accurate for 99% of users, I think. It's just figuring out what CPU Force 2 number equates to in ASUS SP.
> 
> I have Force 2 134, which is one of the lowest I've seen in the Unify-X thread. I can run 30min CB23 @ 1.280v set (1.25v get) MSI LLC3, 5.7P/4.5E. The only thing I don't know, is how MSI deals with E Core rating. Not sure if Force Rating takes E Core VID into account, or if it's simply P Coree VID


At 220 amps that's 1.203v get.
If you can pass this for 30 minutes, that's a P-core 115-120 CPU.


----------



## bscool

Ichirou said:


> Ah, I see. So it should be an accurate readout then.
> 
> I wonder if it's available on the MSI Edge, or if it's strictly the Unify-X.


It is only on the upper tier MSI MB. MEG series


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> At 220 amps that's 1.203v get.
> If you can pass this for 30 minutes, that's a P-core 115-120 CPU.


Yeah, when I said "get" I was referring to VR VOUT, should have clarified that! If true, it would be the first time I've ever gotten lucky with a CPU.. lol. Definitely passed the 30min CB23 test though, did that yesterday when we were talking. Seems quite a few people are saying they're stable at voltages but not actually running the 30min test. I had an L0 error at 28min into the 30min test at 1.245v VR VOUT, which is why I had to bump up 0.005v.

I'll be de-lidding soon, and we'll see how it goes.


----------



## Ichirou

bscool said:


> It is only on the upper tier MSI MB. MEG series


Yikes, DDR4 boards take an L once again.


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> Yeah, when I said "get" I was referring to VR VOUT, should have clarified that! If true, it would be the first time I've ever gotten lucky with a CPU.. lol.
> 
> I'll be de-lidding soon.


I simply assumed that's a 0.35 mohms loadline because some people said MSI sets DC Loadline to 0.35 mohms when you set Mode 3 LLC.
Asus LLC6 is 0.49, and their LLC7 is 0.245 ever since Z590.

Oddly enough, on their (NDA) raw VRM tool for Z490, you could set a LLC between 6 and 7 via raw register values, because LLC7 had a bit value of "1" (0.17 mohm, yes, thats as bad as it sounds) and LLC6 had a bit value of "3" (0.38 mohms), so if you set a bit value of 2, you got 0.26 mOhms.


----------



## sniperpowa

bscool said:


> Not SP, CPU Force on MSI. Are you on MSI?


No im not does force go of vid the same?


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> I simply assumed that's a 0.35 mohms loadline because some people said MSI sets DC Loadline to 0.35 mohms when you set Mode 3 LLC.
> Asus LLC6 is 0.49, and their LLC7 is 0.245 ever since Z590.
> 
> Oddly enough, on their (NDA) raw VRM tool for Z490, you could set a LLC between 6 and 7 via raw register values, because LLC7 had a bit value of "1" (0.17 mohm, yes, thats as bad as it sounds) and LLC6 had a bit value of "3" (0.38 mohms), so if you set a bit value of 2, you got 0.26 mOhms.


I'll have to double-check on next reboot what the board is setting AC/DC_LL to (while on Auto) when Loadline Calibration is set to Mode 3. I believe it does change, but I didn't verify. When I had 1.280v in BIOS @ LLC3, I was getting 1.250v VR VOUT in CB23.


----------



## bscool

sniperpowa said:


> No im not does force go of vid the same?


No idea. The guy who might know is away on discord and I dont wanna ping him as some people on there get pissy. I asked about it but no reply.


----------



## acoustic

bscool said:


> No idea. The guy who might know is away on discord and I dont wanna ping him as some people on there get pissy. I asked about it but no reply.


You're in the MSI discord? LOL


----------



## bscool

acoustic said:


> You're in the MSI discord? LOL


No another one, like fight club. dont talk............


----------



## acoustic

bscool said:


> No another one, like fight club. dont talk............


I swear, everyone in all these damn discords and I'm over here in the trenches begging for some up-to-date beta BIOS releases like a peasant


----------



## bscool

acoustic said:


> You're in the MSI discord? LOL


Why do you ask and lol, is it bad or good? the MSI discord?


----------



## bscool

acoustic said:


> I swear, everyone in all these damn discords and I'm over here in the trenches begging for some up-to-date beta BIOS releases like a peasant


I dont post on discord much I mainyl just sit in the background and read there.


----------



## acoustic

bscool said:


> Why do you ask and lol, is it bad or good? the MSI discord?


Naw, heard there's a discord with MSI fae's.


----------



## bscool

acoustic said:


> Naw, heard there's a discord with MSI fae's.


Yeah I think at least one of the guys has some kind of connections as he always has info/products other dont. He is the one that says CPU force is temped based so i would believe him. And other guys who do LN2 have said it so I trust them to know.


----------



## acoustic

bscool said:


> Yeah I think at least one of the guys has some kind of connections as he always has info/products other dont. He is the one that says CPU force is temped based so i would believe him. And other guys who do LN2 have said it so I trust them to know.


Yep. Did they say how much the points can swing?


----------



## bscool

acoustic said:


> Yep. Did they say how much the points can swing?


No one has replied yet when I asked about it.

I searched on hwobot discord and @skullbringer posted about it is temp depend also. Maybe he can comment on it.

Another comment I found by @Seby9123 "cpu force = meme + varies across cpu model + temp + bios"


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> I simply assumed that's a 0.35 mohms loadline because some people said MSI sets DC Loadline to 0.35 mohms when you set Mode 3 LLC.
> Asus LLC6 is 0.49, and their LLC7 is 0.245 ever since Z590.
> 
> Oddly enough, on their (NDA) raw VRM tool for Z490, you could set a LLC between 6 and 7 via raw register values, because LLC7 had a bit value of "1" (0.17 mohm, yes, thats as bad as it sounds) and LLC6 had a bit value of "3" (0.38 mohms), so if you set a bit value of 2, you got 0.26 mOhms.


I just checked, and when "Override Mode" is set, board automatically goes to AC/DC_LL of "1" (0.01mOhm, as far as I've always understood) for both, which is expected. I rebooted, left CPU Voltage Mode to AUTO and set 1.280v again, and again, board sets AC/DC_LL to "Mode 1", aka "1", for both.

I set DC_LL manually to "35" which is 0.35mOhm (again, as far as I remember from my Z490 ACE), and load voltage in CB23 read 1.255 VR VOUT at 1.280v set.

Hope this helps/is useful for any clarification.

@bscool Now that I think about it, my 12700K always showed "0" as CPU Force 2. Best chip of all time, I guess..? Lol


----------



## Netarangi

How can I work out the quality of my chip without a ROG board?


----------



## Ichirou

Netarangi said:


> How can I work out the quality of my chip without a ROG board?


You do R23 runs and compare it to others here


----------



## dante`afk

little test getting the feel for the cpu.

1.24v, LLC3, 57/45/47












Now I regret having sold my supercool direct die, I'll order a new one and just swap it on and keep it until next gen. (having to drain the loop every time you wanted to change something was annoying AF.


----------



## sugi0lover

This is the highest SP I have seen so far from retail 13900K (not ES/QS)
SP 113 (P122, E96)



Spoiler: SP 113 & Cine


----------



## dante`afk

👩‍🚒


----------



## SeniorHames

I feel like I have a dud.

Asrock Z690 Steel Legend D5
G.Skill 6400cl32
13900K

This is stock bios config with Intel ME v16.1.25.2020. IDK how you guys are getting 8k-9k higher scores. IDK what to do.


----------



## zlatanselvic

Waiting for my 13700k to arrive on Thursday.
Hearing some mixed reciews. I’ll be on a 360mm rad with push pull. Any point in delidding with a copper IHS swap and 12th gen bracket?
Or should I just do the bracket and call it good?


----------



## Papusan

SeniorHames said:


> I feel like I have a dud.
> 
> Asrock Z690 Steel Legend D5
> G.Skill 6400cl32
> 13900K
> 
> This is stock bios config with Intel ME v16.1.25.2020. IDK how you guys are getting 8k-9k higher scores. IDK what to do.
> View attachment 2578447


Too hot and that the motherboard follows Intel's rules and caps PL2 at 253 Watts. Fix temps and raise power limits.


----------



## Exilon

SeniorHames said:


> I feel like I have a dud.
> 
> Asrock Z690 Steel Legend D5
> G.Skill 6400cl32
> 13900K
> 
> This is stock bios config with Intel ME v16.1.25.2020. IDK how you guys are getting 8k-9k higher scores. IDK what to do.
> View attachment 2578447


There won't be that much variance between 13900Ks. Your motherboard's is using too much voltage from either LLC or high default AC LL


----------



## RobertoSampaio

P-63x2 - 62x3 - 61x4 - 60x5 - 59x6 - 58x7 - 57x8 (+2Boost OCTVB | +3ºC offset)
E-48x4-47x8-46x16
R-55~49
Adaptive 1.446V
LLC#4
AC_LL=0.01
DC_LL=1.02

Stable so far...


----------



## Slackaveli

raad11 said:


> Whenever I set ring to 53x it does it


oh Dear God why? just do 5ghz.


----------



## energie80

newls1 said:


> exact same issue here too! Im even using faster speeds then my 12900KS allowed but with all the same timings so my latency should have dropped, yet with this 13900K im about 4 points higher on the latency score. 12900KS was 49/50 @ 6800..... On this 13900k @ 7000 im 54/55.... what gives??!! Is there another program to check latency with?


Perfectly the same, +5ns latency…going to try with ecores off


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Ring. Gear 1 and gear 2.... 55/49


----------



## Netarangi

Ichirou said:


> You do R23 runs and compare it to others here


I'm an idiot lol I'm taking a break from posting here till I learn more about this stuff.


----------



## tps3443

Everyone keeps talking about running 5.7Ghz for testing these, so I am trying to run it and see how low I can go on CPU voltage. My waterchiller is off completely. And I just want to see how I compare to others at 5.7Ghz.

13900KF
MSI Unify-X
P-Cores @5.7
E-Cores @4.5
[email protected]
LLC #3
1.250v set in bios, and “Fixed voltage”
R23 run for (30) Minutes.

How does this sample shake out? Any input is greatly appreciated.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Everyone keeps talking about running 5.7Ghz for testing these, so I am trying to run it and see how low I can go on CPU voltage. My waterchiller is off completely. And I just want to see how I compare to others at 5.7Ghz.
> 
> 13900KF
> MSI Unify-X
> P-Cores @5.7
> E-Cores @4.5
> [email protected]
> LLC #3
> 1.250v set in bios, and “Fixed voltage”
> R23 run for (30) Minutes.
> 
> How does this sample shake out? Any input is greatly appreciated.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578453


Is that the lowest Vcore you can set to pass 30m? Because it seems pretty good to me.
Paging @Falkentyne for approx SP


----------



## Slackaveli

tps3443 said:


> MSI FORCE2 Is not temp based, I lowered my water to 39F, and it didn’t lower it or increase It. Numbers stay the same.


great news.
Ill have 3 more Force scores for y'all tomorrow.


----------



## dante`afk

any idea why on MSI z690 unifyx my cores never go to 6ghz even though I setup 2x60, 4x59, 8x57 ?


----------



## Slackaveli

opt33 said:


> with my force 2 140, I duplicated your settings 1.28v set (1.25vrout with cb) msi llc3, 5.7/4.5e. I was hoping for cb crash instead of bsod since I know I need 1.27 vrout to just run cb 3 times at 57pcore, as luck would have it only crashed cb first run and no bsod. I still need to test further but im going to be 1.27-1.28 range msi vrout for 57


good info. These seem like reliable metrics this time around!


----------



## Slackaveli

dante`afk said:


> any idea why on MSI z690 unifyx my cores never go to 6ghz even though I setup 2x60, 4x59, 8x57 ?


do you have avx offset ?


----------



## VULC

What is the max safe ring ratio to set? Can you run ring 300Mhz below your all-core clock? I'm running 5.3 ring and 5.7 core.


----------



## Slackaveli

Ichirou said:


> Yikes, DDR4 boards take an L once again.


i warned everyone i knew to get the ddr5. ALL of them got the d4 LOL. They are big mad now.


----------



## dante`afk

Slackaveli said:


> do you have avx offset ?


no


----------



## Slackaveli

VULC said:


> What is the max safe ring ratio to set? Can you run ring 300Mhz below your all-core clock? I'm running 5.3 ring and 5.7 core.


Pretty sure folks said not past 5.1, but idk why. If it's cool and stable, fuggit. But if it's at very high voltages it might not be the way.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Is that the lowest Vcore you can set to pass 30m? Because it seems pretty good to me.
> Paging @Falkentyne for approx SP


I can probably do a little less. First time testing R23 @5.7 for 30 minutes.


----------



## Slackaveli

dante`afk said:


> no


Hmm, not sure then.


----------



## Slackaveli

acoustic said:


> I just checked, and when "Override Mode" is set, board automatically goes to AC/DC_LL of "1" (0.01mOhm, as far as I've always understood) for both, which is expected. I rebooted, left CPU Voltage Mode to AUTO and set 1.280v again, and again, board sets AC/DC_LL to "Mode 1", aka "1", for both.
> 
> I set DC_LL manually to "35" which is 0.35mOhm (again, as far as I remember from my Z490 ACE), and load voltage in CB23 read 1.255 VR VOUT at 1.280v set.
> 
> Hope this helps/is useful for any clarification.
> 
> @bscool Now that I think about it, my 12700K always showed "0" as CPU Force 2. Best chip of all time, I guess..? Lol


yep, thats what mine said. It was obviously borked which is why I appear excited about it working lol.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Is that the lowest Vcore you can set to pass 30m? Because it seems pretty good to me.
> Paging @Falkentyne for approx SP


1250mv - (220A IOUT * 0.35 mohm) = 1.175v load die sense. (220 amps is estimated).
That's like P core SP 120+. Depending on how low you can go that could be up to 125 rated P cores


----------



## bscool

Falkentyne said:


> 1250mv - (220 IOUT * 0.35 mohm) = 1.175v load die sense. (220 amps is estimated).
> That's like P core SP 120+.


How many Gigabyte biscuits that is the real question


----------



## bhav

Rbk_3 said:


> Jeez, I thought I was getting a deal when I found a Z690 Tomahawk on Amazon Wearhouse deals for $160, no bent pins though.


God my Z790 Tomahawk was double that.

Lovely board though, just wish it also had heatsinks under the M.2 slots like the carbon.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> 1250mv - (220A IOUT * 0.35 mohm) = 1.175v load die sense. (220 amps is estimated).
> That's like P core SP 120+. Depending on how low you can go that could be up to 125 rated P cores


@tps3443 You likely have a golden chip


----------



## bhav

Slackaveli said:


> i warned everyone i knew to get the ddr5. ALL of them got the d4 LOL. They are big mad now.



This is just about the SP thing right? Don't give me a panic attack if its anything else!


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> This is just about the SP thing right? Don't give me a panic attack if its anything else!


Naw, man, nothing to worry about.


----------



## SeniorHames

Well, I think I killed it. Kept undervolting my 13900K. No system crashes or errors. Kept pulling high voltage so I enabled LLC 5 from auto on my Z690 steel legend It now refuses to boot into windows on the NVMe or usb drive. Tried both 10 and 11 with no luck. I can still boot into the bios with no issues and it sees the 13900K and I can enable XMP, adjust any settings and it accepts all of that.

However, It refuses to boot into windows or windows install usb without a BSOD. The only thing I did was undervolt it by 100mv (starting at 40 and working my way up), andjust the power limit and changed the fan curve. No overclock.
My last boot into windows, it was taking 1.65v and I booted it down after seeing that.

The bsod error codes are:
Oxc0000001 
Oxc0000221 
Oxc000007b 
0x0000098 
Oxc0000221 
0x000021a 

Not sure how to proceed if you guys have any ideas.


----------



## tps3443

Falkentyne said:


> 1250mv - (220A IOUT * 0.35 mohm) = 1.175v load die sense. (220 amps is estimated).
> That's like P core SP 120+. Depending on how low you can go that could be up to 125 rated P cores


Thanks! I’m going to delid this 13900KF then.


----------



## tps3443

SeniorHames said:


> Well, I think I killed it. Kept undervolting my 13900K. No system crashes or errors. Kept pulling high voltage so I enabled LLC 5 from auto on my Z690 steel legend It now refuses to boot into windows on the NVMe or usb drive. Tried both 10 and 11 with no luck. I can still boot into the bios with no issues and it sees the 13900K and I can enable XMP, adjust any settings and it accepts all of that.
> 
> However, It refuses to boot into windows or windows install usb without a BSOD. The only thing I did was undervolt it by 100mv (starting at 40 and working my way up), andjust the power limit and changed the fan curve. No overclock.
> My last boot into windows, it was taking 1.65v and I booted it down after seeing that.
> 
> The bsod error codes are:
> Oxc0000001
> Oxc0000221
> Oxc000007b
> 0x0000098
> Oxc0000221
> 0x000021a
> 
> Not sure how to proceed if you guys have any ideas.


Sounds like you broke your Windows install for sure. That’s all that is probably. Repair or reinstall windows.

Pull the motherboard battery, and kill power for a few minutes before hand.


----------



## VULC

Slackaveli said:


> Pretty sure folks said not past 5.1, but idk why. If it's cool and stable, fuggit. But if it's at very high voltages it might not be the way.


Even with E cores disabled?


----------



## SeniorHames

tps3443 said:


> You broke your Windows install. That’s all that is lol. Repair or reinstall windows.


That’s the issue. It will not let me. It posts but crashes the second it tried to boot from the drive, usb, or go into recovery. I have windows 10 and 11 installations on usb drives and it refuses to boot either one.


----------



## Falkentyne

SeniorHames said:


> That’s the issue. It will not let me. It posts but crashes the second it tried to boot from the drive, usb, or go into recovery. I have windows 10 and 11 installations on usb drives and it refuses to boot either one.


So what exactly happened?
Can you start from the beginning?
Like, most of us here don't have Asrock boards. So we don't know how they set their voltatges.

So start from the beginning and tell us what happened when you first installed the system at the very beginning?
What was the voltage in the BIOS on your very first original install?
What did you change? In what order? And how?

How do you set voltage in the BIOS? Adaptive? Auto? Auto with offsets? Override mode? Fixed mode? (in some boards, "override" mode does NOT change cpu vcore--it changes CPU Native "VID", and it is still using an auto mode, but with a new native VID), but in some other boards, override changes manual cpu vcore. I don't see how you could get 1.65v like this...

What are the options for voltage?
What exact settings did you change and in what specific order?
What was the result of each change? 
Uploading some pictures here (From your phone I guess) would be rather helpful (make sure they aren't postage size stamped). Very helpful.
Are you sure you set the correct options?
Were you messing with options called "AC Loadline"?

What happens if you clear the CMOS (whatever way it is, shorting cmos pins with a screwdriver, or a clear cmos button--make sure the system is removed from PSU power (unplug PSU before clearing cmos)?
What are the voltage settings shown after a clear cmos? I don't see how you would ever have 1.65v in BIOS unless you somehow raised the AC Loadline value to 1.1 mohms or something, while on auto vcore...(AC Loadline is not the same as LLC (Loadline calibration)).


----------



## affxct

sniperpowa said:


> View attachment 2578412
> 
> This Is all my sp99 chip can do without going cold. Guess I’ll fill my dewars tomorrow.


1.1.0 version Dark? This is like, literally the first time I’ve seen one.


----------



## affxct

bscool said:


> How many Gigabyte biscuits that is the real question


What’s a Gigabyte biscuit?


----------



## bscool

affxct said:


> What’s a Gigabyte biscuit?


CPU rating. also based on temps according to @skullbringer



https://community.hwbot.org/uploads/monthly_2021_12/1125613751_Pic1.jpg.90bfc675386d3f58c742b131e448f637.jpg


----------



## grilli4nt

asdkj1740 said:


> 1. the MSRP of gigabyte z790 aorus master is much lower than asus m15h's MSRP.
> 2. gigabyte z790 aorus master seems not bad at all on ddr5 oc this time.


What board is Asus m15h? Googling it can't find anything.


----------



## bscool

grilli4nt said:


> What board is Asus m15h? Googling it can't find anything.


z790 Hero


----------



## Ichirou

SeniorHames said:


> Well, I think I killed it. Kept undervolting my 13900K. No system crashes or errors. Kept pulling high voltage so I enabled LLC 5 from auto on my Z690 steel legend It now refuses to boot into windows on the NVMe or usb drive. Tried both 10 and 11 with no luck. I can still boot into the bios with no issues and it sees the 13900K and I can enable XMP, adjust any settings and it accepts all of that.
> 
> However, It refuses to boot into windows or windows install usb without a BSOD. The only thing I did was undervolt it by 100mv (starting at 40 and working my way up), andjust the power limit and changed the fan curve. No overclock.
> My last boot into windows, it was taking 1.65v and I booted it down after seeing that.
> 
> The bsod error codes are:
> Oxc0000001
> Oxc0000221
> Oxc000007b
> 0x0000098
> Oxc0000221
> 0x000021a
> 
> Not sure how to proceed if you guys have any ideas.


What are the actual BSOD error codes in text? Not numbers like those.


----------



## energie80

guys e cores on or off? gaming only


----------



## VULC

energie80 said:


> guys e cores on or off? gaming only


Off


----------



## Slackaveli

VULC said:


> Even with E cores disabled?


Not sure, man, i was hoping someone else would pipe up. I'm just getting mine today.


----------



## Slackaveli

energie80 said:


> guys e cores on or off? gaming only


they are fine on. On Alder Lake we turned them off so we could run up the ring. That is fixed on Raptor. You can run 5Ghz+ ring even with ecores on. Since ecores > HT threads than HT off, ecores on is likely the best. But, I cant test until tonight.


----------



## energie80

i tested HT off on warzone but fps were better with HT on


----------



## Groove2013

Ichirou said:


> How many chips did he have to bin to get that one?
> 
> Oh wait, it says Engineering Sample in CPU-Z. So it was prebinned.


just to make more people buy Intel, hoping to spot similar samples, in my understanding.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

For those who are thinking to disable the E-cores...
Take a look at the P-core/E-cores and ring


----------



## nickolp1974

Does anyone elses OC tool keep crashing?? Do I need to update a particular driver??


----------



## SSBrain

Falkentyne said:


> I have no idea why you're playing with the AC/DC loadline values, they're ignored on fixed vcore


For what it's worth, on MSI motherboards the DC Loadline setting still works on Override voltage mode (MSI's fixed voltage setting; no "fixed" setting available, at least on my model). The motherboard will set it by default to 1 in this mode, but it can be tweaked so that VID can be equal to Vcore and therefore so that core/package power readings will be correct.


----------



## digitalfrost

dante`afk said:


> any idea why on MSI z690 unifyx my cores never go to 6ghz even though I setup 2x60, 4x59, 8x57 ?


Have you increased the per Core ratios as well? MSI will leave them at stock even if you increase the turbo ratio.


----------



## ViTosS

RobertoSampaio said:


> For those who are thinking to disable the E-cores...
> Take a look at the P-core/E-cores and ring


One thing I'm curious, how do you test stability when doing OC the way you do? I mean, you certainly can test all core full load stability, but what about the short bursts in CPU usage and CPU clock variating to over 5.7Ghz etc? Just check for WHEAs and that's it? There is a proper way to test stability when doing OC the way you do?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

ViTosS said:


> One thing I'm curious, how do you test stability when doing OC the way you do? I mean, you certainly can test all core full load stability, but what about the short bursts in CPU usage and CPU clock variating to over 5.7Ghz etc? Just check for WHEAs and that's it? There is a proper way to test stability when doing OC the way you do?


Good question... 
Full load is easy... 
For transients, I use realbench and GeekBench...
After that, just use the PC... Internet, youtube, games, etc
And then leave it on for a whole day. 
Usually the instability at high frequencies happens when the PC is idle with no load.


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> Everyone keeps talking about running 5.7Ghz for testing these, so I am trying to run it and see how low I can go on CPU voltage. My waterchiller is off completely. And I just want to see how I compare to others at 5.7Ghz.
> 
> 13900KF
> MSI Unify-X
> P-Cores @5.7
> E-Cores @4.5
> [email protected]
> LLC #3
> 1.250v set in bios, and “Fixed voltage”
> R23 run for (30) Minutes.
> 
> How does this sample shake out? Any input is greatly appreciated.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578453


Where's VR VOUT in HWINFO? Can't see what your actual load voltage is showing. Also, did you monitor for WHEA errors? Would be the very last tab on HWINFO. I don't seem to crash unless I'm WILDLY below stable voltage, but I do throw WHEA's.

Your wattage seems high for 1.250v set.. but without VR VOUT showing, I dunno. Our wattage should be comparable since we're both running LLC3 and you ideally have AC/DC_LL on Auto, so it should be Mode1, which is 0.01mOhm for both. Your VIDs look nice and low, but since someone claimed there's a 0.35mOhm DC_LL impedance on LLC3, and I'm not seeing that same behavior, I'm curious..

You have "CPU LITE LOAD" (Advanced CPU Cfg page) set to NORMAL and AUTO, right? What's it set to with LLC3 chosen?


----------



## ChrisOsbakk

13900K (not delidded) + Z690 Hero
SP P: 119
SP E: 88
Sp Combined: 108
1.34V in bios + LLC6
1.217V in Windows under load (Average)
1.208V in Windows under load (Minimum)
1.314 in Windows Idle
Total cpu power draw: 353.9W
P-cores: 5.7
E-cores: 4.5
Ring: 4.7
Max P-core temp: 88C
Max E-core temp: 74C
30min MC R23 stable
R23 score after 30min run: 40809


----------



## dante`afk

digitalfrost said:


> Have you increased the per Core ratios as well? MSI will leave them at stock even if you increase the turbo ratio.


Where is that done?


----------



## adolf512

energie80 said:


> guys e cores on or off? gaming only


The only decent test i have seen is by hardware unboxed that found that some games benefited from the e-cores while it harmed the performance in others.

E-cores do scale better than HT so if a game uses more than 8 threads you want to turn the e-cores on. 

Some people have used "process lasso" to change which cores a CPU uses.


----------



## energie80

adolf512 said:


> The only decent test i have seen is by hardware unboxed that found that some games benefited from the e-cores while it harmed the performance in others.
> 
> E-cores do scale better than HT so if a game uses more than 8 threads you want to turn the e-cores on.
> 
> Some people have used "process lasso" to change which cores a CPU uses.


Any game who actually use more then 8 cores?


----------



## adolf512

energie80 said:


> Any game who actually use more then 8 cores?


Yes. You can check that by looking at the CPU utilization






for 13900K(F) more than 25% means that e-cores are being used (should be used before HT). For 12700K(F) and 12900K(F) more than 33.3% mean than e-cores are loaded.


----------



## digitalfrost

dante`afk said:


> Where is that done?


----------



## acoustic

I'd like to see some benches done comparing 13900K with

P-Core HT off
E-Cores enabled

P-Core HT ON
E-Cores disabled

P-Core HT ON
E-Cores enabled

With 24 raw cores, I wonder if disabling HT on the P-Cores would be a good move, especially if it allows another ~100Mhz


----------



## energie80

I disabled ht on Warzone and fps weren’t so good


----------



## bhav

energie80 said:


> Any game who actually use more then 8 cores?



Mainly a bunch of strategy games if you play them. but performance wise all but one are already running great with 12th gen and up chips, also such games tend to prefer AMD a lot anyway.

The main thing to boost for gaming is single threaded, and as well as for most multithreaded games, just a 2 core OC is fine, moreso because the usual all core OC to single core boost speed is too much for these chips.

13600k will already be overkill for games, I just gotta try for a golden IMC so it has to be a 13900k.


----------



## energie80

Do you link the 2 booster cores to the game?


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

It's super annoying that you can't buy 13900K in UK yet.


----------



## Ichirou

ViTosS said:


> One thing I'm curious, how do you test stability when doing OC the way you do? I mean, you certainly can test all core full load stability, but what about the short bursts in CPU usage and CPU clock variating to over 5.7Ghz etc? Just check for WHEAs and that's it? There is a proper way to test stability when doing OC the way you do?


y-cruncher's Component Stress Test with all tests enabled.


----------



## Telstar

grilli4nt said:


> I'm thinking twice because I'm lacking a PCIe 5.0 NVMe slot which I guess could be nice to get in a year or two (I expect this build not to be upgraded in a few years)


One note of warning: most (all?) motherboards do NOT use all the cpu 20 pcie-5 lanes, which means that if you plug a gen5 ssd in the dedicated slot, the gpu will go at 8x, which will become an issue with a pcie4 gpu faster than the 4090 (or already with that, but nobody tested it), because it will be limited to pcie4 x8 speed.


----------



## Nizzen

TheNaitsyrk said:


> It's super annoying that you can't buy 13900K in UK yet.


First try to find stock in uk: 
13900kf in stock https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...ocket-lga1700-processor-retail-cp-6b6-in.html


----------



## Telstar

bottjeremy said:


> My perception is that 13th gen needs a little bit more time to mature with Windows, BIOS, and with tools and drivers.


Especially bios, as always.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Nizzen said:


> First try to find stock in uk:
> 13900kf in stock https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...ocket-lga1700-processor-retail-cp-6b6-in.html


Ah nice, I do prefer the standard one though, I switch GPUs often it's nice to have integrated GPU (also one of my screens is using TB4 via integrated graphics)


----------



## Convicted

I've got a 13900KF on an Asus Strix Z790-E and a Thermaltake Water 3.0 ARGB 360mm AIO. Doing Asus AIOC has me bumping right up against the thermal limit at 5.7ghz on all p-cores in Cinebench, and occasionally being able to push 5.8ghz on a single core in gaming benchmarks. I followed the exact guide that Asus put out on a live stream youtube video, where they use their 360mm AIO and end up getting 6.2ghz.

My AIO was previously used on a 3900x with liquid silver and has a dark layer on it from where the liquid silver and copper reacted. The general advice around the internet is that this layer doesn't reduce thermal effectiveness, but I'm not so sure. It definitely can't be removed without sanding, as I scrubbed with alcohol for ages. What do you reckon - worth trying to sand, or worth just straight up replacing the AIO with another one (if so which one), or do I just have a standard dud binned chip that maxes out at 5.8ghz and that's it?


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Convicted said:


> I've got a 13900KF on an Asus Strix Z790-E and a Thermaltake Water 3.0 ARGB 360mm AIO. Doing Asus AIOC has me bumping right up against the thermal limit at 5.7ghz on all p-cores in Cinebench, and occasionally being able to push 5.8ghz on a single core in gaming benchmarks. I followed the exact guide that Asus put out on a live stream youtube video, where they use their 360mm AIO and end up getting 6.2ghz.
> 
> My AIO was previously used on a 3900x with liquid silver and has a dark layer on it from where the liquid silver and copper reacted. The general advice around the internet is that this layer doesn't reduce thermal effectiveness, but I'm not so sure. It definitely can't be removed without sanding, as I scrubbed with alcohol for ages. What do you reckon - worth trying to sand, or worth just straight up replacing the AIO with another one (if so which one), or do I just have a standard dud binned chip that maxes out at 5.8ghz and that's it?


You probably need custom loop to push it harder voltage wise for higher clocks.


----------



## Avacado

Telstar said:


> One note of warning: intel CPUs do NOT have 20 pcie-5 lanes.


That is actually not true. This thread is about 13th gen CPUs and 13th Gen does in fact have 20 PCI-e 5.0 lanes. You are correct though on it dropping down to 8x for the GPU if you socket an M.2 drive on say a z690 board. This should not be an issue with the z790 variants.









Intel Core i9-13900K Specs


Raptor Lake-S, 24 Cores, 32 Threads, 3 GHz, 125 W




www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Telstar

Avacado said:


> That is actually not true. This thread is about 13th gen CPUs and 13th Gen does in fact have 20 PCI-e 5.0 lanes. You are correct though on it dropping down to 8x for the GPU if you socket an M.2 drive on say a z690 board. This should not be an issue with the z790 variants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900K Specs
> 
> 
> Raptor Lake-S, 24 Cores, 32 Threads, 3 GHz, 125 W
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techpowerup.com


Oh, then idk why most motherboards limit the pcie slot when a m2 gen5 is used. All z790 boards I have looked at have this limitation.


----------



## nickolp1974

TheNaitsyrk said:


> It's super annoying that you can't buy 13900K in UK yet.


Ocuk should be today/tomorrow for stock


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

nickolp1974 said:


> Ocuk should be today/tomorrow for stock


I shall look out for it for sure.


----------



## Avacado

Telstar said:


> Oh, then idk why most motherboards limit the pcie slot when a m2 gen5 is used. All z790 boards I have looked at have this limitation.


I can't speak for all MOBO's, I use the EVGA z690 Dark and Classy. I am hopeful that the z790 Dark will support native PCI-e 5.0 M.2. I just think some aspects mature faster than others. This is the same issue with having PCI-e 5.0 lanes and not having 5.0 GPUs 🤷‍♂️ 












https://www.evga.com/articles/01590/Introducing-the-EVGA-Z790/#:~:text=EVGA%20Z790%20DARK&text=This%20board%20supports%20current%20and,matter%20where%20it's%20installed**


.


----------



## Spicedaddy

12th and 13th gen CPUs have 20 lanes. 16X PCIE5 to the GPU (goes down to 8X+8X when using the second slot) and also 4X PCIE4 M.2 for your SSD.


----------



## Avacado

Spicedaddy said:


> 12th and 13th gen CPUs have 20 lanes. 16X PCIE5 to the GPU (goes down to 8X+8X when using the second slot) and also 4X PCIE4 M.2 for your SSD.


We know.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Avacado said:


> I can't speak for all MOBO's, I use the EVGA z690 Dark and Classy. I am hopeful that the z790 Dark will support native PCI-e 5.0 M.2. I just think some aspects mature faster than others. This is the same issue with having PCI-e 5.0 lanes and not having 5.0 GPUs 🤷‍♂️
> 
> View attachment 2578542
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.evga.com/articles/01590/Introducing-the-EVGA-Z790/#:~:text=EVGA%20Z790%20DARK&text=This%20board%20supports%20current%20and,matter%20where%20it's%20installed**
> 
> 
> .


Aaaand Dark won't be available in EU again or UK.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> Where's VR VOUT in HWINFO? Can't see what your actual load voltage is showing. Also, did you monitor for WHEA errors? Would be the very last tab on HWINFO. I don't seem to crash unless I'm WILDLY below stable voltage, but I do throw WHEA's.
> 
> Your wattage seems high for 1.250v set.. but without VR VOUT showing, I dunno. Our wattage should be comparable since we're both running LLC3 and you ideally have AC/DC_LL on Auto, so it should be Mode1, which is 0.01mOhm for both. Your VIDs look nice and low, but since someone claimed there's a 0.35mOhm DC_LL impedance on LLC3, and I'm not seeing that same behavior, I'm curious..
> 
> You have "CPU LITE LOAD" (Advanced CPU Cfg page) set to NORMAL and AUTO, right? What's it set to with LLC3 chosen?


Hey, no WHEA errors at all. LLC is at 3, and Lite Load is on Auto which is like #9. I’ll run it again today with the other items visible.

Also, I have seen WHEA errors before but not with this overclock, only if I overclock this Corsair DDR5 memory. And set a high tREFI. Aside from that, no WHEA errors.


----------



## nickolp1974

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Aaaand Dark won't be available in EU again or UK.


Just order through Amazon when it comes available, takes about 2 weeks usually.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

nickolp1974 said:


> Just order through Amazon when it comes available, takes about 2 weeks usually.


You mean Amazon.com?

If I fix the Z690 Apex it's a nice stop gap before I buy the Z790 Apex or Kingpin


----------



## Fire2

Don’t bother going KF,
Mines a dud

SP96
108p
73e


----------



## digitalfrost

Fire2 said:


> Don’t bother going KF,
> Mines a dud


It makes sense to assume the KF CPUs will be less quality silicon since there has to be some reason why the GPU is not working.


----------



## Avacado

Fire2 said:


> Don’t bother going KF,
> Mines a dud
> 
> SP96
> 108p
> 73e


I learned that lesson last gen with the 12900KF. Most KF models are down-binned K's or at least it felt that way with a sample size of 2. Still did quite a heck of a lot of benching with that CPU though.


----------



## Ichirou

Avacado said:


> I learned that lesson last gen with the 12900KF. Most KF models are down-binned K's or at least it felt that way with a sample size of 2. Still did quite a heck of a lot of benching with that CPU though.


Up until the K's started being reserved for the KS's, lol.

Also, CP finally came through. But I gotta go out for a bit so I'll have to test a little later:


----------



## Xiph

What you think about this 13700K:
SP 79
P 89
E 55 (or E50 with other bios).

It really is not possible to overclock E cores from default x42. Also P cores can do only x54 (R23) even with good custom loop. I think I got worst one made.


----------



## Skyhopper01

Hey all, just wanted to share my results on my SP100 (110,88) 13900k. I strictly game on my setup and use Division 2 as a CPU stability test as I have found this game is super sensitive with CPU overclocks. On the Z790 hero I am running 5.8ghz all core @ 1.380V and a -2 AVX offset. Cache is at 4.8 and e core at 4.4. I can probably squeeze more out of the E cores, but I do not see the point currently. I Have an order placed for some DDR5 7600, so hopefully the IMC on this chip is just as good.


----------



## tps3443

Fire2 said:


> Don’t bother going KF,
> Mines a dud
> 
> SP96
> 108p
> 73e


Test your CPU first. Don’t get caught up with the SP rating. I don’t even know my 13900KF’s cpu SP rating. Nothing at all wrong with a 13900KF. You lose nothing but an IGP, and save a little money.

Spend time with it, test it thoroughly, and see what you can do. And regardless it’s still blazing fast.

Chime back in and share your results on P cores/ E cores OC. 

Thanks.


----------



## tps3443

Xiph said:


> What you think about this 13700K:
> SP 79
> P 89
> E 55 (or E50 with other bios).
> 
> It really is not possible to overclock E cores from default x42. Also P cores can do only x54 (R23) even with good custom loop. I think I got worst one made.


Well, it’s a 13700K so that can happen. I say you could buy another but. Either way it’s still a great processor. I say Just use it.


----------



## Kubko

I'm so dissapointed, SP96 and IMC couldn't even handle 4000M/T (memtest kept erroring) compared to my previous 12900k that handled 2.5b y-cruncher stable at that frequency. It also runs MUCH hotter compared to my previous 12900k what wasn't good overclocker either. Well, I guess I will return mine and my only option will be to wait with 12900k till binned 13900ks will become available.


----------



## bscool

Kubko said:


> I'm so dissapointed, SP96 and IMC couldn't even handle 4000M/T (memtest kept erroring) compared to my previous 12900k that handled 2.5b y-cruncher stable at that frequency. It also runs MUCH hotter compared to my previous 12900k what wasn't good overclocker either. Well, I guess I will return mine and my only option will be to wait with 12900k till binned 13900ks will become available.


Did you update bios 2004 and then 2103. If not try that. I went from 1601 to 2103 and couldnt get gear 1 to work.

I flashed back to 2004 and then to 2103 and gear 1 works much better now. No idea if fluke or what but it works now.


----------



## Rbk_3

energie80 said:


> i tested HT off on warzone but fps were better with HT on


I found the same. Getting incredible lows capping with RTSS just below my monitors Hz.

AVG/1%/0.1%


----------



## satinghostrider

This will probably going into my 2022 Z690 Apex (0002 Bios) sometime this week. Pretty decent coming from both SP84s on both 11900k and 12900k.

This was checked on Z690 Formula board with 12900k after flashing the ME firmware and flashing 2103 over the initial 2004 firmware. I think the vid table looks about right. 13900K CPU is Vietnam.


----------



## vMax65

Xiph said:


> What you think about this 13700K:
> SP 79
> P 89
> E 55 (or E50 with other bios).
> 
> It really is not possible to overclock E cores from default x42. Also P cores can do only x54 (R23) even with good custom loop. I think I got worst one made.


It should do better. I have mine at a 83 SP rating but does 5.5GHz on P cores and 4.4GHz on E cores...Running an Asus Z90 srix-A D4 2103 bios. What motherboard are you running? Not tried to push too much yet until I understand how the adaptive voltage works..


----------



## neteng101

vMax65 said:


> It should do better. I have mine at a 83 SP rating but does 5.5GHz on P cores and 4.4GHz on E cores...


No SP rating since I'm on MSI but that's what I'm at... 5.6 P or 4.5 E hasn't worked, didn't push Vcore too much since that would take me past what I can cool, 1.31V with LLC3 on MSI.


----------



## X909

13900K running  
Could someone please re-lnjk the latest memtweakit version? I have seen the post but can not find it anymore. Thanks.


----------



## vMax65

neteng101 said:


> No SP rating since I'm on MSI but that's what I'm at... 5.6 P or 4.5 E hasn't worked, didn't push Vcore too much since that would take me past what I can cool, 1.31V with LLC3 on MSI.


What cooling are you using?


----------



## neteng101

vMax65 said:


> What cooling are you using?


MSI CoreLiquid S360 AIO.


----------



## bscool

X909 said:


> 13900K running
> Could someone please re-lnjk the latest memtweakit version? I have seen the post but can not find it anymore. Thanks.











*Official* Intel DDR5 OC and 24/7 daily Memory Stability...


amazon had it in stock afaik 309usd now. just not sure which batch. Only one I can find is G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB Series (Intel XMP) 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin SDRAM DDR5 6600 CL34-40-40-105 1.40V Dual Channel Desktop Memory F5-6600J3440G16GA2-TZ5RK (Matte Black) at Amazon.com Part# doesn't...




www.overclock.net


----------



## cstkl1

l


TheNaitsyrk said:


> It's super annoying that you can't buy 13900K in UK yet.


@Carillo ?????


----------



## NoGuru

vMax65 said:


> It should do better. I have mine at a 83 SP rating but does 5.5GHz on P cores and 4.4GHz on E cores...Running an Asus Z90 srix-A D4 2103 bios. What motherboard are you running? Not tried to push too much yet until I understand how the adaptive voltage works..


I have a 13700K in the same Strix-A board and same BIOS with SP 83 and I clocked it up 5.7 and boosting to 6.0 but E cores are disabled.


----------



## Rena Ryugu

Does anybody know when the z790 apex will be available in the UK? It's available in Hong Kong, but it's too much trouble to bring it back to the UK.


----------



## bhav

So just a question about the boost speed of 5.8 Ghz, is that 1 core only or 2?

If leaving 6 cores at stock 55x, would a 2 core OC to 58x be better or the same as leaving it on stock? Though I will want to push the 2 best cores as high as they will go.


----------



## Xiph

vMax65 said:


> It should do better. I have mine at a 83 SP rating but does 5.5GHz on P cores and 4.4GHz on E cores...Running an Asus Z90 srix-A D4 2103 bios. What motherboard are you running? Not tried to push too much yet until I understand how the adaptive voltage works..





neteng101 said:


> No SP rating since I'm on MSI but that's what I'm at... 5.6 P or 4.5 E hasn't worked, didn't push Vcore too much since that would take me past what I can cool, 1.31V with LLC3 on MSI.


I have Strix A and pretty good understanding of Asus voltage settings. With currently used settings, 5.4 P is getting 1.315V Vcore in R23. It's pretty near stability limit. This voltage is not enough for 4.3 E cores. Those E cores or maybe just few are so bad. I have seen many 13700K samples can do 5.6 P bit over 1.3V.

I owned 12700K 11 months and during that time it degraded about 50mV measured in game loads (5.3Ghz 1.39V ->1.44V).

My cooling is XE360/w T30 + GTX240/w P12 cpu only custom loop. So decent cooling power for cpu, but due degradation experience's, I would like not to go too excessive voltage levels. Now with this 13700k, I can only min/max lowest voltages to about stock multipliers as headroom for overclocking is non existent. Positive thing is good IMC.


----------



## Slackaveli

Fire2 said:


> Don’t bother going KF,
> Mines a dud
> 
> SP96
> 108p
> 73e


for 13900kf, yeah, but for 13700kf it looks like some of those are god chips.


----------



## Slackaveli

Xiph said:


> What you think about this 13700K:
> SP 79
> P 89
> E 55 (or E50 with other bios).
> 
> It really is not possible to overclock E cores from default x42. Also P cores can do only x54 (R23) even with good custom loop. I think I got worst one made.


Sell it as is on Ebay with those #s attached bc that thing will be an INSANELY GOOD ln2 chip.


----------



## Carillo

cstkl1 said:


> l
> 
> @Carillo ?????


I’m not in UK , but I have a couple of them if you want one 😅


----------



## ScomComputers

Hello,please help..I put together today a 13600K+Asus Prime Z690 config,but somehow it's not right,latest bios...if I run the CB20 then I get 4500 points +100Watt consumption,in the bios I can't set multiplier to max 51 and max 39,it won't move on,what could be the problem,if I set remove all limits then it's the same,nothing helps...Thanks a lot !


----------



## TraumatikOC

Just got my 13900k from Antonline, ran CB23 with only xmp1 and had to change ddr5 volts again to 1.35v to not error out in bios memtest Asus z690 extreme, LF2 420 aio.
Ive now tried 2 12900k, 2 12900ks , and 1 13900k and none work with xmp 1 , xmp2 , asus memory tweaks. I have TG 6200 cl38 2x16 in a2 b2 slots. And have gskill 6000 cl36 2x16 sitting on shelf.
This board is gone the moment i figure out what z790 i want. Was looking at asrock z790 Carrara or MSI z790 ace.


----------



## Exilon

ScomComputers said:


> Hello,please help..I put together today a 13600K+Asus Prime Z690 config,but somehow it's not right,latest bios...if I run the CB20 then I get 4500 points +100Watt consumption,in the bios I can't set multiplier to max 51 and max 39,it won't move on,what could be the problem,if I set remove all limits then it's the same,nothing helps...Thanks a lot !
> View attachment 2578576


Sounds like the ME firmware issue. Did you update to the latest?


----------



## bottjeremy

Falkentyne said:


> So what exactly happened?
> Can you start from the beginning?
> Like, most of us here don't have Asrock boards. So we don't know how they set their voltatges.
> 
> So start from the beginning and tell us what happened when you first installed the system at the very beginning?
> What was the voltage in the BIOS on your very first original install?
> What did you change? In what order? And how?
> 
> How do you set voltage in the BIOS? Adaptive? Auto? Auto with offsets? Override mode? Fixed mode? (in some boards, "override" mode does NOT change cpu vcore--it changes CPU Native "VID", and it is still using an auto mode, but with a new native VID), but in some other boards, override changes manual cpu vcore. I don't see how you could get 1.65v like this...
> 
> What are the options for voltage?
> What exact settings did you change and in what specific order?
> What was the result of each change?
> Uploading some pictures here (From your phone I guess) would be rather helpful (make sure they aren't postage size stamped). Very helpful.
> Are you sure you set the correct options?
> Were you messing with options called "AC Loadline"?
> 
> What happens if you clear the CMOS (whatever way it is, shorting cmos pins with a screwdriver, or a clear cmos button--make sure the system is removed from PSU power (unplug PSU before clearing cmos)?
> What are the voltage settings shown after a clear cmos? I don't see how you would ever have 1.65v in BIOS unless you somehow raised the AC Loadline value to 1.1 mohms or something, while on auto vcore...(AC Loadline is not the same as LLC (Loadline calibration)).


Have you tried reinstalling the latest BIOS over the top of your current? Sometimes settings in BIOS get sticky. My x570 MSI Unify board is notorious for this.
@*SeniorHames*


----------



## ScomComputers

Exilon said:


> Sounds like the ME firmware issue. Did you update to the latest?


Yes, i update the new bios (2014 )...Bios...
What can I do now ? Thank You !


----------



## bscool

.


ScomComputers said:


> Yes, i update the new bios (2014 )...Bios...
> What can I do now ? Thank You !


ME firmware is not updated with bios on Asus

"*NOTE for Z690*: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake (if you are on dual bioses then you need to do this to both bioses)"

RaptorLake Resources

Newer one here [FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)


----------



## Convicted

TheNaitsyrk said:


> You probably need custom loop to push it harder voltage wise for higher clocks.


Ok cool thanks so basically most people are getting 5.7/5.8 during gaming, and that's not a bad outcome without a custom loop?


----------



## Luggage

RobertoSampaio said:


> Good question...
> Full load is easy...
> For transients, I use realbench and GeekBench...
> After that, just use the PC... Internet, youtube, games, etc
> And then leave it on for a whole day.
> Usually the instability at high frequencies happens when the PC is idle with no load.


Sounds like you could use corecycler or occt stability test/cert. Like we test curve optimizer on ryzen.


----------



## energie80

Let’s say 58/45/50 1.3 on custom loop


----------



## Groove2013

Telstar said:


> One note of warning: intel CPUs do NOT have 20 pcie-5 lanes, which means that if you plug a gen5 ssd in the dedicated slot, the gpu will go at 8x.


not true at all, but ok.


----------



## ScomComputers

bscool said:


> .
> 
> ME firmware is not updated with bios on Asus
> 
> "*NOTE for Z690*: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake (if you are on dual bioses then you need to do this to both bioses)"
> 
> RaptorLake Resources
> 
> Newer one here [FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)


Thank you very much and I am grateful for your help ! 
Could this flaw have caused the "CPU" nvme ssd to disappear from the bios ?


----------



## bscool

"Intel employee" said new XTU lets you see VID table. MB CPU settings need to be stock/intel defaults.

Problem is most MB set some setting that dont line up with Intel default specs. But just info in case anyone wants to try it. I dont care enough to bother with XTU to check and compare to what Apex or Strix show in bios.


----------



## Skyhopper01

Convicted said:


> Ok cool thanks so basically most people are getting 5.7/5.8 during gaming, and that's not a bad outcome without a custom loop?


5.8 all core with a 360mm aio for me.


----------



## satinghostrider

ScomComputers said:


> Thank you very much and I am grateful for your help !
> Could this flaw have caused the "CPU" nvme ssd to disappear from the bios ?


Yes that is one of the flaws that causes nvme SSD to disappear from the bios.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Guys, I started writing a guide for Z790 and 13900k...
The 1st part is theory...

If you could take a look and give me feedback if it's OK, and if I'm forgetting something...

The next step will be the practical part... 
Then I will elaborate a slightly more advanced module.









Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...


A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Telstar

Groove2013 said:


> not true at all, but ok.


I edited the post.


----------



## Groove2013

Telstar said:


> I edited the post.


still wrong, but ok.


----------



## xarot

CB R23 seems to be quite bad for stressing. Especially when undervolting. It can pass with flying colors whereas CB R15 seems to be crashing almost instantly if voltage dips too low. Just use high priority on R15 (without this the scheduler seems to favor the E-cores). This is on Windows 10.


----------



## Madness11

Hey guys . I join to the club ))


http://imgur.com/a/pjkZYpX

5.7 stable with llc6 and 1.29 .. But i cant find stable for 5.8 ((( Please help (cb23 41550~ )


----------



## raad11

Exilon said:


> Sounds like the ME firmware issue. Did you update to the latest?





bscool said:


> .
> 
> ME firmware is not updated with bios on Asus
> 
> "*NOTE for Z690*: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake (if you are on dual bioses then you need to do this to both bioses)"
> 
> RaptorLake Resources
> 
> Newer one here [FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)


Crap, what happens if you don't? I didn't and haven't noticed anything weird yet.


----------



## raad11

Had mine stable in CB23 at 5.6 (and downclocks to 5.5 after a few min when using Package Temperature Threshold).

Was like ok I'm good. Then tried Handbrake and 5.6 causes errors in handbrake (no WHEAs or BSODs, just Handbrake stops encoding). :|


----------



## bscool

raad11 said:


> Crap, what happens if you don't? I didn't and haven't noticed anything weird yet.


Some the NVME drive wont show up and it can impact performance.


----------



## energie80

All cores overclock are you guys using cstate eist and tvb enabled or disabled?


----------



## Wilco183

Fire2 said:


> Don’t bother going KF,
> Mines a dud
> 
> SP96
> 108p
> 73e


Dud 13900Ks are being dealt as well. Mine is SP94...104p/76e. At least in some poker tournaments there's a prize for a "bad beat".


----------



## raad11

Otherwise,

I got it to 60x5 (one core boosts to 6.2, another boosts to 6.1, rest boost to 6.0),59x6,58x8-light and 56x8-heavy. E-Cores at 46x4,45x8,44x16. Ring is 51x.
41000-41500 CB23 MT, 2350-2400 CB23 ST.
CPUZ MT ~17100 (was with 43x E-cores), ST 970 (refuses to use my 6+ cores on ST)
Win10 22H2.

Voltages: LLC3 (0.20/1.12)
Adaptive: 1.46 (+16mV @ 5700, +40mV @ 5800)

Sp 101 (109/85)

It will do 57x8 in CB23, but that's too hot (300+ watts).


----------



## Ichirou

All right, time to get the show on the road. Be back with my results in a bit.


----------



## Rbk_3

Glad I don’t have an Asus board so I don’t have to stress out about my SP lol


----------



## sblantipodi

Skyhopper01 said:


> 5.8 all core with a 360mm aio for me.


it sounds impossible to me.

5.8GHz all cores requires more than 280W, it is not viable via an AIO unless you live in a 0°C environment xD


----------



## Exilon

sblantipodi said:


> it sounds impossible to me.
> 
> 5.8GHz all cores requires more than 280W, it is not viable via an AIO unless you live in a 0°C environment xD





> Ok cool thanks so basically most people are getting 5.7/5.8 during gaming, and that's not a bad outcome without a custom loop?


Gaming is no where near 280W


----------



## Ichirou

Well, I'm hitting a bit of a roadblock here. Can't even boot into BIOS; just stuck on a black screen trying to read RAM.
Memory tracing issue with the Thermalright frame, maybe? Tried reseating CPU already; no dice.

Gonna try a direct USB BIOS flash to the latest version.

@bscool @Falkentyne


----------



## HyperC

I have my frame tight haven't had one issue with them tighten fully maybe 1/8th turn out and use the cpu block as the pressure?


----------



## Ichirou

HyperC said:


> I have my frame tight haven't had one issue with them tighten fully maybe 1/8th turn out and use the cpu block as the pressure?


Yeah, if this manual BIOS flash doesn't work, I'll try fiddling with the frame a bit more.

I've never touched the RAM for months, so it has to be the frame/CPU contact in some way.


----------



## bscool

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, if this manual BIOS flash doesn't work, I'll try fiddling with the frame a bit more.


Hmm yeah that would be my guess is the frame. I have TR also and I have tried loose to tight and never had an issue with it.


----------



## bscool

I do know someone who got a defective 13900k. He is a member here, I dont know if he will make a post about it.

He put in another 13900k and it work and so did his old 12900k.


----------



## Luggage

raad11 said:


> Had mine stable in CB23 at 5.6 (and downclocks to 5.5 after a few min when using Package Temperature Threshold).
> 
> Was like ok I'm good. Then tried Handbrake and 5.6 causes errors in handbrake (no WHEAs or BSODs, just Handbrake stops encoding). :|


R23 is easy mode - game stable.
For real workloads you have to use heavier stress tests: y-cruncher “1-7-0”, p95, occt, blender… or just the workload you want to use.


----------



## LazyGamer

sblantipodi said:


> 5.8GHz all cores requires more than 280W, it is not viable via an AIO unless you live in a 0°C environment xD


The AIOs can handle more, if it can be moved off the CPU die.


----------



## Ichirou

bscool said:


> I do know someone who got a defective 13900k. He is a member here, I dont know if he will make a post about it.
> 
> He put in another 13900k and it work and so did his old 12900k.


I'm considering slapping in the old 12900KF to BIOS flash to the latest and retrying afterwards.


----------



## bscool

Ichirou said:


> I'm considering slapping in the old 12900KF to BIOS flash to the latest and retrying afterwards.


Oh you didnt flash to latest bios before installing new CPU?

I would also update ME firmware unless MSI does that for you with new bios.

Shamino says you need it for z690 MB/13th gen but maybe it doesnt need it on MSI.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, if this manual BIOS flash doesn't work, I'll try fiddling with the frame a bit more.
> 
> I've never touched the RAM for months, so it has to be the frame/CPU contact in some way.


What board is this? Z690 or Z790? Strix? Are you using A-die?
Did you update to latest ME version BEFORE installing the new CPU? And then update to latest bios?

There was someone who posted that their A-die sticks didn't work in A1 and A2 but worked in B1 and B2, in some Strix version, while their M-die sticks worked in B1 and B2 (maybe i'm mixing this up, you'd have to look at the post in the Z690 thread).

Easiest thing to eliminate the frame instantly is to remove the 13900K, clear CMOS with PS unplugged, throw the old CPU back in with the TR frame fully tightened, boot to BIOS (you dont even need to install a heatsink with paste, just put something on top of the chip) and see if it trains. If it trains then you know it's not the frame. I put the frame in day 1 (without even installing the QS on the ILM at all, not even once) and my only problem was a "00" because the motherboard's own CPU backplate fell off because the screws weren't threaded XD as they somehow slipped out under the Noctua bracket (at the time I was using an Eisbaer 280 Extreme with the Noctua 1700/1151 backplate (before I swapped it into the case with the LF II 360) and I thought the Noctua would hold the rectangular metal motherboard plate in---NOPE! haha). Fixed that and no problems.


----------



## Ichirou

bscool said:


> Oh you didnt flash to latest bios before installing new CPU?
> 
> I would also update ME firmware unless MSI does that for you with new bios.
> 
> Shamino says you need it for z690 MB/13th gen but maybe it doesnt need it on MSI.


No, I just straight tried to boot the new chip. Might've been an oversight on my part.
Going to flash the new BIOS now, as well as ME, and retry.

On a side note, 12900KF booted instantly.


----------



## Luggage

Ichirou said:


> No, I just straight tried to boot the new chip. Might've been an oversight on my part.
> Going to flash the new BIOS now, as well as ME, and retry.
> 
> On a side note, 12900KF booted instantly.


No bios flashback on your mb?


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> What board is this? Z690 or Z790? Strix? Are you using A-die?
> Did you update to latest ME version BEFORE installing the new CPU? And then update to latest bios?
> 
> There was someone who posted that their A-die sticks didn't work in A1 and A2 but worked in B1 and B2, in some Strix version, while their M-die sticks worked in B1 and B2 (maybe i'm mixing this up, you'd have to look at the post in the Z690 thread).
> 
> Easiest thing to eliminate the frame instantly is to remove the 13900K, clear CMOS with PS unplugged, throw the old CPU back in with the TR frame fully tightened, boot to BIOS (you dont even need to install a heatsink with paste, just put something on top of the chip) and see if it trains. If it trains then you know it's not the frame. I put the frame in day 1 (without even installing the QS on the ILM at all, not even once) and my only problem was a "00" because the motherboard's own CPU backplate fell off because the screws weren't threaded XD as they somehow slipped out under the Noctua bracket (at the time I was using an Eisbaer 280 Extreme with the Noctua 1700/1151 backplate (before I swapped it into the case with the LF II 360) and I thought the Noctua would hold the rectangular metal motherboard plate in---NOPE! haha). Fixed that and no problems.


Z690 Edge. As @bscool says, gonna try the 12900KF to flash the latest BIOS first, along with the ME update.

Food for thought: If this ends up working, what would new buyers do if they bought a Z690 board with a 13th Gen? Get stuck on boot forever? Lol


----------



## asdkj1740

bscool said:


> Oh you didnt flash to latest bios before installing new CPU?
> 
> I would also update ME firmware unless MSI does that for you with new bios.
> 
> Shamino says you need it for z690 MB/13th gen but maybe it doesnt need it on MSI.


msi z690 doesn't need to update me so as to support 13th cpu.
msi also has no restriction on bios update that it cant be flashed back to older bios.


----------



## bscool

Ichirou said:


> Z690 Edge. As @bscool says, gonna try the 12900KF to flash the latest BIOS first, along with the ME update.
> 
> Food for thought: If this ends up working, what would new buyers do if they bought a Z690 board with a 13th Gen? Get stuck on boot forever? Lol


As far I know you either need to flash with 12th gen installed or flash with no CPU installed using flashback,

Bad thing about not having the newest bios and ME firmware installed before installing 13the gen is if NVME doesnt show up pain to install ME as have to move NVME to another port or use sata SSD/HDD to load windows and do ME update.

Edit on Asus no idea about other manufactures.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Z690 Edge. As @bscool says, gonna try the 12900KF to flash the latest BIOS first, along with the ME update.
> 
> Food for thought: If this ends up working, what would new buyers do if they bought a Z690 board with a 13th Gen? Get stuck on boot forever? Lol


As others have already pointed out, USB flashback. Pretty sure your board has it.

Just checked and it does:






PRO Z690-A DDR4


PRO series motherboards, tuned for better performance by Core Boost, Memory Boost, Extended Heatsink Design, M.2 Shield Frozr, USB 3.2 Gen 2x2, Lightning Gen5, Front Type-C, 2.5G LAN




www.msi.com





Back panel ports, no.6, flash bios button.

Oh you have the edge, that def should have it too.


----------



## Ichirou

Zzz I can't even enter the BIOS, this is annoying.
Also, direct USB BIOS flash didn't work. That's the flashback for Edge. It's still the old BIOS.
Gotta get into the BIOS somehow; give me a moment.


----------



## Luggage

Ichirou said:


> Z690 Edge. As @bscool says, gonna try the 12900KF to flash the latest BIOS first, along with the ME update.
> 
> Food for thought: If this ends up working, what would new buyers do if they bought a Z690 board with a 13th Gen? Get stuck on boot forever? Lol


Use bios flash button.


----------



## Ichirou

Luggage said:


> Use bios flash button.


That's the thing. It didn't work.

Anyway, got into the BIOS, and flashing V1.91 now.


----------



## bscool

Ichirou said:


> That's the thing. It didn't work.


I had something similar happen with z490 Unify. To fix I had to remove everything. CPU, mem, nvme, ram etc and then did flashback,

So it was just MB and power cables to flash.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> That's the thing. It didn't work.
> 
> Anyway, got into the BIOS, and flashing V1.91 now.


You need to put the bios on a USB and rename it, and put it in the right port, read the manual.


----------



## Luggage

Ichirou said:


> That's the thing. It didn't work.


Renamed the file, used ****ty old usb a stick?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> You need to put the bios on a USB and rename it, and put it in the right port, read the manual.





Luggage said:


> Renamed the file, used ****ty old usb a stick?


I did exactly as I did once before (because there was one instance where I needed to do so). BIOS was hardcore just going ??? with the 13900K inserted.
It's a good thing I still have my 12900KF on hand.


----------



## bhav

Luggage said:


> Renamed the file, used ****ty old usb a stick?


I use an M.2 card reader stick for mine but its hella slow.

I mean, not m.2 card reader lol. The ****ty things that go in phones.

I bought 4 x 16 Gb phone things a while back when they were under £2 each and a reader stick, oh right, mini SD cards.


----------



## newls1

Waits patiently!


----------



## tps3443

asdkj1740 said:


> msi z690 doesn't need to update me so as to support 13th cpu.
> msi also has no restriction on bios update that it cant be flashed back to older bios.


My MSI Unify X was on a older bios 13900KF posted and worked perfectly, I have updated bios since. But it worked on a older bios either way.


----------



## newls1

tps3443 said:


> My MSI Unify X was on a older bios 13900KF posted and worked perfectly, I have updated bios since. But it worked on a older bios either way.


A.60 was the first bios that would post a 13th gen


----------



## tps3443

Waits patiently!!!


----------



## Falkentyne

Xiph said:


> I have Strix A and pretty good understanding of Asus voltage settings. With currently used settings, 5.4 P is getting 1.315V Vcore in R23. It's pretty near stability limit. This voltage is not enough for 4.3 E cores. Those E cores or maybe just few are so bad. I have seen many 13700K samples can do 5.6 P bit over 1.3V.
> 
> I owned 12700K 11 months and during that time it degraded about 50mV measured in game loads (5.3Ghz 1.39V ->1.44V).
> 
> My cooling is XE360/w T30 + GTX240/w P12 cpu only custom loop. So decent cooling power for cpu, but due degradation experience's, I would like not to go too excessive voltage levels. Now with this 13700k, I can only min/max lowest voltages to about stock multipliers as headroom for overclocking is non existent. Positive thing is good IMC.


How did you degrade a chip this much?
what were you setting in bios for actual set target vcore and what Loadline calibration?


----------



## Ichirou

Alright, I finally managed to get the 13900K to boot. So a newer BIOS was indeed required.
Also, I completely forgot to screw the TR bracket in. Odd how that works. It's just floating around the IHS lol.



tps3443 said:


> My MSI Unify X was on a older bios 13900KF posted and worked perfectly, I have updated bios since. But it worked on a older bios either way.


My Edge was on the February BIOS, which is quite old. Maybe it was too far behind to recognize the chip.


----------



## Ichirou

Xiph said:


> I have Strix A and pretty good understanding of Asus voltage settings. With currently used settings, 5.4 P is getting 1.315V Vcore in R23. It's pretty near stability limit. This voltage is not enough for 4.3 E cores. Those E cores or maybe just few are so bad. I have seen many 13700K samples can do 5.6 P bit over 1.3V.
> 
> I owned 12700K 11 months and during that time it degraded about 50mV measured in game loads (5.3Ghz 1.39V ->1.44V).
> 
> My cooling is XE360/w T30 + GTX240/w P12 cpu only custom loop. So decent cooling power for cpu, but due degradation experience's, I would like not to go too excessive voltage levels. Now with this 13700k, I can only min/max lowest voltages to about stock multipliers as headroom for overclocking is non existent. Positive thing is good IMC.


I degraded my 12900KF by running it at 1.38V for a few hours in y-cruncher. So degradation is a real thing.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Also, I completely forgot to screw the TR bracket in. Odd how that works. It's just floating around the IHS lol.


wth lmao 🤣


----------



## bigfootnz

I've tried to check with HWinfo what are MSI LLC values in mohm, but what ever reason HWinfo is for every LLC reading it 0.1mohm. 

Then I've used formula which @Falkentyne was using, Vrout = Vload - (LLC x Iout). As per this formula I've got this results on my 12900ks+Unify-X
LLC5 - 0.68mohm
LLC4 - 0.51mohm
LLC3 - 0.35mohm

On Asus LLC6 is 0.49mohm and in my opinion, MSI LLC4 is better match to Asus LLC6 then LLC3. Do you agree with this @Falkentyne? This is only important if we want to be able to compare Asus load voltages with MSI, as most of Asus users test with LLC6.


----------



## Ichirou

Testing out 57x/43x/47x P-Core/E-Core/Ring @ 1.30V VCC Sense + LLC Mode 4.
Also plugged in the same memory config I had before, with the same VCCSA and VDDQ.
Let's see how it does.


----------



## raad11

Ichirou said:


> I degraded my 12900KF by running it at 1.38V for a few hours in y-cruncher. So degradation is a real thing.


You mean the actual vcore (or even just VID) under full load was 1.38?


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> I degraded my 12900KF by running it at 1.38V for a few hours in y-cruncher. So degradation is a real thing.


With uncapped ICCmax?


----------



## Ichirou

raad11 said:


> You mean the actual vcore (or even just VID) under full load was 1.38?


VCC Sense. Yes, 1.38V on load.


Exilon said:


> With uncapped ICCmax?


Yeah I never touched that.

Update: 1.30V doesn't work for both Cinebench and y-cruncher. Gonna try higher.


----------



## raad11

Ichirou said:


> VCC Sense. Yes, 1.38V on load.
> 
> Yeah I never touched that.
> 
> Update: 1.30V doesn't work for both Cinebench and y-cruncher. Gonna try higher.


What was the turbo ratio for that?


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Testing out 57x/43x/47x P-Core/E-Core/Ring @ 1.30V VCC Sense + LLC Mode 4.
> Also plugged in the same memory config I had before, with the same VCCSA and VDDQ.
> Let's see how it does.


So 4133CL14 working right away? Good news.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> So 4133CL14 working right away? Good news.


Boot only. But now getting memory BSODs.
IMC might be worse, or BIOS is absolute trash (which is well within expectation).


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> VCC Sense. Yes, 1.38V on load.
> 
> Yeah I never touched that.
> 
> Update: 1.30V doesn't work for both Cinebench and y-cruncher. Gonna try higher.


1.30v set mode 4 would be like 1.15v load in r23. You would need a solid gold x57chip for that.
Try 1.30v set +mode 3 for r23.

Y-cruncher will need at least 30mv more than r23.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> 1.30v set mode 4 would be like 1.15v load in r23. You would need a solid gold x57chip for that.
> Try 1.30v set +mode 3 for r23.
> 
> Y-cruncher will need at least 30mv more than r23.


I found out that it's BSODing from the memory, so there's a chance of an IMC weakness, or BIOS being terrible (most likely latter).
Gonna try pumping the volts up for the memory and seeing where that takes me.


----------



## bigfootnz

Ichirou said:


> Update: 1.30V doesn't work for both Cinebench and y-cruncher. Gonna try higher.


On MSI for 57P I would start first with 1.35 LLC3, then when you find min load voltage, then I would play with different LLC


----------



## Ichirou

bigfootnz said:


> On MSI for 57P I would start first with 1.35 LLC3, then when you find min load voltage, then I would play with different LLC


Will try 1.35V as well.


----------



## sblantipodi

Exilon said:


> Gaming is no where near 280W


Gaming does not mean all cores.

All cores means all cores at 100%


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Boot only. But now getting memory BSODs.
> IMC might be worse, or BIOS is absolute trash (which is well within expectation).


Either way it looks like 4133+ possible ones will be rare, so 4000 stability will be my RMA if it doesn't work limit.

I'll give it time first to thoroughly test with the 12600k, so probably won't be until January that I get the 13900k, assuming software codes are added by then.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Either way it looks like 4133+ possible ones will be rare, so 4000 stability will be my RMA if it doesn't work limit.


I can't even run TM5 for more than a minute right now. Low voltage errors. Definitely a BIOS issue, not even CPU related right now.
Gonna try fiddling with the volts.

Others have reported before that they needed to boost the VDDQ just to get things working similarly to the past.


----------



## raad11

Exilon said:


> Gaming is no where near 280W


I have found the TimeSpy Extreme CPU Test is a good stability test for gaming all-core workloads. Particularly if you're using TVB with raised temperatures to keep it at the higher ratio for longer, it'll help you find the right spot to have it downbin or whether you need more voltage.


----------



## sniperpowa

affxct said:


> 1.1.0 version Dark? This is like, literally the first time I’ve seen one.


Mine was at release. I have no idea what versions they have to be honest.


----------



## Slackaveli

Wilco183 said:


> Dud 13900Ks are being dealt as well. Mine is SP94...104p/76e. At least in some poker tournaments there's a prize for a "bad beat".


there is one here, too... could still have a boss IMC.
My 12700k couldnt do 5.1 unless I used 1.41v, but, I could run 6800c30.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> I can't even run TM5 for more than a minute right now. Low voltage errors. Definitely a BIOS issue, not even CPU related right now.
> Gonna try fiddling with the volts.
> 
> Others have reported before that they needed to boost the VDDQ just to get things working similarly to the past.


Easier to use stock CPU settings when fiddling with ram and vice versa to check for maximums on both.


----------



## Ichirou

Boosted VDDQ to 1.60V (from 1.50V), VCCSA to 1.40V (from 1.35V) and VDIMM to 1.64 (from 1.60V), and so far not instantly crashing in TM5 within the first few seconds.
Let's stabilize the RAM first before we get around to figuring out the CPU. It's ridiculous how bad this BIOS is.


bhav said:


> Easier to use stock CPU settings when fiddling with ram and vice versa to check for maximums on both.


Don't really need to worry much about the CPU since TM5 kind of works regardless of the ring and VCCSA voltage, unless it is absolutely wayyyy out of the ballpark.


----------



## bottjeremy

I'm questioning whether or not thread detector is working well on 13th gen. I just uninstalled all the Intel drivers and reinstalled, but still seeing usage being off. 

Seemed like 12600K was better aware of games. *Maybe I'm not remembering correctly though..?*

What are you all seeing with Battlefield 2042 and it's use of E-Cores on 13th gen? E-Cores 17-24 being used quite a bit in game. Nothing running in background other than Afterburner and Steam.


----------



## Slackaveli

Ichirou said:


> Alright, I finally managed to get the 13900K to boot. So a newer BIOS was indeed required.
> Also, I completely forgot to screw the TR bracket in. Odd how that works. It's just floating around the IHS lol.
> 
> 
> My Edge was on the February BIOS, which is quite old. Maybe it was too far behind to recognize the chip.


You okay, Buddy? You are Noobing up the works, Bruh. LOL.


----------



## affxct

sniperpowa said:


> Mine was at release. I have no idea what versions they have to be honest.


Most of us are rocking 1.2.0


----------



## Ichirou

Slackaveli said:


> You okay, Buddy? You are Noobing up the works, Bruh. LOL.


Board wasn't playing nice with the 13900K. Had to flash the latest BIOS with an older chip first just to get it to POST.


----------



## ViTosS

Just picked up the i9 13900k here in my country, should be delivering in 10 days, mobo I'm still waiting Asus Strix-A to appear in stock, atm only MSI Edge and Tomahawk available in the stores.


----------



## raad11

bottjeremy said:


> I'm questioning whether or not thread detector is working well on 13th gen. I just uninstalled all the Intel drivers and reinstalled, but still seeing usage being off.
> 
> Seemed like 12600K was better aware of games. *Maybe I'm not remembering correctly though..?*
> 
> What are you all seeing with Battlefield 2042 and it's use of E-Cores on 13th gen? E-Cores 17-24 being used quite a bit in game. Nothing running in background other than Afterburner and Steam.
> View attachment 2578622
> 
> View attachment 2578624


Haven't tested that game yet but what's driving me nuts is that Blizzard's Battle.net app is keeping all my cores active and idle power on CPU goes from 15-17 watts to 33-34 watts. It didn't do this on my 12900K. Minimizing to system tray helped (down to 25-ish watts), but then updated to Win10 22H2 and ME driver/firmware and now minimizing to system tray doesn't change it from 33-34 watts. Only bnet open.


----------



## Ichirou

TM5 1usmus set to six cycles will take around 1.5 hours to complete (it's 64 GB of RAM after all), so I'll have to pop back in after a bit.
Looking to stabilize the RAM first before moving onto the CPU, since the PC is clearly not going to work properly without the RAM stable.


----------



## SoldierRBT

Got my 13900K today. It does 5.9/4.6/5.0 1.35v VR OUT which is around 1.32v Asus die sense. Max temp: 91C

5.8GHz same ecore/ring is 100mv less


----------



## Ichirou

In the meanwhile, what memory benchmarking software works properly with the 13th Gen? And is there an ATC or TweakIt or whatever that works now?


----------



## ViTosS

Ichirou said:


> In the meanwhile, what memory benchmarking software works properly with the 13th Gen? And is there an ATC or TweakIt or whatever that works now?








AsrTCSetup(v4.0.14).rar







drive.google.com


----------



## affxct

I somehow managed to pop the PWM cable out of my LF II’s header so I’m in DC now. Busy testing my 13700K with the LF II locked at 1500 RPM (broken) and it’s passing Linpack Xtreme (4GB) @ 55/44/48 1.35V (1.23V Vmin). It’s Linpack so load voltage is fluctuation, but it seems to be around 1.24V under the max load in the cycle. Max temp is 90c on the hottest core. Earlier I managed to boot 7600 with M-die. I think I might have actually received a somewhat ok sample this time off the rip.


----------



## Groove2013

Ichirou said:


> In the meanwhile, what memory benchmarking software works properly with the 13th Gen? And is there an ATC or TweakIt or whatever that works now?











*Official* Intel DDR5 OC and 24/7 daily Memory Stability...


amazon had it in stock afaik 309usd now. just not sure which batch. Only one I can find is G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB Series (Intel XMP) 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin SDRAM DDR5 6600 CL34-40-40-105 1.40V Dual Channel Desktop Memory F5-6600J3440G16GA2-TZ5RK (Matte Black) at Amazon.com Part# doesn't...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Groove2013

@Ichirou why not first see the max RAM frequency possible 100% stable for all 4 sticks, before doing the timings?


----------



## Ichirou

Groove2013 said:


> @Ichirou why not first see the max RAM frequency possible 100% stable for all 4 sticks, before doing the timings?


I prefer figuring out my baseline first. I need to know whether my current config works first and foremost, if I am to replace my 12900KF with it.
If it can't even run the same config, I don't want to waste too much time with it.


----------



## tubs2x4

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, if this manual BIOS flash doesn't work, I'll try fiddling with the frame a bit more.
> 
> I've never touched the RAM for months, so it has to be the frame/CPU contact in some way.


Should be same but I have a thermalright frame on an asus with 12700kf and Msi board with 12400. Both frames tightened down evenly till it’s screws don’t move and snug. Both work fine.


----------



## Ichirou

tubs2x4 said:


> Should be same but I have a thermalright frame on an asus with 12700kf and Msi board with 12400. Both frames tightened down evenly till it’s screws don’t move and snug. Both work fine.


You're a bit late. I figured out the issue already: the BIOS needed to be updated first. Wouldn't detect the CPU otherwise.


----------



## tps3443

Windows 11 is killing my R23 numbers. I have gotten 5.9Ghz all P-Cores stable with reasonable power levels about 350 watts or so. But, my numbers are low.. Oy 43K+ My windows 10 OS was so much faster.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I’ve got the chip, I’ve got the cooling, but my OS is a garbage bloated turd…


----------



## energie80

Anyone know what’s llc auto on msi unify x?


----------



## energie80

tps3443 said:


> Windows 11 is killing my R23 numbers. I have gotten 5.9Ghz all P-Cores stable with reasonable power levels about 350 watts or so. But, my numbers are low.. Oy 43K+ My windows 10 OS was so much faster.
> 
> Any help would be greatly appreciated. I’ve got the chip, I’ve got the cooling, but my OS is a garbage bloated turd…


Debloat it or go back to 10? 😅


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Windows 11 is killing my R23 numbers. I have gotten 5.9Ghz all P-Cores stable with reasonable power levels about 350 watts or so. But, my numbers are low.. Oy 43K+ My windows 10 OS was so much faster.
> 
> Any help would be greatly appreciated. I’ve got the chip, I’ve got the cooling, but my OS is a garbage bloated turd…


Go back to W10. Not sure why anyone would want to be on W11 IMHO.


energie80 said:


> Anyone know what’s llc auto on msi unify x?


Tends to gravitate to Mode 3 (flat).


----------



## energie80

Thanks


----------



## Outback Bronze

Hi guys,

Long time lurker first time posting : ) Been loving reading what you guy do with OCing CPU's!

Got a 13900K here that I'm unsure about the SP rating. 

When I first slapped it in my Z690 Stix E it came up with this:










Now, the CPU wasn't playing right in Windows until I updated the ME Driver but before that I thought it might have been the bios being buggy, so I played around with updating the bios a couple of times flashing 2103 once again and one back to 2004 then finally back to 2103 once I found out it was just the ME Driver..

Also, weird part was that I could use the m.2-2 with my 980 pro upon first boot up, then the consequent bios flashes I did I could only use m.2-3 port to boot windows. No other m.2 port would boot my windows os. It would just disappear from the bios.

So, the SP rating has changed from the original boot up and it happened on the next bios flash. The original Sp rating was on bios 2103, then I flashed the same bios (2103) again and It changed the Sp rating to this:










Again, I thought it was a buggy bios so flashed back to 2004. Got the same SP rating as above on bios 2004. CPU was still not playing right until I discovered the ME Driver was at play.
Flashed 2103 again and the Sp rating didn't change from screen shot above. So basically I have done 3/4 bios flashed and every time I get above Sp rating.

I have not pulled the battery out yet as I have been busy but will do over the weekend to see what this does.

I am also waiting for a new bios from Asus to see what this bring also.

*please note I'm just running at 4ghz atm as it's in a HTPC running nice and cool.

Happy Overclocking : )


----------



## PBaF

My 13900K is reading SP 103. Looking to try to lock a 5.5 all core with lowest voltage possible. Anyone got any recommendations? 
Tried the ASUS AI OC and it was feeding about 1.46-1.51 VID's also threw a WHEA so I turned it off.


----------



## Ichirou

Outback Bronze said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Long time lurker first time posting : ) Been loving reading what you guy do with OCing CPU's!
> 
> Got a 13900K here that I'm unsure about the SP rating.
> 
> When I first slapped it in my Z690 Stix E it came up with this:
> 
> View attachment 2578632
> 
> 
> Now, the CPU wasn't playing right in Windows until I updated the ME Driver but before that I thought it might have been the bios being buggy, so I played around with updating the bios a couple of times flashing 2103 once again and one back to 2004 then finally back to 2103 once I found out it was just the ME Driver..
> 
> Also, weird part was that I could use the m.2-2 with my 980 pro upon first boot up, then the consequent bios flashes I did I could only use m.2-3 port to boot windows. No other m.2 port would boot my windows os. It would just disappear from the bios.
> 
> So, the SP rating has changed from the original boot up and it happened on the next bios flash. The original Sp rating was on bios 2103, then I flashed the same bios (2103) again and It changed the Sp rating to this:
> 
> View attachment 2578633
> 
> 
> Again, I thought it was a buggy bios so flashed back to 2004. Got the same SP rating as above on bios 2004. CPU was still not playing right until I discovered the ME Driver was at play.
> Flashed 2103 again and the Sp rating didn't change from screen shot above. So basically I have done 3/4 bios flashed and every time I get above Sp rating.
> 
> I have not pulled the battery out yet as I have been busy but will do over the weekend to see what this does.
> 
> I am also waiting for a new bios from Asus to see what this bring also.
> 
> *please note I'm just running at 4ghz atm as it's in a HTPC running nice and cool.
> 
> Happy Overclocking : )


This new SP is most likely incorrect as nobody has a P-SP 130+ chip.
It's just going through the same inaccurate SP loop most people are going through right now.


----------



## energie80

Try 1.2


----------



## Ichirou

In other news, I noticed one new setting in the MSI BIOS for memory overclocking:
tRCD is now split into tRCD and tRCDW.
Not sure what tRCDW is specifically, but I assume the W stands for Write.
I'll see how tight I can get those two, and whether it makes any meaningful difference.


----------



## bigfootnz

tps3443 said:


> Windows 11 is killing my R23 numbers. I have gotten 5.9Ghz all P-Cores stable with reasonable power levels about 350 watts or so. But, my numbers are low.. Oy 43K+ My windows 10 OS was so much faster.
> 
> Any help would be greatly appreciated. I’ve got the chip, I’ve got the cooling, but my OS is a garbage bloated turd…


Super lite win 11








Ghost Spectre Windows 11 Superlite Version | TechLatest


Todaty, we are going to show you a decent Windows build named Ghost Spectre Windows 11 Superlite Version, in which they truncated many unnecessary features.




tech-latest.com


----------



## tps3443

I have my [email protected] 5.9Ghz with 1.330V in the bios. I ran R23 and max power was 350 watts Per HWInfo.

Really good stuff to come!


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I have my [email protected] 5.9Ghz with 1.330V in the bios. I ran R23 and max power was 350 watts Per HWInfo.
> 
> Really good stuff to come!


If this chip turns out decent enough, I'm planning to direct die it with your "place the CPU block directly on the die" trick


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> If this chip turns out decent enough, I'm planning to direct die it with your "place the CPU block directly on the die" trick


Be careful not to crack the substrate. They are considerably thinner on the Intel 7 node than the chips of old..

Quite frankly, I wouldn't even attempt it. You're just asking to murder the chip. Grab a Supercool block if you want to go direct-die.


----------



## adolf512

tps3443 said:


> I have my [email protected] 5.9Ghz with 1.330V in the bios. I ran R23 and max power was 350 watts Per HWInfo.
> 
> Really good stuff to come!


You might be able to beat the hwbot h20 record with that chip.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Be careful not to crack the substrate. They are considerably thinner on the Intel 7 node than the chips of old..
> 
> Quite frankly, I wouldn't even attempt it. You're just asking to murder the chip. Grab a Supercool block if you want to go direct-die.


Any tips besides turning the screws a little, test booting, and rinse and repeating until it finally boots?


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Any tips besides turning the screws a little, test booting, and rinse and repeating until it finally boots?


IMO, it's far too risky. There's a reason we haven't seen any direct-die frames come out for 12th gen. They cut the substrate down considerably compared to Rocket/Comet Lake, where direct-die with or without frames were much more common.

If you really want to attempt it.. yeah, I'd say tighten down slowly diagonally until you can POST. Once you can get to BIOS, I'd keep the rig running and monitor temps while you slowly tighten it. Once it's decent, get into Windows, monitor individual core temps and tighten further.. but be really, really careful. Again, I don't think the risk is worth it.. you'd be better off doing a de-lid/re-lid with stock IHS and LM.


----------



## Outback Bronze

Ichirou said:


> This new SP is most likely incorrect as nobody has a P-SP 130+ chip.
> It's just going through the same inaccurate SP loop most people are going through right now.


Yes I think so too.

Going to throw the kitchen sink at it to get it back to the original Sp 104.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> IMO, it's far too risky. There's a reason we haven't seen any direct-die frames come out for 12th gen. They cut the substrate down considerably compared to Rocket/Comet Lake, where direct-die with or without frames were much more common.
> 
> If you really want to attempt it.. yeah, I'd say tighten down slowly diagonally until you can POST. Once you can get to BIOS, I'd keep the rig running and monitor temps while you slowly tighten it. Once it's decent, get into Windows, monitor individual core temps and tighten further.. but be really, really careful. Again, I don't think the risk is worth it.. you'd be better off doing a de-lid/re-lid with stock IHS and LM.


Any idea when to stop tightening?

I personally like experimenting.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Any idea when to stop tightening?
> 
> I personally like experimenting.


Hmm, really no way to tell when since you won't have a frame installed. I'd say stop tightening once temps look good. You won't know when it's too tight until the substrate cracks and your temps skyrocket, and/or chip dies.. that's the risk of trying it without a frame.

If you do go for it, like I said.. be really careful and take your time. Running a big risk.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Take a look at this effective clock.... 


















View attachment 2578649










People have fun with the result of cinebench and I have fun with the effective clock... LOL


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Hmm, really no way to tell when since you won't have a frame installed. I'd say stop tightening once temps look good. You won't know when it's too tight until the substrate cracks and your temps skyrocket, and/or chip dies.. that's the risk of trying it without a frame.
> 
> If you do go for it, like I said.. be really careful and take your time. Running a big risk.


Hm, so when contact is bad, it should be even worse than stock IHS (in the exact same tests)?

@sugi0lover What was the difference in max temp you had between stock IHS and direct die?
I found this, does it mean "Stock IHS > Water Cooling > Direct Die" and "Package | P-Cores | E-Cores"?
With bracketed numbers being the minimum? I can't read Korean, sorry.


----------



## PBaF

So far I just left my 13900K stock and did core voltage offset -0.070 in XTU and some CB23 runs. About 1.20-1.21 Vcore under load. I might keep going.


----------



## jeiselramos

I don't know if it's bugged, tomorrow if I've time will try the @Falkentyne method (bios 2103), can't check with cb23 beacuse still on air


----------



## Ichirou

jeiselramos said:


> I don't know if it's bugged, tomorrow if I've time will try the @Falkentyne method (bios 2103), can't check with cb23 beacuse still on air
> 
> View attachment 2578657


If P-SP is over 130, it's most likely bugged.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

jeiselramos said:


> I don't know if it's bugged, tomorrow if I've time will try the @Falkentyne method (bios 2103), can't check with cb23 beacuse still on air
> 
> View attachment 2578657


I think it is real....
Bios is running 5.5GHz @ 1.3v - 33ºC.
I dont know your room ambient, but its running this VF curve for sure !
Its a CPU for 6.5GHz OCTVB 

Mine at 6.1GHz @ 1.43v is 50ºC


----------



## Ichirou

TM5 1usmus set to six cycles has successfully passed (with boosted voltages that I'll have to optimize later). I used the same RAM and settings as in my signature.
I can move onto actually testing the CPU. Will post results soon.


----------



## bxbuki

energie80 said:


> i tested HT off on warzone but fps were better with HT on


I was thinking ht off better but no, some games give better fps on low ht off but when u go ultra ht on is better try on far cry 6 and u will see also warzone better fps with ht on


----------



## morph.

jeiselramos said:


> I don't know if it's bugged, tomorrow if I've time will try the @Falkentyne method (bios 2103), can't check with cb23 beacuse still on air
> 
> View attachment 2578657


Those voltages... what your vf table look like...

Falken would probably ask that you do the full process of clearing cmos, power down, reclear cmos etc I think he said something to someone here about following those steps exactly to ensure the SP is not bugged.


----------



## jeiselramos

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think it is real....
> Bios is running 5.5GHz @ 1.3v - 33ºC.
> I dont know your room ambient, but its running this VF curve for sure !
> Its a CPU for 6.5GHz OCTVB
> 
> Mine at 6.1GHz @ 1.43v is 50ºC
> 
> View attachment 2578659


23º


----------



## Ichirou

@bscool @Falkentyne How much more difficult is y-cruncher's main test compared to R23?
It'll be a much faster test than going though R23 all the time, and should be a much harder test in general.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

This is running 6.2Ghz @ 1.44v - 57ºC










I bet you have a very good CPU !!!! 

My room temp now is 25C


----------



## Falkentyne

jeiselramos said:


> I don't know if it's bugged, tomorrow if I've time will try the @Falkentyne method (bios 2103), can't check with cb23 beacuse still on air
> 
> View attachment 2578657


That's 200% bugged.
Your original SP was correct. P core 115 is 2 above where the chips start to become pretty decent (seems like 113 P core SP is pretty average for chips that start to become "just above average.").


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> @bscool @Falkentyne How much more difficult is y-cruncher's main test compared to R23?
> It'll be a much faster test than going though R23 all the time, and should be a much harder test in general.


Y-cruncher's main test (mainly SFT, although a few others get hard too) requires like 30-40mv more die sense load voltage to pass than R23.
Stockfish AVX2/BMI2 can be even worse than Y-cruncher, even though temps are slightly better than Y-cruncher, because it hits the the entire system hard.

The only point to passing R23 for 30 minutes is for a "game stable" CPU.
If you can loop R23 for 30 minutes and pass 20 "Load game" attempts of Minecraft Java, you should be game stable.


----------



## dante`afk

You have to say


RobertoSampaio said:


> People have fun with the result of cinebench and I have fun with the effective clock... LOL


because there's no way you're getting that through CB23 30 min stress test.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

dante`afk said:


> You have to say
> 
> 
> because there's no way you're getting that through CB23 30 min stress test.


Exactly !!!
LOLOLOL


I need to be happy running BIOS at 6.2Ghz... LOLOL


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Y-cruncher's main test (mainly SFT, although a few others get hard too) requires like 30-40mv more die sense load voltage to pass than R23.
> Stockfish AVX2/BMI2 can be even worse than Y-cruncher, even though temps are slightly better than Y-cruncher, because it hits the the entire system hard.
> 
> The only point to passing R23 for 30 minutes is for a "game stable" CPU.
> If you can loop R23 for 30 minutes and pass 20 "Load game" attempts of Minecraft Java, you should be game stable.


Well, my CPU thermal throttles in y-cruncher, so I can't get any stable effective clocks to acquire a proper representation of stability.
I'll just stick to R23 for a bit.

(P.S. I should probably actually screw in the TR bracket and do a proper paste job, lol)


----------



## sugi0lover

Wow, that guy with SP 118 (P127, E101) is doing some good oc with Z790 extreme.
All core 6.2Ghz Cine, 8000 CL34 stable on 4 slot mb...
When I see those results, I feel happy that I can see how far daily stable setup can go even if it's not my system. 
Anyway here we go.



Spoiler: His System

























Spoiler: Stable 8000 Ram OC + all P cores 6.1Ghz

























Spoiler: CineR23 all P cores 6.2Ghz


----------



## adolf512

sugi0lover said:


> Wow, that guy with SP 118 (P127, E101) is doing some good oc with Z790 extreme.
> All core 6.2Ghz Cine, 8000 CL34 stable on 4 slot mb...
> When I see those results, I feel happy that I can see how far daily stable setup can go even if it's not my system.
> Anyway here we go.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: His System
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578671
> 
> View attachment 2578672
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Stable 8000 Ram OC + all P cores 6.1Ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578674
> 
> View attachment 2578675
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CineR23 all P cores 6.2Ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578676


This does support the theory that KF is better than K (due to KS binning already having been started).


----------



## Ichirou

I can't seem to prevent my P-cores from throttling down their Effective Clocks in y-cruncher. Not sure why. R23 doesn't get throttled, though.

VR VOUT average of 1.275V in R23 is doing okay with 55x on the P-cores so far. I'm still tweaking around because I couldn't gain any semblance of stability for a while. I'll retry 57x after 55x. I don't think I have a strong chip. But I'll keep the updates coming.


adolf512 said:


> This does support the theory that KF is better than K (due to KS binning already having been started).


That's an Engineering Sample chip.


----------



## sugi0lover

Ichirou said:


> Hm, so when contact is bad, it should be even worse than stock IHS (in the exact same tests)?
> 
> @sugi0lover What was the difference in max temp you had between stock IHS and direct die?
> I found this, does it mean "Stock IHS > Water Cooling > Direct Die" and "Package | P-Cores | E-Cores"?
> With bracketed numbers being the minimum? I can't read Korean, sorry.


Here is my quick translation


----------



## adolf512

Ichirou said:


> I can't seem to prevent my P-cores from throttling down their Effective Clocks in y-cruncher. Not sure why. R23 doesn't get throttled, though.
> 
> VR VOUT average of 1.275V in R23 is doing okay with 55x on the P-cores so far. I'm still tweaking around because I couldn't gain any semblance of stability for a while. I'll retry 57x after 55x. I don't think I have a strong chip. But I'll keep the updates coming.
> 
> That's an Engineering Sample chip.


Is it hitting some power-limit?


----------



## opt33

auto voltage worked well on mine for starting point with 57 multi. pcore to 57, auto vcore, gave vrout 1.284 in cb r23. (for 55 it was much higher overvolted until turned off pcores to test)

then walked manual vcore down using 3 minute cb runs and first whea error at 1.26x vrout. 

I could probably run 30 min cb runs and set vcore to get 1.27-1.275 vrout, but not beating up cpu at high temps over 0.01 volt, so just using 1.33 manual vcore/mode 4 msi which supplies same 1.28vrout in cb 23 as auto (using msi over guessing vrout value)


----------



## Ichirou

sugi0lover said:


> Here is my quick translation
> View attachment 2578679


Thanks a bunch, my friend. So basically, a ~20C drop on the average temps for both the P-cores and the E-cores. Got it


----------



## cstkl1

Ichirou said:


> @bscool @Falkentyne How much more difficult is y-cruncher's main test compared to R23?
> It'll be a much faster test than going though R23 all the time, and should be a much harder test in general.


R15.. hehe. harder


----------



## bhav

So if anyone's been checking the 13700k thread, people are needing high voltage to reach 55 all core / 5.6 on some, and 45x ring bus.

Quite a huge difference between the 13700k and 13900k bins this time around, and it doesn't look like a lot of 13700ks will OC to 13900k stock levels.


----------



## Ichirou

So far, 55x/43x/47x P/E/Ring works at ~1.27V average VR OUT in R23 for 30 minutes, and I don't get Effective Clock throttled.
Going to keep pushing the multipliers higher to see how high they can go with the same VR OUT. I will redo the bracket and paste job as well.
FWIW, the score is 40872. Makes sense for only 55x.


----------



## Slackaveli

Bagged a keeper!


----------



## bhav

Regarding fans for the AIO, I just stumbled upon a video for these things:



https://lian-li.com/product/uni-fan-sl-infinity/



2100 RPM, most amazing RGB ever .... £50 per 2 fan pack, and thats for the 120mm :x

Even if the 140mm costs the same, thats £150 if I wanted 6 for the AIO and case :x

I DO NOT NEED THESE, I DO NOT NEED THESE, I DO NOT NEED .... Orders 3 x 2 packs :/

Well fortunately you can't even get the 140s anywhere, nor the white 120s yet.


----------



## Ichirou

Now running the chip through R23 at 56x instead, set to average 1.27V VR OUT.
I don't think my cooling is strong enough to pump the volts any higher right now. I've had this happen in the past, which would confuse results.


----------



## Thunderclap

bhav said:


> Regarding fans for the AIO, I just stumbled upon a video for these things:
> 
> 
> 
> https://lian-li.com/product/uni-fan-sl-infinity/
> 
> 
> 
> 2100 RPM, most amazing RGB ever .... £50 per 2 fan pack, and thats for the 120mm :x
> 
> Even if the 140mm costs the same, thats £150 if I wanted 6 for the AIO and case :x
> 
> I DO NOT NEED THESE, I DO NOT NEED THESE, I DO NOT NEED .... Orders 3 x 2 packs :/
> 
> Well fortunately you can't even get the 140s anywhere, nor the white 120s yet.


Just grab some Phanteks T30s (if you don't care that much about RGB) they come in triple fan packs and outperform pretty much any other 120mm on the market by a long shot. Phanteks is also coming out with a 140mm version, but that is scheduled for early next year, iirc. 

I was actually thinking about grabbing an Arctic LFII 360 instead of the 420 for that exact reason, swap the stock P12 fans with T30s and call it a day. Should be plenty for a stock or even slightly OC'd 13900K. Can't do much better without going to a custom loop, imho.


----------



## Slackaveli

Ichirou said:


> In other news, I noticed one new setting in the MSI BIOS for memory overclocking:
> tRCD is now split into tRCD and tRCDW.
> Not sure what tRCDW is specifically, but I assume the W stands for Write.
> I'll see how tight I can get those two, and whether it makes any meaningful difference.


There are also now some new settings for PMIC voltage which is now unlocked.


----------



## bscool

Thunderclap said:


> Just grab some Phanteks T30s (if you don't care that much about RGB) they come in triple fan packs and outperform pretty much any other 120mm on the market by a long shot. Phanteks is also coming out with a 140mm version, but that is scheduled for early next year, iirc.
> 
> I was actually thinking about grabbing an Arctic LFII 360 instead of the 420 for that exact reason, swap the stock P12 fans with T30s and call it a day. Should be plenty for a stock or even slightly OC'd 13900K. Can't do much better without going to a custom loop, imho.


I have both Arcitc 360 with T30 and 420 with Arctic stock fans and I didnt do any scientific level testing but using both on the same cpus(12900k/13900k) and MB and running benches like y cruncher temps are very close. 360mm much easier to fit into more case.

Bad thing is 3 t30 costs more than the Arctic 360  I bought it off ebay Arctic b stock for $68.


----------



## owikh84

sugi0lover said:


> Wow, that guy with SP 118 (P127, E101) is doing some good oc with Z790 extreme.
> All core 6.2Ghz Cine, 8000 CL34 stable on 4 slot mb...
> When I see those results, I feel happy that I can see how far daily stable setup can go even if it's not my system.
> Anyway here we go.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: His System
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578671
> 
> View attachment 2578672
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Stable 8000 Ram OC + all P cores 6.1Ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578674
> 
> View attachment 2578675
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CineR23 all P cores 6.2Ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578676


Nice! I cannot even post at 7800 with my Z690 Extreme.


----------



## bhav

Thunderclap said:


> Just grab some Phanteks T30s (if you don't care that much about RGB) they come in triple fan packs and outperform pretty much any other 120mm on the market by a long shot. Phanteks is also coming out with a 140mm version, but that is scheduled for early next year, iirc.
> 
> I was actually thinking about grabbing an Arctic LFII 360 instead of the 420 for that exact reason, swap the stock P12 fans with T30s and call it a day. Should be plenty for a stock or even slightly OC'd 13900K. Can't do much better without going to a custom loop, imho.


I require 140s, the RGB would be nice but isn't necessary, white is neccessay.

Are these phanteks fans also available in 140mm?

hmmmm ....

T30-140 is definitely on our roadmap however it's not going to release until we feel it is up to T30 standard. With that said, if you want an ETA on a T30-140 version then I'd say its more likely going to release in 2023 than in 2022. 

More things to wait for.


----------



## Slackaveli

Thunderclap said:


> Just grab some Phanteks T30s (if you don't care that much about RGB) they come in triple fan packs and outperform pretty much any other 120mm on the market by a long shot.


even the NF-A12x25?


----------



## bhav

Slackaveli said:


> even the NF-A12x25?


They are






Both look like crap though


----------



## tps3443

adolf512 said:


> This does support the theory that KF is better than K (due to KS binning already having been started).


I have a 13900KF, and it’s a great cpu so far! I have ran 5.9Ghz P-Cores through R23 at 1.330v in bios. I had my chiller set to just 60F liquid temp, and max power was 350F watt in HWInfo.

This is telling me it needs to be delidded for 6Ghz or even greater OC potential on the P-Cores.

This is all primarily speculation. But based on how it’s looking so far, I’m thinking it’s a very very solid sample. I don’t know the SP.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Hm, so when contact is bad, it should be even worse than stock IHS (in the exact same tests)?


If contact is bad, it'll be really bad temps and potentially very uneven core temps.


----------



## Thunderclap

Slackaveli said:


> even the NF-A12x25?


Example 1 from Optimum Tech:










Example 2 (going full blast at 3000RPM) from Hardware Canucks:


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> They are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both look like crap though


damn, didnt just win they whipped that ass.


----------



## bhav

So just use the stock fans until 140mms drop, and actually only need 3 for the radiator, the stock fans on the case but damn thats gonna be ugly.


----------



## adolf512

would the asus prime z790-p be suitable for making a 6ghz+ stable all core attempt?

I dont want to delid or restart my custom loop (for a non-HEDT system) though so it might not matter.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> If contact is bad, it'll be really bad temps and potentially very uneven core temps.


Yeah, I'm very much aware, lol. I might just go with the relid route. 10C more isn't too big of a deal, and I plan to dial things back to daily anyway.

On a side note, 56x passed 30m at ~1.28V average VR VOUT. Max Power (POUT) is 311W.
41229 Points. Testing 57x now.

57x quickly gave an error in R23 at that voltage. Raising Vcore in BIOS by +0.01V seems to allow it to run so far.
Edit: R23 errored out after 2.5 minutes. Raising Vcore by +0.01V again.


----------



## ViTosS

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, I'm very much aware, lol. I might just go with the relid route. 10C more isn't too big of a deal, and I plan to dial things back to daily anyway.
> 
> On a side note, 56x passed 30m at ~1.28V average VR VOUT. Max Power (POUT) is 311W.
> 41229 Points. Testing 57x now.
> 
> 57x quickly gave an error in R23 at that voltage. Raising Vcore in BIOS by +0.01V seems to allow it to run so far.
> Edit: R23 errored out after 2.5 minutes. Raising Vcore by +0.01V again.


Don't get too excited and end up degrading your chip again 🤣


----------



## Ichirou

ViTosS said:


> Don't get too excited and end up degrading your chip again 🤣












R23 still failed. But it reached 11 minutes at average 1.29V VR VOUT.
Throwing another +0.01V at it.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> R23 still failed. But it reached 11 minutes at average 1.29V VR VOUT.
> Pushing it a bit more now.


Your chip gonna die.


----------



## Wilco183

bscool said:


> I have both Arcitc 360 with T30 and 420 with Arctic stock fans and I didnt do any scientific level testing but using both on the same cpus(12900k/13900k) and MB and running benches like y cruncher temps are very close. 360mm much easier to fit into more case.
> 
> Bad thing is 3 t30 costs more than the Arctic 360  I bought it off ebay Arctic b stock for $68.


Paid $80 for mine from Amazon Warehouse rated as in "good condition". Not a scratch, all hardware bags sealed, doubt it even left the box. Should send them an appreciation sticker in return.


----------



## bhav

Looks like you got a new one but the box was damaged. Good deal.


----------



## ViTosS

Btw guys, what's the best thermal paste to get now to use on 13900k, I'm debating between Arctix MX-4, Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut (had worse results compared to MX-4 to me in the past) or the Kryonaut Extreme?


----------



## bhav

ViTosS said:


> Btw guys, what's the best thermal paste to get now to use on 13900k, I'm debating between Arctix MX-4, Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut (had worse results compared to MX-4 to me in the past) or the Kryonaut Extreme?


Well MX-5 > MX-4.


----------



## Ichirou

ViTosS said:


> Btw guys, what's the best thermal paste to get now to use on 13900k, I'm debating between Arctix MX-4, Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut (had worse results compared to MX-4 to me in the past) or the Kryonaut Extreme?


Kryonaut is fine... If you can tolerate repasting every few months. It dries out quick.
Otherwise, if you don't mind losing 2-3C at worst, something like MX-5 or NT-H2 is great.


----------



## Slackaveli

KPX (i think it's called) is good too. The Kingpin paste.


----------



## acoustic

I'm a firm believer in KPx. Haven't used anything else for a while. My 3080TI had KPx applied well over a year ago when I put the waterblock on, and it still performs exactly the same.

I recommend warming it slightly though, otherwise it can be kind of a PITA to spread.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

ViTosS said:


> Btw guys, what's the best thermal paste to get now to use on 13900k, I'm debating between Arctix MX-4, Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut (had worse results compared to MX-4 to me in the past) or the Kryonaut Extreme?


Falkentyne told me about one that promises be better than kryo extreme... Can't remember the name... 
For me, the difference from kryo to extreme was huge....


----------



## bhav

MX-5 doesn't need repasting as much as others though, and not really any difference between that and kryonaut in some videos.


----------



## Thunderclap

ViTosS said:


> Btw guys, what's the best thermal paste to get now to use on 13900k, I'm debating between Arctix MX-4, Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut (had worse results compared to MX-4 to me in the past) or the Kryonaut Extreme?


ProlimaTech PK-3 and Thermalright TFX are my personal favs, had nothing but consistent/great results with both.


----------



## Ichirou

Alrighty, I'm done for now; won't be able to go further without a delid.
@Falkentyne I managed to pass R23 30m at 57/43/47 with VR VOUT average 1.295V. Highest core temp 98C...
Average Current (IOUT) is 228A, and average Power (POUT) is 295W. Score is 41715.
There were indeed WHEA errors, but I won't be able to boost the Vcore further. They all point to the ring.
Either my CPU is getting too hot, or adding another +0.01-0.02V will be enough to cure those errors.

Where does that put my chip on the quality scale for the time being?

I'm also sure I'll be able to individually boost specific cores higher, but these temps are well beyond what I'd like to run daily, so I'm just going to dial things back for now and focus on the RAM. If I can get a decent overclock on the RAM that surpasses what I achieved on the 12900KF, I'll delid.

Will be back in a bit with some RAM overclocking results.


----------



## bhav

Thunderclap said:


> ProlimaTech PK-3 and Thermalright TFX are my personal favs, had nothing but consistent/great results with both.


Shame thermalright went cheap on the contact frames and bundled them with TX7, like thats ancient why even bother?


----------



## raad11

I used Kryonaut since it usually lasts me a year at least without degradation (usually two) if I'm just gaming and using computer normally (meaning it almost never hits sustained 80+ temps like in benchmarking/stress testing). The closest is using Handbrake and that's maybe a few times a month, and I sometimes use OCTool to lock that down to stock ratios just for that run. I also use Package Temperature Threshold to keep it from going over 85 C.

But the main benefit is how absurdly easy it is to clean off. I could wipe that off with like two alcohol wipes. It leaves the CPU in almost like new condition. It's perfect if you plan on changing CPUs often enough (for me that would be sooner than every 2 years).

My systems are also on 24-7.


----------



## LazyGamer

bhav said:


> Regarding fans for the AIO, I just stumbled upon a video for these things:
> 
> 
> 
> https://lian-li.com/product/uni-fan-sl-infinity/
> 
> 
> 
> 2100 RPM, most amazing RGB ever .... £50 per 2 fan pack, and thats for the 120mm :x
> 
> Even if the 140mm costs the same, thats £150 if I wanted 6 for the AIO and case :x
> 
> I DO NOT NEED THESE, I DO NOT NEED THESE, I DO NOT NEED .... Orders 3 x 2 packs :/
> 
> Well fortunately you can't even get the 140s anywhere, nor the white 120s yet.


The fans are unimpressive (but not _bad_), however the software is atrocious.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Alrighty, I'm done for now; won't be able to go further without a delid.
> @Falkentyne I managed to pass R23 30m at 57/43/47 with VR VOUT average 1.295V. Highest core temp 98C...
> Average Current (IOUT) is 228A, and average Power (POUT) is 295W. Score is 41715.
> There were indeed WHEA errors, but I won't be able to boost the Vcore further. They all point to the ring.
> Either my CPU is getting too hot, or adding another +0.01-0.02V will be enough to cure those errors.
> 
> Where does that put my chip on the quality scale for the time being?
> 
> I'm also sure I'll be able to individually boost specific cores higher, but these temps are well beyond what I'd like to run daily, so I'm just going to dial things back for now and focus on the RAM. If I can get a decent overclock on the RAM that surpasses what I achieved on the 12900KF, I'll delid.
> 
> Will be back in a bit with some RAM overclocking results.


It's not the ring, it's the core.
I assume you mean CPU Cache L0 error.
L0 is related to the internal structure of the CPU where operand instructions are cached.
Skylake cores had the same errors if you overclocked too far.
The problem with skylake cores was the "internal parity error" that could occur at voltages that were even prime95 small fft FMA3 stable, due to some sort of "collision", which minecraft was famous for exposing, due to the multi-core ring structure, which got worse the more cores/threads you had.

Internal Parity Error and Translation Lookaside Buffer (TLB) errors are another possible outcome (PCIE/Bus WHEA errors can sometimes be mitigated by raising VCCIN).


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> It's not the ring, it's the core.
> I assume you mean CPU Cache L0 error.
> L0 is related to the internal structure of the CPU where operand instructions are cached.
> Skylake cores had the same errors if you overclocked too far.
> The problem with skylake cores was the "internal parity error" that could occur at voltages that were even prime95 small fft FMA3 stable, due to some sort of "collision", which minecraft was famous for exposing, due to the multi-core ring structure, which got worse the more cores/threads you had.
> 
> Internal Parity Error and Translation Lookaside Buffer (TLB) errors are another possible outcome (PCIE/Bus WHEA errors can sometimes be mitigated by raising VCCIN).


So... What does that mean, exactly? Not enough Vcore?


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> So... What does that mean, exactly? Not enough Vcore?


Yes


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Alrighty, I'm done for now; won't be able to go further without a delid.
> @Falkentyne I managed to pass R23 30m at 57/43/47 with VR VOUT average 1.295V. Highest core temp 98C...
> Average Current (IOUT) is 228A, and average Power (POUT) is 295W. Score is 41715.
> There were indeed WHEA errors, but I won't be able to boost the Vcore further. They all point to the ring.
> Either my CPU is getting too hot, or adding another +0.01-0.02V will be enough to cure those errors.
> 
> Where does that put my chip on the quality scale for the time being?
> 
> I'm also sure I'll be able to individually boost specific cores higher, but these temps are well beyond what I'd like to run daily, so I'm just going to dial things back for now and focus on the RAM. If I can get a decent overclock on the RAM that surpasses what I achieved on the 12900KF, I'll delid.
> 
> Will be back in a bit with some RAM overclocking results.


You're probably alot closer to 1.234v-1.243v die sense voltage at 228A IOUT.
Most likely your MSI "VR VOUT" isn't reading die sense correctly.
Try seeing if you can change the bios setting from vcc_sense to die sense to see if your VR VOUT reports a lower value at the exact same temps.
1.295v VR VOUT (at actual vcc_sense vcore) would be like 260 amps (or higher) and would put you well over 100C in no time.













Ichirou said:


> So... What does that mean, exactly? Not enough Vcore?


Yes it means not enough vcore or clocks too high.
You either need better cooling, to get more voltage headroom, or drop clocks.
You can try raising Core PLL voltage (this is in 15mv steps).
Try 0.975v-0.990v. MSI probably calls this "CPU PLL SFR Voltage", default 0.900v.
Also try raising AUX (Input voltage) to 1.860v at the same time.


----------



## Falkentyne

From a PM I asked someone on hardforum in 2019:



> The L0 cache is the virtualized register store which sits on the core. It allows each thread to think it is working directly upon real registers, but it isn't. In fact, nothing really does anymore - what the compiler spits out as "EAX" for example will end up just being an entry in this register bank like any other (except the CPU knows a thread called it EAX, so it can preserve logic of course).
> This is an extension and generalization of the register renaming concept. The CPU can reduce data shuffling by performing this indirection. It also makes HT possible, since two threads both think they have all the registers, but in reality they both just have indexes into the cache.
> And as you'd expect, HT basically doubles the work since two threads are feeding operands, and the procunits are more actively retiring instructions out of it.
> 
> The failure mechanism can differ because you're now placing additional work in this component, and it is a place where coherency checking is performed. Operational faults can be detected in this stage, but not necessarily as easily later. Uncaught computational problems drift downstream with the variety of effects you note.
> HT may also activate more coherency checking, since there is more bookkeeping to manage thread affinity. So - I'd speculate a combination of simply higher load in this stage coupled with possibly more checking enabled as well. This results in bit errors getting caught more consistently and directly reported as such.
> 
> Edit to clarify: This is speculation - I have zero inside knowledge on any of these chips.


(this should also mean that CPU Cache L0 errors "might" not happen if hyperthreading is disabled).


----------



## newls1

tps3443 said:


> Windows 11 is killing my R23 numbers. I have gotten 5.9Ghz all P-Cores stable with reasonable power levels about 350 watts or so. But, my numbers are low.. Oy 43K+ My windows 10 OS was so much faster.
> 
> Any help would be greatly appreciated. I’ve got the chip, I’ve got the cooling, but my OS is a garbage bloated turd…


you check to see if core isolation and memory integrity BS are turned off? Those are very much performance killers


----------



## deceptiv23

So I bought two 13900k - one from Newegg and one from BB. I opened the Best Buy, updated the bios on a z690i asus strix and got sp of 107 / p cores 115 / e cores 91

Best bin chip I’ve ever got based on sp score. I guess I shouldn’t bother opening the Newegg one so I can return it right? What are the odds it’s better?


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Yes





Falkentyne said:


> You're probably alot closer to 1.234v-1.243v die sense voltage at 228A IOUT.
> Most likely your MSI "VR VOUT" isn't reading die sense correctly.
> Try seeing if you can change the bios setting from vcc_sense to die sense to see if your VR VOUT reports a lower value at the exact same temps.
> 1.295v VR VOUT would be like 260 amps and would put you well over 100C in no time.
> 
> View attachment 2578707
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it means not enough vcore or clocks too high.
> You either need better cooling, to get more voltage headroom, or drop clocks.
> You can try raising Core PLL voltage (this is in 15mv steps).
> Try 0.975v-0.990v. MSI probably calls this "CPU PLL SFR Voltage", default 0.900v.
> Also try raising AUX (Input voltage) to 1.860v at the same time.


So I basically don't have a great chip then. Or the cooling isn't strong enough to give an unambiguous result.

I'm going to go back to 55x all-core for a moment, and see the Vmin required to pass R23 30m without any WHEA errors.
At 55x, overheating won't be a factor. Any specific VR VOUT Vavg target I should achieve?


deceptiv23 said:


> So I bought two 13900k - one from Newegg and one from BB. I opened the Best Buy, updated the bios on a z690i asus strix and got sp of 107 / p cores 115 / e cores 91
> 
> Best bin chip I’ve ever got based on sp score. I guess I shouldn’t bother opening the Newegg one so I can return it right? What are the odds it’s better?


Does Newegg even _offer _a return policy to begin with? In Canada, no returns are accepted by them; RMA only.


----------



## deceptiv23

Only if unopened


----------



## raad11

Firestrike Extreme test shows something is wonky with the 13900K thread scheduler in Win10 (22H2), or at least on mine. The combined score drops significantly than usual (or even below my 12900K's) since it's utilizing the E-Cores, not only the P-Cores.

Weird thing is, the 12900K did this back when it was released and then just stopped by itself one day.


----------



## raad11

deceptiv23 said:


> Only if unopened


Are you sure? They have a no return, replacement-only policy on CPUs as per their website? That's why I canceled my order from them.


----------



## Wilco183

Replacement only. Unopened though...I'd try spinning serious yarn to get the refund, while leveraging previous purchase history.


----------



## Ichirou

raad11 said:


> Firestrike Extreme test shows something is wonky with the 13900K thread scheduler in Win10 (22H2), or at least on mine. The combined score drops significantly than usual (or even below my 12900K's) since it's utilizing the E-Cores, not only the P-Cores.
> 
> Weird thing is, the 12900K did this back when it was released and then just stopped by itself one day.


Yeah, that's the Effective Clock throttling issue. It keeps happening for me in y-cruncher, but not R23.


----------



## raad11

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, that's the Effective Clock throttling issue. It keeps happening for me in y-cruncher, but not R23.


What's the effective clock throttling issue? Why would it throttle in Firestrike?

I boosted the score by setting affinity to only the P-Cores. But it still just barely doesn't beat the 12900K's score (from 10/12/22 with same GPU). Looks like the 12900K was using the E-Cores and P-Cores without it being detrimental.


----------



## Falkentyne

deceptiv23 said:


> So I bought two 13900k - one from Newegg and one from BB. I opened the Best Buy, updated the bios on a z690i asus strix and got sp of 107 / p cores 115 / e cores 91
> 
> Best bin chip I’ve ever got based on sp score. I guess I shouldn’t bother opening the Newegg one so I can return it right? What are the odds it’s better?


Depends on how rich or poor you are. Make a judgement based on your disposable income, willpower and mental health and then go from there.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> So I basically don't have a great chip then. Or the cooling isn't strong enough to give an unambiguous result.
> 
> I'm going to go back to 55x all-core for a moment, and see the Vmin required to pass R23 30m without any WHEA errors.
> At 55x, overheating won't be a factor. Any specific VR VOUT Vavg target I should achieve?
> 
> Does Newegg even _offer _a return policy to begin with? In Canada, no returns are accepted by them; RMA only.


It's VERY VERY hard to say without knowing what specific loadlines your motherboard is using for Mode 3 LLC, and if VR VOUT is reading from an improper calibration or not.
Getting 96C at 1.295v "die sense" vcore at 5.7 ghz and still generating WHEA Errors would either mean you have a Mora 420 or EXTREMELY powerful cooling, or you have a P core rating below 100. And I don't think I've seen a p-core rating below 100. The amps draw you reported doesn't match 1.295v at all. You're on an AIO, right? 

I'm not even 100% sure what LLC value in mohms MSI is using. I only went by another person reporting a DC Loadline of 0.35 when he set LLC3. MSI doesn't set random values for DCLL as far as I know so that has to be a preset from somewhere (I doubt he entered it manually as he didn't say he entered it manually).

For 5.5 ghz, 4.3 E cores, 4.5 cache, try setting 1.225v, LLC: Mode 3, and do a 30 minute cinebench R20 loop.
Post your VRM current amps/vr vout specs during the run (take a screenshot and upload it, would be easier).
Make sure C-states are disabled so you don't get a minimum VR VOUT of 0.80v or something.

I'll try to match that with something like 1.215v set LLC7 or something to see how close the readings are.


----------



## Ichirou

raad11 said:


> What's the effective clock throttling issue? Why would it throttle in Firestrike?
> 
> I boosted the score by setting affinity to only the P-Cores. But it still just barely doesn't beat the 12900K's score (from 10/12/22 with same GPU). Looks like the 12900K was using the E-Cores and P-Cores without it being detrimental.


I have no idea how to force the PC to use all cores at 100%. Everything I've tried doesn't seem to rectify that issue.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> It's VERY VERY hard to say without knowing what specific loadlines your motherboard is using for Mode 3 LLC, and if VR VOUT is reading from an improper calibration or not.
> Getting 96C at 1.295v "die sense" vcore at 5.7 ghz and still generating WHEA Errors would either mean you have a Mora 420 or EXTREMELY powerful cooling, or you have a P core rating below 100. And I don't think I've seen a p-core rating below 100. The amps draw you reported doesn't match 1.295v at all. You're on an AIO, right?
> 
> I'm not even 100% sure what LLC value in mohms MSI is using. I only went by another person reporting a DC Loadline of 0.35 when he set LLC3. MSI doesn't set random values for DCLL as far as I know so that has to be a preset from somewhere (I doubt he entered it manually as he didn't say he entered it manually).
> 
> For 5.5 ghz, 4.3 E cores, 4.5 cache, try setting 1.225v, LLC: Mode 3, and do a 30 minute cinebench R20 loop.
> Post your VRM current amps/vr vout specs during the run (take a screenshot and upload it, would be easier).
> Make sure C-states are disabled so you don't get a minimum VR VOUT of 0.80v or something.
> 
> I'll try to match that with something like 1.215v set LLC7 or something to see how close the readings are.


I actually did it on LLC Mode 4, so it has a bit more Vdroop. It's indeed the MO-RA 420 + an extra 1080mm radiator.

I'll try out your settings now.

Also, screw it, I'm going straight into y-cruncher's CST with all tests enabled. R23 takes too long. It's equivalent to Stockfish anyway. Will let you know if I pass it.


----------



## Slackaveli

This 135 Force 2 13700k is a MADMAN. 5.6p/4.8 ring/ stock ecores at 1.278v VRout LLC3, and Im stable on my M-Die @ a shockingly great 7200c32, with tested 113k read, 49.0 latency!
I am sure it will do 8000 on A-Die.

This z690 Unify-x is a keeper, too. I made out like a bandit today.


----------



## raad11

Ichirou said:


> I have no idea how to force the PC to use all cores at 100%. Everything I've tried doesn't seem to rectify that issue.


In y-cruncher? But not Cinebench?

So I monitored C0 Residency % while running it on all cores, and Firestrike Extreme's Physics tests hits all cores at 50-70% which is sensible because none of these tests use 100% CPU I think? But for Combined, the problem test, it is only hitting 1 thread per P-Core and all 16 E-Cores.

When I set affinity to all P-Cores but 8 E-Cores, now it's hitting all threads on P-Cores, but not at 100%. The combined score goes up (but there's a side effect).

When I set affinity to only P-Cores, it hits all P-Core threads (0-15) at 80%. Combined score now matches or beats 12900K's Combined score.

Problem is the purely CPU Physics test now drops significantly so the overall score barely budges.

The test seems programmed to take advantage of a certain number of cores/threads a certain way and doesn't scale up. Is that Windows' fault or 3DMark's?

EDIT: I am number 3 on the leaderboard for 13900K combined score so this seems to be a problem with everyone's 13900K so far except the one guy in first place lol. I got 22.5k and after me it drops to ~18k which is what I was getting without restricting affinity to P-Cores


----------



## Slackaveli

deceptiv23 said:


> Only if unopened


really? Damn. Amazon Prime is the only way to go.


----------



## dante`afk

59 allcore, 47 ecores, 50 ring. my 24/7 setting until my direct die comes.

do you think my temps are normal for 400w and 260amps VROUT? I'm wondering if my ihs/block has proper mounting, as I'd think with rockitcool IHS + LM + contact frame I should have better temps, or no?


----------



## Ichirou

raad11 said:


> In y-cruncher? But not Cinebench?
> 
> So I monitored C0 Residency % while running it on all cores, and Firestrike Extreme's Physics tests hits all cores at 50-70% which is sensible because none of these tests use 100% CPU I think? But for Combined, the problem test, it is only hitting 1 thread per P-Core and all 16 E-Cores.
> 
> When I set affinity to all P-Cores but 8 E-Cores, now it's hitting all threads on P-Cores, but not at 100%. The combined score goes up (but there's a side effect).
> 
> When I set affinity to only P-Cores, it hits all P-Core threads (0-15) at 80%. Combined score now matches or beats 12900K's Combined score.
> 
> Problem is the purely CPU Physics test now drops significantly so the overall score barely budges.
> 
> The test seems programmed to take advantage of a certain number of cores/threads a certain way and doesn't scale up. Is that Windows' fault or 3DMark's?
> 
> EDIT: I am number 3 on the leaderboard for 13900K combined score so this seems to be a problem with everyone's 13900K so far except the one guy in first place lol. I got 22.5k and after me it drops to ~18k which is what I was getting without restricting affinity to P-Cores


Seems to be a software issue rather than an OS issue. I just ran y-cruncher's Component Stress Test, and it pushed everything to the max.

On a side note, I could pass SFT but fail N32. So there's definitely something going on. Going to figure out what exactly. @Falkentyne
The error pointed to Logical Core 8 being weak. I think that's the last P-core, not the E-cores. There might be some weaker cores on this chip compared to others.
The N32 test isn't exactly hard either; it doesn't need a lot of temps or wattage. Gotta narrow it down.

Second attempt of N32 now points to Logical Core 15, so an E-core. Definitely the ring or IMC.
I might need to tank the ring to 40x just to isolate it as a factor. I might've gotten a terrible ring bin.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Let the fun begin.


----------



## raad11

On 3DMark results database, selecting 2 Memory channels on Alder/Raptor Lake lets you see just the DDR4 results. They're not too far behind the DDR5 ones, though the top dozen or two are usually DDR5.


----------



## tps3443

newls1 said:


> you check to see if core isolation and memory integrity BS are turned off? Those are very much performance killers


That was it! Core isolation. It was originally off right after I installed this fresh Windows 11. Numbers were good. Then a few updates later, it’s all of a sudden enabled by its self.. like what?

Anyways, I’m breaking 44K now! Yay.

@Falkentyne 


















*This is a run at 6Ghz. my cpu is not delidded yet. I’ll get there eventually though*. @Ichirou


----------



## morph.

dante`afk said:


> 59 allcore, 47 ecores, 50 ring. my 24/7 setting until my direct die comes.
> 
> do you think my temps are normal for 400w and 260amps VROUT? I'm wondering if my ihs/block has proper mounting, as I'd think with rockitcool IHS + LM + contact frame I should have better temps, or no?
> 
> View attachment 2578715


Wow looks good... whats your cooling you have even hit a thermal throttle wall... Have you delidded with LM?


----------



## dante`afk

morph. said:


> Wow looks good... whats your cooling you have even hit a thermal throttle wall... Have you delidded with LM?


delid with LM yes, dual mora3, 4 pumps.


----------



## morph.

dante`afk said:


> delid with LM yes, dual mora3, 4 pumps.


haha, fearless delidding a brand new CPU for warranty and stock reasons.


----------



## Ichirou

morph. said:


> haha, fearless delidding a brand new CPU for warranty and stock reasons.


I wouldn't hesitate to delid/direct die if I had a golden CPU.
But I'm still testing mine, with mixed results. So I don't want to waste time doing that if it's not a good enough bin.
Still got two more incoming chips to test, from different stores.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Seems to be a software issue rather than an OS issue. I just ran y-cruncher's Component Stress Test, and it pushed everything to the max.
> 
> On a side note, I could pass SFT but fail N32. So there's definitely something going on. Going to figure out what exactly. @Falkentyne
> The error pointed to Logical Core 8 being weak. I think that's the last P-core, not the E-cores. There might be some weaker cores on this chip compared to others.
> The N32 test isn't exactly hard either; it doesn't need a lot of temps or wattage. Gotta narrow it down.
> 
> Second attempt of N32 now points to Logical Core 15, so an E-core. Definitely the ring or IMC.
> I might need to tank the ring to 40x just to isolate it as a factor. I might've gotten a terrible ring bin.


Reduce tREFI or raise tRFC a bit?


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Reduce tREFI or raise tRFC a bit?


Yeah, I dialed down the RAM OC a bit and managed to pass N32 and onwards (I disabled the prior tests). But I also bumped up Vcore by +0.02V.
Going to try an all-enabled CST now.

My suspicions of the cause is leaning closer to the IMC rather than the ring now, after some observation.
Or the BIOS. If the memory overclocking has gotten worse.

y-cruncher's gonna rape the chip in terms of degradation, but I'll try to take shortcuts here and there to lessen the effect.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> I wouldn't hesitate to delid/direct die if I had a golden CPU.
> But I'm still testing mine, with mixed results. So I don't want to waste time doing that if it's not a good enough bin.
> Still got two more incoming chips to test, from different stores.


Out of (3) 13900K’s I expect you’ll find a really good sample. Sound like amazing odds to me.


----------



## sniperpowa

First session on my sp99 chip on ln2 My heater wasn't working lost stability this is the best I got.
Timespy NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-13900K Processor,EVGA Corp. Z690 DARK KINGPIN (3dmark.com) 
Firestrike NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-13900K Processor,EVGA Corp. Z690 DARK KINGPIN (3dmark.com)


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Out of (3) 13900K’s I expect you’ll find a really good sample. Sound like amazing odds to me.


Right now, I don't even know the quality of _this_ sample, lol. It seems like a total clusterf**k.
I think on its own, it's above average, but the DDR4 IMC is a bit weaker than my 12900KF's.
I still haven't found the optimal configuration for this chip, and that will necessitate much more testing. But I'm achieving some semblance of stability so far.


----------



## Ichirou

@Falkentyne Finally, I managed to pass y-cruncher's CST (below).
P-Core 7 briefly touched Tjmax during SFT, but that's all right; it only happened for like a millisecond.
All of the cores were running at max 100% load and zero Effective Clock throttling throughout.

*Vcore ~1.29V, LLC Mode 3 (flat), 1.26V average VR VOUT. Peak Current (IOUT) 291.5A. Peak Power (POUT) 363W. 56/43/47 P/E/Ring.*
Provisional: VDIMM 1.65V, VCCSA 1.40V, VDDQ 1.60V (all of these were raised just to pass TM5 and y-cruncher).

I could give 57x a shot, but I don't think it will pass, based on previous findings. I'd need to bump up Vcore, which would overheat in y-cruncher CST.
For now, I'm going to try and see if I can optimize my RAM a bit first. I don't like the voltages I boosted them to.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> @Falkentyne Finally, I managed to pass y-cruncher's CST (below).
> P-Core 7 briefly touched Tjmax during SFT, but that's all right; it only happened for like a millisecond.
> All of the cores were running at max 100% load and zero Effective Clock throttling throughout.
> 
> *Vcore ~1.29V, LLC Mode 3 (flat), 1.26V average VR VOUT. Peak Current (IOUT) 291.5A. Peak Power (POUT) 363W. 56/43/47 P/E/Ring.*
> Provisional: VDIMM 1.65V, VCCSA 1.40V, VDDQ 1.60V (all of these were raised just to pass TM5 and y-cruncher).
> 
> I could give 57x a shot, but I don't think it will pass, based on previous findings. I'd need to bump up Vcore, which would overheat in y-cruncher CST.
> For now, I'm going to try and see if I can optimize my RAM a bit first. I don't like the voltages I boosted them to.
> View attachment 2578722



Just ran y-cruncher for 15 seconds at my max stockfish stable settings (x56, x45, x47), of 1.320v bios set, LLC6 (0.49 mohm), which is usually 1.208v load and 250 amps in Stockfish.
92C and I don't dare run at this current even if it's "safe".

(1520mv - 263 * 1.1 mohm) = 1.230v max safe power virus voltage even though it showed 1.199v.
(1320mv - (263 * 0.49)) = 1.191v











Your Bios, VR VOUT and Amps readings don't make sense at all.
It's almost like your VR VOUT is completely wrong.

The only way you can get a VR VOUT Of 1.250v "die sense" is if your LLC was 0.14 mohms at mode 3:

1290mv - (0.14 mohm * 291 IOUT) = 1250mv. (1249.6mv).

If LLC was around 0.35 mohms, you would get:
1290mv - (0.35 * 291) = 1180mv=1.18v. Less Die sense vcore than me.

Yet your IOUT is much higher.
Did you fully tighten down the Thermalright bracket?

There's only two possible explanations for this.

1) your cooler is badly mounted or your TR bracket is badly installed.
1) your VR VOUT is being read completely totally wrong, which is completely throwing off the amps reading, and POUT= volts * Amps.

You could easily be at a "real" voltage under 1.20v and not even know it, and just have a major cooling issue, with VR VOUT and IOUT somehow linked to "socket sense" vcore, giving you a much higher reading than expected--and your cooling mount could be making you fail the 5.7 test.

I really do not know.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Just ran y-cruncher for 15 seconds at my max stockfish stable settings (x56, x45, x47), of 1.320v bios set, LLC6 (0.49 mohm), which is usually 1.208v load and 250 amps in Stockfish.
> 92C and I don't dare run at this current even if it's "safe".
> 
> (1520mv - 263 * 1.1 mohm) = 1.230v max safe power virus voltage even though it showed 1.199v.
> (1320mv - (263 * 0.49)) = 1.191v
> 
> View attachment 2578724


So my chip's far worse than yours, then. Comparing my VR VOUT of 1.26V to your 1.21V on load.
That puts my chip around... Global SP 100? Or less?


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> So my chip's far worse than yours, then. Comparing my VR VOUT of 1.26V to your 1.21V on load.
> That puts my chip around... Global SP 100? Or less?


I was in the process of editing my post.
I dont think your chip is worse than mine.
There's no way in hell Mode 3 LLC is 0.14 mohms.
That's the only way your VR VOUT would be "die sense accurate" otherwise.

Please check my edit.
And see if you can see if there's an issue with the cooling.

Can you run another test with your BIOS set to VCC_SENSE and then a test with your BIOS set to "Socket SENSE"--assuming it even has an option for this? Unless only the Unify-X, Ace and Godlike have this...

I remember back on Z590, MSI actually changed the LOADLINE CALIBRATION mohm values depending on if it was set to die sense and socket sense---one of the guys kept bugging Toppc about this (and reporting many bugs in their BIOS, some which were fixed) until Toppc blocked his messages completely (then the bioses got even more buggy). Then see if your VR VOUT changes (and pay attention to the temps).


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> I was in the process of editing my post.
> I dont think your chip is worse than mine.
> There's no way in hell Mode 3 LLC is 0.14 mohms.
> That's the only way your VR VOUT would be "die sense accurate" otherwise.
> 
> Please check my edit.
> And see if you can see if there's an issue with the cooling.





Falkentyne said:


> Just ran y-cruncher for 15 seconds at my max stockfish stable settings (x56, x45, x47), of 1.320v bios set, LLC6 (0.49 mohm), which is usually 1.208v load and 250 amps in Stockfish.
> 92C and I don't dare run at this current even if it's "safe".
> 
> (1520mv - 263 * 1.1 mohm) = 1.230v max safe power virus voltage even though it showed 1.199v.
> (1320mv - (263 * 0.49)) = 1.191v
> 
> View attachment 2578724
> 
> 
> 
> Your Bios, VR VOUT and Amps readings don't make sense at all.
> It's almost like your VR VOUT is completely wrong.
> 
> The only way you can get a VR VOUT Of 1.250v "die sense" is if your LLC was 0.14 mohms at mode 3:
> 
> 1290mv - (0.14 mohm * 291 IOUT) = 1250mv. (1249.6mv).
> 
> If LLC was around 0.35 mohms, you would get:
> 1290mv - (0.35 * 291) = 1180mv=1.18v. Less Die sense vcore than me.
> 
> Yet your IOUT is much higher.
> Did you fully tighten down the Thermalright bracket?
> 
> There's only two possible explanations for this.
> 
> 1) your cooler is badly mounted or your TR bracket is badly installed.
> 1) your VR VOUT is being read completely totally wrong, which is completely throwing off the amps reading, and POUT= volts * Amps.
> 
> You could easily be at a "real" voltage under 1.20v and not even know it, and just have a major cooling issue, with VR VOUT and IOUT somehow linked to "socket sense" vcore, giving you a much higher reading than expected--and your cooling mount could be making you fail the 5.7 test.
> 
> I really do not know.


Well, I tightened down the TR bracket to the point where the screws stopped moving, and I cleaned and repasted nicely. Haven't detached it again since.
I did this after I did the first few R23 tests, as I had mentioned before.

In the MSI BIOS, in the explanation window for their LLC modes, Mode 3 is a perfectly horizontal line.
I don't have a photo on hand right now, but this is what the Z690 Pro looks like:








Mode 2 looks flatter on that board instead, but on the Edge, Mode 3 is perfectly flat, Mode 2 has overshoot, and Mode 4 has some Vdroop.

Side Note: VDDQ will not budge at all. It has to be +0.10V more than before, at 1.60V instead of 1.50V. Yikes.


Falkentyne said:


> Can you run another test with your BIOS set to VCC_SENSE and then a test with your BIOS set to "Socket SENSE"--assuming it even has an option for this? Unless only the Unify-X, Ace and Godlike have this...


Sure, I can do a test with the other Sense setting instead, all else held equal. The test I did above was on VCC Sense.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Well, I tightened down the TR bracket to the point where the screws stopped moving, and I cleaned and repasted nicely. Haven't detached it again since.
> I did this after I did the first few R23 tests, as I had mentioned before.
> 
> In the MSI BIOS, in the explanation window for their LLC modes, Mode 3 is a perfectly horizontal line.
> I don't have a photo on hand right now, but this is what the Z690 Pro looks like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mode 2 looks flatter on that board instead, but on the Edge, Mode 3 is perfectly flat, Mode 2 has overshoot, and Mode 4 has some Vdroop.
> 
> Side Note: VDDQ will not budge at all. It has to be +0.10V more than before, at 1.60V instead of 1.50V. Yikes.
> 
> Sure, I can do a test with the other Sense setting instead, all else held equal. The test I did above was on VCC Sense.


MSI's chart is bullshit.
Their lines are based on socket sense, where you have board impedance, which causes mode 3 to "look" flat, and mode 1 to look like it has voltage rise. There's voltage drop across the power plane, and this drop causes the super i/o chip to report a rise.
It's impossible to have a NEGATIVE loadline. Elmor stated this.

MSI didn't even start adding "VCC_Sense" until z490 and people demonstrated that their VCC_Sense isn't die sense at all! You have to check the Z490 or Z590 msi section
What they determined was that BOTH VCC_Sense and socket sense used socket sense--just Vcc_sense changed the loadlines to make them different....


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> MSI's chart is bullshit.
> Their lines are based on socket sense, where you have board impedance, which causes mode 3 to "look" flat, and mode 1 to look like it has voltage rise. There's voltage drop across the power plane, and this drop causes the super i/o chip to report a rise.
> It's impossible to have a NEGATIVE loadline. Elmor stated this.
> 
> MSI didn't even start adding "VCC_Sense" until z490 and people demonstrated that their VCC_Sense isn't die sense at all! You have to check the Z490 or Z590 msi section
> What they determined was that BOTH VCC_Sense and socket sense used socket sense--just Vcc_sense changed the loadlines to make them different....


Tried swapping VCC Sense to Socket Sense. Running y-cruncher CST with the same 56/43/47 and voltages set.
I'll probably just stop it after SFT, since that's the most significant one. N32 and HNT are meaningful too, but we don't need that for now.


----------



## SoldierRBT

Ichirou said:


> @Falkentyne Finally, I managed to pass y-cruncher's CST (below).
> P-Core 7 briefly touched Tjmax during SFT, but that's all right; it only happened for like a millisecond.
> All of the cores were running at max 100% load and zero Effective Clock throttling throughout.
> 
> *Vcore ~1.29V, LLC Mode 3 (flat), 1.26V average VR VOUT. Peak Current (IOUT) 291.5A. Peak Power (POUT) 363W. 56/43/47 P/E/Ring.*
> Provisional: VDIMM 1.65V, VCCSA 1.40V, VDDQ 1.60V (all of these were raised just to pass TM5 and y-cruncher).
> 
> I could give 57x a shot, but I don't think it will pass, based on previous findings. I'd need to bump up Vcore, which would overheat in y-cruncher CST.
> For now, I'm going to try and see if I can optimize my RAM a bit first. I don't like the voltages I boosted them to.
> View attachment 2578722


On Y-cruncher, I'd suggest starting with RAM OC that isn't too hard on the system. the higher ram OC, the hotter it runs in YC. There are some other voltages that can help stability when more vcore doesn't. L2 and core/ring PLLs are a good start. 

I've managed to get 5.5/4.3/4.9 stable so far at 1.14v VR out (around 1.11v asus die sense).


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> MSI's chart is bullshit.
> Their lines are based on socket sense, where you have board impedance, which causes mode 3 to "look" flat, and mode 1 to look like it has voltage rise. There's voltage drop across the power plane, and this drop causes the super i/o chip to report a rise.
> It's impossible to have a NEGATIVE loadline. Elmor stated this.
> 
> MSI didn't even start adding "VCC_Sense" until z490 and people demonstrated that their VCC_Sense isn't die sense at all! You have to check the Z490 or Z590 msi section
> What they determined was that BOTH VCC_Sense and socket sense used socket sense--just Vcc_sense changed the loadlines to make them different....


Socket Sense gave a BSOD just after SFT started.


SoldierRBT said:


> On Y-cruncher, I'd suggest starting with RAM OC that isn't too hard on the system. the higher ram OC, the hotter it runs in YC. There are some other voltages that can help stability when more vcore doesn't. L2 and core/ring PLLs are a good start.
> 
> I've managed to get 5.5/4.3/4.9 stable so far at 1.14v VR out (around 1.11v asus die sense).
> View attachment 2578727


Well, the issue here is that I don't necessarily have a great sample. So fiddling with alternative voltages is not really going to improve the chip by any meaningful amount.

Update: Tested dropping VCCSA from 1.40V to 1.36V (only needed 1.35V in the past). I did CST with all of the difficult tests enabled, and passed them all.
So the IMC is probably all right, but VDDQ got worse. Going to try restoring my past VDIMM and retesting TM5.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Socket Sense gave a BSOD just after SFT started.
> 
> Well, the issue here is that I don't necessarily have a great sample. So fiddling with alternative voltages is not really going to improve the chip by any meaningful amount.


Just like I thought.
Changing from die sense to socket sense changes the loadline "stock" values that are linked to each mode without telling you.

So Socket Sense + mode 3 LLC has more vdroop than die sense + mode 3 LLC.
That's not supposed to happen
If you set socket sense on Asus, the vdroop is "less" on vcore but the raw vcore remains exactly the same (which you can measure and see for yourself with the Asus Raw VRM tool, which shows the correct values regardless of if you set die sense or socket sense in the BIOS. The LLC mohms don't change and the raw VRM reporting doesn't change. Only the location of the read circuit for the "Vcore sensor" in hwinfo and cpu-z (basically, a diode is enabled or disabled).


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Just like I thought.
> Changing from die sense to socket sense changes the loadline "stock" values that are linked to each mode without telling you.
> 
> So Socket Sense + mode 3 LLC has more vdroop than die sense + mode 3 LLC.
> That's not supposed to happen
> If you set socket sense on Asus, the vdroop is "less" on vcore but the raw vcore remains exactly the same (which you can measure and see for yourself with the Asus Raw VRM tool, which shows the correct values regardless of if you set die sense or socket sense in the BIOS. The LLC mohms don't change and the raw VRM reporting doesn't change. Only the location of the read circuit for the "Vcore sensor" in hwinfo and cpu-z (basically, a diode is enabled or disabled).


Meh, blame MSI's engineers, lol 

So at this point in time, what do you propose I test next? Or do you already have a ballpark estimate for my chip's quality?


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Meh, blame MSI's engineers, lol
> 
> So at this point in time, what do you propose I test next? Or do you already have a ballpark estimate for my chip's quality?


Find someone with a Strix or Maximus board and check the SP in there.
You can't trust anything that MSI board is doing. We don't even know what the loadlines are set to.
Someone a year or two ago wrote the different LLC values for socket and die sense on MSI but I do not know if this was on discord or on these forums nor do i know where to find the post.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Find someone with a Strix or Maximus board and check the SP in there.
> You can't trust anything that MSI board is doing. We don't even know what the loadlines are set to.
> Someone a year or two ago wrote the different LLC values for socket and die sense on MSI but I do not know if this was on discord or on these forums nor do i know where to find the post.


Oh, so the voltages are so royally ****ed on this board/BIOS that there's no way to give a clear depiction of its quality because there's no baseline to refer to?

I feel tempted to buy a Strix now. But at the same time, there's no real need to do so as long as the CPU and RAM works.

@tps3443 has a Z690 Unify-X, so I imagine it would have a similar voltage configuration as mine.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Oh, so the voltages are so royally ****ed on this board/BIOS that there's no way to give a clear depiction of its quality because there's no baseline to refer to?
> 
> I feel tempted to buy a Strix now. But at the same time, there's no real need to do so as long as the CPU and RAM works.
> 
> @tps3443 has a Z690 Unify-X, so I imagine it would have a similar voltage configuration as mine.


Exactly.
The only thing that makes any sense is your POUT value, because it's based on VR VOUT * OUT*.
But the fact that you have 40mv of vdroop at 291 amps of power draw should raise eyebrows.
Of course it's "possible" the 291 amps is real, but depending on your cooler, I've seen people cool that on custom loops.
I simply don't know.

I don't know what your income status is like but can you possibly just buy a Strix (Z790 not z690) and test the CPU In it then just return the strix?
Apparently, Strix Z790 has die sense now, (Z690 ONLY has socket sense). And you get SP reading.


----------



## skullbringer

bscool said:


> No one has replied yet when I asked about it.
> 
> I searched on hwobot discord and @skullbringer posted about it is temp depend also. Maybe he can comment on it.
> 
> Another comment I found by @Seby9123 "cpu force = meme + varies across cpu model + temp + bios"


yes it's temp dependent on msi and giggles. at least last time I used it and based on z690, not sure if they changed something with bios updates or for z790.

usually you can run cpu force a few times in succession and it will spit out slightly different values, just because the temp of individual cores fluctuate by a few C just in idle.

ideally we'd just need a tool that can read the vid table at given frequency from the os, all the SP, CPU force, cookie guessing would be done.


----------



## This is a hat.

Someone here (hunitt) passed the a-die 8000 in the MSI Z-790i Edge(12 layers) tm5 test.

Sa 1.1
Cpu vddq 1.4 vddq2 auto
Dram 1.66 1.61
RAM Water Cooling












I think it's necessary for the strongest itx configuration.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Exactly.
> The only thing that makes any sense is your POUT value, because it's based on VR VOUT * OUT*.
> But the fact that you have 40mv of vdroop at 291 amps of power draw should raise eyebrows.
> Of course it's "possible" the 291 amps is real, but depending on your cooler, I've seen people cool that on custom loops.
> I simply don't know.
> 
> I don't know what your income status is like but can you possibly just buy a Strix (Z790 not z690) and test the CPU In it then just return the strix?
> Apparently, Strix Z790 has die sense now, (Z690 ONLY has socket sense). And you get SP reading.


That's a lot of effort just to get an SP reading...
It would be sensible if this Edge had issues getting the chip to work, but it is indeed functional as it is now.
The Z790 Strix, after tax, would be double the cost of the Z690 Strix. Which is absolutely bonkers.
Also, switching between boards requires me to reinstall Windows fresh (I don't know why, it just does), which is more extra time...

I think I'm just going to sit on this for now and bin a few more chips. I'll just figure out a baseline with this one, and compare the next two chips with it.
Gonna dial it back to 55x on the P-cores, lower the Vcore, and focus on the RAM for now.


----------



## tps3443

At this point I feel like 


Ichirou said:


> That's a lot of effort just to get an SP reading...
> It would be sensible if this Edge had issues getting the chip to work, but it is indeed functional as it is now.
> The Z790 Strix, after tax, would be double the cost of the Z690 Strix. Which is absolutely bonkers.
> Also, switching between boards requires me to reinstall Windows fresh (I don't know why, it just does), which is more extra time...
> 
> I think I'm just going to sit on this for now and bin a few more chips. I'll just figure out a baseline with this one, and compare the next two chips with it.
> Gonna dial it back to 55x on the P-cores, lower the Vcore, and focus on the RAM for now.



What was the MSI Force rating? Make sure your on all bios defaults before checking.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> At this point I feel like
> 
> 
> 
> What was the MSI Force rating? Make sure your on all bios defaults before checking.


There isn't one on the Edge. It's strictly top-end DDR5 boards =\


----------



## toncij

I'm not sure if highest end boards bring any value now. IMC seems far more important, like all boards can do it. Feature wise it's hard to even see benefits in Asus Hero vs Extreme and vs Aorus Master, to remove "there's 10G network" argument. The price of Extreme/Godlike/Xtreme in Europe is 300% that of the Hero, Aorus...

Can anyone point out the value?


----------



## Ichirou

toncij said:


> I'm not sure if highest end boards bring any value now. IMC seems far more important, like all boards can do it. Feature wise it's hard to even see benefits in Asus Hero vs Extreme and vs Aorus Master, to remove "there's 10G network" argument. The price of Extreme/Godlike/Xtreme in Europe is 300% that of the Hero, Aorus...
> 
> Can anyone point out the value?


There really isn't much value. Especially not for DDR4. And for DDR5, the top end (properly binned) boards for some makers can already support up to 8,000 MHz.
It's much more budget-conscious to buy a top-end past-gen board instead.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> There really isn't much value. Especially not for DDR4. And for DDR5, the top end (properly binned) boards for some makers can already support up to 8,000 MHz.
> It's much more budget-conscious to buy a top-end past-gen board instead.


Just borrow a board and return it.
Hell, pay a visit to a computer store with one and ask them very politely if you can test the chip (just make up some random excuse).


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Sold my Z690 Formula for £80 less than I bought it for, and got £130 Apex hopefully today and if I manage to fix that's great if not, I will get Z790 Apex or Z790 Kingpin.

Is there a way to get a binned 13900K? I'm dreading buying and returning from all the retailers haha


----------



## Ichirou

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Sold my Z690 Formula for £80 less than I bought it for, and got £130 Apex hopefully today and if I manage to fix that's great if not, I will get Z790 Apex or Z790 Kingpin.
> 
> Is there a way to get a binned 13900K? I'm dreading buying and returning from all the retailers haha


Yeah. Wait for the 13900KS.
I've been screwed over twice buying "binned Alder Lake CPUs" so far, so that's not gonna happen again. Nor would I advise anyone else to attempt to buy one either.
Unless it's someone you're close with and trust, don't bother.


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> I can't seem to prevent my P-cores from throttling down their Effective Clocks in y-cruncher. Not sure why. R23 doesn't get throttled, though.
> 
> VR VOUT average of 1.275V in R23 is doing okay with 55x on the P-cores so far. I'm still tweaking around because I couldn't gain any semblance of stability for a while. I'll retry 57x after 55x. I don't think I have a strong chip. But I'll keep the updates coming.
> 
> That's an Engineering Sample chip.


No way same here dude. I’m glad I’m not the only one. For me it mainly happens in Linpack Xtreme. For some reason in Intel Burn Test it seems they’re pinned more consistently at the max set clock. I dunno. I’ve legit checked every setting and there’s nothing I left out.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Ichirou said:


> Yeah. Wait for the 13900KS.
> I've been screwed over twice buying "binned Alder Lake CPUs" so far, so that's not gonna happen again. Nor would I advise anyone else to attempt to buy one either.
> Unless it's someone you're close with and trust, don't bother.


The one I bought before worked like a charm, I'm still trying to figure out what bin is good, but I guess have to OC it to see.

I currently have no CPU so gonna buy something


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> No way same here dude. I’m glad I’m not the only one. For me it mainly happens in Linpack Xtreme. For some reason in Intel Burn Test it seems they’re pinned more consistently at the max set clock. I dunno. I’ve legit checked every setting and there’s nothing I left out.


From what I've noticed, it seems to be software-specific.

In y-cruncher, if you run the main test, it'll quickly park the P-cores and focus entirely on the E-cores.
However, if you run the Component Stress Test, it'll max out all cores.

In R23, although it doesn't always max out all cores, it'll still keep all cores running at decent load.
In TM5, it parks all of the P-cores, likely because of it being old software.


TheNaitsyrk said:


> The one I bought before worked like a charm, I'm still trying to figure out what bin is good, but I guess have to OC it to see.
> 
> I currently have no CPU so gonna buy something


It's more fun to bin chips you buy yourself. Buying prebinned is bound to lose you money over time even if it is a legit seller.

Since you've gone DDR5, the next generation of Intel is arriving in the coming months, so you probably wouldn't stick with Raptor Lake anymore anyway.


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> From what I've noticed, it seems to be software-specific.
> 
> In y-cruncher, if you run the main test, it'll quickly park the P-cores and focus entirely on the E-cores.
> However, if you run the Component Stress Test, it'll max out all cores.
> 
> In R23, although it doesn't always max out all cores, it'll still keep all cores running at decent load.
> In TM5, it parks all of the P-cores, likely because of it being old software.
> 
> It's more fun to bin chips you buy yourself. Buying prebinned is bound to lose you money over time even if it is a legit seller.
> 
> Since you've gone DDR5, the next generation of Intel is arriving in the coming months, so you probably wouldn't stick with Raptor Lake anymore anyway.


I actually noticed that on W11 stuff like TM5 and HCI etc are better able to max out all-cores because the scheduler is somewhat better. I had a brief stint on W10 a few weeks ago because I had to reinstall my OS, but found that in memory tests the E-cores seemed to be heavily slowing down the testing. 

I thought that W11 would fix this Linpack Xtreme weirdness but it only fixed TM5. If I do TM5 now it should run 100, and HCI usually I’ve found to do 100. My friend ran HCI yesterday briefly and he was at like 33% because we hadn’t yet disabled C-states. Freakin’ wild stuff. I get power efficiency, but MS needs to cool it with this scheduler gimping performance. Not sure how much a Intel is to blame in this.


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> I actually noticed that on W11 stuff like TM5 and HCI etc are better able to max out all-cores because the scheduler is somewhat better. I had a brief stint on W10 a few weeks ago because I had to reinstall my OS, but found that in memory tests the E-cores seemed to be heavily slowing down the testing.
> 
> I thought that W11 would fix this Linpack Xtreme weirdness but it only fixed TM5. If I do TM5 now it should run 100, and HCI usually I’ve found to do 100. My friend ran HCI yesterday briefly and he was at like 33% because we hadn’t yet disabled C-states. Freakin’ wild stuff. I get power efficiency, but MS needs to cool it with this scheduler gimping performance. Not sure how much a Intel is to blame in this.


We've reached a point where we should even compare OSes for maximum performance lol


----------



## 8472

Question for everyone. Would it be fairly simple to use one of the lower power limits with the 13900k to get it to have thermals and power consumption similar to a 12700k while still maintaining decent performance? 

Those extra e-cores could come in handy and single threaded performance should still be excellent so I'm thinking about it. But I don't want to get a new PSU nor have the cpu go into the 90s when stressed.


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> We've reached a point where we should even compare OSes for maximum performance lol


W11 seems to have issues with Zen still, but for ADL/RPL it’s all in that scheduler optimisation. So many different performance caveats you’ll notice in W10 compared to 11. I honestly can understand why W10 users hate E-cores so much. It becomes quite a nightmare to deal with on W10.


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> Shame thermalright went cheap on the contact frames and bundled them with TX7, like thats ancient why even bother?


They sell the TFX apart


----------



## energie80

im using TFX, best thermal paste i ever used. Moved from noctua nht2


----------



## digitalfrost

Ichirou said:


> In the MSI BIOS, in the explanation window for their LLC modes, Mode 3 is a perfectly horizontal line.
> I don't have a photo on hand right now, but this is what the Z690 Pro looks like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mode 2 looks flatter on that board instead, but on the Edge, Mode 3 is perfectly flat, Mode 2 has overshoot, and Mode 4 has some Vdroop.
> 
> Side Note: VDDQ will not budge at all. It has to be +0.10V more than before, at 1.60V instead of 1.50V. Yikes.
> 
> Sure, I can do a test with the other Sense setting instead, all else held equal. The test I did above was on VCC Sense.


LLC mOhms for this board see here: MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4/WIFI Owners Thread

I verified these values myself and they are accurate.


----------



## Silent Scone

Retail 13700K. 104 p core and 69 ecore.

The E-Waste is real on this one 😄

5.7/4.2 obtainable (all core)


----------



## Astral85

ChrisOsbakk said:


> 13900K (not delidded) + Z690 Hero
> SP P: 119
> SP E: 88
> Sp Combined: 108
> 1.34V in bios + LLC6
> 1.217V in Windows under load (Average)
> 1.208V in Windows under load (Minimum)
> 1.314 in Windows Idle
> Total cpu power draw: 353.9W
> P-cores: 5.7
> E-cores: 4.5
> Ring: 4.7
> Max P-core temp: 88C
> Max E-core temp: 74C
> 30min MC R23 stable
> R23 score after 30min run: 40809


What CPU cooler?


----------



## Telstar

deceptiv23 said:


> What are the odds it’s better?


3%?


----------



## Antsu

Just got my KF installed. Seems to be pretty decent, @Nizzen SP106 / 115 P / 88 E. Only had time to get most of my RAM settings copied, and just did a quick and dirty 6Ghz on the core (I always run E-cores and HT OFF). CS:GO is finally playable on my 1200Hz monitor.  Now time for some sleep and more tests tomorrow after work.


----------



## digitalfrost

Ichirou said:


> Socket Sense gave a BSOD just after SFT started.


Buildzoid had both the PRO Z690-A and the Unify X hooked up to an osci. Interestingly, he didn't complain about different loadlines when switching between VCC and Socket Sense with the PRO here:






However the osci is not visible on the screen, he just looks at the HWiNFO readout. Maybe he missed it?

With the Unify X however it's exactly like described:






Socket Sense has more Vdroop than VCC sense. I would be surprised if their cheaper board didn't exhibit this behaviour but their expensive one does.


----------



## gtz

Ichirou said:


> So my chip's far worse than yours, then. Comparing my VR VOUT of 1.26V to your 1.21V on load.
> That puts my chip around... Global SP 100? Or less?


Your chip is almost identical to mine, and I think I got a low binned chip. Though your temps are much higher. But that can be do to the higher IMC voltage you are running thru your chip to get DDR4 stable.

But I'm in the same boat as you, I also think my Classified board is messing up my voltages and hard to get a clear baseline. Even the newest BIOS does not fix anything. I think it was you who warned me about EVGA boards about not properly adding support to newer CPUs. I should have listened.


----------



## chentj1988

I got my 13900k today, was happy that I got SP105 114P 88E. I didnt run much test but Im getting LLC3 1.15v Vload @ 5.5ghz all core R23 10 rounds. By using aiOC, the highest core can achieve 6.2ghz at window. Pretty impressive! I think batch number could give you better chance of getting good chip. Before I bought mine, the shop is selling 2 13900K, my friend told me one of the guy got SP108 with same batch number as 1 of the 13900k (X235K450). Not sure if this is pure luck but good luck man at least worth to try.


----------



## PBaF

After messing around with options I found that the 13900K is just too wild to tame on even a Liquid Freezer 360 with 3x NF-A12x25's. This CPU was made for high end cooling enthusiasts, not the average AIO enjoyer. 
Turned off ASUS multi-core enhancements and set "enforce all limits", which caps the CPU to 250W. Settled on a -0.120 voltage offset in BIOS, passed 30min CB R23 with no crashes or WHEA errors. Average Die Sense Vcore was 1.149. Max core temp 87 degrees, average high 70's. Average CB R23 score 39800. So basically stock performance with much lower temps and power. Still leagues ahead of my 9900KS in performance and I can't complain.


----------



## bhav

toncij said:


> I'm not sure if highest end boards bring any value now. IMC seems far more important, like all boards can do it. Feature wise it's hard to even see benefits in Asus Hero vs Extreme and vs Aorus Master, to remove "there's 10G network" argument. The price of Extreme/Godlike/Xtreme in Europe is 300% that of the Hero, Aorus...
> 
> Can anyone point out the value?


Not just IMC.

You can buy a £1000 board and get trash IMC and SP and no overclock at all.

With the DDR4 IMC being completely trashed now, 4000 lowest timings is about the maximum for most IMCs and no board will struggle with that.


----------



## bhav

PBaF said:


> After messing around with options I found that the 13900K is just too wild to tame on even a Liquid Freezer 360 with 3x NF-A12x25's. This CPU was made for high end cooling enthusiasts, not the average AIO enjoyer.
> Turned off ASUS multi-core enhancements and set "enforce all limits", which caps the CPU to 250W. Settled on a -0.120 voltage offset in BIOS, passed 30min CB R23 with no crashes or WHEA errors. Average Die Sense Vcore was 1.149. Max core temp 87 degrees, average high 70's. Average CB R23 score 39800. So basically stock performance with much lower temps and power. Still leagues ahead of my 9900KS in performance and I can't complain.





> Uses Asus multi core enhancement





> Complains temps are too high


----------



## PBaF

Even with enhancements off and auto voltage the temps were still getting out of control.


----------



## energie80

Rpl limit is your cooling


----------



## Betroz

Antsu said:


> (I always run E-cores and HT OFF)


Is turning HT off still a thing in 2022?


----------



## energie80

Gives a lot of stability


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> Is turning HT off still a thing in 2022?


Turning HT off it it allows higher P core is being done for CPU limited strategy games.

If the games you play are mostly single threaded then no point in doing that.


----------



## HemuV2

So I got my new toys, rn i have an aorus elite ax z690 and a 12700KF(the worst sample ever) basically needs 1.46V load vcore to run 5.1ghz in cinebench, this led me to get RPL and a new board to check SP, how do i make sure the reading comes out right and also take a guess at the SP😜


http://imgur.com/a/BdwwXHq




http://imgur.com/PByZK3R


----------



## cstkl1

ViTosS said:


> Btw guys, what's the best thermal paste to get now to use on 13900k, I'm debating between Arctix MX-4, Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut (had worse results compared to MX-4 to me in the past) or the Kryonaut Extreme?


kryo extreme but buy 2g version.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> kryo extreme but buy 2g version.


Why not the 34g version?


----------



## warbucks

dante`afk said:


> little test getting the feel for the cpu.
> 
> 1.24v, LLC3, 57/45/47
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578435
> 
> 
> Now I regret having sold my supercool direct die, I'll order a new one and just swap it on and keep it until next gen. (having to drain the loop every time you wanted to change something was annoying AF.


I have the supercool direct die, but the nickel plated copper version and you don't have to drain the loop when removing. Order that one


----------



## Betroz

bhav said:


> Turning HT off it it allows higher P core is being done for CPU limited strategy games.
> 
> If the games you play are mostly single threaded then no point in doing that.


I play mostly Battlefield, and that game uses a lot of threads.


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Why not the 34g version?


i find once u open . their viscosity kindda degrade over time. but the 2g we tend to use and throw instead of storing cause max it can do is 1 cpu+ gpu or cpu 3 times.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Betroz said:


> Why not the 34g version?


If you can afford it get it.


----------



## dante`afk

warbucks said:


> I have the supercool direct die, but the nickel plated copper version and you don't have to drain the loop when removing. Order that one


how? even the nickel version is being mounted in-between the retention bracket?


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> Why not the 34g version?


Well just to point out I have a big ass tube of MX4 that isnt even 25% used up. I still have a small tube of AS5 that never got used up.

By they time you need more paste, there will likely be better on the market.

Also a tube of TX7, loads of god knows what in sachets.

MX-5 is better than all the pastes in my paste collection. Might use the AS5 on my I3 build actually to start the process of getting rid of it.


----------



## bhav

When the window shopping on MemoryC leads to triggering the old upgrade-itis:






64GB G.Skill Trident Z NEO RGB DDR4 4000MHz PC4-32000 CL18 Dual Channel Kit (2x 32GB)


Buy 64GB G.Skill Trident Z NEO RGB DDR4 4000MHz PC4-32000 CL18 Dual Channel Kit (2x 32GB) online from MemoryC at low prices. Worldwide shipping, money back guarantee, in-stock guarantee!




www.memoryc.co.uk





_Cuts off own hands with kitchen knife so I cannot click buy_.


----------



## Betroz

bhav said:


> MX-5 is better than all the pastes in my paste collection. Might use the AS5 on my I3 build actually to start the process of getting rid of it.


I just read that MX-5 is EOL already. MX-6 is coming.


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> I just read that MX-5 is EOL already. MX-6 is coming.


Wow, I'll get a tube of MX-5 with the AIO anyway.

And yea, MX6 confirmed:



https://www.tomshardware.com/news/arctic-mx-6-thermal-grease-set-to-launch



Don't waste money on big tubes.


----------



## warbucks

dante`afk said:


> how? even the nickel version is being mounted in-between the retention bracket?


It's a fully sealed block, the cold plate and the top of the block where the threads go are completely sealed. Here's a couple pictures I just took quickly that'll show you.





Spoiler: Pictures


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

bhav said:


> Wow, I'll get a tube of MX-5 with the AIO anyway.
> 
> And yea, MX6 confirmed:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/arctic-mx-6-thermal-grease-set-to-launch
> 
> 
> 
> Don't waste money on big tubes.


The problem with TG is £21 on Amazon for 2G tube vs £79 for 33G tube. 0 sense.


----------



## warbucks

bhav said:


> Wow, I'll get a tube of MX-5 with the AIO anyway.
> 
> And yea, MX6 confirmed:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/arctic-mx-6-thermal-grease-set-to-launch
> 
> 
> 
> Don't waste money on big tubes.


I would avoid MX-5, they had a lot of consistency issues with this paste. Wait for MX-6 or grab some Noctua NT-H2.


----------



## bhav

warbucks said:


> I would avoid MX-5, they had a lot of consistency issues with this paste. Wait for MX-6 or grab some Noctua NT-H2.


Or just use my MX4.


----------



## dante`afk

warbucks said:


> It's a fully sealed block, the cold plate and the top of the block where the threads go are completely sealed. Here's a couple pictures I just took quickly that'll show you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Pictures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578781
> 
> View attachment 2578782


yes but the "IHS" you put on the DIE, is below the retention bracket, and the block you have to mount on the "IHS", so if you want to change CPU, you have to drain, otherwise if you remove the block form the IHS in order to remove the CPU which are all under the retention bracket, you'll have water spilled


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

dante`afk said:


> yes but the "IHS" you put on the DIE, is below the retention bracket, and the block you have to mount on the "IHS", so if you want to change CPU, you have to drain, otherwise if you remove the block form the IHS in order to remove the CPU which are all under the retention bracket, you'll have water spilled


I have my one on quick connects, tilt the board 180 degrees above a bowl, remove the quick connect from a soft tube and let it drain and done. Takes 10 min each time.

(My mobo is not screwed in also, it's just on a plastic standoffs that hold it in place)


----------



## warbucks

dante`afk said:


> yes but the "IHS" you put on the DIE, is below the retention bracket, and the block you have to mount on the "IHS", so if you want to change CPU, you have to drain, otherwise if you remove the block form the IHS in order to remove the CPU which are all under the retention bracket, you'll have water spilled


You don't need to use the retention bracket. You can remove it and just use the frame and bolts that sit over top of the block to secure it on top of the cpu/die.


----------



## dante`afk

warbucks said:


> You don't need to use the retention bracket. You can remove it and just use the frame and bolts that sit over top of the block to secure it on top of the cpu/die.


right, but how is the IHS being kept on the DIE without the retention bracket  ?


----------



## bhav

The main reason I'll never get a custom loop is how often I change MB and CPU.

Just not worth it to run a couple hundred more MHZ now when next CPU will be better.


----------



## Luggage

Falkentyne said:


> Y-cruncher's main test (mainly SFT, although a few others get hard too) requires like 30-40mv more die sense load voltage to pass than R23.
> Stockfish AVX2/BMI2 can be even worse than Y-cruncher, even though temps are slightly better than Y-cruncher, because it hits the the entire system hard.
> 
> The only point to passing R23 for 30 minutes is for a "game stable" CPU.
> If you can loop R23 for 30 minutes and pass 20 "Load game" attempts of Minecraft Java, you should be game stable.


When you talk about the YC ”test” do you medan the actual stress test that runs forever or the 2.5b Benchmark? 
I’ve seen a few confusing comments in the gen 12 and 13 threads…


----------



## Falkentyne

Luggage said:


> When you talk about the YC ”test” do you medan the actual stress test that runs forever or the 2.5b Benchmark?
> I’ve seen a few confusing comments in the gen 12 and 13 threads…


component stress tests.


----------



## cstkl1

bhav said:


> The main reason I'll never get a custom loop is how often I change MB and CPU.
> 
> Just not worth it to run a couple hundred more MHZ now when next CPU will be better.


real custom loop is mora outside with qdc etc lol. its as easy as any aio/air


----------



## Falkentyne

So what's the story on the max turbo stock p-core ratio? Is it 5.5 ghz or 5.4 ghz?
or does no one even care?



https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/230496/intel-core-i913900k-processor-36m-cache-up-to-5-80-ghz/specifications.html


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> So what's the story on the max turbo stock p-core ratio? Is it 5.5 ghz or 5.4 ghz?
> or does no one even care?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/230496/intel-core-i913900k-processor-36m-cache-up-to-5-80-ghz/specifications.html


What the, I swear it said 5.5 before?

Did they nerf them post launch?


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> The main reason I'll never get a custom loop is how often I change MB and CPU.
> 
> Just not worth it to run a couple hundred more MHZ now when next CPU will be better.


I have been reusing my same bench waterblock,radiator, and loop since a 10900K/10850K/11900K/13900KF.

It is one of the few parts you get to re-use and hang on to. And I’ll have it for many more years to come.

I lift off the water block and GPU tubes still attached, and slide a new motherboard or cpu underneath and bolt it down.

I run a very large Mora3 sized radiator, and a 1/2HP waterchiller daily 24/7. It’s the best I’m investment since I have been in to overclocking since roughly 2005-2006 era. Best cooling you can get.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> So what's the story on the max turbo stock p-core ratio? Is it 5.5 ghz or 5.4 ghz?
> or does no one even care?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/230496/intel-core-i913900k-processor-36m-cache-up-to-5-80-ghz/specifications.html


so new ucode coming to nerf 😂


----------



## bhav

That is just some serious BS, release at a higher spec then nerf them, pretty sure thats a violation of just about every advertisement law.


----------



## tps3443

Initial leaks had the 13900K scoring lower numbers it seemed, and I’m guessing because it was throttling on standard AIO’s. They are actually very very fast! I hope Intel doesn’t nerf it. One of the only CPU’s in my life that I can happily run bone stock right out of the box. 5.5Ghz all
cores is just blistering fast and a 5.8Ghz turbo. Breaking that 40K in R23 easily. It’s very impressive.

When have we ever gotten a CPU that we’re content with stock? Never. Their default power algorithms for previous flag ship
CPU’s are just not very power or performance oriented at all.. But the stock 13900K definitely is!


----------



## Skyhopper01

sblantipodi said:


> it sounds impossible to me.
> 
> 5.8GHz all cores requires more than 280W, it is not viable via an AIO unless you live in a 0°C environment xD


Not when gaming, not even close.


----------



## newls1

warbucks said:


> It's a fully sealed block, the cold plate and the top of the block where the threads go are completely sealed. Here's a couple pictures I just took quickly that'll show you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Pictures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578781
> 
> View attachment 2578782


is this a new supercooldirect die waterblock? Where can I get one?


----------



## Ichirou

gtz said:


> Your chip is almost identical to mine, and I think I got a low binned chip. Though your temps are much higher. But that can be do to the higher IMC voltage you are running thru your chip to get DDR4 stable.
> 
> But I'm in the same boat as you, I also think my Classified board is messing up my voltages and hard to get a clear baseline. Even the newest BIOS does not fix anything. I think it was you who warned me about EVGA boards about not properly adding support to newer CPUs. I should have listened.


Yeah, I'm certain getting the feeling that my chip is a poor bin. Canada Computers has failed me again, and I think Intel is deliberately giving them crap batches. 

I was not the one who spread such info. 


bhav said:


> What the, I swear it said 5.5 before?
> 
> Did they nerf them post launch?


Yes. Intel probably noticed from internal testing that chips were getting too hot. So they dialed back the base multiplier and revised their advertising.


----------



## adolf512

bhav said:


> What the, I swear it said 5.5 before?
> 
> Did they nerf them post launch?


I copied their turbo values october 17






13900KF vs 13700KF vs 7950x vs 7700x vs 5800x3d


Is alder lake better for gaming? Obviously raptor lake will beat AMD at least in gaming but what about the older alder lake? https://www.techspot.com/review/2535-amd-ryzen-7950x/ Anandtech did not make an aggregate so i will have to take the geometric mean myself (5% low) 12900K: 141.63...



vintologi.com





If there has been any change it was before that.


----------



## Ichirou

Time for Day 2 of testing out this subpar chip. 

So far, the IMC doesn't seem to be any better than my 12900KF's, but good enough to run the same settings. I haven't managed to boot 4,300+ MHz yet, though.

I probably won't need to spend too much more time with this chip since it thermal throttles way too easily even at 57x all-core. 

56x all-core on the P-cores is manageable. The E-cores might go further, and the ring seems to be a total mystery for now. 

I'll try to optimize it as best I can. Likely swapping it out for a different chip anyway, so who cares about degradation.


----------



## chibi

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Is there a way to get a binned 13900K? I'm dreading buying and returning from all the retailers haha


Lurk HWBot forums. See who is posting samples that you would like and send them a PM if they're interested in selling. Also frequent their F/S section for binned cpu's. Otherwise, wait for KS and try your luck. My current 12900KS is retail, SP76 (strix z690i) and MSI Force 161 (meg z690i) - total dud in core clock and imc. Going to try 13900k replacement instead.


----------



## tubs2x4

chibi said:


> Lurk HWBot forums. See who is posting samples that you would like and send them a PM if they're interested in selling. Also frequent their F/S section for binned cpu's. Otherwise, wait for KS and try your luck. My current 12900KS is retail, SP76 (strix z690i) and MSI Force 161 (meg z690i) - total dud in core clock and imc. Going to try 13900k replacement instead.


Sp76 for a KS model? Seems super low. Does it run 5.2 all core fine?


----------



## Ichirou

@sugi0lover Any chance you or a Korean friend could hook me up with an extra, well-binned chip ?


----------



## HemuV2

hey guys, definitely not the earliest batch but can you guess what SP this chip would be? @sugi0lover








@Nizzen @Ichirou @tps3443


----------



## Csavez™

Before Delid (10min cbr23):









After Delid (10min cbr23):









-10 °C!


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


> Time for Day 2 of testing out this subpar chip.
> 
> So far, the IMC doesn't seem to be any better than my 12900KF's, but good enough to run the same settings. I haven't managed to boot 4,300+ MHz yet, though.
> 
> I probably won't need to spend too much more time with this chip since it thermal throttles way too easily even at 57x all-core.
> 
> 56x all-core on the P-cores is manageable. The E-cores might go further, and the ring seems to be a total mystery for now.
> 
> I'll try to optimize it as best I can. Likely swapping it out for a different chip anyway, so who cares about degradation.


You plan to just return it to CC? How are they about returns on high end chips

My CC chip set to 1.38 LLC4 droops to 1.28V Vcore (my board doesn't seem to give me VRVOUT reading) 5.7 in OCCT small on a 360 AIO with ecores off. Temps max out in the 90s. Haven't gone crazy with testing yet but as a gamer only it seems fine.


----------



## asdkj1740

Wilco183 said:


> Paid $80 for mine from Amazon Warehouse rated as in "good condition". Not a scratch, all hardware bags sealed, doubt it even left the box. Should send them an appreciation sticker in return.
> View attachment 2578700


return this **** dude.


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> hey guys, definitely not the earliest batch but can you guess what SP this chip would be? @sugi0lover
> View attachment 2578800
> 
> @Nizzen @Ichirou @tps3443


Batch number means nothing for the most part. You gotta test it.


Rbk_3 said:


> You plan to just return it to CC? How are they about returns on high end chips
> 
> My CC chip set to 1.38 LLC4 droops to 1.28V Vcore (my board doesn't seem to give me VRVOUT reading) 5.7 in OCCT small on a 360 AIO with ecores off. Temps max out in the 90s. Haven't gone crazy with testing yet but as a gamer only it seems fine.


15 day return policy, starting from the day it arrives at your door.
I'm holding onto this for now until I get another chip, since there's no other chip to swap it for right now (CC literally has no stock since they shipped out all of them).

What board are you using?


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


> Batch number means nothing for the most part. You gotta test it.
> 
> 15 day return policy, starting from the day it arrives at your door.
> I'm holding onto this for now until I get another chip, since there's no other chip to swap it for right now (CC literally has no stock since they shipped out all of them).
> 
> What board are you using?


Z690 Tomahawk. Basically, the less flashy version of your board.


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> Z690 Tomahawk. Basically, the less flashy version of your board.


Ah. Well, in that case, you likely have a better chip than mine, then. Because I need over 1.30V+ Vcore on load just to do 57x all-core in R23.
I have bad luck with Canada Computers. My 12900K from them was dog water too =\

This sample does seem to run the same memory overclock I achieved with my 12900KF, so as a whole, the chip is "better," but the cores leave so much room to be desired compared to everyone else's samples. I'm hanging onto it for now, but I'm sure it'll be easy to surpass.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Ah. Well, in that case, you likely have a better chip than mine, then. Because I need over 1.30V+ Vcore on load just to do 57x all-core in R23.
> I have bad luck with Canada Computers. My 12900K from them was dog water too =\
> 
> This sample does seem to run the same memory overclock I achieved with my 12900KF, so as a whole, the chip is "better," but the cores leave so much room to be desired compared to everyone else's samples.


Did you see the post about the loadlines?
That other guy (bigfoot? I forgot already) linked his post on the MSI section and said Mode 3 is 0.14 mohms for vcc_sense, and socket sense is more droopier than this.
That would make your VR VOUT accurate.


----------



## bhav

So my case is in stock at Thermaltake's global store .....










Yea no, I don't think so, also good luck ever getting customer support from them.

Also why is 'saver' more expensive than 'Expedited'?


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Did you see the post about the loadlines?
> That other guy (bigfoot? I forgot already) linked his post on the MSI section and said Mode 3 is 0.14 mohms for vcc_sense, and socket sense is more droopier than this.
> That would make your VR VOUT accurate.


So my VR VOUT is accurate with VCC Sense, then?
If so, based on that alone, could you provide a rough ballpark SP of my chip?

Also, I think I degraded my IMC already doing a couple of y-cruncher CST tests over 1.40V VCCSA.
I was warned about this in the past by someone else who had their 12th Gen IMC die above 1.40V+. Yikes.


----------



## asdkj1740

Falkentyne said:


> MSI's chart is bullshit.
> Their lines are based on socket sense, where you have board impedance, which causes mode 3 to "look" flat, and mode 1 to look like it has voltage rise. There's voltage drop across the power plane, and this drop causes the super i/o chip to report a rise.
> It's impossible to have a NEGATIVE loadline. Elmor stated this.
> 
> MSI didn't even start adding "VCC_Sense" until z490 and people demonstrated that their VCC_Sense isn't die sense at all! You have to check the Z490 or Z590 msi section
> What they determined was that BOTH VCC_Sense and socket sense used socket sense--just Vcc_sense changed the loadlines to make them different....


it is funny to me that msi claims asus die sense is not vcc sense from the cpu pin / fake power draw etc in china, while ppl outside of china think asus die sense is the best.
maybe just me having a bad understanding on both sides, but one thing i know is msi did lock the vr info being read by hwinfo64 on z590 and z690.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> So my VR VOUT is accurate with VCC Sense, then?
> If so, based on that alone, could you provide a rough ballpark SP of my chip?
> 
> Also, I think I degraded my IMC already doing a couple of y-cruncher CST tests over 1.40V VCCSA.
> I was warned about this in the past by someone else who had their 12th Gen IMC die above 1.40V+. Yikes.


Mode 8 = 0.96 mOhm
Mode 7 = 0.69 mOhm
Mode 6 = 0.56 mOhm
Mode 5 = 0.40 mOhm
Mode 4 = 0.28 mOhm
Mode 3 = 0.12 mOhm
Mode 2 = not tested
Mode 1 = 0.01 mOhm (assumed to be so) 

Ok so now we can do a rather decent 5.5 ghz Sync P cores test.!
Can you set 1.210v Bios set + Mode 5 LLC and loop Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes?
This should give you "close" to 1.137v load.


----------



## Rbk_3

Falkentyne said:


> Did you see the post about the loadlines?
> That other guy (bigfoot? I forgot already) linked his post on the MSI section and said Mode 3 is 0.14 mohms for vcc_sense, and socket sense is more droopier than this.
> That would make your VR VOUT accurate.


I had recalled Buildzoid said 5 or 6 LLC was best on MSI boards I think that was the Z490 so I don't know if that applies to Z690. What would you recommend now?


----------



## yt93900

yt93900 said:


> Got an Asus board, these are the SP values of my 13900K.
> Replace or keep, what do you think?
> 
> 
> https://i.postimg.cc/1z7cK19H/20221023-180609.jpg
> 
> 
> General value is SP103.


Updated the BIOS, SP values changed for the E-Cores. General SP is 105 now.

Also replaced the Liquid Freezer II cooler with Corsair H170i Capellix, no issues with mount. Only had to buy the 1700 standoffs as these were not included (€5, delivered in 3 days).
Peak core temp 90*C at 19.5*C ambient, fans/pump on balanced. TG Kryonaut Extreme TIM. Measured after 1 R23 run.

Z790 Extreme is still wonky, updated the BIOS and now it won't even go to Windows with XMP II 7200MHz profile, voltage issues.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Mode 8 = 0.96 mOhm
> Mode 7 = 0.69 mOhm
> Mode 6 = 0.56 mOhm
> Mode 5 = 0.40 mOhm
> Mode 4 = 0.28 mOhm
> Mode 3 = 0.12 mOhm
> Mode 2 = not tested
> Mode 1 = 0.01 mOhm (assumed to be so)
> 
> Ok so now we can do a rather decent 5.5 ghz Sync P cores test.!
> Can you set 1.210v Bios set + Mode 5 LLC and loop Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes?
> This should give you "close" to 1.137v load.


Sure, will be back with results later. Gotta stabilize the IMC first again after (likely) degrading it.
I can't pass N64/HNT compared to before.


----------



## acoustic

J


Ichirou said:


> So my VR VOUT is accurate with VCC Sense, then?
> If so, based on that alone, could you provide a rough ballpark SP of my chip?
> 
> Also, I think I degraded my IMC already doing a couple of y-cruncher CST tests over 1.40V VCCSA.
> I was warned about this in the past by someone else who had their 12th Gen IMC die above 1.40V+. Yikes.


Not for nothing but damaging the chip and then returning so the next guy gets railed is kinda ****ed 😂

@Rbk_3 I found LLC7 to be the best with my 12700K on Unify-X.


----------



## Rbk_3

acoustic said:


> J
> 
> Not for nothing but damaging the chip and then returning so the next guy gets railed is kinda ****ed 😂
> 
> @Rbk_3 I found LLC7 to be the best with my 12700K on Unify-X.


What voltage did you have set in the bios with that much droop?


----------



## asdkj1740

toncij said:


> I'm not sure if highest end boards bring any value now. IMC seems far more important, like all boards can do it. Feature wise it's hard to even see benefits in Asus Hero vs Extreme and vs Aorus Master, to remove "there's 10G network" argument. The price of Extreme/Godlike/Xtreme in Europe is 300% that of the Hero, Aorus...
> 
> Can anyone point out the value?


um... i think you should not have placed these mobos in the same range at the beginning.


----------



## bhav

So now should I wait for and waste money on the KS instead hmmmm.

All these 13900ks looking like junk bins over stock.


----------



## acoustic

Rbk_3 said:


> What voltage did you have set in the bios with that much droop?


Was running Advanced VF Offset, +0.050mv for 5.2Ghz all-core w/ E core disabled, I believe.


----------



## yt93900

asdkj1740 said:


> um... i think you should not have placed these mobos in the same range at the beginning.


Extreme is €1249 and €779 for the HERO here. Still, I have the Extreme and it's more of a toy board, fancy schmancy OLED/RGB gimmicks and so on. Weighs an absolute ton though.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Not for nothing but damaging the chip and then returning so the next guy gets railed is kinda ****ed 😂
> 
> @Rbk_3 I found LLC7 to be the best with my 12700K on Unify-X.


Shrug. The IMC isn't _dead_. It just needs more VCCSA from degradation. Next guy can always RMA it.

All I've managed to prove is that VCCSA should never go over 1.40V, as the other person with his dead IMC has found out.


bhav said:


> So now should I wait for and waste money on the KS instead hmmmm.
> 
> All these 13900ks looking like junk bins over stock.


It's all a lottery.


----------



## Falkentyne

.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Average CPU (typical).
> Intel engineer looked up the serial number on discord (batch is irrelevant, it's in the serial which tells the vid table in a massive database).


Wait, you can actually prebin CPUs based on the serial number alone? Or does that Intel engineer keep it tight under wraps?


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Shrug. The IMC isn't _dead_. It just needs more VCCSA from degradation. Next guy can always RMA it.


Erm.. let the next person have to deal with an RMA? Yikes.

It's one thing to bin the chip real quick and return it.. it's kind of another to smash it with voltage, degrade it within 48hrs of owning it, and then send it back lol


----------



## Falkentyne

.


----------



## yt93900

Ichirou said:


> Wait, you can actually prebin CPUs based on the serial number alone? Or does that Intel engineer keep it tight under wraps?


Kinda shocking if true, yet predictable - they must know which are suitable for being a KS.


----------



## Rbk_3

acoustic said:


> Erm.. let the next person have to deal with an RMA? Yikes.
> 
> It's one thing to bin the chip real quick and return it.. it's kind of another to smash it with voltage, degrade it within 48hrs of owning it, and then send it back lol


I don’t think I could ever return a chip to bin let alone one I destroyed


----------



## bhav

acoustic said:


> Erm.. let the next person have to deal with an RMA? Yikes.
> 
> It's one thing to bin the chip real quick and return it.. it's kind of another to smash it with voltage, degrade it within 48hrs of owning it, and then send it back lol


Well RMAs should be tested and all that.

I actually did take my SA up to 1.4 v on my 12600k, but only for like 10 mins to test for 5000CL19 stability and it wouldn't work.

It works at under 1.25v for 4800, I just leave it set to 1.25 to avoid any bsods.


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> Can you post a picture of your entire retail label please?


I'm curious ..









Didn't realize I opened the box like a ****ing ape LMAO


----------



## bhav

Rbk_3 said:


> I don’t think I could ever return a chip to bin let alone one I destroyed


Its too much bother tbh, the difference even between 300 Mhz is next to nothing nowadays.

I'd rather have a better IMC.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Erm.. let the next person have to deal with an RMA? Yikes.
> 
> It's one thing to bin the chip real quick and return it.. it's kind of another to smash it with voltage, degrade it within 48hrs of owning it, and then send it back lol


To be fair, I didn't ram it with insane voltage compared to most others here.


Falkentyne said:


> Can you post a picture of your entire retail label please?


I unironically tossed the box yesterday because it was recycling collection day. The chip is still better than my 12900KF, after all.
The intention was to wait for the two other chips to arrive to test them out to see if they were any better. I wasn't planning to return this chip after hammering it XD

Can I use the VIDs in HWiNFO instead? Or are they different from Intel spec?


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> To be fair, I didn't ram it with insane voltage compared to most others here.
> 
> I unironically tossed the box yesterday because it was recycling collection day. The chip is still better than my 12900KF, after all.
> The intention was to wait for the two other chips to arrive to test them out to see if they were any better. I wasn't planning to return this chip after hammering it XD
> 
> Can I use the VIDs in HWiNFO instead? Or are they different from Intel spec?


You don't even keep the box when planning to RMA it? MONSTER!


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> To be fair, I didn't ram it with insane voltage compared to most others here.
> 
> I unironically tossed the box yesterday because it was recycling collection day. The chip is still better than my 12900KF, after all.
> The intention was to wait for the two other chips to arrive to test them out to see if they were any better. I wasn't planning to return this chip after hammering it XD
> 
> Can I use the VIDs in HWiNFO instead? Or are they different from Intel spec?


Yes. 
Set AC and DC Loadline to 0.01 mohms (or whatever the LOWEST NON-ZERO value is in your bios), set sync all cores to x55, disable c-states and then post the idle VID or just upload a screenshot of the core VID's and the ring (cache) VID.


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> Yes.
> Set AC and DC Loadline to 0.01 mohms (or whatever the LOWEST NON-ZERO value is in your bios), set sync all cores to x55, disable c-states and then post the idle VID or just upload a screenshot of the core VID's and the ring (cache) VID.


@Ichirou 

Go to Advanced CPU Cfg, set CPU LITE LOAD to Advanced, and then set both to "1".

I don't know if you know where that **** is at, so hopefully that helps.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Yes.
> Set AC and DC Loadline to 0.01 mohms (or whatever the LOWEST NON-ZERO value is in your bios), set sync all cores to x55, disable c-states and then post the idle VID or just upload a screenshot of the core VID's and the ring (cache) VID.





acoustic said:


> @Ichirou
> 
> Go to Advanced CPU Cfg, set CPU LITE LOAD to Advanced, and then set both to "1".
> 
> I don't know if you know where that **** is at, so hopefully that helps.


P-core VIDs all show as 1.270V at 55x.
E-core VIDs are the same, at 43x.
Ring VID is 1.234V, at 47x.


----------



## Ichirou

Well, I can't seem to gain any semblance of stability with the RAM in y-cruncher right now, so I'm trying out a BIOS reflash in case it might've been corrupted.
If that doesn't work too, then I genuinely might've degraded my IMC. Or the VDDQ FIVR rail (since it's at 1.60V).


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Well, I can't seem to gain any semblance of stability with the RAM in y-cruncher right now, so I'm trying out a BIOS reflash in case it might've been corrupted.
> If that doesn't work too, then I genuinely might've degraded my IMC. Or the VDDQ FIVR rail (since it's at 1.60V).


Post order number so I can tell on you.


----------



## Csavez™

There is potential inside, there will be something to adjust! Small sp97.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> P-core VIDs all show as 1.270V at 55x.
> E-core VIDs are the same, at 43x.
> Ring VID is 1.234V, at 47x.


Getting my flu shot right now. When I get home, I will report what mine show. I'm hoping Falkentyne was able to read my box and maybe tell me what the Intel guy thinks of it. I'm so curious!


----------



## Ichirou

Passed N64, but failed HNT. So the BIOS reflash might have helped a little, since I couldn't even pass N64 before.
VCCSA probably has degraded though. But I won't know until I can actually pass both N64 and HNT together.

For all I know, it could just be this BIOS being hot trash.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> P-core VIDs all show as 1.270V at 55x.
> E-core VIDs are the same, at 43x.
> Ring VID is 1.234V, at 47x.


This can't be right.
With a VID that low, your CPU would be one of the best CPU's in the wild.
This is mine. (note: ring is x45 not x47).

Do you have thermal velocity boost voltage optimizations (TVB Voltage Opt.) enabled or disabled in your BIOS?










When I run Cinebench R23, the VID remains exactly the same.


----------



## acoustic

It would be enabled by default, so it's possible he has it enabled.

@Ichirou Honestly sounds like IMC instability. Having it work one boot, then crash the next, then work a little better.. that varying level of inconsistency is very common for IMC or motherboard instability. Since we know your board was fine w/ the 12900K, it could very well be the chip, and not even a degradation factor.


----------



## HyperC

holy crap what temps are you hitting that you degraded the memory controller  I personally haven't pushed mine anymore since it hit 82c stress testing just waiting for the direct die kit


----------



## Falkentyne

The above picture is with Intel TVB voltage optimizations _disabled_ last post, and AC and DCLL both at 0.01 mohms.

That stops the VID from changing based on temps (higher temps=higher VID, lower temps=lower VID, this table starts at 100C (yes, it's an inverse relationship that starts high) and drops down to minimum at 0C. The lower the CPU base multiplier, the less this scaling is. At I think x41 or something (at least it was like this on comet lake), this scaling becomes disabled.

If TVB voltage optimizations are disabled, the VID remains at the 100C point rather than scaling down.
You probably have TVB enabled.

This picture is with TVB enabled, and core temps idle at 33C.










Note my ring ratio is x45 so make sure you correct that too (you should not be at x47 at 5.5 ghz for these tests).
_edit_ i just set my ring to x47 while in the OS. Uncore VID didn't change (going between 1.194 to 1.206v, I guess as temps change while I'm typing stuff and CPU usage changes).


----------



## bhav

Is that 1.23v for 5.5 Ghz the stock settings?

Was wanting to know what the stock voltage was.


----------



## Ichirou

Well, after a BIOS reflash and raising VCCSA by +0.02V (haven't tested +0.01V), I managed to pass y-cruncher's CST.
So yeah, I did in fact degrade my IMC. I take back what I said about this chip's IMC compared to my 12900KF. It's worse, much worse.


Falkentyne said:


> This can't be right.
> With a VID that low, your CPU would be one of the best CPU's in the wild.
> This is mine. (note: ring is x45 not x47).
> 
> Do you have thermal velocity boost voltage optimizations (TVB Voltage Opt.) enabled or disabled in your BIOS?
> 
> View attachment 2578839
> 
> 
> When I run Cinebench R23, the VID remains exactly the same.





acoustic said:


> It would be enabled by default, so it's possible he has it enabled.
> 
> @Ichirou Honestly sounds like IMC instability. Having it work one boot, then crash the next, then work a little better.. that varying level of inconsistency is very common for IMC or motherboard instability. Since we know your board was fine w/ the 12900K, it could very well be the chip, and not even a degradation factor.





Falkentyne said:


> The above picture is with Intel TVB voltage optimizations _disabled_ last post, and AC and DCLL both at 0.01 mohms.
> 
> That stops the VID from changing based on temps (higher temps=higher VID, lower temps=lower VID, this table starts at 100C (yes, it's an inverse relationship that starts high) and drops down to minimum at 0C. The lower the CPU base multiplier, the less this scaling is. At I think x41 or something (at least it was like this on comet lake), this scaling becomes disabled.
> 
> If TVB voltage optimizations are disabled, the VID remains at the 100C point rather than scaling down.
> You probably have TVB enabled.
> 
> This picture is with TVB enabled, and core temps idle at 33C.
> 
> View attachment 2578840
> 
> 
> Note my ring ratio is x45 so make sure you correct that too (you should not be at x47 at 5.5 ghz for these tests).


Will disable and fetch the new numbers, and with ring at 45x.

And then I'll do your Cinebench test.


HyperC said:


> holy crap what temps are you hitting that you degraded the memory controller  I personally haven't pushed mine anymore since it hit 82c stress testing just waiting for the direct die kit


No idea. But keep VCCSA under 1.40V max. IMC degradation is absolutely real. And is even worse than Vcore degradation.


----------



## bhav

I'll be sticking to 1.35v max, don't want a degraded chip.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Well, after a BIOS reflash and raising VCCSA by +0.02V (haven't tested +0.01V), I managed to pass y-cruncher's CST.
> So yeah, I did in fact degrade my IMC. I take back what I said about this chip's IMC compared to my 12900KF. It's worse, much worse.
> 
> 
> 
> Will disable and fetch the new numbers, and with ring at 45x.
> 
> And then I'll do your Cinebench test.
> 
> No idea. But keep VCCSA under 1.40V max. IMC degradation is absolutely real. And is even worse than Vcore degradation.


TVB voltage optimizations enabled in the BIOS temps 36C.










TVB "Auto" in the BIOS, which seems to default to disabled (on fixed vcore) and may be enabled on adaptive/auto vcore modes (I guess?). So=disabled. (100C point used).
When I run R23 with TVB disabled, VID does NOT change from 30C to 70C, it remains at 1.310v.


----------



## Ichirou

Some quick notes about y-cruncher's Component Stress Test:


> SFT = CPU burn test (intense)
> FFT = RAM voltage test
> N64 = IMC VCCSA/cache test
> HNT = IMC VCCSA/cache test (harder)


All other tests aren't particularly meaningful and are easy to pass. So by enabling those four tests, you could get the CPU and IMC 99% rock stable in... less than 9 minutes?
For the RAM, you should still do TM5, though.

@Falkentyne
Just went into the BIOS, and everything TVB related (including TVB Voltage Optimizations) are disabled on Auto...

Running R23 with 55/43/45 @ 1.21V BIOS, LLC Mode 5 now.
VR VOUT shows as 1.18V Vavg after three minutes. But already a few WHEA errors: Internal, Cache L0, TLB.
R23 errored out before reaching four minutes.
Retrying with +0.02V in BIOS.


----------



## HyperC

Very odd I tried 1.45v SA on my 12600k maybe I got lucky nothing degraded that I know of sucks either way. So is 1.35 SA max no matter running ddr4 or 5?


----------



## Ichirou

HyperC said:


> Very odd I tried 1.45v SA on my 12600k maybe I got lucky nothing degraded that I know of sucks either way. So is 1.35 SA max no matter running ddr4 or 5?


Depends entirely on load. Many motherboards set 1.45V VCCSA on Auto.
XMP is light on the IMC, and most people don't hammer their IMCs with y-cruncher stress test sessions, lol.

Max 1.35V is safe daily for DDR4.
DDR5 is different. I can't give you an opinion for that, since DDR5 tends to use under 1.10-1.20V.


----------



## bhav

HyperC said:


> Very odd I tried 1.45v SA on my 12600k maybe I got lucky nothing degraded that I know of sucks either way. So is 1.35 SA max no matter running ddr4 or 5?


Depends on how long you used it for, I only tried up to 1.4v and wouldn't go any higher than that.



Ichirou said:


> most people don't hammer their IMCs with y-cruncher stress test sessions, lol.


Yea I'm def not touching that no matter how much you suggest it. OCCT's worked well enough for me.


----------



## warbucks

dante`afk said:


> right, but how is the IHS being kept on the DIE without the retention bracket  ?


It's kept on using the frame that sits around/on top of the block which is secured to the motherboard using the bolts/nuts that come with it. See this picture.



Spoiler: Frame


----------



## warbucks

newls1 said:


> is this a new supercooldirect die waterblock? Where can I get one?


Not that I'm aware of. I bought it back in the spring. I messaged him directly on Facebook instead of using the website.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> P-core VIDs all show as 1.270V at 55x.
> E-core VIDs are the same, at 43x.
> Ring VID is 1.234V, at 47x.





Ichirou said:


> Some quick notes about y-cruncher's Component Stress Test:
> 
> All other tests aren't particularly meaningful and are easy to pass. So by enabling those four tests, you could get the CPU and IMC 99% rock stable in... less than 9 minutes?
> For the RAM, you should still do TM5, though.
> 
> @Falkentyne
> Just went into the BIOS, and everything TVB related (including TVB Voltage Optimizations) are disabled on Auto...
> 
> Running R23 with 55/43/45 @ 1.21V BIOS, LLC Mode 5 now.
> VR VOUT shows as 1.18V Vavg after three minutes. But already a few WHEA errors: Internal, Cache L0, TLB.
> R23 errored out before reaching four minutes.
> Retrying with +0.02V in BIOS.


Yeah.
Your chip's a lottery loser. Pretty big time  I'm sorry.

Your "35C" VID (TVB enabled) is 40mv higher than mine 
1.230v-->1.270v.
What's the VID with TVB disabled?
Remember: Auto functions differently depending on if you're manual or adaptive vcore modes.
Try disabling it directly.
Your VID should be about 1.350v for the P cores.

I can pass this R23 test at 5.5 at 1.137v (die sense) load. I can manage 1.128v load with some extra tweaks.


----------



## tps3443

Testing 5.7Ghz @1.235V in bios. 277 watts peak power. (*No chiller running at all*)
[email protected] XMP Profile


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Yea I'm def not touching that no matter how much you suggest it. OCCT's worked well enough for me.


OCCT is useless based on personal testing. It's weaker than both TM5 and y-cruncher, and takes 2-3x longer to run.


Falkentyne said:


> Yeah.
> Your chip's a lottery loser. Pretty big time  I'm sorry.
> 
> Your "35C" VID (TVB enabled) is 40mv higher than mine
> 1.230v-->1.270v.
> What's the VID with TVB disabled?
> Remember: Auto functions differently depending on if you're manual or adaptive vcore modes.
> Try disabling it directly.
> Your VID should be about 1.350v for the P cores.
> 
> I can pass this R23 test at 5.5 at 1.137v (die sense) load. I can manage 1.128v load with some extra tweaks.


I'm not surprised, so there's nothing to be sad about, lol.
Canada Computers gave me a crap bin for the 12900K I bought from them as well.
It's too bad BestBuy hasn't given me any update yet, and Amazon is taking a while.

As I've detailed in the past, I was told from a store insider friend that Intel issues specific batches to each retailer. So they very likely DO prebin them to some degree.
And now that we know that Intel has access to the VID tables based on serial numbers, it's quite possible that the K is NOT the way to go, as they might be prebinned for the KS.

I'll reread the VIDs with TVB options manually disabled in a bit; letting R23 run with +0.02V over your suggested settings for now.
So far, managing five minutes without going poop.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> OCCT is useless based on personal testing. It's weaker than both TM5 and y-cruncher, and takes 2-3x longer to run.


Said by the one that degrades all their IMCs with y-cruncher.


----------



## newls1

warbucks said:


> Not that I'm aware of. I bought it back in the spring. I messaged him directly on Facebook instead of using the website.


Thank you for the reply. I wish supercool waterblocks were easier to get. mine took right at a month to get here and i would like to order a replacment oring, but cant get anyone to reply back to me using their sketchy website


----------



## newls1

tps3443 said:


> Testing 5.7Ghz @1.235V in bios. 277 watts peak power. (*No chiller running at all*)
> [email protected] XMP Profile
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578851


bring up those e-cores too, makes a huge difference in that benchmark


----------



## Ichirou

newls1 said:


> Thank you for the reply. I wish supercool waterblocks were easier to get. mine took right at a month to get here and i would like to order a replacment oring, but cant get anyone to reply back to me using their sketchy website


It's just a single dude in Thailand. Not really much of a difference from RockIt Cool, which is also a single dude with a helper.
They don't have the $$$ to have massive manufacturing factories. They simply cannot meet the demand.

EKWB stepped up to provide direct die blocks and delidding kits now, but they're obviously charging a massive premium, on top of the crappy shipping and customs fees.


----------



## newls1

why the hell is my aida64 latency 4points off from my 12900ks when im using same timings but faster speeds on this 13900k? was @ 49ns but im at 53ns with 13th gen?


----------



## Ichirou

newls1 said:


> why the hell is my aida64 latency 4points off from my 12900ks when im using same timings but faster speeds on this 13900k? was @ 49ns but im at 53ns with 13th gen?


AIDA is screwed for the 13th Gen. Gotta take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## newls1

Ichirou said:


> It's just a single dude in Thailand. Not really much of a difference from RockIt Cool, which is also a single dude with a helper.
> They don't have the $$$ to have massive manufacturing factories. They simply cannot meet the demand.
> 
> EKWB stepped up to provide direct die blocks and delidding kits now, but they're obviously charging a massive premium, on top of the crappy shipping and customs fees.


i have not seen an ekwb direct die block for 12/13th gen? Where???


----------



## acoustic

@Falkentyne

Can confirm that something is up with stock VID readings on MSI. VCC_Sense, everything TVB disabled, C-States disabled, and all core sync @ 55x, with E core at 43x, and ring at 45x..

My VIDs are reading 1.245v. Very strange.

Under load at those settings, VR VOUT drops to 1.228v. VID stays constant at 1.243-1.245v.

Might have to do with the weird VRM behavior BZ saw with Unify-X a while back.


----------



## tps3443

newls1 said:


> bring up those e-cores too, makes a huge difference in that benchmark


Oh for sure, I’m just testing low power overclocks for now.


----------



## affxct

Not the most amazing result, but I figured I’d just throw it into the mix anyway. This is 5.6P/4.8R @ 1.36V with Default Vdroop on Z690 Dark (+-100mV) doing Linpack Xtreme (4GB). Using an Arctic LF II 420 @ 1500 RPM at 17c ambient.


----------



## newls1

tps3443 said:


> Oh for sure, I’m just testing low power overclocks for now.
> 
> View attachment 2578859


holy ****!


----------



## warbucks

Ichirou said:


> It's just a single dude in Thailand. Not really much of a difference from RockIt Cool, which is also a single dude with a helper.
> They don't have the $$$ to have massive manufacturing factories. They simply cannot meet the demand.
> 
> EKWB stepped up to provide direct die blocks and delidding kits now, but they're obviously charging a massive premium, on top of the crappy shipping and customs fees.


I've yet to see where you can buy a direct die frame from EKWB. They had some articles come out about it awhile back but nothing is in the retail channel.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

Which VID is considered to be good for 5.4ghz 13700K-F ? 1.260 ?


----------



## newls1

took my Ring to 5GHz as i see most here are using that speed, and finally broke 48sec in y-cruncher... This decent?








and my best R23 too!!


----------



## bhav

Query about the KS chips, as Intel is saying 13900KS will be 'limited volume'.

Was 12900KS also meant to be limited volume as there are still loads of them available to buy lol.

Thinking about resale value, if the 13900KS will actually be limited enough then it would hold its value much longer.


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav Now that I know my 13900K sample is trash, it kind of makes sense that the IMC is trash as well.
I couldn't pass y-cruncher CST with my 4,133 MHz CL14 1T G1 without 1.40V VCCSA. (Now 1.42V, but that's post-degradation).
it makes sense that I couldn't boot 4,300+ on this chip.


----------



## acoustic

@Ichirou @Falkentyne

VCC_Sense shows 1.245v stock VID

Socket Sense, same settings = 1.295v VID, but under load, VR VOUT drops to 1.230v

LOL

MSI doing MSI things


----------



## Wilco183

energie80 said:


> Rpl limit is your cooling


Coupled with chip quality.


----------



## Ichirou

@Falkentyne 
Finished R23 with 1.19V average VR VOUT, no WHEA errors. Didn't test 1.185V (which would've been +0.01V Vcore in BIOS over your previous request).
Not that it really matters much now, but just saying that that's where the chip's at for now.

Manually disabling the TVB-related stuff, my VIDs show up as: P/E-cores: 1.235V. Ring: 1.20V.
Set to 55/43/45 P/E/Ring.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> @Falkentyne
> Finished R23 with 1.19V average VR VOUT, no WHEA errors. Didn't test 1.185V (which would've been +0.01V Vcore in BIOS over your previous request).
> Not that it really matters much now, but just saying that that's where the chip's at for now.
> 
> Manually disabling the TVB-related stuff, my VIDs show up as: P/E-cores: 1.235V. Ring: 1.20V.
> Set to 55/43/45 P/E/Ring.


VIDs are not reliable on MSI, I don't think. Something is wonky.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> VIDs are not reliable on MSI, I don't think. Something is wonky.


Anyway, I'm done with this chip. I hate wasting time on sh*tty bins. Not worth spending too much time and effort on.
Awaiting the Amazon chip now, and hopefully the BestBuy chip.


----------



## Ichirou

On a side note, found a random online store located in Quebec that has a ton of K/KF's in stock, but it's final sale only:








Vipera


Vipera is a premier source for selective, highly sought-after electronics and cutting edge technology solutions catering to the digital advertising, cryptocurrency, A.I. processing, corporate I.T. and PC gaming industries.




www.viperatech.com




In case any Canadians here are struggling to acquire a chip.
Also, BestBuy Canada delisted their 13900K/KF chips. Yikes. They might not be getting _any_ stock for quite some time.


----------



## Arni90

Falkentyne said:


> Mode 8 = 0.96 mOhm
> Mode 7 = 0.69 mOhm
> Mode 6 = 0.56 mOhm
> Mode 5 = 0.40 mOhm
> Mode 4 = 0.28 mOhm
> Mode 3 = 0.12 mOhm
> Mode 2 = not tested
> Mode 1 = 0.01 mOhm (assumed to be so)
> 
> Ok so now we can do a rather decent 5.5 ghz Sync P cores test.!
> Can you set 1.210v Bios set + Mode 5 LLC and loop Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes?
> This should give you "close" to 1.137v load.


I'm not the same guy, but I thought I could add some results to confuse you.
I have a Z690 Unify-X. Setting socket sense voltage with AC and DC loadline set to 1 and auto VCore raises VID from 1.265V to 1.335V at 55x ratio, which seems strange. I also don't see nearly as much VDroop with VCC Sense at LLC5 as the listed values, it's closer to 0.1 mOhm for me.

My BIOS reported CPU Force to be 131. I have attached a picture of my box with serial number as well, feel free to ask your contact if it's a good sample or not.


----------



## raad11

bhav said:


> Turning HT off it it allows higher P core is being done for CPU limited strategy games.
> 
> If the games you play are mostly single threaded then no point in doing that.


What games are these?


Ichirou said:


> So my VR VOUT is accurate with VCC Sense, then?
> If so, based on that alone, could you provide a rough ballpark SP of my chip?
> 
> Also, I think I degraded my IMC already doing a couple of y-cruncher CST tests over 1.40V VCCSA.
> I was warned about this in the past by someone else who had their 12th Gen IMC die above 1.40V+. Yikes.


I ran my 12900K at 1.44/1.48 VCCSA/VDDQ for over a year with no issues. Did a TM5 run a few weeks ago and it passed.

I wasn't running any stress tests regularly though. Nothing beyond CB23 either when I first installed it. Didn't even run Handbrake that often on there. Gaming stressed out the memory a lot, but not so much the CPU which pretty much had it easy and stayed cool.

I'm not even reselling it, just putting it into my 2nd desktop and selling the 12600K I had in there. It was a good bin (did 5.2 all core).


----------



## Ichirou

raad11 said:


> What games are these?
> I ran my 12900K at 1.44/1.48 VCCSA/VDDQ for over a year with no issues. Did a TM5 run a few weeks ago and it passed.
> 
> I wasn't running any stress tests regularly though. Nothing beyond CB23 either when I first installed it. Didn't even run Handbrake that often on there. Gaming stressed out the memory a lot, but not so much the CPU which pretty much had it easy and stayed cool.
> 
> I'm not even reselling it, just putting it into my 2nd desktop and selling the 12600K I had in there. It was a good bin (did 5.2 all core).


Yeah, it depends entirely on load. None of those sound particularly stressful for the IMC. 1-2 years is probably all right since most people would be upgrading their hardware by that point in time anyway.

I like (?) to be the one to take one for the team and find out what the limits are, though. Provides clarity.
Nonetheless, I would like to bin a decent chip one day. But nothing has come out well so far. I might be forced to grab a 13900KS if these next two chips are also lemons.


----------



## bhav

raad11 said:


> What games are these?


Anno, Civ, Frostpunk, Humankind, and loads of steam and paradox knockoffs.

+100 on the P cores > HT on.


----------



## Slackaveli

13700k
force 135
5.7'/4.5e/5.0ring
1.29v vcc set, VRout 1.278v
passes 30 min cine

7200c32 on M-Die, 7400c32 boots just fine but i havent really tried to stabilize it. Probably gonna skip A-die for now.


chip is godly


----------



## acoustic

Arni90 said:


> I'm not the same guy, but I thought I could add some results to confuse you.
> I have a Z690 Unify-X. Setting socket sense voltage with AC and DC loadline set to 1 and auto VCore raises VID from 1.265V to 1.335V at 55x ratio, which seems strange. I also don't see nearly as much VDroop with VCC Sense at LLC5 as the listed values, it's closer to 0.1 mOhm for me.
> 
> My BIOS reported CPU Force to be 131. I have attached a picture of my box with serial number as well, feel free to ask your contact if it's a good sample or not.


Hey, we're almost batch brothers! I'm X236F201!


----------



## warbucks

Ichirou said:


> On a side note, found a random online store located in Quebec that has a ton of K/KF's in stock, but it's final sale only:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vipera
> 
> 
> Vipera is a premier source for selective, highly sought-after electronics and cutting edge technology solutions catering to the digital advertising, cryptocurrency, A.I. processing, corporate I.T. and PC gaming industries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.viperatech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case any Canadians here are struggling to acquire a chip.
> Also, BestBuy Canada delisted their 13900K/KF chips. Yikes. They might not be getting _any_ stock for quite some time.


Newegg has stock coming in on 11/2. Better pricing and would suggest folks just backorder it with them.


----------



## raad11

acoustic said:


> Hey, we're almost batch brothers! I'm X236F201!


That's my exact batch lol


----------



## Ichirou

warbucks said:


> Newegg has stock coming in on 11/2. Better pricing and would suggest folks just backorder it with them.


I haven't bothered with Newegg since the 12th Gen, since they don't offer any returns.
The chip I got from them was also a low bin =\.


----------



## raad11

acoustic said:


> Hey, we're almost batch brothers! I'm X236F201!


My serial number is very close to yours too, can't quite make out yours from your pic. Our chips may have been siblings!


----------



## warbucks

Ichirou said:


> I haven't bothered with Newegg since the 12th Gen, since they don't offer any returns.
> The chip I got from them was also a low bin =\.


I get the return aspect. 
As far as binning, all these places get their stock from a few distributors at the end of the day so it's luck of the draw wherever you order one from.


----------



## Ichirou

warbucks said:


> I get the return aspect.
> As far as binning, all these places get their stock from a few distributors at the end of the day so it's luck of the draw wherever you order one from.


Newegg gets it directly from Intel. They get specific batches and are not authorized to return any other batches not marked as theirs for RMAs.


----------



## HemuV2

acoustic said:


> Hey, we're almost batch brothers! I'm X236F201!


And I'm f271 haha


----------



## HemuV2

Falkentyne said:


> Average CPU (typical).
> Intel engineer looked up the serial number on discord (batch is irrelevant, it's in the serial which tells the vid table in a massive database).


How did you get in touch with an engineer, anyway what's an avg bin supposed to mean what pcore SP can i expect?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Newegg gets it directly from Intel. They get specific batches and are not authorized to return any other batches not marked as theirs for RMAs.


Mine came from Newegg.


----------



## bigfootnz

Arni90 said:


> I'm not the same guy, but I thought I could add some results to confuse you.
> I have a Z690 Unify-X. Setting socket sense voltage with AC and DC loadline set to 1 and auto VCore raises VID from 1.265V to 1.335V at 55x ratio, which seems strange. I also don't see nearly as much VDroop with VCC Sense at LLC5 as the listed values, it's closer to 0.1 mOhm for me.
> 
> My BIOS reported CPU Force to be 131. I have attached a picture of my box with serial number as well, feel free to ask your contact if it's a good sample or not.


Ignore HWinfo reading on Unify-X as it is not working, at least when you set tem auto and try to change LLC. For me with LLC 3-5 was every time same 0.010/0.010


----------



## tubs2x4

bhav said:


> Query about the KS chips, as Intel is saying 13900KS will be 'limited volume'.
> 
> Was 12900KS also meant to be limited volume as there are still loads of them available to buy lol.
> 
> Thinking about resale value, if the 13900KS will actually be limited enough then it would hold its value much longer.


“Limited edition” more like marketing words. Although if you need custom water cooling or direct die to keep them under some control then there will be a “limited” amount of people buying them. I personally was waiting about the 13900ks in the new year see how it performs. Buy a dead cpu for a dead platform as they say haha


----------



## HemuV2

If i get a trash bin I'll just buy a KS 😌 never thought it was possible to look up VIDs from serial numbers lol, no wonder the ES are high AF SP


----------



## bigfootnz

@Falkentyne, @cstkl1 and others
Is there any recommendations regarding Voltage for Atom cores? On Z690 Hero auto was around 1.22v and on Unify-X is 1.05. I know that with 12900k increase with this voltage has helped with E-core and ring OC.


----------



## affxct

Silent Scone said:


> Retail 13700K. 104 p core and 69 ecore.
> 
> The E-Waste is real on this one 😄
> 
> 5.7/4.2 obtainable (all core)


That is quite amazeballs


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> If i get a trash bin I'll just buy a KS 😌 never thought it was possible to look up VIDs from serial numbers lol, no wonder the ES are high AF SP


Yeah, it seems Intel's been prebinning the Ks already for their KSes. Anyone who buys a K has a chance of being screwed artificially.
I'll probably end up fetching a KS as well.


----------



## jeiselramos

Ok i did the @Falkentyne trick, i ended up with an sp99 p109 e81


----------



## HemuV2

Guys, umm using hwinfo 7.27 and I only have vcore, I don't have amps, vrout etc on my sensor list, it's an aorus elite ax z690 mobo


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, it seems Intel's been prebinning the Ks already for their KSes. Anyone who buys a K has a chance of being screwed artificially.
> I'll probably end up fetching a KS as well.


I'd actually hoped they'd let go off the early samples and yet no luck, tbf my 12700KF is absolute garb, max gear1 is 3800, 3900 boots but crashes. 5.0ghz needs like 1.308V vcore load in r23, and 5.1 is 1.464Vcore load r23, really disappointed


----------



## bhav

tubs2x4 said:


> “Limited edition” more like marketing words. Although if you need custom water cooling or direct die to keep them under some control then there will be a “limited” amount of people buying them. I personally was waiting about the 13900ks in the new year see how it performs. Buy a dead cpu for a dead platform as they say haha


Yep, never been interested in KS until seeing so many trash bins.

110+ SP needed to hit 5.6-5.7 Ghz all cores from a base 5.5? These chips are disappointing.

KS chips should also do their clocks on lower voltage, so it looks like f you want a good bin its time to get a KS this time.


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> I'd actually hoped they'd let go off the early samples and yet no luck, tbf my 12700KF is absolute garb, max gear1 is 3800, 3900 boots but crashes. 5.0ghz needs like 1.308V vcore load in r23, and 5.1 is 1.464Vcore load r23, really disappointed


Yeah, this sample I tested so far is subpar. At best average. Does not do my cooling system justice, and is not a chip I'd keep for the long term.


bhav said:


> Yep, never been interested in KS until seeing so many trash bins.
> 
> 110+ SP needed to hit 5.6-5.7 Ghz all cores from a base 5.5? These chips are disappointing.


it's quite possible that Intel doesn't want people binning the Ks and not buying any of their KSes. So it makes sense, logically.
Still doesn't change the fact that it's a scummy business tactic, though.


----------



## Wilco183

tps3443 said:


> Mine came from Newegg.


Yeah, I think the good chips were sent to Newegg in New Jersey. Mine came from Indiana distro center and got hosed by the Hoosiers.


----------



## tps3443

Falkentyne said:


> Mode 8 = 0.96 mOhm
> Mode 7 = 0.69 mOhm
> Mode 6 = 0.56 mOhm
> Mode 5 = 0.40 mOhm
> Mode 4 = 0.28 mOhm
> Mode 3 = 0.12 mOhm
> Mode 2 = not tested
> Mode 1 = 0.01 mOhm (assumed to be so)
> 
> Ok so now we can do a rather decent 5.5 ghz Sync P cores test.!
> Can you set 1.210v Bios set + Mode 5 LLC and loop Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes?
> This should give you "close" to 1.137v load.



^ What does this mean for people who can pass this?


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> @Falkentyne
> Finished R23 with 1.19V average VR VOUT, no WHEA errors. Didn't test 1.185V (which would've been +0.01V Vcore in BIOS over your previous request).
> Not that it really matters much now, but just saying that that's where the chip's at for now.
> 
> Manually disabling the TVB-related stuff, my VIDs show up as: P/E-cores: 1.235V. Ring: 1.20V.
> Set to 55/43/45 P/E/Ring.


Yeah you went from 1.270v to 1.235v. Something's not right there.
I went from 1.310v (TVB disabled) to 1.230v (TVB enabled (edit)), 80mv difference due to the difference in TVB scaling from 100C down to 30C (higher temps=higher native VID when TVB is enabled; TVB disabled sets the VID point to the 100C point, which is maximum).


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, this sample I tested so far is subpar. At best average. Does not do my cooling system justice, and is not a chip I'd keep for the long term.
> 
> it's quite possible that Intel doesn't want people binning the Ks and not buying any of their KSes. So it makes sense, logically.
> Still doesn't change the fact that it's a scummy business tactic, though.


Is is actually true they've vid data based off serial numbers lol that's actually insane


----------



## HyperC

@ falkentyne do mine plz


----------



## HemuV2

@Ichirou what's your load voltage at 5.7ghz and 5ghz ring?​


----------



## Falkentyne

Arni90 said:


> I'm not the same guy, but I thought I could add some results to confuse you.
> I have a Z690 Unify-X. Setting socket sense voltage with AC and DC loadline set to 1 and auto VCore raises VID from 1.265V to 1.335V at 55x ratio, which seems strange. I also don't see nearly as much VDroop with VCC Sense at LLC5 as the listed values, it's closer to 0.1 mOhm for me.
> 
> My BIOS reported CPU Force to be 131. I have attached a picture of my box with serial number as well, feel free to ask your contact if it's a good sample or not.


Can you kindly manually enable "TVB Voltage Optimizations" (Note: this is different than "Thermal velocity boost", which is a frequency bin!)? This should set your VID back down.
Then disable TVB Voltage Optimizations and the VID should be close to 1.30v.

Then enable VCC_Sense and do the same thing (TVB Volt Opt=Enabled and TVB Volt Opt=Disabled).
I'm going to laugh if you get 4 different VID's for each configuration.


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> Is is actually true they've vid data based off serial numbers lol that's actually insane


If you've been keeping up with this thread, yes, Intel has the ability to prebin chips based off of their serial numbers.


HemuV2 said:


> @Ichirou what's your load voltage at 5.7ghz and 5ghz ring?​


I wouldn't know because I haven't achieved those numbers in R23 yet. My chip sucks.


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> ^ What does this mean for people who can pass this?


Keep in mind you're on a powerful custom loop. That's going to massively skew the results in your favor.
Passing R23 at 5.5 ghz at 1.137v VR VOUT load (30 minutes), or Asus die sense vcore=1.137v, means you have an average to decent rating for your P-cores. Ichirou needs 1.180v VR VOUT to pass this which is extremely bad.


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> If you've been keeping up with this thread, yes, Intel has the ability to prebin chips based off of their serial numbers.
> 
> I wouldn't know because I haven't achieved those numbers in R23 yet. My chip sucks.


Wait so you can't even do 5.7? Lol that's garb tier but godly compared to last gen. any OC is worth it only if load voltage is below 1.3 in r23 atleast according to me.


----------



## bhav

Speculation - No one is able to get 5.8 all core on 13900K because these are all being saved for 13900KS.

So far all you can find is that the KS will have 6 Ghz boost, can't find the all core clock anywhere.


----------



## Falkentyne

.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Speculation - No one is able to get 5.8 all core on 13900K because these are all being saved for 13900KS.
> 
> So far all you can find is that the KS will have 6 Ghz boost, can't find the all core clock anywhere.


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> Wait so you can't even do 5.7? Lol that's garb tier but godly compared to last gen. any OC is worth it only if load voltage is below 1.3 in r23 atleast according to me.


Let's just say that in order to hit 57x all-core with the P-cores, I would need to delid the chip. And that's just in R23.

@Falkentyne It's 1.19V average VR VOUT now. 1.18V wasn't enough.


tps3443 said:


> View attachment 2578888


@bhav meant the K, not the KF.


----------



## bhav

Wait so KFs are unbinned?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Wait so KFs are unbinned?


Yes, because Intel has no incentive to do so. The KSes have an iGPU, and the KFs don't.
It would be extra labour costs to hire people to bin the KFs for no reason.


----------



## raad11

jeiselramos said:


> Ok i did the @Falkentyne trick, i ended up with an sp99 p109 e81
> View attachment 2578881


Similar rating to mine and identical VIDs.


bhav said:


> Speculation - No one is able to get 5.8 all core on 13900K because these are all being saved for 13900KS.
> 
> So far all you can find is that the KS will have 6 Ghz boost, can't find the all core clock anywhere.


I think I could do 5.8 all core, but it would be a crazy amount of watts. And only maybe CB23 stable. I got 5.7 CB23 stable and that pushes 300+ watts which overwhelms the stock IHS and my cooler. I only ran that once.

Mine will run 5.8 all core up to 80 C which is like sub-300 watts, and can do that in 3DMark and games. I have a lot of voltage being added at 5800 VF point (+40 mV).

But you may have a point as I have it set to 5.6 all-core normally, but it's only stable in CB23 and games. It gives an error in handbrake (no WHEA or BSOD). I added an additional +30mV to the 5700 VF Point without getting it stable in Handbrake before backing off (so now if I have to run Handbrake, I just change OCTVB value in OCTool before running it).

That last part is very perplexing to me. How it can be so stable except certain things and then require a ton of voltage.

Maybe these are bad bins but the entire generation now just does better at CB23.


----------



## Ichirou

raad11 said:


> Similar rating to mine and identical VIDs.
> 
> I think I could do 5.8 all core, but it would be a crazy amount of watts. And only maybe CB23 stable. I got 5.7 CB23 stable and that pushes 300+ watts which overwhelms the stock IHS and my cooler. I only ran that once.
> 
> Mine will run 5.8 all core up to 80 C which is like sub-300 watts, and can do that in 3DMark and games. I have a lot of voltage being added at 5800 VF point (+40 mV).
> 
> But you may have a point as I have it set to 5.6 all-core normally, but it's only stable in CB23 and games. It gives an error in handbrake (no WHEA or BSOD). I added an additional +30mV to the 5700 VF Point without getting it stable in Handbrake before backing off (so now if I have to run Handbrake, I just change OCTVB value in OCTool before running it).
> 
> That last part is very perplexing to me. How it can be so stable except certain things and then require a ton of voltage.
> 
> Maybe these are bad bins but the entire generation now just does better at CB23.


That's because R23 and most video games are very light on the CPU.

If you really want a proper test that ensures 99% stability, y-cruncher's CST with all tests enabled.
That really drives your chip into degradation territory.


----------



## raad11

Ichirou said:


> That's because R23 and most video games are very light on the CPU.
> 
> If you really want a proper test that ensures 99% stability, y-cruncher's CST with all tests enabled.
> That really drives your chip into degradation territory.


Which is why I opt not to do that lol. I've only done CB23, sometimes Blender and Handbrake on my CPUs and they haven't degraded. Never run into a use case, personally, which put a more demanding load on the PC than that.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> That's because R23 and most video games are very light on the CPU.
> 
> If you really want a proper test that ensures 99% stability, y-cruncher's CST with all tests enabled.
> That really drives your chip into degradation territory.


Ok look, theres a reason why no one runs small FTTs anymore, and thats the same reason why no one is going to be running Y cruncher.

You really ought to stop advocating for a stress test that has destroyed 10 of your chips or some such.


----------



## newls1

bigfootnz said:


> @Falkentyne, @cstkl1 and others
> Is there any recommendations regarding Voltage for Atom cores? On Z690 Hero auto was around 1.22v and on Unify-X is 1.05. I know that with 12900k increase with this voltage has helped with E-core and ring OC.


i had to set 1.235 for 46x stability


----------



## bigfootnz

newls1 said:


> i had to set 1.235 for 46x stability


46x E-core or ring?


----------



## bscool

Ichirou said:


> Yes, because Intel has no incentive to do so. The KSes have an iGPU, and the KFs don't.
> It would be extra labour costs to hire people to bin the KFs for no reason.


I mean there is no 13900KSF 

Or maybe that is the new thing. Guess we will see.


----------



## newls1

bigfootnz said:


> 46x E-core or ring?


e-core.


----------



## newls1

does ring have a voltage option to set? Im at 5ghz ring and its was back to back r23 stable and ycruncher


----------



## Arni90

Falkentyne said:


> Yeah you went from 1.270v to 1.235v. Something's not right there.
> I went from 1.310v (TVB disabled) to 1.230v (TVB enabled (edit)), 80mv difference due to the difference in TVB scaling from 100C down to 30C (higher temps=higher native VID when TVB is enabled; TVB disabled sets the VID point to the 100C point, which is maximum).


Prepare to laugh then


----------



## digitalfrost

Arni90 said:


> Prepare to laugh then


*** man.


----------



## Falkentyne

Arni90 said:


> Prepare to laugh then


That's just messed up.
The only VID that looks proper is the VCC_Sense with TVB on.
It almost looks like the others are inflating the AC Loadlines or overriding the native VID in some way (regardless of what you set).

Unfortunately, it would be extremely helpful if you had access to any Asus Z690 or Z790 board (Doesn't matter if it's a Tuf or Strix or Maximus, as die vs socket sense doesn't matter), set the AC/DC loadlines to 0.01 mohms and then check the VID there with TVB off and on. Then you would know which MSI setting is "right" or "not right."


----------



## tps3443

Falkentyne said:


> Keep in mind you're on a powerful custom loop. That's going to massively skew the results in your favor.
> Passing R23 at 5.5 ghz at 1.137v VR VOUT load (30 minutes), or Asus die sense vcore=1.137v, means you have an average to decent rating for your P-cores. Ichirou needs 1.180v VR VOUT to pass this which is extremely bad.


 So far I can manage 1.170V with LLC 5 on my Unify-X. power usage is 238 watts at 5.5Ghz. I may be able to go a little lower on the voltage, still testing.

Water chiller is off.


----------



## cstkl1

bigfootnz said:


> @Falkentyne, @cstkl1 and others
> Is there any recommendations regarding Voltage for Atom cores? On Z690 Hero auto was around 1.22v and on Unify-X is 1.05. I know that with 12900k increase with this voltage has helped with E-core and ring OC.


u mean L2 cache voltage. atm seen no diff on it


----------



## cstkl1

did some quick test for 5.3ghz vid. hmm intel really really greedy. 5.3ghz cpu pwr draw avx2 was just 198w. temps was so good 77 max. 

i mean this is like already class leading in temps power. y even do 5.5ghz all core


----------



## Ichirou

cstkl1 said:


> did some quick test for 5.3ghz vid. hmm intel really really greedy. 5.3ghz cpu pwr draw avx2 was just 198w. temps was so good 77 max.
> 
> i mean this is like already class leading in temps power. y even do 5.5ghz all core


Because you'd buy a 12900KS instead if you didn't want to go 5.5+ GHz


----------



## cstkl1

Ichirou said:


> Because you'd buy a 12900KS instead if you didn't want to go 5.5+ GHz


ks cant do 5.1 cache with Ecores 
🤣


----------



## Antsu

Anyone had problems with IHS height after delid + (very light) lap while using the socket bracket from Thermalright? There isn't too much IHS sticking out of the frame, and I fear it might drop below it after delid + lap. I guess I'll just have to sand the bracket down too, but it would be nice to hear from someone who had this combo on 12th gen. I was too lazy and never installed the bracket on my delid+lapped 12900K. 

Edit: and if someone has a pro-tip regarding the removal of the new silicone adhesive it would be appreciated, it was a PITA to remove all of it on my 12900K by just scraping away.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Because you'd buy a 12900KS instead if you didn't want to go 5.5+ GHz


I’m quite impressed. I have managed to tune out a really good setup “Stock like 13900KF settings“ but it’s full power performance. at sub 240 watts through R23 scoring 40,800. I’m very happy with this.


----------



## HyperC

Antsu said:


> Anyone had problems with IHS height after delid + (very light) lap while using the socket bracket from Thermalright? There isn't too much IHS sticking out of the frame, and I fear it might drop below it after delid + lap. I guess I'll just have to sand the bracket down too, but it would be nice to hear from someone who had this combo on 12th gen. I was too lazy and never installed the bracket on my delid+lapped 12900K.
> 
> Edit: and if someone has a pro-tip regarding the removal of the new silicone adhesive it would be appreciated, it was a PITA to remove all of it on my 12900K by just scraping away.


 Should be fine just make sure you have good contact with IHS and cpu die might have to sand the bottom of the IHS , but use credit card or plastic trim tool if you got the rockitcool kit use the wooden stick


----------



## neteng101

What's the best way to test ring clock?


----------



## Ichirou

neteng101 said:


> What's the best way to test ring clock?


_cough_ y-cruncher _cough_

Or just R23 like everyone else is doing...


----------



## Antsu

HyperC said:


> Should be fine just make sure you have good contact with IHS and cpu die might have to sand the bottom of the IHS , but use credit card or plastic trim tool if you got the rockitcool kit use the wooden stick


Thanks for the tips! I always give the underside a light sanding too, just like you recommend. I actually do have the Rockit kit, and that wooden stick literally saved me. It would've been so painful to get that new stuff off with a credit card, atleast the wooden stick made it possible, even if it still was really slow. I guess there are no shortcuts to great temps, I'll just have to get scraping I guess. 

OT: I only have a few hours to spare tonight, I really just want to see what the chip can do, but knowing myself I'll just start pushing the voltage like I won the lottery and have stacks of chips waiting to be abused, but unfortunately that is far from reality so I really need to delid before playing with it.


----------



## Ichirou

Antsu said:


> Thanks for the tips! I always give the underside a light sanding too, just like you recommend. I actually do have the Rockit kit, and that wooden stick literally saved me. It would've been so painful to get that new stuff off with a credit card, atleast the wooden stick made it possible, even if it still was really slow. I guess there are no shortcuts to great temps, I'll just have to get scraping I guess.
> 
> OT: I only have a few hours to spare tonight, I really just want to see what the chip can do, but knowing myself I'll just start pushing the voltage like I won the lottery and have stacks of chips waiting to be abused, but unfortunately that is far from reality so I really need to delid before playing with it.


Why don't you test run it first before a delidding?


----------



## bhav

Wait is ring ratio the same thing as cache?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Wait is ring ratio the same thing as cache?


Yes.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Yes.


Now you tell me QQ

So is 5.1 Pcore / 4.0 Ecore / 5.0 Cache good for a 12600k?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Now you tell me QQ
> 
> So is 5.1 Pcore / 4.0 Ecore / 5.0 Cache good for a 12600k?


You managed to get 50x cache working with the E-cores on?


----------



## Antsu

Ichirou said:


> Why don't you test run it first before a delidding?


I did pop it in yesterday to make sure it works, but I have a bad habit of pushing way too much vcore and trying to reach for the moon, and I want to minimize degradation, so a delid would definitely help on that matter as the chip runs colder and can handle a bit more voltage.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> You managed to get 50x cache working with the E-cores on?


Yup, been like that since April, just p cores also 5.0 for daily cos crap cooler.


----------



## Ichirou

Antsu said:


> I did pop it in yesterday to make sure it works, but I have a bad habit of pushing way too much vcore and trying to reach for the moon, and I want to minimize degradation, so a delid would definitely help on that matter as the chip runs colder and can handle a bit more voltage.


You would void your return/warranty eligibility going straight to a delid, though.


bhav said:


> Yup, been like that since April, just p cores also 5.0 for daily cos crap cooler.


I don't think I've heard of _anyone_ with a 12th Gen managing to run 50x on the cache _with_ the E-cores enabled.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> You would void your return/warranty eligibility going straight to a delid, though.
> 
> I don't think I've heard of _anyone_ with a 12th Gen managing to run 50x on the cache _with_ the E-cores enabled.


I tried to look in CPUZ but it doesn't show cache or e cores, which software shows all 3?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> I tried to look in CPUZ but it doesn't show cache or e cores, which software shows all 3?


HWiNFO.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> HWiNFO.


Welp, its displaying much lower for all the clocks than in my bios or temp monitor.


----------



## Antsu

Ichirou said:


> You would void your return/warranty eligibility going straight to a delid, though.


I won't return it anyway because I consider binning chips by returning the bad ones quite immoral. What comes to warranty, I don't really mind. I've never had to RMA any CPU (knock on wood, lol)

And like I said, I did briefly test that it works as expected, I have no worries on that front. Just wish I had time to delid AND test it properly tonight, but it's not like I can't test it properly a few days later, just first world problems with impatience.


----------



## bhav

Ok so bios is set to:

All P core 50

All E core 40

Cache 50

HWinfo says 5000 / 4000 / 3600 during OCCT CPU test, why???


----------



## neteng101

bhav said:


> Welp, its displaying much lower for all the clocks than in my bios or temp monitor.


Check under load while running R23.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Ok so bios is set to:
> 
> All P core 50
> 
> All E core 40
> 
> Cache 50
> 
> HWinfo says 5000 / 4000 / 3600 during OCCT CPU test, why???


Because nobody on this planet has managed to run 50x on the cache with the E-cores enabled on a 12th Gen CPU.
The BIOS is just ignoring what you set and is running it at a safe one instead.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Because nobody on this planet has managed to run 50x on the cache with the E-cores enabled on a 12th Gen CPU.
> The BIOS is just ignoring what you set and is running it at a safe one instead.


It bsods at 51x so until now I thought it was at 5000 :x


----------



## neteng101

Ichirou said:


> Because nobody on this planet has managed to run 50x on the cache with the E-cores enabled on a 12th Gen CPU.
> The BIOS is just ignoring what you set and is running it at a safe one instead.


I could only get 4.3 working with E-cores on my old 12700k. Even that wasn't perfect, dropped to 4.2 for daily!

I recall 4.7/4.8 being the levels people could manage with E-cores OFF.


----------



## dante`afk

warbucks said:


> It's kept on using the frame that sits around/on top of the block which is secured to the motherboard using the bolts/nuts that come with it. See this picture.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Frame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2578850


you never installed it, did you? I talked with him early this year about that, this black frame is just for aesthetics and RGB, it does not hold the block down.

The block has to go between retention bracket and DIE.


----------



## Ichirou

neteng101 said:


> I could only get 4.3 working with E-cores on my old 12700k. Even that wasn't perfect, dropped to 4.2 for daily!
> 
> I recall 4.7/4.8 being the levels people could manage with E-cores OFF.


I could run up to 51x on the cache with the E-cores off. Just needed enough Vcore.


----------



## dante`afk

tps3443 said:


> View attachment 2578888


hard throttling? I get more points with 5.9ghz allcore.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> I could run up to 51x on the cache with the E-cores off. Just needed enough Vcore.


WOW, so it only lets me boot into windows up to 4000 cache with e cores on, even the 12600 non k did 4.4 / 4.4 Pcore / Cache.

How did I only just realize this, e cores are being turned off soon when I can be bothered to retest.


----------



## Exilon

My 13900K arrived but I won't have time to install it until the weekend. The box is taunting me.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Well it seems I lucked out on my 13900k, SP99....

So as this is my first time this this type of CPU (10900k previously), where's the best start to dialing it in, because there's no way I'm going to OC this thing under a AIO, but as I intend on keeping it a few year I'm going to get a bigger case 011-XL and at least watercool the CPU properly.


----------



## bhav

Well I'm gonna be running a 13900KS under an AIO welp.

But it will be open frame. I'll need to get those Phanteks fans for sure, hopefully the 140s will be out soon.


----------



## Wilco183

bhav said:


> Well I'm gonna be running a 13900KS under an AIO welp.
> 
> But it will be open frame. I'll need to get those Phanteks fans for sure, hopefully the 140s will be out soon.


Might as well put 6 on your...what AIO?


----------



## bhav

Wilco183 said:


> Might as well put 6 on your...what AIO?


Was thinking Artctic 420 unless a better one comes out soon.

Those fans are stupid expensive too.


----------



## Ichirou

schoolofmonkey said:


> Well it seems I lucked out on my 13900k, SP99....
> 
> So as this is my first time this this type of CPU (10900k previously), where's the best start to dialing it in, because there's no way I'm going to OC this thing under a AIO, but as I intend on keeping it a few year I'm going to get a bigger case 011-XL and at least watercool the CPU properly.


SP 100 is the median average, actually. SP 110+ are the golden chips.

For a chip like that, you'll want to settle at 55-56x all-core for the P-cores, and raise the E-cores and ring however high you can with the same Vcore that's been allocated to the P-cores. Stay under 80-85C max, and 1.35V VCCSA if you're using DDR4.


----------



## tps3443

dante`afk said:


> hard throttling? I get more points with 5.9ghz allcore.


Yeah, I do too.

Windows ruined it is all with back ground stuff and low priority for R23 was not changed. I’m also Not delidded yet. But I’ll get there.


----------



## Exilon

bhav said:


> WOW, so it only lets me boot into windows up to 4000 cache with e cores on, even the 12600 non k did 4.4 / 4.4 Pcore / Cache.
> 
> How did I only just realize this, e cores are being turned off soon when I can be bothered to retest.


Raise the L2 cache voltage to 1.35 and see how high it goes


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> Raise the L2 cache voltage to 1.35 and see how high it goes


Wait what theres a voltage for that?


----------



## Exilon

bhav said:


> Wait what theres a voltage for that?


Yeah but different motherboard name it differently. IVR L2 for example. It's the FIVR voltage to the E-core cluster L2 which is the bottleneck of the ring speed.

On ASUS:
CPU L2 Voltage [Manual Mode]
- CPU L2 Voltage Override [1.37000]


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> Yeah but different motherboard name it differently. IVR L2 for example. It's the FIVR voltage to the E-core cluster L2 which is the bottleneck of the ring speed.
> 
> On ASUS:
> CPU L2 Voltage [Manual Mode]
> - CPU L2 Voltage Override [1.37000]


Found it in the FIVR, set it to 1.25 and tried to set 44x cache, but now I'm back to 3600


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Found it in the FIVR, set it to 1.25 and tried to set 44x cache, but now I'm back to 3600


Start at 40x cache, and if not even that works, don't even bother.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Start at 40x cache, and if not even that works, don't even bother.


Only 40x works, anything more back to 3600.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Only 40x works, anything more back to 3600.


Then you've hit your limit with that chip and/or motherboard.


----------



## Slackaveli

toncij said:


> I'm not sure if highest end boards bring any value now. IMC seems far more important, like all boards can do it. Feature wise it's hard to even see benefits in Asus Hero vs Extreme and vs Aorus Master, to remove "there's 10G network" argument. The price of Extreme/Godlike/Xtreme in Europe is 300% that of the Hero, Aorus...
> 
> Can anyone point out the value?


Personally Id grab a Z790 Aorus Tachyon. I didnt bc my z690 Unify-X is plenty good enough for me.


----------



## Avacado

Ichirou said:


> I don't think I've heard of _anyone_ with a 12th Gen managing to run 50x on the cache _with_ the E-cores enabled.


I think iv'e done it before, but you can't run high mem clocks with cache 50+. 4800 MHz mem IIRC, but it could have been 8P 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> That is just some serious BS, release at a higher spec then nerf them, pretty sure thats a violation of just about every advertisement law.


They had to make it sound better than the 12900ks for the nubs.


----------



## Slackaveli

tps3443 said:


> Initial leaks had the 13900K scoring lower numbers it seemed, and I’m guessing because it was throttling on standard AIO’s. They are actually very very fast! I hope Intel doesn’t nerf it. One of the only CPU’s in my life that I can happily run bone stock right out of the box. 5.5Ghz all
> cores is just blistering fast and a 5.8Ghz turbo. Breaking that 40K in R23 easily. It’s very impressive.
> 
> When have we ever gotten a CPU that we’re content with stock? Never. Their default power algorithms for previous flag ship
> CPU’s are just not very power or performance oriented at all.. But the stock 13900K definitely is!


Yeah this is literally my favorite CPU Ive had- replaces my old favorite in my head 5775-c for 4 core era, and i had an insane 10900k that chewed up 5.4ghz all-core on AIO... loved that one, too. 

But Gotdamn i love this Raptor!


----------



## HyperC

bhav said:


> That is just some serious BS, release at a higher spec then nerf them, pretty sure thats a violation of just about every advertisement law.


 Yeah sucks but if someone takes them to court in 3yrs we all get 1 penny


----------



## bhav

HyperC said:


> Yeah sucks but if someone takes them to court in 3yrs we all get 1 penny


Only if you live in the US.

Never got any money back for my 3.5 Gb GTX 970s.


----------



## Slackaveli

Ichirou said:


> Wait, you can actually prebin CPUs based on the serial number alone? Or does that Intel engineer keep it tight under wraps?


I told y'all that already. Mine was a 104 and it's the tits. I didnt even have to open up the other 2 bc they had a higher number (more to the outside of the die).

Does anybody know how many chips they yield from one die if it was 100% yield?.


----------



## Slackaveli

yt93900 said:


> Kinda shocking if true, yet predictable - they must know which are suitable for being a KS.


Not really. Center of the die is always better so they number it from the inside out. Wallah- pre-binned.


----------



## Slackaveli

Slackaveli said:


> I told y'all that already. Mine was a 104 and it's the tits.





Ichirou said:


> Anyway, I'm done with this chip. I hate wasting time on sh*tty bins. Not worth spending too much time and effort on.
> Awaiting the Amazon chip now, and hopefully the BestBuy chip.


yeah man, get a chip from America.


----------



## Slackaveli

raad11 said:


> That's my exact batch lol


Mine are x233


----------



## Slackaveli

Wilco183 said:


> Yeah, I think the good chips were sent to Newegg in New Jersey. Mine came from Indiana distro center and got hosed by the Hoosiers.


Mine came from New Jersey.


----------



## Slackaveli

neteng101 said:


> What's the best way to test ring clock?


For me it's RPCS3 and loading up NCAA Football 2013. That kicks the dog out of all the cores and the cache very hard. Instability will be exposed. Ive never crashed in a game EVER that passed a full game in NCAA 2013.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Ichirou said:


> SP 100 is the median average, actually. SP 110+ are the golden chips.
> 
> For a chip like that, you'll want to settle at 55-56x all-core for the P-cores, and raise the E-cores and ring however high you can with the same Vcore that's been allocated to the P-cores. Stay under 80-85C max, and 1.35V VCCSA if you're using DDR4.


This is what I'm sitting at just using Intels suggested settings in bios:


----------



## Slackaveli

Ichirou said:


> Because nobody on this planet has managed to run 50x on the cache with the E-cores enabled on a 12th Gen CPU.
> The BIOS is just ignoring what you set and is running it at a safe one instead.


dats facts


----------



## Slackaveli

schoolofmonkey said:


> Well it seems I lucked out on my 13900k, SP99....
> 
> So as this is my first time this this type of CPU (10900k previously), where's the best start to dialing it in, because there's no way I'm going to OC this thing under a AIO, but as I intend on keeping it a few year I'm going to get a bigger case 011-XL and at least watercool the CPU properly.


Sure you can; a whole lot of us are on AIO.


----------



## bhav

schoolofmonkey said:


> This is what I'm sitting at just using Intels suggested settings in bios:


Ewwwwwww, should have got a KF


----------



## neteng101

I think I have my limits pretty set now - 5.5P, 4.5E, 4.8R is the max any of those 3 settings can run at reasonable Vcore on my 13700k. Dropping down to 5.5P, 4.4E, 4.8R I can dip voltage down to 1.28V with slight droop at load to 1.27V+. RAM is truly cheap DDR4 3000-16 4x16GB SR sticks, running at old 3866-CL19 settings I had from my 12700k memory overclock. Temps are good at 1.28V with the OC, except for Y-Cruncher's SFT test which causes the CPU to draw 300W peak.


----------



## bhav

neteng101 said:


> RAM is truly cheap DDR4 3000-16 4x16GB SR sticks,


What ram is that? I thought Micron B die was the only SR 16 Gb sticks for DDR4.


----------



## neteng101

bhav said:


> What ram is that? I thought Micron B die was the only SR 16 Gb sticks for DDR4.


Its Micron - possibly E-die. Thaiphoon doesn't tell me for sure. Doesn't like too much voltage - 1.45V DRAM will cause major errors, running it at 1.40V DRAM.


----------



## Wilco183

Slackaveli said:


> Mine are x233


Mine are x234...should have at least gotten the tits singular.


----------



## 51dueller

bhav said:


> What ram is that? I thought Micron B die was the only SR 16 Gb sticks for DDR4.


Hynix DJR comes in SR at 16 GB


----------



## bhav

neteng101 said:


> Its Micron - possibly E-die. Thaiphoon doesn't tell me for sure. Doesn't like too much voltage - 1.45V DRAM will cause major errors, running it at 1.40V DRAM.


Wont be e die, that was only ever 8 Gb for SR, and 16 Gb micron b die SR came after that.

TAKE OFF THE HEATSINKS FOR SCIENCE!


----------



## neteng101

bhav said:


> Wont be e die, that was only ever 8 Gb for SR, and 16 Gb micron b die SR came after that.


Its likely B die Micron then...


----------



## bhav

neteng101 said:


> Its likely B die Micron then...
> 
> View attachment 2578981


You really need better ram :x

Thats worse than G2 with tighter timings!


----------



## GQNerd

*13900k*

"Only" SP 106











Those saying that 5.8 is not attainable on the "K" chip, are just flat out wrong.. And there's others in this thread that are hitting 5.8 or 5.9 just fine without having a sky high SP. It is luck of the draw like it's always bin.. (see what I did there?)

So either get really lucky, or pay to win.. but either way stop spreading false information. No doubt Intel would keep the highest performing chips for KS series, but there's ton of good silicon in the K and KF batches (at least for now until we start getting closer to the KS).


----------



## neteng101

bhav said:


> You really need better ram :x
> 
> Thats worse than G2 with tighter timings!


Waiting for the DDR5 upgrade when it matures more then I'll spend on RAM with a 14th/15th gen upgrade. It works for now, 64GB for cheap... and still better than those typical Corsair crap RGB 3600-18 kits that most people buy.


----------



## gerardfraser

bhav said:


> You really need better ram :x
> 
> Thats worse than G2 with tighter timings!





neteng101 said:


> Waiting for the DDR5 upgrade when it matures more then I'll spend on RAM with a 14th/15th gen upgrade. It works for now, 64GB for cheap... and still better than those typical Corsair crap RGB 3600-18 kits that most people buy.


Well if you like best CPU and Best GPU at 1080P lowest settings then awesome. or real PC gamers be like


----------



## Slackaveli

Wilco183 said:


> Mine are x234...should have at least gotten the tits singular.


at least gimme a damn tittay!


----------



## bhav

neteng101 said:


> Waiting for the DDR5 upgrade when it matures more then I'll spend on RAM with a 14th/15th gen upgrade. It works for now, 64GB for cheap... and still better than those typical Corsair crap RGB 3600-18 kits that most people buy.


How much did they cost?


----------



## neteng101

bhav said:


> How much did they cost?


$176 + tax for 2 32GB kits, bought at the same time. Got them during Covid for WFH needing to run VMs.


----------



## bhav

neteng101 said:


> $176 + tax for 2 32GB kits, bought at the same time. Got them during Covid for WFH needing to run VMs.


Oh ok that is a good price, I paid about the same for 2x16 Gb of the high end junk, and then got shafted with 12th / 13th gen IMCs.


----------



## Slackaveli

I mean... price is the bottleneck for most of us lol. A good deal is a good deal, and that qualified.


----------



## Falkentyne

152


Miguelios said:


> *13900k*
> 
> "Only" SP 106
> 
> View attachment 2578983
> 
> 
> 
> Those saying that 5.8 is not attainable on the "K" chip, are just flat out wrong.. And there's others in this thread that are hitting 5.8 or 5.9 just fine without having a sky high SP. It is luck of the draw like it's always bin.. (see what I did there?)
> 
> So either get really lucky, or pay to win.. but either way stop spreading false information. No doubt Intel would keep the highest performing chips for KS series, but there's ton of good silicon in the K and KF batches (at least for now until we start getting closer to the KS).


First, why didn't you tell us what vcore you're pushing into this? (Load die sense vcore, or otherwise Bios set Vcore + LLC level).

SP 106 can have WILDLY varying individual SP. You didn't give us the separate SP's.
I've seen SP 106 chips with a Pcore SP of 119 and an E core SP in the pits, and other chips with a very good E core SP (94, for example) and an average P core SP (113), and even some below this, with an E core SP over 100 but with a P core SP as bad as Ichirou's.

Second, you need a TON of voltage or you need to be otherwise delidded to run the E cores at x47 and actually be stable (One or two R23 runs is not stability).
And what cooler are you using? Your example isn't typical of standard AIO setups on average chips.

Third: I dare you to run Stockfish chess BMI2 / AVX2 at this exact frequency. It's going to crash and burn on you hard.


Stockfish Development Versions


----------



## GQNerd

Falkentyne said:


> 152
> 
> 
> First, why didn't you tell us what vcore you're pushing into this? (Load die sense vcore, or otherwise Bios set Vcore + LLC level).
> 
> SP 106 can have WILDLY varying individual SP. You didn't give us the separate SP's.
> I've seen SP 106 chips with a Pcore SP of 119 and an E core SP in the pits, and other chips with a very good E core SP (94, for example) and an average P core SP (113), and even some below this, with an E core SP over 100 but with a P core SP as bad as Ichirou's.
> 
> Second, you need a TON of voltage or you need to be otherwise delidded to run the E cores at x47 and actually be stable (One or two R23 runs is not stability).
> And what cooler are you using? Your example isn't typical of standard AIO setups on average chips.
> 
> Third: I dare you to run Stockfish chess BMI2 / AVX2 at this exact frequency. It's going to crash and burn on you hard.
> 
> 
> Stockfish Development Versions


Falk,

1- I've already shared that with u, and this thread. 1.35 vcc sense in MSI BIOS w/LL 3.

I've posted my separate SPs multiple times, and Nizzen has it updated on the first page.
Sp106/116P/88E

2 - I add 20mv to Ecores, and I'm stable.. Of course this score is a single run max, but I'm 43k+ after 30 mins etc..

I also shared that I'm on a custom loop w/ Velocity2 block, cheap 1700 contact frame, D5 pump, and single 360x45mm RAD. - Not de-lidded, no chiller, no crazy ambient.

3 - Why, Just for sh*ts and giggles? Just to crash and say, yes that's right? I'm stable in all benches I've tried, no whea or other errors, no random shutdowns, and stable in actual daily use (premier, photoshop, lightroom, and gaming)

Not sure if you interpreted my previous post the wrong way, but it wasn't intended for you.. But rather the ppl complaining cause they didn't get a Golden Chip. It's annoying... It's luck of the draw or pay to win, always has been.

_for example:_ I had an avg 9900k, a GREAT 10900k, skipped 11th gen cause LOL, ****ty 12900k, and now an above avg. 13900k..It is what it is.


----------



## Falkentyne

Miguelios said:


> Falk,
> 
> 1- I've already shared that with u, and this thread. 1.35 vcc sense in MSI BIOS w/LL 3.
> 
> I've posted my separate SPs multiple times, and Nizzen has it updated on the first page.
> Sp106/116P/88E
> 
> 2 - I add 20mv to Ecores, and I'm stable.. Of course this score is a single run max, but I'm 43k+ after 30 mins etc..
> 
> I also shared that I'm on a custom loop w/ Velocity2 block, cheap 1700 contact frame, D5 pump, and single 360x45mm RAD. - Not de-lidded, no chiller, no crazy ambient.
> 
> 3 - Why, Just for sh*ts and giggles? Just to crash and say, yes that's right? I'm stable in all benches I've tried, no whea or other errors, no random shutdowns, and stable in actual daily use (premier, photoshop, lightroom, and gaming)
> 
> Not sure if you interpreted my previous post the wrong way, but it wasn't intended for you.. But rather the ppl complaining cause they didn't get a Golden Chip. It's annoying... It's luck of the draw or pay to win, always has been.
> 
> _for example:_ I had an avg 9900k, a GREAT 10900k, skipped 11th gen cause LOL, ****ty 12900k, and now an above avg. 13900k..It is what it is.


Did you see the posts about MSI a few pages back?
MSI's LLC settings are completely messed up.

LLC3 is 0.14 mohms (!) on some boards.
Then when you change to socket sense it changes the LLC (and this applies to the Unify-X also).

Your P cores are way above average. That's not far from sugi's P core clocks--they scale well if you can cool the chip.
I Just called you out on the SP Because you have to make sure you give the P core SP, because that's very important.
And because as you know, DLVR was removed from production desktop. DLVR was supposed to allow you to set different vcores for E and P cores.
Axed. Now it seems to only be on mobile.

There seems to be a massive difference in scaling on a P core 116 chip vs a 113 chip. It's like the higher you go, the more of a difference each point seems to make.
And btw my 11900k and 12900k were both pants (QS), but my 10900K (QS) was above average.
I actually bought a retail 10900k and it was worse than my QS by one whole frequency tier. That was a good chip. 

And I mention stockfish because I study chess every day and I pretty much require it. And I think it's a safer stability test than throwing Y-cruncher on these chips (at least Linpack/LinX cycles the temps though, but higher sample (memory) sizes of Linpack can hammer a chip as hard as even prime95 avx).


----------



## tps3443

Miguelios said:


> Falk,
> 
> 1- I've already shared that with u, and this thread. 1.35 vcc sense in MSI BIOS w/LL 3.
> 
> I've posted my separate SPs multiple times, and Nizzen has it updated on the first page.
> Sp106/116P/88E
> 
> 2 - I add 20mv to Ecores, and I'm stable.. Of course this score is a single run max, but I'm 43k+ after 30 mins etc..
> 
> I also shared that I'm on a custom loop w/ Velocity2 block, cheap 1700 contact frame, D5 pump, and single 360x45mm RAD. - Not de-lidded, no chiller, no crazy ambient.
> 
> 3 - Why, Just for sh*ts and giggles? Just to crash and say, yes that's right? I'm stable in all benches I've tried, no whea or other errors, no random shutdowns, and stable in actual daily use (premier, photoshop, lightroom, and gaming)
> 
> Not sure if you interpreted my previous post the wrong way, but it wasn't intended for you.. But rather the ppl complaining cause they didn't get a Golden Chip. It's annoying... It's luck of the draw or pay to win, always has been.
> 
> _for example:_ I had an avg 9900k, a GREAT 10900k, skipped 11th gen cause LOL, ****ty 12900k, and now an above avg. 13900k..It is what it is.


Your power usage seems crazy low for 5.8Ghz and 4.7Ghz E-Cores. Is that accurate, or was that a glitch due to high priority?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Right double checked my SP, P Core SP is 108, E Core is 86 overall SP 99.


----------



## GQNerd

tps3443 said:


> Your power usage seems crazy low for 5.8Ghz and 4.7Ghz E-Cores. Is that accurate, or was that a glitch due to high priority?


Nope.. I scored ~44,560 messing with priority.

You have to find the sweet spot for these.. while figuring mine out, I've drawn over 350w, and got lower scores.. now sitting around 310-330w max w/daily settings


----------



## GQNerd

Falkentyne said:


> Did you see the posts about MSI a few pages back?
> MSI's LLC settings are completely messed up.
> 
> LLC3 is 0.14 mohms (!) on some boards.
> Then when you change to socket sense it changes the LLC (and this applies to the Unify-X also).
> 
> Your P cores are way above average. That's not far from sugi's P core clocks--they scale well if you can cool the chip.
> I Just called you out on the SP Because you have to make sure you give the P core SP, because that's very important.
> And because as you know, DLVR was removed from production desktop. DLVR was supposed to allow you to set different vcores for E and P cores.
> Axed. Now it seems to only be on mobile.
> 
> There seems to be a massive difference in scaling on a P core 116 chip vs a 113 chip. It's like the higher you go, the more of a difference each point seems to make.
> And btw my 11900k and 12900k were both pants (QS), but my 10900K (QS) was above average.
> I actually bought a retail 10900k and it was worse than my QS by one whole frequency tier. That was a good chip.
> 
> And I mention stockfish because I study chess every day and I pretty much require it. And I think it's a safer stability test than throwing Y-cruncher on these chips (at least Linpack/LinX cycles the temps though, but higher sample (memory) sizes of Linpack can hammer a chip as hard as even prime95 avx).


I did notice the MSI LL changes anytime I adjust the core voltage or SA etc.. So I double check whenever leaving BIOS

OK, guess I'll make it a habit of attaching the SP ratings on every single post, or add it to my sig.. 

TBH I'd rather engage with you in an actual game of chess, rather than a benchmark. (and probably eat my words if we ever did, lol) 

But I'll check it out


----------



## tps3443

Miguelios said:


> Nope.. I scored ~44,560 messing with priority.
> 
> You truly have to find the sweet spot for these.. while figuring mine out, I've seen over 350w, and got lower scores.. I'm now around 310-330w max, and these are my daily settings



What was your cpu force rating again? I can also do 5.8/4.7.

Power usage seemed to be different after every bios exit lol. I guess I know why now haha. LLC changing automatically.


----------



## cstkl1

schoolofmonkey said:


> Well it seems I lucked out on my 13900k, SP99....
> 
> So as this is my first time this this type of CPU (10900k previously), where's the best start to dialing it in, because there's no way I'm going to OC this thing under a AIO, but as I intend on keeping it a few year I'm going to get a bigger case 011-XL and at least watercool the CPU properly.


check P core SP. ignore the overall


----------



## FlanK3r

Ichirou said:


> How many chips did he have to bin to get that one?
> 
> Oh wait, it says Engineering Sample in CPU-Z. So it was prebinned.


Im think, maybe Safedisk or his friend with this chip. I remember, his friend has also hardly binned 12900K (or KS?)


----------



## Slackaveli

Miguelios said:


> Falk,
> 
> 1- I've already shared that with u, and this thread. 1.35 vcc sense in MSI BIOS w/LL 3.
> 
> I've posted my separate SPs multiple times, and Nizzen has it updated on the first page.
> Sp106/116P/88E
> 
> 2 - I add 20mv to Ecores, and I'm stable.. Of course this score is a single run max, but I'm 43k+ after 30 mins etc..
> 
> I also shared that I'm on a custom loop w/ Velocity2 block, cheap 1700 contact frame, D5 pump, and single 360x45mm RAD. - Not de-lidded, no chiller, no crazy ambient.
> 
> 3 - Why, Just for sh*ts and giggles? Just to crash and say, yes that's right? I'm stable in all benches I've tried, no whea or other errors, no random shutdowns, and stable in actual daily use (premier, photoshop, lightroom, and gaming)
> 
> Not sure if you interpreted my previous post the wrong way, but it wasn't intended for you.. But rather the ppl complaining cause they didn't get a Golden Chip. It's annoying... It's luck of the draw or pay to win, always has been.
> 
> _for example:_ I had an avg 9900k, a GREAT 10900k, skipped 11th gen cause LOL, ****ty 12900k, and now an above avg. 13900k..It is what it is.


My exact path damn near. Aight 9900k, FABULOUS binned 10900k, skipped LOLgen, and had a ****ty af 12700k but it had a good IMC. 13700k is what it is, better than average for sure.

Silicon gonna silicon.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Ichirou said:


> Yeah. Wait for the 13900KS.
> I've been screwed over twice buying "binned Alder Lake CPUs" so far, so that's not gonna happen again. Nor would I advise anyone else to attempt to buy one either.
> Unless it's someone you're close with and trust, don't bother.


I've noticed that it will come in "limited quantities" and it will be released early 2023, so I might indeed wait and use my friends 12700k for now.

Need to buy the Z790 Apex or Z790 Kingpin when possible haha


----------



## schoolofmonkey

cstkl1 said:


> check P core SP. ignore the overall


P Core SP 108, E Core 85.


----------



## energie80

someone tested HT on vs off and ecores on vs off i games?


----------



## nickolp1974

Getting a lot of whea errors yet fully stable, is there anything that helps this???


----------



## kill_a_wat

nickolp1974 said:


> Getting a lot of whea errors yet fully stable, is there anything that helps this???


Do you mean when you use the PC for gaming/variable loads?


----------



## Raphie

system might not crash and pass benchmarking, but it's not stable then Error Records - Windows drivers | Microsoft Learn
When @ stock I guess the errors are gone? on AMD there is a tool to suppress these errors


----------



## nickolp1974

kill_a_wat said:


> Do you mean when you use the PC for gaming/variable loads?


Yes, memory stable, y cruncher, etc stable. Bottom of hwinfo just shows alot of errors


----------



## bigfootnz

nickolp1974 said:


> Yes, memory stable, y cruncher, etc stable. Bottom of hwinfo just shows alot of errors


From my short testing with 13900k, you are not stable if you have whea errors, you just need more voltage, or temp is issue if they are 90C+


----------



## PhoenixMDA

energie80 said:


> someone tested HT on vs off and ecores on vs off i games?


No really impact by diasble anything.
Only for same benchs perhaps better.


----------



## Xiph

energie80 said:


> someone tested HT on vs off and ecores on vs off i games?


Haven't tested, but it's maybe not needed to put all off. Keep example 4 on.
Also I just measured required Vcore when 0, 4, 8 or 16 E-cores were on. It was about -50mV less required Vcore for R23 stability when comparing 0 e-cores vs 16 e-cores. Vcore requirement seems to then go linear, depending how many E-cores I activate. 

Is there internal voltage drop depending how many cores are sharing current or what explains this?


----------



## energie80

Xiph said:


> Haven't tested, but it's maybe not needed to put all off. Keep example 4 on.
> Also I just measured required Vcore when 0, 4, 8 or 16 E-cores were on. It was about -50mV less required Vcore for R23 stability when comparing 0 e-cores vs 16 e-cores. Vcore requirement seems to then go linear, depending how many E-cores I activate.


wanted to make p cores 6ghz stable with ecores off but isnt easy


----------



## nickolp1974

bigfootnz said:


> From my short testing with 13900k, you are not stable if you have whea errors, you just need more voltage, or temp is issue if they are 90C+


Only time I hit 90c is with y cruncher, gb3 r23 realbench 83c tops. This is for 5.7 all core. Will pass most at 1.34v set LLC6 other than y cruncher so it's at 1.38v


----------



## Arni90

Falkentyne said:


> That's just messed up.
> The only VID that looks proper is the VCC_Sense with TVB on.
> It almost looks like the others are inflating the AC Loadlines or overriding the native VID in some way (regardless of what you set).
> 
> Unfortunately, it would be extremely helpful if you had access to any Asus Z690 or Z790 board (Doesn't matter if it's a Tuf or Strix or Maximus, as die vs socket sense doesn't matter), set the AC/DC loadlines to 0.01 mohms and then check the VID there with TVB off and on. Then you would know which MSI setting is "right" or "not right."


I suspect VCC sense is just broken in general, socket sense seems a bit more stable in y-cruncher at similar temperatures. MSI might have goofed here, or it might be the beta BIOS, or wrong microcode. I've also noticed "Enhanced" TVB simply locks my clocks down to 5.4 GHz for some reason.


----------



## adolf512

energie80 said:


> wanted to make p cores 6ghz stable with ecores off but isnt easy


E-cores add maybe 150W at max overclock. Most of the heat of course come from the p-cores due to the high voltage required for stability at 6ghz.


----------



## bigfootnz

nickolp1974 said:


> Only time I hit 90c is with y cruncher, gb3 r23 realbench 83c tops. This is for 5.7 all core. Will pass most at 1.34v set LLC6 other than y cruncher so it's at 1.38v


Just add 20mV extra and test it. If errors are gone then it is voltages.

When I was testing 5.7P on Hero with 280 AIO with 1.33 and 1.34 I was able to pass CB23 but with whea's. With 1.35V there was one errors


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

My Z690 Apex arrived. 

All pins and accessories and box present (Box is a bit beat up).

However, I noticed that RESET button fell off taking it's pads with it. It's a shame, but if I bend back the pins and it's functional then I will keep it, only £130 after all delivered.


----------



## bhav

energie80 said:


> someone tested HT on vs off and ecores on vs off i games?


The only reason to turn HT off is if it allows your chip to OC higher. Otherwise theres no point.


----------



## energie80

Any performance increase? Or latency?


----------



## bhav

energie80 said:


> Any performance increase? Or latency?


Its a case by case difference if any, and not something can be applied universally.

Some programs will always perform better with HT / E cores enabled. Some will always perform better with either or both disabled and higher P core clocks. Some will have no difference in either case.


----------



## energie80

At least they added a benchmark with MW2


----------



## dirceura1

bhav said:


> Ewwwwwww, deveria ter um KF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/CITAR]
> Batch??


----------



## Luggage

bhav said:


> Ok look, theres a reason why no one runs small FTTs anymore, and thats the same reason why no one is going to be running Y cruncher.
> 
> You really ought to stop advocating for a stress test that has destroyed 10 of your chips or some such.


We are going for ”Jufes Stable ™”. Check.


----------



## raad11

Are you guys changing switching freq, power duty and phase control from Auto?

Did Asus ever fix the bug on Z690 where changing the latter two to extreme would cause random reboots?


----------



## WoohaDude

I am getting some super weird vcore straight out of the box on my strix-e z690 and 13900k (SP 106/88). On bios 2103 and the previous one. Full defaults, vcore is set to like 1.44v. I turned off TVB and it freaking booted with 1.5v. I removed 0.08v from the global SVID voltage control, I think it was, and now it sits at a much more reasonable 1.3v. Am I missing something? I have some basic familiarity with overclocking, but at this point I'm just trying to get it stable at 5.5ghz.

Also what kind of IMC and SA voltages are you guys looking at for 2x16GB/6000mhz RAM? I seem to be super close to stable, but still getting errors over some hours.


----------



## Carillo

Hey guys. I'm getting lower scores in Time Spy cpu test and Modern warfare 2 benchmark ( CPU test ) compared to my friend also using z690 running same settings. 13900K z690 Apex 2103 bios. Any idea why ? In cinebench r23 the scores are where they should be


----------



## Ichirou

Ordered a 13900KF from Amazon Canada (not the marketplace) just now because I couldn't help but be curious about its quality compared to the K...

If anyone else is interested, there is still stock available. Both from Amazon themselves and from marketplace sellers.


----------



## bhav

Amazon UK have an annoying tendancy to shaft your orders though.

- Select 'Sold by amazon' and 'Amazon Prime' only.

- Check seller is 'Amazon EU Sarl'.

- Place Order. Wait, why does it say the order's been placed with a marketplace seller?

They did this with my LGC1 and I was able to prove it to them. Place order with Amazon, and add Amazon's extended 3 year warranty. Order placed with marketplace seller including Amazon's 3 year warranty on top.

Try to manually place an order with the same marketplace seller, same item? Cannot add Amazon's extended 3 year warranty.

I've told them if they pull that **** on me again, I'll be keeping the item and marking it as an unauthorized purchase to get a full refund from the bank.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Amazon UK have an annoying tendancy to shaft your orders though.
> 
> - Select 'Sold by amazon' and 'Amazon Prime' only.
> 
> - Check seller is 'Amazon EU Sarl'.
> 
> - Place Order. Wait, why does it say the order's been placed with a marketplace seller?
> 
> They did this with my LGC1 and I was able to prove it to them. Place order with Amazon, and add Amazon's extended 3 year warranty. Order placed with marketplace seller including Amazon's 3 year warranty on top.
> 
> Try to manually place an order with the same marketplace seller, same item? Cannot add Amazon's extended 3 year warranty.
> 
> I've told them if they pull that **** on me again, I'll be keeping the item and marking it as an unauthorized purchase to get a full refund from the bank.


I think that happened to me once a long time in the past, with some other item.


----------



## Exilon

energie80 said:


> someone tested HT on vs off and ecores on vs off i games?


ComputerBase did 8+0 vs 8+4 vs 8+8








Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test: Benchmarks in Games


Intel Raptor Lake im Test: Benchmarks in Games / Leistung in Spielen (720p, RTX 3090 Ti) / CPU-Gaming-Leistung im absoluten CPU-Limit




www.computerbase.de





Only RE: Village and Death Stranding were better without E-cores. I think DS does something dumb like spawn a thread for every core though.


----------



## energie80

Thanks 🙏


----------



## bhav

Hmmm, order 13900KS in near future from 'fulfilled by Amazon', screenshot the checkout.

Hope they fudge it again and place it with a third party seller.

Free 13900KS.

Unlikely, but it happens like 10% of the time, but up until my TV it only happened on low value items.


----------



## satinghostrider

Carillo said:


> Hey guys. I'm getting lower scores in Time Spy cpu test and Modern warfare 2 benchmark ( CPU test ) compared to my friend also using z690 running same settings. 13900K z690 Apex 2103 bios. Any idea why ? In cinebench r23 the scores are where they should be
> 
> View attachment 2579065
> 
> View attachment 2579066


There is an ME Update 1920 which I found better. Here you go:









File on MEGA







mega.nz


----------



## Slackaveli

Ichirou said:


> Ordered a 13900KF from Amazon Canada (not the marketplace) just now because I couldn't help but be curious about its quality compared to the K...
> 
> If anyone else is interested, there is still stock available. Both from Amazon themselves and from marketplace sellers.
> 
> View attachment 2579072


OMG, those prices!

Oh, CAD. lol. Got it.


----------



## bhav

Ok so I simply quoted that 13900KF 6 Ghz result, or in my mistake, posted it on reddit, then reposted it back here because I didn't want to dig through several pages to find it again, and now I'm being bombarded with PMs begging for the batch number and voltage and what not when I never said it was my result :x

People are desperate lol.


----------



## raad11

satinghostrider said:


> There is an ME Update 1920 which I found better. Here you go:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> File on MEGA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mega.nz


What difference can ME make on performance?


----------



## raad11

WoohaDude said:


> I am getting some super weird vcore straight out of the box on my strix-e z690 and 13900k (SP 106/88). On bios 2103 and the previous one. Full defaults, vcore is set to like 1.44v. I turned off TVB and it freaking booted with 1.5v. I removed 0.08v from the global SVID voltage control, I think it was, and now it sits at a much more reasonable 1.3v. Am I missing something? I have some basic familiarity with overclocking, but at this point I'm just trying to get it stable at 5.5ghz.
> 
> Also what kind of IMC and SA voltages are you guys looking at for 2x16GB/6000mhz RAM? I seem to be super close to stable, but still getting errors over some hours.


You mean light load voltages of 1.5? With VCore set to 1.44? Or was it that global svid thing set to 1.44? That's not unusual on light load with TVB optimizations off.

What matters is the full load VIDs and Vcore, if you have a proper sensor for the latter (Strix doesn't though).


----------



## raad11

Found a funny way to test TVB settings (if it delays the downbin too long and stays on a ratio for which there isn't enough voltage).

So first way was TimeSpy Extreme CPU test which caught a gap that caused errors (no crashes/WHEA though) at 7 or 8 core loads.

For 1 through 5 core loads what was a good test wasn't any benchmark, all of which I cleared easily, but simply having Windows Explorer open to a large directory and rapidly swiping up and down (not scroll wheel) through the directory. Instant BSOD until I tweaked the TVB settings. Totally stable for 2+ days running, on both light and heavy gaming, light and heavy benchmarks but Windows Explorer BSOD lmao.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

*Ichirou*

What is your CC 13900k batch #?

My 13900k just came, it's X236F199 Vietnam.


----------



## bottjeremy

I just wanted to share this. I've tried every which way to set voltages on my chip with an effort to bring temps down. Most recently, I've tried setting Auto with a Vcore offset and it ended up working the best from a temp perspective. Running 5.5 all core and 4.4 on E-cores stable with LLC at Normal setting on my Giga board. Will now try to set my single cores higher and see how it works out.


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> Ok so I simply quoted that 13900KF 6 Ghz result, or in my mistake, posted it on reddit, then reposted it back here because I didn't want to dig through several pages to find it again, and now I'm being bombarded with PMs begging for the batch number and voltage and what not when I never said it was my result :x
> 
> People are desperate lol.


I already deleted all my posts and blocked the messages of people bothering me.


----------



## bhav

I was just trying to make sure people don't buy the current K chips expecting 6 Ghz all cores and such when so far only a KF can do it.

Going to have to wait for a waste of money KS to get those bins


----------



## Groove2013

PBaF said:


> Even with enhancements off and auto voltage the temps were still getting out of control.


auto vcore...


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Ok so I simply quoted that 13900KF 6 Ghz result, or in my mistake, posted it on reddit, then reposted it back here because I didn't want to dig through several pages to find it again, and now I'm being bombarded with PMs begging for the batch number and voltage and what not when I never said it was my result :x
> 
> People are desperate lol.


It is my 13900KF and the batch is X238L435.


----------



## RichKnecht

OK, I think I am ready to bite the bullet. How likely is my G-Skill DDR4 b-die kit going to work well with the 13900K and do I get a Z790 or Z690 board?


----------



## xarot

I am more than happy with the stock clocks, no need to really OC anything, just fine tuning the RAM and avoid bloat in OS and trying to undervolt or play with LLC to keep the power consumption on sane levels. 13900K already runs often (too) hot without a frame and/or delid even with an adequate custom loop. Intel went too far pushing the clocks and power as reviewers were already hitting 100c on cores in their tests, but many were overriding CPU default powerlimits anyway. With 13900KS they probably only have room for improvement with really low VIDs. 6 GHz all-core maybe more doable with 14900K. With 12900KS (after delid) and 13900K were CPUs after a long time where I didn't need the urge to tinker something each night but instead just use the PC.


----------



## tps3443

xarot said:


> I am more than happy with the stock clocks, no need to really OC anything, just fine tuning the RAM and avoid bloat in OS and trying to undervolt or play with LLC to keep the power consumption on sane levels. 13900K already runs often (too) hot without a frame and/or delid even with an adequate custom loop. Intel went too far pushing the clocks and power as reviewers were already hitting 100c on cores in their tests, but many were overriding CPU default powerlimits anyway. With 13900KS they probably only have room for improvement with really low VIDs. 6 GHz all-core maybe more doable with 14900K. With 12900KS (after delid) and 13900K were CPUs after a long time where I didn't need the urge to tinker something each night but instead just use the PC.


Its the only K Sku processor in intels history worthy of running bone stock. Overclocking is really minimal gains. I’d say yeah overclock the memory and cache, maybe bump the E-Cores up. But it’s really good right out of the gate.

I managed to tune mine down to 238 watts totally stable. And it still scores sub 41k in R23 after 30 minutes. It’s crazy good power levels. Super low temps.! 238 watts essentially puts it down with AMD 7950X power levels. But, I’m losing nothing in performance. If the CPU was delidded and ran on direct die it would only get better.


----------



## Antsu

Delid + very time constrained lap job done, didn't do any miracles as I already had pretty good contact and good STIM job from the factory, but the max peak on some "problem cores" dropped almost 15C and the delta between coldest and hottest is much better now, down to 7C from 13C before. Package temp dropped about 9C. I suspect a proper lap job could give a 2-3C better result, I'll probably re-visit this when Conductonaut Extreme becomes available, but this is enough for now. Today I can finally test the chip properly.


----------



## HyperC

Nice 9c is good , did you check to see if it's pulling less wattage?


----------



## Antsu

HyperC said:


> Nice 9c is good , did you check to see if it's pulling less wattage?


Very minimal difference, something like 2W less at same settings. But I was only testing 8C 8T config.


----------



## Convicted

My 13900KF seems to be running terribly. This is the ASUS output, and then the XTU view while looping Cinebench R23 all-core, only after about 5 mins. Asus AIOC is on, and it keeps lowering voltage because the cpu keeps hitting 100C and throttling. Ends up on about 1.2V and 5.2GHz in the end. Cooler is a Thermaltake 360mm AIO. What do you reckon, is the chip a dud or is the cooler busted?


----------



## bhav

More speculation - Intel are also binning before making KFs, except the 6 Ghz one had a faulty iGPU so it couldn't be sold as a KS.

So you have to win the lottery of finding a golden chip that also happened to have a faulty iGPU.


----------



## tps3443

Convicted said:


> My 13900KF seems to be running terribly. This is the ASUS output, and then the XTU view while looping Cinebench R23 all-core, only after about 5 mins. Asus AIOC is on, and it keeps lowering voltage because the cpu keeps hitting 100C and throttling. Ends up on about 1.2V and 5.2GHz in the end. Cooler is a Thermaltake 360mm AIO. What do you reckon, is the chip a dud or is the cooler busted?
> 
> View attachment 2579117
> View attachment 2579118


Auto voltage can be a little heavy sometimes. plus, AIO’s don’t work all that amazing.

You need to manually overclock it.

Set a 5.5Ghz all core OC and try 1.210V with LLC6 load line. See if it’s stable play around from there. Increase or decrease 0.005 at a time until you get it dialed in. And disable any auto overclocking features. 

It looks like the bios is pounding it with voltage to me.
5.5Ghz with 1.447V? I have never used an Asus motherboard so I dunno for sure how much it’s sending.


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> Auto voltage can be a little heavy sometimes. plus, AIO’s don’t work all that amazing.
> 
> You need to manually overclock it.
> 
> Set a 5.5Ghz all core OC and try 1.210V with LLC6 load line. See if it’s stable play around from there. Increase or decrease 0.005 at a time until you get it dialed in. And disable any auto overclocking features.
> 
> It looks like the bios is pounding it with voltage to me.
> 5.5Ghz with 1.447V? I have never used an Asus motherboard so I dunno for sure how much it’s sending.


1.210v Set + LLC6 requires a golden CPU to pass. Far far too aggressive.
You need a Pcore 118+ chip to pass this (delids and people on Mora 420's dont count, please remember your cooling setup isn't typical of everyone here).

I BSOD in R23 even at 1.220v set LLC6 after like 15 minutes and that's Pcore SP 113.

Try 1.270v set, LLC6. Far more reasonable.


----------



## Falkentyne

Convicted said:


> My 13900KF seems to be running terribly. This is the ASUS output, and then the XTU view while looping Cinebench R23 all-core, only after about 5 mins. Asus AIOC is on, and it keeps lowering voltage because the cpu keeps hitting 100C and throttling. Ends up on about 1.2V and 5.2GHz in the end. Cooler is a Thermaltake 360mm AIO. What do you reckon, is the chip a dud or is the cooler busted?
> 
> View attachment 2579117
> View attachment 2579118



Is this a Z690 or Z790 board?

Is that a socket 1700 cooler or 115x?

If it's 115x, are you sure you are using socket 1700 compatible mounting screws? Almost all socket 115x coolers require 1700 mounting screws that are 1mm shorter because the CPU package sits lower, unless they are spring loaded fully without early "physical" stops. Otherwise the cold plate contact pressure is atrocious to nonexistant.

What's your P core SP value, check in AI options, please?

SP 97 is pretty low, although it can be average if you are lucky enough to have a P core SP above 105 (which would put your E core SP below 70). I think the worst was the SP93 that Quasarzone was binning on stream that crashed at 1.280v bios set + LLC7 at 5.6 ghz.

Your P core "heavy SP" prediction seems wrong. Unless your cooler score is bad and there is a bad mount, this value shouldn't be lower than 5.5 ghz.


----------



## affxct

Ok so Linpack Xtreme is useless for testing RPL. R23 required between 30/50mV more Vcore (Es off vs on).

Intel Burn Test. Wow.
Old: 56/44/48 @ 1.37V (Default Vdroop)
IBT Stable: 55/44/48 @ 1.32V (-50% Vdroop)

It doesn’t run as warm as Linpack, but is way more difficult to stabilise. Honestly no idea how to explain this other than core ratios dropping significantly the heavier the AVX test.


----------



## acoustic

affxct said:


> Ok so Linpack Xtreme is useless for testing RPL. R23 required between 30/50mV more Vcore (Es off vs on).
> 
> Intel Burn Test. Wow.
> Old: 56/44/48 @ 1.37 (Default Vdroop)
> IBT Stable: 55/44/48 @ 1.35 (-25% Vdroop)
> 
> It doesn’t run as warm as Linpack, but is way more difficult to stabilise. Honestly no idea how to explain this other than core ratios dropping significantly the heavier the AVX test.


What was the wattage+current pull in IBT?


----------



## affxct

acoustic said:


> What was the wattage+current pull in IBT?


Not that high. Max is like 277W and max current is around 221W (I’m at 1.26V Vmin right now). I’m still testing but I’m not sure if this is going to pass. Linpack Xtreme surely should be more difficult, but somehow it just isn’t. I’ve historically used IBT to stress test OCs. It generally never fails. It’s also really great at finding IMC instability.


----------



## acoustic

affxct said:


> Not that high. Max is like 277W and max current is around 221W (I’m at 1.26V Vmin right now). I’m still testing but I’m not sure if this is going to pass.


**** yes. Sounds like IBT may be a good stability test without having to worry about causing degradation.


----------



## bhav

OH I completely forgot about IBT, I used to use that on my 10900k.

It needs 20 passes not the default 10 though, I've had bsods after passing 10 rounds.


----------



## bscool

Carillo said:


> Hey guys. I'm getting lower scores in Time Spy cpu test and Modern warfare 2 benchmark ( CPU test ) compared to my friend also using z690 running same settings. 13900K z690 Apex 2103 bios. Any idea why ? In cinebench r23 the scores are where they should be
> 
> View attachment 2579065
> 
> View attachment 2579066


What OS. I saw on Hwbot Discord a few people said Win11 was giving lower scores for some benches than Win10. If same OS then no idea.


----------



## affxct

acoustic said:


> **** yes. Sounds like IBT may be a good stability test without having to worry about causing degradation.


This is just my deduction. Others might find different results, but all I can say is this seems WAAAAY harder than Linpack and R23. Like this is barely looking stable at 55/44/48 1.32V with -50% Vdroop (1.26Vmin). It does seem like it’s going to pass though. I’m at run 33 of 60. If it crashes at 50 it’s gonna be annoying.


----------



## Nizzen

Got a retail 13900k. SP100 P110/E80

Wil test this more later.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Falkentyne said:


> Third: I dare you to run Stockfish chess BMI2 / AVX2 at this exact frequency. It's going to crash and burn on you hard.
> 
> 
> Stockfish Development Versions


What is actally a good result for this benchmark ? 

Have no idea of i'm even doing this right.. just tried "bench" cmd on my z4 system


----------



## Falkentyne

affxct said:


> Ok so Linpack Xtreme is useless for testing RPL. R23 required between 30/50mV more Vcore (Es off vs on).
> 
> Intel Burn Test. Wow.
> Old: 56/44/48 @ 1.37 (Default Vdroop)
> IBT Stable: 55/44/48 @ 1.35 (-25% Vdroop)
> 
> It doesn’t run as warm as Linpack, but is way more difficult to stabilise. Honestly no idea how to explain this other than core ratios dropping significantly the heavier the AVX test.


You're using the completely wrong binaries.
use LinX. This works on RPL.








LinX v0.9.12 & Legacy(레거시)


LinX는 인텔 린팩(Linpack) + GUI를 의미하며 인텔 oneAPI Math Kernel Library에 포함된 린팩 벤치마크를 이용해 시스템의 성능과 안정성을 쉽게 확인할 수 있도록 제작된 유틸리티입니다. 인텔 린팩 벤치마크는 주로 시스템의 성능 측정을 위해 사용되지만, 시스템에 높은 부하를 주기 때문에 안정성 테스트 및 에러를 감지하는 용도로도 이용할 수 있습니다. LinX를 구동 시에는 CPU의 과열을 피하기 위해 온도 모니터링을 권장하며, 특히 높은 TDP를 지닌 멀티코어 CPU를 사용 시에는 전원부 온도에도...




hwtips.tistory.com




Also windows 11 (22H2) works far better for LinX than windows 10.
And when running LinX, do NOT alt tab out of the window. This completely destroys the hash rate (same thing happens on linpack extreme with the right binaries).

BTW you can download the correct binaries from Intel also and replace them manually.

35000 sample size will be as hard as Y-cruncher. If you really want to abuse your CPU set it to a sample size high enough for all of your RAM.


----------



## WoohaDude

raad11 said:


> You mean light load voltages of 1.5? With VCore set to 1.44? Or was it that global svid thing set to 1.44? That's not unusual on light load with TVB optimizations off.
> 
> What matters is the full load VIDs and Vcore, if you have a proper sensor for the latter (Strix doesn't though).


I was seeing like 1.44v (1.5v with TVB features off) in the BIOS and Core VIDs in hwinfo requesting about the same with obv instant thermal throttling on those stock settings. I forget what the actual load vcore was since I've been dialing in manual voltages for several days now. 

My BIOS also wants to default to like 1.35v for the IMC. That seems high - or is raptor lake requiting a lot more juice for IMC? I thought I had some settings that seemed to be holding great, hours of stress testing were golden, then I ran a game and my comp power cycled after 10 minutes.


----------



## affxct

Falkentyne said:


> You're using the completely wrong binaries.
> use LinX. This works on RPL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LinX v0.9.12 & Legacy(레거시)
> 
> 
> LinX는 인텔 린팩(Linpack) + GUI를 의미하며 인텔 oneAPI Math Kernel Library에 포함된 린팩 벤치마크를 이용해 시스템의 성능과 안정성을 쉽게 확인할 수 있도록 제작된 유틸리티입니다. 인텔 린팩 벤치마크는 주로 시스템의 성능 측정을 위해 사용되지만, 시스템에 높은 부하를 주기 때문에 안정성 테스트 및 에러를 감지하는 용도로도 이용할 수 있습니다. LinX를 구동 시에는 CPU의 과열을 피하기 위해 온도 모니터링을 권장하며, 특히 높은 TDP를 지닌 멀티코어 CPU를 사용 시에는 전원부 온도에도...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hwtips.tistory.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also windows 11 (22H2) works far better for LinX than windows 10.
> And when running LinX, do NOT alt tab out of the window. This completely destroys the hash rate (same thing happens on linpack extreme with the right binaries).
> 
> BTW you can download the correct binaries from Intel also and replace them manually.
> 
> 35000 sample size will be as hard as Y-cruncher. If you really want to abuse your CPU set it to a sample size high enough for all of your RAM.


Will give this a go. I thought LinX was an even older version that people stopped using.


----------



## Falkentyne

affxct said:


> Will give this a go. I thought LinX was an even older version that people stopped using.


No, LinX is simply a front end.

LinX and Linpack extreme use the exact same Intel binaries which you can get here.
(in some cases, the binary needs renaming).









Intel® Math Kernel Library (Intel® MKL) Benchmarks Suite


Intel® Math Kernel Library (Intel® MKL) Benchmarks package includes Intel® Distribution for LINPACK* Benchmark, Intel® Distr




www.intel.com













LinX v0.9.12 & Legacy(레거시)


LinX는 인텔 린팩(Linpack) + GUI를 의미하며 인텔 oneAPI Math Kernel Library에 포함된 린팩 벤치마크를 이용해 시스템의 성능과 안정성을 쉽게 확인할 수 있도록 제작된 유틸리티입니다. 인텔 린팩 벤치마크는 주로 시스템의 성능 측정을 위해 사용되지만, 시스템에 높은 부하를 주기 때문에 안정성 테스트 및 에러를 감지하는 용도로도 이용할 수 있습니다. LinX를 구동 시에는 CPU의 과열을 피하기 위해 온도 모니터링을 권장하며, 특히 높은 TDP를 지닌 멀티코어 CPU를 사용 시에는 전원부 온도에도...




hwtips.tistory.com





Linpack extreme isn't updated enough and the last time I checked, it used binaries from year 2020 (1.1.5 version?)
Linpack binaries from 2020 are not suitable for big/little systems.

A sample size of "35000" is a good start for LinX and tends to require about the same vcore as Y-cruncher's SFT test (I've seen "red" errors in LinX at the same vcore that Y-cruncher failed on logical core 16 in the SFT avx2 test (first e-core) due to not enough load voltage for 4.3 ghz E-cores, with the P cores at 5.2 ghz (absolute vmin, tested: 1.066v load, required 1.215v bios set + LLC5 to pass).


----------



## affxct

Falkentyne said:


> No, LinX is simply a front end.
> 
> LinX and Linpack extreme use the exact same Intel binaries which you can get here.
> (in some cases, the binary needs renaming).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel® Math Kernel Library (Intel® MKL) Benchmarks Suite
> 
> 
> Intel® Math Kernel Library (Intel® MKL) Benchmarks package includes Intel® Distribution for LINPACK* Benchmark, Intel® Distr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.intel.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LinX v0.9.12 & Legacy(레거시)
> 
> 
> LinX는 인텔 린팩(Linpack) + GUI를 의미하며 인텔 oneAPI Math Kernel Library에 포함된 린팩 벤치마크를 이용해 시스템의 성능과 안정성을 쉽게 확인할 수 있도록 제작된 유틸리티입니다. 인텔 린팩 벤치마크는 주로 시스템의 성능 측정을 위해 사용되지만, 시스템에 높은 부하를 주기 때문에 안정성 테스트 및 에러를 감지하는 용도로도 이용할 수 있습니다. LinX를 구동 시에는 CPU의 과열을 피하기 위해 온도 모니터링을 권장하며, 특히 높은 TDP를 지닌 멀티코어 CPU를 사용 시에는 전원부 온도에도...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hwtips.tistory.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linpack extreme isn't updated enough and the last time I checked, it used binaries from year 2020 (1.1.5 version?)
> Linpack binaries from 2020 are not suitable for big/little systems.
> 
> A sample size of "35000" is a good start for LinX and tends to require about the same vcore as Y-cruncher's SFT test (I've seen "red" errors in LinX at the same vcore that Y-cruncher failed on logical core 16 in the SFT avx2 test (first e-core) due to not enough load voltage for 4.3 ghz E-cores, with the P cores at 5.2 ghz (absolute vmin, tested: 1.066v load, required 1.215v bios set + LLC5 to pass).


Wait, how do you change the language? I see you can switch out to a different view and get the details for the settings, but I see there are like three other menus to configure stuff in and I have no idea what any of this means.


----------



## tps3443

Falkentyne said:


> 1.210v Set + LLC6 requires a golden CPU to pass. Far far too aggressive.
> You need a Pcore 118+ chip to pass this (delids and people on Mora 420's dont count, please remember your cooling setup isn't typical of everyone here).
> 
> I BSOD in R23 even at 1.220v set LLC6 after like 15 minutes and that's Pcore SP 113.
> 
> Try 1.270v set, LLC6. Far more reasonable.


Oh my mistake. I thought you said that would be about average chip at 1.21V.

But, that’s not what I run. I run 1.170V LLC 5 MSI. (chiller off)


Kinda crazy that all of my 11900K’s I tested with my cooling even with a chiller full blast, I could not get any of them to run past 5.1-5.2 true stable. Only (1) could manage it, and it runs 5.4 on my AIO lol. In the end, the cpu was what made it possible.


----------



## Antsu

tps3443 said:


> Kinda crazy that all of my 11900K’s I tested with my cooling even with a chiller full blast, I could not get any of them to run past 5.1-5.2 true stable. Only (1) could manage it, and it runs 5.4 on my AIO lol. In the end, the cpu was what made it possible.


Yeah, it's kinda sad how much it's down to the lottery. Someone with a nice chip and basic AIO will easily get better results than a lottery loser with a massive loop and delid. But then again, it's not like this is a new thing. I have a 2500K that does 5.3Ghz on a basic AIO and bottom of the barrel Gigabyte MB with no VRM heatsinks. Bought it from some young dude a few years ago (for a secondary PC project), he said he bought it used and neither him or the original owner had ever overclocked. So for the period this CPU was relevant, it was being run at stock without ever getting even tested. At the same time people on custom loops were hitting a wall at 4.8Ghz. That's life.


----------



## Slackaveli

Antsu said:


> Yeah, it's kinda sad how much it's down to the lottery. Someone with a nice chip and basic AIO will easily get better results than a lottery loser with a massive loop and delid. But then again, it's not like this is a new thing. I have a 2500K that does 5.3Ghz on a basic AIO and bottom of the barrel Gigabyte MB with no VRM heatsinks. Bought it from some young dude a few years ago (for a secondary PC project), he said he bought it used and neither him or the original owner had ever overclocked. So for the period this CPU was relevant, it was being run at stock without ever getting even tested. At the same time people on custom loops were hitting a wall at 4.8Ghz. That's life.


Thats insane. I hate thinking about all the golden chips playing 60Hz Fortnite out there. *shudders.


----------



## Falkentyne

affxct said:


> Wait, how do you change the language? I see you can switch out to a different view and get the details for the settings, but I see there are like three other menus to configure stuff in and I have no idea what any of this means.


You don't change the language.
The only english build was using a much older version.
You don't even need to change anything, except the value on the far left, which is the sample size for testing and the right side is how many iterations (loops) to run.

35000 is a normal value to use here (For left).
Don't bother with the middle one.

Higher values will be more stress. I think you can set up to 54000 on 32 GB.


----------



## Wilco183

Nizzen said:


> Got a retail 13900k. SP100 P110/E80
> 
> Wil test this more later.


First 13900k - SP94 P104/E76
Today's arrival - SP101 P109/E85

Initial CB23 run at stock, Intel limits enforced (253W)
Second run AI Optimized, MCE, 5.5/4.3 all, 300W, up to 95C halfway and held. ALF II 360 with p/p Noctuas.


----------



## affxct

Falkentyne said:


> You don't change the language.
> The only english build was using a much older version.
> You don't even need to change anything, except the value on the far left, which is the sample size for testing and the right side is how many iterations (loops) to run.
> 
> 35000 is a normal value to use here (For left).
> Don't bother with the middle one.
> 
> Higher values will be more stress. I think you can set up to 54000 on 32 GB.


Ah alright.


----------



## bhav

Slackaveli said:


> Thats insane. I hate thinking about all the golden chips playing 60Hz Fortnite out there. *shudders.


I'm totally gonna get a 13900KS and 4090 Ti when they release and use them for my 1280x1024 monitor and only play 2D 8 bit games.

4K? Pffft, the pentium G4560 and 2 Gb Radeon 550 can do that.


----------



## affxct

bhav said:


> OH I completely forgot about IBT, I used to use that on my 10900k.
> 
> It needs 20 passes not the default 10 though, I've had bsods after passing 10 rounds.


I do 50-60 nowadays. Tbh though, there’s so much input as to what is an adequate stress test. I’m not really sure how to judge it anymore. In this case it ended up being good for 280W with E-cores and 220W without them on my i7-13700K. Max temps were around 91c with E-cores and 86c without them (lower voltage without Es). Both configs finally seemed to pass R23 without much effort and temps in R23 were slightly lower than in IBT, so I’d assume very slightly less power draw.


----------



## tps3443

Antsu said:


> Yeah, it's kinda sad how much it's down to the lottery. Someone with a nice chip and basic AIO will easily get better results than a lottery loser with a massive loop and delid. But then again, it's not like this is a new thing. I have a 2500K that does 5.3Ghz on a basic AIO and bottom of the barrel Gigabyte MB with no VRM heatsinks. Bought it from some young dude a few years ago (for a secondary PC project), he said he bought it used and neither him or the original owner had ever overclocked. So for the period this CPU was relevant, it was being run at stock without ever getting even tested. At the same time people on custom loops were hitting a wall at 4.8Ghz. That's life.


That’s absolutely right. The only thing really good cooling will do for a bad or average cpu, is push it through a heavier wattage load at the same poor overclocks it was already at before with an AIO lol.


----------



## LukeOverHere

Hey All, im running an Asus prime z790 motherboard with a 13900k and Kingston Fury DDR5 6000Mhz memory, for cooling im using a Noctua D15…. My goal is stability for 4K gaming, I’m not really shooting for ‘top scores’…. Where is the sweet spot for this CPU? would any of you recommend aiming for 5.5Ghz and working on getting the temps as low as possible from here? if so, do any of you have a recommendation on the vcore as a starting point? Or for gaming should i just leave the 13900k at the default settings?

My last OC was the 8700K so i am well and truly behind, this ecore thing has thrown me off. Im still got some learning to catch up on, but a starting point would be extremely helpful, especially any recommendations on BIOS settings to turn off/adjust on the Asus boards for stability / consistency….👍💪


----------



## PBaF

My 13900k is SP 103, P-SP 113, E-SP 85.

How does this chip rank?


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> I'm totally gonna get a 13900KS and 4090 Ti when they release and use them for my 1280x1024 monitor and only play 2D 8 bit games.
> 
> 4K? Pffft, the pentium G4560 and 2 Gb Radeon 550 can do that.


Me and my son joke about playing in 4k after all this ram tuning and core overclocking but then lil smart lil bugger said "You know, when you use DLSS you are rendering in 1080p and get to use all those fast cores and ram", And i KNEW i had raised him well!

Very smart, too, bc he is absolutely right.


----------



## Slackaveli

affxct said:


> I do 50-60 nowadays. Tbh though, there’s so much input as to what is an adequate stress test. I’m not really sure how to judge it anymore. In this case it ended up being good for 280W with E-cores and 220W without them on my i7-13700K. Max temps were around 91c with E-cores and 86c without them (lower voltage without Es). Both configs finally seemed to pass R23 without much effort and temps in R23 were slightly lower than in IBT, so I’d assume very slightly less power draw.


Yeah and many of the old methods were KILLING stuff.
I use IBT, AIDA Stability test with CPU, FPU, Cache and memory stressed, and R23.
Then I go into RPCS3 (the immulator) and play NCAA Football 2014. That loads all the cores up really heavy and is very sensitive to instability. If that passes almost any game passes- the ancient compute heavy sims notwithstanding. Some of those old coded-for-one-core apps punish.


----------



## Slackaveli

LukeOverHere said:


> Hey All, im running an Asus prime z790 motherboard with a 13900k and Kingston Fury DDR5 6000Mhz memory, for cooling im using a Noctua D15…. My goal is stability for 4K gaming, I’m not really shooting for ‘top scores’…. Where is the sweet spot for this CPU? would any of you recommend aiming for 5.5Ghz and working on getting the temps as low as possible from here? if so, do any of you have a recommendation on the vcore as a starting point? Or for gaming should i just leave the 13900k at the default settings?
> 
> My last OC was the 8700K so i am well and truly behind, this ecore thing has thrown me off. Im still got some learning to catch up on, but a starting point would be extremely helpful, especially any recommendations on BIOS settings to turn off/adjust on the Asus boards for stability / consistency….👍💪


start at 5.5ghz 1.25v llc5 and see what happens!


----------



## Slackaveli

PBaF said:


> My 13900k is SP 103, P-SP 113, E-SP 85.
> 
> How does this chip rank?


113 is very good on P-Cores, about what mine, Falks, and some others sit at. Just below the 115-118 guys. Your ecores are meh but thats what you'd hope for if you had to choose. the Ps are very good.


----------



## PBaF

Slackaveli said:


> 113 is very good on P-Cores, about what mine, Falks, and some others sit at. Just below the 115-118 guys. Your ecores are meh but thats what you'd hope for if you had to choose. the Ps are very good.


Thanks. I'm starting at 55 all core @ 1.270v LLC6 and dropping the voltage slowly to see how low it will go. 1.270 ran fine in CB R23.


----------



## Falkentyne

PBaF said:


> My 13900k is SP 103, P-SP 113, E-SP 85.
> 
> How does this chip rank?


Slightly above average.
P cores slightly above average, E cores average.


----------



## Falkentyne

PBaF said:


> Thanks. I'm starting at 55 all core @ 1.270v LLC6 and dropping the voltage slowly to see how low it will go. 1.270 ran fine in CB R23.


Can you do me a favor and test 1.220v bios set, LLC6 and see if you can loop Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes without a BSOD or WHEA Error in hwinfo64?
Thank you very much for your time.


----------



## Slackaveli

Falkentyne said:


> Can you do me a favor and test 1.220v bios set, LLC6 and see if you can loop Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes without a BSOD or WHEA Error in hwinfo64?
> Thank you very much for your time.


Whats the data looking like so far on that, Falk?


----------



## Codiee1337

13700K, BIOS said 89 SP. LLC6 btw. Will be back soon, currently under stability test R23, 30Mins, 16 minutes remaining. 0 WHEA, no bsod yet. (Excuse the phone “screenshot” image, don’t want to interrupt the test)

ASUS Z690 MAXIMUS HERO
NO DELID, NO POLISH, NO CPU CONTACT FRAME. NZXT X73 WITH CORSAIR BACKPLATE AND LGA 1200(ithink)NZXT SCREWS)


----------



## PBaF

Falkentyne said:


> Can you do me a favor and test 1.220v bios set, LLC6 and see if you can loop Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes without a BSOD or WHEA Error in hwinfo64?
> Thank you very much for your time.


I'll give it a run. BTW BIOS 0502 on my Z790 Hero has bugged E-core sync all ratio. If you try to input any number and hit ENTER, it defaults to 8. Sets E-cores to 800mhz.


----------



## PBaF

Falkentyne said:


> Can you do me a favor and test 1.220v bios set, LLC6 and see if you can loop Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes without a BSOD or WHEA Error in hwinfo64?
> Thank you very much for your time.


Do I need to disable anything else in BIOS before I do it, like thermal velocity boost? Or everything on defaults, minus multicore enhancements off?


----------



## Falkentyne

PBaF said:


> Do I need to disable anything else in BIOS before I do it, like thermal velocity boost? Or everything on defaults, minus multicore enhancements off?


You're using fixed vcore, VRM override mode, so, no. just dont have octvb or any of those other extra settings enabled.


----------



## Falkentyne

Slackaveli said:


> Whats the data looking like so far on that, Falk?


I sort of need 1.230v set, LLC6 to pass that.
1.137v load is good enough.


----------



## PBaF

Falkentyne said:


> You're using fixed vcore, VRM override mode, so, no. just dont have octvb or any of those other extra settings enabled.


1.220 was a no go, CB R23 would crash straight away. In my own testing 1.250 gave me WHEA error. Testing 1.255 now. 
Another strange thing I noticed in HWinfo64 was a couple of my Pcores were dropping to 5.4Ghz when I have a 55x ratio set and I'm no where near the thermal throttle.


----------



## tps3443

[email protected] LLC 1 MSI
5.8Ghz P-Cores
4.5Ghz E-Cores
5.1Ghz Cache
[email protected] 7400C34

274 watts max power.

Running locked 60f water temp. CPU is NOT DELIDDED. Using a TF7 thermal paste.

R23 is on lower priority so it doesn’t mess with HWInfo numbers. Unfortunately this gives a slightly less desirable score. 

I can run it for 30 minutes if anyone would like to see. No WHEA errors.


----------



## Falkentyne

PBaF said:


> 1.220 was a no go, CB R23 would crash straight away. In my own testing 1.250 gave me WHEA error. Testing 1.255 now.
> Another strange thing I noticed in HWinfo64 was a couple of my Pcores were dropping to 5.4Ghz when I have a 55x ratio set and I'm no where near the thermal throttle.


Are you SURE you were at LLC6 ?
make sure it's x55 p cores (Sync all P cores to x55, NOT auto), stock (x43) e cores and stock (x45) ring ratio.
Actual VRM Vcore Voltage, start at 1.230v, go up 10mv if you get a WHEA, etc.

You should be passing this at 1.235v bios set, LLC=6, if this is P core SP: 113. (Load vcore : 1.137v)

Try setting PWM Power Duty Control to extreme, power phase control to extreme (in Digi+VRM), MCE should be at auto 
Let me know how it goes.

What is your load die-sense vcore reporting as, if you do 1.235v set, LLC6 ?


----------



## PBaF

Falkentyne said:


> Are you SURE you were at LLC6 ?
> make sure it's x55 p cores (Sync all P cores to x55, NOT auto), stock (x43) e cores and stock (x45) ring ratio.
> Actual VRM Vcore Voltage, start at 1.230v, go up 10mv if you get a WHEA, etc.
> 
> You should be passing this at 1.235v bios set, LLC=6, if this is P core SP: 113. (Load vcore : 1.137v)
> 
> Try setting PWM Power Duty Control to extreme, power phase control to extreme (in Digi+VRM), MCE should be at auto
> Let me know how it goes.
> 
> What is your load die-sense vcore reporting as, if you do 1.235v set, LLC6 ?


I'm assuming it's the LLC setting where it says "4 recommended for OC"?


----------



## Codiee1337

Codiee1337 said:


> 13700K, BIOS said 89 SP. LLC6 btw. Will be back soon, currently under stability test R23, 30Mins, 16 minutes remaining. 0 WHEA, no bsod yet. (Excuse the phone “screenshot” image, don’t want to interrupt the test)
> 
> ASUS Z690 MAXIMUS HERO
> NO DELID, NO POLISH, NO CPU CONTACT FRAME. NZXT X73 WITH CORSAIR BACKPLATE AND LGA 1200(ithink)NZXT SCREWS)
> View attachment 2579163



BIOS Screenshots and 30 min stress test data: T_T


----------



## Slackaveli

Falkentyne said:


> I sort of need 1.230v set, LLC6 to pass that.
> 1.137v load is good enough.


Nice; thats still quite good.


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> [email protected] LLC 1 MSI
> 5.8Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 5.1Ghz Cache
> [email protected] 7400C34
> 
> 274 watts max power.
> 
> Running locked 60f water temp. CPU is NOT DELIDDED. Using a TF7 thermal paste.
> 
> R23 is on lower priority so it doesn’t mess with HWInfo numbers. Unfortunately this gives a slightly less desirable score.
> 
> I can run it for 30 minutes if anyone would like to see. No WHEA errors.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2579167


LLC 1 is extreme loadline calibration. The transients would be insane (not readable through software) and could definitely hurt the chip. Wouldn't recommend running it like that for any amount of time.

Nice results, though I'm wondering if your power reading is thrown out of whack due to the loadline being so strong


----------



## PBaF

Falkentyne said:


> Are you SURE you were at LLC6 ?
> make sure it's x55 p cores (Sync all P cores to x55, NOT auto), stock (x43) e cores and stock (x45) ring ratio.
> Actual VRM Vcore Voltage, start at 1.230v, go up 10mv if you get a WHEA, etc.
> 
> You should be passing this at 1.235v bios set, LLC=6, if this is P core SP: 113. (Load vcore : 1.137v)
> 
> Try setting PWM Power Duty Control to extreme, power phase control to extreme (in Digi+VRM), MCE should be at auto
> Let me know how it goes.
> 
> What is your load die-sense vcore reporting as, if you do 1.235v set, LLC6 ?


So I locked in all the core ratios. Previously I locked Pcore, but left the others on auto. Also put MCE on auto. Tried with and without Extreme power settings. 
1.235v LLC6 was a no go. CB R23 crash, bluescreens, and WHEA. Under load vcore was 1.137v.


----------



## Falkentyne

PBaF said:


> My 13900k is SP 103, P-SP 113, E-SP 85.
> 
> How does this chip rank?


Try using the chip for about a week and then see if you can pass R23 at 1.235v Bios set, LLC6 later on.
Until then, try setting VCCIN (CPU Input / Aux voltage) to 1.86v and go to Tweaker's Paradise and and set Core PLL to 0.975v.

See if this helps you slightly --you will need the minimum absolute set vcore (bios set or load reading) that you can pass R23 for at least 15 minutes without a BSOD.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> LLC 1 is extreme loadline calibration. The transients would be insane (not readable through software) and could definitely hurt the chip. Wouldn't recommend running it like that for any amount of time.
> 
> Nice results, though I'm wondering if your power reading is thrown out of whack due to the loadline being so strong


Same settings with LLC3.


----------



## PBaF

Falkentyne said:


> Try using the chip for about a week and then see if you can pass R23 at 1.235v Bios set, LLC6 later on.
> Until then, try setting VCCIN (CPU Input / Aux voltage) to 1.86v and go to Tweaker's Paradise and and set Core PLL to 0.975v.
> 
> See if this helps you slightly --you will need the minimum absolute set vcore (bios set or load reading) that you can pass R23 for at least 15 minutes without a BSOD.


Thanks for the help. Lots to learn. Will try more later. So far it seems 1.255 was stable.


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> Same settings with LLC3
> 
> View attachment 2579169


For 24/7 settings, try dropping down to Mode 5, maybe Mode 6. Lower LLC is typically ideal. Don't forget to dial in your AC/DC_LL for the LLC you're using. There was a post earlier indicating which LLC lines up with what impedance setting. Also, Socket Sense vs VCC Sense seems to be something showing differences according to other Unify-X users; might be worth trying to mess with that as well.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> For 24/7 settings, try dropping down to Mode 5, maybe Mode 6. Lower LLC is typically ideal. Don't forget to dial in your AC/DC_LL for the LLC you're using. There was a post earlier indicating which LLC lines up with what impedance setting. Also, Socket Sense vs VCC Sense seems to be something showing differences according to other Unify-X users; might be worth trying to mess with that as well.


Yeah I may try that. Also for the power draw, I just check the temps and it seems accurate so far, because it runs much cooler than the chip stock with auto voltages. I’m kind of shocked how low we can milk these chips down to with just 60F liquid which can easily be ran 24/7 year around.

LLC1 may seem intense. But I only have 1.260V set in the bios so it doesn’t come out to much. VRout was 1.260 so it essentially didn’t drop at all, and my max amps were 211.90 @5.8 all cores.

If it were stock with auto voltage, yeah it’d probably break something with LLC 1. Even LLC 3 with stock/auto voltage is just crazy insane!


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> Yeah I may try that. Also for the power draw, I just check the temps and it seems accurate so far, because it runs much cooler than the chip stock with auto voltages. I’m kind of shocked how low we can milk these chips down to with just 60F liquid which can easily be ran 24/7 year around.
> 
> LLC1 may seem intense. But I only have 1.260V set in the bios so it doesn’t come out to much. VRout was 1.260 so it essentially didn’t drop at all, and my max amps were 211.90 @5.8 all cores.
> 
> If it were stock with auto voltage, yeah it’d probably break something with LLC 1. Even LLC 3 with stock/auto voltage is just crazy insane!


The problem with such heavy loadline is that the transients are exacerbated dramatically and you have no way of seeing it, outside of an oscilloscope hooked up. I know 1.260v VR VOUT is nice and low, but the transients at LLC1 are very likely much higher than that.. especially with how wonky the Unify-X VRM behaves. Honestly, the VRM on the Unify-X and how it interacts with LLC, VCC/Socket Sense makes no sense whatsoever.. but hey, MSI gonna MSI  gotta have some weird quirks or it just wouldn't be an MSI board lol


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> The problem with such heavy loadline is that the transients are exacerbated dramatically and you have no way of seeing it, outside of an oscilloscope hooked up. I know 1.260v VR VOUT is nice and low, but the transients at LLC1 are very likely much higher than that.. especially with how wonky the Unify-X VRM behaves. Honestly, the VRM on the Unify-X and how it interacts with LLC, VCC/Socket Sense makes no sense whatsoever.. but hey, MSI gonna MSI  gotta have some weird quirks or it just wouldn't be an MSI board lol


Ohhh I gotcha that makes sense, thanks. Well, I lowered it down to LLC 3. I haven’t long term stability tested beyond LLC 3 with these specific settings. But I’ll try and go up some more on it.

This is my first MSI motherboard in a long time! I’m thrilled with the chip though. I couldn’t tell you the SP rating I don’t know it my self, but in real world it scales incredibly well through the clocks and voltage. At this point I think I’m gonna keep this one and just delid it.


----------



## acoustic

I would definitely de-lid your chip. It's one of the best I've seen if it's truly stable.


----------



## Falkentyne

PBaF said:


> Thanks for the help. Lots to learn. Will try more later. So far it seems 1.255 was stable.


This was the best I could do and it was barely stable but made it.
Max core DTS temp 82C.



















Did you say you had WHEA errors logged (before a BSOD?).
(at the bottom of hwinfo64).

CPU Cache L0 errors?
CPU TLB (translation lookaside buffer) error?
Internal Parity Error?
PCIE/PCI Bus Error?


----------



## PBaF

Falkentyne said:


> CPU Cache L0 errors?
> CPU TLB (translation lookaside buffer) error?
> Internal Parity Error?
> PCIE/PCI Bus Error?


CPU Cache L0 errors I'm pretty sure.


----------



## Antsu

Falkentyne said:


> Until then, try setting VCCIN (CPU Input / Aux voltage) to 1.86v and go to Tweaker's Paradise and and set Core PLL to 0.975v.


Thanks a lot for spoon feeding us lazy bums, you're a legend. I knew both could help but I had no idea what would be good values to start with, seems like those helped me slightly.

This wasn't even stable enough to run CB and voltage was way too high, but I just had to get that 1000+ single core on all 8 cores locked.


----------



## Falkentyne

PBaF said:


> CPU Cache L0 errors I'm pretty sure.


I used to get these errors when the chip was brand new, in R23 when it was unstable.
They seem to have gotten reduced over the last two months now and, except in some Stockfish builds with some internal changes on the "Haswell" BMI2 builds (some problematic ones which require higher vcore for no good reason whatsoever--they don't even hash rate faster or draw more current!)--the most recent one seems to be back to "normal" now, the errors are now extremely rare except some occasional Internal parity errors on marginal vcore in Stockfish. I haven't seen them in R23 at all recently--it either works or BSOD's halfway through the run (or crashes).

Just use the chip normally, raise Input Voltage to 1.86v and try to daily Core PLL Trim 0.975v.
Then in a few weeks, see if you can manage to get a bit lower on the vcore in R23.


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> I used to get these errors when the chip was brand new, in R23 when it was unstable.
> They seem to have gotten reduced over the last two months now and, except in some Stockfish builds with some internal changes on the "Haswell" BMI2 builds (some problematic ones which require higher vcore for no good reason whatsoever--they don't even hash rate faster or draw more current!)--the most recent one seems to be back to "normal" now, the errors are now extremely rare except some occasional Internal parity errors on marginal vcore in Stockfish. I haven't seen them in R23 at all recently--it either works or BSOD's halfway through the run (or crashes).
> 
> Just use the chip normally, raise Input Voltage to 1.86v and try to daily Core PLL Trim 0.975v.
> Then in a few weeks, see if you can manage to get a bit lower on the vcore in R23.


Any idea where the limit would be for 24/7 PLL and Input Voltage? I believe a lot of people were running 1.90v for Input voltage on ADL.. I think it's safe to assume that hasn't changed on RPL?


----------



## imrevoau

I think I got a winner. 1.39V LLC5 (load voltage of about 1.34) 5.8 all P Cores. 13700KF.


----------



## nickolp1974

Nizzen said:


> Got a retail 13900k. SP100 P110/E80
> 
> Wil test this more later.


by the way my p cores are 111 i see you left a question mark on the front page


----------



## tps3443

I’m still testing my 13900KF, it gets better by the day I swear! I feel like it’s getting burned in very nicely. No pun intended lol. I keep my chips nice and cool even though I’ve literally been back to back R23ing this thing for days on end now😄 But, it’s definitely getting better as I learn it more and use it more. I’m new to Z690. I’m using R23 (30 Minute) as my initial stability test, then I move on from there. That’s absolute minimum stability for me.


----------



## Xiph

After low binned 13700K SP79, I took another lottery with 13900K two days ago.
It is P111 and after lot of testing, I know that it needs 1.295V Vcore (in Hwinfo, socket-sense) for x55 to pass 30min r23 without wheas.

Now using Falkentyne's method, it is 1.31V set fixed Vcore LLC#6 to reach that needed 1.295 Vcore output using Z690 Strix-A.

What I see from other results, much lower fixed voltage should be expected from P111.
And E is 81, but that's not so important.

Did I got another bad unit? Flawed P rating? Or is there any settings to make it to stabilize better? How much bad block contact could effect for needed Vcore (though, load temps seems ok to me R23 250W= 87C avg)?


----------



## Convicted

Falkentyne said:


> Is this a Z690 or Z790 board?
> 
> Is that a socket 1700 cooler or 115x?
> 
> If it's 115x, are you sure you are using socket 1700 compatible mounting screws? Almost all socket 115x coolers require 1700 mounting screws that are 1mm shorter because the CPU package sits lower, unless they are spring loaded fully without early "physical" stops. Otherwise the cold plate contact pressure is atrocious to nonexistant.
> 
> What's your P core SP value, check in AI options, please?
> 
> SP 97 is pretty low, although it can be average if you are lucky enough to have a P core SP above 105 (which would put your E core SP below 70). I think the worst was the SP93 that Quasarzone was binning on stream that crashed at 1.280v bios set + LLC7 at 5.6 ghz.
> 
> Your P core "heavy SP" prediction seems wrong. Unless your cooler score is bad and there is a bad mount, this value shouldn't be lower than 5.5 ghz.


Thanks for this. Pcore SP is 107 which doesn't seem too bad. It's a Strix z790 board. 

I've gone back and set it up as:

XMP1
MCE disabled
Performance all core ratio limit 55
LLC6
Actual VRM core voltage 1.27
Everything else set to auto

Immediate application error in cinebench. Could you let me know if the setup above is correct and I should just increase the core voltage, or if I've forgotten to do something?

I think there must also be an issue with the cooler. It has huge liquid silver residue from my previous setup. It does have the official 1700 fitting kit from Thermaltake. Think I'm going to replace it just in case. What's the concensus for the most powerful 360mm aio? I'm not looking for low noise, just straight cooling power (but can't fit anything bigger and don't have time to maintain a custom loop).


----------



## Ichirou

Convicted said:


> Thanks for this. Pcore SP is 107 which doesn't seem too bad. It's a Strix z790 board.
> 
> I've gone back and set it up as:
> 
> XMP1
> MCE disabled
> Performance all core ratio limit 55
> LLC6
> Actual VRM core voltage 1.27
> Everything else set to auto
> 
> Immediate application error in cinebench. Could you let me know if the setup above is correct and I should just increase the core voltage, or if I've forgotten to do something?
> 
> I think there must also be an issue with the cooler. It has huge liquid silver residue from my previous setup. It does have the official 1700 fitting kit from Thermaltake. Think I'm going to replace it just in case. What's the concensus for the most powerful 360mm aio? I'm not looking for low noise, just straight cooling power (but can't fit anything bigger and don't have time to maintain a custom loop).


Sounds like not enough Vcore.


----------



## tps3443

CPU is burning in nicely.

*263 watts @5.8Ghz!!!! R23 (30 Minute)

5.8Ghz P-Cores
4.5Ghz E-Cores
5.1Ghz Cache
[email protected] 7200
1.260V in Bios
LLC #5 MSI unify-X

263 watts Max after 30 minutes R23

FULL POWER, but Low power 😁


Super chip 2000 ECO edition.*


----------



## Slackaveli

tps3443 said:


> CPU is burning in nicely.
> 
> *263 watts @5.8Ghz!!!! R23 (30 Minute)
> 
> 5.8Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 5.1Ghz Cache
> [email protected] 7200
> 1.260V in Bios
> LLC #5 MSI unify-X
> 
> 263 watts Max after 30 minutes R23
> 
> FULL POWER, but Low power 😁
> 
> 
> Super chip 2000 ECO edition.*
> View attachment 2579187


that chip is crazy


----------



## cstkl1

affxct said:


> Ok so Linpack Xtreme is useless for testing RPL. R23 required between 30/50mV more Vcore (Es off vs on).
> 
> Intel Burn Test. Wow.
> Old: 56/44/48 @ 1.37V (Default Vdroop)
> IBT Stable: 55/44/48 @ 1.32V (-50% Vdroop)
> 
> It doesn’t run as warm as Linpack, but is way more difficult to stabilise. Honestly no idea how to explain this other than core ratios dropping significantly the heavier the AVX test.


R15 > r23


----------



## xarot

tps3443 said:


> CPU is burning in nicely.
> 
> *263 watts @5.8Ghz!!!! R23 (30 Minute)
> 
> 5.8Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 5.1Ghz Cache
> [email protected] 7200
> 1.260V in Bios
> LLC #5 MSI unify-X
> 
> 263 watts Max after 30 minutes R23
> 
> FULL POWER, but Low power 😁
> 
> 
> Super chip 2000 ECO edition.*
> View attachment 2579187


13900KS edition?


----------



## newls1

tps3443 said:


> CPU is burning in nicely.
> 
> *263 watts @5.8Ghz!!!! R23 (30 Minute)
> 
> 5.8Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 5.1Ghz Cache
> [email protected] 7200
> 1.260V in Bios
> LLC #5 MSI unify-X
> 
> 263 watts Max after 30 minutes R23
> 
> FULL POWER, but Low power 😁
> 
> 
> Super chip 2000 ECO edition.*
> View attachment 2579187


those load temps using the chiller? Is chip delidded?


----------



## tps3443

newls1 said:


> those load temps using the chiller? Is chip delidded?


CPU is not delidded. Water was 64F liquid temp, an easy temp to keep 24/7/365. Nothing extreme by any means.


----------



## Krautmaster

Is 8x5.8Ghz + 16x 4.3 GHz @ 1.329V Y-cruncher stable any good for a start?


----------



## snakeeyes111

Yeah it is! Also for Ram testing if u use 2.5b.


----------



## shamino1978

Convicted said:


> Thanks for this. Pcore SP is 107 which doesn't seem too bad. It's a Strix z790 board.
> 
> I've gone back and set it up as:
> 
> XMP1
> MCE disabled
> Performance all core ratio limit 55
> LLC6
> Actual VRM core voltage 1.27
> Everything else set to auto
> 
> Immediate application error in cinebench. Could you let me know if the setup above is correct and I should just increase the core voltage, or if I've forgotten to do something?
> 
> I think there must also be an issue with the cooler. It has huge liquid silver residue from my previous setup. It does have the official 1700 fitting kit from Thermaltake. Think I'm going to replace it just in case. What's the concensus for the most powerful 360mm aio? I'm not looking for low noise, just straight cooling power (but can't fit anything bigger and don't have time to maintain a custom loop).


your cooler is bust
i can get better cooler score with a tower cooler
i get that type of score on an aio when i have a bad mount.


----------



## Krautmaster

snakeeyes111 said:


> Yeah it is! Also for Ram testing if u use 2.5b.


is there a preferred test in y cruncher? Never used it for stability test before. Seems like even with 1.308V Integer is fine but eg the BBP the AVX Tasks push my cooling to the limit and it throttels. Thx


----------



## Krautmaster

tps3443 said:


> CPU is burning in nicely.
> 
> *263 watts @5.8Ghz!!!! R23 (30 Minute)
> 
> 5.8Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 5.1Ghz Cache
> [email protected] 7200
> 1.260V in Bios
> LLC #5 MSI unify-X
> 
> 263 watts Max after 30 minutes R23
> 
> FULL POWER, but Low power 😁
> 
> 
> Super chip 2000 ECO edition.*
> View attachment 2579187


Awesome. I’m still confused with the MSI bios. Currently using fixed clock and only set voltage to 1.33V. If I then go into cpu setting and select eg mode 5 for load line it boots and only has 1.24V and then it crashes obviously. There is also a second load line setting in a digivrm tab. Are these the same and mapped?

8x57 + 16x45 seems to be CB23 stable for me with 1.29V. As far as im aware of now the fixed voltage is always for P and E cores, i saw that 45x on E got instable @ ~1-24V.









Edit. I think 24/7 the default setting (Turbo 2x58 / 8x55 + 16x43) is absolutely fine and way more efficient. But I really have to keep all on Auto in terms of CPU voltages and switching from Mode 9 (default on MSI) to Mode ~3-5) will bring the load voltage of the Pcores to 1.23V @ 5.5 ghz which seems to be pretty nice average if I check the screenshots in this thread. Anyone using 8x5.5 Ghz as standard and doing something with the velocity boost here?


----------



## Convicted

shamino1978 said:


> your cooler is bust
> i can get better cooler score with a tower cooler
> i get that type of score on an aio when i have a bad mount.


Ok thank you, new cooler on the way arriving tomorrow


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Testing in a min my £130 Z690 Apex from eBay. Wish me luck!

Managed to fix the pins.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

With great pleasure I announce that it is indeed, working.

£130 Apex ladies and gents.


----------



## Ichirou

Krautmaster said:


> is there a preferred test in y cruncher? Never used it for stability test before. Seems like even with 1.308V Integer is fine but eg the BBP the AVX Tasks push my cooling to the limit and it throttels. Thx


All tests enabled is the way to go. If you're thermal throttling, then you should dial things down.

SFT, FFT, N64, HNT, are the bare minimum.

@shamino1978
While you are here, I actually had a question: In your experience with the 13th Gen so far, is Windows 11 better than 10?

It feels like there is increased P/E-core confusion this time around testing on W10 compared to 12th Gen.


----------



## shamino1978

Ichirou said:


> All tests enabled is the way to go. If you're thermal throttling, then you should dial things down.
> 
> SFT, FFT, N64, HNT, are the bare minimum.
> 
> @shamino1978
> While you are here, I actually had a question: In your experience with the 13th Gen so far, is Windows 11 better than 10?
> 
> It feels like there is increased P/E-core confusion this time around testing on W10 compared to 12th Gen.


the only significant difference for me on my version of win11 vs win10 is that load gets aggregated to the ecores when the process is relegated to the background. i followed the guide on reddit to disable power throttling based on process name, as i often run some computationally intensive stuff and surf the net while waiting for them to finish. i want the powerful cores prioritized for these instead.


----------



## Fire2

nice one *TheNaitsyrk !*


----------



## littledonny

bhav said:


> Hmmm, order 13900KS in near future from 'fulfilled by Amazon', screenshot the checkout.
> 
> Hope they fudge it again and place it with a third party seller.
> 
> Free 13900KS.
> 
> Unlikely, but it happens like 10% of the time, but up until my TV it only happened on low value items.


That's called theft. If you don't like the terms of your purchase, you are entitled to return it. You are not entitled to steal because you don't agree with the way your order is being fulfilled.


----------



## bhav

littledonny said:


> That's called theft. If you don't like the terms of your purchase, you are entitled to return it. You are not entitled to steal because you don't agree with the way your order is being fulfilled.


You didn't understand, Amazon changed the terms of the purchase. I did not agree to buy from a third party seller. They already admitted to me they were wrong when they did this before and it was against their policy, and I already notified them if they did it again I would keep the item while getting a refund.

Legally I did not authorize the payment with any marketplace seller, nor click to purchase from them, and Amazon told me it is against their terms of sale to automatically change my order to a marketplace seller when I selected to purchase from them. They had no idea why this was happening but it happens a lot, and it is in fact Amazon breaking the law when they do this.

I've already combed through their full policies regarding this. If you choose to buy from Amazon and the order states 'fulfilled by Amazon' at the time of purchase, they are breaking their own terms of service if they decide for whatever reason to place the order with a marketplace seller instead, thus the terms of the sale are null and void.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

bhav said:


> You didn't understand, Amazon changed the terms of the purchase. I did not agree to buy from a third party seller. They already admitted to me they were wrong when they did this before and it was against their policy, and I already notified them if they did it again I would keep the item while getting a refund.
> 
> Legally I did not authorize the payment with any marketplace seller, nor click to purchase from them, and Amazon told me it is against their terms of sale to automatically change my order to a marketplace seller when I selected to purchase from them. They had no idea why this was happening but it happens a lot, and it is in fact Amazon breaking the law when they do this.
> 
> I've already combed through their full policies regarding this. If you choose to buy from Amazon and the order states 'fulfilled by Amazon' at the time of purchase, they are breaking their own terms of service if they decide for whatever reason to place the order with a marketplace seller instead, thus the terms of the sale are null and void.


That is interesting. Good to know.


----------



## bhav

TheNaitsyrk said:


> That is interesting. Good to know.


When placing the order for high value goods, record it using your phone (screenshots can be faked I forgot). Record the process of purchasing from Amazon, and the checkout stating that Amazon are the seller.

If after buying the item has switched from Amazon to a marketplace seller, Amazon have voided their own terms of sale and thus that sale was legally not authorised by the buyer.

May be a whole load of extra hurdles to go through after that, but basically Amazon break both the law and their own terms of sale every time they do this.

Also note this does not apply to third party sellers that are also 'fulfilled by Amazon'. The seller on the checkout page needs to be Amazon.

Its happened to me maybe 10% of the time, and I thought I was going mad anytime I phoned them for customer support and they stated 'you chose to buy the item from a marketplace seller, not from us'. Previously always low value items until it also happened on my LGC1 at which point I turned on full Karen mode on their asses.


----------



## Krautmaster

Ichirou said:


> All tests enabled is the way to go. If you're thermal throttling, then you should dial things down.
> 
> SFT, FFT, N64, HNT, are the bare minimum.
> 
> @shamino1978
> While you are here, I actually had a question: In your experience with the 13th Gen so far, is Windows 11 better than 10?
> 
> It feels like there is increased P/E-core confusion this time around testing on W10 compared to 12th Gen.


thx.
Im currently experimenting with TBV cause of this. My plan is anyway to limit the CPU later on to ~120-150W for long running tasks as way way way more effient. My goal is always to crank out the max single core or light workload performance while having an efficient setup for FFMPEG encodings which last for hours.

Currently im running 8x6Ghz @ 1.43 V - 5Ghz Ring. I also use adaptive Voltage with Voltage points around -0.03V at around 5.5Ghz all core which is my limit for 100% AVX load.

The way im trying to achive this is setting the CPU to 6Ghz All core, then using TVB with -2 above 70°C, and over 80°C im ging down -5 which gives me 5.5Ghz.
The challenge here is to get 5.5 close to my required voltage of around 1.25V while being able to boost higher

Current settings summary
8x6 Ghz + 16x4.5Ghz @ adapive curve + offsets
TVB -2 @ >70°C on 2 Active Cores, -5 on +80°C on 8 Cores
MSI CPU Load Line Mode 3
Unlimited Power for now
AVX enabled
5Ghz Ring
3733Mhz DDR4 CL14


----------



## newls1

Krautmaster said:


> thx.
> Im currently experimenting with TBV cause of this. My plan is anyway to limit the CPU later on to ~120-150W for long running tasks as way way way more effient. My goal is always to crank out the max single core or light workload performance while having an efficient setup for FFMPEG encodings which last for hours.
> 
> Currently im running 8x6Ghz @ 1.43 V - 5Ghz Ring. I also use adaptive Voltage with Voltage points around -0.03V at around 5.5Ghz all core which is my limit for 100% AVX load.
> 
> The way im trying to achive this is setting the CPU to 6Ghz All core, then using TVB with -2 above 70°C, and over 80°C im ging down -5 which gives me 5.5Ghz.
> The challenge here is to get 5.5 close to my required voltage of around 1.25V while being able to boost higher
> 
> Current settings summary
> 8x6 Ghz + 16x4.5Ghz @ adapive curve + offsets
> TVB -2 @ >70°C on 2 Active Cores, -5 on +80°C on 8 Cores
> MSI CPU Load Line Mode 3
> Unlimited Power for now
> AVX enabled
> 5Ghz Ring
> 3733Mhz DDR4 CL14
> View attachment 2579246
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2579245
> View attachment 2579244


can you not bring up your SA Voltage to 1.35ish, vdimm to 1.50ish and achieve 4000MT/s on your ddr4 gear1? 3733 would anger me. Good Bdie with moderate voltage can do CL15 @ 4000 easy, of course depending on how good the IMC is in your cpu


----------



## Groove2013

my 13900K (SP 118/88 P/E-cores) on Strix Z790 D4 boots with 4300 MHz 15-15-15-35 gear 1 SA 1.4 VDDQ TX 1.59.


----------



## Ichirou

From what I've noticed, it feels like the DDR4 IMC quality actually scales alongside SP now, unlike before.
Of course, it's still a lottery, and it is still too small of a sample size, but it does feel more predictable now.


----------



## HemuV2

Please mention maximum imc frequency next to SP in pinned post @Nizzen


----------



## tubs2x4

tps3443 said:


> CPU is burning in nicely.
> 
> *263 watts @5.8Ghz!!!! R23 (30 Minute)
> 
> 5.8Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 5.1Ghz Cache
> [email protected] 7200
> 1.260V in Bios
> LLC #5 MSI unify-X
> 
> 263 watts Max after 30 minutes R23
> 
> FULL POWER, but Low power 😁
> 
> 
> Super chip 2000 ECO edition.*
> View attachment 2579187


Looks like a good setup. How fast can it do ycruncher 2.5b with your current settings? Should be low to mid 40s


----------



## newls1

tps3443 said:


> CPU is burning in nicely.
> 
> *263 watts @5.8Ghz!!!! R23 (30 Minute)
> 
> 5.8Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 5.1Ghz Cache
> [email protected] 7200
> 1.260V in Bios
> LLC #5 MSI unify-X
> 
> 263 watts Max after 30 minutes R23
> 
> FULL POWER, but Low power 😁
> 
> 
> Super chip 2000 ECO edition.*
> View attachment 2579187


are you on A Die? Can you share all your mem voltage settings if you are on M-Die please?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Krautmaster said:


> thx.
> Im currently experimenting with TBV cause of this. My plan is anyway to limit the CPU later on to ~120-150W for long running tasks as way way way more effient. My goal is always to crank out the max single core or light workload performance while having an efficient setup for FFMPEG encodings which last for hours.
> 
> Currently im running 8x6Ghz @ 1.43 V - 5Ghz Ring. I also use adaptive Voltage with Voltage points around -0.03V at around 5.5Ghz all core which is my limit for 100% AVX load.
> 
> The way im trying to achive this is setting the CPU to 6Ghz All core, then using TVB with -2 above 70°C, and over 80°C im ging down -5 which gives me 5.5Ghz.
> The challenge here is to get 5.5 close to my required voltage of around 1.25V while being able to boost higher
> 
> Current settings summary
> 8x6 Ghz + 16x4.5Ghz @ adapive curve + offsets
> TVB -2 @ >70°C on 2 Active Cores, -5 on +80°C on 8 Cores
> MSI CPU Load Line Mode 3
> Unlimited Power for now
> AVX enabled
> 5Ghz Ring
> 3733Mhz DDR4 CL14
> View attachment 2579246
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2579245
> View attachment 2579244


I wrote a guide for 12900k octvb and now I'm writing a guide for 13900k
Take a look...

*ASUS MAXIMUS Z690 EXTREME & i9-12900K GUIDE*
*ASUS MAXIMUS Z790 EXTREME & i9-13900K GUIDE*


----------



## Krautmaster

newls1 said:


> can you not bring up your SA Voltage to 1.35ish, vdimm to 1.50ish and achieve 4000MT/s on your ddr4 gear1? 3733 would anger me. Good Bdie with moderate voltage can do CL15 @ 4000 easy, of course depending on how good the IMC is in your cpu


Will try later on. First attempts where not stable with 4Ghz but I can’t say if these 4Dimms are the problem or my IMC


----------



## Krzych04650

I've found some very strange anomaly with E-cores when benchmarking games. One of the games I am testing is Witcher 1 because it is single threaded and extremely CPU bound, it just slams first core at 100% all the time and that's it. And yet it somehow gains over 15% performance with E-cores enabled compared to disabled while keeping everything else the same. How is that even possible, this is a ridiculous gain for a single threaded game like this. All other games I've tried so far not only do not benefit from E-cores and some don't even start with them enabled.

I cannot wrap my head around this. With E-cores off my 13900KF already works properly in this game, actually after overclocking and tuning it is 2.2 times faster than my 6900K OC was, so how is this 15% boost on top of that even possible, in a single threaded 2007 game.


----------



## Groove2013

Krzych04650 said:


> I've found some very strange anomaly with E-cores when benchmarking games. One of the games I am testing is Witcher 1 because it is single threaded and extremely CPU bound, it just slams first core at 100% all the time and that's it. And yet it somehow gains over 15% performance with E-cores enabled compared to disabled while keeping everything else the same. How is that even possible, this is a ridiculous gain for a single threaded game like this. All other games I've tried so far not only do not benefit from E-cores and some don't even start with them enabled.
> 
> I cannot wrap my head around this. With E-cores off my 13900KF already works properly in this game, actually after overclocking and tuning it is 2.2 times faster than my 6900K OC was, so how is this 15% boost on top of that even possible, in a single threaded 2007 game.


win 11?


----------



## Groove2013

Groove2013 said:


> my 13900K (SP 118/88 P/E-cores) on Strix Z790 D4 boots with 4300 MHz 15-15-15-35 gear 1 SA 1.4 VDDQ TX 1.59.


is this an ok chip?


----------



## Krzych04650

Groove2013 said:


> win 11?


Yes Win11.



Groove2013 said:


> is this an ok chip?


If single rank then very good and if dual rank then ridiculously good.


----------



## Csavez™

SP97: p106/e81, that's the end I think.
I sucked the voltage "buckets" for a very long time, if I left a buffer in the Core VIDs, the one-hour aida test ran smoothly, but the cb crashed, when I coordinated the VIDs/voltage, the cbr23 ran flawlessly, and the aida turned red. 
Then it worked. 
*p5,7/e4,6/r4,8* 1 hour aida+10 minutes cbr23 tt.


----------



## PBaF

So this is the best stable settings I have been able to get my chip to since I started experimenting yesterday. I tried higher Pcore ratio, like 56-57 but it required much more voltage which is probably too much for my cooler. 

Asus z790 Hero
Liquid Freezer 2 360 AIO w/ 3x NF-A12x25
DDR5 TeamGroup 7200mhz XMP-1
13900k SP 103, P-SP 113, E-SP 85

55x Pcores, 44x Ecores, 49x Cache
1.275v BIOS Vcore, LLC 6
1.172v Load Vcore

Stable 30min in R23.
40900 MC
2150 SC
Max 266W
Avg 242W
Max Core Temps 89C
Avg 72C


----------



## Groove2013

Krzych04650 said:


> If single rank then very good and if dual rank then ridiculously good.


2×16 B-DIE


----------



## newls1

Krzych04650 said:


> I've found some very strange anomaly with E-cores when benchmarking games. One of the games I am testing is Witcher 1 because it is single threaded and extremely CPU bound, it just slams first core at 100% all the time and that's it. And yet it somehow gains over 15% performance with E-cores enabled compared to disabled while keeping everything else the same. How is that even possible, this is a ridiculous gain for a single threaded game like this. All other games I've tried so far not only do not benefit from E-cores and some don't even start with them enabled.
> 
> I cannot wrap my head around this. With E-cores off my 13900KF already works properly in this game, actually after overclocking and tuning it is 2.2 times faster than my 6900K OC was, so how is this 15% boost on top of that even possible, in a single threaded 2007 game.


maybe cause its using the E-Core instead of a hyperthread off a p core. I believe 22H2 Win11 or maybe win11 in general with its advanced schedualer will use a physical E-Core first, before it uses a hyperthread. So since an e-core is miles stronger then a hyperthread, this makes sense.....


----------



## Exilon

Finally had time to install the 13900K.
Screenshots at first boot on all default settings before doing some changes to calibrate AC loadline










CPU refuses to go above 205W in CB23 after doing some changes. Maybe trusting ASUS "best case" SVID was a bit too much lol.








No it's not stable


----------



## Krzych04650

newls1 said:


> maybe cause its using the E-Core instead of a hyperthread off a p core. I believe 22H2 Win11 or maybe win11 in general with its advanced schedualer will use a physical E-Core first, before it uses a hyperthread. So since an e-core is miles stronger then a hyperthread, this makes sense.....


Very interesting. I will investigate that. That would be a huge deal if repeatable for other games.


----------



## Exilon

Krzych04650 said:


> Very interesting. I will investigate that. That would be a huge deal if repeatable for other games.


By my napkin IPC * clocks estimate, 1 E-core is >10% stronger than sharing P-core. IPC aside, the main thing is probably being able to use the 4MB of cache attached to the E-core instead of fighting for the 2MB L2 and the shared L3.


----------



## adolf512

Krzych04650 said:


> I've found some very strange anomaly with E-cores when benchmarking games. One of the games I am testing is Witcher 1 because it is single threaded and extremely CPU bound, it just slams first core at 100% all the time and that's it. And yet it somehow gains over 15% performance with E-cores enabled compared to disabled while keeping everything else the same. How is that even possible, this is a ridiculous gain for a single threaded game like this. All other games I've tried so far not only do not benefit from E-cores and some don't even start with them enabled.
> 
> I cannot wrap my head around this. With E-cores off my 13900KF already works properly in this game, actually after overclocking and tuning it is 2.2 times faster than my 6900K OC was, so how is this 15% boost on top of that even possible, in a single threaded 2007 game.


I can think of one explanation. 

If the game is stuck using just one core and other processes also uses that core you might gain performance from these other processess being moved to e-cores.


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> By my napkin IPC * clocks estimate, 1 E-core is >10% stronger than sharing P-core. IPC aside, the main thing is probably being able to use the 4MB of cache attached to the E-core instead of fighting for the 2MB L2 and the shared L3.


So you already got a nerfed chip with 5.4 P core boost?

Also please tell me it isn't using 1.4v+ just for 5.4 at stock!

Oh right, its 1.23v, but still they used to be 1.23v for 5.5 all Pcore, nasty Intel!


----------



## Groove2013




----------



## Exilon

Exilon said:


> Finally had time to install the 13900K.
> Screenshots at first boot on all default settings before doing some changes to calibrate AC loadline
> 
> View attachment 2579257
> 
> 
> CPU refuses to go above 205W in CB23 after doing some changes. Maybe trusting ASUS "best case" SVID was a bit too much lol.
> View attachment 2579258
> 
> No it's not stable


Now it
SVID = Trained 









... is AVX offset kicking in? CB23 score looks fine


----------



## Exilon

bhav said:


> So you already got a nerfed chip with 5.4 P core boost?
> 
> Also please tell me it isn't using 1.4v+ just for 5.4 at stock!
> 
> Oh right, its 1.23v, but still they used to be 1.23v for 5.5 all Pcore, nasty Intel!


Nah it boosts to 5.5 occasionally. I think it's my ICCmax settings or 253W PL2


----------



## Falkentyne

PBaF said:


> So this is the best stable settings I have been able to get my chip to since I started experimenting yesterday. I tried higher Pcore ratio, like 56-57 but it required much more voltage which is probably too much for my cooler.
> 
> Asus z790 Hero
> Liquid Freezer 2 360 AIO w/ 3x NF-A12x25
> DDR5 TeamGroup 7200mhz XMP-1
> 13900k SP 103, P-SP 113, E-SP 85
> 
> 55x Pcores, 44x Ecores, 49x Cache
> 1.275v BIOS Vcore, LLC 6
> 1.172v Load Vcore
> 
> Stable 30min in R23.
> 40900 MC
> 2150 SC
> Max 266W
> Avg 242W
> Max Core Temps 89C
> Avg 72C


Why do you have your entire profile blocked? I can't send you a PM.
Did you experiment with setting core PLL to 0.975v and VCCIN at 1.86v? After a week or two running these set at for daily, you may notice some improvement (at least I hope you do, because your P core rating is the same as mine).


----------



## Falkentyne

Csavez™ said:


> SP97: p106/e81, that's the end I think.
> I sucked the voltage "buckets" for a very long time, if I left a buffer in the Core VIDs, the one-hour aida test ran smoothly, but the cb crashed, when I coordinated the VIDs/voltage, the cbr23 ran flawlessly, and the aida turned red.
> Then it worked.
> *p5,7/e4,6/r4,8* 1 hour aida+10 minutes cbr23 tt.


Sorry but this is confusing.
What do you mean?
Are you using adaptive voltage or fixed vcore?
Did you mess with the AC Loadline values?
AFAIK DC Loadline is linked to loadline calibration by default (in mohms, which affects load droop on the VID), and the VID shown would be what the vcore would be if you used "Auto" Vcore. "I think."


----------



## Csavez™

This was missed before.
30m cbr23


----------



## Krautmaster

Can’t get my memory running fine. With SA and VDDQ set to 1.4V I still can’t boot 4000Mhz CL17 with these 4x8GB Trident Z 3200CL14 DIMMs. Tried vdimm 1.4 to 1.5V.

MSI Z690 Tomahawk BIOS 1.92, 13900k


----------



## Csavez™

Falkentyne said:


> Sorry but this is confusing.
> What do you mean?
> Are you using adaptive voltage or fixed vcore?
> Did you mess with the AC Loadline values?
> AFAIK DC Loadline is linked to loadline calibration by default (in mohms, which affects load droop on the VID), and the VID shown would be what the vcore would be if you used "Auto" Vcore. "I think."


I smoked by coordinating the adaptive and offset voltage, too big a difference is not good, and too little is not good either.
I think the bios and intel handle ac/dc perfectly well, you have to leave it on auto!


----------



## WoohaDude

Man I don't know how you guys are getting away with such low vcores. My Chip is SP 100 (106/88) just trying for 5.5ghz/4.3ghz stability. DDR5 kit that's 6000mhz/CS36. So far I'm up to:

*VCore* 1.31v
*LLC *6
*SA *1.2v
*IMC* 1.25v

Do any of these seem off? Are there some other voltages I'm missing that lets you bring vcore down?

My DDR5 XMP also didn't set it's VDD/VDDQ high enough (had to bump it to 1.35v from 1.3v). I managed 3.4 hours of Linpack (using OCCT for convenience) with the above settings, until it failed. Also as a fun test, if I run the CPU test with small memory (I believe that's like P95's small in-place tests) it crashes in like 40 seconds and immediately hits like 94c lmao).

Another note, my motherboard (Z690 Strix-A) wants to default my IMC to 1.36v and my Vcore to like 1.44v (I forget if it sits at this all the time when idling or not, I immediately started undervolting). I should also note I'm going for 24/7 long term stability, since I do workstation stuff.


----------



## Exilon

Try lower LLC with adaptive voltage so the CPU can ramp Vcore up before loading to compensate for undershoot. If you use manual voltage, the CPU is capped to your manual setting.


----------



## Exilon

Krautmaster said:


> Can’t get my memory running fine. With SA and VDDQ set to 1.4V I still can’t boot 4000Mhz CL17 with these 4x8GB Trident Z 3200CL14 DIMMs. Tried vdimm 1.4 to 1.5V.
> 
> MSI Z690 Tomahawk BIOS 1.92, 13900k


I've found that SA over 1.35v makes mine less stable to begin with


----------



## Krautmaster

Can’t even get 3800 gear 1 working fine :-(


----------



## Exilon

Krautmaster said:


> Can’t even get 3800 gear 1 working fine :-(


And it works in gear 2?


----------



## Vasoka

So, I really wanted to get the Asus Maximus Hero z790, but literally no one had it in stock where I'm from and there was no ETA on delivery. So, I got the Prime gaming wifi-A Asus z790 for my 13900k due to lack of choice. How good is the board and would I be able to overclock some on it?


----------



## Krautmaster

Will try


Exilon said:


> And it works in gear 2?


at least they boot and stay up









edit. Ok memtest and freeze. Can’t say where the problem is. Mainboard? These dimm ran on skylake x with 3900 cl 15 for years. And slx is not that well known for memory of. Hmmm hard to say, looks like the memory itself or board


----------



## Krzych04650

Krzych04650 said:


> I've found some very strange anomaly with E-cores when benchmarking games. One of the games I am testing is Witcher 1 because it is single threaded and extremely CPU bound, it just slams first core at 100% all the time and that's it. And yet it somehow gains over 15% performance with E-cores enabled compared to disabled while keeping everything else the same. How is that even possible, this is a ridiculous gain for a single threaded game like this. All other games I've tried so far not only do not benefit from E-cores and some don't even start with them enabled.
> 
> I cannot wrap my head around this. With E-cores off my 13900KF already works properly in this game, actually after overclocking and tuning it is 2.2 times faster than my 6900K OC was, so how is this 15% boost on top of that even possible, in a single threaded 2007 game.





newls1 said:


> maybe cause its using the E-Core instead of a hyperthread off a p core. I believe 22H2 Win11 or maybe win11 in general with its advanced schedualer will use a physical E-Core first, before it uses a hyperthread. So since an e-core is miles stronger then a hyperthread, this makes sense.....





Exilon said:


> By my napkin IPC * clocks estimate, 1 E-core is >10% stronger than sharing P-core. IPC aside, the main thing is probably being able to use the 4MB of cache attached to the E-core instead of fighting for the 2MB L2 and the shared L3.


I've done some more investigating, and it so bizarre. Monitoring software shows this as ~60% usage of another P-core, not the E-cores, they stay at 0%. That second P-core is running at 3500-ish effective clock. And even more interestingly, downclocking the E-cores or reducing their amount has absolutely no effect either. As long as at least one E-core is enabled I get this performance boost, around 10% vs just 8c/16t config with E-cores off. If no E-cores are enabled, just one P-core is used at 100% and others are at 0%.

What is this sorcery  I need to test this with more games.



Krautmaster said:


> Can’t even get 3800 gear 1 working fine :-(


What are your voltages? You have to use 1.5-1.6 VDDQ, you aren't getting anywhere without that. I had issues doing more than 3800 at gear one with 4x8 memory but once I went for 1.6 VDDQ, 4000 tightly timed. Supposedly safe to run that kind of voltage, or so they say


----------



## PBaF

Falkentyne said:


> Why do you have your entire profile blocked? I can't send you a PM.
> Did you experiment with setting core PLL to 0.975v and VCCIN at 1.86v? After a week or two running these set at for daily, you may notice some improvement (at least I hope you do, because your P core rating is the same as mine).


Not sure what happened with the profile but it should be fine now. I did set them to your recommendation and tried the test again but still failed. So I set them back to default.


----------



## Krautmaster

Krzych04650 said:


> What are your voltages? You have to use 1.5-1.6 VDDQ, you aren't getting anywhere without that. I had issues doing more than 3800 at gear one with 4x8 memory but once I went for 1.6 VDDQ, 4000 tightly timed. Supposedly safe to run that kind of voltage, or so they say


Really? Think i tried max 1.4 in VDDQ. Are u sure?
1.3V VDDQ seems to be enough for 3600Mhz CL15 @ 6 Ghz @ Memtest









can u share ur retails on timings and voltages?


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> From what I've noticed, it feels like the DDR4 IMC quality actually scales alongside SP now, unlike before.
> Of course, it's still a lottery, and it is still too small of a sample size, but it does feel more predictable now.


Out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say D4 IMC? I’ve just seen the term used a lot but I can’t really get a grasp of it.


----------



## Krzych04650

Krautmaster said:


> Really? Think i tried max 1.4 in VDDQ. Are u sure?
> 1.3V VDDQ seems to be enough for 3600Mhz CL15 @ 6 Ghz @ Memtest
> View attachment 2579298


Well I cannot vouch for safety claims, but from experience 1.6 VDDQ certainly solves a lot of problems with stability. Like said, I was nowhere near having 4 sticks at 4000 before I did that.


----------



## Krautmaster

lets find out


----------



## Falkentyne

WoohaDude said:


> Man I don't know how you guys are getting away with such low vcores. My Chip is SP 100 (106/88) just trying for 5.5ghz/4.3ghz stability. DDR5 kit that's 6000mhz/CS36. So far I'm up to:
> 
> *VCore* 1.31v
> *LLC *6
> *SA *1.2v
> *IMC* 1.25v
> 
> Do any of these seem off? Are there some other voltages I'm missing that lets you bring vcore down?
> 
> My DDR5 XMP also didn't set it's VDD/VDDQ high enough (had to bump it to 1.35v from 1.3v). I managed 3.4 hours of Linpack (using OCCT for convenience) with the above settings, until it failed. Also as a fun test, if I run the CPU test with small memory (I believe that's like P95's small in-place tests) it crashes in like 40 seconds and immediately hits like 94c lmao).
> 
> Another note, my motherboard (Z690 Strix-A) wants to default my IMC to 1.36v and my Vcore to like 1.44v (I forget if it sits at this all the time when idling or not, I immediately started undervolting). I should also note I'm going for 24/7 long term stability, since I do workstation stuff.


Use Cinebench R23 and run at the lowest vcore set that you can pass for 30 minutes without a WHEA logged error (hwinfo) or a BSOD and record that (either save it in a profile or write it down somewhere).

Start with 1.275v bios set, LLC6 and go up or down 5mv at a time (depending if you are stable or not stable).

That will be your "vmin". (I think the Strix Z690 still only has socket sense vcore, while the Z790 strix supports die sense, but we know the LLC levels so we can still calculate the "die sense" load vcore). Once you find this absolute vmin, (e.g. random example: 1.285v bios set + LLC6) raise the CPU Vcore by 5mv in BIOS from this, and save that as a profile.

If you do normal work or gaming on your computer, this vmin (+5mv as I said) should be suitable for daily stable.

Of course you will NOT pass stockfish chess, or LinX, Y-cruncher or any power virus stress test at such R23 vmin settings. And unless you have a specific reason for wanting to pass it (besides "Science" or "OCD"), there's no reason to worry about it. If you have a specific use case for passing power virus loads, find a vmin which passes these tests (except prime95 small FFT FMA3--don't worry about that unless you are at 5.4 ghz or below or you're de-lidded), and save that as a second profile. A good starting point is passing 25 loops of LinX, with 35000 sample size (Entered on the left, with loops on the right) without a "Red" error abort, WHEA error or BSOD, unless you want to hammer your chip with steady heat loads looping Y-cruncher "SFT" stress test (test #13) only.









LinX v0.9.12 & Legacy(레거시)


LinX는 인텔 린팩(Linpack) + GUI를 의미하며 인텔 oneAPI Math Kernel Library에 포함된 린팩 벤치마크를 이용해 시스템의 성능과 안정성을 쉽게 확인할 수 있도록 제작된 유틸리티입니다. 인텔 린팩 벤치마크는 주로 시스템의 성능 측정을 위해 사용되지만, 시스템에 높은 부하를 주기 때문에 안정성 테스트 및 에러를 감지하는 용도로도 이용할 수 있습니다. LinX를 구동 시에는 CPU의 과열을 피하기 위해 온도 모니터링을 권장하며, 특히 높은 TDP를 지닌 멀티코어 CPU를 사용 시에는 전원부 온도에도...




hwtips.tistory.com





Then use whatever profile fits your use case. Since most people don't run chess engines 24/7 like I do, that will usually be your first profile.


----------



## Xiph

WoohaDude said:


> Man I don't know how you guys are getting away with such low vcores. My Chip is SP 100 (106/88) just trying for 5.5ghz/4.3ghz stability. DDR5 kit that's 6000mhz/CS36. So far I'm up to:
> 
> *VCore* 1.31v
> *LLC *6
> *SA *1.2v
> *IMC* 1.25v
> 
> Do any of these seem off? Are there some other voltages I'm missing that lets you bring vcore down?


Yes, I'm in same boat with you. Wondering why I need so much more vcore than expected. Is anybody getting great results with z690 Strix-a? Is this, because motherboard?

Here is my rant and open questions still waiting answers. 


Xiph said:


> After low binned 13700K SP79, I took another lottery with 13900K two days ago.
> It is P111 and after lot of testing, I know that it needs 1.295V Vcore (in Hwinfo, socket-sense) for x55 to pass 30min r23 without wheas.
> 
> Now using Falkentyne's method, it is 1.31V set fixed Vcore LLC#6 to reach that needed 1.295 Vcore output using Z690 Strix-A.
> 
> What I see from other results, much lower fixed voltage should be expected from P111.
> And E is 81, but that's not so important.
> 
> Did I got another bad unit? Flawed P rating? Or is there any settings to make it to stabilize better? How much bad block contact could effect for needed Vcore (though, load temps seems ok to me R23 250W= 87C avg)?


----------



## Exilon

Krzych04650 said:


> What is this sorcery  I need to test this with more games.


I've seen this with my 12900K system as well where the OS scheduler goes off the rails with 0 E-cores enabled.


----------



## Falkentyne

PBaF said:


> Not sure what happened with the profile but it should be fine now. I did set them to your recommendation and tried the test again but still failed. So I set them back to default.


I know. Try just leaving them set like that for daily and see if it improves in 1-2 weeks. Also check for BIOS updates as well and see how things go.
It did for me, oddly enough, otherwise I wouldn't be suggesting that to you. Which is really bizarre but I'm not complaining. There's no drawback to raising these settings slightly.
It's actually known for some of these RPL brand new CPU's to bomb with tons of WHEA errors at their marginal vcores, then after a few weeks of use, they seem to calm down.
ADL never did this. It would just BSOD or hard lock with 0 WHEA errors. RPL cache and internal structures were changed (someone over at Intel in a Japan website interview mentioned how some of these changes were done, not including the improved process/yields).


----------



## Falkentyne

Krzych04650 said:


> I've done some more investigating, and it so bizarre. Monitoring software shows this as ~60% usage of another P-core, not the E-cores, they stay at 0%. That second P-core is running at 3500-ish effective clock. And even more interestingly, downclocking the E-cores or reducing their amount has absolutely no effect either. As long as at least one E-core is enabled I get this performance boost, around 10% vs just 8c/16t config with E-cores off. If no E-cores are enabled, just one P-core is used at 100% and others are at 0%.
> 
> What is this sorcery  I need to test this with more games.
> 
> 
> 
> What are your voltages? You have to use 1.5-1.6 VDDQ, you aren't getting anywhere without that. I had issues doing more than 3800 at gear one with 4x8 memory but once I went for 1.6 VDDQ, 4000 tightly timed. Supposedly safe to run that kind of voltage, or so they say


Go into your BIOS and enable the scroll lock(?) feature that allows you block E-core usage on application load (in Asus it's under advanced->CPU power management control, I think),
then load Witcher 1 with scroll lock disabled (default usage) and scroll lock enabled (prevents any usage of E-cores) and see if there is any difference. I'm curious about that.
Pretty sure MSI, Asus and Gigabyte all have this option somewhere now.

Curiously awaiting your results.

Note: Scroll lock won't save you from games that actually crash if too many "physical" cores/threads are present (Witcher 2 crashes on launcher load if 32 or more threads/CPU "cores" are present; you can use command line affinity tweaks (or process lasso) to circumvent this, without disabling a core just for this agme).


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> Out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say D4 IMC? I’ve just seen the term used a lot but I can’t really get a grasp of it.


The DDR4 and DDR5 IMCs differ in quality. A chip that can overclock DDR4 well might not necessary overclock DDR5 well, and vice versa.


Krzych04650 said:


> Well I cannot vouch for safety claims, but from experience 1.6 VDDQ certainly solves a lot of problems with stability. Like said, I was nowhere near having 4 sticks at 4000 before I did that.


VDDQ seems to be RAM/die dependent. Just gotta use however much is necessary.
You _could_ try to reduce VDDQ by pumping up VDIMM (which might be safer; not sure), but ASUS has already stated that VDDQ technically cannot cause problems as the FIVR rail would trip long before causing any damage.


----------



## Krzych04650

Falkentyne said:


> Go into your BIOS and enable the scroll lock(?) feature that allows you block E-core usage on application load (in Asus it's under advanced->CPU power management control, I think),
> then load Witcher 1 with scroll lock disabled (default usage) and scroll lock enabled (prevents any usage of E-cores) and see if there is any difference. I'm curious about that.
> Pretty sure MSI, Asus and Gigabyte all have this option somewhere now.
> 
> Curiously awaiting your results.
> 
> Note: Scroll lock won't save you from games that actually crash if too many "physical" cores/threads are present (Witcher 2 crashes on launcher load if 32 or more threads/CPU "cores" are present; you can use command line affinity tweaks (or process lasso) to circumvent this, without disabling a core just for this agme).


On MSI it is called Legacy Game Compatibility Mode, under Advanced CPU Configuration. I did try it and it didn't change anything; performance boost is still there. It did make Witcher 2 launch with all 16 E-cores enabled though, it does not launch normally like you said because 32 threads.

I also tested 3 more games: Witcher 2, LOTRO and CSGO. First two see no benefit, but CSGO gets flat 10% boost to performance, I went from 1000 to 1100 FPS.

I am wondering what the determining factor is for this.


----------



## Falkentyne

Krzych04650 said:


> On MSI it is called Legacy Game Compatibility Mode, under Advanced CPU Configuration. I did try it and it didn't change anything; performance boost is still there. It did make Witcher 2 launch with all 16 E-cores enabled though, it does not launch normally like you said because 32 threads.
> 
> I also tested 3 more games: Witcher 2, LOTRO and CSGO. First two see no benefit, but CSGO gets flat 10% boost to performance, I went from 1000 to 1100 FPS.
> 
> I am wondering what the determining factor is for this.


Thank you for your sacrifice 
I wonder.
In some attempts at derping around with 5.8 ghz, I noticed CPU-Z benchmark giving a lower single thread performance with the E-cores disabled than with them enabled.
Only on one run did I see 'proper' performance with E-cores disabled and then never again.

Can you check CPU-Z? (Unfortunately you have to manually disable or enable the e-cores to check).

I wish you could somehow lock one core (i assume this is two threads? or is it a non HT thread) on realtime priority.

Second question.
If you check CPU-Z and find similar results, what happens if you do the same thing but disable hyperthreading? (applies to Witcher / cs go also)?


----------



## snakeeyes111

Hey guys, need help. 

My Apex shut down random after few minutes Karhu or memtest. On memtest it happen often ~500% but could also happen after 70% or something else.
When it happen, apex turn off- turn on - turn off- turn on and start normal... i dont find the problem.


----------



## bhav

So I just realized I hadn#t tried adjusting VDDQ voltage on my ram, here I go again to see if boosting it to 1.3v brings stability for 4800CL16 along with 1.72 vdimm and 1.35 SA :x


----------



## Krzych04650

Falkentyne said:


> Thank you for your sacrifice
> I wonder.
> In some attempts at derping around with 5.8 ghz, I noticed CPU-Z benchmark giving a lower single thread performance with the E-cores disabled than with them enabled.
> Only on one run did I see 'proper' performance with E-cores disabled and then never again.
> 
> Can you check CPU-Z? (Unfortunately you have to manually disable or enable the e-cores to check).
> 
> I wish you could somehow lock one core (i assume this is two threads? or is it a non HT thread) on realtime priority.
> 
> Second question.
> If you check CPU-Z and find similar results, what happens if you do the same thing but disable hyperthreading? (applies to Witcher / cs go also)?


I did notice some abnormal CPU-Z single threaded scores as well yesterday. Like proper score would only be like every third run. That was with pure 8c/16t with no E-cores, so looks like you are onto something.

CSGO and Witcher the same performance regardless of whether HT is enabled next to E-cores or not.

Tried Witcher 3 as well:

HT off E Off - 239 FPS
HT off E On - 269 FPS
HT on E off - 279 FPS
HT on E on - 282 FPS (likely run to run variance)

So this doesn't always help, Witcher 3 is actually slower, at least for averages. I am on temporary air cooling so cannot run anything heavy reliably yet.

This definitely needs a lot of investigating and testing, but it is very exciting to see something like this, especially in older games.


----------



## bhav

Who would have thought e cores would be weaker than HT lol.

Also VDDQ seems to have no effect on my ram stability.


----------



## Ichirou

Krzych04650 said:


> I did notice some abnormal CPU-Z single threaded scores as well yesterday. Like proper score would only be like every third run. That was with pure 8c/16t with no E-cores, so looks like you are onto something.
> 
> CSGO and Witcher the same performance regardless of whether HT is enabled next to E-cores or not.
> 
> Tried Witcher 3 as well:
> 
> HT off E Off - 239 FPS
> HT off E On - 269 FPS
> HT on E off - 279 FPS
> HT on E on - 282 FPS (likely run to run variance)
> 
> So this doesn't always help, Witcher 3 is actually slower, at least for averages. I am on temporary air cooling so cannot run anything heavy reliably yet.
> 
> This definitely needs a lot of investigating and testing, but it is very exciting to see something like this, especially in older games.


It depends entirely on workload or game.
In general, leaving everything enabled should benefit most scenarios.


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> The DDR4 and DDR5 IMCs differ in quality. A chip that can overclock DDR4 well might not necessary overclock DDR5 well, and vice versa.


So you mean that there are four separate IMCs on the die (a pair for D4 and a pair for D5)?


----------



## PBaF

Falkentyne said:


> I know. Try just leaving them set like that for daily and see if it improves in 1-2 weeks. Also check for BIOS updates as well and see how things go.
> It did for me, oddly enough, otherwise I wouldn't be suggesting that to you. Which is really bizarre but I'm not complaining. There's no drawback to raising these settings slightly.
> It's actually known for some of these RPL brand new CPU's to bomb with tons of WHEA errors at their marginal vcores, then after a few weeks of use, they seem to calm down.
> ADL never did this. It would just BSOD or hard lock with 0 WHEA errors. RPL cache and internal structures were changed (someone over at Intel in a Japan website interview mentioned how some of these changes were done, not including the improved process/yields).


I did set them now. VCCIN_AUX shows 1.840 in HWinfo64 when set to 1.86 in BIOS. Core PLL I can't seem to find in HWinfo, but I did set it under tweakers paradise section of BIOS.

Edit: Tried to run R23 after this adjustment and got a bluescreen after about 7min. Back to auto for now.


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> So you mean that there are four separate IMCs on the die (a pair for D4 and a pair for D5)?


Apparently there aren't separate IMCs, but empirical results seem to imply that there is no correlation between what you can achieve on DDR4 compared to DDR5 compared to the cores themselves. _Source: Igor's Lab Alder Lake chip binning_


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> Apparently there aren't separate IMCs, but empirical results seem to imply that there is no correlation between what you can achieve on DDR4 compared to DDR5 compared to the cores themselves. _Source: Igor's Lab Alder Lake chip binning_


Ohh ok. That actually makes sense. Like that’s just what I was confused about. I just thought it’d be really weird if they had four full fat IMCs on a single chip. Would be a bit hectic. I noticed the Igor results, but I’m sure there’s a rational explanation. 

D4 max data rate is usually validated with max data rate and not necessarily the lowest timings possible. Max data rate is dependent on max G1 frequency obtainable by the IMC portion of the uncore. Max D5 data rate on both ADL and RPL seems to be related more to the scaling of the VDD2 rail. It also would explain why A-die that requires less VDD2 (less VDD/VDDQ therefore), to run high data rates can make bad IMCs look somewhat not so bad.

I think it surely has to be something like that. A chip that can do D4-4200 and thus 2100MHz on the IMC would need to be able to scale with the VDD2 to reach D5-8400 for instance. Just my theory, but I guess it doesn’t really matter at the end of the day when what matters is practical usability.


----------



## bscool

snakeeyes111 said:


> Hey guys, need help.
> 
> My Apex shut down random after few minutes Karhu or memtest. On memtest it happen often ~500% but could also happen after 70% or something else.
> When it happen, apex turn off- turn on - turn off- turn on and start normal... i dont find the problem.


I havent been running memtest/Karhu much mainly y cruncher but I did have that happen recently on z690 Apex while running memtest/karhu.

Edit went back to 2004 to test new Team 7200 A die and I have that issue where freezes or shuts down running Karhu. I think it is the SA bug(needs to be below 1v i think) the newer/beta bioses fix. Not sure though still testing.

Edit 2 2103 also freeze/locks up with Team A die sa over 1v.

Edit 3 0006 is working fine for Karhu on Teams 7200 XMP 1 still testing.

With tighter timings at 7400 I am getting errors around 15min on bios 0006 with A die. Will need to mess with voltages and test more.


----------



## Groove2013

somewhere on the planet )))
(not mine)


----------



## Avacado

Groove2013 said:


> somewhere on the planet )))
> (not mine)


That isn't even impressive. It's unnecessary overkill. Two of those MORA's would be sufficient. Gaudy AF.


----------



## tps3443

I’m running this setup daily! Totally good with it!! Now to just tune the memory out a little more.

This setup is just absolutely crazy efficient! It’s my 13900KF Toyota Prius profile










PS: Corsair finally sells Hynix A-Die!
Crazy expensive though. I think I’m
good with my Team Group 7200 A-Die sticks.


----------



## Ichirou

Avacado said:


> That isn't even impressive. It's unnecessary overkill. Two of those MORA's would be sufficient. Gaudy AF.


The amount of diminishing returns with that watercooling setup...


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> PS: Corsair finally sells Hynix A-Die!
> Crazy expensive though. I think I’m
> good with my Team Group 7200 A-Die sticks.


The problem with spending that much on A die as well is it won't be long until theres something better.


----------



## Antsu

Groove2013 said:


> somewhere on the planet )))
> (not mine)


Lmao. "How much rad would you like on your loop, sir?" 'All of it.'


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> The problem with spending that much on A die as well is it won't be long until theres something better.


They’re just coming out with a 13900KS in a few months, or a 14900K next year. Why even buy a 13900K? lol. That’s the same mindset. We can’t just let products pass us by. All this stuff gets old man. You can never get a head with technology. You must buy when it’s hot, and re-sale before it’s not!

Honestly we lose some cash buying any of this stuff regardless. But if there is a good time to buy any technology, it’s buying the fastest when it’s the newest. Or watch it pass by you and wait for nothing lol. Endless cycle.

Also, the Team Group 7200 A-Die stuff is $350 and it clocks to the MOON!


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> They’re just coming out with a 13900KS in a few months, or a 14900K next year. Why even buy a 13900K? lol. That’s the same mindset. We can’t just let products pass us by. All this stuff gets old man. You can never get a head with technology. You must buy when it’s hot, and re-sale before it’s not!
> 
> Honestly we lose some cash buying any of this stuff regardless.
> 
> Also, the Team Group 7200 A-Die stuff is $350 and it clocks to the MOON!


CPU / GPU makes a much bigger impact than ram though. The miniscule / zero at 4k gains you get from ram? Is that even worth £350?

I'm going to get a 13900KS though, 13900K OCs are so gimpy.


----------



## tubs2x4

bhav said:


> CPU / GPU makes a much bigger impact than ram though. The miniscule / zero at 4k gains you get from ram? Is that even worth £350?
> 
> I'm going to get a 13900KS though, 13900K OCs are so gimpy.


6 ghz all core stock here we come or what?! Haha


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> CPU / GPU makes a much bigger impact than ram though. The miniscule / zero at 4k gains you get from ram? Is that even worth £350?
> 
> I'm going to get a 13900KS though, 13900K OCs are so gimpy.


It’s paying to be playing though. Obviously with my 13900KF I don’t wanna cut any corners on performance. So, Hynix A-Die is where it’s at “For the moment that is” whether that be labeled 7000 or even 7800 A-Die, it all overclocks with luck of the draw.

$350 for 7200C34 Hynix A die seems very reasonable to me. Plus, I had some Corsair RGB DDR5 6000 to sell to recoup some of my funds.

I imagine most users with a new 13th Gen are doing about the same.

Also if someone has a 4090 during 4K, yeah really good ram would probably help somewhere.


----------



## Nizzen

HemuV2 said:


> Please mention maximum imc frequency next to SP in pinned post @Nizzen


Impossible task..... send meg sallary, tnx


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> I imagine most users with a new 13th Gen are doing about the same.


Well I only have a 10900K and Z490 strix board to sell after getting the 13900KS, but it has a golden IMC so I might be able to milk it on ebay.

Dunno if its worth it to sell my 2tb gen 3 m.2 to fund for gen 4s, will barely make any difference anyway.


----------



## HyperC

Is it me or BHAV said was going to get just about every SKU raptor lake at one point? but changes mind everytime?


----------



## jvidia

tps3443 said:


> Also, the Team Group 7200 A-Die stuff is $350 and it clocks to the MOON!


Where is it?


----------



## bhav

HyperC said:


> Is it me or BHAV said was going to get just about every SKU raptor lake at one point? but changes mind everytime?


I did not!

I was initially trying to decide between 13700k and 13900k based on the results posted here. In general both are crap, which is Intel's way of saying 'all the good ones are being saved for the KS'.

Also people are saying that it looks like higher SP also has better IMC, so 13900ks might do 4400 G1, it might not.


----------



## Slackaveli

Ive settled in [email protected]
5.7p/4.5e/5.1c @ 1.325v actual llc3
7200c32-42-42-28 333 w/ tight subs and tertiaries- on SKHynix M-Die
Loving this chip! A steal for $435. 
timings for those interested.

*edit- for some reason it won't let me post a pic- it's greyed out.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> They’re just coming out with a 13900KS in a few months, or a 14900K next year. Why even buy a 13900K? lol. That’s the same mindset. We can’t just let products pass us by. All this stuff gets old man. You can never get a head with technology. You must buy when it’s hot, and re-sale before it’s not!
> 
> Honestly we lose some cash buying any of this stuff regardless. But if there is a good time to buy any technology, it’s buying the fastest when it’s the newest. Or watch it pass by you and wait for nothing lol. Endless cycle.
> 
> Also, the Team Group 7200 A-Die stuff is $350 and it clocks to the MOON!


You can stop the impulsive purchasing by sticking with DDR4 though, as it's EOL 
Stuff is becoming more and more GPU-dependent, after all.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> I did not!
> 
> I was initially trying to decide between 13700k and 13900k based on the results posted here. In general both are crap, which is Intel's way of saying 'all the good ones are being saved for the KS'.
> 
> Also people are saying that it looks like higher SP also has better IMC, so 13900ks might do 4400 G1, it might not.


My sample is amazing. Honestly, take a chance and go for it. Grab a 13900KF. Great CPU! You can’t go wrong with one. It’s blistering fast even stock.


----------



## bhav

And ok so the 13600k might have been tempting me to update the 12600k for the second rig, but thats pointless since the 13900KS will go there after the next upgrade, except I would like to stay on the 13900KS for at least 2 more gens.

NO MORE UPGRADES UNTIL 16TH GEN!

Maybe pick up a 13600k after they go on EOL sale.



Ichirou said:


> You can stop the impulsive purchasing by sticking with DDR4 though, as it's EOL
> Stuff is becoming more and more GPU-dependent, after all.


And thats whats supposed to help me skip 2 or 3 more gens, hopefully.

Make best DDR4 setup now, then wait a long time.


----------



## Slackaveli

tps3443 said:


> I’m running this setup daily! Totally good with it!! Now to just tune the memory out a little more.
> 
> This setup is just absolutely crazy efficient! It’s my 13900KF Toyota Prius profile
> 
> View attachment 2579329
> 
> 
> PS: Corsair finally sells Hynix A-Die!
> Crazy expensive though. I think I’m
> good with my Team Group 7200 A-Die sticks.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2579330


Im getting 7200c32 out of my M-DIE somehow. Raptor is Godly.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> You can stop the impulsive purchasing by sticking with DDR4 though, as it's EOL
> Stuff is becoming more and more GPU-dependent, after all.


Definitely! But, I skipped 12th Gen and allowed things to settle in. So, when I jumped in with pre-ordering the 13900KF, I was ready to move on to DDR5 as well. I already knew Hynix A-Die was any moment away. And here I am! Easily obtaining 120+Gbps bandwidth, and 50ns latency hardly any tuning at all. Set XMP, set tREFI, and go! 

I kept my golden 11900K on Z590 Dark and my 2x16GB Dominator Platinums “B-Die” they are at 4000CL14. They too we’re expensive! considering and I recently purchased those sticks.


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> CPU / GPU makes a much bigger impact than ram though. The miniscule / zero at 4k gains you get from ram? Is that even worth £350?
> 
> I'm going to get a 13900KS though, 13900K OCs are so gimpy.


more gains from ram than you'll ever get from cores. Im surprised you arent aware of this.


----------



## Slackaveli

bhav said:


> I did not!
> 
> I was initially trying to decide between 13700k and 13900k based on the results posted here. In general both are crap, which is Intel's way of saying 'all the good ones are being saved for the KS'.
> 
> Also people are saying that it looks like higher SP also has better IMC, so 13900ks might do 4400 G1, it might not.


If you plan on staying with ddr4 then you might as well just get a 13600k. You'd be nerfing your 123700k or 13900k with that old ram.

Just a $200 M-Die kit can do 7200mts @ 48ns on a 13700k Thats the move.


----------



## bhav

Slackaveli said:


> more gains from ram than you'll ever get from cores. Im surprised you arent aware of this.


Brah do you even 4K?


----------



## tps3443

Slackaveli said:


> Im getting 7200c32 out of my M-DIE somehow. Raptor is Godly.


Oh for sure. I haven’t even scratched the surface with my new rams. I have seen numerous people report higher memory overclocks with their old ram, after just upgrading to a Rocket lake CPU which is awesome.

I’m blown the heck away with this platform. Less power than my 11900K, and about 300% faster than a stock 11900K. 

I will get there though. I have been tuning just the CPU/cache to the absolute limits with only an optimized XMP profile. Next, I’ll start pushing everything further.

I’ve set up a crazy good 5.8Ghz all cores OC which is only 263 watts during 30 min extended R23 runs.


----------



## jvidia

tps3443 said:


> Definitely! But, I skipped 12th Gen and allowed things to settle in. So, when I jumped in with pre-ordering the 13900KF, I was ready to move on to DDR5 as well. I already knew Hynix A-Die was any moment away. And here I am! Easily obtaining 120+Gbps bandwidth, and 50ns latency hardly any tuning at all. Set XMP, set tREFI, and go!
> 
> I kept my golden 11900K on Z590 Dark and my 2x16GB Dominator Platinums “B-Die” they are at 4000CL14. They too we’re expensive! considering and I recently purchased those sticks.


What ddr5 do you have?


----------



## thebr0nz

tps3443 said:


> I’m running this setup daily! Totally good with it!! Now to just tune the memory out a little more.
> 
> This setup is just absolutely crazy efficient! It’s my 13900KF Toyota Prius profile
> 
> View attachment 2579329


Would you be willing to post your full list of settings for your overclock? You've got some of the best results so far with an MSI motherboard and unfortunately not many folks with this brand have posted details. It looks like you're using 1.260V LLC 5 (some droop from the 1.313 Vcore?).

I've noticed that Intel XTU has some extremely good monitoring features, which I've found useful for understanding what the individual cores are doing within the limited power budget available to me on air cooling. Unfortunately, any time I use Override Voltage, the processor severely underclocks under multi-core load, all the way down to 4.6GHz. I don't have the problem on Adaptive voltage and have scored 40386 with stock adaptive voltage and LLC 7 on the MSI PRO Z690-A (with PL2 set to 300W). I'd love to see how your processor is behaving during the Cinebench.


----------



## jvidia

Slackaveli said:


> If you plan on staying with ddr4 then you might as well just get a 13600k. You'd be nerfing your 123700k or 13900k with that old ram.
> 
> Just a $200 M-Die kit can do 7200mts @ 48ns on a 13700k Thats the move.


In a 4 dimm motherboard?


----------



## gtz

tps3443 said:


> I’m running this setup daily! Totally good with it!! Now to just tune the memory out a little more.
> 
> This setup is just absolutely crazy efficient! It’s my 13900KF Toyota Prius profile
> 
> View attachment 2579329
> 
> 
> PS: Corsair finally sells Hynix A-Die!
> Crazy expensive though. I think I’m
> good with my Team Group 7200 A-Die sticks.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2579330


Your chip is amazing, I have to brute force my way to break 42K with my crappy sample. Yours is the Prius profile and mine is the freaking F350 2 miles to the gallon profile. But I am stable for my purposes, but just sucks the shear amount of rad space I need just to stabilize 5.7. But run my setup daily at 5.6. But using liquid metal as tim (no delid) did allow me to finally stabilize 5.7. Just sucks that I need a big ass loop just to tame it.


----------



## fitnessgrampacertest

Just installed my 13900K. Any idea what is going on with CPU-Z here? Multiplier, core speed, and bus speed are not being reflected correctly. Im on a Z690 APEX with bios v2103. 

Chipset driver has been reinstalled, running windows 10 22H2


----------



## bscool

fitnessgrampacertest said:


> Just installed my 13900K. Any idea what is going on with CPU-Z here? Multiplier, core speed, and bus speed are not being reflected correctly. Im on a Z690 APEX with bios v2103.
> 
> Chipset driver has been reinstalled, running windows 10 22H2
> 
> View attachment 2579369
> 
> View attachment 2579370


Maybe Intel ME driver? Or ME firmware if you didnt update that?

List of them all in case you dont have or someone else needs them [INDEX] All My Firmware/Drivers/Software Threads


----------



## tps3443

gtz said:


> Your chip is amazing, I have to brute force my way to break 42K with my crappy sample. Yours is the Prius profile and mine is the freaking F350 2 miles to the gallon profile. But I am stable for my purposes, but just sucks the shear amount of rad space I need just to stabilize 5.7. But run my setup daily at 5.6. But using liquid metal as tim (no delid) did allow me to finally stabilize 5.7. Just sucks that I need a big ass loop just to tame it.


I need to try that Liquid metal TIM!!! What kind of reductions did you see? I’m only using Thermalright TF7. I just kinda hate to ruin my IHS so soon lol.


----------



## tps3443

fitnessgrampacertest said:


> Just installed my 13900K. Any idea what is going on with CPU-Z here? Multiplier, core speed, and bus speed are not being reflected correctly. Im on a Z690 APEX with bios v2103.
> 
> Chipset driver has been reinstalled, running windows 10 22H2
> 
> View attachment 2579369
> 
> View attachment 2579370


Mine had that issue just reinstall CPU-Z. And it’ll fix it. Aida 64 has the same issue, so reinstall that one too.


----------



## Codiee1337

This 13700K is good btw. 
https://hwbot.org/submission/5109483_codiee1337_cinebench___r23_single_core_with_benchmate_core_i7_13700k_2355_cb?recalculate=true


----------



## Falkentyne

fitnessgrampacertest said:


> Just installed my 13900K. Any idea what is going on with CPU-Z here? Multiplier, core speed, and bus speed are not being reflected correctly. Im on a Z690 APEX with bios v2103.
> 
> Chipset driver has been reinstalled, running windows 10 22H2
> 
> View attachment 2579369
> 
> View attachment 2579370


Your CPU-Z version is BEYOND ancient, dude....


----------



## gtz

tps3443 said:


> I need to try that Liquid metal TIM!!! What kind of reductions did you see? I’m only using Thermalright TF7. I just kinda hate to ruin my IHS so soon lol.


Automotive rubbing compound gets most of it off without ruining the IHS. But I'm lazy and just sand it down with 2000 grit sand paper.

At 5.6 my hottest core after 10 min loop of CB23 got to 86C. Thermal grizzly lm dropped it to 78C. I did remount my thermalright frame again but doubt that did anything. 5.7 would hit 95-100C quickly during CB23, but with the lm I am sitting in the 89-91c. What I find impressive is how Intel managed to control the heat. My 12900KF with 5.3P (and e cores enabled) was harder to tame at 370-400watts.


----------



## tps3443

Anyone tried this thermal paste? It has the highest conductivity of any!

Thermal Conductivity: 16W/mK









Amazon.com: Alphacool Subzero Thermal Grease 3.5g (12996) : Everything Else


Buy Alphacool Subzero Thermal Grease 3.5g (12996): Everything Else - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



www.amazon.com


----------



## Thunderclap

tps3443 said:


> Anyone tried this thermal paste? It has the highest conductivity of any!
> 
> Thermal Conductivity: 16W/mK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon.com: Alphacool Subzero Thermal Grease 3.5g (12996) : Everything Else
> 
> 
> Buy Alphacool Subzero Thermal Grease 3.5g (12996): Everything Else - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com


You can also check this:









Alphacool Apex 17W/mK Thermal grease 4g


Das Alphacool Apex Thermal Grease richtet sich an alle Anwender, die mit ihrem System das Optimum an Performance erreichen wollen. Mit einer thermischen Wärmeleitfähigkeit von 17 W/mK ist diese elektrisch nicht leitende und für hohe...




www.alphacool.com





It's their newest version and is rated at 17W/mK. I've been wanting to try it out for a while now, seems like the best option on the market at the moment (at least going by specifications) without going to LM. It's not that expensive either, to be completely honest. Might end up giving it a try myself.


----------



## tps3443

Thunderclap said:


> You can also check this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alphacool Apex 17W/mK Thermal grease 4g
> 
> 
> Das Alphacool Apex Thermal Grease richtet sich an alle Anwender, die mit ihrem System das Optimum an Performance erreichen wollen. Mit einer thermischen Wärmeleitfähigkeit von 17 W/mK ist diese elektrisch nicht leitende und für hohe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.alphacool.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's their newest version and is rated at 17W/mK. I've been wanting to try it out for a while now, seems like the best option on the market at the moment (at least going by specifications) without going to LM. It's not that expensive either, to be completely honest. Might end up giving it a try myself.


Dang.. I just bought the 16 rated stuff. I didn’t know they had higher.


----------



## TuboBoy

Does anyone meet issue with 13900K won't boot on D4 3600 G1?
I loaded XMPI/XMPII profile then save and reset, but the MB just retry POST.
Already try to add some SA/IMC/DIMM voltage but still won't boot.

12900K is OK on D4 4000 G1 with same MB and DIMMs.
My MB is STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 with 2103 BIOS and latest ME.
Any suggestion？or it's just bad luck with poor IMC for my 13900K...?


----------



## Exilon

TuboBoy said:


> Does anyone meet issue with 13900K won't boot on D4 3600 G1?
> I loaded XMPI/XMPII profile then save and reset, but the MB just retry POST.
> Already try to add some SA/IMC/DIMM voltage but still won't boot.
> 
> 12900K is OK on D4 4000 G1 with same MB and DIMMs.
> My MB is STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 with 2103 BIOS and latest ME.
> Any suggestion？or it's just bad luck with poor IMC for my 13900K...?


And it boots the same settings in gear2?


----------



## bscool

TuboBoy said:


> Does anyone meet issue with 13900K won't boot on D4 3600 G1?
> I loaded XMPI/XMPII profile then save and reset, but the MB just retry POST.
> Already try to add some SA/IMC/DIMM voltage but still won't boot.
> 
> 12900K is OK on D4 4000 G1 with same MB and DIMMs.
> My MB is STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 with 2103 BIOS and latest ME.
> Any suggestion？or it's just bad luck with poor IMC for my 13900K...?


Try sa from 1.35 to 1.4 and vdda 1.35 to 1.5 and dram 1.45 to 1.55 depending on your mem.

If that doesnt help try flashing back to bios 2004 and then to 2103. I have z690 Strix d4/13900k and that seemed to helped mine for gear 1 but might have been fluke but try it if nothing else works.

Before doing the flashing back and forward only gear 2 mem oc worked.

Edit also mine is really picky with 13th gen to what will boot for sa/vddq and dram compared to 12th gen for gear 1.


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> Anyone tried this thermal paste? It has the highest conductivity of any!
> 
> Thermal Conductivity: 16W/mK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon.com: Alphacool Subzero Thermal Grease 3.5g (12996) : Everything Else
> 
> 
> Buy Alphacool Subzero Thermal Grease 3.5g (12996): Everything Else - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2579375


Phobya Nanogrease Extreme is old and crappy, and their w/mk values are completely wrong.
Subzero is the exact same product, relabeled. No idea about the newer "17 w/mk" version but you can 100% bet it's overpriced and inaccurate w/mk also.
Thermalright TFX, and arguably, Coolermaster Maker Nano is better.
Better to even buy Zezzio ZT-GXS (if you can find it), which is an improved version of their older ZT-GX (which seems to be the exact same paste as SYY-157).


----------



## TuboBoy

Exilon said:


> And it boots the same settings in gear2?


Yes, gear2 is OK.



bscool said:


> Try sa from 1.35 to 1.4 and vdda 1.35 to 1.5 and dram 1.45 to 1.55 depending on your mem.
> 
> If that doesnt help try flashing back to bios 2004 and then to 2103. I have z690 Strix d4/13900k and that seemed to helped mine for gear 1 but might have been fluke but try it if nothing else works.
> 
> Before doing the flashing back and forward only gear 2 mem oc worked.
> 
> Edit also mine is really picky with 13th gen to what will boot for sa/vddq and dram compared to 12th gen for gear 1.


Thanks, I'll try 2004 BIOS then try 2103 again😇


----------



## Groove2013

able to boot 4400 MHz 15-16-15 gear 1, but only with 133 MHz. 100 MHz doesn't work.


----------



## LukeOverHere

Slackaveli said:


> start at 5.5ghz 1.25v llc5 and see what happens!


Hey, so you might be able to provide some insight to help point me in a better direction:


Ive applied my XMP Profile for DDR5-6000-36-38-38-80-1.35v
BCLK Frequency: 100
Intel Adaptive boost @ auto
Asus Multicore enhancement @ Enabled - Remove all limits
DRAM Frequency @ 6000
Sync All P cores to 55
Sync All E Cores to 42
CPU Load Line to Level 4
Max cpu cache ratio to 48
Manual CPU Voltage to 1.39V

im still crashing BSOD on OCCT on a standard test, doesn’t even make it to 1 second, so im assuming from my basic experience i have a really unlucky chip and just need to keep increasing the vcore voltage above 1.39v until i can run the test stable?

I originally started at 1.25, and have gone up in 0.01 intervals, all the way up to 1.39v and still BSOD 😂

*Edit - I’m stupid…. Should i hold off on OC’ing the 13900k until my 4090 actually arrives so that the CPU is not acting as my GPU as well, this is likely causing the increased voltage requirement & heat…… my understanding is once the 4090 is installed the reduced load on the CPU should help me?


----------



## CptSpig

Got my 13900K hope it's a good one! I will have to wait for the Z790 APEX since I sold my Z690 APEX, 12900K and 6400 M Die.


----------



## raad11

Csavez™ said:


> SP97: p106/e81, that's the end I think.
> I sucked the voltage "buckets" for a very long time, if I left a buffer in the Core VIDs, the one-hour aida test ran smoothly, but the cb crashed, when I coordinated the VIDs/voltage, the cbr23 ran flawlessly, and the aida turned red.
> Then it worked.
> *p5,7/e4,6/r4,8* 1 hour aida+10 minutes cbr23 tt.
> View attachment 2579256
> 
> View attachment 2579256


What kind of cooling do you have?


Exilon said:


> By my napkin IPC * clocks estimate, 1 E-core is >10% stronger than sharing P-core. IPC aside, the main thing is probably being able to use the 4MB of cache attached to the E-core instead of fighting for the 2MB L2 and the shared L3.


That's what I thought (that cache is responsible for the weird stuff).


----------



## TuboBoy

Groove2013 said:


> able to boot 4400 MHz 15-16-15 gear 1, but only with 133 MHz. 100 MHz doesn't work.


4400 MHz 15-16-15 gear 1 on 13900K? It's awesome!

BTW, still no luck after flashing back to bios 2004 and then to 2103 : (


----------



## raad11

What sort of cooling are you guys using that are running 300+ watts for 20+ min at full load?


----------



## raad11

What's really getting on my nerves is that light loads (1-2% in task manager of background usage) is triggering all the cores to full speed. Obviously effective clocks are lower but it's still triggering me. The 12900K didn't do this. The idle power usage is significant in that first jump (~9-10 watts with nothing open but the bare minimums I have on my system, and jumps to 30+ just with Windows Audio Device Graph thing (I have Line-In from another device set to 'Listen To This Device'). Muting speakers drops that.

Same with just having Battle.net open for example. 30+ watts at idle, even with it minimized to tray. Cores running at full speed.

With the 12900K, it wouldn't fire up the cores to full speed unless I was usually doing something. I could see them drop frequency on the monitor (usually Argus, but using Hwinfo for the moment because Argus isn't updated for 13th gen yet). These apps (bnet, windows audio device graph) were running there too,


----------



## deceptiv23

Updated Z690 bios -- quick 115i cooler, so not great cooling just quick setup to get the SP rating. Excited to put it in my main open watercooling rig


----------



## bhav

Groove2013 said:


> able to boot 4400 MHz 15-16-15 gear 1, but only with 133 MHz. 100 MHz doesn't work.


Wow, whats the 133 / 100 thing? I haven't heard of that in a long time.


----------



## bscool

TuboBoy said:


> 4400 MHz 15-16-15 gear 1 on 13900K? It's awesome!
> 
> BTW, still no luck after flashing back to bios 2004 and then to 2103 : (


i think it will get better with bios updates. I remember some of the first bioses for z690 ddr4/12th gen I couldnt boot past 3600. 

There is no way it should be as hard as it is for me to boot past 3600 on mine either. Takes very specific setting were the better 12h gen bios my voltages could swing quite a bit either way and still boot 4000+. But I know my 13th gens IMC is not as good as some I see people running y cruncher 4300c15-15-15- [email protected] 1.35 sa I cant even boot 4300 at that let alone run y cruncher.


----------



## Groove2013

will first do RAM, then cores/cache.


----------



## Exilon

Groove2013 said:


> able to boot 4400 MHz 15-16-15 gear 1, but only with 133 MHz. 100 MHz doesn't work.


Nice, I'll try 4400 at 133:100... When I do 4400 at 100:100, it passes POST but instant boot failure.


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> Nice, I'll try 4400 at 133:100... When I do 4400 at 100:100, it passes POST but instant boot failure.


Can someone please explain what the 133:100 thing is please?

Oh wait, its a thing my asrock board doesn't have that my Z490 did have, thats why theres no 4133 option.


----------



## raad11

bhav said:


> Can someone please explain what the 133:100 thing is please?


I forgot why but 133 lets higher speeds work because the ratio is lower. E.g, 133x10 = 1333 vs 100x13. Ratio is 10 vs 13. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. There was a chart showing that Intel (or maybe someone else) expected the highest speeds in Gear 1 to come with 133:100 rato.

I have no idea if it helps in my case but I set it to 133:100 for my 4000 even though 100:100 works with that too.


----------



## bhav

Thats probably whats holding my G1 speeds back on the asrock board, it only has 100:100.


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> I’m running this setup daily! Totally good with it!! Now to just tune the memory out a little more.
> 
> This setup is just absolutely crazy efficient! It’s my 13900KF Toyota Prius profile
> 
> View attachment 2579329
> 
> 
> PS: Corsair finally sells Hynix A-Die!
> Crazy expensive though. I think I’m
> good with my Team Group 7200 A-Die sticks.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2579330


Ru sure it's not clock stretching the wattage seems too low for 5.8


----------



## Exilon

Exilon said:


> Nice, I'll try 4400 at 133:100... When I do 4400 at 100:100, it passes POST but instant boot failure.


4400g1 at 133:100 and 1.3v SA = same as 100:100
1.35v SA = POST and boot but instant errors on test.

A little more stable I guess but not enough margin for a 24/7


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Settled on this overclock:


----------



## Groove2013

Exilon said:


> 4400g1 at 133:100 and 1.3v SA = same as 100:100
> 1.35v SA = POST and boot but instant errors on test.
> 
> A little more stable I guess but not enough margin for a 24/7


I was unable to do more than 5 mins of RAM stress testing before errors.
so now testing 4300 15-16-15


----------



## Exilon

Groove2013 said:


> I was unable to do more than 5 mins of RAM stress testing before errors.
> so now testing 4300 15-16-15


Ah yes, a fellow victim of the 4400G1-133:100 well of false hopes 

Settling back to 4300CL17 now and playing around with the ring bin.
Ring down bin ON seems to be:
No E-core load = 0x (50x)
Light E-core load = 1x (49x)
Heavy E-core load = 3x (47x)
based on what I get when I set max ring ratio to 50x.
NVM, it has P-core frequency involved too


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> Ah yes, a fellow victim of the 4400G1-133:100 well of false hopes
> 
> Settling back to 4300CL17 now and playing around with the ring bin.
> Ring down bin ON seems to be:
> No E-core load = 0x (50x)
> Light E-core load = 1x (49x)
> Heavy E-core load = 3x (47x)
> based on what I get when I set max ring ratio to 50x.


Think I know what the issue might be.

Crucial previously binned these kits in 4800 and 5100, but then stopped as no one could hit those speeds back then.

The 4800 and 5100 kits were simply resold as 4400CL19s.

Do your kits work at stock XMP without issue, 4400 19-19-19?

Mine wont boot at 4400 19-19-19. only 19-20-20.

It looks like I might have gotten a 4400CL19 bios slapped on a 4800 or 5100 kit without testing of the new settings, yours might simply be an original 4400 kit.


----------



## Exilon

bhav said:


> Do your kits work at stock XMP without issue, 4400 19-19-19?


Yeah in gear2 1T


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> Yeah in gear2 1T


I got a reflashed 5100 kit it seems. Just checked and there wasn't actually a 4800, just 4400 and 5100.

I knew not to RMA it until checking the OCs, and it OCs way too good with low timings.


----------



## Exilon

After spending a couple of hours benching, I've come to the conclusion that a 3090 isn't fast enough for a memory tuned 13900K even at 1080p or lower. Keep hitting the GPU limit. I need to upgrade to next gen GPUs when Nvidia gets their fire sorted and/or AMD launches something compelling.

Another note when pushing ring to 5.0: unstable L3 manifests in strange ways like lower performance and stuttering. No WHEA errors seen at all


----------



## Ichirou

Exilon said:


> After spending a couple of hours benching, I've come to the conclusion that a 3090 isn't fast enough for a memory tuned 13900K even at 1080p or lower. Keep hitting the GPU limit. I need to upgrade to next gen GPUs when Nvidia gets their fire sorted and/or AMD launches something compelling.
> 
> Another note when pushing ring to 5.0: unstable L3 manifests in strange ways like lower performance and stuttering. No WHEA errors seen at all


Did you test it with y-cruncher's CST?


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> After spending a couple of hours benching, I've come to the conclusion that a 3090 isn't fast enough for a memory tuned 13900K even at 1080p or lower. Keep hitting the GPU limit. I need to upgrade to next gen GPUs when Nvidia gets their fire sorted and/or AMD launches something compelling.
> 
> Another note when pushing ring to 5.0: unstable L3 manifests in strange ways like lower performance and stuttering. No WHEA errors seen at all


So would you say the performance is good with tuned DDR4?

So many people keep trying to push DDR5 onto me when I don't even need it and I like the current kit more.


----------



## Krzych04650

raad11 said:


> That's what I thought (that cache is responsible for the weird stuff).


Looks like it. Here is how it looks in The Witcher:










P-core utilization is the same and E-cores are idle. Downclocking and reducing their amount doesn't affect anything. Whatever is causing this boost, it does not show up on traditional monitoring, except for framerate ofc.

And here is the difference vs fully tuned and overclocked 6900K. Insanity.


----------



## bhav

I'm thinking it would be better to leave e cores at stock and only oc the p cores as this should give lower temps?


----------



## ju-rek

Is it normal that in idle state 13600k only lowers P cores to 1100 and E cores to 800. After overclocking and setting clocks to fixed values, it does not lower them at all when idle. I also see that during the IntelBurnTest, the P core clocks drop to 5000, and not all the time to 5100. Is it Win10's fault, is Win11 okay?


----------



## Exilon

Krzych04650 said:


> Looks like it. Here is how it looks in The Witcher:
> 
> View attachment 2579407
> 
> 
> P-core utilization is the same and E-cores are idle. Downclocking and reducing their amount doesn't affect anything. Whatever is causing this boost, it does not show up on traditional monitoring, except for framerate ofc.


E-core L2 being used as spare storage or maybe the new caching algos work only when E-cores are on? Would be interesting and explain why most of the results are better with E-cores on on ComputerBase. 



bhav said:


> So would you say the performance is good with tuned DDR4?
> 
> So many people keep trying to push DDR5 onto me when I don't even need it and I like the current kit more.


It's good but it'll still probably get beat by A-die and you also have to roll the gear1 lottery. I'd only use DDR4 at this point if you've sunk money into high-end DDR4 like we have.



bhav said:


> I'm thinking it would be better to leave e cores at stock and only oc the p cores as this should give lower temps?


E-cores use the same voltage domain as the P-cores so you want to clock the E-cores as high as they will go without increasing loaded V-core. Running them below the Fmax is wasting power. If Intel had given the E-cores their own FIVR, this wouldn't have been a problem and you could run them efficiently on their own voltage.



ju-rek said:


> Is it normal that in idle state 13600k only lowers P cores to 1100 and E cores to 800. After overclocking and setting clocks to fixed values, it does not lower them at all when idle. I also see that during the IntelBurnTest, the P core clocks drop to 5000, and not all the time to 5100. Is it Win10's fault, is Win11 okay?


Many motherboards completely disable C-states if you do something like set clocks. You have to re-enable them.


----------



## TuboBoy

OK, It seems to be BIOS optimization issue with ASUS ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 + Gen 13th CPU...
This is my old kit:









BIOS loaded XMP profile with 3600 *gear 1* and won't boot with 13900K but bootable with 12900K and able to OC @ 4000 C16 gear 1.

I got this new baby few hours ago (G.SKILL Trident Z Royal Elite F4-4000C16D-32GTES):









BIOS loaded XMP profile with 4000 *gear 2* by default and boot without issue.
But still no luck to boot on 4000 gear 1 with 13900K : (

Then I tried manual mode, set to 4000 gear 1 and VDIMM @ 1.4V, remains were left auto or default.
It boot on 4000 CL17-18-18-36! but still won't boot when set to CL16.
Re-try 4000 CL17-18-18-36 on XMPI/XMPII mode still unable to boot, ***...

Finally this new kit works with 4200 CL17-18-18-36 gear 1 @ 1.45V.
Pass TestMem5 anta777 extreme.

The result shows that the IMC of 13900K can support 4200 gear 1 or higher.
But the BIOS should optimize memory code to improve compatibility with gen 13h CPU + DDR4 DIMMs.
At least system should pass POST with default XMP profile which gen 12th CPU could pass POST.
Hope ASUS will fix this soon...









Here is the BIOS settings:


----------



## nickolp1974

This is totally stock and the errors keep mounting. This is after a clr cmos and not touched a thing. I'm wondering if the OS is corrupted?? so im just updating windows to 22H2 to see if that changes anything. Had this OS on ADL too so it may not be in the best shape after all the memory tweaking!!


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> Did you test it with y-cruncher's CST?


That's what I'm doing now in XTU fiddling around with ring ratios.



nickolp1974 said:


> This is totally stock and the errors keep mounting. This is after a clr cmos and not touched a thing. I'm wondering if the OS is corrupted?? so im just updating windows to 22H2 to see if that changes anything. Had this OS on ADL too so it may not be in the best shape after all the memory tweaking!!


I get these if I enable PEG ASPM with a 3090


----------



## ju-rek

The CPU should be running all the time 5100 under load, and will keep P clocks down to 5000, unless that's the case. At 12600k, when you turned on the MCE, the proc busted to 4.9 on all cores. Under load, avx kept the clock. Here, turning the MCE on or off does not change anything. And with avx it breaks the clocks by 100Mhz. It is not the fault of the temperature, about 65 degrees.


----------



## Xiph

TuboBoy said:


> OK, It seems to be BIOS optimization issue with ASUS ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 + Gen 13th CPU...
> This is my old kit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BIOS loaded XMP profile with 3600 *gear 1* and won't boot with 13900K but bootable with 12900K and able to OC @ 4000 C16 gear 1.
> 
> I got this new baby few hours ago (G.SKILL Trident Z Royal Elite F4-4000C16D-32GTES):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BIOS loaded XMP profile with 4000 *gear 2* by default and boot without issue.
> But still no luck to boot on 4000 gear 1 with 13900K : (
> 
> Then I tried manual mode, set to 4000 gear 1 and VDIMM @ 1.4V, remains were left auto or default.
> It boot on 4000 CL17-18-18-36! but still won't boot when set to CL16.
> Re-try 4000 CL17-18-18-36 on XMPI/XMPII mode still unable to boot, ***...
> 
> Finally this new kit works with 4200 CL17-18-18-36 gear 1 @ 1.45V.
> Pass TestMem5 anta777 extreme.
> 
> The result shows that the IMC of 13900K can support 4200 gear 1 or higher.
> But the BIOS should optimize memory code to improve compatibility with gen 13h CPU + DDR4 DIMMs.
> At least system should pass POST with default XMP profile which gen 12th CPU could pass POST.
> Hope ASUS will fix this soon...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the BIOS settings:


It is bug.
Under CL17, set manually tCWL=tCL.
I had this same problem with Strix-A.


----------



## Krautmaster

one of my games with very few CPU load keeps crashing to desktop. No BOSD, Cinebench Single Thread can be run for 30 min. Already removed the -0.02V Offset voltage, increased the LLC, no change. Any ideas what might be the root cause? If runs stable @ stock of course so GPU OC is fine.

Btw. Overclocking the Ring to 5.0 GHz dropped my score in 120W limit from 12500 CB20 to 10500.


----------



## Carillo

Seems like max r23 overclock for me without delidd. 5,8ghz p-cores , 4,7ghz e-cores, 5,0ghz ring . 1,4volt LLC5 ( 1,27V load) 85c max core temp . z690 Apex. I don't like those temps at all, so probably downclocking. Sp 114 p-cores.


----------



## TuboBoy

Xiph said:


> It is bug.
> Under CL17, set manually tCWL=tCL.
> I had this same problem with Strix-A.


Thank you very much, that work around helped.
Gonna try CL15 later💪


----------



## Groove2013

4300 15-16-15 is working in TM5 Anta Absolut.
tRCD isn't that great (((


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> Ru sure it's not clock stretching the wattage seems too low for 5.8


I just did not set a higher priority during that 30 minute R23 run, I did that on purpose so the HWinfo numbers would update and refresh correctly. The default windows priority for Cinebench R23 is (Below Normal) which is how I run it.

It scored 42,958, if I set normal priority it will score beyond 43,000+. Setup is very stable though, I have ran it like this for 2 days now. Power consumption is minimal and it’s actually kinda shocking how little it uses. Most games are 50-100 watts of power consumption Max. This chip has proven to be a very good sample with overclocking.


----------



## newls1

nickolp1974 said:


> View attachment 2579410
> 
> 
> 
> This is totally stock and the errors keep mounting. This is after a clr cmos and not touched a thing. I'm wondering if the OS is corrupted?? so im just updating windows to 22H2 to see if that changes anything. Had this OS on ADL too so it may not be in the best shape after all the memory tweaking!!


your vddq tx voltage @ 1.1 might be to low


----------



## Carillo

tps3443 said:


> I just did not set a higher priority during that 30 minute R23 run, I did that on purpose so the HWinfo numbers would update and refresh correctly. The default windows priority for Cinebench R23 is (Below Normal) which is how I run it.
> 
> It scored 42,958, if I set normal priority it will score beyond 43,000+. Setup is very stable though, I have ran it like this for 2 days now. Power consumption is minimal and it’s actually kinda shocking how little it uses. Most games are 50-100 watts of power consumption Max. This chip has proven to be a very good sample with overclocking.


Have you been running R23 in loop for two days ? What’s your endgame ? 😅


----------



## bhav

Gotta pump those numbers up rookies, real pros run R23 for two years!


----------



## tps3443

Carillo said:


> Have you been running R23 in loop for two days ? What’s your endgame ? 😅


No lol. I said I have been running this OC setup for 2 days, not R23. I run that a few times for 30 minutes. And memory stability testing. Then I may move on to Prime 95 non AVX.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Gotta pump those numbers up rookies, real pros run R23 for two years!


No kidding. And not even gonna lie, I’ve been testing non stop R23 runs with my 13900KF since I got it lol. I think we all do that, CPU’s get stressed the hardest when we first get them.


----------



## newls1

anyone one with a 13900K running e cores @ 4.7?Seems i see more 4.6 and 4.5 and not any at 4.7. Is 4.7 pretty much their top ceiling?


----------



## Groove2013

this is cores usage (P-cores) I observe while stressing RAM with TestMem5 Anta Absolut with Hyper-Threading disabled on Win 10 21H2 19044.2130.

is it correct/expected behaviour?


----------



## raad11

Exilon said:


> Another note when pushing ring to 5.0: unstable L3 manifests in strange ways like lower performance and stuttering. No WHEA errors seen at all


Where do you notice the difference? I haven't noticed any stuttering and I'm not sure where to look for lower performance.


ju-rek said:


> Is it normal that in idle state 13600k only lowers P cores to 1100 and E cores to 800. After overclocking and setting clocks to fixed values, it does not lower them at all when idle. I also see that during the IntelBurnTest, the P core clocks drop to 5000, and not all the time to 5100. Is it Win10's fault, is Win11 okay?


I AM HAVING THIS PROBLEM TOO. And it's driving me insane. It still drops to 1100/800 for me on idle, but avg clock speed in hwinfo after sitting all night is still 5+ GHz. If I reboot, close everything, have nothing open, then it will idle to the point where in the morning the avg clocks are 2-3 GHz. But any slight little thing sets clocks at full speed.

My 12900K didn't do this. It's bothering me because the vids are now sky high 24-7 because it's high frequency light load.


----------



## tps3443

newls1 said:


> anyone one with a 13900K running p cores @ 4.7?Seems i see more 4.6 and 4.5 and not any at 4.7. Is 4.7 pretty much their top ceiling?


You mean E-Cores? I have taken mine to 4.8Ghz stable. But I don’t think it’s worth the extra power and voltage. But, I’m still tuning. Lots to do still.


----------



## Ichirou

nickolp1974 said:


> View attachment 2579410
> 
> 
> 
> This is totally stock and the errors keep mounting. This is after a clr cmos and not touched a thing. I'm wondering if the OS is corrupted?? so im just updating windows to 22H2 to see if that changes anything. Had this OS on ADL too so it may not be in the best shape after all the memory tweaking!!


You're saying you've *never* ran SFC /scannow?


----------



## newls1

tps3443 said:


> You mean E-Cores? I have taken mine to 4.8Ghz stable. But I don’t think it’s worth the extra power and voltage. But, I’m still tuning. Lots to do still.


oops, yes..... e cores. thank you and i fixed thread


----------



## raad11

ju-rek said:


> Is it normal that in idle state 13600k only lowers P cores to 1100 and E cores to 800. After overclocking and setting clocks to fixed values, it does not lower them at all when idle. I also see that during the IntelBurnTest, the P core clocks drop to 5000, and not all the time to 5100. Is it Win10's fault, is Win11 okay?





raad11 said:


> Where do you notice the difference? I haven't noticed any stuttering and I'm not sure where to look for lower performance.
> I AM HAVING THIS PROBLEM TOO. And it's driving me insane. It still drops to 1100/800 for me on idle, but avg clock speed in hwinfo after sitting all night is still 5+ GHz. If I reboot, close everything, have nothing open, then it will idle to the point where in the morning the avg clocks are 2-3 GHz. But any slight little thing sets clocks at full speed.
> 
> My 12900K didn't do this. It's bothering me because the vids are now sky high 24-7 because it's high frequency light load.


I think I figured it out. Changed two things, changed C-States option in BIOS from Auto to Enabled and then in Windows power plan settings I noticed minimum power state for CPU was now at 100%!! Under the Balanced power plan. Changing CPU did something wonky to it, or maybe the update to 22H2. Anyway, changing those two things and now it seems to idle properly thank God.


----------



## ju-rek

raad11 said:


> I AM HAVING THIS PROBLEM TOO. And it's driving me insane. It still drops to 1100/800 for me on idle, but avg clock speed in hwinfo after sitting all night is still 5+ GHz. If I reboot, close everything, have nothing open, then it will idle to the point where in the morning the avg clocks are 2-3 GHz. But any slight little thing sets clocks at full speed.


This is what happens on windows 10, all cores are working fine on win11.


----------



## raad11

Ok, new problem. Even under high performance power plan, it drops unused cores to 800MHz when they're not being utilized. Is this a problem? My 12900K didn't do this. Sounds like it's one of the C-States. Which one? I can set BIOS to go up to a certain C-State # instead of going to the highest/deepest level.


----------



## Xiph

Noob question:
Are set fixed Vcore values (in bios) comparable between socket sense and die sense mb:s (also same LLC#)? I know there is difference in monitoring, but will same voltage end to cpu?


----------



## Falkentyne

Xiph said:


> Noob question:
> Are set fixed Vcore values (in bios) comparable between socket sense and die sense mb:s (also same LLC#)? I know there is difference in monitoring, but will same voltage end to cpu?


Yes (on Asus).
on MSI No---socket sense vs vcc_sense actually changes the loadline LLC "resistances".


----------



## Csavez™

Xiph said:


> Noob question:
> Are set fixed Vcore values (in bios) comparable between socket sense and die sense mb:s (also same LLC#)? I know there is difference in monitoring, but will same voltage end to cpu?


Yes, it's just measured elsewhere.


----------



## nickolp1974

newls1 said:


> your vddq tx voltage @ 1.1 might be to low


Sorted it, disabling apsm related stuff reduced errors and then i disabled all pcie power saving options and power gate and no more errors



Ichirou said:


> You're saying you've *never* ran SFC /scannow?


not for a long time!!


----------



## Groove2013

Falkentyne said:


> ...the Z790 strix supports die sense...


not present on my Strix Z790-A D4.


----------



## fitnessgrampacertest

Falkentyne said:


> Your CPU-Z version is BEYOND ancient, dude....


Hey man this is the CPU-Z version that Armory Crate provided me to download. I uninstalled, cleaned the registry, and reinstalled a second time and its working fine now. Got to love that Asus software amirite? Lol

tagging @bscool because he's just too helpful  You are appreciated good sir


----------



## Groove2013

Groove2013 said:


> this is cores usage (P-cores) I observe while stressing RAM with TestMem5 Anta Absolut with Hyper-Threading disabled on Win 10 21H2 19044.2130.
> 
> is it correct/expected behaviour?
> View attachment 2579553


unlike TM5 and despite Win 10 21H2, Karhu RAM Test puts 100% load on all cores, not only E-cores while P-cores are idling.

So won't use TM5.


----------



## fitnessgrampacertest

tps3443 said:


> Mine had that issue just reinstall CPU-Z. And it’ll fix it. Aida 64 has the same issue, so reinstall that one too.


I uninstalled CPU-Z, cleared the registry, and then reinstalled and its working fine now. It didn't fix AIDA64 though. The memory bus read-out is still looking goofy


----------



## raad11

Memory latency can be somewhat more consistently tested with Userbenchmark I think. The number I got for my 13th gen is comparable (slightly faster than) my 12th gen, same RAM speed, just different CPUs.


----------



## raad11

raad11 said:


> Ok, new problem. Even under high performance power plan, it drops unused cores to 800MHz when they're not being utilized. Is this a problem? My 12900K didn't do this. Sounds like it's one of the C-States. Which one? I can set BIOS to go up to a certain C-State # instead of going to the highest/deepest level.


Ok overall getting the C-States working helps reduce power but the problem remains that it's constantly firing up many P-Cores to full speed for God knows what background processes. Battle.net is still the worst offender in this regard. It just rapidly changes clocks from 6000 to 800 now with Bnet in the background which lowers average everything rather than staying at 6k all the time.

Closing bnet (and/or muting speakers) makes it actually idle at 1100-1400 MHz on P-Cores which is what my 12900K usually did. The 800MHz is just some C-State shut down clock speed, not really an idle.

Don't know if this is a Bnet issue, or CPU ME/BIOS issue, or Win10 22H2 issue.


----------



## Bilco

Falkentyne said:


> Slightly above average chip.
> As long as you are NOT on air cooling, please try to see if you can pass this stress test.
> 
> Cinebench R23: 30 minutes loop "test stability".
> Bios settings:
> 
> P cores: Sync x57
> Actual VRM Vcore Voltage: 1.345v bios set
> Loadline Calibration: LLC level 6.
> VRM Switching frequency: Spread Spectrum Disabled: Sw rate 300-500 khz
> 
> Look for CPU Cache L0 errors or Internal Parity Errors in the bottom of HWinfo sensors window. Or BSOD's.


I'm running a mo-ra3 so it should be able to handle anything ambient the system can throw at it, will do. Would these settings be considered daily driving safe?

Edit: looks like I am having trouble getting it to post with these settings, getting stuck at 64 and 62 sometimes, most of the time 69 with a whitelight lit on the motherboard.

Tried sw rate at 350 and 500... I am running SA at 1.25v, will try auto
Edit2: no go on sa being set to auto, tried setting the all core to 56 and the vcore to 1.365, kept getting stuck at 69 on boot. Also tried enabling spread spectrum.

Set it back to auto voltage and ratio and was able to get back into windows agian.


----------



## raiikd

fitnessgrampacertest said:


> I uninstalled CPU-Z, cleared the registry, and then reinstalled and its working fine now. It didn't fix AIDA64 though. The memory bus read-out is still looking goofy
> View attachment 2579562


Your AIDA64 version is also old that's why it's like that.


----------



## Exilon

raad11 said:


> Ok overall getting the C-States working helps reduce power but the problem remains that it's constantly firing up many P-Cores to full speed for God knows what background processes. Battle.net is still the worst offender in this regard. It just rapidly changes clocks from 6000 to 800 now with Bnet in the background which lowers average everything rather than staying at 6k all the time.
> 
> Closing bnet (and/or muting speakers) makes it actually idle at 1100-1400 MHz on P-Cores which is what my 12900K usually did. The 800MHz is just some C-State shut down clock speed, not really an idle.
> 
> Don't know if this is a Bnet issue, or CPU ME/BIOS issue, or Win10 22H2 issue.


Try efficiency mode in 22H2 task manager. Unfortunately it doesn't persist after restart (yet) so you need a script scheduled to run to keep them down.


----------



## cstkl1

Carillo said:


> Have you been running R23 in loop for two days ? What’s your endgame ? 😅


miner 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. 

because it can be done he did it, 

impressive though


----------



## bhav

cstkl1 said:


> miner 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣.
> 
> because it can be done he did it,
> 
> impressive though


I mean has anyone really pushed their PC much until they start mining?

Mining is fun:


----------



## fitnessgrampacertest

raiikd said:


> Your AIDA64 version is also old that's why it's like that.


Ahah i see. You're a smart cookie. Moral of the story: dont trust the Asus download center to have the latest version. 

Im using AIDA64 v6.80.6200 - The AIDA64 app shows it is up to date now. Can you confirm?


----------



## Falkentyne

Bilco said:


> I'm running a mo-ra3 so it should be able to handle anything ambient the system can throw at it, will do. Would these settings be considered daily driving safe?
> 
> Edit: looks like I am having trouble getting it to post with these settings, getting stuck at 64 and 62 sometimes, most of the time 69 with a whitelight lit on the motherboard.
> 
> Tried sw rate at 350 and 500... I am running SA at 1.25v, will try auto
> Edit2: no go on sa being set to auto, tried setting the all core to 56 and the vcore to 1.365, kept getting stuck at 69 on boot. Also tried enabling spread spectrum.
> 
> Set it back to auto voltage and ratio and was able to get back into windows agian.


What board is this exactly?
Your post history is mad confusing and neither the Apex nor the Extreme have a "350 khz" switching frequency.
"Maybe" the Strix does, I don't know. You keep mentioning both the Strix and Apex in your previous posts. You have no signature and I have no idea what you own.
If this is a Z690 board, you must update the Intel management engine firmware before using a 13900k, which you can get from the first post here.





[FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)


Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)



rog.asus.com




Did you update the Intel management engine on your board?
If this is a dual bios board, both bioses must be updated to the ME manually.
Once you update ME, clear CMOS (unplug PSU cable/PSU back switch first!), delete all saved bios profiles and start from scratch (or just overwrite all saved profiles with the "defaults" given after the clear cmos).
Then you should have absolutely no problems whatsoever trying the stress test (with the Bios set vcore I listed and LLC6, I forgot what I even wrote now).


----------



## tps3443

Team Group and 13900KF Hynix A-Die is a screamer!!

This is only DDR5 7200 OCed to their 7600 profile. Only 1.400V.

Really liking 13th Gen.


----------



## tabbycph2

tps3443 said:


> Team Group and 13900KF Hynix A-Die is a screamer!!
> 
> This is only DDR5 7200 OCed to their 7600 profile. Only 1.400V.
> 
> Really liking 13th Gen.
> 
> View attachment 2579571


Wow, where to buy it ??


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> Team Group and 13900KF Hynix A-Die is a screamer!!
> 
> This is only DDR5 7200 OCed to their 7600 profile. Only 1.400V.
> 
> Really liking 13th Gen.
> 
> View attachment 2579571


Why not run 8000c32? Dimms are good enough.
MB stops you?


----------



## carlhil2

My 13900k with e-cores at 4.5Ghz/ram at 7200..


----------



## carlhil2

Cpu-z


----------



## Addthefun123123

carlhil2 said:


> My 13900k with e-cores at 4.5Ghz/ram at 7200..
> View attachment 2579580
> View attachment 2579581


I've got this same g skill 7200 ram and waiting on my z790 hero. How are the temps and stability on this ram at xmp 7200 profile? People saying no pmic on g skill sticks, same true for this one? Are you able to overclock it or tighten the timings?


----------



## carlhil2

Addthefun123123 said:


> I've got this same g skill 7200 ram and waiting on my z790 hero. How are the temps and stability on this ram at xmp 7200 profile? People saying no pmic on g skill sticks, same true for this one? Are you able to overclock it or tighten the timings?


tightened timings some


----------



## Arni90

bhav said:


> Brah do you even 4K?


If you only care about gaming performance in GPU-limited scenarios, why do you even care about the CPU? Let alone overclocking the CPU



bhav said:


> I mean has anyone really pushed their PC much until they start mining?
> 
> Mining is fun:


A lot of people here have.

Ceterum censeo Bitcoin esse delendam.


----------



## bhav

Arni90 said:


> If you only care about gaming performance in GPU-limited scenarios, why do you even care about the CPU? Let alone overclocking the CPU


Because I can and its fun?

Tell me then, is everyone here with their 13900Ks and 4090s actually running them at 1080p?

If not why do you care about performance in CPU limited scenarios if no one is actually running that?


----------



## Bilco

Falkentyne said:


> What board is this exactly?
> Your post history is mad confusing and neither the Apex nor the Extreme have a "350 khz" switching frequency.
> "Maybe" the Strix does, I don't know. You keep mentioning both the Strix and Apex in your previous posts. You have no signature and I have no idea what you own.
> If this is a Z690 board, you must update the Intel management engine firmware before using a 13900k, which you can get from the first post here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)
> 
> 
> Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you update the Intel management engine on your board?
> If this is a dual bios board, both bioses must be updated to the ME manually.
> Once you update ME, clear CMOS (unplug PSU cable/PSU back switch first!), delete all saved bios profiles and start from scratch (or just overwrite all saved profiles with the "defaults" given after the clear cmos).
> Then you should have absolutely no problems whatsoever trying the stress test (with the Bios set vcore I listed and LLC6, I forgot what I even wrote now).


It's a z690 Apex 2021 release. I did not update the ME firmware until after I read about it and installed the 13900k. I currently reading 16.1.25.1885 in bios. 

In the spread spectrum settings I had the option to disable then manually enter values for cpu power phase Control. 

If I have already installed the ME firmware after the 13900k what is the appropriate sequence to remedy?


----------



## digitalfrost

carlhil2 said:


> Cpu-z


1.2v for 5.5Ghz? Holy efficiency Batman!


----------



## RobertoSampaio

digitalfrost said:


> 1.2v for 5.5Ghz? Holy efficiency Batman!


I believe most 13900K can run full load P-55x/E-43x @ Vcore=1.14v ~1.15v
I can run full laod P-55x/E-46x/R-49x @ 1.137v
I'm talking about Die Sense...


----------



## Exilon

digitalfrost said:


> 1.2v for 5.5Ghz? Holy efficiency Batman!


I'm jealous that his E-cores can do 4.5 at 1.2v
I have to raise my P-cores to 5.6 to get enough Vcore to stabilize E-cores at 4.5 so I can't efficiently run at a perfectly even 5.5GHz P/4.5 GHz E/5.0 GHz Ring for all-core.

Any know what's this bumping up against?








Package power ~230W, VID 1.24v, ICCmax = 400A
I also don't see any cores pulling back from their turbo


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> Why not run 8000c32? Dimms are good enough.
> MB stops you?


I haven’t tried yet. I just fully stabilized 7600 CL36 though on HCI Memtest. Absolutely stable on full coverage with (16) iterations of it. 

I’m new to DDR5 and Z690 I have no idea what I’m doing on this platform and DDR5 is all. What timings and voltage should I start with when testing or trying DDR5 8000?

I am more or less slowly moving my way up through stability, with higher frequencies.


----------



## Ichirou

nickolp1974 said:


> not for a long time!!


No comment.


----------



## Groove2013

this is what my current timings look like at 4300 MHz.

now testing to find lowest tRFC that will do 10000% Karhu.
will also lower tRAS.

can one go past 65565 tREFI with DDR4 on Raptor, like 262K?

also what's tRFCpb (per bank)?
do I have to set it to something or I can leave how it is and does it even do anything?


----------



## bscool

fitnessgrampacertest said:


> Ahah i see. You're a smart cookie. Moral of the story: dont trust the Asus download center to have the latest version.
> 
> Im using AIDA64 v6.80.6200 - The AIDA64 app shows it is up to date now. Can you confirm?


I would recommend find the "key"(pkey.txt) in the Aida install folder and then you can always have it for later use without having to install Amour Crate. I know some like Amour Crate and need it for RGB but I avoid it.

That way you can dowload the portable version of Aida64 and use it on any computer. Also you can set Aida to auto check and update when you run it on the portable version. File, preference, update.






Downloads | AIDA64


Here you can download a free 30-day trial of AIDA64 Extreme and AIDA64 Engineer. During the trial period AIDA64 may offer limited functionality, and may not display all data on the information and benchmark result pages. If you want to evaluate AIDA64 Network Audit or AIDA64 Business, request a...



www.aida64.com


----------



## bscool

Groove2013 said:


> this is what my current timings look like at 4300 MHz.
> 
> now testing to find lowest tRFC that will do 10000% Karhu.
> will also lower tRAS.
> 
> can one go past 65565 tREFI with DDR4 on Raptor, like 262K?
> 
> also what's tRFCpb (per bank)?
> do I have to set it to something or I can leave how it is and does it even do anything?


tRFCpb cant be set from what I have seen on ddr4 MBs. On ddr5 it can though.


----------



## Bilco

Does anyone know if the 12900ks required a bios update for z690 Apex launch day boards? I am trying to update the Intel ME for the 13900k according to instructions which requires both bios on the Apex to be updated. I never touched the second bios.

Right now I am stuck on error code 7F. I thought it was the 4090,so I threw in a 2070 super I had laying around and got no where. Tried clearing cmos, etc. I'd like to avoid tearing the 12600k out of this side system to replace the 12900ks if possible.

Edit: apparently this was the case and used the flashback utility to update. What a friggin hassle


----------



## Ichirou

Groove2013 said:


> this is what my current timings look like at 4300 MHz.
> 
> now testing to find lowest tRFC that will do 10000% Karhu.
> will also lower tRAS.
> 
> can one go past 65565 tREFI with DDR4 on Raptor, like 262K?
> 
> also what's tRFCpb (per bank)?
> do I have to set it to something or I can leave how it is and does it even do anything?


tREFI cannot go above 65536 on DDR4 simply because it's not supported by DDR4. It'll get ignored by the BIOS and rounded down to 65536 implicitly.

tRFCpb is DDR5 only, as bscool says.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> tREFI cannot go above 65536 on DDR4 simply because it's not supported by DDR4. It'll get ignored by the BIOS and rounded down to 65536 implicitly.


See that usually happens and I thought it would happen on the asrock board. So I cant remember the maximum trefi number so I just input 70000 and let it round down to maximum right?

Unrecoverable brick, PC won't turn on again until bios flashback.

Also is it 65536 or 65535 because I'm missing 1 number if its the former.


----------



## Arni90

bhav said:


> Because I can and its fun?
> 
> Tell me then, is everyone here with their 13900Ks and 4090s actually running them at 1080p?
> 
> If not why do you care about performance in CPU limited scenarios if no one is actually running that?


That should be a valid argument, but you seem intent on repeating how the performance difference between 4S8B and 4M16B doesn't matter at 4K. I don't get it.


----------



## Arni90

Ichirou said:


> tREFI cannot go above 65536 on DDR4 simply because it's not supported by DDR4. It'll get ignored by the BIOS and rounded down to 65536 implicitly.
> 
> tRFCpb is DDR5 only, as bscool says.


tREFI can definitely go above 65536 on DDR4.
How do I know? I benchmarked the difference in PYPrime and SuperPI

**** AIDA64, your time would be better spent reading your daily horoscope than running ****ing AIDA64


----------



## Groove2013

Groove2013 said:


> this is what my current timings look like at 4300 MHz.
> 
> now testing to find lowest tRFC that will do 10000% Karhu.
> will also lower tRAS.
> 
> can one go past 65565 tREFI with DDR4 on Raptor, like 262K?
> 
> also what's tRFCpb (per bank)?
> do I have to set it to something or I can leave how it is and does it even do anything?


simply set SA to 1.275 and VDDQ TX 1.475

haven't tried lower. maybe even lower than that would be enough, for Karhu.

I'm anyways only testing frequency and timings.

Will test for needed voltages with Prime95, later. maybe what I set now will have to go higher or will even be enough for Prime95. we will see.

VDIMM is 1.6, because my 2×16 Trident Z Neo 3800 14-16-16-36 1.5 from Jan. 2021 refuse to do more than that.

have tried several RAM kits of 4000 14-14 1.55, 4000 16-16 1.4, 3600 14-14 1.45 and 4400 17-18 1.4 and my 3800 14-16 1.5 kit is not worse in timings and not worse and often better in max voltage, so I kept it and got rid of all the others.
just that it doesn't like tRCD to be same as tCL/tRP.

_*with SA 1.3 and higher and VDDQ TX 1.5 and higher, I was unable to even boot, sometimes and quickly errors, at least while using TestMem5 Absolut.*_


----------



## Groove2013

Arni90 said:


> tREFI can definitely go above 65536 on DDR4.
> How do I know? I benchmarked the difference in PYPrime and SuperPI


will try to do more than 65K tREFI, once I finish with tRFC.


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> I believe most 13900K can run full load P-55x/E-43x @ Vcore=1.14v ~1.15v
> I can run full laod P-55x/E-46x/R-49x @ 1.137v
> I'm talking about Die Sense...


No, not true.
I already saw one person on this very thread a few pages back who needed 1.18v (load die-sense) to pass Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes without BSOD/WHEA. (and his P-core SP is 113, same as mine, very very bizarre). And a second person who needed 1.16v load.

1.14-1.15v pass is above average CPU (>55%).
Passing 1.128v or lower is good to golden.
Mine requires 1.137v for reliable pass (1.128v doesn't always make it 30min).


----------



## bhav

Arni90 said:


> That should be a valid argument, but you seem intent on repeating how the performance difference between 4S8B and 4M16B doesn't matter at 4K. I don't get it.


Look, I don't care what anyone else uses their PC for or what they buy, nor if they actually get a difference with £500 ram or whatever CPU they have purchased.

What keeps happening is people keep questioning my purchases, and I simply tell them 'I don't need DDR5 yet because it doesn't do enough for me yet', and then everyone starts showing me 1080p results to go 'hahaha ur wrong' when I am running at 4k and previously 1440p for like what 6 or 7 years now?

My point is that 1080p results are meaningless unless that is the resolution you play at, and a 13900k and 4090 aren't even meant to be for 1080p use, you can get 200+ FPS on an I5 and 3060 Ti at 1080p if thats the only metric being used to compare performance.


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> I haven’t tried yet. I just fully stabilized 7600 CL36 though on HCI Memtest. Absolutely stable on full coverage with (16) iterations of it.
> 
> I’m new to DDR5 and Z690 I have no idea what I’m doing on this platform and DDR5 is all. What timings and voltage should I start with when testing or trying DDR5 8000?
> 
> I am more or less slowly moving my way up through stability, with higher frequencies.


34-46-46-32
560 trfc
Trefi max
1.65v vdd 1.6v vddq
Auto MC
SA +0.30 offset
Fastboot = off in bios
Good luck


----------



## Bilco

Falkentyne said:


> No, not true.
> I already saw one person on this very thread a few pages back who needed 1.18v (load die-sense) to pass Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes without BSOD/WHEA. (and his P-core SP is 113, same as mine, very very bizarre). And a second person who needed 1.16v load.
> 
> 1.14-1.15v pass is above average CPU (>55%).
> Passing 1.128v or lower is good to golden.
> Mine requires 1.137v for reliable pass (1.128v doesn't always make it 30min).


So I've updated both bios, running ME 16.1.25.2020, reset cmos and loaded optimized defaults,killed psu power for a few mins. I set all the ram setting bakc to default and was able to get past code 62... Maybe sa of 1.25 wasn't* enough?
I had vdd/vddq at 1.45 and transmitter at 1.35.

Running the g.skill 6400c32 hynix kits.

Got like 5 cycles into r23 and got 4 internal errors, 1 L0, and 3 TLB, r23 eventually crashed before the next run. This was at 1.36vcore. Temps only had a chance to get around 87C. Looks like during the test the vcore dropped to 1.243v in hwinfo.

Edit 2: set llc to 6,didn't change vcire. Vxore in hwinfo now reporting 1.296 under load, got to the 4 minute mark before an internal error popped up where temps creeped up to 84-100c spread across cores. At min in one L0 error.

What advice do you have for moving forward?
Is there a way to offset the vdroop under load for llc6 to get it near 1.3v? Or is this pointless as I am getting near 96+c on several cores with llc6 1.296 load vcore and seeing errors?


----------



## Falkentyne

Bilco said:


> So I've updated both bios, running ME 16.1.25.2020, reset cmos and loaded optimized defaults,killed psu power for a few mins. I set all the ram setting bakc to default and was able to get past code 62... Maybe sa of 1.25 wasn't* enough?
> I had vdd/vddq at 1.45 and transmitter at 1.35.
> 
> Running the g.skill 6400c32 hynix kits.
> 
> Got like 5 cycles into r23 and got 4 internal errors, 1 L0, and 3 TLB, r23 eventually crashed before the next run. This was at 1.36vcore. Temps only had a chance to get around 87C. Looks like during the test the vcore dropped to 1.243v in hwinfo.
> 
> Edit 2: set llc to 6,didn't change vcire. Vxore in hwinfo now reporting 1.296 under load, got to the 4 minute mark before an internal error popped up where temps creeped up to 84-100c spread across cores. At min in one L0 error.
> 
> What advice do you have for moving forward?
> Is there a way to offset the vdroop under load for llc6 to get it near 1.3v? Or is this pointless as I am getting near 96+c on several cores with llc6 1.296 load vcore and seeing errors?


Please don't ask me about overclocking memory. Ask the others. I am not a memory overclocker, sorry, I have micron RAM. You do know how "good" micron RAM is on DDR5, don't you?

What CPU is this? 
Is this a 13900k or 13700k?
13900k should be able to do 5.7 ghz on P cores at such a high load voltage, even on mediocre (<Pcore 105 SP) chips.
What CPU P-core multiplier are you running? x56 or x57?

if this is x55 and you are failing like this, RMA the CPU--it's defective. (1.360v bios set + LLC6?)


----------



## Bilco

Falkentyne said:


> Please don't ask me about overclocking memory. Ask the others. I am not a memory overclocker, sorry, I have micron RAM. You do know how "good" micron RAM is on DDR5, don't you?


It was XMP settings with altered voltages, for some reason it wasn't letting me get past 62/64/69 bios codes. After the reset, XMP auto seems to be working now. Thought maybe you might know why I was having this issue with basically XMP profile set up. I seemed to resolve this.




Falkentyne said:


> What CPU is this?
> Is this a 13900k or 13700k?
> 13900k should be able to do 5.7 ghz on P cores at such a high load voltage, even on mediocre (<Pcore 105 SP) chips.
> What CPU P-core multiplier are you running? x56 or x57?
> 
> if this is x55 and you are failing like this, RMA the CPU--it's defective. (1.360v bios set + LLC6?)


13900k P110. x57 as you stated. 

Doing 1.345-1.37vcore llc6 seemed to crash r23 fairly quickly or bsod. We're talking a run or two. Temps never really had a chance to get above 80c

1.36vcore llc7 I can run r23 for about 5 minutes before it stops I get 1 internal and 1 L0 error then r23 closes. Temps hit 100c for a minute or two before the errors happen. Seems maybe I have bad contact. have an EK vector WB with 2 d5pumps on a MO-RA3.


----------



## cstkl1

fitnessgrampacertest said:


> Ahah i see. You're a smart cookie. Moral of the story: dont trust the Asus download center to have the latest version.
> 
> Im using AIDA64 v6.80.6200 - The AIDA64 app shows it is up to date now. Can you confirm?


dowhload one time via armoury crate
go to the program folder
copy the pkey.txt ( if i recall correctly)
uninstall it. use armory crate uninstaller

and download the latest aida. i prefer portable. put thr txt file before in that new aida folder
done.


----------



## LiquidHaus

Who's rocking a 13900K with an ASRock Z690 motherboard by chance?


----------



## bhav

LiquidHaus said:


> Who's rocking a 13900K with an ASRock Z690 motherboard by chance?


Which Asrock Z690 might I ask?


----------



## Falkentyne

Bilco said:


> It was XMP settings with altered voltages, for some reason it wasn't letting me get past 62/64/69 bios codes. After the reset, XMP auto seems to be working now. Thought maybe you might know why I was having this issue with basically XMP profile set up. I seemed to resolve this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 13900k P110. x57 as you stated.
> 
> Doing 1.345-1.37vcore llc6 seemed to crash r23 fairly quickly or bsod. We're talking a run or two. Temps never really had a chance to get above 80c
> 
> 1.36vcore llc7 I can run r23 for about 5 minutes before it stops I get 1 internal and 1 L0 error then r23 closes. Temps hit 100c for a minute or two before the errors happen. Seems maybe I have bad contact. have an EK vector WB with 2 d5pumps on a MO-RA3.


Ok sorry I couldn't keep track of all of this. I've been busy studying chess all day. I kept seeing x55 or I thought I kept seeing x55 or maybe that was x55 with failed XMP, i dunno.
And I know nothing about XMP problems. I'm on a Z790 Maximus Extreme with the most generic RAM possible.
And then this.






Anyway your results seem pretty typical of a P-core 110 lotto CPU, unfortunately.
I saw another P110 CPU that could pass R23 at 5.7 at 1.252v load (die sense), I think it was someone else in this thread recently, maybe Chavez or whatever his name was?
Yeah these chips get massively hard to cool once you pass 1.25v load even on custom loops. You pretty much have to go sub ambient or delid the chip, or if you're rich enough, try your luck on another one.


----------



## TheHoodedPortal

I dont seem to have the greatest bin CPU 5.6P 4.4E 5.0R 1.39V LLC6 (asus) for what i would consider daily stable.


----------



## Bilco

Falkentyne said:


> Ok sorry I couldn't keep track of all of this. I've been busy studying chess all day. I kept seeing x55 or I thought I kept seeing x55 or maybe that was x55 with failed XMP, i dunno.
> And I know nothing about XMP problems. I'm on a Z790 Maximus Extreme with the most generic RAM possible.
> And then this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway your results seem pretty typical of a P-core 110 lotto CPU, unfortunately.
> I saw another P110 CPU that could pass R23 at 5.7 at 1.252v load (die sense), I think it was someone else in this thread recently, maybe Chavez or whatever his name was?
> Yeah these chips get massively hard to cool once you pass 1.25v load even on custom loops. You pretty much have to go sub ambient or delid the chip, or if you're rich enough, try your luck on another one.


Thanks and good to know, I strongly considering delidding and adding a contact frame as that should get me the 10C needed for 5.7.


----------



## sugi0lover

My friend asked me to do this bench with my 13900K, 8000 c32 & 4090.
Here is the replay file if you want to test.





PUBG Replay.zip







drive.google.com





[Testing Method and Option]
○ warming up from 15:00 to 16:00 / benching from 16:00 to 23:52 per my friend's request

Resoultion : 2560 x 1440 (QHD)
Option : Ultra
: Result : Avg 411.1 / Min 263.9 / Max 506.5 / 1% Low 285.3 / 0.1% Low 220.0

[PC setup]
○ CPU : 13900K / P Cores 6.0Ghz / E Cores off / Cache 5.0Ghz 
○ VGA : RTX 4090 (watercooled & liquid metal applied)
○ Ram OC : 8000-32-45-45-30-470-2T
○ MB : Z790 Apex
○ Cooling : MO-RA3 420 PRO + Noctua NF-A14 Industrial / only mora out on balcony


----------



## imrevoau

bscool said:


> i think it will get better with bios updates. I remember some of the first bioses for z690 ddr4/12th gen I couldnt boot past 3600.
> 
> There is no way it should be as hard as it is for me to boot past 3600 on mine either. Takes very specific setting were the better 12h gen bios my voltages could swing quite a bit either way and still boot 4000+. But I know my 13th gens IMC is not as good as some I see people running y cruncher 4300c15-15-15- [email protected] 1.35 sa I cant even boot 4300 at that let alone run y cruncher.


I also have a lot of issues booting certain settings. Changing even one small thing can make my PC refuse to POST. Like for instance 4133 c15 is stable on my chip, but even 4266 c17 wont BOOT (but 4300 has booted on this chip when I first installed it) it's really funky


----------



## raad11

Exilon said:


> Try efficiency mode in 22H2 task manager. Unfortunately it doesn't persist after restart (yet) so you need a script scheduled to run to keep them down.
> 
> View attachment 2579566


Damn, maybe I should finally upgrade to Win11 on my main...


bhav said:


> Because I can and its fun?
> 
> Tell me then, is everyone here with their 13900Ks and 4090s actually running them at 1080p?
> 
> If not why do you care about performance in CPU limited scenarios if no one is actually running that?


I'm running at 1080 

I run Overwatch 2 on all ultra at framecap (600fps), though it has its dips.


----------



## bhav

raad11 said:


> Damn, maybe I should finally upgrade to Win11 on my main...
> 
> I'm running at 1080
> 
> I run Overwatch 2 on all ultra at framecap (600fps), though it has its dips.


You do know that frames over your refresh rate don't do anything I hope.


----------



## raad11

bhav said:


> You do know that frames over your refresh rate don't do anything I hope.


Just lower input lag on the mouse. I have a 360Hz monitor, I ran OW1 at 358fps, 360Hz, G-Sync. Setting it all at 600 definitely feels different though looks virtually the same (tearing makes a difference in that it appears as just blurriness or "not clear" on some fine details when looking around, but everything on Ultra details seems to mitigate that a bit).


----------



## PBaF

I decided gaming performance was all that mattered to me and took my allegedly good P-SP 13900K full throttle. 

60x, 60x, 60x, 58x, 58x, 58x, 58x, 58x. 44x Ecores.
1.49-1.50v die sense. Max package temp 83C. Max wattage while gaming 160-170W, Avg 90-130W. 

2334 CB R23 single core. I basically already have a 13900KS.


----------



## raad11

PBaF said:


> I decided gaming performance was all that mattered to me and took my allegedly good P-SP 13900K full throttle.
> 
> 60x, 60x, 60x, 58x, 58x, 58x, 58x, 58x. 44x Ecores.
> 1.49-1.50v die sense. Max package temp 83C. Max wattage while gaming 160-170W, Avg 90-130W.
> 
> 2334 CB R23 single core. I basically already have a 13900KS.


What's the wattage at full load and temps?


----------



## Wolverine2349

I just started my 13900K and e-cores of course disabled. I get P core SP score of 107 and e core SP score of 80.

Overall SP score of 98.

Using LLC 6 and VCORE even up to 1.35r at 5.6GHz all core, it fails OCCT after 5-10 minutes with a WHEA errors or errors on certain cores.

Went down to 5.5GHz and 1.25VCORE and it failed but took longer.

Now trying 1.275VCORE LLC6 to see if it is better.

How are my SP scores. They seem middle of road I believe??


----------



## PBaF

raad11 said:


> What's the wattage at full load and temps?


Just played a round of invasion in COD MW2 (2022), the most demanding game mode to get you some numbers.

Max 84C, Avg 75C CPU package temp
Max 213W, Avg 196W CPU package power
1.474v Avg vcore.


----------



## Exilon

What kind of deltaT over coolant are you seeing on 13900K without a delid? I'm getting 55C at 253W (so 86C over 31C) which seems to be the same as my 12900K despite the larger die area.


----------



## Betroz

PBaF said:


> Just played a round of invasion in COD MW2 (2022), the most demanding game mode to get you some numbers.
> 
> Max 84C, Avg 75C CPU package temp
> Max 213W, Avg 196W CPU package power
> *1.474v Avg vcore.*


You don't want your CPU to live long I see


----------



## PBaF

Betroz said:


> You don't want your CPU to live long I see


----------



## lolhaxz

13900K - SP105 115P / 88E

All auto - except Best case scenario SVID and LLC5

30 minutes Prime95 SmallFFT non-AVX @ 55x P and 43x E and 45x Cache (just MCE defaults)... approx 1.15v die-sense, can go abit lower but next step to go up voltage/frequency


----------



## Groove2013

@Falkentyne how much higher +- is the voltage reported (in mV) on a Strix that doesn't have DIE sense vs. a Hero/Apex?


----------



## HemuV2

Guys, I've an aorus elite AX z690, it doesn't have any of these sensors like vrout, die sense etc that you guys talk about, all i see it vcore, infact even the current in amps doesn't show on my HWinfo. So i decided to get a z690 strix D4 which i will use for my 13900K, what should do to make sure it reports correct SP? And how to i calculate die sense on these boards? Also can someone tell what boards from msi/asus/aorus show this die sense info? Rn i have a 12700KF sitting in the aorus board.
@Nizzen @Ichirou


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Falkentyne said:


> Please don't ask me about overclocking memory. Ask the others. I am not a memory overclocker, sorry, I have micron RAM. You do know how "good" micron RAM is on DDR5, don't you?
> 
> What CPU is this?
> Is this a 13900k or 13700k?
> 13900k should be able to do 5.7 ghz on P cores at such a high load voltage, even on mediocre (<Pcore 105 SP) chips.
> What CPU P-core multiplier are you running? x56 or x57?
> 
> if this is x55 and you are failing like this, RMA the CPU--it's defective. (1.360v bios set + LLC6?)


This is the lowest I can go with a x55 on all P Cores, E Cores auto, under a Corsair H150i Elite 360mm.


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> Guys, I've an aorus elite AX z690, it doesn't have any of these sensors like vrout, die sense etc that you guys talk about, all i see it vcore, infact even the current in amps doesn't show on my HWinfo. So i decided to get a z690 strix D4 which i will use for my 13900K, what should do to make sure it reports correct SP? And how to i calculate die sense on these boards? Also can someone tell what boards from msi/asus/aorus show this die sense info? Rn i have a 12700KF sitting in the aorus board.
> @Nizzen @Ichirou


Pinging @Falkentyne


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Another find on eBay, found Z690 Formula for £160 (won bid war). Says it's working, only lights next to ROG logo next to SATA ports is damaged. As new with plastics on otherwise and boxed.

I will use it if I can sort it properly


----------



## chentj1988

lolhaxz said:


> 13900K - SP105 115P / 88E
> 
> All auto - except Best case scenario SVID and LLC5
> 
> 30 minutes Prime95 SmallFFT non-AVX @ 55x P and 43x E and 45x Cache (just MCE defaults)... approx 1.15v die-sense, can go abit lower but next step to go up voltage/frequency
> 
> 
> View attachment 2579698


lol I have the exact same SP 105 with same P and E core Sp. My Vcore load is same as yours too at 1.15v @ 5.5ghz 😂


----------



## lolhaxz

Trying cache now ... can't seem to go any higher than 49x no matter what the ratio is set to... I presume this means the VID it wants for cache is higher than the P/E cores? (although it's the highest of the three right? any of them should win i'd have thought)

And any hints for the E-cores next, I never bother tuning them with the 12900K... seems more worthwhile this time around.


----------



## lolhaxz

chentj1988 said:


> lol I have the exact same SP 105 with same P and E core Sp. My Vcore load is same as yours too at 1.15v @ 5.5ghz 😂


You should save me some time and give me max clocks 

TBH my experience on THIS and the 12900K has been following SVID exactly (ie, offset mode for Cache, L2, Core and Actual) at LLC 5 or 6 tends to result in perfect stability (for trivial non-AVX P95 etc i mean, AVX different story), so long as you can cool the damn thing.


----------



## dante`afk

raad11 said:


> What's the wattage at full load and temps?


He can’t measure that as a full load benchmark would never run with these settings


----------



## bhav

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Another find on eBay, found Z690 Formula for £160 (won bid war). Says it's working, only lights next to ROG logo next to SATA ports is damaged. As new with plastics on otherwise and boxed.
> 
> I will use it if I can sort it properly
> View attachment 2579712


I mean whats even the point when brand new ones are around the same price now?


----------



## Xiph

schoolofmonkey said:


> This is the lowest I can go with a x55 on all P Cores, E Cores auto, under a Corsair H150i Elite 360mm.


You are not stable with this. There is whea error.


----------



## Groove2013

Arni90 said:


> tREFI can definitely go above 65536 on DDR4.
> How do I know? I benchmarked the difference in PYPrime and SuperPI





Groove2013 said:


> will try to do more than 65K tREFI, once I finish with tRFC.


impossible to stabilize anything above 65565 tREFI, even if it's just 1K higher than 65565.
but I can boot with 262260 and run different benchmarks and they definitely show a measureable improvement. but is's so tiny, that it is even impossible to notice, unless you precisely look at benchmark numbers.

I now remember that I already tried 262260 tREFI on my 12900KS with DDR4 and was also impossible to stabilize any value above 65565 back then.


----------



## Groove2013

final timings/frequency, if tRAS 16 makes it to 10000% Karhu (~4 hrs). tRAS 15 provoked an error after 1 h of Karhu.

I know that, apparently, tRAS 28 is the minimum and anything below gets reset(?) to 28, but I like it when it's lower, since it shows it and performance isn't worse (vs. 28).

was same with tRAS on my 11900K and 12900KS. tRAS was 15 for 4000 MHz 14-15-14.

@PhoenixMDA what are your absolutely stable timings currently?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Groove2013 said:


> final timings/frequency, if tRAS 16 makes it to 10000% Karhu (~4 hrs). tRAS 15 provoked an error after 1 h of Karhu.
> 
> I know that, apparently, tRAS 28 is the minimum and anything below gets reset(?) to 28, but I like it when it's lower, since it shows it and performance isn't worse (vs. 28).
> 
> was same with tRAS on my 11900K and 12900KS. tRAS was 15 for 4000 MHz 14-15-14.
> 
> @PhoenixMDA what are your absolutely stable timings currently?


I have testet the ingame performance what is good and that was i think the best, i don´t have testet anymore because i don´t want drive higher VDimm=MC/IVR_TX_VDDQ Voltage.
The performance is good, i can thighten more some timings but it bring like nothing or slower ingame.
One week stable for me without issue´s, i´m glad with that and let it so.

The voltage are in green area for 24/7 by good performance.


----------



## Raphie

trefi is overrated, just like SA voltage degradation and other urban legends. Don't believe the hype, trust your benchmark numbers.


----------



## bhav

PhoenixMDA said:


> One week stable for me without issue´s, i´m glad with that and let it so.


Just to point out I've had ram overclocks that looked 24/7 stable, but still bsod just 1-2 times a month with daily use.



Raphie said:


> trefi is overrated, just like SA voltage and other urban legends.


I do hope this is a joke.


----------



## Rbk_3

PBaF said:


> Just played a round of invasion in COD MW2 (2022), the most demanding game mode to get you some numbers.
> 
> Max 84C, Avg 75C CPU package temp
> Max 213W, Avg 196W CPU package power
> 1.474v Avg vcore.


You getting stutters in MW2 a handful of times a game? I will going a smooth 300 and get a split second stutter. When I have a frametime graph up it shows as a massive frametime spike. 13900K/4090.


----------



## Groove2013

.


----------



## Nizzen

Rbk_3 said:


> You getting stutters in MW2 a handful of times a game? I will going a smooth 300 and get a split second stutter. When I have a frametime graph up it shows as a massive frametime spike. 13900K/4090.


*Latest NVIDIA drivers cause problems in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

"We've noticed some stability issues with the latest NVIDIA drivers 526.47 on Call of Duty #MWII. For now we'd suggest you keep the 516.59, or 522.25 drivers. "*


----------



## Raphie

bhav said:


> Just to point out I've had ram overclocks that looked 24/7 stable, but still bsod just 1-2 times a month with daily use.
> 
> 
> 
> I do hope this is a joke.


Nope, no joke, beyond 65635 diminishing (virtually no) returns and corruption lies around the corner.


----------



## bhav

Raphie said:


> Nope, no joke, beyond 65635 diminishing (virtually no) returns and corruption lies around the corner.


I was actually talking about the SA voltage part.

Also as already repeatedly stated, 65535 is the highest DDR4 can go. Is it any wonder you get corruption when you ignore this advice and try to set further?

You do realise the default for this setting is meant to be like 8192? And 8192 to 65535 is like a huge difference?


----------



## don1376

Arni90 said:


> I'm not the same guy, but I thought I could add some results to confuse you.
> I have a Z690 Unify-X. Setting socket sense voltage with AC and DC loadline set to 1 and auto VCore raises VID from 1.265V to 1.335V at 55x ratio, which seems strange. I also don't see nearly as much VDroop with VCC Sense at LLC5 as the listed values, it's closer to 0.1 mOhm for me.
> 
> My BIOS reported CPU Force to be 131. I have attached a picture of my box with serial number as well, feel free to ask your contact if it's a good sample or not.


I run llc5 and for my 13900k, 23 ac_llc and 68 dc_llc seems to work best on Unify X. 1.32v set in bios and get drop to 1.29v under full load. Max temp all core 57 is 83c.

Vcc sense, cpu force rating 153


----------



## Raphie

As well, degradation does not exist. System was probably never stable in the first place, or deviation between BIOS revisions.
There is NO evidence whatsoever that 1.1 for example runs better than 1.395 Other than some users blaming it for their failed memory OC.
It's a sheeple online community myth.


----------



## bhav

Raphie said:


> As well, degradation does not exist. System was probably never stable in the first place, or deviation between BIOS revisions.
> There is NO evidence whatsoever that 1.1 for example runs better than 1.395 Other than some users blaming it for their failed memory OC.
> It's a sheeple online community myth.


Wait, so the problem is you're running DDR5 and doing DDR4 overclocking advice on it, then claiming it doesn't work? 🤣

Wait until you discover that ram timings have no effect on your benchmark numbers as well!


----------



## Raphie

No, I'm not
TREFI is a thing on DDR5 too, SA same thing.


----------



## bhav

Raphie said:


> No, I'm not
> TREFI is a thing on DDR5 too, SA same thing.


SA barely does a thing, if anything at all for DDR5, as proven by the locked SA non K chips.

You can still get 7000+ DDR5 on 0.95v SA on the same chip that will not stabilize 3600 DDR4.

A lot of these things have far less impact on DDR5 than DDR4. The reverse is often the case with VDDQ voltage, this mainly helps DDR5 overclocking much more than SA voltage does, while doing very little for DDR4.


----------



## Groove2013

PhoenixMDA said:


> I have testet the ingame performance what is good and that was i think the best, i don´t have testet anymore because i don´t want drive higher VDimm=MC/IVR_TX_VDDQ Voltage.
> The performance is good, i can thighten more some timings but it bring like nothing or slower ingame.
> One week stable for me without issue´s, i´m glad with that and let it so.
> 
> The voltage are in green area for 24/7 by good performance.
> 1
> View attachment 2579745


I'm sorry, but there is no way your RAM OC is stable.
if you try something else other than TM5 Default @1usmus_v3 and not just 18 min, it won't survive.

tREFI 262K is impossible to stabilize.
anything higher than 65565 can't pass a goo RAM stress test.
also not sure about your tRCD 15, but maybe your sticks can do it.

tRDRD_sg 5 and tWRWR_sg 5 also look like impossible to survive a proper RAM test.

isn't tFAW 16 better than 18 on your screenshot and also tRAS 28 instead of 36?

have never seen tWR 10 with tRRD_L 5.

I think that less than 1.3 V SA and less than 1.44 V VDDQ TX might be possible.


----------



## Wolverine2349

My 13900K e-cores disabled, I just tried LLC6 1.275V and even 1.3 and it froze in OCCT after like 5 minutes even at 5.5GHz

Leaving everything auto it seems ok at 5.5GHz for longer so far.

7200MHZ 32GB G.Skill Trident Z stable at XMP settings 34-45-45-115


----------



## imrevoau

Anyone got tips to try and get 4266 stable? I'm not an expert at RAM OC. Maybe it's just out of reach for my IMC though. Currently running 1.35 SA and VDDQ.


----------



## bhav

imrevoau said:


> Anyone got tips to try and get 4266 stable? I'm not an expert at RAM OC. Maybe it's just out of reach for my IMC though. Currently running 1.35 SA and VDDQ.
> 
> View attachment 2579757


When scanning for max frequency, don't run tight timings. Find which frequency you can stabilize first before tuning the timings. 4266 is a stretch for G1, if it doesn't work, nothing much anyone can do to make it work.


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> When scanning for max frequency, don't run tight timings. Find which frequency you can stabilize first before tuning the timings. 4266 is a stretch for G1, if it doesn't work, nothing much anyone can do to make it work.


Yeah I've gotten 4300 c16 to post before, but now even 4266 won't post most of the time, even if i run flat 18s. This is confusing to me.


----------



## bscool

.


imrevoau said:


> Anyone got tips to try and get 4266 stable? I'm not an expert at RAM OC. Maybe it's just out of reach for my IMC though. Currently running 1.35 SA and VDDQ.
> 
> View attachment 2579757


What memory are you using. It will take some good sticks to do 4266c16-16-16+

What dram voltage are you using? Probably need 1.55 to 1.6v depending on memory bin.

Might need more than 1.35 sa/vddq.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

bhav said:


> Just to point out I've had ram overclocks that looked 24/7 stable, but still bsod just 1-2 times a month with daily use.
> 
> 
> 
> I do hope this is a joke.


You can say it´s stable if you have over a month using no problems, the most important thing is that it´s it must be stable in 24/7.
Nothing is more frustrating as you want to use your PC and it don´t work, bring error´s or push you out of a game^^.

The good thing is, it´s much more easier to OC 13900k in Gear1 as the ramoc at CML, there was much more setting´s necessary and
really good HW at all for [email protected]+ in really stable with B-DIE.


----------



## Rbk_3

Nizzen said:


> *Latest NVIDIA drivers cause problems in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
> 
> "We've noticed some stability issues with the latest NVIDIA technology drivers 526.47 on Call of Duty #MWII. For now we'd suggest you keep the 516.59, or 522.25 drivers. "*


Yea I am on


Nizzen said:


> *Latest NVIDIA drivers cause problems in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
> 
> "We've noticed some stability issues with the latest NVIDIA drivers 526.47 on Call of Duty #MWII. For now we'd suggest you keep the 516.59, or 522.25 drivers. "*


I’ve always been on 522. It this doesn’t fix the intermittent frame drops. It fixes the flickering issue though


----------



## imrevoau

bscool said:


> .
> 
> What memory are you using. It will take some good sticks to do 4266c16-16-16+
> 
> How dram voltage are you using? Probably need 1.55 to 1.6v depending on memory bin.
> 
> Might need more than 1.35 sa/vddq.


They're G-Skill Trident Z 4000-c17-18-18-38 B Die. 1.5 DRAM. more VDDQ and DRAM didn't do much. I think I might be at the limit, but again I have posted 4300 so idk why it's such a nightmare now. Maybe just have to be pleased with what I got.


----------



## bscool

imrevoau said:


> They're G-Skill Trident Z 4000-c17-18-18-38 B Die. 1.5 DRAM. more VDDQ and DRAM didn't do much. I think I might be at the limit, but again I have posted 4300 so idk why it's such a nightmare now. Maybe just have to be pleased with what I got.


Yeah getting the rigth timings and voltage is what it took for me on Strix d4 to boot 4300+ consitently.

Manually setting tCWL(i had been leaving it on auto) 1 tick lower than tCL helped a lot. Not sure if it will help you on MSI.

Edit also I found setting all timings manually and tight was easier to get stable than trying to run looser/auto timings.


----------



## raad11

dante`afk said:


> He can’t measure that as a full load benchmark would never run with these settings


It could if he used TVB to downbin at full load. I have similar settings but it drops to 57x, 56x as temps go over 70 C. Idle voltage (like on Windows desktop or very light loads) is in the 1.4-1.5 range. Obviously drops at high power loads.


----------



## bhav

PhoenixMDA said:


> You can say it´s stable if you have over a month using no problems, the most important thing is that it´s it must be stable in 24/7.
> Nothing is more frustrating as you want to use your PC and it don´t work, bring error´s or push you out of a game^^.
> 
> The good thing is, it´s much more easier to OC 13900k in Gear1 as the ramoc at CML, there was much more setting´s necessary and
> really good HW at all for [email protected]+ in really stable with B-DIE.


Yep this is the most frustrating thing. Overclock ram, everything looks fine, in the middle of an MMO raid, PC bsods.


----------



## raad11

I'm still debating whether or not to turn up VDDQ and see if I can try higher frequencies. SA is at 1.35v right now. But concerned about degradation after all this talk of it here. Though my 12900K didn't degrade at 1.4+v for a year.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PBaF said:


> I decided gaming performance was all that mattered to me and took my allegedly good P-SP 13900K full throttle.
> 
> 60x, 60x, 60x, 58x, 58x, 58x, 58x, 58x. 44x Ecores.
> 1.49-1.50v die sense. Max package temp 83C. Max wattage while gaming 160-170W, Avg 90-130W.
> 
> 2334 CB R23 single core. I basically already have a 13900KS.


With this voltage, i think you can try
P-62x2 - 60x4 - 58x8
E- 48x4 - 47x8 - 45x16
R- 54~49
Or just add +2boot OCTVB


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Groove2013 said:


> final timings/frequency, if tRAS 16 makes it to 10000% Karhu (~4 hrs). tRAS 15 provoked an error after 1 h of Karhu.
> 
> I know that, apparently, tRAS 28 is the minimum and anything below gets reset(?) to 28, but I like it when it's lower, since it shows it and performance isn't worse (vs. 28).
> 
> was same with tRAS on my 11900K and 12900KS. tRAS was 15 for 4000 MHz 14-15-14.
> 
> @PhoenixMDA what are your absolutely stable timings currently?


How much difference would you see with gear 2 if you could push 5000mts…is gear 1 that much better? I’m running z490 and don’t have the option but thinking about an upgrade. I already get mid-high 6xxxx and <=36ns latency at flat 16s 4400. I wanted to get this board or the msi edge to see if I could push 5000.


----------



## cptclutch

Would sub 1.3v under load in cinebench be relatively safe long term? Or should I be aiming more around 1.25v.


----------



## tubs2x4

PhoenixMDA said:


> I have testet the ingame performance what is good and that was i think the best, i don´t have testet anymore because i don´t want drive higher VDimm=MC/IVR_TX_VDDQ Voltage.
> The performance is good, i can thighten more some timings but it bring like nothing or slower ingame.
> One week stable for me without issue´s, i´m glad with that and let it so.
> 
> The voltage are in green area for 24/7 by good performance.
> View attachment 2579745


For a 13900k 64s seems little slow? Or what am I missing?


----------



## sew333

Hi. Is any sense to change from 12900K to 13900K? I am on 1440P. Also saw big differences (50fps ) in Far Cry6 on 1080P in youtube reviews.


----------



## Falkentyne

schoolofmonkey said:


> This is the lowest I can go with a x55 on all P Cores, E Cores auto, under a Corsair H150i Elite 360mm.


This isn't the correct screenshot.
Why is your load voltage 1.288v and an idle voltage of 1.332v? 213 amps at 1.288v? Something doesn't fit here. At that vcore, what did you even run? If this is really what you need for 5.5 ghz this chip is defective--RMA it and buy another.
And why do you have a CPU Cache L0 error ? This error means you are not stable.
Why are two of your cores downclocked to 800 mhz?
Post your bios settings (CPU Vcore set, vcore mode used, LLC, die or socket sense) and please disable c-states in advanced cpu configuration and post what tests you are running because this SS makes no sense.
Your VID shows a low of 1.19v and your vcore is nowhere remotely close to that.


----------



## Ichirou

Groove2013 said:


> I'm sorry, but there is no way your RAM OC is stable.
> if you try something else other than TM5 Default @1usmus_v3 and not just 18 min, it won't survive.
> 
> tREFI 262K is impossible to stabilize.
> anything higher than 65565 can't pass a goo RAM stress test.
> also not sure about your tRCD 15, but maybe your sticks can do it.
> 
> tRDRD_sg 5 and tWRWR_sg 5 also look like impossible to survive a proper RAM test.
> 
> isn't tFAW 16 better than 18 on your screenshot and also tRAS 28 instead of 36?
> 
> have never seen tWR 10 with tRRD_L 5.
> 
> I think that less than 1.3 V SA and less than 1.44 V VDDQ TX might be possible.


tREFI is temp-limited, so you'd need to throw the DIMMs under water to push it well above 65536.

tWRWR and tRDRD at 5 requires a lot more VCCSA.


raad11 said:


> I'm still debating whether or not to turn up VDDQ and see if I can try higher frequencies. SA is at 1.35v right now. But concerned about degradation after all this talk of it here. Though my 12900K didn't degrade at 1.4+v for a year.


Max 1.35V daily. I degraded my IMC with just a few y-cruncher runs during live testing a few days ago at 1.40V+


Uncle Dubbs said:


> How much difference would you see with gear 2 if you could push 5000mts…is gear 1 that much better? I’m running z490 and don’t have the option but thinking about an upgrade. I already get mid-high 6xxxx and <=36ns latency at flat 16s 4400. I wanted to get this board or the msi edge to see if I could push 5000.


Unless you need the bandwidth, stick with Gear 1.


----------



## cptclutch

Pretty happy with this considering I'm running D4. Vcore under load is about 1.28v.


----------



## JohnyDadBod

Is there any way to figure a pseudo SP score for people not running ASUS Mobos? I've been curious about this as I am running MSI Z690 at the moment. Will look to upgrade to a DDR5 Z790 board in a few months and move up from DDR4 to DDR5. Will likely look into an ASUS board for the upgrade, not specifically for SP score, but to try something different.


----------



## martin28bln

RobertoSampaio said:


> With this voltage, i think you can try
> P-62x2 - 60x4 - 58x8
> E- 48x4 - 47x8 - 45x16
> R- 54~49
> Or just add +2boot OCTVB


Edit: bullshit question


----------



## HemuV2

Can someone explain TVB to me, I don't understand what it is, just want a short concise explanation


----------



## HemuV2

JohnyDadBod said:


> Is there any way to figure a pseudo SP score for people not running ASUS Mobos? I've been curious about this as I am running MSI Z690 at the moment. Will look to upgrade to a DDR5 Z790 board in a few months and move up from DDR4 to DDR5. Will likely look into an ASUS board for the upgrade, not specifically for SP score, but to try something different.


I'm surprised nobody has figured the formulas based on the VID tables yet


----------



## JohnyDadBod

I believe he is saying to set your max ring to 54 and minimum ring to 49.


----------



## JohnyDadBod

HemuV2 said:


> Can someone explain TVB to me, I don't understand what it is, just want a short concise explanation


If enabled, then it will allow the clock rate to boost to your set limit, as long as the processor is below your set temp threshold.

An example could be where you allow 2 cores at 6.0 and the rest at 5.7. You can enable TVB where you can boost to 6.1 and 5.8 when the temps are below 70c. Once the temps go above 70c then your normal limits come into effect.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Groove2013 said:


> I'm sorry, but there is no way your RAM OC is stable.
> if you try something else other than TM5 Default @1usmus_v3 and not just 18 min, it won't survive.
> 
> tREFI 262K is impossible to stabilize.
> anything higher than 65565 can't pass a goo RAM stress test.
> also not sure about your tRCD 15, but maybe your sticks can do it.
> 
> tRDRD_sg 5 and tWRWR_sg 5 also look like impossible to survive a proper RAM test.
> 
> isn't tFAW 16 better than 18 on your screenshot and also tRAS 28 instead of 36?
> 
> have never seen tWR 10 with tRRD_L 5.
> 
> I think that less than 1.3 V SA and less than 1.44 V VDDQ TX might be possible.


tRDRD_sg 5 i can also boot in 4, i don´t take timings from other person´s, i make it ever at my own.
tRAS yes can be lower, normaly i take 32, but really no impact like some other timings.
And yes my selected👈 4000C14 Sticks are able to do harder timings, need´s lower voltage as an average 2x16GB 4000C14 Bin, they are also to do
min. [email protected]@1,59V or [email protected] 1,57-1,59V.
No it´s not possible to lower the SA, if you do hard Memtest it need´s more as TM5 to be stable in my case you see it by the voltage.

Here looks good🤷‍♂️👇











tubs2x4 said:


> For a 13900k 64s seems little slow? Or what am I missing?


Win 10 [email protected] over 41k and FPS gaming is ok.I can not test "high wattage" at this moment i have delid the chip, but the HS has no good contact,
7° higher Temps, the HS from Rockittool is on the Way, until I have an oc frame.

For [email protected] with DDR4 RamOC i think the value´s are not bad.


----------



## bottjeremy

It's my opinion that Windows 11 still does not understand 13th gen. I've uninstalled and reinstalled all drivers. Newest BIOS and ME. 

You guys seeing this on balanced as well? I'm on full CPU auto during this test but memory overclock is in place.


----------



## JohnyDadBod

I found strangely that W10 FAR outperforms W11 for my 13900K in Timespy CPU score. I'm not sure why. I am running the same chipset drivers, ME drivers, ME firmware update and only changed from W11 to W10 and picked up over 1,000 points in the CPU portion of the test. To be completely sure I did fresh installs of each OS and fully replicated the results. I have switched my dual boot setup around to run W10 as my daily and have W11 as a second install to go back and test periodically to compare performance between the 2 OS's.

I cannot comment on the W11 test you show but will try it tonight. I always run my system in High performance.


----------



## raad11

bottjeremy said:


> It's my opinion that Windows 11 still does not understand 13th gen. I've uninstalled and reinstalled all drivers. Newest BIOS and ME.
> 
> You guys seeing this on balanced as well? I'm on full CPU auto during this test but memory overclock is in place.
> View attachment 2579776
> 
> 
> View attachment 2579777


Having similar issues on Win10 22H2 where 12900K worked fine. Making sure C-States are Enabled in BIOS and set to deepest C-State helps a little, and so does making sure Minimum Processor Power State for your balanced power plan is set appropriately (I have it at 5%, for some reason it was bumped to 100% after CPU upgrade).

Doesn't fix the issue but it helps.


----------



## Ichirou

JohnyDadBod said:


> I found strangely that W10 FAR outperforms W11 for my 13900K in Timespy CPU score. I'm not sure why. I am running the same chipset drivers, ME drivers, ME firmware update and only changed from W11 to W10 and picked up over 1,000 points in the CPU portion of the test. To be completely sure I did fresh installs of each OS and fully replicated the results. I have switched my dual boot setup around to run W10 as my daily and have W11 as a second install to go back and test periodically to compare performance between the 2 OS's.
> 
> I cannot comment on the W11 test you show but will try it tonight. I always run my system in High performance.


That's because W10 has less junk. 

Try running an older version of W10. Even higher performance.


----------



## affxct

raad11 said:


> What sort of cooling are you guys using that are running 300+ watts for 20+ min at full load?


Not an AIO, that’s for damn sure. Well maybe with LM and direct-die but I don’t think anyone is using an AIO for direct-die.


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> tREFI is temp-limited, so you'd need to throw the DIMMs under water to push it well above 65536.
> 
> tWRWR and tRDRD at 5 requires a lot more VCCSA.
> 
> Max 1.35V daily. I degraded my IMC with just a few y-cruncher runs during live testing a few days ago at 1.40V+
> 
> Unless you need the bandwidth, stick with Gear 1.


You live-tested your 13900K?


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> You live-tested your 13900K?


In text, yes. Go back a few dozen pages to when I got my 13900K. I was basically giving updates live on what I was achieving with my chip. Which turned out to be a crap bin in the end.


----------



## Exilon

JohnyDadBod said:


> I found strangely that W10 FAR outperforms W11 for my 13900K in Timespy CPU score. I'm not sure why. I am running the same chipset drivers, ME drivers, ME firmware update and only changed from W11 to W10 and picked up over 1,000 points in the CPU portion of the test. To be completely sure I did fresh installs of each OS and fully replicated the results. I have switched my dual boot setup around to run W10 as my daily and have W11 as a second install to go back and test periodically to compare performance between the 2 OS's.
> 
> I cannot comment on the W11 test you show but will try it tonight. I always run my system in High performance.


Did you disable VBS, HVCI, and Virtual Machine Platform?


----------



## JohnyDadBod

Exilon said:


> Did you disable VBS, HVCI, and Virtual Machine Platform?


Yes to all 3.


----------



## PBaF

Rbk_3 said:


> You getting stutters in MW2 a handful of times a game? I will going a smooth 300 and get a split second stutter. When I have a frametime graph up it shows as a massive frametime spike. 13900K/4090.


No stuttering for me. I read the latest Nvidia drivers are causing problems. The devs tweeted to roll back your drivers. I'm using 522.25 and it works ok.


----------



## PBaF

RobertoSampaio said:


> With this voltage, i think you can try
> P-62x2 - 60x4 - 58x8
> E- 48x4 - 47x8 - 45x16
> R- 54~49
> Or just add +2boot OCTVB


It works. But games drop to 58x anyways. So I left it off and have no need for higher E-cores.


----------



## Exilon

JohnyDadBod said:


> Yes to all 3.


Yikes, what did Microsoft do?!


----------



## JohnyDadBod

For the Cache/Ring I have found 5Ghz to be perfectly stable, but the absolutely limit of stability as 5.1Ghz causes issues. Seems most others I have seen have stayed much closer to the 4.5Gghz range for their 13900k. Curious if my chip is just binned a little better for the cache or of others just haven't tried higher settings yet.


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> In text, yes. Go back a few dozen pages to when I got my 13900K. I was basically giving updates live on what I was achieving with my chip. Which turned out to be a crap bin in the end.


Well, I am sorry about your IMC. You’re pretty much one of the only true scientists here in that regard.


----------



## Groove2013

Ichirou said:


> tREFI is temp-limited, so you'd need to throw the DIMMs under water to push it well above 65536.
> 
> tWRWR and tRDRD at 5 requires a lot more VCCSA.


well, my sticks are not hotter than @PhoenixMDA, but impossible to stabilize more than 65565 tREFI. at least not with 1.275 V SA.

you're right, I increased SA past 1.275 V and was also able to boot tRDRD_/tWRWR_sg 5.

was able to do tRAS 18 for more than 10000% Karhu at 1.275 V SA.
maybe with higher SA I'll be able to do tRAS 15 or 16, who knows.


----------



## neteng101

JohnyDadBod said:


> Curious if my chip is just binned a little better for the cache or of others just haven't tried higher settings yet.


Likely they haven't tried higher settings - 4.5 is way too conservative. I can do 4.8 easily on my 12700k, maybe more if I raised voltage... 5.0 on the 13900k is about where I'd guess most will end up finding as the stable limit.


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> Did you disable VBS, HVCI, and Virtual Machine Platform?


Could I ask for more information on this please? How to do it and does it improve performance?


----------



## JohnyDadBod

neteng101 said:


> Likely they haven't tried higher settings - 4.5 is way too conservative. I can do 4.8 easily on my 12700k, maybe more if I raised voltage... 5.0 on the 13900k is about where I'd guess most will end up finding as the stable limit.


I stayed at 4.4 on my 12700K but this was with E-cores left enabled. I assume yours were off to hit 4.8.


----------



## neteng101

JohnyDadBod said:


> I stayed at 4.4 on my 12700K but this was with E-cores left enabled. I assume yours were off to hit 4.8.


Nope - RPL is unlike ADL... you can push ring/cache pretty high even with E-cores enabled. That 4.8 is with E-cores fully enabled. With ADL you can't push ring/cache too much - I had it at 4.2 with E-cores enabled on a 12700k. Default is 3.6 ring/cache on ADL 12700k.


----------



## bhav

neteng101 said:


> Likely they haven't tried higher settings - 4.5 is way too conservative. I can do 4.8 easily on my 12700k, maybe more if I raised voltage... 5.0 on the 13900k is about where I'd guess most will end up finding as the stable limit.


Not to doubt it, but are you sure it was actually running at 4800 in HWinfo?

I had my p core / e core / cache set to 5.0 / 4.0 / 5.0 in the bios for many months and simply assumed it was working. Then HWinfo showed the ring underclocked to 3600.


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> Well, I am sorry about your IMC. You’re pretty much one of the only true scientists here in that regard.


Yeah, the first 13900K I got was a dud. Just waiting on three more to arrive to bin. Hopefully they will be better quality.


Groove2013 said:


> well, my sticks are not hotter than @PhoenixMDA, but impossible to stabilize more than 65565 tREFI. at least not with 1.275 V SA.
> 
> you're right, I increased SA past 1.275 V and was also able to boot tRDRD_/tWRWR_sg 5.
> 
> was able to do tRAS 18 for more than 10000% Karhu.


The VCCSA requirement for DDR4 boils down to three main factors (in order from the most to least influential):
1) How high the frequency is
2) How tight the latency is (esp. tCL)
3) How large the bandwidth is (esp. tertiaries)

Keep in mind that frequency seems to have the most influence, because even if you raise it and loosen everything else, the VCCSA requirement might shoot up but the eventual bandwidth and latency might be virtually the same. You might get the exact same bandwidth limits at 4,200 MHz compared to 4,133 MHz if you loosen the tertiaries too much.

Hence, you can actually get better performance sometimes by keeping the frequency lower and tightening everything else. You need to strike a balance and benchmark the differences in order to find the best combination.

Also, all three of those necessitate more VDIMM (or VDDQ compensation) as well, so keep that in mind.


----------



## Groove2013

@PhoenixMDA still don't know why you don't set tFAW to 16. what's the reason behind 18, better?

and why tRRD_L 5 and not 4, also better?


----------



## bhav

Could anyone please explain these two voltages for me:

E core L2 voltage and Ring Voltage.

It doesn't show me what the base value is, so how much should I set to try to stabilize cache / ecore OC?


----------



## Groove2013

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, the first 13900K I got was a dud. Just waiting on three more to arrive to bin. Hopefully they will be better quality.
> 
> The VCCSA requirement for DDR4 boils down to three main factors (in order from the most to least influential):
> 1) How high the frequency is
> 2) How tight the latency is (esp. tCL)
> 3) How large the bandwidth is (esp. tertiaries)
> 
> all three of those necessitate more VDIMM (or VDDQ compensation) as well, so keep that in mind.


I always test my DDR4 sticks starting with like 1.75 V and down, to see what's the highest VDIMM the sticks can do.
I noticed it helps to lower tRFC considerably.


----------



## bhav

Groove2013 said:


> I always test my DDR4 sticks starting with like 1.75 V and down, to see what's the highest VDIMM the sticks can do.
> I noticed it helps to lower tRFC considerably.


I found when I tried going up to 1.8v that either the ram or the IMC stopped scaling well before that. Was only able to scale up to 1.72v on 10900k, 12th / 13th gen doesn't seem to like anything over 1.6v, hardly any scaling.


----------



## Wolverine2349

I have an Asus ROG Strix Z790-F

It says my SP score is 98 and P core score is 107 and e core score 80

Is my chip a dud or do the Z790 mobos report differently.

Cannot get it to pass OCCT Variable Standard test at 5.6GHz even at 1.325vcore on LLC7 as it errored around same mark.

I had gotten 55 minutes before errors at 1.3 LLC 7

E-cores are disabled which I would think means better overclocking for P cores with less heat and voltage to compete with.

Temps stay in 80s and sometimes 90s and sometimes even hits 100C with CPU package power of 211 to 230 watts. with Noctua NH-D15 using Thermalright BCF.


----------



## Ichirou

Groove2013 said:


> I always test my DDR4 sticks starting with like 1.75 V and down, to see what's the highest VDIMM the sticks can do.
> I noticed it helps to lower tRFC considerably.


Yes, increasing VDIMM allows you to decrease tRFC with Samsung B-die. Just be sure to properly cool it.


bhav said:


> I found when I tried going up to 1.8v that either the ram or the IMC stopped scaling well before that. Was only able to scale up to 1.72v on 10900k, 12th / 13th gen doesn't seem to like anything over 1.6v, hardly any scaling.


ASRock just sucks. ADL and RPL can handle over 1.60V just fine. But older boards/BIOSes need manual VTT tweaking to get it functioning properly after a certain amount of VDIMM.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Groove2013 said:


> @PhoenixMDA still don't know why you don't set tFAW to 16. what's the reason behind 18, better?
> 
> and why tRRD_L 5 and not 4, also better?


Most of my timings i use from my CFL/CML setting´s the experience i have collected over hundred´s of hour´s testing^^.
It gave´s ever a point if i do timings stronger no impact or you lose CPU FPS in repeating benchmarking.
tFAW you can also do 16 but if i remember right is +3 or 4 the best, but it´s -/+0,1.....
Most time i have take tRRD_L 4 was also losing a little bit performance or like same.

Why do harder the timings if it don´t bring performance/stability, it cost you most more voltage or lower the temp the dimm´s pass Memtest.
If you do to hard you don´t have any scope for stability.
That was the timings i use before....if you change tRDRD_sg dont forget.... *tCCD_L* in Bios must have the same value, if you want to boot^^

And one thing not all kit´s like the same timings you must look what is possible, timings like from my 4300CL15-15 i think isn´t 
possible for the most kit´s.


----------



## yzonker

What are the conditions of the minimum VCORE test that is being run? Stock CPU and 30 minutes of CB23?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

yzonker said:


> What are the conditions of the minimum VCORE test that is being run? Stock CPU and 30 minutes of CB23?


Take better y-Cruncher 2.5 and look for WHEA.


----------



## neteng101

bhav said:


> Not to doubt it, but are you sure it was actually running at 4800 in HWinfo?


----------



## HyperC

bhav said:


> Could anyone please explain these two voltages for me:
> 
> E core L2 voltage and Ring Voltage.
> 
> It doesn't show me what the base value is, so how much should I set to try to stabilize cache / ecore OC?


Ring voltage aka cache volt check what hardware info shows the vid volt @ for E core up the vcore


----------



## Falkentyne

PhoenixMDA said:


> Take better y-Cruncher 2.5 and look for WHEA.


Y-cruncher 2.5 stress test (SFT=CPU, N32=CPU/RAM/tREFI), including LinX 0.9.12 (problem size: 35000, at least 20 loops) is only if you want to be Stockfish chess stable (AVX2/BMI Haswell instruction set builds). The only thing even worse than Y-cruncher is Prime95 small FFT AVX1 (do not even get me started on the complete absurdity of small FFT FMA3 on a 13900K).

you pretty much need the same vcore (within 12mv) to pass Y-cruncher for an hour vs passing 50 loops of LinX 0.9.12 (35000 sample size) without a red error crash, , when dealing with _P core_ stability; usually this will be enough to run Stockfish but even Stockfish can randomly BSOD on you after 3-4 hours because it doesn't like the way you wear your hair ....

For game stability, find absolute v-min for 30 minutes Cinebench R23 stability, (need bare minimum vmin, where 5mv lower crashes or BSOD or WHEA error reports appear), then once you find this bare vmin, raise CPU Vcore by +10mv higher and save it as a gaming profile and this should be sufficient for 99% of users.

LinX (35000), Y-cruncher (SFT) and Stockfish Chess are a completely different ball game.

_edit_ I need to carefully distinguish something.

If your E-cores are clocked too high for the vcore set (vcore is marginal or just a bit too low) for the E cores, which the P cores also use (which the P cores are ok with), where even raising CPU L2 voltage doesn't help you, Stockfish can be perfectly happy with this, while LinX 35000 and Y-cruncher SFT will bomb with a red error.

If you notice the core ID that y-cruncher fails on is an E-core (cores 16-31 on 13900K) then you know your E-cores are clocked too high for the vcore set, or you undervolted the vcore too much (e.g. 5.2 ghz P-cores @ 1.240v bios set + LLC4) for the E-cores to pass heavy testing, while the P-cores may be happy with 1.066v load (after vdroop), the E-cores may want 10mv higher (tested: 1.215v bios set + LLC5, which seemed to be vmin for E cores at 5.2(P), 4.3 (E).
If the E cores are marginal for the vcore set, you "should" always see the exact same logical core fail first on the E-core list (#16-#31).
Prime95 AVX1 small FFT should show similar.

If the P core voltage is too low, Stockfish will just BSOD or crash or WHEA anyway.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Y-cruncher 2.5


Is that a specific version from Benchmate? Cause the newest y-cruncher is 0.7.10 build 9513 as far as I can see.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@Falkentyne
You are right, that was also not what i meant.
I had only one run testet😅 as fast test, for cb23 i need by bestcase Scenario +50mV Offset for 10min runs, for y-cruncher +65mV without whea one run.
More i don't have tested it's stable enough for me.

I think if anything is for the most without heavy cooling system, it's better to look in summer what necessary....


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> ASRock just sucks. ADL and RPL can handle over 1.60V just fine. But older boards/BIOSes need manual VTT tweaking to get it functioning properly after a certain amount of VDIMM.


If I can get 1.7+v to work again on the MSI and 13th gen, I should be able to squeeze out 4000+ CL13, and 4800+ CL16.


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> Is that a specific version from Benchmate? Cause the newest y-cruncher is 0.7.10 build 9513 as far as I can see.


Yeah I guess so.
I was only copying and pasting what other people were saying.
I'm a bit busy with my studies.

y-cruncher v0.7.10.9513


----------



## OC2000

Would the EK Delta Velocity 2 TEC work with the 13900k or is the wattage too low?


----------



## newls1

@Falkentyne ... Do you have any knowledge on E-Cores hitting 4.7Ghz? I havent seen (or just havent noticed) anyone @ 4.7G on their E-cores. Is 4.6 pretty much the ceiling for them?


----------



## raad11

JohnyDadBod said:


> For the Cache/Ring I have found 5Ghz to be perfectly stable, but the absolutely limit of stability as 5.1Ghz causes issues. Seems most others I have seen have stayed much closer to the 4.5Gghz range for their 13900k. Curious if my chip is just binned a little better for the cache or of others just haven't tried higher settings yet.


What issues does 5.1 cause for you? I'm running 5.1 and everything seems ok so far, wondering what I can do to further test stability of it.

50x should be possible for almost everyone, no? Mine was boosting to 50x by itself under certain conditions at stock settings IIRC


----------



## bscool

raad11 said:


> What issues does 5.1 cause for you? I'm running 5.1 and everything seems ok so far, wondering what I can do to further test stability of it.
> 
> 50x should be possible for almost everyone, no? Mine was boosting to 50x by itself under certain conditions at stock settings IIRC


When you say your running 5.1 ring are you talking locked as in for y cruncher even? I cant imagine y cruncher can run it this high. Or I have the weakest chip ever. I think 44 is the highest I have ran it so far on y cruncher 2.5b.

Some of the screenshot I see people posting saying they run 48+ ring I can see it down clocks under load. Boosting up to 51 under light loads is great but doesnt mean a lot for heavy loads/benches.

I also havent tested much without mem oc and that might let me run it a little bit higher.

Example have Hwinfo open and run 1b or 2.5b y cruncher and see if ring/cache down clocks.


----------



## newls1

bscool said:


> When you say your running 5.1 ring are you talking locked as in for y cruncher even? I cant imagine y cruncher can run it this high. Or I have the weakest chip ever. I think 44 is the highest I have ran it so far on y cruncher 2.5b.
> 
> Some of the screenshot I see people posting saying they run 48+ ring I can see it down clocks under load. Boosting up to 51 under light loads is great but doesnt mean a lot for heavy loads/benches.
> 
> I also havent tested much without mem oc and that might let me run it a little bit higher.


im locked at 5ghz ring and during y-cruncher it stays right at 5ghz... getting 48.4 for my sscore


----------



## Carillo

newls1 said:


> @Falkentyne ... Do you have any knowledge on E-Cores hitting 4.7Ghz? I havent seen (or just havent noticed) anyone @ 4.7G on their E-cores. Is 4.6 pretty much the ceiling for them?


I’m running E-cores @4,7ghz. SP 85. Have not done any hardcore stability testing , but gaming for several hours 👍


----------



## Exilon

bhav said:


> Could anyone please explain these two voltages for me:
> 
> E core L2 voltage and Ring Voltage.
> 
> It doesn't show me what the base value is, so how much should I set to try to stabilize cache / ecore OC?


Ring shares the same voltage as Vcore

E-core cache needs to run at the same speed as ring and you need to raise L2 voltage if you want to push ring beyond 4.5 with all E-cores active.


----------



## bscool

newls1 said:


> im locked at 5ghz ring and during y-cruncher it stays right at 5ghz... getting 48.4 for my sscore


Can you post benchmate and hit f6 at end to show results. I am looking at hwbot scores and ones lower than yours dont have ring that high but they have higher mem clocks so that might be the difference.


----------



## Groove2013

PhoenixMDA said:


> stronger timings no impact or you lose CPU FPS in repeating benchmarking.


I always use Aida64 PhotoWorxx to check whether lowering specific timing(s) to the minimum, that is even 100% stable, also lowers performance or not.
there is always run to run variance, but doing several runs still lets you understand whether the performance is better or even worse than slightly higher timing(s).


PhoenixMDA said:


> tFAW you can also do 16 but if i remember right is +3 or 4 the best


tested tFAW 16, 18 and 20 - 0 difference in Aida64 PhotoWorxx.
so I keep it at 16.


PhoenixMDA said:


> Most time i have take tRRD_L 4 was also losing a little bit performance or like same.
> if you change tRDRD_sg dont forget.... *tCCD_L* in Bios must have the same value, if you want to boot^^


yes, tRRD_L 4 has lower performance than 6, in Aida64 PhotoWorxx.
but *tRRD_L 5 (*like you have it) *performs even worse than 4*, so *5 is the worst*.
and I have 0 problems to boot with tRRD_L 6 when i set tRDRD_sg to 5.
so _tRRD_L 6 is best_.
*tRDRD_sg*/*tWRWR_sg 5* (like you have it) *are performance wise noticeably worse than 7, although 6 is even worse than 5* - tested in Aida64 PhotoWorxx.
so _tRDRD_sg/tWRWR_sg 7 is the best_.


PhoenixMDA said:


> Why do harder the timings if it don´t bring performance/stability
> If you do to hard you don´t have any scope for stability.


all the timings I post are always 24/7 stable.

also tested *tRAS 32* (like you have it) and *it's marginally worse than tRAS 30*.
also tested *tWR 10* (like you have it) and *it's noticably worse than tWR 12 (*with tRTP 6, tRRD_L 6 and tRDRD_sg/tWRWR_sg 7).


----------



## newls1

bscool said:


> Can you post benchmate and hit f6 at end to show results.


will absolutely do that for you but im on duty till 8am tomoorrow morning... Ill update you in the morning sir


----------



## grilli4nt

I currenly have the z790 strix-f and 13900k. Just about to buy new ram sticks, and thinking of the g skill trident z 7200cl34 or 7600cl36. Will these speeds work with the 13900k? Will this be a matter or silicon lottery on the 13900k? Does some CPUs have better IMCs, and is it possible to see it based on SP rating or so? I have the option to switch the strix-f to a hero instead, if that would make any difference. thanks for help

And oh, anyone with experience of how well these kits overclock? or if I am better off saving some cash and getting a lower spec with hope to OC them? such as 6400 or 6800 rated.

13900k is SP 102, p core 110 e core 88.


----------



## Exilon

E-cores sharing Vcore with P-cores is a huge pain in the butt. Trying to limit package power to 250W but P-cores throttle first and bring Vcore down too low for E-cores at 4.3 in y-cruncher. Whoops.


----------



## newls1

Groove2013 said:


> I always use Aida64 PhotoWorxx to check whether lowering specific timing(s) to the minimum that is even 100% stable, also lowers performance or not.
> there is always run to run variance, but doing several runs still lets you understand whether the performance is better or even worse than slightly higher timing(s).
> 
> tested 16, 18 and 20 - 0 difference in Aida64 PhotoWorxx.
> 
> yes, tRRD_L 4 has lower performance than 6, in Aida64 PhotoWorxx.
> *but tRRD_L 5, like you have it, performs even worse than 4, so 5 is the worst*.
> and I have 0 problems to boot with tRRD_L 6 when i set tRDRD_sg to 5.
> so _tRRD_L 6 is best_.
> *tRDRD_sg and tWRWR_sg 5, like you have it, are performance wise noticeably worse than 7, although 6 is even worse than 5* - tested in Aida64 PhotoWorxx.
> so _tRDRD_sg and tWRWR_sg 7 is the best_.
> 
> all the timings I post are always 24/7 stable.
> 
> also tested *tRAS 32, like you have it, and it's marginally worse than tRAS 30*.
> also tested *tWR 10, like you have it, and it's noticably worse than tWR 12*, with tRTP 6 and tRRD_L 6 and tRDRD_sg/tWRWR_sg 7.


i wish i understood what i just read 
Can you put this in terms a moron like myself could understand please?!


----------



## bscool

newls1 said:


> will absolutely do that for you but im on duty till 8am tomoorrow morning... Ill update you in the morning sir


I found another guy on Hwbot running 49 ring for y cruncher 💩 Back to the drawing board for me


----------



## Exilon

bscool said:


> I found another guy on Hwbot running 49 ring for y cruncher 💩 Back to the drawing board for me


What's your L2 voltage set to? Try manual static voltage 1.35v

To be clear this still lets it E-cores power down to 0v but doesn't try to do adaptive voltage scaling based on load.


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> Ring shares the same voltage as Vcore
> 
> E-core cache needs to run at the same speed as ring and you need to raise L2 voltage if you want to push ring beyond 4.5 with all E-cores active.


I just put in enough to re stabilize 4.0 e core and cache with the maxed out memory OC, it took 1.325v in L2, and I tried +100mv offset into ring but don't think that one was needed.

I've already fully abused and pushed this asrock board to its limit, can't wait to see what the MSI one does.


----------



## Exilon

bhav said:


> I just put in enough to re stabilize 4.0 e core and cache with the maxed out memory OC, it took 1.325v in L2, and I tried +100mv offset into ring but don't think that one was needed.
> 
> I've already fully abused and pushed this asrock board to its limit, can't wait to see what the MSI one does.


4.0e and ring? Which CPU?


----------



## raad11

bscool said:


> When you say your running 5.1 ring are you talking locked as in for y cruncher even? I cant imagine y cruncher can run it this high. Or I have the weakest chip ever. I think 44 is the highest I have ran it so far on y cruncher 2.5b.
> 
> Some of the screenshot I see people posting saying they run 48+ ring I can see it down clocks under load. Boosting up to 51 under light loads is great but doesnt mean a lot for heavy loads/benches.
> 
> I also havent tested much without mem oc and that might let me run it a little bit higher.
> 
> Example have Hwinfo open and run 1b or 2.5b y cruncher and see if ring/cache down clocks.


I've only run CB23, bunch of Aida cache benchmarks on loop, Aida cache stability test, left computer on 24-7, lots of gaming, and a bunch of realbench.

I'm not going to run y-cruncher, that seems like a very heavy load that might degrade the chip but also I'm not going to run anything more demanding than Handbrake. My OC doesn't work in Handbrake (5.6 all core) despite being CB23 stable so I manually set it to 5.5 before using Handbrake (using TVB settings in OCTool which is rather quick and means I don't need to reboot), but E-Cores at 4.4 all and Ring at 51x work fine for Handbrake too (at least, it completes with no errors).

I put in 0.05 offset for L2 and cache SVID in BIOS for no particular reason. Apparently there's an entire VF curve for Cache in OCTool, but I don't think it persists with restarts. No idea what to put for adaptive so I used offset.

EDIT: I _have_ seen it randomly run at 50x instead of 51x, but I couldn't tell what was causing that. It stayed at 51x in most benchmarks.


----------



## Groove2013

@PhoenixMDA you can use Asus Mem TweakIt to change timings in Windows and run Aida64 PhotoWorxx, like at least 3, but better 5-7 runs, before changing the timing(s) and rerun it.
I'm 100% sure you will be able to observe the same behaviour as me.

hope it was helpful for you, so you can further improve your already very good timings 

but just so you know - it won't improve nanoseconds in Aida64.

tRAS 28 is also worse than 30 - same as 32.
so 30 is what's best.


----------



## newls1

bscool said:


> I found another guy on Hwbot running 49 ring for y cruncher 💩 Back to the drawing board for me


i have a manual voltage set to 1.330 and L2 Voltage set to 1.235 if this helps you at all


----------



## bscool

Exilon said:


> What's your L2 voltage set to? Try manual static voltage 1.35v
> 
> To be clear this still lets it E-cores power down to 0v but doesn't try to do adaptive voltage scaling based on load.


I still crash at 49 ring. I remembered wrong I had run 46 ring. Just setting 1.35 let me run 48 for y cruncher but it really pushes the heat up and didnt improve my score much, maybe because of throttling.


----------



## Exilon

Exilon said:


> E-cores sharing Vcore with P-cores is a huge pain in the butt. Trying to limit package power to 250W but P-cores throttle first and bring Vcore down too low for E-cores at 4.3 in y-cruncher. Whoops.


Going into ASUS bios and setting turbo voltage for the E-cores to 1.2v which I know is stable for 4.3GHz seems to have fix this issue without impacting P-core turbo voltages above 1.2v


----------



## newls1

Groove2013 said:


> @PhoenixMDA you can use Asus Mem TweakIt to change timings in Windows and run Aida64 PhotoWorxx, like at least 3, but better 5-7 runs, before changing the timing(s) and rerun it.
> I'm 100% sure you will be able to observe the same behaviour as me.
> 
> hope it was helpful for you to further improve your already very good timings
> 
> tRAS 28 is also worse than 30 - same as 32.
> so 30 is what's best.


Can you help me please by looking at these mem settings and please tell me what you would change?? Be a huge help!


----------



## newls1

bscool said:


> I still crash at 49 ring. I remembered wrong I had run 46 ring. Just setting 1.35 let me run 48 for y cruncher but it really pushes the heat up and didnt improve my score much, maybe because of throttling.


maybe this is an advantage i have being direct die cooled. Heat isnt my issue


----------



## Groove2013

newls1 said:


> Can you help me please by looking at these mem settings and please tell me what you would change?? Be a huge help!


no experience with DDR5, yet.


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> 4.0e and ring? Which CPU?


Sorry, I'm in the wrong thread, still on my 12600k which can only do 4.0 ring and e cores.

But this is helping me figure out what to do when I get the 13900.


----------



## bscool

newls1 said:


> maybe this is an advantage i have being direct die cooled. Heat isnt my issue


Yeah plus me being a bone head and not setting things right in bios. This is looking better.

I havent messed with 13th gen cpu oc much so like starting over.


----------



## Groove2013

bscool said:


> Yeah plus me being a bone head and not setting things right in bios. This is looking better.
> 
> I havent messed with 13th gen cpu oc much so like starting over.


so we are already 3 here doing 4300 MHz CL15 )))

what's your P and E SP?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Falkentyne said:


> This isn't the correct screenshot.
> Why is your load voltage 1.288v and an idle voltage of 1.332v? 213 amps at 1.288v? Something doesn't fit here. At that vcore, what did you even run? If this is really what you need for 5.5 ghz this chip is defective--RMA it and buy another.
> And why do you have a CPU Cache L0 error ? This error means you are not stable.
> Why are two of your cores downclocked to 800 mhz?
> Post your bios settings (CPU Vcore set, vcore mode used, LLC, die or socket sense) and please disable c-states in advanced cpu configuration and post what tests you are running because this SS makes no sense.
> Your VID shows a low of 1.19v and your vcore is nowhere remotely close to that.


Sorry I just noticed it was on socket sense, setting it to Die Sense changed the voltage reading, once I set it to Die sense the voltage was [email protected], doesn't surprise me there were error.
Still trying to get my head around all the different voltage settings now seeing I came from the 10900k/Hero, same premise different options.

This is the BIOS screens, using LLC5:


----------



## Kryuger

bhav said:


> Not to doubt it, but are you sure it was actually running at 4800 in HWinfo?
> 
> I had my p core / e core / cache set to 5.0 / 4.0 / 5.0 in the bios for many months and simply assumed it was working. Then HWinfo showed the ring underclocked to 3600.


Posting here, but do check the microcode on your CPUs. MCU 23 (12th Gen) and MCU 10B (13th Gen) have an issue where you can't overclock the Ring Ratio with sustained loads. Best to make sure you're on 10E for 13th Gen. I took the microcode from the Strix Z690-A (19th October Update) for my Z690 Aorus Elite D4, and was able to overclock Ring Ratio again. MCU 25 for 12th Gen.

I'm managing to run 57P 45E 51R stable for AVX2 and CB23 on my 13900KF. Wish I had a Strix board to check SP rating, but I'm contemplating upgrading to Hynix A-Die and the Z790 Strix-F


----------



## bigfootnz

bscool said:


> I found another guy on Hwbot running 49 ring for y cruncher 💩 Back to the drawing board for me


I'm running 4.9 ring with y-cruncher


----------



## Krautmaster

bscool said:


> Yeah plus me being a bone head and not setting things right in bios. This is looking better.
> 
> I havent messed with 13th gen cpu oc much so like starting over.


its odd. Why shall im not be able to get 4 of these dimm









past 3600Mhz gear 1 stable? 4000 CL17 gear 2 is booting but thats it. And you only use 1.35V VDDQ ...
Is it related to any bios issues or can the CPU be that far off? Im currently doing 6 Ghz Boost with CB23 at 1.42V so it shoud not be that much of a crap of cpu. Maybe bios updates will fix it no idea. Might need to try 2 dimm only for test


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@Groove2013


> and I have 0 problems to boot with tRRD_L 6 when i set tRDRD_sg to 5.


I have writen tCCD_L not tRRD... if not equal bluescreen or no boot.

Photoworks i know that, we have make a bench contest with that benchmark in HWL with CFL/CML and also "snakeeyes" use that also for stability test of the ram timings, if he get random lower score´s after time when anything is wrong.
You must find your timings for your HW, i can drive it without lower performance, that has 2 reason´s quality cpu mc and memory kit.
Yes i can lower the timings, but then i have no scope for stability for like nothing and that make no sense.
If i have 44,3k or 44,28k is like the same^^.


----------



## Groove2013

PhoenixMDA said:


> @Groove2013
> 
> I have writen tCCD_L not tRRD... if not equal bluescreen or no boot.
> 
> Photoworks i know that, we have make a bench contest with that benchmark in HWL with CFL/CML and also "snakeeyes" use that also for stability test of the ram timings, if he get random lower score´s after time when anything is wrong.
> You must find your timings for your HW, i can drive it without lower performance, that has 2 reason´s quality cpu mc and memory kit.
> Yes i can lower the timings, but then i have no scope for stability for like nothing and that make no sense.
> If i have 44,3k or 44,28k is like the same^^.


haven't seen tCCD_L anywhere in Strix BIOS.

what is you P and E SP?
first CPU sample or you had to bin several CPUs?


----------



## bscool

Groove2013 said:


> so we are already 3 here doing 4300 MHz CL15 )))
> 
> what's your P and E SP?


109/85


----------



## bscool

Krautmaster said:


> its odd. Why shall im not be able to get 4 of these dimm
> View attachment 2579864
> 
> 
> past 3600Mhz gear 1 stable? 4000 CL17 gear 2 is booting but thats it. And you only use 1.35V VDDQ ...
> Is it related to any bios issues or can the CPU be that far off? Im currently doing 6 Ghz Boost with CB23 at 1.42V so it shoud not be that much of a crap of cpu. Maybe bios updates will fix it no idea. Might need to try 2 dimm only for test


4 sticks is harder. I havent tried with 13900k but with 12th gen I could only do around 3733 last time I tried 4x8 tight timings.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Groove2013 said:


> haven't seen tCCD_L anywhere in Strix BIOS.
> 
> what is you P and E SP?
> first CPU sample or you had to bin several CPUs?


It´s the timing over tCKE.
I had 2x13900k one really bad SP92(P102) and one SP102(P109/E88), the second one boot´s up to 4400 in windows and if i would give enough voltage SA 1,4V i can do some minutes TM5, but not more tested, my limit voltage´s are reached.And 4400CL15-15 is for my memory no problem but i think really hard timings are then not possible or
need more SA perhaps also IVR-TX and MC.

The SP92 was 4200 limit, 4300 crashed booting windows and not stable.


----------



## Groove2013

@PhoenixMDA and how many RAM kits did you have to bin to find the one you're using now?


----------



## snakeeyes111

2


----------



## PhoenixMDA

bscool said:


> 109/85


If you have the right voltage for tm5 and memtest then you have your 24/7 🙌 

@Groove2013
6 Kit´s of 3200C14 i have need with luck for 4700C17 Kit and by the 4000C14 Kit´s only 2 Kit´s, in every Kit was one awesome Stick and the best they are equal together
to reach high freqency GSat stable.The sticks are also low voltage 4000C14-14 1,5V Bios memtest stable.

P.s.
What you reach Photoworkxs score with [email protected]?


----------



## neteng101

Exilon said:


> E-core cache needs to run at the same speed as ring and you need to raise L2 voltage if you want to push ring beyond 4.5 with all E-cores active.


Forgot to mention for @bhav - my E-core L2 voltage is bumped up but not very high, running 1.25V... same as I did with the 12700k. Not sure if my 4.8 ring on the 13700k is Vcore or E-L2 limited, didn't try pushing either, I just found the stable ring for the voltages I wanted to run. On the 12700k it definitely was needed for the ring ratio OC.


----------



## Groove2013

PhoenixMDA said:


> I had 2x13900k one really bad SP92(P102) and one SP102(P109/E88)


my 1st was SP 99, I think SP 106 or 108 P and trash IMC.
2nd SP 108, SP 118 P and SP 88 E and good IMC.
can also boot 4400 MHz 15-16, but not possible to stabilize.
IMC or RAM. don't know. sticks are 2×16 3800 14-16-16-36 1.5 Jan. 2021.


----------



## Groove2013

with 4300 15 we're good against DDR5, in games.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Groove2013 said:


> with 4300 15 we're good against DDR5, in games.


Have you testet TM5 and memtest? i think important to set the right voltage's.


----------



## lolhaxz

Current progress:

56x all core, 58x 2 cores, +1 TVB (57x, 59x), 50x cache, 45x E-cores - following SVID + 45mv on cores, LLC5.

light load peak vcore around 1.35v and min 1.22ish under heavy load (ie, prime) - still adaptive etc not manual voltage.

31C water (warm summerish day) - 10 mins Prime95 SmallFFT non-AVX




  






That's not bad I think, genuinely surprised... just middle of the road SP rating... don't see getting any more out of the P-Cores (at full load) .. I think E-cores still have another 100MHz in them.


----------



## snakeeyes111

5,5 4,3 cache auto
7600 c36
And tempthrottle on cpu ^^


----------



## Krzych04650

Exilon said:


> Ring shares the same voltage as Vcore
> 
> E-core cache needs to run at the same speed as ring and you need to raise L2 voltage if you want to push ring beyond 4.5 with all E-cores active.


Damn this helps SO much. I could only do 50 without E-cores and 48 with, and now I can do 5250 with E-cores enabled. ~4% gaming performance gain just like that. Those chips just scale with everything you throw at them, I am constantly finding ways to push things. It is just multipliers upon multipliers upon multipliers. And this is on temporary air cooling that hits 95C in single threaded games 

Not only this 13900KF at bone stock 5.5/4.5 with random 3200C16 RAM settings is 1.75x-2.00x faster in games than my fully overclocked and tuned 4.5/3.4 3400C13 6900K, but I already got around 15-20% above that with overclocking and memory tuning, which brings the margin to 2.00x-2.50x. And I don't even have the cooling yet. This is just madness. I expected 1.6x gain OC vs OC


----------



## snakeeyes111

Without templimit. Hwinfo not running. Did a run before with hwinfo 49,5sec.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Falkentyne said:


> This isn't the correct screenshot.
> Why is your load voltage 1.288v and an idle voltage of 1.332v? 213 amps at 1.288v? Something doesn't fit here. At that vcore, what did you even run? If this is really what you need for 5.5 ghz this chip is defective--RMA it and buy another.
> And why do you have a CPU Cache L0 error ? This error means you are not stable.
> Why are two of your cores downclocked to 800 mhz?
> Post your bios settings (CPU Vcore set, vcore mode used, LLC, die or socket sense) and please disable c-states in advanced cpu configuration and post what tests you are running because this SS makes no sense.
> Your VID shows a low of 1.19v and your vcore is nowhere remotely close to that.


Went back a retweaked everything after switching back to Die Sense, I can do 5.5Ghz all P Cores at 1.225v (auto on E and Cache), this is with a 1 hour Realbench 2.56 run, no whea errors.
Used adaptive -0.03500v LLC6, so idle is 1.315v, drops to 1.225v load, seems there needs to be a little more "stability updates" for the z790 Hero BIOS, on the Z490 Hero, LLC6 wouldn't give that much of a vdroop..


----------



## Groove2013

PhoenixMDA said:


> P.s.
> What you reach Photoworkxs score with [email protected]?
> If i have 44,3k or 44,28k is like the same^^.
> 
> Have you testet TM5 and memtest? i think important to set the right voltage's.


5.5/.4.3/4.6 GHz P/E/C stock PhotoWorxx score attached.

I've completed TestMem5 ABSOLUT with the timings and frequency you can see, but I'm not using TM5, because it was loading 100% only E-cores and 0% load on P-cores.

I don't like MemTest, because it's very slow and doesn't find as many errors and as quickly as Kathu, in my experience.

Karhu RAM Test loads 100% of P- and E-cores. I prefer it.
Win 10 21H2.

Now looking for lowest possible SA and VDDQ TX voltages for Karhu stability only.
completed Karhu 10000% by simply setting SA to 1.275 V and VDDQ TX to 1.475 V.
I'm sure now that I could pass 10000% Karhu that I will be able to find lower Karhu stable voltages than that.


----------



## Krzych04650

Is there any use for all of those PLL voltages? Or DRAM VTT/VPP?


----------



## Groove2013

in few weeks, I hope, I'll have my custom loop with 2x40x360 mm + 1x60x360 mm rads and liquid metal (no delid) in order to properly cool everything.

because now with 280x27 mm aluminium EK AiO with paste for more than 300 W (complete Prime95 custom run FFTs in-place non-AVX) is impossible, even with Hyper-Threading off.

I'm almost sure for Prime95 (non-AVX), SA and VDDQ TX might need to be higher than what I will find as min stable for Karhu only.


----------



## bhav

neteng101 said:


> Forgot to mention for @bhav - my E-core L2 voltage is bumped up but not very high, running 1.25V... same as I did with the 12700k. Not sure if my 4.8 ring on the 13700k is Vcore or E-L2 limited, didn't try pushing either, I just found the stable ring for the voltages I wanted to run. On the 12700k it definitely was needed for the ring ratio OC.


It might also be because of the motherboard, my cheapo asrock itx/ax is pushed to its max now, 4900CL17 ram and 4.0 ecore and cache needed 1.325w on L2 to get them to work together. The board's specification says up to 5000 support on the ram, but any higher just wont work.

It will be dialed back down to G1 when running the second ram kit, but thats after I get the 13900KS and new board all setup.


----------



## Exilon

neteng101 said:


> Forgot to mention for @bhav - my E-core L2 voltage is bumped up but not very high, running 1.25V... same as I did with the 12700k. Not sure if my 4.8 ring on the 13700k is Vcore or E-L2 limited, didn't try pushing either, I just found the stable ring for the voltages I wanted to run. On the 12700k it definitely was needed for the ring ratio OC.


L3 goes to 5.0 without E-cores at stock it shouldn't be Vcore limited.



Krzych04650 said:


> Damn this helps SO much. I could only do 50 without E-cores and 48 with, and now I can do 5250 with E-cores enabled. ~4% gaming performance gain just like that. Those chips just scale with everything you throw at them, I am constantly finding ways to push things. It is just multipliers upon multipliers upon multipliers. And this is on temporary air cooling that hits 95C in single threaded games
> 
> Not only this 13900KF at bone stock 5.5/4.5 with random 3200C16 RAM settings is 1.75x-2.00x faster in games than my fully overclocked and tuned 4.5/3.4 3400C13 6900K, but I already got around 15-20% above that with overclocking and memory tuning, which brings the margin to 2.00x-2.50x. And I don't even have the cooling yet. This is just madness. I expected 1.6x gain OC vs OC


5.2? Don't blow your E-core L2s up lol


----------



## Krzych04650

Exilon said:


> 5.2? Don't blow your E-core L2s up lol


That was for some single threaded games with 1.4 E-core L2. This is probably too high and would not hold up in heavy multithreaded anyway, but just the fact that I can bench those games at 5.2 101.00 base, so 5252 ring, when I was barely stable at 4.8 before just shows how much it helps to increase that voltage.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

lolhaxz said:


> Current progress:
> 
> 56x all core, 58x 2 cores, +1 TVB (57x, 59x), 50x cache, 45x E-cores - following SVID + 45mv on cores, LLC5.
> 
> light load peak vcore around 1.35v and min 1.22ish under heavy load (ie, prime) - still adaptive etc not manual voltage.
> 
> 31C water (warm summerish day) - 10 mins Prime95 SmallFFT non-AVX
> 
> 
> View attachment 2579897
> 
> 
> That's not bad I think, genuinely surprised... just middle of the road SP rating... don't see getting any more out of the P-Cores (at full load) .. I think E-cores still have another 100MHz in them.



I have finished writing the second part of my guide... 
Maybe it will help you with your settings.
Take a look and if I can help you with anything... 









Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...


A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...




www.overclock.net


----------



## sniperpowa

this cpuz bench made me lol


----------



## tps3443

JohnyDadBod said:


> For the Cache/Ring I have found 5Ghz to be perfectly stable, but the absolutely limit of stability as 5.1Ghz causes issues. Seems most others I have seen have stayed much closer to the 4.5Gghz range for their 13900k. Curious if my chip is just binned a little better for the cache or of others just haven't tried higher settings yet.


I have had the cache on my 13900KF at 5.1Ghz since day (1). Perfectly stable through hours of testing the CPU or the memory.

5.8 P-cores
4.5 E-cores
5.1 Cache
DDR5 @7600

It probably will go even higher on the cache/ring. I haven’t even tried.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

So can anyone explain this WHEA error?
Only happens at idle..
PCI Express Link Start Power Management was on Maximum power saving, I've just turned it off, could have something to do with the riser cable on the 4090..


----------



## Jacinto1023

13700k

Idle is 34-38c
stress test 85-90c (doesn't come close to this in gaming)

I'm running 5.5Ghz on all P cores and 4.5Ghz on all E cores 4.8 Cache
1.315v

I'm happy with it  I just need to learn to do adaptive voltages instead of manual constant voltage.


----------



## tps3443

The first thing I noticed with my 13900KF and DDR5 7600 C34, was in games. Primarily the really high GPU usage that is now pegging 100%. When does that even happen? 

Amazing platform for gaming. Absolutely killing it.


----------



## ViTosS

Groove2013 said:


> 5.5/.4.3/4.6 GHz P/E/C stock PhotoWorxx score attached.
> 
> I've completed TestMem5 ABSOLUT with the timings and frequency you can see, but I'm not using TM5, because it was loading 100% only E-cores and 0% load on P-cores.
> 
> I don't like MemTest, because it's very slow and doesn't find as many errors and as quickly as Kathu, in my experience.
> 
> Karhu RAM Test loads 100% of P- and E-cores. I prefer it.
> Win 10 21H2.
> 
> Now looking for lowest possible SA and VDDQ TX voltages for Karhu stability only.
> completed Karhu 10000% by simply setting SA to 1.275 V and VDDQ TX to 1.475 V.
> I'm sure now that I could pass 10000% Karhu that I will be able to find lower Karhu stable voltages than that.


Isn't that latency a bit high? People with DDR5 been getting that or even lower I think


----------



## RobertoSampaio

schoolofmonkey said:


> So can anyone explain this WHEA error?
> Only happens at idle..
> PCI Express Link Start Power Management was on Maximum power saving, I've just turned it off, could have something to do with the riser cable on the 4090..
> View attachment 2579941


I had this problem with cooler master riser cable. Not using it anymore.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Jacinto1023 said:


> 13700k
> 
> Idle is 34-38c
> stress test 85-90c (doesn't come close to this in gaming)
> 
> I'm running 5.5Ghz on all P cores and 4.5Ghz on all E cores 4.8 Cache
> 1.350v
> 
> I'm happy with it  I just need to learn to do adaptive voltages instead of manual constant voltage.


It you want I can help you with adaptive voltage.


----------



## Codiee1337

RobertoSampaio said:


> It you want I can help you with adaptive voltage.


Can you please provide help here as well?  13700K at around 1.4V LLC6 on 5.6GHz P Allcore (2x6.0, 4x5.9, 6x5.8, 8x5.6), 4.5 E Core, 4.9 Cache.
AVX Offset by 14, so it doesn't crash under heavy AVX load. (Sadly Y-Cruncher runs till HNT, HNT gives coefficient to large, but it gives also on stock so KEKW.)
Thank you.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

RobertoSampaio said:


> I had this problem with cooler master riser cable. Not using it anymore.


Exact same cable I'm using, it's only under idle.
Hanging out for these right angle 12VHPWR adapters, only reason I vertically mounted in the first place.

Just glad it's nothing to do with the CPU/MB


----------



## Kryuger

What voltages are people seeing for their L2 Atom? Can't view that kind of information on my board, but curious to see how ring ratio affects the auto voltage for L2 Atom.


----------



## bscool

ViTosS said:


> Isn't that latency a bit high? People with DDR5 been getting that or even lower I think


From what I have seen with 13900k/DDR4 hitting 45 to 46ns range on Aida is doing good. With 12900k and similar setting I was in the 41 to 42ns range with Aida.

IML show lower latency with 13th gen. I am seeing 38ns range using IML with ddr4/13900k. I think ddr5 I was up in the 40s, cant remember I dont have it connected right now. But I know with 139000k/ddr5 in Aida I am around 51 to 52ns in Aida at 7000c30-40-40(M die) or 7400c34-44-44(A die). 

So for me with the same CPU ddr5 is still around 5-6ns higher using 13900k vs ddr4. 129000k/ddr5 can I was around 47ns.

13700k is showing lower latency from what I have seen just like on 10th gen 10700k had lower latency than 10900k if using same clocks and timings.

Included pic from MSI testing 12th and 13th gen ddr4 and ddr5 for latency.


----------



## lolhaxz

Kryuger said:


> What voltages are people seeing for their L2 Atom? Can't view that kind of information on my board, but curious to see how ring ratio affects the auto voltage for L2 Atom.


1.2V following SVID for mine - It _seemed_ like adding 30mv or so helped with stability with E-Cores for perhaps 100MHz, I see people here suggesting 1.3+ .. not sure that's required, or rather, I have not seen any additional benefit


----------



## Jacinto1023

RobertoSampaio said:


> It you want I can help you with adaptive voltage.


Yes please


----------



## raad11

bscool said:


> From what I have seen with 13900k/DDR4 hitting 45 to 46ns range on Aida is doing good. With 12900k and similar setting I was in the 41 to 42ns range with Aida.
> 
> IML show lower latency with 13th gen. I am seeing 38ns range using IML with ddr4/13900k. I think ddr5 I was up in the 40s, cant remember I dont have it connected right now. But I know with 139000k/ddr5 in Aida I am around 51 to 52ns in Aida at 7000c30-40-40( die) or 7400c34-44-44(A die). So for me with the same CPU ddr5 is still around 5-6ns higher using 13900k vs ddr4. 129000k/ddr5 can I was around 47ns.
> 
> 13700k is showing lower latency from what I have seen just like on 10th gen 10700k had lower latency than 10900k if using same clocks and timings.
> 
> Included pic from MSI testing 12th and 13th gen ddr4 and ddr5 for latency.


Userbenchmark's RAM test latency results seem to consistently transition between ADL and RPL. I dropped from 49-50ns on 12900K/DDR4 to 45-46ns with 13900K/DDR4. In Aida64 I went from 47-49ns with 12th gen to 48-50ns on 13th gen.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Jacinto1023 said:


> Yes please


I wrote these two guides...
Take a read... There is a lot of information...
After that, if you want to PM me, I can help you... Or if you prefer, just make yours questions in these threads and me and others, that is using octvb and adaptive voltage, will help you for sure!









Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...


A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...




www.overclock.net














ASUS MAXIMUS Z690 EXTREME & i9-12900K GUIDE - Load...


Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- For Z790/13900K click here Introduction: In a world increasingly concerned with natural resources, the watchword is...




www.overclock.net


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Groove2013 said:


> 5.5/.4.3/4.6 GHz P/E/C stock PhotoWorxx score attached.
> 
> I've completed TestMem5 ABSOLUT with the timings and frequency you can see, but I'm not using TM5, because it was loading 100% only E-cores and 0% load on P-cores.
> 
> I don't like MemTest, because it's very slow and doesn't find as many errors and as quickly as Kathu, in my experience.
> 
> Karhu RAM Test loads 100% of P- and E-cores. I prefer it.
> Win 10 21H2.
> 
> Now looking for lowest possible SA and VDDQ TX voltages for Karhu stability only.
> completed Karhu 10000% by simply setting SA to 1.275 V and VDDQ TX to 1.475 V.
> I'm sure now that I could pass 10000% Karhu that I will be able to find lower Karhu stable voltages than that.


I used before 2 Tools GSat and Memtest, but i must say TM5 (with 1usmus_v3/anta777 or absolut)
is also ok.Memtest or Karhu stress more the Ram directly and GSat/TM5 can i use to test the IMC stability.

tRAS 18????^^


----------



## Exilon

lolhaxz said:


> 1.2V following SVID for mine - It _seemed_ like adding 30mv or so helped with stability with E-Cores for perhaps 100MHz, I see people here suggesting 1.3+ .. not sure that's required, or rather, I have not seen any additional benefit


For what it's worth 5.0 ring is unstable at 1.3v adaptive and stable at 1.35v manual (no load scaling). I'll try 1.30 manual next. In my experience with 12th gen, adaptive L2 voltage is worse for OC than manual because the even the FIVR doesn't respond fast enough. There is no idle power penalty since the L2 voltage still goes to 0 during deeper C-states.

Edit: 1.3v manual seems to be stable?


----------



## grilli4nt

snakeeyes111 said:


> 5,5 4,3 cache auto
> 7600 c36
> And tempthrottle on cpu ^^
> 
> View attachment 2579898





tps3443 said:


> The first thing I noticed with my 13900KF and DDR5 7600 C34, was in games. Primarily the really high GPU usage that is now pegging 100%. When does that even happen?
> 
> Amazing platform for gaming. Absolutely killing it.


Music to my ears. May I ask what kits you are running? Thinking of the g skill 7k+ MHz rated. Do you think any 13900k can handle those speeds or imc silicon lottery?


----------



## Groove2013

PhoenixMDA said:


> tRAS 18????^^


yes, tRAS 18.
it's not faster than tRAS 30, but it's possible to set it to 18 )))
doesn't require any extra voltage.


----------



## Krzych04650

Is there any way to make Ring drop clocks according to temperature/cores loaded like you can for core with things like TVB etc? It seems to be working independently of all of that and only drops clocks when thermal throttling


----------



## ScomComputers

Exilon said:


> For what it's worth 5.0 ring is unstable at 1.3v adaptive and stable at 1.35v manual (no load scaling). I'll try 1.30 manual next. In my experience with 12th gen, adaptive L2 voltage is worse for OC than manual because the even the FIVR doesn't respond fast enough. There is no idle power penalty since the L2 voltage still goes to 0 during deeper C-states.
> 
> Edit: 1.3v manual seems to be stable?


These are interesting things...
For example, I had a 13600K, P cores at 5.5ghz (fixed) 1,300V LLC6 under load 1.288V. E cores 4.4ghz, base voltage, ring 4.9ghz base voltage...all tests stable...but if I put the E cores to 4.5 or the ring to 5 it crashes, how can I make the 4.5 E cores and the 5 ring stable, I would like help with this.
Thank you very much ! 
......
Edit:
I have tried "uncore vid" and "Cpu L2" to increase the voltage, but it did not help !


----------



## Groove2013

ScomComputers said:


> These are interesting things...
> For example, I had a 13600K, P cores at 5.5ghz (fixed) 1,300V LLC6 under load 1.288V. E cores 4.4ghz, base voltage, ring 4.9ghz base voltage...all tests stable...but if I put the E cores to 4.5 or the ring to 5 it crashes, how can I make the 4.5 E cores and the 5 ring stable, I would like help with this.
> Thank you very much !
> ......
> Edit:
> I have tried "uncore vid" and "Cpu L2" to increase the voltage, but it did not help !


If I remember correctly, L2 and uncore voltages depend entirely on Vcore.
So Vcore is the most important one.

And depeding on the quality of your specific CPU sample, 1.3 V under load or even lower, 4.5 GHz E-cores and/or 5.0 GHz uncore/ring might not be possible, unless you increase Vcore past 1.3 V.


----------



## lolhaxz

ScomComputers said:


> These are interesting things...
> For example, I had a 13600K, P cores at 5.5ghz (fixed) 1,300V LLC6 under load 1.288V. E cores 4.4ghz, base voltage, ring 4.9ghz base voltage...all tests stable...but if I put the E cores to 4.5 or the ring to 5 it crashes, how can I make the 4.5 E cores and the 5 ring stable, I would like help with this.
> Thank you very much !
> ......
> Edit:
> I have tried "uncore vid" and "Cpu L2" to increase the voltage, but it did not help !



E-Cores, P-Cores and Cache all share the same power plane.

The voltage chosen for a particular "scenario" (ie, Cache, E-Core or P-Core freq) is based on the highest VID of each of those 3.

Presumably you are configured for fixed voltage which means you are ignoring the VID, but you must supply sufficient voltage to satisfy stability... in non-fixed mode if you increase the ratio of one of those parameters in adaptive/offset mode, unless it is already lower than a VID of the other 2 parameters, the voltage will rise. You want all three VID's to be similarish to have a good chance of all 3 being stable at said voltage.

Never seen the benefit of fixed vcore, cept for perhaps shaving off 10-20mv min vcore (maybe)

The different VID's scenario is I think where people get confused, ie you can feasibly increase the offset for your Cache (ring) and it will improve stability for both P/E cores as well, simply because it is now the dominant VID (increasing the overall voltage) but one foolishly may conclude it was the raising the uncore voltage that 'fixed it'

I believe the L2 voltage you are referring to is just the signaling voltage, increase it 30-50mv and stop messing with it, it's not the cause of your instability.

Short story: Your voltage is too low.


----------



## ScomComputers

@ lolhaxz @Groove2013

Thanks a lot..but I wrote wrong, not fixed/override the vcore, "adaptive" max 1.300V(_under load 1.288V_ ) LLC6 AC/DC 0,15/0,49...
I will try to raise the voltage of the vcore.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

lolhaxz said:


> E-Cores, P-Cores and Cache all share the same power plane.
> 
> The voltage chosen for a particular "scenario" (ie, Cache, E-Core or P-Core freq) is based on the highest VID of each of those 3.
> 
> Presumably you are configured for fixed voltage which means you are ignoring the VID, but you must supply sufficient voltage to satisfy stability... in non-fixed mode if you increase the ratio of one of those parameters in adaptive/offset mode, unless it is already lower than a VID of the other 2 parameters, the voltage will rise. You want all three VID's to be similarish to have a good chance of all 3 being stable at said voltage.
> 
> Never seen the benefit of fixed vcore, cept for perhaps shaving off 10-20mv min vcore (maybe)
> 
> The different VID's scenario is I think where people get confused, ie you can feasibly increase the offset for your Cache (ring) and it will improve stability for both P/E cores as well, simply because it is now the dominant VID (increasing the overall voltage) but one foolishly may conclude it was the raising the uncore voltage that 'fixed it'
> 
> I believe the L2 voltage you are referring to is just the signaling voltage, increase it 30-50mv and stop messing with it, it's not the cause of your instability.
> 
> Short story: Your voltage is too low.


Very nice explanation!
May I use your write in my guide?


----------



## cptclutch

Are there any key voltages other than vcore, SA, and DRAM that one should take off auto for long term health on 13th gen? I know auto can throw some crazy voltages sometimes so just wanted to make sure I'm not missing an important one.

Also is there a reason why I'm experiencing more droop with 13th gen compared to 12th? On an MSI board LLC 3 at 1.41v I'm dropping to 1.27v under load. Would like to lower my idle voltage a bit but didn't want to go to LLC 2.


----------



## don1376

Did you set your ac/DC ll? Mode 3 I use 20/35 ac/DC ll.

I actually prefer mode 5 and 23/68 ac/DC ll. 1.31v drops to 1.28v under load. And that runs my OC including 50r stable at max 83c.

My cpu force rating was 153 but not sure its accurate with how well this cpu clocks and how good imc is on it. Would like to know sp rating but not going to buy Asus board and go through draining system to find out. It's running good as it is.


----------



## RichKnecht

I have been following this thread and I am planning on replacing my 10980XE with a 13900K. I will be keeping my 64GB of b-die G-Skill DDR4. What confuses me is motherboards. Right now I am leaning towards a MSI Tomahawk in either Z690 or Z790, whichever will work better. My main concern is how these boards handle over clocking and power delivery. With my 10980 I "had" to get a board Rampage VI Extreme Omega) with healthy VRMs in order to properly OC the chip and memory and keep it stable. Will the Tomahawk be OK? Is there another board I can look at that will work and not look like a pinball machine? I do not like all of the white/silver stuff on the Strix boards.


----------



## Groove2013

@RichKnecht Tomahawk Z690 or Z790 don't limit a 13900K with max OC in any way with their VRM that stay at more than acceptable temperature.

for Z790 there might be more frequent BIOS and microcode updates with different fixes etc. vs. Z690, because manufacturers concentrate more on their current offers and not last gen.


----------



## imrevoau

RichKnecht said:


> I have been following this thread and I am planning on replacing my 10980XE with a 13900K. I will be keeping my 64GB of b-die G-Skill DDR4. What confuses me is motherboards. Right now I am leaning towards a MSI Tomahawk in either Z690 or Z790, whichever will work better. My main concern is how these boards handle over clocking and power delivery. With my 10980 I "had" to get a board Rampage VI Extreme Omega) with healthy VRMs in order to properly OC the chip and memory and keep it stable. Will the Tomahawk be OK? Is there another board I can look at that will work and not look like a pinball machine? I do not like all of the white/silver stuff on the Strix boards.


Anything from the Z690 A Pro and better will handle an overclocked i9 with 0 issues unless you're doing some crazy LN2 stuff.


----------



## RichKnecht

Groove2013 said:


> @RichKnecht Tomahawk Z690 or Z790 don't limit a 13900K with max OC in any way with their VRM that stay at more than acceptable temperature.
> 
> for Z790 there might be more frequent BIOS and microcode updates with different fixes etc. vs. Z690, because manufacturers concentrate more on their current offers and not last gen.


Thanks for this, I used a Strix X299 E Gaming with my 10980XE at first and it was a nightmare with rocketing VRM temps and overall instability. Love the 10980, but the A+B memory channels don't work anymore and I am running the chip in dual channel mode and surprisingly it hasn't seemed to affect performance all that much.


----------



## newls1

Where can I download this Intel Latency checker app that people are using? I found something similiar on intels site, but its dos based and nothing like what im seeing on the forums.


----------



## tps3443

grilli4nt said:


> Music to my ears. May I ask what kits you are running? Thinking of the g skill 7k+ MHz rated. Do you think any 13900k can handle those speeds or imc silicon lottery?


I think most can. My 13900KF is a excellent sample, but I have no idea how good the IMC is. I am guessing good enough to stabilize 7600C34 on my MSI Z690 Unify-X. Running 262K+ tREFI, and 16 tFAW. With memory 125gb bandwidth. I feel like I am at the limit of my motherboard going any higher.

I have Team Group T-Force DDR5 7200 it’s overclocked to 7600 very easily. I am happy with DDR5 7600 though.

I know of someone else who is on a Z690 Dark Kingpin with G.Skill DDR5 7600 and they cannot stabilize anymore than DDR5 7800. So I feel like we may be hitting a limitation on motherboards and not necessarily the CPU.


----------



## bscool

newls1 said:


> Where can I download this Intel Latency checker app that people are using? I found something similiar on intels site, but its dos based and nothing like what im seeing on the forums.











Releases · FarisR99/IMLCGui


Intel Memory Latency Checker GUI. Contribute to FarisR99/IMLCGui development by creating an account on GitHub.




github.com


----------



## newls1

bscool said:


> Releases · FarisR99/IMLCGui
> 
> 
> Intel Memory Latency Checker GUI. Contribute to FarisR99/IMLCGui development by creating an account on GitHub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> github.com


Thank you, also I just got home and will upload you a pic of my ycruncher F6 screen shot you asked for yesterday


----------



## Groove2013

@PhoenixMDA finished looking for fully stable min SA and VDDQ TX, at least in Karhu 10000%
SA 1.27 V (BIOS). 1.265 V couldn't pass. maybe I can still do lower than 1.27 V, but definitely higher than 1.265 V - haven't checked.
VDDQ TX 1.365 V (BIOS).

when I'll have my custom loop, I will test with Prime95 (non-AVX) for min Vcore and max P-/E-/cache frequencies.

will see whether I'll have to increase SA and VDDQ TX for Prime95 (non-AVX).

RAM frequency and timings are final - nothing to improve anymore.


----------



## newls1

bscool said:


> Can you post benchmate and hit f6 at end to show results. I am looking at hwbot scores and ones lower than yours dont have ring that high but they have higher mem clocks so that might be the difference.


Here you go sir. Also I just learned something new... With this stripped down Tiny11 ISO the "Print screen" Key wont copy whats on my screen to make a pic.. what program can i download to have a good screen capture again?


----------



## tps3443

newls1 said:


> Here you go sir. Also I just learned something new... With this stripped down Tiny11 ISO the "Print screen" Key wont copy whats on my screen to make a pic.. what program can i download to have a good screen capture again?
> 
> View attachment 2580021


What about Windows Snip tool?


----------



## newls1

tps3443 said:


> What about Windows Snip tool?


let me see if I can figure out how to get it.. I have no MS Store crap enabled on this ISO and absolutely zero bloat


----------



## Ichirou

Groove2013 said:


> @PhoenixMDA finished looking for fully stable min SA and VDDQ TX, at least in Karhu 10000%
> SA 1.27 V (BIOS). 1.265 V couldn't pass. maybe I can still do lower than 1.27 V, but definitely higher than 1.265 V - haven't checked.
> VDDQ TX 1.365 V (BIOS).
> 
> when I'll have my custom loop, I will test with Prime95 (non-AVX) for min Vcore and max P-/E-/cache frequencies.
> 
> will see whether I'll have to increase SA and VDDQ TX for Prime95 (non-AVX).
> 
> RAM frequency and timings are final - nothing to improve anymore.


VCCSA will likely need to increase. But P95 is not as strong as y-cruncher, especially without AVX, so you're kind of gimping your results and making them inaccurate.


----------



## Groove2013

Ichirou said:


> VCCSA will likely need to increase. But P95 is not as strong as y-cruncher, especially without AVX, so you're kind of gimping your results and making them inaccurate.


I defenitely won't use y-cruncher, because I don't need it.
voltages that I have to set to pass like ~12 hrs of Prime95 (non-AVX) are enough for any game I'm playing to not crash and that's exactly and only what I'm doing - gaming.

and how am I gimping the results if I always expressly indicate the conditions used to achieve the results I'm presenting?


----------



## newls1

random question and slightly off topic... but how to do boot win11 safe mode if I cant get into OS? Is there an "F" key like the XP days of smashing F8?


----------



## Groove2013

newls1 said:


> random question and slightly off topic... but how to do boot win11 safe mode if I cant get into OS? Is there an "F" key like the XP days of smashing F8?


not even 1 min of googling and directly the first result...

you don't know how to use google?

could have written exactly the same as in the post here (offtopic), but instead in google:


newls1 said:


> how to do boot win11 safe mode


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Apex Z790 incoming


----------



## LazyGamer

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Apex Z790 incoming
> View attachment 2580047


Still MIA in NA


----------



## Ichirou

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Apex Z790 incoming
> View attachment 2580047


An $860 USD motherboard...


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Ichirou said:


> An $860 USD motherboard...


Not cheap. Got Z690 Apex might as well have a pair.

Or sell Z690 Apex to make up for the price of Z790 one.


----------



## Ichirou

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Not cheap. Got Z690 Apex might as well have a pair.
> 
> Or sell Z690 Apex to make up for the price of Z790 one.


Is it the 2022 version? If not, it's worth jack all =\


----------



## OC2000

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Apex Z790 incoming
> View attachment 2580047


Thanks for the heads up, ordered the last one!


----------



## chibi

Anyone have updates of when the z790-i strix itx board will be available?


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Ichirou said:


> Is it the 2022 version? If not, it's worth jack all =\


Some 2021 models clock okay. However, I'll see regarding that.


----------



## newls1

Groove2013 said:


> not even 1 min of googling and directly the first result...
> 
> you don't know how to use google?
> 
> could have written exactly the same as in the post here (offtopic), but instead in google:


you are a dick, thank you!


----------



## ScomComputers

lolhaxz said:


> " _in non-fixed mode if you increase the ratio of one of those parameters in adaptive/offset mode, unless it is already lower than a VID of the other 2 parameters, the voltage will rise._ "


I have a problem,if I set one of the parameters to adaptive/offset mode (I tried them all), nothing changes on the vid, no voltage increase, it's always stuck at the base vid=1.288V!
But,at 5500/4400/4900 Mhz under load the vid drops to 1.234 with LLC6 so stable all voltages are on auto ,the vcore under load is 1.279V...with these settings stable all tests!
Or maybe I am misreading something...


----------



## tootall123

@Falkentyne i have a new motherboard on the way as I was having issues with my z690 itx board.

new one is a z790 hero so will get back to you with the SP Rating


----------



## newls1

13900K @ 101FSB R23 run 5.850GHz ... This CPU is amazing. I cant believe how good these OC. Finally broke 44k. This was a goal of mine. im done OCing this chip now!


----------



## LiquidHaus

bhav said:


> Which Asrock Z690 might I ask?


Wow this thread is moving fast.

Z690 Aqua, BIOS Rev 10.01


----------



## chispy

LiquidHaus said:


> Wow this thread is moving fast.
> 
> Z690 Aqua, BIOS Rev 10.01



Same here ASRock Z690 Aqua OC 2xDimm board with a 13700KF , just started playing with it today.


----------



## nickolp1974

is supercool still the only direct die block???


----------



## LiquidHaus

chispy said:


> Same here ASRock Z690 Aqua OC 2xDimm board with a 13700KF , just started playing with it today.


Nice, glad to see some other ASRock owners in here. Everyone and their mom is on an Asus.

Let me know what results you get. I'm battling with four DIMM stability more than anything at the moment. Need the ram unfortunately.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think I found a bug in HW_Info....

I have my E-cores set to 
E:48x4-47x8-46x16

So how can I get an effective clock higher than 4800 on E-cores?


----------



## Csavez™

newls1 said:


> 13900K @ 101FSB R23 run 5.850GHz ... This CPU is amazing. I cant believe how good these OC. Finally broke 44k. This was a goal of mine. im done OCing this chip now!
> 
> View attachment 2580066


Did you manage to stabilize it? Hwinfo???


----------



## Nizzen

nickolp1974 said:


> is supercool still the only direct die block???


It's the best, so why bother with anything else


----------



## Carillo

Nizzen said:


> It's the best, so why bother with anything else


Totally agree!


----------



## newls1

nickolp1974 said:


> is supercool still the only direct die block???


I believe so, but it works well, just takes 23 years to get it after you order it.



Csavez™ said:


> Did you manage to stabilize it? Hwinfo???


I believe so. After the 4th r23 run in a row it errored out and then tried y-cruncher and it failed. What I found out after playing with voltage settings is this:
Since day 1 after i installed this CPU, Ive used the same voltage settings that i had for alder lake (12900ks) and im finding that is a bad idea. I set E-Core L2 cache voltage to 1.235v right off thebat cause thats what it took to stabilze my e-cores on the 12900 to gain stability @ 4.4ghz. I've had ZERO stability issues until I break faster then 4.650ghz on the e-cores. The system is at the tippy top of stability and if i cough while running y-cruncher it will fail. drop back to 46x e-core and all is great again. For the hell of it, I put the E-Core L2 voltage back to "auto" and y-cruncher back to back runs pass and r23looped is passing..... So confused! I have no way to tell what voltage actually is "Auto" cause hwinfo64 doesnt seem to tell me this voltage (Unless im over looking it so maybe someone can tell me what its called using a MSI board) so short/long answer is....... im still in the process of testing stability. BTW, just got my best y-cruncher score of 48.1!


----------



## toncij

Ichirou said:


> Is it the 2022 version? If not, it's worth jack all =\


I can confirm some (at least all I got and it was 4) Apex Z690 were nice (late 2021 model).


----------



## fitnessgrampacertest

In case anybody is interested in initial OC results of the 13900K on a Z690 (Apex) Motherboard:

Things i have noticed so far:

- The CPU 's IMC has been DRASTICALLY improved upon. I used to think my Apex was a faulty sample. I could never run my RAM stable above 6400mhz, and could not boot past 6600mhz. Now i can run stable enough to game at 6600 mhz and can boot all the way up to 7000mhz. I imagine bootable ram speed would be higher if i had Hynix A-Die. Overall very impressed, i believe this is the most notable and performance enhancing improvement

- L1 cache throughput seems to be about double what my 12900KS could do. L2 and L3 seem to experience around a 50%-75% boost in overall throughput

- Ring Clock can be pushed much higher with E-Cores enabled. I tried disabling E-Core to see if i could push the ring past 5.0ghz, but anything higher than a x50 ring ratio would blue screen immediately after completing post. Not sure what the issue is there, or if it just cant handle more than 5.0ghz on a standard 360mm AIO cooling setup.

- Core clocks are much higher than the previous gen with far less voltage. OC Stability has been greatly improved. My Chip's P-Core SP is 116, and my E-Core SP is 85 for an overall SP of 105. With regard to the P-Cores, this chip is an Excellent sample.


----------



## raad11

What latency are you guys getting in that Intel app with DDR4 + 13900K?


----------



## nickolp1974

Nizzen said:


> It's the best, so why bother with anything else


not in stock!!! i thought Der8auer was working on something and EK?


----------



## Exilon

raad11 said:


> What latency are you guys getting in that Intel app with DDR4 + 13900K?


The Intel app is kind of broken for 13th gen. The prefetch disabling driver isn't working so you need to restart and disable the prefetcher manually to get accurate numbers.

I get 49.3ns with the random access latency mode which reliably works on 13th gen.










You could also use ClamChowder's tool 








GitHub - clamchowder/MicrobenchmarksGui: An attempt to make a more accessible microbenchmark


An attempt to make a more accessible microbenchmark - GitHub - clamchowder/MicrobenchmarksGui: An attempt to make a more accessible microbenchmark




github.com




Download link:








Release v0.000003 · clamchowder/MicrobenchmarksGui


Add latency testing and improve result tracking for export




github.com


----------



## bigfootnz

Exilon said:


> The Intel app is kind of broken for 13th gen. The prefetch disabling driver isn't working so you need to restart and disable the prefetcher manually to get accurate numbers.
> 
> I get 49.3ns with the random access latency mode which reliably works on 13th gen.
> 
> View attachment 2580098
> 
> 
> You could also use ClamChowder's tool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GitHub - clamchowder/MicrobenchmarksGui: An attempt to make a more accessible microbenchmark
> 
> 
> An attempt to make a more accessible microbenchmark - GitHub - clamchowder/MicrobenchmarksGui: An attempt to make a more accessible microbenchmark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> github.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Download link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Release v0.000003 · clamchowder/MicrobenchmarksGui
> 
> 
> Add latency testing and improve result tracking for export
> 
> 
> 
> 
> github.com


Can you please explain how to disable perfetcher manually? With this perfetcher disabled can I use MLC gui or I need to use cmd promtp? If I need to use cmd can you please let me know which command to use? Thanks


----------



## neteng101

Anyone into SOTR 1080p lowest benchmarks? I believe this is tied quite a bit to memory, which is same between my 12700k and 13700k, same board, so all the FPS improvements are from the CPU itself, cache, etc. 5.5P 4.4E 4.8R on the 13700k vs. 5.1P 4.0E 4.2R on the 12700k.


----------



## Exilon

bigfootnz said:


> Can you please explain how to disable perfetcher manually? With this perfetcher disabled can I use MLC gui or I need to use cmd promtp? If I need to use cmd can you please let me know which command to use? Thanks


In BIOS platform settings, there should be options to disable cache line prefetch and memory prefetch.

You can just open a cmd prompt where you unzipped mlc.exe and run this to use the random access algo without disabling the prefetch.

./mlc.exe -r --idle_latency


----------



## bigfootnz

Exilon said:


> In BIOS platform settings, there should be options to disable cache line prefetch and memory prefetch.
> 
> You can just open a cmd prompt where you unzipped mlc.exe and run this to use the random access algo without disabling the prefetch.
> 
> ./mlc.exe -r --idle_latency


Are your results with disabled prefetch or not? At the moment I can test remotely on my PC, and without disabling it results are not consistent just like with AIDA. Previously MLC was really consistent.


----------



## Exilon

bigfootnz said:


> Are your results with disabled prefetch or not? At the moment I can test remotely on my PC, and without disabling it results are not consistent just like with AIDA. Previously MLC was really consistent.


No disabled prefetch. I'm too lazy to go turn it off lol.

Yeah, the random latency is about a 20GB/s load on the memory so it is highly sensitive to background processes.


----------



## schug

Just installed a 13900KF. Is 116 p and 88 e considered alright?


----------



## yahfz

schug said:


> Just installed a 13900KF. Is 116 p and 88 e considered alright?


That's very good.


----------



## bscool

newls1 said:


> Here you go sir. Also I just learned something new... With this stripped down Tiny11 ISO the "Print screen" Key wont copy whats on my screen to make a pic.. what program can i download to have a good screen capture again?
> 
> View attachment 2580021


See that *save results(* *f6)*. hit F6 again and it automatically makes a screenshot for you and saves it in your benchmate folder.

I guess that only works though for benchmate so you have to find something else for your other screenshots.


----------



## chispy

Finally got my hardware complete for a new built , i was waiting for the ram.
ASRock Z690 Aqua OC 2xDimm Motherboard brand new never opened ( gift by Nickshih and ASRock ) , Intel Core i7 13700KF , G.Skill 2x16gb DDR5-7200Mhz A-die hynix , TR Frame. Will start playing tomorrow with it 😃.


----------



## dante`afk

nickolp1974 said:


> is supercool still the only direct die block???


dude seems off the grid. I messaged him 2 weeks ago on facebook, no response.

I ordered the last direct die on his website, no movement.


----------



## Slackaveli

newls1 said:


> are you on A Die? Can you share all your mem voltage settings if you are on M-Die please?


SA 1.8v
vddq 1.4v
vdd2 1.42v
memory 1.55v
good for 7200c32 on M-Die, or 7400c34 although the latency is better at 7200c32.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

dante`afk said:


> dude seems off the grid. I messaged him 2 weeks ago on facebook, no response.
> 
> I ordered the last direct die on his website, no movement.


I contacted him 2 weeks ago and I just got 13th gen direct die kit today.


----------



## dante`afk

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I contacted him 2 weeks ago and I just got 13th gen direct die kit today.


meh, 13th gen kit different from 12th gen?


----------



## tps3443

chispy said:


> Finally got my hardware complete for a new built , i was waiting for the ram.
> ASRock Z690 Aqua OC 2xDimm Motherboard brand new never opened ( gift by Nickshih and ASRock ) , Intel Core i7 13700KF , G.Skill 2x16gb DDR5-7200Mhz A-die hynix , TR Frame. Will start playing tomorrow with it 😃.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580111
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580112


Hey! Nice motherboard choice. Can you please share what sort over memory overclocking you achieve? These are (12) layer boards, and apparently gems when it comes to memory OC with A-Die. But very little information out there on them. Considering the Apex Z790 is like $750 the Aqua OC is a bargain lol. Anyways, let me know thanks. I think for $889 bucks, it is a real bargain.

I see you have A-Die 7200 DDR5, I have the exact same stuff so I’m really curious to know if this board is worthy of my money or not. Not only is It white and matches my Praxis test bench, but it’s a (2 Dimm) board also. We are counting on your feedback. 😁 

See how high you can get that DDR5 stable. I can get 7600 on my Unify-X.


----------



## newls1

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I contacted him 2 weeks ago and I just got 13th gen direct die kit today.


are you talking about supercool? Does he now have a specific 13gen block?


----------



## tps3443

@Falkentyne 

You were right. I tried that Alphacool thermal paste with really high conductivity . The first thing that made me question it was how soft it was, and how easily it. spread. Temps were 1C hotter than my Thermalright TF7 LOL. Waste of $25 bucks. No improvement.

I’ll swap over to TFX. I always thought it was the best anyways.


----------



## Groove2013

dante`afk said:


> dude seems off the grid. I messaged him 2 weeks ago on facebook, no response.
> 
> I ordered the last direct die on his website, no movement.


waiting for this...


----------



## raad11

Slackaveli said:


> SA 1.8v
> vddq 1.4v
> vdd2 1.42v
> memory 1.55v
> good for 7200c32 on M-Die, or 7400c34 although the latency is better at 7200c32.


Dude, 1.8v for VCCSA?


----------



## wilkinsb01

nickolp1974 said:


> is supercool still the only direct die block???


Yes i ordered one and i get it in 7 days


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

newls1 said:


> are you talking about supercool? Does he now have a specific 13gen block?


I think its just a little bit modification from 12th gen kit. Its the one on clock them up channel. He reviewed it a few days ago.


----------



## davids40

👋 hello
13900K X233K755

13900K 5P 4.3E 4.6R 1.2 CPU Core Voltage
13900K 5.5P 4.3E 4.6R 1.35 CPU Core Voltage 

DDR4 2000 Gear1 CPU SA Voltage 1.2v CPU VDDQ voltage Auto 1.2V CPU Aux Voltage Auto 1.788V

is it a good silicon lottery? normal one ? 

thanks 🤝


----------



## Exilon

Stabilized into these game clocks at AC LL 0.35/0.98 with LLC3. P-cores are using ASUS +2 TVB profile










Warhammer III session average


----------



## imrevoau

So is anyone else having problems with their cold boots being extremely slow? My 690A Pro will restart up to 7-8 times before posting to BIOS/Windows. I also have to press the "reset" button on my case and then it will instantly boot. But if I turn my PC off and back on it will POST instantly. It seems to only occur when the PC is off for long durations. I'm assuming it's probably a BIOS setting since it only happened when I installed my 13700K and updated BIOS.


----------



## HemuV2

davids40 said:


> 👋 hello
> 13900K X233K755
> 
> 13900K 5P 4.3E 4.6R 1.2 CPU Core Voltage
> 13900K 5.5P 4.3E 4.6R 1.35 CPU Core Voltage
> 
> DDR4 2000 Gear1 CPU SA Voltage 1.2v CPU VDDQ voltage Auto 1.2V CPU Aux Voltage Auto 1.788V
> 
> is it a good silicon lottery? normal one ?
> 
> thanks 🤝


Core voltage under load? If it's 1.15V vcore load then it's a solid chip


----------



## HemuV2

neteng101 said:


> Anyone into SOTR 1080p lowest benchmarks? I believe this is tied quite a bit to memory, which is same between my 12700k and 13700k, same board, so all the FPS improvements are from the CPU itself, cache, etc. 5.5P 4.4E 4.8R on the 13700k vs. 5.1P 4.0E 4.2R on the 12700k.
> 
> View attachment 2580100
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580101


Do you run it off steam or epic?, also i do 720 lowest setting to absolutely remove GPU bottleneck whatsoever.


----------



## newls1

Slackaveli said:


> SA 1.8v
> vddq 1.4v
> vdd2 1.42v
> memory 1.55v
> good for 7200c32 on M-Die, or 7400c34 although the latency is better at 7200c32.


um..... you better not be @ 1.8vSA! Id like to try this.. do you have a asrock timing screenie showing the other settings? Thank you sir for the reply


----------



## neteng101

HemuV2 said:


> Do you run it off steam or epic?, also i do 720 lowest setting to absolutely remove GPU bottleneck whatsoever.


Steam. 720p is absolutely not needed unless you have a weak GPU, will yield same results...


----------



## sugi0lover

tesing maximum booting at cl34 on 13900K + Z790 Apex
○ Ram : DDR5-5600 SK Hynix 
○ Ram OC : 8800Mhz-34-48-48-34 
○ MB : Z790 Apex 


Spoiler: 8800 CL34 booting


----------



## davids40

HemuV2 said:


> Core voltage under load? If it's 1.15V vcore load then it's a solid chip



core voltage 1.2 idle and load 
no vdrop with the MSI Z690 Edge 

DigitAll Power 
-- > CPU LLC Mode 3 
--!!!!< COU Aux LLC Mode 3


----------



## RichKnecht

Anyone running an Optimus Sig V2 on their 13th gen chips? If so, did you go with a backplate? I should be getting my 13900K this morning (fingers crossed) and I already have the thermal right frame.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Anyone running an Optimus Sig V2 on their 13th gen chips? If so, did you go with a backplate? I should be getting my 13900K this morning (fingers crossed) and I already have the thermal right frame.


I am. Just use the XSPC plastic backplate. works great! I have the Thermalright frame installed too. I know someone who didn’t use a backplate though, you certainly don’t have to. Your Optimus waterblock comes with little nuts that can hold the studs in place if you don’t have a backplate. 









Amazon.com: XSPC LGA 1700 CPU Backplate : Electronics


Buy XSPC LGA 1700 CPU Backplate: Water Cooling Systems - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



www.amazon.com


----------



## don1376

An one up for loaning me their 12/13 gen delid tool. Lol My sample is worthy of delidding just don't want to spend the money for tool for 1 use. I can return it with $20 to cover shipping and rental fee. Figure can't hurt to ask.


----------



## JohnyDadBod

neteng101 said:


> Anyone into SOTR 1080p lowest benchmarks? I believe this is tied quite a bit to memory, which is same between my 12700k and 13700k, same board, so all the FPS improvements are from the CPU itself, cache, etc. 5.5P 4.4E 4.8R on the 13700k vs. 5.1P 4.0E 4.2R on the 12700k.
> 
> View attachment 2580100
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580101


My results on my 13900K


----------



## tps3443

@Ichirou 

Hey, did you ever finish testing all of your 13900K’s? Find a good one?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> 
> Hey, did you ever finish testing all of your 13900K’s? Find a good one?


My second one arrives on the 10th. Yeah, sucks to have to wait. Third is on the 16th. Fourth is TBD since BestBuy hasn't given me any update.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> My second one arrives on the 10th. Yeah, sucks to have to wait. Third is on the 16th. Fourth is TBD since BestBuy hasn't given me any update.


Man, I wouldn’t even bother with all that. I believe most are good enough samples. I’d just pick the best out of two. Or better yet just use the one you’ve got until KS maybe?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Man, I wouldn’t even bother with all that. I believe most are good enough samples. I’d just pick the best out of two. Or better yet just use the one you’ve got until KS maybe?


I'm used to the waiting. This custom water loop's been on hold since last winter.
I want the best, won't settle for less. It wouldn't do this loop justice to give it some subpar CPU.

What I've learned so far is that Intel deliberately gives Canada Computers down bins. It's too much of a coincidence that both ADL and RPL turned out to be crappy bins.
And knowing that each retailer is given specifically designated batches, I honestly would not be surprised.

It's similar to AIBs like Zotac getting lower quality boards from Nvidia to work with.


----------



## toncij

Ichirou said:


> I'm used to the waiting. This custom water loop's been on hold since last winter.
> I want the best, won't settle for less. It wouldn't do this loop justice to give it some subpar CPU.
> 
> What I've learned so far is that Intel deliberately gives Canada Computers down bins. It's too much of a coincidence that both ADL and RPL turned out to be crappy bins.
> And knowing that each retailer is given specifically designated batches, I honestly would not be surprised.
> 
> It's similar to AIBs like Zotac getting lower quality boards from Nvidia to work with.


That's closer to a conspiracy theory than real. 
If you want the best, wait for 13900KS.


----------



## Ichirou

toncij said:


> That's closer to a conspiracy theory than real.
> If you want the best, wait for 13900KS.


Yeah, I'm gonna bin these next few chips once they arrive in the meanwhile, and if there isn't anything satisfactory, 13900KS it is.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> I'm used to the waiting. This custom water loop's been on hold since last winter.
> I want the best, won't settle for less. It wouldn't do this loop justice to give it some subpar CPU.
> 
> What I've learned so far is that Intel deliberately gives Canada Computers down bins. It's too much of a coincidence that both ADL and RPL turned out to be crappy bins.
> And knowing that each retailer is given specifically designated batches, I honestly would not be surprised.
> 
> It's similar to AIBs like Zotac getting lower quality boards from Nvidia to work with.


It’s all gamble no matter where you buy. I remember right before 12900K launched, I decided I wanted a 11900K and Z590. So I bought a brand new 11900K for full retail price from Newegg. It was an average chip as it maxed out at 5.2 AVX stable even delidded on crazy watercooling. Well, I ended up trading a really good SP85 10850K to a friend for another brand new 11900K that came from Bestbuy, well the batch number didn’t match the box lol. I thought it was odd.. Well, that 11900K was pure gold! 5.5Ghz benching through R23 and 4K+ Gear 1 easy. Delidding it merely AVX stabilized 5.5. Anyways, 1 year later I followed the advice of others. One person said “Buy a KF” another person said “Buy as early as possible” so I Pre-ordered a 13900KF from Newegg and it’s really fantastic. As a matter of fact some professional team overclocker has offered a thousand bucks for it lol. It’s absolutely random when it comes to these chips. I saw a Celeron G6900 that was a SP130 something “What a waste lol”


----------



## Shonk

Im in the middle of fitting my 13900k

Before removing the 12900k i set everything cpu related back to factory

Cinebench R23 41046
P Cores Max 90°C
359.054W CPU Package Power

Prime 95 Small FFT
454W Package Power
4 Cores at or close to Tj Max
P Cores throttling to 5.4 Ghz

I wasnt expecting 454W maybe 400

Is this in line with most other peoples experiences?
*Take note that i have the AVX2 offsets disabled*

Turbo Ratio Limits (P-cores) - IA/SSE: 58x (1-2c), 55x (3-8c)
Turbo Ratio Limits (E-cores): 43x (1-16c)
*Turbo Ratio Limits - AVX2, Resolved: 58x (1-2c), 55x (3-8c)*
CPU Current: 5518.8 MHz = 55 x 100.3 MHz @ 1.3413 V
LLC/Ring Maximum: 5000.0 MHz = 50.00 x 100.0 MHz
LLC/Ring Current: 4615.7 MHz = 46.00 x 100.3 MHz @ 1.2662 V
IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC): 0.600 / 0.900 mOhm


----------



## Exilon

The Cinebench score looks right

I'm surprised you can cool 454W. Is TjMax set to 115c for you?


----------



## Shonk

no 100


----------



## Krzych04650

1.472V stock VF curve for 5.8 GHz and 1.28V load needed to run Cinebench R23 at 5.5 GHz stable would be a disaster of a sample right? 13900KF


----------



## affxct

So it seems I got screwed as always. My 13700K is an SP 79 with P 89 and E 59. Max D4 bootable is 4000 which suggests that my D5 limit with A-die should be around 8000. My chip can scale up to 1.6V VDD2, so that factor shouldn’t be much of a hindrance. At the very least it’s capable of 7200 with M-die. Yeah I dunno. Not sure how 55/44/48 is doable with this kind of an SP rating or what I’d be able to do if it were in the 80s or 90s.


----------



## HemuV2

affxct said:


> So it seems I got screwed as always. My 13700K is an SP 79 with P 89 and E 59. Max D4 bootable is 4000 which suggests that my D5 limit with A-die should be around 8000. My chip can scale up to 1.6V VDD2, so that factor shouldn’t be much of a hindrance. At the very least it’s capable of 7200 with M-die. Yeah I dunno. Not sure how 55/44/48 is doable with this kind of an SP rating or what I’d be able to do if it were in the 80s or 90s.


That is quite a bit low compared to i9s also afaik the SP of i7 and i9 isn't even comparable is it? That makes your i7 way below avg. Have you tested cb r23 OC vcore loads?


----------



## HemuV2

Krzych04650 said:


> 1.472V stock VF curve for 5.8 GHz and 1.28V load needed to run Cinebench R23 at 5.5 GHz stable would be a disaster of a sample right? 13900KF


5.8 is really high, from what I've seen only good bins are able to do it with good cooling. But yes if 1.472 is your loadvcore then your chip might not be able to do it at reasonable load vcore


----------



## affxct

HemuV2 said:


> That is quite a bit low compared to i9s also afaik the SP of i7 and i9 isn't even comparable is it? That makes your i7 way below avg. Have you tested cb r23 OC vcore loads?


Yeah, my current OC runs R23 pretty easily, being that R23 isn’t as hard as the stress test I used in terms of POUT and load temps. I managed 32260. Not massive, but it suggests I wasn’t clock stretching or anything like that.


----------



## HemuV2

Krzych04650 said:


> 1.472V stock VF curve for 5.8 GHz and 1.28V load needed to run Cinebench R23 at 5.5 GHz stable would be a disaster of a sample right? 13900KF




just saw 1.28 load for 5.5 stock, typically it should be able to pass that at 1.18-1.2V even for avg bins so yes I'd assume this is a below avg sample.


----------



## HemuV2

affxct said:


> Yeah, my current OC runs R23 pretty easily, being that R23 isn’t as hard as the stress test I used in terms of POUT and load temps. I managed 32260. Not massive, but it suggests I wasn’t clock stretching or anything like that.


What OC did you run and what tests? Also is i7 5.3 stock?


----------



## HemuV2

davids40 said:


> core voltage 1.2 idle and load
> no vdrop with the MSI Z690 Edge
> 
> DigitAll Power
> -- > CPU LLC Mode 3
> --!!!!< COU Aux LLC Mode 3


That's a very aggressive LLC, for me that's i think ultra extreme or extreme LLC, maybe you should go for higher vcore with a moderate LLC.


----------



## tps3443

affxct said:


> So it seems I got screwed as always. My 13700K is an SP 79 with P 89 and E 59. Max D4 bootable is 4000 which suggests that my D5 limit with A-die should be around 8000. My chip can scale up to 1.6V VDD2, so that factor shouldn’t be much of a hindrance. At the very least it’s capable of 7200 with M-die. Yeah I dunno. Not sure how 55/44/48 is doable with this kind of an SP rating or what I’d be able to do if it were in the 80s or 90s.


Test the chip throughly before hand. It may turn out to be a really great CPU.


----------



## Agent-A01

affxct said:


> So it seems I got screwed as always. My 13700K is an SP 79 with P 89 and E 59. Max D4 bootable is 4000 which suggests that my D5 limit with A-die should be around 8000. My chip can scale up to 1.6V VDD2, so that factor shouldn’t be much of a hindrance. At the very least it’s capable of 7200 with M-die. Yeah I dunno. Not sure how 55/44/48 is doable with this kind of an SP rating or what I’d be able to do if it were in the 80s or 90s.


I think SP scores are bugged. Dual bios one bios shows SP105 and the other one is like SP82 on the z690 apex. Prediction for 5.8ghz with SP82 is like 1.72v lol


----------



## affxct

HemuV2 said:


> What OC did you run and what tests? Also is i7 5.3 stock?


I initially had 5.6/4.4/4.8, but it wasn’t R23 stable. Somehow it passed Linpack due to the wrong binary being used likely.

I later that night came to find IBT with 4GB data size to still be viable. I ran 60 loops and the CPU reached 220A/280W at heavy sections. Only 5.5/4.4/4.8 was stable. It required 1.26 Vmin on my Dark. Ran R23 and it ran at like 86c and totally clean. Score looks good so I think it’s pretty much a lock for a daily’able OC.

Stock at heavy AVX is 5.3/4.2/4.5 at far too high of a stock voltage on most chips.


----------



## affxct

Agent-A01 said:


> I think SP scores are bugged. Dual bios one bios shows SP105 and the other one is like SP82 on the z690 apex. Prediction for 5.8ghz with SP82 is like 1.72v lol


That’s promising for sure, but by this point I just don’t know anymore. If my LF II all of sudden can’t cool 280W at 18c ambient then I’ll know that the mount is wrong.

I assumed the same thing so I re-seated carefully, re-mounted my AIO’s backplate and stand-offs, and made sure to screw it in as carefully and flush as I could. I also cleared CMOS before the initial install yesterday, before re-doing everything today, and I re-flashed the BIOS. By this point I think 79 is it. It would also explain the 2000MHz uncore cap. I also can’t boot 5.0-5.1 cache so that kinda adds up.


----------



## affxct

tps3443 said:


> Test the chip throughly before hand. It may turn out to be a really great CPU.


I came to find the SP way after finalising max OCs. I just happened to buy my friend’s old D4 stuff because he sold them for super cheap and needed the cash. It’s kinda break, but I don’t really know what to make of it.


----------



## Krzych04650

EDIT Nevermind, made a mistake.


----------



## tps3443

affxct said:


> I came to find the SP way after finalising max OCs. I just happened to buy my friend’s old D4 stuff because he sold them for super cheap and needed the cash. It’s kinda break, but I don’t really know what to make of it.


Some chips are good even with a low SP. Proper cooling and any of these chips will overclock well with the Bruteforce of high power as the trade off.

How does yours overclock?


----------



## Agent-A01

affxct said:


> That’s promising for sure, but by this point I just don’t know anymore. If my LF II all of sudden can’t cool 280W at 18c ambient then I’ll know that the mount is wrong.
> 
> I assumed the same thing so I re-seated carefully, re-mounted my AIO’s backplate and stand-offs, and made sure to screw it in as carefully and flush as I could. I also cleared CMOS before the initial install yesterday, before re-doing everything today, and I re-flashed the BIOS. By this point I think 79 is it. It would also explain the 2000MHz uncore cap. I also can’t boot 5.0-5.1 cache so that kinda adds up.


What's your vmin for cinebench r23 for 5.5 all core?



Krzych04650 said:


> Holy **** it actually is a disaster of a sample. I am still on temporary air cooling so I didn't even bother with any binning and went straight into memory tuning and benching single threaded games for the few days that I had this CPU, although I found that a bit odd that CPU ran at 1.4V Vcore stock in brief multi threaded game tests that I've done, like AC: Origins. Turns out that it actually needs this much voltage for 5.5 GHz, it will crash on anything lower...
> 
> It literally needs to shove 1.4V stock at 5.5 GHz to survive in a game. How in the world did that ever got binned as 13900K/F class product, this is 13600KF level of bin, 5.5 should be it's maximum balls to the wall OC, not stock operating frequency. What the ****


You do know that you'll have a couple cores boosting to 5.8 under games? That's why you'll see > 1.4v in a game.
That's normal operation.


----------



## affxct

tps3443 said:


> Some chips are good even with a low SP. Proper cooling and any of these chips will overclock well with the Bruteforce of high power as the trade off.
> 
> How does yours overclock?


55/44/48 1.26 Vmin in IBT (280W max), and it runs R23 pretty comfortably. It’s ok.


----------



## tps3443

Krzych04650 said:


> Holy **** it actually is a disaster of a sample. I am still on temporary air cooling so I didn't even bother with any binning and went straight into memory tuning and benching single threaded games for the few days that I had this CPU, although I found that a bit odd that CPU ran at 1.4V Vcore stock in brief multi threaded game tests that I've done, like AC: Origins. Turns out that it actually needs this much voltage for 5.5 GHz, it will crash on anything lower...
> 
> It literally needs to shove 1.4V stock at 5.5 GHz to survive in a game. How in the world did that ever got binned as 13900K/F class product, this is 13600KF level of bin, 5.5 should be it's maximum balls to the wall OC, not stock operating frequency. What the ****


How hot is it running? Also, auto voltage can be a little heavy handed even with better bins. I imagine a air cooler isn’t going to eek out low voltage numbers. The hotter a cpu is, the more power, and the more voltage it needs.

Stock, the cpu is boosting up to 5.8Ghz which would show a higher v-core with auto voltage to feed that 5.8Ghz 2-core boost frequency at times.


----------



## tps3443

affxct said:


> 55/44/48 1.26 Vmin in IBT (280W max), and it runs R23 pretty comfortably. It’s ok.


I gotcha, IBT doesn’t really stress power all that much. But either way it’s still a really fast CPU. You essentially have a GOLDEN 12900KS lol. You can always exchange it if you want to right? I think one guy on here bought (3) 13700K’s and binned for the best. Maybe he’ll chime in on his SP’s.


----------



## Madness11

Guys on hero z690 can I use A-die 7200 memory ?? Or it's won't boot ?)


----------



## RichKnecht

OK, 10980XE and Omega board replaced with MSI Z790 Tomahawk and 13900K. Running stock and I am lost...LOL Tried enabling the XMP profile for my RAM and it's a no go. Time to search for some typre of set up guide as I am too used to ASUS bios and X299. BTW< this chip get HOT.


----------



## Krzych04650

Agent-A01 said:


> You do know that you'll have a couple cores boosting to 5.8 under games? That's why you'll see > 1.4v in a game.
> That's normal operation.





tps3443 said:


> How hot is it running? Also, auto voltage can be a little heavy handed even with better bins. I imagine a air cooler isn’t going to eek out low voltage numbers. The hotter a cpu is, the more power, and the more voltage it needs.
> 
> Stock, the cpu is boosting up to 5.8Ghz which would show a higher v-core with auto voltage to feed that 5.8Ghz 2-core boost frequency at times.


Damn, you are right, sorry. By getting rid of that 5.8 boost by locking to 55 all core ratio I managed to stabilize it around 1.28V, which is exactly what native VF curve sits at for 55.

Back to binning though, those SP ratings that Asus does are based on VF curve right? It reads what voltages CPU needs for 58 ratio? So even on motherboard without SP feature, you can simply set your ratio to 58, reboot, read the voltage that CPU is running at and then compare with others to roughly gauge where you are?


----------



## affxct

tps3443 said:


> I gotcha, IBT doesn’t really stress power all that much. But either way it’s still a really fast CPU. You essentially have a GOLDEN 12900KS lol. You can always exchange it if you want to right? I think one guy on here bought (3) 13700K’s and binned for the best. Maybe he’ll chime in on his SP’s.


280W is enough for me tbh. I can’t really cool more than that anyway so running something like P95 @ 350W would probably be a disaster. I’m convinced that most AIO owners should set a 300W power limit. Unfortunately where I live, retailers don’t really give you the liberty to exchange stuff you don’t like. The caveat being that our local RMAs are lightning quick.


----------



## Agent-A01

Krzych04650 said:


> Damn, you are right, sorry. By getting rid of that 5.8 boost by locking to 55 all core ratio I managed to stabilize it around 1.28V, which is exactly what native VF curve sits at for 55.
> 
> Back to binning though, those SP ratings that Asus does are based on VF curve right? It reads what voltages CPU needs for 58 ratio? So even on motherboard without SP feature, you can simply set your ratio to 58, reboot, read the voltage that CPU is running at and then compare with others to roughly gauge where you are?


Yes you need to manually set all cores to 55 to compare them. Different motherboards may have different boost behavior so comparing vids at different frequencies would be meaningless.

The 58x is usually for single or 2 core operation and the CPU will set those to the best 2 cores. It's possible to have really good 2 cores and the rest are duds though.


----------



## nickolp1974




----------



## mimosky

Hey guys, great reading so far
Am I a lottery looser or something is off here? This is Prime Z790-A (so no SP ratings) + 13900k. Stock settings with synced cores set to x55.

Check out this vcore:









It's better with SVID Bahavior set to "typical scenario" and going down to 1.44 (same voltage/vcore shows in HWINFO64 in windows 11).

I've been trying to tame this one, but to be honest I'm starting to think there's no way
What do you think?


----------



## Exilon

My 13900K is binned in a way that the Vcore for 5.5 P-core y-cruncher stable is not 4.3 E-core stable.  Intel better make Meteor/Arrow lake E-cores have their own voltage domain.

Temporarily solution: run the E-core at 4.2 on all-core


----------



## Exilon

mimosky said:


> Hey guys, great reading so far
> Am I a lottery looser or something is off here? This is Prime Z790-A (so no SP ratings) + 13900k. Stock settings with synced cores set to x55.
> 
> Check out this vcore:
> View attachment 2580327
> 
> 
> It's better with SVID Bahavior set to "typical scenario" and going down to 1.44 (same voltage/vcore shows in HWINFO64 in windows 11).
> 
> I've been trying to tame this one, but to be honest I'm starting to think there's no way
> What do you think?


What does SVID trained do for you at LLC4? The setting you're touching modifies AC Load Line in the Internal CPU power settings and you can get the readout of the AC Load Line in HWInfo64

Here's mine at SVID trained + LLC4


----------



## Falkentyne

mimosky said:


> Hey guys, great reading so far
> Am I a lottery looser or something is off here? This is Prime Z790-A (so no SP ratings) + 13900k. Stock settings with synced cores set to x55.
> 
> Check out this vcore:
> View attachment 2580327
> 
> 
> It's better with SVID Bahavior set to "typical scenario" and going down to 1.44 (same voltage/vcore shows in HWINFO64 in windows 11).
> 
> I've been trying to tame this one, but to be honest I'm starting to think there's no way
> What do you think?


Set sync all cores to x55, keep E-cores and Ring/cache at stock, and set actual VRM Vcore voltage to 1.30v, LLC Level 6, then run cinebench R23 for 30 minutes, check HWinfo64 for WHEA errors and see if you pass. Please have C-states disabled in the advanced CPU options before doing this.

If you fail, note how fast you fail. If it's an insta-crash (less than 10 seconds), set cpu vcore UP +20mv (1.30v->1.320v) and try again.
If it lasts 5+minutes then crashes, set it up +10mv and try again.

If you pass 30 minutes on the first try, set it down -10mv (1.300v-1.290v) and try again. If you're impatient, try -20mv.
Find the minimum vcore needed (set in BIOS, with LLC6) to pass 30 minutes and post what this vcore is. (don't post the load voltage because your board doesn't have die-sense, most likely it will show very close to the voltage you set in BIOS, so it's pretty meaningless when comparing with boards like the Z790 Strix and Z690/Z790 maximus boards (which support Die-sense).


----------



## chispy

Just got started building the new system and i got a very nice surprise  . As i opened the Asrock Z690 Aqua OC box i noticed something very , very cool done specially for me from Nickshih and Asrock , they engraved my name on the motherboard as an appreciation token as this motherboard was gifted to me by nickshih and Asrock for testing ES Asrock Z690 Aqua OC mobos last year for many , many months. Now i got a unique mobo with my nickname engraved on it by Asrock 😁. Will finish tonight and will share the numbers and findings on this thread.

H2O Uniblock tastefully done by cooler master 👌


----------



## mimosky

Exilon said:


> What does SVID trained do for you at LLC4? The setting you're touching modifies AC Load Line in the Internal CPU power settings and you can get the readout of the AC Load Line in HWInfo64
> 
> Here's mine at SVID trained + LLC4
> View attachment 2580335
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580339


Well, my motherboard doesn't have the "trained" SVID behavior setting (but it's mentioned in the SVID behavior tooltip for some reason.


----------



## Exilon

mimosky said:


> Well, my motherboard doesn't have the "trained" SVID behavior setting (but it's mentioned in the SVID behavior tooltip for some reason.


You can still check the AC load line in HWInfo64 and set it accordingly there.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> I am. Just use the XSPC plastic backplate. works great! I have the Thermalright frame installed too. I know someone who didn’t use a backplate though, you certainly don’t have to. Your Optimus waterblock comes with little nuts that can hold the studs in place if you don’t have a backplate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon.com: XSPC LGA 1700 CPU Backplate : Electronics
> 
> 
> Buy XSPC LGA 1700 CPU Backplate: Water Cooling Systems - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580184


Thanks.. works like a champ. I read, in anot of your posts, that you replaced the V2 cold plate. Was wondering why?


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Thanks.. works like a champ. I read, in anot of your posts, that you replaced the V2 cold plate. Was wondering why?


I only replaced the cold plate because it was old. I’ve had the block for a few years now, and I used one before this one too. They are the absolute best for sure.

The cold plates are so fine they act as filters after about a year, your performance can slowly degrade because your cold plate clogs up and you lose water pressure. I was just replacing the cold plate with a brand new one! It takes days to clean the old one, and I already had a brand new Nickel cold plate on hand. water flow has doubled and some!

This is also from neglect too though on my end. I ran straight distilled water with additives and no flushes for about 18+ months straight. The Optimus cold plates are very fine with a very dense fin setup. I’d grab a spare cold plate, swap it annually, then clean the old one, then in another year swap back! Rinse and repeat.


----------



## tps3443

chispy said:


> Just got started building the new system and i got a very nice surprise  . As i opened the Asrock Z690 Aqua OC box i noticed something very , very cool done specially for me from Nickshih and Asrock , they engraved my name on the motherboard as an appreciation token as this motherboard was gifted to me by nickshih and Asrock for testing ES Asrock Z690 Aqua OC mobos last year for many , many months. Now i got a unique mobo with my nickname engraved on it by Asrock 😁. Will finish tonight and will share the numbers and findings on this thread.
> 
> H2O Uniblock tastefully done by cooler master 👌
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580352
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580353
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580360


I want one so bad that I may just get one anyways. I love these boards. Would they engrave my name on there too if I asked nicely? Lol. Awesome board. Please test your Hynix A-Die and let us know how far it goes please, please. Thank you! That’s an important factor to me. Your the only person I have seen with 13th Gen Intel, and Hynix A-die who owns an ASrock Aqua OC.


----------



## Shonk

affxct said:


> I’m convinced that most AIO owners should set a 300W power limit.


My Liquid Freezer II 280 Can handle 354W with a 12900k and 454W with a 13900K

Ambient Temp 18°C

Intel Spec LLC
Intel Spec CPU Voltage
IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC): 0.600 / 0.900 mOhm (Auto on my Motherboard)

AVX Optimum = Enabled
Turbo Ratio Limits (P-cores) - IA/SSE: 58x (1-2c), 55x (3-8c)
Turbo Ratio Limits (E-cores): 43x (1-16c)
Turbo Ratio Limits - AVX2, Resolved: *58x (1-2c), 55x (3-8c)*


Cinebench R23 41146



https://i.postimg.cc/CFdDyXT0/454W.png


----------



## Pikaru

Apex up for preorder on Newegg: Check this out on @Newegg: ASUS ROG Maximus Z790 Apex (WiFi 6E) LGA 1700(Intel®12th&13th Gen) ATX gaming motherboard (PCIe® 5.0, DDR5,24+0 power stages,DDR5,5x M.2,2xPCIe 5.0 M.2,USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 front-panel connector with Quick Charge 4+ Support) ASUS ROG Maximus Z790 Apex (WiFi 6E) LGA 1700(Intel®12th&13th Gen) ATX gaming motherboard (PCIe® 5.0, DDR5,24+0 power stages,DDR5,5x M.2,2xPCIe 5.0 M.2) - Newegg.com


----------



## mimosky

Falkentyne said:


> Set sync all cores to x55, keep E-cores and Ring/cache at stock, and set actual VRM Vcore voltage to 1.30v, LLC Level 6, then run cinebench R23 for 30 minutes, check HWinfo64 for WHEA errors and see if you pass. Please have C-states disabled in the advanced CPU options before doing this.
> 
> If you fail, note how fast you fail. If it's an insta-crash (less than 10 seconds), set cpu vcore UP +20mv (1.30v->1.320v) and try again.
> If it lasts 5+minutes then crashes, set it up +10mv and try again.
> 
> If you pass 30 minutes on the first try, set it down -10mv (1.300v-1.290v) and try again. If you're impatient, try -20mv.
> Find the minimum vcore needed (set in BIOS, with LLC6) to pass 30 minutes and post what this vcore is. (don't post the load voltage because your board doesn't have die-sense, most likely it will show very close to the voltage you set in BIOS, so it's pretty meaningless when comparing with boards like the Z790 Strix and Z690/Z790 maximus boards (which support Die-sense).


I passed 30 minutes with 1.31v set in bios (x55, e-cores, ring/cache at stock, LLC level 6, disabled C-states, both power limits set to 253W), no WHEA errors.
1.30 gave me error after few runs, 1.28 gave some instant errors (in less than 10s).

I'm using the Dark Rock Pro 4 and was temp throttled after 1 or 2 runs with ~250W (I plan to use some custom 220W power limit to prevent the thermal throttling in some heavier tasks or benchmarks). Got 37179 points after 30-minutes run.


----------



## Falkentyne

mimosky said:


> I passed 30 minutes with 1.31v set in bios (x55, e-cores, ring/cache at stock, LLC level 6, disabled C-states, both power limits set to 253W), no WHEA errors.
> 1.30 gave me error after few runs, 1.28 gave some instant errors (in less than 10s).
> 
> I'm using the Dark Rock Pro 4 and was temp throttled after 1 or 2 runs with ~250W (I plan to use some custom 220W power limit to prevent the thermal throttling in some heavier tasks or benchmarks). Got 37179 points after 30-minutes run.


Probably a P core SP of somewhere close to 105. Hard to tell since you're on air cooling, so if you can test that on a 360 or 420mm AIO it would be a lot better.
Would be easier to rate it if you were on an AIO because your stability goes south fast when you exceed 94C (you can be stable up to 100C but often needs 5-10mv at that point).


----------



## chispy

tps3443 said:


> I want one so bad that I may just get one anyways. I love these boards. Would they engrave my name on there too if I asked nicely? Lol. Awesome board. Please test your Hynix A-Die and let us know how far it goes please, please. Thank you! That’s an important factor to me. Your the only person I have seen with 13th Gen Intel, and Hynix A-die who owns an ASrock Aqua OC.



Will do Ram testing with A-die and M-die later tonight and post my findings , i'm installing windows now to verify everything works 100% correctly first.


----------



## mimosky

Falkentyne said:


> Probably a P core SP of somewhere close to 105. Hard to tell since you're on air cooling, so if you can test that on a 360 or 420mm AIO it would be a lot better.
> Would be easier to rate it if you were on an AIO because your stability goes south fast when you exceed 94C (you can be stable up to 100C but often needs 5-10mv at that point).


Thanks. Do you have any idea how should I understand these auto voltages my motherboard sets? I know they are often too high to guarantee stable operation, but that 1.5v seems a bit weird.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I finished the third part of the guide...









Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...


A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Baka_boy

Originally, I was just playing around with it (just offsets, no LLC tuning) because I was hitting thermal / power limits. After putting on a contact frame (ghastly tim pattern beforehand) my temps were still hovering 85C full load and hitting about 92C on Cores 5/7. After some hair pulling, I relented and delid and strapped on a waterblock (copper HS) which finally brought down the temps to something I can work with. Still need to do proper LLC tuning but seems to pass R23/AIDA/Realbench/IBT tests (just a few hours in total).










I can finally try tuning and hopefully add a relatively decent OC.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Exilon said:


> What does SVID trained do for you at LLC4? The setting you're touching modifies AC Load Line in the Internal CPU power settings and you can get the readout of the AC Load Line in HWInfo64
> 
> Here's mine at SVID trained + LLC4
> View attachment 2580335
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580339


In Asus MB trained SVID is a dynamic setting.
It can change due to your cooler score and the optimism parameter.
The best would be to set AC_LL manually.
If you are running LLC#4 (DC_LL=0.98) I'd suggest AC_LL from 0.1 to 0.2... if you are running an Asus Z690/Z790


----------



## FarmerJo

RobertoSampaio said:


> In Asus MB trained SVID is a dynamic setting.
> It can change due to your cooler score and the optimism parameter.
> The best would be to set AC_LL manually.
> If you are running LLC#4 (DC_LL=0.98) I'd suggest AC_LL from 0.1 to 0.2... if you are running an Asus Z690/Z790


do you know of any guide on how to set AL_LL properly? not sure what impact its having on my oc not setting it


----------



## Falkentyne

FarmerJo said:


> do you know of any guide on how to set AL_LL properly? not sure what impact its having on my oc not setting it


AC Loadline raises the base VID of the CPU (the base VID depends on multiplier, up to the max turbo), by a certain amount, which seems to be some sort of offset which scales logarithmically. You absolutely do NOT want to set AC Loadline higher than 0.6 mOhms unless you are running sub-ambient cooling. In the past, AC Loadline=best case scenario set it to 0.01 mOhms, typical set it to 0.3 mOhms or 0.6 mOhms, worst case scenario set it to 0.9 mOhms and Intel fail safe set it to 1.1 mOhms. This was fine on Z390 and below, where ACLL functioned the direct opposite of Loadline Calibration (at idle, it wouldn't raise the base VID at all), but now you do NOT want to set ACLL to 1.1 mOhms. Doing this at a x55 multiplier will set your Vcore to 1.65v idle. On Z390 and older (e.g. using an AC Loadline of 1.6 or 2.1 mOhms, depending if it's 8 core or 6 core SKU), this wouldn't happen, so there was no problem using a 1.6 mohm AC Loadline as long as your LLC level was around Intel defaults (LLC2 or LLC3 / LLC Normal/Standard).

I believe this function behind ACLL got changed, because having ACLL operate the "opposite" to "counter' LLC would fail due to inrush current problems. It worked great in Prime95 or Cinebench, but try to load up Battlefield 5 (back in the day) and you would get an instant BSOD if your multiplier was too high, as the vcore would drop from high vdroop before ACLL would raise it back up.

If you're using the droopiest LLC (LLC1 on Asus, Mode 8 or LLC: Standard/Normal on Gigabyte), I would not set an ACLL higher than 0.6 mOhms.
For a flat LLC (Ultra Extreme, LLC8, Mode 1, etc), on auto /offset / adaptive vcore modes, you can try ACLL 0.01 mOhms, but I wouldn't suggest a flat LLC due to terrible transients which can hurt your minimum voltage stability floor.

On Z790 just follow Robertosampiao's guide. Or let the motherboard handle it if you aren't doing by core usage OC. Note that if you are on manual/fixed vcore, this overrides (ignores) the ACLL setting as the VRM Takes direct control of the vcore, rather than the CPU/SVID.


----------



## Exilon

RobertoSampaio said:


> In Asus MB trained SVID is a dynamic setting.
> It can change due to your cooler score and the optimism parameter.
> The best would be to set AC_LL manually.
> If you are running LLC#4 (DC_LL=0.98) I'd suggest AC_LL from 0.1 to 0.2... if you are running an Asus Z690/Z790


0.2 is an immediate fail on P-core at 5.5 in y-cruncher HNT. Cinebench is fine though


----------



## ChrisOsbakk

Allways nervewracking to delid soldered cpu's  Not that much temp improvements to gain by mounting LM and a rockit copper ihs. Hoping to see EK's direct die kit out soon.


----------



## RichKnecht

Why can't I adjust ring ratio in bios? Board is a MSI Z790 Tomahawk. Also having issues getting the XMP profile to work both entering the values manually or having XMP do it on its own

Edit: Figured out the ring ratio


----------



## tps3443

Shonk said:


> My Liquid Freezer II 280 Can handle 354W with a 12900k and 454W with a 13900K
> 
> Ambient Temp 18°C
> 
> Intel Spec LLC
> Intel Spec CPU Voltage
> IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC): 0.600 / 0.900 mOhm (Auto on my Motherboard)
> 
> AVX Optimum = Enabled
> Turbo Ratio Limits (P-cores) - IA/SSE: 58x (1-2c), 55x (3-8c)
> Turbo Ratio Limits (E-cores): 43x (1-16c)
> Turbo Ratio Limits - AVX2, Resolved: *58x (1-2c), 55x (3-8c)*
> 
> 
> Cinebench R23 41146
> 
> 
> 
> https://i.postimg.cc/CFdDyXT0/454W.png


Your power draw in absolutely crazy for 41K in R23. Have you tried to dial this thing back on voltage some? I would try a fixed V-Core and bring it back some. But that power draw is seriously intense.


----------



## Xiph

I don't understand, how many of you can run ring clock so high with e-cores enabled. CB23 is bad test for ring stability, if you are happy with that. 
I get y-cruncher N64 single errors, even if I just increase ring x45->x46. Tried to increase L2 voltage, but no help.
Same goes to E-cores. I can't increase those from default x43 or N64 errors again.
My P-cores (and seems everything with this sample) sucks and P-cores needs 1.31V x55 and 1.38V x56 bios fixed LLC#6, so E-cores and ring gets that Vcore.

Asus bios rates this as SP101/P111/E81, but I think P core rating should be something like P102.


----------



## Falkentyne

Xiph said:


> I don't understand, how many of you can run ring clock so high with e-cores enabled. CB23 is bad test for ring stability, if you are happy with that.
> I get y-cruncher N64 single errors, even if I just increase ring x45->x46. Tried to increase L2 voltage, but no help.
> Same goes to E-cores. I can't increase those from default x43 or N64 errors again.
> My P-cores (and seems everything with this sample) sucks and P-cores needs 1.31V x55 and 1.38V x56 bios fixed LLC#6, so E-cores and ring gets that Vcore.
> 
> Asus bios rates this as SP101/P111/E81, but I think P core rating should be something like P102.


Z690 or Z790 board?


----------



## Xiph

Falkentyne said:


> Z690 or Z790 board?


Z690 Strix-A. 
Cooling: XE360+GTX240 cpu only loop.


----------



## Falkentyne

Xiph said:


> Z690 Strix-A.
> Cooling: XE360+GTX240 cpu only loop.


You need to reset your SP and you're not going to like this one bit.
your SP gets glitched if you install a CPU with an old management engine (ME) firmware on Z690
First, upgrade your ME firmware with the patcher. If you have dual bios you need to do this on both bios chips






[FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)


Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)



rog.asus.com





Then, flash your bios to the latest version for your board. Not sure if it's on the Asus support site, the motherboard forum section here or ROG forums or not.
Make sure you flash both bios chips (you can use USB flashback to avoid annoyances).
The current ME version should be kept, if it's not , check the BIOS boot screen for the version after upgrading.

Now you need to remove the CPU, which means draining your loop.
First, before you remove the CPU, power off the system, unplug/switch off the PSU and then clear the CMOS by either the onboard jumper or the clr rtc/jumper blocks (you can use a spare LN2 board jumper if there's one available or a screwdriver if there is no back button).
Hold the clear CMOS down for 30 seconds.
Then immediately remove the CPU completely.
Then clear CMOS again with the CPU removed.

Now, attempt to power on the system with the CPU removed. Of course nothing will happen, but this is to make sure everything is cleared.
Then re-insert the CPU, clear CMOS again 30 seconds.
Then finally, re-do the thermal paste, install the cooler, plug in the PSU and boot the system.
The SP should now be reported correctly.

Also I had no problems doing N64 test with ring ratio at x48 (x55 P-cores, x43 e-cores stock, 1.265v bios set + LLC6).
P core rating: SP113. (Z790 board).


----------



## Exilon

Xiph said:


> I don't understand, how many of you can run ring clock so high with e-cores enabled. CB23 is bad test for ring stability, if you are happy with that.
> I get y-cruncher N64 single errors, even if I just increase ring x45->x46. Tried to increase L2 voltage, but no help.
> Same goes to E-cores. I can't increase those from default x43 or N64 errors again.
> My P-cores (and seems everything with this sample) sucks and P-cores needs 1.31V x55 and 1.38V x56 bios fixed LLC#6, so E-cores and ring gets that Vcore.
> 
> Asus bios rates this as SP101/P111/E81, but I think P core rating should be something like P102.


I'm running N64 at 5.5P, 4.3E, 5.0R w/downbin with a 253W power limit and -1x AVX offset. 
Vcore is adaptive voltage with no offsets, AC 30, LLC4
1.3V L2 manual.
1.3V SA








If it passes 1 hr of y-cruncher N64 it's good enough for 24/7 use for me, as it's also x265/av1/cb23/compile/game stable.
For verifying higher boosts and TVB, I use a long list of y-cruncher configs packed into one script to partially load the CPU with HNT. Basically a DIY cycler.


----------



## Falkentyne

Xiph said:


> Z690 Strix-A.
> Cooling: XE360+GTX240 cpu only loop.


Also checked 5.6P / 4.5E / 4.7 Ring for about 15 minutes, no N64 errors (max stockfish chess settings that can stay under 95C: 1.325v Bios set + LLC6=1.208v load).


----------



## Exilon

Xiph said:


> I don't understand, how many of you can run ring clock so high with e-cores enabled. CB23 is bad test for ring stability, if you are happy with that.
> I get y-cruncher N64 single errors, even if I just increase ring x45->x46. Tried to increase L2 voltage, but no help.
> Same goes to E-cores. I can't increase those from default x43 or N64 errors again.
> My P-cores (and seems everything with this sample) sucks and P-cores needs 1.31V x55 and 1.38V x56 bios fixed LLC#6, so E-cores and ring gets that Vcore.
> 
> Asus bios rates this as SP101/P111/E81, but I think P core rating should be something like P102.


FWIW, if I don't raise ICCMax to 511.75A, N64 and HNT have a good chance of instantly crashing on launch. Something about ICCMax throttling wrecks stability for me. Which logical cores are crashing for you?


----------



## lolhaxz

Reached my limit here I think (with an appreciable load) - 57P/45E/51C, SmallFFT sucking back 375W @ 1.28v ... VRM doesn't even care at 48C

It seems that AVX bizarrely requires less vCore than Non-AVX...

Generally I'm happy to daily something I can get through _atleast_ 10 minutes of P95 Non-AVX SmallFFT on, this is kinda borderline.


----------



## bigfootnz

I think I got one of the biggest duds here . I got 13900KF SP99 P107 E83. This CPU cannot even pass CB23 with 1.31V LLC6 on Hero Z690 on just P55 E43 and R45. I stopped adding voltage as it was already thermal throttling on AIO 280mm. My first 13900K SP 102 P113 was able to pass 5.6 on same board with 1.28V LLC6. At the moment I'm trying P54 but this CPU runs hot like a hell.

I've tried multiple times removing CPU from socket to get correct SP reading, but always was the same. BIOS is latest 2103 and ME 2020


----------



## Netarangi

bigfootnz said:


> I think I got one of the biggest duds here . I got 13900KF SP99 P107 E83. This CPU cannot even pass CB23 with 1.31V LLC6 on Hero Z690 on just P55 E43 and R45. I stopped adding voltage as it was already thermal throttling on AIO 280mm. My first 13900K SP 102 P113 was able to pass 5.6 on same board with 1.28V LLC6. At the moment I'm trying P54 but this CPU runs hot like a hell.
> 
> I've tried multiple times removing CPU from socket to get correct SP reading, but always was the same. BIOS is latest 2103 and ME 2020


What batch? Basically same with my chip.

Chur


----------



## bigfootnz

Netarangi said:


> What batch? Basically same with my chip.
> 
> Chur


L234E550


----------



## VULC

Tuning Results 13900K SP 105 P 116 E 85

4 x 8GB Vipers











100% Res


----------



## owikh84

bigfootnz said:


> L234E550


L = MALAYsia. First time seeing L batch instead of X = Vietnam.


----------



## bscool

Xiph said:


> I don't understand, how many of you can run ring clock so high with e-cores enabled. CB23 is bad test for ring stability, if you are happy with that.
> I get y-cruncher N64 single errors, even if I just increase ring x45->x46. Tried to increase L2 voltage, but no help.
> Same goes to E-cores. I can't increase those from default x43 or N64 errors again.
> My P-cores (and seems everything with this sample) sucks and P-cores needs 1.31V x55 and 1.38V x56 bios fixed LLC#6, so E-cores and ring gets that Vcore.
> 
> Asus bios rates this as SP101/P111/E81, but I think P core rating should be something like P102.


Have you tried with no memory OC. I noticed on my Strix d4 when running 4300 gear 1 limits the CPU oc for y cruncher. I didn't test too in depth but setting back to 3200 I can run higher clocks on e core and cache.

My sp 109/85

I need to test with ddr5 also I think I am on the edge of mem stability so that is limiting how high I can run e and cache.


----------



## Krzych04650

bigfootnz said:


> I think I got one of the biggest duds here . I got 13900KF SP99 P107 E83. This CPU cannot even pass CB23 with 1.31V LLC6 on Hero Z690 on just P55 E43 and R45. I stopped adding voltage as it was already thermal throttling on AIO 280mm. My first 13900K SP 102 P113 was able to pass 5.6 on same board with 1.28V LLC6. At the moment I'm trying P54 but this CPU runs hot like a hell.
> 
> I've tried multiple times removing CPU from socket to get correct SP reading, but always was the same. BIOS is latest 2103 and ME 2020


Sounds a lot like mine. I think this is right at the threshold of what is binned as K model, the kind of a chip that needs around 1.28-1.31 actual load voltage at 5.5 to pass R23, when good chips can do like 1.18. No wonder it runs hot as hell if it needs 120mV more than it should.

IMC is not good either, 4000 DR and 4133 SR, and that is after very long fight and extremely precise voltage tuning, and 1.6 VDDQ, with normal effort it wouldn't even do 4000.

I am tempted to return it and roll again, but with 13900KS incoming I don't know if it even makes sense to play that game. But then again, this chip is as bad as they come.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Krzych04650 said:


> Sounds a lot like mine. I think this is right at the threshold of what is binned as K model, the kind of a chip that needs around 1.28-1.31 actual load voltage at 5.5 to pass R23, when good chips can do like 1.18. No wonder it runs hot as hell if it needs 120mV more than it should.


Mine is SP99 P108 E88, I can do R23 with 1.208v, but man these chips are hot, still gets to 92c....


----------



## imrevoau

Krzych04650 said:


> Sounds a lot like mine. I think this is right at the threshold of what is binned as K model, the kind of a chip that needs around 1.28-1.31 actual load voltage at 5.5 to pass R23, when good chips can do like 1.18. No wonder it runs hot as hell if it needs 120mV more than it should.
> 
> IMC is not good either, 4000 DR and 4133 SR, and that is after very long fight and extremely precise voltage tuning, and 1.6 VDDQ, with normal effort it wouldn't even do 4000.
> 
> I am tempted to return it and roll again, but with 13900KS incoming I don't know if it even makes sense to play that game. But then again, this chip is as bad as they come.


Seems like the binning is a lot different this gen. My "lowly" 13700KF only needs 1.2 load voltage to pass R23 @5.5


----------



## affxct

Shonk said:


> My Liquid Freezer II 280 Can handle 354W with a 12900k and 454W with a 13900K
> 
> Ambient Temp 18°C
> 
> Intel Spec LLC
> Intel Spec CPU Voltage
> IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC): 0.600 / 0.900 mOhm (Auto on my Motherboard)
> 
> AVX Optimum = Enabled
> Turbo Ratio Limits (P-cores) - IA/SSE: 58x (1-2c), 55x (3-8c)
> Turbo Ratio Limits (E-cores): 43x (1-16c)
> Turbo Ratio Limits - AVX2, Resolved: *58x (1-2c), 55x (3-8c)*
> 
> 
> Cinebench R23 41146
> 
> 
> 
> https://i.postimg.cc/CFdDyXT0/454W.png


Well, I dunno hey. 450W on a 280mm is quite something hey. Like that would be a lot of heat to dissipate. Are you sure there isn’t something throwing off readings?

At 280W my chip hits 91c which makes a lot of sense when compared to comparisons with a friend of mine and his setup. I really don’t know about 450W.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

lolhaxz said:


> Reached my limit here I think (with an appreciable load) - 57P/45E/51C, SmallFFT sucking back 375W @ 1.28v ... VRM doesn't even care at 48C
> 
> It seems that AVX bizarrely requires less vCore than Non-AVX...
> 
> Generally I'm happy to daily something I can get through _atleast_ 10 minutes of P95 Non-AVX SmallFFT on, this is kinda borderline.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580426


W_T_F !!!!!!!!

This is the first time I see CPU running real 370W...
Sometimes I see people talking about more than 300W but not real, because the DC_LL is not adjusted...
But yours seems to be well-adjusted...
What cooler system are you using?
You have a little temperature space in cores #16 to #23. You can try to run these specifics cores at 46x.
Anyway the power record is your so far  LOL


----------



## gtz

Krzych04650 said:


> Sounds a lot like mine. I think this is right at the threshold of what is binned as K model, the kind of a chip that needs around 1.28-1.31 actual load voltage at 5.5 to pass R23, when good chips can do like 1.18. No wonder it runs hot as hell if it needs 120mV more than it should.
> 
> IMC is not good either, 4000 DR and 4133 SR, and that is after very long fight and extremely precise voltage tuning, and 1.6 VDDQ, with normal effort it wouldn't even do 4000.
> 
> I am tempted to return it and roll again, but with 13900KS incoming I don't know if it even makes sense to play that game. But then again, this chip is as bad as they come.


In the beginning I thought I was the lottery bin loser since I got my chip a day (maybe 2, go it on Saturday) after launch. I only had the engineering samples and tps3443 godlike sample to go by and my chip sucked. But as time went most people started receiving there chips and most chips are similar to ours so I don't feel like I lost the lottery as much. 

The good thing is even if you are a lottery loser, these chips still scale well with voltage if you can keep the chip cool. I finally stabilized 5.7 and am pretty happy with the results. Not running anything special for memory, just 5600 sticks running at 6200. Overall pretty happy with the config. This weekend I will see if I can push ring and e cores since they are at 44e/47r.


----------



## Shkiz0

Hi.

I'm joining the club.
My daily setup:

13700K
SP93 P104 E73 X238L391
Bios 2103 / ME 2020 / [email protected]


----------



## ChrisOsbakk

How do you properly adjust/set LLC on z690 hero boards?


----------



## lolhaxz

RobertoSampaio said:


> W_T_F !!!!!!!!
> 
> This is the first time I see CPU running real 370W...
> Sometimes I see people talking about more than 300W but not real, because the DC_LL is not adjusted...
> But yours seems to be well-adjusted...
> What cooler system are you using?
> You have a little temperature space in cores #16 to #23. You can try to run these specifics cores at 46x.
> Anyway the power record is your so far  LOL


I think 370W is to be expected at 1.28v+, but not in anything but Prime95 or AVX... and yes from most of the screenshots I take a look at, people have DCLL (probably) set to 0.01 and its way under reporting... in fact many threads ago and several CPU's ago this was something I got corrected on and didn't understand myself properly at the time... or rather always ignored.

For me R15 = 320W, R23 = 323W, Prime95 SmallFFT begins at 360W but will go through cycles upto 380W.










System power at idle is ~130W according to PSU (3090 idling is 50W of that)




  






SmallFFT showing 520W (520 - 130 = 390W) ... probably a good 10-20W of that is the water pump ramping up... so yes, it's accurate.

Cooling is absolutely nothing special... ambient, EK-D5, 3x360mm rad, EK velocity 1700 block, 12th gen contact frame and Thermal Grizzly Extreme (red stuff)

I just don't think many are brave enough to run Prime95, and admittedly they probably don't need to (and yes, I'm well aware of the argument that it's pointless power virus etc etc) - I've thrashed the living crap out of every CPU I've owned stress testing for the first week or so but then when I'm satisifed I never need to run it again... to date, never killed a CPU and never seen one degrade either. I find it to be the quickest and most reliable way to test worst case scenario.

It's tough to know where to draw the line on current draw, I'd say I wouldn't be comfortable exceeding 400W (I mean during stress testing)

I play games at 80-100W


----------



## nievz

VULC said:


> Tuning Results 13900K SP 105 P 116 E 85
> 
> 4 x 8GB Vipers
> 
> View attachment 2580445
> 
> 
> 
> 100% Res
> View attachment 2580446
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580447


What is your CPU SA Voltage? Did you just leave it on auto? Mine's on auto at 1.434v


----------



## tootall123

I can confirm that I had an SP bug relating to z690.

actual SP on z790 is 118/94


----------



## owikh84

tootall123 said:


> I can confirm that I had an SP bug relating to z690.
> 
> actual SP on z790 is 118/94


Nice chip! Mind to share the Ai Features screenshot (in BIOS settings) showing the vid?


----------



## Falkentyne

tootall123 said:


> I can confirm that I had an SP bug relating to z690.
> 
> actual SP on z790 is 118/94


That is still a great chip. Way above average. Almost the same as Sugi0lover's and better than mine. Congratulations.


----------



## Silent Scone

lolhaxz said:


> I think 370W is to be expected at 1.28v+, but not in anything but Prime95 or AVX... and yes from most of the screenshots I take a look at, people have DCLL (probably) set to 0.01 and its way under reporting... in fact many threads ago and several CPU's ago this was something I got corrected on and didn't understand myself properly at the time... or rather always ignored.
> 
> For me R15 = 320W, R23 = 323W, Prime95 SmallFFT begins at 360W but will go through cycles upto 380W.
> 
> View attachment 2580506
> 
> 
> System power at idle is ~130W according to PSU (3090 idling is 50W of that)
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580507
> 
> 
> SmallFFT showing 520W (520 - 130 = 390W) ... probably a good 10-20W of that is the water pump ramping up... so yes, it's accurate.
> 
> Cooling is absolutely nothing special... ambient, EK-D5, 3x360mm rad, EK velocity 1700 block, 12th gen contact frame and Thermal Grizzly Extreme (red stuff)
> 
> I just don't think many are brave enough to run Prime95, and admittedly they probably don't need to (and yes, I'm well aware of the argument that it's pointless power virus etc etc) - I've thrashed the living crap out of every CPU I've owned stress testing for the first week or so but then when I'm satisifed I never need to run it again... to date, never killed a CPU and never seen one degrade either. I find it to be the quickest and most reliable way to test worst case scenario.
> 
> It's tough to know where to draw the line on current draw, I'd say I wouldn't be comfortable exceeding 400W (I mean during stress testing)
> 
> I play games at 80-100W


I wouldn't keep running that for too long unless you want logic gates like an elephant's tubular tract😆. Normally, I tend to stick to the rule of thumb of under 2x the TDP rating. It's the sustained current in Prime that can be quite damning, though.



In other news, to finally replace the Samsung I've been running all year on Z690 Apex.


----------



## tps3443

Shkiz0 said:


> Hi.
> 
> I'm joining the club.
> My daily setup:
> 
> 13700K
> SP93 P104 E73 X238L391
> Bios 2103 / ME 2020 / [email protected]
> View attachment 2580488
> View attachment 2580487
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580503


That’s a really great 13700K!! And, only 200+ watts in R23. Seems great to me. I think that one is a keeper for sure.


----------



## Shkiz0

tps3443 said:


> That’s a really great 13700K!! And, only 200+ watts in R23. Seems great to me.


I tried 4, this was the best.



Code:


Overall         P-core      E-core             FPO 
1: SP88          P101         E63           X238L391
2: SP93          P104         E73           X238L391
3: SP86          P96          E68           X236J342
4: SP90          P94          E84           X235L272


----------



## RichKnecht

So a bios update fixed my XMP issues. Right now, I am at P 5.6 E 4.4 Ring 4.6. I am running 1.27V and after 30 minutes of R23 my highest core temp is ~`91C. I have the memory ( 4x16GB 3600 DDR4 b-die) running at the XMP values but I entered them manually. Is this decent or mediocre? I haven't triad really pushing it as of yet and I am not sure I will need to.


----------



## Luggage

bscool said:


> Have you tried with no memory OC. I noticed on my Strix d4 when running 4300 gear 1 limits the CPU oc for y cruncher. I didn't test too in depth but setting back to 3200 I can run higher clocks on e core and cache.
> 
> My sp 109/85
> 
> I need to test with ddr5 also I think I am on the edge of mem stability so that is limiting how high I can run e and cache.


Like linx much in yc is memory constrained - if you run slower ram it will run slower/colder.


----------



## Shonk

affxct said:


> Well, I dunno hey. 450W on a 280mm is quite something hey. Like that would be a lot of heat to dissipate. Are you sure there isn’t something throwing off readings?
> 
> At 280W my chip hits 91c which makes a lot of sense when compared to comparisons with a friend of mine and his setup. I really don’t know about 450W.


You can see the power in from the HX1500i

Its 100% pulling that load



https://i.postimg.cc/CFdDyXT0/454W.png


----------



## Shonk

RobertoSampaio said:


> This is the first time I see CPU running real 370W...
> Sometimes I see people talking about more than 300W but not real, because the DC_LL is not adjusted...


You can verify my load by checking the HX1500i readings



https://i.postimg.cc/CFdDyXT0/454W.png



with a 29mv undervolt it pulls 424w Prime Small FFT
ignore the voltage its running karhu atm with an fpu load


https://i.postimg.cc/h4jPhzg7/Karhu.png



Either i have the worst chip on the planet or your all running with an avx offset
or your readings are all off
my 12900K would pull 354W doing the same 

Maybe verify it at the wall (which i have done with my PSU and a kill a watt meter)


Buildzoid said he cant disable the avx offset but i can just fine


----------



## tps3443

Shkiz0 said:


> I tried 4, this was the best.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Overall         P-core      E-core             FPO
> 1: SP88          P101         E63           X238L391
> 2: SP93          P104         E73           X238L391
> 3: SP86          P96          E68           X236J342
> 4: SP90          P94          E84           X235L272


That is very Interesting! I like how efficient it is. This is my chip. It’s an X238L435 batch. I don’t know the SP.

Also, crazy how that SP90 13700K had such good E-Cores, what a shame.


----------



## Falkentyne

lolhaxz said:


> I think 370W is to be expected at 1.28v+, but not in anything but Prime95 or AVX... and yes from most of the screenshots I take a look at, people have DCLL (probably) set to 0.01 and its way under reporting... in fact many threads ago and several CPU's ago this was something I got corrected on and didn't understand myself properly at the time... or rather always ignored.
> 
> For me R15 = 320W, R23 = 323W, Prime95 SmallFFT begins at 360W but will go through cycles upto 380W.
> 
> View attachment 2580506
> 
> 
> System power at idle is ~130W according to PSU (3090 idling is 50W of that)
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580507
> 
> 
> SmallFFT showing 520W (520 - 130 = 390W) ... probably a good 10-20W of that is the water pump ramping up... so yes, it's accurate.
> 
> Cooling is absolutely nothing special... ambient, EK-D5, 3x360mm rad, EK velocity 1700 block, 12th gen contact frame and Thermal Grizzly Extreme (red stuff)
> 
> I just don't think many are brave enough to run Prime95, and admittedly they probably don't need to (and yes, I'm well aware of the argument that it's pointless power virus etc etc) - I've thrashed the living crap out of every CPU I've owned stress testing for the first week or so but then when I'm satisifed I never need to run it again... to date, never killed a CPU and never seen one degrade either. I find it to be the quickest and most reliable way to test worst case scenario.
> 
> It's tough to know where to draw the line on current draw, I'd say I wouldn't be comfortable exceeding 400W (I mean during stress testing)
> 
> I play games at 80-100W


Good cooling but I absolutely would not go above 1.210v load vcore at 281 amps, ever, for any more than very small length of time, unless I was running sub-ambient.
Way too much risk of degradation. The problem is 90% of users on this forum (and everywhere, really) do NOT have the patience to test for their absolute vmins.
And degradation tests require that you know your vmin at a narrow temperature range, where going just 10mv lower (ideally, 5mv, but then sometimes a slight ambient variance throws you off) causes a crash. And it has to be something you can test in under an hour, not a "I ran Stockfish Chess for 3 hours at 1.199v at 93C and it BSOD'd at 3 hours and 10 minutes at 5.6 ghz....)

So you need an absolute raw vmin test. One good way to test is underclocked a bit and undervolted a lot, then you can safely find a raw vmin at a cool temp, but then you can run into E-core problems, because if you lower the P-core multiplier too much and the E cores are still at 4.3 ghz, then it becomes the e-cores crashing before the P-cores if you undervolt a lot (e.g. let's say 5.2 ghz @ 1.050v load, because e-cores are at 4.3 ghz rather than, let's say, 4 ghz which is MUCH better for testing p-core vmin). So for finding a good vmin control point for P-cores at a nice voltage and temps, make sure you underclock the E-cores a bit (and don't have the ring ratio yeeted--you will not be doing 5.1 ghz Ring ratio at 1.050v load voltage!).

Y-cruncher SFT AVX2 test can quickly find a failing core that crashes first, which cores 0-15 being the HT P-cores and 16-31 being the E-cores in a 13900k. Prime95 can obviously do this also, but you have to manually organize the windows to see the individual workers that crash or not. The weakest core will always be the one that crashes first (unless it's unstable memory or cache, then it can be random threads).

Anyway once you know your raw vmins for both P-cores and E-cores (let's say E-cores require 1.066v load to pass 20 loops of Y-cruncher SFT AVX2 test at 4.3 ghz, and P-cores require 1.039v to pass SFT AVX2 test for 20 loops at 5.2 ghz, with no cores crashing), and going any lower causes the weakest core to crash before 10 loops, then you record this, with vmin, mhz and temp and make sure it's repeatable and save it. But to get a result like this for the P-cores, you would FIRST have to lower the E-core ratio to x40. I hope this is self explanatory. Then for the e cores, you raise them up and start testing at a vcore that the P-cores would be happy with but are too low for the E-cores, etc.

Then a month later, if you are unstable and crashing at that point which passed 20 SFT loops before, with exact same settings and BIOS/settings, you know you degraded and you'll be able to determine by how much.


----------



## Shkiz0

tps3443 said:


> That is very Interesting! I like how efficient it is. This is my chip. It’s an X238L435 batch. I don’t know the SP.
> 
> Also, crazy how that SP90 13700K had such good E-Cores, what a shame.
> 
> View attachment 2580534


Yeah, but P-core s**t 
I didn't have a chance to test them in depth anyway. I checked the SP number, I kept the best one, the other three were taken by friends.


----------



## yzonker

Falkentyne said:


> Good cooling but I absolutely would not go above 1.210v load vcore at 281 amps, ever, for any more than very small length of time, unless I was running sub-ambient.
> Way too much risk of degradation. The problem is 90% of users on this forum (and everywhere, really) do NOT have the patience to test for their absolute vmins.
> And degradation tests require that you know your vmin at a narrow temperature range, where going just 10mv lower (ideally, 5mv, but then sometimes a slight ambient variance throws you off) causes a crash. And it has to be something you can test in under an hour, not a "I ran Stockfish Chess for 3 hours at 1.199v at 93C and it BSOD'd at 3 hours and 10 minutes at 5.6 ghz....)
> 
> So you need an absolute raw vmin test. One good way to test is underclocked a bit and undervolted a lot, then you can safely find a raw vmin at a cool temp, but then you can run into E-core problems, because if you lower the P-core multiplier too much and the E cores are still at 4.3 ghz, then it becomes the e-cores crashing before the P-cores if you undervolt a lot (e.g. let's say 5.2 ghz @ 1.050v load, because e-cores are at 4.3 ghz rather than, let's say, 4 ghz which is MUCH better for testing p-core vmin). So for finding a good vmin control point for P-cores at a nice voltage and temps, make sure you underclock the E-cores a bit (and don't have the ring ratio yeeted--you will not be doing 5.1 ghz Ring ratio at 1.050v load voltage!).
> 
> Y-cruncher SFT AVX2 test can quickly find a failing core that crashes first, which cores 0-15 being the HT P-cores and 16-31 being the E-cores in a 13900k. Prime95 can obviously do this also, but you have to manually organize the windows to see the individual workers that crash or not. The weakest core will always be the one that crashes first (unless it's unstable memory or cache, then it can be random threads).
> 
> Anyway once you know your raw vmins for both P-cores and E-cores (let's say E-cores require 1.066v load to pass 20 loops of Y-cruncher SFT AVX2 test at 4.3 ghz, and P-cores require 1.039v to pass SFT AVX2 test for 20 loops at 5.2 ghz, with no cores crashing), and going any lower causes the weakest core to crash before 10 loops, then you record this, with vmin, mhz and temp and make sure it's repeatable and save it. But to get a result like this for the P-cores, you would FIRST have to lower the E-core ratio to x40. I hope this is self explanatory. Then for the e cores, you raise them up and start testing at a vcore that the P-cores would be happy with but are too low for the E-cores, etc.
> 
> Then a month later, if you are unstable and crashing at that point which passed 20 SFT loops before, with exact same settings and BIOS/settings, you know you degraded and you'll be able to determine by how much.


Ok, maybe a dumb question. Isn't 1.21v well below the stock voltage? Are you saying a person can degrade their CPU by running full load at bios defaults?


----------



## Ichirou

yzonker said:


> Ok, maybe a dumb question. Isn't 1.21v well below the stock voltage? Are you saying a person can degrade their CPU by running full load at bios defaults?


Yes.


----------



## yzonker

Ichirou said:


> Yes.


That's disturbing. Thanks.


----------



## Exilon

yzonker said:


> Ok, maybe a dumb question. Isn't 1.21v well below the stock voltage? Are you saying a person can degrade their CPU by running full load at bios defaults?





yzonker said:


> That's disturbing. Thanks.


At stock LLC of 1.1mohm, you need to start at 1.52v before Vdroop to hit 1.21v at 281 amps. If you run stock and let your CPU pull 281 amps, you get 1.21v VID.
You can apply it to any CPU Intel released in the last few years and arrive at the same result

For example 6700K ICCMax = 100, VMax 1.52, DC_LL = 2.1
If you plug it into the vdroop formula: 1.31v... which is pretty much the stock load VID of a 6700K









It's very much a tautology. Running beyond stock LLC and power will increase the rate at which your CPU degrades. If you're that worried, cap your package power to knock down 2/3 of the degradation factors: temperature and current.


----------



## raad11

affxct said:


> 280W is enough for me tbh. I can’t really cool more than that anyway so running something like P95 @ 350W would probably be a disaster. I’m convinced that most AIO owners should set a 300W power limit. Unfortunately where I live, retailers don’t really give you the liberty to exchange stuff you don’t like. The caveat being that our local RMAs are lightning quick.


This is a pretty good idea actually. I don't need to ever run something using that much power. 


Shonk said:


> My Liquid Freezer II 280 Can handle 354W with a 12900k and 454W with a 13900K
> 
> Ambient Temp 18°C
> 
> Intel Spec LLC
> Intel Spec CPU Voltage
> IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC): 0.600 / 0.900 mOhm (Auto on my Motherboard)
> 
> AVX Optimum = Enabled
> Turbo Ratio Limits (P-cores) - IA/SSE: 58x (1-2c), 55x (3-8c)
> Turbo Ratio Limits (E-cores): 43x (1-16c)
> Turbo Ratio Limits - AVX2, Resolved: *58x (1-2c), 55x (3-8c)*
> 
> 
> Cinebench R23 41146
> 
> 
> 
> https://i.postimg.cc/CFdDyXT0/454W.png


100 C and throttling doesn't sound like it's handling it...


Falkentyne said:


> You need to reset your SP and you're not going to like this one bit.
> your SP gets glitched if you install a CPU with an old management engine (ME) firmware on Z690
> First, upgrade your ME firmware with the patcher. If you have dual bios you need to do this on both bios chips
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)
> 
> 
> Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, flash your bios to the latest version for your board. Not sure if it's on the Asus support site, the motherboard forum section here or ROG forums or not.
> Make sure you flash both bios chips (you can use USB flashback to avoid annoyances).
> The current ME version should be kept, if it's not , check the BIOS boot screen for the version after upgrading.
> 
> Now you need to remove the CPU, which means draining your loop.
> First, before you remove the CPU, power off the system, unplug/switch off the PSU and then clear the CMOS by either the onboard jumper or the clr rtc/jumper blocks (you can use a spare LN2 board jumper if there's one available or a screwdriver if there is no back button).
> Hold the clear CMOS down for 30 seconds.
> Then immediately remove the CPU completely.
> Then clear CMOS again with the CPU removed.
> 
> Now, attempt to power on the system with the CPU removed. Of course nothing will happen, but this is to make sure everything is cleared.
> Then re-insert the CPU, clear CMOS again 30 seconds.
> Then finally, re-do the thermal paste, install the cooler, plug in the PSU and boot the system.
> The SP should now be reported correctly.
> 
> Also I had no problems doing N64 test with ring ratio at x48 (x55 P-cores, x43 e-cores stock, 1.265v bios set + LLC6).
> P core rating: SP113. (Z790 board).


Damn, I installed my CPU with old ME firmware. Is it only SP that is off or the VID table too? If just the former, I can ignore that, but not the latter (though my system seems to be stable for now).


----------



## Shonk

raad11 said:


> 100 C and throttling doesn't sound like it's handling it...


Hence why i undervolted 29mv 454W is the limit of the cooling
at 424W with the 29mv undervolt it doesnt throttle

Show me someone else who can get even close to those numbers with an aio


----------



## Silent Scone

Shkiz0 said:


> I tried 4, this was the best.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Overall         P-core      E-core             FPO
> 1: SP88          P101         E63           X238L391
> 2: SP93          P104         E73           X238L391
> 3: SP86          P96          E68           X236J342
> 4: SP90          P94          E84           X235L272


My one and only for reference (13700K)

SP92 P104 E69 X233K566


----------



## chispy

Finally built a new water loop for testing purposes only.

Asrock Z690 aqua OC 2xDimm Motherboard / I7 13700KF / G.Skill A-Die DDR5-7200Mhz.

First boot all stock from the Bios except i enable xmp on the memory , did not touch anything else , cero , zero , 0 , nada , nilch tweaking at all. Just a baseline of the cpu at stock with ddr5-7200Mhz xmp enable , ran bandwith test aida64. The timmings will need lots of tweaking as xmp profile for 7200Mhz is very , very loose , secondary and tertiary timmings. Just a base line run to get a feel of it before put the hammer down on it later. Motherboard handles 7200Mhz xmp wondefully , set xmp and boot / runs flawlessly no problems.


----------



## raad11

Shonk said:


> Hence why i undervolted 29mv 454W is the limit of the cooling
> at 424W with the 29mv undervolt it doesnt throttle
> 
> Show me someone else who can get even close to those numbers with an aio


How long was the run?


----------



## Falkentyne

raad11 said:


> This is a pretty good idea actually. I don't need to ever run something using that much power.
> 100 C and throttling doesn't sound like it's handling it...
> 
> Damn, I installed my CPU with old ME firmware. Is it only SP that is off or the VID table too? If just the former, I can ignore that, but not the latter (though my system seems to be stable for now).


The SP is based on the vid table at various VF points.
If the ME firmware is incorrect, the VID gets read incorrectly on initial CPU installation.


----------



## Exilon

Silent Scone said:


> My one and only for reference (13700K)
> 
> SP92 P104 E69 X233K566


The good P-core, bad E-core combination is just painful if you're trying to optimize P-core voltage for efficiency because the E-cores crash first when P-cores pull back on the turbo.


----------



## Carillo

It’s going to be a long night 😅


----------



## Falkentyne

yzonker said:


> Ok, maybe a dumb question. Isn't 1.21v well below the stock voltage? Are you saying a person can degrade their CPU by running full load at bios defaults?


Voltage is irrelevant by itself. It's also how much current you're pulling as well as temps.
1.30v at 30 amps of current at 40C is more than safe.
1.30v at 307 amps of current at 90C is going to slowly turn your CPU into a FPU.
1.30v at 307 amps of current at 40C is open to debate (no one here has any idea how temperature reduction delta reduces the degradation danger threshold, outside of people who work at Intel).
The more current you're pushing, the lower you want the vcore to be.

Technically, since Intel was "kind enough" to start spamming 1.720v and hide the original 1.520v limit in a bizarre footnote, when dealing with sustained loads, below tjmax, the end curve "used to be" 1520mv - (ICCMAX * max DC Loadline), or 1520mv - (307 amps * 1.1 mOhms)=1182mv = 1.182v. 307 amps is the max "virus load" specification, and virus loads are not intended to be used for very long, and Intel's own SVID (used specifically on laptops) will use 1.1 mohms of loadline only for vdroop, so vcore at 307 amps must NOT exceed 1.182v, or your chip will be in possible danger for long term reliability (and this is up to TJMAX).

This '1.720v' specification --this first appeared via a VRM register "33 hex I think" under "SVID Offset capability" on Z390 boards, with no explanation about why.
The IR 35201 controller datasheet mentions this register as "SVID: Offset", and flipping this bit on allowed max VID to exceed 1.520v, by up to 200mv.
Gigabyte disabled this by default on Z390. Asus enabled it by default. This being enabled back then allowed AC Loadline--at full load--to boost the native CPU VID (by an inverse of how much current it's pulling) HIGHER than 1.520v, before VRM Loadline (loadline slope, aka loadline calibration) would reduce the vcore back down. This obviously only meant anything if using auto or SVID or adaptive modes--not manual vcore.

AC Loadline's functionality was reworked on Z490, so it no longer boosts VID by how much current you're pulling (by a factor of mohms) like it did on z390, instead it works as some sort of scaling offset now. But now, "offset capability" for exceeding 1.520v is enabled on all boards automatically. Why? I don't know. Possibly because the old method would cause crashing due to "inrush current" as vdroop would be sudden on erratic loads before ACLL would raise the VID to compensate. IDK.
Maybe also for the core usage overclocking, again I don't know. But if you are dumb enough to set AC Loadline to 1.1 mohms on Z490 and newer at max CPU ratio, on non "fixed" vcore modes, you're getting 1.55-1.65v idle. On Z390 it would be 1.3v-1.4v idle.

Intel also lists a 'daily' iccmax, for long term sustained loads, which is 245 amps. This is called ICCMAX.app, rather than ICCMAX.
Using this value, you get 1520mv - (245 * 1.1 mohm) =1250mv=1.250v. That means at 245 amps, if your vcore load (die-sense only, or a probe hooked up to a VCC_Sense pin and a ground pin to VSS), is 1.250v or lower at 245A, your chip is completely safe and longterm reliability is assured.

Once you exceed 245A for daily long term loads, even on the 1.1 mohm loadline slope, longterm reliability and functionality is no longer guaranteed--it may work, it may degrade slowly, who knows. This is up to 307A (245 to 307A), with vcore no higher than 1.182v at 37 amps. So you want to be careful about pouring tons of current even if you are within the loadline slope for safe vcore.

lolhax was at 1.270v at 280 amps, and that on the loadline slope is 1520mv - (280 * 1.1 mohm)=1.210v and he's way above that vcore (die sense since it's a maximus board).
I would not suggest such tests if you value the longterm life of your chip. But hey--it's your damn chip. You're free to do whatever you want with it, ignore me, block me, whatever. Call degradation a big horny myth, do it---just don't complain if your chip lost a bunch of its "vmin" voltage a few weeks or months down the road.


----------



## affxct

Shonk said:


> Hence why i undervolted 29mv 454W is the limit of the cooling
> at 424W with the 29mv undervolt it doesnt throttle
> 
> Show me someone else who can get even close to those numbers with an aio


I don’t want to come off as hostile, but I do have to ask. How is it that you have managed to dissipate that much heat through a 280? As far as I understand it, heat needs to be removed from a die to prevent the die from heating OTP. If I hit 91c at 280W, and others using 360s hit similar figures, are we doing something wrong with how we’re setting up our coolers? It’s just really difficult to understand how I am so far off what you can do.


----------



## affxct

So I don’t have an SP 79 13700K then?


----------



## shamino1978

degradation occurs over time, even when you dont oc, thats a given. that is the number one reason why processors come with a significant voltage guardband, it will start eating into this over time. this is usually misunderstood by users as "manufacturers overvolting by default!" , lol everytime i read this statement. imagine what would happen if intel does it the ocn way of running at vmin, lowest VID possible! the rma would be crazy.


----------



## Exilon

shamino1978 said:


> degradation occurs over time, even when you dont oc, thats a given. that is the number one reason why processors come with a significant voltage guardband, it will start eating into this over time. this is usually misunderstood by users as "manufacturers overvolting by default!" , lol everytime i read this statement. imagine what would happen if intel does it the ocn way of running at vmin, lowest VID possible! the rma would be crazy.


Right, you have to talk about the rate of degradation instead of a binary yes/no. Outside of Intel's own RV labs and NDA info, we on these forums can only speculate about what operating parameters would lead to an acceptable rate of degradation, and even the definition of "acceptable" varies from user to user.


----------



## Ichirou

shamino1978 said:


> degradation occurs over time, even when you dont oc, thats a given. that is the number one reason why processors come with a significant voltage guardband, it will start eating into this over time. this is usually misunderstood by users as "manufacturers overvolting by default!" , lol everytime i read this statement. imagine what would happen if intel does it the ocn way of running at vmin, lowest VID possible! the rma would be crazy.


Truly. The number of chips that would be unstable from being undervolted far surpass the number of chips that would be unstable after being overvolted.
Unfortunately, CPU quality varies widely, and it is difficult for motherboard manufacturers to estimate "safe voltages" that would work on every single chip, even with the VIDs.

For the most part, as long as manufacturers guarantee stability during their warranty periods, they are doing their job. It's fine to run things at stock.
It only makes sense to undervolt if people are looking to use their hardware for longer than those 2-3 years of guaranteed life (assuming no hardcore overclocking).


Exilon said:


> Right, you have to talk about the rate of degradation instead of a binary yes/no. Outside of Intel's own RV labs and NDA info, we on these forums can only speculate about what operating parameters would lead to an acceptable rate of degradation, and even the definition of "acceptable" varies from user to user.


Well, there have already been people degrading their CPUs so far, so it's becoming less and less of a mystery and more of a "tread carefully above X voltage" area.

Alas, hardcore overclockers don't care and will keep pushing their chips to the max anyway. Because numbers are cool on paper.
And many people tend to upgrade their hardware after every generation or two anyway.


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> Well, there have already been people degrading their CPUs so far, so it's becoming less and less of a mystery and more of a "tread carefully above X voltage" area.


No argument from me there. I see some operating conditions posted here and on reddit that I'd consider very reckless with regard to the chip's long-term health. Very impressive scores though.


----------



## Falkentyne

shamino1978 said:


> degradation occurs over time, even when you dont oc, thats a given. that is the number one reason why processors come with a significant voltage guardband, it will start eating into this over time. this is usually misunderstood by users as "manufacturers overvolting by default!" , lol everytime i read this statement. imagine what would happen if intel does it the ocn way of running at vmin, lowest VID possible! the rma would be crazy.


The key is to make sure you don't accelerate this normal degradation by careless use.
As @Ichirou noted, he lost 10mv off his vmin in just 3 hours because he ran y-cruncher at 1.38v load (temps 80-90C on a Mora 420). I assume he was way over 300 amps in SFT test.

It's not fun to have a chip go from requiring 1.38v to not error out in y-cruncher to 1.39v in a span of just three hours.
It's also nice to know how much a chip will lose part of its guardband under "normal" operation, versus throwing prime95 at 280 amps on it for hours at 1.270v, for example


----------



## yzonker

Falkentyne said:


> Voltage is irrelevant by itself. It's also how much current you're pulling as well as temps.
> 1.30v at 30 amps of current at 40C is more than safe.
> 1.30v at 307 amps of current at 90C is going to slowly turn your CPU into a FPU.
> 1.30v at 307 amps of current at 40C is open to debate (no one here has any idea how temperature reduction delta reduces the degradation danger threshold, outside of people who work at Intel).
> The more current you're pushing, the lower you want the vcore to be.
> 
> Technically, since Intel was "kind enough" to start spamming 1.720v and hide the original 1.520v limit in a bizarre footnote, when dealing with sustained loads, below tjmax, the end curve "used to be" 1520mv - (ICCMAX * max DC Loadline), or 1520mv - (307 amps * 1.1 mOhms)=1182mv = 1.182v. 307 amps is the max "virus load" specification, and virus loads are not intended to be used for very long, and Intel's own SVID (used specifically on laptops) will use 1.1 mohms of loadline only for vdroop, so vcore at 307 amps must NOT exceed 1.182v, or your chip will be in possible danger for long term reliability (and this is up to TJMAX).
> 
> This '1.720v' specification --this first appeared via a VRM register "33 hex I think" under "SVID Offset capability" on Z390 boards, with no explanation about why.
> The IR 35201 controller datasheet mentions this register as "SVID: Offset", and flipping this bit on allowed max VID to exceed 1.520v, by up to 200mv.
> Gigabyte disabled this by default on Z390. Asus enabled it by default. This being enabled back then allowed AC Loadline--at full load--to boost the native CPU VID (by an inverse of how much current it's pulling) HIGHER than 1.520v, before VRM Loadline (loadline slope, aka loadline calibration) would reduce the vcore back down. This obviously only meant anything if using auto or SVID or adaptive modes--not manual vcore.
> 
> AC Loadline's functionality was reworked on Z490, so it no longer boosts VID by how much current you're pulling (by a factor of mohms) like it did on z390, instead it works as some sort of scaling offset now. But now, "offset capability" for exceeding 1.520v is enabled on all boards automatically. Why? I don't know. Possibly because the old method would cause crashing due to "inrush current" as vdroop would be sudden on erratic loads before ACLL would raise the VID to compensate. IDK.
> Maybe also for the core usage overclocking, again I don't know. But if you are dumb enough to set AC Loadline to 1.1 mohms on Z490 and newer at max CPU ratio, on non "fixed" vcore modes, you're getting 1.55-1.65v idle. On Z390 it would be 1.3v-1.4v idle.
> 
> Intel also lists a 'daily' iccmax, for long term sustained loads, which is 245 amps. This is called ICCMAX.app, rather than ICCMAX.
> Using this value, you get 1520mv - (245 * 1.1 mohm) =1250mv=1.250v. That means at 245 amps, if your vcore load (die-sense only, or a probe hooked up to a VCC_Sense pin and a ground pin to VSS), is 1.250v or lower at 245A, your chip is completely safe and longterm reliability is assured.
> 
> Once you exceed 245A for daily long term loads, even on the 1.1 mohm loadline slope, longterm reliability and functionality is no longer guaranteed--it may work, it may degrade slowly, who knows. This is up to 307A (245 to 307A), with vcore no higher than 1.182v at 37 amps. So you want to be careful about pouring tons of current even if you are within the loadline slope for safe vcore.
> 
> lolhax was at 1.270v at 280 amps, and that on the loadline slope is 1520mv - (280 * 1.1 mohm)=1.210v and he's way above that vcore (die sense since it's a maximus board).
> I would not suggest such tests if you value the longterm life of your chip. But hey--it's your damn chip. You're free to do whatever you want with it, ignore me, block me, whatever. Call degradation a big horny myth, do it---just don't complain if your chip lost a bunch of its "vmin" voltage a few weeks or months down the road.


Wow, thanks for such a detailed response. The only time I'm running high loads is from stress testing mostly. Running YCruncher the other day (20 min total) to test my RAM OC. I think it was hitting 350w in some tests at defaults at around 1.25-1.28v load. I need to double check what the bios is set to for reading Vcore though. (MSI Z690 Edge) Maybe you know, but reading all the posts here, I'm unclear on how that compares to the voltages you and others here have been talking about. I'm just looking at the Vcore entry in the MSI section of HWINFO. 

I'm a little surprised the board/cpu run high enough to damage/degrade the CPU by default though. But sounds like that's the case. 

And I don't doubt what you're saying. Those power numbers look scary for sure. I have no intention of doing it for hours at a time.


----------



## RichKnecht

Falkentyne said:


> Voltage is irrelevant by itself. It's also how much current you're pulling as well as temps.
> 1.30v at 30 amps of current at 40C is more than safe.
> 1.30v at 307 amps of current at 90C is going to slowly turn your CPU into a FPU.
> 1.30v at 307 amps of current at 40C is open to debate (no one here has any idea how temperature reduction delta reduces the degradation danger threshold, outside of people who work at Intel).
> The more current you're pushing, the lower you want the vcore to be.
> 
> Technically, since Intel was "kind enough" to start spamming 1.720v and hide the original 1.520v limit in a bizarre footnote, when dealing with sustained loads, below tjmax, the end curve "used to be" 1520mv - (ICCMAX * max DC Loadline), or 1520mv - (307 amps * 1.1 mOhms)=1182mv = 1.182v. 307 amps is the max "virus load" specification, and virus loads are not intended to be used for very long, and Intel's own SVID (used specifically on laptops) will use 1.1 mohms of loadline only for vdroop, so vcore at 307 amps must NOT exceed 1.182v, or your chip will be in possible danger for long term reliability (and this is up to TJMAX).
> 
> This '1.720v' specification --this first appeared via a VRM register "33 hex I think" under "SVID Offset capability" on Z390 boards, with no explanation about why.
> The IR 35201 controller datasheet mentions this register as "SVID: Offset", and flipping this bit on allowed max VID to exceed 1.520v, by up to 200mv.
> Gigabyte disabled this by default on Z390. Asus enabled it by default. This being enabled back then allowed AC Loadline--at full load--to boost the native CPU VID (by an inverse of how much current it's pulling) HIGHER than 1.520v, before VRM Loadline (loadline slope, aka loadline calibration) would reduce the vcore back down. This obviously only meant anything if using auto or SVID or adaptive modes--not manual vcore.
> 
> AC Loadline's functionality was reworked on Z490, so it no longer boosts VID by how much current you're pulling (by a factor of mohms) like it did on z390, instead it works as some sort of scaling offset now. But now, "offset capability" for exceeding 1.520v is enabled on all boards automatically. Why? I don't know. Possibly because the old method would cause crashing due to "inrush current" as vdroop would be sudden on erratic loads before ACLL would raise the VID to compensate. IDK.
> Maybe also for the core usage overclocking, again I don't know. But if you are dumb enough to set AC Loadline to 1.1 mohms on Z490 and newer at max CPU ratio, on non "fixed" vcore modes, you're getting 1.55-1.65v idle. On Z390 it would be 1.3v-1.4v idle.
> 
> Intel also lists a 'daily' iccmax, for long term sustained loads, which is 245 amps. This is called ICCMAX.app, rather than ICCMAX.
> Using this value, you get 1520mv - (245 * 1.1 mohm) =1250mv=1.250v. That means at 245 amps, if your vcore load (die-sense only, or a probe hooked up to a VCC_Sense pin and a ground pin to VSS), is 1.250v or lower at 245A, your chip is completely safe and longterm reliability is assured.
> 
> Once you exceed 245A for daily long term loads, even on the 1.1 mohm loadline slope, longterm reliability and functionality is no longer guaranteed--it may work, it may degrade slowly, who knows. This is up to 307A (245 to 307A), with vcore no higher than 1.182v at 37 amps. So you want to be careful about pouring tons of current even if you are within the loadline slope for safe vcore.
> 
> lolhax was at 1.270v at 280 amps, and that on the loadline slope is 1520mv - (280 * 1.1 mohm)=1.210v and he's way above that vcore (die sense since it's a maximus board).
> I would not suggest such tests if you value the longterm life of your chip. But hey--it's your damn chip. You're free to do whatever you want with it, ignore me, block me, whatever. Call degradation a big horny myth, do it---just don't complain if your chip lost a bunch of its "vmin" voltage a few weeks or months down the road.


I read this and your last post ( a few times) and find both very informative. Since my last chip was X299, this chip is a toally different animal. Let me see, if I am understanding what is going on here. I have my V Core set at 1.27 which is seeming to give me a stable overclock. I am running P cores at 5.6, E cores at 4.5, and Ring at 4.8. What I am seeing in HWInfo is a VID of 1.26 and drops to about 1.258 when I run CB R23. Is this v droop? On X299, you were able to see Vdroop with the VCCIN value. I have LLC set on 5 (MSI Z790 Tomahawk). I am used to Asus boards and I always ran them at LLC4-5 and never had issues. Not looking to break any records, just want a nice stable OC.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

For me, the best way to test is to use the PC daily...
If you've been running your system for 6 months without freezing or BSOD, I don't care if it fails immediately running P-95 or y-cruncher. 
I don't use my PC to control a nuclear power plant... LOL


----------



## Luggage

Somehow this thread is making me more hesitant over switching to Intel after all the time running Y-Cruncher over night to test CO settings on zen 3. On PBO of course…

Might have done something really stupid from just quickly getting “safe settings” from some post… >_>


----------



## Xiph

Xiph said:


> I don't understand, how many of you can run ring clock so high with e-cores enabled. CB23 is bad test for ring stability, if you are happy with that.
> I get y-cruncher N64 single errors, even if I just increase ring x45->x46. Tried to increase L2 voltage, but no help.
> Same goes to E-cores. I can't increase those from default x43 or N64 errors again.
> My P-cores (and seems everything with this sample) sucks and P-cores needs 1.31V x55 and 1.38V x56 bios fixed LLC#6, so E-cores and ring gets that Vcore.
> 
> Asus bios rates this as SP101/P111/E81, but I think P core rating should be something like P102.





Exilon said:


> FWIW, if I don't raise ICCMax to 511.75A, N64 and HNT have a good chance of instantly crashing on launch. Something about ICCMax throttling wrecks stability for me. Which logical cores are crashing for you?


I have mostly problem with crashing E-cores. Fixing P-core crashes is more logical with voltage.
Today, again more testing. It seems that I don't actually have problems with ring overclocking, but all problems are coming from E-core crashes, when trying to minimize needed voltage for P-core overclock.
I have now tested underclocking E-cores. Underclocking E-cores to x41 seems be optimal spot with my 13900K. If I go over that, I need more voltage even if P-cores at x56 do not require that. I'm also now >30min stable with x50 ring. 

I still quite don't understand, how this voltage relationship between P and E-cores works, but I guess you sort of explained it here:


Exilon said:


> The good P-core, bad E-core combination is just painful if you're trying to optimize P-core voltage for efficiency because the E-cores crash first when P-cores pull back on the turbo.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Obviously I'm kidding... 
A minimum test is needed to tune the system...
But I particularly don't like to use a software that test my cooler and not my settings... LOL.
You need to test your system for the reality you will use the PC...
If you use your PC for heavy rendering, use it to test... If you like to game, use it to test...
For me a full load test with r23 until the water temperature stabilize is fine... 
For me... For me!


----------



## wilkinsb01

Finally here and direct die


----------



## Falkentyne

Xiph said:


> I have mostly problem with crashing E-cores. Fixing P-core crashes is more logical with voltage.
> Today, again more testing. It seems that I don't actually have problems with ring overclocking, but all problems are coming from E-core crashes, when trying to minimize needed voltage for P-core overclock.
> I have now tested underclocking E-cores. Underclocking E-cores to x41 seems be optimal spot with my 13900K. If I go over that, I need more voltage even if P-cores at x56 do not require that. I'm also now >30min stable with x50 ring.
> 
> I still quite don't understand, how this voltage relationship between P and E-cores works, but I guess you sort of explained it here:


Your E-core SP rating is only 81 (quite low, but I've seen some klunker's in the 70's). My E-core rating is 94.
So I can use my E-cores on less voltage (I found E cores at x45 to be stable enough as long as active vcore itself is ABOVE 1.17v).


----------



## Exilon

Xiph said:


> I have mostly problem with crashing E-cores. Fixing P-core crashes is more logical with voltage.
> Today, again more testing. It seems that I don't actually have problems with ring overclocking, but all problems are coming from E-core crashes, when trying to minimize needed voltage for P-core overclock.
> I have now tested underclocking E-cores. Underclocking E-cores to x41 seems be optimal spot with my 13900K. If I go over that, I need more voltage even if P-cores at x56 do not require that. I'm also now >30min stable with x50 ring.
> 
> I still quite don't understand, how this voltage relationship between P and E-cores works, but I guess you sort of explained it here:


My tip is to make it so that E-cores only pull back to 41x when >13 of them are loaded. The load line slope will make sure the E-cores are stable in lower core count loads.

Personally I only had E-cores crashes if the P-core throttled due to ICCMax or PL1 so I set the PL1 to 275W for y-cruncher N64 which stopped the P-cores from throttling and crashing the E-cores. Now it's N64 (260W) and HNT (220W, with transient spikes) stable at 55x/43x


----------



## Ichirou

Xiph said:


> I have mostly problem with crashing E-cores. Fixing P-core crashes is more logical with voltage.
> Today, again more testing. It seems that I don't actually have problems with ring overclocking, but all problems are coming from E-core crashes, when trying to minimize needed voltage for P-core overclock.
> I have now tested underclocking E-cores. Underclocking E-cores to x41 seems be optimal spot with my 13900K. If I go over that, I need more voltage even if P-cores at x56 do not require that. I'm also now >30min stable with x50 ring.
> 
> I still quite don't understand, how this voltage relationship between P and E-cores works, but I guess you sort of explained it here:


The P-cores, E-cores, and ring share the same Vcore, but they are binned differently.
So if your E-cores are bottom of the barrel, they're not going to clock very high compared to others unless you dump more Vcore into the chip.


----------



## affxct

Silent Scone said:


> My one and only for reference (13700K)
> 
> SP92 P104 E69 X233K566


To add to this thread.

My 13700K:
SP 79 (89, 59)
Friend’s 13700KF:
SP 84 (92, 68)

I’m not sure if he had the correct ME when he updated the BIOS and we both read SPs off his board so they may or may not be wrong. Idk. His does 54/43/47 and mine does 55/44/48 at roughly the same voltages.


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> The P-cores, E-cores, and ring share the same Vcore, but they are binned differently.
> So if your E-cores are bottom of the barrel, they're not going to clock very high compared to others unless you dump more Vcore into the chip.


But fortunately you can exploit the Vcore load line slope to do something like this.









I can probably make it do 46x for 1-8 but I haven't tried yet. Need to make a HNT config for 16-23 and then 17-31 to fully exercise them.


----------



## Ichirou

Exilon said:


> But fortunately you can exploit the Vcore load line slope to do something like this.
> View attachment 2580630
> 
> 
> I can probably make it do 46x for 1-8 but I haven't tried yet. Need to make a HNT config for 16-23 and then 17-31 to fully exercise them.


MSI BIOS lets you individually set each cores to use a specific multiplier, so I don't even need to deal with "how many cores are being used on load."
I can just bench the cores and make the weaker ones run slower.


----------



## Luggage

RobertoSampaio said:


> Obviously I'm kidding...
> A minimum test is needed to tune the system...
> But I particularly don't like to use a software that test my cooler and not my settings... LOL.
> You need to test your system for the reality you will use the PC...
> If you use your PC for heavy rendering, use it to test... If you like to game, use it to test...
> For me a full load test with r23 until the water temperature stabilize is fine...
> For me... For me!


With my cooling I don’t want to have to care about what program I happen to click on, and then go have lunch 


http://imgur.com/tCqREzX


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> MSI BIOS lets you individually set each cores to use a specific multiplier, so I don't even need to deal with "how many cores are being used on load."
> I can just bench the cores and make the weaker ones run slower.


You'd still want to account for the Vcore slope since a partial load would be some 100mV more than a full load and you can sneak another 1-2x multi in that 100mV gap.
However you gave me an idea. I'll load 8 P-core threads and then run E-cores in groups of 4 in y-cruncher to figure out which ones can do 46x in this condition and cap the rest at 45-44x. Already found E-core 12 to not be able to do this.



Code:


.\y-cruncher.exe config hnt_ehalf1
.\y-cruncher.exe config hnt_ehalf2
.\y-cruncher.exe config hnt_ehalf3
.\y-cruncher.exe config hnt_ehalf4

{
    Action : "StressTest"
    StressTest : {
        AllocateLocally : "true"
        LogicalCores : [0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 28 29 30 31]
        TotalMemory : 2400000000
        SecondsPerTest : 600
        SecondsTotal : 1200
        StopOnError : "true"
        Tests : [
            "HNT"
        ]
    }
}


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Exilon said:


> You'd still want to account for the Vcore slope since a partial load would be some 100mV more than a full load and you can sneak another 1-2x multi in that 100mV gap.
> However you gave me an idea. I'll load 8 P-core threads and then run E-cores in groups of 4 in y-cruncher to figure out which ones can do 46x in this condition and cap the rest at 45-44x. Already found E-core 12 to not be able to do this.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> .\y-cruncher.exe config hnt_ehalf1
> .\y-cruncher.exe config hnt_ehalf2
> .\y-cruncher.exe config hnt_ehalf3
> .\y-cruncher.exe config hnt_ehalf4
> 
> {
> Action : "StressTest"
> StressTest : {
> AllocateLocally : "true"
> LogicalCores : [0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 28 29 30 31]
> TotalMemory : 2400000000
> SecondsPerTest : 600
> SecondsTotal : 1200
> StopOnError : "true"
> Tests : [
> "HNT"
> ]
> }
> }


Take a look at this video... It could help you with some ideas for the test you want to do...


----------



## Netarangi

bigfootnz said:


> L234E550


Pretty sure I have the same batch.

Got mine from pbtech.


----------



## newls1

after reading all this benchmarking data and chip degration, im wondering if im hurting my cpu by just running y-cruncher a few times. Cpu is @ 1.330v idle and loads to 1.292v with my 58x / 46x OC. Am I degrading my cpu quickly by running y-cruncher 10-15 times in its life so far?


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> after reading all this benchmarking data and chip degration, im wondering if im hurting my cpu by just running y-cruncher a few times. Cpu is @ 1.330v idle and loads to 1.292v with my 58x / 46x OC. Am I degrading my cpu quickly by running y-cruncher 10-15 times in its life so far?


What's your VR VOUT reading?


----------



## Shonk

affxct said:


> I don’t want to come off as hostile, but I do have to ask. How is it that you have managed to dissipate that much heat through a 280? As far as I understand it, heat needs to be removed from a die to prevent the die from heating OTP. If I hit 91c at 280W, and others using 360s hit similar figures, are we doing something wrong with how we’re setting up our coolers? It’s just really difficult to understand how I am so far off what you can do.


I think its a factor of many things

What country are you in?
Im in the UK and its 8°C outside atm
My Living room is 17.8°C but my pc may be a bit lower as its lower to the ground than my Govee Thermometer and heat rises..

How is your pc positioned and where in the house is it
My bedroom pc is nowhere near as good as disipating heat as the living room pc
This pc is venting straight into the living room and has the whole room vent into
e.g. its nowhere near a wall the back of it vents straight out into a 15 foot void..

Did you fit 1mm Spacers on the ILM that helped me a fair bit
I replaced the spacers with a BCF a couple of months ago and it made my temps slightly worse so went back to the spacers

Did you spread your Paste with a credit card?
youtuber's will tell you it makes zero difference
thats bs unless you are using paste thats like water

How is your CPU setup
Mine is using Intel Spec LLC
Intel Spec voltage table
Voltage/Frequency Curve: -29mV @ 51x, -29mV @ 54x, -29mV @ 57x, -29mV @ 58x, -29mV @ 58x, -29mV @ 58x
IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC): 0.600 / 0.900 mOhm

Everyone seems to just whack a random voltage in for the cpu thinking they know better than intel what the cpu needs
dont you think if the cpu could run on a stable 1.xx volts they would come from the factory like it
Vdroop is there for a reason and it would be wise not to fk with it as it protects the cpu
My 1.32V load is going to be nothing like most people here's load due to stock droop and the voltage table and such

Likewise the wattage my cpu report's is being used is going to be nothing like alot of people's here due to changes to LLC and AC/DC LL and manual voltages that people put in
your 280W reported may actually be 380W for all i know

here's mine with a 302W load with AVX disabled

MY CPU Reports 302W
MY PSU reports 395W on the 12V rail when you take into account VRM losses and other things on the 12V rail 302W is about right


----------



## affxct

newls1 said:


> after reading all this benchmarking data and chip degration, im wondering if im hurting my cpu by just running y-cruncher a few times. Cpu is @ 1.330v idle and loads to 1.292v with my 58x / 46x OC. Am I degrading my cpu quickly by running y-cruncher 10-15 times in its life so far?


Death to y-cruncher


----------



## Netarangi

If my cb23 30min stability test throttles, that would be deemed as unstable yeah?

I can push my 1x and 2x cores to 6.0ghz with much better single core benching results, but this throttles after a few min on cb23 multicore. Gaming wouldn't use all cores at all though so as long as it doesn't overheat in gaming it should be fine?


----------



## affxct

Shonk said:


> I think its a factor of many things
> 
> What country are you in?
> Im in the UK and its 8°C outside atm
> My Living room is 17.8°C but my pc may be a bit lower as its lower to the ground than my Govee Thermometer and heat rises..
> 
> How is your pc positioned and where in the house is it
> My bedroom pc is nowhere near as good as disipating heat as the living room pc
> This pc is venting straight into the living room and has the whole room vent into
> e.g. its nowhere near a wall the back of it vents straight out into a 15 foot void..
> 
> How is your CPU setup
> Mine is using Intel Spec LLC
> Intel Spec voltage table
> Voltage/Frequency Curve: -29mV @ 51x, -29mV @ 54x, -29mV @ 57x, -29mV @ 58x, -29mV @ 58x, -29mV @ 58x
> IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC): 0.600 / 0.900 mOhm
> 
> Everyone seems to just whack a random voltage in for the cpu thinking they know better than intel what the cpu needs
> dont you think if the cpu could run on a stable 1.xx volts they would come from the factory like it
> Vdroop is there for a reason and it would be wise not to fk with it as it protects the cpu
> My 1.32V load is going to be nothing like most people here's load due to stock droop and the voltage table and such
> 
> Likewise the wattage my cpu report's is being used is going to be nothing like alot of people's here due to changes to LLC and AC/DC LL and manual voltages that people put in
> your 280W reported may actually be 380W for all i know
> 
> here's mine with a 302W load with AVX disabled
> 
> MY CPU Reports 302W
> MY PSU reports 395W on the 12V rail when you take into account VRM losses and other things on the 12V rail 302W is about right


18c, by an open window. AFAIK all Vdroop does is compensate for natural Vdroop that is unavoidable. Maybe you’re right, all I know is that whatever your load Vcore is in conjunction with current draw will determine your power output. I’m not really sure if that value should (or can scientifically) be different from what it is. Like I really don’t know. 450W is a lot. I don’t know anything about overclocking and I didn’t study engineering so my opinion is invalid.


----------



## Oleksii1977

Silent Scone said:


> SP92 P104 E69 X233K566


My 13700k SP97 P106 E80 X233K509


----------



## Shonk

affxct said:


> 18c, by an open window. AFAIK all Vdroop does is compensate for natural Vdroop that is unavoidable. Maybe you’re right, all I know is that whatever your load Vcore is in conjunction with current draw will determine your power output. I’m not really sure if that value should (or can scientifically) be different from what it is. Like I really don’t know. 450W is a lot. I don’t know anything about overclocking and I didn’t study engineering so my opinion is invalid.


Thats not all Vdroop does its there to stop huge voltage spikes which crash/degrade/kill cpu's 
the same for the AC/DC load line


----------



## Ichirou

newls1 said:


> after reading all this benchmarking data and chip degration, im wondering if im hurting my cpu by just running y-cruncher a few times. Cpu is @ 1.330v idle and loads to 1.292v with my 58x / 46x OC. Am I degrading my cpu quickly by running y-cruncher 10-15 times in its life so far?


Depends on the test


----------



## affxct

Shonk said:


> Thats not all Vdroop does its there to stop huge voltage spikes which crash/degrade/kill cpu's
> the same for the AC/DC load line


If you have LLC set too aggressively alongside a high idle Vcore then perhaps, but that’s also contingent on what sort of transients your VRM produces at various LLC values. IIRC, the X570 Xtreme used to deal extremely well with transient highs. But again, I’ve enjoyed gathering your input and I just find it interesting that you are able to accomplish it. It goes against the grain.

I will say this though, I could set my LLC setting to max Vdroop in BIOS (no LLC compensation at all) and re-test on a 10c day. I would not be able to cool 450W irrespective of those adjustments. I know because I always compare LLCs and I’ve had 8c-10c days. Unfortunately the limits never really change. But again, this is all my opinion and I’m not an informed individual in this space.


----------



## bigfootnz

Netarangi said:


> Pretty sure I have the same batch.
> 
> Got mine from pbtech.


Yep, same thing pbtech 



Netarangi said:


> If my cb23 30min stability test throttles, that would be deemed as unstable yeah?
> 
> I can push my 1x and 2x cores to 6.0ghz with much better single core benching results, but this throttles after a few min on cb23 multicore. Gaming wouldn't use all cores at all though so as long as it doesn't overheat in gaming it should be fine?


If your cpu throttles you cannot be sure are you stable or not as your CPU downclock. Honestly with this chip, on AIO 280 there is no much difference between 5.4 and 5.6 (on my 13900k), I would reduce clock so you do not throttle in CB23 then your games will run 10-20C cooler than this test, depending of game.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> MSI BIOS lets you individually set each cores to use a specific multiplier, so I don't even need to deal with "how many cores are being used on load."
> I can just bench the cores and make the weaker ones run slower.


When ours chips arrive by foot via Amazon in a couple more weeks (I swear someone hitch hiked or something with them from Ohio) I’m a hit you up about how to do this. Lol

Edit: just went outside and lo and behold it arrived!!!!!!! Go check your porch @Ichirou hah

batch is: x236f509

im still waiting on a few pieces though and make take a couple weeks!!!! 😭😂


----------



## Netarangi

bigfootnz said:


> If your cpu throttles you cannot be sure are you stable or not as your CPU downclock. Honestly with this chip, on AIO 280 there is no much difference between 5.4 and 5.6 (on my 13900k), I would reduce clock so you do not throttle in CB23 then your games will run 10-20C cooler than this test, depending of game.


Yeah I'll just settle for lower clock speed. Spent too much time fiddling with voltages and curves etc. trying to get it stable.

Thanks mayne


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

MrTOOSHORT said:


> *Ichirou*
> 
> What is your CC 13900k batch #?
> 
> My 13900k just came, it's X236F199 Vietnam.


Mine just came and its very close in number to yours...X236F509. How has yours been?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

HemuV2 said:


> And I'm f271 haha


and im f509


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Mine just came and its very close in number to yours...X236F509. How has yours been?


I like mine 56/45/50 cache 85’C in Y-Cruncher so temps are good. Custom loop.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

MrTOOSHORT said:


> I like mine 56/45/50 cache 85’C in Y-Cruncher so temps are good. Custom loop.


Dang nice, im moving from air for the first time so I went with a big boy 420mm aio but custom loops are clean! You on the dark kingpin I take it/z690 for mobo?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Dang nice, im moving from air for the first time so I went with a big boy 420mm aio but custom loops are clean! You on the dark kingpin I take it/z690 for mobo?


Yes Dark z690. Solid board. Thinking about Apex or Dark z790 though. Guess we will see. 😊


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> What's your VR VOUT reading?


im not sure sir, ill check when I get home tomoorrow and report back


----------



## affxct

After all the talk about degradation, I decided to go back and re-do my daily RAM configuration and I figured I might as well re-do CPU as well. I'm at 54/43/47 with 1.25 set and -50% Vdroop now. Vmin seems to be around the 1.2V now and this should hold at around the current ambient of just below 20c. I don't imagine this nor my other OC would pass at 25-30c, but the best part is that there's absolutely no reason to run AVX loads in the middle of the day (unless you do simulation/rendering work I guess).


----------



## imrevoau

RobertoSampaio said:


> Obviously I'm kidding...
> A minimum test is needed to tune the system...
> But I particularly don't like to use a software that test my cooler and not my settings... LOL.
> You need to test your system for the reality you will use the PC...
> If you use your PC for heavy rendering, use it to test... If you like to game, use it to test...
> For me a full load test with r23 until the water temperature stabilize is fine...
> For me... For me!


At the very least your PC should NOT be unstable doing basically any heavy task (video work, rendering etc) outside of crashes being bad for that, In my experience gaming on a slightly unstable system causes very bad frame times and fps drops.yucky


----------



## Papusan

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, I'm gonna bin these next few chips once they arrive in the meanwhile, and if there isn't anything satisfactory, 13900KS it is.


Then you'll have to bin KS chips  Next move will be to Meteor lake, and same procedure once again, LOOL


----------



## Ichirou

Papusan said:


> Then you'll have to bin KS chips  Next move will be to Meteor lake, and same procedure once again, LOOL


I'm sticking with DDR4 due to a requirement for at least 64 GB of RAM for my work, so I will not be upgrading beyond the 13th Gen for the foreseeable future.
DDR5 cannot match DDR4 in performance right now at 64 GB or more, when overclocked with both.


----------



## z390e

Shonk said:


> Hence why i undervolted 29mv 454W is the limit of the cooling
> at 424W with the 29mv undervolt it doesnt throttle
> 
> Show me someone else who can get even close to those numbers with an aio


Define close 😁 

I think I'm using a bigger AIO than you on my 12900KS but it handles at least 380w at 91c for y-cruncher 2.5b. Im pretty sure I could hit 5.5 but throttle at higher wattage and temps.

Ironically I had people telling me my fan setup was wrong  my response was similar to yours, show me someone beating me with the same setup and I'll agree 😁


----------



## morph.

Ichirou said:


> I'm sticking with DDR4 due to a requirement for at least 64 GB of RAM for my work, so I will not be upgrading beyond the 13th Gen for the foreseeable future.
> DDR5 cannot match DDR4 in performance right now at 64 GB or more, when overclocked with both.


You say that now but if the IMC/MB support for faster memory takes another generational step forward like that of the 13th generation I don't think it will be too far off. Dare I say I think 64gb can now do around 6000 on 13th gen imcs/boards? Previously gen was around 5600?

Read an early rumour that meteor lake is going down to 6 p cores like 11th gen hope this is not true...


----------



## Ichirou

morph. said:


> You say that now but if the IMC/MB support for faster memory takes another generational step forward like that of the 13th generation I don't think it will be too far off. Dare I say I think 64gb can now do around 6000 on 13th gen imcs/boards? Previously gen was around 5600?


I'm getting too old to deal with too many hardware changes now. First child's going to be born soon, and I've got this system planned for a complex hardline loop.

Since I'm not much of a gamer and my hardware needs are more or less being met, I'll likely just change the coolant every year and leave it at that.


----------



## morph.

Ichirou said:


> I'm getting too old to deal with too many hardware changes now. First child's going to be born soon, and I've got this system planned for a complex hardline loop.
> 
> Since I'm not much of a gamer and my hardware needs are more or less being met, I'll likely just change the coolant every year and leave it at that.


lol I said that when I had my firstborn in 2020... Then when tech tember comes around roughly the time I flush my loop I pick up some new kit while doing the flush. Personally kinda tempted to go with soft tubes now and QDCgives ease of hardware changes but still love my hard tubes. I've been really trying to hold back on not getting the apex but seeing everyone's 8000+ ddr5 is giving me a serious case of FOMO when I can't even seem to get 6800 to run stable on my 6400 kit. Glad the stock available is atrocious for it at this stage...


----------



## Ichirou

morph. said:


> lol I said that when I had my firstborn in 2020... Then when tech tember comes around roughly the time I flush my loop I pick up some new kit while doing the flush. Personally kinda tempted to go with soft tubes now and QDCgives ease of hardware changes but still love my hard tubes. I've been really trying to hold back on not getting the apex but seeing everyone's 8000+ ddr5 is giving me a serious case of FOMO when I can't even seem to get 6800 to run stable on my 6400 kit. Glad the stock available is atrocious for it at this stage...


Hey, if it gives you happiness, go for it. You earn money to spend it, after all.

In my case, the overclocking and watercooling is essentially more like a last hurrah for me, so I'm going all out with it right now.
After I'm done, I'll just sit on it for the years to come, maybe occasionally upgrading the GPU every few generations, or replacing watercooling parts that go bad.


----------



## Shonk

z390e said:


> Define close 😁
> 
> I think I'm using a bigger AIO than you on my 12900KS but it handles at least 380w at 91c for y-cruncher 2.5b. Im pretty sure I could hit 5.5 but throttle at higher wattage and temps.
> 
> Ironically I had people telling me my fan setup was wrong  my response was similar to yours, show me someone beating me with the same setup and I'll agree 😁


you would do better with a 13900k then with my 12900k i could only handle 354W


----------



## morph.

Ichirou said:


> Hey, if it gives you happiness, go for it. You earn money to spend it, after all.
> 
> In my case, the overclocking and watercooling is essentially more like a last hurrah for me, so I'm going all out with it right now.
> After I'm done, I'll just sit on it for the years to come, maybe occasionally upgrading the GPU every few generations, or replacing watercooling parts that go bad.


Stay off this forum then it's bad for the wallet. As you see all the OC's/benchmark scores and try to somewhat keep up stupidly due to FOMO haha...
Before going on a stupid tech rampage I was on 8700k then went to 10850k -> 11900k - >12900k - 13900k paired with the past two iterations of formula boards, 1080ti -> 3090 -> 4090 and a bunch of different high-end ram kits with multiple loop rebuilds. But after struggling with ram OC clocks and finally, a white-themed apex board is out. The temptation is there and hopefully, I can join the big boy leagues with the ram ocing haha...


----------



## Nizzen

Ichirou said:


> I'm sticking with DDR4 due to a requirement for at least 64 GB of RAM for my work, so I will not be upgrading beyond the 13th Gen for the foreseeable future.
> DDR5 cannot match DDR4 in performance right now at 64 GB or more, when overclocked with both.


Pleace share your benchmark numbers of ddr4 vs ddr 5 64GB


----------



## cstkl1

Exilon said:


> What does SVID trained do for you at LLC4? The setting you're touching modifies AC Load Line in the Internal CPU power settings and you can get the readout of the AC Load Line in HWInfo64
> 
> Here's mine at SVID trained + LLC4
> View attachment 2580335
> 
> 
> View attachment 2580339


that not correct.


----------



## satinghostrider

My SP105 is finally going into my 2022 Z690 Apex.
P Core : 116
E Core : 83

So weird applying pink paste on my CPU. Last time I ever used anything pink was a condom.


----------



## Ichirou

satinghostrider said:


> My SP105 is finally going into my 2022 Z690 Apex.
> P Core : 116
> E Core : 83
> 
> So weird applying pink paste on my CPU. Last time I ever used anything pink was a condom.


It's certainly covering that hard, thick beast


----------



## satinghostrider

Ichirou said:


> It's certainly covering that hard, thick beast


----------



## TeN

I've bought the 13700k to replace my 12900k and it clocks way better and higher. But i have a couple of questions.
13700k: 5.6 P cores, 4.5 E cores and Uncore 4.8Ghz(SA voltage set to 1.325) and stable

12900k didn't go much higher than 5.2 with TVB @ 1 when reaching 85'C+ @ ~1.35Volt (@ HWinfo Vcore) Any higher and it would hang the system or get way too hot.
13700k does 5.3 on all cores @ 1.25Volt Vcore (@ default).
I have the 13700k @ 5.7 with TVB @ 1 When reaching 85 @ 1.378Volt, but reaches 95 'C when using benchmarks with AVX(On a 420 Arctic Freezer AIO ).

Now i have a couple of little questions, which i have trouble to find a good conclusive answers to:
As far is i have found everything below the Strix (apex?) does not work with die sense (i have a TUF Gaming Z690). But does it work with socket sense?
So could you say, socket sense is less accurate and that's why i can not compare my voltages with a Strix one (se to die sense readout) or higher?
Could you say for instance that my Vcore settings and readout in hwinfo is 0.05 Volt higher than die sense, or is that difficult to say?

Is it okay for my Vcore to be at 1.378 - 1.4 in HWinfo (without considering the height of the temps) or will that degrade the chip?


----------



## lolhaxz

TeN said:


> I've bought the 13700k to replace my 12900k and it clocks way better and higher. But i have a couple of questions.
> 13700k: 5.6 P cores, 4.5 E cores and Uncore 4.8Ghz(SA voltage set to 1.325) and stable
> 
> 12900k didn't go much higher than 5.2 with TVB @ 1 when reaching 85'C+ @ ~1.35Volt (@ HWinfo Vcore) Any higher and it would hang the system or get way too hot.
> 13700k does 5.3 on all cores @ 1.25Volt Vcore (@ default).
> I have the 13700k @ 5.7 with TVB @ 1 When reaching 85 @ 1.378Volt, but reaches 95 'C when using benchmarks with AVX(On a 420 Arctic Freezer AIO ).
> 
> Now i have a couple of little questions, which i have trouble to find a good conclusive answers to:
> As far is i have found everything below the Strix (apex?) does not work with die sense (i have a TUF Gaming Z690). But does it work with socket sense?
> So could you say, socket sense is less accurate and that's why i can not compare my voltages with a Strix one (se to die sense readout) or higher?
> Could you say for instance that my Vcore settings and readout in hwinfo is 0.05 Volt higher than die sense, or is that difficult to say?
> 
> Is it okay for my Vcore to be at 1.378 - 1.4 in HWinfo (without considering the height of the temps) or will that degrade the chip?


It's too difficult to say, it is entirely dependent on your settings (LLC etc) .. socket sense vs die sense at low LLC full tilt can easily be 50mv+ difference.

You could potentially make some vague conclusions about the vcore reaching the die based on the package power, assuming its accurate.


----------



## TeN

lolhaxz said:


> It's too difficult to say, it is entirely dependent on your settings (LLC etc) .. socket sense vs die sense at low LLC full tilt can easily be 50mv+ difference.
> 
> You could potentially make some vague conclusions about the vcore reaching the die based on the package power, assuming its accurate.


Hey great answer!
I have it set tot llc 5. Powerdraw is at about 230 - 250watt. Might it be okayisch yo keep it @ 1.378v? Except for the avx benches it will never ho higher than say 70 degrees


----------



## Silent Scone

affxct said:


> To add to this thread.
> 
> My 13700K:
> SP 79 (89, 59)
> Friend’s 13700KF:
> SP 84 (92, 68)
> 
> I’m not sure if he had the correct ME when he updated the BIOS and we both read SPs off his board so they may or may not be wrong. Idk. His does 54/43/47 and mine does 55/44/48 at roughly the same voltages.


Still on a D15 here waiting for 4090 blocks.

1.35v set LLC4

P 56 all core

E 42 all core

per core usage 60, 60, 59, 59, 58, 58, 56, 56


----------



## Exilon

lolhaxz said:


> It's too difficult to say, it is entirely dependent on your settings (LLC etc) .. socket sense vs die sense at low LLC full tilt can easily be 50mv+ difference.
> 
> You could potentially make some vague conclusions about the vcore reaching the die based on the package power, assuming its accurate.


Isn't package power calculated from VID? The entire Intel power telemetry seems to hinge on your DC load line being set correctly respective to LLC.


----------



## evilhf

does anyone have a 13900k max overclock test in shadow off the tomb rider 1080p lowest?


----------



## Nizzen

evilhf said:


> does anyone have a 13900k max overclock test in shadow off the tomb rider 1080p lowest?


Not max but it's pretty good.
5800 all p- cores, 49 cache, 47 e-cores
8000c32 tweaked
Look at cpu game result.


----------



## lolhaxz

Exilon said:


> Isn't package power calculated from VID? The entire Intel power telemetry seems to hinge on your DC load line being set correctly respective to LLC.


Yes, 100% correct - Sorry I meant VRM Current (if it's reported, and depends how - ie I believe all the higher end ASUS boards report this separately, lower end? donno )


----------



## Exilon

lolhaxz said:


> Yes, 100% correct - Sorry I meant VRM Current (if it's reported, and depends how - ie I believe all the higher end ASUS boards report this separately, lower end? donno )


There is a VRM Vcore current sensor on the Strix and probably the TUF, but on ASUS should be able to get "close enough" answers from VID by enabling sync acdc loadline which will set DC LL to the LLC value.


----------



## TeN

Exilon said:


> There is a VRM Vcore current sensor on the Strix and probably the TUF, but on ASUS should be able to get "close enough" answers from VID by enabling sync acdc loadline which will set DC LL to the LLC value.


What can i expect to see if i enable this. Or how could i use this to more or less accurately see what happens?


----------



## HemuV2

Falkentyne said:


> The key is to make sure you don't accelerate this normal degradation by careless use.
> As @Ichirou noted, he lost 10mv off his vmin in just 3 hours because he ran y-cruncher at 1.38v load (temps 80-90C on a Mora 420). I assume he was way over 300 amps in SFT test.
> 
> It's not fun to have a chip go from requiring 1.38v to not error out in y-cruncher to 1.39v in a span of just three hours.
> It's also nice to know how much a chip will lose part of its guardband under "normal" operation, versus throwing prime95 at 280 amps on it for hours at 1.270v, for example


Why do the ******s on discord keep telling me to run p95 sfft overnight, it gets so hot, would it degrade the cpu if i ran it overnight?


----------



## Silent Scone

HemuV2 said:


> Why do the ******s on discord keep telling me to run p95 sfft overnight, it gets so hot, would it degrade the cpu if i ran it overnight?


Use the system for what you built it for. Technically, anything that pulls more than the specification current through the die is at some risk (white papers are only valid at stock operating frequencies).

The most pragmatic answer would be that you're going to eat into the guardband more by doing what you're doing, rather than running something more indicative of daily workloads.


----------



## Rbk_3

Man this whole time I have somehow had HT off. 
Turned HT on and my temps shot way up. Is it normal for me to be instantly thermal throttling on the OCCT small test at 5.6/5.0 ecores off at 1.3 load on a 360?


----------



## imrevoau

Rbk_3 said:


> Man this whole time I have somehow had HT off.
> Turned HT on and my temps shot way up. Is it normal for me to be instantly thermal throttling on the OCCT small test at 5.6/5.0 ecores off at 1.3 load on a 360?


Not surprising at all. I'm on a 280mm and HT on kills my temps, where as turning it off allows me to control temps up to 1.4V.


----------



## Krautmaster

anyone an idea how to get rid of that undervolt protection in windows 11? In my MSI Bios its off but if i set voltage points in the bios with an offset it seems to be ignored below a certain value. 
Windows 11 Update Causing Issues On MSI Boards Due To Core Isolation (VBS) (techworm.net) 

No matter what i say in XTU or BIOS voltage curve, i can set -300mV between multi 8 and 43 eg and it simply does not drop low enough. 

I can set a fixed voltage of eg 1V in Bios but if i try to change it on the fly in XTU it pushes it back up to >1V again no matter what i select in XTU.


----------



## Nono31

TeN said:


> I've bought the 13700k to replace my 12900k and it clocks way better and higher. But i have a couple of questions.
> 13700k: 5.6 P cores, 4.5 E cores and Uncore 4.8Ghz(SA voltage set to 1.325) and stable
> 
> 12900k didn't go much higher than 5.2 with TVB @ 1 when reaching 85'C+ @ ~1.35Volt (@ HWinfo Vcore) Any higher and it would hang the system or get way too hot.
> 13700k does 5.3 on all cores @ 1.25Volt Vcore (@ default).
> I have the 13700k @ 5.7 with TVB @ 1 When reaching 85 @ 1.378Volt, but reaches 95 'C when using benchmarks with AVX(On a 420 Arctic Freezer AIO ).
> 
> Now i have a couple of little questions, which i have trouble to find a good conclusive answers to:
> As far is i have found everything below the Strix (apex?) does not work with die sense (i have a TUF Gaming Z690). But does it work with socket sense?
> So could you say, socket sense is less accurate and that's why i can not compare my voltages with a Strix one (se to die sense readout) or higher?
> Could you say for instance that my Vcore settings and readout in hwinfo is 0.05 Volt higher than die sense, or is that difficult to say?
> 
> Is it okay for my Vcore to be at 1.378 - 1.4 in HWinfo (without considering the height of the temps) or will that degrade the chip?


IMO, with asus mobo i would prefer with 1.4v to stay llc3 (peak are nice), i will not pushing no more than llc4. I will not make too many stress test also.


----------



## TeN

Nono31 said:


> IMO, with asus mobo i would prefer with 1.4v to stay llc3 (peak are nice), i will not pushing no more than llc4. I will not make too many stress test also.


Okay thanks! Will try to stay below that.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

morph. said:


> You say that now but if the IMC/MB support for faster memory takes another generational step forward like that of the 13th generation I don't think it will be too far off. Dare I say I think 64gb can now do around 6000 on 13th gen imcs/boards? Previously gen was around 5600?
> 
> Read an early rumour that meteor lake is going down to 6 p cores like 11th gen hope this is not true...


It’s higher, I’m getting mid 6xxx’s on 10th with <=36ns latency with 2x16 DR , ichirou’s bandwidth will be higher than that, he’s in the 7ks somewhere I think or higher, 13th gen will only be a little more bandwidth possibly and slightly higher latency...which begs the question, why? Answer: I dunno, but im doing it lol. Better processing power =P and need a PC for the family.


----------



## raad11

Falkentyne said:


> The SP is based on the vid table at various VF points.
> If the ME firmware is incorrect, the VID gets read incorrectly on initial CPU installation.


Not sure if that makes me lucky or unlucky that my VID table was pretty conservative. Either way now it's gonna be eating at me until I find the time to reseat the CPU which probably won't be for several weeks


----------



## raad11

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, typically, the VIDs should never be flat. There's always variance. It's usually a huge red flag that it is an incorrect reading.


Just FYI, this user didn't have a flat VID table and still had incorrect reading:









Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


Oof, this is just one single chip so it is still a small sample size, but that is not promising to hear. It seems like the IMC hasn't improved. Or just barely. @bhav My estimates for the 13th Gen DDR4 IMC are more conservative now. 4,300 MHz stable might be what golden kits can do. 4,400+ should...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Falkentyne

Krautmaster said:


> anyone an idea how to get rid of that undervolt protection in windows 11? In my MSI Bios its off but if i set voltage points in the bios with an offset it seems to be ignored below a certain value.
> Windows 11 Update Causing Issues On MSI Boards Due To Core Isolation (VBS) (techworm.net)
> 
> No matter what i say in XTU or BIOS voltage curve, i can set -300mV between multi 8 and 43 eg and it simply does not drop low enough.
> 
> I can set a fixed voltage of eg 1V in Bios but if i try to change it on the fly in XTU it pushes it back up to >1V again no matter what i select in XTU.


Microcode bug. Use BCLK <100 (e.g.98) and it may work.
But temp bins won't apply with OCTVB Boost.


----------



## Krautmaster

will try the same. Thx a lot !


----------



## toncij

Shonk said:


> Im in the middle of fitting my 13900k
> 
> Before removing the 12900k i set everything cpu related back to factory
> 
> Cinebench R23 41046
> P Cores Max 90°C
> 359.054W CPU Package Power
> 
> Prime 95 Small FFT
> 454W Package Power
> 4 Cores at or close to Tj Max
> P Cores throttling to 5.4 Ghz
> 
> I wasnt expecting 454W maybe 400
> 
> Is this in line with most other peoples experiences?
> *Take note that i have the AVX2 offsets disabled*
> 
> Turbo Ratio Limits (P-cores) - IA/SSE: 58x (1-2c), 55x (3-8c)
> Turbo Ratio Limits (E-cores): 43x (1-16c)
> *Turbo Ratio Limits - AVX2, Resolved: 58x (1-2c), 55x (3-8c)*
> CPU Current: 5518.8 MHz = 55 x 100.3 MHz @ 1.3413 V
> LLC/Ring Maximum: 5000.0 MHz = 50.00 x 100.0 MHz
> LLC/Ring Current: 4615.7 MHz = 46.00 x 100.3 MHz @ 1.2662 V
> IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC): 0.600 / 0.900 mOhm


What are you cooling it with?



wilkinsb01 said:


> Finally here and direct die


what direct block?



satinghostrider said:


> My SP105 is finally going into my 2022 Z690 Apex.
> P Core : 116
> E Core : 83
> 
> So weird applying pink paste on my CPU. Last time I ever used anything pink was a condom.


is pink giving any benefit compared to the old best grizzly?



Nizzen said:


> Not max but it's pretty good.
> 5800 all p- cores, 49 cache, 47 e-cores
> 8000c32 tweaked
> Look at cpu game result.


What board is this?


----------



## satinghostrider

toncij said:


> What are you cooling it with?
> 
> 
> 
> what direct block?
> 
> 
> 
> is pink giving any benefit compared to the old best grizzly?
> 
> 
> 
> What board is this?


I had bad experience with Kryonaut before and it degraded past 80 degrees. It also screwed my 3090 with the paste drying up within a week and hotspot shooting up. I've since only used TFX for both CPU and CPU. This time around wanted to try the Kryonaut Extreme since quite a few have given good feedback on their use with this. I'll have my rig up in the best few days and I'll post some temps based on my setup.


----------



## Nizzen

toncij said:


> What board is this?


z790 apex


----------



## affxct

raad11 said:


> Just FYI, this user didn't have a flat VID table and still had incorrect reading:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> 
> Oof, this is just one single chip so it is still a small sample size, but that is not promising to hear. It seems like the IMC hasn't improved. Or just barely. @bhav My estimates for the 13th Gen DDR4 IMC are more conservative now. 4,300 MHz stable might be what golden kits can do. 4,400+ should...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Wait so if I had an SP 79 and my friend had an 84 and both had flat VID tables, it's like because he borked his BIOS install with incorrect ME?


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> What's your VR VOUT reading?


@Falkentyne 1.273v Sir.... Is this okay?


----------



## raad11

affxct said:


> Wait so if I had an SP 79 and my friend had an 84 and both had flat VID tables, it's like because he borked his BIOS install with incorrect ME?


No, flat VID tables can happen normally was my point. Falkentyne also said as much earlier. As long as you installed on an older ME, there's a chance it's incorrect. I don't know if it's 100% incorrect everytime. You can take the chance and follow Falkentyne's reseating procedure. I want to do it, just don't have the time yet


----------



## CptSpig

Nizzen said:


> z790 apex


Pre-ordered my Z790 Apex but it's not out until the 30th in the US. 😥


----------



## evilhf

Nizzen said:


> Não max, mas é muito bom.
> 5800 todos os p-cores, 49 caches, 47 e-cores
> 8000c32 ajustado
> Veja o resultado do jogo da CPU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/CITAR]
> CPU e muito forte.
> Mas em configurações altas há um gargalo de gpu.
> Poderia fazer em 1080p MAIS BAIXO?
> Obrigado


----------



## raad11

People using contact frame, do you notice if your first 2 or 3 cores run cooler than the others by several degrees?

I used a contact frame for first time with my 13900K (with 1 year used Strix Z690-A D4 mobo) and cores 0 and 1 run cooler at full load (RobertSampaio said he also has a similar temperature delta).

I put my old 12900K in an old Asus Prime Z690M-Plus D4 (previously housed a 12600K), but with contact frame this time and now this chip has first 3 cores running much cooler. Overall temps are fine too (in fact, better than fine... with BIOS update and CMOS reset to all default settings it was running full load in CB at 190-195 watts load in HWinfo64, 74 peak temp on that run with AIO... ***). This chip did not run like this previously in my Strix board.

Were the chips/boards deformed or something from the old ILM?


----------



## dante`afk

Nizzen said:


> Not max but it's pretty good.
> 5800 all p- cores, 49 cache, 47 e-cores
> 8000c32 tweaked
> Look at cpu game result.


7600c34 tweaked


----------



## chibi

CptSpig said:


> Pre-ordered my Z790 Apex but it's not out until the 30th in the US. 😥


May I ask where you received that info from? I'm looking for the z790-i Strix and no stock available in Canada. Just curious if this one also has a long ETA for the release date.


----------



## affxct

raad11 said:


> No, flat VID tables can happen normally was my point. Falkentyne also said as much earlier. As long as you installed on an older ME, there's a chance it's incorrect. I don't know if it's 100% incorrect everytime. You can take the chance and follow Falkentyne's reseating procedure. I want to do it, just don't have the time yet


Unfortunately I don't own a Strix board anymore.


----------



## CptSpig

chibi said:


> May I ask where you received that info from? I'm looking for the z790-i Strix and no stock available in Canada. Just curious if this one also has a long ETA for the release date.


Link provided by OCN member! Pre-ordered form Newegg yesterday sold out today.


----------



## chibi

CptSpig said:


> Link provided by OCN member! Pre-ordered form Newegg yesterday sold out today.


Ah figures, we don't even have the listing up for Canada yet, lol.

Edit - my post count now reads 1,234. That's it, I'm done posting fellas. See you all later 😎


----------



## Ichirou

chibi said:


> Ah figures, we don't even have the listing up for Canada yet, lol.


Canada gets screwed in some many ways it's pretty sad... We always get the short end of the stick.


----------



## Exilon

raad11 said:


> People using contact frame, do you notice if your first 2 or 3 cores run cooler than the others by several degrees?
> 
> I used a contact frame for first time with my 13900K (with 1 year used Strix Z690-A D4 mobo) and cores 0 and 1 run cooler at full load (RobertSampaio said he also has a similar temperature delta).
> 
> I put my old 12900K in an old Asus Prime Z690M-Plus D4 (previously housed a 12600K), but with contact frame this time and now this chip has first 3 cores running much cooler. Overall temps are fine too (in fact, better than fine... with BIOS update and CMOS reset to all default settings it was running full load in CB at 190-195 watts load in HWinfo64, 74 peak temp on that run with AIO... ***). This chip did not run like this previously in my Strix board.
> 
> Were the chips/boards deformed or something from the old ILM?


The first cores should run cooler since they're not flanked by other hot P-cores and can dump heat into the system agent and cooler parts of the IHS. My core 0 and 1 are a full 7 degrees cooler than 2 and 3 and this gradient maxes out near the center of the CPU at core 5/6. 7/8 are cooler since they can dump heat into the E-cores 

I'd expect 195W to be very coolable with or without a contact frame.


----------



## LiquidHaus

Is anyone else getting insanely high core VIDs but Vcore and VR OUT remains the value you set it to?

What could be causing this?


----------



## Netarangi

bigfootnz said:


> L234E550


Reseating my CPU and yep I've got L234E047


----------



## cwills75

Setting up new 13900K system with no GPU. It will only be used with Handbrake/ffmpeg doing simultaneous video transcodes in software mode (not QSV). Since it will be running all-core loads or nothing, what is the recommended max safe watts I should stay under for long-term use when setting up OC/UV without damaging the chip?


----------



## Krzych04650

Krzych04650 said:


> Sounds a lot like mine. I think this is right at the threshold of what is binned as K model, the kind of a chip that needs around 1.28-1.31 actual load voltage at 5.5 to pass R23, when good chips can do like 1.18. No wonder it runs hot as hell if it needs 120mV more than it should.
> 
> IMC is not good either, 4000 DR and 4133 SR, and that is after very long fight and extremely precise voltage tuning, and 1.6 VDDQ, with normal effort it wouldn't even do 4000.
> 
> I am tempted to return it and roll again, but with 13900KS incoming I don't know if it even makes sense to play that game. But then again, this chip is as bad as they come.


So I decided to roll the dice again and got another one, this time 13900K, not KF, and it is just sooo much better. When left on auto it runs at 60-70mV less than KF. From my own testing at locked 55 ratio it needs 80mV less.

IMC is also much better. On 4x8 sticks 13900KF could only do 4000 and that was after long fight and voltages so precisely tuned that deviating even by 0.01 on VDDQ or VDIMM wouldn't work, and 1.6 VDDQ was necessary avoid errors in stress tests. It also couldn't train RTLs so they had to be left at 73/73 79/79. New one does 4100 with RTLs trained to 69/69 69/71 and that is with 1.5 VDDQ, so a massive difference here as well, AIDA latency went down from 52 to 48. It still completely rolls over at 4200, but that is just not realistic with 4 sticks I think.

So overall a big success, I think I went from bottom of the barrel chip to average one. You can do something with a chip like this one, that 13900KF was just absurdly bad.


----------



## raad11

Had this really weird crash. Windows stopped responding in some apps. Sound stopped. Clicking random program windows would bring them up but I couldn't click anything in them. Start menu/taskbar kept working all throughout. I could right click and hit Task Manager (this is Win10 btw) but it wouldn't actually open anything.

Like a prelude to a crash without actually crashing? This went on for several minutes before I hit the reset button (shutdown menu wouldn't come up when I clicked it).

Is this a hardware crash or a software one? I figure hardware crashes are just like an on/off switch. One sec you're stable, next second it's either a WHEA or BSOD.


----------



## Ichirou

cwills75 said:


> Setting up new 13900K system with no GPU. It will only be used with Handbrake/ffmpeg doing simultaneous video transcodes in software mode (not QSV). Since it will be running all-core loads or nothing, what is the recommended max safe watts I should stay under for long-term use when setting up OC/UV without damaging the chip?


Wattage readouts are kind of inaccurate, and differ depending on the motherboard you have.
On MSI, I'd say stay under 280W or so from the CPU Package Power reading.
For ASUS, consult @Falkentyne


Krzych04650 said:


> So I decided to roll the dice again and got another one, this time 13900K, not KF, and it is just sooo much better. When left on auto it runs at 60-70mV less than KF. From my own testing at locked 55 ratio it needs 80mV less.
> 
> IMC is also much better. On 4x8 sticks 13900KF could only do 4000 and that was after long fight and voltages so precisely tuned that deviating even by 0.01 on VDDQ or VDIMM wouldn't work, and 1.6 VDDQ was necessary avoid errors in stress tests. It also couldn't train RTLs so they had to be left at 73/73 79/79. New one does 4100 with RTLs trained to 69/69 69/71 and that is with 1.5 VDDQ, so a massive difference here as well, AIDA latency went down from 52 to 48. It still completely rolls over at 4200, but that is just not realistic with 4 sticks I think.
> 
> So overall a big success, I think I went from bottom of the barrel chip to average one. You can do something with a chip like this one, that 13900KF was just absurdly bad.
> View attachment 2580882


Yes, you really have to bin the IMC with these chips. It's in the same boat as Alder Lake.


raad11 said:


> Had this really weird crash. Windows stopped responding in some apps. Sound stopped. Clicking random program windows would bring them up but I couldn't click anything in them. Start menu/taskbar kept working all throughout. I could right click and hit Task Manager (this is Win10 btw) but it wouldn't actually open anything.
> 
> Like a prelude to a crash without actually crashing? This went on for several minutes before I hit the reset button (shutdown menu wouldn't come up when I clicked it).
> 
> Is this a hardware crash or a software one? I figure hardware crashes are just like an on/off switch. One sec you're stable, next second it's either a WHEA or BSOD.


Can't help you without the BSOD error codes.


----------



## raad11

Ichirou said:


> Can't help you without the BSOD error codes.


There was no BSOD. Just me moving the mouse around, clicking different windows and the taskbar, them mostly not responding, then after several minutes, giving up and hitting reset on the PC. In Event Viewer there was no crash registered.


----------



## Xiph

raad11 said:


> There was no BSOD. Just me moving the mouse around, clicking different windows and the taskbar, them mostly not responding, then after several minutes, giving up and hitting reset on the PC. In Event Viewer there was no crash registered.


I vote for instable IMC. Test with HNT.


----------



## Exilon

Xiph said:


> I vote for instable IMC. Test with HNT.


or unstable E-cores/L2 which would also show up here.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

My Actual Settings

My actual settings are:
P-63x2-61x4-59x6-57x8 (+2Boost OCTVB)
E-48x4-47x8-46x16
R-55x~49x
Full Load: P55x/E46x/R49x @ 1.137V - 240W

Below, you can check out a full load test.
Follow the mouse point and take a look at the VID and Vcore.
If your system has the load lines perfectly tuned, you will see that your VID will be very close to the Vcore Voltage.
The same will happen with CPU power and VRM power, these values will be very close as well.








And some gameplay.









Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...


A tuning guide for beginners.  Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...




www.overclock.net


----------



## affxct

What happens to L2 cache voltage when left and auto and while OCing the E-cores? This is always something I've wondered, but attempts to adjust it in the past didn't yield good results. I tend to leave mine on auto but I'm not sure if that's necessarily a good idea.


----------



## Exilon

affxct said:


> What happens to L2 cache voltage when left and auto and while OCing the E-cores? This is always something I've wondered, but attempts to adjust it in the past didn't yield good results. I tend to leave mine on auto but I'm not sure if that's necessarily a good idea.


On auto on ASUS Strix, it looks like the default is 1.2v adaptive, up from 0.9v default of 12th gen.

E-core speed isn't the bottleneck here, it's actually the ring speed that would require more L2 voltage. From what I've seen, even 1.3v adaptive should be enough for 5.0+ ring. E-cores aren't really an issue for fabric speeds in this gen.


----------



## Krzych04650

Error in the post, nevermind


----------



## affxct

Exilon said:


> On auto on ASUS Strix, it looks like the default is 1.2v adaptive, up from 0.9v default of 12th gen.
> 
> E-core speed isn't the bottleneck here, it's actually the ring speed that would require more L2 voltage. From what I've seen, even 1.3v adaptive should be enough for 5.0+ ring. E-cores aren't really an issue for fabric speeds in this gen.


What I mean is, would it be reasonable to leave it auto? Like it won’t overvolt similar to if you leave core at auto?


----------



## ViTosS

@evilhf
The CPU Game Average 415fps means that he will have that average fps in a completely bottleneck scenario (GPU usage never going above 90%), I don't know if he can't be GPU bound with a CPU/RAM like that, even if he runs at 720p lowest...


----------



## domdtxdissar

dante`afk said:


> 7600c34 tweaked


Something strange there.. 86% GPU limited @ 1080p lowest with a *4090* ? (should be 0%)

Don't smell right.. benchmark ran at dx11 and switch over to dx12 before screenshot taken ?
This very much looks like cheating..

Below is a real run with a 3090 @ 1080p lowest = only 28% GPU limited








_edit_
Other real run with a 4090 = 0% CPU limited


----------



## raad11

Exilon said:


> or unstable E-cores/L2 which would also show up here.





Exilon said:


> On auto on ASUS Strix, it looks like the default is 1.2v adaptive, up from 0.9v default of 12th gen.
> 
> E-core speed isn't the bottleneck here, it's actually the ring speed that would require more L2 voltage. From what I've seen, even 1.3v adaptive should be enough for 5.0+ ring. E-cores aren't really an issue for fabric speeds in this gen.


I'm at 1.25 L2 for 51x Ring and 44x E-Cores (and +0.05 cache svid offset because I had no idea what to put). If it were hardware related, that would be my guess as well. I'll keep an eye on it and keep track of how many sporadic crashes I get.


----------



## Krzych04650

P55/E43/R45 passed with 1.152V load, 1.270 LLC Mode 3 on Z690 Tomahawk DDR4 on new 13900K. 13900KF needed 1.24-1.25V load to even start the benchmark without insta crashing. Literally 100mV difference between them. Insanity.









Also, 400W at 1.346V load. Holy bananas.










The cooling handles it quite well though, it only starts hitting 100C at around 440-450W. Heavily multithreaded games pull around 190-220W at 1.45V load though, so no worries.


----------



## energie80

What is the average ring clock actually? I’m running p58 ring 52


----------



## Exilon

affxct said:


> What I mean is, would it be reasonable to leave it auto? Like it won’t overvolt similar to if you leave core at auto?


I can't speak for other motherboards, but on my ASUS Z690 Strix, it doesn't budge from 1.2v peak no matter what ring clock I set.


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> What's your VR VOUT reading?





newls1 said:


> @Falkentyne 1.273v Sir.... Is this okay?


was tryig to get the falken to reply back but i guess he lost interest! Can someone help me here and give their answer to my original question which is this:

after reading all this benchmarking data and chip degration, im wondering if im hurting my cpu by just running y-cruncher a few times. Cpu is @ 1.330v idle and loads to 1.292v with my 58x / 46x OC. Am I degrading my cpu quickly by running y-cruncher 10-15 times in its life so far?

Thank you for any replies


----------



## RobertoSampaio

This is my opinion that I wrote in my guide...

You can have your opinion...
But Ohm's law won't forgive....

When a customer buys a computer from a specialized company, it is assumed that all adjustments have already been made at the factory. On the other hand, when we decide to build our own system, it will be up to us to make all the adjustments.

Imagine that you decided to build a turbo engine for your car. It is not enough to buy a turbine, a new ECU, make all the connections and start accelerating. It is necessary to think about the air/fuel ratio, the turbine pressure, the relief system, the cooling system, and do many, many tests to arrive at a satisfactory and safe adjustment. So it is with computers.



Does the I9-13900K consume more than 300W at full load?
The answer is NO!
If you are running cinebanch_r23, and you are getting readings above 250W, with the system in stock, something is probably wrong.
Always compare the CPU power reading to the VRM power reading. They must be compatible. For that use the HW-Info.
Although manufacturers provide motherboards and processors operating at higher voltages (to ensure system stability under adverse conditions).
If the power reading at full load (r23) is above this limit, it is very likely that an adjustment in the load lines is needed.
The 13900K operating at stock frequencies, as long as the load lines are minimally adjusted, will present a consumption of less than 250W on full load (r23).



Do I need a custom cooling system for the 13900K?
The answer is no!
A custom cooling system is only needed if you intend to push the system to the limit (or beyond). A 360mm water cooler and good thermal paste will probably do the cooling, keeping temperatures in the mid-90s for extremely heavy tasks. I venture to say that if you live in a cold place, even an air-cooler might be enough.
There are several air-coolers that handle this level of power, such as the AK620 (maximum heat dissipation power of 260W).
What we have to keep in mind is that no everyday application will put a load on the CPU like the R23 or P95. Obviously there are exceptions, as in the case of Flakentyne which uses stockfish, which is an “Open Source Chess Engine”, and which is extremely CPU-heavy. In these cases, it is recommended to adjust the MB/CPU set for your daily reality.


Do I need to do long tests at full load to ensure system stability?
It is not necessary.
The test duration should be long enough for the temperature of your cooling system to come into equilibrium. Once equilibrium has been reached (water temperature has stopped rising) the test can be terminated. I particularly don't like this type of test that puts all cores on 100% load for long periods. Many times your system can withstand more than 30min in this condition and fail in a simple processing load transient.


Will voltages above 1.5V deteriorate my CPU?
Once again the answer is NO! But be careful !
Just like a car engine, where wear is due to excess power, temperature, and torque, CPU wear comes from excess power, temperature, and electrical current.
Intel's data sheets put the maximum allowable voltage at 1.72V. So once the power and temperature are controlled, there's nothing wrong if Vcore reaches 1.65V at light loads. But be care. One thing is a voltage spike or a high voltage at a very, very light load, the other is trying to run a heavy load at a high voltage. If you try to run a heavy load with a voltage that exceeds the CPU power capability, you will have problem. For instance, 1,2V (a relative small voltage) with 250A will be enough for throttling or even a degradation. 



If I do the delid, use liquid metal or change the IHS will I degrade the CPU?
The answer is YES and NO. I'll explain...
If the changes are only made to lower the temperature, there is no harm. The problem is when we take advantage of this modification to increase the CPU voltage to reach higher frequencies at full load. In this case, the CPU power will increase, and its temperature will still be low. As CPU protection is done thermally, there is a chance of degrading the CPU due to excess electrical current and/or power.
It is worth remembering that applications that put all cores operating at 100% load constantly are rare. Rest assured that 30 minutes of r23 or P95 will wear out the CPU infinitely more than Vlatch reaching 1.60V at “idle”.
The fact is that it is uncomfortable to see that the voltage (VLatch_max) has reached 1.60V. But people don't feel any discomfort when the CPU reaches 300W of power. Very strange, don't you think? What you need to know is Ohm's law won't forgive you if you do something wrong.



What can degrade my CPU?
The answer is POWER!
Power (Watts) is the product of Voltage*Ampere, and it generates heat. So, power and heat will degrade your CPU.
If you have a high voltage at light load, you will have no problems. Imagine your CPU is running a load at 1.48V and consuming 40A, this means you have less than 60W of power to dissipate.
Now let's do the same, running a heavy load at 1.2V that draws 250A. Now we have 300W to manage...
Can you imagine running a load from 250W to 300W for 30 minutes on a CPU designed for 125W TDP?
It is worth remembering that the maximum power allowed by intel is 253W.

This is from intel datasheet:
_Maximum Turbo Power: 253W
The maximum sustained (>1s) power dissipation of the processor as limited by current and/or temperature controls. Instantaneous power may exceed Maximum Turbo Power for short durations (<=10ms)._

So, there is no problem to overclock the CPU. An overclocked CPU in real world (like gaming) will draw less than 200W for sure.
The major issue is submitting the CPU for a long period of testing that will test more your cooler solution than the stability of your overclock.
"It's not worth blowing up the engine to know its limit".

*One thing I would like to make clear here. Intel has taken the 13900K to the extreme, which can be verified by the temperatures of the CPU running in stock. Therefore, this processor will not allow an overclocking margin like the previous ones. With a normal cooler and without big gimmicks, like the delid, full load frequencies of 55x to 56x are to be expected.*


----------



## ViTosS

So I should be getting my 13900k this next week, wondering if I should use Windows 10 or Windows 11, I heard that Win 10 is better in a few games and has better latency but the P and E-Cores are not being fully utilized in some stress tests, RAM stress tests etc, does Win 11 fixes that?


----------



## Ichirou

newls1 said:


> was tryig to get the falken to reply back but i guess he lost interest! Can someone help me here and give their answer to my original question which is this:
> 
> after reading all this benchmarking data and chip degration, im wondering if im hurting my cpu by just running y-cruncher a few times. Cpu is @ 1.330v idle and loads to 1.292v with my 58x / 46x OC. Am I degrading my cpu quickly by running y-cruncher 10-15 times in its life so far?
> 
> Thank you for any replies


Depends entirely on the y-cruncher test. But you should know if it has degraded or not because if it has, you wouldn't be able to run y-cruncher anymore without crashing.


ViTosS said:


> So I should be getting my 13900k this next week, wondering if I should use Windows 10 or Windows 11, I heard that Win 10 is better in a few games and has better latency but the P and E-Cores are not being fully utilized in some stress tests, RAM stress tests etc, does Win 11 fixes that?


Windows 10 with a power plan hack to force all cores to 100%.


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> was tryig to get the falken to reply back but i guess he lost interest! Can someone help me here and give their answer to my original question which is this:
> 
> after reading all this benchmarking data and chip degration, im wondering if im hurting my cpu by just running y-cruncher a few times. Cpu is @ 1.330v idle and loads to 1.292v with my 58x / 46x OC. Am I degrading my cpu quickly by running y-cruncher 10-15 times in its life so far?
> 
> Thank you for any replies


I dont know how to answer your question. You're using a MSI board. Their loadlines and voltage reporting are weird and different. I am not an engineer and whenever I start talking about this stuff, it causes drama somewhere, so there's no point. I'll just stick to my own "safe" rules and be done with it.

I guess with your cooling you can get away with it but I don't know why it's so important to care about y-cruncher unless you're doing AVX2 based rendering work. Passing Y-cruncher at stock (5.5 ghz) is obviously necessary (Prime95 AVX1/FMA3 small FFT is absolutely NOT--this is supposed to run with an AVX offset of -1 anyway). I also don't know how much amps (current/IOUT) you're pulling either. Volts without amps is completely meaningless (But I still want someone to prove that 1.50-1.52v set, dropping down to about 1.47v idle with LLC3 (1.1 mohms, intel default loadline slope) is safe to leave it 24/7.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Falkentyne said:


> I dont know how to answer your question. You're using a MSI board. Their loadlines and voltage reporting are weird and different. I am not an engineer and whenever I start talking about this stuff, it causes drama somewhere, so there's no point. I'll just stick to my own "safe" rules and be done with it.
> 
> I guess with your cooling you can get away with it but I don't know why it's so important to care about y-cruncher unless you're doing AVX2 based rendering work. Passing Y-cruncher at stock (5.5 ghz) is obviously necessary (Prime95 AVX1/FMA3 small FFT is absolutely NOT--this is supposed to run with an AVX offset of -1 anyway). I also don't know how much amps (current/IOUT) you're pulling either. Volts without amps is completely meaningless (But I still want someone to prove that 1.50-1.52v set, dropping down to about 1.47v idle with LLC3 (1.1 mohms, intel default loadline slope) is safe to leave it 24/7.


I think the answer to your last question comes from the "shelf PCs" that are sold by the thousands, all operating on adaptive voltage... But that's just conjecture.


----------



## raad11

Ichirou said:


> Depends entirely on the y-cruncher test. But you should know if it has degraded or not because if it has, you wouldn't be able to run y-cruncher anymore without crashing.
> 
> Windows 10 with a power plan hack to force all cores to 100%.


What's the power plan hack?


----------



## lolhaxz

Falkentyne said:


> I dont know how to answer your question. You're using a MSI board. Their loadlines and voltage reporting are weird and different. I am not an engineer and whenever I start talking about this stuff, it causes drama somewhere, so there's no point. I'll just stick to my own "safe" rules and be done with it.
> 
> I guess with your cooling you can get away with it but I don't know why it's so important to care about y-cruncher unless you're doing AVX2 based rendering work. Passing Y-cruncher at stock (5.5 ghz) is obviously necessary (Prime95 AVX1/FMA3 small FFT is absolutely NOT--this is supposed to run with an AVX offset of -1 anyway). I also don't know how much amps (current/IOUT) you're pulling either. Volts without amps is completely meaningless (But I still want someone to prove that 1.50-1.52v set, dropping down to about 1.47v idle with LLC3 (1.1 mohms, intel default loadline slope) is safe to leave it 24/7.


I think it is safe to say that nobody here can answer these questions... let me pre-emphasis this by saying this is purely my opinion and my interpretation.

Looking through the Intel datasheet it makes constant reference to the values defined being geared towards thermal and VRM design characteristics - ie, for electrical and thermal design... they don't appear to be anything other than this.

Unless someone buys 10-20 13900K's and runs them for 1 year+ in these different scenarios, my guess is as good as yours.... To an extent, I consider the fact that the max TDP is X, max ICCMAX is X, max Voltage is X is irrelevant... some should sensibly have some more weight than others for sure, ie, min/typ/max vcore voltage... but they are geared at electrical/thermal design considerations.

There is obvious limits to what is thermally and electrically sensible (for VRM/Thermal design/cost standpoint) - they're not going to tell VRM designers to handle a 400A edge case (even if it was capable of handling it) when that scenario will never occur under what your typical average joes thermal capacity is going to be and in turn the SKU's have been designed for.

People will have to decide their own safe limits.

It was not that long ago that people would state thou shalt not exceed 1.XV limit based on socket-sense (before die-sense was a thing) then came along die-sense and effectively 100mv higher load vcore was acceptable over night (being dramatic, but you get the idea)


----------



## Krzych04650

Some 6 GHz fun

























Verifying the stability of that is going to be challenge though since all common stress tests draw anywhere from 2 to 3 times more power than even the most power hungry games do. For example R23 draws well over 400W at this voltage, which is just bonkers. Even RealBench draws 350W. The only somewhat reasonable test I've tried so far is CPU-Z stress test, it draws 220W at 1.350V load and I can run that infinitely without errors at 6 GHz, but that is not a very hard test. AC:Origins is a great test though, massive CPU hog and uses AVX, from experience of playing it on other platforms I know that you are not running this game on unstable settings.

I am running HT disabled and only 8 E-cores though and that 400W+ R23 power draw goes down to 275W with this config, so I guess that is reasonable to stress test.


----------



## 2500k_2

LinX is not suitable for stability testing at 13900k. When exceeding 1000 gflops automatic error.
998 Gflops can also be shown at 50/40/40 (it can be even lower - the main thing is not to exceed the ceiling of 1000 gflops).
We are waiting for version 0.9.13


Spoiler: linx


----------



## Falkentyne

lolhaxz said:


> I think it is safe to say that nobody here can answer these questions... let me pre-emphasis this by saying this is purely my opinion and my interpretation.
> 
> Looking through the Intel datasheet it makes constant reference to the values defined being geared towards thermal and VRM design characteristics - ie, for electrical and thermal design... they don't appear to be anything other than this.
> 
> Unless someone buys 10-20 13900K's and runs them for 1 year+ in these different scenarios, my guess is as good as yours.... To an extent, I consider the fact that the max TDP is X, max ICCMAX is X, max Voltage is X is irrelevant... some should sensibly have some more weight than others for sure, ie, min/typ/max vcore voltage... but they are geared at electrical/thermal design considerations.
> 
> There is obvious limits to what is thermally and electrically sensible (for VRM/Thermal design/cost standpoint) - they're not going to tell VRM designers to handle a 400A edge case (even if it was capable of handling it) when that scenario will never occur under what your typical average joes thermal capacity is going to be and in turn the SKU's have been designed for.
> 
> People will have to decide their own safe limits.
> 
> It was not that long ago that people would state thou shalt not exceed 1.XV limit based on socket-sense (before die-sense was a thing) then came along die-sense and effectively 100mv higher load vcore was acceptable over night (being dramatic, but you get the idea)


This is because Intel is no longer giving us much useful information.
Look over some old Pentium and Core 2 and non-FIVR/HEDT datasheets. You'll see they give a LOT more information about "functional" and "absolute maximum" limits. They still have a footnote (on their 8th-13th gen spec sheets) about "longevity compromised and not assured if functional limits are exceeded" but they no longer specify directly what the functional limits are. They USED to. You have to go through the old datasheets to get more information and most people here are too lazy for that.

It takes work, and people don't want to work. That's the cold blooded simple truth.

It's from going through old datasheets--more than one of them, that I came to my conclusions. And that was before they had such a thing as AC/DC Loadline mohm values--they had a SPECIFIED LOADLINE SLOPE and "functional voltage and amps limits." You actually KNEW what the max safe v/a curve was at < TJMAX, because they actually TOLD you. And their spec sheets required a SPECIFIC fixed loadline. Loadline Calibration was a MOTHERBOARD HACK because people didn't like vdroop--Intel's sheets did NOT allow for loadline calibration. That's why pure SVID operation (e.g. laptops) require VRM (DC) loadline to be set to 1.1 mohms on 11th-13th generation.


----------



## Exilon

Krzych04650 said:


> Some 6 GHz fun
> View attachment 2580953
> 
> View attachment 2580951
> 
> View attachment 2580952
> 
> 
> Verifying the stability of that is going to be challenge though since all common stress tests draw anywhere from 2 to 3 times more power than even the most power hungry games do. For example R23 draws well over 400W at this voltage, which is just bonkers. Even RealBench draws 350W. The only somewhat reasonable test I've tried so far is CPU-Z stress test, it draws 220W at 1.350V load and I can run that infinitely without errors at 6 GHz, but that is not a very hard test. AC:Origins is a great test though, massive CPU hog and uses AVX, from experience of playing it on other platforms I know that you are not running this game on unstable settings.
> 
> I am running HT disabled and only 8 E-cores though and that 400W+ R23 power draw goes down to 275W with this config, so I guess that is reasonable to stress test.


Make a bunch of y-cruncher configs with HNT and only partially load some cores, throw them in a batch script, and then go do something else.

Example config file for loading only 1 thread each on cores 5&6 to test their 2-core turbo


Code:


{
    Action : "StressTest"
    StressTest : {
        AllocateLocally : "true"
        LogicalCores : [9 11]
        TotalMemory : 300000000
        SecondsPerTest : 600
        SecondsTotal : 1200
        StopOnError : "true"
        Tests : [
            "HNT"
        ]
    }
}


----------



## overclock92012

Can a 13700k do 6ghz at all? im looking to get a 13700k to stabilize 600fps constant on overwatch 2. it doesn't have to be stable at all in stress tests, since I am only going to be gaming on it. currently i am on 12700k 5.1ghz @ 1.4v and my power draw in overwatch 2 is only 110-130w. Does this mean I can use a high voltage of lets say, 1.4-1.5v on the new chip since my power draw is low when gaming?


----------



## JohnyDadBod

I tweaked my back this morning and couldn't do much besides sit today. I got bored after work and decided to start a bit of an experiment. Running an MSI Z690 board, I don't get the fancy SP scores to compare chips. I remembered this afternoon reading about mapping the VID tables manually, so I did just that. From the bios I started by disabling the E-cores, set the ring multiplier to 8, made sure the voltage was set to adaptive for VCORE, enabled Advanced L LLC and set AC and DC to 1, and set the LLC to mode 8. Then set the P-cores to all core and went from 40-59 multiplier. I would boot into bios, record the VCORE reading and then move to the next higher multiplier and repeated till I got to 59. I then set the P-core to 8 and then ran the E-cores from 40-45, repeating the same process. Finally I disabled the E-cores again and ran the ring from 40-52. I didn't take any readings below 40 to save time, but also because I can't think of a scenario where I would ever run the P, E, or R, that low.

Here is the resulting data:









Once I reloaded my saved bios settings for 57/P45/E/50R I first set the VCORE to override and set a value of 1.43v with an LLC 5. This resulted in exactly 1.410 VID gathered from my testing when running under load. I set the VCORE to adaptive and and got the same results. 

This chip can only successfully complete 30 minutes of R23 at 55P/43/E/50R with 1.30 override with LLC5. Even 1.29 results in an error before the 30 minutes is up. I have another 13900K in the box I plan on testing either this weekend or early next week. I'm going to put it through the same process and see how much, if any difference there is in this method of recording the VIDs as well as put it through testing of 30 minutes of R23 at the lowest stable VCORE, re-run my RAM overclocking and timing, and see if I can stablize higher than the 57P/45E/50R that is my stable all core limit without throwing excessive VCORE to push through instability.


I know I may be completely wasting my time, but it's been a fun experiment none the less.


----------



## Krzych04650

Krzych04650 said:


> Some 6 GHz fun
> 
> Verifying the stability of that is going to be challenge though since all common stress tests draw anywhere from 2 to 3 times more power than even the most power hungry games do. For example R23 draws well over 400W at this voltage, which is just bonkers. Even RealBench draws 350W. The only somewhat reasonable test I've tried so far is CPU-Z stress test, it draws 220W at 1.350V load and I can run that infinitely without errors at 6 GHz, but that is not a very hard test. AC:Origins is a great test though, massive CPU hog and uses AVX, from experience of playing it on other platforms I know that you are not running this game on unstable settings.
> 
> I am running HT disabled and only 8 E-cores though and that 400W+ R23 power draw goes down to 275W with this config, so I guess that is reasonable to stress test.


Tried to run some R23 with 6 GHz core and 5.2 ring, 8P/8E/HT0. It almost works. Voltages like 1.36-1.38 load, which is around 1.5V LLC Mode 3, power draw around 300W, are generally stable but throw this one pesky error per 10 minute run. Going up to 1.4V had no errors but got BSOD right before the end, probably due to thermals.









It went surprisingly well, if this is so close to stability then games will have no problem. I will play around with 6.2 GHz on best cores for low threaded workloads later, but for that I need Intel to finally release this damn software update for TEC cooler, I've been waiting for 2 weeks now. And running it without TEC active is not fun at all, it is like 30C worse than normal waterblock. This is known and expected behavior because of all the extra layers, but still, fun fact.


----------



## ViTosS

Krzych04650 said:


> Some 6 GHz fun
> View attachment 2580953
> 
> View attachment 2580951
> 
> View attachment 2580952
> 
> 
> Verifying the stability of that is going to be challenge though since all common stress tests draw anywhere from 2 to 3 times more power than even the most power hungry games do. For example R23 draws well over 400W at this voltage, which is just bonkers. Even RealBench draws 350W. The only somewhat reasonable test I've tried so far is CPU-Z stress test, it draws 220W at 1.350V load and I can run that infinitely without errors at 6 GHz, but that is not a very hard test. AC:Origins is a great test though, massive CPU hog and uses AVX, from experience of playing it on other platforms I know that you are not running this game on unstable settings.
> 
> I am running HT disabled and only 8 E-cores though and that 400W+ R23 power draw goes down to 275W with this config, so I guess that is reasonable to stress test.


Is that Windows 11 or 10?


----------



## Ichirou

Krzych04650 said:


> Some 6 GHz fun
> View attachment 2580953
> 
> View attachment 2580951
> 
> View attachment 2580952
> 
> 
> Verifying the stability of that is going to be challenge though since all common stress tests draw anywhere from 2 to 3 times more power than even the most power hungry games do. For example R23 draws well over 400W at this voltage, which is just bonkers. Even RealBench draws 350W. The only somewhat reasonable test I've tried so far is CPU-Z stress test, it draws 220W at 1.350V load and I can run that infinitely without errors at 6 GHz, but that is not a very hard test. AC:Origins is a great test though, massive CPU hog and uses AVX, from experience of playing it on other platforms I know that you are not running this game on unstable settings.
> 
> I am running HT disabled and only 8 E-cores though and that 400W+ R23 power draw goes down to 275W with this config, so I guess that is reasonable to stress test.


I really like that overlay. Care to share it?


----------



## worms14

Krzych04650 said:


> Some 6 GHz fun
> View attachment 2580953
> 
> View attachment 2580951
> 
> View attachment 2580952
> 
> 
> Verifying the stability of that is going to be challenge though since all common stress tests draw anywhere from 2 to 3 times more power than even the most power hungry games do. For example R23 draws well over 400W at this voltage, which is just bonkers. Even RealBench draws 350W. The only somewhat reasonable test I've tried so far is CPU-Z stress test, it draws 220W at 1.350V load and I can run that infinitely without errors at 6 GHz, but that is not a very hard test. AC:Origins is a great test though, massive CPU hog and uses AVX, from experience of playing it on other platforms I know that you are not running this game on unstable settings.
> 
> I am running HT disabled and only 8 E-cores though and that 400W+ R23 power draw goes down to 275W with this config, so I guess that is reasonable to stress test.


Amazing result and great temperatures, I would see this cooling that gives so many possibilities.

Which program gives such possibilities to monitor CPU GPU in games?


----------



## Krzych04650

ViTosS said:


> Is that Windows 11 or 10?


Win11. I was skeptical, but aside from one instance of Windows trying to lock me out of my own computer with some security nonsense because there were "too many failed boot attempts" when I was tuning the memory (I had to restart my PIN through email, otherwise I would have to wait few hours for it to unlock, fu*king insanity), it is okay so far. And kind of needed for hybrid CPUs, especially since Raptor Lake seems to not be functioning properly with E-cores disabled. For example, there are cases of even single threaded games that are getting 10% performance boost just from enabling E-cores even though they sit idle doing nothing, or examples of benchmarks randomly scoring expectations if E-cores are disabled, like in CPU-Z single threaded test. It is hard to pin this stuff down but there is definitely some weirdness going on with this.



worms14 said:


> Amazing result and great temperatures, I would see this cooling that gives so many possibilities.
> 
> Which program gives such possibilities to monitor CPU GPU in games?


This is made in RTSS Overlay Editor. There are guides about it in different places, including YouTube. You can use sensors from various programs like MSI Afterburner, HWInfo64 and build your own overlay with them.

Cooling is a typical MO-RA3 + Artic P12 setup, with EK Quantum Velocity block I took out of my X99 system. It is nothing special, it is just the capacity is so massive that this 200W load is laughable for this radiator, water temp is basically at ambient temp with funny tests like CPU only, you need 1000W load to make water to ambient delta go to like 5-6C



Ichirou said:


> I really like that overlay. Care to share it?








overlay.rar







drive.google.com


----------



## Falkentyne

JohnyDadBod said:


> I tweaked my back this morning and couldn't do much besides sit today. I got bored after work and decided to start a bit of an experiment. Running an MSI Z690 board, I don't get the fancy SP scores to compare chips. I remembered this afternoon reading about mapping the VID tables manually, so I did just that. From the bios I started by disabling the E-cores, set the ring multiplier to 8, made sure the voltage was set to adaptive for VCORE, enabled Advanced L LLC and set AC and DC to 1, and set the LLC to mode 8. Then set the P-cores to all core and went from 40-59 multiplier. I would boot into bios, record the VCORE reading and then move to the next higher multiplier and repeated till I got to 59. I then set the P-core to 8 and then ran the E-cores from 40-45, repeating the same process. Finally I disabled the E-cores again and ran the ring from 40-52. I didn't take any readings below 40 to save time, but also because I can't think of a scenario where I would ever run the P, E, or R, that low.
> 
> Here is the resulting data:
> View attachment 2580963
> 
> 
> Once I reloaded my saved bios settings for 57/P45/E/50R I first set the VCORE to override and set a value of 1.43v with an LLC 5. This resulted in exactly 1.410 VID gathered from my testing when running under load. I set the VCORE to adaptive and and got the same results.
> 
> This chip can only successfully complete 30 minutes of R23 at 55P/43/E/50R with 1.30 override with LLC5. Even 1.29 results in an error before the 30 minutes is up. I have another 13900K in the box I plan on testing either this weekend or early next week. I'm going to put it through the same process and see how much, if any difference there is in this method of recording the VIDs as well as put it through testing of 30 minutes of R23 at the lowest stable VCORE, re-run my RAM overclocking and timing, and see if I can stablize higher than the 57P/45E/50R that is my stable all core limit without throwing excessive VCORE to push through instability.
> 
> 
> I know I may be completely wasting my time, but it's been a fun experiment none the less.


Thank you for your hard work, but can you check up on something just to make sure it's properly set?

You need to disable "Thermal Velocity Boost voltage optimizations." This is because the VID you get decreases as temps goes down. It starts at 100C, and depending on multiplier, it decreases "x" number of millivolts every -1C, and the amount of mv it decreases gets LOWER at lower multipliers, and is disabled at a certain multiplier (pretty low). At the highest multiplier, it's something like -1.5mv every -1C or something, at least it was on Comet Lake.

If you disable TVB Voltage optimizations, this sets the VID point to the "100C" point, which is what the Asus V/F table is charted at. Your VID chart looks pretty good but it's hard to say--can you check if you had TVB voltage optimizations disabled in the BIOS? You can check easily and when you find this option, set it to disabled and check your x54 and x57 points.

Here is what the Asus V/F looks like (my sample)











x57 with TVB Volt Opt disabled in BIOS and AC/DC=0.01 mohms.










x54.


----------



## Silent Scone

RobertoSampaio said:


> This is my opinion that I wrote in my guide...
> 
> You can have your opinion...
> But Ohm's law won't forgive....
> 
> When a customer buys a computer from a specialized company, it is assumed that all adjustments have already been made at the factory. On the other hand, when we decide to build our own system, it will be up to us to make all the adjustments.
> 
> Imagine that you decided to build a turbo engine for your car. It is not enough to buy a turbine, a new ECU, make all the connections and start accelerating. It is necessary to think about the air/fuel ratio, the turbine pressure, the relief system, the cooling system, and do many, many tests to arrive at a satisfactory and safe adjustment. So it is with computers.
> 
> 
> 
> Does the I9-13900K consume more than 300W at full load?
> The answer is NO!
> If you are running cinebanch_r23, and you are getting readings above 250W, with the system in stock, something is probably wrong.
> Always compare the CPU power reading to the VRM power reading. They must be compatible. For that use the HW-Info.
> Although manufacturers provide motherboards and processors operating at higher voltages (to ensure system stability under adverse conditions).
> If the power reading at full load (r23) is above this limit, it is very likely that an adjustment in the load lines is needed.
> The 13900K operating at stock frequencies, as long as the load lines are minimally adjusted, will present a consumption of less than 250W on full load (r23).
> 
> 
> 
> Do I need a custom cooling system for the 13900K?
> The answer is no!
> A custom cooling system is only needed if you intend to push the system to the limit (or beyond). A 360mm water cooler and good thermal paste will probably do the cooling, keeping temperatures in the mid-90s for extremely heavy tasks. I venture to say that if you live in a cold place, even an air-cooler might be enough.
> There are several air-coolers that handle this level of power, such as the AK620 (maximum heat dissipation power of 260W).
> What we have to keep in mind is that no everyday application will put a load on the CPU like the R23 or P95. Obviously there are exceptions, as in the case of Flakentyne which uses stockfish, which is an “Open Source Chess Engine”, and which is extremely CPU-heavy. In these cases, it is recommended to adjust the MB/CPU set for your daily reality.
> 
> 
> Do I need to do long tests at full load to ensure system stability?
> It is not necessary.
> The test duration should be long enough for the temperature of your cooling system to come into equilibrium. Once equilibrium has been reached (water temperature has stopped rising) the test can be terminated. I particularly don't like this type of test that puts all cores on 100% load for long periods. Many times your system can withstand more than 30min in this condition and fail in a simple processing load transient.
> 
> 
> Will voltages above 1.5V deteriorate my CPU?
> Once again the answer is NO! But be careful !
> Just like a car engine, where wear is due to excess power, temperature, and torque, CPU wear comes from excess power, temperature, and electrical current.
> Intel's data sheets put the maximum allowable voltage at 1.72V. So once the power and temperature are controlled, there's nothing wrong if Vcore reaches 1.65V at light loads. But be care. One thing is a voltage spike or a high voltage at a very, very light load, the other is trying to run a heavy load at a high voltage. If you try to run a heavy load with a voltage that exceeds the CPU power capability, you will have problem. For instance, 1,2V (a relative small voltage) with 250A will be enough for throttling or even a degradation.
> 
> 
> 
> If I do the delid, use liquid metal or change the IHS will I degrade the CPU?
> The answer is YES and NO. I'll explain...
> If the changes are only made to lower the temperature, there is no harm. The problem is when we take advantage of this modification to increase the CPU voltage to reach higher frequencies at full load. In this case, the CPU power will increase, and its temperature will still be low. As CPU protection is done thermally, there is a chance of degrading the CPU due to excess electrical current and/or power.
> It is worth remembering that applications that put all cores operating at 100% load constantly are rare. Rest assured that 30 minutes of r23 or P95 will wear out the CPU infinitely more than Vlatch reaching 1.60V at “idle”.
> The fact is that it is uncomfortable to see that the voltage (VLatch_max) has reached 1.60V. But people don't feel any discomfort when the CPU reaches 300W of power. Very strange, don't you think? What you need to know is Ohm's law won't forgive you if you do something wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> What can degrade my CPU?
> The answer is POWER!
> Power (Watts) is the product of Voltage*Ampere, and it generates heat. So, power and heat will degrade your CPU.
> If you have a high voltage at light load, you will have no problems. Imagine your CPU is running a load at 1.48V and consuming 40A, this means you have less than 60W of power to dissipate.
> Now let's do the same, running a heavy load at 1.2V that draws 250A. Now we have 300W to manage...
> Can you imagine running a load from 250W to 300W for 30 minutes on a CPU designed for 125W TDP?
> It is worth remembering that the maximum power allowed by intel is 253W.
> 
> This is from intel datasheet:
> _Maximum Turbo Power: 253W
> The maximum sustained (>1s) power dissipation of the processor as limited by current and/or temperature controls. Instantaneous power may exceed Maximum Turbo Power for short durations (<=10ms)._
> 
> So, there is no problem to overclock the CPU. An overclocked CPU in real world (like gaming) will draw less than 200W for sure.
> The major issue is submitting the CPU for a long period of testing that will test more your cooler solution than the stability of your overclock.
> "It's not worth blowing up the engine to know its limit".
> 
> *One thing I would like to make clear here. Intel has taken the 13900K to the extreme, which can be verified by the temperatures of the CPU running in stock. Therefore, this processor will not allow an overclocking margin like the previous ones. With a normal cooler and without big gimmicks, like the delid, full load frequencies of 55x to 56x are to be expected.*


Just to reiterate something I mentioned earlier (whilst not trying no to detract from the rest of your post too much). The current is proportionate to the applied frequency, which is why the data sheet voltages are only valid at operating defaults.


----------



## Nizzen

overclock92012 said:


> Can a 13700k do 6ghz at all? im looking to get a 13700k to stabilize 600fps constant on overwatch 2. it doesn't have to be stable at all in stress tests, since I am only going to be gaming on it. currently i am on 12700k 5.1ghz @ 1.4v and my power draw in overwatch 2 is only 110-130w. Does this mean I can use a high voltage of lets say, 1.4-1.5v on the new chip since my power draw is low when gaming?


Tweaking ddr5 is meta for most fps. Leave cpu stock, or just all core oc.


----------



## Exilon

Memory tweaking is far more useful for gaming in general than trying to squeeze another 1-2 multiplier out of the CPU at this point.


----------



## HemuV2

.


----------



## HemuV2

RobertoSampaio said:


> This is my opinion that I wrote in my guide...
> 
> You can have your opinion...
> But Ohm's law won't forgive....
> 
> When a customer buys a computer from a specialized company, it is assumed that all adjustments have already been made at the factory. On the other hand, when we decide to build our own system, it will be up to us to make all the adjustments.
> 
> Imagine that you decided to build a turbo engine for your car. It is not enough to buy a turbine, a new ECU, make all the connections and start accelerating. It is necessary to think about the air/fuel ratio, the turbine pressure, the relief system, the cooling system, and do many, many tests to arrive at a satisfactory and safe adjustment. So it is with computers.
> 
> 
> 
> Does the I9-13900K consume more than 300W at full load?
> The answer is NO!
> If you are running cinebanch_r23, and you are getting readings above 250W, with the system in stock, something is probably wrong.
> Always compare the CPU power reading to the VRM power reading. They must be compatible. For that use the HW-Info.
> Although manufacturers provide motherboards and processors operating at higher voltages (to ensure system stability under adverse conditions).
> If the power reading at full load (r23) is above this limit, it is very likely that an adjustment in the load lines is needed.
> The 13900K operating at stock frequencies, as long as the load lines are minimally adjusted, will present a consumption of less than 250W on full load (r23).
> 
> 
> 
> Do I need a custom cooling system for the 13900K?
> The answer is no!
> A custom cooling system is only needed if you intend to push the system to the limit (or beyond). A 360mm water cooler and good thermal paste will probably do the cooling, keeping temperatures in the mid-90s for extremely heavy tasks. I venture to say that if you live in a cold place, even an air-cooler might be enough.
> There are several air-coolers that handle this level of power, such as the AK620 (maximum heat dissipation power of 260W).
> What we have to keep in mind is that no everyday application will put a load on the CPU like the R23 or P95. Obviously there are exceptions, as in the case of Flakentyne which uses stockfish, which is an “Open Source Chess Engine”, and which is extremely CPU-heavy. In these cases, it is recommended to adjust the MB/CPU set for your daily reality.
> 
> 
> Do I need to do long tests at full load to ensure system stability?
> It is not necessary.
> The test duration should be long enough for the temperature of your cooling system to come into equilibrium. Once equilibrium has been reached (water temperature has stopped rising) the test can be terminated. I particularly don't like this type of test that puts all cores on 100% load for long periods. Many times your system can withstand more than 30min in this condition and fail in a simple processing load transient.
> 
> 
> Will voltages above 1.5V deteriorate my CPU?
> Once again the answer is NO! But be careful !
> Just like a car engine, where wear is due to excess power, temperature, and torque, CPU wear comes from excess power, temperature, and electrical current.
> Intel's data sheets put the maximum allowable voltage at 1.72V. So once the power and temperature are controlled, there's nothing wrong if Vcore reaches 1.65V at light loads. But be care. One thing is a voltage spike or a high voltage at a very, very light load, the other is trying to run a heavy load at a high voltage. If you try to run a heavy load with a voltage that exceeds the CPU power capability, you will have problem. For instance, 1,2V (a relative small voltage) with 250A will be enough for throttling or even a degradation.
> 
> 
> 
> If I do the delid, use liquid metal or change the IHS will I degrade the CPU?
> The answer is YES and NO. I'll explain...
> If the changes are only made to lower the temperature, there is no harm. The problem is when we take advantage of this modification to increase the CPU voltage to reach higher frequencies at full load. In this case, the CPU power will increase, and its temperature will still be low. As CPU protection is done thermally, there is a chance of degrading the CPU due to excess electrical current and/or power.
> It is worth remembering that applications that put all cores operating at 100% load constantly are rare. Rest assured that 30 minutes of r23 or P95 will wear out the CPU infinitely more than Vlatch reaching 1.60V at “idle”.
> The fact is that it is uncomfortable to see that the voltage (VLatch_max) has reached 1.60V. But people don't feel any discomfort when the CPU reaches 300W of power. Very strange, don't you think? What you need to know is Ohm's law won't forgive you if you do something wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> What can degrade my CPU?
> The answer is POWER!
> Power (Watts) is the product of Voltage*Ampere, and it generates heat. So, power and heat will degrade your CPU.
> If you have a high voltage at light load, you will have no problems. Imagine your CPU is running a load at 1.48V and consuming 40A, this means you have less than 60W of power to dissipate.
> Now let's do the same, running a heavy load at 1.2V that draws 250A. Now we have 300W to manage...
> Can you imagine running a load from 250W to 300W for 30 minutes on a CPU designed for 125W TDP?
> It is worth remembering that the maximum power allowed by intel is 253W.
> 
> This is from intel datasheet:
> _Maximum Turbo Power: 253W
> The maximum sustained (>1s) power dissipation of the processor as limited by current and/or temperature controls. Instantaneous power may exceed Maximum Turbo Power for short durations (<=10ms)._
> 
> So, there is no problem to overclock the CPU. An overclocked CPU in real world (like gaming) will draw less than 200W for sure.
> The major issue is submitting the CPU for a long period of testing that will test more your cooler solution than the stability of your overclock.
> "It's not worth blowing up the engine to know its limit".
> 
> *One thing I would like to make clear here. Intel has taken the 13900K to the extreme, which can be verified by the temperatures of the CPU running in stock. Therefore, this processor will not allow an overclocking margin like the previous ones. With a normal cooler and without big gimmicks, like the delid, full load frequencies of 55x to 56x are to be expected.*


I read your guide, I've a few questions if you'd like to clear them up for me it'd be great. So in when the vendor reports LLC resistance to us in ohms we're basically looking at the combined resistance of the loadline + LLC pump right? Also, you say we use AC LL and LLC to make sure the vcore is controlled but under load the vcore always drops? How does having AC LL control vs not having it in override mode change the voltage drop behavior because I'm sure it will drop in both cases due to excess current pushing in.


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> Tweaking ddr5 is meta for most fps. Leave cpu stock, or just all core oc.


Does BF2042 like more memory bandwith or lower latency in regards to 1% lows?


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> Does BF2042 like more memory bandwith or lower latency in regards to 1% lows?


For me it looks like 7200c32 trfc 320 is about the same performance as 8000c32 trfc 480 in BF 2042. Fps is HIGH in both scenarioes like 300-350 in game on low settings. Ultra settings in 1080p is 250-300 with 4090 LOL. I prefer 8000mhz because of OCD 

Need to test the difference more!


----------



## Penguininattack

Something strange with p95 
Does anyone know why During 10h torture, one cpu go would go sub 100% usage and never back up.

No errors be been found tho.

What's the cause?


----------



## SuperMumrik

Nizzen said:


> For me it looks like 7200c32 trfc 320 is about the same performance as 8000c32 trfc 480 in BF 2042. Fps is HIGH in both scenarioes like 300-350 in game on low settings. Ultra settings in 1080p is 250-300 with 4090 LOL. I prefer 8000mhz because of OCD
> 
> Need to test the difference more!


Pretty much a wash between a and m-die according to my limited testing. 
Actually, in MW2 m-die got a ever so slightly win in the built-in benchmark (513 vs 495 cpu fps with stock cpu).


----------



## Nizzen

SuperMumrik said:


> Pretty much a wash between a and m-die according to my limited testing.
> Actually, in MW2 m-die got a ever so slightly win in the built-in benchmark (513 vs 495 cpu fps with stock cpu).


My highest Timespy score is with 7200 m-die. Faster than A-die @ 8200mhz. So maybe this is the rule 

Don't sell your best M-die just yet


----------



## affxct

Exilon said:


> I can't speak for other motherboards, but on my ASUS Z690 Strix, it doesn't budge from 1.2v peak no matter what ring clock I set.


Ahh awesome! That’s very promising to hear. Unfortunately my board doesn’t have a sensor for Atom L2. Incredibly weird being that it’s a Dark.


----------



## BoredErica

Ichirou said:


> You're a bit late. I figured out the issue already: the BIOS needed to be updated first. Wouldn't detect the CPU otherwise.


Having a problem perhaps similar to Ichirou's. z690 MSI a pro ddr4. Double checked, non wifi version, ddr4, DLed latest bios, rename to MSI.ROM. MBR flash drive, FAT. Bios flashback shows flashing red LED for 5min and restarts computer after as if it's completed. But red debug LED: CPU. Tried both stock ILM and replacement contact frame at various tightness. Wondering if CPU, Mobo are defective, or if it's acting like bios flashback was fine when it wasn't. Unlike Ichirou, I don't have an ADL cpu to test. Stuck here with no working main PC now. 

Hope to be benching/testing my new 13600kf soon... Sitting on my laptop trying all day to fix the problem. Moved back old b550 mobo w/ 5600x, and posts fine. So ram and psu haven't randomly gone kaput.

5.6ghz all core on 13600kf is realistic on water with safe voltages right? Maybe 5.7ghz on 4 cores or less?


----------



## Xiph

Penguininattack said:


> Something strange with p95
> Does anyone know why During 10h torture, one cpu go would go sub 100% usage and never back up.
> 
> No errors be been found tho.
> 
> What's the cause?


I don't know about cpu usage, but doing 10h Prime with such a high TjMax + Power? I wouldn't do that.


----------



## Nono31

RobertoSampaio said:


> Will voltages above 1.5V deteriorate my CPU?
> Once again the answer is NO! But be careful !


Thanx for your work, as always it 's helpfull for me to overclock with your post.👍

The danger with electronics is not just about of power, there are 2 majors things do not exceed:
-voltage is the most dangerous, if the voltage exceed the dielectrical insulation capacity, it breaks and cpu is dead only with 2W.
Intel recommend in long term do not exceed 1.4v, its possible to push more but in short term. At a certain range of voltage , the insulation break instantly.
- current is not really dangerous, the limit of current is monitored by temperature. Too much temperature burn cpu. So if you have a good cooler, you can push more current and so more power and it's ok until you stay below tjunction but intel advise to stay at max around 80°C.

Voltage admit to put more current. Current is limited by resistance and voltage mean increase pressure to fight resistance. 
It's the same principal like fluid mechanical. 
Voktage is pressure.
Current is flow.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

domdtxdissar said:


> Something strange there.. 86% GPU limited @ 1080p lowest with a *4090* ? (should be 0%)
> 
> Don't smell right.. benchmark ran at dx11 and switch over to dx12 before screenshot taken ?
> This very much looks like cheating..
> 
> Below is a real run with a 3090 @ 1080p lowest = only 28% GPU limited
> View attachment 2580926
> 
> 
> _edit_
> Other real run with a 4090 = 0% CPU limited
> View attachment 2580927


It´s exaktly like you say if i make lower powerlimit GPU and i´m in GPU limit, high virtual FPS.
If the CPU must really bring the FPS and 0% GPU limit the FPS goes down, but i think the performance is also not so bad.
382FPS for the old DDR4 with low bandwith is ok.

[email protected] and [email protected] Gear1


----------



## affxct

Nizzen said:


> My highest Timespy score is with 7200 m-die. Faster than A-die @ 8200mhz. So maybe this is the rule
> 
> Don't sell your best M-die just yet


No way, that’s actually not even funny, that’s just plain weird. How the hell is A-die losing in gaming tasks.


----------



## energie80

Games are not optimised for bandwidth


----------



## fray_bentos

energie80 said:


> Games are not optimised for bandwidth


They aren't optimised for latency either. It's just that most games benefit more from lower latency, with some exceptions.


----------



## Wam7

From initial results which is most likely, using best guess, to give higher all core overclocks, 13600K(F) or 13700K(F)?

(I've been trying to glean the info from reading through this and other threads but I'm non the wiser)


----------



## SuperMumrik

affxct said:


> No way, that’s actually not even funny, that’s just plain weird. How the hell is A-die losing in gaming tasks.


tRFC only difference really.. Latency numbers are equivalent


----------



## affxct

SuperMumrik said:


> tRFC only difference really.. Latency numbers are equivalent


It’s crazy that tRFC makes that big of a difference. I always knew it wasn’t important but damn. I don’t have a fancy loop so unfortunately I only do 100ns on tRFC and 90ns on pb/sb to avoid heat related errors. Wish I could drop them a bit lower on my 7000/7200 configs but I don’t think it’ll be a good idea to be honest.


----------



## JohnyDadBod

Falkentyne said:


> Thank you for your hard work, but can you check up on something just to make sure it's properly set?
> 
> You need to disable "Thermal Velocity Boost voltage optimizations." This is because the VID you get decreases as temps goes down. It starts at 100C, and depending on multiplier, it decreases "x" number of millivolts every -1C, and the amount of mv it decreases gets LOWER at lower multipliers, and is disabled at a certain multiplier (pretty low). At the highest multiplier, it's something like -1.5mv every -1C or something, at least it was on Comet Lake.
> 
> If you disable TVB Voltage optimizations, this sets the VID point to the "100C" point, which is what the Asus V/F table is charted at. Your VID chart looks pretty good but it's hard to say--can you check if you had TVB voltage optimizations disabled in the BIOS? You can check easily and when you find this option, set it to disabled and check your x54 and x57 points.
> 
> Here is what the Asus V/F looks like (my sample)
> 
> View attachment 2580976
> 
> 
> 
> x57 with TVB Volt Opt disabled in BIOS and AC/DC=0.01 mohms.
> 
> View attachment 2580977
> 
> 
> x54.
> 
> View attachment 2580978


Good news, I forgot to mention that I did disable TVB Voltage Optimizations! It would then be fair to say that your chip is a better bin than mine given that the 54x and 57x voltages for mine are 35mv and 34mv higher respectively? I know I can't directly compare these values motherboard to motherboard, but that is a pretty consistent difference. Will be interesting to see what my other chip can do. At least I am happy with the IMC on this one being an improvement over both my 12th gen chips.


----------



## domdtxdissar

PhoenixMDA said:


> It´s exaktly like you say if i make lower powerlimit GPU and i´m in GPU limit, high virtual FPS.
> If the CPU must really bring the FPS and 0% GPU limit the FPS goes down, but i think the performance is also not so bad.
> 382FPS for the old DDR4 with low bandwith is ok.
> 
> [email protected] and [email protected] Gear1
> View attachment 2581001
> View attachment 2581002


Wow yes we have all reached the same conclusion.. Have made a post about in the SotTR 1080p lowest benchmark thread.

The more GPU limited you are, the more time the CPU have to push up the average cpu game numbers..
Going forward i suggest that either we run with resolution modifier at minimum to limit the GPU bottleneck as much as possible, or we run the benchmark @ 720p lowest like the Russians do..
Anything above 10% GPU limited should not count in my book. 

This is what you can get when you start to limit the GPU performance: (more screens in linked thread above)


----------



## CptSpig

Nizzen said:


> My highest Timespy score is with 7200 m-die. Faster than A-die @ 8200mhz. So maybe this is the rule
> 
> Don't sell your best M-die just yet


To Late!


----------



## Ichirou

BoredErica said:


> Having a problem perhaps similar to Ichirou's. z690 MSI a pro ddr4. Double checked, non wifi version, ddr4, DLed latest bios, rename to MSI.ROM. MBR flash drive, FAT. Bios flashback shows flashing red LED for 5min and restarts computer after as if it's completed. But red debug LED: CPU. Tried both stock ILM and replacement contact frame at various tightness. Wondering if CPU, Mobo are defective, or if it's acting like bios flashback was fine when it wasn't. Unlike Ichirou, I don't have an ADL cpu to test. Stuck here with no working main PC now.
> 
> Hope to be benching/testing my new 13600kf soon... Sitting on my laptop trying all day to fix the problem. Moved back old b550 mobo w/ 5600x, and posts fine. So ram and psu haven't randomly gone kaput.
> 
> 5.6ghz all core on 13600kf is realistic on water with safe voltages right? Maybe 5.7ghz on 4 cores or less?


So I'm not alone then. MSI Z690 boards must be having issues updating to the latest BIOS without using an older CPU, and the manual flashback did not work either. 

Hopefully MSI addresses this issue soon, but I wouldn't have my hopes up.


----------



## Convicted

Convicted said:


> My 13900KF seems to be running terribly. This is the ASUS output, and then the XTU view while looping Cinebench R23 all-core, only after about 5 mins. Asus AIOC is on, and it keeps lowering voltage because the cpu keeps hitting 100C and throttling. Ends up on about 1.2V and 5.2GHz in the end. Cooler is a Thermaltake 360mm AIO. What do you reckon, is the chip a dud or is the cooler busted?
> 
> View attachment 2579117
> View attachment 2579118


So I bought an Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360mm. Got the non-RGB one as the fans had higher airflow. Installed it this morning, reset bios to standard settings + XMP profile for RAM, and tried it out. Very careful installation, removed and reapplied brand new Kryonaut TIM. 

It's running even worse than before. P-cores are throttling down to 5Ghz and some to 4.9Ghz. 

The Liquid Freezer has just one fan cable coming out of it for all 3 fans plus the pump, and I've got it plugged into the main CPU_FAN header. The fans seem to be spinning at 1650 rpm when set to max, and seem to be very quiet. Maybe I'm doing something wrong there?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

^^^

I had an issue with my 13900k running quickly into 100'C too at first mount. I have a Sig V2 waterblock and Arctic backplate. Also using a thermalright frame. I redid the paste and made sure to mount the block more evenly and tight this time. Now Y- Cruncher 85'c max @5.6GHz.

It's like you need to fluke off a good paste and mount with these cpus.


----------



## Exilon

Convicted said:


> So I bought an Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360mm. Got the non-RGB one as the fans had higher airflow. Installed it this morning, reset bios to standard settings + XMP profile for RAM, and tried it out. Very careful installation, removed and reapplied brand new Kryonaut TIM.
> 
> It's running even worse than before. P-cores are throttling down to 5Ghz and some to 4.9Ghz.
> 
> The Liquid Freezer has just one fan cable coming out of it for all 3 fans plus the pump, and I've got it plugged into the main CPU_FAN header. The fans seem to be spinning at 1650 rpm when set to max, and seem to be very quiet. Maybe I'm doing something wrong there?
> 
> View attachment 2581050


Post a photo of your paste imprint after taking off the cooler


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

JohnyDadBod said:


> Good news, I forgot to mention that I did disable TVB Voltage Optimizations! It would then be fair to say that your chip is a better bin than mine given that the 54x and 57x voltages for mine are 35mv and 34mv higher respectively? I know I can't directly compare these values motherboard to motherboard, but that is a pretty consistent difference. Will be interesting to see what my other chip can do. At least I am happy with the IMC on this one being an improvement over both my 12th gen chips.


What is the starting point for your voltages on your msi board and 13900 …I’m going through all this but I’m coming from 10th Gen with basically 3 voltages and an llc - to - a few new voltages and a couple llc values? I’ve just used llc 3 on my msi board. I like Falkentyne approach with 1.35 I think Vcore and doing 30min cb23 runs to find a stable
Clock/voltage but I think there’s more. (All core oc)


----------



## Convicted

MrTOOSHORT said:


> ^^^
> 
> I had an issue with my 13900k running quickly into 100'C too at first mount. I have a Sig V2 waterblock and Arctic backplate. Also using a thermalright frame. I redid the paste and made sure to mount the block more evenly and tight this time. Now Y- Cruncher 85'c max @5.6GHz.
> 
> It's like you need to fluke off a good paste and mount with these cpus.


Yeah I get the feeling the actual paste and mounting makes a huge difference. What paste are you using and what paste method? Going to buy some 3k rpm Noctuas, take the whole thing apart and give the pasting and mounting another go


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Convicted said:


> Yeah I get the feeling the actual paste and mounting makes a huge difference. What paste are you using and what paste method? Going to buy some 3k rpm Noctuas, take the whole thing apart and give the pasting and mounting another go


I use mx-4. I just dab little dots all over the cpu, then put the block down even pressure with my hand. I pull the block up and check out the spread. If there is any paste not touching at all between block and IHS, I'll just dab a little there again. Not scientific but it works for me.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

HemuV2 said:


> I read your guide, I've a few questions if you'd like to clear them up for me it'd be great. So in when the vendor reports LLC resistance to us in ohms we're basically looking at the combined resistance of the loadline + LLC pump right? Also, you say we use AC LL and LLC to make sure the vcore is controlled but under load the vcore always drops? How does having AC LL control vs not having it in override mode change the voltage drop behavior because I'm sure it will drop in both cases due to excess current pushing in.


People use to think in "fixed voltage mode"...
Intel default voltage mode is not fixed. All CPU are design to work at adaptive voltage and using VF curve.
Due to past CPU models and how overclocking was done, we don't feel comfortable overclocking these days using adaptive voltage and leaving each core free to choose its frequency according to intel design. We insist on the former model.
If you want to go a step further, try starting by thinking about adaptive voltage.
Once you use fixed voltage all CPU voltage controls (the communication from the CPU to the VRM0 is interrupted), And you start to set the voltage that you believe is fair for the CPU.
In all methods you will have the voltage dropping. But if you let the CPU control the VRM (with all adjusts done) I believe it will do a better job.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Nono31 said:


> Thanx for your work, as always it 's helpfull for me to overclock with your post.👍
> 
> The danger with electronics is not just about of power, there are 2 majors things do not exceed:
> -voltage is the most dangerous, if the voltage exceed the dielectrical insulation capacity, it breaks and cpu is dead only with 2W.
> Intel recommend in long term do not exceed 1.4v, its possible to push more but in short term. At a certain range of voltage , the insulation break instantly.
> - current is not really dangerous, the limit of current is monitored by temperature. Too much temperature burn cpu. So if you have a good cooler, you can push more current and so more power and it's ok until you stay below tjunction but intel advise to stay at max around 80°C.
> 
> Voltage admit to put more current. Current is limited by resistance and voltage mean increase pressure to fight resistance.
> It's the same principal like fluid mechanical.
> Voktage is pressure.
> Current is flow.


You are right, but I think we need a lot of voltage to beak the dielectrical insulation...
And like I told before. I'm not saying people to set a high fixed voltage.

I'm saying that with adaptive voltage the CPU will communicate to the VRM the required voltage for a situation.
All CPU are design to operate in adaptive voltage mode. 
Take a look at this video... Its old and a bit stupid (in my opinion).

This video illustrates what i'm saying...
Everytime people talk about voltage they always think in fixed voltage...

There is nothing wrong to set 1.45V in adaptive mode. 
CPU at stock will run higher than 1.45V when frequency goes up... 
It is the intel algorithm and VF curves doing their job.


----------



## Convicted

Exilon said:


> Post a photo of your paste imprint after taking off the cooler


Thanks for the tip. I get the feeling that's not how it's supposed to look:


















I've reseated the cooler and it's definitely improved a bit, but it's still only hitting 5.1GHz after 10 mins of Cinebench (stock settings in BIOS other than XMP). Voltage has come up a bit, so clearly the cooler is working better. What voltages are people successfully achieving with a 360mm AIO like the Arctic?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Looks like one half getting good contact. Little too much paste imo too.


----------



## Arni90

Convicted said:


> Thanks for the tip. I get the feeling that's not how it's supposed to look:
> 
> View attachment 2581072
> 
> View attachment 2581073
> 
> 
> I've reseated the cooler and it's definitely improved a bit, but it's still only hitting 5.1GHz after 10 mins of Cinebench (stock settings in BIOS other than XMP). Voltage has come up a bit, so clearly the cooler is working better. What voltages are people successfully achieving with a 360mm AIO like the Arctic?
> 
> View attachment 2581075


Is it possible to tighten the screws more? You need a fair bit more mounting pressure I'd say.


----------



## Luggage

Convicted said:


> Thanks for the tip. I get the feeling that's not how it's supposed to look:
> 
> View attachment 2581072
> 
> View attachment 2581073
> 
> 
> I've reseated the cooler and it's definitely improved a bit, but it's still only hitting 5.1GHz after 10 mins of Cinebench (stock settings in BIOS other than XMP). Voltage has come up a bit, so clearly the cooler is working better. What voltages are people successfully achieving with a 360mm AIO like the Arctic?
> 
> View attachment 2581075


The top, using the right lag-1700 stand offs? They differ 1mm… 
Or hitting something, VRM-heat sink or cap?


----------



## affxct

Convicted said:


> Thanks for the tip. I get the feeling that's not how it's supposed to look:
> 
> View attachment 2581072
> 
> View attachment 2581073
> 
> 
> I've reseated the cooler and it's definitely improved a bit, but it's still only hitting 5.1GHz after 10 mins of Cinebench (stock settings in BIOS other than XMP). Voltage has come up a bit, so clearly the cooler is working better. What voltages are people successfully achieving with a 360mm AIO like the Arctic?
> 
> View attachment 2581075


You need to remove the PCB cover if you have an early rev LF II. Even then you won't have perfect contact unless you re-seat a bunch of times.


----------



## Exilon

Convicted said:


> Thanks for the tip. I get the feeling that's not how it's supposed to look:
> 
> View attachment 2581072
> 
> View attachment 2581073
> 
> 
> I've reseated the cooler and it's definitely improved a bit, but it's still only hitting 5.1GHz after 10 mins of Cinebench (stock settings in BIOS other than XMP). Voltage has come up a bit, so clearly the cooler is working better. What voltages are people successfully achieving with a 360mm AIO like the Arctic?
> 
> View attachment 2581075


Either wrong standoffs used on 3/4 of the posts or you have an old revision of the cooler that needs this mod for LGA1700.


----------



## Convicted

Arni90 said:


> Is it possible to tighten the screws more? You need a fair bit more mounting pressure I'd say.


I'm at the limit of the screwdriver. Can use a chunkier one but then get worried I won't be able to undo it without wrecking the thread. Going to give it a go. 



Luggage said:


> The top, using the right lag-1700 stand offs? They differ 1mm…
> Or hitting something, VRM-heat sink or cap?


Using 1700 stand offs that came with the LFII all round. Same 4 all round. 



affxct said:


> You need to remove the PCB cover if you have an early rev LF II. Even then you won't have perfect contact unless you re-seat a bunch of times.


I checked their website about that, and I've got the newer one with the indented pcb cover so I've left it on. But maybe I should remove anyway. Is everyone using it the same way around that I am, ie tubes at the bottom fan at the top?

Also is it right that the fans only top out at 1650 (looking at qfan in the bios when set to full speed). They seem very quiet.


----------



## Krzych04650

Why are there only few select ratios in VF curve control? No way to change them?


----------



## Exilon

Convicted said:


> Also is it right that the fans only top out at 1650 (looking at qfan in the bios when set to full speed). They seem very quiet.


Don't get distracted, the mount is 100% the problem. You need to figure out what you did wrong with the installation.


----------



## klex

Hey Guys, long time lurker here, first time poster.

Recently purchased a i9 13900K from newegg about a week ago, I am curious on as to where I land in the silicon quality bucket, SP scores are somewhat newer to me.

SP : 96
P-Core SP : 105
E-Core SP: 80

is this considered the lower end of the SP spectrum?

Side note, as of right now, I can barely pull in 38k in R23 at complete stock aside XMP and a fresh format of Windows 11. I am almost getting thermal throttled heavily on air with a Noctua D-15 push/pull. In the process of upgrading to a 420 AIO, even with that not entirely confident that will solve my thermal issue, this is on a ASUS z690 Hero board with stock ILM removed and using the thermalright contact frame instead.


----------



## bigfootnz

klex said:


> Hey Guys, long time lurker here, first time poster.
> 
> Recently purchased a i9 13900K from newegg about a week ago, I am curious on as to where I land in the silicon quality bucket, SP scores are somewhat newer to me.
> 
> SP : 96
> P-Core SP : 105
> E-Core SP: 80
> 
> is this considered the lower end of the SP spectrum?
> 
> Side note, as of right now, I can barely pull in 38k in R23 at complete stock aside XMP and a fresh format of Windows 11. I am almost getting thermal throttled heavily on air with a Noctua D-15 push/pull. In the process of upgrading to a 420 AIO, even with that not entirely confident that will solve my thermal issue, this is on a ASUS z690 Hero board with stock ILM removed and using the thermalright contact frame instead.


You have to test it and see how good it is. I got second cpu SP99 P107 E83 and it was dud, not been able even to run 5.6GHz with AIO280.


----------



## Penguininattack

13900k DISSIMATED!!!!!!!!


----------



## Convicted

Exilon said:


> Don't get distracted, the mount is 100% the problem. You need to figure out what you did wrong with the installation.


Ok good to know. Is there a photo somewhere of what I'm trying to achieve and what it should look like when lifting off after a good fit? 

All the parts were specifically in the 1700 plastic bag so definitely using the right ones. Followed this install guide


----------



## Falkentyne

Convicted said:


> Thanks for the tip. I get the feeling that's not how it's supposed to look:
> 
> View attachment 2581072
> 
> View attachment 2581073
> 
> 
> I've reseated the cooler and it's definitely improved a bit, but it's still only hitting 5.1GHz after 10 mins of Cinebench (stock settings in BIOS other than XMP). Voltage has come up a bit, so clearly the cooler is working better. What voltages are people successfully achieving with a 360mm AIO like the Arctic?
> 
> View attachment 2581075



First, make sure, 100% sure that you are using the SOCKET 1700 mounting long nuts not the 1151 nuts.
Apparently the socket 1151 backplate works with the 1700 nuts but its best to use the socket 1700 backplate.

next please remove the front cover from the block. (there are two screws on the underside, remove those).


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Hey, if it gives you happiness, go for it. You earn money to spend it, after all.
> 
> In my case, the overclocking and watercooling is essentially more like a last hurrah for me, so I'm going all out with it right now.
> After I'm done, I'll just sit on it for the years to come, maybe occasionally upgrading the GPU every few generations, or replacing watercooling parts that go bad.


Kids won’t slow you down. I thought that too. My kids are 10 and 11 years old. Now I seem to be upgrading annually for some reason as of lately.


----------



## affxct

Convicted said:


> I'm at the limit of the screwdriver. Can use a chunkier one but then get worried I won't be able to undo it without wrecking the thread. Going to give it a go.
> 
> 
> 
> Using 1700 stand offs that came with the LFII all round. Same 4 all round.
> 
> 
> 
> I checked their website about that, and I've got the newer one with the indented pcb cover so I've left it on. But maybe I should remove anyway. Is everyone using it the same way around that I am, ie tubes at the bottom fan at the top?
> 
> Also is it right that the fans only top out at 1650 (looking at qfan in the bios when set to full speed). They seem very quiet.


In that regard, if you do have the one they've cleared, it might not be due to it. As Falkentyne said though, it may be worth trying. One thing you could try is to place your Arctic backplate on a cardboard box and very carefully balance the board so that you have perfectly level contact with each mounting hole on the backplate. Thereafter you need to make sure each stand-off is tightened as equally as possible. The hardest part with Strix boards is then getting the cooler to mount flush on each stand-off. It's so hard to mount on Strix boards for me personally and I honestly do not know how I managed a perfect mount that I once had on a Strix Z690-F. It's so hard to do. I'd almost say, sell your AIO and buy something else. The board is obviously more crucial to the setup.


----------



## Exilon

Convicted said:


> Ok good to know. Is there a photo somewhere of what I'm trying to achieve and what it should look like when lifting off after a good fit?


The circled portion is the only part making good contact with the IHS. The top part of the CPU isn't touching the cooler except through a thick layer of TIM.










Looking at this, it looks the bracket is hitting the VRM heatsink and biting into it instead of resting on the standoff










If you can't shift the bracket down a little or some how sneak it under the heatsink, you'll need to take a dremel to this part


----------



## affxct

Exilon said:


> The circled portion is the only part making good contact with the IHS. The top part of the CPU isn't touching the cooler except through a thick layer of TIM.
> 
> View attachment 2581092
> 
> 
> Looking at this, it looks the bracket is hitting the VRM heatsink and biting into it instead of resting on the standoff
> 
> View attachment 2581093


Yes, that that you mentioned DEFINITELY happens.You need to make sure you get the cooler flat. It might sound cringe, but you need to force it to actually settle down properly. Whether by maneuvering it or forcing it. The former is probably the better option.


----------



## Penguininattack

13900k DISSIMATED!

12900... With bloatware.


----------



## Convicted

affxct said:


> In that regard, if you do have the one they've cleared, it might not be due to it. As Falkentyne said though, it may be worth trying. One thing you could try is to place your Arctic backplate on a cardboard box and very carefully balance the board so that you have perfectly level contact with each mounting hole on the backplate. Thereafter you need to make sure each stand-off is tightened as equally as possible. The hardest part with Strix boards is then getting the cooler to mount flush on each stand-off. It's so hard to mount on Strix boards for me personally and I honestly do not know how I managed a perfect mount that I once had on a Strix Z690-F. It's so hard to do. I'd almost say, sell your AIO and buy something else. The board is obviously more crucial to the setup.





Exilon said:


> The circled portion is the only part making good contact with the IHS. The top part of the CPU isn't touching the cooler except through a thick layer of TIM.
> 
> View attachment 2581092
> 
> 
> Looking at this, it looks the bracket is hitting the VRM heatsink and biting into it instead of resting on the standoff
> 
> View attachment 2581093
> 
> 
> If you can't shift the bracket down a little or some how sneak it under the heatsink, you'll need to take a dremel to this part
> View attachment 2581095





affxct said:


> Yes, that that you mentioned DEFINITELY happens.You need to make sure you get the cooler flat. It might sound cringe, but you need to force it to actually settle down properly. Whether by maneuvering it or forcing it. The former is probably the better option.


So I just took off the PCB cover, re-tightened everything, ran it again, still 5.1Ghz. Then I saw your posts. And you're 100% right. Looking closely, it's clear the top of the right bracket is actually resting on the heatsink cover. That's absolutely crazy. You'd think it would be an obvious setup - Strix board + LCII AIO - and yet clearly not compatible. That must be it, right?


----------



## affxct

Convicted said:


> So I just took off the PCB cover, re-tightened everything, ran it again, still 5.1Ghz. Then I saw your posts. And you're 100% right. Looking closely, it's clear the top of the right bracket is actually resting on the heatsink cover. That's absolutely crazy. You'd think it would be an obvious setup - Strix board + LCII AIO - and yet clearly not compatible. That must be it, right?
> 
> View attachment 2581102


With Z690 it was a minor to semi-major struggle. If what you're observing is the case then I dunno if you can with Z790 ASUS boards.


----------



## tps3443

Krzych04650 said:


> P55/E43/R45 passed with 1.152V load, 1.270 LLC Mode 3 on Z690 Tomahawk DDR4 on new 13900K. 13900KF needed 1.24-1.25V load to even start the benchmark without insta crashing. Literally 100mV difference between them. Insanity.
> View attachment 2580919
> 
> 
> Also, 400W at 1.346V load. Holy bananas.
> 
> View attachment 2580923
> 
> 
> The cooling handles it quite well though, it only starts hitting 100C at around 440-450W. Heavily multithreaded games pull around 190-220W at 1.45V load though, so no worries.


Glad to see you got a better chip. I’ve actually been running mine stock lately. Just the normal 5.5 all cores with 5.8 boost on (2) cores profile. I set 1.190v in bios and leave everything else on auto including auto LLC. With DDR5 7600 and it rips on my Unify-X. I am not sure what the actual voltage is.

Your power consumption in gaming seems pretty crazy. What games do you play?


----------



## Falkentyne

Convicted said:


> So I just took off the PCB cover, re-tightened everything, ran it again, still 5.1Ghz. Then I saw your posts. And you're 100% right. Looking closely, it's clear the top of the right bracket is actually resting on the heatsink cover. That's absolutely crazy. You'd think it would be an obvious setup - Strix board + LCII AIO - and yet clearly not compatible. That must be it, right?
> 
> View attachment 2581102


Remove the plastic bottom cover then reverse the orientation to make the fan point towards the video card. It will fit (well, it should fit).
BTW the Strix was one of the boards that was listed as not compatible on Arctic's own website, even with the bottom shroud removed.


----------



## Krzych04650

tps3443 said:


> Glad to see you got a better chip. I’ve actually been running mine stock lately. Just the normal 5.5 all cores with 5.8 boost on (2) cores profile. I set 1.190v in bios and leave everything else on auto including auto LLC. With DDR5 7600 and it rips on my Unify-X. I am not sure what the actual voltage is.
> 
> Your power consumption in gaming seems pretty crazy. What games do you play?


Yea, they are light years apart. 100mV difference basically. From a chip that barely runs stock to good one. 

As for power consumption in gaming, the most power hungry game I could find draws up to 160W while pegging all cores at 90%+ usage, while most of everything else stays below 100W, with single threaded games sitting at like 60W, so I don't think it is crazy. 

With 8P+8E+HT0 config I am using, 60P/45E/52R 1.37V, this CPU is not even capable of pulling that much power, I will even leave stock 253W power limit intact.


----------



## tps3443

Krzych04650 said:


> Yea, they are light years apart. 100mV difference basically. From a chip that barely runs stock to good one.
> 
> As for power consumption in gaming, the most power hungry game I could find draws up to 160W while pegging all cores at 90%+ usage, while most of everything else stays below 100W, with single threaded games sitting at like 60W, so I don't think it is crazy.
> 
> With 8P+8E+HT0 config I am using, 60P/45E/52R 1.37V, this CPU is not even capable of pulling that much power, I will even leave stock 253W power limit intact.
> View attachment 2581117


I would take a look at the cpu performance stock vs your overclocked setting with items disabled, to see how much faster it is in games. I thought bone stock performed practically the same as an overclocked cpu profile, and it’s only like 230 watts for 41K R23. What I’m seeing is memory configuration greatly changes performance the most in games. Just a thought. And then you don’t lose anything in MT performance.


----------



## tunste

affxct said:


> With Z690 it was a minor to semi-major struggle. If what you're observing is the case then I dunno if you can with Z790 ASUS boards.


I have a 13600K on Asus Z690 Strix A D4 @ 5.9 GHz high and all cores 5.6 GHz on 2 year old custom waterloop with Corsair 420 radiator (3 x 140mm Artic fans in push configuration) with Samsung B-Bie 4000 CL16 (2 x 16 GB) @ 3871 MHz; FSB is 100.1 & auto ring is 4500. This processor from Newegg their New Jersey warehouse. This is a golden cpu, it only hits 65C after 3-4 hours of gaming. This overclock is linpack stable.
I have kept my E cores enable to handle background tasks. My E cores @ 4.2 GHz heavy & 4.4 GHz miedium to light workloads.
If you have the right cooling solution then you can really push a good 13600K processor. I used the Asus IA overclocking feature to overclock my 13600K; my IA overclocked my 13600K to 68% overclock with my cooling rated as 167 with Asus cooler rating system. I did set the cpu voltage manually to 1.34v as auto was setting it to 1.41v idle but 1.26v under full load benching @ 5.6 GHz all cores.
This is my first i5 processor; I normally get the processor just below the king of the hill like Intel 12700K or AMD 5900X which I had both as my main system watercooled. The 12700K now in my wife’s system & 5900X in my daughter’s system now.
This 13600K is better performance price point than I have seen in over 20 years. I have been building PCs since the days of the 286. I can finally say I’ve gotten my golden processor that overclocks outstandingly.
i view running Windows 11 as a positive as it has matured into a good OS finally after the latest update.


----------



## Krzych04650

Suicide run in R23, 59P/45E/52R, 1.58V LLC Mode 3, 1.398V load. 460W. 6 GHz won't budge, or maybe it would at like 1.48V load and 600W  Not a lot of points though considering that stock scores 40K+.











tps3443 said:


> I would take a look at the cpu performance stock vs your overclocked setting with items disabled, to see how much faster it is in games. I thought bone stock performed practically the same as an overclocked cpu profile, and it’s only like 230 watts for 41K R23. What I’m seeing is memory configuration greatly changes performance the most in games. Just a thought. And then you don’t lose anything in MT performance.


It depends on the game and how it scales. This config is up to 10% faster than stock 55/45, assuming the same memory. Memory is definitely key more than anything. I did some gaming benchmarks on my X99 before upgrading so I will have 6900K stock vs 6900K OC vs 13900K stock vs 13900K OC numbers to show, plus scaling benchmarks for 13900K separately as well, like 55/45 vs 60/52 only, 4000C16 not tuned vs 4000C14 tuned and etc. It is just not easy to do on 2080 Ti because it is too slow and 4090s are MIA.


----------



## Papusan

Convicted said:


> So I just took off the PCB cover, re-tightened everything, ran it again, still 5.1Ghz. Then I saw your posts. And you're 100% right. Looking closely, it's clear the top of the right bracket is actually resting on the heatsink cover. That's absolutely crazy. You'd think it would be an obvious setup - Strix board + LCII AIO - and yet clearly not compatible. That must be it, right?
> 
> View attachment 2581102


I posted some info and solutions for the problem here.... Post #2291 Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


----------



## overclock92012

Is anyone running a 13900k on a mini-itx motherboard? Can a mini-itx motherboard even handle a 13900k at full load since mini-itx boards only have 1 EPS 8pin connector? Im seeing 13900k cpus running at well over 300w and im pretty sure 8pin eps connectors can only handle up to 250-300w safely right? I am considering getting a 13700k/13900k and im currently on a z690i aorus ultra lite ddr4 board, and im wondering if my board can handle the power draw of these new cpus.


----------



## Exilon

Just run it at the stock 253W power level and OC for gaming and general use. You don't have to run it all out at 350W+ just because you're OCing.

I have a very reasonable 5.7P/4.6E/5.0R setup going and it stays well below 150W in gaming. 80W in Warhammer III 100FPS.


----------



## tps3443

Exilon said:


> Just run it at the stock 253W power level and OC for gaming and general use. You don't have to run it all out at 350W+ just because you're OCing.
> 
> I have a very reasonable 5.7P/4.6E/5.0R setup going and it stays well below 150W in gaming. 80W in Warhammer III 100FPS.



I run the 250 watt Intel boxed cooler limit. I never even hit it during R23 either, and I’m still Scoring 41K. 

Low power, but full power.

I feel like the auto voltage gets a little heavy handed with some of these motherboards. I dialed it way on back. And it’s like 230 watt chip, but blowing through R23 like nothing ever happen.


----------



## Silent Scone

raad11 said:


> People using contact frame, do you notice if your first 2 or 3 cores run cooler than the others by several degrees?
> 
> I used a contact frame for first time with my 13900K (with 1 year used Strix Z690-A D4 mobo) and cores 0 and 1 run cooler at full load (RobertSampaio said he also has a similar temperature delta).
> 
> I put my old 12900K in an old Asus Prime Z690M-Plus D4 (previously housed a 12600K), but with contact frame this time and now this chip has first 3 cores running much cooler. Overall temps are fine too (in fact, better than fine... with BIOS update and CMOS reset to all default settings it was running full load in CB at 190-195 watts load in HWinfo64, 74 peak temp on that run with AIO... ***). This chip did not run like this previously in my Strix board.
> 
> Were the chips/boards deformed or something from the old ILM?


If the frame is correctly installed temps should be much more regimented, however _up_ to 15c variance between cores isn't uncommon on some CPU even with perfect mounting pressure.

Thermal Grizzly CF / Z690 Apex / Noctua D15 / 13700K


----------



## owikh84

overclock92012 said:


> Is anyone running a 13900k on a mini-itx motherboard? Can a mini-itx motherboard even handle a 13900k at full load since mini-itx boards only have 1 EPS 8pin connector? Im seeing 13900k cpus running at well over 300w and im pretty sure 8pin eps connectors can only handle up to 250-300w safely right? I am considering getting a 13700k/13900k and im currently on a z690i aorus ultra lite ddr4 board, and im wondering if my board can handle the power draw of these new cpus.





iambic said:


> yes update ME FW
> View attachment 2580987


----------



## Betroz

Silent Scone said:


> If the frame is correctly installed temps should be much more regimented, however _up_ to 15c variance between cores isn't uncommon on some CPU even with perfect mounting pressure.
> 
> Thermal Grizzly CF / Z690 Apex /* Noctua D15 / 13700K*
> 
> View attachment 2581201


Is that with the CPU at stock? CB23 run?


----------



## Convicted

Papusan said:


> I posted some info and solutions for the problem here.... Post #2291 Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...





Exilon said:


> Just run it at the stock 253W power level and OC for gaming and general use. You don't have to run it all out at 350W+ just because you're OCing.
> 
> I have a very reasonable 5.7P/4.6E/5.0R setup going and it stays well below 150W in gaming. 80W in Warhammer III 100FPS.





tps3443 said:


> I run the 250 watt Intel boxed cooler limit. I never even hit it during R23 either, and I’m still Scoring 41K.
> 
> Low power, but full power.
> 
> I feel like the auto voltage gets a little heavy handed with some of these motherboards. I dialed it way on back. And it’s like 230 watt chip, but blowing through R23 like nothing ever happen.


So I did all the mods, removed the PCB cover, dremelled the tops off the mounts, and it's sitting as tight as I think can reasonably be expected. Not sure what else I can do about fitting the cooler beyond this, so I think something else is at play here. At idle the pcores are at 37-38 degrees which seems pretty reasonable, about 10 over ambient and at idle my case fans aren't on. 

If I fully F5 reset the Asus BIOS settings, turn on XMP1, and turn off MCE, then I'm getting the 250W package power which stays at just under 100 degrees with a voltage of around 1.25v (unless I'm reading the hwinfo below incorrectly?). The R23 multi score is 37.6k, not far off the usual 38k that youtube reviewers were getting with 360 AIOs. But it's only boosting to 5.1Ghz.

My main use case is Assetto Corsa VR, just a few threads, and Cyberpunk, 8 threads I believe (well let's be honest my use case is messing around with all this and then never actually playing anything). Is there a different set of bios settings I need to get the most out of the 13900k for that kind of gaming setup?


----------



## Silent Scone

Betroz said:


> Is that with the CPU at stock? CB23 run?


No, that's AI Optimised doing a CPUZ Bench.


----------



## Falkentyne

Convicted said:


> So I did all the mods, removed the PCB cover, dremelled the tops off the mounts, and it's sitting as tight as I think can reasonably be expected. Not sure what else I can do about fitting the cooler beyond this, so I think something else is at play here. At idle the pcores are at 37-38 degrees which seems pretty reasonable, about 10 over ambient and at idle my case fans aren't on.
> 
> If I fully F5 reset the Asus BIOS settings, turn on XMP1, and turn off MCE, then I'm getting the 250W package power which stays at just under 100 degrees with a voltage of around 1.25v (unless I'm reading the hwinfo below incorrectly?). The R23 multi score is 37.6k, not far off the usual 38k that youtube reviewers were getting with 360 AIOs. But it's only boosting to 5.1Ghz.
> 
> My main use case is Assetto Corsa VR, just a few threads, and Cyberpunk, 8 threads I believe (well let's be honest my use case is messing around with all this and then never actually playing anything). Is there a different set of bios settings I need to get the most out of the 13900k for that kind of gaming setup?
> 
> View attachment 2581202
> 
> View attachment 2581203


You didn't do what I suggested yet?
Try mounting the cooler the other way--VRM fan facing downwards (towards the video card).
And please take a picture of the spread when you do that. You can use toothpaste to avoid wasting paste for that.


----------



## affxct

tunste said:


> I have a 13600K on Asus Z690 Strix A D4 @ 5.9 GHz high and all cores 5.6 GHz on 2 year old custom waterloop with Corsair 420 radiator (3 x 140mm Artic fans in push configuration) with Samsung B-Bie 4000 CL16 (2 x 16 GB) @ 3871 MHz; FSB is 100.1 & auto ring is 4500. This processor from Newegg their New Jersey warehouse. This is a golden cpu, it only hits 65C after 3-4 hours of gaming. This overclock is linpack stable.
> I have kept my E cores enable to handle background tasks. My E cores @ 4.2 GHz heavy & 4.4 GHz miedium to light workloads.
> If you have the right cooling solution then you can really push a good 13600K processor. I used the Asus IA overclocking feature to overclock my 13600K; my IA overclocked my 13600K to 68% overclock with my cooling rated as 167 with Asus cooler rating system. I did set the cpu voltage manually to 1.34v as auto was setting it to 1.41v idle but 1.26v under full load benching @ 5.6 GHz all cores.
> This is my first i5 processor; I normally get the processor just below the king of the hill like Intel 12700K or AMD 5900X which I had both as my main system watercooled. The 12700K now in my wife’s system & 5900X in my daughter’s system now.
> This 13600K is better performance price point than I have seen in over 20 years. I have been building PCs since the days of the 286. I can finally say I’ve gotten my golden processor that overclocks outstandingly.
> i view running Windows 11 as a positive as it has matured into a good OS finally after the latest update.


We’re just talking about the Arctic cooler compatibility with Strix boards.


----------



## Brandur

Hello everyone,

I just replaced my 12900KS with a 13900k and manually set stock boost clocks in the BIOS (55xP, 43xE, 45xRing) and the voltage beeing on auto. I set LLC6 (Socket Sense) on my Unify-X and the Voltage is Idle at 1.294V and under CB load at 1.205V. The consumption will stay between 250-280W and the CPU gets 76° at full load. Since I can't read any SP rating, are these numbers okayish?


----------



## newls1

Brandur said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I just replaced my 12900KS with a 13900k and manually set stock boost clocks in the BIOS (55xP, 43xE, 45xRing) and the voltage beeing on auto. I set LLC6 (Socket Sense) on my Unify-X and the Voltage is Idle at 1.294V and under CB load at 1.205V. The consumption will stay between 250-280W and the CPU gets 76° at full load. Since I can't read any SP rating, are these numbers okayish?


you are underclocking that chip to much. be faster if you just left it stock. If you are going for manual, go for 57 multi and try 1.330v LLC 5 and test thermals and stability. these chips OC really well for the most. I to upgraded from a 12900KS and was just hoping for the same clocks..... Man these chips fly past that. It will all come down to your cooling


----------



## Betroz

Brandur said:


> I just replaced my 12900KS with a 13900k


Ehem that's like "upgrading" from a RTX 3090 to a 3090 Ti...


----------



## Rbk_3

Exilon said:


> Just run it at the stock 253W power level and OC for gaming and general use. You don't have to run it all out at 350W+ just because you're OCing.
> 
> I have a very reasonable 5.7P/4.6E/5.0R setup going and it stays well below 150W in gaming. 80W in Warhammer III 100FPS.


Do you know what setting in MSI Mb I would set to lock up 250W power level? I haven’t changed anything but still push 350 in stress tests


----------



## Krzych04650

Rbk_3 said:


> Do you know what setting in MSI Mb I would set to lock up 250W power level? I haven’t changed anything but still push 350 in stress tests


It is under Advanced CPU Configuration, there are two separate settings for long- and short-term limit. Generally there are multiple ways you can limit power under heavy loads, power limit, temperature limit, TVB.


----------



## owikh84

13900KF
Batch X235H657
ASUS Z690 EXTREME: SP106 (P118/E83)
MSI Z690I UNIFY: CPU Force2 141


----------



## tps3443

owikh84 said:


> 13900KF
> Batch X235H657
> ASUS Z690 EXTREME: SP106 (P118/E83)
> MSI Z690I UNIFY: CPU Force2 141
> 
> View attachment 2581259
> 
> View attachment 2581260


Thanks for sharing! That looks like a great chip. My 13900KF is a Force 134 with ambient water cooling, and Force 132 with sub ambient water. Not sure the SP rating.


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> Do you know what setting in MSI Mb I would set to lock up 250W power level? I haven’t changed anything but still push 350 in stress tests


Just change the cooler selection to one that isn't water. It'll limit the wattage automatically.


----------



## nievz

What would you say is the best AIO for the 13900KF?


----------



## Ichirou

nievz said:


> What would you say is the best AIO for the 13900KF?


Arctic 420mm


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


> Just change the cooler selection to one that isn't water. It'll limit the wattage automatically.


Will this cause a previous stable OC with unlocked limit to crash or will it just cause it to throttle?


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> Will this cause a previous stable OC with unlocked limit to crash or will it just cause it to throttle?


It'll throttle when the wattage limit is hit.


----------



## Vasoka

So is it better to sync all core overclock this or per core usage? I'm getting some really weird BSOD's with page_fault_in_nonpaged_area when launching games which use easy anti cheat since I got this CPU. Naturally I thought it's the ram, so I turned off the XMP profile entirely (this ram has passed stability checks), but that didn't fix it. Turning off the overclock of the CPU (which is currently per core) seems to fix it, however? Anyone heard of anything like this before?

As far as I can tell the CPU overclock is managing to make the DDR5 ram misbehave somehow and throw this BSOD in specific circumstances?


----------



## tps3443

Rbk_3 said:


> Will this cause a previous stable OC with unlocked limit to crash or will it just cause it to throttle?


If you hit that limit, it’s going to reduce voltage and reduce the cpu clocks. it won’t crash.


----------



## Ichirou

Vasoka said:


> So is it better to sync all core overclock this or per core usage? I'm getting some really weird BSOD's with page_fault_in_nonpaged_area when launching games which use easy anti cheat since I got this CPU. Naturally I thought it's the ram, so I turned off the XMP profile entirely (this ram has passed stability checks), but that didn't fix it. Turning off the overclock of the CPU (which is currently per core) seems to fix it, however? Anyone heard of anything like this before?
> 
> As far as I can tell the CPU overclock is managing to make the DDR5 ram misbehave somehow and throw this BSOD in specific circumstances?


Not enough Vcore. You can't just slap an overclock on the chip without raising the Vcore as well...

You really should be stability testing your PC with Cinebench at the absolute least.


----------



## Vasoka

Ichirou said:


> Not enough Vcore. You can't just slap an overclock on the chip without raising the Vcore as well...
> 
> You really should be stability testing your PC with Cinebench at the absolute least.


Manual vcore or offset would be better according to you, and what would be a good value to start off with?


----------



## Rbk_3

tps3443 said:


> If you hit that limit, it’s going to reduce voltage and reduce the cpu clocks. it won’t crash.


Sweet, that is perfect as I only game and don't ever need it to pull over 250.


----------



## Ichirou

Vasoka said:


> Manual vcore or offset would be better according to you, and what would be a good value to start off with?


Override/manual is just easier to figure out. But you can offset/adaptive if you wish.


----------



## Exilon

Convicted said:


> So I did all the mods, removed the PCB cover, dremelled the tops off the mounts, and it's sitting as tight as I think can reasonably be expected. Not sure what else I can do about fitting the cooler beyond this, so I think something else is at play here. At idle the pcores are at 37-38 degrees which seems pretty reasonable, about 10 over ambient and at idle my case fans aren't on.
> 
> If I fully F5 reset the Asus BIOS settings, turn on XMP1, and turn off MCE, then I'm getting the 250W package power which stays at just under 100 degrees with a voltage of around 1.25v (unless I'm reading the hwinfo below incorrectly?). The R23 multi score is 37.6k, not far off the usual 38k that youtube reviewers were getting with 360 AIOs. But it's only boosting to 5.1Ghz.
> 
> My main use case is Assetto Corsa VR, just a few threads, and Cyberpunk, 8 threads I believe (well let's be honest my use case is messing around with all this and then never actually playing anything). Is there a different set of bios settings I need to get the most out of the 13900k for that kind of gaming setup?
> 
> View attachment 2581202
> 
> View attachment 2581203


Does the contact look good now though? 100c is still very high for 253W.

1.23v VID is also high for 5.2GHz. You can try setting SVID to "Trained" which might not pass 1hr y-cruncher but should drop that to around 1.1v


----------



## Convicted

Falkentyne said:


> You didn't do what I suggested yet?
> Try mounting the cooler the other way--VRM fan facing downwards (towards the video card).
> And please take a picture of the spread when you do that. You can use toothpaste to avoid wasting paste for that.





Exilon said:


> Does the contact look good now though? 100c is still very high for 253W.
> 
> 1.23v VID is also high for 5.2GHz. You can try setting SVID to "Trained" which might not pass 1hr y-cruncher but should drop that to around 1.1v


Ah I've been trying to work out the easiest way of reducing the voltage, but still having all the standard frequency boosting when fewer cores are used, etc. Will try that, thank you. 

I tried putting the cooler the other way around but my radiator and fans at the top protrude beyond where the pipes would come out of the cooler so that didn't work. 

I dismantled the entire system, re-fitted the backplate, refitted the motherboard, refitted the cooler, upgraded the fans to 3k rpm noctuas, changed to arctic mx4 paste, and basically I'm starting to give up on this motherboard. It's very clear that the motherboard and cooler fittings aren't compatible properly. On the Arctic website it's only the Strix B660 motherboards that are listed as as incompatible, but clearly they haven't updated that list yet and the Strix Z790s aren't compatible either. When I try to mount the cooler, even if I'm doing a quarter turn on each screw, it ends up being a completely different pattern each time. Top image is the latest one I just did after reseating absolutely everything. Below are the previous tries. And I had the same problem with my previous Thermaltake (all with official 1700 kits from manufacturer). 

With the Noctuas I'm getting Cinebench 38762 multicore and 2275 singlecore, which isn't too bad. I think I'm going to need to sit on this until someone on this forum ends up getting this motherboard and get whatever cooler they've got (PSA - don't buy this board), or wait until the new Asus Ryuo III cooler comes out and get that because clearly they will have tested it with all their own boards.


----------



## Vasoka

Currently testing with Cinebench (on my 13900k), I have set static / manual voltage to 1.32 (for 5.6 all core) with (Asus) LLC to 5, under Cinebench test the temps go up to 111 on the CPU package with a draw of 340-350 wats as far as I can see. 

The voltage also goes up to 1.43 during the stress test (core voltage), I'm not sure if I should bring the LLC down a bit? Enforcing a limit on P1/P2 doesn't allow the cores to boost up to 5.6 . Any ideas what I can do in order to bring temps down? For the record it's a fresh build with Arctic MX-5 paste and NZXT kraken z73.


----------



## Exilon

Convicted said:


> Ah I've been trying to work out the easiest way of reducing the voltage, but still having all the standard frequency boosting when fewer cores are used, etc. Will try that, thank you.
> 
> I tried putting the cooler the other way around but my radiator and fans at the top protrude beyond where the pipes would come out of the cooler so that didn't work.
> 
> I dismantled the entire system, re-fitted the backplate, refitted the motherboard, refitted the cooler, upgraded the fans to 3k rpm noctuas, changed to arctic mx4 paste, and basically I'm starting to give up on this motherboard. It's very clear that the motherboard and cooler fittings aren't compatible properly. On the Arctic website it's only the Strix B660 motherboards that are listed as as incompatible, but clearly they haven't updated that list yet and the Strix Z790s aren't compatible either. When I try to mount the cooler, even if I'm doing a quarter turn on each screw, it ends up being a completely different pattern each time. Top image is the latest one I just did after reseating absolutely everything. Below are the previous tries. And I had the same problem with my previous Thermaltake (all with official 1700 kits from manufacturer).
> 
> With the Noctuas I'm getting Cinebench 38762 multicore and 2275 singlecore, which isn't too bad. I think I'm going to need to sit on this until someone on this forum ends up getting this motherboard and get whatever cooler they've got (PSA - don't buy this board), or wait until the new Asus Ryuo III cooler comes out and get that because clearly they will have tested it with all their own boards.
> 
> View attachment 2581285
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581286
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581287
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581289


The first image is the only obviously bad one but as you said, it looks like it's alternating between being loose on the left and right side. This would match the previous run you posted with cores 2, 4, 6 throttling since they're all on one side of the CPU.

The only thing I can think of now is that the standoffs might not be level which would cause some strange alignment problems against the CPU


----------



## Exilon

Vasoka said:


> Currently testing with Cinebench (on my 13900k), I have set static / manual voltage to 1.32 (for 5.6 all core) with (Asus) LLC to 5, under Cinebench test the temps go up to 111 on the CPU package with a draw of 340-350 wats as far as I can see.
> 
> The voltage also goes up to 1.43 during the stress test (core voltage), I'm not sure if I should bring the LLC down a bit? Enforcing a limit on P1/P2 doesn't allow the cores to boost up to 5.6 . Any ideas what I can do in order to bring temps down? For the record it's a fresh build with Arctic MX-5 paste and NZXT kraken z73.


If you're hitting 111C on the package, it's time to back off a little IMO. Your cooling isn't up to it. Setting TjMax above 100C to workaround cooling limitation is just asking for trouble unless you're doing short benchmark runs.

Try 1.40-1.45v adaptive with LLC4 using the "turbo voltage" field with SVID behavior set to "Trained". It should drop your loaded voltage down to 1.20-1.25v and you can see if you're stable on that. If not, 5.6 all-core is probably out of reach for your sample. You can still use TVB with your motherboard to run at 5.8-5.7 in non all-core loads if you set the per-core multiplier to 56x 56x 55x 55x 55x 55x 55x 55x and then enable the built-in OCTVB +2 profile

Edit: ah I see you have a Z790 Prime which doesn't have SVID trained. Set it to "Typical" and then go into internal CPU power configuration and set AC LL to 0.35. You probably don't have the built-in OCTVB profiles either and you'll have to type them out on your own. Here's my table for reference.


----------



## bscool

Convicted said:


> Ah I've been trying to work out the easiest way of reducing the voltage, but still having all the standard frequency boosting when fewer cores are used, etc. Will try that, thank you.
> 
> I tried putting the cooler the other way around but my radiator and fans at the top protrude beyond where the pipes would come out of the cooler so that didn't work.
> 
> I dismantled the entire system, re-fitted the backplate, refitted the motherboard, refitted the cooler, upgraded the fans to 3k rpm noctuas, changed to arctic mx4 paste, and basically I'm starting to give up on this motherboard. It's very clear that the motherboard and cooler fittings aren't compatible properly. On the Arctic website it's only the Strix B660 motherboards that are listed as as incompatible, but clearly they haven't updated that list yet and the Strix Z790s aren't compatible either. When I try to mount the cooler, even if I'm doing a quarter turn on each screw, it ends up being a completely different pattern each time. Top image is the latest one I just did after reseating absolutely everything. Below are the previous tries. And I had the same problem with my previous Thermaltake (all with official 1700 kits from manufacturer).
> 
> With the Noctuas I'm getting Cinebench 38762 multicore and 2275 singlecore, which isn't too bad. I think I'm going to need to sit on this until someone on this forum ends up getting this motherboard and get whatever cooler they've got (PSA - don't buy this board), or wait until the new Asus Ryuo III cooler comes out and get that because clearly they will have tested it with all their own boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581289


That pic of the backplate. On my Artics when the stand offs are fully tightened down the o-ring is tight against the MB(this is without the block installed). I need to use a socket to tighten them as no way I can get them tight enough by hand/finger..

With that gap when you apply the block it will cause there not to be enough tension. It is also easier to tighten down the backplate with the cpu not installed. Installing cpu makes the whole MB/MB backplate bow with the factory Intel ILM.

Edit it looks like it depends on MB PCB thickness also. I have 2 z690 Apex and they oring hits the MB and on z690 Strix A there is a tiny gap between O ring and MB.


----------



## Convicted

bscool said:


> That pic of the backplate. On my Artics when the stand offs are fully tightened down the o-ring is tight against the MB(this is without the block installed). I need to use a socket to tighten them as no way I can get them tight enough by hand/finger..
> 
> With that gap when you apply the block it will cause there not to be enough tension. It is also easier to tighten down the backplate with the cpu not installed. Installing cpu makes the whole MB/MB backplate bow with the factory Intel ILM.


That's what I was worried about. There's a big backplate on the Z790E Strix right there already so the Arctic backplate sits on top of that, and that's the absolutely closest it's ever going to get. This is with using pliers to tighten the standoffs, which is bending the outside of the backplate because the middle bit is sitting on top of a big block of metal which is part of the actual motherboard. Clearly it's all just incompatible then, right? Need some sort of backplate that is going to fit around that thing.


----------



## bscool

Convicted said:


> That's what I was worried about. There's a big backplate on the Z790E Strix right there already so the Arctic backplate sits on top of that, and that's the absolutely closest it's ever going to get. This is with using pliers to tighten the standoffs, which is bending the outside of the backplate because the middle bit is sitting on top of a big block of metal which is part of the actual motherboard. Clearly it's all just incompatible then, right? Need some sort of backplate that is going to fit around that thing.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581297


All MB have that. Mine do also z690 Apex and Strix d4. But if you tightened it with a tool of some sort it should be good. I dont have any other ideas The Artic mount is kinda jank. I have used Raystorm block and EK AIO and the Artic has the worst mount. But hard to beat the performance for the price.


----------



## Exilon

Convicted said:


> That's what I was worried about. There's a big backplate on the Z790E Strix right there already so the Arctic backplate sits on top of that, and that's the absolutely closest it's ever going to get. This is with using pliers to tighten the standoffs, which is bending the outside of the backplate because the middle bit is sitting on top of a big block of metal which is part of the actual motherboard. Clearly it's all just incompatible then, right? Need some sort of backplate that is going to fit around that thing.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581297


The only thing I can think of is the standoffs are misaligned because of the dual LGA1200/LGA1700 holes ASUS made. As long as the standoffs are flush against the motherboard and can't be yanked out when tensioned it shouldn't matter how far off the backplate is. The purpose of the backplate is to prevent the board from warping under pressure and to keep the standoffs in tension, and the standoffs are there so you can screw down the nuts to push the waterblock against the CPU. If one of the standoffs bottoms out against the waterblock before the other ones or the waterblock hits something else on the motherboard, you get your situation where the mount on the CPU is uneven.


----------



## Falkentyne

Convicted said:


> Ah I've been trying to work out the easiest way of reducing the voltage, but still having all the standard frequency boosting when fewer cores are used, etc. Will try that, thank you.
> 
> I tried putting the cooler the other way around but my radiator and fans at the top protrude beyond where the pipes would come out of the cooler so that didn't work.
> 
> I dismantled the entire system, re-fitted the backplate, refitted the motherboard, refitted the cooler, upgraded the fans to 3k rpm noctuas, changed to arctic mx4 paste, and basically I'm starting to give up on this motherboard. It's very clear that the motherboard and cooler fittings aren't compatible properly. On the Arctic website it's only the Strix B660 motherboards that are listed as as incompatible, but clearly they haven't updated that list yet and the Strix Z790s aren't compatible either. When I try to mount the cooler, even if I'm doing a quarter turn on each screw, it ends up being a completely different pattern each time. Top image is the latest one I just did after reseating absolutely everything. Below are the previous tries. And I had the same problem with my previous Thermaltake (all with official 1700 kits from manufacturer).
> 
> With the Noctuas I'm getting Cinebench 38762 multicore and 2275 singlecore, which isn't too bad. I think I'm going to need to sit on this until someone on this forum ends up getting this motherboard and get whatever cooler they've got (PSA - don't buy this board), or wait until the new Asus Ryuo III cooler comes out and get that because clearly they will have tested it with all their own boards.
> 
> View attachment 2581285
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581286
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581287
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581289


Thank you for the pictures.
Is it possible to get a picture of the CPU itself horizontally in the socket so i can see the z-height?
(you may have to remove the motherboard for this).

It's possible the CPU package is slightly bent or something else is warped.
If the CPU is no higher than the ILM, than that can cause problems like this.

About the backplate itself, the purpose of the backplate is to make sure you can secure the mounting screws/pegs. If the pegs are fully screwed in all the way (and actually touching the PCB and bottoming out), then that's all you need. You could potentially use the Noctua Secufirm2 bracket with the Arctic AIO also...

It's possible a Thermalright anti-bend frame could fix your issues.


----------



## bhav

@Convicted get a $15 bend corrector frame please


----------



## Krzych04650

Pretty much finished with tuning, so I ran some benchmarks against 6900K I am upgrading from.

6900K OC - 8c/16t - 4.5/4.4GHz Core, 3.4 GHz Cache, 4x8 DDR4-3400 13-13-13-39-269-1T, Timings Tuned
13900K OC - 8P/8E/HT0 - 6.0 GHz Core, 5.2 GHz Cache, 4x8 DDR4-4100 14-15-13-26-260-1T, Timings Tuned


----------



## Exilon

8E? Does it make that much of a difference?


----------



## JohnyDadBod

I started reading up on the ASUS forums and some posts here about updating the Intel ME firmware on Asus Z690 boards before making the leap from a 12th Gen to a 13th Gen chip. I hadn't heard or seen any discussions about this in regard to MSI boards but I figured I would do some more testing. You can find my original post where I mapped the VID tables and the method I used here: Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc... 

I had updated my Z690 Pro DDR4 to the latest bios before installing my 13900K, but hadn't updating the firmware. I threw my 12700K back in, booted up with a cleared CMOS and then downloaded and updated to the latest Intel Management Engine Firmware. I was on 16.1.25.1917 and updated to 16.1.25.2020. Once that was done I popped my 13900K back in and proceeded to map the VID tables as I did the other day in a previous post. Here are the results in table and graph form.










Neither the E Cores nor the Ring changed much. However, there was a very big and very obvious change in the P-core VIDs. From 53x to 58x there was a massive deviation in the table from the previous ME firmware to the latest ME firmware. I was quite thrown off by this as there is a large drop in VID where it appears that it takes less VCORE to run 54x multiplier than it does to run a 52x multiplier. I double checked all of my settings this time. I disabled TVB voltage optimization, Set LLC to 8, disabled the E-cores, and set the Ring to 8x just as I had in the first round of testing. I then ran through the 40-58 multipliers 3 times to make sure there wasn't a fluke. It wasn't and the readings were consistant. I double checked my temps in my office and they were identical to my previous testing. The results when benching the first time around showed exactly the VCORE that the VID table predicted when running OCCT, Cinebench R23, and other tests so I am confident in the original readings. I'm about to bench again with the new data to make sure there isn't some sort of fluke.

Has anyone seen a VID table do this before? If this turns out to be genuine then it appears that everyone should ensure their Intel Management Engine firmware is up to date.


----------



## Falkentyne

JohnyDadBod said:


> I started reading up on the ASUS forums and some posts here about updating the Intel ME firmware on Asus Z690 boards before making the leap from a 12th Gen to a 13th Gen chip. I hadn't heard or seen any discussions about this in regard to MSI boards but I figured I would do some more testing. You can find my original post where I mapped the VID tables and the method I used here: Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> I had updated my Z690 Pro DDR4 to the latest bios before installing my 13900K, but hadn't updating the firmware. I threw my 12700K back in, booted up with a cleared CMOS and then downloaded and updated to the latest Intel Management Engine Firmware. I was on 16.1.25.1917 and updated to 16.1.25.2020. Once that was done I popped my 13900K back in and proceeded to map the VID tables as I did the other day in a previous post. Here are the results in table and graph form.
> 
> View attachment 2581335
> 
> 
> Neither the E Cores nor the Ring changed much. However, there was a very big and very obvious change in the P-core VIDs. From 53x to 58x there was a massive deviation in the table from the previous ME firmware to the latest ME firmware. I was quite thrown off by this as there is a large drop in VID where it appears that it takes less VCORE to run 54x multiplier than it does to run a 52x multiplier. I double checked all of my settings this time. I disabled TVB voltage optimization, Set LLC to 8, disabled the E-cores, and set the Ring to 8x just as I had in the first round of testing. I then ran through the 40-58 multipliers 3 times to make sure there wasn't a fluke. It wasn't and the readings were consistant. I double checked my temps in my office and they were identical to my previous testing. The results when benching the first time around showed exactly the VCORE that the VID table predicted when running OCCT, Cinebench R23, and other tests so I am confident in the original readings. I'm about to bench again with the new data to make sure there isn't some sort of fluke.
> 
> Has anyone seen a VID table do this before? If this turns out to be genuine then it appears that everyone should ensure their Intel Management Engine firmware is up to date.


That explains where the absurdly high Asus Pcore SP's on non-updated Z690's were coming from! And you found out on a MSI motherboard, no less!


----------



## sniperpowa

bought a kf little better than my K.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think I finally finished the guide for the Asus Maximus & 13900k.
You can check the link below.










Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...


A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Nizzen

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think I finally finished the guide for the Asus Maximus & 13900k.
> You can check the link below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...
> 
> 
> A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Nice job 🥳


----------



## overclock92012

How common is 6ghz overclocks on i9 13900k? can most samples do 6ghz at like 1.4ish volts? Also what configuration is best for gaming. does having e-cores on have a negative impact in gaming?


----------



## Arni90

overclock92012 said:


> How common is 6ghz overclocks on i9 13900k? can most samples do 6ghz at like 1.4ish volts? Also what configuration is best for gaming. does having e-cores on have a negative impact in gaming?


6 GHz is easy in light single-threaded loads
It's achievable for quite a few games
It's very hard in Cinebench


----------



## Emmett

Is z790 any better for clocking DDR4? I have right now 4 sticks of 3800 at3800 C14, but can not get any higher with other sticks 4000 and higher, even with 2 sticks.
my current board is Z690 aorus elite ax ddr4.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

Just got my 13900k, I think I got a Uber garbage bin stock vcore is around 1.32-1.334v load, here's some vid voltage/frequencys:

(AC/DC set to 0.001 with TVB off, Z690 Aorus Pro DDR4)

6.0 1.435v
5.9 1.435v
5.8 1.435v
5.7 1.415v
5.6 1.400v
5.5 1.370v
5.4 1.340v
5.3 1.335v
5.2 1.280v
5.1 1.250v
5.0 1.220v

Tried 5.7 1.4v high LLC 1.308v load fails r20


----------



## Falkentyne

AlphaGaming17 said:


> Just got my 13900k, I think I got a Uber garbage bin stock vcore is around 1.32-1.334v load, here's some vid voltage/frequencys:
> 
> (AC/DC set to 0.001 with TVB off, Z690 Aorus Pro DDR4)
> 
> 6.0 1.435v
> 5.9 1.435v
> 5.8 1.435v
> 5.7 1.415v
> 5.6 1.400v
> 5.5 1.370v
> 5.4 1.340v
> 5.3 1.335v
> 5.2 1.280v
> 5.1 1.250v
> 5.0 1.220v
> 
> Tried 5.7 1.4v high LLC 1.308v load fails r20


Yeah that one is atrocious.
Here's mine for 5.4 and 5.7 ghz points: (Total SP 106, P core SP 113, E core SP 94, 13900 KF (QS, not retail).

you're 60mv off mine at 5.4 and 40mv off at 5.7 ghz.
(the overall bios v/f points are 5-10mv off the ones in windows for some reason).

Anyway try LLC: Turbo and see if you can pass R23. There's a pretty big vdroop difference between LLC high and LLC turbo.
These were the gigabyte mohm values back on Z490 with a 10900k. (Tested on Aorus master), listed below.
Since the "1.1 mohm" Intel stock value (= LLC Standard/Normal") has probably not changed, and this is equal to LLC3 on Asus Z690 and Z790 Maximus boards, it's very likely Gigabyte is using similar LLC values, maybe better or less droopy tuning at Turbo (hopefully).

Standard/Normal: 1.1 mOhm
Low: 0.85 mOhm
Medium: 0.68 mOhm
High: 0.55 mOhm
Turbo: 0.275 mOhm
Extreme: 0.185 mOhm
Ultra Ex: 0 mOhm


----------



## AlphaGaming17

Will give it a try, I am quite annoyed about it being garbage.

I also tried a 13700k and that cant run 5.5 at any voltage.

Edit: 13900k was made in Vietnam


----------



## JohnyDadBod

AlphaGaming17 said:


> Just got my 13900k, I think I got a Uber garbage bin stock vcore is around 1.32-1.334v load, here's some vid voltage/frequencys:
> 
> (AC/DC set to 0.001 with TVB off, Z690 Aorus Pro DDR4)
> 
> 6.0 1.435v
> 5.9 1.435v
> 5.8 1.435v
> 5.7 1.415v
> 5.6 1.400v
> 5.5 1.370v
> 5.4 1.340v
> 5.3 1.335v
> 5.2 1.280v
> 5.1 1.250v
> 5.0 1.220v
> 
> Tried 5.7 1.4v high LLC 1.308v load fails r20


Do you know what version of Intel Management firmware you have? I’m curious if you see a change after updating as I did. My VID’s on the P cores dropped 70-100mv after upgrading. I’ve verified th accuracy and this is evening that I the new lower readings are achievable up to 5.7 all core in R23. Had to go a bit beyond to run 5.8, but not much.


----------



## BoredErica

JohnyDadBod said:


> I had updated my Z690 Pro DDR4 to the latest bios before installing my 13900K, but hadn't updating the firmware. I threw my 12700K back in, booted up with a cleared CMOS and then downloaded and updated to the latest Intel Management Engine Firmware. I was on 16.1.25.1917 and updated to 16.1.25.2020. Once that was done I popped my 13900K back in and proceeded to map the VID tables as I did the other day in a previous post. Here are the results in table and graph form.


Is it necessary to update ME on Alder Lake CPU? Couldn't you have updated ME on the 13900k?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

JohnyDadBod said:


> I started reading up on the ASUS forums and some posts here about updating the Intel ME firmware on Asus Z690 boards before making the leap from a 12th Gen to a 13th Gen chip. I hadn't heard or seen any discussions about this in regard to MSI boards but I figured I would do some more testing. You can find my original post where I mapped the VID tables and the method I used here: Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> I had updated my Z690 Pro DDR4 to the latest bios before installing my 13900K, but hadn't updating the firmware. I threw my 12700K back in, booted up with a cleared CMOS and then downloaded and updated to the latest Intel Management Engine Firmware. I was on 16.1.25.1917 and updated to 16.1.25.2020. Once that was done I popped my 13900K back in and proceeded to map the VID tables as I did the other day in a previous post. Here are the results in table and graph form.
> 
> View attachment 2581335
> 
> 
> Neither the E Cores nor the Ring changed much. However, there was a very big and very obvious change in the P-core VIDs. From 53x to 58x there was a massive deviation in the table from the previous ME firmware to the latest ME firmware. I was quite thrown off by this as there is a large drop in VID where it appears that it takes less VCORE to run 54x multiplier than it does to run a 52x multiplier. I double checked all of my settings this time. I disabled TVB voltage optimization, Set LLC to 8, disabled the E-cores, and set the Ring to 8x just as I had in the first round of testing. I then ran through the 40-58 multipliers 3 times to make sure there wasn't a fluke. It wasn't and the readings were consistant. I double checked my temps in my office and they were identical to my previous testing. The results when benching the first time around showed exactly the VCORE that the VID table predicted when running OCCT, Cinebench R23, and other tests so I am confident in the original readings. I'm about to bench again with the new data to make sure there isn't some sort of fluke.
> 
> Has anyone seen a VID table do this before? If this turns out to be genuine then it appears that everyone should ensure their Intel Management Engine firmware is up to date.


So, the P2 core2 voltages were the auto or set voltages after the ME update? That is a big difference! I am setting up my new MSI z790 and am trying to get an idea of the voltages I will need to start/use. What CPU voltage field do you use/and does that mobo model have the vsense thing? Also wondering you run it on LLC 8? I'm guessing if I straight install the z790 with a 13900k and just download the newest ME I should be ok I hope.


----------



## tps3443

I tested the VF curve on my MSI Unify X. This is the latest bios. ME is NOT the latest version, I don’t know how to obtain the latest. 

I disabled TVB, disabled all E-cores, set ring to x8, then I set a LLC of lvl 8, then I set that advanced LLC to AC/DC values to 1 each, then I set my voltage to Adaptive.

I tested 4.0Ghz to 6.0Ghz posting in to the bios each time to check the voltage. Water temp was at 78F. Chiller= OFF

4.0 = 0.967v
4.1 = 0.976v
4.2 = 0.998v
4.3 = 1.017v
4.4 = 1.036v
4.5 = 1.063v
4.6 = 1.084v
4.7 = 1.111v
4.8 = 1.132v
4.9 = 1.156v
5.0 = 1.183v
5.1 = 1.209v
5.2 = 1.240v
5.3 = 1.272v
5.4 = 1.298v
5.5 = 1.324v
5.6 = 1.353v
5.7 = 1.380v
5.8 = 1.384v
5.9 = 1.387v
6.0 = 1.389v


----------



## JohnyDadBod

BoredErica said:


> Is it necessary to update ME on Alder Lake CPU? Couldn't you have updated ME on the 13900k?


Following the threads on the Asus forums, it tended to state that the upgrade should be done before dropping in the 13th gen chip. In hindsight, I should have probably testing before swapping back to a 12th gen chip. Maybe someone else can be the Guinea pig for that experiment.


----------



## JohnyDadBod

For those looking for the firmware I used. I found a link to download here [FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790) (asus.com)


----------



## JohnyDadBod

Uncle Dubbs said:


> So, the P2 core2 voltages were the auto or set voltages after the ME update? That is a big difference! I am setting up my new MSI z790 and am trying to get an idea of the voltages I will need to start/use. What CPU voltage field do you use/and does that mobo model have the vsense thing? Also wondering you run it on LLC 8? I'm guessing if I straight install the z790 with a 13900k and just download the newest ME I should be ok I hope.


I left the VCORE setting to Auto in my bios for these tests. This way the VCORE was set according to the VDIMM of the CPU.

I followed the general outline found here. Having an MSI board, things were slightly different, the basics were all the same. For instance, I THINK that the MSI LLC settings work a bit differently than ASUS or some other manufacturers. The important thing for me as I tested the updated ME firmware and eventually another 13900K (I am staring at one on my desk as I type this) is that I keep the same settings across each test for consistency's sake.


----------



## kill_a_wat

AlphaGaming17 said:


> Will give it a try, I am quite annoyed about it being garbage.
> 
> I also tried a 13700k and that cant run 5.5 at any voltage.
> 
> Edit: 13900k was made in Vietnam


Out of curiosity can you provide the batch#?


----------



## AlphaGaming17

JohnyDadBod said:


> Do you know what version of Intel Management firmware you have? I’m curious if you see a change after updating as I did. My VID’s on the P cores dropped 70-100mv after upgrading. I’ve verified th accuracy and this is evening that I the new lower readings are achievable up to 5.7 all core in R23. Had to go a bit beyond to run 5.8, but not much.


Does the updated ME version effect manual overclocks? As I tested 5.7 and the cpu wasn't having any of that (WHEA errors on APCI 48)

I bought the board new along with the 13900K as z790 boards and DDR5 are insanely overpriced in my country.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

kill_a_wat said:


> Out of curiosity can you provide the batch#?


Will post batch# when I get home


----------



## tps3443

JohnyDadBod said:


> I left the VCORE setting to Auto in my bios for these tests. This way the VCORE was set according to the VDIMM of the CPU.
> 
> I followed the general outline found here. Having an MSI board, things were slightly different, the basics were all the same. For instance, I THINK that the MSI LLC settings work a bit differently than ASUS or some other manufacturers. The important thing for me as I tested the updated ME firmware and eventually another 13900K (I am staring at one on my desk as I type this) is that I keep the same settings across each test for consistency's sake.



Can the ME be updated on 13th gen CPU's?


----------



## AlphaGaming17

tps3443 said:


> Can the ME be updated on 13th gen CPU's?


Wouldn't make sense to limit it to 12gen only when the update is for 13th gen, I hope this isn't the case as I don't have a 12th gen cpu :/


----------



## tps3443

@JohnyDadBod

During the ME install it shows as an older version being installed instead. It shows ME version 16.1.25.1932










*



The file is definitely the newer one.*


----------



## JohnyDadBod

Go ahead and right click on install and run as admin. Should reboot after it installs and then see if it changes anything for you like it did for me


----------



## motivman

how garbage is my 13900K?

under normal ambient temps in my room which is 26C(coolant temp about 29C), best I can do on the unify-x is the following:

5.5P/4.4E/5.0R @ 1.26V with LLC 3 Highest core temp 87C (290W peak)

using my mora mounted to my window and 17C coolant temps, best I can do is the following:

5.7P/4.5E/5.2R @ 1.375V with LLC3 Highest core temp 95C (340W Peak)

Any tips on improving this overclock on unify-x? I am using fixed vcore.

cpu force 2 is 145


----------



## bigfootnz

motivman said:


> how garbage is my 13900K?
> 
> under normal ambient temps in my room which is 26C(coolant temp about 29C), best I can do on the unify-x is the following:
> 
> 5.5P/4.4E/5.0R @ 1.26V with LLC 3 Highest core temp 87C (290W peak)
> 
> using my mora mounted to my window and 17C coolant temps, best I can do is the following:
> 
> 5.7P/4.5E/5.2R @ 1.375V with LLC3 Highest core temp 95C (340W Peak)
> 
> Any tips on improving this overclock on unify-x? I am using fixed vcore.


I do not think that your CPU is garbage, it looks more to me that you do not have good CPU block mount hence high temperatures. For example on my SP102/P113/Force 143 for 5.7P/4.5E/5R I need 1.375 LLC4, with water temperature around 30C, it was hot day when I was testing this, CB23 was high 80C and Y-cruncher 2.5b was high 80C/low 90C


----------



## motivman

bigfootnz said:


> I do not think that your CPU is garbage, it looks more to me that you do not have good CPU block mount hence high temperatures. For example on my SP102/P113/Force 143 for 5.7P/4.5E/5R I need 1.375 LLC4, with water temperature around 30C, it was hot day when I was testing this, CB23 was high 80C and Y-cruncher 2.5b was high 80C/low 90C


how much watts was it consuming? and what waterblock are you using?


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> I tested the VF curve on my MSI Unify X. This is the latest bios. ME is NOT the latest version, I don’t know how to obtain the latest.
> 
> I disabled TVB, disabled all E-cores, set ring to x8, then I set a LLC of lvl 8, then I set that advanced LLC to AC/DC values to 1 each, then I set my voltage to Adaptive.
> 
> I tested 4.0Ghz to 6.0Ghz posting in to the bios each time to check the voltage. Water temp was at 78F. Chiller= OFF
> 
> 4.0 = 0.967v
> 4.1 = 0.976v
> 4.2 = 0.998v
> 4.3 = 1.017v
> 4.4 = 1.036v
> 4.5 = 1.063v
> 4.6 = 1.084v
> 4.7 = 1.111v
> 4.8 = 1.132v
> 4.9 = 1.156v
> 5.0 = 1.183v
> 5.1 = 1.209v
> 5.2 = 1.240v
> 5.3 = 1.272v
> 5.4 = 1.298v
> 5.5 = 1.324v
> 5.6 = 1.353v
> 5.7 = 1.380v
> 5.8 = 1.384v
> 5.9 = 1.387v
> 6.0 = 1.389v


Interesting.
My 5.4-5.7 ghz VIDs are slightly lower than yours, but your 5.8 ghz VID is 20mv lower than mine!
(5.4=1.280v, 5.7=1.375v)

That's why your chip scales so well I think.
I'll check 5.8 by booting rather than V/F Bios table and see what it says.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

JohnyDadBod said:


> I left the VCORE setting to Auto in my bios for these tests. This way the VCORE was set according to the VDIMM of the CPU.
> 
> I followed the general outline found here. Having an MSI board, things were slightly different, the basics were all the same. For instance, I THINK that the MSI LLC settings work a bit differently than ASUS or some other manufacturers. The important thing for me as I tested the updated ME firmware and eventually another 13900K (I am staring at one on my desk as I type this) is that I keep the same settings across each test for consistency's sake.


You have a ram overclock already on? What was the vdimm and sa voltage/vddq? I curious if they also changed or were improved, like I guess they would be. I updated my ME on my board earlier this week because I never did and somehow missed it (z490). But it was just a windows install - I don’t think there was a dos prompt firmware install required unless I missed something. All this 12th Gen board/13th Gen chip stuff had me checking.


----------



## bigfootnz

motivman said:


> how much watts was it consuming? and what waterblock are you using?


If I'm not wrong y-cruncher 340-360W and CB around 320W. I'm using EK-Quantum Velocity with 1700 kit.


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> I tested the VF curve on my MSI Unify X. This is the latest bios. ME is NOT the latest version, I don’t know how to obtain the latest.
> 
> I disabled TVB, disabled all E-cores, set ring to x8, then I set a LLC of lvl 8, then I set that advanced LLC to AC/DC values to 1 each, then I set my voltage to Adaptive.
> 
> I tested 4.0Ghz to 6.0Ghz posting in to the bios each time to check the voltage. Water temp was at 78F. Chiller= OFF
> 
> 4.0 = 0.967v
> 4.1 = 0.976v
> 4.2 = 0.998v
> 4.3 = 1.017v
> 4.4 = 1.036v
> 4.5 = 1.063v
> 4.6 = 1.084v
> 4.7 = 1.111v
> 4.8 = 1.132v
> 4.9 = 1.156v
> 5.0 = 1.183v
> 5.1 = 1.209v
> 5.2 = 1.240v
> 5.3 = 1.272v
> 5.4 = 1.298v
> 5.5 = 1.324v
> 5.6 = 1.353v
> 5.7 = 1.380v
> 5.8 = 1.384v
> 5.9 = 1.387v
> 6.0 = 1.389v


Yeah my 5.8 falls off a cliff compared to yours 
5.7 = 1.375v.

5.8=......


----------



## JohnyDadBod

Uncle Dubbs said:


> You have a ram overclock already on? What was the vdimm and sa voltage/vddq? I curious if they also changed or were improved, like I guess they would be. I updated my ME on my board earlier this week because I never did and somehow missed it (z490). But it was just a windows install - I don’t think there was a dos prompt firmware install required unless I missed something. All this 12th Gen board/13th Gen chip stuff had me checking.


I did not have any RAM overclocking enabled when doing the testing. enabling XMP, overclocking to 4300 17-17-17-34, increasing VCCSA to 1.35 VDDQ to 1.4, testing up to 1.65 VDIMM did not change any of the VID values. as I recorded them. I went back and checked that as part of my testing.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

bigfootnz said:


> I do not think that your CPU is garbage, it looks more to me that you do not have good CPU block mount hence high temperatures. For example on my SP102/P113/Force 143 for 5.7P/4.5E/5R I need 1.375 LLC4, with water temperature around 30C, it was hot day when I was testing this, CB23 was high 80C and Y-cruncher 2.5b was high 80C/low 90C


What cooling do you have?
I have a Corsair H150i Elite 360mm, coolant temp at idle is 38c, CPU idle temp is around 43c (max), so the AIO is working, I'm just running the BIOS's silent profile, which explains the warmer than normal idle temps.
Running a all P Core [email protected] LLC6 (unrestricted watts) will peak at 93c with an extended Realbench run, restricting the limit to 250w dropped the temps to mid 80's.
Hot day here in Queensland Australia too


----------



## JohnyDadBod

bigfootnz said:


> I do not think that your CPU is garbage, it looks more to me that you do not have good CPU block mount hence high temperatures. For example on my SP102/P113/Force 143 for 5.7P/4.5E/5R I need 1.375 LLC4, with water temperature around 30C, it was hot day when I was testing this, CB23 was high 80C and Y-cruncher 2.5b was high 80C/low 90C


I would agree with this. My not at all special Corsair 360mm AIO is handling 330w CB R23 and keeping a max of 90C in a run just now at 5.7p/4.5e/5.0r in a run I just spun up to confirm. I'd double check the mount and paste. Running a contact frame by chance? I saw a decent improvement on my rig by using one.


----------



## motivman

JohnyDadBod said:


> I would agree with this. My not at all special Corsair 360mm AIO is handling 330w CB R23 and keeping a max of 90C in a run just now at 5.7p/4.5e/5.0r in a run I just spun up to confirm. I'd double check the mount and paste. Running a contact frame by chance? I saw a decent improvement on my rig by using one.


I am on custom watercooling with contact frame!!!! Sheesh, my block must be garbage or something? I have velocity 2 LGA 1700. I even bought EK precision screwdriver to install it. will having a quick disconnect on the waterblock affect performance? I have over 1gpm in my loop though...


----------



## Swolley

I need help binning my 13700k. What settings should I use to check R23 load Vcore voltages for each all-core ratio on my Asus z690m plus d4? I have basically only set xmp, disabled Intel ABT, Enabled Asus Multicore Enhancement (removed limits) and unlocked PL with LLC4. Should I keep everything else on auto/stock (tvb, avx, ia ac/dc, etc)?


----------



## JohnyDadBod

motivman said:


> I am on custom watercooling with contact frame!!!! Sheesh, my block must be garbage or something? I have velocity 2 LGA 1700. I even bought EK precision screwdriver to install it. will having a quick disconnect on the waterblock affect performance? I have over 1gpm in my loop though...


I've yet to dive into the custom watercooling world (pun intended) so I am afraid I am not going to be of much help.


----------



## cletus-cassidy

Just popped in my first 13900K in my z690 Apex and I think I might have a winner? Updated the BIOS immediately because I remember the 12900KS held the prior SP ratings. Can anyone let me know if I'm screwing up something here and getting a bogus SP rating. Ignore the temp as I was running without TIM to check SP rating.


----------



## kill_a_wat

cletus-cassidy said:


> Just popped in my first 13900K in my z690 Apex and I think I might have a winner? Updated the BIOS immediately because I remember the 12900KS held the prior SP ratings. Can anyone let me know if I'm screwing up something here and getting a bogus SP rating. Ignore the temp as I was running without TIM to check SP rating.
> 
> View attachment 2581381
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581382


The Core0 VID in the first screenshot doesn't look right - too much of a gap with the other Core VIDs.


----------



## cletus-cassidy

kill_a_wat said:


> The Core0 VID in the first screenshot doesn't look right - too much of a gap with the other Core VIDs.


Do you know how I could "flush the bios" so I can get an accurate SP rating?


----------



## Falkentyne

cletus-cassidy said:


> Do you know how I could "flush the bios" so I can get an accurate SP rating?


You need to update the management engine (ME) firmware on both bioses chips (so you have to flash, power off, switch to secondary, flash again).
After you update both ME firmwares, you need to power off the system, switch the PSU off, then remove the CPU (sorry if you don't want to do this), clear CMOS with the CPU removed, then try to power on with the CPU _removed_, then power off, insert the CPU again, clear CMOS again, and then power on.






[FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)


Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)



rog.asus.com





Each time you clear the CMOS, make sure you hold the button down for 30 seconds.

Then install your TIM and power on and stuff and your SP should be working correctly.


----------



## bigfootnz

schoolofmonkey said:


> What cooling do you have?
> I have a Corsair H150i Elite 360mm, coolant temp at idle is 38c, CPU idle temp is around 43c (max), so the AIO is working, I'm just running the BIOS's silent profile, which explains the warmer than normal idle temps.
> Running a all P Core [email protected] LLC6 (unrestricted watts) will peak at 93c with an extended Realbench run, restricting the limit to 250w dropped the temps to mid 80's.
> Hot day here in Queensland Australia too


I’ve 2x ekwb 40mm 360 and one ekwb 60mm 360 radiator.

For Queensland that temperatures look really good, but I can bet they can easily go even worse on hot summer, which didn’t started 

My idle temp now is 25-26C and during summer goes to 30C.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

JohnyDadBod said:


> Do you know what version of Intel Management firmware you have? I’m curious if you see a change after updating as I did. My VID’s on the P cores dropped 70-100mv after upgrading. I’ve verified th accuracy and this is evening that I the new lower readings are achievable up to 5.7 all core in R23. Had to go a bit beyond to run 5.8, but not much.


Updated ME and it didn't change vid


----------



## Falkentyne

AlphaGaming17 said:


> Updated ME and it didn't change vid


After you have updated ME (2 times if you have dual bios!), you have to remove the CPU, clear CMOS 1 time with the CPU removed, then power on the system with the CPU _removed_, then power off, unplug PSU, insert CPU, clear CMOS a 2nd time, then power on the system. This will fix the VID. (if you have a dual bios, the ME must be updated on both bioses before you do this).


----------



## bigfootnz

JohnyDadBod said:


> I would agree with this. My not at all special Corsair 360mm AIO is handling 330w CB R23 and keeping a max of 90C in a run just now at 5.7p/4.5e/5.0r in a run I just spun up to confirm. I'd double check the mount and paste. Running a contact frame by chance? I saw a decent improvement on my rig by using one.


Yes, I’m using contact frame. In that case mount should not be a problem 

When I was doing testing on bench with Hero Z690, my Corsair AIO 280 wasn’t able to cool 5.7P even with contact frame.

On Hero using stock cpu brackets had produced worse contact with block than on MSI.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

bigfootnz said:


> I’ve 2x ekwb 40mm 360 and one ekwb 60mm 360 radiator.
> 
> For Queensland that temperatures look really good, but I can bet they can easily go even worse on hot summer, which didn’t started
> 
> My idle temp now is 25-26C and during summer goes to 30C.


I get better temps when I stick the tower in front of the AC, had this crazy idea to make a hinge system on the top of the O11 Dynamic, mount the radiator on the top allowing it to swing up like a car hood to catch all the Air Con's cool air


----------



## AlphaGaming17

Falkentyne said:


> After you have updated ME (2 times if you have dual bios!), you have to remove the CPU, clear CMOS 1 time with the CPU removed, then power on the system with the CPU _removed_, then power off, unplug PSU, insert CPU, clear CMOS a 2nd time, then power on the system. This will fix the VID. (if you have a dual bios, the ME must be updated on both bioses before you do this).


Ok, I did the bios reset with cpu removed, vid hasn't change still sadly, cpu is genuinely trash

Edit: vid went up, now 1.430v for 5.7 from 1.415v


----------



## AlphaGaming17

kill_a_wat said:


> Out of curiosity can you provide the batch#?


X235k422


----------



## bigfootnz

schoolofmonkey said:


> I get better temps when I stick the tower in front of the AC, had this crazy idea to make a hinge system on the top of the O11 Dynamic, mount the radiator on the top allowing it to swing up like a car hood to catch all the Air Con's cool air


Sound crazy but that would help with cooling for sure


----------



## JohnyDadBod

Falkentyne said:


> After you have updated ME (2 times if you have dual bios!), you have to remove the CPU, clear CMOS 1 time with the CPU removed, then power on the system with the CPU _removed_, then power off, unplug PSU, insert CPU, clear CMOS a 2nd time, then power on the system. This will fix the VID. (if you have a dual bios, the ME must be updated on both bioses before you do this).


I didn’t take this step, but is that only for when you are doing it with a 13th gen already installed?


----------



## lolhaxz

cletus-cassidy said:


> Just popped in my first 13900K in my z690 Apex and I think I might have a winner? Updated the BIOS immediately because I remember the 12900KS held the prior SP ratings. Can anyone let me know if I'm screwing up something here and getting a bogus SP rating. Ignore the temp as I was running without TIM to check SP rating.


It should be a winner in theory - or is the low VID on the single core conflating the prediction?

I'll be genuinely interested to see how you get on with this CPU as I have seen quite a few high SP have almost identical VID table (at the high end atleast) to mine but mine is just 106 (which I'm quite happy with based on its outcome). Yet those CPU's reporting much higher SP seem to have one or two cores that have a very low value for just 1 or 2 cores (still a good thing I'd imagine!) - of course a more even lower overall VID would be even better in theory.

Prime95 SmallFFT requires 30-35mv, I run 40mv offset (0.01 AC, LLC6 - 1.27/1.28v load) max here is 5.7 P / 5.1 Cache... touching 100C after 10 mins at that point - exhausted cooling capabilities, R23 obviously requires alot less, R15 requires about the same as Prime95 to get through 20-30 back to back iterations.

Note: Cooler score fixed at 200 is _important_ for any kind of comparisons from the bottom right.

Your V/F point 8 is higher interestingly enough, should need less offset from the default VID table.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

Is 1.33v stock load voltage normal for a 13900k or should I return it as faulty?

Edit: stock settings in r20 uses about 350w


----------



## lolhaxz

AlphaGaming17 said:


> Is 1.33v stock load voltage normal for a 13900k or should I return it as faulty?
> 
> Edit: stock settings in r20 uses about 350w


Depends on the CPU - its normal for some. Unless you have a full custom loop with quite a bit of rad space... all the CPU's are gonna end up about the same anyway, 5.5-5.6 .. +/- 100MHz in terms of heavy loads.

Why not try 5.5 - 5.6 - if you can reach this all core, there isn't much else to tap except (in my own case) narcissism.. they're pretty damn well at the max out of the box. And 100-200MHz isn't going to do much of anything for frame rates truth be told.

Then you start playing with TVB to get the final few 100MHz out of light loads. (an adventure in of itself)


----------



## Falkentyne

JohnyDadBod said:


> I didn’t take this step, but is that only for when you are doing it with a 13th gen already installed?


It's when you have a bugged SP because you initially installed a 13th Gen CPU on a Z690 board with an old ME firmware.
(or when you had a 12900K installed even with new firmware and you switched to 13th gen without clearing CMOS).
Because the SP table is stored somewhere in the BIOS and you have to remove the chip and clear CMOS for the table to be re-initialized.
And with a wrong ME firmware you get the wrong table.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> You need to update the management engine (ME) firmware on both bioses chips (so you have to flash, power off, switch to secondary, flash again).
> After you update both ME firmwares, you need to power off the system, switch the PSU off, then remove the CPU (sorry if you don't want to do this), clear CMOS with the CPU removed, then try to power on with the CPU _removed_, then power off, insert the CPU again, clear CMOS again, and then power on.


You forgot to tell him to do 100 pushups and a 10 mile run...so it will not work


----------



## HemuV2

AlphaGaming17 said:


> Will give it a try, I am quite annoyed about it being garbage.
> 
> I also tried a 13700k and that cant run 5.5 at any voltage.
> 
> Edit: 13900k was made in Vietnam


Are you sure your aorus isn't at fault? I've an elite AX myself


----------



## AlphaGaming17

HemuV2 said:


> Are you sure your aorus isn't at fault? I've an elite AX myself


What's your vid for 5.5ghz?

Stock setting averages 1.4v 160w in cyberpunk 2077 which Is insanly high compared to my 10900k


----------



## HemuV2

AlphaGaming17 said:


> What's your vid for 5.5ghz?
> 
> Stock setting averages 1.4v 160w in cyberpunk 2077 which Is insanly high compared to my 10900k


My CPU arrives today, I'll let you know. Hopefully i get a decent sample this time. @Falkentyne am i supposed to update anything else apart from bios on my z690 aorus elite AX while switching out 12700KF for 13900K? Is there an ME update required for this board too?


----------



## Xiph

With socket sense board (if it matters), is DC_LL calibrated correctly when 'CPU Package power' == 'Asus EC VRM power'? Or which values I should compare when calibrating DC?
I'm using LLC#4 with default 0.98 mOhm, but it gives CPU package 248 W and EC VRM 233 W numbers.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

HemuV2 said:


> My CPU arrives today, I'll let you know. Hopefully i get a decent sample this time. @Falkentyne am i supposed to update anything else apart from bios on my z690 aorus elite AX while switching out 12700KF for 13900K? Is there an ME update required for this board too?


I think the linked Intel ME update is for Asus as it did not work on my gigabyte board, I'm not sure if it'll cause any issues but I'm updating my bios Incase it does


----------



## Falkentyne

HemuV2 said:


> My CPU arrives today, I'll let you know. Hopefully i get a decent sample this time. @Falkentyne am i supposed to update anything else apart from bios on my z690 aorus elite AX while switching out 12700KF for 13900K? Is there an ME update required for this board too?


All boards have a management engine firmware that has to be updated. I believe the raw firmware files are the same, but the installers may be vendor specific for board ID. But don't quote me on that. Shamino would know for sure.


----------



## energie80

drivers are made by intel....they are all the same for any vendor


----------



## Krzych04650

Exilon said:


> 8E? Does it make that much of a difference?


Enabling another 8 E-cores adds like 70W extra power draw under full load and complicates stress testing. I could enable them afterwards, but what for? Also, I think 16 threads is the maximum safe number that all games can handle, above that there may be some issues, not necessarily not launching or crashing but weird frametime behavior, so it adds unnecessary randomness. 



overclock92012 said:


> How common is 6ghz overclocks on i9 13900k? can most samples do 6ghz at like 1.4ish volts? Also what configuration is best for gaming. does having e-cores on have a negative impact in gaming?


With HT off it is quite easy as long as your sample isn't a complete disaster like my first try 13900KF was. I am running 8P/8E/HT0 6Ghz 1.35V game stable and 1.4V R23 stable, but with HT enabled some games just won't work even at 1.5V. Even 5.9 with HT enabled needs 1.42V and still managed to crash on me randomly in AC Origins, which by the way is great stress test, slamming all cores and pushing the power, it is worst case scenario for gaming workloads basicallly. So HT off increases OC potential by 200MHz while simultaneously reducing voltage requirement.

E-cores do not harm game performance, quite the opposite actually, RPL doesn't seem to function properly with E-cores disabled. There is some weirdness with single threaded scores in benchmarks being inconsistent when E-cores are off, and I have found a few single threaded games that are 10% faster with E-cores enabled even though they sit idle doing nothing. 

This needs more testing, but HT disabled and E-cores enabled is best from what I've seen so far.


----------



## energie80

i tested MW2 and there is 0 difference between e cores on and off.....didnt have the time to test HT off


----------



## Baka_boy

lolhaxz said:


> It should be a winner in theory - or is the low VID on the single core conflating the prediction?
> 
> I'll be genuinely interested to see how you get on with this CPU as I have seen quite a few high SP have almost identical VID table (at the high end atleast) to mine but mine is just 106 (which I'm quite happy with based on its outcome). Yet those CPU's reporting much higher SP seem to have one or two cores that have a very low value for just 1 or 2 cores (still a good thing I'd imagine!) - of course a more even lower overall VID would be even better in theory.
> 
> Prime95 SmallFFT requires 30-35mv, I run 40mv offset (0.01 AC, LLC6 - 1.27/1.28v load) max here is 5.7 P / 5.1 Cache... touching 100C after 10 mins at that point - exhausted cooling capabilities, R23 obviously requires alot less, R15 requires about the same as Prime95 to get through 20-30 back to back iterations.
> 
> Note: Cooler score fixed at 200 is _important_ for any kind of comparisons from the bottom right.
> 
> Your V/F point 8 is higher interestingly enough, should need less offset from the default VID table.
> 
> View attachment 2581391
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581392
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581394
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581396
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581395


Has Asus ever documented the SP rating system and how the V/F frequencies are weighted? Mine has significantly worse low freq voltages but has better higher frequencies, arriving to a rating of P-111.


----------



## lolhaxz

Baka_boy said:


> Has Asus ever documented the SP rating system and how the V/F frequencies are weighted? Mine has significantly worse low freq voltages but has better higher frequencies, arriving to a rating of P-111.


Yeah that's really interesting... and how does the CPU perform compared to the many examples in this thread? You would think that's a really nice V/F curve.

It's quite possible that intel does something with the VID based on leakage too, that ASUS is aware of.. I'm sure there are various things that drive the VID table.. rather than just clock frequency.

I don't think anyone has really bothered to try reverse engineer the SP calculation - of course they don't share it, as best I am aware.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Baka_boy said:


> Has Asus ever documented the SP rating system and how the V/F frequencies are weighted? Mine has significantly worse low freq voltages but has better higher frequencies, arriving to a rating of P-111.


Should see mine.


----------



## HemuV2

@RobertoSampaio seeing your quite experienced in OC, could you suggest a bunch of tests like cinebench, prime 95, y cruncher etc i should be running in order for least stressful to most stressful to confirm my OC stability. I see people taking names of all thesr tests but nobody has ever mentioned the order these should be run and whether they test ram or cpu OC or both. 

Thanks in advance


----------



## newls1

HemuV2 said:


> @RobertoSampaio seeing your quite experienced in OC, could you suggest a bunch of tests like cinebench, prime 95, y cruncher etc i should be running in order for least stressful to most stressful to confirm my OC stability. I see people taking names of all thesr tests but nobody has ever mentioned the order these should be run and whether they test ram or cpu OC or both.
> 
> Thanks in advance


Let me preface this first by saying i dont mean to come off rude...... but there is no order.... if your stable... YOUR STABLE. You should be able to run/operate/game any application you desire. Some peoples' overclocks ARE NOT R23 / y-cruncher / prime stable cause they use PC for games only, and prefer NOT to pump all the needed voltage/amps into the CPU when they are perfectly fine with the given load there games produce, and there is nothing wrong with that. If I can game with no issues @ 5.8Ghz all day long but NOT pass a given stress test, I could care less. I dont "Play" r23... see what im saying. People taylor there OC's per there need. Yes, there are also plenty of users here that want their OC to be all around stable at everything like I said above but typically they settle for a lower overall clock speed to compensate the voltage requirements.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

HemuV2 said:


> @RobertoSampaio seeing your quite experienced in OC, could you suggest a bunch of tests like cinebench, prime 95, y cruncher etc i should be running in order for least stressful to most stressful to confirm my OC stability. I see people taking names of all thesr tests but nobody has ever mentioned the order these should be run and whether they test ram or cpu OC or both.
> 
> Thanks in advance


You're going to get me into a controversy...lol. 

I'm of the line that your system must be stable for the type of use you make.

Imagine if every month a new software is released and your system is not stable running this new test... this tends to infinity and your machine will never be stable. 

In reality, everything is subject to failure... you just need to demand a little more, for a longer time, and the failure appears. 
Not even the most stable system will survive 1 year running r23 24/7. 

So what I recommend is a simpler test. 10 minutes of r23 seems enough. 

If your computer crashes some day, just make some adjustments over time. 

I am against running long tests with 100% CPU load... this test will tell you more about your cooler than about the stability of your CPU. A cpu can survive 30 minutes of r23 or p95 and fail embarrassingly on a load transient opening youtube.

So use the stress tests do adjust your system and use your machine daily for testing.

Looks more simple to me... And my energy bill thanks... LOL.

But that is no rule for this. 
It's my opinion.


----------



## energie80

i dont even use stress tests lol....just jump on MW2 and play. Only testing ram overclocking.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

RobertoSampaio said:


> You're going to get me into a controversy...lol.
> 
> I'm of the line that your system must be stable for the type of use you make.
> 
> Imagine if every month a new software is released and your system is not stable running this new test... this tends to infinity and your machine will never be stable.
> 
> In reality, everything is subject to failure... you just need to demand a little more, for a longer time, and the failure appears.
> Not even the most stable system will survive 1 year running r23 24/7.
> 
> So what I recommend is a simpler test. 10 minutes of r23 seems enough.
> 
> If your computer crashes some day, just make some adjustments over time.
> 
> I am against running long tests with 100% CPU load... this test will tell you more about your cooler than about the stability of your CPU. A cpu can survive 30 minutes of r23 or p95 and fail embarrassingly on a load transient opening youtube.
> 
> So use the stress tests do adjust your system and use your machine daily for testing.
> 
> Looks more simple to me... And my energy bill thanks... LOL.
> 
> But that is no rule for this.
> It's my opinion.


I ran into exactly that with my 10900k, and hour of Realbench, Cinebench, P95, OCCT, passed all of it fine, opened Divinity: Original Sin 2 played for 5 minutes, crash, bumped up the voltage slightly, stable again.


----------



## Betroz

Don't forget to check for WHEA errors aswell.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I know i need vcore= 1.128v to be in the edge of stability...
My tests indicate I'm stable at 1.137v
So I adjust my system to run full load at 1.142v and no more tests are needed...

Is that simple? Yes!
It works? Yes!
Is that fast? Yes!
Is it the best choice? For me, yes!

What Im trying to say is you don't need to fight for some milivolts...

The full load adjust is relative easy to solve...
The OCTVB is a bit complicated...
But just do the same...
Rise a little the voltage and test until you can run yours system and have no crashes.


----------



## cletus-cassidy

Falkentyne said:


> You need to update the management engine (ME) firmware on both bioses chips (so you have to flash, power off, switch to secondary, flash again).
> After you update both ME firmwares, you need to power off the system, switch the PSU off, then remove the CPU (sorry if you don't want to do this), clear CMOS with the CPU removed, then try to power on with the CPU _removed_, then power off, insert the CPU again, clear CMOS again, and then power on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)
> 
> 
> Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each time you clear the CMOS, make sure you hold the button down for 30 seconds.
> 
> Then install your TIM and power on and stuff and your SP should be working correctly.


Thanks, Falk. Will work on that tonight. Do you know whether I would need to do this every time I change 13th gen cpus? Or just the first time (i.e. the jump from 12th to 13th)? I'm going to bin a few more CPUs I got at a discount.


----------



## rluker5

newls1 said:


> Let me preface this first by saying i dont mean to come off rude...... but there is no order.... if your stable... YOUR STABLE. You should be able to run/operate/game any application you desire. Some peoples' overclocks ARE NOT R23 / y-cruncher / prime stable cause they use PC for games only, and prefer NOT to pump all the needed voltage/amps into the CPU when they are perfectly fine with the given load there games produce, and there is nothing wrong with that. If I can game with no issues @ 5.8Ghz all day long but NOT pass a given stress test, I could care less. I dont "Play" r23... see what im saying. People taylor there OC's per there need. Yes, there are also plenty of users here that want their OC to be all around stable at everything like I said above but typically they settle for a lower overall clock speed to compensate the voltage requirements.


I've settled on a 55-60/45 OC for everyday and it isn't CB23 stable for 2 reasons: volts droop a touch too low and cooler can't keep up. I made a "cinebench" windows power plan that cuts my max frequency to 54 that works and I can use if I ever get the notion to run that again. It still gets over 40k and I can have a bios setting that I don't have to switch while still being able to have good frequencies with plebian cooling.

(even though I'm technically cheating )

Edit: I use some extra windows power plan options that I put in by copy/pasting the following lines into admin command/powershell or terminal:
powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR 75b0ae3f-bce0-45a7-8c89-c9611c25e100 -ATTRIB_HIDE   (max frequency)
powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR 75b0ae3f-bce0-45a7-8c89-c9611c25e101 -ATTRIB_HIDE (max frequency 1)
powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR bc5038f7-23e0-4960-96da-33abaf5935ec -ATTRIB_HIDE  (maximum processor state)
powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR bc5038f7-23e0-4960-96da-33abaf5935ed -ATTRIB_HIDE  (maximum processor state 1)
powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR 893dee8e-2bef-41e0-89c6-b55d0929964c -ATTRIB_HIDE  (minimum processor state)
powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR 893dee8e-2bef-41e0-89c6-b55d0929964d -ATTRIB_HIDE  (minimum processor state 1)

You control P,E cores separately and if you are looking to minimize volts for a P frequency, remember you also have to adjust the E frequency to get that volt curve below the P's. I use HwInfo64 monitoring with an applied load for this.

Also the scaling for what you put in vs what you get out isn't perfect and changes a bit depending on the max clocks you put in bios so you just have to tinker a bit and verify to get the numbers you want when you are adjusting the power plan while watching some monitoring software.

Edit again: I also made a video a while back:


Spoiler


----------



## SoLdieR9312

Got my delid tool and copper ihs from Rockit Cool today. Anything special i need know before i delid the 13900k? Thanks in advance.


----------



## newls1

SoLdieR9312 said:


> Got my delid tool and copper ihs from Rockit Cool today. Anything special i need know before i delid the 13900k? Thanks in advance.


Just take your time and watch out for the EXTREMELY SMALL capacitors while you are scrapping off the factory black silicon!!


----------



## tps3443

Falkentyne said:


> Yeah my 5.8 falls off a cliff compared to yours
> 5.7 = 1.375v.
> 
> 5.8=......
> 
> View attachment 2581378


Thats interesting. Why is it that we disable the E-Cores, and set a ring of x8, and follow the other steps to obtain the vcore for each frequency? Why not just leave the cpu stock and perform this?


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> Thats interesting. Why is it that we disable the E-Cores, and set a ring of x8, and follow the other steps to obtain the vcore for each frequency? Why not just leave the cpu stock and perform this?


I didn't set the ring to 8.
But if the ring is too high, the ring vid overrides the core VID and that gets used. And I don't have the e-cores disabled.
x43/x45 stock is what Asus uses so there's no reason to disable stuff, just leave them on stock. Only things necessary are acdc ll= 0.01 mohms and TvB voltage opt.= disabled.


----------



## tps3443

SoLdieR9312 said:


> Got my delid tool and copper ihs from Rockit Cool today. Anything special i need know before i delid the 13900k? Thanks in advance.


Id love to try that copper IHS, but it doesn’t fit the Thermalright bend frame.


----------



## SoLdieR9312

tps3443 said:


> Id love to try that copper IHS, but it doesn’t fit the Thermalright bend frame.


Really? Website clearly says it fits all frames. I will need to check, as i‘m using the termalright one too.


----------



## tps3443

Falkentyne said:


> I didn't set the ring to 8.
> But if the ring is too high, the ring vid overrides the core VID and that gets used. And I don't have the e-cores disabled.
> x43/x45 stock is what Asus uses so there's no reason to disable stuff, just leave them on stock. Only things necessary are acdc ll= 0.01 mohms and TvB voltage opt.= disabled.


What about having the DDR5 at 7600? Would that change it too? I’m gonna try it again in windows and see what it says.


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> You're going to get me into a controversy...lol.
> 
> I'm of the line that your system must be stable for the type of use you make.
> 
> Imagine if every month a new software is released and your system is not stable running this new test... this tends to infinity and your machine will never be stable.
> 
> In reality, everything is subject to failure... you just need to demand a little more, for a longer time, and the failure appears.
> Not even the most stable system will survive 1 year running r23 24/7.
> 
> So what I recommend is a simpler test. 10 minutes of r23 seems enough.
> 
> If your computer crashes some day, just make some adjustments over time.
> 
> I am against running long tests with 100% CPU load... this test will tell you more about your cooler than about the stability of your CPU. A cpu can survive 30 minutes of r23 or p95 and fail embarrassingly on a load transient opening youtube.
> 
> So use the stress tests do adjust your system and use your machine daily for testing.
> 
> Looks more simple to me... And my energy bill thanks... LOL.
> 
> But that is no rule for this.
> It's my opinion.


The bare minimum stability you need to run (for CPU) is 30 minutes R23 pass in order to have any hope of being game stable.
If you BSOD or WHEA out on a R23 loop test, Minecraft is going to crash on load sometimes, so it's rather important to pass R23.
Minecraft puts a full load on all the cores when you launch it, even though it doesn't get as hot as R23, and somehow doesn't use AVX, it has a very similar vmin.
Battlefield 5 is another case, where on map changes, all of the cores suddenly get hammered to 100%. This used to happen just launching BF5 itself, but it seems that got toned down.

Stockfish Chess and Y-cruncher SFT loop test and LinX (0.9.12, 35000 sample size) 20 loops (30 minutes is good enough for LinX and YC) all require at least 30-40 mv higher than R23 to pass and are very similar in vcore required, with the AVX2/BMI2 builds of Stockfish being marginally harder, to pass more than 3 hours without a sudden BSOD or WHEA logged when you think you're stable.


----------



## tps3443

newls1 said:


> Just take your time and watch out for the EXTREMELY SMALL capacitors while you are scrapping off the factory black silicon!!


Delidding 13th Gen looks like a walk in the park. Intel 11th Gen was the difficult one. How much of an improvement did you see from Delidding your 13900K?


----------



## digitalfrost

rluker5 said:


> Edit: I use some extra windows power plan options that I put in by copy/pasting the following lines into admin command/powershell or terminal:
> powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR 75b0ae3f-bce0-45a7-8c89-c9611c25e100 -ATTRIB_HIDE   (max frequency)
> powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR 75b0ae3f-bce0-45a7-8c89-c9611c25e101 -ATTRIB_HIDE (max frequency 1)
> powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR bc5038f7-23e0-4960-96da-33abaf5935ec -ATTRIB_HIDE  (maximum processor state)
> powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR bc5038f7-23e0-4960-96da-33abaf5935ed -ATTRIB_HIDE  (maximum processor state 1)
> powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR 893dee8e-2bef-41e0-89c6-b55d0929964c -ATTRIB_HIDE  (minimum processor state)
> powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR 893dee8e-2bef-41e0-89c6-b55d0929964d -ATTRIB_HIDE  (minimum processor state 1)


QuickCPU contains the best power plan editor I've seen to date. It also you easy comparisons between power plans.



StackPath



I've modified the standard balanced plan to have less power usage during normal tasks, specifically playing video. And I have my own high performance power plan that still dynamically clocks the cpu. That said, I think there's currently a bug in there, because I notice rather high power consumption with 13th gen and some settings in the plan change absolutely nothing. But I'm still on 21H2, maybe 22H2 fixes this.


----------



## nievz

Falkentyne said:


> Yeah that one is atrocious.
> Here's mine for 5.4 and 5.7 ghz points: (Total SP 106, P core SP 113, E core SP 94, 13900 KF (QS, not retail).
> 
> you're 60mv off mine at 5.4 and 40mv off at 5.7 ghz.
> (the overall bios v/f points are 5-10mv off the ones in windows for some reason).
> 
> Anyway try LLC: Turbo and see if you can pass R23. There's a pretty big vdroop difference between LLC high and LLC turbo.
> These were the gigabyte mohm values back on Z490 with a 10900k. (Tested on Aorus master), listed below.
> Since the "1.1 mohm" Intel stock value (= LLC Standard/Normal") has probably not changed, and this is equal to LLC3 on Asus Z690 and Z790 Maximus boards, it's very likely Gigabyte is using similar LLC values, maybe better or less droopy tuning at Turbo (hopefully).
> 
> Standard/Normal: 1.1 mOhm
> Low: 0.85 mOhm
> Medium: 0.68 mOhm
> High: 0.55 mOhm
> Turbo: 0.275 mOhm
> Extreme: 0.185 mOhm
> Ultra Ex: 0 mOhm
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581368
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581369
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581371


with this CPU SA VID of 1.035v, aren't you having problems with USB devices? 1.35v CPU SA and below for me i experience USB disconnection issues. I have to run at 1.38v for my DDR4 4000 CL14


----------



## chibi

Fellas, may I ask for instructions on how to prepare my MSI MEG z690i ITX board for 13900k? What's this firmware thing that needs to be updated in conjunction with the bios?


----------



## tps3443

SoLdieR9312 said:


> Really? Website clearly says it fits all frames. I will need to check, as i‘m using the termalright one too.


It doesn’t fit any contact frames. It is larger in diameter. I would use the stock IHS and use a contact frame.


----------



## tps3443

nievz said:


> with this CPU SA VID of 1.035v, aren't you having problems with USB devices? 1.35v CPU SA and below for me i experience USB disconnection issues. I have to run at 1.38v for my DDR4 4000 CL14


I run around 1.000V SA VID. Auto SA voltage sends like 1.447V which is crazy. Intel 13th Gen doesn’t need all that. I also have DDR5 7600 running, with a 5.1Ghz ring OC, and it’s absolutely stable.


----------



## digitalfrost

chibi said:


> Fellas, may I ask for instructions on how to prepare my MSI MEG z690i ITX board for 13900k? What's this firmware thing that needs to be updated in conjunction with the bios?


What worked on my PRO Z690-A: Flash latest bios, then install Intel ME form here: [FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)

Then install MEI Driver and Chipset driver from here:



We'll be back.



It's a mystery to me why we have to get these files from some forum and then download from MEGA...


----------



## Xiph

tps3443 said:


> It doesn’t fit any contact frames. It is larger in diameter. I would use the stock IHS and use a contact frame.


One more option: Stock ILM with washer mod and copper IHS.


----------



## Exilon

digitalfrost said:


> It's a mystery to me why we have to get these files from some forum and then download from MEGA...


You don't have to. I'm running ME 16.1.25.1885 I got from here and it works fine






ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 | ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 | Gaming Motherboards｜ROG - Republic of Gamers｜ROG Global


ASUS ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI Intel LGA 1700 ATX motherboard, OptiMem III, PCIe 5.0, 16+1 power stages, WiFi 6, Intel® 2.5 Gb Ethernet, four M.2 slots, USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 USB Type-C®, SATA and Aura Sync



rog.asus.com


----------



## chibi

Those ME updates are from ASUS though. Will it also work with my MSI board? Kind of funny seeing the ASUS installer running if I have to go that route, lol.


----------



## Exilon

chibi said:


> Those ME updates are from ASUS though. Will it also work with my MSI board? Kind of funny seeing the ASUS installer running if I have to go that route, lol.


Do you even need it? I've read from respective board owners that MSI and Gigabyte bundled their ME firmware update with the BIOS update.


----------



## dante`afk

tps3443 said:


> Id love to try that copper IHS, but it doesn’t fit the Thermalright bend frame.


It fits. I have them both here and installed.


----------



## chibi

Exilon said:


> Do you even need it? I've read from respective board owners that MSI and Gigabyte bundled their ME firmware update with the BIOS update.


TBH I'm not sure. I wanted to ask here for confirmation before I started doing any updates.


----------



## Ichirou

chibi said:


> TBH I'm not sure. I wanted to ask here for confirmation before I started doing any updates.


Seems to work fine without an ME update. I simply updated the BIOS.


----------



## rluker5

digitalfrost said:


> QuickCPU contains the best power plan editor I've seen to date. It also you easy comparisons between power plans.
> 
> 
> 
> StackPath
> 
> 
> 
> I've modified the standard balanced plan to have less power usage during normal tasks, specifically playing video. And I have my own high performance power plan that still dynamically clocks the cpu. That said, I think there's currently a bug in there, because I notice rather high power consumption with 13th gen and some settings in the plan change absolutely nothing. But I'm still on 21H2, maybe 22H2 fixes this.


Making a power plan and assigning it takes 0 additional cpu overhead though. And there are a lot more power plan options if you look for them, I just tossed out the most useful few. Really a minimalist tuning setup.

I like using balanced or power saver for most things but use maximum performance when benching. Clock caps work with everything and you get better performance than with power limits to limit your power consumption because you are using the same full performance volt/clock curve that you have in your bios. You just choose a lower point and don't have those weaker, stretched clocks that look good but aren't. Also I like to raise minimum clocks to the point where volts start to go up (1.4 ghz p,e for my setup) and the max processor state1 (P-cores) drops to 75% in W11 if you choose a power saver based power plan and the option to fix that is hidden unless you expose it.

I found digging in less consequential power plan options than clock speed and behavior really have diminishing returns, but that's just me.
But thanks for the additional option. I never heard of that one.


----------



## Jamiloo11

@everyone guys will i be able to overclock 13700k with a g skill 3200c14 b die kit. Dual rank 16gb. I wonder if it matters which kit i get. I have to manually tune anyways right. As long as i buy b die i will be fine correct?

Goal is gear 1 4133c17 or 4000c14 gear 1


----------



## Baka_boy

tps3443 said:


> Delidding 13th Gen looks like a walk in the park. Intel 11th Gen was the difficult one. How much of an improvement did you see from Delidding your 13900K?


Still on a benchtop with MORA3 waiting for gpu blocks/parts, but it did reduce my average temps by ~11C and I already fixed my TIM coverage issue with a contact frame beforehand.


----------



## tps3443

dante`afk said:


> It fits. I have them both here and installed.


No kidding! What in the world is all this non sense of people saying you can only run one or the other with 12th Gen 12900K’s?

Thanks!


----------



## Falkentyne

nievz said:


> with this CPU SA VID of 1.035v, aren't you having problems with USB devices? 1.35v CPU SA and below for me i experience USB disconnection issues. I have to run at 1.38v for my DDR4 4000 CL14


You have DDR4, not DDR5.


----------



## tps3443

Baka_boy said:


> Still on a benchtop with MORA3 waiting for gpu blocks/parts, but it did reduce my average temps by ~11C and I already fixed my TIM coverage issue with a contact frame beforehand.


So, you got an 11C temp reduction. That’s awesome. I have a friend who says he got like 1C or even nothing lol. Are you running stock IHS with aftermarket frame?


----------



## Baka_boy

tps3443 said:


> Id love to try that copper IHS, but it doesn’t fit the Thermalright bend frame.





tps3443 said:


> So, you got an 11C temp reduction. That’s awesome. I have a friend who says he got like 1C or even nothing lol. Are you running stock IHS with aftermarket frame?


I'm using a Thermalright contact frame and a copper IHS (Rockitcool). Combo works. 😁


----------



## tps3443

Baka_boy said:


> I'm using a Thermalright contact frame and a copper IHS (Rockitcool). Combo works. 😁


Awesome! Thanks.


----------



## Baka_boy

chibi said:


> TBH I'm not sure. I wanted to ask here for confirmation before I started doing any updates.


I've had enough bad experiences about ME or bios updates that I don't even bother with them if the current version works well enough that I'm satisfied. 😄


----------



## JohnyDadBod

chibi said:


> TBH I'm not sure. I wanted to ask here for confirmation before I started doing any updates.


There was nothing wrong with the way my system was running per say, but it certainly made a difference in the way my P-Core vid tables were read by the bios when I updated the ME firmware. See my post from a few pages back. Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


Secondary to the differences in VID, I found I am able to boot to windows with my DDR4 Dual Rank at 4400 in gear 1 (not stable) whereas 4300 was a hard wall before updating.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

digitalfrost said:


> What worked on my PRO Z690-A: Flash latest bios, then install Intel ME form here: [FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)
> 
> Then install MEI Driver and Chipset driver from here:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll be back.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a mystery to me why we have to get these files from some forum and then download from MEGA...





Exilon said:


> Do you even need it? I've read from respective board owners that MSI and Gigabyte bundled their ME firmware update with the BIOS update.


I’ve been pondering myself, and I’m only z490 it I went ahead checked my versions of all these and in some cases the links on that ASUS site are for newer versions than available through Mai’s support driver/bios page. I went ahead and updated all mine. 

These are Intel though as someone already pointed out. I didn’t get any ASUS install wizards…it’s either self-executing files or command prompt. What’s really curious though is 1. there’s already a z790 update so I guess I’ll have to do it in my new build anyways, 2. Is it done though the bios?? Because it seems the command prompt install in windows does the firmware but it seems like people have to do it through the bios on ASUS boards or is that a z690/790 thing?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

JohnyDadBod said:


> There was nothing wrong with the way my system was running per say, but it certainly made a difference in the way my P-Core vid tables were read by the bios when I updated the ME firmware. See my post from a few pages back. Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> 
> Secondary to the differences in VID, I found I am able to boot to windows with my DDR4 Dual Rank at 4400 in gear 1 (not stable) whereas 4300 was a hard wall before updating.


So it sounds like it actually improved your vids…it wasn’t just a display issue/glitch. You could always try just manually volting them at the before and afters …but your initial auto values weren’t unsafe if I recall but improved 70-90mv or something after the me update right?


----------



## jtclfo

Baka_boy said:


> I'm using a Thermalright contact frame and a copper IHS (Rockitcool). Combo works. 😁


Also using a copper IHS and contact frame with no issues. However not really liking the Velocity² block at the moment. Would like to direct die but no frame exists yet and Supercool appears to be unobtainium.


----------



## JohnyDadBod

Uncle Dubbs said:


> So it sounds like it actually improved your vids…it wasn’t just a display issue/glitch. You could always try just manually volting them at the before and afters …but your initial auto values weren’t unsafe if I recall but improved 70-90mv or something after the me update right?


As you know, couldn't have physically changed the vids as they are burned on the chip, but it certainly did something that fixed the ability to read/interpret them. My auto values did work just fine. Across the board, from 40-52 there was a 2mv drop. From 53-58 there was an average drop of 84mv and a peak of 104! E-core and Ring was basically unchanged. I wish I had done a bit more testing in the higher range before doing the FW update to see if there truly was a benefit to stabilty, or if it was simply a read error and the CPU could run at the lower VIDs that the new FW seemed to expose.


----------



## sun-tracker

Putting out a call for help for Asus z790 Maximus Hero boards.
@jtclfo 
@schoolofmonkey 
and others if you might be willing to help troubleshoot odd OC behavior in the Extreme/Hero OC thread by @RobertoSampaio 
I have a table documenting my progress and things get weird when trying to achieve even a modest 4.4GHz across all E-Cores.
For any z790 Hero owners, please let me know if you're able to try a few configurations and compare notes!


----------



## SoLdieR9312

jtclfo said:


> Also using a copper IHS and contact frame with no issues. However not really liking the Velocity² block at the moment. Would like to direct die but no frame exists yet and Supercool appears to be unobtainium.
> View attachment 2581497


Hmm, i tried the copper ihs and its thicker then the intel ihs. When i put it on the die, i have about 1mm space between ihs and cpu pcb (outsides).
Maybe its the space for the glue, but idk about the pressure from the frame. I dont want to break the cpu die.

Delidding got me 4C in cb23, not like 10 with my 10900k. But atm i‘m running a corsair h150i, getting my parts for custom loop next week, hopefully some more degrees to save.


----------



## Baka_boy

jtclfo said:


> Also using a copper IHS and contact frame with no issues. However not really liking the Velocity² block at the moment. Would like to direct die but no frame exists yet and Supercool appears to be unobtainium.
> View attachment 2581497


Pretty.  NGL, I ran out of quiksilver (or misplaced the tube somewhere) and was too giddy to try so I emptied a syringe of conductonaut to remove the inconel on the die. 😆


----------



## jtclfo

SoLdieR9312 said:


> Hmm, i tried the copper ihs and its thicker then the intel ihs. When i put it on the die, i have about 1mm space between ihs and cpu pcb (outsides).
> Maybe its the space for the glue, but idk about the pressure from the frame. I dont want to break the cpu die.
> 
> Delidding got me 4C in cb23, not like 10 with my 10900k. But atm i‘m running a corsair h150i, getting my parts for custom loop next week, hopefully some more degrees to save.


Yep I ran into this issue as well. I assumed like you this was intentional for resealing/ensuring die contact. I rolled with it and seems okay. However this is my first go at all this stuff in a while. My last system was with a 9900K I direct die cooled, I just used the waterblock to hold it in the socket.

With the contact frame, not being able to direct die without some sort of frame system so an IHS, and a massive waterblock I’m hitting a steep learning curve. Temps were terrible until I applied more pressure to the EK Velocity2 block and they became acceptable but I don’t know what is truly acceptable at the moment. This generation is truly a different animal than the previous stuff I’ve had more experience with. I just need more time to mess with everything. Hoping for a direct die bracket soon though.


----------



## Baka_boy

SoLdieR9312 said:


> Hmm, i tried the copper ihs and its thicker then the intel ihs. When i put it on the die, i have about 1mm space between ihs and cpu pcb (outsides).
> Maybe its the space for the glue, but idk about the pressure from the frame. I dont want to break the cpu die.
> 
> Delidding got me 4C in cb23, not like 10 with my 10900k. But atm i‘m running a corsair h150i, getting my parts for custom loop next week, hopefully some more degrees to save.


As long as the die is properly centered with respect to the IHS, there shouldn't be any reason why you would damage the die. In this case, it would take so much force to damage the die that you'd break the substrate or the pcb before you even start to crack it. This is all assuming of course that the heat spreader is completely parallel to the die and not at any sort of angle.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

tps3443 said:


> No kidding! What in the world is all this non sense of people saying you can only run one or the other with 12th Gen 12900K’s?
> 
> Thanks!


Be carefull, it's different between 12900k/13900k also the DIE rectangle is higher, the normal HS is to low after delid.
The Temp i think can be better, if your cooler lies plane on the hs.


----------



## tps3443

PhoenixMDA said:


> Be carefull, it's different between 12900k/13900k also the DIE rectangle is higher, the normal HS is to low after delid.
> The Temp i think can be better, if your cooler lies plane on the hs.
> View attachment 2581504


Do I need to request which IHS I need from Rockitcool?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

tps3443 said:


> Do I need to request which IHS I need from Rockitcool?


No if you buy the 12/13th version it´s the HS right side, left side is the old 12ér version.
But i would say press the Rockit HS direct again your Watercooler with WLP to look if good or not so good, before you make it on the DIE.


----------



## nickolp1974

Baka_boy said:


> I'm using a Thermalright contact frame and a copper IHS (Rockitcool). Combo works. 😁


mine didn't fit, i have rockit copper. So i lapped stock IHS and all good now.

looking at the pics above, mines the one on the left, bought it for 12th gen


----------



## tps3443

PhoenixMDA said:


> No if you buy the 12/13th version it´s the HS right side, left side is the old 12ér version.
> But i would say press the Rockit HS direct again your Watercooler with WLP to look if good or not so good, before you make it on the DIE.


I bought this. So I guess I’m good to go then. Thank you.


----------



## Baka_boy

nickolp1974 said:


> mine didn't fit, i have rockit copper. So i lapped stock IHS and all good now.
> 
> looking at the pics above, mines the one on the left, bought it for 12th gen


I see. I bought the new one on the RockitCool website (skipped 12th Gen and was using a 5950x).


----------



## Falkentyne

jtclfo said:


> Also using a copper IHS and contact frame with no issues. However not really liking the Velocity² block at the moment. Would like to direct die but no frame exists yet and Supercool appears to be unobtainium.
> View attachment 2581497


Please remember next time to apply 3M Polyimide (Kapton) tape completely around the contact frame where it touches the IHS and towards the edges (going towards the screws) in a square pattern, for insulation. You may also want to apply some in the gap going towards the IHS area. That thing is aluminum, and if any liquid metal gets on there, it will corrode the structure and could end up flaking off or losing integrity. And that's not what you want on a frame like that! You could also use a thin layer of conformal coating as well.

The Fiberglass one should be safe from that.


----------



## jtclfo

Falkentyne said:


> Please remember next time to apply 3M Polyimide (Kapton) tape completely around the contact frame where it touches the IHS and towards the edges (going towards the screws) in a square pattern, for insulation. You may also want to apply some in the gap going towards the IHS area. That thing is aluminum, and if any liquid metal gets on there, it will corrode the structure and could end up flaking off or losing integrity. And that's not what you want on a frame like that! You could also use a thin layer of conformal coating as well.
> 
> The Fiberglass one should be safe from that.


The anodizing should mitigate if not prevent that but yes that's a good point. I hope to be direct-die before any issues occur if that does happen though lol.


----------



## tps3443

delete


----------



## Exilon

Krzych04650 said:


> Enabling another 8 E-cores adds like 70W extra power draw under full load and complicates stress testing. I could enable them afterwards, but what for? Also, I think 16 threads is the maximum safe number that all games can handle, above that there may be some issues, not necessarily not launching or crashing but weird frametime behavior, so it adds unnecessary randomness.


Did you make it so that it's 2 E-cores disabled per cluster to maximize the L2 available?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@Nizzen
Perhaps good to know for you because the range of SP of 13900K/KF SP in your first post.
I had one SP92(P102/72) and one SP102(P109/88) and has think the SP92 was one of the lowest.
One User in HWL has found a X238K414 13900KF with an SP of 88 (P96/73), so the SP goe´s lower as i have think.
[Sammelthread] - OC Prozessoren Intel Sockel 1700 (Alder Lake-S & Raptor Lake-S)


----------



## AlphaGaming17

PhoenixMDA said:


> @Nizzen
> Perhaps good to know for you because the range of SP of 13900K/KF SP in your first post.
> I had one SP92(P102/72) and one SP102(P109/88) and has think the SP92 was one of the lowest.
> One User in HWL has found a X238K414 13900KF with an SP of 88 (P96/73), so the SP goe´s lower as i have think.
> [Sammelthread] - OC Prozessoren Intel Sockel 1700 (Alder Lake-S & Raptor Lake-S)


Makes mine seem a bit better, mine wants 1.435v for 5.8, so I'd guess it's around a sp 90


----------



## Ketku-

Is there any information yet on the difference between Overclocking Z690 Apex + 13900K vs Z790 Apex + 13900K overall?


----------



## a_Criminai

On my z690 edge wifi ddr4 motherboard the 13700k voltage hardly changes at all on auto or on offset on load or idle. My 12700k's voltage fluctuated a lot. Does anyone know why this is?

Because of this my idle temps and power usage are much higher on the 13700k.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Is this RAM worth buying?



https://www.overclockers.co.uk/teamgroup-delta-rgb-32gb-2x16gb-ddr5-pc5-60800c36-7600mhz-dual-channel-kit-black-ff3d532g7600hc36ddc01-my-0bd-tg.html



I assume this is A-DIE.

Cheaper kit for £500 7200Mhz also available.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

Ketku- said:


> Is there any information yet on the difference between Overclocking Z690 Apex + 13900K vs Z790 Apex + 13900K overall?


I have Z690 Apex and Z790 Apex on the way, I'll update once I receive it.


----------



## energie80

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Is this RAM worth buying?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/teamgroup-delta-rgb-32gb-2x16gb-ddr5-pc5-60800c36-7600mhz-dual-channel-kit-black-ff3d532g7600hc36ddc01-my-0bd-tg.html
> 
> 
> 
> I assume this is A-DIE.
> 
> Cheaper kit for £500 7200Mhz also available.


i ordered a kit past week and got no news fomr that shop lol, im going to cancel my order today if no answer


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

energie80 said:


> i ordered a kit past week and got no news fomr that shop lol, im going to cancel my order today if no answer


Okay? You ordered this kit from OCers?


----------



## energie80

Yes 7600


----------



## nickolp1974

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Is this RAM worth buying?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/teamgroup-delta-rgb-32gb-2x16gb-ddr5-pc5-60800c36-7600mhz-dual-channel-kit-black-ff3d532g7600hc36ddc01-my-0bd-tg.html
> 
> 
> 
> I assume this is A-DIE.
> 
> Cheaper kit for £500 7200Mhz also available.


I'd just get the 7200 kit and oc it, can't see there being that much difference.also if you get from Newegg it works out £40 cheaper with taxes.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

nickolp1974 said:


> I'd just get the 7200 kit and oc it, can't see there being that much difference.also if you get from Newegg it works out £40 cheaper with taxes.


Not in US. Import taxes would kill me.


----------



## nickolp1974

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Not in US. Import taxes would kill me.


It's £460 including import duty


----------



## HemuV2

So guys i just popped my 12700K in to update bios and ME before trying the 13900K, what exactly should i be doing to make sure it shows correct SP for 13900K, i ran the ME Exe file and flashed bios 2103 on the board for now


----------



## satinghostrider

HemuV2 said:


> View attachment 2581591
> 
> 
> So guys i just popped my 12700K in to update bios and ME before trying the 13900K, what exactly should i be doing to make sure it shows correct SP for 13900K, i ran the ME Exe file and flashed bios 2103 on the board for now


I had tons of issues with ME firmware 2020 version with my 0006 Apex bios. When I swapped to my backup bios with ME 1917 firmware and 2103, I still had the SP Bug but after flashing that to 0006, my SP rating went to SP105. It is showing SP87 right now on my main bios with 0006 and 2020 ME firmware. So I'm not sure why so I'm just using the backup bios with ME firmware 1917. I would suggest you all to use 1885 that @shamino1978 posted because 1917 seems to be taken off the forums and only 2020 and 1885 is what can be downloaded right now.

I've taken out my CPU multiple times and did what @Falkentyne suggested previously but I still had the wrong SP rating with ME 2020 firmware and 0006 bios. Seems at least from my experience, 1885 and 1917 should work properly for those upgrading from 12900k to 13900K.

P.S : Flashing ME seems to only be for the bios active. When you switch to the backup bios, you need to flash ME again as that will be an older one unless you've previously updated that. I've confirmed this many times.


----------



## fray_bentos

satinghostrider said:


> I had tons of issues with ME firmware 2020 version with my 0006 Apex bios. When I swapped to my backup bios with ME 1917 firmware and 2103, I still had the SP Bug but after flashing that to 0006, my SP rating went to SP105. It is showing SP87 right now on my main bios with 0006 and 2020 ME firmware. So I'm not sure why so I'm just using the backup bios with ME firmware 1917. I would suggest you all to use 1885 that @shamino1978 posted because 1917 seems to be taken off the forums and only 2020 and 1885 is what can be downloaded right now.
> 
> I've taken out my CPU multiple times and did what @Falkentyne suggested previously but I still had the wrong SP rating with ME 2020 firmware and 0006 bios. Seems at least from my experience, 1885 and 1917 should work properly for those upgrading from 12900k to 13900K.
> 
> P.S : Flashing ME seems to only be for the bios active. When you switch to the backup bios, you need to flash ME again as that will be an older one unless you've previously updated that. I've confirmed this many times.
> 
> View attachment 2581595


Why do you care about SP rating? It's just a number and if reported wrong has no effect on your OC/undervolt potential.


----------



## energie80

You guys care too much about this SP thing


----------



## satinghostrider

fray_bentos said:


> Why do you care about SP rating? It's just a number and if reported wrong has no effect on your OC/undervolt potential.


I'm just mentioning this because others has had this bug before on Z690 transitioning from 12900k to 13900k and I'm trying to document what worked for me to see if it helps others. Irregardless of whether the SP rating is relevant to me or others for that matter.


----------



## fray_bentos

satinghostrider said:


> I'm just mentioning this because others has had this bug before on Z690 transitioning from 12900k to 13900k and I'm trying to document what worked for me to see if it helps others. Irregardless of whether the SP rating is relevant to me or others for that matter.


Glad it will save some people time.


----------



## pat182

13900k on z 690 msi pro a D4, 5.6ghz at 1.33v, looks like ill be able to go 5.7 or 5.8 all core for gaming, system is so fast and responsive


----------



## HemuV2

So got this 13900K, ddr4 imc posted 4300, although I can't figure why I'm not able to do 1T command rate at even 4000mhz gear1. Cb stock is 40.8K at 100C 330W and vcore shows 1.36V load.


----------



## digitalfrost

My system was stable for days, then I saw in HWiNFO:



Code:


CPU Cache L0 Errors		2
CPU TLB Errors			1

So what do I to try and fix this? Raise Vcore? Increase AC_LL? Use less droopy LLC? Or I could increase the 0.9v voltage Core PLL.


----------



## Vasoka

Thinking of getting a new AIO, I read a lot of good things on arctic liquid freezer II (the 420 version), but it seems to be half the price of the Corsair Capelix 420? Is the arctic liquid freezer II actually good, or would you guys recommend a different AIO?


----------



## Falkentyne

HemuV2 said:


> View attachment 2581602
> 
> So got this 13900K, ddr4 imc posted 4300, although I can't figure why I'm not able to do 1T command rate at even 4000mhz gear1. Cb stock is 40.8K at 100C 330W and vcore shows 1.36V load.


This could be bugged.
The E core SP is the lowest I've ever seen.
Very easy way to check actually.

Set P cores to x52 sync, set bios voltage to 1.225v, LLC 5.
Run y-cruncher stress test looping SFT test only.
If the e core SP is really 73, it should crash instantly on a logical E-core (#16-31).

You can use the OCtool, Asus VRM, to increase vcore in 5mv steps until you find where the e cores stop crashing. But a true e core SP of 73 would require a lot more.
My E core SP of 94 can pass SFT test at x52/x43 (undervolting the p cores is important to expose the e-cores) at 1.215v set, + LLC5, 20 loops.
But LinX 35000 sample size still occasionally bombs out within 100 loops (sometimes passes 100, sometimes bombs with a red error) and needs 1.220v set + LLC5.

Stockfish needs even less as it seems to be more P-core biased (1.200v set LLC5 is enough).


----------



## Falkentyne

digitalfrost said:


> My system was stable for days, then I saw in HWiNFO:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> CPU Cache L0 Errors        2
> CPU TLB Errors            1
> 
> So what do I to try and fix this? Raise Vcore? Increase AC_LL? Use less droopy LLC? Or I could increase the 0.9v voltage Core PLL.


if you're using fixed vcore mode, either raise vcore or set core PLL to 1.020v.
Try the 1.020v and see if that helps or not first.

If youre using by core usage, well, then it isn't so simple because there's no way of knowing what load balance is triggering instability, so your only option is vcore or reduce clocks.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

nickolp1974 said:


> It's £460 including import duty


I might just still go with the 7600Mhz one. Or wait until 8000 kit is out.


----------



## nickolp1974

TheNaitsyrk said:


> I might just still go with the 7600Mhz one. Or wait until 8000 kit is out.


Keep a check on US sites that deliver to the UK, they often get stock earlier than us and generally with our inflated prices the product comes in less even with duty.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

pat182 said:


> 13900k on z 690 msi pro a D4, 5.6ghz at 1.33v, looks like ill be able to go 5.7 or 5.8 all core for gaming, system is so fast and responsive


What batch number you get?


----------



## pat182

Uncle Dubbs said:


> What batch number you get?


no clue lol, i should edit its a KF not a K


----------



## Krzych04650

Exilon said:


> Did you make it so that it's 2 E-cores disabled per cluster to maximize the L2 available?


No, I didn't think about it actually. However now that I tried it seems that per E-core control is not working properly, at least on my board. All 16 E-cores are active no matter what I set there.


----------



## Ichirou

The 13900KF I ordered from Amazon CA and rerouted from US has arrived today. It was slated for the 16th.
The 13900K that I ordered several days earlier from the same source is still nowhere in sight with the logistics company.

Testing commencing now; will be back with results soonish.


----------



## tps3443

TheNaitsyrk said:


> I might just still go with the 7600Mhz one. Or wait until 8000 kit is out.


All of the Hynix A die stuff is really great! I’ve tested my 7200 sticks at 7600 it and operates perfectly fine with only 1.400V and runs stable which is really amazing.

Below is a screenshot from Team Group, using the 7200 sticks stabilized on a (4) Dimm motherboard at 7800 speeds. Same part number as my memory sticks, same manufacture date as well.

I feel like if I had a Z790 Apex motherboard I could really net a lot more out of them.


----------



## Ichirou

So far, 4,400 MHz on Auto in Gear 1 _does_ boot to desktop, but it is wildly unstable. Gotta throw at least 1.48V VCCSA at it just for it to stay alive for 10 seconds at best before it BSODs. Right off the bat, the IMC on this chip is clearly better than the last one I had. And potentially better than my 12700KF, which couldn't boot 4,400 MHz at all.

Will try to stabilize 4,300 MHz at whatever timings. Be back with results soonish.


----------



## RichKnecht

Is it normal for the P cores to vary in temp by 10 degrees or more? Core 0 is ~ 80C while core7 hits 92C. I have all the P cores @56 and E cores @45 with 1.27 V Core/ My E cores are pretty even in temps. I'm using a thermal right frame and Optimus Sig V2 block with Kryonaut. Coming from X299, I just can't wrap my head around to OC this chip.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Is it normal for the P cores to vary in temp by 10 degrees or more? Core 0 is ~ 80C while core7 hits 92C. I have all the P cores @56 and E cores @45 with 1.27 V Core/ My E cores are pretty even in temps. I'm using a thermal right frame and Optimus Sig V2 block with Kryonaut. Coming from X299, I just can't wrap my head around to OC this chip.


Yes, some cores might not be as well binned.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Yes, some cores might not be as well binned.


OK. So does 1.27 manual V core seem high for an all P core 56X OC? Also coming from ASUS bios with X299 to MSI bios with the 13900K takes a bit of getting used to. What about Intel XTU? Is this a worth while tool with 13th gen or is as useful (not) as it was with X299?


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> So far, 4,400 MHz on Auto in Gear 1 _does_ boot to desktop, but it is wildly unstable. Gotta throw at least 1.48V VCCSA at it just for it to stay alive for 10 seconds at best before it BSODs. Right off the bat, the IMC on this chip is clearly better than the last one I had. And potentially better than my 12700KF, which couldn't boot 4,400 MHz at all.
> 
> Will try to stabilize 4,300 MHz at whatever timings. Be back with results soonish.


clocks clocks clocks!!!!!!


----------



## HemuV2

Falkentyne said:


> This could be bugged.
> The E core SP is the lowest I've ever seen.
> Very easy way to check actually.
> 
> Set P cores to x52 sync, set bios voltage to 1.225v, LLC 5.
> Run y-cruncher stress test looping SFT test only.
> If the e core SP is really 73, it should crash instantly on a logical E-core (#16-31).
> 
> You can use the OCtool, Asus VRM, to increase vcore in 5mv steps until you find where the e cores stop crashing. But a true e core SP of 73 would require a lot more.
> My E core SP of 94 can pass SFT test at x52/x43 (undervolting the p cores is important to expose the e-cores) at 1.215v set, + LLC5, 20 loops.
> But LinX 35000 sample size still occasionally bombs out within 100 loops (sometimes passes 100, sometimes bombs with a red error) and needs 1.220v set + LLC5.
> 
> Stockfish needs even less as it seems to be more P-core biased (1.200v set LLC5 is enough).


Not posting


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> clocks clocks clocks!!!!!!


Later; don't want to burn up my chip just yet. Memory testing is a lot less intensive via TM5, so I'm starting with that for now.

At the moment, I can't seem to get 4,300 MHz to stop screaming for low voltage issues in TM5. I'll have to figure out a baseline with 4,266 MHz first before moving back to 4,300 MHz.

Edit: Was still throwing errors in 4,266 MHz. Gonna test 4,133 MHz and work my way up. This is annoying lol. Can't take any shortcuts.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Later; don't want to burn up my chip just yet. Memory testing is a lot less intensive via TM5, so I'm starting with that for now.
> 
> At the moment, I can't seem to get 4,300 MHz to stop screaming for low voltage issues in TM5. I'll have to figure out a baseline with 4,266 MHz first before moving back to 4,300 MHz.
> 
> Edit: Was still throwing errors in 4,266 MHz. Gonna test 4,133 MHz and work my way up. This is annoying lol. Can't take any shortcuts.


You don't have to burn up the chip.
You can test at a much lower voltage and clocks. that's what I do.
First you can do no testing at all. Just go to bios, go to MSI Lite Load, set AC/DC Loadline to 1, then disable "Thermal velocity boost voltage optimizations".
Then boot to windows at x52, x53, 54, 55, 56 and 57 ratios and post the idle VIDs shown for each ratio. 

I think you can use that windows program (MSI dragon ball or something??) to change the ratios.
But you would need enough voltage to boot, you can just set 1.30v + Mode 3 which should be good enough.
No need to stress test.


----------



## Falkentyne

HemuV2 said:


> Not posting


What exactly did you set?
Every chip should post. Even the worst of the worst SP's. Make sure you didn't make a typo somewhere.

Go to P cores, Sync All Cores, set to x52.
Go to E cores, sync all cores (to avoid auto issues), set to x43.
Go to ring ratio, set min and max both to x45.

Then go to actual VRM Vcore Voltage, set it to 1.225v.
Go to Digi+VRM, set Loadline Calibration to Level 5.

(ignore the loadline setting above that, that's for FIVR (VCCIN AUX).
if _that_ doesn't work try sync E cores x42.


----------



## HemuV2

Falkentyne said:


> What exactly did you set?
> Every chip should post. Even the worst of the worst SP's. Make sure you didn't make a typo somewhere.
> 
> Go to P cores, Sync All Cores, set to x52.
> Go to E cores, sync all cores (to avoid auto issues), set to x43.
> Go to ring ratio, set min and max both to x45.
> 
> Then go to actual VRM Vcore Voltage, set it to 1.225v.
> Go to Digi+VRM, set Loadline Calibration to Level 5.
> 
> (ignore the loadline setting above that, that's for FIVR (VCCIN AUX).
> if _that_ doesn't work try sync E cores x42.











@Falkentyne 1.225 llc5 52/43/45x with ram at 4000 cl 15 timings g1


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> Later; don't want to burn up my chip just yet. Memory testing is a lot less intensive via TM5, so I'm starting with that for now.
> 
> At the moment, I can't seem to get 4,300 MHz to stop screaming for low voltage issues in TM5. I'll have to figure out a baseline with 4,266 MHz first before moving back to 4,300 MHz.
> 
> Edit: Was still throwing errors in 4,266 MHz. Gonna test 4,133 MHz and work my way up. This is annoying lol. Can't take any shortcuts.


Any idea why my 13900K isn't posting 1N command rate at any frequency? I have booted upto 4300


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Is it normal for the P cores to vary in temp by 10 degrees or more? Core 0 is ~ 80C while core7 hits 92C. I have all the P cores @56 and E cores @45 with 1.27 V Core/ My E cores are pretty even in temps. I'm using a thermal right frame and Optimus Sig V2 block with Kryonaut. Coming from X299, I just can't wrap my head around to OC this chip.


Mine hits about 11C warmer on the hottest core VS. the coldest core. Even after numerous re-mount with my Optimus Signature V2


----------



## Slackaveli

tps3443 said:


> Mine hits about 11C warmer on the hottest core VS. the coldest core. Even after numerous re-mount with my Optimus Signature V2


yeah, same. i have 2 god cores and 2 **** ones, with 4 in the middle. a good 10-12C delta between them.


----------



## Exilon

Same for my cores. It's normal if you look at how the cores are laid out









Cores 0/1 can dump heat into the cold SA
Cores 2/3 are flanked on one side by the cool 0/1 and other side by hot 4/5
Cores 4/5 are squashed in the middle with 4 P-cores on one end and 2 P-cores + 16 E-cores on the other end
Cores 6/7 can dump heat into the E-cores so they aren't as hot as 4/5

5/7 are the hottest on mine because I think my mount is slightly slanted due to being the old EK Velocity thumbscrews without screw driver support so a lot of guessing goes into tightening the thumbscrews.


----------



## RichKnecht

OK, great to know about the temps. Do you think 1.25 is high for all P cores at 5.6? VID shows 1.245.


----------



## Ichirou

Zzz, I still keep getting low voltage errors even if I can pass y-cruncher for IMC stability testing.
Not really sure what's going on; going to try to reflash the BIOS in case it may be corrupted.


----------



## Exilon

RichKnecht said:


> OK, great to know about the temps. Do you think 1.25 is high for all P cores at 5.6? VID shows 1.245.


No. I need 1.22v VID to pass y-cruncher N64 at 5.5


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> Later; don't want to burn up my chip just yet. Memory testing is a lot less intensive via TM5, so I'm starting with that for now.
> 
> At the moment, I can't seem to get 4,300 MHz to stop screaming for low voltage issues in TM5. I'll have to figure out a baseline with 4,266 MHz first before moving back to 4,300 MHz.
> 
> Edit: Was still throwing errors in 4,266 MHz. Gonna test 4,133 MHz and work my way up. This is annoying lol. Can't take any shortcuts.


What batch is yours…I posted mine a bit back but we ordered same place same time.


----------



## ViTosS

13900k is here, now just need to receive the MSI Edge Z790 (unfortunately Strix-A went out of stock when I was going to buy, so no SP reading for me ), it's DDR4 but I plan to go DDR5 later


----------



## jtclfo

tps3443 said:


> Mine hits about 11C warmer on the hottest core VS. the coldest core. Even after numerous re-mount with my Optimus Signature V2





Slackaveli said:


> yeah, same. i have 2 god cores and 2 **** ones, with 4 in the middle. a good 10-12C delta between them.


Glad I’m not alone on this. I thought I was just struggling with all the aspects of this generation but my P cores have a good 10/11°C delta between hottest and coldest cores. Was worried my copper IHS might have been wonky. It’s 4 and 7 that are the hot ones. I have no idea the die mapping to be able to tell if they’re grouped near the E cores or not.


----------



## BoredErica

Finally flashed by MSI mobo w/ 12100f, 13600kf now works. I got x2.16 the speed of my 5600x at chess (Stockfish 14.1 bench). ~75% increase in FPS at FO4/Skyrim, 45% in Oblivion. 41% higher min fps in 768p Endwalker bench. 50% higher in THe Last Remnant bench at 480p. More testing to come... Trying to find which cores are best cores might be annoying.


----------



## Sai1

I'm going to use 13900kf, asus z790 strix-e, and LF II 420. 

Tell me please:

1) At the moment I'm using custom Windows 10 (optimized, disabled kernel parking, etc.). When installing an ssd on a new motherboard, will I need to reinstall Windows to work correctly with the new chipset? Now I'm using 9700k z390

2) Do I need to update ME if I originally use z790 with intel 13th gen? And is there anything else that needs to be updated?.

3) Is it still possible to install the LF II 420 correctly on the asus strix-e? I've read some of the answers from Falkentyne about this, but never understood the final solution. I have a contact frame if it needed.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> OK, great to know about the temps. Do you think 1.25 is high for all P cores at 5.6? VID shows 1.245.


What motherboard are you using?


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> What motherboard are you using?


MSI Z790 Tomahawk DDR4 version.


----------



## tps3443

jtclfo said:


> Glad I’m not alone on this. I thought I was just struggling with all the aspects of this generation but my P cores have a good 10/11°C delta between hottest and coldest cores. Was worried my copper IHS might have been wonky. It’s 4 and 7 that are the hot ones. I have no idea the die mapping to be able to tell if they’re grouped near the E cores or not.


Always 11c difference. Even with a perfect mount.

This is everything default in bios with a Vcore override set to 1.190v. So 5.5-5.8 boosting.

No power limits.
Cinebench R23. 
24c water temp.


----------



## HemuV2

why are my VIDs so high at everything stock? p/e SP 109/73 even idle temps are high. mobo:strix z690A d4


----------



## Ichirou

@Falkentyne
Genuinely tempted to grab a newer motherboard as the VDDQ seems f**ked on this new BIOS.
I think this CPU can handle higher memory frequencies on Gear 1, but the VDDQ requirement is higher than before and the BIOS is too awful to support it.

In any case, going to try to work around this anyway. Maybe MSI will release a better BIOS in a month or two.


----------



## Exilon

HemuV2 said:


> View attachment 2581652
> 
> why are my VIDs so high at everything stock? p/e SP 109/73 even idle temps are high. mobo:strix z690A d4


Probably because your SVID behavior is default to Intel worst case which set your AC_LL to 1.1mohm. Go to the SVID behavior and set it to Trained and LLC to 4 which should be slightly below Y-cruncher stable.


----------



## jtclfo

tps3443 said:


> Always 11c difference. Even with a perfect mount.
> 
> This is everything default in bios with a Vcore override set to 1.190v. So 5.5-5.8 boosting.
> 
> No power limits.
> Cinebench R23.
> 24c water temp.
> 
> View attachment 2581651


Oof that’s on par with my LM/copper delid and the EK Velocity 2 same volts. I might need to switch to that Optimus block I heard hit or miss things with this EK block


----------



## tps3443

jtclfo said:


> Oof that’s on par with my LM/copper delid and the EK Velocity 2 same volts. I might need to switch to that Optimus block I heard hit or miss things with this EK block


The Optimus Sig V2 is the best, you just gotta keep a spare cold plate on hand to change after a while. It’ll clog up. Those micro fins are crazy. Once you swap the new one in, you can clean the old one and repeat.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Falkentyne said:


> You don't have to burn up the chip.
> You can test at a much lower voltage and clocks. that's what I do.
> First you can do no testing at all. Just go to bios, go to MSI Lite Load, set AC/DC Loadline to 1, then disable "Thermal velocity boost voltage optimizations".
> Then boot to windows at x52, x53, 54, 55, 56 and 57 ratios and post the idle VIDs shown for each ratio.
> 
> I think you can use that windows program (MSI dragon ball or something??) to change the ratios.
> But you would need enough voltage to boot, you can just set 1.30v + Mode 3 which should be good enough.
> No need to stress test.


I’ll do this when I get my other parts if I can find this post or I’ll hit ya up. Hah


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

ViTosS said:


> 13900k is here, now just need to receive the MSI Edge Z790 (unfortunately Strix-A went out of stock when I was going to buy, so no SP reading for me ), it's DDR4 but I plan to go DDR5 later
> 
> View attachment 2581646


I have the same mobo, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. Check your cpuforce 2 rating in the bios and post it here before you apply any oc.


----------



## newls1

I have Vcore set to 1.350v in bios. Under R23 load VR Out reads 1.304. Is this within my safe operating range for amps/volts? Temps are great, chip is direct die mounted. OC is 5.85 All Pcore / 46 ECore / 5Ghz Ring


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> I have the same mobo, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. Check your cpuforce 2 rating in the bios and post it here before you apply any oc.


The Z790 Edge provides a CPU Force rating?


----------



## Falkentyne

HemuV2 said:


> Any idea why my 13900K isn't posting 1N command rate at any frequency? I have booted upto 4300


Thank you for this test.
Why didn't the system post earlier?
Anyway please use the "SFT" test, not the BKT test.
Type "8" to disable all tests, then type "13" which is the SFT test.
This will test only the cores.

We need to keep memory out of the picture.
So for now just run XMP only with auto timings.

can you set 1.250v Bios + LLC 5?










This should give you 1.092v "die sense" load. The Strix will report higher (the Z790 DDR5 Strix afaik has die sense as an option in its BIOS now, at least the DDR5 board does, idk about the DDR4 Z790 strix).










Also I saw your last screenshot. please don't use auto settings right now. I think something is wrong with your SP. It should not be setting 1.54v idle.
Can you use the Asus OCtool (you can get it in RobertoSampiao's thread), then you can change the LLC and vcore (in millivolts) while in windows.

start with x52 sync p cores, x43 e cores, x45 cache and 1.250v set, LLC=5.
Remember to run the SFT test only.

Your goal for now is to pass 10 minutes (5 loops) without an error on an E-core.
If you error out, raise vcore by 5mv (e.g 1250mv -->1255mv) and try again.
Once you pass, post the vcore needed.


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> Any idea why my 13900K isn't posting 1N command rate at any frequency? I have booted upto 4300


Struggles on Dual Rank. Easy with Single Rank. But I don't know what RAM it is you are using.
Sometimes boosting VDIMM can help 1N boot. 1N is effectively an extra +100-200 MHz of frequency in performance, after all.

*Update: *Boosting L2 Cache Voltage manually (1.35V tentatively) and raising VDDQ to over 1.60V is allowing me to pass tests now. Will keep you all posted.


----------



## jtclfo

newls1 said:


> I have Vcore set to 1.350v in bios. Under R23 load VR Out reads 1.304. Is this within my safe operating range for amps/volts? Temps are great, chip is direct die mounted. OC is 5.85 All Pcore / 46 ECore / 5Ghz Ring


When you say direct die mounted how do you mean? As in the Supercool DD waterblock?


----------



## tps3443

Is Aida 64 FPU a good enough stability test for CPU only? I already use HCI memtest for my DDR5 only.

Thanks.


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> Is Aida 64 FPU a good enough stability test for CPU only? I already use HCI memtest for my DDR5 only.
> 
> Thanks.


No. It's even worse than Cinebench R23.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Is Aida 64 FPU a good enough stability test for CPU only? I already use HCI memtest for my DDR5 only.
> 
> Thanks.


Depends entirely on how thorough you want to be.

Just game stable? Cinebench R23 for 30 minutes is probably good enough.
Want to be more rock stable? Try y-cruncher's main test with no effective clocks being throttled, or if that doesn't work, loop the component stress test with at least the SFT test enabled for a few runs.

As for the RAM, TM5 anta777 ABSOLUT, or Karhu 10,000%.
And also run it through y-cruncher's N64, HNT, and VST tests, as they test for IMC stability.

*Update: *4,200 MHz @ CL16 has passed both y-cruncher and TM5 for now. I needed to juice the L2 Cache Voltage and VDDQ though.
Still testing further. Let's see if I can stabilize 4,266 MHz and higher.

It seems that with the E-cores enabled, you need a lot more stability with the IMC, especially with VDDQ.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> The Z790 Edge provides a CPU Force rating?


Oh shoot, it may not-I thought I read somewhere it did* but it might be MEG only even though this is their “best” mid range board. Gues I’ll have to dig


----------



## gtz

Just wanted to post that the latest beta BIOS 2.03 for the Z690 Classy is miles better than 2.01. Only downfall is you are going to need to re flash the ME firmware again, 2.03 downgrades the me to an older version.

Edit:

All around better bios, memory overclocking and core voltage scaling.

If you have a EVGA board, update. If I had to BIOS in the beginning I would not have pulled my hair out.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Depends entirely on how thorough you want to be.


Zero crashes or errors here with my first full week of gaming on my OCCT stable 4900CL17.

Everything else is pointless and unnecessary for testing ram stability.


----------



## Pk1

Has anyone compared their tuned 13th gen with DDR4 numbers to what reviews show for 13th gen DDR5? Is it really as significant as the reviews suggest or does tuned DDR4 still keep up quite well? Thanks.


----------



## bhav

Pk1 said:


> Has anyone compared their tuned 13th gen with DDR4 numbers to what reviews show for 13th gen DDR5? Is it really as significant as the reviews suggest or does tuned DDR4 still keep up quite well? Thanks.


You can check this if you want, but bear in mind the DDR4 was set in gear 2:









Intel 13600K and 13900K DDR4 vs DDR5 Showdown | Introduction and Test Setup | CPU & Mainboard


Introduction and Test Setup




overclock3d.net





Still no proper comparisons out there with 4000CL14 / 15 in gear 1, like I've already had a 4000CL15 capable kit since 2019, it isn't hard but review site noobs are too dumb to realise it needs 1.5 - 1.6v.

3+ year old samsung and micron kits generally manage 4000+CL15 fine with 1.5v, more modern DDR4 will do 4000+CL14 with 1.6v, everyone here, on reddit and XS already know this, no clue why the 'we test things using settings like what people at home use' idiot sites are so far behind when it comes to ram tuning.

And dear ****ing lord, I only just bothered to actually look at their Aida results:










Seriously like wth is up with all these tech sites when it comes to testing ram?


----------



## Exilon

bhav said:


> You can check this if you want, but bear in mind the DDR4 was set in gear 2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel 13600K and 13900K DDR4 vs DDR5 Showdown | Introduction and Test Setup | CPU & Mainboard
> 
> 
> Introduction and Test Setup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> overclock3d.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no proper comparisons out there with 4000CL14 / 15 in gear 1, like I've already had a 4000CL15 capable kit since 2019, it isn't hard but review site noobs are too dumb to realise it needs 1.5 - 1.6v.
> 
> 3+ year old samsung and micron kits generally manage 4000+CL15 fine with 1.5v, more modern DDR4 will do 4000+CL14 with 1.6v, everyone here, on reddit and XS already know this, no clue why the 'we test things using settings like what people at home use' idiot sites are so far behind when it comes to ram tuning.
> 
> And dear ****ing lotd, I only just bothered to actually look at their Aida results:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously like wth is up with all these tech sites when it comes to testing ram?


This is what happens when reviews are in a hurry to publish rather than sanity check their results. HUB, TPU, and GN all had at least one major mistake in their 13900K launch day reviews that significantly shifted results in Zen4's favor and then were silently fixed days later with a Twitter retraction at most.


----------



## bhav

Exilon said:


> This is what happens when reviews are in a hurry to publish rather than sanity check their results. HUB, TPU, and GN all had at least one major mistake in their 13900K launch day reviews that significantly shifted results in Zen4's favor and then were silently fixed days later with a Twitter retraction at most.


Its not just that though, I checked both OC3D and Techpowerup's comment sections on both youtube and their forums, its the same old 'NOBODY EVEN HAS 4000CL15, THATS LIKE NOT EVEN 1% OF RAM' repeated over and over again.

They all think that ram only runs at its XMP profile and can't be overclocked or some such, and apparently such ram must cost like $500 or some such. Well yes it does if you're dumb enough to pay for the XMP crap, the only thing that XMP is is a factory overclock, like all the useless OC edition GPUs.

You buy the cheaper ram and OC it yourself .... and any time I try to explain this in any such place ... 'WHY WOULD YOU SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON A 13900K / 4090 AND ONLY PUT IN £150 BUDGET RAM, THATS CRAP'.

/bang head against desk .... IF the £150 ram has the same ICs as the £500 ram, you buy the cheap one and overclock it yourself like durrrrr.

Like right now, you would pick up a cheap 4800 kit with hynix M die and manually tune it to 7000+. Apparently this is like some Jesus miracle to these 'tech' sites.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Its not just that though, I checked both OC3D and Techpowerup's comment sections on both youtube and their forums, its the same old 'NOBODY EVEN HAS 4000CL15, THATS LIKE NOT EVEN 1% OF RAM' repeated over and over again.
> 
> They all think that ram only runs at its XMP profile and can't be overclocked or some such, and apparently such ram must cost like $500 or some such. Well yes it does if you're dumb enough to pay for the XMP crap, the only thing that XMP is is a factory overclock, like all the useless OC edition GPUs.
> 
> You buy the cheaper ram and OC it yourself .... and any time I try to explain this in any such place ... 'WHY WOULD YOU SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON A 13900K / 4090 AND ONLY PUT IN £150 BUDGET RAM, THATS CRAP'.
> 
> /bang head against desk .... IF the £150 ram has the same ICs as the £500 ram, you buy the cheap one and overclock it yourself like durrrrr.
> 
> Like right now, you would pick up a cheap 4800 kit with hynix M die and manually tune it to 7000+. Apparently this is like some Jesus miracle to these 'tech' sites.


I am hoping I can get my 64GB of b-die to OC to 4000 with the 13900K. It did very well at 3733 with my 10980xe, but didn’t like higher frequencies which I think was due to the 10980 IMC.


----------



## tps3443

Falkentyne said:


> No. It's even worse than Cinebench R23.


Okay, I’ll just do Prime 95 Non-AVX+ Small FFT’s. Maybe 30 minutes and probably call it good enough.

So far I’m testing: Prime 95, Small FFT, Non-AVX.

5.7Ghz P-Cores
4.5Ghz E-Cores
5.1Ghz Cache
DDR5 7600
[email protected] LLC3.

Update: Looks to be extremely stable with these settings though!


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> I am hoping I can get my 64GB of b-die to OC to 4000 with the 13900K. It did very well at 3733 with my 10980xe, but didn’t like higher frequencies which I think was due to the 10980 IMC.


No, its due to the fact that you are trying with 64 Gb. Either 2x32 or 4x16 isn't going to OC well.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I am hoping I can get my 64GB of b-die to OC to 4000 with the 13900K. It did very well at 3733 with my 10980xe, but didn’t like higher frequencies which I think was due to the 10980 IMC.


SR is doable. DR might have some difficulty with an IMC that isn't at least decent.


----------



## RichKnecht

I have a question about LLC. Right now I have it set to 5 on my MSI Tomahawk board. V core is set to 1.25 and I have P cores at 5.6, E cores at 4.5, and ring is at 4.8. Under load, v core will drop to about 1.22 which seems fine, but can I lower the v core and raise the LLC level without too much voltage over shoot? When I was on X299, over shoot was not a good thing. LLC (on X299) affected Vccin, not v core, so I am unsure if I want v droop or not.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I have a question about LLC. Right now I have it set to 5 on my MSI Tomahawk board. V core is set to 1.25 and I have P cores at 5.6, E cores at 4.5, and ring is at 4.8. Under load, v core will drop to about 1.22 which seems fine, but can I lower the v core and raise the LLC level without too much voltage over shoot? When I was on X299, over shoot was not a good thing. LLC (on X299) affected Vccin, not v core, so I am unsure if I want v droop or not.


On MSI boards this time around, Vdroop is better.
Stick to Mode 3-5. I prefer Mode 4.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> On MSI boards this time around, Vdroop is better.
> Stick to Mode 3-5. I prefer Mode 4.


Mode 3 is not much vDroop at all.

I found the best results using Mode 6-7. Mode 7 was especially good, and what I used most on ADL.


----------



## Pk1

bhav said:


> You can check this if you want, but bear in mind the DDR4 was set in gear 2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel 13600K and 13900K DDR4 vs DDR5 Showdown | Introduction and Test Setup | CPU & Mainboard
> 
> 
> Introduction and Test Setup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> overclock3d.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no proper comparisons out there with 4000CL14 / 15 in gear 1, like I've already had a 4000CL15 capable kit since 2019, it isn't hard but review site noobs are too dumb to realise it needs 1.5 - 1.6v.
> 
> 3+ year old samsung and micron kits generally manage 4000+CL15 fine with 1.5v, more modern DDR4 will do 4000+CL14 with 1.6v, everyone here, on reddit and XS already know this, no clue why the 'we test things using settings like what people at home use' idiot sites are so far behind when it comes to ram tuning.
> 
> And dear ****ing lord, I only just bothered to actually look at their Aida results:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously like wth is up with all these tech sites when it comes to testing ram?


Mainstream Tech is terrible for anything other than "out of the box" settings. If you're going to use factory settings for everything then just buy a console. This is exactly why I asked here. I'm debating on upgrading my 10850k to 13700k/13900k and obviously I want to bring along my DDR4. Just trying to figure out if I'm actually giving up somewhat substantial performance or will tuned DDR4 perform about as well as DDR5. It's very difficult to get accurate overclocked numbers anywhere other than this forum in my experience. If anyone happens to see a comparison of 13th gen tuned DDR4 vs DDR5 please let me know! Thanks.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> I have a question about LLC. Right now I have it set to 5 on my MSI Tomahawk board. V core is set to 1.25 and I have P cores at 5.6, E cores at 4.5, and ring is at 4.8. Under load, v core will drop to about 1.22 which seems fine, but can I lower the v core and raise the LLC level without too much voltage over shoot? When I was on X299, over shoot was not a good thing. LLC (on X299) affected Vccin, not v core, so I am unsure if I want v droop or not.


I found that LLC 3 is really good on my Unify X. Especially for higher overclocks. I have even used LLC 2 before, but not really needed.

Give it a try and see if it works. That’s all you can really do. Test what works for you. All CPU’s are different.

On all of my EVGA Dark motherboards I would disable V-droop all together.


----------



## Ichirou

Pk1 said:


> Mainstream Tech is terrible for anything other than "out of the box" settings. If you're going to use factory settings for everything then just buy a console. This is exactly why I asked here. I'm debating on upgrading my 10850k to 13700k/13900k and obviously I want to bring along my DDR4. Just trying to figure out if I'm actually giving up somewhat substantial performance or will tuned DDR4 perform about as well as DDR5. It's very difficult to get accurate overclocked numbers anywhere other than this forum in my experience. If anyone happens to see a comparison of 13th gen tuned DDR4 vs DDR5 please let me know! Thanks.


Performance wise, tightened 4,000 CL14 Gear 1 is equivalent to around 7,000 CL30 Gear 2. But without that much bandwidth.

Your call on whether you want to go above 7,000+ MHz or not with Hynix M/A-die.


----------



## Ichirou

BestBuy Canada finally has an update on their 13900K CPUs:








Intel Core i9-13900K Processor | Best Buy Canada


Packed with advanced technologies, the Intel Core i9-13900K desktop processor has the power you need to fuel gaming, creative endeavors, and so much more. It’s conveniently compatible with PCIe 5.0 and 4.0, DDR5 and DDR4, and Intel 700 Series and 600 Series chipset-based motherboards so it pairs...




www.bestbuy.ca




Backorders are available, and chips will apparently ship out on the 17th.
(In case anyone's still looking to fetch one at this point in time.)

I wouldn't expect good batches now that Intel's likely to be binning chips for their 13900KS, though. YMMV.


----------



## Exilon

acoustic said:


> Mode 3 is not much vDroop at all.
> 
> I found the best results using Mode 6-7. Mode 7 was especially good, and what I used most on ADL.


This is a good reminder to people on what strong LLC looks like. It boosts loaded Vcore far more than it helps Vcore undershoot.


https://elmorlabs.com/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/


----------



## cletus-cassidy

Falkentyne said:


> You need to update the management engine (ME) firmware on both bioses chips (so you have to flash, power off, switch to secondary, flash again).
> After you update both ME firmwares, you need to power off the system, switch the PSU off, then remove the CPU (sorry if you don't want to do this), clear CMOS with the CPU removed, then try to power on with the CPU _removed_, then power off, insert the CPU again, clear CMOS again, and then power on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)
> 
> 
> Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each time you clear the CMOS, make sure you hold the button down for 30 seconds.
> 
> Then install your TIM and power on and stuff and your SP should be working correctly.


Thanks again, Falk. Reporting back. After following all of the above instructions (wow what a PITA), looks like my real SP is 108 (116 P-Cores). Guess that makes my 13900K pretty average?


----------



## Ichirou

cletus-cassidy said:


> Thanks again, Falk. Reporting back. After following all of the above instructions (wow what a PITA), looks like my real SP is 108 (116 P-Cores). Guess that makes my 13900K pretty average?
> 
> View attachment 2581715


Your E-cores are very strong


----------



## Falkentyne

cletus-cassidy said:


> Thanks again, Falk. Reporting back. After following all of the above instructions (wow what a PITA), looks like my real SP is 108 (116 P-Cores). Guess that makes my 13900K pretty average?
> 
> View attachment 2581715



That's way above average.
That's almost the same as Sugi's chip. Close to golden.
Golden is P cores 120 or higher, very few chips get this. Only a few 120-123 samples floating around.
A few E core samples have been above 100 but many are 90 and below.

Your P cores are higher than mine and the same as my E-cores.

Can you do a test please.
Set 5.2 ghz (Sync p cores), 4.3 E-cores and 4.5 cache.
Set Bios: 1.200v set + LLC5.
Use Asus OCpak tool (OCtool) to change vcore in windows.

Start here and run Y-cruncher SFT *ONLY* test (press stress test, press 8, then press 13, then start the test)
then your goal is to last 20 minutes (10 loops) without any of the E-cores (logical cores 16-31) crashing.

If you pass, drop vcore by 5mv using asus VRM tool and try again.
If you error, raise vcore by 5mv (e.g. 1200mv ->1205mv).

Then record the vcore used to pass 10 loops


----------



## satinghostrider

cletus-cassidy said:


> Thanks again, Falk. Reporting back. After following all of the above instructions (wow what a PITA), looks like my real SP is 108 (116 P-Cores). Guess that makes my 13900K pretty average?
> 
> View attachment 2581715


Wow we have the same P-cores but my E-cores are only at 83. Total SP is 105.


----------



## HyperC

wait 1.537 vcore @ 5.8 is good? cletus air cooling? those temps very high for bios no?


----------



## HemuV2

satinghostrider said:


> Wow we have the same P-cores but my E-cores are only at 83. Total SP is 105.
> 
> View attachment 2581717


Mine are 73 lol absolute garb, p core is 109 @Falkentyne i think my e cores really are 73 that y cruncher test failed didn't even start at 1.225


----------



## cletus-cassidy

Falkentyne said:


> That's way above average.
> That's almost the same as Sugi's chip. Close to golden.
> Golden is P cores 120 or higher, very few chips get this. Only a few 120-123 samples floating around.
> A few E core samples have been above 100 but many are 90 and below.
> 
> Your P cores are higher than mine and the same as my E-cores.
> 
> Can you do a test please.
> Set 5.2 ghz (Sync p cores), 4.3 E-cores and 4.5 cache.
> Set Bios: 1.200v set + LLC5.
> Use Asus OCpak tool (OCtool) to change vcore in windows.
> 
> Start here and run Y-cruncher SFT *ONLY* test (press stress test, press 8, then press 13, then start the test)
> then your goal is to last 20 minutes (10 loops) without any of the E-cores (logical cores 16-31) crashing.
> 
> If you pass, drop vcore by 5mv using asus VRM tool and try again.
> If you error, raise vcore by 5mv (e.g. 1200mv ->1205mv).
> 
> Then record the vcore used to pass 10 loops


Will work on this over the weekend. Need a new board - My z690 Apex is just terrible.


----------



## cletus-cassidy

HyperC said:


> wait 1.537 vcore @ 5.8 is good? cletus air cooling? those temps very high for bios no?


I just put my water block on w/o TIM for speed and a quick shot which is why the temps are bad and cooling as well.


----------



## satinghostrider

HemuV2 said:


> Mine are 73 lol absolute garb, p core is 109 @Falkentyne i think my e cores really are 73 that y cruncher test failed didn't even start at 1.225


In all honesty, the damn CPU at stock is already faster than anything on the market if you can keep it cool. Don't lose sweat over it.


----------



## SoldierRBT

Got a KF today. It's 20mv better than my previous chip. It can also bench 8200 on YC.
5.6/4.4/4.9 1.159v VR OUT


----------



## Ichirou

SoldierRBT said:


> Got a KF today. It's 20mv better than my previous chip. It can also bench 8200 on YC.
> 5.6/4.4/4.9 1.159v VR OUT
> View attachment 2581730


Very nice cache ratio.


----------



## Ichirou

So far, I can run my 4,200 CL14 1T Gear 1 config on this 13900KF at only 1.31V VCCSA in y-cruncher (and with a proper 100.0 BCLK instead of a false one too).
With my 12700KF, I needed 1.41V instead. That's a whole -0.10V drop in VCCSA requirement, and can be safely daily'd now 

However, trying to run 4,266 MHz causes the E-cores to struggle in y-cruncher. I'll have to fiddle around with that frequency a bit more to stabilize it.
But I'll do that after some Cinebench runs to figure out how strong my cores are. Don't want to push the RAM too hard and limit my CPU headroom.


----------



## Baka_boy

cletus-cassidy said:


> Thanks again, Falk. Reporting back. After following all of the above instructions (wow what a PITA), looks like my real SP is 108 (116 P-Cores). Guess that makes my 13900K pretty average?
> 
> View attachment 2581715


That's really nice. I only have SP102 with E85/P111. But really, the fun part to me is trying to push it as far as it can go while getting it to run day-to-day stable. 

Btw,* 89C. *Did you run out of TIM and use tootpaste? J/K 😁


----------



## Ichirou

Baka_boy said:


> That's really nice. I only have SP102 with E85/P111. But really, the fun part to me is trying to push it as far as it can go while getting it to run day-to-day stable.
> 
> Btw,* 89C. *Did you run out of TIM and use tootpaste? J/K 😁


As he said, he didn't use _any_ TIM at all, lol. He just wanted a quick readout.


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> So far, I can run my 4,200 CL14 1T Gear 1 config on this 13900KF at only 1.31V VCCSA in y-cruncher (and with a proper 100.0 BCLK instead of a false one too).
> With my 12700KF, I needed 1.41V instead. That's a whole -0.10V drop in VCCSA requirement, and can be safely daily'd now
> 
> However, trying to run 4,266 MHz causes the E-cores to struggle in y-cruncher. I'll have to fiddle around with that frequency a bit more to stabilize it.
> But I'll do that after some Cinebench runs to figure out how strong my cores are. Don't want to push the RAM too hard and limit my CPU headroom.


I'm always so confused as to how you get such good results with 64GB of RAM aha. Is your RAM single rank sticks?

EDIT: Nevermind I saw your description said it is SR. Sorry for asking a dumb question


----------



## Exilon

Exilon said:


> This is a good reminder to people on what strong LLC looks like. It boosts loaded Vcore far more than it helps Vcore undershoot.
> 
> 
> https://elmorlabs.com/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581704


I'm trying ASUS LLC2 with these AC/DC settings now that I reminded myself about trying lower LLC settings








All-core settings 55/43/50 with +2 OCTVB profile on the P-cores

The SVID trained Vcore reduction at LLC2 is pretty good with -5C package temp compared to the minimum AC LL required for Y-cruncher w/ LLC4
In Y-cruncher VST it's actually activating one step of OCTVB occasionally








Now to see if it survives an hour of it... probably not


----------



## Ichirou

imrevoau said:


> I'm always so confused as to how you get such good results with 64GB of RAM aha. Is your RAM single rank sticks?
> 
> EDIT: Nevermind I saw your description said it is SR. Sorry for asking a dumb question


Yep. 4x16 GB Micron B-die SR. Can't really beat that with Samsung B-die SR/DR at 64 GB. Or even with DDR5 right now for that matter.

The key boils down to getting a good IMC. Even on Alder Lake, without a golden IMC, one couldn't get anywhere close to what I achieved.
And the IMC on this 13900KF I have is much better than the one on the 12900KF.
(However, the 13900K sample I had before this one had an IMC that was worse than the 12900KF. So there *is *a range.)

The E-cores are struggling with 4,266 MHz though. I've got some VCCSA headroom available to me, so I'll have to leave figuring that out for another day.


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> Yep. 4x16 GB Micron B-die SR. Can't really beat that with Samsung B-die SR/DR at 64 GB. Or even with DDR5 right now for that matter.
> 
> The key boils down to getting a good IMC. Even on Alder Lake, without a golden IMC, one couldn't get anywhere close to what I achieved.
> And the IMC on this 13900KF I have is much better than the one on the 12900KF.
> (However, the 13900K sample I had before this one had an IMC that was worse than the 12900KF. So there *is *a range.)
> 
> The E-cores are struggling with 4,266 MHz though. I've got some VCCSA headroom available to me, so I'll have to leave figuring that out for another day.


My E-cores were crashing in y-cruncher HNT after tightening timings at 4300. Needed more Vcore.


----------



## gtz

Welcome to the big league boys!!!!!!

I am glad to say EVGA fixed all my voltage issues, but all my memory issues. I am impressed that they were able to turn this around. 

Before with 2.01 BIOS I could only boot to 6400 on by DDR5 and stabilize at 6200. 

This is just to BIOS, but big improvement nevertheless.










That is on the latest beta BIOS 7200mhz on 100 dollar sticks of Hynix M die and a 4 dimm board. I will try to stabilize at 7000. 

I am a happy camper.


----------



## BoredErica

When overclocking, tuning DDR4 is more important than getting fastest ring clock, right? In general for gaming. Trying to think about what the order of operations here is. Core OC -> ram OC -> ring OC?


----------



## Exilon

BoredErica said:


> When overclocking, tuning DDR4 is more important than getting fastest ring clock, right? In general for gaming. Trying to think about what the order of operations here is. Core OC -> ram OC -> ring OC?


RAM OC -> Ring OC -> Core OC IMO. Cores are already pushed close to the limit and you'll struggle to get meaningful gains there unless you have a 13600K.
Ring OC is dead simple. Set L2 to 1.3v manual and set ring multi to 49-50-51 and see what works and doesn't blow up your Vcore VID.


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> So far, I can run my 4,200 CL14 1T Gear 1 config on this 13900KF at only 1.31V VCCSA in y-cruncher (and with a proper 100.0 BCLK instead of a false one too).
> With my 12700KF, I needed 1.41V instead. That's a whole -0.10V drop in VCCSA requirement, and can be safely daily'd now
> 
> However, trying to run 4,266 MHz causes the E-cores to struggle in y-cruncher. I'll have to fiddle around with that frequency a bit more to stabilize it.
> But I'll do that after some Cinebench runs to figure out how strong my cores are. Don't want to push the RAM too hard and limit my CPU headroom.


I can't get gear1 1T to run on my board, not sure what's happening, think might need a new bios from asus


----------



## Exilon

HemuV2 said:


> I can't get gear1 1T to run on my board, not sure what's happening, think might need a new bios from asus


gear 1T is also not running on my Z690 Strix-A DDR4 with 2x16GB Micron Rev.B


----------



## BoredErica

Exilon said:


> RAM OC -> Ring OC -> Core OC IMO. Cores are already pushed close to the limit and you'll struggle to get meaningful gains there unless you have a 13600K.
> Ring OC is dead simple. Set L2 to 1.3v manual and set ring multi to 49-50-51 and see what works and doesn't blow up your Vcore VID.


I am using 13600kf. 
What is L2 in this context? Thanks


----------



## HemuV2

HemuV2 said:


> I can't get gear1 to run on my board, not sure what's happening, think might need a new bios from asus





Exilon said:


> gear 1T is also not running on my Z690 Strix-A DDR4 with 2x16GB Micron Rev.B


same motherboard mine is single rank kit on bios 2103


----------



## Ichirou

Exilon said:


> My E-cores were crashing in y-cruncher HNT after tightening timings at 4300. Needed more Vcore.


Yeah, I'm noticing that even with a modest 57/40/40 config at 1.25V VR VOUT, I can't even run Cinebench.
I definitely feel like either the chip is weak, or the E-cores just suck. I'll have to narrow things down by working my way up with everything.

@bscool told me in a private message that overclocking his RAM limited his CPU OC potential, so this is probably what's happening to me as well.
I may need to dial the RAM back to 4,133 MHz again in order to push the CPU higher.


----------



## satinghostrider

Quick run on my stock 13900k (SP105) with 6800c32 with adjusted LLC.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, I'm noticing that even with a modest 57/40/40 config at 1.25V VR VOUT, I can't even run Cinebench.
> I definitely feel like either the chip is weak, or the E-cores just suck. I'll have to narrow things down by working my way up with everything.
> 
> @bscool told me in a private message that overclocking his RAM limited his CPU OC potential, so this is probably what's happening to me as well.
> I may need to dial the RAM back to 4,133 MHz again in order to push the CPU higher.


If you could please kindly post your core VIDs at x54, x55, x56 x57 and x58, with AC/DC Loadline at 1 (0.01 mohms) and Thermal Velocity Boost Voltage Optimizations disabled (important), then I can see the v/f table

Just set 1.35v bios set + Mode 2 LLC and you can boot very easily (then you can use dragon ball to change the multipliers and take a screenshot).


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, I'm noticing that even with a modest 57/40/40 config at 1.25V VR VOUT, I can't even run Cinebench.
> I definitely feel like either the chip is weak, or the E-cores just suck. I'll have to narrow things down by working my way up with everything.
> 
> @bscool told me in a private message that overclocking his RAM limited his CPU OC potential, so this is probably what's happening to me as well.
> I may need to dial the RAM back to 4,133 MHz again in order to push the CPU higher.


Is y-cruncher pointing to the E-cores crashing consistently? I don't see how they can't be stable at [email protected]



BoredErica said:


> I am using 13600kf.
> What is L2 in this context? Thanks


E-core L2 cache voltage. Gigabyte calls it something like ATOM L2VR or something along those lines.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> If you could please kindly post your core VIDs at x54, x55, x56 x57 and x58, with AC/DC Loadline at 1 (0.01 mohms) and Thermal Velocity Boost Voltage Optimizations disabled (important), then I can see the v/f table
> 
> Just set 1.35v bios set + Mode 2 LLC and you can boot very easily (then you can use dragon ball to change the multipliers and take a screenshot).


Probably no longer meaningful now that the RAM's been overclocked and the Vcore requirement for everything has shot up (as @Exilon explained).

I'll just do R23 tests and let you know what I manage to achieve on this chip. Currently seeing how far I can get with only 1.24V average VR VOUT.


Exilon said:


> Is y-cruncher pointing to the E-cores crashing consistently? I don't see how they can't be stable at [email protected]


Only when the RAM's at 4,266 MHz. At 4,200 MHz, they're fine.
When going through N64/HNT/VST, it'll always be some core beyond #16. So one of the E-cores.

Let's see what I can do in R23 for now. I still have some room to bump up the Vcore since the average Power (POUT) is only ~250W in R23 at the moment.


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> When going through N64/HNT/VST, it'll always be some core beyond #16. So one of the E-cores.


That's very strange that 4266 is tipping you over that much that 40x E-cores aren't stable.
One thing that kept crashing my E-cores in HNT at 43x was invisible throttling of the P-cores from ICCMax. Setting ICCMax to 511.75 fixed most of those crashes but I don't know if that would even apply in your situation.


----------



## Ichirou

Exilon said:


> That's very strange that 4266 is tipping you over that much that 40x E-cores aren't stable.
> One thing that kept crashing my E-cores in HNT at 43x was invisible throttling of the P-cores from ICCMax. Setting ICCMax to 511.75 fixed most of those crashes but I don't know if that would even apply in your situation.


I'm fairly confident that my E-cores are subpar. I just have that feeling. (And the L2 Cache Voltage is already set to 1.35V just to rule that out.)

As for R23 so far, doing 10 minute runs for quick testing.
56x all-core on the P-cores and 40/40 on the E-cores/ring is fine at ~1.24V VR VOUT average, but as soon as I try to do 57x on the P-cores, I have to boost that to at least 1.28V VR VOUT on average to not BSOD within a few minutes. But still not fully tested yet, so cannot guarantee that that is the minimum VR VOUT required.

This is pulling about 300W on load in Power (POUT).

I'll see how far I can push the P-cores first, and then work my way through the E-cores and finally the ring.


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> I'm fairly confident that my E-cores are subpar. I just have that feeling. (And the L2 Cache Voltage is already set to 1.35V just to rule that out.)
> 
> As for R23 so far, doing 10 minute runs for quick testing.
> 56x all-core on the P-cores and 40/40 on the E-cores/ring is fine at ~1.24V VR VOUT average, but as soon as I try to do 57x on the P-cores, I have to boost that to at least 1.28V VR VOUT on average to not BSOD within a few minutes. But still not fully tested yet, so cannot guarantee that that is the minimum VR VOUT required.
> 
> This is pulling about 300W on load in Power (POUT).
> 
> I'll see how far I can push the P-cores first, and then work my way through the E-cores and finally the ring.


Mine are preventing me from running at absolute minimum Vcore as well but when I had ICCMax set to default 368A, it was absolutely crippling trying to get HNT stable. It's worth a shot to see if raising ICCMax to 511.75A fixes your issue as well.


----------



## Ichirou

Exilon said:


> Mine are preventing me from running at absolute minimum Vcore as well but when I had ICCMax set to default 368A, it was absolutely crippling trying to get HNT stable. It's worth a shot to see if raising ICCMax to 511.75A fixes your issue as well.


I'll test that out later when I get around to retesting 4,266 MHz.
For now, I want to see how far I can push the CPU in Cinebench. Because after all, if I push the RAM _too much, _I might be be artificially limiting the CPU.

In other news, 10m run passes at 1.285V average VR VOUT with the P-cores at 57x. 58x will definitely require more, but I don't really want to pass 300W at this time.
The score (with HWiNFO running and maybe some other minor things) is 40,052 points.

Going to push the ring first and then the E-cores afterwards. And then finish off with a proper 30m run.


----------



## Netarangi

Does this seem like high idle temps?


----------



## Ichirou

Netarangi said:


> View attachment 2581757
> 
> 
> Does this seem like high idle temps?


50C average? Yes, lol.









Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


Hence why i undervolted 29mv 454W is the limit of the cooling at 424W with the 29mv undervolt it doesnt throttle Show me someone else who can get even close to those numbers with an aio How long was the run?




www.overclock.net




^ It seems like I'm slightly above what I should be for VR VOUT (1.285V average) relative to my Current (IOUT), which is on average 215A.

At the moment, even at 44x for the ring and 43x for the E-cores, I pass, but I get WHEA errors. So the ring needs to be dropped a bit (or Vcore needs to be raised).
45x ring errors out in R23. Score is 41,441 points.

I'll start with lowering the ring and focusing on the E-cores for now. There's a chance that the ring clock is poorly binned (or the RAM's hammering it too much).
Or maybe I need to boost VCCSA to compensate. I'll need to experiment.


----------



## lolhaxz

Ichirou said:


> 50C average? Yes, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> 
> Hence why i undervolted 29mv 454W is the limit of the cooling at 424W with the 29mv undervolt it doesnt throttle Show me someone else who can get even close to those numbers with an aio How long was the run?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ It seems like I'm slightly above what I should be for VR VOUT (1.285V average) relative to my Current (IOUT), which is on average 215A.
> 
> At the moment, even at 44x for the ring and 43x for the E-cores, I pass, but I get WHEA errors. So the ring needs to be dropped a bit (or Vcore needs to be raised).
> 45x ring errors out in R23. Score is 41,441 points.
> 
> I'll start with lowering the ring and focusing on the E-cores for now. There's a chance that the ring clock is poorly binned (or the RAM's hammering it too much).
> Or maybe I need to boost VCCSA to compensate. I'll need to experiment.


You will get WHEA errors on behalf of the P-Cores too.

I would think it very unlikely your ring is tapping out at 44x at 1.28v


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> 50C average? Yes, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> 
> Hence why i undervolted 29mv 454W is the limit of the cooling at 424W with the 29mv undervolt it doesnt throttle Show me someone else who can get even close to those numbers with an aio How long was the run?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ It seems like I'm slightly above what I should be for VR VOUT (1.285V average) relative to my Current (IOUT), which is on average 215A.
> 
> At the moment, even at 44x for the ring and 43x for the E-cores, I pass, but I get WHEA errors. So the ring needs to be dropped a bit (or Vcore needs to be raised).
> 45x ring errors out in R23. Score is 41,441 points.
> 
> I'll start with lowering the ring and focusing on the E-cores for now. There's a chance that the ring clock is poorly binned (or the RAM's hammering it too much).
> Or maybe I need to boost VCCSA to compensate. I'll need to experiment.


45x ring is default. I really doubt it's actually the ring causing it. Do you have ring down-bin enabled?


----------



## Ichirou

lolhaxz said:


> You will get WHEA errors on behalf of the P-Cores too.
> 
> I would think it very unlikely your ring is tapping out at 44x at 1.28v


I didn't get any WHEA errors with the E-cores and Ring at 40x, while the P-cores were at 57x.

I am pretty confident the E-cores just suck.


Exilon said:


> 45x ring is default. I really doubt it's actually the ring causing it. Do you have ring down-bin enabled?


No, it's a flat ring value.

On a side note, 44x on the E-cores and 43x on the Ring crashes and has WHEA errors. Going to drop the E-cores back 43x and retry.


----------



## lolhaxz

Ichirou said:


> I didn't get any WHEA errors with the E-cores and Ring at 40x, while the P-cores were at 57x.
> 
> No, it's a flat ring value.
> 
> On a side note, 44x on the E-cores and 43x on the Ring crashes and has WHEA errors. Going to drop the E-cores back 43x and retry.


Not to start a argument (again, just my opinion) ... but that's why testing with cache artificially lowered is a bit of a waste of time to some extent.

Having the ring at 40x takes a little bit of load off the P-Cores (well, all cores really)... and on most CPU's 5.7 is starting to brush up against the limits with a decent load (ie, realistic, dailyable scenario)... suspect you actually need a bit more vcore... or you are using 0.01 AC and not compensating the lower multipliers


----------



## Ichirou

lolhaxz said:


> Not to start a argument (again, just my opinion) ... but that's why testing with cache artificially lowered is a bit of a waste of time to some extent.
> 
> Having the ring at 40x takes a little bit of load off the P-Cores (well, all cores really)... and on most CPU's 5.7 is already about the limit for a decent load (ie, realistic, dailyable scenario)... suspect you actually need a bit more vcore... or you are using 0.01 AC and not compensating the lower multipliers


So I should dial the P-cores back to 56x and retry 45x on the ring?

I'm _attempting_ to keep the voltage/current/power within reasonable limits. Gonna need @Falkentyne to pitch in with his absolute, _absolute_, max recommended numbers.
At least, in the case of Cinebench R23.


----------



## lolhaxz

Ichirou said:


> So I should dial the P-cores back to 56x and retry 45x on the ring?
> 
> I'm _attempting_ to keep the voltage/current/power within reasonable limits. Gonna need @Falkentyne to pitch in with his absolute, _absolute_, max recommended numbers.
> At least, in the case of Cinebench R23.


You are at the "paper" limit already, infact beyond it - depends who you want to listen to... but my experience has been even at 511A ICCMAX it will still current throttle much lower than this, not sure what the mechanism is, haven't chased it.

I would try 48x cache (49 or 50 should be attainable) and leave 46x P-cores and 44x E-Cores and try to stabilize that at 1.28v load.. that's about all your likely able to cool anyway. Then start micro-titivating

Assuming 1.28v is die-sense here.


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> No, it's a flat ring value.


Wouldn't surprise me if your P-cores were throttling for a few thousand cycles, dropping Vcore like a rock, and crashing the ring then. 

Also reading up Intel patents on how ICCMax throttling works, it looks like it depends on droop measurement which explains why I get severe throttling even at stock settings just by lowering AC_LL and have to max out ICCMax to compensate






US20220100247A1 - Hierarchical power management apparatus and method - Google Patents


Hierarchical Power Management (HPM) architecture considers the limits of scaling on a power management controller, the autonomy at each die, and provides a unified view of the package to a platform. At a simplest level, HPM architecture has a supervisor and one or more supervisee power...



patents.google.com





SoCs have traditionally used single threshold or multi-threshold PMAX detector logic to trigger throttling when the current draw exceeds IccMax.App. PMAX detector logic senses the droop on input supply voltage (VccIN) voltage and throttles the core when the droop hits the single programmed Vtrip threshold (corresponding to IccMax.App or PMAX.App). Existing PMAX detector logic operate for monolithic SoCs that have a single power management unit (p-unit).
Existing PMAX detector logic are unable to manage power for hierarchical SoCs that have multiple p-units as it will lead to sub-optimality in terms of fragmentation and performance loss. Some power management tools like SIRP (SoC IccMax Reactive Protector) protect the SoC from power excursions caused by IccMax.App by aggregating current from all integrated voltage regulators (IVRs) and/or intellectual property blocks (IPs) in the SoC and induce throttling when the aggregate current exceeds IccMax.App. Both PMAX detector logic and SIRP protect two things: 1) IVR input Vmin violation due to 3rd droop; and 2), platform power supply unit (PSU) by inducing SoC throttling above IccMax.App. Note that IVRs can include on-chip switch regulators such as buck converter and switch cap regulators, and non-switch regulators such as LDOs.
PMAX detector or SIRP of various embodiments detect and throttle cores within 3rd droop time constant which can range from a_ few hundred nanoseconds to a microsecond_ depending on the settling time of adaptive voltage positioning (AVP) control or droop control.


----------



## Ichirou

lolhaxz said:


> You are at the "paper" limit already, infact beyond it - depends who you want to listen to... but my experience has been even at 511A ICCMAX it will still current throttle much higher than this, not sure what the mechanism is, haven't chased it.
> 
> I would try 48x cache (49 or 50 should be attainable) and leave 46x P-cores and 44x E-Cores and try to stabilize that at 1.28v load.. that's about all your likely able to cool anyway. Then start micro-titivating


1.28V as in VR VOUT average? That's what I'm already set at.
But sure, I can dial the P-cores back to 56x to see if I can push the rest higher.

Update: 57/43/43 passes R23 but has a few WHEA errors.
Now testing 56/43/45x to be more in line with default clocks. Same Vcore as the one I used for 57x.

Update 2: 56/43/45 passed R23 without any WHEA errors. Nice. Score 41,037 points.
Going to try pushing the E-cores and Ring higher, as you suggested, @lolhaxz

Update 3: 56/44/48 certainly did pass R23 without any WHEA errors. 41,489 points.
Going to see how much further I can go from here.


----------



## Exilon

lolhaxz said:


> my experience has been even at 511A ICCMAX it will still current throttle much lower than this, not sure what the mechanism is, haven't chased it.


Seems to be some patented Intel voodoo. Even with SIRP disabled and ICCMax=511.75, I still get a burst of throttling at the start of CB23 runs


----------



## Brandur

tps3443 said:


> Okay, I’ll just do Prime 95 Non-AVX+ Small FFT’s. Maybe 30 minutes and probably call it good enough.
> 
> So far I’m testing: Prime 95, Small FFT, Non-AVX.
> 
> 5.7Ghz P-Cores
> 4.5Ghz E-Cores
> 5.1Ghz Cache
> DDR5 7600
> [email protected] LLC3.
> 
> Update: Looks to be extremely stable with these settings though!


 Did you use the XMP preset for the Ram on the Unify-X or did u manually set timings and voltage?


----------



## Ichirou

In the meanwhile, does anyone have a rough guesstimate of my chip quality as it is_ for now_? (Factoring in that the RAM has been heavily overclocked.)

1.285V VR VOUT (average) at around 245A (average) and 310W (average).
56/44/48 tentative in R23 for 10m, and still testing.

57x on the P-cores gives WHEA errors at that voltage.


----------



## Brandur

Is there any chance, that 7600Mhz Ram will run in XMP on unify-x and a 13900k?


----------



## fray_bentos

Exilon said:


> Seems to be some patented Intel voodoo. Even with SIRP disabled and ICCMax=511.75, I still get a burst of throttling at the start of CB23 runs
> View attachment 2581764


I see the same on 13600KF even when VCore is <1.20 V. Can be observed as "IA Throttle reason" in HWiNFO graphs.


----------



## Ichirou

56/45/48x passes R23 10m without any WHEA errors. 41,923 points.
Testing higher ring for now.

Update: 56/45/50x R23 10m passes without WHEA errors. 41,918 points.
Going to push the ring even higher. Fingers crossed.


----------



## Kampers

Ichirou said:


> 56/45/48x passes R23 10m without any WHEA errors. 41,923 points.


Can you send me Voltage settings? I will try on my z690 maximus hero.


----------



## Ichirou

Kampers said:


> Can you send me Voltage settings? I will try on my z690 maximus hero.


I use an MSI motherboard so I can't give you the ASUS die sense, but the minimum average VR VOUT for my chip at those settings is 1.285V.
I have L2 Cache Voltage set to ~1.35V (tentative; haven't tested lower).

VCCSA is between 1.31-1.35V (I raised it temporarily for this testing.) VDDQ is 1.62V, but that's just for my DDR4 RAM.
^ These shouldn't be relevant for you, especially not if it is DDR5.


----------



## Ichirou

56/45/51x surprisingly passed R23 10m without any WHEA errors; same average VR VOUT as before. Score 41,988 points.
_(I also tested 52x on the ring, but it errored out in R23 pretty quickly. So that's the limit at that VR VOUT.)_

Going to try to push the E-cores higher now. Nevermind, hit my limit with those as well. 46x on the E-cores throws CLOCK_WATCHDOG.

I guess that's it with that average VR VOUT. I'd need to bump up the Vcore even higher if I want to push the chip any further. @lolhaxz @Exilon @Falkentyne

Going to do a proper R23 30m test now.


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> Yep. 4x16 GB Micron B-die SR. Can't really beat that with Samsung B-die SR/DR at 64 GB. Or even with DDR5 right now for that matter.
> 
> The key boils down to getting a good IMC. Even on Alder Lake, without a golden IMC, one couldn't get anywhere close to what I achieved.
> And the IMC on this 13900KF I have is much better than the one on the 12900KF.
> (However, the 13900K sample I had before this one had an IMC that was worse than the 12900KF. So there *is *a range.)
> 
> The E-cores are struggling with 4,266 MHz though. I've got some VCCSA headroom available to me, so I'll have to leave figuring that out for another day.


I still don't quite get IMC's. I could boot 4300!!! on my 12700KF, but 4266 barely boots on my 13700KF, yet I can stabilize 4133. My old chip only did 4000. Interesting stuff.


----------



## Ichirou

*56/45/51x successfully passed R23 on a 30m run with 1.285V average VR VOUT, and average 245A Current (IOUT). *Score 41,808 points (probably due to variance).
No WHEA errors. That's the best this chip will do without raising Vcore even further. Awaiting guesstimation for chip quality.
57x on the P-cores will throw WHEA errors. 46x on the E-cores will BSOD without more Vcore. 52x on the ring crashes R23.

*RAM is set to 4,200 CL14 1T Gear 1 at 1.31V VCCSA, ~1.62V VDDQ, ~1.67V VDIMM. *Stable in TM5 with 1usmus; will run anta777 ABSOLUT overnight.










imrevoau said:


> I still don't quite get IMC's. I could boot 4300!!! on my 12700KF, but 4266 barely boots on my 13700KF, yet I can stabilize 4133. My old chip only did 4000. Interesting stuff.


BIOS matters quite a bit. It can positively or negatively affect the VCCSA and/or VDDQ required to run a specific memory config.


----------



## digitalfrost

Exilon said:


> Wouldn't surprise me if your P-cores were throttling for a few thousand cycles, dropping Vcore like a rock, and crashing the ring then.
> 
> Also reading up Intel patents on how ICCMax throttling works, it looks like it depends on droop measurement which explains why I get severe throttling even at stock settings just by lowering AC_LL and have to max out ICCMax to compensate


This seems to explain what I was seeing here Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc... where the CPU is throttling despite mathematically not being close the ampere limit. I was reminded of CEP throttling when the Vcore is below the built in V/F curve so I've enabled CEP, then raised ACLL until CEP did not longer throttle (it is stable at 1/110 but I needed 60/110 to have CEP shutup). However with the lower Iccmax.app limit of 254A this didn't seem to help throttling at all. That said it was a lot higher vcore obviously so maybe they work against each other.


----------



## energie80

i made a lot of test on Modern Warfare 2, best config:
HT OFF
Ecores OFF
P Cores 60x
Ring 51x


----------



## fray_bentos

energie80 said:


> i made a lot of test on Modern Warfare 2, best config:
> HT OFF
> Ecores OFF
> P Cores 60x
> Ring 51x


CPU?


----------



## energie80

13900kf


----------



## BoredErica

My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is:
My 13600kf is running 1.45v (approximately, this is not die sense). I turned off E cores. The power reading from HWinfo is 85w in gaming. If I set power limit to 150w, does that mean at little less than 1.45v, CPU is pulling 120A tops? And in gaming like 60A?

Even though voltages are high, isn't that okay in terms of power draw and therefore relatively safe as long as thermals aren't out of control? (It is easier to cool a 6c/12t CPU w/o E cores all core when it's power limited after all, and I'll be gaming rather than using all cores 99% of the time.) I think 60c while gaming is ok.


----------



## fray_bentos

BoredErica said:


> My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is:
> My 13600kf is running 1.45v (approximately, this is not die sense). I turned off E cores. The power reading from HWinfo is 85w in gaming. If I set power limit to 150w, does that mean at little less than 1.45v, CPU is pulling 120A tops? And in gaming like 60A?
> 
> Even though voltages are high, isn't that okay in terms of power draw and therefore relatively safe as long as thermals aren't out of control? (It is easier to cool a 6c/12t CPU w/o E cores all core when it's power limited after all, and I'll be gaming rather than using all cores 99% of the time.)


That's way too high, your CPU is being massively overvolted. Turn down LLC level/voltage. For example, my 13600KF is running 5.1 GHz (even up to 5.5 GHz!) with a max Vcore of 1.20 V. At 1.29 Vcore, it'll run at 5.7 GHz. I disabled HT, but left e-cores on. Also running 1.22 V on SA and VDDQ with DDR4 RAM at 1.40 V 4300 MHz, 17-17-17-38.


----------



## BoredErica

fray_bentos said:


> That's way too high, your CPU is being massively overvolted. Turn down LLC level/voltage. For example, my 13600KF is running 5.1 GHz (even up to 5.5 GHz!) with a max Vcore of 1.20 V. At 1.29 Vcore, it'll run at 5.7 GHz. I disabled HT, but left e-cores on. Also running 1.22 V on SA and VDDQ with DDR4 RAM at 1.40 V 4300 MHz, 17-17-17-38.


I am doing some tests, and at 1.4v I can't run tests at 5.9/6ghz. I'm testing and reducing voltage if I can is on the agenda for sure. But I'm seriously wondering, is what I'm doing even dangerous then? The current draw should be relatively tiny at ~60A and temps are okayish.

I want to see how high 1-4c frequencies can go for lighter gaming loads. Or maybe it's all unstable and I'm back down to 5.7ghz or below. Just started the process.

My SA is 1.35v, vdimm at 1.45v, vddq 1.3v.


----------



## fray_bentos

BoredErica said:


> I am doing some tests, and at 1.4v I can't run tests at 5.9/6ghz.


Of course you can't. Reading here would tell you that many Raptor Lake CPUs start hitting an increasingly steep voltage wall around 5.7 GHz all core, and that's going to happen sooner on a 13600K than a 13900K. Not worth killing your chip over, especially if it is for gaming purposes. I am yet to see any game benefitting more than 2% from lifting the clock over 5.1 GHz... the same as seen in reviews. e.g here, even at lowly 1080p, 12 game average:



https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i5-13600k/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png


and here:





Don’t Bother Overclocking an i5 13600K… | TechteamGB


Let’s be real here, you’ve already watched Linus’, Steve’s or.. Steve’s video on these new chips. You know how they perform and how they compare to last gen and Ryzen 7000. So let’s shake things up and do something a little different. I’ve spent the last week overclocking and testing the i5...




techteamgb.co.uk





As far as I can see for now, the 13600K even at stock is massive overkill for today's games. Spiderman may be an exception; on my hit list soon...

Even lightly threaded games tend to make ALL the p-cores hit their max all-core speed, so setting less than 6 cores on 13600K to higher frequencies is unlikely to see them used at the higher frequency. Just extra volts and power for no benefit. My PC is now dead silent as the fans are so low due to the great power efficiency. It's so quiet that occasional coilwhine is the loudest thing from my PC...


----------



## BoredErica

fray_bentos said:


> Of course you can't. Reading here would tell you that many Raptor Lake CPUs start hitting an increasingly steep voltage wall around 5.7 GHz all core, and that's going to happen sooner on a 13600K than a 13900K. Not worth killing your chip over, especially if it is for gaming purposes. I am yet to see any game benefitting from lifting the clock over 5.1 GHz... the same as seen in reviews. e.g here, even at lowly 1080p, 12 game average:
> 
> 
> 
> https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i5-13600k/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png
> 
> 
> and here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t Bother Overclocking an i5 13600K… | TechteamGB
> 
> 
> Let’s be real here, you’ve already watched Linus’, Steve’s or.. Steve’s video on these new chips. You know how they perform and how they compare to last gen and Ryzen 7000. So let’s shake things up and do something a little different. I’ve spent the last week overclocking and testing the i5...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> techteamgb.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can see for now, the 13600K even at stock is massive overkill for today's games. Spiderman may be an exception; on my hit list soon...
> 
> Even lightly threaded games tend to make ALL the p-cores hit their max all-core speed, so setting less than 6 cores on 13600K to higher frequencies is unlikely to see them used at the higher frequency. Just extra volts and power for no benefit. My PC is now dead silent as the fans are so low due to the great power efficiency. It's so quiet that occasional coilwhine is the loudest thing from my PC...


Please don't link me averages. I understand my use case. I asked what's safe, not about whether CPU overclocks matter. You say it's not worth killing the chip over, but you've yet to explain what is or isn't safe, which was the point of the original question.


----------



## fray_bentos

BoredErica said:


> Please don't link me averages. I understand my use case. I asked what's safe, not about whether CPU overclocks matter. You say it's not worth killing the chip over, but you've yet to explain what is or isn't safe, which was the point of the original question.


You can check the individual games if you like... the max gain was 2%, and in many cases reduced performance due to throttling. As I said, not worth it. Good luck. Please report back when you see degradation. Adios.


----------



## BoredErica

So asking to anyone else, particularly those who won't try to talk down to me, assume what I play on my computer, or randomly tell me I'm killing my computer without being able to explain why:

What is actually wrong with running 1.45v for gaming assuming temps are under control and power draw (as far as I can tell from software) is very low (~85w)? If my math is right, it's ~60A which seems low to me. Then I can power limit if I need to use all core to keep temps and current under control.


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> 56/45/51x surprisingly passed R23 10m without any WHEA errors; same average VR VOUT as before. Score 41,988 points.
> _(I also tested 52x on the ring, but it errored out in R23 pretty quickly. So that's the limit at that VR VOUT.)_
> 
> Going to try to push the E-cores higher now. Nevermind, hit my limit with those as well. 46x on the E-cores throws CLOCK_WATCHDOG.
> 
> I guess that's it with that average VR VOUT. I'd need to bump up the Vcore even higher if I want to push the chip any further. @lolhaxz @Exilon @Falkentyne
> 
> Going to do a proper R23 30m test now.


My ecores are sp73 and pcores sp 109 so i wouldn't be shocked if you also had bad ecores with good pcores, please let me know you want me to test anything


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

tps3443 said:


> All of the Hynix A die stuff is really great! I’ve tested my 7200 sticks at 7600 it and operates perfectly fine with only 1.400V and runs stable which is really amazing.
> 
> Below is a screenshot from Team Group, using the 7200 sticks stabilized on a (4) Dimm motherboard at 7800 speeds. Same part number as my memory sticks, same manufacture date as well.
> 
> I feel like if I had a Z790 Apex motherboard I could really net a lot more out of them.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2581617


Makes me wanna buy 7600 Kit! Is this defo A die?

My Z790 Apex is on the way so excited!

Sold my used Z690 Formula that I bought for £160 for £425 which is a nice profit, can put it torwards RAM.

Someone is currently interested in buying my £130 Apex for £500 so that alone will grant me some free RAMS


----------



## tps3443

Brandur said:


> Is there any chance, that 7600Mhz Ram will run in XMP on unify-x and a 13900k?


Yes it works with XMP. Leave everything auto set XMP 7600 and go play games, I would also recommend manually lowering the SA voltage. It’s a little too high on auto with DDR5. 

I set XMP 7200 and it loads up perfect, I can also set XMP and set DRAM speed to 7600 and it boots up on a totally reset bios and works perfectly fine in like 8 seconds from F10 save to loading Windows 11 lol. The Unify-X trains super fast. The auto CPU VDDQ, and CPU VDD2 voltages are both what they should be for such high memory speeds. You also need to max out your tREFI for quick and easy performance gains. And it performs like a beast. 125gbps+ bandwidth, with around 50ns latency. Fine tuning your timings and RTL’s will only yield even more performance. DDR5 7600 seems to be the sweet spot, but yes 7600XMP and go with the Unify-X is 100% reliable I’ve seen quite a few people report the same thing. Only way to get more performance is by purchasing a $700 dollar Asus Apex Z790 motherboard. I’d love to do that and all for sure, but it’s just not worth it to me. So I’m 99.9% sure I’ll be riding out on this MSI Unify-x and my 13900KF for the long haul.


----------



## tps3443

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Makes me wanna buy 7600 Kit! Is this defo A die?
> 
> My Z790 Apex is on the way so excited!
> 
> Sold my used Z690 Formula that I bought for £160 for £425 which is a nice profit, can put it torwards RAM.
> 
> Someone is currently interested in buying my £130 Apex for £500 so that alone will grant me some free RAMS


7200+ is definitely Hynix A die.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

tps3443 said:


> 7200+ is definitely Hynix A die.


Could you do me a favour and chuck in 1.55V into your RAM and see how far you can push it?

It should be okay. My M-Die RAM ran at 1.55V for good 7 months and is still perfect.


----------



## don1376

I get about a 6-7 degree delta between my cores on 13900k. Using frame, lapped cpu, LM, and Velocity 2 block. Max temp running R23 after 5 runs at 5.7 with 1.278 volts under load is 83c.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

tps3443 said:


> I bought this. So I guess I’m good to go then. Thank you.
> 
> View attachment 2581526


I have bought 2 Rockit HS for the 13.Gen and both has a dent in the middle, that´s the reason why i must use much WLP to fill this and the temp´s are not so good.
I have make the HS plane with 800ér sandpaper, now the temps are better, so it´s good to check this.


----------



## Ichirou

I'm back. TM5 anta777 ABSOLUT is still running after an overnight session, without any errors.


----------



## jtclfo

PhoenixMDA said:


> I have bought 2 Rockit HS for the 13.Gen and both has a dent in the middle, that´s the reason why i must use much WLP to fill this and the temp´s are not so good.
> I have make the HS plane with 800ér sandpaper, now the temps are better, so it´s good to check this.


Interesting I will assess this when I go to switch blocks out once my Optimus shows up. I did polish it but I didn’t check it for trueness and this could be part of my issue with seeing higher temps than others


----------



## Ichirou

Any suggestions on where to proceed next?

@tps3443 How many volts are you pushing into your chip? What is your VR VOUT reading? Just for comparison.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

jtclfo said:


> Interesting I will assess this when I go to switch blocks out once my Optimus shows up. I did polish it but I didn’t check it for trueness and this could be part of my issue with seeing higher temps than others


Here you see my temp´s on morning with original Rockit (installed laste week) and later after 800ér sandpaper in more plane, the temp´s i think will be a little bit better after some time, the thermal paste take a little bit.
With original Rockit HS i must do more WLP in the middle because no direct contact.


----------



## tps3443

TheNaitsyrk said:


> Could you do me a favour and chuck in 1.55V into your RAM and see how far you can push it?
> 
> It should be okay. My M-Die RAM ran at 1.55V for good 7 months and is still perfect.


I can use my system with DDR5 8000. But I cannot get true stability. I’m limited by my motherboard being Z690. If you have a Z790 Apex on the way, you’d want Hynix A-Die for sure. Whether it’s 7200 XMP or 7600 XMP. I doubt you’ll have any issues getting 8,000+ perfectly stable very easily with either option.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Any suggestions on where to proceed next?
> 
> @tps3443 How many volts are you pushing into your chip? What is your VR VOUT reading? Just for comparison.


I can run 5.8 P-Cores, 4.6 E-cores, 4.7 cache. On warm 80f water with 1.267 VR out under load. No chiller on.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I can run 5.8 P-Cores, 4.6 E-cores, 4.7 cache. On warm 80f water with 1.267 VR out under load. No chiller on.


Oh, the cache doesn't seem as high as mine. Are they limited by the P-cores? The core quality seems to be much better though.
Gives me a rough idea for where my chip places. Yours is golden, so mine is probably somewhere above average.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Oh, the cache doesn't seem as high as mine. Are they limited by the P-cores? The core quality seems to be much better though.
> Gives me a rough idea for where my chip places. Yours is golden, so mine is probably somewhere above average.


 The cache can go up more. That’s really just what I had it on for the time being.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Oh, the cache doesn't seem as high as mine. Are they limited by the P-cores? The core quality seems to be much better though.
> Gives me a rough idea for where my chip places. Yours is golden, so mine is probably somewhere above average.


Remember I asked you multiple times to post your frequency vids, so we can get an idea of how your P-cores are.
This doesn't require a stress test in R23. R23 is just validation because there were a few people with low VIDs on Z790 (so not fake) but their
Pcore 113 chips performed more like a P105 or worse as they needed more than 1.17v load (die sense or vr vout) to pass R23 at 5.5 ghz.

You just need to go into your bios, into the lite load section and set ac and dc loadline values to 1 (or 0.01, whatever is smallest).
Then disable thermal velocity boost voltage optimizations (don't leave it on auto). That will keep the reported VID same at both idle and load.
Then post the core VIDs at each multiplier: x54, x55, x56 and x57.

That will give a good idea of your P core SP rating. This takes absolutely no work, just do it and post the core vids you get. No stress testing needed.

E core SP will take more work.
You will want to underclock the p-cores to x52, set ecores to x43, ring to x45,
then you will want to start at something like 1.150v bios set, LLC Mode 3--this is ESTIMATED.
Your target is to get a load VR VOUT of about 1.08v in Y-cruncher.
So you load up Y-cruncher, SFT only loop test, no others, and your goal is to pass 10 loops without an e-core crashing.
The e core ID's are #16-#31.

If you fail, raise cpu vcore by 5mv so your vr vout increases by 5 (e..g 1.08v to 1.085v) and try again.
Keep going up until it passes, then write what the load vr vout was that you needed to pass.
If you were stable on the very first attempt, then you would reduce the vcore by 5mv and test until you fail, etc.


----------



## HemuV2

Guys on auto voltage with only cache set 50x why's ny vcore 1.58 with 13900K in games, it's taking like 140ish W asus strix board z690A ddr4


----------



## digitalfrost

BoredErica said:


> So asking to anyone else, particularly those who won't try to talk down to me, assume what I play on my computer, or randomly tell me I'm killing my computer without being able to explain why:
> 
> What is actually wrong with running 1.45v for gaming assuming temps are under control and power draw (as far as I can tell from software) is very low (~85w)? If my math is right, it's ~60A which seems low to me. Then I can power limit if I need to use all core to keep temps and current under control.


I may be wrong but here are my thoughts:

Intel specs for the 6P+8E core CPUs are 200A iccmax and 170A iccmax.app. We can debate how many amperes of this are for the Ecores. My point is, if you disable ecores, your limit should probably be lower. Also this is strange because if you look at values for the 13700k and 13900k it does not add up. Between the 12900k and 12700k there was a 40A difference (280A vs 240A), so 10A for each Ecore. But with 13700k and 13900k in both cases the max spec is 307A. Assuming the same rules apply I would wager the 13600k could take 254A. But it doesn't. So we have no idea how Intel arrives at these values. Maybe it's just product segmentation, maybe there is a technical reason.

Anyway if we take the values from the datasheet and go by the magic formula

1520mv - (200A * 1.1 mohm) = 1300mv 
1520mv - (170A * 1.1 mohm) = 1333mv 

This should be your max full load voltage. If we assume the rules of ohms law apply here, and that is not certain see the discussions about iccmax in this thread, we can assume that 85W at 1.45V is indeed around 60A. Let's say this is true then I can simply:

1450mv - (140A * 1.1 mOhm) = 1296mv
1450mv - (110A * 1.1 mohm) = 1329mv 

So that would work. The reason this works is, this is a linear relationship and 1520mv - (60A * 1.1mohm) = 1454mv. So you're bang on. If you use anything else than default loadline slopes you should adjust VID accordingly to stay below max values. However I question if your power reading is correct - only 85W at 1.45V would really surprise me. I can achieve more power consumption than this with 1.2-1.25V during gaming. Have you matched DCLL to the LLC? This might work, but you really are on the edge.

If anyone thinks this is bullshit I'd be happy to be corrected.


----------



## X909

BoredErica said:


> What is actually wrong with running 1.45v for gaming assuming temps are under control and power draw (as far as I can tell from software) is very low (~85w)? If my math is right, it's ~60A which seems low to me. Then I can power limit if I need to use all core to keep temps and current under control.


Should be absolutely no problem. Intel rated max VCore to 1.72V. 12900KS had VIDs up to 1.526V, also some 13900K have VIDs > 1.4V. 
I run mine with 1.45V max... Enough for 5700 full load, 5800 middle load, 6 Ghz on the favorites in light loads.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

BoredErica said:


> So asking to anyone else, particularly those who won't try to talk down to me, assume what I play on my computer, or randomly tell me I'm killing my computer without being able to explain why:
> 
> What is actually wrong with running 1.45v for gaming assuming temps are under control and power draw (as far as I can tell from software) is very low (~85w)? If my math is right, it's ~60A which seems low to me. Then I can power limit if I need to use all core to keep temps and current under control.


When we talk about voltage, everyone thinks differently... some think of value using fixed voltage.
others refer to voltage at full load (die-sense).
still others look at the VID at idle... others refer to adaptive voltage.
still others talk about the fixed voltage informing the LLC used...
some tower of babel...lol.

the fact is that CPUs are not designed to work at fixed voltage and with frequencies locked in a certain multiplier.

people tune modern CPUs still thinking about how it was done in the 90s.

there is nothing wrong with letting the CPU itself talk to the VRM and they decide the frequency and voltage of each core dynamically. That's how it was designed and that's how computers and servers that don't go through the hands of an overclocker work.

so if you adjust the loadlines and adjust the voltage of full load, there is no problem your cpu works in light loads with high frequencies and voltages above 1.5v...

intel designed the cpus to work like this... by-core usage and adaptive voltage.

we are stubborn thinking that we will do a better job than the CPU voltage control algorithm talking to the VRM. lol

So if you are using your CPU with cores freely to change their frequency, using the internal vf curve determined by Intel, and adaptive voltage... There is no problem at all...
Just make sure you to adjust loadlines to tune the full load voltage using the minimum AC_LL possible.


----------



## Falkentyne

X909 said:


> Should be absolutely no problem. Intel rated max VCore to 1.72V. 12900KS had VIDs up to 1.526V, also some 13900K have VIDs > 1.4V.
> I run mine with 1.45V max... Enough for 5700 full load, 5800 middle load, 6 Ghz on the favorites in light loads.


This absolutely DOES NOT mean that you can set 1.72v in BIOS at idle and be safe.
Please don't spread "1.72v max" to lure people into thinking they can willy nilly just set 1.72v and not burn pits into the CPU gates.

If you're even going to mention "1.72v", then at least take some effort and explain this--which you conveniently ignored:



> 15.An IMVP9.1 controller to support VccCORE need to have an offset voltage capability and potentially VccCORE output voltage (VID+Offset) may be higher than 1.5V


(note: this is a copy and paste typo which they started with Rocket Lake datasheets. It should say 1.52v (as it did in the 10th Gen Comet Lake datasheet)).
Offset mode allows up to 200mv of extra VID. 1500mv + 200mv is 1700mv not 1720mv, that would be 220mv of extra VID. Intel is getting more and more lazy each gen...)
Refer to the IR 35201 datasheets for "VRM command 33H", which is where offset mode was first introduced (on Z390).

And how come EVERYONE on this forum is CONVENIENTLY IGNORING how AC Loadline was changed from Z390 to Z490?

This change is what made "offset mode" enabled by default. The only board that allowed you to enable this mode manually on Z390 were the Gigabyte boards, where it was originally disabled by default, however even THEIR OWN ENGINEERS DID NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS FUNCTION. It was disabled by default, and there were pretty major bugs if you tried to enable it in the BIOS. Major as in some pretty massive "just don't use it" bugs.

I went back and forth with their BIOS team and even sent them some VRM datasheets mentioning this exact offset address command, and they sent me a test BIOS where enabling it indeed allowed AC Loadline to boost native VID by up to 200mv. (normally, it was hard capped at 1.520v, even if you set AC Loadline to 63 mohms, it would still hard cap it at 1.520v), and on Z390, AC Loadline would boost native VID (after thermal velocity boost VID "temp" scaling) by "Loadstep IOUT * ACLL mohms", before Loadline calibration would drop the SVID back down by "IOUT * LLC mOhms").

Even in the test bioses, there was a fatal bug. If you set a manual vcore of "1.20v" and then enabled SVID Offset, the CPU Post code would turn blank, fans would spin at 100% speed and 0V would be sent to the CPU. This was because, if you looked at their default voltage written in white on the right, it said "1.20v". If you set a manual vcore to this same value, it would bug out if SVID Offset was enabled and the CPU wouldnt get voltage. All other values worked fine--1.195v, 1.205v, etc. 

I forgot the BIOS name from that time but I remember the extension was "T0D". There was another one "T1D" but I recall some issue with this BIOS so I just kept T0D on one of the two Bios chips.
Should have either been posted or linked on the Gigabyte Z390 thread that's buried somewhere here, I guess sometime from 2019. I deleted all my Gigabyte folders so I don't have it anymore.

However, after two test bioses, they "reverted" SVID Offset's function back to its original broken state (and kept it disabled), because they said that the "new" function was incorrect and wasn't supposed to do this.
Then on Z490, this became enabled by default on all ODM boards.

Note that Asus had SVID Offset enabled always on Z390 (and it was not exposed in the BIOS so you couldn't disable it), which is why on their maximus XI boards, you could get VID/vcore higher than 1.520v if you set AC Loadline too high, e.g., setting SVID Behavior to worst case scenario or Intel Fail Safe (0.9 mohms or 1.6 mOhms IIRC), yet no one understood what was going on back then.


----------



## Exilon

HemuV2 said:


> Guys on auto voltage with only cache set 50x why's ny vcore 1.58 with 13900K in games, it's taking like 140ish W asus strix board z690A ddr4


Because you set it on auto. Don't use auto voltages when changing multipliers if you don't know what your motherboard will do.


----------



## Ichirou

digitalfrost said:


> I may be wrong but here are my thoughts:
> 
> Intel specs for the 6P+8E core CPUs are 200A iccmax and 170A iccmax.app. We can debate how many amperes of this are for the Ecores. My point is, if you disable ecores, your limit should probably be lower. Also this is strange because if you look at values for the 13700k and 13900k it does not add up. Between the 12900k and 12700k there was a 40A difference (280A vs 240A), so 10A for each Ecore. But with 13700k and 13900k in both cases the max spec is 307A. Assuming the same rules apply I would wager the 13600k could take 254A. But it doesn't. So we have no idea how Intel arrives at these values. Maybe it's just product segmentation, maybe there is a technical reason.
> 
> Anyway if we take the values from the datasheet and go by the magic formula
> 
> 1520mv - (200A * 1.1 mohm) = 1300mv
> 1520mv - (170A * 1.1 mohm) = 1333mv
> 
> This should be your max full load voltage. If we assume the rules of ohms law apply here, and that is not certain see the discussions about iccmax in this thread, we can assume that 85W at 1.45V is indeed around 60A. Let's say this is true then I can simply:
> 
> 1450mv - (140A * 1.1 mOhm) = 1296mv
> 1450mv - (110A * 1.1 mohm) = 1329mv
> 
> So that would work. The reason this works is, this is a linear relationship and 1520mv - (60A * 1.1mohm) = 1454mv. So you're bang on. If you use anything else than default loadline slopes you should adjust VID accordingly to stay below max values. However I question if your power reading is correct - only 85W at 1.45V would really surprise me. I can achieve more power consumption than this with 1.2-1.25V during gaming. Have you matched DCLL to the LLC? This might work, but you really are on the edge.
> 
> If anyone thinks this is bullshit I'd be happy to be corrected.


So, is 1.285V VR VOUT safe with Current at average 245A?


----------



## digitalfrost

Ichirou said:


> So, is 1.285V VR VOUT safe with Current at average 245A?


I'd go with 1.241v at 245A.


----------



## tabbycph2

My 13900KF SP 104 (115 p 83 e), can do 30 min Cinebench23 at 1.220 volt bios / 1.119 volt die sense LLC6 on my Asus Z690 Hero.
How is the odds on Teamgroup 7600 Mhz memory working on my board?


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> So, is 1.285V VR VOUT safe with Current at average 245A?


Running that exact VR VOUT and almost the same current load on my 12900K in Stockfish for months degraded it by over 40mv. (of course I was at or over 100C too but whatever).
I'd listen to digitalfrost.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Ichirou said:


> So, is 1.285V VR VOUT safe with Current at average 245A?


1.285V*245A=314.8w.

The 13900k TDP is 125w
Maximum power is 253w
Intel allows higher power for less than 10ms.

If you load the CPU at 314w just to adjust the load lines, that's fine... But if you keep loading the CPU like that something bad could happen.... Lol

Just to clarify...
When I say about 1.5v VID I'm not saying about a fixed voltage... Any fixed voltage higher than 1.25v I consider dangerous depending the load line.
I don't use and don't like to use fixed voltage.
I like to use vf curves and adaptive voltage...
I like when the CPU is talking to VRM and deciding for the voltage as they were design to work.


----------



## HemuV2

Exilon said:


> Because you set it on auto. Don't use auto voltages when changing multipliers if you don't know what your motherboard will do.


At manual voltage, my ecore sp is 73 and I'm having to downclock them to 3.6ghz to keep 5.5/50x ring stable at 1.4V llc 4 on asus, my cinebench score is 36k ish and wattage is 240W now, stock was 330W


----------



## Falkentyne

HemuV2 said:


> At manual voltage, my ecore sp is 73 and I'm having to downclock them to 3.6ghz to keep 5.5/50x ring stable at 1.4V llc 4 on asus, my cinebench score is 36k ish and wattage is 240W now, stock was 330W


What bios set vcore did you need at 5.2 ghz (P cores) to get SFT Y cruncher to pass on your E cores at x43? did you ever determine that?
Your last post said 1.225v set + LLC5 failed instantly.
Did you do 1.250v set or higher?


----------



## RichKnecht

I’m starting to wonder why overclock this chip at all. At default settings, with the exception of manually entering my memory’s XMP settings, it does just about 41K in R23. With my OC, P 5.6, E 4.5, Ring 4.8, it will score 41980 ish. That’s not a massive gain for the amount of time spent fiddling around. Don’t get me wrong, I love tweaking things, but compared to the 10980XE this chip replaced, it’s stupid fast out of the box. I may just play around with undervolting it with stock settings to see how much heat I can get rid of. Granted, I’m running 3 360s and dual D5s, but I’m not opposed to turning the fans down to make this box a bit quieter.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

RichKnecht said:


> I’m starting to wonder why overclock this chip at all. At default settings, with the exception of manually entering my memory’s XMP settings, it does just about 41K in R23. With my OC, P 5.6, E 4.5, Ring 4.8, it will score 41980 ish. That’s not a massive gain for the amount of time spent fiddling around. Don’t get me wrong, I love tweaking things, but compared to the 10980XE this chip replaced, it’s stupid fast out of the box. I may just play around with undervolting it with stock settings to see how much heat I can get rid of. Granted, I’m running 3 360s and dual D5s, but I’m not opposed to turning the fans down to make this box a bit quieter.


Bingo!
Agree 100% !
The best is to keep it under Intel specification and take advantage of any thermal opportunity with OCTVB.

These results are "enforcing all Intel limits" to the CPU...

Take a look....









Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...


A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...




www.overclock.net


----------



## RichKnecht

RobertoSampaio said:


> Bingo!
> Agree 100% !
> The best is to keep it under Intel specification and take advantage of any thermal opportunity with OCTVB.
> 
> These results are "enforcing all Intel limits" to the CPU...
> 
> Take a look....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...
> 
> 
> A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Can those settings be adapted to a MSI bios? I am very familiar with ASUS bios but this is my first MSI board and their bios looks totally different.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> I’m starting to wonder why overclock this chip at all. At default settings, with the exception of manually entering my memory’s XMP settings, it does just about 41K in R23. With my OC, P 5.6, E 4.5, Ring 4.8, it will score 41980 ish. That’s not a massive gain for the amount of time spent fiddling around. Don’t get me wrong, I love tweaking things, but compared to the 10980XE this chip replaced, it’s stupid fast out of the box. I may just play around with undervolting it with stock settings to see how much heat I can get rid of. Granted, I’m running 3 360s and dual D5s, but I’m not opposed to turning the fans down to make this box a bit quieter.


I feel the same exact way. If you set normal priority in R23 they will hit right at 41,200 in R23. I would leave the stock settings and just start chopping off voltage with a fixed vcore. Of course I would also maximize memory capability. They rip stock though.

Edit: I can tune out like a crazy good 230ish watts of power in R23 which is just insane for this much performance.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

RichKnecht said:


> Can those settings be adapted to a MSI bios? I am very familiar with ASUS bios but this is my first MSI board and their bios looks totally different.


I think the "theory" is the same...
You can try...
I have over 42.000 r23 points with 240w...
Enforcing all Intel limits.

It's a paradigm to be broken stop using a fixed voltage and sync all cores... 
I started it with my 10900k... 
when I start overclocking tvb with my 10900k and day I reached 5.6GHz single core nobody believe me.. LOL.
could you imagine a datacenter server running with all cores synced and the voltage fixed? It's insane.
please, don't misunderstand. I'm not talking it's wrong to sync all cores and use fixed voltage just to run a benchmark and get a high score... But make no sense to keep the PC running that for daily use...
it's like to buy a Ferrari and lock the engine rpm .... Lol.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

tps3443 said:


> I feel the same exact way. If you set normal priority in R23 they will hit right at 41,200 in R23. I would leave the stock settings and just start chopping off voltage with a fixed vcore. Of course I would also maximize memory capability. They rip stock though.


Exactly this and watch your scores closely and record them and report back what you end up at high score wise. Then you've maximized your systems setups maximum overclock potential.


----------



## tps3443

UPDATING.


----------



## tps3443

1.13 load Vr out.

Okay, I set 5.5Ghz P-Cores, 4.3Ghz E-Cores, and 4.5Ghz Cache. with DDR5 7600
1.135V set in Bios.

I ran R23 to test the load VROUT. One screenshot is during the test, one is after the test. This does pass 30 minutes of R23 just fine.



*AFTER TEST*









*DURING TEST LOAD*


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

tps3443 said:


> Okay, I set 5.5Ghz P-Cores, 4.3Ghz E-Cores, and 4.5Ghz Cache. with DDR5 7600
> 1.135V set in Bios.
> 
> I ran R23 to test the load VROUT. One screenshot is during the test, one is after the test. This does pass 30 minutes of R23 just fine.
> 
> View attachment 2581878
> 
> View attachment 2581877


Push it until you can't push it anymore and watch your score the whole time checking for the best score every time and stay where it stops climbing finally.


----------



## fray_bentos

I've just been playing with cache ratio. I note at stock that the cache ratio clocks down adaptatively, but it stays static if specifying a cache ratio in the bios. Is there any way to retain the adaptive behaviour but keep the higher max cache ratio, or is this a limitation of MSI boards?


----------



## newls1

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> Push it until you can't push it anymore and watch your score the whole time checking for the best score every time and stay where it stops climbing finally.


are you saying the score will increase/decrease from just different amounts of voltage? Im still was hoping someone would have answered my question from several pages back... is 1.296v on the VR OUT reading ok for R23 load and temps @ 70c MAX or am i degrading my chip into the universe?


----------



## Krautmaster

Im settled here with my 13900k on MSI tomahawk.
Ding 100.25Mhz BLC, giving me 8x6.0 GHz and 16x4.5 while on short turbo boost limit.

Mode 3 in Load line CPU internally (any how MSi has 2 settings?)... I select CPU configuration and then down there Mode 3.
Beside I use Adaptive Voltage and VF Point. My 57 and 60 multi has 0.02 and 0.04 positive offset, my lower up to 100mv less and all negative offsets.

Long power limit is set to only 75W. Turbo boost time is long to provide boosts for normal tasks while havening a efficient system on day long tasks.

Memory is only 4x8GB 3600CL14, more i can't get stable. 1.25V SA, 1.3 VDDQ, 1.43 VDIMM.

I noticed that ring OC droppes my results a lot when being power limited. Auto ring works best for me and boosts to 4.6Ghz.

Edit. Idle system power consumption with a 2080 TI and water cooling and some LED and 1kw seasonic is 58-65W. Loaded with 75W CPU Limit it's ~170W as per energymeter.


----------



## RichKnecht

I don’t see a VR Out listed in HWINFO. Maybe my board doesn’t monitor that.


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> are you saying the score will increase/decrease from just different amounts of voltage? Im still was hoping someone would have answered my question from several pages back... is 1.296v on the VR OUT reading ok for R23 load and temps @ 70c MAX or am i degrading my chip into the universe?


On adaptive/auto vcore modes, if vcore is too low, your scores will decrease if "CEP" is enabled. MSI Bioses have a habit of enabling CEP on non fixed vcore modes and disabling CEP when fixed vcore is used (their auto rules). AFAIK, Asus boards disable CEP always unless manually enabled.

AFAIK, CEP is based on the V/F points. Changing a V/F offset up or down does not violate CEP, since you're obviously changing the target voltage for that freq directly, however using a too low AC Loadline (which does NOT change the V/F curve!) can violate CEP by the CPU thinking it's undervolted, and CEP throttling the clock cycles. I don't know if DC Loadline also violates CEP or if CEP ignores DC loadline or not (DC Loadline controls how much native VID is drooped under load, and reported back to the operating system, it does not affect operating voltage).


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> On adaptive/auto vcore modes, if vcore is too low, your scores will decrease if "CEP" is enabled. MSI Bioses have a habit of enabling CEP on non fixed vcore modes and disabling CEP when fixed vcore is used (their auto rules). AFAIK, Asus boards disable CEP always unless manually enabled.
> 
> AFAIK, CEP is based on the V/F points. Changing a V/F offset up or down does not violate CEP, since you're obviously changing the target voltage for that freq directly, however using a too low AC Loadline (which does NOT change the V/F curve!) can violate CEP by the CPU thinking it's undervolted, and CEP throttling the clock cycles. I don't know if DC Loadline also violates CEP or if CEP ignores DC loadline or not (DC Loadline controls how much native VID is drooped under load, and reported back to the operating system, it does not affect operating voltage).


sir, I am using a fixed voltage set in bios (1.350) so this setting youre calling "CEP" should be disabled then??? Ive not seen anything called this inside the bios, MSI possibly call it something else so I can disable this? Thank you for the reply.


----------



## BoredErica

digitalfrost said:


> I may be wrong but here are my thoughts:
> 
> Intel specs for the 6P+8E core CPUs are 200A iccmax and 170A iccmax.app. We can debate how many amperes of this are for the Ecores. My point is, if you disable ecores, your limit should probably be lower. Also this is strange because if you look at values for the 13700k and 13900k it does not add up. Between the 12900k and 12700k there was a 40A difference (280A vs 240A), so 10A for each Ecore. But with 13700k and 13900k in both cases the max spec is 307A. Assuming the same rules apply I would wager the 13600k could take 254A. But it doesn't. So we have no idea how Intel arrives at these values. Maybe it's just product segmentation, maybe there is a technical reason.
> 
> Anyway if we take the values from the datasheet and go by the magic formula
> 
> 1520mv - (200A * 1.1 mohm) = 1300mv
> 1520mv - (170A * 1.1 mohm) = 1333mv
> 
> This should be your max full load voltage. If we assume the rules of ohms law apply here, and that is not certain see the discussions about iccmax in this thread, we can assume that 85W at 1.45V is indeed around 60A. Let's say this is true then I can simply:
> 
> 1450mv - (140A * 1.1 mOhm) = 1296mv
> 1450mv - (110A * 1.1 mohm) = 1329mv
> 
> So that would work. The reason this works is, this is a linear relationship and 1520mv - (60A * 1.1mohm) = 1454mv. So you're bang on. If you use anything else than default loadline slopes you should adjust VID accordingly to stay below max values. However I question if your power reading is correct - only 85W at 1.45V would really surprise me. I can achieve more power consumption than this with 1.2-1.25V during gaming. Have you matched DCLL to the LLC? This might work, but you really are on the edge.


Thanks for the thoughtful post. I rewatched an old Buildzoid video from 5yr ago about the misleading 1.5v max voltage spec for Kaby Laky processors. He went to a Skylake datasheet and found IccaMax spec to be 100A for the K part.








I tried to copy him with ADL's datasheet and found this:








You might be right that disabling E cores, the current should be lower. It might be OK to have a certain current for entire CPU, but if I concentrate it to just P core that's probably not what the spec was for. But I couldn't find a 13th gen datasheet. Where did you find the 307A figure? I am on MSi z690 a pro ddr4, LLC level 4 atm. Seems like in MSI bios AC_LL is set under CPU Lite Load Control. According to MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4/WIFI Owners Thread I set AC_LL/DC_LL to 28?

Which spech sheet and where in it, did you get the 1520mv figure?



RobertoSampaio said:


> we are stubborn thinking that we will do a better job than the CPU voltage control algorithm talking to the VRM. lol
> 
> So if you are using your CPU with cores freely to change their frequency, using the internal vf curve determined by Intel, and adaptive voltage... There is no problem at all...
> Just make sure you to adjust loadlines to tune the full load voltage using the minimum AC_LL possible.


Just found the setting in bios. I set AC_LL/DC_LL to 28 at LLC 4 for MSI?


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> sir, I am using a fixed voltage set in bios (1.350) so this setting youre calling "CEP" should be disabled then??? Ive not seen anything called this inside the bios, MSI possibly call it something else so I can disable this? Thank you for the reply.


It's 100% on your board. Igors lab mentionis this.
It may be called Current Excursion Protection or something similar. But it's on the board.
I had to PM Igor on facebook to explain why he was getting low R23 scores when he was undervolting, as he didn't know about this setting then (at that time). He later updated an article to explain it.


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> It's 100% on your board. Igors lab mentionis this.
> It may be called Current Excursion Protection or something similar. But it's on the board.
> I had to PM Igor on facebook to explain why he was getting low R23 scores when he was undervolting, as he didn't know about this setting then (at that time). He later updated an article to explain it.


1 las tthing if you dont mind... is 1.296v under r23 load okay with max temp on my hottest core @ 70c or am i degrading the cpu badly?


----------



## sniperpowa

RichKnecht said:


> I’m starting to wonder why overclock this chip at all. At default settings, with the exception of manually entering my memory’s XMP settings, it does just about 41K in R23. With my OC, P 5.6, E 4.5, Ring 4.8, it will score 41980 ish. That’s not a massive gain for the amount of time spent fiddling around. Don’t get me wrong, I love tweaking things, but compared to the 10980XE this chip replaced, it’s stupid fast out of the box. I may just play around with undervolting it with stock settings to see how much heat I can get rid of. Granted, I’m running 3 360s and dual D5s, but I’m not opposed to turning the fans down to make this box a bit quieter.


Yeah I scored 40k at 5.3 and 4.3 voltage die sense 1.066 pulling 220w thing ran cool pretty crazy. Beating my 7950x in performance and efficiency. This is with memory at 7600 so really good chip so far.


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> 1 las tthing if you dont mind... is 1.296v under r23 load okay with max temp on my hottest core @ 70c or am i degrading the cpu badly?


Pretty much depends on the current draw. But with your cooling that's acceptable because you have excellent temps.
If you're unsure and want your CPU to last as long as possible, use the curve @digitalfrost posted while staying under 95C.

One thing to remember is that the Intel specification datasheets only specify a stock loadline to be used (NOT AC Loadline).
That isn't clear unless you go back to their VERY old datasheets (i'm talking Pentium 3 / 4 / Conroe era documents) and read those. They give a huge amount of information about how amps and loadline come into play at "max functional limits" as well as the difference between max "functional limits" and "absolute max limits." I'm rather certain that "ICCMax.app" is part of "functional limits" and ICCMAX (307A) is part of absolute max. But they removed a lot of voltage information about "functional limits" sometime during the Core 2 era (but still kept detailed loadline information until close to the Sandy Bridge era).


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> Pretty much depends on the current draw. But with your cooling that's acceptable because you have excellent temps.
> If you're unsure and want your CPU to last as long as possible, use the curve @digitalfrost posted while staying under 95C.
> 
> One thing to remember is that the Intel specification datasheets only specify a stock loadline to be used (NOT AC Loadline).
> That isn't clear unless you go back to their VERY old datasheets (i'm talking Pentium 3 / 4 / Conroe era documents) and read those. They give a huge amount of information about how amps and loadline come into play at "max functional limits" as well as the difference between max "functional limits" and "absolute max limits." I'm rather certain that "ICCMax.app" is part of "functional limits" and ICCMAX (307A) is part of absolute max. But they removed a lot of voltage information about "functional limits" sometime during the Core 2 era (but still kept detailed loadline information until close to the Sandy Bridge era).


how did you get so smart? thank you very much btw, i appreciate the time you take to help each and every one of us here! Im still hunting down igors CEP setting you say he mentions in an article.. I re-read his msi unify x article but i didnt see any mention of this setting. Do you happen to know what article he names this in?


----------



## RichKnecht

What power plan should I use? With X299 I just set it to ultimate, but thinking of changing to balanced.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> What power plan should I use? With X299 I just set it to ultimate, but thinking of changing to balanced.


The regedit hacked one that allows you to set all P-cores and E-cores to 100% regardless of load or affinity


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> how did you get so smart? thank you very much btw, i appreciate the time you take to help each and every one of us here! Im still hunting down igors CEP setting you say he mentions in an article.. I re-read his msi unify x article but i didnt see any mention of this setting. Do you happen to know what article he names this in?


I'm not that smart.
I just read.
Anyone who takes the time to read learns how stuff works.
But most people's eyes glaze over when they see a bunch of technical stuff. They just want to tweak their video card, CPU and RAM and get the highest FPS possible.
But one of the worst articles written in the last decade was that Anandtech article about Loadline calibration and degrading CPU's. Literally no one knew anything about what they were talking about except how a flat LLC and load release and overcorrection causes overshoot, and they thought that led to degraded CPU's. And everyone in the world just swallowed it up and parroted it. While they aren't healthy at all, they happen during load release (buildzoid himself mentioned this) at very low current. It's the undershoot that kills your stability. While this was mentioned, no one at the time put anything together properly. 

And no, it's NOT just the vcore that degrades CPU's, EVEN if you keep them under 100C. it's vcore AND current. And using a flat LLC violates Intel's V/A curve, which puts the CPU Out of specification. Even on Sandy Bridge, max VID was posted as 1.52v. And everyone on this forum kept parroting "stay under 1.38-1.42v", because this number came from Asus.
But again, under what CONDITIONS do you stay under 1.38-1.42v? There was NO die sense voltage back then either, so everyone also thought a flat LLC caused sustained Vrise.

I was stupid enough to listen to people on forums and I ran a Sandy Bridge at "safe" voltage" (1.38v, LLC2 (at the time on a Gigabyte board there were only three LLC levels, LLC2 was "flat", there was "1" and "off" (intel spec)), for the "5 ghz Sandy Stable Club", running Prime95 AVX1 and I massively degraded the CPU, because I didn't know it at the time, but I was WAY over the max safe amps limit for the amount of voltage I was pulling (i needed to be at something like 1.21v die sense at 165 amps and I was at 1.38v!!!), and I degraded one 2600K so badly it went from 5 ghz stable to 4.1 ghz stable. and the second slowly went from a 5 ghz @ 1.38v "stable" chip to a 4.6 ghz stable chip.

And this actually began back in 2004, when I degraded a Pentium 4 Northwood running 1.75v through it, when everyone on XTremesystems said was safe and THEY insulted me, causing me to hate XOC'ers and I stopped posting on THAT forum also. NO ONE did their homework. Sure they could get world records but people didnt care about the Intel sheets. No one cared.
And it was up to me to find out why the "community" was wrong.

That's what started making me pissed off at everyone on overclocking sites who flamed and harassed me over my hardware and lack of knowledge so I simply left the forums for years and only posted on the Logitech section (where Chris Pate gave me test firmware for the G502, and sent me a G303 and G900(!), etc).

That's why I'm so hostile towards people. They didn't go their research and they try to sprout knowledge without even looking at the old Intel datasheets.
Sorry for being salty but this crap opened up old wounds. Things I don't want to remember anymore.


----------



## RichKnecht

I decided to go a different route with my OC. I am running all stock settings except E cores are at 4.4. I also went to adaptive voltage with V core set to 1.34 with a -.16 offset which shows actual v core at 1.19. VID shows 1.21. I also switched to balanced mode in Windows and that drops v core to .730 at idle and clocks to 11 on P cores and 8 on E cores. I dropped 14C when running 30 minutes of R23 and power draw went from 320W to 243W and ~6W at idle. It still scores 41125 in R23. Does anyone here see something wrong with these settings?


----------



## tps3443

Falkentyne said:


> I'm not that smart.
> I just read.
> Anyone who takes the time to read learns how stuff works.
> But most people's eyes glaze over when they see a bunch of technical stuff. They just want to tweak their video card, CPU and RAM and get the highest FPS possible.
> But one of the worst articles written in the last decade was that Anandtech article about Loadline calibration and degrading CPU's. Literally no one knew anything about what they were talking about except how a flat LLC and load release and overcorrection causes overshoot, and they thought that led to degraded CPU's. And everyone in the world just swallowed it up and parroted it. While they aren't healthy at all, they happen during load release (buildzoid himself mentioned this) at very low current. It's the undershoot that kills your stability. While this was mentioned, no one at the time put anything together properly.
> 
> And no, it's NOT just the vcore that degrades CPU's, EVEN if you keep them under 100C. it's vcore AND current. And using a flat LLC violates Intel's V/A curve, which puts the CPU Out of specification. Even on Sandy Bridge, max VID was posted as 1.52v. And everyone on this forum kept parroting "stay under 1.38-1.42v", because this number came from Asus.
> But again, under what CONDITIONS do you stay under 1.38-1.42v? There was NO die sense voltage back then either, so everyone also thought a flat LLC caused sustained Vrise.
> 
> I was stupid enough to listen to people on forums and I ran a Sandy Bridge at "safe" voltage" (1.38v, LLC2 (at the time on a Gigabyte board there were only three LLC levels, LLC2 was "flat", there was "1" and "off" (intel spec)), for the "5 ghz Sandy Stable Club", running Prime95 AVX1 and I massively degraded the CPU, because I didn't know it at the time, but I was WAY over the max safe amps limit for the amount of voltage I was pulling (i needed to be at something like 1.21v die sense at 165 amps and I was at 1.38v!!!), and I degraded one 2600K so badly it went from 5 ghz stable to 4.1 ghz stable. and the second slowly went from a 5 ghz @ 1.38v "stable" chip to a 4.6 ghz stable chip.
> 
> And this actually began back in 2004, when I degraded a Pentium 4 Northwood running 1.75v through it, when everyone on XTremesystems said was safe and THEY insulted me, causing me to hate XOC'ers and I stopped posting on THAT forum also. NO ONE did their homework. Sure they could get world records but people didnt care about the Intel sheets. No one cared.
> And it was up to me to find out why the "community" was wrong.
> 
> That's what started making me pissed off at everyone on overclocking sites who flamed and harassed me over my hardware and lack of knowledge so I simply left the forums for years and only posted on the Logitech section (where Chris Pate gave me test firmware for the G502, and sent me a G303 and G900(!), etc).
> 
> That's why I'm so hostile towards people. They didn't go their research and they try to sprout knowledge without even looking at the old Intel datasheets.
> Sorry for being salty but this crap opened up old wounds. Things I don't want to remember anymore.


Thank you for the great post. So now I know it’s tons of amperage, and not tons of voltages that kills.

Looking at that intel amperage sheet, I am seeing 175 Amps, 240 amps, and 280 Amps. What is safe?


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> Thank you for the great post. So now I know it’s tons of amperage, and not tons of voltages that kills.
> 
> Looking at that intel amperage sheet, I am seeing 175 Amps, 240 amps, and 280 Amps. What is safe?
> 
> View attachment 2581926


it's both.
There was a test years ago where someone left some Haswell(?) or Devil's Canyon era chips at pure idle, starting at 1.500v and testing 25mv at a time, leaving it doing nothing in windows except idle.
And they showed a logarithmically increasing (or linear? idk) degradation chart which started about 1.50-1.525v (?), after first establishing a raw vmin on each chip (what @shamino1978 calls a guardband gap), then leaving the chip running 1-2 weeks (or sooner) and seeing how much it degraded.

The post is still here.
that's proof that volts and amps can degrade a chip.
Although theoretically, it's unknown what LLC he was using as intel default LLC at 1.50v should have not have degraded anything.









CPU Overvolt death/Degradation Stories?


Hi Guys, I'm seeing a lot of "1.xx is the max safe voltage for [insert CPU]" and was wondering what your experiences are with this. Have any of you ever killed or damaged a CPU due to overvolting? A lot of the numbers for max safe volts I'm seeing seem to be personal preference with little or...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Bilco

Falkentyne said:


> Ok sorry I couldn't keep track of all of this. I've been busy studying chess all day. I kept seeing x55 or I thought I kept seeing x55 or maybe that was x55 with failed XMP, i dunno.
> And I know nothing about XMP problems. I'm on a Z790 Maximus Extreme with the most generic RAM possible.
> And then this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway your results seem pretty typical of a P-core 110 lotto CPU, unfortunately.
> I saw another P110 CPU that could pass R23 at 5.7 at 1.252v load (die sense), I think it was someone else in this thread recently, maybe Chavez or whatever his name was?
> Yeah these chips get massively hard to cool once you pass 1.25v load even on custom loops. You pretty much have to go sub ambient or delid the chip, or if you're rich enough, try your luck on another one.


Hey, so remember that problem where I was getting stuck on Qcode 62 and 69? Well that problem popped back up after I delided the cpu and I figured out why no one else was having that issue. It's probably because no one else was ****ing ******ed enough to gloss over "efficiency core ratio" in the bios when reading and not make the mental connection that this was the ecore ratio.🤬🤬🤬🤬

So yea, if you set your ecore ratio to x57 you wont get past qcode 62/69. 🤡🤡🤡


----------



## raad11

Exilon said:


> RAM OC -> Ring OC -> Core OC IMO. Cores are already pushed close to the limit and you'll struggle to get meaningful gains there unless you have a 13600K.
> Ring OC is dead simple. Set L2 to 1.3v manual and set ring multi to 49-50-51 and see what works and doesn't blow up your Vcore VID.


Two questions:

1) What about the 'Cache SVID' setting? Doesn't that affect Ring too? I can't find that in Hwinfo64. And Asus OCTool implies Ring has its own VF curve, so I guess that is the the final point on the Ring V/F curve? With Adaptive I mean.

2) Why manual and not Adaptive for L2? I had this issue with the 12900K, I didn't like my Ring VID being high all the time, but I didn't know what Adaptive to set, so I just used an offset to get it to hit 1.3-1.35 at highest ratio.



RobertoSampaio said:


> Bingo!
> Agree 100% !
> The best is to keep it under Intel specification and take advantage of any thermal opportunity with OCTVB.
> 
> These results are "enforcing all Intel limits" to the CPU...
> 
> Take a look....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...
> 
> 
> A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


When I put my 12900K which I spent so much time overclocking into my spare system, the new BIOS kept raising the voltage if I touched anything (I think it may have been the TVB optimizations). I wound up just overclocking it with TVB to 5.3 all core in gaming lol. Touched nothing whatsoever, no voltages, LLC, ratios, etc. Same result as what took me like 2 weeks to get stable a year ago with lots of experimenting. And the new BIOS do great with the 12900K and, I presume, default enabling of TVB optimization because it pulls under 200 watts at full load at 4.9 all core default turbo ratio. Works great in an SFF case.

Though my system was boosting to 5.5 when manually tuned (at 1.55-1.6 VID too btw, on very light loads albeit LLC 1... 1 year with no degradation or issues seen). My 13900K right now boosts to 1530-1540 peak max VID (usually 1450-1515) at very light loads in LLC 3 which is ok but annoying because this chip is constantly boosting and wasting power. Luckily those guys posted those settings to limit frequencies in power plans so I'll try that. Otherwise I'm gonna have to lock the Voltage to 1500 or less to keep it from staying high too much. 

I think my E-Cores (46x4,45x8,44x16) may be boosting the p-core VID/frequency somehow... But otherwise it's something to do with windows because I noticed my sound card is heavily using CPU cycles whereas it was unnoticeable on 12900K. I have a Sound Blaster Z and I have Line-In (both 3.5mm and TOSLINK so two devices) set to 'Listen To This Device'. When I mute before stepping away, power usage drops. Same for some apps.

And on that note, *has anyone heard if the mobo companies are planning on releasing a BIOS or ME update to fix the VID tables from improper BIOS flashing for Z690 upgrades to Raptor Lake?* I would think _most_ people putting 13th gen chips in their 600 series mobos are probably not upgrading/flashing the updates in the correct order and may be getting all kinds of weirdness as a result. This has to be a widespread problem, no?

I'm not too concerned myself, since I had to add voltage to get my high frequencies stable but since undervolting on the V/F curve apparently doesn't work, I don't want to be running hotter than I need to be at all core.


----------



## Exilon

raad11 said:


> Two questions:
> 
> 1) What about the 'Cache SVID' setting? Doesn't that affect Ring too? I can't find that in Hwinfo64. And Asus OCTool implies Ring has its own VF curve, so I guess that is the the final point on the Ring V/F curve? With Adaptive I mean.
> 
> 2) Why manual and not Adaptive for L2? I had this issue with the 12900K, I didn't like my Ring VID being high all the time, but I didn't know what Adaptive to set, so I just used an offset to get it to hit 1.3-1.35 at highest ratio.


1. It affects the Vcore requested by the ring and L3. You probably don't need to mess with this if you have ring-down bin enabled but if you don't, Vcore can get pushed up by the ring clock unexpectedly. Yes, with adaptive turbo voltage on ASUS, it truncates the VF curve at your turbo multiplier at that voltage so you can use that as well.

2. I've had cases where adaptive would crash in partial loads because it wouldn't give full voltage to the L2 unless fully loaded. This is a separate FIVR voltage rail and doesn't affect Vcore.


----------



## cstkl1

Intel i9 - 13900k @ Stock LLC3 0.25/1.1 
Asus Maximus Z790 APEX - 0099
G.Skill F5-7600J3646G16GX2-TZ5RK @8200 [email protected]
MC 1.45
tXvddq Auto
SA offset 0.250


----------



## xioaxi

BoredErica said:


> But I couldn't find a 13th gen datasheet.


Try these








13th Generation Intel® Core™ Processors Datasheet, Volume 1 of 2


This describes all publicly disclosed specifications including electrical characteristics, mechanical, and component functionality, a list of major features, a functional description, and an architectural overview.




www.intel.com




and








13th Generation Intel® Core™ Processors Datasheet, Volume 2 of 2


Datasheet Volume 2 describes register information.




www.intel.com


----------



## raad11

Falkentyne said:


> it's both.
> There was a test years ago where someone left some Haswell(?) or Devil's Canyon era chips at pure idle, starting at 1.500v and testing 25mv at a time, leaving it doing nothing in windows except idle.
> And they showed a logarithmically increasing (or linear? idk) degradation chart which started about 1.50-1.525v (?), after first establishing a raw vmin on each chip (what @shamino1978 calls a guardband gap), then leaving the chip running 1-2 weeks (or sooner) and seeing how much it degraded.
> 
> The post is still here.
> that's proof that volts and amps can degrade a chip.
> Although theoretically, it's unknown what LLC he was using as intel default LLC at 1.50v should have not have degraded anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CPU Overvolt death/Degradation Stories?
> 
> 
> Hi Guys, I'm seeing a lot of "1.xx is the max safe voltage for [insert CPU]" and was wondering what your experiences are with this. Have any of you ever killed or damaged a CPU due to overvolting? A lot of the numbers for max safe volts I'm seeing seem to be personal preference with little or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


I remember that post!

FWIW, my 12900K was set to 55x for 3 active cores and IA VR Limit of 1600 mV and would routinely hit up to 1.6 VID on light loads (and low temps, because of TVB). However, it idled properly and only hit those light loads when I or a program did something, not during just background processes. So it wasn't 24-7. But my full load overclock of 5.2 (already only stable at CB23 partially where it would fail a 20-30 minute loop once or twice, but passed 10min three out of four times... I didn't want to raise voltage any more because it was too hot) didn't change in stability. I never had a crash. I almost never ran full load on the thing though but did periodically run CB23 and ran it a bunch right before I swapped out for 13900K and it was fine.

The voltage for both all core and peak boost light load were like just the bare minimum needed to avoid crashes set back in Nov 2021. And I never had a light load crash after that first tuning period. Meaning, it didn't need more voltage for at least the peak boost (55x3,54x5). Computer was on 24-7 with lots of random junk open in the background.

Edit: I should add I 100% believe running VIDs higher than 1.4v probably degrade the chip. But just not noticeably at the 1 year mark. That's why I'm anxious about the 13900K boosting so much at idle.


----------



## tps3443

cstkl1 said:


> Intel i9 - 13900k @ Stock LLC3 0.25/1.1
> Asus Maximus Z790 APEX - 0099
> G.Skill F5-7600J3646G16GX2-TZ5RK @8200 [email protected]
> MC 1.45
> tXvddq Auto
> SA offset 0.250


SP?


----------



## raad11

rluker5 said:


> I've settled on a 55-60/45 OC for everyday and it isn't CB23 stable for 2 reasons: volts droop a touch too low and cooler can't keep up. I made a "cinebench" windows power plan that cuts my max frequency to 54 that works and I can use if I ever get the notion to run that again. It still gets over 40k and I can have a bios setting that I don't have to switch while still being able to have good frequencies with plebian cooling.
> 
> (even though I'm technically cheating )
> 
> Edit: I use some extra windows power plan options that I put in by copy/pasting the following lines into admin command/powershell or terminal:
> powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR 75b0ae3f-bce0-45a7-8c89-c9611c25e100 -ATTRIB_HIDE   (max frequency)
> powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR 75b0ae3f-bce0-45a7-8c89-c9611c25e101 -ATTRIB_HIDE (max frequency 1)
> powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR bc5038f7-23e0-4960-96da-33abaf5935ec -ATTRIB_HIDE  (maximum processor state)
> powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR bc5038f7-23e0-4960-96da-33abaf5935ed -ATTRIB_HIDE  (maximum processor state 1)
> powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR 893dee8e-2bef-41e0-89c6-b55d0929964c -ATTRIB_HIDE  (minimum processor state)
> powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR 893dee8e-2bef-41e0-89c6-b55d0929964d -ATTRIB_HIDE  (minimum processor state 1)
> 
> You control P,E cores separately and if you are looking to minimize volts for a P frequency, remember you also have to adjust the E frequency to get that volt curve below the P's. I use HwInfo64 monitoring with an applied load for this.
> 
> Also the scaling for what you put in vs what you get out isn't perfect and changes a bit depending on the max clocks you put in bios so you just have to tinker a bit and verify to get the numbers you want when you are adjusting the power plan while watching some monitoring software.
> 
> Edit again: I also made a video a while back:
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Dude this is amazing holy ****.

EDIT: Yeah the values are scaling weird, but I set it to limit boosts to 5.4 on P-Cores and 4.2 on E-Cores to stay under 1.4 VID at idle. Can even limit only one or the other! I have the power plans bound to keys on my stream deck.

I wonder, does Quick CPU that the other user linked also let you see the frequencies and other hidden power plan settings? I really wonder if just 'Passive' cooling is the only difference between Power Saver and Balanced power plans. My 12900K behaved in Balanced the way my 13900K does in Power Saver (and I know it was on Active cooling for 12900K on Balanced).

Plus I now see this random "Ultimate Performance" power plan that wasn't there before?! ***, what does this do? The visible settings look identical to "High Performance".


----------



## raad11

Ok even without that, in 'Power Saving' power plan, the CPU idles a lot better, like my 12900K did in Balanced mode. Interesting...


----------



## BoredErica

So I think I'm well under current limits at <120A. Unless my power readings are wrong, or 1.45v is still enough to degrade even at low current draw. :^) Going down from x58 to x57 should be enough.


----------



## fray_bentos

newls1 said:


> how did you get so smart? thank you very much btw, i appreciate the time you take to help each and every one of us here! Im still hunting down igors CEP setting you say he mentions in an article.. I re-read his msi unify x article but i didnt see any mention of this setting. Do you happen to know what article he names this in?


On MSI CEP is under Advanced CPU settings. Scroll down, it's called something like "IA CEP".


----------



## nievz

someone running 5.7ghz all cores? what vcore are you running at?


----------



## imrevoau

nievz said:


> someone running 5.7ghz all cores? what vcore are you running at?


Not ATM but on my 13700KF I need 1.315 load voltage to be y-cruncher stable at 5.7.


----------



## HemuV2

Falkentyne said:


> it's both.
> There was a test years ago where someone left some Haswell(?) or Devil's Canyon era chips at pure idle, starting at 1.500v and testing 25mv at a time, leaving it doing nothing in windows except idle.
> And they showed a logarithmically increasing (or linear? idk) degradation chart which started about 1.50-1.525v (?), after first establishing a raw vmin on each chip (what @shamino1978 calls a guardband gap), then leaving the chip running 1-2 weeks (or sooner) and seeing how much it degraded.
> 
> The post is still here.
> that's proof that volts and amps can degrade a chip.
> Although theoretically, it's unknown what LLC he was using as intel default LLC at 1.50v should have not have degraded anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CPU Overvolt death/Degradation Stories?
> 
> 
> Hi Guys, I'm seeing a lot of "1.xx is the max safe voltage for [insert CPU]" and was wondering what your experiences are with this. Have any of you ever killed or damaged a CPU due to overvolting? A lot of the numbers for max safe volts I'm seeing seem to be personal preference with little or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


My 13900K was doing 1.57V at 160W while i was gaming, luckily I noticed . This is unacceptable for an all auto config on an asus board, where should i start, what's a good baseline for 109p 73e


----------



## Ketku-

Damn, dont know what i doing..
Maybe continue with Z690 Apex + 12900K or buy Z790 Apex / Extreme + 13900K and continue this hobby..


----------



## nievz

imrevoau said:


> Not ATM but on my 13700KF I need 1.315 load voltage to be y-cruncher stable at 5.7.


How about during gaming? Or light multi core workload?


----------



## imrevoau

nievz said:


> How about during gaming? Or light multi core workload?


No idea sorry. I'm only using 5.5 ATM for gaming at around 1.21 load.


----------



## Ichirou

BoredErica said:


> View attachment 2581929
> 
> So I think I'm well under current limits at <120A. Unless my power readings are wrong, or 1.45v is still enough to degrade even at low current draw. :^) Going down from x58 to x57 should be enough.


So is it 245A or 307A? I'm confused.

On a side note, when Intel first marketed the 13900K/KF, they said that the chip would max out around 300W, but they also offered an "extreme overclocking" mode which would let people run it up to 350W.

What was the point of offering such a feature if it's evident that the chip's going to degrade pretty damn fast?
Was it prepared in anticipation for the upcoming 13900KS?


----------



## BoredErica

Ichirou said:


> So is it 245A or 307A? I'm confused.
> 
> On a side note, when Intel first marketed the 13900K/KF, they said that the chip would max out around 300W, but they also offered an "extreme overclocking" mode which would let people run it up to 350W.
> 
> What was the point of offering such a feature if it's evident that the chip's going to degrade pretty damn fast?
> Was it prepared in anticipation for the upcoming 13900KS?


"ICCMAX is the maximum current processor can draw, typically seen running a virus application (stress applications specifically designed to push the SoC to maximum Power). "
"ICCMax.app is less than IccMax and is the electrical current Drawn by the SoC (per power rail) while running a typical user realistic application(s) scenario at P0nmax and Tjmax. It Corresponds to Pmax.App, The SoC VR and system input power. Source must be able to sustain this current for at least 10 ms"

I think Falk talked about it, iccmax.app is for normal daily use. All I can do is quote Intel and hope I understand what I'm reading lol. Personally I'd strive for the lower number, but everyone's risk tolerance is different. I just have 1 CPU and I don't feel like getting another. I'm also biased because I simply don't care about all core perf that much, so it's no difference for me to strive to a safer and lower current.

In other news, I've decided to try 1.35v 5.7/5 on pcore/ring to see how it goes.


----------



## newls1

fray_bentos said:


> On MSI CEP is under Advanced CPU settings. Scroll down, it's called something like "IA CEP".


i want this disabled right??? and thank you sir


----------



## rluker5

raad11 said:


> Dude this is amazing holy ****.
> 
> EDIT: Yeah the values are scaling weird, but I set it to limit boosts to 5.4 on P-Cores and 4.2 on E-Cores to stay under 1.4 VID at idle. Can even limit only one or the other! I have the power plans bound to keys on my stream deck.
> 
> I wonder, does Quick CPU that the other user linked also let you see the frequencies and other hidden power plan settings? I really wonder if just 'Passive' cooling is the only difference between Power Saver and Balanced power plans. My 12900K behaved in Balanced the way my 13900K does in Power Saver (and I know it was on Active cooling for 12900K on Balanced).
> 
> Plus I now see this random "Ultimate Performance" power plan that wasn't there before?! ***, what does this do? The visible settings look identical to "High Performance".


I like it's convenience. Works on mobile devices without oc bioses, lets you set a noisier oc than you normally would and just leave that boost available for when you want it, and is reliable, persistent and no overhead.


----------



## BoredErica

I've done a test for Fallout 4 Faneuil Hall test w/ ultra shadows for core clock vs ring clock.
5.7/5 85fps
5.7/4.4 83.8fps
5/5 80.7fps
So here, 1% increase in clock speed corresponded to 0.38% increase in FPS. 1% increase in ring led to 0.105% increase in FPS. FPS was measured with background tasks killed through a script, and game loaded/benched with another script + capframe x, 5 runs, this is the average of all runs.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> The regedit hacked one that allows you to set all P-cores and E-cores to 100% regardless of load or affinity


Pretty much what I did on X299, but having this chip at 100% all the time does nothing for performance.


----------



## Xodrik

nievz said:


> someone running 5.7ghz all cores? what vcore are you running at?


MSI Z690 Unify-X
13900k - 5.7P / 4.5E / 5.0R
Vcore in Override - 1.295v
LLC 4

This isn't for benching but can run R23 - I don't loop it, temps hit 94-95 on hottest 2 cores. The rest barely crest 90 after 2-3 passes.

It's gaming stable and I enjoy it so might as well stay with it!

Memory is a Mdie G.Skill 6000 CL30 kit I have at 6800 CL32 with tight tertiaries. Can't get stable with the same tight secondaries resulting in lower latency on Adie (new Hynix chips that are hitting the market). 

R23 score is ~42400. I can snag screenshots after work!


----------



## digitalfrost

BoredErica said:


> Thanks for the thoughtful post. I rewatched an old Buildzoid video from 5yr ago about the misleading 1.5v max voltage spec for Kaby Laky processors. He went to a Skylake datasheet and found IccaMax spec to be 100A for the K part.
> View attachment 2581902
> 
> I tried to copy him with ADL's datasheet and found this:
> View attachment 2581909
> 
> You might be right that disabling E cores, the current should be lower. It might be OK to have a certain current for entire CPU, but if I concentrate it to just P core that's probably not what the spec was for. But I couldn't find a 13th gen datasheet. Where did you find the 307A figure? I am on MSi z690 a pro ddr4, LLC level 4 atm. Seems like in MSI bios AC_LL is set under CPU Lite Load Control. According to MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4/WIFI Owners Thread I set AC_LL/DC_LL to 28?
> 
> Which spech sheet and where in it, did you get the 1520mv figure?
> 
> 
> 
> Just found the setting in bios. I set AC_LL/DC_LL to 28 at LLC 4 for MSI?











Access Denied to Confidential Content


An additional role is required to access confidential content.




edc.intel.com





You should try to set AC_LL lower than DC_LL to get the Vcore down. The thing is, if you use a LLC that is non-droopy like the 28mohms you severely limit the Vcore you can set because you can't get the voltage down under load (to safe limits). If you want high singlethread clock you need the droopy LLC.
For ADL, the smaller processors were actually specified with 1.7mohm max droop and Asus simply offered this option for all CPUs. Sadly MSI max LLC on this board is only spec 1.1.


----------



## fray_bentos

newls1 said:


> i want this disabled right??? and thank you sir


Yes. Disabled.


----------



## RichKnecht

digitalfrost said:


> Access Denied to Confidential Content
> 
> 
> An additional role is required to access confidential content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edc.intel.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try to set AC_LL lower than DC_LL to get the Vcore down. The thing is, if you use a LLC that is non-droopy like the 28mohms you severely limit the Vcore you can set because you can't get the voltage down under load (to safe limits). If you want high singlethread clock you need the droopy LLC to get the voltage down under load.
> For ADL, the smaller processors were actually specified with 1.7mohm max droop and Asus simply offered this option for all CPUs. Sadly MSI max LLC on this board is only spec 1.1.


AC LL and DC LL are ASUS only settings correct? I looked for something similar on my MSI board but didn’t see anything that looks similar.


----------



## nievz

Xodrik said:


> MSI Z690 Unify-X
> 13900k - 5.7P / 4.5E / 5.0R
> Vcore in Override - 1.295v
> LLC 4
> 
> This isn't for benching but can run R23 - I don't loop it, temps hit 94-95 on hottest 2 cores. The rest barely crest 90 after 2-3 passes.
> 
> It's gaming stable and I enjoy it so might as well stay with it!
> 
> Memory is a Mdie G.Skill 6000 CL30 kit I have at 6800 CL32 with tight tertiaries. Can't get stable with the same tight secondaries resulting in lower latency on Adie (new Hynix chips that are hitting the market).
> 
> R23 score is ~42400. I can snag screenshots after work!


what cooler are you using?


----------



## Xodrik

nievz said:


> someone running 5.7ghz all cores? what vcore are you running at?


MSI Z690 Unify-X
13900k - 5.7P / 4.5E / 5.0R
Vcore in Override - 1.295v
LLC 4

This isn't for benching but can run R23 - I don't loop it, temps hit 94-95 on hottest 2 cores. The rest barely crest 90 after 2-3 passes.

It's gaming stable and I enjoy it so might as well stay with it!

Memory is a Mdie G.Skill 6000 CL30 kit I have at 6800 CL32 with tight tertiaries. Can't get stable with the same tight secondaries and resulting in lower latency on Adie.

R23 score is ~42400. I can snag screenshots after work


nievz said:


> what cooler are you using?


Just the corsair h150i elite. A 360 AIO can handle it


----------



## don1376

RichKnecht said:


> AC LL and DC LL are ASUS only settings correct? I looked for something similar on my MSI board but didn’t see anything that looks similar.


MSI, at least on Unify X it's under Advanced configuration, then change CPU lite load to advanced.


----------



## don1376

Also running 5.7 all core. 1.28v under load llc3.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

BoredErica said:


> I've done a test for Fallout 4 Faneuil Hall test w/ ultra shadows for core clock vs ring clock.
> 5.7/5 85fps
> 5.7/4.4 83.8fps
> 5/5 80.7fps
> So here, 1% increase in clock speed corresponded to 0.38% increase in FPS. 1% increase in ring led to 0.105% increase in FPS. FPS was measured with background tasks killed through a script, and game loaded/benched with another script + capframe x, 5 runs, this is the average of all runs.


Ya the fps difference may not be much in a game like this…but there is a difference with pcore at 5 vs 5.7 (80 vs 85fps) which is more like 6.3% with 700mhz. Those are bigger differences with low fps games. Games with lots of fps probably get similar increases but arguably matter less over 144hz etc…for me they all matter lol. I think your latency, 1% lows etc may be better with that cache at 5. Personally I just go with the highest daily safe that’s game stable.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Xodrik said:


> MSI Z690 Unify-X
> 13900k - 5.7P / 4.5E / 5.0R
> Vcore in Override - 1.295v
> LLC 4
> 
> This isn't for benching but can run R23 - I don't loop it, temps hit 94-95 on hottest 2 cores. The rest barely crest 90 after 2-3 passes.
> 
> It's gaming stable and I enjoy it so might as well stay with it!
> 
> Memory is a Mdie G.Skill 6000 CL30 kit I have at 6800 CL32 with tight tertiaries. Can't get stable with the same tight secondaries and resulting in lower latency on Adie.
> 
> R23 score is ~42400. I can snag screenshots after work
> 
> 
> Just the corsair h150i elite. A 360 AIO can handle it


I’m hoping for a similar result…what do your voltages look like under cb23 load with the fixed vcore and llc4?…and the max amps


----------



## SoLdieR9312

Baka_boy said:


> As long as the die is properly centered with respect to the IHS, there shouldn't be any reason why you would damage the die. In this case, it would take so much force to damage the die that you'd break the substrate or the pcb before you even start to crack it. This is all assuming of course that the heat spreader is completely parallel to the die and not at any sort of angle.


I've just mounted the copper ihs (its the new 12th/13th gen one, not the different one like PhoenixMDA mentioned which was only for 12th gen) with the thermalright frame, and its working. 
Got another 4-6°C, so now my delid + copper ihs gave me around 10°C, thats okay with AIO. Hopefully custom loop with mora3 will give me some room to oc.

And thanks for the hint with the die, i would not have tried because i was unsure if it breaks something


----------



## Brandur

Hey guys, I managed to get an Apex Z790 today, was in stock at a near store and just installed my 13900k to read the SP rating. I have 106 overall with PCores 116 . Guess I was lucky this time.


----------



## tps3443

nievz said:


> someone running 5.7ghz all cores? what vcore are you running at?


Last night I tested this stable.

I run 5.7Ghz all P cores 4.8Ghz ring with 1.225V set in bios no LLC adjustments, only default MSI LLC. Load VR Out is right at 1.200v during R23 testing.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Last night I tested this stable.
> 
> I run 5.7Ghz all P cores 4.8Ghz ring with 1.225V set in bios no LLC adjustments, only default MSI LLC. Load VR Out is right at 1.200v during R23 testing.
> 
> View attachment 2581959


I'd love to go to 5.7 with this chip. What are you running E cores at? Care to share your bios settings in a PM? I am kind of lost when it comes to the MSI bios.


----------



## MarkDeMark

Ichirou said:


> The regedit hacked one that allows you to set all P-cores and E-cores to 100% regardless of load or affinity


Care to share? Please ( Are you talking about the "Ultimate Plan" cmd > 
powercfg -duplicatescheme e9a42b02-d5df-448d-aa00-03f14749eb61 or something else)


----------



## Travis Scott

13900k all e core disabled or 4 e core on 5.9 all core working at 300-350w under load w custom water res (450lbs)/loop/copper mod. 6 ghz on 6 cores working as well


----------



## Krautmaster

tps3443 said:


> I run 5.7Ghz all P cores 4.8Ghz ring with 1.225V set in bios no LLC adjustments, only default MSI LLC. Load VR Out is right at 1.200v during R23 testing.


default MSI LL ist high as far as i know, i think Mode 9 or so?


----------



## Ichirou

MarkDeMark said:


> Care to share? Please ( Are you talking about the "Ultimate Plan" cmd >
> powercfg -duplicatescheme e9a42b02-d5df-448d-aa00-03f14749eb61 or something else)


Unfortunately, the friend who shared it with me would prefer to keep it under tight wraps. You might be able to Google it.

But no, it is not a CMD command. It's an actual registry hack. Unlocks a sort of developer mode in the Power Plan options, which allows you to personally tweak which Performant and Efficient Cores are active. I simply set it to all processors instead.

Immediately stopped the issue of certain programs turning off the P-cores and delegating all of the workload to the E-cores.


----------



## RichKnecht

MarkDeMark said:


> Care to share? Please ( Are you talking about the "Ultimate Plan" cmd >
> powercfg -duplicatescheme e9a42b02-d5df-448d-aa00-03f14749eb61 or something else)


The only one I know of is the "Ultimate Plan" which on this chip does nothing but lock all the multipiers to whatever you have set as max.


----------



## RichKnecht

Krautmaster said:


> default MSI LL ist high as far as i know, i think Mode 9 or so?


Wow...9!? I use 4 or 5 and prefer 5.


----------



## CENS

On Asus Z790 Hero / Apex does VROUT equal to the Vcore die-sense measurement?


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Wow...9!? I use 4 or 5 and prefer 5.


MSI is backwards higher LLC number is lower. It’s on Auto, so whatever LLC they apply I don’t know.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> MSI is backwards higher is lower. It’s on Auto, so whatever LLC they apply I don’t know.


Then you gotta do a fresh R23 run, reset HWiNFO's readings, and give the VR VOUT average after it has run for a while, not the active VR VOUT.
The active value doesn't really factor in millisecond changes in voltage due to LLC. It doesn't tell you the ongoing over/undershoot of voltage.
In my experience, the active VR VOUT tends to be far more different than the average.

I'm pretty sure Auto tends to be Mode 3, though. I once compared both Auto and Mode 3, and it was the exact same result. But it could be my board/BIOS.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Then you gotta do a fresh R23 run, reset HWiNFO's readings, and give the VR VOUT average after it has run for a while, not the active VR VOUT.
> The active value doesn't really factor in millisecond changes in voltage due to LLC. It doesn't tell you the active over/undershoot of voltage.
> In my experience, the active VR VOUT tends to be far more different than the average.


I’m actually about to pull my 13900KF out of my test bench. She’s taking an express flight to Germany and gets to hang out with the EVGA team overclockers.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I’m actually about to pull my 13900KF out of my test bench. She’s taking an express flight to Germany and gets to hang out with the EVGA team overclockers.


Oh, how come? That's an interesting development. Getting sponsored/becoming an insider for EVGA?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Oh, how come? That's an interesting development. Getting sponsored/becoming an insider for EVGA?


Oh no not me. I am selling it to someone on their team that reached out to me about a week ago.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Oh no not me. I am selling it to someone on their team that reached out to me about a week ago.


Ah, I see. Made a good profit off of it? Going to play the lottery on another chip?


----------



## Travis Scott

my 450lb water barrel water temp is getting to almost 29c, chip getting to like 80c, if I add another 100lbs maybe i can get 6ghz working on all cores


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Ah, I see. Made a good profit off of it? Going to play the lottery on another chip?


I’m gonna just purchase another retail 13900KF in the coming days, and run that. If it’s bad it’s bad, if it’s good it’s good. No worries. I don’t mind running one of these totally stock.


----------



## Ichirou

Travis Scott said:


> my 450lb water barrel water temp is getting to almost 29c, chip getting to like 80c, if I add another 100lbs maybe i can get 6ghz working on all cores


Continuing to drop the water temp isn't really going to improve things because the heat spikes on the die are far too insane to cool at that point.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I’m gonna just purchase another retail 13900KF in the coming days, and run that. If it’s bad it’s bad, if it’s good it’s good. No worries. I don’t mind running one of these totally stock.


Ah, so you were just seeing how strong the chip was, out of curiosity. Still, did you make good $$$?


----------



## Oupavoc

So which batches have been the most impressive thus far?


----------



## Travis Scott

Ichirou said:


> Continuing to drop the water temp isn't really going to improve things because the heat spikes on the die are far too insane to cool at that point.
> [


in theory if the water temp kept at room temp it should be like 7c lower, gotta add like 4500lbs of wter tho lol


----------



## cletus-cassidy

tps3443 said:


> The Optimus Sig V2 is the best, you just gotta keep a spare cold plate on hand to change after a while. It’ll clog up. Those micro fins are crazy. Once you swap the new one in, you can clean the old one and repeat.


Did you need to get different mounting hardware? I tried it on my 12th gen about 6 months ago with the standard mounting hardware and got pretty bad temps.


----------



## tps3443

cletus-cassidy said:


> Did you need to get different mounting hardware? I tried it on my 12th gen about 6 months ago with the standard mounting hardware and got pretty bad temps.


Not at all. I just used a plastic XSPC LGA1700 backplate. I also put a plastic washer shim under each water block mounting stud. one on each corner. This makes it where there is zero play between the studs and the back plate, and are fixed tight to the motherboard for consistent re-mounting. I’ve always done this though. Temps are far far better than most. very easy to cool this CPU on my system even without the chiller running. The water block plays a big part in that role.


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> Oh no not me. I am selling it to someone on their team that reached out to me about a week ago.


CHECK YOUR PM RIGHT NOW


----------



## Falkentyne

Found out some stuff.

So, CEP functions on the V/F curve, but the V/F curve that Asus shows in their BIOS is based on the P-core "Native VID" only. (AC/DC=0.01 mohms, 100C point, TVB disabled).
However the E-core VID also influences CEP, because the "higher VID" wins. The greater VID between the P core and E core VID gets put into the P-cores.

Screwing around with OCtool with IA CEP enabled:

x43 e-core ratio:
-------------
x55: 1.310
x54: 1.280
x53: 1.275
x52: 1.275
x51: 1.275

----------------
x51/x38: 1.190
x51/x39: 1.190 <---1.190v is the Pcore native VID
x52/x38: 1.220
x52/x39: 1.220
x52/x40: 1.220 <---1.220v is the Pcore native VID
x52/x41: 1.220
x52/x42: 1.245
x52/x43: 1.275

At x42, the E core VID overrules the P-core VID, raising the VID of all the cores as the E core VID of x42 becomes greater than the P-core VID of x52.

CEP enabled:
x52/x41:
(Total VID: 1.220v)

LLC8 used to make load vcore as close as possible to V/F VID:

1.180v LLC8:
R23: 26535 (CEP throttle)

1.185v LLC8: 
R23: 38528

x51/x41, 1.180v LLC8:
run 1: 33000 (??)
run 2: 37982
run 3: 37843

x52/x42, 1.185v LLC8:
18008 (CEP throttle)
x52/x41, 1.185v LLC8
38440
x52/x40, 1.185v llc8: 
38123


----------



## mattxx88

I took courage (and especially the will to open the loop) and nothing, there we are in the club
i think i need to reopen it anyway, something wrong in temperatures

first shot def:


----------



## Vasoka

My OC-ed to 5.7 all core 13900k absolutely refuses to maintain anything above 5.3 ghz due to power throtle in Cinebench all core unless I let it consume more than 250 wats and remove the limits. On stock it seems to keep 5.5 all core no issues during Cinebench, is this normal behavior? Currently at SVID typical scenario with AC LL at 0.30. I'm using z790 ASUS MAXIMUS HERO.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

Managed to pull down to VR OUT 1.260v 54-44-47 on 13700KF. I Think its Medicore chip. 30 minutes R23 with no WHEA error.

So far we observed 2x 13700K which are SP95 ( 1 Sp110, 1 sp95) Do not buy 13700KF buy 13700K


----------



## fray_bentos

RichKnecht said:


> AC LL and DC LL are ASUS only settings correct? I looked for something similar on my MSI board but didn’t see anything that looks similar.





RichKnecht said:


> AC LL and DC LL are ASUS only settings correct? I looked for something similar on my MSI board but didn’t see anything that looks similar.


On MSI on auto voltage you can change "LiteLoad" under advance CPU settings. If you specify a fixed voltage, then LiteLoad will not be available, but the "advanced" mode above LiteLoad should allow you to change AC and DC LL separately.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Falkentyne said:


> CHECK YOUR PM RIGHT NOW


Did I get a good one?


----------



## fray_bentos

Ichirou said:


> Then you gotta do a fresh R23 run, reset HWiNFO's readings, and give the VR VOUT average after it has run for a while, not the active VR VOUT.
> The active value doesn't really factor in millisecond changes in voltage due to LLC. It doesn't tell you the ongoing over/undershoot of voltage.
> In my experience, the active VR VOUT tends to be far more different than the average.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Auto tends to be Mode 3, though. I once compared both Auto and Mode 3, and it was the exact same result. But it could be my board/BIOS.


MSI auto LLC is LLC3, has been for years.


----------



## tps3443

This really cool tool just showed up. I have my cpu boxed up and ready to go to another country. But now I’m thinking that might not happen.


----------



## HemuV2

guys my E cores are so bad im having to downclock to 3800mhz to run stock at decent voltage, if i go any higher i am having to up the voltage or cb just crashes. and on top of that i think even the ring is being affected by bad ecores and so far 5.5/3.8/49x with 1.4V llc4 asus seems like the sweetspot although p95sfft bluescreened due to thermal limitations of my AIO. any suggestions or tests i should run? p cores are 109 and ecores are 73 sp. @Falkentyne @RobertoSampaio @Ichirou would like your input on this, i just cant seem to run the stock config at 251W enforced limits whatsoever due to ecore SP @RobertoSampaio said it should be possible but looks like my very bad e cores kinda make this an exceptional case?


----------



## Falkentyne

HemuV2 said:


> guys my E cores are so bad im having to downclock to 3800mhz to run stock at decent voltage, if i go any higher i am having to up the voltage or cb just crashes. and on top of that i think even the ring is being affected by bad ecores and so far 5.5/3.8/49x with 1.4V llc4 asus seems like the sweetspot although p95sfft bluescreened due to thermal limitations of my AIO. any suggestions or tests i should run? p cores are 109 and ecores are 73 sp. @Falkentyne @RobertoSampaio @Ichirou would like your input on this, i just cant seem to run the stock config at 251W enforced limits whatsoever due to ecore SP @RobertoSampaio said it should be possible but looks like my very bad e cores kinda make this an exceptional case?
> 
> View attachment 2582042
> 
> View attachment 2582041


Please do the test I specified.
I need to know exactly what vcore you need to pass Y-cruncher SFT.
So let's try a little differently.

Set your P cores to x50 (synched).
Set Ring to x45.
Set your E cores to x43.

This will completely remove the P cores from the equation.

Now set your BIOS to 1.250v, LLC Level 5.
Set Digi+VRM Power Phase Control / Power Duty Control to Extreme.

Now run Y-cruncher (Press 1, 8, 13, 0)
You need to pass 10 loops (20 minutes estimated).
If it fails, post the core ID which failed.

If it fails, raise CPU Vcore by 5mv and try again (1250mv ->1255mv).
You can use the Asus OCtool that RobertoSampiao posted. Check his OCTVB "for beginners" thread--it's posted there, you can change LLC and CPU vcore in "Asus VRM" on the left menu side.
If it passes, reduce vcore by 5mv and try again. (1250mv->1245mv).

Post the final set vcore needed to pass this.


----------



## bscool

Edit....


----------



## fray_bentos

HemuV2 said:


> guys my E cores are so bad im having to downclock to 3800mhz to run stock at decent voltage, if i go any higher i am having to up the voltage or cb just crashes. and on top of that i think even the ring is being affected by bad ecores and so far 5.5/3.8/49x with 1.4V llc4 asus seems like the sweetspot although p95sfft bluescreened due to thermal limitations of my AIO. any suggestions or tests i should run? p cores are 109 and ecores are 73 sp. @Falkentyne @RobertoSampaio @Ichirou would like your input on this, i just cant seem to run the stock config at 251W enforced limits whatsoever due to ecore SP @RobertoSampaio said it should be possible but looks like my very bad e cores kinda make this an exceptional case?
> 
> View attachment 2582042
> 
> View attachment 2582041


Turn down your ring frequency, 49x is not running "stock".


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge




----------



## tps3443

bscool said:


> Edit....


Your kidding right?


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge




----------



## bscool

tps3443 said:


> Your kidding right?


Yes.


----------



## fray_bentos

tps3443 said:


> Your kidding right?


* You're


----------



## bigfootnz

Does anyone know is it possible on MSI (Unify-X) to have min-max Ring ratio and multiple E-cores groups like on Asus? At the moment I'm playing with non static OC, and for the P-cores is fine I can adjust them how I want, but for E-cores I have only one group. Also, for the ring there is only one ratio. I'm missing something or MSI is not like Asus?


----------



## tps3443

fray_bentos said:


> * You're


Thanks, believe it or not I’m very funny over that type of thing. Not sure how I even missed that one.


----------



## fray_bentos

tps3443 said:


> Thanks, believe it or not I’m very funny over that type of thing. Not sure how I even missed that one.


The shame, sorry.


bigfootnz said:


> Does anyone know is it possible on MSI (Unify-X) to have min-max Ring ratio and multiple E-cores groups like on Asus? At the moment I'm playing with non static OC, and for the P-cores is fine I can adjust them how I want, but for E-cores I have only one group. Also, for the ring there is only one ratio. I'm missing something or MSI is not like Asus?


I asked the same a few pages ago. Likewise, I like the adaptive cache at stock settings.


----------



## bigfootnz

fray_bentos said:


> I asked the same a few pages ago. Likewise, I like the adaptive cache at stock settings.


It looks like MSI is behind Asus when comes to smart OC, bummer


----------



## mattxx88

also IMC definetly better than my old 12900k, now i can run 6600mhz locked pmic ddr5, while 12900k cannot do more than 6400


----------



## Travis Scott

tps3443 said:


> This really cool tool just showed up. I have my cpu boxed up and ready to go to another country. But now I’m thinking that might not happen.
> View attachment 2582040


very nice


----------



## tps3443

fray_bentos said:


> MSI auto LLC is LLC3, has been for years.


This can’t be possible. Because MSI LLC auto uses far less power and puts out much less heat then LLC3.


----------



## Vasoka

Curious thing happening, Cinebench crashes with an application error when I've set p1/p2 to unlimited (over 250w), this happens even on stock settings with absolutely no voltage adjustment. However, if it's limited to 250 (intel specifics) it doesn't crash. Any ideas why that might be? Bug? I did crash it several times while testing OC.

Basically it gives an error the moment it starts pulling over 250w and crashes (not BSDO, just the program crashes).


----------



## Exilon

Vasoka said:


> Curious thing happening, Cinebench crashes with an application error when I've set p1/p2 to unlimited (over 250w), this happens even on stock settings with absolutely no voltage adjustment. However, if it's limited to 250 (intel specifics) it doesn't crash. Any ideas why that might be? Bug? I did crash it several times while testing OC.
> 
> Basically it gives an error the moment it starts pulling over 250w and crashes (not BSDO, just the program crashes).


Probably too much Vdroop and your AC_LL isn't high enough to compensate for the droop.


----------



## Oupavoc

So what are the chances, you play the chip lottery and both cpus you order from two different retailers are the same batch number. SMH


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge




----------



## acoustic

Oupavoc said:


> So what are the chances, you play the chip lottery and both cpus you order from two different retailers are the same batch number. SMH
> 
> View attachment 2582134


That's hilarious. You have to try the new one though just for ****s and giggles 😂


----------



## tps3443

Oupavoc said:


> So what are the chances, you play the chip lottery and both cpus you order from two different retailers are the same batch number. SMH
> 
> View attachment 2582134


My cpu is a X238L435, and it’s a beast! It is a launch day CPU. I bought it from Newegg.

Also, don’t worry about batch number too much. I had a golden top 1% 11900K, and someone on here bought the exact same batch. And their chip was just total garbage LOL. Test both throughly!!


----------



## imrevoau

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> Managed to pull down to VR OUT 1.260v 54-44-47 on 13700KF. I Think its Medicore chip. 30 minutes R23 with no WHEA error.
> 
> So far we observed 2x 13700K which are SP95 ( 1 Sp110, 1 sp95) Do not buy 13700KF buy 13700K


There's 0 correlation between the KF and the K. It's all mental gymnastics. My 13700KF does 5.8 all core and is y-cruncher stable at 1.34 load voltage.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Rockitcool delid tool broke in half. Hope I didn’t break a cpu.


----------



## stardust78

currently running a 13700k on a strix z690-e, sp is 87, p cores 96, e cores 71 (bruh), is this an average chip?
running all p core 5.6ghz at 1.279 (load voltage), v core is 1.296, LL6. 
questions i have are:
a) how are some ppl getting mid 20 to high 20s idle temps (unless those are contact frames/custom cooling, i am using a corsair 360 aio no contact frame)
b) getting about 32.5k on cinebench, is this a normal score for a 5.6 all cores, temps about 83 85 (single run). 
the way i overclocked my cpu was, using AIOC and then back tracked, setting p cores to 5.6, e cores to 4.4 and cache to 4.8, then lowered the offset voltage till i get a crash in a cinebench run. system is stable during gaming.


----------



## kill_a_wat

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Rockitcool delid tool broke in half. Hope I didn’t break a cpu.
> View attachment 2582158


Whoa, the CPU looks okay from the pic. Hopefully its all good


----------



## tps3443

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Rockitcool delid tool broke in half. Hope I didn’t break a cpu.
> View attachment 2582158


How did it break right there? There is little to no pressure there at all. Very strange.

Are you using the rockitcool copper IHS and contact frame too? When you mount it, check the corners are evenly sticking up over the IHS let me know how yours is.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

imrevoau said:


> There's 0 correlation between the KF and the K. It's all mental gymnastics. My 13700KF does 5.8 all core and is y-cruncher stable at 1.34 load voltage.


Yes this is called Lottery. So far we tried 2x 13700KF and 2x 13700Kbased on what we tested 13700K had higher avg SP then KF.


----------



## imrevoau

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> Yes this is called Lottery. So far we tried 2x 13700KF and 2x 13700Kbased on what we tested 13700K had higher avg SP then KF.


You're contradicting yourself a bit. It's a lottery, as you said. Completely random.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

imrevoau said:


> You're contradicting yourself a bit. It's a lottery, as you said. Completely random.


Maybe you pissed the point. Based on what i binned ( more to come ) 13700K have higher chances for being a good chip.


----------



## Kryuger

I don't have any board that can check CPU quality, but I'm wanting to know if my 13900KF is of bad quality.

57P 45E 51R. I need 1.365 VCORE for CB23 stable, which consumes close to 400W of power. Setting lower voltages for 57P 43E 45R will cause my CPU to crash during a couple minutes of CB23.

Z690 Aorus Elite D4. LLC Auto. AC_LL 40


----------



## HemuV2

Falkentyne said:


> Please do the test I specified.
> I need to know exactly what vcore you need to pass Y-cruncher SFT.
> So let's try a little differently.
> 
> Set your P cores to x50 (synched).
> Set Ring to x45.
> Set your E cores to x43.
> 
> This will completely remove the P cores from the equation.
> 
> Now set your BIOS to 1.250v, LLC Level 5.
> Set Digi+VRM Power Phase Control / Power Duty Control to Extreme.
> 
> Now run Y-cruncher (Press 1, 8, 13, 0)
> You need to pass 10 loops (20 minutes estimated).
> If it fails, post the core ID which failed.
> 
> If it fails, raise CPU Vcore by 5mv and try again (1250mv ->1255mv).
> You can use the Asus OCtool that RobertoSampiao posted. Check his OCTVB "for beginners" thread--it's posted there, you can change LLC and CPU vcore in "Asus VRM" on the left menu side.
> If it passes, reduce vcore by 5mv and try again. (1250mv->1245mv).
> 
> Post the final set vcore needed to pass this.


Yes i will try this soon, just to add, i also tried e cores off 5.5ghz 50X ring and it ran cb at 1.32V llc4 load vcore was 1.225, I tried 1.3V after and it crashed cb.


----------



## HemuV2

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> Maybe you pissed the point. Based on what i binned ( more to come ) 13700K have higher chances for being a good chip.


Based on my experience, the good chips never make it to india, my 13900K is 109/73 that 73 ecore SP is hurting my OC like crazy


----------



## HemuV2

Kryuger said:


> I don't have any board that can check CPU quality, but I'm wanting to know if my 13900KF is of bad quality.
> 
> 57P 45E 51R. I need 1.365 VCORE for CB23 stable, which consumes close to 400W of power. Setting lower voltages for 57P 43E 45R will cause my CPU to crash during a couple minutes of CB23.
> 
> Z690 Aorus Elite D4. LLC Auto. AC_LL 40


Vcore under load?


----------



## HemuV2

Oupavoc said:


> So what are the chances, you play the chip lottery and both cpus you order from two different retailers are the same batch number. SMH
> 
> View attachment 2582134


Just for science, show us SP of both or atleast test cinebench if you don't have asus mobo


----------



## HemuV2

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> Yes this is called Lottery. So far we tried 2x 13700KF and 2x 13700Kbased on what we tested 13700K had higher avg SP then KF.


Understandable but 2 is a really small sample size to draw any conclusions, we need atleast 50 and that's impossible unless you are a systems integrator


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

stardust78 said:


> currently running a 13700k on a strix z690-e, sp is 87, p cores 96, e cores 71 (bruh), is this an average chip?
> running all p core 5.6ghz at 1.279 (load voltage), v core is 1.296, LL6.
> questions i have are:
> a) how are some ppl getting mid 20 to high 20s idle temps (unless those are contact frames/custom cooling, i am using a corsair 360 aio no contact frame)
> b) getting about 32.5k on cinebench, is this a normal score for a 5.6 all cores, temps about 83 85 (single run).
> the way i overclocked my cpu was, using AIOC and then back tracked, setting p cores to 5.6, e cores to 4.4 and cache to 4.8, then lowered the offset voltage till i get a crash in a cinebench run. system is stable during gaming.





HemuV2 said:


> Understandable but 2 is a really small sample size to draw any conclusions, we need atleast 50 and that's impossible unless you are a systems integrator


Much better then mine. I can draw conclusion that maybe my chip is SP80

I cant do 5.5 with 1.275vrout even. My VID is 1.315 

5.4-44-47 1.260 vrout rock stable. I ll try P1-P2 5.5 rest 54 today


----------



## Kryuger

HemuV2 said:


> Vcore under load?


 Yeah, that's the vcore under load.


----------



## Falkentyne

Kryuger said:


> I don't have any board that can check CPU quality, but I'm wanting to know if my 13900KF is of bad quality.
> 
> 57P 45E 51R. I need 1.365 VCORE for CB23 stable, which consumes close to 400W of power. Setting lower voltages for 57P 43E 45R will cause my CPU to crash during a couple minutes of CB23.
> 
> Z690 Aorus Elite D4. LLC Auto. AC_LL 40


Vcore reading may be inaccurate. Use hwinfo64 and post the "VR VOUT" voltage value during full load during the R23 run and tell us that instead. It will most likely be far below 1.365v.
1.365v die sense vcore is completely uncoolable without a custom loop _AND_ a chiller on top of it. That might be socket sense vcore which is inaccurate and always much higher than the die-sense voltage.


----------



## Kryuger

Falkentyne said:


> Vcore reading may be inaccurate. Use hwinfo64 and post the "VR VOUT" voltage value during full load during the R23 run and tell us that instead. It will most likely be far below 1.365v.
> 1.365v die sense vcore is completely uncoolable without a custom loop _AND_ a chiller on top of it. That might be socket sense vcore which is inaccurate and always much higher than the die-sense voltage.


Besides VID, the Vcore is all I have to work with on this motherboard. I cheaped out with this motherboard for Alder Lake, thinking that I'd go for DDR5 down the road, but it's not at the point where it's worth upgrading from my DDR4 kit yet


----------



## Falkentyne

HemuV2 said:


> Yes i will try this soon, just to add, i also tried e cores off 5.5ghz 50X ring and it ran cb at 1.32V llc4 load vcore was 1.225, I tried 1.3V after and it crashed cb.


1.30v set + LLC4 is extremely low voltage. That's about 1.133v load of die sense at 170 amps. Even I have problems passing that (1.133v is bare minimum load required) so this test is not helpful to testing our desired E cores. So it's no surprise you failed that with a lower P cores (109).

(this is on a Pcore SP 113 chip). P cores of 112+ can usually do this at 1.13v.


----------



## fray_bentos

tps3443 said:


> This can’t be possible. Because MSI LLC auto uses far less power and puts out much less heat then LLC3.


Oh. Auto LLC certainly was on (MSI) LLC3 Z97 and Z490. I need to play more on Z690!


----------



## fray_bentos

stardust78 said:


> currently running a 13700k on a strix z690-e, sp is 87, p cores 96, e cores 71 (bruh), is this an average chip?
> running all p core 5.6ghz at 1.279 (load voltage), v core is 1.296, LL6.
> questions i have are:
> a) how are some ppl getting mid 20 to high 20s idle temps (unless those are contact frames/custom cooling, i am using a corsair 360 aio no contact frame)
> b) getting about 32.5k on cinebench, is this a normal score for a 5.6 all cores, temps about 83 85 (single run).
> the way i overclocked my cpu was, using AIOC and then back tracked, setting p cores to 5.6, e cores to 4.4 and cache to 4.8, then lowered the offset voltage till i get a crash in a cinebench run. system is stable during gaming.


a) Low idle temps. Use adaptive voltages and clocks and low voltage. My 13600KF takes 0.70V at idle = 3.5 W = 21 C. 18 C ambient. For reference, my adaptive 10900KF used to use ~8-11 W idle, so a significant improvement.


----------



## tibcsi0407

Just installed my new CPU after the RMA and it's SP101, P SP 111 E SP 81


----------



## HemuV2

Falkentyne said:


> 1.30v set + LLC4 is extremely low voltage. That's about 1.133v load of die sense at 170 amps. Even I have problems passing that (1.133v is bare minimum load required) so this test is not helpful to testing our desired E cores. So it's no surprise you failed that with a lower P cores (109).
> 
> (this is on a Pcore SP 113 chip). P cores of 112+ can usually do this at 1.13v.


How come my motherboard doesn't show VRout in hwinfo, it's a z690A strix ddr4. I see vcore and a bunch of others but no vrout


----------



## Xiph

tibcsi0407 said:


> Just installed my new CPU after the RMA and it's SP101, P SP 111 E SP 81


Exactly same SP values I have. Interested to hear, how it overclocks for you.


----------



## Baka_boy

tibcsi0407 said:


> Just installed my new CPU after the RMA and it's SP101, P SP 111 E SP 81
> View attachment 2582172


Almost exactly like mine SP102, but all the core voltages are 1.408V. I don't mind it at all myself. I've tested 2 modes +2TVB up to 6Ghz and (1.19V all-core, LLC) and a low-voltage +1TVB (1.157 all core, with -0.125V offset) and everything runs well enough. You can actually tune it more, just using it for normal tasks at the moment to see how day-to-day stable I am. Passes CB23/y-cruncher/aida64/RB just fine.


----------



## tibcsi0407

Baka_boy said:


> Almost exactly like mine SP102, but all the core voltages are 1.408V. I don't mind it at all myself. I've tested 2 modes +2TVB up to 6Ghz and (1.19V all-core, LLC) and a low-voltage +1TVB (1.157 all core, with -0.125V offset) and everything runs well enough. You can actually tune it more, just using it for normal tasks at the moment to see how day-to-day stable I am. Passes CB23/y-cruncher/aida64/RB just fine.


Nice to see that! The older one which is died by Turbo Vcore app (yes, it killed my CPU by giving it -0.03V manually...) was much worse, it was SP96 P-core 106, E-Core 76, so this is much better for OC. 
This was already delidded/relidded, so the temps wont be an issue I believe.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

-


----------



## HemuV2

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> @Falkentyne
> 
> What can you say for my chip 13700KF
> -LLC4 on Unify-X 1.280 > VROUT 1.260 on CB23 ( no whea, no crash ) 54-44-47
> -VID is 1.315 for 5.4 P
> - Cant do 5.5 even with 1.290 vrout
> 
> I am assuming DUD or medicore chip ? Maybe sp80 max ?


Probably a below average sample because i think 13700Ks are able to do 5.5ghz with some minor tweaking, btw what's 13700K stock all core ?


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

HemuV2 said:


> Probably a below average sample because i think 13700Ks are able to do 5.5ghz with some minor tweaking, btw what's 13700K stock all core ?


I can do 5.5 and 5.6 but thats not point, want to low voltage chip for daily 4K gaming, I know good chips can do 1.250 very EZ 5.5 on all cores P

stock all core is = 5.3


----------



## HemuV2

Falkentyne said:


> Please do the test I specified.
> I need to know exactly what vcore you need to pass Y-cruncher SFT.
> So let's try a little differently.
> 
> Set your P cores to x50 (synched).
> Set Ring to x45.
> Set your E cores to x43.
> 
> This will completely remove the P cores from the equation.
> 
> Now set your BIOS to 1.250v, LLC Level 5.
> Set Digi+VRM Power Phase Control / Power Duty Control to Extreme.
> 
> Now run Y-cruncher (Press 1, 8, 13, 0)
> You need to pass 10 loops (20 minutes estimated).
> If it fails, post the core ID which failed.
> 
> If it fails, raise CPU Vcore by 5mv and try again (1250mv ->1255mv).
> You can use the Asus OCtool that RobertoSampiao posted. Check his OCTVB "for beginners" thread--it's posted there, you can change LLC and CPU vcore in "Asus VRM" on the left menu side.
> If it passes, reduce vcore by 5mv and try again. (1250mv->1245mv).
> 
> Post the final set vcore needed to pass this.


@Falkentyne so i did it, it needed 1,33V llc5 to pass, even 1.325llc5 blue screened after 12 runs despite having same wattage and vcore, btw why is vrm power < package power i thought it should be the other way around. so what baseline should i choose to stabilize this with 5.5 ghz pcore now? and possibly 49-50 ring


----------



## Falkentyne

HemuV2 said:


> @Falkentyne so i did it, it needed 1,33V llc5 to pass, even 1.325llc5 blue screened after 12 runs despite having same wattage and vcore, btw why is vrm power < package power i thought it should be the other way around. so what baseline should i choose to stabilize this with 5.5 ghz pcore now? and possibly 49-50 ring
> View attachment 2582179


Only some motherboards support raw vrm reading in hwinfo64. If you want it supported on the Strix, you have to contact Martin on the hwinfo forums and ask him yourself. 
And no guarantees on this being possible. But you can use Asus OCtool.

You have to test your chip out for yourself. I can't do the tests for you.
Those are some atrocious E-cores. Probably RMA worthy.
Estimating 200 amps under your test but you can use the OCTool (did you do this yet?) that Robertosampiao posted on his Z790 extreme guide and check Raw VRM (this should give you the die sense voltage and amps). Your strix vrm controller should be compatible with it. _should_---but I am not certain but try it.

Looks like something close to 1.184 (die sense) load required to stabilize x43 e-cores?? That's horrible.
That will actually limit your P-core clocking because your P-cores should be able to run at 1.164v load at 5.5 ghz based on your P core SP estimated (again---use the octool that I have told you multiple times to get, which you haven't done yet since you have no screenshots of the raw VRM data from it).

I don't think I've seen an E core SP lower than this on a 13900k. I would RMA this chip because your E core vmin at x43 (1.184v, estimated from LLC5 (0.73mohm) and 200 amps power draw--- 1330mv - (200 * .73)=1184mv, is higher than what i estimate your P cores need for 5.5 ghz.

That qualifies as a defect in my book and you should exchange this chip.


----------



## Vasoka

z790 asus maximus hero, why on earth when I set actual VRM voltage fixed 1.5 (for example) my idle voltage is 1.4 and load voltage in cinebench is 1.38, so much lower than what I've set? LLC6 btw. Also, why is non-throttling 5.6 all p core sync OC getting 1k less score in Cinebench than stock at 5.5? This processor is doing my head in.

If I'm overclocking only the P cores and nothing else do I need to clock something else to get performance up, or?


----------



## HemuV2

Falkentyne said:


> Only some motherboards support raw vrm reading in hwinfo64. If you want it supported on the Strix, you have to contact Martin on the hwinfo forums and ask him yourself.
> And no guarantees on this being possible. But you can use Asus OCtool.
> 
> You have to test your chip out for yourself. I can't do the tests for you.
> Those are some atrocious E-cores. Probably RMA worthy.
> Estimating 200 amps under your test but you can use the OCTool (did you do this yet?) that Robertosampiao posted on his Z790 extreme guide and check Raw VRM (this should give you the die sense voltage and amps). Your strix vrm controller should be compatible with it. _should_---but I am not certain but try it.
> 
> Looks like something close to 1.184 (die sense) load required to stabilize x43 e-cores?? That's horrible.
> That will actually limit your P-core clocking because your P-cores should be able to run at 1.164v load at 5.5 ghz based on your P core SP estimated (again---use the octool that I have told you multiple times to get, which you haven't done yet since you have no screenshots of the raw VRM data from it).
> 
> I don't think I've seen an E core SP lower than this on a 13900k. I would RMA this chip because your E core vmin at x43 (1.184v, estimated from LLC5 (0.73mohm) and 200 amps power draw--- 1330mv - (200 * .73)=1184mv, is higher than what i estimate your P cores need for 5.5 ghz.
> 
> That qualifies as a defect in my book and you should exchange this chip.


That's sad, i got this chip froma different country and RMA isn't possible for me, I'll just keep it and possibly run low e core clocks, they definitely suck. Not very happy how intel simply packs such atrocious i5 level ecores in a 13900K sample, like you would think they'd do better considering it's an enthusiast grade chip that's bound to be OCed by atleast 20% of the people that buy it


----------



## bigfootnz

HemuV2 said:


> How come my motherboard doesn't show VRout in hwinfo, it's a z690A strix ddr4. I see vcore and a bunch of others but no vrout


I’ve Strix and Hero, what I’ve found that Strix Vcore is about 80mV more than die sense/vrout. You can use this fairly accurately to estimate what is your die sense voltage.


----------



## HemuV2

bigfootnz said:


> I’ve Strix and Hero, what I’ve found that Strix Vcore is about 80mV more than die sense/vrout. You can use this fairly accurately to estimate what is your die sense voltage.


Hero has die sense? What msi/asus/aorus boards have it?


----------



## bigfootnz

HemuV2 said:


> Hero has die sense? What msi/asus/aorus boards have it?


Hero has die sense and MSI Unify-X has Vrout. For other boards I’m not sure


----------



## nievz

I don't seem to have a VR OUT sensor on my Hwinfo64/MSI Z790 Tomahawk DDR4 motherboard. I read hear that I shouldn't look at the vcore since it may be reported higher than actual. What can I look at to see the actual voltage?










Here are my VIDs on idle @ 5.9Ghz. 13900KF. While gaming in BFV or Warzone I have all cores set at 5.7ghz and vcore sensor shows 1.412v while VID ranges from 1.344-1.39v.


----------



## acoustic

nievz said:


> I don't seem to have a VR OUT sensor on my Hwinfo64/MSI Z790 Tomahawk DDR4 motherboard. I read hear that I shouldn't look at the vcore since it may be reported higher than actual. What can I look at to see the actual voltage?
> 
> View attachment 2582190
> 
> 
> Here are my VIDs on idle @ 5.9Ghz. 13900KF. While gaming in BFV or Warzone I have all cores set at 5.7ghz and vcore sensor shows 1.412v while VID ranges from 1.344-1.39v.
> 
> View attachment 2582191


Only MEG series boards have VR VOUT readings, afaik.


----------



## HemuV2

Falkentyne said:


> Only some motherboards support raw vrm reading in hwinfo64. If you want it supported on the Strix, you have to contact Martin on the hwinfo forums and ask him yourself.
> And no guarantees on this being possible. But you can use Asus OCtool.
> 
> You have to test your chip out for yourself. I can't do the tests for you.
> Those are some atrocious E-cores. Probably RMA worthy.
> Estimating 200 amps under your test but you can use the OCTool (did you do this yet?) that Robertosampiao posted on his Z790 extreme guide and check Raw VRM (this should give you the die sense voltage and amps). Your strix vrm controller should be compatible with it. _should_---but I am not certain but try it.
> 
> Looks like something close to 1.184 (die sense) load required to stabilize x43 e-cores?? That's horrible.
> That will actually limit your P-core clocking because your P-cores should be able to run at 1.164v load at 5.5 ghz based on your P core SP estimated (again---use the octool that I have told you multiple times to get, which you haven't done yet since you have no screenshots of the raw VRM data from it).
> 
> I don't think I've seen an E core SP lower than this on a 13900k. I would RMA this chip because your E core vmin at x43 (1.184v, estimated from LLC5 (0.73mohm) and 200 amps power draw--- 1330mv - (200 * .73)=1184mv, is higher than what i estimate your P cores need for 5.5 ghz.
> 
> That qualifies as a defect in my book and you should exchange this chip.


The vrm vcore was 240Amps in HWinfo so yes 1.15V die sense i guess.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hey guys...
I created 2 new areas in my guide: _Download and Chengelog_

You can check below...









Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...


A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Telstar

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> Maybe you pissed the point. Based on what i binned ( more to come ) 13700K have higher chances for being a good chip.


too small a sample to draw any conclusion.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

acoustic said:


> Only MEG series boards have VR VOUT readings, afaik.


Which is why i adore MSI boards. Only frustrating thing about my Unify-X is cannot do Per core OC. Under load it never hit desired clock


----------



## Telstar

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> Only frustrating thing about my Unify-X is cannot do Per core OC.


what? really?


----------



## stardust78

fray_bentos said:


> a) Low idle temps. Use adaptive voltages and clocks and low voltage. My 13600KF takes 0.70V at idle = 3.5 W = 21 C. 18 C ambient. For reference, my adaptive 10900KF used to use ~8-11 W idle, so a significant improvement.


Yea I am using an adaptive voltage with an offset but the cpu idles at 1.2V even in power saver... About 10+W too, am I missing something?


----------



## digitalfrost

Windows 11, version 22H2 known issues and notifications


View announcements and review known issues and fixes for Windows 11



learn.microsoft.com





Well now it's official. Stay away from 22H2.


----------



## Exilon

275W - 39.5K CB23, 40.0fps 1080p x265 encode
200W - 37.3K CB23, 39.6fps 1080p x265 encode

I think I'm going to do 200W and just call it a day now. No more fussing about with loaded Vcore with a sane power limit in place.



digitalfrost said:


> Windows 11, version 22H2 known issues and notifications
> 
> 
> View announcements and review known issues and fixes for Windows 11
> 
> 
> 
> learn.microsoft.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well now it's official. Stay away from 22H2.


Nvidia has fixed the debugging tools being enabled in Geforce Experience a while ago.



https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/forums/game-ready-drivers/13/501432/-/










Update: NVIDIA GeForce Cards Have issues after Windows 11 2022 (22H2) Update


Microsoft is slowly rolling out the new Windows 11 2022 update to end-users; unfortunately, there are many reports that there is an issue with GeForce graphics cards, in specific some users even see ...




www.guru3d.com





If your game is affected, you will know. The performance hit is like 90%








Windows 11 22H2 causing gaming issues for some NVIDIA users


According to user reports, the Windows 11 22H2 feature update released earlier this week is causing gaming performance issues on systems with NVIDIA GPUs.




www.bleepingcomputer.com


----------



## bhav

digitalfrost said:


> Windows 11, version 22H2 known issues and notifications
> 
> 
> View announcements and review known issues and fixes for Windows 11
> 
> 
> 
> learn.microsoft.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well now it's official. Stay away from 22H2.


And people were saying in my thread that its just me as their update went fine.

I'm getting noticable lag since updating, sometimes clicking on things online or in windows doesn't open for quite some time.


----------



## X909

Has anyone tried 4 DR-DIMM configuration with Raptor Lake? Its so horrible with the current BIOS (2103) on my TUF. I could use 3733 15-15-15-32 with my 12900K, 1V VCCSA and 1.35V VDDQTX. Now is impossbile to boot anything above 3200 with the 13900K. And 3200 allready needs 1.35V VDDQTX. Its perfectly stable than and can do 12-13-13-28 but I would like to see a bit higher clocks :-/

Is this because early BIOS for Gen13 or is the revised IMC so picky with DDR4?


----------



## Exilon

X909 said:


> Has anyone tried 4 DR-DIMM configuration with Raptor Lake? Its so horrible with the current BIOS (2103) on my TUF. I could use 3733 15-15-15-32 with my 12900K, 1V VCCSA and 1.35V VDDQTX. Now is impossbile to boot anything above 3200 with the 13900K. And 3200 allready needs 1.35V VDDQTX. Its perfectly stable than and can do 12-13-13-28 but I would like to see a bit higher clocks :-/
> 
> Is this because early BIOS for Gen13 or is the revised IMC so picky with DDR4?


Manually set your WCL timings and see if that helps.


----------



## bhav

X909 said:


> Has anyone tried 4 DR-DIMM configuration with Raptor Lake? Its so horrible with the current BIOS (2103) on my TUF. I could use 3733 15-15-15-32 with my 12900K, 1V VCCSA and 1.35V VDDQTX. Now is impossbile to boot anything above 3200 with the 13900K. And 3200 allready needs 1.35V VDDQTX. Its perfectly stable than and can do 12-13-13-28 but I would like to see a bit higher clocks :-/
> 
> Is this because early BIOS for Gen13 or is the revised IMC so picky with DDR4?


Not just you, this person here having problems with 4xDR after going from a 12600k to 13700k:









Asus TUF Z690 Gaming Plus D4, 13700K and DDR4 rams issues


Hello :) I have the Asus TUF Z690 Gaming Plus D4 and just bought a 13700K cpu. Bios upgraded to the newest 2004 and also the ME thing is upgraded to the newest one Now heres the weird part: Can not boot with 4 sticks of ram as I could on my 12600K and also can only boot at MAX 3200Mhz on a...




www.overclock.net





Fortunately I'm only using 2xSR so shouldn't have any issues other than my latency not being as good as 2xDR.

Oh its the same board as well, might be a problem with the bios, it could be useful to share this feedback with Asus.


----------



## nievz

X909 said:


> Has anyone tried 4 DR-DIMM configuration with Raptor Lake? Its so horrible with the current BIOS (2103) on my TUF. I could use 3733 15-15-15-32 with my 12900K, 1V VCCSA and 1.35V VDDQTX. Now is impossbile to boot anything above 3200 with the 13900K. And 3200 allready needs 1.35V VDDQTX. Its perfectly stable than and can do 12-13-13-28 but I would like to see a bit higher clocks :-/
> 
> Is this because early BIOS for Gen13 or is the revised IMC so picky with DDR4?


I use 4 DIMMs at 4000 CL14, gear1 without issues.


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

What would be a better buy?

Z690 Kingpin or Z790 Apex? 

Someone is selling Z690 KP from eBay for £600 and I'm tempted.


----------



## bhav

nievz said:


> I use 4 DIMMs at 4000 CL14, gear1 without issues.


The issue seems to be the latest bios for asus tuf boards messing up 4xDR.

Its looking like their quality control has gone to crap, first the DDR5 issues they had and now this. Not much we can do here, people with this problem need to report it to Asus support.


----------



## CptSpig

TheNaitsyrk said:


> What would be a better buy?
> 
> Z690 Kingpin or Z790 Apex?
> 
> Someone is selling Z690 KP from eBay for £600 and I'm tempted.


IMHO go with the Z790 chipset. It has improvements for overclocking.


----------



## bhav

I do really like the Z690 kingpin dark for its 2 slots and rotated CPU area for cleaner signal from the cables, but it cost way too much for what might only give a tiny improvement.

Fortunately if sticking to DDR4, none of that matters, only if trying to push 8000+ DDR5, and then you also need great luck on getting a capable IMC.


----------



## yzonker

Exilon said:


> 275W - 39.5K CB23, 40.0fps 1080p x265 encode
> 200W - 37.3K CB23, 39.6fps 1080p x265 encode
> 
> I think I'm going to do 200W and just call it a day now. No more fussing about with loaded Vcore with a sane power limit in place.
> 
> 
> 
> Nvidia has fixed the debugging tools being enabled in Geforce Experience a while ago.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/forums/game-ready-drivers/13/501432/-/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Update: NVIDIA GeForce Cards Have issues after Windows 11 2022 (22H2) Update
> 
> 
> Microsoft is slowly rolling out the new Windows 11 2022 update to end-users; unfortunately, there are many reports that there is an issue with GeForce graphics cards, in specific some users even see ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.guru3d.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your game is affected, you will know. The performance hit is like 90%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windows 11 22H2 causing gaming issues for some NVIDIA users
> 
> 
> According to user reports, the Windows 11 22H2 feature update released earlier this week is causing gaming performance issues on systems with NVIDIA GPUs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bleepingcomputer.com


It isn't just game performance though. It totally nerfed my Timespy CPU bench score (25k vs 20k). Blowing that install away and re-installing 21H2 fixed it.


----------



## fray_bentos

stardust78 said:


> Yea I am using an adaptive voltage with an offset but the cpu idles at 1.2V even in power saver... About 10+W too, am I missing something?


13600KF Vs 13900K? 2 more p cores and lots more e cores?


----------



## Oleksii1977

fray_bentos said:


> 13600KF Vs 13900K? 2 more p cores and lots more e cores?


13700K


----------



## bhav

fray_bentos said:


> 13600KF Vs 13900K? 2 more p cores and lots more e cores?


Yes but also you can expect better bins on the 13900K


----------



## fray_bentos

TheNaitsyrk said:


> What would be a better buy?
> 
> Z690 Kingpin or Z790 Apex?
> 
> Someone is selling Z690 KP from eBay for £600 and I'm tempted.


Neither. You'll get no tangible benefit from either. If you really want to blow £600 save it for a year and get a 14900K...


----------



## fray_bentos

bhav said:


> Yes but also you can expect better bins on the 13900K


I was referring to the difference in power consumption at idle. I am on a 13600KF, which should use less power. However, I am impressed with the binning. I can easily hit 5.7 GHz all core, it's super cool, super efficient, and IMC is great (4266 MHz 17-17-17, 1.22 V SA and VDDQ, 1.40 Vdimm). It really feels like a chopped down 13900K relative to the 10600K I had a couple of years ago, which ran hot and didn't overclock very well.


----------



## bhav

fray_bentos said:


> I was referring to the difference in power consumption at idle. I am on a 13600KF, which should use less power. However, I am impressed with the binning. I can easily hit 5.7 GHz all core, it's super cool, super efficient, and IMC is great (4266 MHz 1.22 V SA and VDDQ, 1.40 Vdimm). It really feels like a chopped down 13900K relative to the 10600K I had a couple of years ago, which ran hot and didn't overclock very well.


Well theres an odd thing regarding that, 13900K = higher clocks on less voltage, but it looks like you won the lottery with your 13600K.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

TheNaitsyrk said:


> What would be a better buy?
> 
> Z690 Kingpin or Z790 Apex?
> 
> Someone is selling Z690 KP from eBay for £600 and I'm tempted.


Z690 Kingpin have better resale value for being a collector item. Z790 Apex is a regular product. Both are exceptional. I would go Kingpin Dark all the time


----------



## Nizzen

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> Z690 Kingpin have better resale value for being a collector item. Z790 Apex is a regular product. Both are exceptional. I would go Kingpin Dark all the time


White is very good resell value. I know, because I sold 2 years old Strix white 3090


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

Nizzen said:


> White is very good resell value. I know, because I sold 2 years old Strix white 3090


Yea its niche color choice. Its very hard to make white theme-setup and make it work with proper cablemod sleeved color matching cables and such😄


----------



## bhav

White motherboards are clearly more privileged than black motherboards.


----------



## fray_bentos

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> Z690 Kingpin have better resale value for being a collector item. Z790 Apex is a regular product. Both are exceptional. I would go Kingpin Dark all the time


Both are vanity project boards.


----------



## johnksss

It's not just the resale value....EVGA is 100% better with RMA over everyone else. That alone has like a 85% jump on everyone else.... IMHO


----------



## Nizzen

johnksss said:


> It's not just the resale value....EVGA is 100% better with RMA over everyone else. That alone has like a 85% jump on everyone else.... IMHO


Rma in Norway: Send it back to reseller. 5 years return if broken by law. Overclockers dream 😎🤓


----------



## RobertoSampaio

New OCTool - v.1111









M15_OCPAK1111.zip


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com







New DRAM RGB control and new Fan control


----------



## tubs2x4

yzonker said:


> It isn't just game performance though. It totally nerfed my Timespy CPU bench score (25k vs 20k). Blowing that install away and re-installing 21H2 fixed it.


Me too. 2000 less points on cb23. Consistently. Went back to 21h2. All Normal. Something off with that 22h2.


----------



## Exilon

Exilon said:


> 275W - 39.5K CB23, 40.0fps 1080p x265 encode
> 200W - 37.3K CB23, 39.6fps 1080p x265 encode
> 
> I think I'm going to do 200W and just call it a day now. No more fussing about with loaded Vcore with a sane power limit in place.


After struggling with the VF curve for a bit, I hit the ring SVID with a -80mV offset and 200W CB23 score climbed to 38.4K









This really just shows how crippling the the ring voltage table can be for running anything below spec. It is very annoying that ring/P/E all share the same voltage but only one has a VF table that can be directly manipulated.


----------



## nievz

Does overclcoking the ring shows any real world performance benefit? I'm still at stock and I have not been interested in touching it yet.


----------



## ju-rek

tubs2x4 said:


> Me too. 2000 less points on cb23. Consistently. Went back to 21h2. All Normal. Something off with that 22h2.


How to get back to 21H2. Where can you download the windows 11 image of this version, because there is only 22H2 for download on the microsoft website.


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> White motherboards are clearly more privileged than black motherboards.


Definitely thy demand a privilege on price 



johnksss said:


> It's not just the resale value....EVGA is 100% better with RMA over everyone else. That alone has like a 85% jump on everyone else.... IMHO


Only in the US.


----------



## Exilon

nievz said:


> Does overclcoking the ring shows any real world performance benefit? I'm still at stock and I have not been interested in touching it yet.


It's minor. Even on Alder Lake moving from 3.6 -> 4.3 was 2-3% on a game that cared.


----------



## tubs2x4

ju-rek said:


> How to get back to 21H2. Where can you download the windows 11 image of this version, because there is only 22H2 for download on the microsoft website.


I still have a copy of 21h2 on my usb when I installed win11 fresh few months ago.
Edit: is there a free site that can handle 8 gb? I could upload the files if someone wants them.


----------



## ju-rek

Maybe a google drive?


----------



## Exilon

Exilon said:


> After struggling with the VF curve for a bit, I hit the ring SVID with a -80mV offset and 200W CB23 score climbed to 38.4K
> View attachment 2582258
> 
> 
> This really just shows how crippling the the ring voltage table can be for running anything below spec. It is very annoying that ring/P/E all share the same voltage but only one has a VF table that can be directly manipulated.


At 0.30/0.98 AC/DC it looks like it's only the 51-54x P-core range that is seriously affected with ring down-bin enabled (45x-48x ring) because the P-cores can't pull Vcore down due to the hidden ring VF table, and so P-cores throttle to 50x where ring down-bin pulls the ring VID low enough. 

At stock, this shouldn't be a problem since P-cores always run with higher VID than ring but when undervolted I need a -100mV ring VID offset and I'm still 500 CB23 points short of just locking the ring at 40x.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Anyone here using dark kingpin z690? What bios u on?


----------



## SoldierRBT

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Anyone here using dark kingpin z690? What bios u on?


2.02. If you have a 4090 you may need another version


----------



## ju-rek

tubs2x4 said:


> I still have a copy of 21h2 on my usb when I installed win11 fresh few months ago.
> Edit: is there a free site that can handle 8 gb? I could upload the files if someone wants them.


I coped








How to download Windows 11 21H2 ISO after 22H2 releases - Pureinfotech


To download the Windows 11 21H2 ISO after version 22H2 releases, use the Rufus download option, and select version 21H2. Here's how.




pureinfotech.com


----------



## Falkentyne

tubs2x4 said:


> Me too. 2000 less points on cb23. Consistently. Went back to 21h2. All Normal. Something off with that 22h2.


My R23 scores are identical pre and post 22H2.
But I use shutup 10 and disable everything in windows 11 that isn't necessary.


----------



## HyperC

So I can't figure out if my Motherboard is trolling me or what z690 tuf but if I change my clock speeds testing for stable volts lets say I wasn't stable I bump my vcore +20mv the idle goes up but load goes lower I havent touched the LLC and hardware info shows no change in ohms


----------



## johnksss

Telstar said:


> Definitely thy demand a privilege on price
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the US.


That means Asus takes twice as long then....MSI is 17 days and My Asus was like a month.


----------



## tubs2x4

Falkentyne said:


> My R23 scores are identical pre and post 22H2.
> But I use shutup 10 and disable everything in windows 11 that isn't necessary.


Beats me what’s causing it..


----------



## chibi

How does MSI TForce 135 (13900K) compare to ASUS SP?


----------



## sugi0lover

TheNaitsyrk said:


> What would be a better buy?
> 
> Z690 Kingpin or Z790 Apex?
> 
> Someone is selling Z690 KP from eBay for £600 and I'm tempted.


My friend with z690 kingpin and 13900K is having hard time doing stable 8000 ram oc even with lots of rams atm, while friends with z790 apex can do stable 8400 ram oc. But plz don't generalize.


----------



## Telstar

johnksss said:


> That means Asus takes twice as long then...


yeah, 2-3 months. Luckily I never needed it.


----------



## johnksss

sugi0lover said:


> My friend with z690 kingpin and 13900K is having hard time doing stable 8000 ram oc even with lots of rams atm, while friends with z790 apex can do stable 8400 ram oc. But plz don't generalize.


Does he get good results with 7800?


----------



## gtz

Falkentyne said:


> My R23 scores are identical pre and post 22H2.
> But I use shutup 10 and disable everything in windows 11 that isn't necessary.


My score dropped as well, 27k to 22k. Gaming is the same but time spy cou score got nerfed.


----------



## Exilon

gtz said:


> My score dropped as well, 27k to 22k. Gaming is the same but time spy cou score got nerfed.


What version of Geforce Experience do you have, if you have it?


----------



## TheNaitsyrk

sugi0lover said:


> My friend with z690 kingpin and 13900K is having hard time doing stable 8000 ram oc even with lots of rams atm, while friends with z790 apex can do stable 8400 ram oc. But plz don't generalize.


Appreciate the advice. I will stick to my guns.


----------



## rluker5

gtz said:


> My score dropped as well, 27k to 22k. Gaming is the same but time spy cou score got nerfed.


After reading your comment I checked my CPU score and it got nerfed with 22h2 as well. So I uninstalled, reinstalled the MEI driver for windows, restarted, set power plan to balanced on a whim, and the problem was fixed! Set power plan to high performance and the problem was back. Set power plan back to balanced and it went away again and my score was back.

Try setting your power plan to balanced.
Dang updates. Maybe performance blocks whatever priority scheduler they have going on.

Edit: Power saver also works fine as long as you increase the max state of your p-cores from 75% to 100%.
With 5.6p/4.5e I got 14213 cpu TSE in power savings, 14179 cpu TSE with balanced, and 12088 cpu TSE with high performance. Before that 14166 -balanced and 12410 high performance. Lot of variability with that broken high performance.


----------



## sugi0lover

johnksss said:


> Does he get good results with 7800?


Yes he has no problem with 7800.
But he is looking for the stock of z790 apex.


----------



## bigfootnz

chibi said:


> How does MSI TForce 135 (13900K) compare to ASUS SP?


That should be really high SP, my SP102/P113 has 143 force


----------



## yzonker

In regards to 22H2, the only benchmark I could find that was nerfed was the TS CPU test. TSE CPU, CB single and multi, CPUZ, etc... all the same as my other install on 21H2. I'm pretty sure I even tried changing to the various power plans, although I'm not 100% sure if I tried them all or not.

And yea I still had 21H2 on a thumb drive, so I just re-installed.


----------



## rogerwalker24

Anyone have a MSI Edge Wifi DDR4? I have some G Skill 3600mhz CL14 and I am able to get the timings tight but will not boot over 3600mhz.


----------



## yzonker

rogerwalker24 said:


> Anyone have a MSI Edge Wifi DDR4? I have some G Skill 3600mhz CL14 and I am able to get the timings tight but will not boot over 3600mhz.


Set CPU VDDQ to 1.5v to 1.6v. That's what I had to do. Interestingly, it won't post at all though above 1.58v on my board/cpu/mem combo. I actually ended up at 1.58v to get 4133 stable.


----------



## sniperpowa

tps3443 said:


> My cpu is a X238L435, and it’s a beast! It is a launch day CPU. I bought it from Newegg.
> 
> Also, don’t worry about batch number too much. I had a golden top 1% 11900K, and someone on here bought the exact same batch. And their chip was just total garbage LOL. Test both throughly!!


That’s my kf batch number mines p core is sp115


----------



## rogerwalker24

yzonker said:


> Set CPU VDDQ to 1.5v to 1.6v. That's what I had to do. Interestingly, it won't post at all though above 1.58v on my board/cpu/mem combo. I actually ended up at 1.58v to get 4133 stable.


 I will give this a try, ty! other then that sheeeeeeeesh am I loving this 13900K lol


----------



## jeiselramos

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Anyone here using dark kingpin z690? What bios u on?


2.03, bootloop on 2.02


----------



## sugi0lover

bigfootnz said:


> That should be really high SP, my SP102/P113 has 143 force


For your reference, my SP 114(P124/E94)'s force is below. (The lower, the better)


----------



## jeiselramos

Sp99 p109/e81-> force 139
Sp103 p111/e88 -> force 143 

Sp103/f143









Sp99/f139









100mhz less on the e core and 50mv more, i don't trust the MSI force, sp is better


----------



## tps3443

Guys! Rockitcool is janky as hell.. Their new Copper IHS does NOT fit bending frames!!! You can potentially destroy your cpu too. I have the new one. It fits inside but the wings are not flush on both sides, I managed to file a small amount off the copper IHS wing, but now my bending frame does not line up with the motherboard holes to tighten it down at all… They did not even test fit these things and look at it more than a second. I know someone else who has the same issue. You can see in the 2nd pic, it’s leaning to one side drastically. It doesn’t contact the die, and the IHS does not properly contact the water block. I wouldn’t buy until they offer a new model that fixes this issue. 

Also, I had decent temps even when it was crooked. about like it was before the delid maybe a little less.


----------



## tps3443

sniperpowa said:


> That’s my kf batch number mines p core is sp115


What is your e core SP?


----------



## Exilon

Exilon said:


> At 0.30/0.98 AC/DC it looks like it's only the 51-54x P-core range that is seriously affected with ring down-bin enabled (45x-48x ring) because the P-cores can't pull Vcore down due to the hidden ring VF table, and so P-cores throttle to 50x where ring down-bin pulls the ring VID low enough.
> 
> At stock, this shouldn't be a problem since P-cores always run with higher VID than ring but when undervolted I need a -100mV ring VID offset and I'm still 500 CB23 points short of just locking the ring at 40x.


I think I bottomed out this thing and it makes no difference going lower at all.


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> Guys! Rockitcool is janky as hell.. Their new Copper IHS does NOT fit bending frames!!! You can potentially destroy your cpu too. I have the new one. It fits inside but the wings are not flush on both sides, I managed to file a small amount off the copper IHS wing, but now my bending frame does not line up with the motherboard holes to tighten it down at all… They did not even test fit these things and look at it more than a second. I know someone else who has the same issue. You can see in the 2nd pic, it’s leaning to one side drastically. It doesn’t contact the die, and the IHS does not properly contact the water block. I wouldn’t buy until they offer a new model that fixes this issue.
> 
> Also, I had decent temps even when it was crooked. about like it was before the delid maybe a little less.
> 
> View attachment 2582300
> 
> View attachment 2582301


No need to use the copper IHS.
Just use the original one. What you need to do with the original one is sand down the edges (underside edges) about 0.2mm so that the middle underside touches the die after the solder is removed. Usually, sanding it down to the copper (along the edges) fully showing is enough for this. This is based on the 9900k's delidding and relidding information (after removal of the solder z-height). Note that I have no idea how this would work with the contact frame.
I assume after sanding down the edges 0.2mm, you would need to make sure the die, frame itself and IHS are all equally balanced and flat.


----------



## tps3443

Falkentyne said:


> No need to use the copper IHS.
> Just use the original one. What you need to do with the original one is sand down the edges (underside edges) about 0.2mm so that the middle underside touches the die after the solder is removed. Usually, sanding it down to the copper (along the edges) fully showing is enough for this. This is based on the 9900k's delidding and relidding information (after removal of the solder z-height). Note that I have no idea how this would work with the contact frame.
> I assume after sanding down the edges 0.2mm, you would need to make sure the die, frame itself and IHS are all equally balanced and flat.


I didn’t want to destroy my original IHS with liquid metal. I figured Rockitcool was competent enough to make a copper IHS that would fit the bending frame. I guess not. They said it did after all Lol.


----------



## acoustic

Copper IHS is BS. The stock IHS is copper with nickel plating which is far better for LM applications, since LM and copper are never very happy together.

Even shaving down the edges as Falk says isn't technically necessary. My 12700K w/ stock IHS+LM on die+TR Frame was better than Copper IHS+LM on die


----------



## sniperpowa

tps3443 said:


> What is your e core SP?


88


----------



## jtclfo

tps3443 said:


> I didn’t want to destroy my original IHS with liquid metal. I figured Rockitcool was competent enough to make a copper IHS that would fit the bending frame. I guess not. They said it did after all Lol.


I checked mine for trueness while installing it and mine was fine but I am using the Thermal Grizzly frame not the one you have so not sure if that's part of the equation?

Edit: I didn't look extremely close so not saying it's an absolute but mine has been behaving fine.


----------



## gtz

jeiselramos said:


> 2.03, bootloop on 2.02


Same for the classy, skip BIOS 2.0 thru 2.02. 

2.03 is the best for me as well.


----------



## wilkinsb01

is it normal ? 414 watts


----------



## nievz

Is there a way to set an offset for the ring voltage on msi bios?


----------



## owikh84

tps3443 said:


> Guys! Rockitcool is janky as hell.. Their new Copper IHS does NOT fit bending frames!!! You can potentially destroy your cpu too. I have the new one. It fits inside but the wings are not flush on both sides, I managed to file a small amount off the copper IHS wing, but now my bending frame does not line up with the motherboard holes to tighten it down at all… They did not even test fit these things and look at it more than a second. I know someone else who has the same issue. You can see in the 2nd pic, it’s leaning to one side drastically. It doesn’t contact the die, and the IHS does not properly contact the water block. I wouldn’t buy until they offer a new model that fixes this issue.
> 
> Also, I had decent temps even when it was crooked. about like it was before the delid maybe a little less.
> 
> View attachment 2582300
> 
> View attachment 2582301


Are you sure you installed the copper IHS correctly? There is a small dot on the lower left corner of the copper IHS that needs to be placed at the same orientation as the arrow marking on the contact frame and CPU PCB.


----------



## Exilon

wilkinsb01 said:


> is it normal ? 414 watts
> View attachment 2582323
> 
> View attachment 2582322


Stock is 5.5GHz and 38-40K depending on your SVID setting.

For 42.7K? Eeeeh close enough? Can't be that healthy for the CPU though.


----------



## cstkl1

G.SKILL - F5-7600J3646G16GX2-TZ5RK
Asus Z790 Apex - Bios 0801

[email protected]
[email protected]

HCI proper 1000%

Settings for 8000C32/8200C34/8200C32
Google Drive: Sign-in
Google Drive: Sign-in





0801-M15A-8200C32.CMO







drive.google.com





*Caution i am using my own LLC AC/DC setting and my daily which is disable usb sound/wifi/ptt/secure boot key/vtd/vmd etc.


----------



## owikh84

I have three different contact frames, which are Feng Zao fiberglass, LZmod alu and Thermalright alu. The new 12/13th Gen copper IHS fits well in all of the frames. Feng Zao fiberglass is the best as it is not moveable when seated above the copper IHS.










Feng Zao fiberglass:









LZmod alu frame:











Thermalright alu frame:


----------



## rogerwalker24

> yzonker said:
> Set CPU VDDQ to 1.5v to 1.6v. That's what I had to do. Interestingly, it won't post at all though above 1.58v on my board/cpu/mem combo. I actually ended up at 1.58v to get 4133 stable.


OMG You're a genius!!! TY!!! It booted on 3800mhz first try, now I get to see how high I can go. It was on 1.35. I put to 1.5. I am pretty new to all this, should I stay at 1.5 or is 1.6 safe?


----------



## tps3443

owikh84 said:


> Are you sure you installed the copper IHS correctly? There is a small dot on the lower left corner of the copper IHS that needs to be placed at the same orientation as the arrow marking on the contact frame and CPU PCB.
> View attachment 2582338


I followed this exactly. It doesn’t lay flush inside the frame I wanted it to work more than anything. I wasted my money on it after all.. . The side wings of the IHS do not evenly fall in to the grooves on the inside of the contact frame, one side overlaps and its physically impossible to make it fit without modification or grinding to the copper IHS, someone else I know had the exact same issue @Mr.Fox . Only one side fits in flush. I have flipped frame around both ways I tried every thing. It actually took grinding the wings down some on the copper IHS and I had to file and hand fit the IHS to the frame outside of my test bench. Unfortunately this still didn’t work out, because when I mounted it on the cpu the way it fit now was causing the 4 holes to be off alignment to the motherboard. I spent all day working on this and Rockitcool is a joke man, the tool is great, but not the IHS. And I’ve been doing this a long time. This Rockitcool IHS is truly crap lol.. I cleaned up the stock IHS and re-sealed my cpu, it now looks OEM 100%. And my temps with LM inside, thermal paste outside are absolutely smashing that copper IHS that had LM on both sides in and out lol.

This is with my cpu stock and re-lidded, using just TF7 thermalpaste and 25C water. Liquid metal on the inside of IHS, thermal paste on the outside of IHS.






























*DO NOT RISK IT! I was not the first to discover this. it was actually*
@Mr.Fox


----------



## jtclfo

While I have no evidence in either direction I’m going to hope it’s a QC issue overall. I also have no data to identify IHS changes from Intel to help improve thermal overhead gen to gen but I’d imagine they would have tried.

The copper IHS is definitely thick and I wonder if planing it down a bit might yield an edge over the production spec. I can match those temps readily so I am inclined to believe the copper IHS might be less important this time around but I have not spent any conclusive time proving or attempting to prove that. I am not well versed in making white paper assessments on stuff I mostly just wing it and sum everything up at the end. Just not enough personal and specifically attentive time to dedicate to the process.


----------



## chibi

bigfootnz said:


> That should be really high SP, my SP102/P113 has 143 force


Hmm, MSI TForce hard to judge based on the replies so far. I can hope for SP 100 ~ 105 based on sugi and jeiselramos samples.


----------



## tps3443

@owikh84 The unevenness is from side to side when the IHS is laying inside the frame. It is not from top to bottom. I’m thrilled though. With warm water I’m killing it with my temps. Stock IHS works phenomenally well!


----------



## tps3443

jtclfo said:


> While I have no evidence in either direction I’m going to hope it’s a QC issue overall. I also have no data to identify IHS changes from Intel to help improve thermal overhead gen to gen but I’d imagine they would have tried.
> 
> The copper IHS is definitely thick and I wonder if planing it down a bit might yield an edge over the production spec. I can match those temps readily so I am inclined to believe the copper IHS might be less important this time around but I have not spent any conclusive time proving or attempting to prove that. I am not well versed in making white paper assessments on stuff I mostly just wing it and sum everything up at the end. Just not enough personal and specifically attentive time to dedicate to the process.


Stock IHS is perfectly suited to provide amazing temps. If you delid, you do need to confirm the stock IHS spins freely on the die. Lap the bottom lips of the stock IHS until it spins/free floats like silk on the die. No need to lap the top of the IHS. It works well enough as it is.


----------



## rogerwalker24

This is what I have so far, P 5.6/E 4.4/R 4.7 Vcore 1.28 pulled 307 watts DDR4 38000Mhz CL14 51ns

I came from an 11900K with an SP of 50, thing was horrible. Can't describe how satisfied I am with this CPU.

I have a Corsair H150i ELITE 360mm, I bought the thermal grizzly contact frame and some Kryonaut thermal paste. 

Thoughts and suggestions welcome =]


----------



## PhoenixMDA

tps3443 said:


> Stock IHS is perfectly suited to provide amazing temps. If you delid, you do need to confirm the stock IHS spins freely on the die. Lap the bottom lips of the stock IHS until it spins/free floats like silk on the die. No need to lap the top of the IHS. It works well enough as it is.


Have the sanded down the IHS?
BY me it was to high to reach the DIE, my temp´s was with much LM 7° worse as original


----------



## Ichirou

wilkinsb01 said:


> is it normal ? 414 watts
> View attachment 2582323
> 
> View attachment 2582322


At 1.37V VR VOUT? Yeah. But you're killing the chip.


----------



## tps3443

rogerwalker24 said:


> This is what I have so far, P 5.6/E 4.4/R 4.7 Vcore 1.28 pulled 307 watts DDR4 38000Mhz CL14 51ns
> 
> I came from an 11900K with an SP of 50, thing was horrible. Can't describe how satisfied I am with this CPU.
> 
> I have a Corsair H150i ELITE 360mm, I bought the thermal grizzly contact frame and some Kryonaut thermal paste.
> 
> Thoughts and suggestions welcome =]
> 
> View attachment 2582351


I suggest just running the cpu stock on your cooling. No need to run it so hot man! You’re only losing single threaded performance in the end.

Reset defaults and reduce voltage as much as possible with default boost of 5.5 all core and 5.8 (2) cores. Set cache to 4.7Ghz, and maximize your memory OC and timings etc.


----------



## tps3443

PhoenixMDA said:


> Have the sanded down the IHS?
> BY me it was to high to reach the DIE, my temp´s was with much LM 7° worse as original


Yes I took a steel file with water and sanded down the bottom of the IHS until it was all bright copper and no nickel left anywhere, we never see this part anyways so it doesn’t matter. It was perfectly even all around the bottom lip of the IHS and now the die touches the inside IHS perfectly, it also spun freely on the die. I had a small gap between the IHS edges and CPU substrate edges for my adhesive for re-sealing my IHS back to the CPU. I took my time and did it right. Temps are absolutely incredible!!! Also, my cpu looks 100% OEM like nothing ever even happen to it.

I want to be able to remove the chip and not worry about the IHS spinning around or moving. I allowed LM to soak inside the inner IHS and reach an equilibrium by continuously applying LM a few times allowing full saturation of LM. This thing will never dry out or degrade in temps. If your gonna do this, I’d recommend this method.


----------



## Convicted

bhav said:


> @Convicted get a $15 bend corrector frame please


Finally cracked it. This was the tip that did it, and thank you all for your help over the past couple of weeks. Thermalright frame in, repasted with Kryonaught and reseated, finally can cool the stock 250W and the temp doesn't go above 85C. 

So here's the next issue. I'm still only getting 5.2Ghz in CB23. Before it was thermally throttling so I could understand it wouldn't push clocks up more, but now it's power limit throttling. 

This is stock ASUS settings, XMP1 profile, MCE turned off. Basically trying to first get it to run at total stock, which should be 5.5Ghz all-core in CB23, right?


----------



## bhav

No idea whats going on there, at first I thought you had a 13600k, but its a 13900k?

No idea why the clocks are so low at stock.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

tps3443 said:


> Yes I took a steel file with water and sanded down the bottom of the IHS until it was all bright copper and no nickel left anywhere, we never see this part anyways so it doesn’t matter. It was perfectly even all around the bottom lip of the IHS and now the die touches the inside IHS perfectly, it also spun freely on the die. I had a small gap between the IHS edges and CPU substrate edges for my adhesive for re-sealing my IHS back to the CPU. I took my time and did it right. Temps are absolutely incredible!!! Also, my cpu looks 100% OEM like nothing ever even happen to it.
> 
> I want to be able to remove the chip and not worry about the IHS spinning around or moving. I allowed LM to soak inside the inner IHS and reach an equilibrium by continuously applying LM a few times allowing full saturation of LM. This thing will never dry out or degrade in temps. If your gonna do this, I’d recommend this method.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2582358
> 
> View attachment 2582359


You have push me to do that^^.under same conditions i get 1-2°better temp´s as with the rockit(but after i done plane with sand paper), original the rockit is worse.
I have lose 75,-^^, because of high shipping price for a HS that isn´t really good.
I put isolack on top of the tabs and along the edge to even out the 0.1-0.2mm I sanded away at the bottom.My Chip SP102(P109/E88)

And my thumb bleeds from grinding


----------



## acoustic

Convicted said:


> Finally cracked it. This was the tip that did it, and thank you all for your help over the past couple of weeks. Thermalright frame in, repasted with Kryonaught and reseated, finally can cool the stock 250W and the temp doesn't go above 85C.
> 
> So here's the next issue. I'm still only getting 5.2Ghz in CB23. Before it was thermally throttling so I could understand it wouldn't push clocks up more, but now it's power limit throttling.
> 
> This is stock ASUS settings, XMP1 profile, MCE turned off. Basically trying to first get it to run at total stock, which should be 5.5Ghz all-core in CB23, right?
> 
> View attachment 2582367
> 
> 
> View attachment 2582368


I would recommend resetting XTU and uninstalling it for testing. clear CMOS and reset optimized defaults in BIOS.

What ME are you using? Make sure both ME and BIOS are on latest releases.


----------



## tps3443

PhoenixMDA said:


> You have push me to do that^^.under same conditions i get 1-2°better temp´s as with the rockit(but after i done plane with sand paper), original the rockit is worse.
> I have lose 75,-^^, because of high shipping price for a HS that isn´t really good.
> I put isolack on top of the tabs and along the edge to even out the 0.1-0.2mm I sanded away at the bottom.My Chip SP102(P109/E88)
> 
> And my thumb bleeds from grinding
> View attachment 2582372
> View attachment 2582373
> View attachment 2582375


That’s exactly how mine looks on the bottom of the IHS! literally looks just like that lol. I didn’t bother with lapping the top. I wanted the chip to look stock and oem lol. Anyways, great job!


----------



## yzonker

rogerwalker24 said:


> OMG You're a genius!!! TY!!! It booted on 3800mhz first try, now I get to see how high I can go. It was on 1.35. I put to 1.5. I am pretty new to all this, should I stay at 1.5 or is 1.6 safe?


1.6v is supposed to be safe from what I've read. Here is one of the posts I ran across,









[OFFICIAL] Asus Strix/Maximus Z690 Owners Thread


I'm seeing much better stability at 1.6v. I have no idea if this is a safe voltage - kind of hoping to hear from someone that knows more (@shamino1978 ?), but this has greatly enhanced stability. tx vddq is fivr'ed , its almost impossible to use too much voltage on fivr rails since they trip...




www.overclock.net


----------



## cstkl1

yzonker said:


> 1.6v is supposed to be safe from what I've read. Here is one of the posts I ran across,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [OFFICIAL] Asus Strix/Maximus Z690 Owners Thread
> 
> 
> I'm seeing much better stability at 1.6v. I have no idea if this is a safe voltage - kind of hoping to hear from someone that knows more (@shamino1978 ?), but this has greatly enhanced stability. tx vddq is fivr'ed , its almost impossible to use too much voltage on fivr rails since they trip...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


when you start approaching 00 pcode. thats when u need to backdown


----------



## yzonker

cstkl1 said:


> when you start approaching 00 pcode. thats when u need to backdown


You're going to have to help me there. Google didn't even turn anything up. 00 p-code? Where can I see that?


----------



## X909

bhav said:


> Not just you, this person here having problems with 4xDR after going from a 12600k to 13700k:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asus TUF Z690 Gaming Plus D4, 13700K and DDR4 rams issues
> 
> 
> Hello :) I have the Asus TUF Z690 Gaming Plus D4 and just bought a 13700K cpu. Bios upgraded to the newest 2004 and also the ME thing is upgraded to the newest one Now heres the weird part: Can not boot with 4 sticks of ram as I could on my 12600K and also can only boot at MAX 3200Mhz on a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh its the same board as well, might be a problem with the bios, it could be useful to share this feedback with Asus.





nievz said:


> I use 4 DIMMs at 4000 CL14, gear1 without issues.





bhav said:


> The issue seems to be the latest bios for asus tuf boards messing up 4xDR.


Ok thanks... looks like its more an ASUS BIOS issue than a Raptor Lake thing. Hope they fixe it... don't want to change the Board.


----------



## Arni90

cstkl1 said:


> when you start approaching 00 pcode. thats when u need to backdown


Dude, I didn't see 00 even when trying to boot at 1.70V on Alder Lake, nobody in their right mind would say 1.70V is a good idea long-term.


----------



## rogerwalker24

tps3443 said:


> I suggest just running the cpu stock on your cooling. No need to run it so hot man! You’re only losing single threaded performance in the end.
> 
> Reset defaults and reduce voltage as much as possible with default boost of 5.5 all core and 5.8 (2) cores. Set cache to 4.7Ghz, and maximize your memory OC and timings etc.


You think the overclock isn't worth? I only game on my PC but I am a "tweaking" addict lol. I love computers and learning as much as I possibly can. Right now with it the way it is I'm more then happy. Normally while gaming I only get as high as the low to mid 60's. I eventually want to get some better cooling I just don't know if I want to go with a Mora style rad or just go full blown custom loop.


----------



## yzonker

Arni90 said:


> Dude, I didn't see 00 even when trying to boot at 1.70V on Alder Lake, nobody in their right mind would say 1.70V is a good idea long-term.


Talking about the codes displayed on some boards during training/boot? The thing the MSI Edge doesn't have?


----------



## wilkinsb01

Ichirou said:


> At 1.37V VR VOUT? Yeah. But you're killing the chip.


how i can low the voltage for the VR OUT with evga dark ?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

wilkinsb01 said:


> how i can low the voltage for the VR OUT with evga dark ?


Lower your vcore in bios.


----------



## wilkinsb01

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Lower your vcore in bios.


thanks


----------



## warbucks

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Lower your vcore in bios.


How is your gskill kit doing on the dark? I've got the same kit/setup so I'm curious where you landed for overclock/settings.


----------



## Krzych04650

Interesting test over at TPU about E-cores enabled vs disabled.










Out of the games that had performance penalty I have Metro Exodus so I've done some testing, here is how it looks:

(8 threads) 8P/0E/HT0 - 165.26
(16 threads) 8P/0E/HT1 - 160.31
(16 threads) 8P/8E/HT0 - 157.58
(24 threads) 8P/8E/HT1 - 148,4
(32 threads) 8P/16E/HT1 - 139.06

So the performance penalty is from the number of threads, not E-cores. 8+8 vs 8c/16t is only 1.5% penalty and disabling HT increases overclocking potential by ~200MHz at the same voltage, so performance would basically equalize. And then there is a massive penalty with 24 and 32 threads.

This happens sometimes, that's why the maximum number of threads for gaming setup should be 16. Not launching or crashing only starts happening at 32 or more threads typically, up to 16 is always fine with maybe some minimal penalty, and between 16 and 32 there is that whole grey area where you don't really know if you are getting performance penalty or frametime issues unless you test it for every game individually, which is a massive pain to do.

And then there are all those cases where you get 9-11% boost from E-cores even in games that do not use them or are not even multithreaded, like CSGO and Witcher1 as I've found. So it is not as simple as just running traditional 8c/16t with E-cores disabled, there is a big penalty to that too.

Overall looks like the 8P/8E/HT0 setup I've decided to use is most optimal. 16 threads have no compatibility issues or meaningful performance penalty, you need E-cores for that 9-11% boost in some games and disabling HT increases overclocking potential by around 200MHz at the same voltage, so you can run at 6GHz all core just fine below 1.4V on any decent sample. So far I haven't found any games that would get a penalty from running like this, but there are also so many different games that you can never really be sure. 50 game test may sound like much but it is just a drop in the sea.

Also, from what I've tested so far you only need 1 E-core enabled for that 9-11% boost to occur and those cores are not actually getting used at all. There are some theories about accessing L2 of E-cores or replacing HT with E-cores but it seems that RPL simply does not always function properly with all E-cores completely disabled and it causes inconsistency. I have that 8P/8E/HT0 setup mostly for symmetry, maybe 8P/1E/HT0 would have the same effect but not even this small 3% penalty from going 16T vs 8T in Exodus. I need to test that.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

This is where I'm sitting now settings wise with my 13900k I picked up at Microcenter. I'm using my m dies still because they only had up to 6800MHz a die. I was never able to run settings this tight with my 12900k. This thing's a beast. I just noticed I'm in 2t mode too lol.


----------



## Ichirou

I have some free time now,


Krzych04650 said:


> Interesting test over at TPU about E-cores enabled vs disabled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of the games that had performance penalty I have Metro Exodus so I've done some testing, here is how it looks:
> 
> (8 threads) 8P/0E/HT0 - 165.26
> (16 threads) 8P/0E/HT1 - 160.31
> (16 threads) 8P/8E/HT0 - 157.58
> (24 threads) 8P/8E/HT1 - 148,4
> (32 threads) 8P/16E/HT1 - 139.06
> 
> So the performance penalty is from the number of threads, not E-cores. 8+8 vs 8c/16t is only 1.5% penalty and disabling HT increases overclocking potential by ~200MHz at the same voltage, so performance would basically equalize. And then there is a massive penalty with 24 and 32 threads.
> 
> This happens sometimes, that's why the maximum number of threads for gaming setup should be 16. Not launching or crashing only starts happening at 32 or more threads typically, up to 16 is always fine with maybe some minimal penalty, and between 16 and 32 there is that whole grey area where you don't really know if you are getting performance penalty or frametime issues unless you test it for every game individually, which is a massive pain to do.
> 
> And then there are all those cases where you get 9-11% boost from E-cores even in games that do not use them or are not even multithreaded, like CSGO and Witcher1 as I've found. So it is not as simple as just running traditional 8c/16t with E-cores disabled, there is a big penalty to that too.
> 
> Overall looks like the 8P/8E/HT0 setup I've decided to use is most optimal. 16 threads have no compatibility issues or meaningful performance penalty, you need E-cores for that 9-11% boost in some games and disabling HT increases overclocking potential by around 200MHz at the same voltage, so you can run at 6GHz all core just fine below 1.4V on any decent sample. So far I haven't found any games that would get a penalty from running like this, but there are also so many different games that you can never really be sure. 50 game test may sound like much but it is just a drop in the sea.
> 
> Also, from what I've tested so far you only need 1 E-core enabled for that 9-11% boost to occur and those cores are not actually getting used at all. There are some theories about accessing L2 of E-cores or replacing HT with E-cores but it seems that RPL simply does not always function properly with all E-cores completely disabled and it causes inconsistency. I have that 8P/8E/HT0 setup mostly for symmetry, maybe 8P/1E/HT0 would have the same effect but not even this small 3% penalty from going 16T vs 8T in Exodus. I need to test that.


Test it with HWiNFO running in another monitor. Check to see if any cores/threads are being clocked down because of Windows.


----------



## cptclutch

Is 1.34v Vcore safe during a cinebench run?


----------



## Ichirou

cptclutch said:


> Is 1.34v Vcore safe during a cinebench run?
> View attachment 2582408


What is the VR VOUT and Current IOUT reading?


----------



## digitalfrost

Krzych04650 said:


> Out of the games that had performance penalty I have Metro Exodus so I've done some testing, here is how it looks:
> 
> (8 threads) 8P/0E/HT0 - 165.26
> (16 threads) 8P/0E/HT1 - 160.31
> (16 threads) 8P/8E/HT0 - 157.58
> (24 threads) 8P/8E/HT1 - 148,4
> (32 threads) 8P/16E/HT1 - 139.06
> 
> So the performance penalty is from the number of threads, not E-cores.


In this case I would simply use Process Lasso to automatically put the game on the right cores/threads.


----------



## cptclutch

Ichirou said:


> What is the VR VOUT and Current IOUT reading?


I just have a vcore reading in HWinfo.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

warbucks said:


> How is your gskill kit doing on the dark? I've got the same kit/setup so I'm curious where you landed for overclock/settings.


I played with then last weekend and it was tough going. I packed them up for return then I seen your post. I unpacked them, gave it another go.

I will still probably return them, I'd rather have the dominators for looks even though they cost more.

Anyways, got this geekbench stable atleast, nothing too impressive:











*EDIT:*

8000MHz, guess not bad sticks but still not 24/7 stable.


----------



## Agent-A01

MrTOOSHORT said:


> I played with then last weekend and it was tough going. I packed them up for return then I seen your post. I unpacked them, gave it another go.
> 
> I will still probably return them, I'd rather have the dominators for looks even though they cost more.
> 
> Anyways, got this geekbench stable atleast, nothing too impressive:
> *EDIT:*
> 
> 8000MHz, guess not bad sticks but still not 24/7 stable.


Which kit is that?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

F5-7200J3445G16GX2-TZ5RK - Specification - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


Trident Z5 RGB DDR5-7200 CL34-45-45-115 1.40V 32GB (2x16GB) Intel XMP




www.gskill.com


----------



## warbucks

MrTOOSHORT said:


> I played with then last weekend and it was tough going. I packed them up for return then I seen your post. I unpacked them, gave it another go.
> 
> I will still probably return them, I'd rather have the dominators for looks even though they cost more.
> 
> Anyways, got this geekbench stable atleast, nothing too impressive:
> 
> 
> View attachment 2582410
> 
> 
> *EDIT:*
> 
> 8000MHz, guess not bad sticks but still not 24/7 stable.
> 
> View attachment 2582413


Try increasing VPP to 1.85V-1.90V and see if that helps with stability.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm testing the 0801 BIOS and will share some tricks I'm doing...

I have a very good E-core (SP-102). So I can boost the frequencies of the E-cores a lot.
I know I can get them all at 48x...I'm trying to get to 49x.

The e-cores are divided into 4 groups of 4 cores. So I'm trying to find out if any group can get to 49x...
So I did the following:

Allowed 2 cores to reach 49x at the same time:










And selected the last group for 49x, keeping the others limited to 48x...










They reached 49x !!!  

So now I need to do some transient tests and use the PC for a day before I try to select another group to 49x.


----------



## dante`afk

@tps3443 which contract frame are you using? my thermalright + rockit copper IHS fits just fine


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

warbucks said:


> Try increasing VPP to 1.85V-1.90V and see if that helps with stability.


Didn't help. I'll keep messing with it today, I have time.


----------



## Ichirou

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm testing the 0801 BIOS and will share some tricks I'm doing...
> 
> I have a very good E-core (SP-102). So I can boost the frequencies of the E-cores a lot.
> I know I can get them all at 48x...I'm trying to get to 49x.
> 
> The e-cores are divided into 4 groups of 4 cores. So I'm trying to find out if any group can get to 49x...
> So I did the following:
> 
> Allowed 2 cores to reach 49x at the same time:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And selected the last group for 49x, keeping the others limited to 48x...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They reached 49x !!!
> 
> So now I need to do some transient tests and use the PC for a day before I try to select another group to 49x.


But how much Vcore is necessary?


----------



## tps3443

dante`afk said:


> @tps3443 which contract frame are you using? my thermalright + rockit copper IHS fits just fine


thermalright.


----------



## Zero989

Krzych04650 said:


> Interesting test over at TPU about E-cores enabled vs disabled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of the games that had performance penalty I have Metro Exodus so I've done some testing, here is how it looks:
> 
> (8 threads) 8P/0E/HT0 - 165.26
> (16 threads) 8P/0E/HT1 - 160.31
> (16 threads) 8P/8E/HT0 - 157.58
> (24 threads) 8P/8E/HT1 - 148,4
> (32 threads) 8P/16E/HT1 - 139.06
> 
> So the performance penalty is from the number of threads, not E-cores. 8+8 vs 8c/16t is only 1.5% penalty and disabling HT increases overclocking potential by ~200MHz at the same voltage, so performance would basically equalize. And then there is a massive penalty with 24 and 32 threads.
> 
> This happens sometimes, that's why the maximum number of threads for gaming setup should be 16. Not launching or crashing only starts happening at 32 or more threads typically, up to 16 is always fine with maybe some minimal penalty, and between 16 and 32 there is that whole grey area where you don't really know if you are getting performance penalty or frametime issues unless you test it for every game individually, which is a massive pain to do.
> 
> And then there are all those cases where you get 9-11% boost from E-cores even in games that do not use them or are not even multithreaded, like CSGO and Witcher1 as I've found. So it is not as simple as just running traditional 8c/16t with E-cores disabled, there is a big penalty to that too.
> 
> Overall looks like the 8P/8E/HT0 setup I've decided to use is most optimal. 16 threads have no compatibility issues or meaningful performance penalty, you need E-cores for that 9-11% boost in some games and disabling HT increases overclocking potential by around 200MHz at the same voltage, so you can run at 6GHz all core just fine below 1.4V on any decent sample. So far I haven't found any games that would get a penalty from running like this, but there are also so many different games that you can never really be sure. 50 game test may sound like much but it is just a drop in the sea.
> 
> Also, from what I've tested so far you only need 1 E-core enabled for that 9-11% boost to occur and those cores are not actually getting used at all. There are some theories about accessing L2 of E-cores or replacing HT with E-cores but it seems that RPL simply does not always function properly with all E-cores completely disabled and it causes inconsistency. I have that 8P/8E/HT0 setup mostly for symmetry, maybe 8P/1E/HT0 would have the same effect but not even this small 3% penalty from going 16T vs 8T in Exodus. I need to test that.



Operating System:Windows 10 Professional 64-bit
Version 21H2 (Nov 2021 Update)​


----------



## Ichirou

Zero989 said:


> Operating System:Windows 10 Professional 64-bit
> Version 21H2 (Nov 2021 Update)​


Yeah, that's the thing. Chances are, some cores/threads are getting disabled. Most likely the P-cores in favour of the E-cores.
Gotta use a power plan hack to keep them all running at 100%.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Ichirou said:


> But how much Vcore is necessary?


If you desire, you can set an adaptive voltage for the e-core group...
But in my case, I'm using the p-core adaptive voltage and trying to go as far I can with no voltage added.

Trying to push 4 e-cores at same time to 49x...


----------



## ViTosS

RobertoSampaio said:


> If you desire, you can set an adaptive voltage for the e-core group...
> But in my case, I'm using the p-core adaptive voltage and trying to go as far I can with no voltage added.
> 
> Trying to push 4 e-cores at same time to 49x...
> View attachment 2582430
> 
> View attachment 2582431


51c at BIOS, I can see that 13900k is already sweating xD


----------



## RobertoSampaio

ViTosS said:


> 51c at BIOS, I can see that 13900k is already sweating xD


It's Because it is running the BIOS system at 6.1GHz... LOL
The BIOS menu is flying... LOLOLOLOL

PS.:
I think I found the weak e-core group...
It's Group#1... It failed to run youtube... LOL
So I need to keep core #12 to 15 in the 48x limit. Or set a specific adaptive voltage for this group.


----------



## cstkl1

G.SKILL - F5-7600J3646G16GX2-TZ5RK
Asus Z790 Apex - Bios 0801

8400 [email protected] 
*48-48 requires 1.58 only 

HCI 1000% TM5
memtest86, karhu all stable

0801-M15A-8400C34.CMO

*Caution i am using my own LLC AC/DC setting and my daily which is disable usb sound/wifi/ptt/secure boot key/vtd/vmd etc.


----------



## Convicted

acoustic said:


> I would recommend resetting XTU and uninstalling it for testing. clear CMOS and reset optimized defaults in BIOS.
> 
> What ME are you using? Make sure both ME and BIOS are on latest releases.


Have reset and uninstalled XTU, and have just updated to the latest ME and BIOS from the Asus site. 

I've been the RobertoSampaio tuning guide, as I figured maybe my issue was with the AIOC overdoing things. So I've now got stock settings + enforce all limits on + LLC4 + DC_LL 1.02 + AC_LL 0.16

My vcore ends up 1.199, the cores end up at 5.4GHz but the weird thing is that I'm power limit throttling, i.e. I'm maxing out the 252W, which I believe shouldn't be happening. In the guide at those settings the vcore ends up at 1.146 and the power usage is at approx 230W. 

Now that my cooler fits properly I can cool almost 300W, and with the Noctua 3k fans I can cool 320W, but I don't want to increase the power limit until I've worked out why my CPU is using so much power for stock clocks. 

Can anyone see anything wrong in the CB23 hwinfo screenshot below?


----------



## acoustic

Convicted said:


> Have reset and uninstalled XTU, and have just updated to the latest ME and BIOS from the Asus site.
> 
> I've been the RobertoSampaio tuning guide, as I figured maybe my issue was with the AIOC overdoing things. So I've now got stock settings + enforce all limits on + LLC4 + DC_LL 1.02 + AC_LL 0.16
> 
> My vcore ends up 1.199, the cores end up at 5.4GHz but the weird thing is that I'm power limit throttling, i.e. I'm maxing out the 252W, which I believe shouldn't be happening. In the guide at those settings the vcore ends up at 1.146 and the power usage is at approx 230W.
> 
> Now that my cooler fits properly I can cool almost 300W, and with the Noctua 3k fans I can cool 320W, but I don't want to increase the power limit until I've worked out why my CPU is using so much power for stock clocks.
> 
> Can anyone see anything wrong in the CB23 hwinfo screenshot below?
> 
> View attachment 2582443


I would leave it completely stock with optimized defaults to test. At default, AIOC shouldn't be enabled.

Make sure it's running correctly at complete stock before messing with settings. Looks like IA Limit and Ring Limit are at "Yes", which could be due to Enforce All Limits as you went past the short duration turbo limit, but I'd bet is due to the power limit for PL1/PL2 at 253w.

Either way, please just try setting optimized defaults, and test it that way. In that use case, you should see 5.5 steady during the load.

Also another thing, looks like your PCore 0 is in 100% residency state. I would also go to Windows Power Plan settings, and set it to High Performance for this testing. If you're already using high performance, set it to balanced, and then back to high performance. Sometimes the power plans glitch (especially when experiencing crashes from mem/CPU OC testing) and they need to be reset to default and swapped.


----------



## Falkentyne

Convicted said:


> Have reset and uninstalled XTU, and have just updated to the latest ME and BIOS from the Asus site.
> 
> I've been the RobertoSampaio tuning guide, as I figured maybe my issue was with the AIOC overdoing things. So I've now got stock settings + enforce all limits on + LLC4 + DC_LL 1.02 + AC_LL 0.16
> 
> My vcore ends up 1.199, the cores end up at 5.4GHz but the weird thing is that I'm power limit throttling, i.e. I'm maxing out the 252W, which I believe shouldn't be happening. In the guide at those settings the vcore ends up at 1.146 and the power usage is at approx 230W.
> 
> Now that my cooler fits properly I can cool almost 300W, and with the Noctua 3k fans I can cool 320W, but I don't want to increase the power limit until I've worked out why my CPU is using so much power for stock clocks.
> 
> Can anyone see anything wrong in the CB23 hwinfo screenshot below?
> 
> View attachment 2582443


Please download Asus OCtool, go to "Monitoring" and post the window when you are doing a R23 full load with the cores downclocking, please.
(And do what acoustic says too).









Z790


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com




(make sure you get the z790 one).

This is the window I want to see.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

RobertoSampaio said:


> It's Because it is running the BIOS system at 6.1GHz... LOL
> The BIOS menu is flying... LOLOLOLOL
> 
> PS.:
> I think I found the weak e-core group...
> It's Group#1... It failed to run youtube... LOL
> So I need to keep core #12 to 15 in the 48x limit. Or set a specific adaptive voltage for this group.
> View attachment 2582440


For that is geekbench not bad to test stability/WHEA.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

I'm running this now with my m die.


----------



## Exilon

Convicted said:


> Have reset and uninstalled XTU, and have just updated to the latest ME and BIOS from the Asus site.
> 
> I've been the RobertoSampaio tuning guide, as I figured maybe my issue was with the AIOC overdoing things. So I've now got stock settings + enforce all limits on + LLC4 + DC_LL 1.02 + AC_LL 0.16
> 
> My vcore ends up 1.199, the cores end up at 5.4GHz but the weird thing is that I'm power limit throttling, i.e. I'm maxing out the 252W, which I believe shouldn't be happening. In the guide at those settings the vcore ends up at 1.146 and the power usage is at approx 230W.
> 
> Now that my cooler fits properly I can cool almost 300W, and with the Noctua 3k fans I can cool 320W, but I don't want to increase the power limit until I've worked out why my CPU is using so much power for stock clocks.
> 
> Can anyone see anything wrong in the CB23 hwinfo screenshot below?
> 
> View attachment 2582443


At 1.2V VID, an unlimited stock 13900K can draw ~275W package power for 39-40K CB23 MT score give or take depending on the silicon quality. You can't use guides as 1:1 because your VF table maybe as much as 50-100mV off from the CPU used to write the guide.

You also get a penalty of ~2mV VID per C and you're running hot. Someone that can hit 80-90C package power would be getting 20-40mV lower VIDs than you.


----------



## Convicted

acoustic said:


> I would leave it completely stock with optimized defaults to test. At default, AIOC shouldn't be enabled.
> 
> Make sure it's running correctly at complete stock before messing with settings. Looks like IA Limit and Ring Limit are at "Yes", which could be due to Enforce All Limits as you went past the short duration turbo limit, but I'd bet is due to the power limit for PL1/PL2 at 253w.
> 
> Either way, please just try setting optimized defaults, and test it that way. In that use case, you should see 5.5 steady during the load.
> 
> Also another thing, looks like your PCore 0 is in 100% residency state. I would also go to Windows Power Plan settings, and set it to High Performance for this testing. If you're already using high performance, set it to balanced, and then back to high performance. Sometimes the power plans glitch (especially when experiencing crashes from mem/CPU OC testing) and they need to be reset to default and swapped.


At stock it's even worse. I've just put it back to total defaults, and will post the screenshot below. Have switched to balanced and then back to high performance power plan too.



Falkentyne said:


> Please download Asus OCtool, go to "Monitoring" and post the window when you are doing a R23 full load with the cores downclocking, please.
> (And do what acoustic says too).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Z790
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (make sure you get the z790 one).
> 
> This is the window I want to see.
> 
> View attachment 2582446


Have downloaded it and posting screenshots at the bottom. This is running totally stock bios settings and it's performing even worse than with a custom lower voltage.



Exilon said:


> At 1.2V VID, an unlimited stock 13900K can draw ~275W package power for 39-40K CB23 MT score give or take depending on the silicon quality. You can't use guides as 1:1 because your VF table maybe as much as 50-100mV off from the CPU used to write the guide.
> 
> You also get a penalty of ~2mV VID per C and you're running hot. Someone that can hit 80-90C package power would be getting 20-40mV lower VIDs than you.


I can definitely get my chip to give me a >40k CB23 MT. And it's not the best of chips clearly. Didn't realise that the extra heat was causing a voltage hit - I've swapped the original Arctic fans back in now that everything is seated right, but maybe that was a bad idea and I should put the noctuas back in as that was quite happily running at 84C for stock package power.


----------



## Convicted

And just following up on the above. If I go back to the settings from the guide - LLC4 + DC_LL 1.02 + AC_LL 0.16 - but remove all limits and set fans to maximum then I'm hitting the 5.5GHz and hejre are the AsusOC screenshots (not sure why I can't get the UI to expand when I make the window bigger - the content stays the same and still requires 3x screenshots sorry)


----------



## Falkentyne

Convicted said:


> At stock it's even worse. I've just put it back to total defaults, and will post the screenshot below. Have switched to balanced and then back to high performance power plan too.
> 
> 
> 
> Have downloaded it and posting screenshots at the bottom. This is running totally stock bios settings and it's performing even worse than with a custom lower voltage.
> 
> 
> 
> I can definitely get my chip to give me a >40k CB23 MT. And it's not the best of chips clearly. Didn't realise that the extra heat was causing a voltage hit - I've swapped the original Arctic fans back in now that everything is seated right, but maybe that was a bad idea and I should put the noctuas back in as that was quite happily running at 84C for stock package power.
> 
> View attachment 2582449
> 
> 
> View attachment 2582450
> 
> 
> View attachment 2582451


There's something wrong with your window.
_Edit_ now I see your second reply. Yeah I've never seen this happen before.
I tested this on a brand new windows 10 and 11 install (both on Z490, Z590 and Z690) and there were never any problems.
But I always install all visual runtime packages first (MSI Afterburner, for example, refuses to work without them).

Half the data is missing and the window is cropped.
Is there a way you can get the full window on just one screenshot?
I've never seen something like this happen before, usually this is from some sort of library Visual C++ runtimes? or some other runtime? being corrupt or having improper window settings.
It looks like the main data window itself is running at a lower output resolution than the GUI window. I've never seen this happen before.

@shamino1978 have you seen this ?


----------



## HemuV2

Convicted said:


> Finally cracked it. This was the tip that did it, and thank you all for your help over the past couple of weeks. Thermalright frame in, repasted with Kryonaught and reseated, finally can cool the stock 250W and the temp doesn't go above 85C.
> 
> So here's the next issue. I'm still only getting 5.2Ghz in CB23. Before it was thermally throttling so I could understand it wouldn't push clocks up more, but now it's power limit throttling.
> 
> This is stock ASUS settings, XMP1 profile, MCE turned off. Basically trying to first get it to run at total stock, which should be 5.5Ghz all-core in CB23, right?
> 
> View attachment 2582367
> 
> 
> View attachment 2582368


I had same issue at 250W, you also probably have bad ecore like me, try settings ecores to 3.6ghz all core and run again and see if pcores are able to do 5.5ghz, for me it worked this way. Please let us know your SP if you have asus board


----------



## Convicted

Falkentyne said:


> There's something wrong with your window.
> _Edit_ now I see your second reply. Yeah I've never seen this happen before.
> I tested this on a brand new windows 10 and 11 install (both on Z490, Z590 and Z690) and there were never any problems.
> But I always install all visual runtime packages first (MSI Afterburner, for example, refuses to work without them).
> 
> Half the data is missing and the window is cropped.
> Is there a way you can get the full window on just one screenshot?
> I've never seen something like this happen before, usually this is from some sort of library Visual C++ runtimes? or some other runtime? being corrupt or having improper window settings.
> It looks like the main data window itself is running at a lower output resolution than the GUI window. I've never seen this happen before.
> 
> @shamino1978 have you seen this ?


Just to check, I downloaded the highest version folder from the Dropbox link, extracted, then ran Tool, clicked intel, clicked monitoring. Maybe I got the wrong executable? Window was blank white when it launched. Couldn't find a Setup or OCTool executable so figured this was probably the right one. Pretty sure my runtimes are up to date.


----------



## Ichirou

13900KF delidded and iridium scraped off; time to relid with LM. I think I did a pretty good job.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> 13900KF delidded and iridium scraped off; time to relid with LM. I think I did a pretty good job.
> View attachment 2582460


Clean that PCB up a bit more. On the chip PCB, it's a bit tricky.. I just took my time with a wooden stick. When I de-lid my 13900K, I'll likely use one of my automotive nylon tools..


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Clean that PCB up a bit more. On the chip PCB, it's a bit tricky.. I just took my time with a wooden stick. When I de-lid my 13900K, I'll likely use one of my automotive nylon tools..


Eh, it's good enough. Just used some alcohol to wipe off some residual silicone. Going to use some LM to clean off the residual iridium now.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Eh, it's good enough. Just used some alcohol to wipe off some residual silicone. Going to use some LM to clean off the residual iridium now.


Are you going to shave down the bottom edges of the IHS? If not, I'd really make sure to get that PCB perfect so you have the best contact possible.

Do it once, do it right. 🤷🏼‍♂️


----------



## Falkentyne

Convicted said:


> Just to check, I downloaded the highest version folder from the Dropbox link, extracted, then ran Tool, clicked intel, clicked monitoring. Maybe I got the wrong executable? Window was blank white when it launched. Couldn't find a Setup or OCTool executable so figured this was probably the right one. Pretty sure my runtimes are up to date.


Did you extract with folders intact?
There are sub-folders within the main folder.
You need to make sure all the files are extracted.
Also for some reason, the "Zip" itself is within the main file.
(M15_OCtool1111.zip)

So you need to extract that with directory structures intact.
It also HELPS GREATLY to set up your windows explorer to DISABLE "hide extensions for known file types" in the "view" options under windows explorer.
I think having that enabled by default causes problems for a lot of people.

Your folders should look something like this.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Are you going to shave down the bottom edges of the IHS? If not, I'd really make sure to get that PCB perfect so you have the best contact possible.
> 
> Do it once, do it right. 🤷🏼‍♂️


You mean the black spots I left behind? I already scraped that off with a toothpick.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> 13900KF delidded and iridium scraped off; time to relid with LM. I think I did a pretty good job.
> View attachment 2582460


Remember please after you clean the die, to do a 'spin test' with the IHS on top of the CPU freely. The IHS should spin like a top with no friction.
If it contacts something, you should sand the underside of the IHS edges down to the copper. This is 'roughly' about 0.2mm of thickness, which will compensate for the removal of the solder from the z-height. What you don't want is for the z-height of the IHS inner gap to be identical to the z-height of the die to substrate, as this will cause LM pressure integrity issues. You want that IHS gap to be very slightly less than the CPU->Substrate gap 

*note that the presence of the SMD's which didn't exist on "Skylake" cores may cause havoc with the spin test--be careful and use your brain here.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> You mean the black spots I left behind? I already scraped that off with a toothpick.


Oh, okay. Kind of hard to know that since you posted pics with it still there lol


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Remember please after you clean the die, to do a 'spin test' with the IHS on top of the CPU freely. The IHS should spin like a top with no friction.
> If it contacts something, you should sand the underside of the IHS edges down to the copper. This is 'roughly' about 0.2mm of thickness, which will compensate for the removal of the solder from the z-height. What you don't want is for the z-height of the IHS inner gap to be identical to the z-height of the die to substrate, as this will cause LM pressure integrity issues. You want that IHS gap to be very slightly less than the CPU->Substrate gap
> 
> *note that the presence of the SMD's which didn't exist on "Skylake" cores may cause havoc with the spin test--be careful and use your brain here.


When you say "underside of the IHS edges", do you mean these?\
And if so, what kind of sandpaper grit is best?


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> When you say "underside of the IHS edges", do you mean these?\
> And if so, what kind of sandpaper grit is best?


Yep that's what he's referring to!


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Yep that's what he's referring to!


Okay. What kind of sandpaper grit?
Also, how long should I leave the LM sitting on the iridium for before cleaning it off?


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Okay. What kind of sandpaper grit?
> Also, how long should I leave the LM sitting on the iridium for before cleaning it off?


I'd say 400-600 grit would be fine to start with, get it mostly even, and then a few passes of 800-1000 grit to clean it up and finish

When it comes to removing the iridium, I would let it sit for about 2-3min and then start pulling it up. After that, lots of isoprop alcohol and elbow grease.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> You mean the black spots I left behind? I already scraped that off with a toothpick.


I got my 13900KF’s PCB perfectly clean. Like, not a single spec of black residue left behind, don’t be impatient with it. After removing all of the solder, I used Fritz polish with damp cloth to polish the inner IHS, and silicon die after cleaned and mirror finished. I also wet lapped the bottom of the IHS where it touches the CPU substrate. This was all copper afterwards with no nickel left behind. I made sure the IHS spun freely on the die before hand too I should have taken pictures, but I didn’t. After that I let the LM soak in the inside of the IHS and apply numerous applications so it reaches full equilibrium, and full LM soak on that inner IHS, same with the die.. You don’t want this stuff drying up after a few runs. It looks beautiful though! I used my new adhesive and the Rockitcool relidding tool to glue the IHS back on. I love it!! It looks 100% OEM. As if it was never even delidded. With just TF7 thermalpaste my temps are really good.


Easiest delid of my life. However, I will say not to cut corners. Intel factory TIM is freaking good! Like really good! Some of the best I’ve seen. So you’ve gotta do everything you can to get as much gains as possible. Coming from someone who has delided every CPU I’ve ever owned. CPU solder varies from chip to chip. Mine was certainly pretty good.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> When you say "underside of the IHS edges", do you mean these?\
> And if so, what kind of sandpaper grit is best?


Yes that's what I mean.
If that part touches the substrate BEFORE the middle part touches the CPU die, you're going to get atrocious temps.
When I sanded, I started with 400 grit. Sanded until the copper appeared, then switched to 800, then 1500, then 2000 to smooth it out.


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> I got my 13900KF’s PCB perfectly clean. Like, not a single spec of black residue left behind, don’t be impatient with it. After removing all of the solder, I used Fritz polish with damp cloth to polish the inner IHS, and silicon die after cleaned and mirror finished. I also wet lapped the bottom of the IHS where it touches the CPU substrate. This was all copper afterwards with no nickel left behind. I made sure the IHS spun freely on the die before hand too I should have taken pictures, but I didn’t. After that I let the LM soak in the inside of the IHS and apply numerous applications so it reaches full equilibrium, and full LM soak on that inner IHS, same with the die.. You don’t want this stuff drying up after a few runs. It looks beautiful though! I used my new adhesive and the Rockitcool relidding tool to glue the IHS back on. I love it!! It looks 100% OEM. As if it was never even delidded. With just TF7 thermalpaste my temps are really good.
> 
> 
> Easiest delid of my life. However, I will say not to cut corners. Intel factory TIM is freaking good! Like really good! Some of the best I’ve seen. So you’ve gotta do everything you can to get as much gains as possible. Coming from someone who has delided every CPU I’ve ever owned. CPU solder varies from chip to chip. Mine was certainly pretty good.
> 
> View attachment 2582468


Can you please give more information about this "LM soak" you are referring to?
How exactly do you do this, how long does it take, and are you running the chip during this "soaking" process?
You keep mentioning this as being important to stop LM hardening, but I'd really like more detailed information on exactly what you do and how long you do it  please.


----------



## tps3443

Falkentyne said:


> Can you please give more information about this "LM soak" you are referring to?
> How exactly do you do this, how long does it take, and are you running the chip during this "soaking" process?
> You keep mentioning this as being important to stop LM hardening, but I'd really like more detailed information on exactly what you do and how long you do it  please.


The IHS absorbs the Liquid metal but will reach an equilibrium, so upon first application of delidding a cpu and applying liquid metal the temps could be great. But they could degrade after a short period of time because the IHS soaks up more LM, because the LM will absorb in to the IHS you just want it to reach the point where it has drank all it’s gonna drink lol. It is more or less continuously applying LM on the inside of the IHS and allowing it to absorb a few times. Rubbing the area several times with the Qtip, reapplying or removing LM if needed, and making sure it’s nice and saturated continuously over a period of like 15-20 minutes, and even letting it sit in between applications. You want the IHS to absorb where it cannot absorb anymore LM. Doing this allows you to reseal a CPU permanently, and as long as that IHS stays against that die, the temps will never degrade.


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> Can you please give more information about this "LM soak" you are referring to?
> How exactly do you do this, how long does it take, and are you running the chip during this "soaking" process?
> You keep mentioning this as being important to stop LM hardening, but I'd really like more detailed information on exactly what you do and how long you do it  please.


I don't think what he's doing prevents the hardening. He's just applying too much LM and it's likely spreading beyond the die over time. He's also removing the nickel plating, which I wouldn't recommend with LM, since as we both know, copper and LM do not play nice together. As far as I understand, you need numerous heat cycles to properly set the LM on a copper surface, as you need time for ion migration to occur.

If I remember correctly, didn't you have a guide yourself on actually scratching the copper up with a coarse grit paper before applying the LM in order to get it into the grooves, waiting a week or two, and then reapplying LM to help prevent hardening issues?


----------



## Ichirou

Okay, sanding of the underside of IHS is done. I would've lapped the top of it as well, but I don't have enough sandpaper on hand, so I didn't bother.
Tried spinning it a bit, and apart from the SMBs blocking the way, it does rotate pretty smoothly. My right hand hurts now


----------



## RichKnecht

rogerwalker24 said:


> This is what I have so far, P 5.6/E 4.4/R 4.7 Vcore 1.28 pulled 307 watts DDR4 38000Mhz CL14 51ns
> 
> I came from an 11900K with an SP of 50, thing was horrible. Can't describe how satisfied I am with this CPU.
> 
> I have a Corsair H150i ELITE 360mm, I bought the thermal grizzly contact frame and some Kryonaut thermal paste.
> 
> Thoughts and suggestions welcome =]
> 
> View attachment 2582351


Pretty much exactly where I am at. Scores just about 42K in R23. I am just struggling with MSI bios. I have been using ASUS boards forever, and this is my first non ASUS board. It seems that every guide I find to fine tune this chip is based on ASUS. It’s a shame their boards look like pinball machines.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> For that is geekbench not bad to test stability/WHEA.


All my tests failed trying to run some e-cores above 48x. 
The GB5 simply closes and does not complete the cycle.


----------



## Ichirou

It's normal for the LM to need some time to warm up and mix, right? Because I'm hitting 100C and throttling right now.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> It's normal for the LM to need some time to warm up and mix, right? Because I'm hitting 100C and throttling right now.


No, not that extreme. Sounds like you have a contact issue - IHS is not touching the die correctly. Did you put LM on the IHS as well as the die?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Convicted said:


> Have reset and uninstalled XTU, and have just updated to the latest ME and BIOS from the Asus site.
> 
> I've been the RobertoSampaio tuning guide, as I figured maybe my issue was with the AIOC overdoing things. So I've now got stock settings + enforce all limits on + LLC4 + DC_LL 1.02 + AC_LL 0.16
> 
> My vcore ends up 1.199, the cores end up at 5.4GHz but the weird thing is that I'm power limit throttling, i.e. I'm maxing out the 252W, which I believe shouldn't be happening. In the guide at those settings the vcore ends up at 1.146 and the power usage is at approx 230W.
> 
> Now that my cooler fits properly I can cool almost 300W, and with the Noctua 3k fans I can cool 320W, but I don't want to increase the power limit until I've worked out why my CPU is using so much power for stock clocks.
> 
> Can anyone see anything wrong in the CB23 hwinfo screenshot below?
> 
> View attachment 2582443


Please note that every CPU is unique... 
So maybe you can't go as far as I did...


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> No, not that extreme. Sounds like you have a contact issue - IHS is not touching the die correctly. Did you put LM on the IHS as well as the die?


Yes. I always apply it on both the die and the underside of the IHS.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> I don't think what he's doing prevents the hardening. He's just applying too much LM and it's likely spreading beyond the die over time. He's also removing the nickel plating, which I wouldn't recommend with LM, since as we both know, copper and LM do not play nice together. As far as I understand, you need numerous heat cycles to properly set the LM on a copper surface, as you need time for ion migration to occur.
> 
> If I remember correctly, didn't you have a guide yourself on actually scratching the copper up with a coarse grit paper before applying the LM in order to get it into the grooves, waiting a week or two, and then reapplying LM to help prevent hardening issues?


I don’t remove the so called nickel on my IHS where the die touches. I only use Flitz polish on this area and Flitz is not abrasive. I have also never done the course matte surface thing either. I polish both the die, and inside of the IHS with Flitz polish to a mirror finish. Whats strange is my waterblock cold plate is Nickel and a mirror finish it does not absorb liquid metal at all. I can just wipe it off. And its clean. The Intel IHS will absorb this stuff like crazy, whether it is mirrored or not. Its a very simple process though. You don’t want liquid metal just floating on the surface and rolling around, because it will soak In to the IHS and it’ll be dry and gone and your temps will degrade on you. You want to paint it inside of the IHS really well to the point where its fully absorbed no excess liquid metal at all, it all soaked in, then you can put a thin layer on the die and your good to go. Because the IHS is soaked in and reached an equilibrium of LM on it, the liquid metal has no where to go and it will keep that thin layer on the die trapped between the IHS and silicon. I have a 7980XE that I sold to someone and it was resealed that chip is still going after 2 years since the relid. I thought everyone did this. I mean, we don‘t want to have to tear it down in a month or two wondering why are chip is running hotter.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I don’t remove the so called nickel on my IHS where the die touches. I only use Flitz polish on this area and Flitz is not abrasive. I have also never done the course matte surface thing either. I polish both the die, and inside of the IHS with Flitz polish to a mirror finish. Whats strange is my waterblock cold plate is Nickel and a mirror finish it does not absorb liquid metal at all. I can just wipe it off. And its clean. The Intel IHS will absorb this stuff like crazy, whether it is mirrored or not. Its a very simple process though. You don’t want liquid metal just floating on the surface and rolling around, because it will soak In to the IHS and it’ll be dry and gone and your temps will degrade on you. You want to paint it inside of the IHS really well to the point where its fully absorbed no excess liquid metal at all, it all soaked in, then you can put a thin layer on the die and your good to go. Because the IHS is soaked in and reached an equilibrium of LM on it, the liquid metal has no where to go and it will keep that thin layer on the die trapped between the IHS and silicon. I have a 7980XE that I sold to someone and it was resealed that chip is still going after 2 years since the relid.


Is this what's happening to my chip? The LM is getting soaked up by the IHS instantly and I need to add more for it to have proper contact?


----------



## rogerwalker24

RichKnecht said:


> Pretty much exactly where I am at. Scores just about 42K in R23. I am just struggling with MSI bios. I have been using ASUS boards forever, and this is my first non ASUS board. It seems that every guide I find to fine tune this chip is based on ASUS. It’s a shame their boards look like pinball machines.


I was able to squeeze P5.6 E4.5 R4.7 Vcore 1.29 stable with the same memory specs. Every time I go to 5.7 it fails in OCCT. I think I've reached my limit for the cooling I have. I wanna do a custom loop but I am nervous about it.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Is this what's happening to my chip? The LM is getting soaked up by the IHS instantly and I need to add more for it to have proper contact?


Ion migration does not occur instantly. It's a process that occurs slowly over time.

I think you just have a bad mount of the IHS/die. Not sure if you're using a contact frame, but definitely need to pull the chip and verify your IHS mount.


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> I don't think what he's doing prevents the hardening. He's just applying too much LM and it's likely spreading beyond the die over time. He's also removing the nickel plating, which I wouldn't recommend with LM, since as we both know, copper and LM do not play nice together. As far as I understand, you need numerous heat cycles to properly set the LM on a copper surface, as you need time for ion migration to occur.
> 
> If I remember correctly, didn't you have a guide yourself on actually scratching the copper up with a coarse grit paper before applying the LM in order to get it into the grooves, waiting a week or two, and then reapplying LM to help prevent hardening issues?


Yeah I did. But he said that his method completely prevented any LM "Gallium" absorption into the copper without doing this method, so I wanted him to clarify exactly what he's doing. And he seems to be doing something similar without wiping the surface with 1500 grit first, or using any heat cycles.

AFAIK, his method, when you are not doing the "sanding roughing method", is supposed to require heating the IHS to 100C with the LM spread on it, for about an hour in an oven, removing the LM and leaving the silver stain, putting another layer of LM on, heating the LM to 100C again, removing the second layer, then applying it a third time (this second heating cycle may not be necessary but it won't hurt), as high heat accelerates this absorption.

You clearly can't do this at all with a water block (that is, if you want to apply LM on top of the IHS as well, instead of regular paste), unless you have some way of removing the plating itself from the entire block and heating it along with the LM on it, and the IHS together (So you do two things at once).


----------



## RichKnecht

rogerwalker24 said:


> OMG You're a genius!!! TY!!! It booted on 3800mhz first try, now I get to see how high I can go. It was on 1.35. I put to 1.5. I am pretty new to all this, should I stay at 1.5 or is 1.6 safe?


That voltage is safe for a daily memory OC?


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Ion migration does not occur instantly. It's a process that occurs slowly over time.
> 
> I think you just have a bad mount of the IHS/die. Not sure if you're using a contact frame, but definitely need to pull the chip and verify your IHS mount.


Using the Thermalright frame. Here's what the inside looks like (just took it apart).
Not enough LM, maybe?


----------



## rogerwalker24

RichKnecht said:


> That voltage is safe for a daily memory OC?


I was able to take it down to 1.45 on the CPU VDDQ, DRAM is at 1.5. Temps on both dims has never seen 50c. Highest I think I've ever seen it is 48c. Currently trying to figure out if I can go over 3800mhz


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> I don’t remove the so called nickel on my IHS where the die touches. I only use Flitz polish on this area and Flitz is not abrasive. I have also never done the course matte surface thing either. I polish both the die, and inside of the IHS with Flitz polish to a mirror finish. Whats strange is my waterblock cold plate is Nickel and a mirror finish it does not absorb liquid metal at all. I can just wipe it off. And its clean. The Intel IHS will absorb this stuff like crazy, whether it is mirrored or not. Its a very simple process though. You don’t want liquid metal just floating on the surface and rolling around, because it will soak In to the IHS and it’ll be dry and gone and your temps will degrade on you. You want to paint it inside of the IHS really well to the point where its fully absorbed no excess liquid metal at all, it all soaked in, then you can put a thin layer on the die and your good to go. Because the IHS is soaked in and reached an equilibrium of LM on it, the liquid metal has no where to go and it will keep that thin layer on the die trapped between the IHS and silicon. I have a 7980XE that I sold to someone and it was resealed that chip is still going after 2 years since the relid. I thought everyone did this. I mean, we don‘t want to have to tear it down in a month or two wondering why are chip is running hotter.


I think what you have occuring is that you're simply applying so much LM that when the ion migration occurs and the LM begins to harden, you still have enough LM left over to maintain proper contact. That's not necessarily the best way to go about it, but it would appear to be a solution.

When you say you don't want any LM "floating' on the surface, that just means it has not been spread properly. "Painting" it on, as you said, is the right thing to do, but that doesn't necessarily mean you need to add more LM; just need to spread it.

The Intel IHS nickel plating is the same as any other. Nickel plating is not immune to ion migration, the difference is that it only slightly stains the nickel (which can usually be 90% cleaned off with isoprop or acetone). What occurs with copper is more extreme, as the gallium in the LM actually "plates" the copper surface and, over time, dries up/hardens. The Intel IHS works perfect with LM. My 12700K IHS still looks the same except for extremely minor staining, but it's removable if I cared enough


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Using the Thermalright frame. Here's what the inside looks like (just took it apart).
> Not enough LM, maybe?
> View attachment 2582474


It looks fine as far as I can see.. maybe a bit more spreading would be good, but appears you have plenty on there. I would verify again how good the contact is. Might be a pain, but could help to remove the LM on both sides, put some paste on the die, and verify contact between the IHS and die. You have bad contact somewhere; it's either the IHS to die, or cooler to IHS.

Make sure your IHS is still poking out of the Thermalright frame too. There's no way you shaved off that much, but can't hurt to take a look when you remount.


----------



## RichKnecht

rogerwalker24 said:


> I was able to squeeze P5.6 E4.5 R4.7 Vcore 1.29 stable with the same memory specs. Every time I go to 5.7 it fails in OCCT. I think I've reached my limit for the cooling I have. I wanna do a custom loop but I am nervous about it.


I’m using 3 360mm rads and 12 noctua industrial 3000rpm fans. My temps max out at 90 with R23 and never hit 60C under normal use. I have v core set at 1.27.


----------



## RichKnecht

rogerwalker24 said:


> I was able to take it down to 1.45 on the CPU VDDQ, DRAM is at 1.5. Temps on both dims has never seen 50c. Highest I think I've ever seen it is 48c. Currently trying to figure out if I can go over 3800mhz


What are you running the dram voltage at?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Is this what's happening to my chip? The LM is getting soaked up by the IHS instantly and I need to add more for it to have proper contact?


It takes days of PC on off over and over for this to happen. Unless you didn’t paint the IHS properly. When people say “Thin layer” some people really take that to heart lol. And it could result in poor performance because they go too thin.

Make sure your CPU substrate is free of all residue. Make sure the silicon die is polished to a mirror finish with Flitz polish. (No solder remnants on the corners of die etc) make sure you polish the inside of the IHS with Flitz. You dont want any solder remnants here either. I always do my IHS mirrored on the inside, you dont have too. Flitz alone can do it without removing material. With both surfaces clean make sure the IHS rotates like silk. It shouldn’t make noises or be grindy feeling. If thats good to go, paint the inside of IHS with LM and make sure coated well. Put a thin coat on the die make sure its all coated well and roll on.

I used a flat steel file to lap the bottom of my IHS with water and soap. I was re-sealing my IHS with glue permanently. So I tooke extra care making sure the LM application is good for the life of the chip.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> It looks fine as far as I can see.. maybe a bit more spreading would be good, but appears you have plenty on there. I would verify again how good the contact is. Might be a pain, but could help to remove the LM on both sides, put some paste on the die, and verify contact between the IHS and die. You have bad contact somewhere; it's either the IHS to die, or cooler to IHS.
> 
> Make sure your IHS is still poking out of the Thermalright frame too. There's no way you shaved off that much, but can't hurt to take a look when you remount.


I used another Q-tip to re-spread the LM on both the die and IHS, and remove any excess pooling.

Attempt #2 failed to boot... because I forgot to put the Thermalright frame back on. Silly me.
Attempt #3 still thermal throttles, but not nearly as bad as before.

I'm going to retry Flitz polish.


----------



## acoustic

F


Ichirou said:


> I used another Q-tip to re-spread the LM on both the die and IHS, and remove any excess pooling.
> 
> Attempt #2 failed to boot... because I forgot to put the Thermalright frame back on. Silly me.
> Attempt #3 still thermal throttles, but not nearly as bad as before.
> 
> I'm going to retry Flitz polish.


Yeah.. if both your mounts have good contact, then I would clean the die and the IHS off really good again and re-apply.

When you posted pics of your die earlier, it did look pretty dark/still stained, but I figured it was just the angle of the photo. It should appear almost as a mirror by the time you're done with it.

Isoprop alcohol and the flitz polish are really all you should need.. then it's just down to elbow grease.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Ichirou said:


> It's normal for the LM to need some time to warm up and mix, right? Because I'm hitting 100C and throttling right now.


You must clean the pcb 100% and do like my pictures with 800'er wet sandpaper the hs.
If you see 100% cooper it's enough, test whether the hs is on the DIE or pcb.
It's not enough do a little bit more.

The best way for clean pcb, i know is nevr dull.
you wipe it over once and let it take effect, then the silikon can be removed more easily, you do that 2-3 times after that the PCB is like new and that without fighting or scratching a lot.
After Isoprop alcohol to clean, but that makes the insulating varnish away if you have done that before, so make insulating varnish after that or renew it.

When gluing, it is best to spread the silicone very thinly on the edge of the HS, then pull the hood up.
Be carefull don't test full load power at first!!!


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> F
> 
> 
> Yeah.. if both your mounts have good contact, then I would clean the die and the IHS off really good again and re-apply.
> 
> When you posted pics of your die earlier, it did look pretty dark/still stained, but I figured it was just the angle of the photo. It should appear almost as a mirror by the time you're done with it.
> 
> Isoprop alcohol and the flitz polish are really all you should need.. then it's just down to elbow grease.


It better work this time.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> It better work this time.
> View attachment 2582483


Looks very clean. Good luck!

The residue left on the PCB shouldn't affect anything since you sanded down the edges of the IHS.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> It better work this time.
> View attachment 2582483


Beautiful! Get that residue off of the PCB. Use that wood stick and scrape it all off.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I wish you luck, but the pcb is not clean enough from Silikon, like tps3443 said or you have more removed from HS but that is not good for presure in the Socket.


----------



## Ichirou

IT'S A MIRACLE!
Max 81C (as of a minute so far), but it's definitely working properly now!
Looks like I didn't do a proper polishing job the first time... Wasn't sure how much it was that I needed.
Let's see what R23 reveals after a 30 min run.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> It better work this time.
> View attachment 2582483


Can you please do the 'spin' trick I mentioned? (watch out for the SMD's).
You didn't reply to my other post when I asked if you did this.
With the bare die completely cleaned and polished, you need to be able to have the IHS 'floating' on top of the IHS freely without the edges touching the substrate.
When you have that, then you know you're good.
Yes I'm fully aware that the SMD's may stop any full spinning "top" rotations. But you should still be clever enough to test this even if you can't spin the IHS fully. That includes just using your eyes to see if there is a small gap between the edges of the IHS and the substrate, on all four sides.
If it's grinding on anything that's directly on the substrate (including that gunk left over), you either need to do a LITTLE bit more sanding, or you need to clean that residue--or both.

And looks like you replied while I was typing.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Can you please do the 'spin' trick I mentioned? (watch out for the SMD's).
> You didn't reply to my other post when I asked if you did this.
> With the bare die completely cleaned and polished, you need to be able to have the IHS 'floating' on top of the IHS freely without the edges touching the substrate.
> When you have that, then you know you're good.
> Yes I'm fully aware that the SMD's may stop any full spinning "top" rotations. But you should still be clever enough to test this even if you can't spin the IHS fully. That includes just using your eyes to see if there is a small gap between the edges of the IHS and the substrate, on all four sides.
> If it's grinding on anything that's directly on the substrate (including that gunk left over), you either need to do a LITTLE bit more sanding, or you need to clean that residue--or both.
> 
> And looks like you replied while I was typing.


Haha, I already did it, yep. I mostly just did small little rotations to see how smoothly it would turn. No resistance at all, just the SMD blocking the way.

On a side note, as of about seven minutes, the current max temp range is 73-86C between the worst and best cores. So not ideal, but still an improvement.
Before, it was 80-91C.

Could be run-to-run variance, or some cores being weaker than others, etc.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

RobertoSampaio said:


> Please note that every CPU is unique...
> So maybe you can't go as far as I did...


I take Geekbench to test TVB settings, for that it´s for me good.
Perhaps for you interessting, on my Z690Strix D4 @stock clock if i use LLC6 VID best case szenario and -60mV offset,
i have ingame only 1,208-1,217V VCore, for CB23 Full load i have then 1,234V(socket sense), so i have less watt/temp in 24/7 gaming.🙌
1,234V my chip need in every case min VCore for stock clock, so it´s possible to have high efficiency.

here BFV









.


----------



## tps3443

I am happy with this overclock! 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.6Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Cache OC CPU @1.295V in bios LLC3 MSI, DDR5 7600. Water temp was 24C through the run. Temps look good to me! My E-Cores seem to be really good too! I can easily do 4.6Ghz with no effort at all, if I lower my Cache OC I can reduce overall voltage even further. I may see if I can stabilize 4.7Ghz on the E-Cores.

Water chiller is off.

I feel like my E-Cores are SP88-SP90. P-Cores are probably SP115-SP118. This is an educated guess though, because I really have no idea what they actually are.


----------



## owikh84

Ichirou said:


> It better work this time.
> View attachment 2582483


I used sticker remover to get rid of the black glue.


----------



## rogerwalker24

RichKnecht said:


> What are you running the dram voltage at?


CPU SA Voltage is 1.25, CPU VDDQ is 1.45, DRAM is 1.5 and Eventual DRAM is 1.5


----------



## Ichirou

Well, temperatures are gradually climbing. Not really sure why. 74-87C right now.

@acoustic 
30m run finished; that's still the final result.
Does the LM need time to cure or something?


----------



## rogerwalker24

RichKnecht said:


> I’m using 3 360mm rads and 12 noctua industrial 3000rpm fans. My temps max out at 90 with R23 and never hit 60C under normal use. I have v core set at 1.27.


Yeah that's where I eventually wanna be, mine idles 40c-45c, Games at 60c-65c and CBR23 gets up to 95c but never thermal throttles.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Well, temperatures are gradually climbing. Not really sure why. 74-87C right now.
> 
> @acoustic
> 30m run finished; that's still the final result.
> Does the LM need time to cure or something?


How are the temps compared to pre de-lid? 13c Delta between cores seems kinda high to me. It's natural to have the middle cores warmer than your core 0/1 and 7/8, but 13c.. hmm.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but I would give it another day or two. Yes LM needs a few heat cycles and a bit of time to _set_ but we're talking about 2-3c max, and that would be overall, not correcting a wide core-to-core delta.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> How are the temps compared to pre de-lid? 13c Delta between cores seems kinda high to me. It's natural to have the middle cores warmer than your core 0/1 and 7/8, but 13c.. hmm.
> 
> I'm not saying it's perfect, but I would give it another day or two. Yes LM needs a few heat cycles and a bit of time to _set_ but we're talking about 2-3c max, and that would be overall, not correcting a wide core-to-core delta.


It was 80-91C before with the original solder (worst-best core). Now it is 74-87C.

In the meanwhile, while I'm at it, I'm going to test and see which cores of mine are able to individually clock higher.


----------



## satinghostrider

acoustic said:


> How are the temps compared to pre de-lid? 13c Delta between cores seems kinda high to me. It's natural to have the middle cores warmer than your core 0/1 and 7/8, but 13c.. hmm.
> 
> I'm not saying it's perfect, but I would give it another day or two. Yes LM needs a few heat cycles and a bit of time to _set_ but we're talking about 2-3c max, and that would be overall, not correcting a wide core-to-core delta.


Ideally, what should stock CPUs delta be? Mine is 7 degrees between coolest and hottest P-core. Does this look ok?


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> It was 80-91C before with the original solder (worst-best core). Now it is 74-87C.
> 
> In the meanwhile, while I'm at it, I'm going to test and see which cores of mine are able to individually clock higher.


I'd give it a day or two. I'd expect more than a 6c drop on the coolest core with a de-lid/re-lid..



satinghostrider said:


> Ideally, what should stock CPUs delta be? Mine is 7 degrees between coolest and hottest P-core. Does this look ok?
> 
> View attachment 2582496


I think 5-9c is very typical for core delta.


----------



## RichKnecht

rogerwalker24 said:


> Yeah that's where I eventually wanna be, mine idles 40c-45c, Games at 60c-65c and CBR23 gets up to 95c but never thermal throttles.


Idle temps for me are 32C and water temp this time of year is about 26C with an ambient temp of 21C.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> I'd give it a day or two. I'd expect more than a 6c drop on the coolest core with a de-lid/re-lid..
> 
> 
> 
> I think 5-9c is very typical for core delta.


The stock solder on the 13900K is good. Some of the best I’ve ever seen. Well mine was anyways so It took some effort to get mine to perform. But from what I’ve seen 9-11C Between the cores coldest core and hottest core at 300+ watts is very common for soldered 13900K.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> I'd give it a day or two. I'd expect more than a 6c drop on the coolest core with a de-lid/re-lid..
> 
> 
> 
> I think 5-9c is very typical for core delta.


All right, I'll just wait for now.

Also, apparently MSI changed the way "Per Core" works in the latest BIOS.

They merged it with the "All Core" mode, and the only way to individually clock cores higher now is to set the "P/E-Core Ratio" to your _maximum_ ratio, and then individually cap cores with the Per P/E-Core Ratio Limit set to Manual, limiting each core _lower_. Same result, just backwards approach.

I guess MSI just didn't want there to be too many options in the motherboard, which would only cause confusion.


----------



## bottjeremy

For 13th gen processor people, have you all tried E-Cores disabled on Windows 11 22H2 lately? Ehh, latency is very noticeably lower.... 

I think Windows 11 is broken on my PC at least. Give it a try and let me know if you feel a difference. I've tried this before and did not notice such a drastic change.


----------



## ViTosS

Ichirou said:


> Okay, sanding of the underside of IHS is done. I would've lapped the top of it as well, but I don't have enough sandpaper on hand, so I didn't bother.
> Tried spinning it a bit, and apart from the SMBs blocking the way, it does rotate pretty smoothly. My right hand hurts now
> View attachment 2582471


How do you make sure all the 4 sides are sanded down equally? I mean, you probably moved it with your hand, applying more pressure in one or other sides, not making a perfect precision job, does it matter for the end result? I mean, if one side is a little bit higher than the other when it sits down on the PCB?


satinghostrider said:


> Ideally, what should stock CPUs delta be? Mine is 7 degrees between coolest and hottest P-core. Does this look ok?


There is no way to determine that precisely, because it variates based on a few things, the amount of voltage the CPU is getting feeded influences on the core deltas, there are some ''sweet spot'' voltages where your deltas will be very close, at least is what I always experienced between my CPUs, different voltages and stress test instructions make different deltas.


----------



## ViTosS

I've never sanded any CPU when I delidded, from 4790k to 10900k, but I wonder if I will have to do it with 13900k, and I'm using the Thermalright Contact Frame.


----------



## tps3443

ViTosS said:


> How do you make sure all the 4 sides are sanded down equally? I mean, you probably moved it with your hand, applying more pressure in one or other sides, not making a perfect precision job, does it matter for the end result? I mean, if one side is a little bit higher than the other when it sits down on the PCB?
> 
> There is no way to determine that precisely, because it variates based on a few things, the amount of voltage the CPU is getting feeded influences on the core deltas, there are some ''sweet spot'' voltages where your deltas will be very close, at least is what I always experienced between my CPUs, different voltages and stress test instructions make different deltas.


Digital calipers will tell you how thick it is on each side or portion. However, this is not really needed because you can see the areas that are getting grinded away first. And you can actually see the exact point when they are all going to be touching the abrasive at the exact same time.


----------



## tps3443

ViTosS said:


> I've never sanded any CPU when I delidded, from 4790k to 10900k, but I wonder if I will have to do it with 13900k, and I'm using the Thermalright Contact Frame.


You have to sand the bottom of the IHS.The die is very thin and it wont touch the IHS properly. The solder makes the die taller.


----------



## Ichirou

ViTosS said:


> How do you make sure all the 4 sides are sanded down equally? I mean, you probably moved it with your hand, applying more pressure in one or other sides, not making a perfect precision job, does it matter for the end result? I mean, if one side is a little bit higher than the other when it sits down on the PCB?


As @tps3443 explains, it's meant to shorten the height of the IHS so that the die is the thing that's lifting up the IHS, not the PCB (and silicone) itself.
That's why you gotta do the spin test to see if the IHS is resting on the die or on the PCB.

@tps3443: You should test and see which cores can go above 58x. You might be able to mirror a 13900KS in performance that way


----------



## ViTosS

tps3443 said:


> You have to sand the bottom of the IHS.The die is very thin and it wont touch the IHS properly. The solder makes the die taller.


I see... I never did that lol, even if I remove all the rest of black glue and solder very clean I still will need to sand it down? I mean, what if I leave the IHS on top of the PCB without glueing back and being hold just by the contact frame pressure?


----------



## gtz

tps3443 said:


> The IHS absorbs the Liquid metal but will reach an equilibrium, so upon first application of delidding a cpu and applying liquid metal the temps could be great. But they could degrade after a short period of time because the IHS soaks up more LM, because the LM will absorb in to the IHS you just want it to reach the point where it has drank all it’s gonna drink lol. It is more or less continuously applying LM on the inside of the IHS and allowing it to absorb a few times. Rubbing the area several times with the Qtip, reapplying or removing LM if needed, and making sure it’s nice and saturated continuously over a period of like 15-20 minutes, and even letting it sit in between applications. You want the IHS to absorb where it cannot absorb anymore LM. Doing this allows you to reseal a CPU permanently, and as long as that IHS stays against that die, the temps will never degrade.


∆∆∆This∆∆∆

Also you can accelerate the process by heating up the copper block or copper IHS. 

If I have a copper block I always heat it up with LM applied and wipe down the residual LM and reapply. Performance never degrades after this.


----------



## Ichirou

ViTosS said:


> I see... I never did that lol, even if I remove all the rest of black glue and solder very clean I still will need to sand it down? I mean, what if I leave the IHS on top of the PCB without glueing back and being hold just by the contact frame pressure?


The concern is whether or not the IHS even touches the die after the removal of the original solder.


----------



## Ichirou

gtz said:


> ∆∆∆This∆∆∆
> 
> Also you can accelerate the process by heating up the copper block or copper IHS.
> 
> If I have a copper block I always heat it up with LM applied and wipe down the residual LM and reapply. Performance never degrades after this.


Hm... Then, after going through my attempts (a short while ago) to get the LM working properly, do you think the LM would've already seeped into the IHS a bit?


----------



## Mainstream

satinghostrider said:


> Ideally, what should stock CPUs delta be? Mine is 7 degrees between coolest and hottest P-core. Does this look ok?
> 
> View attachment 2582496


I just finished my custom loop, your score is about the same as mine with AI overclock , however, your temps look alot better than mine. For me 1 or 2 cores hit TJ and throttle. Else overs around 80-90


----------



## satinghostrider

Mainstream said:


> I just finished my custom loop, your score is about the same as mine with AI overclock , however, your temps look alot better than mine. 1 or 2 cores hit TJ and throttle.


Nice! I'm not running any ai overclock. Just stock CPU with adjusted LLC3 AC 0.27 / DC 1.1.


----------



## gtz

Ichirou said:


> Hm... Then, after going through my attempts (a short while ago) to get the LM working properly, do you think the LM would've already seeped into the IHS a bit?


The performance will degrade over time with power cycles while the copper absorbs the LM. But yes copper starts observing quickly but will take a while to degrade fully.

The first time I ever used LM, was with a GPU. It took around 6 months for me to notice LM degradation. Then I read somewhere to avoid it (maybe here or another forum), everybody has a different method. I originally applied LM to both surfaces and waited an hour or so then I wiped it off and re applied. That helped a lot, however a forum member here shared the heating trick. Heat it up for a few mins and then wipe and reapply.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Hm... Then, after going through my attempts (a short while ago) to get the LM working properly, do you think the LM would've already seeped into the IHS a bit?


None of that applies to you because you didn't sand the nickel plating off of the bottom of your IHS. What we were discussing is exclusive to LM application on copper surfaces, due to ion migration/gallium corruption of the copper.


----------



## Ichirou

Interestingly enough, I noticed that my average Current (IOUT) post-relid has reduced from 245A to only 210A. I wonder why.


gtz said:


> The performance will degrade over time with power cycles while the copper absorbs the LM. But yes copper starts observing quickly but will take a while to degrade fully.
> 
> The first time I ever used LM, was with a GPU. It took around 6 months for me to notice LM degradation. Then I read somewhere to avoid it (maybe here or another forum), everybody has a different method. I originally applied LM to both surfaces and waited an hour or so then I wiped it off and re applied. That helped a lot, however a forum member here shared the heating trick. Heat it up for a few mins and then wipe and reapply.


Ah. Then I might've pulled that off unintentionally, lol. Since I attempted an R23 run for cumulatively 30 minutes or so, and ultimately removed the LM to reapply it after a new polish job.


acoustic said:


> None of that applies to you because you didn't sand the nickel plating off of the bottom of your IHS. What we were discussing is exclusive to LM application on copper surfaces, due to ion migration/gallium corruption of the copper.


Oh. Damn. Nevermind.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> None of that applies to you because you didn't sand the nickel plating off of the bottom of your IHS. What we were discussing is exclusive to LM application on copper surfaces, due to ion migration/gallium corruption of the copper.



Neither did I.


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> Neither did I.


If you didn't sand off the nickel plating on the underside of the IHS, then everything we were discussing was for a situation that was not relevant. I thought you said you sanded down everything, including the mount.

Either way, you don't need to worry about gallium absorption with nickel plating, so that's why your LM applications don't have issues of LM hardening/drying out.

I know I'm not crazy for thinking you had done it, because even @Falkentyne thought so. Something got confused somewhere.


----------



## Ichirou

@acoustic Do you have any explanation as to why my Current has reduced compared to before?


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> Interestingly enough, I noticed that my average Current (IOUT) post-relid has reduced from 245A to only 210A. I wonder why.


Did your temperatures and VID drop? Current pulled is affected by Vcore.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> @acoustic Do you have any explanation as to why my Current has reduced compared to before?


No. Lower temps would contribute to it, but 30A is a lot..

Verify BIOS hasn't changed? AC/DC_LL still set? I believe they fixed the "if you change your voltage, AC/DC_LL reset to Auto" issue.. but I would verify.


----------



## Ichirou

Exilon said:


> Did your temperatures and VID drop? Current pulled is affected by Vcore.





acoustic said:


> No. Lower temps would contribute to it, but 30A is a lot..
> 
> Verify BIOS hasn't changed? AC/DC_LL still set? I believe they fixed the "if you change your voltage, AC/DC_LL reset to Auto" issue.. but I would verify.


Vcore is unchanged, VIDs I wouldn't know. Temps have gone down a little due to delid.
Everything in the BIOS has not changed at all. Only difference is me testing individual cores to see if any will clock higher. So if anything, it's pushing the chip _harder_.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> If you didn't sand off the nickel plating on the underside of the IHS, then everything we were discussing was for a situation that was not relevant. I thought you said you sanded down everything, including the mount.
> 
> Either way, you don't need to worry about gallium absorption with nickel plating, so that's why your LM applications don't have issues of LM hardening/drying out.
> 
> I know I'm not crazy for thinking you had done it, because even @Falkentyne thought so. Something got confused somewhere.



I said I lapped the bottom of the IHS with water and a file, until it showed copper on all of the “lips” of the IHS. The center of the IHS was polished to a mirror finish with Flitz polish only which is not an abrasive and it was not sanded at all. It has absorbed liquid metal, and it is permanently coated with LM. It will not come off. It literally soaks right through that silver rectangle pad on the inside of the IHS.

I can take a Intel IHS flip it over and make a drop of liquid metal vanish and it wont be wet. It soaks in to it. it doesnt have to be bare copper to do it either.


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> I said I lapped the bottom of the IHS with water and a file, until it showed copper on all of the lips of the IHS. The center of the IHS was polished to a mirror finish with Flitz polish and it is not sanded at all. It has absorbed liquid metal, and it is permanently coated with LM. It will not come off. It literally soaks right through that silver rectangle pad on the inside of the IHS.
> 
> I can take a Intel IHS flip it over and make a drop of liquid metal vanish and it wont be wet. It soaks in to it. it doesnt have to be bare copper to do it either.


I mean.. the IHS is nickel plated and that's not how nickel interacts with Gallium or any of the other substances used in Liquid Metal TIM such as Conductonaut. You get some very slight staining, but a large majority of it will come off with some friction. I don't know what to tell you. I did not see that behavior with the 12700K or any other stock Intel IHS of the past couple generations, and I haven't had a chance to de-lid my 13900K yet.


----------



## ESRCJ

What kind of temps are you folks getting in R23 with a 13900K? Specifying your cooling, CPU frequency and voltage, and power draw.

I feel like I'm not getting the temps I should with an HK IV Pro. Even Asus's BIOS is giving my cooling a score of 168, which is cheap AIO territory lol. 

Also, does it seem plausible that a 13900K with an SP P115/E81 to be incapable of 5.7GHz all cores stable in R23? Something seems off.


----------



## Ichirou

ESRCJ said:


> What kind of temps are you folks getting in R23 with a 13900K? Specifying your cooling, CPU frequency and voltage, and power draw.
> 
> I feel like I'm not getting the temps I should with an HK IV Pro. Even Asus's BIOS is giving my cooling a score of 168, which is cheap AIO territory lol.
> 
> Also, does it seem plausible that a 13900K with an SP P115/E81 to be incapable of 5.7GHz all cores stable in R23? Something seems off.


All P-Cores at 57x should be doable with that kind of a chip, assuming the SP readout is accurate. What is your VR VOUT reading?


----------



## Mainstream

ESRCJ said:


> What kind of temps are you folks getting in R23 with a 13900K? Specifying your cooling, CPU frequency and voltage, and power draw.
> 
> I feel like I'm not getting the temps I should with an HK IV Pro. Even Asus's BIOS is giving my cooling a score of 168, which is cheap AIO territory lol.
> 
> Also, does it seem plausible that a 13900K with an SP P115/E81 to be incapable of 5.7GHz all cores stable in R23? Something seems off.


hope i can help. Asus ai overclock @ 104% i think it was with hk iv pro loop with socket frame + 2 360 rads . Hitting 5.8-6.0 on Pcores , 4.7-4.8 on Ecores getting around 90-98 on R23 with score of 4000-42000 . Pretty sure even my temps are on the higher end


----------



## RobertoSampaio

ESRCJ said:


> What kind of temps are you folks getting in R23 with a 13900K? Specifying your cooling, CPU frequency and voltage, and power draw.
> 
> I feel like I'm not getting the temps I should with an HK IV Pro. Even Asus's BIOS is giving my cooling a score of 168, which is cheap AIO territory lol.
> 
> Also, does it seem plausible that a 13900K with an SP P115/E81 to be incapable of 5.7GHz all cores stable in R23? Something seems off.


I think Intel pushed the 13900k to the limit... So it's not full load overclockable as the 12900k...


----------



## ViTosS

ESRCJ said:


> What kind of temps are you folks getting in R23 with a 13900K? Specifying your cooling, CPU frequency and voltage, and power draw.
> 
> I feel like I'm not getting the temps I should with an HK IV Pro. Even Asus's BIOS is giving my cooling a score of 168, which is cheap AIO territory lol.
> 
> Also, does it seem plausible that a 13900K with an SP P115/E81 to be incapable of 5.7GHz all cores stable in R23? Something seems off.


By the time I tested mine (waiting on new mobo): Lian Li Galahad 360mm - 5.3Ghz P-Cores 4.3Ghz E-Cores and 4.7Ghz Ring - 1.15v full load voltage (MSI mobo, idk if die sense/socket sense, etc) - 210-220w - 80-85c, but it was on a hot day about 32c ambient temp.


----------



## Falkentyne

So my E-core v-min (die-sense) for passing SFT Y-cruncher test (AVX2 float) is 1.066v for x43, and 1.170v for x45. I didn't test x44 so I assume that x46 would require around 1.230v load.
(E core SP 94). The core that failed first is always the very first core (#16 out of 16-31).

I set the P cores at x52 so they woudn't get in the way.


----------



## ViTosS

Falkentyne said:


> So my E-core v-min (die-sense) for passing SFT Y-cruncher test (AVX2 float) is 1.066v for x43, and 1.170v for x45. I didn't test x44 so I assume that x46 would require around 1.230v load.
> (E core SP 94). The core that failed first is always the very first core (#16 out of 16-31).
> 
> I set the P cores at x52 so they woudn't get in the way.


I can see that my CPU is garbage level at least on E-Cores when it failed CR23 with 1.15v load for 4.5Ghz E-Core (P-Cores was 5.3Ghz when I tested) 

Wish I could return and grab another unit, no stock in my country anywhere...


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> It was 80-91C before with the original solder (worst-best core). Now it is 74-87C.
> 
> In the meanwhile, while I'm at it, I'm going to test and see which cores of mine are able to individually clock higher.


Suji0lover tested a delid+reseal and said he got a (I think) 13C temp drop. 
On a direct die, it was like 22C temp drop.
Can you post your hwinfo core temps so we can see the individual temps of each core and the deltas, please?


----------



## Falkentyne

ViTosS said:


> I can see that my CPU is garbage level at least on E-Cores when it failed CR23 with 1.15v load for 4.5Ghz E-Core (P-Cores was 5.3Ghz when I tested)
> 
> Wish I could return and grab another unit, no stock in my country anywhere...


Does your motherboard support VR VOUT reporting on your MSI board in hwinfo64?
if it does, use that reading and not the vcore reading, because the vcore reading is going to report a lot higher than your real vcore.
So telling us that "vcore" showed 1.15v load is pretty much worthless. 

And you need to run y-cruncher, not R23.
Choose component stress test, disable them all (press 8), then press 13 to enable the SFT (AVX2 float) only test, then loop it at least 5 times.
Then post what "VR VOUT" value you get in hwinfo64.

if your board does NOT have a VRM sensor that shows a "VR VOUT" reading in hwinfo64, tell us your BIOS set vcore and the LLC Mode level you used and someone can probably calculate your load vcore since we know how much amps Y-cruncher pulls SFT pulls. (it's about 250 amps at 1.172v VR VOUT at x52/x45. At x55/x45 it's more like 265 amps).


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Suji0lover tested a delid+reseal and said he got a (I think) 13C temp drop.
> On a direct die, it was like 22C temp drop.
> Can you post your hwinfo core temps so we can see the individual temps of each core and the deltas, please?


Sure, I gotta do an R23 30m stability test anyway. I incidentally finished binning each core in my CPU. Results below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*



Cinebench R23 Stability Testing

13900KF from Amazon (US Import)
Ring Clock @ 51x

Click to expand...

*


> VR VOUT @ 1.28V (average 1.285V)
> Current (IOUT) @ 245A (average 220A)
> Power (POUT) @ 310W (average 275W)





> P-Core 0 stable @ 57x, 58x runs for a while with a dozen WHEA errors, and then fails R23
> P-Core 1 stable @ 56x, 57x runs for a while, and then throws KERNEL_SECURITY_CHECK_FAILURE BSOD
> P-Core 2 stable @ 57x, 58x instantly throws CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT BSOD
> P-Core 3 stable @ 57x, 58x runs for a moment with some WHEA errors, and then fails R23
> P-Core 4 stable @ 56x, 57x can pass R23 10 min, but not 30 min
> P-Core 5 stable @ 57x, 58x runs for a long while with a handful of WHEA errors, and then fails R23
> P-Core 6 stable @ 56x, 57x runs for a long while, and then throws CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT BSOD
> P-Core 7 stable @ 57x, 58x runs for a moment with some WHEA errors, and then fails R23 (also, the hottest core)
> 
> *P-Core Strength (Best to Worst): 5, 0, 3, 7, (2, 4, 6, 1)*
> 
> E-Core Cluster 1 stable @ 45x, 46x runs for a moment, and then throws CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT BSOD
> E-Core Cluster 2 stable @ 45x, 46x runs for a while, and then throws CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT BSOD
> E-Core Cluster 3 stable @ 46x, 47x instantly throws CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT BSOD
> E-Core Cluster 4 stable @ 45x, 46x runs for a long while with a single WHEA error, and then fails R23
> 
> *E-Core Cluster Strength (Best to Worst): 3, 4, 2, (1)*





> *Optimal Config*: 5 P-Cores @ 57x, 3 P-Cores @ 56x, 1 E-Core Cluster @ 46x, 3 E-Core Clusters @ 45x
> All-Core Config: 8 P-Cores @ 56x, 4 E-Core Clusters @ 45x
> 
> *R23 Score Difference: ~41,800 Points (All-Core) => ~42,300 Points (Optimal)*


Based on these findings, if I were to juice the chip with a bit more Vcore, I would probably be able to do 58x on most P-cores and 46x on most E-cores.
Question is, do I dare throw more Vcore at the chip? _Perhaps some cautious 10 minute runs may be all right..._
@Falkentyne


----------



## ViTosS

Falkentyne said:


> Does your motherboard support VR VOUT reporting on your MSI board in hwinfo64?
> if it does, use that reading and not the vcore reading, because the vcore reading is going to report a lot higher than your real vcore.
> So telling us that "vcore" showed 1.15v load is pretty much worthless.
> 
> And you need to run y-cruncher, not R23.
> Choose component stress test, disable them all (press 8), then press 13 to enable the SFT (AVX2 float) only test, then loop it at least 5 times.
> Then post what "VR VOUT" value you get in hwinfo64.
> 
> if your board does NOT have a VRM sensor that shows a "VR VOUT" reading in hwinfo64, tell us your BIOS set vcore and the LLC Mode level you used and someone can probably calculate your load vcore since we know how much amps Y-cruncher pulls SFT pulls. (it's about 250 amps at 1.172v VR VOUT at x52/x45. At x55/x45 it's more like 265 amps).


No idea, I didn't check that in HWiNFO64, it was MSI Edge Z790 DDR4, I didn't test much because got a fault unit, couldn't even get anything higher than 2666Mhz in Gear 1 (also Gear 2 unbootable at any RAM frequency). I will grab Asus Strix-A DDR4 since MSI is no longer in stock in the stores here. I don't have the PC mounted here so can't test further, just the CPU waiting for the new mobo, but if I remember correctly in BIOS I used LLC 5 and 1.175v BIOS set, which resulted in 1.150v full load vcore (measured by HWiNFO64) and the power draw on CPU was 210-220w on CR23, it was pretty hot tho, maybe temps limited my potential. After it failed 45x E-Core I went down to 43x and it passed.


----------



## Falkentyne

ViTosS said:


> No idea, I didn't check that in HWiNFO64, it was MSI Edge Z790 DDR4, I didn't test much because got a fault unit, couldn't even get anything higher than 2666Mhz in Gear 1 (also Gear 2 unbootable at any RAM frequency). I will grab Asus Strix-A DDR4 since MSI is no longer in stock in the stores here. I don't have the PC mounted here so can't test further, just the CPU waiting for the new mobo, but if I remember correctly in BIOS I used LLC 5 and 1.175v BIOS set, which resulted in 1.150v full load vcore (measured by HWiNFO64) and the power draw on CPU was 210-220w on CR23, it was pretty hot tho, maybe temps limited my potential. After it failed 45x E-Core I went down to 43x and it passed.


Well when you get that system set up, check for a VR VOUT (you need to update your hwinfo64 version to the latest beta version, after installing the newest stable version), as VR VOUT support for MSI boards was only added for their VRM Controllers rather recently.

And 1.175v set + LLC Mode 5 is like below 1.1v at full load (Y-cruncher SFT test. Probably even R23 too)...., you aren't doing x45 E cores on any CPU sample with that low voltage, unless it has an E core SP above 105.
You can't call a chip garbage if you fail that. You need to get your voltage measurements correct first.


----------



## ViTosS

Falkentyne said:


> Well when you get that system set up, check for a VR VOUT (you need to update your hwinfo64 version to the latest beta version, after installing the newest stable version), as VR VOUT support for MSI boards was only added for their VRM Controllers rather recently.
> 
> And 1.175v set + LLC Mode 5 is like below 1.1v at full load (Y-cruncher SFT test. Probably even R23 too)...., you aren't doing x45 E cores on any CPU sample with that low voltage, unless it has an E core SP above 105.
> You can't call a chip garbage if you fail that. You need to get your voltage measurements correct first.


Alright will do that, thanks that makes me hopeful I don't have a crap unit


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Anyone who has z690 dark got the inaccessible boot device problem? After I installed the 13900k , I cant load win coz that bsod. Tried to reinstall win and load vmd driver to see the raid but still does not detect the raid. So I unraid them and it still does not detect those drive. Look like those nvme is disable or something.


----------



## SoldierRBT

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Anyone who has z690 dark got the inaccessible boot device problem? After I installed the 13900k , I cant load win coz that bsod. Tried to reinstall win and load vmd driver to see the raid but still does not detect the raid. So I unraid them and it still does not detect those drive. Look like those nvme is disable or something.


You need to update ME firmware/driver to get 1st nvme slot to work.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

SoldierRBT said:


> You need to update ME firmware/driver to get 1st nvme slot to work.


U have the link?


----------



## tps3443

So I have essentially reached discovery of my chip and found the best two overclocks for it. 

Overclock (1) 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.6Ghz E-Cores, 4.7Ghz Cache with 1.280V in bios LLC3. (43,500 R23 score) 

Overclock (2) 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.7Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Cache with 1.330V in bios LLC3. (44,000 R23 score) This is a bit more power hungry and extreme overclock, but it performs great.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> So I have essentially reached discovery of my chip and found the best two overclocks for it.
> 
> Overclock (1) 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.6Ghz E-Cores, 4.7Ghz Cache with 1.280V in bios LLC3. (43,500 R23 score)
> 
> Overclock (2) 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.7Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Cache with 1.330V in bios LLC3. (44,000 R23 score) This is a bit more power hungry and extreme overclock, but it performs great.


Oof, 1.33V LLC3... I'm considering it as well, but it's just way too much voltage and current...
I wouldn't be able to match your score, but I would be able to get decently close to it. Might do it just for kicks, but I wouldn't daily it except for really light programs.

1.280V is what I'm running in my MSI board right now as well. Clocks are as stated above.


----------



## Baka_boy

This thread is running on lightspeed. My 7600 DDR5 finally arrived and at first I couldn't even run it at 7200. Out of desperation, I relented and updated to the beta Asus bios (0801) and it finally seems to be stable. Crossing fingers, it will pass tests. 

Performance on the 13900k seems to have improved a tiny bit on y-cruncher, but I'm more thankful about being to run at rated XMP.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Oof, 1.33V LLC3... I'm considering it as well, but it's just way too much voltage and current...
> I wouldn't be able to match your score, but I would be able to get decently close to it. Might do it just for kicks, but I wouldn't daily it except for really light programs.
> 
> 1.280V is what I'm running in my MSI board right now as well. Clocks are as stated above.


Yes 1.330V may seem high, but I’m running 4.7Ghz on the E-Cores with 5.1Ghz on the cache. I can step down to just 4.6Ghz on E-Cores and its only 1.260 VR Out.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Yes 1.330V may seem high, but I’m running 4.7Ghz on the E-Cores with 5.1Ghz on the cache. I can step down to just 4.6Ghz on E-Cores and its only 1.260 VR Out.


That's some ridiculously poor scaling on the E-cores.


----------



## bhav

What are people generally managing on the 13th gen e cores? I know 5.1 ring can be expected.

For my 12600k, 4.0 ring and e cores is all I can get out of it.


----------



## HemuV2

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think Intel pushed the 13900k to the limit... So it's not full load overclockable as the 12900k...


So what you're saying is all those 5.7-5.8ghz OCs are stable on full load only on sp116+ chips or slightly lower SP delidded chips, is that correct? Because I've sp 109 pcore and mine isn't exactly happy at 5.8, 5.6 is fine but 5.7 and 5.8 are too hot while 5.9 is just on the edge clock stretching.


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> So I have essentially reached discovery of my chip and found the best two overclocks for it.
> 
> Overclock (1) 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.6Ghz E-Cores, 4.7Ghz Cache with 1.280V in bios LLC3. (43,500 R23 score)
> 
> Overclock (2) 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.7Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Cache with 1.330V in bios LLC3. (44,000 R23 score) This is a bit more power hungry and extreme overclock, but it performs great.


I don't understand, on my asus strix if i set 1.28 and llc5(3rd most aggressive llc) it won't even pass stock config, like i could reduce my ecores to 3.6ghz and pass 5.5ghz ring 49x at 1.27 load voltage which is 1.38V llc5 in bios and 270W package power, my SP is P/E 109/73 .


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Thanh Nguyen said:


> U have the link?


I think it´s for all vendor
[FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)


----------



## Rbk_3

HemuV2 said:


> I don't understand, on my asus strix if i set 1.28 and llc5(3rd most aggressive llc) it won't even pass stock config, like i could reduce my ecores to 3.6ghz and pass 5.5ghz ring 49x at 1.27 load voltage which is 1.38V llc5 in bios and 270W package power, my SP is P/E 109/73 .


Same, 5.6/4.3ecore and 50 ring and I need 1.38 bios voltage LLC3 to be stable on my MSI board and I don't even have HT enabled.


----------



## Convicted

Exilon said:


> At 1.2V VID, an unlimited stock 13900K can draw ~275W package power for 39-40K CB23 MT score give or take depending on the silicon quality. You can't use guides as 1:1 because your VF table maybe as much as 50-100mV off from the CPU used to write the guide.
> 
> You also get a penalty of ~2mV VID per C and you're running hot. Someone that can hit 80-90C package power would be getting 20-40mV lower VIDs than you.





HemuV2 said:


> I had same issue at 250W, you also probably have bad ecore like me, try settings ecores to 3.6ghz all core and run again and see if pcores are able to do 5.5ghz, for me it worked this way. Please let us know your SP if you have asus board


Ah so this is it then. Thank you. I definitely have bad ecores. 107 pcore sp, 78 ecore sp. It takes me 275W to run a 40k Cb23 at 5.5ghz and that requires careful voltage tinkering rather than stock settings. 

In this situation for a gaming overclock would you push the ecores down manually, or would you just give up on the chip and leave it as is? My 3dmark cpu scores are about 10% down compared to the stock setting results I've seen across YouTube.


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> I don't understand, on my asus strix if i set 1.28 and llc5(3rd most aggressive llc) it won't even pass stock config, like i could reduce my ecores to 3.6ghz and pass 5.5ghz ring 49x at 1.27 load voltage which is 1.38V llc5 in bios and 270W package power, my SP is P/E 109/73 .


Thats because your temps are really really high looking. And any type of overclocking is not really working out at all.


----------



## JKurz

Any direct die cooling guys in here?


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> What are people generally managing on the 13th gen e cores? I know 5.1 ring can be expected.
> 
> For my 12600k, 4.0 ring and e cores is all I can get out of it.


I have 5.1 ring, and its perfectly stable. 13900KF here.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> That's some ridiculously poor scaling on the E-cores.


Running 16 E-Cores at 4.7Ghz is not an easy task. Also, I have not touched that L2 E-Core voltage it is still on auto. Maybe that would help some. I hear some people set that to 1.260V or something like that.

If you set 5.8/4.7/5.1 how much voltage do you need?


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> I have 5.1 ring, and its perfectly stable. 13900KF here.


I know that, I was asking for e core frequency. Well not yours, people who say yours is too low.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

JKurz said:


> Any direct die cooling guys in here?


Yes I have direct die.


----------



## wilkinsb01

any one with SP100 overclock result ?


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> I know that, I was asking for e core frequency. Well not yours, people who say yours is too low.


What do you mean too low?

My chip is really good. And I can run 4.7Ghz on all of my E-Cores perfectly stable.

Most chips will do 4.5 or 4.6 and thats it. Some people can only do 4.4 due to limited cooling using an AIO with a lesser quality chip. You are not gonna get more than 4.7 on all (16) E-Cores simultaneously that is legitimately stable from what I’ve seen unless it has some super good SP92+ E-Cores.


----------



## tps3443

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Yes I have direct die.


Share temps please.


----------



## fray_bentos

HemuV2 said:


> I don't understand, on my asus strix if i set 1.28 and llc5(3rd most aggressive llc) it won't even pass stock config, like i could reduce my ecores to 3.6ghz and pass 5.5ghz ring 49x at 1.27 load voltage which is 1.38V llc5 in bios and 270W package power, my SP is P/E 109/73 .


49x isn't stock ring, meanwhile posts here indicate OC room there is limited. What voltage/LLC do you need for stock ring (45x)?


----------



## fray_bentos

Rbk_3 said:


> Same, 5.6/4.3ecore and 50 ring and I need 1.38 bios voltage LLC3 to be stable on my MSI board and I don't even have HT enabled.


Again, calm it down on the ring. Then how much voltage do you need?


----------



## cptclutch

Will 1.34v vcore (MSI board, no vrout) under R23 load lead to degradation?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Running 16 E-Cores at 4.7Ghz is not an easy task. Also, I have not touched that L2 E-Core voltage it is still on auto. Maybe that would help some. I hear some people set that to 1.260V or something like that.
> 
> If you set 5.8/4.7/5.1 how much voltage do you need?


Probably too much. I might be able to do 58/46/51 though. The issue is that Vcore is shared between the P and the E cores now. Otherwise, I have more than enough thermal headroom to boost the E cores.

I'll experiment with lowering Tjmax to only 90C to deliberately throttle the P-cores and then focus on pushing up the E-cores. Let's see where that leads me.


----------



## Ichirou

cptclutch said:


> Will 1.34v vcore (MSI board, no vrout) under R23 load lead to degradation?


Yes, sadly.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

tps3443 said:


> Share temps please.


System is completely unstable somehow. Waiting for z790 apex. What clock u want to compare?


----------



## cptclutch

Ichirou said:


> Yes, sadly.


What's the highest vcore I should be aiming for under that kind of load that wouldn't lead to degradation? I thought under 1.35v is generally considered safe.


----------



## Ichirou

cptclutch said:


> What's the highest vcore I should be aiming for under that kind of load that wouldn't lead to degradation? I thought under 1.35v is generally considered safe.


For Alder Lake, sure. But unless you're willing to kill off the E-cores this time around, you're pretty much stuck to sub-1.30V MSI voltage.

It's probably okay if you only do a few tests and then strictly game or something, though.


----------



## digitalfrost

cptclutch said:


> Will 1.34v vcore (MSI board, no vrout) under R23 load lead to degradation?












I would stay below the dark blue line at the bottom. In other words, depends in the amps. But most likely yes this will degrade. This is with the MSI LLC values (for PRO Z690-A).


Output CurrentSet Voltage1,1 mΩ0,7 mΩ0,6 mΩ0,4 mΩ0,3 mΩ0,0 mΩ1,1 mΩ0,7 mΩ0,6 mΩ0,4 mΩ0,3 mΩ0,0 mΩ0 A1,520,000 V0,000 V0,000 V0,000 V0,000 V0,000 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V30 A1,520 V0,033 V0,021 V0,017 V0,012 V0,008 V0,000 V1,487 V1,499 V1,503 V1,508 V1,512 V1,520 V60 A1,520 V0,066 V0,041 V0,034 V0,024 V0,017 V0,000 V1,454 V1,479 V1,486 V1,496 V1,503 V1,520 V170 A1,520 V0,187 V0,117 V0,095 V0,068 V0,048 V0,000 V1,333 V1,403 V1,425 V1,452 V1,472 V1,520 V200 A1,520 V0,220 V0,138 V0,112 V0,080 V0,056 V0,000 V1,300 V1,382 V1,408 V1,440 V1,464 V1,520 V245 A1,520 V0,270 V0,169 V0,137 V0,098 V0,069 V0,000 V1,251 V1,351 V1,383 V1,422 V1,451 V1,520 V254 A1,520 V0,279 V0,175 V0,142 V0,102 V0,071 V0,000 V1,241 V1,345 V1,378 V1,418 V1,449 V1,520 V280 A1,520 V0,308 V0,193 V0,157 V0,112 V0,078 V0,000 V1,212 V1,327 V1,363 V1,408 V1,442 V1,520 V307 A1,520 V0,338 V0,212 V0,172 V0,123 V0,086 V0,000 V1,182 V1,308 V1,348 V1,397 V1,434 V1,520 V


Choose Max Output current. Example for your 13700K 307A.
Find in the 1,1mOhm column the Vcore after vdroop. For 307A this is 1,182v.

If you use another LLC adjust the max VID in a way that Vcore after drop will not exceed this value. Examples for MSI:

LLC7 DC_LL 69 1394mv
LLC6 DC_LL 56 1354mv
LLC5 DC_LL 40 1305mv

You can calculate this by:

New max VID in mv = DroopVcore in mv + (LLC in mohms * A)

This is adapted from this table: Load-line calculation

You can make your own copy and experiment with the values.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> For Alder Lake, sure. But unless you're willing to kill off the E-cores this time around, you're pretty much stuck to sub-1.30V MSI voltage.
> 
> It's probably okay if you only do a few tests and then strictly game or something, though.


Yes but it depends on his amperage and LLC. 1.34V in this bios with auto LLC. Is not that crazy much amperage.


digitalfrost said:


> View attachment 2582587
> 
> 
> I would stay below the blue line. In other words, depends in the amps. But most likely yes this will degrade. This is with the MSI LLC values (for PRO Z690-A).
> 
> 
> Output CurrentSet Voltage1,1 mΩ0,7 mΩ0,6 mΩ0,4 mΩ0,3 mΩ0,0 mΩ1,1 mΩ0,7 mΩ0,6 mΩ0,4 mΩ0,3 mΩ0,0 mΩ0 A1,520,000 V0,000 V0,000 V0,000 V0,000 V0,000 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V30 A1,520 V0,033 V0,021 V0,017 V0,012 V0,008 V0,000 V1,487 V1,499 V1,503 V1,508 V1,512 V1,520 V60 A1,520 V0,066 V0,041 V0,034 V0,024 V0,017 V0,000 V1,454 V1,479 V1,486 V1,496 V1,503 V1,520 V170 A1,520 V0,187 V0,117 V0,095 V0,068 V0,048 V0,000 V1,333 V1,403 V1,425 V1,452 V1,472 V1,520 V200 A1,520 V0,220 V0,138 V0,112 V0,080 V0,056 V0,000 V1,300 V1,382 V1,408 V1,440 V1,464 V1,520 V245 A1,520 V0,270 V0,169 V0,137 V0,098 V0,069 V0,000 V1,251 V1,351 V1,383 V1,422 V1,451 V1,520 V254 A1,520 V0,279 V0,175 V0,142 V0,102 V0,071 V0,000 V1,241 V1,345 V1,378 V1,418 V1,449 V1,520 V280 A1,520 V0,308 V0,193 V0,157 V0,112 V0,078 V0,000 V1,212 V1,327 V1,363 V1,408 V1,442 V1,520 V307 A1,520 V0,338 V0,212 V0,172 V0,123 V0,086 V0,000 V1,182 V1,308 V1,348 V1,397 V1,434 V1,520 V
> 
> 
> Choose Max Output current. Example for your 13700K 307A.
> Find in the 1,1mOhm column the Vcore after vdroop. For 307A this is 1,182v.
> 
> If you use another LLC adjust the max VID in a way that Vcore after drop will not exceed this value. Examples for MSI:
> 
> LLC7 DC_LL 69 1394mv
> LLC6 DC_LL 56 1354mv
> LLC5 DC_LL 40 1305mv
> 
> You can calculate this by:
> 
> New max VID in mv = DroopVcore in mv + (LLC in mohms * A)
> 
> This is adapted from this table: Load-line calculation
> 
> You can make your own copy and experiment with the values.


What Ohms is MSI LLC 3 again?


----------



## Ichirou

digitalfrost said:


> View attachment 2582587
> 
> 
> I would stay below the blue line. In other words, depends in the amps. But most likely yes this will degrade. This is with the MSI LLC values (for PRO Z690-A).
> 
> 
> Output CurrentSet Voltage1,1 mΩ0,7 mΩ0,6 mΩ0,4 mΩ0,3 mΩ0,0 mΩ1,1 mΩ0,7 mΩ0,6 mΩ0,4 mΩ0,3 mΩ0,0 mΩ0 A1,520,000 V0,000 V0,000 V0,000 V0,000 V0,000 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V30 A1,520 V0,033 V0,021 V0,017 V0,012 V0,008 V0,000 V1,487 V1,499 V1,503 V1,508 V1,512 V1,520 V60 A1,520 V0,066 V0,041 V0,034 V0,024 V0,017 V0,000 V1,454 V1,479 V1,486 V1,496 V1,503 V1,520 V170 A1,520 V0,187 V0,117 V0,095 V0,068 V0,048 V0,000 V1,333 V1,403 V1,425 V1,452 V1,472 V1,520 V200 A1,520 V0,220 V0,138 V0,112 V0,080 V0,056 V0,000 V1,300 V1,382 V1,408 V1,440 V1,464 V1,520 V245 A1,520 V0,270 V0,169 V0,137 V0,098 V0,069 V0,000 V1,251 V1,351 V1,383 V1,422 V1,451 V1,520 V254 A1,520 V0,279 V0,175 V0,142 V0,102 V0,071 V0,000 V1,241 V1,345 V1,378 V1,418 V1,449 V1,520 V280 A1,520 V0,308 V0,193 V0,157 V0,112 V0,078 V0,000 V1,212 V1,327 V1,363 V1,408 V1,442 V1,520 V307 A1,520 V0,338 V0,212 V0,172 V0,123 V0,086 V0,000 V1,182 V1,308 V1,348 V1,397 V1,434 V1,520 V
> 
> 
> Choose Max Output current. Example for your 13700K 307A.
> Find in the 1,1mOhm column the Vcore after vdroop. For 307A this is 1,182v.
> 
> If you use another LLC adjust the max VID in a way that Vcore after drop will not exceed this value. Examples for MSI:
> 
> LLC7 DC_LL 69 1394mv
> LLC6 DC_LL 56 1354mv
> LLC5 DC_LL 40 1305mv
> 
> You can calculate this by:
> 
> New max VID in mv = DroopVcore in mv + (LLC in mohms * A)
> 
> This is adapted from this table: Load-line calculation
> 
> You can make your own copy and experiment with the values.


The different lines in that chart... Are they going up from flat MSI LLC 1 to 6? I'm confused. You gotta dumb this down for the normies ;P


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> The different lines in that chart... Are they going up from flat MSI LLC 1 to 6? I'm confused. You gotta dumb this down for the normies ;P


I thought the same thing.

“Me counting the graph lines from bottom to top”

LLC uhh DA WON, LLC DUH TWOs, EL da EL C da thweeee. 😂


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I thought the same thing.
> 
> “Me counting the graph lines from bottom to top”
> 
> LLC uhh DA WON, LLC DUH TWOs, EL da EL C da thweeee. 😂


Hehe. Electrical engineering illiterate gang unite!

But on a side note, commencing tests at higher Vcore now. But with Tjmax set to 90C to focus on the E-cores first.
Only doing 10 minute tests so might not be 100% R23 stable for now.


----------



## tps3443

I’m thinking I havent degraded my cpu though. I supply it daily with strenuous R23’s. It does exactly what its always done. If anything it seems better than ever. I try to stay below 250 amps though.


----------



## digitalfrost

tps3443 said:


> Yes but it depends on his amperage and LLC. 1.34V in this bios with auto LLC. Is not that crazy much amperage.
> 
> 
> What Ohms is MSI LLC 3 again?


It should be Mode 3 = 0.12 mOhm but this is not in the chart.



Ichirou said:


> The different lines in that chart... Are they going up from flat MSI LLC 1 to 6? I'm confused. You gotta dumb this down for the normies ;P


Blue at the bottom is Intel stock at 1.1mohm, everything above then is MSI LLC7 - 4 and top light blue line is 0.0mohms (no droop).


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I’m thinking I havent degraded my cpu though. I murder it daily with strenuous R23’s. It does exactly what its always done. If anything it seems better than ever. I try to stay below 250 amps though.


Raptor Lake is the same as Alder Lake, but with better binned cores due to improved manufacturing processes. So it's safe to assume that it still degrades in a similar fashion.
And there is enough empirical evidence with ADL degradation to establish a foundation for how RPL would likely degrade as well.

Update: Using "CPU Over Temp Protection" to reduce Tjmax isn't really working as intended. It throttles not only the P-cores but the E-cores as well. Kind of annoying.
But for what it's worth, my E-cores are not as well binned. Even 46x is struggling a bit.

I feel tempted to direct die to heatsink, but without your expertise, I am cautious.


digitalfrost said:


> Blue at the bottom is Intel stock at 1.1mohm, everything above then is MSI LLC7 - 4 and top light blue line is 0.0mohms (no droop).


So... From orange down to red, it is LLC 7 to 4? Are the voltage values VCC Sense BIOS Vcore, or true VR VOUT?


----------



## digitalfrost

Ichirou said:


> Raptor Lake is the same as Alder Lake, but with better binned cores due to improved manufacturing processes. So it's safe to assume that it still degrades in a similar fashion.
> And there is enough empirical evidence with ADL degradation to establish a foundation for how RPL would likely degrade as well.
> 
> So... From orange down to red, it is LLC 7 to 4? Are the voltage values VCC Sense BIOS Vcore, or true VR VOUT?


Red is LLC7, Orange is LLC4. The DC_LL values were tuned to VCC Sense.


----------



## Ichirou

digitalfrost said:


> Red is LLC7, Orange is LLC4. The DC_LL values were tuned to VCC Sense.


Ah, okay. So it is LLC 4 to 7, going down, based on the Vcore set in the BIOS.
But if I were to use my current setting of about 1.33V LLC5, that equates to 1.285V VR VOUT and 220-245A of current?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Raptor Lake is the same as Alder Lake, but with better binned cores due to improved manufacturing processes. So it's safe to assume that it still degrades in a similar fashion.
> And there is enough empirical evidence with ADL degradation to establish a foundation for how RPL would likely degrade as well.
> 
> Update: Using "CPU Over Temp Protection" to reduce Tjmax isn't really working as intended. It throttles not only the P-cores but the E-cores as well. Kind of annoying.
> But for what it's worth, my E-cores are not as well binned. Even 46x is struggling a bit.
> 
> I feel tempted to direct die to heatsink, but without your expertise, I am cautious.
> 
> So... From orange down to red, it is LLC 7 to 4? Are the voltage values VCC Sense BIOS Vcore, or true VR VOUT?


Well, I have considered doing it my self. I already tested the cpu with no die frame, and no ILM at all. And it worked perfect. Only the waterblock pressed it in to the socket. I had all of my memory channels and no errors at all. 


This tells me, that I could run this CPU bare die with only my heavy Optimus waterblock and it would work. My Optimus block is domed in the center too, which is designed for direct die. You want the center of the cold plate to more or less reach in and touch the center of the die.

I have one concern, and that is the small SMD’s in the far edge of the CPU. It looks like these are the same height as the die. But I didn’t double check for sure.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443
To run 46x all-core on the E-cores and pass R23 10m, I need a minimum of (active, not average values) *~1.32V VR VOUT and ~260A*, equating to ~340W.
That's 1.37V set in the BIOS at LLC Mode 5. 1.36V set did not work; threw CLOCK_WATCHDOG. Score is 42,600 points.

Update: Pushing all of the P-cores instead of only some to 57x also passes.
58x on the strongest P-cores errors out in R23, so I'm gonna leave them at 57x and test 52x ring instead.
Nevermind, that failed too. Guess I'm basically done testing, since I can't push the chip any further without more Vcore.


tps3443 said:


> Well, I have considered doing it my self. I already tested the cpu with no die frame, and no ILM at all. And it worked perfect. Only the waterblock pressed it in to the socket. I had all of my memory channels and no errors at all.
> 
> 
> This tells me, that I could run this CPU bare die with only my heavy Optimus waterblock and it would work. My Optimus block is domed in the center too, which is designed for direct die. You want the center of the cold plate to more or less reach in and touch the center of the die.
> 
> I have one concern, and that is the small SMD’s in the far edge of the CPU. It looks like these are the same height as the die. But I didn’t double check for sure.


I used my eyes to physically look at the height of the CPU during the delid before, and yes, the SMDs are taller than the die itself.

According to TPU, my EK Velocity block is convex as well, so it might still work. But yes, there are concerns of the coldplate touching the SMDs.
Perhaps if you were to insulate everything besides the die, it would be doable?

How do you test to see whether or not your block would work?
Simply apply LM on the *die *only, and then rest the cold plate on top of the chip with a light press to see if any LM sticks onto the plate?


----------



## Falkentyne

Basically you need to know how much amps you're pulling. This is essential. Amps=iOUT or A, whatever.
Once you know how many amps, you plug it into this formula which is based on Intel stock loadline being used (e.g. what laptops use).

1520mv - (1.1 * IOUT)= target vcore mv. Then convert that to volts easily.

At that IOUT you are pulling, you want that vcore you just calculated (sustained ceiling / vmax) to be ABOVE the actual vcore you are pulling on your system, measured with _Die sense_ Vcore or VR VOUT.
Or in other words, you want your real sustained vcore you are pulling at that current amps to be BELOW this value.

Your real sustained vcore will be:

Bios set target vcore mv - ( LLC Set mOhms * IOUT A)= load true die sense (VR OUT) vcore.

At 307 amps, your load vcore sustained should NOT exceed 1.182v VR OUT, at <95C (Yes i know tjmax is 100C now)
At 307 amps, your load vcore should be BELOW 1.182v VR OUT, at <95C .

For Asus, you can use the vcore sensor shown in hwinfo64 and cpu-z, as long as you have die sense selected in your BIOS.
For other boards, you need to measure via vr vout in hwinfo64, not through the 'vcore' sensor as that will either be using socket sense (super i/o), or a still incorrect value if you use vcc_sense in your BIOS, because apparently on MSI boards, vcc_sense does nothing except change the loadline LLC resistance values >_>, so use VR VOUT.

For your chip to last next to forever, use the 245A limit (1.250v at 245 amps)
For your chip to not have forever guaranteed but may be okay for occasional power virus loads, use the 307A limit (so amps between 246 and 307), so 1.182v at 307 amps.

That formula above is based on a 1.1 mohm LLC (intel spec) being used, so if you're using a tighter LLC, just plug in the mohms value for that LLC and you will get the vcore you are outputting at that amps. Then cross reference that with the 1.1 mohm formula and see if your load vcore (at that amps) is too high or not. (remember, vr vout unless you are on a Maximus board, or Z790 strix DDR5 which apparently supports die sense now).


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Basically you need to know how much amps you're pulling. This is essential. Amps=iOUT or A, whatever.
> Once you know how many amps, you plug it into this formula which is based on Intel stock loadline being used (e.g. what laptops use).
> 
> 1520mv - (1.1 * IOUT)= target vcore mv. Then convert that to volts easily.
> 
> At that IOUT you are pulling, you want that vcore you just calculated (sustained ceiling / vmax) to be ABOVE the actual vcore you are pulling on your system, measured with _Die sense_ Vcore or VR VOUT.
> Or in other words, you want your real sustained vcore you are pulling at that current amps to be BELOW this value.
> 
> Your real sustained vcore will be:
> 
> Bios set target vcore mv - ( LLC Set mOhms * IOUT A)= load true die sense (VR OUT) vcore.
> 
> At 307 amps, your load vcore sustained should NOT exceed 1.182v VR OUT, at <95C (Yes i know tjmax is 100C now)
> At 307 amps, your load vcore should be BELOW 1.182v VR OUT, at <95C .
> 
> For Asus, you can use the vcore sensor shown in hwinfo64 and cpu-z, as long as you have die sense selected in your BIOS.
> For other boards, you need to measure via vr vout in hwinfo64, not through the 'vcore' sensor as that will either be using socket sense (super i/o), or a still incorrect value if you use vcc_sense in your BIOS, because apparently on MSI boards, vcc_sense does nothing except change the loadline LLC resistance values >_>, so use VR VOUT.
> 
> For your chip to last next to forever, use the 245A limit (1.250v at 245 amps)
> For your chip to not have forever guaranteed but may be okay for occasional power virus loads, use the 307A limit (so amps between 246 and 307), so 1.182v at 307 amps.
> 
> That formula above is based on a 1.1 mohm LLC (intel spec) being used, so if you're using a tighter LLC, just plug in the mohms value for that LLC and you will get the vcore you are outputting at that amps. Then cross reference that with the 1.1 mohm formula and see if your load vcore (at that amps) is too high or not. (remember, vr vout unless you are on a Maximus board, or Z790 strix DDR5 which apparently supports die sense now).


How do you presume Intel will handle the 13900KS? Do you think they'll release a 57/60 (normal/boost) chip that runs within safe voltage settings?
Or will it likely be run in degradation territory, with allowance made for RMAs?


----------



## tps3443

Falkentyne said:


> Basically you need to know how much amps you're pulling. This is essential. Amps=iOUT or A, whatever.
> Once you know how many amps, you plug it into this formula which is based on Intel stock loadline being used (e.g. what laptops use).
> 
> 1520mv - (1.1 * IOUT)= target vcore mv. Then convert that to volts easily.
> 
> At that IOUT you are pulling, you want that vcore you just calculated (sustained ceiling / vmax) to be ABOVE the actual vcore you are pulling on your system, measured with _Die sense_ Vcore or VR VOUT.
> Or in other words, you want your real sustained vcore you are pulling at that current amps to be BELOW this value.
> 
> Your real sustained vcore will be:
> 
> Bios set target vcore mv - ( LLC Set mOhms * IOUT A)= load true die sense (VR OUT) vcore.
> 
> At 307 amps, your load vcore sustained should NOT exceed 1.182v VR OUT, at <95C (Yes i know tjmax is 100C now)
> At 307 amps, your load vcore should be BELOW 1.182v VR OUT, at <95C .
> 
> For Asus, you can use the vcore sensor shown in hwinfo64 and cpu-z, as long as you have die sense selected in your BIOS.
> For other boards, you need to measure via vr vout in hwinfo64, not through the 'vcore' sensor as that will either be using socket sense (super i/o), or a still incorrect value if you use vcc_sense in your BIOS, because apparently on MSI boards, vcc_sense does nothing except change the loadline LLC resistance values >_>, so use VR VOUT.
> 
> For your chip to last next to forever, use the 245A limit (1.250v at 245 amps)
> For your chip to not have forever guaranteed but may be okay for occasional power virus loads, use the 307A limit (so amps between 246 and 307), so 1.182v at 307 amps.
> 
> That formula above is based on a 1.1 mohm LLC (intel spec) being used, so if you're using a tighter LLC, just plug in the mohms value for that LLC and you will get the vcore you are outputting at that amps. Then cross reference that with the 1.1 mohm formula and see if your load vcore (at that amps) is too high or not. (remember, vr vout unless you are on a Maximus board, or Z790 strix DDR5 which apparently supports die sense now).


Well, I’m just gonna run this daily long term then. 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, 4.8Ghz cache. Which is 1.256VR out, and 244 amps. My temps are like 67-71C package so I think I’m good.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Well, I’m just gonna run this daily long term then. 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, 4.8Ghz cache. Which is 1.256VR out, and 244 amps. My temps are like 67-71C package so I think I’m good.


It sucks that my chip isn't golden. The DDR4 IMC is pretty strong, though. I'll see how the following chips I receive turn out.
I'm content with this chip as it is, even if it could be better.

I also updated my previous post with some test results.
For now, I'm going to find the minimum VR VOUT required to run 57x all-core on the P-cores.

Did you find it easier to boost the P-cores higher by reducing the ring clock? Or is there no correlation?

@Falkentyne What were the VID tests you wanted me to perform? I may as well do them now.


----------



## HemuV2

Convicted said:


> Ah so this is it then. Thank you. I definitely have bad ecores. 107 pcore sp, 78 ecore sp. It takes me 275W to run a 40k Cb23 at 5.5ghz and that requires careful voltage tinkering rather than stock settings.
> 
> In this situation for a gaming overclock would you push the ecores down manually, or would you just give up on the chip and leave it as is? My 3dmark cpu scores are about 10% down compared to the stock setting results I've seen across YouTube.


Haha mine is 109/73 absolute worst ecores for an i9 award goes to my chip


----------



## Krzych04650

Got some stock vs max OC numbers in









This is bone stock according to official Intel specs, so things left on auto and DDR4-3200 XMP.

There are two more configs I want to do, basic OC that basically anyone and any chip can do so something like 58/45/48 DDR4-3800 without tuning, and also full OC but without secondary and tertiary timings tuned, but that is for later.

One thing to mention about Metro Exodus is that it gets massive performance penalty above 16 threads, the score at the same number of threads is +15,9%. But stock is stock, so 16 E-cores enabled for main test.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> It sucks that my chip isn't golden. The DDR4 IMC is pretty strong, though. I'll see how the following chips I receive turn out.


I wasn't following this thread much recently as I was busy with games, did you get a new chip and how is the IMC compared to your 12900?


----------



## HemuV2

Convicted said:


> Ah so this is it then. Thank you. I definitely have bad ecores. 107 pcore sp, 78 ecore sp. It takes me 275W to run a 40k Cb23 at 5.5ghz and that requires careful voltage tinkering rather than stock settings.
> 
> In this situation for a gaming overclock would you push the ecores down manually, or would you just give up on the chip and leave it as is? My 3dmark cpu scores are about 10% down compared to the stock setting results I've seen across YouTube.


Well rn I'm running 5.5/4.0/49x ring at 1.38V llc5 it's not bad takes like 280W on Cinebench. For gaming I don't think ecores frequency matters at all which is a good thing but sadly you won't beat multicore scores of people running 4.5-4.6ghz ecores without ridiculous voltage, gaming itself is excellent because ring and pcores are free off ecores. For me on an aio 5.6-5.7 seems okay but 5.8 is a bit too high voltage and risky.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> How do you presume Intel will handle the 13900KS? Do you think they'll release a 57/60 (normal/boost) chip that runs within safe voltage settings?
> Or will it likely be run in degradation territory, with allowance made for RMAs?


6.0 single core boost is already known from the launch event for 13th gen, but 5.6 all core boost would be crap so hopefully it will at least be 5.7, which it looks like some people can't even manage on their 13900Ks.

Also with the result someone had on their 13900KF of 6.0 all core at 1.28v, theres definitely a lot more potential on these chips thats being reserved for the KS.

Previous gen xx900Ks definitely were not binned as aggressively as 13900K seems to have been.


----------



## Ichirou

Minimum Vcore required to pass *R23 30m* @ 57x P-Core (all-core)
(Active) VR VOUT @ 1.31V, Current @ 255A, Power @ 330W

Minimum Vcore required to pass *R23 10m* @ 46x E-Core (all-core)
(Active) VR VOUT @ ~1.32V, Current @ ~260A, Power @ ~340W.

(Neither config will run the Ring @ 52x.)

May or may not consider dailying depending on how heavy my workloads are. Will have to field test with HWiNFO constantly running on another monitor.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> It sucks that my chip isn't golden. The DDR4 IMC is pretty strong, though. I'll see how the following chips I receive turn out.
> I'm content with this chip as it is, even if it could be better.
> 
> I also updated my previous post with some test results.
> For now, I'm going to find the minimum VR VOUT required to run 57x all-core on the P-cores.
> 
> Did you find it easier to boost the P-cores higher by reducing the ring clock? Or is there no correlation?
> 
> @Falkentyne What were the VID tests you wanted me to perform? I may as well do them now.


Just set the E-cores to something like x40-x42 (below stock), then go into your bios, go to cpu lite load, advanced, set acdc loadline to 0.01 mohms (maybe that's 1 in yours), set Thermal Velociity Boost Voltage Optimizations to disabled, then post the CPU VID's at idle for x54, x55, x56 and x57 on the P-cores, by setting a decent idle vcore like bios set: 1.350v + Mode 3.. That should be good enough. That's for the P-cores. You aren't running any load tests.

It's a lot faster if you use msi dragon ball to just change the p core ratio in windows.

The e-cores have to be low otherwise the e core VID can overrule the P-core VID (especially on really bad chips).


----------



## Wilco183

HemuV2 said:


> Haha mine is 109/73 absolute worst ecores for an i9 award goes to my chip


Close, but no... 
On second thought yours is bad enough, so "Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar.
You're gonna go far, you're gonna fly high..."


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Just set the E-cores to something like x40-x42 (below stock), then go into your bios, go to cpu lite load, advanced, set acdc loadline to 0.01 mohms (maybe that's 1 in yours), set Thermal Velociity Boost Voltage Optimizations to disabled, then post the CPU VID's at idle for x54, x55, x56 and x57 on the P-cores, by setting a decent idle vcore like bios set: 1.350v + Mode 3.. That should be good enough. That's for the P-cores. You aren't running any load tests.
> 
> It's a lot faster if you use msi dragon ball to just change the p core ratio in windows.
> 
> The e-cores have to be low otherwise the e core VID can overrule the P-core VID (especially on really bad chips).


E-cores and Ring set to 40x to rule them out. BIOS Vcore is 1.35V, and LLC set to Mode 3. Lite Load and TVB settings set as requested.

HWiNFO Readings (Latest Version)
57x VIDs: 1.340V
56x VIDs: 1.340V
55x VIDs: 1.340V
54x VIDs: 1.340V

Shrug. Beats me. Just MSI things, probably. Gonna disable the E-cores altogether and retry.

57x VIDs: 1.340V
54x VIDs: 1.340V

Well that was a waste of time.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> E-cores and Ring set to 40x to rule them out. BIOS Vcore is 1.35V, and LLC set to Mode 3. Lite Load and TVB settings set as requested.
> 
> HWiNFO Readings (Latest Version)
> 57x VIDs: 1.340V
> 56x VIDs: 1.340V
> 55x VIDs: 1.340V
> 54x VIDs: 1.340V
> 
> Shrug. Beats me. Just MSI things, probably. Gonna disable the E-cores altogether and retry.
> 
> 57x VIDs: 1.340V
> 54x VIDs: 1.340V
> 
> Well that was a waste of time.


I did tell you, didn't I tell you? And when did I tell you? A long time ago! ....

13900K binning is pure junk.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> E-cores and Ring set to 40x to rule them out. BIOS Vcore is 1.35V, and LLC set to Mode 3. Lite Load and TVB settings set as requested.
> 
> HWiNFO Readings (Latest Version)
> 57x VIDs: 1.340V
> 56x VIDs: 1.340V
> 55x VIDs: 1.340V
> 54x VIDs: 1.340V
> 
> Shrug. Beats me. Just MSI things, probably. Gonna disable the E-cores altogether and retry.
> 
> 57x VIDs: 1.340V
> 54x VIDs: 1.340V
> 
> Well that was a waste of time.


Hmm..

Can you try setting vCore Mode to Adaptive, and leave it on Auto. Leave LLC3 and AC/DC_LL at "1" with TVB disabled

I'm curious what your VIDs will read.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> E-cores and Ring set to 40x to rule them out. BIOS Vcore is 1.35V, and LLC set to Mode 3. Lite Load and TVB settings set as requested.
> 
> HWiNFO Readings (Latest Version)
> 57x VIDs: 1.340V
> 56x VIDs: 1.340V
> 55x VIDs: 1.340V
> 54x VIDs: 1.340V
> 
> Shrug. Beats me. Just MSI things, probably. Gonna disable the E-cores altogether and retry.
> 
> 57x VIDs: 1.340V
> 54x VIDs: 1.340V
> 
> Well that was a waste of time.


Uh.....LOL?
Do you have your BIOS set to VCC_Sense or Socket Sense?
if it's set to VCC_Sense, set it to socket sense.

Here are mine:
x58: 1.410
x57: 1.375
x56: Nah
x55: 1.310
x54: 1.280
x53: Nah
x52: 1.220
x51: 1.190

With the E-cores at x43, this prevents P-core VID from dropping below 1.275V.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Hmm..
> 
> Can you try setting vCore Mode to Adaptive, and leave it on Auto. Leave LLC3 and AC/DC_LL at "1" with TVB disabled
> 
> I'm curious what your VIDs will read.





Falkentyne said:


> Uh.....LOL?
> Do you have your BIOS set to VCC_Sense or Socket Sense?
> if it's set to VCC_Sense, set it to socket sense.


Mmk, will test in a bit. I'm just giving R23 another 30m run with my previous safe config to make sure the chip hasn't already degraded with my high voltage testing today.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Working very well since 2012 
​









Just found in my old pics... kkkk


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Mmk, will test in a bit. I'm just giving R23 another 30m run with my previous safe config to make sure the chip hasn't already degraded with my high voltage testing today.


Ok since I'm here before I go back to studying chess...

P core VIDS: E-cores x40, Ring x45, ACDC LL: 0.01 mohms, TVB Voltage Opt: Disabled, Actual VRM Vcore Voltage : 1.335v set, LLC6, CPU PLL Trim: 1.020v

P cores:
x58: 1.410v
x57: 1.375v
x56: 1.345v
x55: 1.310v
x54: 1.280v
x53: 1.250v
x52: 1.220v
x51: 1.190v
x50: 1.180v (limited by E cores at x40)
x50: 1.175v (E-cores x35)

E core VIDS: (P cores x45):
x39: 1.175v (this seems to be a floor, below x39 didn't decrease VID anymore
but I did not go below x35 to find out).

E cores:
x39: 1.175v
x40: 1.180v
x41: 1.215v
x42: 1.245v
x43: 1.275v
x44: 1.275v
x45: 1.275v
x46: 1.275v

1.275v is the max E core VID (capped at x43)

Vmin die-sense E cores for passing Y-cruncher SFT loop:
x43: 1.066v
x45: 1.172v

Vmin P-cores for passing Stockfish Chess (6 hours) without a BSOD:
CPU PLL Voltage (CPU SFR in MSI BIOS?): 1.020v:
x56P, x45E, x47R: 1.208v (1.325v set, LLC6)

Vmin for passing R23 30min without a BSOD::
PLL: 1.020v
x57P, x45E, x48R: 1.234v (1.335v set, LLC6)


----------



## Ichirou

R23 30m safely passed. 42,300 points. Good to know that it hasn't degraded yet. Will do the VID re-testing now.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> For Alder Lake, sure. But unless you're willing to kill off the E-cores this time around, you're pretty much stuck to sub-1.30V MSI voltage.
> 
> It's probably okay if you only do a few tests and then strictly game or something, though.



How high voltage can I go if I disable the e-cores without degrading anything else on 13900K.

I am on edge of stable at 5.6GHz all core and 5GHZ ring LLC 6 VCORE at 1.34 with e-cores off. Was able to actually use 1.3 vcore LLC 6 and pass OCCT Large Data Set Variable multiple runs. Also able to pass Prime95 Large FFTs and Blend with AVX turned off. Though Linpack XTREME 1.1.5 BSODs. After raising VCORE to 1.325, it passed, but residual results did not match. After raising VCORE to 1.34, the residual results mostly matched but 1/5 or 6 were different which may mean not stable.

This is on MSI Z690 Unify X.

Using Noctua NH-D15S with 2 140mm fans running full 1500 RPM speed with the LGA 1700 Thermalright BFC frame.


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> How high voltage can I go if I disable the e-cores without degrading anything else on 13900K.
> 
> I am on edge of stable at 5.6GHz all core and 5GHZ ring LLC 6 VCORE at 1.34 with e-cores off. Was able to actually use 1.3 vcore LLC 6 and pass OCCT Large Data Set Variable multiple runs. Also able to pass Prime95 Large FFTs and Blend with AVX turned off. Though Linpack XTREME 1.1.5 BSODs. After raising VCORE to 1.325, it passed, but residual results did not match. After raising VCORE to 1.34, the residual results mostly matched but 1/5 or 6 were different which may mean not stable.
> 
> This is on MSI Z690 Unify X.


Do VR VOUT and Current (IOUT) calculations. That's the only way to know for sure.
Run whatever stress test it is you run with HWiNFO running, and show a screenshot of the section with those readouts in it.
But in general: keep Power (POUT) less than 300W.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> Do VR VOUT and Current (IOUT) calculations. That's the only way to know for sure.
> Run whatever stress test it is you run with HWiNFO running, and show a screenshot of the section with those readouts in it.
> But in general: keep Power (POUT) less than 300W.



How fast would it degrade. Could it have already happened??


----------



## bhav

I pity everyone buying a 13900K that might be thinking 'Wow, this gonna overclock good'.

This makes me almost as mad at Intel as when they locked SA voltage on non K chips.


----------



## Falkentyne

Wolverine2349 said:


> How high voltage can I go if I disable the e-cores without degrading anything else on 13900K.
> 
> I am on edge of stable at 5.6GHz all core and 5GHZ ring LLC 6 VCORE at 1.34 with e-cores off. Was able to actually use 1.3 vcore LLC 6 and pass OCCT Large Data Set Variable multiple runs. Also able to pass Prime95 Large FFTs and Blend with AVX turned off. Though Linpack XTREME 1.1.5 BSODs. After raising VCORE to 1.325, it passed, but residual results did not match. After raising VCORE to 1.34, the residual results mostly matched but 1/5 or 6 were different which may mean not stable.
> 
> This is on MSI Z690 Unify X.


Gflops over 1000 are bugged and will instafail. (at least on LinX 0.9.12. LinPack Extreme 1.1.5 uses outdated binaries. You can update the binaries yourself (2/2022 build) by just downloading them from Intel and renaming the file and overwriting the old binary, as I think the file was renamed in either linpack extreme or Linx--i forgot).

linpack_xeon64.exe dated 2/25/2022 (US format) is the newest one.
You also need libiomp5md.dll, dated 11/9/2021 to match this so they aren't mismatched.

If your E-cores are disabled, I would use a 200A IOUT limit, which is is an estimation of the difference between an 8+8 config (280A) on ADL, and an 8+4 config (240A), so you can use a brain cell to figure out that 8+0 should be 200A:

So
1520mv - (200A * 1.1 mohm)=1.300v, at known values of 200A

So plug in whatever amps you're pulling here and then you'll see if ur below this curve:
Example: 160 amps of current draw:
1520mv - (160A * 1.1) = 1.344v load (stay below this if ur at 160 amps).

So at 200A current, stay below 1.30v (VR VOUT/die sense) load.

If you aren't using a 1.1 mohm loadline LLC, plug in your current LLC mohms value and estimate your die-sense load and "cross reference" this with the 1.1 mohm slope formula and stay below that.


----------



## bhav

For my 12600k, I had L2 voltage set to 1.325 and SA 1.4v to maintain 4.0 ecore and ring with 4900 ram.

I just dropped the ecore and ring to 3.9 instead and L2 voltage to 1.25v to be safe ... er.

Should probably drop the ram back to 4800 instead but I don't want to. Pretty sure the ram does more than e cores.

Not going to mess with 1.4v SA for G1 testing when I get a 13900KS.


----------



## acoustic

bhav said:


> I pity everyone buying a 13900K that might be thinking 'Wow, this gonna overclock good'.
> 
> This makes me almost as mad at Intel as when they locked SA voltage on non K chips.


What are you talking about?


----------



## Falkentyne

The P-core P0 VID and the E-core P0 VID are the VIDS at the max cap, although the windows values seem to be a few mv off.
(I got 1.410v for 5.8 ghz P-cores and 1.280v for 4.3 ghz E-cores), but it's close enough to what I wrote. That's where the VID stops scaling.










As I wrote above:

P core VIDS: E-cores x40, Ring x45

x58: 1.410v
x57: 1.375v
x56: 1.345v
x55: 1.310v
x54: 1.280v
x53: 1.250v
x52: 1.220v
x51: 1.190v
x50: 1.180v (limited by E cores at x40)
x50: 1.175v (E-cores x35)

E core VIDS: (P cores x45):
x39: 1.175v (this seems to be a floor, below x39 didn't decrease VID anymore
but I did not go below x35 to find out).

x40: 1.180v
x41: 1.215v
x42: 1.245v
x43: 1.275v
x44: 1.275v
x45: 1.275v
x46: 1.275v

1.275v is the max E core VID (capped at x43)


----------



## bhav

acoustic said:


> What are you talking about?


Intel binning these chips too much, so many people with low OCs over stock.


----------



## acoustic

bhav said:


> Intel binning these chips too much, so many people with low OCs over stock.


Or did they just crank the chip up really well out of the box...

There's still plenty of tuning you can do. I don't understand why anyone would complain that Intel did a solid job tuning the chip out of the factory. I'd say they tuned it a bit too aggressive even, as some chips are having a bit of a hard time running 5.5 x8 (high VIDs) where they could have went with 5.4 instead.

The days of 800Mhz OCs are gone. They've been gone for multiple gens at this point.


----------



## bhav

acoustic said:


> Or did they just crank the chip up really well out of the box...
> 
> There's still plenty of tuning you can do. I don't understand why anyone would complain that Intel did a solid job tuning the chip out of the factory. I'd say they tuned it a bit too aggressive even, as some chips are having a bit of a hard time running 5.5 x8 (high VIDs) where they could have went with 5.4 instead.
> 
> The days of 800Mhz OCs are gone. They've been gone for multiple gens at this point.


People running 6.0 all core on unbinned 13900KFs disagree.

What I normally expect is single core boost applied to all cores, thats like what +300?


----------



## Wolverine2349

Here are my readings on MSI Z690 Unify X for my 13900L at 5.6GHz all core and 5GHz ring.

Both running Prime95 Blend with AVX disabled/

One screenshot was at 800K FFT part and other at a small FFT part which does draw more heat and power.

This is with VCORE set to 1.34 on LLC 6


----------



## Ichirou

@Falkentyne @acoustic
VIDs seem to be different now. I think Auto Adaptive voltage made it work. E-cores are off, and the settings you two requested have been implemented. 40x Ring.

P-Core VIDs:
57x VID: 1.440V
56x VID: 1.400V
55x VID: 1.365V
54x VID: 1.335V

I'm trying to test the E-Core VIDs, but the board can't seem to boot. Just fails training.


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> Here are my readings on MSI Z690 Unify X for my 13900L at 5.6GHz all core and 5GHz ring.
> 
> Both running Prime95 Blend with AVX disabled/
> 
> One screenshot was at 800K FFT part and other at a small FFT part which does draw more heat and power.
> 
> This is with VCORE set to 1.34 on LLC 6


That's pretty light on the chip. You have more headroom. But you really gotta test with AVX on, or nothing is accurate. It's not 2012 anymore.
Also, reduce VCCSA. You don't want to run it at 1.40V+, especially not with DDR5.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> @Falkentyne @acoustic
> VIDs seem to be different now. I think Auto Adaptive voltage made it work. E-cores are off, and the settings you two requested have been implemented. 40x Ring.
> 
> P-Core VIDs:
> 57x VID: 1.440V
> 56x VID: 1.400V
> 55x VID: 1.365V
> 54x VID: 1.335V
> 
> I'm trying to test the E-Core VIDs, but the board can't seem to boot. Just fails training.


I thought that stock 13900K was meant to be 55x at 1.23v? Thats what I saw in most screenshots of people that bought them early.

Is your stock all core 55x or 54x?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> I thought that stock 13900K was meant to be 55x at 1.23v? Thats what I saw in most screenshots of people that bought them early.
> 
> Is your stock all core 55x or 54x?


VIDs are a terrible indicator of chip quality.

13900K/KF at official release is 54/58 base/turbo with auto voltage.
But considering that I personally tested my chip already, 58x enters degradation territory for any core boosting up to that multiplier.

@Falkentyne
A friend of mine is testing his 13900K (also from Amazon US import, around same time), and his Strix Z790-A readout is P/E 106/81.

The exact same 56/45/51 setting as me requires basically the same VR VOUT to pass R23 10 min. Same Power POUT.
So my chip is effectively equivalent to that, or maybe worse (if his chip can do better than mine on either the P- or the E-Cores).


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> That's pretty light on the chip. You have more headroom. But you really gotta test with AVX on, or nothing is accurate. It's not 2012 anymore.
> Also, reduce VCCSA. You don't want to run it at 1.40V+, especially not with DDR5.



Even with my temps it is light. Problem is to get Linpack stable I need 1.325VCORE at least and temps get high 90s. Sometimes they will get up to 100C which then of course the clock speeds slow down as that is throttling point. Remember I am using a Noctua NH-D15 cooler and not an AIO. Though are temps just ok to run in 90s and up to 100 regardless?? For stress testing to ensure stability with rough tests I think fine.

But what is actual maximum safe vcore if temps are not object. Is it anything as long as the POut is less than 300Watts?

And for VCCSA I have that on auto and I think board is applying it based on XMP profile though not sure. What should it be set to?? And is 1.4 dangerously too high?? I thinks it is related to RAM stability and DDDR5 and on 2 Asus boards I had nothing but trouble with DDR5 XMP stability at default lower and higher System Agent (VCCSA) voltage.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> @Falkentyne @acoustic
> VIDs seem to be different now. I think Auto Adaptive voltage made it work. E-cores are off, and the settings you two requested have been implemented. 40x Ring.
> 
> P-Core VIDs:
> 57x VID: 1.440V
> 56x VID: 1.400V
> 55x VID: 1.365V
> 54x VID: 1.335V
> 
> I'm trying to test the E-Core VIDs, but the board can't seem to boot. Just fails training.


Those VID's seem atrocious.
That's like a Pcore SP quality of 100
VID of 1.440v at 5.7 ghz is trash tier XD

Is your board set to VCC_Sense or Socket Sense?
if it's set to VCC, set it to socket and retest those.
If it's set to socket, set it to VCC_Sense and retest those.
I do know from someone else's post that the VCC_Sense and Socket Sense completely changes both the VIDS and the loadlines...because MSI doing MSI things.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Those VID's seem atrocious.
> That's like a Pcore VID of SP100.
> VID of 1.440v at 5.7 ghz is trash tier XD
> 
> Is your board set to VCC_Sense or Socket Sense?
> if it's set to VCC, set it to socket and retest those.
> If it's set to socket, set it to VCC_Sense and retest those.
> I do know from someone else's post that the VCC_Sense and Socket Sense completely changes both the VIDS and the loadlines...because MSI doing MSI things.


I updated my post in the meanwhile. And those VIDs were tested with Socket Sense. I'll retry VCC Sense now.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> VIDs are a terrible indicator of chip quality.


I thought the thing that makes a chip better quality is better clocks on lower voltage?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

What is the stress test for this gen? Still realbench, blender?


----------



## bhav

Thanh Nguyen said:


> What is the stress test for this gen? Still realbench, blender?


Cinebench seems to be fine unless you want to risk degrading the chip.

Any of those 100% sustained load tests are bad news now, they quickly degrade modern chips when testing overclocks.


----------



## Ichirou

Thanh Nguyen said:


> What is the stress test for this gen? Still realbench, blender?


None. Because anything meaningful will likely degrade the CPU over any lengthy period of time.
So everyone's just using Cinebench R23 to keep things light.

@Falkentyne
With VCC Sense, 57x VID is still 1.440V. Gonna test 55x as well, but not expecting any difference.
Edit: 55x VID is 1.365V. No change.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

I think I might have a good IMC on my 13900k I picked up locally. My 12900k could only go up to 6800MHz 1t this 13900k can go up to 7400 2t stable and that's with my picky shifty m die bin. Things just get slower because, well shifty m die bin.

7000 1t is where I think I want to stay because it has the best performance.


----------



## bhav

7400 may now be the highest result I've seen for M die, I only previously saw it going up to 7200 and very rarely.

But how is the latency still worse than my DDR4 at 4900G2?


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

bhav said:


> 7400 may now be the highest result I've seen for M die, I only previously saw it going up to 7200 and very rarely.
> 
> But how is the latency still worse than my DDR4 at 4900G2?


My windows is the default windows 11 22h2 or the glitched one, right now. Give me a tweaked ready to go image I'd be kicking ass. I fine tuned it to the best speeds possible over 3 days time.


----------



## fray_bentos

digitalfrost said:


> View attachment 2582587
> 
> 
> I would stay below the dark blue line at the bottom. In other words, depends in the amps. But most likely yes this will degrade. This is with the MSI LLC values (for PRO Z690-A).
> 
> 
> Output CurrentSet Voltage1,1 mΩ0,7 mΩ0,6 mΩ0,4 mΩ0,3 mΩ0,0 mΩ1,1 mΩ0,7 mΩ0,6 mΩ0,4 mΩ0,3 mΩ0,0 mΩ0 A1,520,000 V0,000 V0,000 V0,000 V0,000 V0,000 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V30 A1,520 V0,033 V0,021 V0,017 V0,012 V0,008 V0,000 V1,487 V1,499 V1,503 V1,508 V1,512 V1,520 V60 A1,520 V0,066 V0,041 V0,034 V0,024 V0,017 V0,000 V1,454 V1,479 V1,486 V1,496 V1,503 V1,520 V170 A1,520 V0,187 V0,117 V0,095 V0,068 V0,048 V0,000 V1,333 V1,403 V1,425 V1,452 V1,472 V1,520 V200 A1,520 V0,220 V0,138 V0,112 V0,080 V0,056 V0,000 V1,300 V1,382 V1,408 V1,440 V1,464 V1,520 V245 A1,520 V0,270 V0,169 V0,137 V0,098 V0,069 V0,000 V1,251 V1,351 V1,383 V1,422 V1,451 V1,520 V254 A1,520 V0,279 V0,175 V0,142 V0,102 V0,071 V0,000 V1,241 V1,345 V1,378 V1,418 V1,449 V1,520 V280 A1,520 V0,308 V0,193 V0,157 V0,112 V0,078 V0,000 V1,212 V1,327 V1,363 V1,408 V1,442 V1,520 V307 A1,520 V0,338 V0,212 V0,172 V0,123 V0,086 V0,000 V1,182 V1,308 V1,348 V1,397 V1,434 V1,520 V
> 
> 
> Choose Max Output current. Example for your 13700K 307A.
> Find in the 1,1mOhm column the Vcore after vdroop. For 307A this is 1,182v.
> 
> If you use another LLC adjust the max VID in a way that Vcore after drop will not exceed this value. Examples for MSI:
> 
> LLC7 DC_LL 69 1394mv
> LLC6 DC_LL 56 1354mv
> LLC5 DC_LL 40 1305mv
> 
> You can calculate this by:
> 
> New max VID in mv = DroopVcore in mv + (LLC in mohms * A)
> 
> This is adapted from this table: Load-line calculation
> 
> You can make your own copy and experiment with the values.


Table needs labelling with the corresponding LLC numbers (MSI and Asus). I have no idea even how to know what DC_LL is being applied by my mobo at the moment. Can this be read out by software somewhere?


----------



## bhav

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> My windows is the default windows 11 22h2 or the glitched one, right now. Give me a tweaked ready to go image I'd be kicking ass. I fine tuned it to the best speeds possible over 3 days time.


Yea you should be able to get to under 48ns on that after tuning the timings.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

bhav said:


> Yea you should be able to get to under 48ns on that after tuning the timings.


If I tweak the shifty bin memory sticks, I have any tighter anywhere it loses speed / latency. That's what I'm saying is that I have a shifty bin of 6400MHz M die but, the IMC is obviously there to push things as far as possible because it is. I can't go any tighter.


----------



## newls1

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> I think I might have a good IMC on my 13900k I picked up locally. My 12900k could only go up to 6800MHz 1t this 13900k can go up to 7400 2t stable and that's with my picky shifty m die bin. Things just get slower because, well shifty m die bin.
> 
> 7000 1t is where I think I want to stay because it has the best performance.
> 
> View attachment 2582650


Hey sir, not knocking on anything at all, your system is very nice but your results would be far greater for y-cruncher if you set your mem timings better and a few other things. I’m getting 48.1 score in ycruncher only at 7088mt/s and my p cores at 5.85


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

newls1 said:


> Hey sir, not knocking on anything at all, your system is very nice but your results would be far greater for y-cruncher if you set your mem timings better and a few other things. I’m getting 48.1 score in ycruncher only at 7088mt/s and my p cores at 5.85


If I tweak the shifty bin memory sticks, I have any tighter anywhere it loses speed / latency. That's what I'm saying is that I have a shifty bin of 6400MHz M die but, the IMC is obviously there to push things as far as possible because it is. I can't go any tighter on these memory sticks performance wise.


----------



## bhav

So another annoying thing I just found, having 'memory integrity' enabled in windows settings causes intel memory latency tool to instantly bsod. Turning it off fixed it.


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> Working very well since 2012
> ​
> View attachment 2582622
> 
> 
> Just found in my old pics... kkkk


Did you discover the print screen button in 2013?


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> Cinebench seems to be fine unless you want to risk degrading the chip.
> 
> Any of those 100% sustained load tests are bad news now, they quickly degrade modern chips when testing overclocks.


I'm a chess player and I rely on Stockfish for chess.
So I need to stay below the Intel V/A curve so my chip lasts as long as possible.
And Stockfish runs hot, so I need to stay close to my vmin for stockfish or it either gets uncoolable or I risk degradation, as my 12900K QS degraded over 40mv in a year trying to run stockfish at 5.2 ghz @ 1.280v load (and the prediction on that chip was just wrong, it failed R23 (BSOD) at 5.1 ghz at predicted BIOS vcore, SP was much lower than shown unless it was degraded during LN2 QA testing, but CSTKL1 and Robertosampiao had the same vmin as mine and we had the same SP (like 3 points different so idk).

I don't know about you guys.


----------



## fray_bentos

Falkentyne said:


> So I need to stay below the Intel V/A curve so my chip lasts as long as possible.


But... don't you buy every gen as soon as it is released?  So 1 year then?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

quick test SuperCool direct die 13th gen on dark z690. 1.24v 75% droop, 58/46/50, 25c water 208 L/m ( from thermaltake tf2), ram xmp 7600 c36


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> @Falkentyne @acoustic
> VIDs seem to be different now. I think Auto Adaptive voltage made it work. E-cores are off, and the settings you two requested have been implemented. 40x Ring.
> 
> P-Core VIDs:
> 57x VID: 1.440V
> 56x VID: 1.400V
> 55x VID: 1.365V
> 54x VID: 1.335V
> 
> I'm trying to test the E-Core VIDs, but the board can't seem to boot. Just fails training.


I think MSI Override is somehow just manipulating the VID, or it's doing something to the SVID that makes it unusable as a reading.

I'm glad my suspicion worked out. That seems much more in line with what VIDs should read. When I get home, I'll test this as well.

@Falkentyne I think for further comparisons between ASUS and MSI, we need to have MSI users set their vCore Mode to Adaptive, and then leave the voltage to Auto in order to compare. When setting Override, it's causing the VID readings to be manipulated as well. That's very non-standard, and I'm not sure why that's occurring or what MSI is doing that is causing that.

@Ichirou when you set it to Adaptive, could you try setting 1.350v as the voltage, and see what it does? See if the VID changes with it as well. Based off of how I've always seen Adaptive work, it _should_ change the VID.. but since Override mode also seems to be affecting VID (or disabling SVID all together), I'm not so sure..

Would test myself, but as I said.. still on my work trip and won't be back for another ~2 weeks.

Glad we came to somewhat of a solution, though!! Progress 👍🏻


----------



## newls1

bhav said:


> So another annoying thing I just found, having 'memory integrity' enabled in windows settings causes intel memory latency tool to instantly bsod. Turning it off fixed it.


you should have had that off long time ago


----------



## newls1

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> If I tweak the shifty bin memory sticks, I have any tighter anywhere it loses speed / latency. That's what I'm saying is that I have a shifty bin of 6400MHz M die but, the IMC is obviously there to push things as far as possible because it is. I can't go any tighter on these memory sticks performance wise.


sometimes you have to compromise on a lower speed to get better sub timings. Hell I could run this GSkill fast with WAY LOOSER timings but i lose performance cause the timings are far worse. Here try these


----------



## RichKnecht

What’s the census on C states? I have them enabled, but on X299 I ran the chip with them disabled.


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> I'm a chess player and I rely on Stockfish for chess.
> So I need to stay below the Intel V/A curve so my chip lasts as long as possible.
> And Stockfish runs hot, so I need to stay close to my vmin for stockfish or it either gets uncoolable or I risk degradation, as my 12900K QS degraded over 40mv in a year trying to run stockfish at 5.2 ghz @ 1.280v load (and the prediction on that chip was just wrong, it failed R23 (BSOD) at 5.1 ghz at predicted BIOS vcore, SP was much lower than shown unless it was degraded during LN2 QA testing, but CSTKL1 and Robertosampiao had the same vmin as mine and we had the same SP (like 3 points different so idk).
> 
> I don't know about you guys.


So I actually can't tell if this is serious because I play chess a lot against stockfish bots on whichever free site it is.

Seriously stockfish degrades CPUs???



newls1 said:


> you should have had that off long time ago


It was off, I turned it on after 2H22 as I was having so many issues I thought it might do something. Now its off again.


----------



## acoustic

bhav said:


> People running 6.0 all core on unbinned 13900KFs disagree.
> 
> What I normally expect is single core boost applied to all cores, thats like what +300?


There's one hand worth of people running 6Ghz all-core at voltages low enough to be daily usable, and who knows how honest they're being. I don't know how that's evidence that Intel is binning chips. 13900K is tuned pretty aggressively out of the box, like I said.. complaining about getting close to max performance possible OOB is dumb.


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> I think MSI Override is somehow just manipulating the VID, or it's doing something to the SVID that makes it unusable as a reading.
> 
> I'm glad my suspicion worked out. That seems much more in line with what VIDs should read. When I get home, I'll test this as well.
> 
> @Falkentyne I think for further comparisons between ASUS and MSI, we need to have MSI users set their vCore Mode to Adaptive, and then leave the voltage to Auto in order to compare. When setting Override, it's causing the VID readings to be manipulated as well. That's very non-standard, and I'm not sure why that's occurring or what MSI is doing that is causing that.
> 
> @Ichirou when you set it to Adaptive, could you try setting 1.350v as the voltage, and see what it does? See if the VID changes with it as well. Based off of how I've always seen Adaptive work, it _should_ change the VID.. but since Override mode also seems to be affecting VID (or disabling SVID all together), I'm not so sure..
> 
> Would test myself, but as I said.. still on my work trip and won't be back for another ~2 weeks.
> 
> Glad we came to somewhat of a solution, though!! Progress 👍🏻


@Ichirou 
From what @acoustic said, it looks like MSI "Override mode" is the EXACT Same thing as Gigabyte's "Override mode" (Post Z390), where it sends the CPU a new native VID (this is exactly what laptops do when you select "override mode" in any laptop BIOS, going back to Kaby Lake--at least on MSI laptops).
So what you need to do is to set a "fixed" vcore, or a "VRM vcore", but I don't have a MSI motherboard so I don't know what that setting is.

What's the difference between "SVID Override" (This is what this option SHOULD Be called--Take note of this MSI and Gigabyte), and "fixed vcore"?
Simple. AC Loadlines come into play on any Adaptive or SVID mode, so a high AC Loadline (1.1 mOhms) will give you 1.65v idle (at least) at x55 multiplier.

On Direct VRM voltage, AC Loadline is ignored (it affects the CPU VID but VRM Voltage ignores the CPU VID and accesses the VRM Directly).

Asus did something right. @shamino1978 
They have
"Actual VRM Vcore Voltage" (fixed vcore--this is what Gigabyte USED to call "override mode" on Z390 and older before they changed the setting without explaining anything--now the original is "Fixed mode")
SVID Voltage (This is what MSI and Gigabyte are doing with their "override" setting). On Asus, setting "Fixed mode" for this setting forces a new CPU VID. "Adaptive" mode is the original adaptive setting where you set an offset to the native CPU VID, which people are probably used to doing (positive or negative).
SVID Cache Voltage, etc.

One advantage of using "SVID Voltage Override" is you can have less vdroop compared to fixed vcore at the same target voltage, because of one specific thing:
"AVX guardband". Going back to Kaby Lake, when an AVX load is detected, the CPU VID is raised by a certain amount (like 30-40mv).
AVX guardbands are ignored when you access the VRM voltage directly (rather than the SVID itself directly).
So you can use this, plus a reasonable ACLL, to end up with a lower vdroop at the same LLC than fixed (actual VRM Vcore) mode, and then use ACLL to raise the starting point (Idk if this is called Q point or what. AC Loadline on motherboards seem to have a loose relationship with AC Loadline on transistors.
It's possible that the "Q point (Operating point??)" is raised upwards when raising the AC Loadline.






Transistor Load Line Analysis


Transistor Load Line Analysis, Till now we have discussed different regions of operation for a transistor. But among all these regions, we have found that the transistor operates well in acti




www.tutorialspoint.com









Load lines, Part 2: The DC load line and AC operation - Power Electronic Tips







www.powerelectronictips.com


----------



## tps3443

@Falkentyne Will my chip degrade like this?


----------



## Falkentyne

Not at those temps.


----------



## opt33

acoustic said:


> I think MSI Override is somehow just manipulating the VID, or it's doing something to the SVID that makes it unusable as a reading.
> 
> I'm glad my suspicion worked out. That seems much more in line with what VIDs should read. When I get home, I'll test this as well.
> 
> @Falkentyne I think for further comparisons between ASUS and MSI, we need to have MSI users set their vCore Mode to Adaptive, and then leave the voltage to Auto in order to compare. When setting Override, it's causing the VID readings to be manipulated as well. That's very non-standard, and I'm not sure why that's occurring or what MSI is doing that is causing that.
> 
> @Ichirou when you set it to Adaptive, could you try setting 1.350v as the voltage, and see what it does? See if the VID changes with it as well. Based off of how I've always seen Adaptive work, it _should_ change the VID.. but since Override mode also seems to be affecting VID (or disabling SVID all together), I'm not so sure..
> 
> Would test myself, but as I said.. still on my work trip and won't be back for another ~2 weeks.
> 
> Glad we came to somewhat of a solution, though!! Progress 👍🏻


yeah, never been a fan of msi auto changing llc/vcore via manually entering pcore value. My vid is 1.345 for 55 multi. cb 23 vrout 1.249

All stock, only change P core multi from "auto" to "55", results in mode 3 LLC (despite still on auto), and vcore auto set to 1.26-1.27 so cb23 vrout not too far from 1.24.

And yeah using adaptive sets vid back to 1.345, but also have to manually reset LLC.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Falkentyne said:


> Gflops over 1000 are bugged and will instafail. (at least on LinX 0.9.12. LinPack Extreme 1.1.5 uses outdated binaries. You can update the binaries yourself (2/2022 build) by just downloading them from Intel and renaming the file and overwriting the old binary, as I think the file was renamed in either linpack extreme or Linx--i forgot).
> 
> linpack_xeon64.exe dated 2/25/2022 (US format) is the newest one.
> You also need libiomp5md.dll, dated 11/9/2021 to match this so they aren't mismatched.
> 
> If your E-cores are disabled, I would use a 200A IOUT limit, which is is an estimation of the difference between an 8+8 config (280A) on ADL, and an 8+4 config (240A), so you can use a brain cell to figure out that 8+0 should be 200A:
> 
> So
> 1520mv - (200A * 1.1 mohm)=1.300v, at known values of 200A
> 
> So plug in whatever amps you're pulling here and then you'll see if ur below this curve:
> Example: 160 amps of current draw:
> 1520mv - (160A * 1.1) = 1.344v load (stay below this if ur at 160 amps).
> 
> So at 200A current, stay below 1.30v (VR VOUT/die sense) load.
> 
> If you aren't using a 1.1 mohm loadline LLC, plug in your current LLC mohms value and estimate your die-sense load and "cross reference" this with the 1.1 mohm slope formula and stay below that.



Well I did some testu8ng and passed Y Cruncher at 1.34V at LLC6. At 1.325V LLC 6, on SFT test which is the highest power draw, HWInfo showed a Windows Hardware Error. So upping the voltage to 1.34 LLC6 fixed that and no WHEA.

The peak IOut Current was 187 during that test. Is that dangerous at 1.34V LLC6?? I have not set a V/F curve as everything is on auto have static frequency for CPU speed ang ring and e-cores off and static 1.34 vcore.

On high current draws close to 200 amps the VR Out load does drop below 1.3 and I believe even it does around 150 amps. Is that good or does it have to be below 1.3 VCORE period at any load??


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Falkentyne said:


> I'm a chess player and I rely on Stockfish for chess.
> So I need to stay below the Intel V/A curve so my chip lasts as long as possible.
> And Stockfish runs hot, so I need to stay close to my vmin for stockfish or it either gets uncoolable or I risk degradation, as my 12900K QS degraded over 40mv in a year trying to run stockfish at 5.2 ghz @ 1.280v load (and the prediction on that chip was just wrong, it failed R23 (BSOD) at 5.1 ghz at predicted BIOS vcore, SP was much lower than shown unless it was degraded during LN2 QA testing, but CSTKL1 and Robertosampiao had the same vmin as mine and we had the same SP (like 3 points different so idk).
> 
> I don't know about you guys.


Geez hearing you talk like that does lead to concern about pushing these chips too hard, I don't use Stockfish or anything that maintains a heavy load for a period of time, mainly gaming and general desktop duties.
I think I may stop torturing my CPU trying to get too much out of it, I already have crud E-Cores..


----------



## bhav

schoolofmonkey said:


> Geez hearing you talk like that does lead to concern about pushing these chips too hard, I don't use Stockfish or anything that maintains a heavy load for a period of time, mainly gaming and general desktop duties.
> I think I may stop torturing my CPU trying to get too much out of it, I already have crud E-Cores..


If you think stockfish is bad, I hope you don't play frostpunk.


----------



## tps3443

schoolofmonkey said:


> Geez hearing you talk like that does lead to concern about pushing these chips too hard, I don't use Stockfish or anything that maintains a heavy load for a period of time, mainly gaming and general desktop duties.
> I think I may stop torturing my CPU trying to get too much out of it, I already have crud E-Cores..


Amperage, temps, and voltage, seem to be major factors with degradation here. I‘ve been pounding my chip pretty hard. 6Ghz R23 runs numerous times. Trying to push 4.8Ghz on the E-Cores. Hitting really heavy amperage and power draw. But, I’ve kept it running really cool. It has not flinched once. Chip still runs nice and easy 230 watts @5.5/5.8 stock settings R23 41K+ I have its best base line that is 100% stable.

It has seen more abuse since its initial launch, than most chips see in a lifetime. We are pounding them with R23 or worse daily until we get bored lol. So I’m on like day 11 now?

I haven’t degraded a cpu in a while. I think cooling is just very important in my experience. If you cant cool it down under the heavy loads, then I’d avoid them at all cost.

The last time I degraded a CPU was on a AIO cooler. And running a lot of constant 90-95+ temps in benching.


----------



## bhav

acoustic said:


> There's one hand worth of people running 6Ghz all-core at voltages low enough to be daily usable, and who knows how honest they're being. I don't know how that's evidence that Intel is binning chips. 13900K is tuned pretty aggressively out of the box, like I said.. complaining about getting close to max performance possible OOB is dumb.


Not really, if I simply wanted tuned performance out of the box I would get a non K, if only it wasn't for the locked SA voltage.

Now if I buy a K series, I expect to at least manage some overclocking, and by some I don't mean just +100 all core.

The fact that the 13900KS exists and that the 13900K barely OCs for most users is evidence of binning, but we will find out for sure after the KS releases.


----------



## acoustic

opt33 said:


> yeah, never been a fan of msi auto changing llc/vcore via manually entering pcore value. My vid is 1.345 for 55 multi. cb 23 vrout 1.249
> 
> All stock, only change P core multi from "auto" to "55", results in mode 3 LLC (despite still on auto), and vcore auto set to 1.26-1.27 so cb23 vrout not too far from 1.24.
> 
> And yeah using adaptive sets vid back to 1.345, but also have to manually reset LLC.


Definitely some strange behavior. Override should not be manipulating SVID at all, but it seems MSI (and Gigabyte) are.

I don't even know what mobo brand to buy anymore. MSI continues to make very strange decisions that I don't understand. Override shouldn't be touching VIDs, it should be directly talking to the VRM. If it's controlling through SVID, then what's the difference between Adaptive mode and Override? Doesn't seem like there would be one, then.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

bhav said:


> If you think stockfish is bad, I hope you don't play frostpunk.


Yes, actually I do 




tps3443 said:


> Honestly amperage, and temps, voltage, seem to be major factors with degradation here. I‘ve been pounding my chip pretty hard. 6Ghz R23 runs numerous times. Trying to push 4.8Ghz on the E-Cores. Hitting really heavy amperage and power draw. But, I’ve kept it running really cool. It has not flinched once. Chip still runs nice and easy 230 watts @5.5/5.8 stock settings R23 41K+ I have its best base line that is 100% stable.
> 
> It has seen more abuse since its initial launch, than most chips see in a lifetime. We are pounding them with R23 or worse daily until we get bored lol. So I’m on like day 11 now?
> 
> I haven’t degraded a cpu in a while. I think cooling is just very important in my experience. If you cant cool it down under the heavy loads, then I’d avoid them at all cost.
> 
> The last time I degraded a CPU was on a AIO cooler. And running a lot of constant 90-95+ temps in benching.


I have been quite modest with my tweaking, it's not so much overclocked.
LLC4
DC LLC 1.02
AC LLC 0.13
Vcore 1.19v under load,
1.44v Adaptative additional CPU core voltage for the light load high clock speeds

P-Core
58x2
55x8

E-Core
45x4
44x8
43x16
I did have to unlock limits, but I set a manual 280w limit, it peaks at 276w, I have seen a temp of 91c once, but that's saturating the AIO (H150i 360mm Elite) with a 30 minute Cinebench R23 run, my normal use I barely see 75 - 80c.

I have such a crud chip even with stock Intel clock settings it'll downclock to 5.4Ghz P and 4.2Ghz E while drawing 256w.
@sun-tracker has the same issue, we even tried @RobertoSampaio tweaking guide, can not get our setups to stop trying to draw more than 256w to maintain stock clocks.
This is on a z790 Hero board.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Not really, if I simply wanted tuned performance out of the box I would get a non K, if only it wasn't for the locked SA voltage.
> 
> Now if I buy a K series, I expect to at least manage some overclocking, and by some I don't mean just +100 all core.
> 
> The fact that the 13900KS exists and that the 13900K barely OCs for most users is evidence of binning, but we will find out for sure after the KS releases.


These cpu’s are excellent right out of the box. 41K R23? what more do you want? Yes you can overclock it. You’ll get about +300 on any sample with custom water cooling and a delid. Most people ran their 10900K’s “Actually stable at 5.2Ghz through R23” (Thats +300). This has been the norm for years now. Silicon lottery is still a thing so there are sample that can do 6Ghz through R23, just like the there are 10900K’s that can do 5.4Ghz through R23 stable “Not many” I have benched my 13900KF at 6Ghz R23 however, I have a really ridiculous cooling setup. You can tune a lot out of the 13900K/KF by doing a proper per core overclock and using a modern Asus Z790 motherboard. You can maximize each core to the peak ability.

Not even kidding, I can just set 6Ghz+ and go play games stable and enjoy it.

Everyone loves 13th gen. Bad samples or good samples they are all amazing. And the 13900K or 13900KF are both equal in terms of quality from what I’ve seen. It seems like every 13900K is SP100+ P-Cores which is just amazing if you think about it. I know some rare cases where a few people have reported otherwise. But it happens. It still passed as a 13900K so its still a solid chip!!!


----------



## scotthart175a

satinghostrider said:


> Nice! I'm not running any ai overclock. Just stock CPU with adjusted LLC3 AC 0.27 / DC 1.1.





Mainstream said:


> I just finished my custom loop, your score is about the same as mine with AI overclock , however, your temps look alot better than mine. For me 1 or 2 cores hit TJ and throttle. Else overs around 80-90


 I’ve awesome temps hit 32nd world record in Night Raid 3D Mark I just tried Noctua H2 thermal paste brought temps down 6 degrees overall at best!!! ScottH17


----------



## bhav

schoolofmonkey said:


> Yes, actually I do


Welp frostpunk overheating - Google Search

Seems to be more GPU, but even in my lian li air mini everything was cooking when I run it.


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> It sucks that my chip isn't golden. The DDR4 IMC is pretty strong, though. I'll see how the following chips I receive turn out.
> I'm content with this chip as it is, even if it could be better.
> 
> I also updated my previous post with some test results.
> For now, I'm going to find the minimum VR VOUT required to run 57x all-core on the P-cores.
> 
> Did you find it easier to boost the P-cores higher by reducing the ring clock? Or is there no correlation?
> 
> @Falkentyne What were the VID tests you wanted me to perform? I may as well do them now.


I think the best thing to remember is, while overclocking is fun, and getting a golden chip is cool, that realistically the difference between the top 1% chips and bottom 50% is literally nothing in real world usage. So don't get too discouraged


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> 6.0 single core boost is already known from the launch event for 13th gen, but 5.6 all core boost would be crap so hopefully it will at least be 5.7, which it looks like some people can't even manage on their 13900Ks.
> 
> Also with the result someone had on their 13900KF of 6.0 all core at 1.28v, theres definitely a lot more potential on these chips thats being reserved for the KS.
> 
> Previous gen xx900Ks definitely were not binned as aggressively as 13900K seems to have been.


My 13700KF is binned better than a lot of people's i9's, last gen I could barely get my i7 to do 5ghz. It really seems this time around it's a lot more randomly binned than the i9 simply being better for clocks.


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> Definitely some strange behavior. Override should not be manipulating SVID at all, but it seems MSI (and Gigabyte) are.
> 
> I don't even know what mobo brand to buy anymore. MSI continues to make very strange decisions that I don't understand. Override shouldn't be touching VIDs, it should be directly talking to the VRM. If it's controlling through SVID, then what's the difference between Adaptive mode and Override? Doesn't seem like there would be one, then.


Adaptive mode allows you to set an offset--positive or negative, from the native VID, and I think this is compatible with V/F tuning and the native VID can be tuned on the V/F point graph at different frequency steps.
Override mode just changes the entire native VID itself, I don't know if V/F tuning works if you are setting a fixed CPU SVID, as I think forcing a base VID has a higher priority than V/F tuning.

Actual VRM Vcore Voltage (Fixed Mode in MSI) sets vcore the old fashioned way.
See if MSI has some sort of "Fixed mode" which should be the one that sets direct vcore without messing with the VID.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> These cpu’s are excellent right out of the box. 41K R23? what more do you want? Yes you can overclock it. You’ll get about +300 on any sample with custom water cooling and a delid. Most people ran their 10900K’s “Actually stable at 5.2Ghz through R23” (Thats +300). This has been the norm for years now. Silicon lottery is still a thing so there are sample that can do 6Ghz through R23, just like the there are 10900K’s that can do 5.4Ghz through R23 stable “Not many” I have benched my 13900KF at 6Ghz R23 however, I have a really ridiculous cooling setup. You can tune a lot out of the 13900K/KF by doing a proper per core overclock and using a modern Asus Z790 motherboard. You can maximize each core to the peak ability.
> 
> Not even kidding, I can just set 6Ghz+ and go play games stable and enjoy it.
> 
> Everyone loves 13th gen. Bad samples or good samples they are all amazing. And the 13900K or 13900KF are both equal in terms of quality from what I’ve seen. It seems like every 13900K is SP100+ P-Cores which is just amazing if you think about it. I know some rare cases where a few people have reported otherwise. But it happens. It still passed as a 13900K so its still a solid chip!!!


The current chip I have (when compared to my friend's benches), is likely somewhere like 103/75 P/E SP. Pretty awful.
My first 13900K was even worse than this by a long shot; I imagine it was more like 80/50 or some garbage. Yuck.

I might be forced to get a 13900KS if these next 1-2 chips aren't any better in terms of quality.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> Everyone loves 13th gen.


Except Ichirou, and tbh I'd feel the same with such chips.

Well, no early repayment on my mortgage this year and no blackout curtains yet = go go 13900KS!


----------



## BoredErica

bhav said:


> So I actually can't tell if this is serious because I play chess a lot against stockfish bots on whichever free site it is.
> 
> Seriously stockfish degrades CPUs???
> 
> 
> 
> It was off, I turned it on after 2H22 as I was having so many issues I thought it might do something. Now its off again.


I've probably degraded my CPU long time ago in part due to many, many hours of Stockfish. It's an all core load that some people load like 12hr a day. It's in CPU reviews, and here is a benchmark chart of various CPUs, from 6000+ threads clusters to 1 core cpus...



Ipman Chess


----------



## bhav

BoredErica said:


> I've probably degraded my CPU long time ago in part due to many, many hours of Stockfish. It's an all core load that some people load like 12hr a day. It's in CPU reviews, and here is a benchmark chart of various CPUs, from 6000+ threads clusters to 1 core cpus...
> 
> 
> 
> Ipman Chess


I don't play it that long though, maybe just a few hours every now and then.

I started with mobile apps then onto chess.com and tried to improve by learning from all the stockfish engine stuff.

And TIL I could have been destroying my CPU.


----------



## Thunderclap

What do you guys make of this :

Intel reportedly working on "Raptor Lake Refresh", AMD Ryzen 7000X3D might be limited to 8 cores (for now) - VideoCardz.com












Fair to assume this is for the lower end 13th gen SKUs? I doubt Intel can do much better than the upcoming 13900KS... Unless they go for something like the 8086K and bin some 13900KS chips for potentially an extremely limited halo SKU. Seems unlikely, but still... food for thought.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> The current chip I have (when compared to my friend's benches), is likely somewhere like 103/75 P/E SP. Pretty awful.
> My first 13900K was even worse than this by a long shot; I imagine it was more like 80/50 or some garbage. Yuck.
> 
> I might be forced to get a 13900KS if these next 1-2 chips aren't any better in terms of quality.


 You’ll find something good. Don’t worry about it too much. And if not, just run it stock and optimized with voltage overide for lower power and heat.


----------



## tps3443

Thunderclap said:


> What do you guys make of this :
> 
> Intel reportedly working on "Raptor Lake Refresh", AMD Ryzen 7000X3D might be limited to 8 cores (for now) - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> View attachment 2582717
> 
> 
> 
> Fair to assume this is for the lower end 13th gen SKUs? I doubt Intel can do much better than the upcoming 13900KS... Unless they go for something like the 8086K and bin some 13900KS chips for potentially an extremely limited halo SKU. Seems unlikely, but still... food for thought.


Nice! More processors for LGA1700. Bring em on!! New CPU‘s are fun more Mhz is awesome. I’m hoping 13900KS is priced at $749. But based on what that says it makes me think we wont have a KS. We will have a whole new line up “Raptor Lake Refresh“ from i5 13600K- i9 13900K and all of them are clocked higher to compete with AMD 3D Cache.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> You’ll find something good. Don’t worry about it too much. And if not, just run it stock and optimized with voltage overide for lower power and heat.


Well binning and returning something like 50 CPUs and after destroying the box they came in seems like a lot of worry.

I hereby claim discovery of this new dreaded illness called 'upgrade-itis'. Now if it ever becomes a real thing like gaming addiction did I ask for the money.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> Nice! More processors for LGA1700. Bring em on!! New CPU‘s are fun more Mhz is awesome. I’m hoping 13900KS is priced at $749. But based on what that says it makes me think we wont have a KS. We will have a whole new line up “Raptor Lake Refresh“ from i5 13600K- i9 13900K and all of them are clocked higher to compete with AMD 3D Cache.


I mean its already been announced


----------



## imrevoau

Just give me a monolithic 10P CPU.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

schoolofmonkey said:


> Yes, actually I do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been quite modest with my tweaking, it's not so much overclocked.
> LLC4
> DC LLC 1.02
> AC LLC 0.13
> Vcore 1.19v under load,
> 1.44v Adaptative additional CPU core voltage for the light load high clock speeds
> 
> P-Core
> 58x2
> 55x8
> 
> E-Core
> 45x4
> 44x8
> 43x16
> I did have to unlock limits, but I set a manual 280w limit, it peaks at 276w, I have seen a temp of 91c once, but that's saturating the AIO (H150i 360mm Elite) with a 30 minute Cinebench R23 run, my normal use I barely see 75 - 80c.
> 
> I have such a crud chip even with stock Intel clock settings it'll downclock to 5.4Ghz P and 4.2Ghz E while drawing 256w.
> @sun-tracker has the same issue, we even tried @RobertoSampaio tweaking guide, can not get our setups to stop trying to draw more than 256w to maintain stock clocks.
> This is on a z790 Hero board.


@schoolofmonkey

I was wondering, and maybe I have a solution to the E cores/power "issue".

My idea is to tune the AC_LL for p55x e43x at full load and take note of the die sense vcore.

After that, if you set the E cores to (45x4 - 44x88 - 43x16) you will have the whole CPU running at a higher power... Right?

So, at this point, remember your vcore you were stable at full load p55x e43x?
Let's say it was 1.145v...

So now, with the new e cores settings (45x4 - 44x88 - 43x16) let's adjust the AC_LL again (slowing it down) forcing the vcore back to the stable value (in our example, 1.145v).

By doing this, you will be compensating for the bad ecore curve of the final VID with AC_LL...

Try this and tell me if it work.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Well binning and returning something like 50 CPUs and after destroying the box they came in seems like a lot of worry.
> 
> I hereby claim discovery of this new dreaded illness called 'upgrade-itis'. Now if it ever becomes a real thing like gaming addiction did I ask for the money.


Most people don’t do that, they just sell them on ebay as open box or they purchase several tray 13900K’s at once. Plus, @Ichirou bought like maybe (3) 13900K’s because he is in Canada and, I don’t think he thought he’d get one near launch at all. So he ordered from different places originally and they have just taken forever to actually pull through.


----------



## BoredErica

bhav said:


> I don't play it that long though, maybe just a few hours every now and then.
> 
> I started with mobile apps then onto chess.com and tried to improve by learning from all the stockfish engine stuff.
> 
> And TIL I could have been destroying my CPU.


Imo, chess is just like a regular all core workload. It's nothing like running Prime. Also, you can decrease the number of threads the engine uses which decreases current/power draw a lot. After all, Stockfish on just 1 thread will already be stronger than Magnus Carlsen at chess. Doubling of speed might give you 50 elo, ok cool, the engine is probably 1000+ elo above you, so what's another 50 doing to do for you? OFC some people do it for fun and want to play against other chess engines too.

===
Sorry if this is repetitive lol.
z690 MSI A Pro's LLC resistances (MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4/WIFI Owners Thread)
Mode 8 = 0.96 mOhm
Mode 7 = 0.69 mOhm
Mode 6 = 0.56 mOhm
Mode 5 = 0.40 mOhm
Mode 4 = 0.28 mOhm
Mode 3 = 0.12 mOhm
Mode 2 = not tested
Mode 1 = 0.01 mOhm

So, if I use LLC4, I set DC_LL to 28 and AC_LL to 28? I'm assuming the units are mOhms in bios.


----------



## scotthart175a

Thunderclap said:


> What do you guys make of this :
> 
> Intel reportedly working on "Raptor Lake Refresh", AMD Ryzen 7000X3D might be limited to 8 cores (for now) - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> View attachment 2582717
> 
> 
> 
> Fair to assume this is for the lower end 13th gen SKUs? I doubt Intel can do much better than the upcoming 13900KS... Unless they go for something like the 8086K and bin some 13900KS chips for potentially an extremely limited halo SKU. Seems unlikely, but still... food for thought.


 iNtel states no AVX 512 support possible 13900k already best performance without it how does this work when competing against AVX 512 skus… Meaning is it just raw performance against intelligently thought out performance actual brawn to brains?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

RobertoSampaio said:


> @schoolofmonkey
> 
> I was wondering, and maybe I have a solution to the E cores/power "issue".
> 
> My idea is to tune the AC_LL for p55x e43x at full load and take note of the die sense vcore.
> 
> After that, if you set the E cores to (45x4 - 44x88 - 43x16) you will have the whole CPU running at a higher power... Right?
> 
> So, at this point, remember your vcore you were stable at full load p55x e43x?
> Let's say it was 1.145v...
> 
> So now, with the new e cores settings (45x4 - 44x88 - 43x16) let's adjust the AC_LL again (slowing it down) forcing the vcore back to the stable value (in our example, 1.145v).
> 
> By doing this, you will be compensating for the bad ecore curve of the final VID with AC_LL...
> 
> Try this and tell me if it work.


It worked, but the system still wants to draw 263w, better than the 276w prior, still over the Intel defaults to keep enforce all limits turn on.
Lowest I could go was AC 0.08, vcore under load was 1.171v, didn't like it any lower.


----------



## RichKnecht

Falkentyne said:


> Adaptive mode allows you to set an offset--positive or negative, from the native VID, and I think this is compatible with V/F tuning and the native VID can be tuned on the V/F point graph at different frequency steps.
> Override mode just changes the entire native VID itself, I don't know if V/F tuning works if you are setting a fixed CPU SVID, as I think forcing a base VID has a higher priority than V/F tuning.
> 
> Actual VRM Vcore Voltage (Fixed Mode in MSI) sets vcore the old fashioned way.
> See if MSI has some sort of "Fixed mode" which should be the one that sets direct vcore without messing with the VID.


I finally decided to leave the chip at stock and undervolt it to get lower temps and power draw. At stock speeds, VID is 1.37 and I know it runs just fine at 1.19 at stock settings. So, using adaptive mode, I set the V core to 1.37 and applied a -.17 offset which gives me roughly 1.2-1.22 VID under load and shaves about 10C off my highest temps. Scores a whopping 675 points less in R23 which I am never going to notice in real world use. I also enabled C States and balanced mode in Windows so when it's idle the voltage and clocks will drop accordingly. I hope I am doing this right as with my old X299 system, the VIDs were programmed so high that you couldn't use adaptive and had to settle for a static voltage setting.


----------



## RichKnecht

BoredErica said:


> Imo, chess is just like a regular all core workload. It's nothing like running Prime. Also, you can decrease the number of threads the engine uses which decreases current/power draw a lot. After all, Stockfish on just 1 thread will already be stronger than Magnus Carlsen at chess. Doubling of speed might give you 50 elo, ok cool, the engine is probably 1000+ elo above you, so what's another 50 doing to do for you? OFC some people do it for fun and want to play against other chess engines too.
> 
> ===
> Sorry if this is repetitive lol.
> z690 MSI A Pro's LLC resistances (MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4/WIFI Owners Thread)
> Mode 8 = 0.96 mOhm
> Mode 7 = 0.69 mOhm
> Mode 6 = 0.56 mOhm
> Mode 5 = 0.40 mOhm
> Mode 4 = 0.28 mOhm
> Mode 3 = 0.12 mOhm
> Mode 2 = not tested
> Mode 1 = 0.01 mOhm
> 
> So, if I use LLC4, I set DC_LL to 28 and AC_LL to 28? I'm assuming the units are mOhms in bios.


Do you need to adjust the DC LL and AC LL when using LLC? What exactly will this do? Right now I am using LLC5 and both my AC and DC LL are much higher than if I used your scale( if correct)I presume that these values are the same for Z790 MSI boards.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Most people don’t do that, they just sell them on ebay as open box or they purchase several tray 13900K’s at once. Plus, @Ichirou bought like maybe (3) 13900K’s because he is in Canada and, I don’t think he thought he’d get one near launch at all. So he ordered from different places originally and they have just taken forever to actually pull through.


^ This basically.
I preordered a bunch of chips from different vendors since I wasn't sure which ones would actually arrive. To date, I only received 2 out of the 4 chips I preordered.
So I'm just binning the ones I receive and will likely sit on the best one until the 13900KS comes out.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

schoolofmonkey said:


> It worked, but the system still wants to draw 263w, better than the 276w prior, still over the Intel defaults to keep enforce all limits turn on.
> Lowest I could go was AC 0.08, vcore under load was 1.171v, didn't like it any lower.


If you have patience, try to adjust all over using LLC#3, DC_LL= 1.12 , AC_LL= 0.3 (and start tuning down it again)


----------



## raad11

Anyone try new Beta BIOS for Asus Z690 boards?


----------



## tps3443

It's really crazy how power intensive Prime 95 Small FFT’s NON-AVX is. I imagine most people can't even run this test with their 13900K/KF stock. This test pulls substantially more power than R23.

Anyways, this is my 13900KF at default settings with 1.190V auto LLC. *PS: My CPU with these exact setting pulls sub 230 watts MAX in R23. 

My 13900KF is at 5.5Ghz all core and 5.8Ghz boost. This is not fixed at 5.5 all core, if I fixed 5.5 all core, I can use 1.135V in bios instead of 1.190V

P95 Small FFT 30 Minutes Average VR/Out= 1.127

Anyways, she is stable as a rock! Ultra low power 13900KF.








*


----------



## raad11

Do you guys overclock with TVB Optimizations enabled?


----------



## tps3443

raad11 said:


> Do you guys overclock with TVB Optimizations enabled?


You can if you want it. Mine is off right now. But I go back and forward with it.


----------



## raad11

tps3443 said:


> You can if you want it. Mine is off right now. But I go back and forward with it.


I was going to, but then I thought, what if my temps fluctuate? Like, what if the system is colder than normal, wouldn't it just drop voltage beyond where it should and potentially crash?

Edit: On a related note, my buddy has one of the worst 12900K bins ever. His system will crash on all stock settings if you turn on TVB Optimizations. It needs like 1.2+ VID for full load stock turbo ratios.


----------



## Baka_boy

raad11 said:


> Do you guys overclock with TVB Optimizations enabled?


I enabled it but IIRC I had to adjust my voltages a bit so that it maintains 1.154V at full load, otherwise, a single y-cruncher pass would just cause it to crash.


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> It's really crazy how power intensive Prime 95 Small FFT’s NON-AVX is. I imagine most people can't even run this test with their 13900K/KF stock. This test pulls substantially more power than R23.
> 
> Anyways, this is my 13900KF at default settings with 1.190V auto LLC. *PS: My CPU with these exact setting pulls sub 230 watts MAX in R23.
> 
> My 13900KF is at 5.5Ghz all core and 5.8Ghz boost. This is not fixed at 5.5 all core, if I fixed 5.5 all core, I can use 1.135V in bios instead of 1.190V
> 
> P95 Small FFT 30 Minutes Average VR/Out= 1.127
> 
> Anyways, she is stable as a rock! Ultra low power 13900KF.
> 
> View attachment 2582737
> *


Prime95 small FFT SSE is nothing special.
Pulls about the same as Stockfish AVX2/BMI2 builds, but Stockfish requires a bit more vcore to pass than Prime95 SSE.
Y-cruncher SFT test puts Prime95 small FFT SSE2 to shame, although Stockfish still seems to require a bit more volts, oddly enough.


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> Prime95 small FFT SSE is nothing special.
> Pulls about the same as Stockfish AVX2/BMI2 builds, but Stockfish requires a bit more vcore to pass than Prime95 SSE.
> Y-cruncher SFT test puts Prime95 small FFT SSE2 to shame, although Stockfish still seems to require a bit more volts, oddly enough.


Ok so someone else mentioned stockfish pulls less than those tests, you say it pulls more.

Everyone head to chess.com and kill your CPUs!


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

tps3443 said:


> It's really crazy how power intensive Prime 95 Small FFT’s NON-AVX is. I imagine most people can't even run this test with their 13900K/KF stock. This test pulls substantially more power than R23.
> 
> Anyways, this is my 13900KF at default settings with 1.190V auto LLC. *PS: My CPU with these exact setting pulls sub 230 watts MAX in R23.
> 
> My 13900KF is at 5.5Ghz all core and 5.8Ghz boost. This is not fixed at 5.5 all core, if I fixed 5.5 all core, I can use 1.135V in bios instead of 1.190V
> 
> P95 Small FFT 30 Minutes Average VR/Out= 1.127
> 
> Anyways, she is stable as a rock! Ultra low power 13900KF.
> 
> View attachment 2582737
> *


Nice setup. Mora420 + LM + Direct Die ? on cpu ?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

RobertoSampaio said:


> If you have patience, try to adjust all over using LLC#3, DC_LL= 1.12 , AC_LL= 0.3 (and start tuning down it again)


I have patience:
LLC3
DC_LL=1.12
AC_LL=0.17

Cinebench crashed at AC_LL 0.15

What's the benefit of running LLC3 over LLC4?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

schoolofmonkey said:


> I have patience:
> LLC3
> DC_LL=1.12
> AC_LL=0.17
> 
> Cinebench crashed at AC_LL 0.15
> 
> What's the benefit of running LLC3 over LLC4?


Each system responds differently... I think the main difference is luck... LOLOLO


----------



## schoolofmonkey

RobertoSampaio said:


> Each system responds differently... I think the main difference is luck... LOLOLO


I have bad luck my my CPU's, but it seems it's a common thing in Australia 

With LLC3 I'm getting a vcore of 1.181v, LLC4 is 1.174v, same temps, same power hungry 274w power draw....


----------



## RobertoSampaio

schoolofmonkey said:


> I have bad luck my my CPU's, but it seems it's a common thing in Australia
> 
> With LLC3 I'm getting a vcore of 1.181v, LLC4 is 1.174v, same temps, same power hungry 274w power draw....


Always take a look at the VRM power, CPU power and CPU package power...
Try to familiarize with the difference from one to other... 10w difference from IA power to package power is common.
Observe VID, vcore, and power every time you change something in loadlines. And vf curves.


----------



## imrevoau

schoolofmonkey said:


> I have bad luck my my CPU's, but it seems it's a common thing in Australia
> 
> With LLC3 I'm getting a vcore of 1.181v, LLC4 is 1.174v, same temps, same power hungry 274w power draw....


You can say that again. This is the first time I've actually gotten a good bin. My 12700KF barely could do 5ghz, and my 8700K before that needed 1.34 load voltage for 5ghz


----------



## schoolofmonkey

imrevoau said:


> You can say that again. This is the first time I've actually gotten a good bin. My 12700KF barely could do 5ghz, and my 8700K before that needed 1.34 load voltage for 5ghz


Tell me about it, though my 10900k was happy with a 5.2Ghz all core overclock, barely broke 80c, probably the best one I've had over the years, most I completely lucked out on.

At this point I'll be happy just to get it running stock with ok temps, because my chip wants to suck the power even at stock, it downclocks with the Intel power limits, seeing all these guys getting 230w power draw where I need 270w for the same settings.


----------



## bhav

Only golden bin I've ever had is my 10900K which needs to be sold after I have the 13900KS. Its probably got the best DDR4 IMC out there, 4600 1:1 at 1.28v SA, 4200 at 1.15v SA and I simply never tried to go above 1.3v SA on it.

No chip since can do that.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

RobertoSampaio said:


> Always take a look at the VRM power, CPU power and CPU package power...
> Try to familiarize with the difference from one to other... 10w difference from IA power to package power is common.
> Observe VID, vcore, and power every time you change something in loadlines. And vf curves.


Under Cinebench load:
LLC3:









LLC4


----------



## bhav

LLC is flipped on some boards, 1 is high on some, 5 is high on others.

On my 12600K I found the two highest settings produced higher temps than the third setting at stable voltages for each. I never tried the 4th setting, so not sure if any less is better, but the top two settings aren't advisable for temps.

On my asrock board as well, any adjustment to the core voltage and LLC auto flips to maximum, and instant 100c TJmax.


----------



## fray_bentos

Falkentyne said:


> Adaptive mode allows you to set an offset--positive or negative, from the native VID, and I think this is compatible with V/F tuning and the native VID can be tuned on the V/F point graph at different frequency steps.
> Override mode just changes the entire native VID itself, I don't know if V/F tuning works if you are setting a fixed CPU SVID, as I think forcing a base VID has a higher priority than V/F tuning.
> 
> Actual VRM Vcore Voltage (Fixed Mode in MSI) sets vcore the old fashioned way.
> See if MSI has some sort of "Fixed mode" which should be the one that sets direct vcore without messing with the VID.


On MSI, I _think_ that leaving clocks and voltage on Auto/Adaptive, and setting LiteLoad to 1 under Advanced CPU settings reveals the stock V/F curve (change the clocks in windows using MSI dragon power). Unsure about LLC setting, might also need to be left on Auto too. Worth a shot for anyone exploring this.


----------



## RichKnecht

)


RobertoSampaio said:


> If you have patience, try to adjust all over using LLC#3, DC_LL= 1.12 , AC_LL= 0.3 (and start tuning down it again)


I wish these values carried over to MSI Boards.


----------



## HemuV2

Wilco183 said:


> Close, but no...
> On second thought yours is bad enough, so "Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar.
> You're gonna go far, you're gonna fly high..."
> 
> View attachment 2582610


Just get it RMAed I can't but I'm sure you can


----------



## HemuV2

bhav said:


> 6.0 single core boost is already known from the launch event for 13th gen, but 5.6 all core boost would be crap so hopefully it will at least be 5.7, which it looks like some people can't even manage on their 13900Ks.
> 
> Also with the result someone had on their 13900KF of 6.0 all core at 1.28v, theres definitely a lot more potential on these chips thats being reserved for the KS.
> 
> Previous gen xx900Ks definitely were not binned as aggressively as 13900K seems to have been.


I can 5.7 just that I don't have the cooling to support it on full load, if the KS did the same thing with the onky difference being 5.7 set out of the box it would make 0 sense to get one, i really hope intel saved some golden bins for KS I'm talking P core sp 120+


----------



## HemuV2

bhav said:


> I pity everyone buying a 13900K that might be thinking 'Wow, this gonna overclock good'.
> 
> This makes me almost as mad at Intel as when they locked SA voltage on non K chips.


They should've done stock 5.3/4.1/43X and it would've seemed like a good OC worthy chip


----------



## bhav

HemuV2 said:


> They should've done stock 5.3/4.1/43X and it would've seemed like a good OC worthy chip


Actually no because knowing what they've done here, they would bin everything even lower for more KS chips and then have headroom for another better than KS chip.

Easy enough, I wait for that '6.0 Ghz out of the box' chip and sell a kidney.


----------



## fray_bentos

HemuV2 said:


> They should've done stock 5.3/4.1/43X and it would've seemed like a good OC worthy chip


This is why the 13600K/F seems so nice for many. Stock is 5.1 GHz on all p cores, 
but it can be easily set much higher. Mines running 57,57,56,56,55,54 (1 to 6 core load) so far with voltages not exceeding 1.20 V. Might even go higher than that on partial core load at the same voltage, but 5.4 is definitely the max all p core freq at 1.20 V for my chip. If I chuck 1.29 V at then it's 5.7 GHz all core (I didn't think the volts were worth it). Sticking with close to the Intel V/F on MSI LiteLoad 2 for now with a max of 1.20 V instead.


----------



## bhav

fray_bentos said:


> This is why the 13600K/F seems so nice for many. Stock is 5.1 GHz but it can be easily set much higher. Mines running 57,57,56,56,55,54 (1 to 6 core load) so far with voltages not exceeding 1.20 V. Might even go higher than that on partial core load at the same voltage, but 5.4 is the max all p core freq at 1.20 V. If I chuck 1.29 V at it under load then it's 5.7 GHz all core easily. Sticking with close to the Intel V/F on MSI LiteLoad 2 for now though.


From what I can tell you got a top chip there though. If I go and get a 13600K I'll get one that will somehow have worse IMC than my 12600K and only 200 Mhz overclock with 1.4v needed.

Only way I can get something close to what my 10900K did is to try for the KS.


----------



## opt33

Falkentyne said:


> Adaptive mode allows you to set an offset--positive or negative, from the native VID, and I think this is compatible with V/F tuning and the native VID can be tuned on the V/F point graph at different frequency steps.
> Override mode just changes the entire native VID itself, I don't know if V/F tuning works if you are setting a fixed CPU SVID, as I think forcing a base VID has a higher priority than V/F tuning.
> 
> Actual VRM Vcore Voltage (Fixed Mode in MSI) sets vcore the old fashioned way.
> See if MSI has some sort of "Fixed mode" which should be the one that sets direct vcore without messing with the VID.


msi unifyx cpu vcore listed modes are:
auto
adaptive
override
offset
adaptive+ offset
advanced offset (vf point)

To use manually entered vcore, leave on auto and type vcore in voltage box below it.


----------



## fray_bentos

bhav said:


> From what I can tell you got a top chip there though. If I go and get a 13600K I'll get one that will somehow have worse IMC than my 12600K and only 200 Mhz overclock with 1.4v needed.
> 
> Only way I can get something close to what my 10900K did is to try for the KS.


There aren't many 13600K/F OC reports to go off so far, hence why I created the dedicated 13600K thread that you have been responding to. I know Techpowerup also got 5.6 GHz all p-core in their review. I should add that I have HT disabled. Might buy more OC headroom on p cores.


----------



## bhav

fray_bentos said:


> There aren't many 13600K/F OC reports to go off so far, hence why I created the dedicated 13600K thread that you have been responding to. I know Techpowerup also got 5.6 GHz all p-core in their review. I should add that I have HT disabled. Might buy more OC headroom on p cores.


Well it does, but also you can't compare HT off OC on a 13600K to HT on with a 13700k / 13900k.

If you had HT on, you most likely will not be hitting 13700K stock speed and voltage.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> From what I can tell you got a top chip there though. If I go and get a 13600K I'll get one that will somehow have worse IMC than my 12600K and only 200 Mhz overclock with 1.4v needed.
> 
> Only way I can get something close to what my 10900K did is to try for the KS.


Honestly, the 13900KS is not going to offer anything substantial over the 13900K/KF. I mean, I’ll be immediately pre-ordering a 13900KS just like I did my 13900KF. But the truth is its not gonna give you anything magical that we do not already have right now. So in the end, we already have its performance. You’re looking at about 3% faster if overclocked by and additional +300Mhz which is pretty unlikely. These CPU’s are pretty much at their limits as it is. The people obtaining 6Ghz+ already have 13900KS like silicon and excellent cooling, delids etc. 

People are getting +100 to +300 realistically with overclocking though. People have different cooling etc, so many will reach 5.9 limit on even a 13900KS due to bad silicon or limited cooling. People claim to reach 5.6 limit on a 13900K so yes its definitely gonna happen.


----------



## Zero989

tps3443 said:


> It's really crazy how power intensive Prime 95 Small FFT’s NON-AVX is. I imagine most people can't even run this test with their 13900K/KF stock. This test pulls substantially more power than R23.
> 
> Anyways, this is my 13900KF at default settings with 1.190V auto LLC. *PS: My CPU with these exact setting pulls sub 230 watts MAX in R23.
> 
> My 13900KF is at 5.5Ghz all core and 5.8Ghz boost. This is not fixed at 5.5 all core, if I fixed 5.5 all core, I can use 1.135V in bios instead of 1.190V
> 
> P95 Small FFT 30 Minutes Average VR/Out= 1.127
> 
> Anyways, she is stable as a rock! Ultra low power 13900KF.
> 
> View attachment 2582737
> *


Now try aida shinjulia 


Jk dont


----------



## tps3443

Zero989 said:


> Now try aida shinjulia
> 
> 
> Jk dont


Dude I have a 1/2HP waterchiller tied in to my loop. I can run whatever I want and sustain that water temp. 😎


----------



## Zero989

tps3443 said:


> Dude I have a waterchiller tied in to my loop. I can run whatever I want.


🤔 I still wouldn't do it, but for science what do you get running it temps/power consumption wise


----------



## dante`afk

Thanh Nguyen said:


> quick test SuperCool direct die 13th gen on dark z690. 1.24v 75% droop, 58/46/50, 25c water 208 L/m ( from thermaltake tf2), ram xmp 7600 c36
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2582656


how did you get supercool to respond.

messaged on facebook, phone, personal account, email. no response at all.

he seems dead


----------



## mattxx88

dante`afk said:


> how did you get supercool to respond.
> 
> messaged on facebook, phone, personal account, email. no response at all.
> 
> he seems dead


try to change the contact email/phone/account maybe 👀


----------



## RichKnecht

There are plenty of people sharing what they have DC and AC LL set to with ASUS boards. What about the MSI folks? With all the clocks at default, I have mine set to 5 and 20 with LLC set to 5. I have v core set to 1.22 with a -.02 offset. Under all core load, v core shows 1.186 and VID shows 1.164. Power draw is ~248W. Temps never go above 80C. I think I am getting somewhere, but on the other hand, I have no idea. I miss the simplicity of over clocking x299.


----------



## Wolverine2349

I finalized my overclock I believe, though wish temps were better under Cinebench which is a more realistic workload.

MSI Z690 Unify X

Core i9 13900K e-cores disabled at 5.6GHz all 8 P cores with HT on with clock speed statically set

LLC Level 6

VCORE static set to 1.34

Noctua NH-D15S CPU cooler

Passed standard Y Cruncher tests twice (Opened window to allow my housed to cool down with 37F Michigan weather) so the tougher tests kept temp at 95C peak and Prime95 Large and Small FFTs with AVX off. and temps peaked in mid 90s in ambient heated room. I would have had to do the same if I even thought of leaving AVX on for Prime95 any test.

OCCT Large Data Set variable passed easily with temps averaging high 60s to low 70s and a rare spike to 83C once in a while

AIDA64 System stability test passed no issues

Now Cinebench R23 passes, but temp hovers around 90C. Disappointed in that as I thought these CPUs were better binned and e-cores are off and only running 5.6GHz all core. I thought those 90C + temps were only for the extreme tough tests like Prime95 and Y Cruncher and such.

I would have thought Cinebench R23 CPU temp would be low 80s. Are these CPUs just that hot running no way around it especially on air even if top tier air and even with e-cores shut off as the e-cores themselves do use lots of power as 4 e-cores takes same space as 1 P core and there are 16 so I would think 16 e cores for space of 4 P cores would save same power as 4 5GHz clocked P cores which should be a good amount and allow better temps and clocks with the P cores.


----------



## Arni90

RichKnecht said:


> There are plenty of people sharing what they have DC and AC LL set to with ASUS boards. What about the MSI folks? With all the clocks at default, I have mine set to 5 and 20 with LLC set to 5. I have v core set to 1.22 with a -.02 offset. Under all core load, v core shows 1.863 and VID shows 1.164. Power draw is ~248W. Temps never go above 80C. I think I am getting somewhere, but on the other hand, I have no idea. I miss the simplicity of over clocking x299.


Using Socket sense VCore on my Unify-X, as VCC Sense is broken:
DC 80 for LLC6
AC 20
1.500 set VCore
60x P-core
45x E-core
HT disabled

Degradation might occur, but so what? It's not like I use this chip for work

EDIT: TVB configured at 55C and 75C


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 
Are you going to experiment further with direct die?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

fray_bentos said:


> On MSI, I _think_ that leaving clocks and voltage on Auto/Adaptive, and setting LiteLoad to 1 under Advanced CPU settings reveals the stock V/F curve (change the clocks in windows using MSI dragon power). Unsure about LLC setting, might also need to be left on Auto too. Worth a shot for anyone exploring this.


I am definitely going to try and explore this in the next few days when my power supply comes but will probably need help. ☺


----------



## fray_bentos

RichKnecht said:


> Under all core load, v core shows 1.863 and VID shows 1.164.


I hope you mean ~1.18 V not 1.86 V...


----------



## RichKnecht

Arni90 said:


> Using Socket sense VCore on my Unify-X, as VCC Sense is broken:
> DC 80 for LLC6
> AC 20
> 1.500 set VCore
> 60x P-core
> 45x E-core
> HT disabled
> 
> Degradation might occur, but so what? It's not like I use this chip for work
> 
> EDIT: TVB configured at 55C and 75C


That's pretty agresive. Unfortunately, I do use this chip for work so I don't want it to meltdown. I'm just trying to cut down on power and heat and have a daily driver that performs well.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

dante`afk said:


> how did you get supercool to respond.
> 
> messaged on facebook, phone, personal account, email. no response at all.
> 
> he seems dead


U messaged supercool on fb or the owner? I messaged the owner. Every year when he got a new product, he will send it to clock them up to review, so message him a few weeks before so he can send u the same day he shipped it to clock them up.


----------



## RichKnecht

fray_bentos said:


> I hope you mean ~1.18 V not 1.86 V...


LOL..yeah I fixed it.


----------



## fray_bentos

I finally found how to find Loadline values in HWiNFO64 (don't tick "only sensors" OR "only summary." leave both unchecked...). I am currently on MSI LiteLoad 2, LLC is set as Auto. This reads out as:
IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC) = 0.100 / 0.800 mOhm.
GT Domain Loadline (AC/DC) = 3.400 / 3.400 mOhm.

DC_LL seems droopy at 0.800 mOhm, close to MSI LLC7 or 8, relative to Intel DC_LL which is defined as 1.1 mOhm. Right? Based on @opt33's post below, I guess that setting LiteLoad as "1" will give the 1.1 mOhm...


----------



## opt33

fray_bentos said:


> On MSI, I _think_ that leaving clocks and voltage on Auto/Adaptive, and setting LiteLoad to 1 under Advanced CPU settings reveals the stock V/F curve (change the clocks in windows using MSI dragon power). Unsure about LLC setting, might also need to be left on Auto too. Worth a shot for anyone exploring this.


Like Falkentyne said earlier you also have to set TVB voltage optimization to disabled, otherwise will be low and variable vid.

To read 55 multi vid on auto. 1) clocks/voltage on auto. 2) set cpu AC/DC loadline to 1 under liteload, advanced cpu settings, like you said, 3) set TVB voltage optimizations to "disabled". 

To read 55-58 multi manually entered, use same settings plus set pc core manually to 55-58, which then requires changing cpu core voltage mode to "adaptive".

Alternatively, once you manually set pcore ratio, another box pops up called, cpu ratio mode, and it is set on dynamic. If you change that to fixed (which I believe is what Falkentyne was alluding to), that sets AC/DC loadline to 1 (so obviates the need for setting those), but still have to change cpu core voltage mode to "adaptive" or again will read very low vid with mode 3 llc enabled.


----------



## digitalfrost

fray_bentos said:


> I finally found how to find Loadline values in HWiNFO64 (don't tick "only sensors" OR "only summary." leave both unchecked...). I am currently on MSI LiteLoad 2, LLC is set as Auto. This reads out as:
> IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC) = 0.100 / 0.800 mOhm.
> GT Domain Loadline (AC/DC) = 3.400 / 3.400 mOhm.
> 
> DC_LL seems droopy at 0.800 mOhm, close to MSI LLC7 or 8, relative to Intel DC_LL which is defined as 1.1 mOhm. Right? Based on @opt33's post below, I guess that setting LiteLoad as "1" will give the 1.1 mOhm...


In my experience, MSI will always set DC_LL to 80, but it's not correct. For nothing. Using VCC Sense, LLC8 is ~ DC_LL 100 and LLC7 is DC_LL 69. You cannot trust that value.


----------



## fray_bentos

digitalfrost said:


> In my experience, MSI will always set DC_LL to 80, but it's not correct. For nothing. Using VCC Sense, LLC8 is ~ DC_LL 100 and LLC7 is DC_LL 69. You cannot trust that value.


OK, I think I am going to bow out of LL stuff. All I know for sure empirically, is that LiteLoad 1 or 2 is giving me nice low voltages and temps, with decent clocks. If I venture away from Auto/LiteLoad, I will use droopy LLC6 or LLC7 as previously.


----------



## nievz

Is there a way to set an ecore offset in the MSI BIOS like what XTU allows us to do?


----------



## RichKnecht

fray_bentos said:


> I finally found how to find Loadline values in HWiNFO64 (don't tick "only sensors" OR "only summary." leave both unchecked...). I am currently on MSI LiteLoad 2, LLC is set as Auto. This reads out as:
> IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC) = 0.100 / 0.800 mOhm.
> GT Domain Loadline (AC/DC) = 3.400 / 3.400 mOhm.
> 
> DC_LL seems droopy at 0.800 mOhm, close to MSI LLC7 or 8, relative to Intel DC_LL which is defined as 1.1 mOhm. Right? Based on @opt33's post below, I guess that setting LiteLoad as "1" will give the 1.1 mOhm...


Where did you find this? I looked everywhere in HWInfo and can't find those options


----------



## Emmanuel

Question to those who have been following this thread closely:
I have no interest in E-Cores, but I'd like to get whichever CPU has the best odds of being better binned for all P-Core overclocking (with E cores disabled). I would get the 13900KS if that was an option, but because it's not released yet, I'm debating between the 13900 and 13700 K/KF. Money is not a factor.

Thanks


----------



## fray_bentos

RichKnecht said:


> Where did you find this? I looked everywhere in HWInfo and can't find those options


Trust me, I know how infuriating this was to find. Open HWiNFO64, don't tick "only sensors" OR "only summary", leave both unchecked. In the new window that appears, click on the right menu click on Central processor, then your CPU, scroll down 1 page.


----------



## fray_bentos

Emmanuel said:


> Question to those who have been following this thread closely:
> I have no interest in E-Cores, but I'd like to get whichever CPU has the best odds of being better binned for all P-Core overclocking (with E cores disabled). I would get the 13900KS if that was an option, but because it's not released yet, I'm debating between the 13900 and 13700 K/KF. Money is not a factor.
> 
> Thanks


Perhaps just the way you typed it out, but do NOT buy a non-K processor. OC is disabled, and BCLK only adjustable by upto 3%. System agent voltage is also locked on non-K meaning that you will struggle to OC RAM, or even use XMP settings potentially.

If buying any K processor = lottery. Potentially 13900KF will be better as the bin won't be skimmed for KS variants that have working iGPUs. Whether the i9 is better, or practically useful compared to the i7 or even i5 is debatable, especially given the price differences.



nievz said:


> Is there a way to set an ecore offset in the MSI BIOS like what XTU allows us to do?
> 
> View attachment 2582891


Yes, you can use ratio offset in the MSI bios on e-cores. I am using it right now with a +4 offset.


----------



## Falkentyne

Emmanuel said:


> Question to those who have been following this thread closely:
> I have no interest in E-Cores, but I'd like to get whichever CPU has the best odds of being better binned for all P-Core overclocking (with E cores disabled). I would get the 13900KS if that was an option, but because it's not released yet, I'm debating between the 13900 and 13700 K/KF. Money is not a factor.
> 
> Thanks


you don't want to disable all of the E-cores. If you want to run a no e-core config, you must keep at least one e-core enabled or ST performance becomes erratic (unlike 12900K).


----------



## Wolverine2349

fray_bentos said:


> Perhaps just the way you typed it out, but do NOT buy a non-K processor. OC is disabled, and BCLK only adjustable by upto 3%. System agent voltage is also locked on non-K meaning that you will struggle to OC RAM, or even use XMP settings potentially.
> 
> If buying any K processor = lottery. Potentially 13900KF will be better as the bin won't be skimmed for KS variants that have working iGPUs. Whether the i9 is better, or practically useful compared to the i7 or even i5 is debatable, especially given the price differences.



They of course meant 13900K not 13900.

I would think 13900K would be better binned than 13700K? Isn't the 13700K just a lesser binned 13900K with 8 e cores disabled as well as 6MB L3 cache disabled.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Falkentyne said:


> you don't want to disable all of the E-cores. If you want to run a no e-core config, you must keep at least one e-core enabled or ST performance becomes erratic (unlike 12900K).



That's not at all true. Its no different than a powerhouse 8 core 16 thread CPU with all e-cores off. How would single core performance become erratic with one e-core off If ?? If anything it would be better as the e-core is not in the way to generate more heat and power and drag down the ring a bit (Even if ring is not as badly affected by e-cores as it was on 12th gen, it still is affected somewhat).

Are you talking about maybe in WIN11 because of the Intel Thread Director awareness and and it will cause failure to differentiate between hyper threaded cores and real cores with e-cores off as it sees Thread director and unfortunately there is no way to disable Intel thread director?? WIN10 has no problem as it is not thread director aware and treats it like a normal 8 core 16 thread CPU. There was some article on that applying even to 12th gen, but I cannot find it now.


----------



## Ichirou

nievz said:


> Is there a way to set an ecore offset in the MSI BIOS like what XTU allows us to do?
> 
> View attachment 2582891


A multiplier offset, or a voltage offset?

If it is the latter, there is no point, since ADL/RPL CPUs have the E-cores sharing Vcore with the P-cores.
It would only ramp up the voltage of all cores combined.

You're better off just settling with one voltage setting and maximizing each P/E-core for that particular voltage.


----------



## nievz

fray_bentos said:


> Perhaps just the way you typed it out, but do NOT buy a non-K processor. OC is disabled, and BCLK only adjustable by upto 3%. System agent voltage is also locked on non-K meaning that you will struggle to OC RAM, or even use XMP settings potentially.
> 
> If buying any K processor = lottery. Potentially 13900KF will be better as the bin won't be skimmed for KS variants that have working iGPUs. Whether the i9 is better, or practically useful compared to the i7 or even i5 is debatable, especially given the price differences.
> 
> 
> Yes, you can use ratio offset in the MSI bios on e-cores. I am using it right now with a +4 offset.


Would you mind giving me a photo or it’s exact label? I only see the one for the P core..


----------



## fray_bentos

nievz said:


> Would you mind giving me a photo or it’s exact label? I only see the one for the P core..


Are you in advanced mode, press F7? Then...see here:




Change "e-core ratio apply mode" to offset, then select the offset below that.


----------



## RichKnecht

fray_bentos said:


> Trust me, I know how infuriating this was to find. Open HWiNFO64, don't tick "only sensors" OR "only summary", leave both unchecked. In the new window that appears, click on the right menu click on Central processor, then your CPU, scroll down 1 page.
> View attachment 2582892


so ideally,if I am using LLC5, where do I want the DC and AC LL values to be? Right now they are on auto in mode 1. That translates to"

IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC): 0.010 / 0.010 mOhm
GT Domain Loadline (AC/DC) 3.400 / 3.400 mOhm


----------



## Emmanuel

Thanks for your reply everyone. It sounds like the 13900KF might be the way to go. I have no use for the iGPU and I think it's a good theory that the well binned 13900K might be put aside for the 13900KS.

Do we have any information on the KS release date?


----------



## nievz

Ichirou said:


> A multiplier offset, or a voltage offset?
> 
> If it is the latter, there is no point, since ADL/RPL CPUs have the E-cores sharing Vcore with the P-cores.
> It would only ramp up the voltage of all cores combined.
> 
> You're better off just settling with one voltage setting and maximizing each P/E-core for that particular voltage.


Voltage offset for the ecores. I still would like to use the V/F curve so I can use higher ratio on light workload. What I found is that I can run 5.5ghz all cores when the e core offset is -140mv (vcore 1.17v). If I only set an offset in the vf curve for the P-cores, I'll still end up with high voltage since the e-cores seem to be factory set to run at higher voltage.


----------



## nievz

fray_bentos said:


> Are you in advanced mode, press F7? Then...see here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Change "e-core ratio apply mode" to offset, then select the offset below that.


I see those too, I'm actually looking for the ecore voltage offset setting if it exist in the BIOS. With XTU, it gives me that capability.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Anyone here get 8000+ mem oc stable on dark z690?


----------



## fray_bentos

RichKnecht said:


> so ideally,if I am using LLC5, where do I want the DC and AC LL values to be? Right now they are on auto in mode 1. That translates to"
> 
> IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC): 0.010 / 0.010 mOhm
> GT Domain Loadline (AC/DC) 3.400 / 3.400 mOhm


Honestly, I am no expert on Loadline stuff. A post above also said this readout in HWiNFO might also be unreliable on MSI... When I have used MSI LLC settings in the past Z97, Z490, I have always kept LiteLoad (i.e. LoadLine) settings on Auto. I wonder if MSI automatically selects the correct loadline based on the LLC mode setting. Similarly, I vaguely remember that LiteLoad settings are overridden if any LLC other than Auto is selected anyway on MSI. Perhaps all this talk of tuning Loadline to match the LLC setting is an Asus(or other vendor)-specific issue. I recall reading that auto on Asus now also selects the correct loadline automatically as well? Anyone care to clarify it for us?


----------



## chibi

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Anyone here get 8000+ mem oc stable on dark z690?


Sugi mentioned earlier his friend was having troubles 8k with z690 dark. Small sample so ymmv. 8k+ looks to be Apex territory for z790.


----------



## digitalfrost

fray_bentos said:


> Honestly, I am no expert on Loadline stuff. A post above also said this readout in HWiNFO might also be unreliable on MSI...


I am not questioning what HWiNFO shows. I am saying MSI sets this to 80 on Auto and 80 does not match any of the loadlines the board has. HWiNFO is correct, but the value 80 does not make any sense.


----------



## Falkentyne

Wolverine2349 said:


> That's not at all true. Its no different than a powerhouse 8 core 16 thread CPU with all e-cores off. How would single core performance become erratic with one e-core off If ?? If anything it would be better as the e-core is not in the way to generate more heat and power and drag down the ring a bit (Even if ring is not as badly affected by e-cores as it was on 12th gen, it still is affected somewhat).
> 
> Are you talking about maybe in WIN11 because of the Intel Thread Director awareness and and it will cause failure to differentiate between hyper threaded cores and real cores with e-cores off as it sees Thread director and unfortunately there is no way to disable Intel thread director?? WIN10 has no problem as it is not thread director aware and treats it like a normal 8 core 16 thread CPU. There was some article on that applying even to 12th gen, but I cannot find it now.


Because there are architectural changes in the ring and cache structure of the 13900K, otherwise you wouldn't be able to run the ring at 5.1 ghz or E-cores at 4.6 ghz.
You really should take the time to read this thread before you accuse me of being wrong.
TWO other people tested single core thread FPS/hash rate with the E-cores disabled in both games and synthetic benchmarks, and both of them found strange behavior with ST speeds with all E-cores disabled (ST speeds were less than with E-cores enabled). One test was in Witcher 3.

When just ONE E-core was enabled, ST performance was proper.
No one knows WHY this happens. Only that it HAPPENED. So if something happens, you have to get off the cookbook strats and think independently to work around the problem.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Falkentyne said:


> Because there are architectural changes in the ring and cache structure of the 13900K, otherwise you wouldn't be able to run the ring at 5.1 ghz or E-cores at 4.6 ghz.
> You really should take the time to read this thread before you accuse me of being wrong.
> TWO other people tested single core thread FPS/hash rate with the E-cores disabled in both games and synthetic benchmarks, and both of them found strange behavior with ST speeds with all E-cores disabled (ST speeds were less than with E-cores enabled). One test was in Witcher 3.
> 
> When just ONE E-core was enabled, ST performance was proper.



Is that just with clock speeds on auto and dynamic. What about manual static fixed speed overclock. I got 5.6GHz all core. And CPU-Z single core score i 914. On 5GHz 12700K it was 815. E-cores were disabled on both.

How big of an issue is this cause I do not want to enable any e-cores and want it to function as an 8 core 16 thread CPU under Windows 10.

Do you have a link to that test?? Or is it only a thing if you do dynamic CPU speeds and not a static fixed all P core speed overclock??


----------



## Falkentyne

Wolverine2349 said:


> Is that just with things on auto. What about manual overclock. I got 5.6GHz all core. And CPU-Z single core score i 914. On 5GHz 12700K it was 815. Boih e-cores disabled.
> 
> How big of an issue is this cause I do not want to enable any e-cores and want it to function as an 8 core 16 thread CPU under Windows 10.


Nope, I tested this and I do NOT use auto anything. You should know that by now.
I tested both R23 and CPU-Z. 5.8ghz with E cores disabled. ST performance went from 960 to 920 whenever it wanted to.
R23 ST performance differed by as much as 800 points. And I had nothing running.

With E cores enabled, performance was much more consistent.
I'm using W11 22H2 but I tested this before 22H2 was released.
Anyway the fix is just to enable _ONE_ E-core. Why are you so averse to having ONE e-core enabled?


----------



## Wolverine2349

Falkentyne said:


> Nope, I tested this and I do NOT use auto anything. You should know that by now.
> I tested both R23 and CPU-Z. 5.8ghz with E cores disabled. ST performance went from 960 to 920 whenever it wanted to.
> R23 ST performance differed by as much as 800 points. And I had nothing running.
> 
> With E cores enabled, performance was much more consistent.
> I'm using W11 22H2 but I tested this before 22H2 was released.
> Anyway the fix is just to enable _ONE_ E-core. Why are you so averse to having ONE e-core enabled?



I do not want any hybrid arch on my WIN10 OS. I want a normal 8 core 16 thread CPU without WIN10 parking every P core like it does if you have those crappy e-cores on eve one of them. Is this also an issue on WIN10?? Has it ever been tested?


----------



## Emmanuel

Wolverine2349 said:


> I do not want any hybrid arch on my WIN10 OS. I want a normal 8 core 16 thread CPU without WIN10 parking every P core like it does if you have those crappy e-cores on eve one of them. Is this also an issue on WIN10?? Has it ever been tested?


That's how I feel about those E-Cores too, this isn't a laptop or a phone... 

This whole E-Core thing is somewhat of a gimmick allowing Intel to compete with AMD on core count. 8C/16T is plenty for what I do, and I'd rather use my thermal/OC headroom for P-Cores. Plus, I have no interest in having to duplicate all my stability testing for E-Cores.

I'm on Windows 10, I'll keep in mind the E-Core bug to see if I experience it.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Emmanuel said:


> That's how I feel about those E-Cores too, this isn't a laptop or a phone...
> 
> This whole E-Core thing is somewhat of a gimmick allowing Intel to compete with AMD on core count. 8C/16T is plenty for what I do, and I'd rather use my thermal/OC headroom for P-Cores. Plus, I have no interest in having to duplicate all my stability testing for E-Cores.
> 
> I'm on Windows 10, I'll keep in mind the E-Core bug to see if I experience it.



Exactly and the one thing Intel does well is they make the best P cores and we only benefit significantly from 8 at most for gaming. I sure hope this is not some bug that cannot be worked around cause I bought this to be a super strong 8 core chip with SMT/HT. Those P cores can clock higher and are better than AMD Zen 4 cores even at same clock speed for an equal core count. But the e-cores I cannot stand them.

And does Falkentyne have any link to their tests to prove this is an issue. I do not see how you would need one e-core enabled to avoid some stupid bug. That is insanely outrageous and turns these chips into no option for those who want a monster 8 core 16 thread chip from Intel.

And yeah I do not want to duplicate stability testing on a stupid e-waste core!!

There has to be a fix to this bug if it even exists.









RTX 4090 & 53 Games: Core i9-13900K E-Cores Enabled vs Disabled Review


In this week's TPU50 Megabench we're testing whether you can unlock additional gaming performance by disabling the E-Cores on a Raptor Lake Core i9-13900K processor. For our benchmarks we used the mighty GeForce RTX 4090, with 53 games at three resolutions.




www.techpowerup.com





The tests above might confirm the bug as there is no way that many games benefit from e-cores in those results and only could be explained by a bug given games on the 12900K per Hardware Unboxed were better with e-cores off.


----------



## bhav

Emmanuel said:


> That's how I feel about those E-Cores too, this isn't a laptop or a phone...
> 
> This whole E-Core thing is somewhat of a gimmick allowing Intel to compete with AMD on core count. 8C/16T is plenty for what I do, and I'd rather use my thermal/OC headroom for P-Cores. Plus, I have no interest in having to duplicate all my stability testing for E-Cores.
> 
> I'm on Windows 10, I'll keep in mind the E-Core bug to see if I experience it.


Well I'm not quite sure how powerful phone processors are, but I don't think theyre as good as a 7700K which the e cores basically are.

While the ecores aren't as ideal as more p cores, they are still much better than HT. I've never had any problems just leaving them on.


----------



## Emmanuel

Wolverine2349 said:


> Exactly and the one thing Intel does well is they make the best P cores and we only need 8 at most for gaming. I sure hope this is not some bug that cannot be worked aorund cause I bought this to be a super string 8 core chip with SMT/HT. Those P cores can clock higher and are better than AMD Zen 4 cores even at same clock speed for an equal core count. But the e-cores I cannot stand them.
> 
> And does Falkentyne have any link to their tests to prove this is an issue. I do not see how you would need one e-core enabled to avoid some stupid bug. That is insanely outrageous and turns these chips into no option for those who want a monster 8 core 16 thread chip from Intel.


Not sure but he has always provided good information, so I wouldn't dismiss it.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Emmanuel said:


> Not sure but he has always provided good information, so I wouldn't dismiss it.



There has to be some work around other than keeping one of those peasant cores on and dealing with hybrid arch. I mean I am sure many want to use these chips as powerful 8 core chips without dealing with hybrid arch crap. So there has to be some workaround. I do notice on my first ever MSI board there are like multiple options for disabling and managing e-core counts. I wonder if only one is the correct way because of that bug and somehow fakes one being enabled and takes it from the OS so it is not used nor seen??


----------



## Ichirou

There is a way to hack the W10 power plans via RegEdit to unhide their internal P/E-core handling and allow you to maximize the use of all cores instead of having the P or E-cores parked depending on workload.

Microsoft just wants you to update to W11 since they're like that, so they hid the options from the mass public.

Here's a hint: Create Custom Power Plan in Windows 10


----------



## Emmanuel

bhav said:


> Well I'm not quite sure how powerful phone processors are, but I don't think theyre as good as a 7700K which the e cores basically are.
> 
> While the ecores aren't as ideal as more p cores, they are still much better than HT. I've never had any problems just leaving them on.


I'm talking about the concept/architecture of having power efficient cores and power cores in one package. If I want to save power, I use EIST through Windows and allow my 9900KS to downclock from 5.10GHz to 3.7GHz when idle.

For me, it's a waste of OC potential, thermals and money to have all these additional slow cores when my only goal is fast P-Cores. I think 8 cores is plenty to handle background tasks while playing most current multithreaded games.


----------



## Agent-A01

Wolverine2349 said:


> Exactly and the one thing Intel does well is they make the best P cores and we only benefit significantly from 8 at most for gaming. I sure hope this is not some bug that cannot be worked around cause I bought this to be a super string 8 core chip with SMT/HT. Those P cores can clock higher and are better than AMD Zen 4 cores even at same clock speed for an equal core count. But the e-cores I cannot stand them.
> 
> And does Falkentyne have any link to their tests to prove this is an issue. I do not see how you would need one e-core enabled to avoid some stupid bug. That is insanely outrageous and turns these chips into no option for those who want a monster 8 core 16 thread chip from Intel.
> 
> And yeah I do not want to duplicate stability testing on a stupid e-waste core!!
> 
> There has to be a fix to this bug if it even exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RTX 4090 & 53 Games: Core i9-13900K E-Cores Enabled vs Disabled Review
> 
> 
> In this week's TPU50 Megabench we're testing whether you can unlock additional gaming performance by disabling the E-Cores on a Raptor Lake Core i9-13900K processor. For our benchmarks we used the mighty GeForce RTX 4090, with 53 games at three resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techpowerup.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tests above might confirm the bug as there is no way that many games benefit from e-cores in those results and only could be explained by a bug given games on the 12900K per Hardware Unboxed were better with e-cores off.


Boy another e-core hater. I'll never understand why people think like this.

E cores don't hurt gaming performance nor do they prevent you from clocking higher. But they give huge performance gains in other tasks.
Lot of conjecture from people because 'it's for a laptop'.

Disabling E cores made sense for a 12700K and MAYBE a 12900K if you saw benefits from higher ring clock but 13900K doesn't have any of those drawbacks.



Emmanuel said:


> I'm talking about the concept/architecture of having power efficient cores and power cores in one package. If I want to save power, I use EIST through Windows and allow my 9900KS to downclock from 5.10GHz to 3.7GHz when idle.
> 
> For me, it's a waste of OC potential, thermals and money to have all these additional slow cores when my only goal is fast P-Cores. I think 8 cores is plenty to handle background tasks while playing most current multithreaded games.


But you're not getting more OC from disabling E cores nor will thermals be significantly better.
Ecores being a waste of money is an opinion. Plenty of other power users will see great use from them.

If you don't want E cores don't buy it. Pretty simple. Go AM4/AM5 if you only want P cores.


----------



## bhav

Emmanuel said:


> I'm talking about the concept/architecture of having power efficient cores and power cores in one package. If I want to save power, I use EIST through Windows and allow my 9900KS to downclock from 5.10GHz to 3.7GHz when idle.
> 
> For me, it's a waste of OC potential, thermals and money to have all these additional slow cores when my only goal is fast P-Cores. I think 8 cores is plenty to handle background tasks while playing most current multithreaded games.


Well if you don't like it, feel free to buy another chip without e cores that can hit 6 Ghz.

Oh right, there aren't any.

Fastest P cores ever made and you think that the e cores are still a problem for overclocking?

The worst thing for this architecture isnt even the e cores, the massive downgrade in DDR4 IMC since the 10900K is more significant.

Imagine if these chips were still capable of reaching 5000+ G1, but ofc if they did that no one would buy DDR5.


----------



## newls1

Wolverine2349 said:


> Exactly and the one thing Intel does well is they make the best P cores and we only benefit significantly from 8 at most for gaming. I sure hope this is not some bug that cannot be worked around cause I bought this to be a super string 8 core chip with SMT/HT. Those P cores can clock higher and are better than AMD Zen 4 cores even at same clock speed for an equal core count. But the e-cores I cannot stand them.
> 
> And does Falkentyne have any link to their tests to prove this is an issue. I do not see how you would need one e-core enabled to avoid some stupid bug. That is insanely outrageous and turns these chips into no option for those who want a monster 8 core 16 thread chip from Intel.
> 
> And yeah I do not want to duplicate stability testing on a stupid e-waste core!!
> 
> There has to be a fix to this bug if it even exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RTX 4090 & 53 Games: Core i9-13900K E-Cores Enabled vs Disabled Review
> 
> 
> In this week's TPU50 Megabench we're testing whether you can unlock additional gaming performance by disabling the E-Cores on a Raptor Lake Core i9-13900K processor. For our benchmarks we used the mighty GeForce RTX 4090, with 53 games at three resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techpowerup.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tests above might confirm the bug as there is no way that many games benefit from e-cores in those results and only could be explained by a bug given games on the 12900K per Hardware Unboxed were better with e-cores off.


you are stepping on the toes of one of the absolute most smartest people on this forum, who not only proves his finding, but spends hours everyday helping people like you and me. If I was you, i would STOP doubting his findings and accept his findings and thank him, thank him for spending the time doing the research so you and me dont have to take the time to find out ourselves... which though, tbh with you is what we should be doing anyways.


----------



## Emmanuel

bhav said:


> Well if you don't like it, feel free to buy another chip without e cores that can hit 6 Ghz.
> 
> Oh right, there aren't any.
> 
> Fastest P cores ever made and you think that the e cores are still a problem for overclocking?


The sheer presence of E-Cores and the fact that they draw power means they affect the CPU as a whole. By how much the OC headroom is reduced is besides the point, all I'm saying is that logically it must have an impact.

Intel is obviously not making P-Core only CPUs because it's a huge part of their marketing strategy, and it obviously does serve those that run heavily multithreaded apps (and benchmarks). So if you fall in that category, more power to you. As far as I'm concerned, I disable stuff I don't need.


----------



## Emmanuel

Agent-A01 said:


> Ecores being a waste of money is an opinion. Plenty of other power users will see great use from them.
> 
> If you don't want E cores don't buy it. Pretty simple. Go AM4/AM5 if you only want P cores.


I did write "for me" which implies that it is MY opinion for my use case. If Intel made a 13900 without E-Cores, I'd buy that, but it's not an option. I don't have to go with AMD just because I have no use for E-Cores.

Anyway I came here to ask about binning and OC headroom between the 13700 and 13900 K/F, got a little sidetracked with the E-Core debate lol.


----------



## nievz

I don’t think intel can compete with the 7950x without ecores. 16 pcores in their CPU would be impossible to cool with an aio to reach the scores they get in multithreading.


----------



## Nizzen

nievz said:


> I don’t think intel can compete with the 7950x without ecores. 16 pcores in their CPU would be impossible to cool with an aio to reach the scores they get in multithreading.


With a big die like x299 7980xe, it's even possible to cool  I'm ready for 16x p-core cpu any day


----------



## bigfootnz

Arni90 said:


> Using Socket sense VCore on my Unify-X, as VCC Sense is broken:
> DC 80 for LLC6
> AC 20
> 1.500 set VCore
> 60x P-core
> 45x E-core
> HT disabled
> 
> Degradation might occur, but so what? It's not like I use this chip for work
> 
> EDIT: TVB configured at 55C and 75C


Using HWinfo to read LLC on Unify-X is not working, at least for me. Because of that I had to manually calculate every LLC on Unify-X using @Falkentyne formula Vrout=Vbios-(Iout x LLC)
With this formula and using Socket sense I've calculated this:
LLC3 - 0.35mohm (BIOS DC 35 and AC what is needed)
LLC4 - 0.51mohm (BIOS DC 51 and AC what is needed)
LLC5 - 0.68mohm (BIOS DC 68 and AC what is needed)
LLC6 - 0.89mohm (BIOS DC 89 and AC what is needed)


----------



## bhav

Emmanuel said:


> I did write "for me" which implies that it is MY opinion for my use case. If Intel made a 13900 without E-Cores, I'd buy that, but it's not an option. I don't have to go with AMD just because I have no use for E-Cores.
> 
> Anyway I came here to ask about binning and OC headroom between the 13700 and 13900 K/F, got a little sidetracked with the E-Core debate lol.


If Intel did make a 13900 non k without e cores and you bought it, have fun trying to get 4100CL16 to work with locked .95v SA.

But you know a great alternative already exists for you with the Ryzen 7000 series. No e cores to worry about there.


----------



## Falkentyne

bigfootnz said:


> Using HWinfo to read LLC on Unify-X is not working, at least for me. Because of that I had to manually calculate every LLC on Unify-X using @Falkentyne formula Vrout=Vbios-(Iout x LLC)
> With this formula and using Socket sense I've calculated this:
> LLC3 - 0.35mohm (BIOS DC 35 and AC what is needed)
> LLC4 - 0.51mohm (BIOS DC 51 and AC what is needed)
> LLC5 - 0.68mohm (BIOS DC 68 and AC what is needed)
> LLC6 - 0.89mohm (BIOS DC 89 and AC what is needed)


Seems like LLC3 is 0.18 mohms on some MSI boards and 0.35 mohms on some others.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> There is a way to hack the W10 power plans via RegEdit to unhide their internal P/E-core handling and allow you to maximize the use of all cores instead of having the P or E-cores parked depending on workload.
> 
> Microsoft just wants you to update to W11 since they're like that, so they hid the options from the mass public.
> 
> Here's a hint: Create Custom Power Plan in Windows 10



None of the cores get parked with only P cores enabled. And from my experience trying WIN11, it parks all cores by default if not in use with the hybrid arch.


----------



## Emmanuel

bhav said:


> If Intel did make a 13900 non k without e cores and you bought it, have fun trying to get 4100CL16 to work with locked .95v SA.
> 
> But you know a great alternative already exists for you with the Ryzen 7000 series. No e cores to worry about there.


I'm going with DDR5 8000 which rules out AMD. Also the 13900k still maintains a small lead in single threaded performance. So for those two reasons, I'm sticking with Intel.


----------



## Wolverine2349

newls1 said:


> you are stepping on the toes of one of the absolute most smartest people on this forum, who not only proves his finding, but spends hours everyday helping people like you and me. If I was you, i would STOP doubting his findings and accept his findings and thank him, thank him for spending the time doing the research so you and me dont have to take the time to find out ourselves... which though, tbh with you is what we should be doing anyways.



Yes I thank him for finding these things out, Though I would like to know if anyone else has found this out. Is there any work around to keep e-cores disabled cause I do not want them on. If Intel made an 8 P core only chip K version, with equal L3 cache I would have bought it. But they do not. ANd before you say well go with AMD AM5 if you do not want e-cores and only 8 P cores, well Intel's Golden Cove cores have slightly better IPC than AMD Zen 4 cores and Raptor Cove cores expand on that even further so AMD cores are sower at same clock speed and thus not as good. Intel should easily have an option there should be no affect to disabling e-cores if someone wants a powerful 8 core chip with the best cores on the planet in consumer space spanking AMD's best at same clock speeds.


----------



## dentnu

Looking for some advice regarding 13700k vs 13900k. I am planing on picking one of these two up but wondering if the 13900k is really needed for my use case. I mostly just game on my machine so not to sure I need all those E cores on the 13900k. Now I will be overclocking it so which one so far is better at that (lottery)? I read if you disable the E cores you can overclock the P core really high ? Sorry but I don't have the time to read the last 253 pages hopefully someone can help me.


----------



## digitalfrost

Falkentyne said:


> Seems like LLC3 is 0.18 mohms on some MSI boards and 0.35 mohms on some others.


His whole list is off compared to the PRO Z690-A. Another guy here got values at least close to the PRO:









[OFFICIAL] MSI MEG Z690 Unify-X Owners Thread


Back in the MSI game after my ASUS TUF D4 went poof Every time I flash a new BIOS, Win11 is locking me out. Anyone else experienced this? When I hit "make a new PIN" I get a screen flash and then nothing. Can't seem to get back into Windows.. or at least haven't figured it out yet. Anyone...




www.overclock.net







bigfootnz said:


> Using HWinfo to read LLC on Unify-X is not working, at least for me. Because of that I had to manually calculate every LLC on Unify-X using @Falkentyne formula Vrout=Vbios-(Iout x LLC)
> With this formula and using Socket sense I've calculated this:
> LLC3 - 0.35mohm (BIOS DC 35 and AC what is needed)
> LLC4 - 0.51mohm (BIOS DC 51 and AC what is needed)
> LLC5 - 0.68mohm (BIOS DC 68 and AC what is needed)
> LLC6 - 0.89mohm (BIOS DC 89 and AC what is needed)


Does you VID match Vcore under load with these settings?


----------



## Wolverine2349

nievz said:


> I don’t think intel can compete with the 7950x without ecores. 16 pcores in their CPU would be impossible to cool with an aio to reach the scores they get in multithreading.



And that stinks. That is all fine and well, but there should not be some bug that hurts P core performance because e-cores are disabled. Hard to imagine something like that that is not fixed easily. I mean cores have to be disabled for all kinds of reasons and yes e-cores stink and use up thermal headroom for those who want an 8 core only chip with the best P cores which AMD does not have. And Intel has no separate product with 8 P cores only on the current arch. Disabling e-cores should not have any affect on single P core performance or there is seriously some bad bug. 

I am going to test myself and see what I find.


----------



## newls1

Wolverine2349 said:


> And that stinks. That is all fine and well, but there should not be some bug that hurts P core performance because e-cores are disabled. Hard to imagine something like that that is not fixed easily. I mean cores have to be disabled for all kinds of reasons and yes e-cores stink and use up thermal headroom for those who want an 8 core only chip with the best P cores which AMD does not have. And Intel has no separate product with 8 P cores only on the current arch. Disabling e-cores should not have any affect on single P core performance or there is seriously some bad bug.
> 
> I am going to test myself and see what I find.


jesus man, give up on your e-core theory... They hurt NOTHING on 13th gen.. moving on now, nothing more to say


----------



## Wolverine2349

newls1 said:


> jesus man, give up on your e-core theory... They hurt NOTHING on 13th gen.. moving on now, nothing more to say



Still more power and thermals to deal with just as more P cores or any core on any CPU would do. Disbling cores on the 10900K or 7950X should not make them a slower how ever many cores you have enabled chips. Like disabling one CCD on a 7950X should not make it slower than a 7700X as bnoth have 8 cores. Of course slower without the extra cores, but the same cores should be just as fast.

Likewise shutting down e-cores on an Intel chip should have 0 affect on P cores or even disabling a P core should not affect the other P cores. You just have one less core.


----------



## ju-rek

digitalfrost said:


> His whole list is off compared to the PRO Z690-A. Another guy here got values at least close to the PRO:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [OFFICIAL] MSI MEG Z690 Unify-X Owners Thread
> 
> 
> Back in the MSI game after my ASUS TUF D4 went poof Every time I flash a new BIOS, Win11 is locking me out. Anyone else experienced this? When I hit "make a new PIN" I get a screen flash and then nothing. Can't seem to get back into Windows.. or at least haven't figured it out yet. Anyone...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does you VID match Vcore under load with these settings?


For me, the LLC car, and this is probably 3, equal to the values under load on the default clocks, are on AC_LL 1 and DC_LL 100.


----------



## bigfootnz

Falkentyne said:


> Seems like LLC3 is 0.18 mohms on some MSI boards and 0.35 mohms on some others.





digitalfrost said:


> His whole list is off compared to the PRO Z690-A. Another guy here got values at least close to the PRO:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [OFFICIAL] MSI MEG Z690 Unify-X Owners Thread
> 
> 
> Back in the MSI game after my ASUS TUF D4 went poof Every time I flash a new BIOS, Win11 is locking me out. Anyone else experienced this? When I hit "make a new PIN" I get a screen flash and then nothing. Can't seem to get back into Windows.. or at least haven't figured it out yet. Anyone...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does you VID match Vcore under load with these settings?


If I'm not wrong LLC values on Pro Z690-A are done on VCC sense post #24

My calculation has been done on Socket sense, and as we know on MSI socket sense and VCC is behaving just like to different boards

Difference between mine and @Arni90 is only on LLC6, while LLC3&4&5 are almost the same. Please note, this Vrout and Iout are changing so much that slight difference is expected.

I didn't check VID, I'll check it when I'm back home.


----------



## ju-rek

On LLC 8, with AC_LL 30 and DC_LL 96 settings, vcore and vids are the same.


----------



## RichKnecht

Falkentyne said:


> Seems like LLC3 is 0.18 mohms on some MSI boards and 0.35 mohms on some others.


Ugh…I am lost with these LL values. Setting it to auto for now. If it wasn’t for the sheer speed of the 13900, I would go back to X299.


----------



## ju-rek




----------



## Telstar

dentnu said:


> Looking for some advice regarding 13700k vs 13900k. I am planing on picking one of these two up but wondering if the 13900k is really needed for my use case. I mostly just game on my machine so not to sure I need all those E cores on the 13900k.


1% better fps for 20% more cost. i9 clocks about 200mhz higher, but still not worth for gaming. If you want to have more fun overclocking then maybe yes.


----------



## acoustic

Man there's some really silly posts over the past few pages. Yikes.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Man there's some really silly posts over the past few pages. Yikes.


This thread has certainly derailed from California all the way to Australia xD


----------



## ViTosS

Ichirou said:


> There is a way to hack the W10 power plans via RegEdit to unhide their internal P/E-core handling and allow you to maximize the use of all cores instead of having the P or E-cores parked depending on workload.
> 
> Microsoft just wants you to update to W11 since they're like that, so they hid the options from the mass public.
> 
> Here's a hint: Create Custom Power Plan in Windows 10


Yeah and Windows 11 22H2 you can't disable Windows Defender anymore, I tried every possible solution and none seems to work, saw some people commenting that it's impossible in 22H2.


----------



## Wolverine2349

ViTosS said:


> Yeah and Windows 11 22H2 you can't disable Windows Defender anymore, I tried every possible solution and none seems to work, saw some people commenting that it's impossible in 22H2.



Yeah Windows 11 absolutely is terrible and very "Big Brother" and limit what you can do. WIN10 21H2 you can still customize enough and get rid/disable of the "Big Brother crapware" still. WIN10 was a big step in wrong direction but you could and can still work around it when it was released 7 years ago. WIN11 harder and harder to do.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

R23 Full load test after some VF curve tune...

P-55x/E-46x/R-49x - 240W
LLC#4
DC_LL=1.02
AC_LL=0.01
Adaptive Voltage=1447mv


----------



## Wolverine2349

Well I did enable 1 e-core and ran a CPU-Z benchmark and Cinebench R23 single core score:

Cinebench R23 single core score with no e-cores on: 2215

Cinebench R23 single core score with 1 e-core enabled: 2205


CPU Z single core score with no e cores enabled: 914

CPU Z single core score with 1 e-core enabled: 914

Does not appear to be any bug causing single thread performance loss with all e-cores disabled due to arch changes as single thread scores almost the same. I wonder if its only on certain motherboards or CPUs or BIOS combos or certain WIN10 and WIN11 OS versions like maybe latest WIN11 22H2 and I am using WIN10 21H2.


----------



## tps3443

I sold my 13900KF Batch X238 for $1200 bucks, shipped it off today. It was a very good CPU.

I’m actually excited to test another random 13900KF. If it’s Good, average, or even bad I’ll just keep it regardless!


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Take a look at this....
400W for 40k points in R23... LOLOL


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I sold my 13900KF Batch X238 for $1200 bucks, shipped it off today. It was a very good CPU.
> 
> I’m actually excited to test another random 13900KF. If it’s Good, average, or even bad I’ll just keep it regardless!


So basically double what you paid for it? Nice.


----------



## acoustic

Don't get it. 40K with a manual OC is terrible, especially for 400W. They have that set up terribly.


----------



## HyperC

yeah nice build, poop temps  what were clocks and vcore


----------



## RobertoSampaio

acoustic said:


> Don't get it. 40K with a manual OC is terrible, especially for 400W. They have that set up terribly.


I was watching some videos on youtube... We found each thing weirder than the other... 
There's a guy running OCCT stress test at Vcore=1.52v


----------



## acoustic

RobertoSampaio said:


> I was watching some videos on youtube... We found each thing weirder than the other...
> There's a guy running OCCT stress test at Vcore=1.52v


Well.. at least we know he won't be able to run it at that voltage much longer 😂


----------



## Falkentyne

Wolverine2349 said:


> Well I did enable 1 e-core and ran a CPU-Z benchmark and Cinebench R23 single core score:
> 
> Cinebench R23 single core score with no e-cores on: 2215
> 
> Cinebench R23 single core score with 1 e-core enabled: 2205
> 
> 
> CPU Z single core score with no e cores enabled: 914
> 
> CPU Z single core score with 1 e-core enabled: 914
> 
> Does not appear to be any bug causing single thread performance loss with all e-cores disabled due to arch changes as single thread scores almost the same.


I'll test this later on balanced power plan.
I was using Ultimate, someone said that Ultimate and High Performance plays havoc with the ST scores, because I ran five consecutive CPU-Z scores at 5.8 ghz with the E cores disabled.
The very first one gave 960 something (the correct score), then the next four in a row gave 912-930.
I even changed CPU-Z to realtime priority and it didn't help.

I also found the Witcher 3 E cores issue. You can see E cores enabled gave more perf than E cores disabled.









Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


Really? Think i tried max 1.4 in VDDQ. Are u sure? 1.3V VDDQ seems to be enough for 3600Mhz CL15 @ 6 Ghz @ Memtest Well I cannot vouch for safety claims, but from experience 1.6 VDDQ certainly solves a lot of problems with stability. Like said, I was nowhere near having 4 sticks at 4000...




www.overclock.net





@Krzych04650 's testing.


----------



## tps3443

RobertoSampaio said:


> Take a look at this....
> 400W for 40k points in R23... LOLOL
> 
> View attachment 2582943


Dang that’s absolutely terrible it’s needs some bios adjustment desperately!!! I was doing [email protected] watts with DDR5 7200 and 1.4V. My 13900KF was probably SP115-116 P-Cores. “Guessing” so nothing like crazy by any means.

I feel like any quality 13900K can be tuned to 41K [email protected] SUB 300 watts even a darn super low SP 13850K lol.


----------



## chibi

tps3443 said:


> Dang that’s absolutely terrible it’s needs some bios adjustment desperately!!! I was doing [email protected] watts. My 13900KF was probably SP115-116 P-Cores. “Guessing”


Whoever you sold it to, would they have an asus board that can pop the cpu in real quick to give us the SP? If so, please update and let us know


----------



## Wolverine2349

Falkentyne said:


> I'll test this later on balanced power plan.
> I was using Ultimate, someone said that Ultimate and High Performance plays havoc with the ST scores, because I ran five consecutive CPU-Z scores at 5.8 ghz with the E cores disabled.
> The very first one gave 960 something (the correct score), then the next four in a row gave 912-930.
> I even changed CPU-Z to realtime priority and it didn't help.
> 
> I also found the Witcher 3 E cores issue. You can see E cores enabled gave more perf than E cores disabled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> 
> Really? Think i tried max 1.4 in VDDQ. Are u sure? 1.3V VDDQ seems to be enough for 3600Mhz CL15 @ 6 Ghz @ Memtest Well I cannot vouch for safety claims, but from experience 1.6 VDDQ certainly solves a lot of problems with stability. Like said, I was nowhere near having 4 sticks at 4000...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Krzych04650 's testing.



I am using ultimate power plan as well. I always use Ultimate Power Plan on a desktop.

Which version of Windows are you using? Maybe it only affects certain Windows versions like WIN11?

Could there also be a 12th gen thing to this as well and maybe it is inconsistent.

I mean even some games which are lightly threaded actually did better with e-cores on on a 12900K and some games heavily threaded did better with them off:






Maybe Witcher 3 example is one of those strange ones like CS Go and who knows with all the Windows configs and drivers, BIOS/firmware versions and settings and overclock settings out there??


----------



## Wilco183

tps3443 said:


> Dang that’s absolutely terrible it’s needs some bios adjustment desperately!!! I was doing [email protected] watts with DDR5 7200 and 1.4V. My 13900KF was probably SP115-116 P-Cores. “Guessing” so nothing like crazy by any means.
> 
> I feel like any quality 13900K can be tuned to 41K [email protected] SUB 300 watts even a darn super low SP 13850K lol.


So true. 306 watts, Core max-93C, Core vids-1.269, with MCE and AI Optimized enabled on Strix A d4 using dud SP92 13900k resulted in 40,528.


----------



## Baka_boy

Wilco183 said:


> So true. 306 watts, Core max-93C, Core vids-1.269, with MCE and AI Optimized enabled on Strix A d4 using dud SP92 13900k resulted in 40,528.


Can be tuned a bit more I think. I'm running 240-245W at 40.5K with R23. Only thing is, with AVX workloads it zooms up to 267W.  Can also enable an AVX offset I guess.


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> Dang that’s absolutely terrible it’s needs some bios adjustment desperately!!! I was doing [email protected] watts with DDR5 7200 and 1.4V. My 13900KF was probably SP115-116 P-Cores. “Guessing” so nothing like crazy by any means.
> 
> I feel like any quality 13900K can be tuned to 41K [email protected] SUB 300 watts even a darn super low SP 13850K lol.


Not if you have sp73 ecores like me


----------



## Falkentyne

Wolverine2349 said:


> Well I did enable 1 e-core and ran a CPU-Z benchmark and Cinebench R23 single core score:
> 
> Cinebench R23 single core score with no e-cores on: 2215
> 
> Cinebench R23 single core score with 1 e-core enabled: 2205
> 
> 
> CPU Z single core score with no e cores enabled: 914
> 
> CPU Z single core score with 1 e-core enabled: 914
> 
> Does not appear to be any bug causing single thread performance loss with all e-cores disabled due to arch changes as single thread scores almost the same. I wonder if its only on certain motherboards or CPUs or BIOS combos or certain WIN10 and WIN11 OS versions like maybe latest WIN11 22H2 and I am using WIN10 21H2.





Wolverine2349 said:


> I am using ultimate power plan as well. I always use Ultimate Power Plan on a desktop.
> 
> Which version of Windows are you using? Maybe it only affects certain Windows versions like WIN11?
> 
> Could there also be a 12th gen thing to this as well and maybe it is inconsistent.
> 
> I mean even some games which are lightly threaded actually did better with e-cores on on a 12900K and some games heavily threaded did better with them off:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Witcher 3 example is one of those strange ones like CS Go and who knows with all the Windows configs and drivers, BIOS/firmware versions and settings and overclock settings out there??


I really can't say for sure but you need to remember to not simply say that a 13900K is a 12900k with 8 more E-cores. The internal structure is far different, which is why the E-cores work so well now. I posted a link here earlier but there was an Interview in Japan by an Intel engineer (before NDA release) which explained some of the changes in the ring and L0 structure.

Why do you think that you NEVER saw "internal parity errors" and CPU Cache L0 errors on Alder Lake, but now you see them (the infamous "skylake" core errors) on Raptor Lake?
Disabling E-cores made more sense on ADL than it does on RPL. On RPL you really need to test this on a case by case basis.

And I'm using W11 22H2 with the service patch for it.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Falkentyne said:


> I really can't say for sure but you need to remember to not simply say that a 13900K is a 12900k with 8 more E-cores. The internal structure is far different, which is why the E-cores work so well now. I posted a link here earlier but there was an Interview in Japan by an Intel engineer (before NDA release) which explained some of the changes in the ring and L0 structure.
> 
> Why do you think that you NEVER saw "internal parity errors" and CPU Cache L0 errors on Alder Lake, but now you see them (the infamous "skylake" core errors) on Raptor Lake?
> Disabling E-cores made more sense on ADL than it does on RPL. On RPL you really need to test this on a case by case basis.
> 
> And I'm using W11 22H2 with the service patch for it.



True a 13900K is not a 12900K with more e-cores. Though is internal structure really far different. Yes there are some difference like the increase in each P core from 1.25MB to 2MB L2 cache, some refinements to the P and e-cores for better clock speeds for each and of course the 36MB L3 cache up form 30MB. Though are they really far different. Isn't 13th Gen what was good about 12th gen, but improved and refined upon kind of like 10th gen was 9th gen but improved and refined. Also isn't there like 5% IPC improvement to the P cores and e-cores do not know as I do not use them.

Likewise wasn't Zen 3 to Zen 4 just counting P cores similar to the jump from Golden Cove to Raptor Cove in Arch change. Basically they both took what was good about the prior and increased clock speeds, mild IPC bump and made them better. Well actually Zen 3 to Zen 4 was a 10% IPC bump and Golden Cove to Raptor Cove was only 3 to 5%. Though latency on Zen 4 was a step backwards where as the same or better with better RAM from Golden Cove to Raptor Cove.?

So yes structural differences, but really far different??


----------



## schoolofmonkey

RobertoSampaio said:


> Take a look at this....
> 400W for 40k points in R23... LOLOL
> 
> View attachment 2582943


What the?
I'm getting 40438 with 280w, and 89c


----------



## RichKnecht

schoolofmonkey said:


> What the?
> I'm getting 40438 with 280w, and 89c


I am at 40850 with 254W and 80C. EDIT: All clocks are set at default. No overclocking applied.


----------



## RichKnecht

So I have been messing around with the AC and DC LL because I WANT to understand this. Right now, my V Core and VID are the same under load (1.184) with V core set at 1.22 (adaptive + offset) with a .02 negative offset to allow the CPU to drop voltage at idle. I am running all clocks at default. Is this what I want?


----------



## Nizzen

ViTosS said:


> Yeah and Windows 11 22H2 you can't disable Windows Defender anymore, I tried every possible solution and none seems to work, saw some people commenting that it's impossible in 22H2.


Win 11 spectre


----------



## schoolofmonkey

RichKnecht said:


> I am at 40850 with 254W and 80C.


My 13900k has crud E-Cores and I'm using a AIO, so if you get bad chip you get what I'm getting, it was more of a joke with @RobertoSampaio he knows how bad mine actually is, she's a cooker, can't even maintain stock clocks at 252w..


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I think that´s also a question of cooling and how you oc with the vcore, that can spare a lot of watt/voltage.
I have "only" P109 E88 chip and have 225W


----------



## bigfootnz

digitalfrost said:


> Does you VID match Vcore under load with these settings?


OK, I've done testing with LLC 6:

AC10 DC89, VID in idle are exact as Vrout, in CB23 load there is 10mV difference
AC10 DC80, VID and Vrout in idle are up to 5mV difference and in CB23 around 7mV difference.

I would rather go by formula provided by @Falkentyne. I forgot to mention that I've verified his formula on Z690Hero I was able to calculate almost exact LLC as Asus has provided.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

PhoenixMDA said:


> I think that´s also a question of cooling and how you oc with the vcore, that can spare a lot of watt/voltage.
> I have "only" P109 E88 chip and have 225W
> View attachment 2582969


What cooler are you running?


----------



## HemuV2

Someone was interested in SOTTR so here is a sottr run, 4000cl15 55/43/50x 720p low


----------



## PhoenixMDA

schoolofmonkey said:


> What cooler are you running?


TechN cooler on z690 strix D4, CPU delided with original sanded hs LM under hs an thermal paste on the hs.
I have optimized the TechN cooler it is absolutely straight.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Dang that’s absolutely terrible it’s needs some bios adjustment desperately!!! I was doing [email protected] watts with DDR5 7200 and 1.4V. My 13900KF was probably SP115-116 P-Cores. “Guessing” so nothing like crazy by any means.
> 
> I feel like any quality 13900K can be tuned to 41K [email protected] SUB 300 watts even a darn super low SP 13850K lol.





Wilco183 said:


> So true. 306 watts, Core max-93C, Core vids-1.269, with MCE and AI Optimized enabled on Strix A d4 using dud SP92 13900k resulted in 40,528.





Baka_boy said:


> Can be tuned a bit more I think. I'm running 240-245W at 40.5K with R23. Only thing is, with AVX workloads it zooms up to 267W.  Can also enable an AVX offset I guess.





schoolofmonkey said:


> What the?
> I'm getting 40438 with 280w, and 89c





RichKnecht said:


> I am at 40850 with 254W and 80C.


And here I thought 42k was low 🤔
My sample's roughly P/E-SP of 103/75 or so. So average as all hell.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

PhoenixMDA said:


> TechN cooler on z690 strix D4, CPU delided with original sanded hs LM under hs an thermal paste on the hs.
> I have optimized the TechN cooler it is absolutely straight.


Big difference from my H150i Elite and CPU not delided or sanded, I am using the Thermaltake 1700 bracket though...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

schoolofmonkey said:


> My 13900k has crud E-Cores and I'm using a AIO, so if you get bad chip you get what I'm getting, it was more of a joke with @RobertoSampaio he knows how bad mine actually is, she's a cooker, can't even maintain stock clocks at 252w..


And I think the SP of the e-cores plays an important role in the 13900K.

I increased the adaptive voltage by 10mv and managed to run the E-cores at 49x


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I can't believe the people at PCWorld say that the 13900K system consumes about 500W...

What kind of drugs do they take?

Okay, they're talking about the whole system... With fans, RGB, pumps, etc...

But this way is impossible to compare...

Anyway, people should be talking about how to adjust the load lines instead of putting in 500W values without explaining anything.


----------



## Baka_boy

RobertoSampaio said:


> I can't believe the people at PCWorld say that the 13900K system consumes about 500W...
> 
> What kind of drugs do they take?
> 
> Okay, they're talking about the whole system... With fans, RGB, pumps, etc...
> 
> But this way is impossible to compare...
> 
> Anyway, people should be talking about how to adjust the load lines instead of putting in 500W values without explaining anything.


I somehow imagine Dr. Evil saying this crap. Five... hundred.... birrion.... wattts!  Bit of sensationalist "media" I suppose.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

schoolofmonkey said:


> Big difference from my H150i Elite and CPU not delided or sanded, I am using the Thermaltake 1700 bracket though...


The most impact is that i have 22° water and that don't rise up because 2x mo-ra 420, with 30° water the cpu will have more then 8° more.It's scale not direct linear.


----------



## fray_bentos

Wolverine2349 said:


> I do not want any hybrid arch on my WIN10 OS. I want a normal 8 core 16 thread CPU without WIN10 parking every P core like it does if you have those crappy e-cores on eve one of them. Is this also an issue on WIN10?? Has it ever been tested?


Sounds like you bought the wrong CPU then. Consider 5800X3D or 7XXX3D.


----------



## fray_bentos

Wolverine2349 said:


> Exactly and the one thing Intel does well is they make the best P cores and we only benefit significantly from 8 at most for gaming. I sure hope this is not some bug that cannot be worked around cause I bought this to be a super strong 8 core chip with SMT/HT. Those P cores can clock higher and are better than AMD Zen 4 cores even at same clock speed for an equal core count. But the e-cores I cannot stand them.
> 
> And does Falkentyne have any link to their tests to prove this is an issue. I do not see how you would need one e-core enabled to avoid some stupid bug. That is insanely outrageous and turns these chips into no option for those who want a monster 8 core 16 thread chip from Intel.
> 
> And yeah I do not want to duplicate stability testing on a stupid e-waste core!!
> 
> There has to be a fix to this bug if it even exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RTX 4090 & 53 Games: Core i9-13900K E-Cores Enabled vs Disabled Review
> 
> 
> In this week's TPU50 Megabench we're testing whether you can unlock additional gaming performance by disabling the E-Cores on a Raptor Lake Core i9-13900K processor. For our benchmarks we used the mighty GeForce RTX 4090, with 53 games at three resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techpowerup.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tests above might confirm the bug as there is no way that many games benefit from e-cores in those results and only could be explained by a bug given games on the 12900K per Hardware Unboxed were better with e-cores off.


Doesn't disabling e-cores take away some of that lovely cache associated with the e-cores? That may account for the results. Some of your wording sounds like you came straight from the WCCFT comment section... Whether you like the concept of e cores or not doesn't matter. The empirical evidence showing that having them on helps with the exception of one or two games. The simple empirical conclusion is to leave them on unless you want every last frame from the unusual cases.


----------



## fray_bentos

Wolverine2349 said:


> Yeah Windows 11 absolutely is terrible and very "Big Brother" and limit what you can do. WIN10 21H2 you can still customize enough and get rid/disable of the "Big Brother crapware" still. WIN10 was a big step in wrong direction but you could and can still work around it when it was released 7 years ago. WIN11 harder and harder to do.


My mute list just got longer.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

PhoenixMDA said:


> The most impact is that i have 22° water and that don't rise up because 2x mo-ra 420, with 30° water the cpu will have more then 8° more.It's scale not direct linear.


Yeah, my AIO water temp sits on about 38-40c, my CPU idles around the same, so I know it's transferring heat fine, but these things heat up so quickly under load it's saturating the AIO super fast.

I'm tempted to get a O11 Dynamic XL (I have the standard) and a 420mm Alphacool, but in saying that I could get a semi decent CPU/RAD/RES/PUMP package for the same price, one of those EK PUMP/RES plates for the O11, 2x360mm RADS and a CPU block, I do intend on keeping the CPU for a couple of years.


----------



## Xiph

Do you think that there is soldering problem with second SMD from the top?
Would it cause easily detectable problems, if it's not ok?


----------



## bhav

Wolverine2349 said:


> Yeah Windows 11 absolutely is terrible and very "Big Brother" and limit what you can do. WIN10 21H2 you can still customize enough and get rid/disable of the "Big Brother crapware" still. WIN10 was a big step in wrong direction but you could and can still work around it when it was released 7 years ago. WIN11 harder and harder to do.


The world is also flat man, 

The moon is made of cheese.

Toxins in your vaccines,

All ailments are cured with weed.


----------



## imrevoau

I've been using stripped Windows for years, and while I still prefer Win 10, 11 is far from as bad as people seem to think.


----------



## bhav

RobertoSampaio said:


> I can't believe the people at PCWorld say that the 13900K system consumes about 500W...


I mean we already know how great these tech channels are when it comes to correctly tuning their ram, so what hope are they going to have with trying to OC a 13900K?

'WE HIT THE MCE BUTTON LIKE ALL DA PEOPLE AT HOME, OUR CONCLUSION IS YOU CANNOT OC THIS CHIP WITHOUT A CUSTOM LOOP'.


----------



## fray_bentos

imrevoau said:


> I've been using stripped Windows for years, and while I still prefer Win 10, 11 is far from as bad as people seem to think.


I'm actually liking Win 11, the setting menus are more consistent vs. the mix of old or new in Win 10. I did need to install startallback though to get back my windows tabs with titles and task bar on the right of the screen.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> And here I thought 42k was low 🤔
> My sample's roughly P/E-SP of 103/75 or so. So average as all hell.
> View attachment 2582972


I am running at default clocks. If I go back to 56/45/48 the score jumps to around 42500, so pretty close to you results. Never tried any higher than 56 on the p cores due to heat.


----------



## RichKnecht

RobertoSampaio said:


> And I think the SP of the e-cores plays an important role in the 13900K.
> 
> I increased the adaptive voltage by 10mv and managed to run the E-cores at 49x
> View attachment 2582973


You are getting amazing temps at those clocks and voltage. Wait….230W?! How are you doing that?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

RichKnecht said:


> You are getting amazing temps at those clocks and voltage. Wait….230W?! How are you doing that?


 @RobertoSampaio is a magician


----------



## Arni90

Falkentyne said:


> Seems like LLC3 is 0.18 mohms on some MSI boards and 0.35 mohms on some others.


LLC settings change depending on VCore sense mode, Socket seems to work "normal", while VCC seems to be partially broken (and relatively flat).


----------



## Arni90

bigfootnz said:


> Using HWinfo to read LLC on Unify-X is not working, at least for me. Because of that I had to manually calculate every LLC on Unify-X using @Falkentyne formula Vrout=Vbios-(Iout x LLC)
> With this formula and using Socket sense I've calculated this:
> LLC3 - 0.35mohm (BIOS DC 35 and AC what is needed)
> LLC4 - 0.51mohm (BIOS DC 51 and AC what is needed)
> LLC5 - 0.68mohm (BIOS DC 68 and AC what is needed)
> LLC6 - 0.89mohm (BIOS DC 89 and AC what is needed)


Is that with VCC or Socket sense mode?

I really don't care all that much about the topic, as the power measurement is bound to have some slight error, and it really doesn't matter.

If you wish to set a "proper" protection, set maximum current to whatever Falkentyne deems OK. Current is what drives electromigration, and the current measurement on Intel chips should be correct.


----------



## tps3443

He is running a really good sample 13900K. His P-Cores are SP119, and his E-Cores are an astonishing SP102. The guy is also a Asus bios engineer I think? He knows his stuff really well. He will squeeze every drop of performance out of a CPU without degrading it using TVB overclocking. Some days I really wish I had a Asus motherboard to properly follow some of his and Falk’s methods for overclocking.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> He is running a really good sample 13900K. His P-Cores are SP119, and his E-Cores are an astonishing SP102. The guy is also a Asus bios engineer I think? He knows his stuff really well. He will squeeze every drop of performance out of a CPU without degrading it using TVB overclocking. Some days I really wish I had a Asus motherboard to properly follow some of his and Falk’s methods for overclocking.


I agree about the board. However, every Asus Z790 DD4 board that had the features I wanted were white/silver. I thought about the TUF, but I wanted 2 8 pin CPU power connectors, not a 4 and 8. I finally, after a lot of testing, figured out the MSI AC/DC LL settings. Still running stock, but both VID and VCore match under a steady all core load. Not sure about the VRout value as my board doesn't seem to offer that in HWInfo. I'd like to overclock it a little, but not sure how to proceed. I'll have to read his guide again now that I understand things a little better.


----------



## fray_bentos

RichKnecht said:


> I agree about the board. However, every Asus Z790 DD4 board that had the features I wanted were white/silver. I thought about the TUF, but I wanted 2 8 pin CPU power connectors, not a 4 and 8. I finally, after a lot of testing, figured out the MSI AC/DC LL settings. Still running stock, but both VID and VCore match under a steady all core load. Not sure about the VRout value as my board doesn't seem to offer that in HWInfo. I'd like to overclock it a little, but not sure how to proceed. I'll have to read his guide again now that I understand things a little better.


Is VID and Vcore matching desirable? I always thought more droop was better? I'd always stick with low lite load and/or LLC6 on MSI. LLC6 always gave me the best MSI OCs. Videos from Buildzoid usually point to LLC6 being best for minimising transients on MSI boards.


----------



## Telstar

Wolverine2349 said:


> Maybe Witcher 3 example is one of those strange ones like CS Go and who knows with all the Windows configs and drivers, BIOS/firmware versions and settings and overclock settings out there??


Let's wait for the witcher3 graphics upgrade at least


----------



## Telstar

RichKnecht said:


> I agree about the board. However, every Asus Z790 DD4 board that had the features I wanted were white/silver. I thought about the TUF...


Yes, one reason more to get it for me  The TUF does NOT have rog bios and loses some of the features that Roberto used in his guide.


----------



## raad11

Wolverine2349 said:


> I am using ultimate power plan as well. I always use Ultimate Power Plan on a desktop.
> 
> Which version of Windows are you using? Maybe it only affects certain Windows versions like WIN11?
> 
> Could there also be a 12th gen thing to this as well and maybe it is inconsistent.
> 
> I mean even some games which are lightly threaded actually did better with e-cores on on a 12900K and some games heavily threaded did better with them off:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Witcher 3 example is one of those strange ones like CS Go and who knows with all the Windows configs and drivers, BIOS/firmware versions and settings and overclock settings out there??


What's the difference between Ultimate and High Performance power plans?


RichKnecht said:


> I am at 40850 with 254W and 80C. EDIT: All clocks are set at default. No overclocking applied.


I hit 40250 or so on all defaults, similar wattage. I hit 4100-41500 on 5.6 all-core for 280-270 watts at 86 C (it spikes at 280 a moment into the run then decreases steadily). Glad to know I'm in the same ballpark as everyone else.


RichKnecht said:


> So I have been messing around with the AC and DC LL because I WANT to understand this. Right now, my V Core and VID are the same under load (1.184) with V core set at 1.22 (adaptive + offset) with a .02 negative offset to allow the CPU to drop voltage at idle. I am running all clocks at default. Is this what I want?


I can't believe I didn't think of this, lol. In Roberto's thread, I was talking about wanting to use TVB to drop idle voltages for high frequencies, but TVB has its own side effects. Didn't even think to use the offset!


RobertoSampaio said:


> I can't believe the people at PCWorld say that the 13900K system consumes about 500W...
> 
> What kind of drugs do they take?
> 
> Okay, they're talking about the whole system... With fans, RGB, pumps, etc...
> 
> But this way is impossible to compare...
> 
> Anyway, people should be talking about how to adjust the load lines instead of putting in 500W values without explaining anything.


They consider this "undervolting" and so they will usually say things like "you can undervolt it but we can't review based off that, we have to go by defaults" but they consider it the same as overclocking, even though they give overclocking much more coverage than undervolting. They will make recommendations and do reviews on overclocked chips but then will be like "oh no we can't touch that" when it comes to the subject of undervolting. Except just recently the tech YouTubers have begun to embrace GPU undervolting and have put out rudimentary videos on that.


tps3443 said:


> He is running a really good sample 13900K. His P-Cores are SP119, and his E-Cores are an astonishing SP102. The guy is also a Asus bios engineer I think? He knows his stuff really well. He will squeeze every drop of performance out of a CPU without degrading it using TVB overclocking. Some days I really wish I had a Asus motherboard to properly follow some of his and Falk’s methods for overclocking.


This is the future. Especially on chips like the 13900K which suck a lot of power with even a minor all-core OC.

Eventually the Asus AI Overclocking will just be a version of him


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> And here I thought 42k was low 🤔
> My sample's roughly P/E-SP of 103/75 or so. So average as all hell.
> View attachment 2582972


Seeing what people are coming across with their chips. I bet you’ll find something good with your other 13900K’s. Do you have a way to read the SP rating? Or Force rating?


----------



## RichKnecht

fray_bentos said:


> *Is VID and Vcore matching desirable? *I always thought more droop was better? I'd always stick with low lite load and/or LLC6 on MSI. LLC6 always gave me the best MSI OCs. Videos from Buildzoid usually point to LLC6 being best for minimising transients on MSI boards.


I have no idea, but this is what I gathered after reading the ASUS Z790 OC guide posted here and trying to use the methodology on my MSI board. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I have been reading so much about this chip to try and figure out the best way to get the most out of it without heating up my office. I am currently on LLC 4, but now I read that LLC 6 may be the better option. I also watched a video showing how raising switching frequency can also help stabilize voltages. Haven't tried that yet. BTW, I am not a gamer at all but I process a lot of photos and videos and so far this chip is a beast (even at stock).


----------



## Wolverine2349

fray_bentos said:


> Doesn't disabling e-cores take away some of that lovely cache associated with the e-cores? That may account for the results. Some of your wording sounds like you came straight from the WCCFT comment section... Whether you like the concept of e cores or not doesn't matter. The empirical evidence showing that having them on helps with the exception of one or two games. The simple empirical conclusion is to leave them on unless you want every last frame from the unusual cases.



That is L2 cache associated with only the e-cores and only the e-cores can use it as L1 and L2 cache is private between cores. No L3 cache is lost by disabling the e-cores and that is the only cache shared among all cores.









Difference Between L1, L2, and L3 Cache: How Does CPU Cache Work? | Hardware Times


Every modern processor features a small amount of cache memory. Over the past few decades, cache architectures have become increasingly complex: The levels of CPU cache have increased to three: L1, L2, and L3, the size of each block has grown and the cache associativity has undergone several...




www.hardwaretimes.com






Actually no evidence does not show they help in all but one or 2 games. The results are pretty mixed and many games are different some better with some better without but very little difference and most within margin of error and have no idea what the clock speeds are in both tests or how heavy background tasks they are running in Windows.









RTX 4090 & 53 Games: Core i9-13900K E-Cores Enabled vs Disabled Review


In this week's TPU50 Megabench we're testing whether you can unlock additional gaming performance by disabling the E-Cores on a Raptor Lake Core i9-13900K processor. For our benchmarks we used the mighty GeForce RTX 4090, with 53 games at three resolutions.




www.techpowerup.com





I had looked at results again and they are mixed after once thinking it meant e-cores on had a clear advantage which is really not the case. Almost no difference.

So e-cores do not really hurt or help gaming on 13th gen. Where as 12th gen they hurt and sometimes a lot due to ring clock being crippled. Though if you want to overclock 13th gen and are not using a great AIO or custom loop, best to shut them off for better thermals and better manual/static overclock headroom on P-cores. Even with just the P cores these chips run with enough power and hot as it is let alone if you leave also the e-cores on.


----------



## Agent-A01

tps3443 said:


> My 13900KF was probably SP115-116 P-Cores. “Guessing” so nothing like crazy by any means.


SP115-6 and you sold it for $1200. I have two chips SP105 and SP104(total score). P core SP116 and SP113.
BRB selling them for $1200  

But for real I thought SP105~ is pretty average. Buddy of mine in TX got SP102 as well.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

RichKnecht said:


> You are getting amazing temps at those clocks and voltage. Wait….230W?! How are you doing that?


1 - I have a very good CPU...
2 - I Spent weeks adjusting VF curve, Loadlines, create a core frequency groups, and I use an exclusive adaptive voltage for each core/group... LOL


----------



## Wolverine2349

fray_bentos said:


> Sounds like you bought the wrong CPU then. Consider 5800X3D or 7XXX3D.



No I did not. I wanted DDR5 and 7XXX 3D is not even out yet and it may only be limited to 6 cores or 8 at most. I also think Intel is better than AMD there P cores anyways and that is the only way to get an 8 core 16 thread CPU from Intel.


----------



## raad11

Have you guys also noticed that Handbrake is more demanding than Cinebench for stability? CB really is just barely game stable, but Handbrake is way more fussy and throws errors all the time. Without also being a power virus on initial runs.


----------



## RichKnecht

RobertoSampaio said:


> 1 - I have a very good CPU...
> 2 - I Spent weeks adjusting VF curve, Loadlines, create a core frequency groups, and I use an exclusive adaptive voltage for each core/group... LOL


No doubt you know EXACTLY what you are doing. Since I am using a MSI board, I have to try to translate your Asus settings into my MSI settings. Did you state that having V Core and VID match as closely as possible was a good thing or did I totally misunderstand your guide?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Not sure hwinfo reports correctly but my cpu on dark z690 pulls almost 400w in r23 at 5.8/4.6/5 at 1.25v vrout.


----------



## Csavez™

Nizzen said:


> Newest Asus MB Raptor Lake beta bioses:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RaptorLake Resources
> 
> 
> i will use this as a collection of test bioses/tools/info targeted towards Raptorlake + z69/790 NOTE for Z690: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake (if you are on dual bioses then you need to do this to both bioses) 1) d/l and install ME driver...
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sp 13900k/KF bins:
> 
> Nizzen SP 110 P119 / E93 KF
> Nizzen SP 100 P110 / E80 K
> sugi0lover SP 114 P124 / E94
> Falk SP 106 P113 / E94.
> RobertoS SP ? P119/E102
> Roooo SP? P110/E88
> Talon 2016 SP106 P115/E88
> Miguelios SP106 P116/E88
> nickolp1974 SP 103 P111/ E88
> Miguelios _SP 106 P116/ E88
> Xarot SP 97 P106/E81
> Owikh84. SP 101 P110/E83
> Bilco SP 101 P110/E83
> PBaF _SP 103 P113/ E85
> 
> New toys to play with soon
> 
> Looks like 13600k is almost beating 5950x in rendering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i5-13600K 14 Core Raptor Lake ES CPU Tested, 40% Faster Than Core i5-12600K & Beats The Ryzen 9 5950X In Cinebench
> 
> 
> The latest benchmarks of Intel's mainstream Core i5-13600K 14-Core Raptor Lake Desktop CPU have leaked out and it's a beast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wccftech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Test cpu:
> 
> 
> 
> P cores: Sync x57
> Actual VRM Vcore Voltage: 1.345v bios set
> Loadline Calibration: LLC level 6.
> VRM Switching frequency: Spread Spectrum Disabled: Sw rate 300-500 khz


I would like to send 2 pictures to your lists!


----------



## RichKnecht

raad11 said:


> Have you guys also noticed that Handbrake is more demanding than Cinebench for stability? CB really is just barely game stable, but Handbrake is way more fussy and throws errors all the time. Without also being a power virus on initial runs.


I use R23 for a quick test. Once it passes 30 minutes of R23, I open Photoshop and batch a few thousand photos. If that runs fine, I know I am good. When I first got this chip and tweaked it, it was "just fine" running R23 for 30 minutes, but as soon as I started batching photos, it green screened in 2 seconds.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Csavez™ said:


> I would like to send 2 pictures to your lists!
> View attachment 2583062
> 
> View attachment 2583061



My 13900K SP rating overall is 98. It had 107 for P cores and 80 for e-cores on both Asus Z790 Hero and Z790-F Strix. Is that good bad or average or where in the rankings for my chip?? And how reliable is Asus SP rating for how good your chip is??
I cannot test SP rating anymore as my Asus boards have all been returned as I had trouble getting any DDR5 at XMP fully stable on them, so went with MSI Z690 MEG Unify X which has perfect DDR5 XMP stability.


----------



## Csavez™

Wolverine2349 said:


> My 13900K SP rating overall is 98. It had 107 for P cores and 80 for e-cores on both Asus Z790 Hero and Z790-F Strix. Is that good bad or average or where in the rankings for my chip?? And how reliable is Asus SP rating for how good your chip is??
> I cannot test SP rating anymore as my Asus boards have all been returned as I had trouble getting any DDR5 at XMP fully stable on them, so went with MSI Z690 MEG Unify X which has perfect DDR5 XMP stability.


With a good motherboard, there is no big difference, almost only in benchmarks, imc matters a lot, which is not scored.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Csavez™ said:


> With a good motherboard, there is no big difference, almost only in benchmarks, imc matters a lot, which is not scored.



How much of a difference though is there in CPU overclocking ability all P core. It appears my e-core score is below average and P core score is at least above average am I correct. And I really do not care about e-cores as they will always be disabled!!

I got my CPU clocked all P core 5.6GHz with ring at 5GHz. VCORE is 1.34 at LLC 6. Using Noctua NH-D15S with 2 140mm fans at 1000 RPM. Running CInebench R23, temps average 90C. Would a better P core SP chip allow me to have same all core 5.6GHz speed with 10C lower CInebench a R23 all core temps. Or possibly even 5.7 or 5.8GHZ or even 6GHz with 10C lower temps with no AVX offset?? Or no way in difference.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> He is running a really good sample 13900K. His P-Cores are SP119, and his E-Cores are an astonishing SP102. The guy is also a Asus bios engineer I think? He knows his stuff really well. He will squeeze every drop of performance out of a CPU without degrading it using TVB overclocking. Some days I really wish I had a Asus motherboard to properly follow some of his and Falk’s methods for overclocking.


Somebody HMU if they've got a chip of that quality; I'd buy it 


raad11 said:


> Have you guys also noticed that Handbrake is more demanding than Cinebench for stability? CB really is just barely game stable, but Handbrake is way more fussy and throws errors all the time. Without also being a power virus on initial runs.


Well obviously. Cinebench is the bare minimum. But it is what people use to compare (and as of Raptor Lake), stability test to minimize degradation.


Wolverine2349 said:


> How much of a difference though is there in CPU overclocking ability all P core. It appears my e-core score is below average and P core score is at least above average am I correct. And I really do not care about e-cores as they will always be disabled!!
> 
> I got my CPU clocked all P core 5.6GHz with ring at 5GHz. VCORE is 1.34 at LLC 6. Using Noctua NH-D15S with 2 140mm fans at 1000 RPM. Running CInebench R23, temps average 90C. Would a better P core SP chip allow me to have same all core 5.6GHz speed with 10C lower CInebench a R23 all core temps. Or possibly even 5.7 or 5.8GHZ or even 6GHz with 10C lower temps with no AVX offset?? Or no way in difference.


Better P/E-cores will allow you to hit 57-58x and 46-47x easily. But most likely not with a Noctua.


----------



## Telstar

raad11 said:


> Have you guys also noticed that Handbrake is more demanding than Cinebench for stability? CB really is just barely game stable, but Handbrake is way more fussy and throws errors all the time. Without also being a power virus on initial runs.


what about temps and power draw? Can u provide a more detailed comparison?


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> Somebody HMU if they've got a chip of that quality; I'd buy it
> 
> Better P/E-cores will allow you to hit 57-58x and 46-47x easily. But most likely not with a Noctua.


DO better e-core scores matter for the P cores if I disable them meaning could they still indicate overall chip quality that will impact overclockability of P cores?? Or no difference and only P core score matters if I am going to disable e-cores??

And when you say better P cores I could hit 57-58X easily would I be able to do it with Noctua with e-cores disabled cause I do not care about the e-cores. I know not with a Noctua with e-cores and P cores both on. But just P cores on and e-cores off.

*And on my current chip, is my 107 SP score for P cores good average or bad or where?*

I can do 57X, but I get a Windows Hardware error or error in OCCT unless VCORE is at 1.375V LLC6.

It will give a WHEA running Prime95 Blend even with AVX disabled at that VCORE so I gave up and went back to 5.6

SO when you say 57 to 58 easily do you mean being able to pass those other tests at even 1.34VCORE or less??

Does MSI have an SP score equivalent I can look at as my Asus boards are gone due to not able to get 3 different DDR5 dual channel kits fully stable at XMP settings?


----------



## Csavez™

Wolverine2349 said:


> How much of a difference though is there in CPU overclocking ability all P core. It appears my e-core score is below average and P core score is at least above average am I correct. And I really do not care about e-cores as they will always be disabled!!
> 
> I got my CPU clocked all P core 5.6GHz with ring at 5GHz. VCORE is 1.34 at LLC 6. Using Noctua NH-D15S with 2 140mm fans at 1000 RPM. Running CInebench R23, temps average 90C. Would a better P core SP chip allow me to have same all core 5.6GHz speed with 10C lower CInebench a R23 all core temps. Or possibly even 5.7 or 5.8GHZ or even 6GHz with 10C lower temps with no AVX offset?? Or no way in difference.


These are still tests without delid!
sp97









sp102


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> DO better e-core scores matter for the P cores if I disable them meaning could they still indicate overall chip quality that will impact overclockability of P cores?? Or no difference and only P core score matters if I am going to disable e-cores??
> 
> And when you say better P cores I could hit 57-58X easily would I be able to do it with Noctua with e-cores disabled cause I do not care about the e-cores. I know not with a Noctua with e-cores and P cores both on. But just P cores on and e-cores off.
> 
> *And on my current chip, is my 107 SP score for P cores good average or bad or where?*
> 
> I can do 57X, but I get a Windows Hardware error or error in OCCT unless VCORE is at 1.375V LLC6.
> 
> It will give a WHEA running Prime95 Blend even with AVX disabled at that VCORE so I gave up and went back to 5.6
> 
> SO when you say 57 to 58 easily do you mean being able to pass those other tests at even 1.34VCORE or less??
> 
> Does MSI have an SP score equivalent I can look at as my Asus boards are gone due to not able to get 3 different DDR5 dual channel kits fully stable at XMP settings?


You'd still probably fail to run it stable.
You're above average. A bit better than my chip, which does 56/45/51 under still-acceptable voltages.
You can only get a score readout on DDR5 boards.
Keep binning chips. Or better yet, move on from Noctua. They can't keep up anymore.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> You'd still probably fail to run it stable.
> You're above average. A bit better than my chip, which does 56/45/51 under still-acceptable voltages.
> You can only get a score readout on DDR5 boards.
> Keep binning chips. Or better yet, move on from Noctua. They can't keep up anymore.



When you say move on from Noctua, do you mean any air cooling or just Noctua and try and find a better air cooler?

And yes I have an MSI DDR5 board being the Z690 Unify X. Where is the score located?

And what is your 13900K SP rating overall and P and e cores. And to clarify my *overall SP score is 98. The P core SP score is 107. And e-core SP score is 80. My overall SP score was not 107. That is my P core SP score.*


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> When you say move on from Noctua, do you mean any air cooling or just Noctua and try and find a better air cooler?


Get an AIO or go custom.


Wolverine2349 said:


> And yes I have an MSI DDR5 board being the Z690 Unify X. Where is the score located?
> 
> And what is your 13900K SP rating overall and P and e cores. And to clarify my *overall SP score is 98. The P core SP score is 107. And e-core SP score is 80. My overall SP score was not 107. That is my P core SP score.*


The CPU Force 2 score. The lower, the better. It's pretty obvious where it is.

I compared my chip with a friend's which came from the same source, and I guesstimate it to be around 103/75 P/E-SP.
So really average, but at least the DDR4 IMC is strong. A little saving grace there.

I'm gonna keep binning. May resort to a 13900KS if these next two chips turn out sour.


----------



## Mainstream

Csavez™ said:


> These are still tests without delid!
> sp97
> View attachment 2583073
> 
> 
> sp102
> View attachment 2583074



Can you post your bios config? Would love to see it as I cant seem to get my Ecores or temps near that. Running HK iv and always throttling.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> Get an AIO or go custom.
> 
> The CPU Force 2 score. The lower, the better. It's pretty obvious where it is.
> 
> I compared my chip with a friend's which came from the same source, and I guesstimate it to be around 103/75 P/E-SP.
> So really average, but at least the DDR4 IMC is strong. A little saving grace there.
> 
> I'm gonna keep binning. May resort to a 13900KS if these next two chips turn out sour.


Is there any good enough 13900k CPUs to do 5.8GHz or even 6GHz all core with e cores off on a Noctua NH-D15S air cooler. Or not gonna happen.


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> Is there any good enough 13900k CPUs to do 5.8GHz or even 6GHz all core with e cores off on a Noctua NH-D15S air cooler. Or not gonna happen.


5.8+ GHz all-core chip, sure, but on a Noctua, probably not. Unless you want to hit 100C at all times and constantly throttle.


----------



## gtz

Wolverine2349 said:


> Is there any good enough 13900k CPUs to do 5.8GHz or even 6GHz all core with e cores off on a Noctua NH-D15S air cooler. Or not gonna happen.


Yes but not on air cooling.


----------



## tps3443

Agent-A01 said:


> SP115-6 and you sold it for $1200. I have two chips SP105 and SP104(total score). P core SP116 and SP113.
> BRB selling them for $1200
> 
> But for real I thought SP105~ is pretty average. Buddy of mine in TX got SP102 as well.


I did not know it’s SP rating at all I’m saying the chip is most likely SP116+ P-Cores and E88+ E-Cores. The chip would run 5.8 GHz P-Cores and 4.5Ghz E-Cores and 5.1Ghz cache @ 260 watts through R23 for 30+ minutes perfectly fine.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I did not know it’s SP rating at all I’m saying the chip is most likely SP116+ P-Cores and E88+ E-Cores. The chip would run 5.8 GHz P-Cores and 4.5Ghz E-Cores and 5.1Ghz cache @ 260 watts through R23 for 30+ minutes perfectly fine.


This is a good generation. Chips are so strong that most people do not really have much of a perception of what is good or not.
It's only the hardcore overclockers that want the best 58x+ chips and are willing to bin for them.

Once @sugi0lover moves onto Meteor/Arrow Lake, I hope he can sell me his golden sample 

Similar to how you stuck with the 11900K for the longest time, I'll be sticking with a 13900K for the foreseeable future, simply because I'm remaining on DDR4.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> This is a good generation. Chips are so strong that most people do not really have much of a perception of what is good or not.
> It's only the hardcore overclockers that want the best 58x+ chips and are willing to bin for them.
> 
> Once @sugi0lover moves onto Meteor/Arrow Lake, I hope he can sell me his golden sample
> 
> Similar to how you stuck with the 11900K for the longest time, I'll be sticking with a 13900K for the foreseeable future, simply because I'm remaining on DDR4.


Yeah his force rating was like 109 it’s absolutely nuts. He said the Average force rating for 13900K was about 150.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Yeah his force rating was like 109 it’s absolutely nuts. He said the Average force rating for 13900K was about 150.


He gets hooked up by his Korean overclocking friends who likely bin trays of them, and find a lot of top chips.


----------



## Wolverine2349

I got a CPU Force 2 score of 149 everything default.

If I disable e-cores and leave everything else default, Force 2 score goes down to 128.

It would not allow me to run a Force 2 score with my manual static OC settings applied.


----------



## tps3443

Wolverine2349 said:


> I got a CPU Force 2 score of 149 everything default.
> 
> If I disable e-cores and leave everything else default, Force 2 score goes down to 128.
> 
> It would not allow me to run a Force 2 score with my manual static OC settings applied.


MSI only lets Force 2 detect with auto voltage settings, auto LLC settings, auto lite load settings, auto TVB voltage optimization settings. If anything related to power is changed it won’t allow it to run.

As for Force rating of 149 that sounds like a standard run of the mill chip. That’s what Sugu0luver says anyways. But it’s still a 13900K at the end of the day. I’d be after stock boost settings with lowest VCore possible. And maybe grab a 420MM AIO and some good paste to replace that air cooler you’ve been mentioning.


----------



## newls1

Wolverine2349 said:


> Is there any good enough 13900k CPUs to do 5.8GHz or even 6GHz all core with e cores off on a Noctua NH-D15S air cooler. Or not gonna happen.


im 5.85Ghz Pcore and 4.65ghz Ecore (which you dont care about) @ 1.330v LLC5 (1.278 VOut R23 Load) With this 13900K. She is delidded though with excellent water cooling.


----------



## Wolverine2349

newls1 said:


> im 5.85Ghz Pcore and 4.65ghz Ecore (which you dont care about) @ 1.330v LLC5 (1.278 VOut R23 Load) With this 13900K. She is delidded though with excellent water cooling.



What is your Force 2 score?


----------



## Ichirou

newls1 said:


> im 5.85Ghz Pcore and 4.65ghz Ecore (which you dont care about) @ 1.330v LLC5 (1.278 VOut R23 Load) With this 13900K. She is delidded though with excellent water cooling.


That's really damn good.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

RichKnecht said:


> No doubt you know EXACTLY what you are doing. Since I am using a MSI board, I have to try to translate your Asus settings into my MSI settings. Did you state that having V Core and VID match as closely as possible was a good thing or did I totally misunderstand your guide?


The VID and the communications with CPU and VRM are very fast. So at idle the VID may not match the vcore because they are changing very fast.
When you submit the CPU at full load the voltages stabilizes, so now you can see VID and vcore relatively stable...
At this time that we check if the LLC is calibrated with the DC_LL parameter.
So the answer is yes. The idea is to have the VID matching the Vcore...


----------



## mgkhn

first run with 13900k ( bios shows sp100 p114 e73 ) p57 / e46 / r50 llc7 1.25v


----------



## RobertoSampaio

RichKnecht said:


> I use R23 for a quick test. Once it passes 30 minutes of R23, I open Photoshop and batch a few thousand photos. If that runs fine, I know I am good. When I first got this chip and tweaked it, it was "just fine" running R23 for 30 minutes, but as soon as I started batching photos, it green screened in 2 seconds.


Perfect!
Tune using r23 and fine tune using your day by day software.
At any time you have a BSOD you know you need to add more voltage or reduce the frequency.


----------



## RichKnecht

RobertoSampaio said:


> The VID and the communications with CPU and VRM are very fast. So at idle the VID may not match the vote because they are changing very fast.
> When you submit the CPU at full load the voltages stabilizes, so now you can see VID and vcore relatively stable...
> At this time that we check if the LLC is calibrated with the DC_LL parameter.
> So the answer is yes. The idea is to have the VID matching the Vcore...


Thanks! I am old and dense so it takes a little while for stuff to sink in. Now say if I want to go above stock settings,if I raise v-core to accomodate the higher clocks but leave LLC alone, will I need to go back and tweak the AC/DC LL values? Or, will they remain constant as long as I don't change the LLC setting? I hope that makes sense.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

is there an


mgkhn said:


> first run with 13900k ( bios shows sp100 p114 e73 ) p57 / e46 / r50 llc7 1.25v
> View attachment 2583153


Why u have to be so lucky past 2 gen 😄 This is what i adore for binned 13900K's 1.120 on 5.5.. while avg 13700's cant even do 1.260 5.5


----------



## Ichirou

For anyone still interested in Canada, there's plenty of stock available at Canada Computers:





Intel Core i9-13900K Desktop Processor 24 cores (8P+16E) LGA1700


Intel Core i9-13900K Desktop Processor 24 cores (8P+16E) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz, 125W, unlocked, LGA1700 700 & 600 chipset, PCIe 5&4, DDR5&4, 13th Gen Boxed BX8071513900K




www.canadacomputers.com









Intel Core i9-13900KF Desktop Processor 24 cores (8P+16E) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz,125W, unlocked, LGA1700 700 & 600 chipset, PCIe 5&4, DDR5&4, 13th Gen Boxed, Discrete GPU Required BX8071513900KF


Intel Core i9-13900KF Desktop Processor 24 cores (8P+16E) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz,125W, unlocked, LGA1700 700 & 600 chipset, PCIe 5&4, DDR5&4, 13th Gen Boxed, Discrete GPU Required BX8071513900KF




www.canadacomputers.com




Sadly, they tend to get poor batches, so I'm holding off.


----------



## Falkentyne

RichKnecht said:


> Thanks! I am old and dense so it takes a little while for stuff to sink in. Now say if I want to go above stock settings,if I raise v-core to accomodate the higher clocks but leave LLC alone, will I need to go back and tweak the AC/DC LL values? Or, will they remain constant as long as I don't change the LLC setting? I hope that makes sense.


LLC (VRM Loadline) synching to DC Loadline is a feature that only works properly on Asus boards, and it was something @RobertoSampaio directly asked for.
AC LL, when on auto is set depending on CPU multiplier and DCLL value, to allow reasonably tuned settings for auto.

MSI settings you can't trust at all because they change their LLC values depending on if you choose VCC_Sense or Socket_Sense in the BIOS. Instead of changing the reading from Vcore directly, they compensated for the changes by changing the LLC values. And if your MSI board doesn't have "Current IOUT" / "VR VOUT" exposed in Hwinfo64, you have no idea what's it's doing unless you can hook a probe to the controller and read the current somehow.


----------



## raad11

Falkentyne said:


> LLC (VRM Loadline) synching to DC Loadline is a feature that only works properly on Asus boards, and it was something @RobertoSampaio directly asked for.
> AC LL, when on auto is set depending on CPU multiplier and DCLL value, to allow reasonably tuned settings for auto.
> 
> MSI settings you can't trust at all because they change their LLC values depending on if you choose VCC_Sense or Socket_Sense in the BIOS. Instead of changing the reading from Vcore directly, they compensated for the changes by changing the LLC values. And if your MSI board doesn't have "Current IOUT" / "VR VOUT" exposed in Hwinfo64, you have no idea what's it's doing unless you can hook a probe to the controller and read the current somehow.


Even with everything on Auto, the newer BIOSes on Z690 boards do a pretty good job setting the loadlines. I forgot what it was (I had checked in HWinfo64), but a 12900K on default with Asus MCE stuff on auto ran full load at sub-200 watts for me (board was Prime Z690M-Plus D4). The loadlines were set to undervolt by default is all I remember (AC<DC). Guessing that was with TVB Optimizations on at Auto/Default on as well. But still, that's really good. When the board first came out, the chip would've been hitting 240 watts straight or higher.

My friend's 12900K, which is the worst bin I had seen, would crash on TVB Optimizations On, but ran fine at 230-236 watts or so at all defaults. That was with a VID of like 1.2+ for full load whereas mine was doing 1.17 or so.

Thanks to you and Roberto and everyone else sending Asus feedback over the past year.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> For anyone still interested in Canada, there's plenty of stock available at Canada Computers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900K Desktop Processor 24 cores (8P+16E) LGA1700
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900K Desktop Processor 24 cores (8P+16E) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz, 125W, unlocked, LGA1700 700 & 600 chipset, PCIe 5&4, DDR5&4, 13th Gen Boxed BX8071513900K
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canadacomputers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900KF Desktop Processor 24 cores (8P+16E) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz,125W, unlocked, LGA1700 700 & 600 chipset, PCIe 5&4, DDR5&4, 13th Gen Boxed, Discrete GPU Required BX8071513900KF
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900KF Desktop Processor 24 cores (8P+16E) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz,125W, unlocked, LGA1700 700 & 600 chipset, PCIe 5&4, DDR5&4, 13th Gen Boxed, Discrete GPU Required BX8071513900KF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canadacomputers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, they tend to get poor batches, so I'm holding off.


How come you didn’t order any KF’s? Just a little variation.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> How come you didn’t order any KF’s? Just a little variation.


I did. One from Amazon (imported from the US). It's the one I tested most recently and shared my results on.
56/45/51 with 1.280V VR VOUT. Or if optimized, I can push the majority of the P-cores to 57x and one cluster of the E-cores to 46x.
I need something like 1.330V VR VOUT to do 57/45/51.
The DDR4 IMC is very strong, though. Boots 4,400 MHz.

I'm tempted to bin more chips, but if my attempts to bin the 12900K back in the day have taught me anything, it's just a waste of time.
I might as well just wait for the 13900KS instead.

I will test out the 1-2 chips I'm still pending receipt on, though. Since I've already preordered them.


> 12900K Binning History:
> 12900K: Was a binned P-SP 101 that I got scammed on because the seller said it had a good DDR4 IMC (when it didn't); sold it for an acceptable loss (like $50+ USD)
> 12900K: Was mega garbage from Canada Computers, terrible on all fronts, I RMA'd it
> 12900K: Was somewhere between the first and second chip, from Newegg; not great overall
> 12900KF: Was a binned P-SP 99 with a beast 4,300 Gear 1 DDR4 IMC, I traded the third 12900K with a good friend for it
> 12900K: Was the chip I got after the RMA, which was also P-SP 99 but with a worse DDR4 IMC; recently sold it for a large loss (around $150+ USD)
> 12900KS: Was another binned chip, but scammed again as it had been degraded and effectively unusable at any decent clock. Bought it for $1,100 USD and sold at a loss
> 
> 13900K Binning History:
> 13900K: Was preordered from Canada Computers, and terrible on all fronts again, sold it on Facebook
> 13900KF: Was ordered from Amazon CA (and imported from the US), average cores but very strong DDR4 IMC; can boot 4,400 MHz so better than my 12900KF


----------



## Wolverine2349

Falkentyne said:


> I really can't say for sure but you need to remember to not simply say that a 13900K is a 12900k with 8 more E-cores. The internal structure is far different, which is why the E-cores work so well now. I posted a link here earlier but there was an Interview in Japan by an Intel engineer (before NDA release) which explained some of the changes in the ring and L0 structure.
> 
> Why do you think that you NEVER saw "internal parity errors" and CPU Cache L0 errors on Alder Lake, but now you see them (the infamous "skylake" core errors) on Raptor Lake?
> Disabling E-cores made more sense on ADL than it does on RPL. On RPL you really need to test this on a case by case basis.
> 
> And I'm using W11 22H2 with the service patch for it.



I found the article explaining what I remember reading about how disabling e-cores causes issues with Intel Thread director:









Core i7-12700K review revealing that E-cores hurt P-cores, but without them, everything is only worse - FoxLaptop


Contents1⇡#Core i7-12700K close-up2⇡#E-cores in Core i7-12700K - are they needed at all?3⇡#Description of the test ... Read More




fox-laptop.com





Issue is with 12th gen too. Since Windows 11 is thread director aware and there is no switch to disable the thread director, it will have an issue of threads being incorrectly allocated due to thread director doing things wrong.

Since Windows 10 has no thread director support, it correctly disfurnishes between real and physicals P cores and in theory and thus there should be 0 single threaded performance loss or difference with e-cores on or off on both 12th and 13th gen CPUs??

Is this the same on 12th and 13th gen. I know WIN10 is and will never be thread director aware and WIN11 is needed for it. Or did Intel change anything that even on WIN10 this could be an issue with 13th gen and all e-cores off??


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> I found the article explaining what I remember reading about how disabling e-cores causes issues with Intel Thread director:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Core i7-12700K review revealing that E-cores hurt P-cores, but without them, everything is only worse - FoxLaptop
> 
> 
> Contents1⇡#Core i7-12700K close-up2⇡#E-cores in Core i7-12700K - are they needed at all?3⇡#Description of the test ... Read More
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fox-laptop.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issue is with 12th gen too. Since Windows 11 is thread director aware and there is no switch to disable the thread director, it will have an issue of threads being incorrectly allocated due to thread director doing things wrong.
> 
> Since Windows 10 has no thread director support, it correctly disfurnishes between real and physicals P cores.
> 
> Is this the same on 12th and 13th gen. I know WIN10 is and will never be thread director aware and WIN11 is needed for it. Or did Intel change anything that even on WIN10 this could be an issue with 13th gen and all e-cores off??


Dude. Can you just drop the topic already? These unfounded conspiracy theories are getting annoying.

Do your own testing, since you're not gonna believe anyone else's word otherwise.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> Dude. Can you just drop the topic already? These unfounded conspiracy theories are getting annoying.
> 
> Do your own testing, since you're not gonna believe anyone else's word otherwise.



Well I want to know if this is real or not that single core perf is lost if all e-cores are disabled. I tested 2 things and scores suggest no issues at all at least on WIN10. But does that tell the whole story??


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> I tested 2 things and scores suggest no issues at all at least on WIN10.


*Case closed. Move on.*


----------



## RichKnecht

Falkentyne said:


> LLC (VRM Loadline) synching to DC Loadline is a feature that only works properly on Asus boards, and it was something @RobertoSampaio directly asked for.
> AC LL, when on auto is set depending on CPU multiplier and DCLL value, to allow reasonably tuned settings for auto.
> 
> MSI settings you can't trust at all because they change their LLC values depending on i*f you choose VCC_Sense or Socket_Sense in the BIOS*. Instead of changing the reading from Vcore directly, they compensated for the changes by changing the LLC values. And if your MSI board *doesn't have "Current IOUT" / "VR VOUT" exposed in Hwinfo64,* you have no idea what's it's doing unless you can hook a probe to the controller and read the current somehow.


Well that sucks  I can't choose VCC Sense or Socket sense in BIOS nor do I have access to IOUT or VROUT. I did manage to sync vcore to VID once I understood how to do it. So are you saying that doesn't mean anything or that it can be a PITA to do manually as I did? I just don't want to blow anything up.


----------



## nievz

It's far from @RobertoSampaio's result but I'm really glad I can get almost 40K with just 230w of power and play BFV at or below 100W.😊


----------



## Ichirou

nievz said:


> It's far from @RobertoSampaio's result but I'm really glad I can get almost 40K with just 230w of power and play BFV at or below 100W.😊
> 
> View attachment 2583165


That score doesn't make sense with your core clocks. Something's wrong.


----------



## nievz

Ichirou said:


> That score doesn't make sense with your core clocks. Something's wrong.


Not really, i took the screenshot on idle where it was sitting at 59x. 54x at 8P.


----------



## newls1

Wolverine2349 said:


> What is your Force 2 score?


no clue. it wants me to return tostock settings to get score andi refuse to do that just to get a number. with how sensitive everything is today, my luck my settings wouldnt be stable again!


----------



## Ichirou

nievz said:


> Not really, i took the screenshot on idle where it was sitting at 59x. 54x at 8P.


Ah, that explains it. So on load, the P-cores lock to 54x instead?


newls1 said:


> no clue. it wants me to return tostock settings to get score andi refuse to do that just to get a number. with how sensitive everything is today, my luck my settings wouldnt be stable again!


Ever heard of saving a profile and reloading it?


----------



## tps3443

newls1 said:


> no clue. it wants me to return tostock settings to get score andi refuse to do that just to get a number. with how sensitive everything is today, my luck my settings wouldnt be stable again!


It’s true! I found the MSI bios particularly sensitive sometimes. But just save the profile F9 I think. I can’t remember, my PC is down and my 13900KF is missing from its socket!


----------



## newls1

Ichirou said:


> Ah, that explains it. So on load, the P-cores lock to 54x instead?
> 
> Ever heard of saving a profile and reloading it?


Of course, and i do have several thank you very much.....


----------



## newls1

tps3443 said:


> It’s true! I found the MSI bios particularly sensitive sometimes. But just save the profile F9 I think. I can’t remember, my PC is down and my 13900KF is missing from its socket!


were did your cpu go?


----------



## tubs2x4

Ichirou said:


> For anyone still interested in Canada, there's plenty of stock available at Canada Computers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900K Desktop Processor 24 cores (8P+16E) LGA1700
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900K Desktop Processor 24 cores (8P+16E) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz, 125W, unlocked, LGA1700 700 & 600 chipset, PCIe 5&4, DDR5&4, 13th Gen Boxed BX8071513900K
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canadacomputers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900KF Desktop Processor 24 cores (8P+16E) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz,125W, unlocked, LGA1700 700 & 600 chipset, PCIe 5&4, DDR5&4, 13th Gen Boxed, Discrete GPU Required BX8071513900KF
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900KF Desktop Processor 24 cores (8P+16E) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz,125W, unlocked, LGA1700 700 & 600 chipset, PCIe 5&4, DDR5&4, 13th Gen Boxed, Discrete GPU Required BX8071513900KF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canadacomputers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, they tend to get poor batches, so I'm holding off.


13900KS


----------



## tps3443

newls1 said:


> were did your cpu go?


I sold It, and I got another one on the way.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I sold It, and I got another one on the way.


Where are you sourcing your chips from? Amazon as well?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

RichKnecht said:


> Thanks! I am old and dense so it takes a little while for stuff to sink in. Now say if I want to go above stock settings,if I raise v-core to accomodate the higher clocks but leave LLC alone, will I need to go back and tweak the AC/DC LL values? Or, will they remain constant as long as I don't change the LLC setting? I hope that makes sense.


You need to tune the loadlines for the full load... If you decide to rise full load frequency you need to tune it again. If you rise the tvb frequencies keeping full load frequency untouched, not. But if you rise vf#8,9or 10, in the 13900k you need to tune AC_LL again. The 12900k no need to adjust if you change vf curves... It's a 13900k characteristic.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Where are you sourcing your chips from? Amazon as well?


Just from Newegg. That’s where I got the first one. They all come from the same warehouse anyways. Whether it’s bought from Intel, Amazon, Newegg, B&H Photo they all come from “City of Industry“ in California USA.


----------



## Ichirou

I just noticed something:








The ASUS Strix Z690-A has better power stages than the Z790-A 🤔


----------



## bhav

MSI - upgrades phases across all boards.

Asus - Downgrades and still charges more than MSI boards.


----------



## Shkiz0

A new visitor  (13900K)
A very early piece, I'll be curious to see what he will know


----------



## wilkinsb01

mgkhn said:


> first run with 13900k ( bios shows sp100 p114 e73 ) p57 / e46 / r50 llc7 1.25v
> View attachment 2583153
> 
> 
> I have the same SP100 as you [email protected]


----------



## tps3443

Shkiz0 said:


> A new visitor  (13900K)
> A very early piece, I'll be curious to see what he will know
> View attachment 2583186


Those are the batch numbers from the launch day reviews lol. What is the SP?


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> MSI - upgrades phases across all boards.
> 
> Asus - Downgrades and still charges more than MSI boards.


I don’t know why MSI did not release an updated Z790 Unify-X and simply undercut the Asus Apex Z790 in price by $60-$100 dollars and people would by the crap out of it, and it would be the king budget XOC motherboard. The MSI Unify-X is so freaking good. No RGB on it anywhere, (2) Dimm Slots for great memory overclocking. Memory stability testing right inside the bios. Crazy fast memory training, and even a CPU force rating! I have never owned a MSI motherboard before this that I can remember “I probably have lol”. But, I have always ran EVGA Dark motherboards. And I’m like sold on MSI now, and their bios is actually really good!

For the life of me… I can’t figure out why they did not release a new and improved Z790 Unify-X…The Z690 Unify was really successful.

It makes me think Asus like paid them to stay out of the (2) Dimm Z790 market. “I’m Kidding”


----------



## Shkiz0

tps3443 said:


> Those are the batch numbers from the launch day reviews lol. What is the SP?


I don't know yet, yesterday's purchase. I should remove the water cooling, but I don't have time. But if it's good or bad, I'll share it.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I don’t know why MSI did not release an updated Z790 Unify-X and simply undercut the Asus Apex Z790 in price by $60-$100 dollars and people would by the crap out of it, and it would be the king budget XOC motherboard. The MSI Unify-X is so freaking good. No RGB on it anywhere, (2) Dimm Slots for great memory overclocking. Memory stability testing right inside the bios. Crazy fast memory training, and even a CPU force rating! I have never owned a MSI motherboard before this that I can remember “I probably have lol”. But, I have always ran EVGA Dark motherboards. And I’m like sold on MSI now, and their bios is actually really good!
> 
> For the life of me… I can’t figure out why they did not release a new and improved Z790 Unify-X…The Z690 Unify was really successful.
> 
> It makes me think Asus like paid them to stay out of the (2) Dimm Z790 market. “I’m Kidding”


The DDR4 boards from MSI are gimped as all hell, though. For shame.
They should've at least made the Edge a premium board, considering it is their highest end DDR4 board.


----------



## energie80

I’m running daily p58 ring51 at 1.33 llc4 on unify x, is this considered good?
Also dropped in some team groups 7600 yesterday and booted at first attempt
No hard stress, just playing cod mw2 without crashes.


----------



## Ichirou

energie80 said:


> I’m running daily p58 ring51 at 1.33 llc4 on unify x, is this considered good?
> Also dropped in some team groups 7600 yesterday and booted at first attempt
> No hard stress, just playing cod mw2 without crashes.


No. That's degradation territory. But if you aren't stressing it hard, it's not a big deal.


----------



## tps3443

energie80 said:


> I’m running daily p58 ring51 at 1.33 llc4 on unify x, is this considered good?
> Also dropped in some team groups 7600 yesterday and booted at first attempt
> No hard stress, just playing cod mw2 without crashes.


The Unify-X will post that higher frequency Hynix A die DDR5 just fine. As for your overclock on the 13900K, I wouldn’t stress test it with anything heavy unless you’ve got some really great temps.

I would stay under 250 amps load at least. You should be fine following that. If your just gaming, etc, benchmarking then no problem.


----------



## Telstar

Ichirou said:


> The DDR4 boards from MSI are gimped as all hell, though. For shame.
> They should've at least made the Edge a premium board, considering it is their highest end DDR4 board.


Instead no dr debug and no p-force score.


----------



## Ichirou

Telstar said:


> Instead no dr debug and no p-force score.


No CMOS reset either. But they added on for the Z790 Edge... which doesn't have a CPU Force 2 reading either.


----------



## acoustic

Yeah it's pretty lame there's no decent DDR4 boards available. Just buy an MSI PRO for $200 and be done with it, if you're going DDR4.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> No CMOS reset either. But they added on for the Z790 Edge... which doesn't have a CPU Force 2 reading either.


My Z790 Tomahawk has a clear CMOS button on the rear IO. I haven’t tried any memory overclocking yet. Not sure where to start with SA and VDDQ voltages. That’s another wormhole I’m not sure I am ready for.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> My Z790 Tomahawk has a clear CMOS button on the rear IO. I haven’t tried any memory overclocking yet. Not sure where to start with SA and VDDQ voltages. That’s another wormhole I’m not sure I am ready for.


I've always been forced to cycle the power four times in order to force a pseudo-CMOS reset on this MSI Z690 Edge.
Just a trick I picked up from my ASUS Z390 Prime days. It tricks the BIOS into thinking that the memory training failed.

VCCSA = Max 1.35V daily.
VDDQ = Whatever is necessary to not get voltage errors in TM5 with specifically the 1usmus config. You can go over 1.50V. But start with raising VDIMM first.


----------



## imrevoau

RichKnecht said:


> My Z790 Tomahawk has a clear CMOS button on the rear IO. I haven’t tried any memory overclocking yet. Not sure where to start with SA and VDDQ voltages. That’s another wormhole I’m not sure I am ready for.


1.35SA and 1.5 VDDQ is the sweetspot, it seems like


----------



## yzonker

Ichirou said:


> I've always been forced to cycle the power four times in order to force a pseudo-CMOS reset on this MSI Z690 Edge.
> Just a trick I picked up from my ASUS Z390 Prime days. It tricks the BIOS into thinking that the memory training failed.
> 
> VCCSA = Max 1.35V daily.
> VDDQ = Whatever is necessary to not get voltage errors in TM5 with specifically the 1usmus config. You can go over 1.50V. But start with raising VDIMM first.


How is that faster/better than just waiting for it to reset itself after a couple of training cycles?


----------



## ViTosS

Nizzen said:


> Win 11 spectre


Where to download?


----------



## gtz

ViTosS said:


> Where to download?











Ghost Spectre Windows 11 Superlite Version | TechLatest


Todaty, we are going to show you a decent Windows build named Ghost Spectre Windows 11 Superlite Version, in which they truncated many unnecessary features.




tech-latest.com


----------



## cptclutch

This thread/site is such an awesome resource. Messed around with my LLC and I'm managing to get 33k in R23 on my 13700k with all my cores below 90c. Have a crappy MSI Pro A so all I know is my vcore reading is 1.27v under R23 load now. Was previously above 1.3v and hitting right up against 100c. Package power is now reading 260w, down from around 280-290w previously.


----------



## Ichirou

yzonker said:


> How is that faster/better than just waiting for it to reset itself after a couple of training cycles?


Because, with really poor settings, it'll just keep attempting to train indefinitely, nonstop.
And without a CMOS reset button, you can't get around it without a CMOS battery reset.
Just MSI things.


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> Because, with really poor settings, it'll just keep attempting to train indefinitely, nonstop.
> And without a CMOS reset button, you can't get around it without a CMOS battery reset.
> Just MSI things.


Yep, as someone who had a Z370-F STRIX, the memory training on that board was TERRIBLE. It took soooo long haha. I regret not buying a different board, I got ripped off with a board with sub optimal VRM's and memory overclocking


----------



## cptclutch

I spoke too soon and am having trouble stabilizing OCCT small. R23 is fine. Any tips for OCCT? Crashes instantly at the start so I assume its just too much droop.


----------



## tps3443

Another cool feature on this MSI motherboard is how you can hold the power button for 4 seconds and it will power on and automatically enter the bios. Pretty neat. You need to enable it in the bios first though.


----------



## Ichirou

cptclutch said:


> I spoke too soon and am having trouble stabilizing OCCT small. R23 is fine. Any tips for OCCT? Crashes instantly at the start so I assume its just too much droop.


Raise Vcore.


tps3443 said:


> Another cool feature on this MSI motherboard is how you can hold the power button for 4 seconds and it will power on and automatically enter the bios. Pretty neat. You need to enable it in the bios first though.


That feature is busted on the Edge. Never works for me. Otherwise I wouldn't have so much difficulty trying to re-enter the BIOS after bad training.


----------



## raad11

RobertoSampaio said:


> You need to tune the loadlines for the full load... If you decide to rise full load frequency you need to tune it again. If you rise the tvb frequencies keeping full load frequency untouched, not. But if you rise vf#8,9or 10, in the 13900k you need to tune AC_LL again. The 12900k no need to adjust if you change vf curves... It's a 13900k characteristic.


I just:

Set LLC 3, AC_LL = 0.20, DC_LL = 1.12

Ran CB23 to see full load VIDs and power. Both 5.5 and 5.6 passed CB23 (I just ran them 5 minutes though, lazy/impatient).

Then decreased AC_LL until I hit 0.14 or 0.15, I forget which, at which point 5.5 would pass and VIDs in HWinfo64 would just about match what was in the VID table (or CPU VF Points, Target Die Sense table). I figured that was a good point to stop, then worked on raising voltages to get 5.6 working.

I guess you mean if I intended to run 5.6 all-core, I should have dropped AC_LL until 5.6 passed without needing any VF offsets?

Originally what I had done also worked, sort of. I just set 0.20/1.12, forgot about it. Added a little voltage to 5700 and 5800 and wala, everything ran fine. Threw in 46x4/45x8/44x16 for E-Cores. 5.6 in CB23 was pulling down like 290-295 watts, but I had package temperature threshold set to keep it under 86 C. In the mid-range, at 5.7/5.8, all the games and game benchmarks (e.g, TimeSpy Extreme CPU Test) worked reliably, sometimes even hitting 5.9. It would also boost to 61x2,60x5 and had great lightly threaded benchmark scores. Problem, IA VR Voltage Limit had to be set to 1540 and it was hitting 1520-1530+ non-stop unless I put it in Power Saver mode and limited clocks. I didn't want idle voltage to be this high (since it was never truly idling and constantly boosting cores for whatever reason).

So I enabled TVB and that was awesome. Full load power at 5.6 dropped to 280, voltage stayed well under 1.5 at all times. But now E-Cores were unstable and would cause errors in Handbrake (Handbrake in Windows 10 puts everything on E-Cores primarily).

So then I did what I described above. I wound up with +14mV @ 5400, +31mV @ 5700, +60mV @ 5800 #1 (a.k.a. VF #9) and VF#10 and VF#11 on Auto (1.44 on Adaptive). Unfortunately now 5.4 all core uses the same power/temps as 5.5, but 5.5 isn't terrible, it's around 258-260 watts whereas it was like just about 250 watts on the dot before I messed with voltages (I think I could have gotten 5.5 to under 250w if I kept going). 5.6, however, uses just the bare minimum to pass (at 280 watts) and keeps temps under the 86 C limit for several runs in a row. I put the E-Cores back to 46x4/45x8/44x16, and what do you know, Handbrake still works and power usage wasn't affected in CB23. I also capped the peak to 60x5 (turned off the 61/62x ratios) so VIDs stay under 1.5 when randomly boosting.

I may go back to the TVB (by which I mean 'TVB Optimizations Enabled', otherwise I use TVB in everything) profile if I figure out how to stabilize the E-Cores under those voltage drops. TVB also gave higher CB23 scores of 200-300 pts at same speeds plus could run slightly higher frequencies for 1-3 active cores and ran cooler at 5.4/5.5 all-core. Just can't compete with that


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> Raise Vcore.
> 
> That feature is busted on the Edge. Never works for me. Otherwise I wouldn't have so much difficulty trying to re-enter the BIOS after bad training.


Doesn’t work for me either on the A-Pro.


----------



## satinghostrider

raad11 said:


> I just:
> 
> Set LLC 3, AC_LL = 0.20, DC_LL = 1.12
> 
> Ran CB23 to see full load VIDs and power. Both 5.5 and 5.6 passed CB23 (I just ran them 5 minutes though, lazy/impatient).
> 
> Then decreased AC_LL until I hit 0.14 or 0.15, I forget which, at which point 5.5 would pass and VIDs in HWinfo64 would just about match what was in the VID table (or CPU VF Points, Target Die Sense table). I figured that was a good point to stop, then worked on raising voltages to get 5.6 working.
> 
> I guess you mean if I intended to run 5.6 all-core, I should have dropped AC_LL until 5.6 passed without needing any VF offsets?
> 
> Originally what I had done also worked, sort of. I just set 0.20/1.12, forgot about it. Added a little voltage to 5700 and 5800 and wala, everything ran fine. Threw in 46x4/45x8/44x16 for E-Cores. 5.6 in CB23 was pulling down like 290-295 watts, but I had package temperature threshold set to keep it under 86 C. In the mid-range, at 5.7/5.8, all the games and game benchmarks (e.g, TimeSpy Extreme CPU Test) worked reliably, sometimes even hitting 5.9. It would also boost to 61x2,60x5 and had great lightly threaded benchmark scores. Problem, IA VR Voltage Limit had to be set to 1540 and it was hitting 1520-1530+ non-stop unless I put it in Power Saver mode and limited clocks. I didn't want idle voltage to be this high (since it was never truly idling and constantly boosting cores for whatever reason).
> 
> So I enabled TVB and that was awesome. Full load power at 5.6 dropped to 280, voltage stayed well under 1.5 at all times. But now E-Cores were unstable and would cause errors in Handbrake (Handbrake in Windows 10 puts everything on E-Cores primarily).
> 
> So then I did what I described above. I wound up with +14mV @ 5400, +31mV @ 5700, +60mV @ 5800 #1 (a.k.a. VF #9) and VF#10 and VF#11 on Auto (1.44 on Adaptive). Unfortunately now 5.4 all core uses the same power/temps as 5.5, but 5.5 isn't terrible, it's around 258-260 watts whereas it was like just about 250 watts on the dot before I messed with voltages (I think I could have gotten 5.5 to under 250w if I kept going). 5.6, however, uses just the bare minimum to pass (at 280 watts) and keeps temps under the 86 C limit for several runs in a row. I put the E-Cores back to 46x4/45x8/44x16, and what do you know, Handbrake still works and power usage wasn't affected in CB23. I also capped the peak to 60x5 (turned off the 61/62x ratios) so VIDs stay under 1.5 when randomly boosting.
> 
> I may go back to the TVB (by which I mean 'TVB Optimizations Enabled', otherwise I use TVB in everything) profile if I figure out how to stabilize the E-Cores under those voltage drops. TVB also gave higher CB23 scores of 200-300 pts at same speeds plus could run slightly higher frequencies for 1-3 active cores and ran cooler at 5.4/5.5 all-core. Just can't compete with that


There are issues with TVB with handbrake. Once you disable it, you can pass that.


----------



## Professor DumbDumb

seems like a decent one. Must be a glitch.




  








864CC8DB-C6F1-4D72-BCCD-5E99A298F863.jpeg




__
Professor DumbDumb


__
2 mo ago


----------



## chibi

That's a nice one if the SP is legit. What is the overall score?


----------



## Nizzen

Professor DumbDumb said:


> seems like a decent one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 864CC8DB-C6F1-4D72-BCCD-5E99A298F863.jpeg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> Professor DumbDumb
> 
> 
> __
> 2 mo ago


It ain't decent before it's running 6ghz all core cB23 without delidding....
Yet another bios SP bug


----------



## Professor DumbDumb

Nizzen said:


> It ain't decent before it's running 6ghz all core cB23 without delidding....
> Yet another bios SP bug


Correct. I reinstalled the chip - bugged for sure!




  








94901F7C-E140-494C-939B-C2E9A6743C62.jpeg




__
Professor DumbDumb


__
2 mo ago




Update


----------



## Baka_boy

Professor DumbDumb said:


> Correct. I reinstalled the chip - bugged for sure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 94901F7C-E140-494C-939B-C2E9A6743C62.jpeg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> Professor DumbDumb
> 
> 
> __
> 2 mo ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Update


Still looks good IMO.


----------



## mgkhn

can you share any numbers of your settings to try (ring, ecore,voltage,llc )


----------



## HemuV2

So guys i tried to test stability of my ring 5000mhz by settings pcores to 55 and ecores to 32(sp73) i set 1.42llc5 and in a couple of seconds the test fails saying logical core 21 failed. I go to bios turn on per core control and disable e core 12,13 and then it said logical core 20 failed, then i disable the last 4
Ecores so now i have total cores 0 through 19 but ycruncher still fails saying logical core 21 encountered error. After dialing down ring to 4900 it seems to be running right now(test in progress). 
@Falkentyne whats a good stability test which can do <300W like VST because my AIO can't support more than 300. So far i have managed to get my ram stable, wanna make sure ring and cores are also stable but p95, sft etc are all 300+ W and insta OTP for me


----------



## HemuV2

Professor DumbDumb said:


> seems like a decent one. Must be a glitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 864CC8DB-C6F1-4D72-BCCD-5E99A298F863.jpeg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> Professor DumbDumb
> 
> 
> __
> 2 mo ago


I hope the 13900KS is like this😁


----------



## HemuV2

dentnu said:


> Looking for some advice regarding 13700k vs 13900k. I am planing on picking one of these two up but wondering if the 13900k is really needed for my use case. I mostly just game on my machine so not to sure I need all those E cores on the 13900k. Now I will be overclocking it so which one so far is better at that (lottery)? I read if you disable the E cores you can overclock the P core really high ? Sorry but I don't have the time to read the last 253 pages hopefully someone can help me.


I would never buy an i7 again after my 12700KF(sp64) i would suggest going i9 if you'll OC at all since i7 lottery is very random. i9s are far better in terms of silicon quality afaik, they'll offer decent SP however you could still get bad ecores


----------



## Falkentyne

HemuV2 said:


> So guys i tried to test stability of my ring 5000mhz by settings pcores to 55 and ecores to 32(sp73) i set 1.42llc5 and in a couple of seconds the test fails saying logical core 21 failed. I go to bios turn on per core control and disable e core 12,13 and then it said logical core 20 failed, then i disable the last 4
> Ecores so now i have total cores 0 through 19 but ycruncher still fails saying logical core 21 encountered error. After dialing down ring to 4900 it seems to be running right now(test in progress).
> @Falkentyne whats a good stability test which can do <300W like VST because my AIO can't support more than 300. So far i have managed to get my ram stable, wanna make sure ring and cores are also stable but p95, sft etc are all 300+ W and insta OTP for me


Ring and memory (cache based is similar) instability can show strange random APIC ID's crashing.
This is probably going to be most evident in N32/N64 Y-cruncher tests and Prime95 large FFT (AVX1/FMA3 disabled)

Also your first E-core is core #16. Remember the P-cores are hyperthreaded unless you disable hyperthreading.


----------



## imrevoau

HemuV2 said:


> I would never buy an i7 again after my 12700KF(sp64) i would suggest going i9 if you'll OC at all since i7 lottery is very random. i9s are far better in terms of silicon quality afaik, they'll offer decent SP however you could still get bad ecores


on the contrary if you're just gaming, the couple 100mhz more you might get out of a 13900K is going to make 0 difference in gaming as well.

In CS:GO (a completely CPU bound game at low res) in the benchmarking test (ran at 640x480 to eliminate any GPU bottleneck, yes 13th gen is THAT fast you can bottleneck a 3080 in CS with it) the difference between 5.5 and 5.7 was about 8 fps lol (from 980 to about 988)


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> And here I thought 42k was low 🤔
> My sample's roughly P/E-SP of 103/75 or so. So average as all hell.
> View attachment 2582972


I can assure you those are not sp75 ecores, i have sp75 ecores and at stock my cb is 330W and 40.7K at 4600 I'd probably need alot more voltage, i dunno about your pcore tho


----------



## HemuV2

mgkhn said:


> first run with 13900k ( bios shows sp100 p114 e73 ) p57 / e46 / r50 llc7 1.25v
> View attachment 2583153


@Falkentyne another ecore sp73🤣 welcome to the club homie, let me know if you come out with any good OC strategies for this chip


----------



## Falkentyne

HemuV2 said:


> @Falkentyne another ecore sp73🤣 welcome to the club homie, let me know if you come out with any good OC strategies for this chip


there's no way that Ecore SP is correct.
he showed me a screenshot of R23 running at 5.7 P cores, 4.6 E cores, 5 ghz cache at 1.19v die sense load.
73 SP E cores can't do x46 at 1.19v.


----------



## Betroz

imrevoau said:


> In CS:GO (a completely CPU bound game at low res) in the benchmarking test (ran at 640x480 to eliminate any GPU bottleneck, yes 13th gen is THAT fast you can bottleneck a 3080 in CS with it) the *difference between 5.5 and 5.7 was about 8 fps lol (from 980 to about 988*)


Bro, people in this forum spend big money on differences like that


----------



## bhav

imrevoau said:


> on the contrary if you're just gaming, the couple 100mhz more you might get out of a 13900K is going to make 0 difference in gaming as well.
> 
> In CS:GO (a completely CPU bound game at low res) in the benchmarking test (ran at 640x480 to eliminate any GPU bottleneck, yes 13th gen is THAT fast you can bottleneck a 3080 in CS with it) the difference between 5.5 and 5.7 was about 8 fps lol (from 980 to about 988)


Imo its about time we separate gaming from overclocking. The latter no longer provides much benefit to the former, and moreso at higher resolutions.

They are two separate hobbies at this point.


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> Imo its about time we separate gaming from overclocking. The latter no longer provides much benefit to the former, and moreso at higher resolutions.
> 
> They are two separate hobbies at this point.


Yes I agree. at this point of time simply turning on XMP with current DDR5 kits on the market gets you about 95% of the way for gaming already.


----------



## Arni90

Ichirou said:


> The DDR4 boards from MSI are gimped as all hell, though. For shame.
> They should've at least made the Edge a premium board, considering it is their highest end DDR4 board.


Besides a lack of safe boot, what's gimped? I never had any issues with the PRO Z690-A



bhav said:


> Imo its about time we separate gaming from overclocking. The latter no longer provides much benefit to the former, and moreso at higher resolutions.
> 
> They are two separate hobbies at this point.


At this point? Dude, it's been like that since 2018 at least


----------



## RobertoSampaio

raad11 said:


> I just:
> 
> Set LLC 3, AC_LL = 0.20, DC_LL = 1.12
> 
> Ran CB23 to see full load VIDs and power. Both 5.5 and 5.6 passed CB23 (I just ran them 5 minutes though, lazy/impatient).
> 
> Then decreased AC_LL until I hit 0.14 or 0.15, I forget which, at which point 5.5 would pass and VIDs in HWinfo64 would just about match what was in the VID table (or CPU VF Points, Target Die Sense table). I figured that was a good point to stop, then worked on raising voltages to get 5.6 working.
> 
> I guess you mean if I intended to run 5.6 all-core, I should have dropped AC_LL until 5.6 passed without needing any VF offsets?
> 
> Originally what I had done also worked, sort of. I just set 0.20/1.12, forgot about it. Added a little voltage to 5700 and 5800 and wala, everything ran fine. Threw in 46x4/45x8/44x16 for E-Cores. 5.6 in CB23 was pulling down like 290-295 watts, but I had package temperature threshold set to keep it under 86 C. In the mid-range, at 5.7/5.8, all the games and game benchmarks (e.g, TimeSpy Extreme CPU Test) worked reliably, sometimes even hitting 5.9. It would also boost to 61x2,60x5 and had great lightly threaded benchmark scores. Problem, IA VR Voltage Limit had to be set to 1540 and it was hitting 1520-1530+ non-stop unless I put it in Power Saver mode and limited clocks. I didn't want idle voltage to be this high (since it was never truly idling and constantly boosting cores for whatever reason).
> 
> So I enabled TVB and that was awesome. Full load power at 5.6 dropped to 280, voltage stayed well under 1.5 at all times. But now E-Cores were unstable and would cause errors in Handbrake (Handbrake in Windows 10 puts everything on E-Cores primarily).
> 
> So then I did what I described above. I wound up with +14mV @ 5400, +31mV @ 5700, +60mV @ 5800 #1 (a.k.a. VF #9) and VF#10 and VF#11 on Auto (1.44 on Adaptive). Unfortunately now 5.4 all core uses the same power/temps as 5.5, but 5.5 isn't terrible, it's around 258-260 watts whereas it was like just about 250 watts on the dot before I messed with voltages (I think I could have gotten 5.5 to under 250w if I kept going). 5.6, however, uses just the bare minimum to pass (at 280 watts) and keeps temps under the 86 C limit for several runs in a row. I put the E-Cores back to 46x4/45x8/44x16, and what do you know, Handbrake still works and power usage wasn't affected in CB23. I also capped the peak to 60x5 (turned off the 61/62x ratios) so VIDs stay under 1.5 when randomly boosting.
> 
> I may go back to the TVB (by which I mean 'TVB Optimizations Enabled', otherwise I use TVB in everything) profile if I figure out how to stabilize the E-Cores under those voltage drops. TVB also gave higher CB23 scores of 200-300 pts at same speeds plus could run slightly higher frequencies for 1-3 active cores and ran cooler at 5.4/5.5 all-core. Just can't compete with that


Very nice... You got the idea how all this work...
Keep trying combinations and pay attention and make notes...
At the end you will well know your CPU and how MB setting influence the power and stability.
I think I found the limits of my CPU... Some p cores can reach 63x. Some e cores 49x. Ring, 55x. I can run full load at p55x/e46x/r49x with temps around 90s.
So now I'm working to finalise tuning for max p62x, E48x, r54x. Probably I'll reduce the full load frequency to p54x/e45/r49. I don't need the max processing power of the 13900k. Even reducing the full load frequency the tvb will keep my games running p57x... And I don't need to care about temps...


----------



## imrevoau

Arni90 said:


> Besides a lack of safe boot, what's gimped? I never had any issues with the PRO Z690-A
> 
> 
> 
> At this point? Dude, it's been like that since 2018 at least


Not at all. The 8700k-10900k generation all received massive benefits from OCing (especially RAM)


----------



## HemuV2

so i turned off 8 ecores and ran 55/40/50, seems to be alright for now 1.45llc5


----------



## Arni90

imrevoau said:


> Not at all. The 8700k-10900k generation all received massive benefits from OCing (especially RAM)


As does 11th-13th gen.
The point is, however, that you're not going to see a universal uplift of 40% or even 30%, which was far more common in the "good old days"


----------



## energie80

Ichirou said:


> No. That's degradation territory. But if you aren't stressing it hard, it's not a big deal.


just playing at 60 ° max temp, around 1.3 full load
is this dangerous?


----------



## bhav

imrevoau said:


> Not at all. The 8700k-10900k generation all received massive benefits from OCing (especially RAM)


They didn't



https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2020/10900k-review/intel-10900k-str-1080p.png



Any all core OC that was lower than single core boost actually reduced performance for several generations now, and 5.3 all core on a 10900K was as unlikely / difficult to cool as 5.8 all core on the 13900K is.

Ram on 10900K was a different thing entirely due to 1:1 IMC. Quite simply, any ram overclocking in G2 now gives half the impact it did on 10900K.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

RobertoSampaio said:


> Very nice... You got the idea how all this work...
> Keep trying combinations and pay attention and make notes...
> At the end you will well know your CPU and how MB setting influence the power and stability.
> I think I found the limits of my CPU... Some p cores can reach 63x. Some e cores 49x. Ring, 55x. I can run full load at p55x/e46x/r49x with temps around 90s.
> So now I'm working to finalise tuning for max p62x, E48x, r54x. Probably I'll reduce the full load frequency to p54x/e45/r49. I don't need the max processing power of the 13900k. Even reducing the full load frequency the tvb will keep my games running p57x... And I don't need to care about temps...


Yeah I've noticed my cpu throttling at certain voltages and been tweaking around it getting things maxed out as good as possible. I scored a 43350 r23 last night at one point at all cores 57 / 45 / 50.

I like this cpu. Wish I had a better one because my setup seems solid so far this time around.


----------



## Telstar

acoustic said:


> Yeah it's pretty lame there's no decent DDR4 boards available. Just buy an MSI PRO for $200 and be done with it, if you're going DDR4.


I'm going with the z790 strix -A. The only thing that misses is the debug display. But DDR5 demands too much of a price premium both motherboard and ram-wise that i'm not willing to dish out. I'll upgrade to ddr5 with lunar lake or zen5.


----------



## imrevoau

Arni90 said:


> As does 11th-13th gen.
> The point is, however, that you're not going to see a universal uplift of 40% or even 30%, which was far more common in the "good old days"


I mean yeah, you're righ


bhav said:


> They didn't
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2020/10900k-review/intel-10900k-str-1080p.png
> 
> 
> 
> Any all core OC that was lower than single core boost actually reduced performance for several generations now, and 5.3 all core on a 10900K was as unlikely / difficult to cool as 5.8 all core on the 13900K is.
> 
> Ram on 10900K was a different thing entirely due to 1:1 IMC. Quite simply, any ram overclocking in G2 now gives half the impact it did on 10900K.


That's why I specifically mentioned mainly RAM.


----------



## Xiph

I'm proud member of terrible 13900K sample owners. I made just some progress with binning bad E-cores out.

My all-core setup has been so far:
P x56, E x44. Using normally adaptive +TVB, but it converts to Vmin 1.38V bios set LLC6 -> 1.36V socket sense for easier comparision.
This is too much for Cinebench runs without help from cooling ambient temp. Also power/current in degredation area, so I do only short CB runs. It is ok for gaming.
There is not slightest change to go higher than this with all cores enabled. Trying to do E-cores at x45 is crash even with that high Vcore and I don't care if I could do higher single/partial core number OC.

After setting E-cores to x10, I could find that P x56 can run 1.34V bios set LLC6 -> 1.32V socket sense
Using that 1.34V, set one E-core at time using per core activation to x47 and found that there is 6 E-cores which has any stability in Cinebench for x47 (1-3 min). Rest of the E cores crashed right away.

Rule is, at least with my Strix-A. You can select E-cores from two different clusters. If you select core from the third cluster, it won't boost to over x43.
Using information I had gathered, 4-cores from last cluster and one from other cluster can do x46 fully stable at LLC6 1.32.

Updated my normal TVB enabled, LLC#4, AC_LL 0.26 -> 0.20 setup to use those 5 E-cores at x46. This saves 60W power, 40mV Vcore and nets +200Mhz to E-cores, but lost 11 E-cores. Yet to see, how much better this is for gaming and if this gave any headroom for ring clock (x50 now).


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> @Falkentyne another ecore sp73🤣 welcome to the club homie, let me know if you come out with any good OC strategies for this chip


I’m quoting the wrong post of yours lol. But Hey, one thing to keep in mind if you are running Prime 95 and have failing cores.
I learned something with Prime 95 and 13th gen. I was getting numerous failing cores during a stability test with Small FFT’s. I was like what the heck is going on, because I knew the configuration voltage frequency was stable. I upped the SA voltage to 1.250-1.275 and lowered my memory frequency from 7800 to 7600 and it stopped dropping cores like that. Adding more V-Core was not fixing the issue regardless of how much. If you don’t have perfectly stable memory, and the correct amount of SA voltage and correct memory VDD/VDDQ Prime 95 is dropping cores like a mad man. Just something to keep in mind is all.

I thought I was stable at DDR5 7800 and SA voltage of only 1.050V. I was passing anything else. (24) instances of HCI Memtest at full coverage, R23 forever, Aida 64 FPU. Prime 95 was started singing and dropping cores on me.. Then I added SA voltage and it helped so much almost fixed it, but it still dropped cores. I lowered to XMP 7600 and it fixed it entirely. Even with the exact same cpu voltage/frequency.

I understand you’ve got a less than stellar 13900K and all. But I imagine this can apply across the board.


----------



## Ichirou

energie80 said:


> just playing at 60 ° max temp, around 1.3 full load
> is this dangerous?


That should be fine.


----------



## satinghostrider

Using all-core +2 new option in 2201 Bios 2022 Z690 Apex. LLC 7 with 1.315V fixed Vcore. 5.7Ghz for best 2 cores and 5.6Ghz for other cores. E-cores at 4.6Ghz and Ring at 5.0Ghz.

SP105 CPU (P116 E83)

Total Power Draw : 316W.
Max Temps : 87 Degrees.

Daily I'm just downclocking my E-cores cause the bump in Vcore from 4.5Ghz to 4.6Ghz is almost 0.05v. With that config with Vcore at 1.27V, CB R23 stays under 82 degrees and games like mw2022 stays at 68 degrees max after 3 hours of gaming. Power draw for Cinebench R23 also drops to 292W just by downclocking 100Mhz from my E-cores by reducing my Vcore to 1.27V. Now just gotta wait for my A-Die and see how it runs on my Z690 Apex.


----------



## Ichirou

satinghostrider said:


> View attachment 2583265
> 
> 
> View attachment 2583266
> 
> Using all-core +2 new option in 2201 Bios 2022 Z690 Apex. LLC 7 with 1.315V fixed Vcore. 5.7Ghz for best 2 cores and 5.6Ghz for other cores. E-cores at 4.6Ghz and Ring at 5.0Ghz.
> 
> SP105 CPU (P116 E83)
> 
> Total Power Draw : 316W.
> Max Temps : 87 Degrees.
> 
> Daily I'm just downclocking my E-cores cause the bump in Vcore from 4.5Ghz to 4.6Ghz is almost 0.05v. With that config with Vcore at 1.27V, CB R23 stays under 82 degrees and games like mw2022 stays at 68 degrees max after 3 hours of gaming. Power draw for Cinebench R23 also drops to 292W just by downclocking 100Mhz from my E-cores.


I'm pretty sure you're limiting your OC potential. Because I get the exact same settings and R23 score with a far worse chip (both the P- and the E-cores).
Mine's only like, 103/75 or so, and I get 56/45/51. With many P-cores reaching 57. And power draw is 310W. Doesn't really make sense.


----------



## satinghostrider

Ichirou said:


> I'm pretty sure you're limiting your OC potential. Because I get the exact same settings and R23 score with a far worse chip (both the P- and the E-cores).
> Mine's only like, 103/75 or so, and I get 56/45/51. With many P-cores reaching 57. And power draw is 310W. Doesn't really make sense.


I'm just trying this config out and works well so far. Did you run the sync all-core +2 in bios or you used OCTVB?


----------



## Ichirou

satinghostrider said:


> I'm just trying this config out and works well so far. Did you run the sync all-core +2 in bios or you used OCTVB?


Manual core multiplier control. Five P-cores at 57x and three at 56x. One E-core cluster at 46x, and three at 45x.


----------



## tps3443

Dang I’m ready to test my next 13900KF already. The anticipation is killing me.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Dang I’m ready to test my next 13900KF already. The anticipation is killing me.


You already peaked before. It only goes downhill from here 
Just kidding. Hope CPU Force is 100


----------



## raad11

imrevoau said:


> on the contrary if you're just gaming, the couple 100mhz more you might get out of a 13900K is going to make 0 difference in gaming as well.
> 
> In CS:GO (a completely CPU bound game at low res) in the benchmarking test (ran at 640x480 to eliminate any GPU bottleneck, yes 13th gen is THAT fast you can bottleneck a 3080 in CS with it) the difference between 5.5 and 5.7 was about 8 fps lol (from 980 to about 988)


The cache makes more of a difference.

And the speed difference can manifest, it depends on the game. I've seen small FPS swings from 200-300 MHz difference in certain games on certain chips (I remember my 9900K was like this, I tried to squeeze out every bit of speed I could). We're talking like 2-3% difference at most I think, but if you're at 360Hz, locked to 358 fps for G-Sync, it's reasonable to want to stay close to that rather than dipping to low 300s. At that point, you're not even getting the most out of your monitor.

I don't OC for gaming though, even if I got the CPU for gaming. I OC to get my money's, and now that I'm older, time's worth out of the chip. So I don't want to spend weeks tuning the thing, but depending on binning and what is achievable, I want to optimize for temperature, power, and attainable speed. I feel like most gamers who OC, but aren't enthusiast overclockers, are thinking the same.


----------



## fray_bentos

raad11 said:


> rather than dipping to low 300s


Oh noooes! But seriously, I challenge anyone to tell the difference between 200 and 300 fps, let alone "low 300s" and 360 locked in a properly controlled double-blind test. Utter BS placebo.


----------



## Ichirou

fray_bentos said:


> Oh noooes! But seriously, I challenge anyone to tell the difference between 200 and 300 fps, let alone "low 300s" and 360 locked in a properly controlled double-blind test. Utter placebo.


Anyone who is experienced with high refresh rate panels would be able to tell the difference. It's all about how long they've used the panels for.

In essence, as long as you've used a higher rate panel (with solid max FPS and not some G-Sync cope), as soon as you drop to a lower refresh rate, you notice things feeling off.

It's much more difficult to notice an upgrade rather than a downgrade, though.


----------



## raad11

fray_bentos said:


> Oh noooes! But seriously, I challenge anyone to tell the difference between 200 and 300 fps, let alone "low 300s" and 360 locked in a properly controlled double-blind test. Utter BS placebo.





Ichirou said:


> Anyone who is experienced with high refresh rate panels would be able to tell the difference. It's all about how long they've used the panels for.
> 
> In essence, as long as you've used a higher rate panel (with solid max FPS and not some G-Sync cope), as soon as you drop to a lower refresh rate, you notice things feeling off.
> 
> It's much more difficult to notice an upgrade rather than a downgrade, though.


Yeah, this. If G-Sync is enabled, your refresh rate is dropping from its advertised 360 Hz to around 300 Hz or below depending on how low the fps drops.


----------



## raad11

Ideally we want QD-OLED response times with 500 Hz to 1000 Hz refresh rate monitor with lagless frame sync tech and something equivalent to backlight strobing (BFI maybe? dunno if this is an issue on QD-OLED in particular).

Or we just start from scratch with CRTs again


----------



## raad11

My Cinebench R23 is doing something weird where if I change OCTVB ratios (in OCTool) while it's open, between runs, it errors whenever I click start.


----------



## bigfootnz

Arni90 said:


> Is that with VCC or Socket sense mode?
> 
> I really don't care all that much about the topic, as the power measurement is bound to have some slight error, and it really doesn't matter.
> 
> If you wish to set a "proper" protection, set maximum current to whatever Falkentyne deems OK. Current is what drives electromigration, and the current measurement on Intel chips should be correct.


Socket sense


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Anyone who is experienced with high refresh rate panels would be able to tell the difference. It's all about how long they've used the panels for.
> 
> In essence, as long as you've used a higher rate panel (with solid max FPS and not some G-Sync cope), as soon as you drop to a lower refresh rate, you notice things feeling off.
> 
> It's much more difficult to notice an upgrade rather than a downgrade, though.


The problem isn't the framerate (FPS). It's how much the active FPS is above or below the refresh rate.
Because you get a desync between what the monitor is capable of outputting vs what the video card is outputting. This causes stutters, jitters and microstutters.
This is atrociously bad when your FPS (with gsync off) is about 25% above or below your refresh rate. This effect gets almost unnoticeable once you exceed the monitor refresh rate by 2x in FPS.

I'm not getting into the gsync debate.

If you're running with Strobing (blur reduction) and vsync enabled, no one is going to be able to tell the difference between 240 FPS/240hz, 360 FPS/360hz and 480 FPS/480hz (or even arguably 165 FPS/165hz). Only by extreme panning/turning speeds would people be able to see anything worthwhile and at those deflection speeds, you won't be making out details anyway.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

raad11 said:


> My Cinebench R23 is doing something weird where if I change OCTVB ratios (in OCTool) while it's open, between runs, it errors whenever I click start.


It's not a good idea to change OCTVB rates with OCTool... Changing temperatures is fine...
But don't use it to change ratios "on the fly" for P-cores. 
For E-cores it's ok to change ratios.

OCTVB table is calculated by asus algorithm after you save and exit BIOS.
The core ratios need to be changed in the bios for the Asus algorithm to recalculate the numbers.


----------



## raad11

satinghostrider said:


> There are issues with TVB with handbrake. Once you disable it, you can pass that.


I am noticing e-cores specifically give trouble with TVB Optimizations=On. Even when I don't expect it to (when there appears to be enough voltage if TVB Optimizations had been off, but same VIDs in Hwinfo64 now can't sustain the E-Cores... but package power isn't moving much despite my changes, even if I stabilize the voltage).


----------



## RichKnecht

Has anyone with a MSI board tweaked AC LL and DC LL and with what LLC setting? I am just trying to get a handle on heat and power draw at default settings.


----------



## fray_bentos

RichKnecht said:


> Has anyone with a MSI board tweaked AC LL and DC LL and with what LLC setting? I am just trying to get a handle on heat and power draw at default settings.


Try this for a start. Leave voltage on auto, LLC on Auto. In advanced CPU settings, lower LiteLoad from the default of 12, to as low as you can go. My 13600KF is stable at LiteLoad 1. It dropped voltages from 1.36 under load to 1.18... Auto LLC seems to correspond to LLC6 as found here: 13600K / 13600KF discussion, CPU/RAM OC results, etc.



OttoMatic said:


> at default settings, MSI's Auto LL puts AC_LL at 110 and DC_LL at 110. Vcore and VID matched with these settings and LLC on Auto. Changing LLC from Auto to Mode 6 altered nothing, so Mode 6 = Auto = 1.1 mOhms on the Z690 Tomahawk with a 13600k.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> You already peaked before. It only goes downhill from here
> Just kidding. Hope CPU Force is 100


I called Newegg ahead and told them to grab 50 off the shelf and pre test on a Z790 Apex for SP118+ P-Cores only please. Lol Kidding. What’s funny is, if it wasn’t for all the bad chips everywhere, good ones simply would not be so good after all.


----------



## Telstar

Well, "bad" is bad for us, but all chips meet the specified frequencies, which are really great considering the PP intel is using.


----------



## RichKnecht

fray_bentos said:


> Try this for a start. Leave voltage on auto, LLC on Auto. In advanced CPU settings, lower LiteLoad from the default of 12, to as low as you can go. My 13600KF is stable at LiteLoad 1. It dropped voltages from 1.36 under load to 1.18... Auto LLC seems to correspond to LLC6 as found here: 13600K / 13600KF discussion, CPU/RAM OC results, etc.


Ok, at auto LLC it does seem to set values the same as LLC6 (the values I was using before I started messing with it).However, with my 13900K and Z790 Tomahawk, the values are AC LL 50 and DC LL 80. I left DC alone and dropped AC LL to 1 and it's showing 1.18VID and 1.146 VCore with all core load (R23). Do you think that v core is too low? It seems OK, but I'm just curious. I actually had this running at default settings at 1.152VID with no issues, but I was using a static voltage setting and not auto.

EDIT: Not stable with 1.14 VCore


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> I called Newegg ahead and told them to grab 50 off the shelf and pre test on a Z790 Apex for SP118+ P-Cores only please. Lol Kidding. What’s funny is, if it wasn’t for all the bad chips everywhere, good ones simply would not be so good after all.


The funny thing is, even the "bad" chips aren't so bad. They are still fast as ****


----------



## fray_bentos

RichKnecht said:


> Ok, at auto LLC it does seem to set values the same as LLC6 (the values I was using before I started messing with it).However, with my 13900K and Z790 Tomahawk, the values are AC LL 50 and DC LL 80. I left DC alone and dropped AC LL to 1 and it's showing 1.18VID and 1.146 VCore with all core load (R23). Do you think that v core is too low? It seems OK, but I'm just curious. I actually had this running at default settings at 1.152VID with no issues, but I was using a static voltage setting and not auto.
> 
> EDIT: Not stable with 1.14 VCore


It's only too low if you crash. Every time you crash increase LiteLoad by a notch.


----------



## RichKnecht

Do v core and VID need to match? Or is the difference between the two the droop We want? Under full load VID is 1.152 and v core is 1.18. Again, all clocks set to default. Seems fine so far.


----------



## bhav

Refresh rate is one thing, Oled is another.

Once you try gaming on a 4K Oked, you just cant go back to a normal screen.

And funilly enough, 4K and ultrawide oleds with 240hz are the next thing, but what kind of hardware would it even take for 240 fps at 4K?


----------



## schoolofmonkey

tps3443 said:


> I called Newegg ahead and told them to grab 50 off the shelf and pre test on a Z790 Apex for SP118+ P-Cores only please. Lol Kidding. What’s funny is, if it wasn’t for all the bad chips everywhere, good ones simply would not be so good after all.


There used to be a place you could buy binned CPU's, bet we all miss silicon lottery now... 😢


----------



## fray_bentos

RichKnecht said:


> Do v core and VID need to match? Or is the difference between the two the droop We want? Under full load VID is 1.152 and v core is 1.18. Again, all clocks set to default. Seems fine so far.


If I understood correctly, LiteLoad=1 should correspond to the blue line on the graph here = Intel stock load line = safe currents









Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


I don't understand, on my asus strix if i set 1.28 and llc5(3rd most aggressive llc) it won't even pass stock config, like i could reduce my ecores to 3.6ghz and pass 5.5ghz ring 49x at 1.27 load voltage which is 1.38V llc5 in bios and 270W package power, my SP is P/E 109/73 . Same...




www.overclock.net





If you are now on LiteLoad=2 or 3 your load line will be slightly less steep than the blue one, but still pretty droopy.

I don't understand why people are interested in VID and Vcore matching, but perhaps someone else can explain (perhaps some diagnostic thing for revealing stock V/F curve?). As far as I know for day-to-day operation, a difference between VID (request) and Vcore (get) is a good thing (droop). The droopier, but stable, the better.


----------



## RichKnecht

fray_bentos said:


> If I understood correctly, LiteLoad=1 should correspond to the blue line on the graph here = Intel stock load line = safe currents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> 
> I don't understand, on my asus strix if i set 1.28 and llc5(3rd most aggressive llc) it won't even pass stock config, like i could reduce my ecores to 3.6ghz and pass 5.5ghz ring 49x at 1.27 load voltage which is 1.38V llc5 in bios and 270W package power, my SP is P/E 109/73 . Same...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are now on LiteLoad=2 or 3 your load line will be slightly less steep than the blue one, but still pretty droopy.
> 
> I don't understand why people are interested in VID and Vcore matching, but perhaps someone else can explain (perhaps some diagnostic thing for revealing stock V/F curve?). As far as I know for day-to-day operation, a difference between VID (request) and Vcore (get) is a good thing (droop). The droopier, but stable, the better.


Right now DC LL is at 1.10 mohm and AC LL is at .12 mgohm. The voltages above are the result of those settings.


----------



## raad11

@RobertoSampaio Are you sure that negative offsets do nothing? I am getting some strange results. If I put a negative offset at 5400, it affects 5500, but 5400 itself doesn't change.

Which is very cool.

Mobo: Z690-A Strix D4 (13900K)


----------



## RobertoSampaio

raad11 said:


> @RobertoSampaio Are you sure that negative offsets do nothing? I am getting some strange results. If I put a negative offset at 5400, it affects 5500, but 5400 itself doesn't change.
> 
> Which is very cool.
> 
> Mobo: Z690-A Strix D4 (13900K)


You are discovering the mysteries of the 13900k!!!
I'm happy when I see people doing this !!! 
I didn't go into those details so as not to confuse people, but that's right... 
Are you using +1 boost? or +2boost?


----------



## satinghostrider

raad11 said:


> I am noticing e-cores specifically give trouble with TVB Optimizations=On. Even when I don't expect it to (when there appears to be enough voltage if TVB Optimizations had been off, but same VIDs in Hwinfo64 now can't sustain the E-Cores... but package power isn't moving much despite my changes, even if I stabilize the voltage).


That is weird given E-cores don't use the TVB at all. And even reducing E-cores by 100mhz dropped 30W for me when adjusting my Vcore down.


----------



## RichKnecht

So I am still fiddling around with AC and DC LL values. I plugged in the values from Roberto’s guide (.2 AC and 1.02 DC) into my Z790 Tomahawk and kept lowering AC LL until it was unstable and then bumped it up one notch. So .09 AC LL and 1.02 DC LL are the final settings. Bingo. It is actually stable, so far, and max power draw is 246W. VIDs are 1.161 and Vcore drops to 1.17. Temps max out at 82C.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

RichKnecht said:


> So I am still fiddling around with AC and DC LL values. I plugged in the values from Roberto’s guide (.2 AC and 1.02 DC) into my Z790 Tomahawk and kept lowering AC LL until it was unstable and then bumped it up one notch. So .09 AC LL and 1.02 DC LL are the final settings. Bingo. It is actually stable, so far, and max power draw is 246W. VIDs are 1.161 and Vcore drops to 1.17. Temps max out at 82C.


You have no idea how happy I am to see people starting to adjust loadlines and moving from voltage override to adaptive voltage!
As I said before, leaving the 13900k with the cores synchronized and the voltage fixed is like having a Ferrari with the RPM locked and fixed in 3rd gear. LOL
246W !!!!!!!! 
Wonderful !!!!!


----------



## Ichirou

RobertoSampaio said:


> You have no idea how happy I am to see people starting to adjust loadlines and moving from voltage override to adaptive voltage!
> As I said before, leaving the 13900k with the cores synchronized and the voltage fixed is like having a Ferrari with the RPM locked and fixed in 3rd gear. LOL
> 246W !!!!!!!!
> Wonderful !!!!!


On boards like MSI, the clocks and wattage automatically reduce depending on load, even with override mode enabled.
I can't turn that off even if I wanted to. And I've tried. It's not true 100% load at all times, no matter what you do with the BIOS or power plans.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Ichirou said:


> On boards like MSI, the clocks and wattage automatically reduce depending on load, even with override mode enabled.
> I can't turn that off even if I wanted to. And I've tried. It's not true 100% load at all times, no matter what you do with the BIOS or power plans.


What I mean is that it doesn't pay to synchronize all the cores if they can reach 6GHz in OCTVB configuration.
You can keep your full load at 55x or 56x or 57x, it doesn't matter, but leave the cores free (unsynced) to achieve high boost clocks...
That's how all CPUs were designed.

Look this...
P core full load at 55x, but I have 3 cores that can reach 62x at the same time...


----------



## tps3443

RobertoSampaio said:


> You have no idea how happy I am to see people starting to adjust loadlines and moving from voltage override to adaptive voltage!
> As I said before, leaving the 13900k with the cores synchronized and the voltage fixed is like having a Ferrari with the RPM locked and fixed in 3rd gear. LOL
> 246W !!!!!!!!
> Wonderful !!!!!


Fixed voltage for me seemed really efficient. I mean, I ran stock 5.5-5.8 boost and only 1.190V in the bios with Auto LLC, Windows Ultimate power mode. The cpu used like 3-10 watts idle, and peaked at 228 watts R23 with DDR5 7200. What’s wrong with fixed voltage? This seems amazing to me. And that’s using vcore overide. I feel like it’s a trade off either way. Adaptive consumes slightly less power idle, but it’s gonna peak the voltage higher under a load no?


----------



## raad11

RobertoSampaio said:


> You are discovering the mysteries of the 13900k!!!
> I'm happy when I see people doing this !!!
> I didn't go into those details so as not to confuse people, but that's right...
> Are you using +1 boost? or +2boost?


Just using manual OCTVB settings ("Enabled" setting)


satinghostrider said:


> That is weird given E-cores don't use the TVB at all. And even reducing E-cores by 100mhz dropped 30W for me when adjusting my Vcore down.


I mean the TVB Optimizations Enabled setting.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

tps3443 said:


> Fixed voltage for me seemed really efficient. I mean, I ran stock 5.5-5.8 boost and only 1.190V in the bios with Auto LLC, Windows Ultimate power mode. The cpu used like 3-10 watts idle, and peaked at 228 watts with DDR5 7200. What’s wrong with fixed voltage?


Don't get me wrong...
I just think it's possible to do the same without fixing the voltages to frequencies.
But it takes more work...
There is a whole work done by Intel engineers so that the CPU talks to the VRM, and when we do that, we simply interrupt this communication and provide an input to the vrm and tell the CPU to "shut up"... LOL
And Im a "fanboy" of adaptive voltage.... kkkkkkk
When I decided to overclock the 10900K, I refused to do the same thing I've always done since 3770k...
So I decided I will never use a fixed voltage again.,,..


----------



## cwills75

Browsing through this thread, I've seen @Falkentyne post:

1520mv - (1.1 * IOUT) = target vcore mv.

and for safe non-degradation use 245A limit (1.250v at 245 amps).

Then I saw you should replace 1.1 with your LLC. I'm using a MSI motherboard with 13900K LLC level 5 (0.40) and AC/DC 15/40. Under load I'm seeing around 226A IOUT @ 1.234V VR VOUT.


















I'm assuming this isn't degradation territory, my question is, is the formula with LLC 5 (0.40):

1520mv - (0.40 * 226.30) = 1,429

So is 1.429 what I can allow on VR VOUT? Like do I have more headroom here, or am I pretty much at the limit?


----------



## raad11

@RobertoSampaio 

I notice a weird thing where you know how when IA VR Voltage Limit is enabled, it won't hit certain frequencies? They're clipped?

I get that when it's set to Auto (when I'm using TVB Optimizations). I'm not sure why? What is the 'Auto' value?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

raad11 said:


> @RobertoSampaio
> 
> I notice a weird thing where you know how when IA VR Voltage Limit is enabled, it won't hit certain frequencies? They're clipped?
> 
> I get that when it's set to Auto (when I'm using TVB Optimizations). I'm not sure why? What is the 'Auto' value?


This is how the IA VR Voltage Limit works... 
If the CPU requires a higher voltage, if this frequency is not allowed by voltage limit, the CPU reduces the clock by 1 point and retests.


----------



## tps3443

RobertoSampaio said:


> Don't get me wrong...
> I just think it's possible to do the same without fixing the voltages to frequencies.
> But it takes more work...
> There is a whole work done by Intel engineers so that the CPU talks to the VRM, and when we do that, we simply interrupt this communication and provide an input to the vrm and tell the CPU to "shut up"... LOL
> And Im a "fanboy" of adaptive voltage.... kkkkkkk
> When I decided to overclock the 10900K, I refused to do the same thing I've always done since 3770k...
> So I decided I will never use a fixed voltage again.,,..


Okay I see what you mean, when my next 13900KF gets here this week I’ll play around with it. I go back and forward a lot.


----------



## Ichirou

RobertoSampaio said:


> What I mean is that it doesn't pay to synchronize all the cores if they can reach 6GHz in OCTVB configuration.
> You can keep your full load at 55x or 56x or 57x, it doesn't matter, but leave the cores free (unsynced) to achieve high boost clocks...
> That's how all CPUs were designed.
> 
> Look this...
> P core full load at 55x, but I have 3 cores that can reach 62x at the same time...
> View attachment 2583317


MSI BIOS allows you to individually bin each core, in any order you wish. And it still clocks down the voltage and current during idle or low loads.
My chip's not that great, but I've maximized its potential (prior to BCLK overclocking) for the VR VOUT I have it set to.
It's not strong enough to do 58x on any P-core without ridiculous voltage.


----------



## RichKnecht

cwills75 said:


> Browsing through this thread, I've seen @Falkentyne post:
> 
> 1520mv - (1.1 * IOUT) = target vcore mv.
> 
> and for safe non-degradation use 245A limit (1.250v at 245 amps).
> 
> Then I saw you should replace 1.1 with your LLC. I'm using a MSI motherboard with 13900K LLC level 5 (0.40) and AC/DC 15/40. Under load I'm seeing around 226A IOUT @ 1.234V VR VOUT.
> 
> View attachment 2583322
> 
> View attachment 2583323
> 
> 
> I'm assuming this isn't degradation territory, my question is, is the formula with LLC 5 (0.40):
> 
> 1520mv - (0.40 * 226.30) = 1,429
> 
> So is 1.429 what I can allow on VR VOUT? Like do I have more headroom here, or am I pretty much at the limit?


If you are running default clocks, try this. Set CPU voltage to Auto, no offsets. Set LLC to auto. Set CPU lite load to advanced. Set 20 for AC LL and 102 for DC LL. If it’s stable, lower AC LL a click or two. Repeat until unstable then raise AC LL a notch or two. Also give Roberto’s guide a read (or 2 or 3). Once I understood what he was saying, it all fell into place.


----------



## raad11

Oof. I can't run my E-Cores at 44x16, it raises my 5.5 all-core VID to the same as my 5.6 all-core VID. Just for benchmarking I guess. I had set it to throttle to 5.5 when 5.6 gets too hot so I want 5.5 to stay cooler (by over 20 watts).


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> MSI BIOS allows you to individually bin each core, in any order you wish. And it still clocks down the voltage and current during idle or low loads.
> My chip's not that great, but I've maximized its potential (prior to BCLK overclocking) for the VR VOUT I have it set to.
> It's not strong enough to do 58x on any P-core without ridiculous vo
> This is what I want to do next..


I bet that took some time. I am going to try overclocking my chip next. I just have to rest my brain for a while.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I bet that took some time. I am going to try overclocking my chip next. I just have to rest my brain for a while.


Well, it's actually pretty simple to figure out the values. The time-consuming part is waiting for your chosen stress test to complete with each change.
The same journey happens in memory overclocking as well.

There are some shortcuts you can take, so long as you keep notes about the relative strength of each change you make.
I typically change two cores at once, and then do short tests to see how sensitive they are.
How the PC reacts to the changes (crashes, BSODs, etc) are a sign for how strong the cores are.
Once you get around to doing a more comprehensive test, you know that if it fails, you focus on dialing back the weaker cores first.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Well, it's actually pretty simple to figure out the values. The time-consuming part is waiting for your chosen stress test to complete with each change.
> The same journey happens in memory overclocking as well.


Coming from X299, learning this platform has been quite the challenge for me. I’ve learned quite a bit in a short time thanks to the folks here and their willingness to help and share great information.


----------



## Falkentyne

cwills75 said:


> Browsing through this thread, I've seen @Falkentyne post:
> 
> 1520mv - (1.1 * IOUT) = target vcore mv.
> 
> and for safe non-degradation use 245A limit (1.250v at 245 amps).
> 
> Then I saw you should replace 1.1 with your LLC. I'm using a MSI motherboard with 13900K LLC level 5 (0.40) and AC/DC 15/40. Under load I'm seeing around 226A IOUT @ 1.234V VR VOUT.
> 
> View attachment 2583322
> 
> View attachment 2583323
> 
> 
> I'm assuming this isn't degradation territory, my question is, is the formula with LLC 5 (0.40):
> 
> 1520mv - (0.40 * 226.30) = 1,429
> 
> So is 1.429 what I can allow on VR VOUT? Like do I have more headroom here, or am I pretty much at the limit?


No. 
First you don't blindly substitute DC loadline for this formula. You ONLY substitute your loadline calibration value in mohms.
if DC Loadline happens to be the same mohms value as LLC (loadline calibration) you can use it, but afaik only on Asus boards is DC Loadline automatically synch'd to VRM Loadline (Loadline calibration) by default. For MSI boards--i don't know if it's reliable or not. You have to ask the others--i dont have a msi board or a gigabyte board.

Second, the formula you posted:
1520mv - (0.4 * 226.3A)=1.429v, would be your VR VOUT *IF* your BIOS voltage would be set to 1520mv!!! 
If you had something like this in reality, your CPU would degrade in NO TIME FLAT at 226 amps.

What you want is to substitute the amps into the ORIGINAL FORUMLA:
1520mv - (1.1 mohms * 226A) = 1271mv, so if you were pulling 226 amps, you would want to stay below 1.271v VR VOUT--that is your CEILING--you don't want to exceed 1.271v at 226 amps.

Now to calculate how much you're actually using in volts, on fixed vcore, you can set "Bios voltage set - ( 0.4 mohms * 226 amps)=output voltage.
I don't know what you set here. Let's say you set 1.380v i'm guessing.

1380mv - (226A * 0.4 mohms) =1289mv=1.289v

1.289v is HIGHER than 1.271v (remember I got 1.271v by plugging in the current you're pulling into the 1520mv "baseline" with 1.1 mohms (intel spec) loadline slope. So no you are not in 100% safe land.

Maybe 1350mv (1.350v) is better to set in bios here:

1350mv - (0.4 mohm * 226 amps) = 1.259v.
1.259v < 1.271v --you're under the "1.1" curve, so you're good.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Coming from X299, learning this platform has been quite the challenge for me. I’ve learned quite a bit in a short time thanks to the folks here and their willingness to help and share great information.


Made a quick edit.

I could probably write up a CPU overclocking guide for MSI boards, but I dunno if it would be meaningful. It's really not that complex.


----------



## Falkentyne

raad11 said:


> @RobertoSampaio
> 
> I notice a weird thing where you know how when IA VR Voltage Limit is enabled, it won't hit certain frequencies? They're clipped?
> 
> I get that when it's set to Auto (when I'm using TVB Optimizations). I'm not sure why? What is the 'Auto' value?


On Z490 and newer, AC loadline slope + Native CPU VID + "Thermal velocity boost voltage scaling optimizations" determines the "initial SVID"
The native VID is higher at higher temps and lower at lower temps. On 10900K, it was -1.5mv / -1C, starting at 100C and decreasing to 0C, at a maximum of 5.1 ghz. This slope becomes less steep at lower multipliers and is disabled at x42 and lower.

AC Loadline raises the native VID by some amount--the higher the value of ACLL, the higher the native VID. Unlike Z390 and older, this is NOT an "inverse" of current (ACLL * amps) anymore. Instead of seems to be some sort of scaling offset ,which no one seems to have the exact formula for.
AVX guardband scaling also affects native VID (VID can be boosted by a certain amount, like 30mv, when an avx load happens too!).

If the vid boosting, BEFORE VDROOP IS APPLIED FROM LLC, is HIGHER than the "IA VR VOLTAGE LIMIT", your CPU will downclock bins until the native vid drops low enough to not exceed IA VR VOLTAGE LIMIT.

I'll say this again--I do NOT know how AC Loadline affects native VID

If one of you is bored enough, you can test this for us.
It wont fry your CPU.

First do the following.
1) set E cores to x30
2) Set P cores to x42 or x45.
3) DISABLE Thermal Velocity Boost Voltage Optimizations.
4) Set AVX Guardband to 1.00 (this is important).
5) Set DC Loadline to 0.01 mohms (this is important).

You can use a fixed cpu vcore for this if you want, as you will only be looking at VID. If you want to use auto vcore that's fine but you can do auto vcore later. If you want to test vcore itself, you should make sure DC Loadline is the same mohms value as your LLC (Asus LLC, MSI Mode, etc).

Now, set AC Loadline to 0.01 mohms.
Boot windows and record native VID. Then run any AVX load and record the VID.

Then set AC Loadline to 0.1 mohms.
boot windows and record native VID. Run a load and record the VID. (it won't droop since DCLL is set to 0.01 mohms---flat droop).
Then set it to 0.2 mohms. Repeat.
Go all the way up to 1.1 mohms.

And see if you can find a formula for how much ACLL raises VID every 0.1 mohms, and see if when you run a load, if the VID changes.


----------



## dirceura1

sp???




Shkiz0 said:


> Um novo visitante  (13900K)
> Uma peça bem inicial, vou ficar curioso para ver o que ele vai saber
> View attachment 2583186
> 
> [/CITAR]


----------



## raad11

raad11 said:


> @RobertoSampaio Are you sure that negative offsets do nothing? I am getting some strange results. If I put a negative offset at 5400, it affects 5500, but 5400 itself doesn't change.
> 
> Which is very cool.
> 
> Mobo: Z690-A Strix D4 (13900K)





RobertoSampaio said:


> You are discovering the mysteries of the 13900k!!!
> I'm happy when I see people doing this !!!
> I didn't go into those details so as not to confuse people, but that's right...
> Are you using +1 boost? or +2boost?


Oh, ffs.

Whatever you add at VF points 9 and 10 (for 5800) magically raises your all-core VIDs too. Damn it. This has to be a bug, right? Anyone know if it's fixed in the new beta BIOS?


----------



## Falkentyne

raad11 said:


> Oh, ffs.
> 
> Whatever you add at VF points 9 and 10 (for 5800) magically raises your all-core VIDs too. Damn it. This has to be a bug, right? Anyone know if it's fixed in the new beta BIOS?


As mentioned before, this is an intel microcode bug.


----------



## nievz

You can check event viewer for Bonjour Service errors to quickly check for stability. I was CB23 and Aida64 stable for 30mins but the errors below show up within a few minutes. I don't get these errors when my OC is stable.


----------



## imrevoau

Sooo have people settled on their daily OC’s yet? I’ve decided on a conservative 5.5/5 cache @ 1.28v LLC5


----------



## mattskiiau

imrevoau said:


> Sooo have people settled on their daily OC’s yet? I’ve decided on a conservative 5.5/5 cache @ 1.28v LLC5


Trying to find my daily as well, a lot of pages to go through lol. Is this daily with Ecores enabled?


On side note, can anyone provide me a quick assumed baseline for an all core static voltage for P score: 105 | E core: 81

Thanks!


----------



## Ichirou

imrevoau said:


> Sooo have people settled on their daily OC’s yet? I’ve decided on a conservative 5.5/5 cache @ 1.28v LLC5


I've found the max reasonable clocks for my chip, but I'm not settled on the chip itself 
Still looking to bin for a golden chip, since I'm planning to sit on it for quite a long time.


mattskiiau said:


> Trying to find my daily as well, a lot of pages to go through lol. Is this daily with Ecores enabled?
> 
> 
> On side note, can anyone provide me a quick assumed baseline for an all core static voltage for P score: 105 | E core: 81
> 
> Thanks!


Looks like ~1.28V VR VOUT territory. 56-57 P-Cores, 45-46 E-Cores, 50-51 Ring.


----------



## mattskiiau

Ichirou said:


> Looks like ~1.28V VR VOUT territory. 56-57 P-Cores, 45-46 E-Cores, 50-51 Ring.


Just tried a quick one.

Asus z690-a d4 (socket sense)
56P, 40E, 50R, 1.35v fixed, LLC5.
Idle: 1.35v
Load: 1.288v
TVB voltage optimization: On (seems to keep idle voltages down?)

Cinebench gives errors so it's not stable.

What LLC are users running on a daily? LLC5 max?


----------



## Ichirou

mattskiiau said:


> Just tried a quick one.
> 
> Asus z690-a d4 (socket sense)
> 56P, 40E, 50R, 1.35v fixed, LLC5.
> Idle: 1.35v
> Load: 1.288v
> TVB voltage optimization: On (seems to keep idle voltages down?)
> 
> Cinebench gives errors so it's not stable.
> 
> What LLC are users running on a daily? LLC5 max?


Gotta pinpoint the weak link. Start pulling either the P-Cores or Ring down to see where it lies.


----------



## Falkentyne

Relationship between AC Loadline and CPU Native VID.
CPU Native VID: based on multipliers: higher multipliers=higher VID up to x58, may not always scale at non VF points.

Thermal Velocity Boost Voltage optimizations affects native VID, starting at 100C, vid drops X mv per every 1C temp decrease
This scaling gets lower the lower the multiplier is and is disabled at a low multiplier.

5200 mhz, TVB Opt: Off, DCLL 0.01 mohms

Idle, Cinebench R23, Prime95 30.8 b16

VID:

Note: R23 load was close to VID of Small FFT AVX disabled.

ACLL 0.01 mohms: 1.275v, 1.275, 1.276.

ACLL 0.1 mohms: 1.300v idle, R23 load: 1.303v. AVX small FFT load: 1.308v
ACLL 0.2 mohms: 1.330v idle, r23 load: 1.338v, AVX small FFT load: 1.343v

ACLL 0.3 mohms: 1.360v idle, r23 load: 1.373v, AVX small FFT load: 1.378v
small FFT SSE load: 1.368v

ACLL 0.4 mohms: 1.390v idle, r23 load: 1.408v, AVX small FFT load: 1.413v,
small FFT SSE load: 1.403v

ACLL 0.5 mohms: 1.420v idle, r23 load: 1.443v, AVX small FFT load: 1.448v,
small FFT SSE load: 1.433v

ACLL 0.6 mohms: 1.450v idle, R23 load: 1.473v, AVX small FFT load: 1.488v,
small FFT SSE load: 1.468v

ACLL 0.7 mohms: 1.480v idle, R23 load: 1.508v, AVX small FFT load: 1.523v,
small FFT SSE load: 1.498v

ACLL 0.8 mohms: 1.505-1.510v idle, R23 load: 1.543v, AVX small FFT load: 1.558v
small FFT SSE load: 1.533v

ACLL 0.9 mohms: 1.540-1.550v idle, R23 load: 1.578v, AVX small FFT load: 1.593v
small FFT SSE load: 1.568v

ACLL 1.0 mohms: 1.565-1.575v idle, R23 load: 1.613v, AVX small FFT load: 1.633v
small FFT SSE load: 1.598v

ACLL 1.1 mohms: 1.595-1.605v idle, R23 load: 1.648v, AVX small FFT load: 1.663-1.668v, small FFT SSE load: 1.663v

So it seems that every 0.1 mohm adds 30mv (linear) to native CPU VID, and load voltage scales very slightly upwards a certain small % over native VID (100C point used) depending on current, and increasing as ACLL goes higher.

for heavy AVX: 1mv at 0.01 mohms, 8mv at 0.1 mohms, about 68mv at 1 mohm, for AVX power virus loads.
Less for R23, even less for SSE.


----------



## mattskiiau

If I'm just looking to game, is it worth just sticking on 5.5Ghz all core @ 1.35v LLC5, SVID Best Case, TVB voltage optimization and throwing on TVB+1/2?
Am I missing out on anything by running 5.7Ghz allcore vs TVB+2 stock with tuned voltage?


----------



## imrevoau

E co


mattskiiau said:


> Trying to find my daily as well, a lot of pages to go through lol. Is this daily with Ecores enabled?
> 
> 
> On side note, can anyone provide me a quick assumed baseline for an all core static voltage for P score: 105 | E core: 81
> 
> Thanks!


E cores off currently since I’m on win 10


----------



## Ichirou

Oddly enough, I just spent some time optimizing the E-Core L2 Cache Voltage, going down from 1.35V (which I just slapped on temporarily), and there didn't seem to be any issues whatsoever all the way down to 1.10V in R23 with -0.05V decrements. It was at 1.05V when I started getting a ton of WHEA errors (specifically pointing to the L2 Cache), and 1.00V wouldn't boot at all.

I guess the 13th Gen isn't nearly as demanding for L2 cache voltage compared to the 12th Gen?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

raad11 said:


> Oh, ffs.
> 
> Whatever you add at VF points 9 and 10 (for 5800) magically raises your all-core VIDs too. Damn it. This has to be a bug, right? Anyone know if it's fixed in the new beta BIOS?


As far I know its a intel "bug" I dont think a BIOS may correct it... That why I use loadlines to control the voltage instead VF curve. And the curves not accept negative values if you set a positive value to the higher points...


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Oddly enough, I just spent some time optimizing the E-Core L2 Cache Voltage, going down from 1.35V (which I just slapped on temporarily), and there didn't seem to be any issues whatsoever all the way down to 1.10V in R23 with -0.05V decrements. It was at 1.05V when I started getting a ton of WHEA errors (specifically pointing to the L2 Cache), and 1.00V wouldn't boot at all.
> 
> I guess the 13th Gen isn't nearly as demanding for L2 cache voltage compared to the 12th Gen?


Any reduction in power?


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> Oddly enough, I just spent some time optimizing the E-Core L2 Cache Voltage, going down from 1.35V (which I just slapped on temporarily), and there didn't seem to be any issues whatsoever all the way down to 1.10V in R23 with -0.05V decrements. It was at 1.05V when I started getting a ton of WHEA errors (specifically pointing to the L2 Cache), and 1.00V wouldn't boot at all.
> 
> I guess the 13th Gen isn't nearly as demanding for L2 cache voltage compared to the 12th Gen?


CB23 is a bad test for E-core ring stability. Try x265 encoding or HNT


----------



## mattskiiau

For an Asus z690-a d4. Is 1.35v - LLC6 too aggressive of a daily setting? Should I tune around using LLC5 instead?


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Any reduction in power?


What do you mean?


Exilon said:


> CB23 is a bad test for E-core ring stability. Try x265 encoding or HNT


Yes, I'm tempted to test y-cruncher TBH.
FWIW though, 1.10V errored out in R23 just before it finished the 30m run. When I boosted it to 1.12V, it passed. (Didn't try 1.11V.)
So to some extent, R23 _does_ react to inadequate L2 cache voltage. But maybe not as strong as y-cruncher.


----------



## Baka_boy

Ichirou said:


> What do you mean?
> 
> Yes, I'm tempted to test y-cruncher TBH.
> FWIW though, 1.10V errored out in R23 just before it finished the 30m run. When I boosted it to 1.12V, it passed. (Didn't try 1.11V.)
> So to some extent, R23 _does_ react to inadequate L2 cache voltage. But maybe not as strong as y-cruncher.


If it's really unstable, a single pass of y-cruncher is usually enough for the system to exhibit abnormalities.


----------



## Baka_boy

RobertoSampaio said:


> As far I know its a intel "bug" I dont think a BIOS may correct it... That why I use loadlines to control the voltage instead VF curve. And the curves not accept negative values if you set a positive value to the higher points...


At first I was going nuts trying to make this work. With the older bios (0401) that came with the board, if you put a negative offset, it would zero out everything including the high VF points and store it. Afterwards when you try to put the original +offset(s), you'd need to clear CMOS first for it to change. That was so annoying.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Made a quick edit.
> 
> I could probably write up a CPU overclocking guide for MSI boards, but I dunno if it would be meaningful. It's really not that complex.


I’d read it. I think the hardest thing for me was the MSI bios. I’ve been using ASUS boards forever. If I wanted silver or white, I’d still have one. However I wanted DDR4 and all black. Other than the Tuf, there are no ASUS offerings. There just isn’t much out there to help one along in the MSI world. I’m thankful there is a resource like this forum with people willing to share info.


----------



## Fissa

What should SA and IO be around without degrading stuff while trying to go for a high RAM overclock?


----------



## bhav

Fissa said:


> What should SA and IO be around without degrading stuff while trying to go for a high RAM overclock?


For SA 1.35v has so far been safe, 1.4 only a handful of people have had degradation at that.

Try to stick to 1.35, only go up to 1.4 if it gives better timings and you are happy to risk a low chance of degradation.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I’d read it. I think the hardest thing for me was the MSI bios. I’ve been using ASUS boards forever. If I wanted silver or white, I’d still have one. However I wanted DDR4 and all black. Other than the Tuf, there are no ASUS offerings. There just isn’t much out there to help one along in the MSI world. I’m thankful there is a resource like this forum with people willing to share info.


I wrote it up already. Go check it out. 


Fissa said:


> What should SA and IO be around without degrading stuff while trying to go for a high RAM overclock?


Max 1.35V for VCCSA. VCCIO doesn't exist anymore. 

VDDQ can be whatever you need to stabilize.


----------



## X61

Ichirou said:


> Made a quick edit.
> 
> I could probably write up a CPU overclocking guide for MSI boards, but I dunno if it would be meaningful. It's really not that complex.


Go for it, that would be useful.


----------



## cwills75

Falkentyne said:


> No.
> First you don't blindly substitute DC loadline for this formula. You ONLY substitute your loadline calibration value in mohms.
> if DC Loadline happens to be the same mohms value as LLC (loadline calibration) you can use it, but afaik only on Asus boards is DC Loadline automatically synch'd to VRM Loadline (Loadline calibration) by default. For MSI boards--i don't know if it's reliable or not. You have to ask the others--i dont have a msi board or a gigabyte board.
> 
> Second, the formula you posted:
> 1520mv - (0.4 * 226.3A)=1.429v, would be your VR VOUT *IF* your BIOS voltage would be set to 1520mv!!!
> If you had something like this in reality, your CPU would degrade in NO TIME FLAT at 226 amps.
> 
> What you want is to substitute the amps into the ORIGINAL FORUMLA:
> 1520mv - (1.1 mohms * 226A) = 1271mv, so if you were pulling 226 amps, you would want to stay below 1.271v VR VOUT--that is your CEILING--you don't want to exceed 1.271v at 226 amps.
> 
> Now to calculate how much you're actually using in volts, on fixed vcore, you can set "Bios voltage set - ( 0.4 mohms * 226 amps)=output voltage.
> I don't know what you set here. Let's say you set 1.380v i'm guessing.
> 
> 1380mv - (226A * 0.4 mohms) =1289mv=1.289v
> 
> 1.289v is HIGHER than 1.271v (remember I got 1.271v by plugging in the current you're pulling into the 1520mv "baseline" with 1.1 mohms (intel spec) loadline slope. So no you are not in 100% safe land.
> 
> Maybe 1350mv (1.350v) is better to set in bios here:
> 
> 1350mv - (0.4 mohm * 226 amps) = 1.259v.
> 1.259v < 1.271v --you're under the "1.1" curve, so you're good.


Thanks for the detailed explanation. This thread is sooooo long and it's hard to always pick up all the pieces, but I think I've got a grasp on it now.

Yes, I was around 1.38v in the BIOS, so I dialed back the OC to P-cores 56, E-cores 45, ring 45 and settled on a voltage in the BIOS of 1.34, which has been stable all night and is now drawing 214A at 1.196v under R23 load. Based on how I interpret your formula, if I do:

1520mv - (1.1 * 214) = 1,284 = 1.284v as a ceiling and

1340mv - (0.4 * 214) = 1,254 = 1.254v, so that looks better if I'm doing it right now. That's putting my R23 P-core max temps between 70C - 80C under load with the fans on a curve and around 65% with water loop temps about 3-4C over ambient.
















The only thing this PC is being used for is running as a FileFlows node to software FFMPEG encode videos into HEVC, doing three FFMPEG instances at a time. Interestingly enough, over the last week or so setting this PC up and changing CPU speeds/voltages, settings that would pass hours of R23/Prime95/OCCT with no lockups/WHEA errors, would fail processing FFMPEG files in FileFlows, usually within 10-15 minutes, if the voltage was too low. Three instances of FFMPEG doing conversions is just slightly under an R23 power draw for comparison.

Unrelated, but side-note:

FFMPEG by default in Win11 doesn't seem to use the P-Cores properly, so an elevated cmd of:

POWERCFG /POWERTHROTTLING DISABLE /PATH "C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\FileFlows\Tools\ffmpeg.exe"

needs to be done to disable the power throttling and get full speeds. Same thing with Handbrake, only get half-speeds without disabling power throttling.


----------



## tubs2x4

mattskiiau said:


> If I'm just looking to game, is it worth just sticking on 5.5Ghz all core @ 1.35v LLC5, SVID Best Case, TVB voltage optimization and throwing on TVB+1/2?
> Am I missing out on anything by running 5.7Ghz allcore vs TVB+2 stock with tuned voltage?


Is this a 13700k?


----------



## RichKnecht

I had some time this morning and installed a back plate for my Sig V2. It seems my previous mount sucked and was causing higher temps than I thought they should be due to uneven pressure (I guess). Anyway, max core temp dropped just about 20C under load. ! Now to try some overclocking to see what I can come up with.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> What do you mean?
> 
> Yes, I'm tempted to test y-cruncher TBH.
> FWIW though, 1.10V errored out in R23 just before it finished the 30m run. When I boosted it to 1.12V, it passed. (Didn't try 1.11V.)
> So to some extent, R23 _does_ react to inadequate L2 cache voltage. But maybe not as strong as y-cruncher.


If youre bored, please try to test independently:
SFT test
N32
N64.

I think SFT is the hardest one while N32 seems to test ring and cache stability / RAM more.
Because I remember failing N32 with 131072 trefi, when 65536 trefi passed fine.

i'm curious about your results.
The one time i messed with L2 cache voltage, it did absolutely nothing for the E-core vmin (I was testing at x43, in y-cruncher SFT and LinX 0.9.12, 1.05v to 1.25v Atom L2 voltage didn't raise the 1.066v vmin requirement....so im curious exactly what you tested, what ratios you used and what specific test you ran.


----------



## Falkentyne

cwills75 said:


> Thanks for the detailed explanation. This thread is sooooo long and it's hard to always pick up all the pieces, but I think I've got a grasp on it now.
> 
> Yes, I was around 1.38v in the BIOS, so I dialed back the OC to P-cores 56, E-cores 45, ring 45 and settled on a voltage in the BIOS of 1.34, which has been stable all night and is now drawing 214A at 1.196v under R23 load. Based on how I interpret your formula, if I do:
> 
> 1520mv - (1.1 * 214) = 1,284 = 1.284v as a ceiling and
> 
> 1340mv - (0.4 * 214) = 1,254 = 1.254v, so that looks better if I'm doing it right now. That's putting my R23 P-core max temps between 70C - 80C under load with the fans on a curve and around 65% with water loop temps about 3-4C over ambient.
> View attachment 2583378
> 
> View attachment 2583379
> 
> The only thing this PC is being used for is running as a FileFlows node to software FFMPEG encode videos into HEVC, doing three FFMPEG instances at a time. Interestingly enough, over the last week or so setting this PC up and changing CPU speeds/voltages, settings that would pass hours of R23/Prime95/OCCT with no lockups/WHEA errors, would fail processing FFMPEG files in FileFlows, usually within 10-15 minutes, if the voltage was too low. Three instances of FFMPEG doing conversions is just slightly under an R23 power draw for comparison.
> 
> Unrelated, but side-note:
> 
> FFMPEG by default in Win11 doesn't seem to use the P-Cores properly, so an elevated cmd of:
> 
> POWERCFG /POWERTHROTTLING DISABLE /PATH "C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\FileFlows\Tools\ffmpeg.exe"
> 
> needs to be done to disable the power throttling and get full speeds. Same thing with Handbrake, only get half-speeds without disabling power throttling.


according to this screenshot, your VR VOUT is much lower than what you said here.
It's 1.193v. So that means your loadline you used (0.4 mohm) is incorrect and you have more vdroop than a 0.4 mohm loadline.
As I said already, the value of 'DC Loadline' is NOT reliable on your board--you cant blindly use it because DC Loadline is NOT loadline calibration!!!
It's an estimation for vdroop on native CPU VID, not on cpu vcore.

You MUST know the exact mohm value of the "Mode" of the Loadline Calibration. A few people posted MSI values--make sure you do a search.

Also the mode LLC mohms values seems to change wildly from VCC_Sense or Socket Sense set in your BIOS, too.


----------



## raad11

RobertoSampaio said:


> As far I know its a intel "bug" I dont think a BIOS may correct it... That why I use loadlines to control the voltage instead VF curve. And the curves not accept negative values if you set a positive value to the higher points...


I'm in a weird spot where no matter how I tune it, whether TVB Optimizations or without, I wind up at the same place, where the voltage I need for 5800 all-core to pass TimeSpy Extreme CPU Test raises my 5.4 and 5.5 all core about 10-20 more watts than it needs to be. But 5.6 is ok.

I want to run games at 5.8 all core so I chose that over the lower all core voltage.


Exilon said:


> CB23 is a bad test for E-core ring stability. Try x265 encoding or HNT


Can confirm. Encoding threw errors for me for E-Cores and Rings every step of the way at the slightest provocation. I can't even get 51x Ring stable for encoding, even though it's been 24-7 stable in all games/benchmarks/etc. So I put it at 50x with 0.15 offset on L2 (which is 1.3-1.325 for full load on my system).


----------



## RobertoSampaio

raad11 said:


> I'm in a weird spot where no matter how I tune it, whether TVB Optimizations or without, I wind up at the same place, where the voltage I need for 5800 all-core to pass TimeSpy Extreme CPU Test raises my 5.4 and 5.5 all core about 10-20 more watts than it needs to be. But 5.6 is ok.
> 
> I want to run games at 5.8 all core so I chose that over the lower all core voltage.
> 
> Can confirm. Encoding threw errors for me for E-Cores and Rings every step of the way at the slightest provocation. I can't even get 51x Ring stable for encoding, even though it's been 24-7 stable in all games/benchmarks/etc. So I put it at 50x with 0.15 offset on L2 (which is 1.3-1.325 for full load on my system).


I agree with you...
You can run games at 57x or 58x this way...
No other software will push your cores to 100% all the time... So it's not relevant this wattage if you will not run a r23, p95 or whatsoever bench all day long...


----------



## cwills75

Falkentyne said:


> according to this screenshot, your VR VOUT is much lower than what you said here.
> It's 1.193v. So that means your loadline you used (0.4 mohm) is incorrect and you have more vdroop than a 0.4 mohm loadline.
> As I said already, the value of 'DC Loadline' is NOT reliable on your board--you cant blindly use it because DC Loadline is NOT loadline calibration!!!
> It's an estimation for vdroop on native CPU VID, not on cpu vcore.
> 
> You MUST know the exact mohm value of the "Mode" of the Loadline Calibration. A few people posted MSI values--make sure you do a search.
> 
> Also the mode LLC mohms values seems to change wildly from VCC_Sense or Socket Sense set in your BIOS, too.


That seems to be something I cannot 100% account as correct, as you and others have stated in the past MSI boards don't show things as well as Asus. My HWInfo AC/DC shows 0.0150 / 0.400 mOhm, and I do have AC/DC set to 15/40 in the BIOS, along with LLC mode 5, which I've seen "should" be 0.400 mOhm on MSI Z690. Unless somebody else has more info, that's all I've seen and can go with. I'm also using socket sense based on recommendations from another thread, but I can change it if people feel that is wrong. In the future I'll probably just buy Asus, as that seems to have the least issues with these sort of things, but it is what it is.

This is what I've generally seen for MSI Z690 boards LLC levels:

Mode 1--0.01
Mode 2--?
Mode 3--0.12
Mode 4--0.28
Mode 5--0.40
Mode 6--0.56
Mode 7--0.69
Mode 8--0.96


----------



## raad11

@Falkentyne 

I notice the VRM Vcore Current sensor, part of Asus Embedded Controller, registers 200+ amps in CB23. So is this sensor accurate? Because I noticed something like TimeSpy Extreme CPU Test causes spikes in amps and temps which are worrisome. Like 248 amps at one point, shot a core straight to 100 C barely quick enough for HWinfo64 to register it. I have TVB enabled to downbin normally but I don't know if it is quick enough to avoid these spikes. I'm not running it again to test. I just ran it at 5.8 all-core (around a 250 watt load) until I see it pass and then stop. Hopefully no actual game behaves like that.


----------



## Ichirou

cwills75 said:


> The only thing this PC is being used for is running as a FileFlows node to software FFMPEG encode videos into HEVC, doing three FFMPEG instances at a time. Interestingly enough, over the last week or so setting this PC up and changing CPU speeds/voltages, settings that would pass hours of R23/Prime95/OCCT with no lockups/WHEA errors, would fail processing FFMPEG files in FileFlows, usually within 10-15 minutes, if the voltage was too low. Three instances of FFMPEG doing conversions is just slightly under an R23 power draw for comparison.





raad11 said:


> Can confirm. Encoding threw errors for me for E-Cores and Rings every step of the way at the slightest provocation. I can't even get 51x Ring stable for encoding, even though it's been 24-7 stable in all games/benchmarks/etc. So I put it at 50x with 0.15 offset on L2 (which is 1.3-1.325 for full load on my system).


You need to be stable in y-cruncher's Component Stress Test will all tests enabled, then.


Falkentyne said:


> If youre bored, please try to test independently:
> SFT test
> N32
> N64.
> 
> I think SFT is the hardest one while N32 seems to test ring and cache stability / RAM more.
> Because I remember failing N32 with 131072 trefi, when 65536 trefi passed fine.
> 
> i'm curious about your results.
> The one time i messed with L2 cache voltage, it did absolutely nothing for the E-core vmin (I was testing at x43, in y-cruncher SFT and LinX 0.9.12, 1.05v to 1.25v Atom L2 voltage didn't raise the 1.066v vmin requirement....so im curious exactly what you tested, what ratios you used and what specific test you ran.


SFT is the hardest on the CPU cores. Vcore needs to be ramped up to pass, for the most part

Then, N32, N64, HNT, and VST in that coincidental order, tests the IMC and ring with increasing difficulty.
They are not as strong as a TM5 test with even the 1usmus config, though. Let alone the anta777 ABSOLUT config.

I typically do a selective test of only the latter three in order to pinpoint the minimum VCCSA required to be stable.

But on a more relevant note: sure, I'll go through a proper y-cruncher test. R23 isnt reliable.


cwills75 said:


> That seems to be something I cannot 100% account as correct, as you and others have stated in the past MSI boards don't show things as well as Asus. My HWInfo AC/DC shows 0.0150 / 0.400 mOhm, and I do have AC/DC set to 15/40 in the BIOS, along with LLC mode 5, which I've seen "should" be 0.400 mOhm on MSI Z690. Unless somebody else has more info, that's all I've seen and can go with. I'm also using socket sense based on recommendations from another thread, but I can change it if people feel that is wrong. In the future I'll probably just buy Asus, as that seems to have the least issues with these sort of things, but it is what it is.
> 
> This is what I've generally seen for MSI Z690 boards LLC levels:
> 
> Mode 1--0.01
> Mode 2--?
> Mode 3--0.12
> Mode 4--0.28
> Mode 5--0.40
> Mode 6--0.56
> Mode 7--0.69
> Mode 8--0.96


Stop using adaptive voltage and just use Override, since MSI boards by default clock down the voltage and frequencies during low/idle loads automatically.


----------



## Ichirou

raad11 said:


> Have you guys also noticed that Handbrake is more demanding than Cinebench for stability? CB really is just barely game stable, but Handbrake is way more fussy and throws errors all the time. Without also being a power virus on initial runs.


R24 is the bare minimum, so naturally, most other intensive programs will need more voltage.


RichKnecht said:


> No doubt you know EXACTLY what you are doing. Since I am using a MSI board, I have to try to translate your Asus settings into my MSI settings. Did you state that having V Core and VID match as closely as possible was a good thing or did I totally misunderstand your guide?


Just use Override voltage and don't worry about anything else.


Thanh Nguyen said:


> Not sure hwinfo reports correctly but my cpu on dark z690 pulls almost 400w in r23 at 5.8/4.6/5 at 1.25v vrout.


That doesn't look right.


RichKnecht said:


> I use R23 for a quick test. Once it passes 30 minutes of R23, I open Photoshop and batch a few thousand photos. If that runs fine, I know I am good. When I first got this chip and tweaked it, it was "just fine" running R23 for 30 minutes, but as soon as I started batching photos, it green screened in 2 seconds.


Yeah, you may want to be y-cruncher stable instead. Though, a green screen may also be an indicator of a GPU or PSU issue, so you may want to look into that.


----------



## Falkentyne

raad11 said:


> @Falkentyne
> 
> I notice the VRM Vcore Current sensor, part of Asus Embedded Controller, registers 200+ amps in CB23. So is this sensor accurate? Because I noticed something like TimeSpy Extreme CPU Test causes spikes in amps and temps which are worrisome. Like 248 amps at one point, shot a core straight to 100 C barely quick enough for HWinfo64 to register it. I have TVB enabled to downbin normally but I don't know if it is quick enough to avoid these spikes. I'm not running it again to test. I just ran it at 5.8 all-core (around a 250 watt load) until I see it pass and then stop. Hopefully no actual game behaves like that.


It is accurate but sometimes registers phantom readings, usually because of bus collisions.
Have you tried "Raw VRM" in the Asus OCtool pack that robertosampiao posted on his thread?
That should read the same values as Asus EC in hwinfo, then you can compare them manually.


----------



## Ichirou

@Falkentyne
Currently performing selective y-cruncher tests with the optimized config I had before, albeit with boosted voltages.
It seems I need a metric ton more Vcore to even remotely start SFT, and the error points towards a specific E-core (and always that one E-core).
I've tried raising Vcore to the roof, but to no avail. It seems to be too weak of an E-core to handle y-cruncher at 46x. So I'll have to clock it down to 45x like the rest.

As for the IMC tests, I'm struggling to pass VST. Going to have to pinpoint where the issue is; it could be the L2 cache voltage, or it could be VCCSA.
Will report back with more results as I acquire them.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> @Falkentyne
> Currently performing selective y-cruncher tests with the optimized config I had before, albeit with boosted voltages.
> It seems I need a metric ton more Vcore to even remotely start SFT, and the error points towards a specific E-core (and always that one E-core).
> I've tried raising Vcore to the roof, but to no avail. It seems to be too weak of an E-core to handle y-cruncher at 46x. So I'll have to clock it down to 45x like the rest.
> 
> As for the IMC tests, I'm struggling to pass VST. Going to have to pinpoint where the issue is; it could be the L2 cache voltage, or it could be VCCSA.
> Will report back with more results as I acquire them.


I tried Stockfish at 5.6 ghz and 4.6 ghz E cores at 1.217v load.
Stockfish crashed with an engine error in 1 minute even at 1.25v Atom L2 voltage.
x45 E cores: no issues at all.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> I tried Stockfish at 5.6 ghz and 4.6 ghz E cores at 1.217v load.
> Stockfish crashed with an engine error in 1 minute even at 1.25v Atom L2 voltage.
> x45 E cores: no issues at all.


Welp, not sure what happened, but no matter what I test now (multipliers and frequency), I can't pass VST. The errors point to different cores each time, not only the E-cores now.
Although I only tested it for short durations of time, there is a chance of degradation somewhere. And reflashing the BIOS did not help, so it's likely not a corruption issue.
I tried a conservative 56/45/50 with liberal amounts of Vcore, L2 cache voltage, and VCCSA, but VST would still not pass. There was no thermal throttling; the max temp was 75C.

I'm going to retest R23 30m with my previous config to see if it's still stable. It's quite concerning how sensitive these chips are.


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> Welp, not sure what happened, but no matter what I test now (multipliers and frequency), I can't pass VST. The errors point to different cores each time, not only the E-cores now.
> Although I only tested it for short durations of time, there is a chance of degradation somewhere. And reflashing the BIOS did not help, so it's likely not a corruption issue.
> I tried a conservative 56/45/50 with liberal amounts of Vcore, L2 cache voltage, and VCCSA, but VST would still not pass. There was no thermal throttling; the max temp was 75C.
> 
> I'm going to retest R23 30m with my previous config to see if it's still stable. It's quite concerning how sensitive these chips are.


I've found that any sort of transient throttling that won't be visible on software polling except in the performance limit reasons section can throw off stability in y-cruncher because Vcore dips.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Welp, not sure what happened, but no matter what I test now (multipliers and frequency), I can't pass VST. The errors point to different cores each time, not only the E-cores now.
> Although I only tested it for short durations of time, there is a chance of degradation somewhere. And reflashing the BIOS did not help, so it's likely not a corruption issue.
> I tried a conservative 56/45/50 with liberal amounts of Vcore, L2 cache voltage, and VCCSA, but VST would still not pass. There was no thermal throttling; the max temp was 75C.
> 
> I'm going to retest R23 30m with my previous config to see if it's still stable. It's quite concerning how sensitive these chips are.


That's why I am on the fence about overclocking this chip. Right now, at default clocks, my max temp is 73C and max wattage is 243 and that's only when running benchmarks and testing. I've been processing photos all day and my temps haven‘t gotten out of the 30s. I get nervous when a lot of people say to stay under 300W.


----------



## Ichirou

Exilon said:


> I've found that any sort of transient throttling that won't be visible on software polling except in the performance limit reasons section can throw off stability in y-cruncher because Vcore dips.


So I should be flattening the LLC?


RichKnecht said:


> That's why I am on the fence about overclocking this chip. Right now, at default clocks, my max temp is 73C and max wattage is 243 and that's only when running benchmarks and testing. I've been processing photos all day and my temps have gotten out of the 30s. I get nervous when a lot of people say to stay under 300W.


You can overclock it. Just know what your limits are and stay within it.

@Falkentyne
So, while retrying my previously stable optimized config, I hit a CLOCK_WATCHDOG BSOD near the end of it. This chip has already degraded. Yikes.
That was at 1.28V VR VOUT, ~245A current, and 310W power.


----------



## Exilon

Ichirou said:


> So I should be flattening the LLC?


No, you should be maxing out ICCMax and power limit while you stability test or add more voltage to what you think is stable.


----------



## Ichirou

Exilon said:


> No, you should be maxing out ICCMax and power limit while you stability test or add more voltage to what you think is stable.


I'm not getting throttled in any way. Already tried ramping up the Vcore from 1.33V BIOS to 1.42V. Did nothing.
I have no idea why y-cruncher's VST (strongest IMC test) will not pass.

But that aside, I'm not going to persist with any more y-cruncher testing, as I've already degraded this chip.
It seems I need 1.30V VR VOUT now to pass R23 30m. Before, it was 1.28V VR VOUT.


----------



## VULC

Epeen confirmed









I scored 37 521 in Time Spy


Intel Core i9-13900K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 11}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> So I should be flattening the LLC?
> 
> You can overclock it. Just know what your limits are and stay within it.
> 
> @Falkentyne
> So, while retrying my *previously stable optimized config*, I hit a CLOCK_WATCHDOG BSOD near the end of it. *This chip has already degraded*. Yikes.
> That was at *1.28V VR VOUT, ~245A current, and 310W power.*


Wow. I think I am staying at my undervolted stock settings. It's not like I am going to see a huge difference in real life applications anyway, I'll move on to memory instead. That will be much easier


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Wow. I think I am staying at my undervolted stock settings. It's not like I am going to see a huge difference in real life applications anyway, I'll move on to memory instead. That will be much easier


Yeah, do that. This generation is even more likely to degrade compared to its predecessor ADL.
Only a few days worth of cumulative stress testing, and I already need +0.02V to pass.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Welp, not sure what happened, but no matter what I test now (multipliers and frequency), I can't pass VST. The errors point to different cores each time, not only the E-cores now.
> Although I only tested it for short durations of time, there is a chance of degradation somewhere. And reflashing the BIOS did not help, so it's likely not a corruption issue.
> I tried a conservative 56/45/50 with liberal amounts of Vcore, L2 cache voltage, and VCCSA, but VST would still not pass. There was no thermal throttling; the max temp was 75C.
> 
> I'm going to retest R23 30m with my previous config to see if it's still stable. It's quite concerning how sensitive these chips are.


Random cores crashing is _ALWAYS_ related to memory, IMC or cache issues (sometimes VCCSA on DDR4), but e-cores and ring yeeting have been known to look like memory errors (at least on ADL).
If you reduce the E core frequency down to x30, then you know the e-cores are interfering with cache integrity.
If you reduce the ring frequency to x45, and the problem stops, you found the issue.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> So I should be flattening the LLC?
> 
> You can overclock it. Just know what your limits are and stay within it.
> 
> @Falkentyne
> So, while retrying my previously stable optimized config, I hit a CLOCK_WATCHDOG BSOD near the end of it. This chip has already degraded. Yikes.
> That was at 1.28V VR VOUT, ~245A current, and 310W power.


Just like my 12900k QS running 1.28v die sense in stockfish at 260+ amps.
You shouldn't be above 1.250v.

Using Intel loadline:

1520mv - (245 * 1.1) = 1.250V (1250mv).


----------



## Shkiz0

Shkiz0 said:


> A new visitor  (13900K)
> A very early piece, I'll be curious to see what he will know
> View attachment 2583186


Not great, not terrible 

SP 105 P115 / E85


----------



## affxct

Shkiz0 said:


> Not great, not terrible
> 
> SP 105 P115 / E85
> View attachment 2583449
> 
> View attachment 2583448


Did you boot with no cooler?


----------



## Shkiz0

affxct said:


> Did you boot with no cooler?


Yes.
The velocity2 was on without paste, but the ball valve was closed. It was just a quick look at the SP number, I didn't test it in depth.


----------



## Falkentyne

Shkiz0 said:


> Not great, not terrible
> 
> SP 105 P115 / E85
> View attachment 2583449
> 
> View attachment 2583448


Your SP is bugged. Core #0 VID is impossible.

If that's a Z790 remove and reinsert the CPU
If that's Z690, update management engine on both bioses, update to latest BIOS on both bioses, reboot and verify that the ME is still updated and current, then clear CMOS, remove the CPU, clear CMOS with CPU removed and PSU unplugged/switched off at the PSU, reinsert CPU, clear cmos AGAIN then boot.


----------



## VULC

ㅤ


----------



## Shkiz0

Falkentyne said:


> Your SP is bugged. Core #0 VID is impossible.
> 
> If that's a Z790 remove and reinsert the CPU
> If that's Z690, update management engine on both bioses, update to latest BIOS on both bioses, reboot and verify that the ME is still updated and current, then clear CMOS, remove the CPU, clear CMOS with CPU removed and PSU unplugged/switched off at the PSU, reinsert CPU, clear cmos AGAIN then boot.


Not bugged.
ME up to date (2020), only one bios (STRIX Z690-A), it also writes the SP number of the current processor correctly. (13700K)


----------



## mattskiiau

Shkiz0 said:


> Not great, not terrible
> 
> SP 105 P115 / E85
> View attachment 2583449
> 
> View attachment 2583448


I have the same board. Do you run LLC6 daily? (Unless predictions area is wrong and you're not using 6, sorry if so)


----------



## Falkentyne

Shkiz0 said:


> Not bugged.
> ME up to date (2020), only one bios (STRIX Z690-A), it also writes the SP number of the current processor correctly. (13700K)


Look man
I am sick of doing everyone's brain thinking for them.
It's exhausting me. Can't people think for themselves for once here??










This is the VID of core #0
This is an impossible VID

GLITCHED.


----------



## Shkiz0

mattskiiau said:


> I have the same board. Do you run LLC6 daily? (Unless predictions area is wrong and you're not using 6, sorry if so)


Yes, LLC6 1.25V Bios (5500/4300/4800)


----------



## affxct

Shkiz0 said:


> Yes.
> The velocity2 was on without paste, but the ball valve was closed. It was just a quick look at the SP number, I didn't test it in depth.


I was just curious haha. I can’t believe D5 trained XD.


----------



## Shkiz0

Falkentyne said:


> Look man
> I am sick of doing everyone's brain thinking for them.
> It's exhausting me. Can't people think for themselves for once here??
> 
> View attachment 2583461
> 
> 
> This is the VID of core #0
> This is an impossible VID
> 
> GLITCHED.


Ok, let it be a glitch. It It will be revealed in a few days after Delid.


----------



## mattskiiau

Falkentyne said:


> Look man
> I am sick of doing everyone's brain thinking for them.
> It's exhausting me. Can't people think for themselves for once here??


You're a gem, don't think for a moment that no one appreciates what you do!



Shkiz0 said:


> Yes, LLC6 1.25V Bios (5500/4300/4800)


Thanks for the reply. I'm hesitant to run at LLC6 daily, trying to do my research about it.


----------



## tps3443

Shkiz0 said:


> Not great, not terrible
> 
> SP 105 P115 / E85
> View attachment 2583449
> 
> View attachment 2583448


What is the batch number?

——————————————

On another note. 

Everyone is having fun but me!! I don’t have a cpu!! 😢 

Hopefully it’ll be here Saturday. 13900KF Victim #2. I’ve been playing with my golden 11900K and overclocking it’s IGP 😂 LOL. Intel UHD 750 overclocked From 1,300 to 2,000Mhz. it’s really crazy.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I have testet the real watt.It´s shown often to low, the watt not correct from VRM/CPU, without change AC/DC.
At stock with offset Voltage it´s correct(auto LLC3) and with fixed core multiplier (auto LLC4), 
I have testet with a christ wattmeter, that is absolute precise on Z690 Strix D4, but other board´s look like the same.

Before is have only change toe bestcase Szenario VID with offset, that´s enough that the watt goe´s wrong it shown CB23 225W.
The real watt are CB23 250W.So be careful if any oc to the limit, it can be more current as you think.


----------



## Shkiz0

tps3443 said:


> What is the batch number?
> 
> ——————————————
> 
> On another note.
> 
> Everyone is having fun but me!! I don’t have a cpu!! 😢
> 
> Hopefully it’ll be here Saturday. 13900KF Victim #2. I’ve been playing with my golden 11900K and overclocking it’s IGP 😂 LOL. Intel UHD 750 overclocked From 1,300 to 2,000Mhz. it’s really crazy.


X233K443T


----------



## tibcsi0407

Guys, I am stable on RAM freq. 7000 (Gskill M-Die) on default CPU ratio-s (optimized voltages). The memory speed makes it instable on higher CPU frequencies, doesn't matter what I do, so I loaded the XMP settings. Now I am able to stablize it on 57X (+1 to the 2 best cores) and 44X E (probably it will be stable on 45X with some additional L2 Voltage).
So what can I do to make it stable (OCCT) on 7000 RAM speed? I've tried to raise SA and TX, but it didn't help.


----------



## Shkiz0

Falkentyne said:


> Look man
> I am sick of doing everyone's brain thinking for them.
> It's exhausting me. Can't people think for themselves for once here??
> 
> View attachment 2583461
> 
> 
> This is the VID of core #0
> This is an impossible VID
> 
> GLITCHED.


I'm sorry, it seems you were right. We talked with the guys on a forum in my country, and then things just didn't let me rest. 
Well, the story wasn't easy  

That's how I did it. 
1: It had 13700K, I did a factory reset, then after booting the machine shuts down and cmos clear. 
2: 13700K is taken out, cmos clear is empty, then I started the machine without cpu, then it turns off and 13900K is put in. 

After starting, this is what I received:

















There is not much to add to this, it was known to be bullshit.
It was then that:
3: 13900K bios default, cmos clear 13700K back. This brought the correct SP, the same as before.
4: I'm telling you, we're not kidding, 13700K out, I reflashed the current bios from a flash drive without a processor, then cmos clear, then 13900K in, cmos clear before booting.

This looks like the correct one:

















It hasn't changed much and still looks like an average piece, but I've seen much worse.


----------



## cstkl1

Intel i9 13900k - 55|46|[email protected] LLC7
Asus Z790 Apex - Bios 0802
G.Skill - F5-7600J3646G16GX2-TZ5RK
8400 [email protected] 
MC 1.55, SA +0.350, L2 +0.100

0802-M15A-8400C34.CMO


----------



## Baka_boy

Shkiz0 said:


> I'm sorry, it seems you were right. We talked with the guys on a forum in my country, and then things just didn't let me rest.
> Well, the story wasn't easy
> 
> That's how I did it.
> 1: It had 13700K, I did a factory reset, then after booting the machine shuts down and cmos clear.
> 2: 13700K is taken out, cmos clear is empty, then I started the machine without cpu, then it turns off and 13900K is put in.
> 
> After starting, this is what I received:
> View attachment 2583539
> 
> View attachment 2583538
> 
> 
> There is not much to add to this, it was known to be bullshit.
> It was then that:
> 3: 13900K bios default, cmos clear 13700K back. This brought the correct SP, the same as before.
> 4: I'm telling you, we're not kidding, 13700K out, I reflashed the current bios from a flash drive without a processor, then cmos clear, then 13900K in, cmos clear before booting.
> 
> This looks like the correct one:
> View attachment 2583540
> 
> View attachment 2583541
> 
> 
> It hasn't changed much and still looks like an average piece, but I've seen much worse.


This is exactly my SP/P/E ratings. It's average, but there's still a lot of room for fun tuning.


----------



## Krzych04650

Some more numbers, this time with the same overclock on cores and ring and same memory speed on both except one is with tuned timings and other is with basic 16-16-16-36 and everything else left on Auto.


----------



## Wolverine2349

MY 13900K must be a dud. Seeing all these SP scores in the 100s when mine was 98. I cannot test my SP score anymore as Asus motherboards have been returned due to DDR5 XMP stability issues and now using MSI Unify X Z690.


----------



## energie80

What’s your cpu force?


----------



## Wolverine2349

energie80 said:


> What’s your cpu force?


LIke 147. Isn't 150 average??

Though seeing all of those with SP scores above 100 and mine was 98 ion 2 Asus boards makes me think there are lots of much better chips out there.


----------



## Rbk_3

Is there a way to easily find your best ecores? Thinking of trying running only my 4 best ones at a higher frequency


----------



## tps3443

So from the looks of Page 1 in this thread the average 13900K P-Cores are SP113, and average E-Cores are SP88.

That sounds about right to me.


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> Is there a way to easily find your best ecores? Thinking of trying running only my 4 best ones at a higher frequency


I wrote up a guide on it. 


tps3443 said:


> So from the looks of Page 1 in this thread the average 13900K P-Cores are SP113, and average E-Cores are SP88.
> 
> That sounds about right to me.


Nah, the first post just focuses on good chips. If we're being realistic, the average for all consumers is probably like 105/75.


----------



## Carillo

Ichirou said:


> I wrote up a guide on it.
> 
> Nah, the first post just focuses on good chips. If we're being realistic, the average for all consumers is probably like 105/75.


The first page is intended for everyone who shares their SP ratings. NOT only good chips.


----------



## Falkentyne

Rbk_3 said:


> Is there a way to easily find your best ecores? Thinking of trying running only my 4 best ones at a higher frequency


Y Cruncher SFT test is the easiest way. Set your P cores down to like x50 and run at a very low voltage after a lot of vdroop, like 1.230v bios set LLC4 (Asus) or Mode 7 (MSI) or LLC Low (Gigabyte) and look for which core fails first. This should be about 1.050v die sense full load by guessing.

You could theoretically just use a flat loadline of 0 droop (LLC8 asus, mode 1 MSI, Ultra extreme (GB) but this may cause erratic stability issues like random cores failing close to your vmin because of transient issues (e.g. start at 1.060v bios set, LLC8 and work your way up or down)

On a 13900K, the e-cores are #16-31 P cores are 0-15.


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> So from the looks of Page 1 in this thread the average 13900K P-Cores are SP113, and average E-Cores are SP88.
> 
> That sounds about right to me.


P cores 113 is a bit above average. 
E core SP of 85 is about average.

An E core SP above 90 is very good and above 100 is golden. Very few people have e cores above 100 (I think @RobertoSampaio or @sugi0lover does), which is as rare as a P core SP above 120.


----------



## Ichirou

Carillo said:


> The first page is intended for everyone who shares their SP ratings. NOT only good chips.


Plenty of poor samples were shared already, but not added to the list. It's not actively maintained.
Also, a dozen chips doesn't account for the hundreds of thousands of chips out in the market.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Falkentyne said:


> P cores 113 is a bit above average.
> E core SP of 85 is about average.
> 
> An E core SP above 90 is very good and above 100 is golden. Very few people have e cores above 100 (I think @RobertoSampaio or @sugi0lover does), which is as rare as a P core SP above 120.



Mine has 107 and 80. So I guess smack dab average I guess. I am going to my local Micro Center and hope to get one with much better P core SP rating.


----------



## Nizzen

Ichirou said:


> Plenty of poor samples were shared already, but not added to the list. It's not actively maintained.
> Also, a dozen chips doesn't account for the hundreds of thousands of chips out in the market.


I have a 120%+ day job, fotball coach, 2 kids etc. 
Impossible to maintain 100%. Sorry 😞

A-die needs love every day, due to fun new bioses all the time 
Wify needs some love too LoL


----------



## RichKnecht

Falkentyne said:


> P cores 113 is a bit above average.
> E core SP of 85 is about average.
> 
> An E core SP above 90 is very good and above 100 is golden. Very few people have e cores above 100 (I think @RobertoSampaio or @sugi0lover does), which is as rare as a P core SP above 120.


Wish there was a way that I could tell how good my motherboard thinks my chip is. Seems that MSI doesn't include their force rating on the Tomahawk. What a load of crap. Still like the board though. does what it needs to do.


----------



## Ichirou

I imagine nobody cares anymore, but BestBuy Canada is finally starting to get some supply, and are fulfilling their preorders/backorders.


> Delivery arrives as early as November 25, 2022


I still haven't received my tracking number yet, though.



RichKnecht said:


> Wish there was a way that I could tell how good my motherboard thinks my chip is. Seems that MSI doesn't include their force rating on the Tomahawk. What a load of crap. Still like the board though. does what it needs to do.


MSI gimped all DDR4 users. They didn't even throw the Z790 Edge a bone for being the highest tier DDR4 board, which costs just as much as a mid-high tier DDR5 board.


----------



## nickolp1974

just checked my MC SP with 0031 beta bios for hero, got a 70, no idea what that means currently. Running 7200 c32 tight with dell greens. Happy with that to be fair.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> Wish there was a way that I could tell how good my motherboard thinks my chip is. Seems that MSI doesn't include their force rating on the Tomahawk. What a load of crap. Still like the board though. does what it needs to do.


More reasons to just get a 13900KS and leave it at stock.


----------



## raad11

bhav said:


> More reasons to just get a 13900KS and leave it at stock.


If this stupid microcode bug that raises 5.5 all-core VIDs if you raise 5.8 voltage is ever fixed, I think I would be satisfied with my average 13900K.

Unless the 13900KS is like 5.7 all core or this bug is never addressedd. Then I'd get a 13900KS and just adjust loadlines and leave it stock.


----------



## Ichirou

Wait, so we're getting a 13900KS... and a 13900KSS that's even more tightly binned?


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> More reasons to just get a 13900KS and leave it at stock.


I'm not sure if it would be worth it to me since everything I use this PC for involves all cores. I rarely use anything that uses one core/thread as I am not a gamer.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Wait, so we're getting a 13900KS... and a 13900KSS that's even more tightly binned?


Doubt it, rumours are just rumours.

Intel already stated 6.0 out of the box early 2023.


----------



## WayWayUp

z790 apex available on newegg

when i checked this morning it said availble 11/21, so i got excited that they pushed up the date with "pre-order" option. I checked it a few hrs later and it said out of stock with 11/30 release, so i was disapointed.
I checked one final time and it was available for purchase

In the meantime i grabbed the teamgroup 7600 cl36 ram sticks. Should overclock nicely


----------



## Nizzen

bhav said:


> More reasons to just get a 13900KS and leave it at stock.


Now the performance is in the memory, so All core 5600 og 5700 doesn't really matter much.

Gaming meta now: 8200-8400mhz a-die and stock 13700k/13900k


----------



## bhav

Nizzen said:


> Now the performance is in the memory, so All core 5600 og 5700 doesn't really matter much.
> 
> Gaming meta now: 8200-8400mhz a-die and stock 13700k/13900k


Im gonna go for 4133CL14 like a scrub / 5000+ G2 if it works.

8000+ capable kit and motherboard, I'll simply never spend that much on ram.

In a few years time, I should be able to get 64 Gb 10000+ for cheap, so skip 14th and 15th gen then see about upgrading after that.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 
BestBuy didn't readjust their price to the current posted price for the CPU though. But they have price protection, so it's not a big deal.


----------



## Nizzen

bhav said:


> Im gonna go for 4133CL14 like a scrub / 5000+ G2 if it works.
> 
> 8000+ capable kit and motherboard, I'll simply never spend that much on ram.
> 
> In a few years time, I should be able to get 64 Gb 10000+ for cheap, so skip 14th and 15th gen then see about upgrading after that.


Ddr5 A-die is cheaper than ddr4 b-die now LOL
But yes, ddr4 gear 1 is fast too


----------



## bhav

Nizzen said:


> Ddr5 A-die is cheaper than ddr4 b-die now LOL


Yea Samsung B die prices are still daft, definitely don't buy new DDR4 for a new build.

Kingston Fury Renegade is on black friday sale, should be DJR, will confirm when I get my £58 2x8 next week.

Give away my 2x4 2400 kit for free? I don't think anyone's gonna pay even £20 for it, any less not worth it with shipping, so free, just pay for shipping.

Or £1 and £15 shipping charge on ebay, will try that.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

WayWayUp said:


> z790 apex available on newegg
> 
> when i checked this morning it said availble 11/21, so i got excited that they pushed up the date with "pre-order" option. I checked it a few hrs later and it said out of stock with 11/30 release, so i was disapointed.
> I checked one final time and it was available for purchase
> 
> In the meantime i grabbed the teamgroup 7600 cl36 ram sticks. Should overclock nicely


In stock here. Made an order in the morning and they shipped later that day. No tax too.








ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 APEX ATX Motherboard Z790 Chipset LGA 1700 2x DDR5 DIMM Slots Max 64GB 8000MHz PCIe Gen 5


ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 APEX ATX Motherboard Z790 Chipset LGA 1700 2x DDR5 DIMM Slots Max 64GB 8000MHz PCIe Gen 5




www.centralcomputer.com


----------



## phippa94

Hi. We are binning atm with Bullshooter and sergmann and we found a nice 13900K with the following SPs:

Overall SP 114
P Core SP 121
E Core SP 101
MC SP 84

And now another one 

Overall SP 113
P Core SP 123
E Core SP 84
MC SP 88


----------



## acoustic

MC SP? Lol how is that being calculated


----------



## WayWayUp

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443
> BestBuy didn't readjust their price to the current posted price for the CPU though. But they have price protection, so it's not a big deal.


woah

so expensive in your country and that tax is no joke either

I just ordered off of Amazon today for $619.99

I will also be getting 5% back since i used my amazon store card


----------



## Nizzen

acoustic said:


> MC SP? Lol how is that being calculated


New bios today on z790 maximus MB's. 0031


----------



## phippa94

acoustic said:


> MC SP? Lol how is that being calculated


With a new Z790 Hero BIOS (Ver. 0031) you can check the MC SP.


----------



## Ichirou

phippa94 said:


> Hi. We are binning atm with Bullshooter and sergmann and we found a nice 13900K with the following SPs:
> 
> Overall SP 114
> P Core SP 121
> E Core SP 101
> MC SP 84
> 
> And now another one
> 
> Overall SP 113
> P Core SP 123
> E Core SP 84
> MC SP 88


Let me know if any of you are selling binned chips; I would be interested


----------



## acoustic

Gotcha. I'm asking what is it using to calculate the SP? I don't believe MC/SA VID changes from chip to chip.. it's usually the same.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Gotcha. I'm asking what is it using to calculate the SP? I don't believe MC/SA VID changes from chip to chip.. it's usually the same.


It's probably not a meaningful measurement. because if you look at the two samples mentioned, the top one is better, but got a lower MC SP score.
I think it might be linked to thermals. Or more weight is placed towards the P-cores than the E-cores.


----------



## bhav

Problem with buying pre binned chips is they will likely charge as much as or more than the KS will cost, but if it gets done earlier you can get one quicker.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Problem with buying pre binned chips is they will likely charge as much as or more than the KS will cost, but if it gets done earlier you can get one quicker.


Yes, I am aware of the likelihood that it will be overpriced compared to the KS. I will be factoring everything into consideration.


----------



## Carillo

Ichirou said:


> It's probably not a meaningful measurement. because if you look at the two samples mentioned, the top one is better, but got a lower MC SP score.
> I think it might be linked to thermals. Or more weight is placed towards the P-cores than the E-cores.


Guessing helps no one. It is better to let those who have set up this formula make a statement about how this is calculated.


----------



## tps3443

That SP121/SP101 is absolutely righteous!!!! 😭😭😭😭😭

Thats probably a Force 110-112 for sure.


----------



## Thunderclap

What are your guys expectations for the 13900KS? We already know the single core boost will be 6.0GHz but I'm more interested in the all core boost clocks. In the case of the 12900K/12900KS we had:

12900K 5.2GHz single core / 4.9GHz all-core on the P cores / 3.7GHz all-core on the E cores
12900KS 5.5GHz single core / 5.2GHz all-core on the P cores (+300MHz) / 4.0GHz all-core on the E cores (+300MHz)

So going by the 12900K/12900KS numbers, the 13900K/13900KS should be something like:

13900K 5.8GHz single core / 5.5GHz all-core on the P cores / 4.3GHz all-core on the E cores
13900KS 6.0GHz single core / 5.8GHz all-core on the P cores (+300MHz) / 4.6GHz all-core on the E cores (+300MHz)

Are those somewhat reasonable expectations? Or is it more likely we get something like "just" 100-200MHz all-core improvement, since the 13900K is already pushed pretty close to its limits (at least the average 13900K is, FWIW) let alone the 13900KS. Will be interesting to see how far Intel's binning goes.


----------



## chibi

I think the KS will be around 6 single / 5.7 all core. Just my guess, anything more would be a nice welcome.


----------



## WayWayUp

I was under the impression it would be 200Mhz

6000 is the important number for Intel and I’m sure that’s the target


----------



## Nizzen

*FreeSpeechIsKnowledge is still toxic? Is he laughing all the time because many people ignored/blocked him? 

Confirmed: He is a bot...*


----------



## Shkiz0

Nizzen said:


> New bios today on z790 maximus MB's. 0031


And is this only the privilege of Maximus motherboards, or will it also be available in the lower category? 
Because I uploaded the last beta bios (2201) and I don't have such an option for the Z690 STRIX-A, but I don't know if it's because it's an even older beta bios or because the ROG boards don't get it.


----------



## Nizzen

Shkiz0 said:


> And is this only the privilege of Maximus motherboards, or will it also be available in the lower category?
> Because I uploaded the last beta bios (2201) and I don't have such an option for the Z690 STRIX-A, but I don't know if it's because it's an even older beta bios or because the ROG boards don't get it.


Only for Maximus. Coming to z690 Maximus soon.


----------



## Ichirou

Thunderclap said:


> What are your guys expectations for the 13900KS? We already know the single core boost will be 6.0GHz but I'm more interested in the all core boost clocks. In the case of the 12900K/12900KS we had:
> 
> 12900K 5.2GHz single core / 4.9GHz all-core on the P cores / 3.7GHz all-core on the E cores
> 12900KS 5.5GHz single core / 5.2GHz all-core on the P cores (+300MHz) / 4.0GHz all-core on the E cores (+300MHz)
> 
> So going by the 12900K/12900KS numbers, the 13900K/13900KS should be something like:
> 
> 13900K 5.8GHz single core / 5.5GHz all-core on the P cores / 4.3GHz all-core on the E cores
> 13900KS 6.0GHz single core / 5.8GHz all-core on the P cores (+300MHz) / 4.6GHz all-core on the E cores (+300MHz)
> 
> Are those somewhat reasonable expectations? Or is it more likely we get something like "just" 100-200MHz all-core improvement, since the 13900K is already pushed pretty close to its limits (at least the average 13900K is, FWIW) let alone the 13900KS. Will be interesting to see how far Intel's binning goes.





chibi said:


> I think the KS will be around 6 single / 5.7 all core. Just my guess, anything more would be a nice welcome.


As @chibi says, it's going to be a 5.7/6.0 chip. Some tighter bins will do 5.8-5.9 all-core.

You can already match this with above average 13900K/KF bins.
But not everyone wants to bin chips, so the 13900KS is a safer route.


----------



## ajolly

Just got my first 13900k from b&h, sad about the binning:
SP 95, P104 E78. Have yet to see it boost above 5.5ghz. My 12900ks seemed better. (Wheres good to sell old cpus these days anyways, ebay?)


----------



## Ichirou

ajolly said:


> Just got my first 13900k from b&h, sad about the binning:
> SP 95, P104 E78. Have yet to see it boost above 5.5ghz. My 12900ks seemed better. (Wheres good to sell old cpus these days anyways, ebay?)


eBay, Facebook Marketplace. Local markets if you have them.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Reduced 100MHz (from 5.5 to 5.4) in the ring gave me better single core results.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

RobertoSampaio said:


> Reduced 100MHz (from 5.5 to 5.4) in the ring gave me better single core results.
> 
> View attachment 2583669



It's insane that you're at 5.5 and 5.4 ring. Mine taps out stock voltage at 5.0. If I up the ring pll I get 5.1. There's a fine balance. I'm still trying to finalize the best setup for mine. I might go ahead and swap mine out tomorrow honestly.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> It's insane that you're at 5.5 and 5.4 ring. Mine taps out stock voltage at 5.0. If I up the ring pll I get 5.1. There's a fine balance. I'm still trying to finalize the best setup for mine. I might go ahead and swap mine out tomorrow honestly.


I don't lock in a fixed value... I just set the maximum and let the system decide the frequency. So it goes from 800 to 5400 now


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

cwills75 said:


> Thanks for the detailed explanation. This thread is sooooo long and it's hard to always pick up all the pieces, but I think I've got a grasp on it now.
> 
> Yes, I was around 1.38v in the BIOS, so I dialed back the OC to P-cores 56, E-cores 45, ring 45 and settled on a voltage in the BIOS of 1.34, which has been stable all night and is now drawing 214A at 1.196v under R23 load. Based on how I interpret your formula, if I do:
> 
> 1520mv - (1.1 * 214) = 1,284 = 1.284v as a ceiling and
> 
> 1340mv - (0.4 * 214) = 1,254 = 1.254v, so that looks better if I'm doing it right now. That's putting my R23 P-core max temps between 70C - 80C under load with the fans on a curve and around 65% with water loop temps about 3-4C over ambient.
> View attachment 2583378
> 
> View attachment 2583379
> 
> The only thing this PC is being used for is running as a FileFlows node to software FFMPEG encode videos into HEVC, doing three FFMPEG instances at a time. Interestingly enough, over the last week or so setting this PC up and changing CPU speeds/voltages, settings that would pass hours of R23/Prime95/OCCT with no lockups/WHEA errors, would fail processing FFMPEG files in FileFlows, usually within 10-15 minutes, if the voltage was too low. Three instances of FFMPEG doing conversions is just slightly under an R23 power draw for comparison.
> 
> Unrelated, but side-note:
> 
> FFMPEG by default in Win11 doesn't seem to use the P-Cores properly, so an elevated cmd of:
> 
> POWERCFG /POWERTHROTTLING DISABLE /PATH "C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\FileFlows\Tools\ffmpeg.exe"
> 
> needs to be done to disable the power throttling and get full speeds. Same thing with Handbrake, only get half-speeds without disabling power throttling.


I can't find the VR vout and the current / power readings and I have the z790 edge...Im using the latest Hwinfo64...is there some setting im missing?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Falkentyne said:


> You just need to go into your bios, into the lite load section and set ac and dc loadline values to 1 (or 0.01, whatever is smallest).
> Then disable thermal velocity boost voltage optimizations (don't leave it on auto). That will keep the reported VID same at both idle and load.
> Then post the core VIDs at each multiplier: x54, x55, x56 and x57.
> 
> That will give a good idea of your P core SP rating. This takes absolutely no work, just do it and post the core vids you get. No stress testing needed.
> 
> E core SP will take more work.
> You will want to underclock the p-cores to x52, set ecores to x43, ring to x45,
> then you will want to start at something like 1.150v bios set, LLC Mode 3--this is ESTIMATED.
> Your target is to get a load VR VOUT of about 1.08v in Y-cruncher.
> So you load up Y-cruncher, SFT only loop test, no others, and your goal is to pass 10 loops without an e-core crashing.
> The e core ID's are #16-#31.
> 
> If you fail, raise cpu vcore by 5mv so your vr vout increases by 5 (e..g 1.08v to 1.085v) and try again.
> Keep going up until it passes, then write what the load vr vout was that you needed to pass.
> If you were stable on the very first attempt, then you would reduce the vcore by 5mv and test until you fail, etc.


I'm not sure if I did this correctly, but I disabled TVB optimization, left voltage on auto, and set ac and dc loadline values to 1. The VIDs kept bouncing around in HWinfo64 so I dunno. I was trying to get an idea of the SP..I was using dragon power like you suggested on another post but some reason I can't find that post.


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> I'm not sure if I did this correctly, but I disabled TVB optimization, left voltage on auto, and set ac and dc loadline values to 1. The VIDs kept bouncing around in HWinfo64 so I dunno. I was trying to get an idea of the SP..I was using dragon power like you suggested on another post but some reason I can't find that post.
> 
> View attachment 2583727
> 
> 
> View attachment 2583729
> View attachment 2583726
> 
> View attachment 2583728


Don't bother with the VIDs; they're screwed on MSI. Just do field testing with R23.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> Don't bother with the VIDs; they're screwed on MSI. Just do field testing with R23.


Ya, will do - I dont have any idea what to set voltage at....used to be easy: 1.4 and work my way down (10th gen) but these chips need a lot less with no real target set voltage. How do i limit the amp to the 243A limit? Also, how did you get your VROUT and AMP OUT readings on your hwinfo for the edge 690...I have the z790 edge and its not there (newest HWinfo). Do I have to change the voltage type to VCCsense in the bios or something....ugh lol


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Ya, will do - I dont have any idea what to set voltage at....used to be easy: 1.4 and work my way down (10th gen) but these chips need a lot less with no real target set voltage. How do i limit the amp to the 243A limit? Also, how did you get your VROUT and AMP OUT readings on your hwinfo for the edge 690...I have the z790 edge and its not there (newest HWinfo). Do I have to change the voltage type to VCCsense in the bios or something....ugh lol


They appeared for me after I updated the BIOS and HWiNFO to the latest beta version. The readings weren't available before.
The current kind of fluctuates. You're better off limiting the wattage instead with the Long Duration setting. Max 250-300W depending on your tolerance.


----------



## Astral85

Do you batch numbers tell us anything about the bin? I just received my 13900K (#X236G026). Not opened it yet.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Uncle Dubbs said:


> I'm not sure if I did this correctly, but I disabled TVB optimization, left voltage on auto, and set ac and dc loadline values to 1. The VIDs kept bouncing around in HWinfo64 so I dunno. I was trying to get an idea of the SP..I was using dragon power like you suggested on another post but some reason I can't find that post.
> 
> View attachment 2583727
> 
> 
> View attachment 2583729
> View attachment 2583726
> 
> View attachment 2583728


So, I went back further into the posts and saw that @Falkentyne also mentioned to set the 1.35v bios and Mode 2 LLC so I did that ...basically all the VIDs are the same no matter what multiplier I used:


----------



## Ichirou

Astral85 said:


> Do you batch numbers tell us anything about the bin? I just received my 13900K (#X236G026). Not opened it yet.


A little, but not the full picture. Back during Alder Lake, there were people who binned trays of chips from the same batches, and there was still quality variance.
You'll still need to do your own testing, if you can't acquire an ASUS SP or MSI Force score.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> They appeared for me after I updated the BIOS and HWiNFO to the latest beta version. The readings weren't available before.
> The current kind of fluctuates. You're better off limiting the wattage instead with the Long Duration setting. Max 250-300W depending on your tolerance.


Well im on the newest bios from last week and the newest beta for HWinfo - thats annoying. Maybe I have to message him and see if it has to be added? I dont get it.


----------



## Ichirou

@Falkentyne
After the chip degraded, I can't seem to pass TM5 no matter what mixtures of voltages or BIOS reflashes I try now. It's a lot more serious than I expected.
Going to try a few more things to try to stabilize, but it doesn't look good.


----------



## Baka_boy

Ichirou said:


> @Falkentyne
> After the chip degraded, I can't seem to pass TM5 no matter what mixtures of voltages or BIOS reflashes I try now. It's a lot more serious than I expected.
> Going to try a few more things to try to stabilize, but it doesn't look good.


Just curious Ichirou (since I didn't follow your situation beforehand), what caused your cpu degradation?


----------



## Ichirou

Baka_boy said:


> Just curious Ichirou (since I didn't follow your situation beforehand), what caused your cpu degradation?


Voltage. I was stress testing at 1.28V VR VOUT with 245A of current, equating to about 310W of power. Didn't even need more than a few days of doing so.

@Falkentyne
Not really managing to gain any leeway. I think the degradation really hit the chip hard. Not only the cores but the IMC as well.
I tested an older BIOS (V1.70; the first for 13th Gen) to see if it would help, but it seems to be even more sensitive--errors out much more quickly in TM5.
I'm currently testing with the CPU on pure stock clocks (55/43/45) with liberal Vcore. Let's see if this last ditch attempt works out.


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> I've found the max reasonable clocks for my chip, but I'm not settled on the chip itself
> Still looking to bin for a golden chip, since I'm planning to sit on it for quite a long time.
> 
> Looks like ~1.28V VR VOUT territory. 56-57 P-Cores, 45-46 E-Cores, 50-51 Ring.


Understandable considering meteor lake boutta be 6C


----------



## HemuV2

Shkiz0 said:


> Not great, not terrible
> 
> SP 105 P115 / E85
> View attachment 2583449
> 
> View attachment 2583448


Lol that's actually sad because you have 1 golden core and rest are 1.418 like my 109 sp pcore. So your 115 SP is as good as my uniform VID sp109? Not sure if that's correct @RobertoSampaio can you confirm?


----------



## HemuV2

Shkiz0 said:


> I'm sorry, it seems you were right. We talked with the guys on a forum in my country, and then things just didn't let me rest.
> Well, the story wasn't easy
> 
> That's how I did it.
> 1: It had 13700K, I did a factory reset, then after booting the machine shuts down and cmos clear.
> 2: 13700K is taken out, cmos clear is empty, then I started the machine without cpu, then it turns off and 13900K is put in.
> 
> After starting, this is what I received:
> View attachment 2583539
> 
> View attachment 2583538
> 
> 
> There is not much to add to this, it was known to be bullshit.
> It was then that:
> 3: 13900K bios default, cmos clear 13700K back. This brought the correct SP, the same as before.
> 4: I'm telling you, we're not kidding, 13700K out, I reflashed the current bios from a flash drive without a processor, then cmos clear, then 13900K in, cmos clear before booting.
> 
> This looks like the correct one:
> View attachment 2583540
> 
> View attachment 2583541
> 
> 
> It hasn't changed much and still looks like an average piece, but I've seen much worse.


That's more like it, still 1.418 tho, i wonder if this affects overall voltage since 2 of them are higher


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> I wrote up a guide on it.
> 
> Nah, the first post just focuses on good chips. If we're being realistic, the average for all consumers is probably like 105/75.


Bro ecore sp75 is not avg, infact of it's less than 80 please get a replacement they won't let you OC your chip!! Sp80+ is standard and 90+ is golden imo


----------



## HemuV2

Thunderclap said:


> What are your guys expectations for the 13900KS? We already know the single core boost will be 6.0GHz but I'm more interested in the all core boost clocks. In the case of the 12900K/12900KS we had:
> 
> 12900K 5.2GHz single core / 4.9GHz all-core on the P cores / 3.7GHz all-core on the E cores
> 12900KS 5.5GHz single core / 5.2GHz all-core on the P cores (+300MHz) / 4.0GHz all-core on the E cores (+300MHz)
> 
> So going by the 12900K/12900KS numbers, the 13900K/13900KS should be something like:
> 
> 13900K 5.8GHz single core / 5.5GHz all-core on the P cores / 4.3GHz all-core on the E cores
> 13900KS 6.0GHz single core / 5.8GHz all-core on the P cores (+300MHz) / 4.6GHz all-core on the E cores (+300MHz)
> 
> Are those somewhat reasonable expectations? Or is it more likely we get something like "just" 100-200MHz all-core improvement, since the 13900K is already pushed pretty close to its limits (at least the average 13900K is, FWIW) let alone the 13900KS. Will be interesting to see how far Intel's binning goes.


Obviously 5.7 all.core and typical sp115+ on pcore and very good ecores no wonder it's "limited edition"


----------



## Ichirou

@Falkentyne
So far, after dropping my clocks back down to 55/43/45 (stock) with liberal Vcore, I managed to finish TM5 1usmus with only one voltage error. So there is some improvement.
I'll try boosting VDIMM and VCCSA by a tiny bit to see if I can pass it without any errors at all.

The degradation is seriously real. And insanely bad for Raptor Lake. I fear for anyone pushing over 270W on these chips for any extended period of time.

*Update*: I tentatively boosted both VDIMM and VCCSA by +0.01V over my previously stable values, and it successfully passed TM5 1usmus (three cycles) without error.
We're finally getting somewhere. _(This was done with stock core multipliers, not my overclocked ones.)_

After a good night's sleep, I'll try to pinpoint whether there is VCCSA degradation or not. _(Core degradation has definitely occurred, though.)_
In the meanwhile, I'll do another overnight anta777 ABSOLUT run just to be safe.


----------



## fray_bentos

Ichirou said:


> @Falkentyne
> So far, after dropping my clocks back down to 55/43/45 (stock) with liberal Vcore, I managed to finish TM5 1usmus with only one voltage error. So there is some improvement.
> I'll try boosting VDIMM and VCCSA by a tiny bit to see if I can pass it without any errors at all.
> 
> The degradation is seriously real. And insanely bad for Raptor Lake. I fear for anyone pushing over 270W on these chips for any extended period of time.
> 
> *Update*: I tentatively boosted both VDIMM and VCCSA by +0.01V over my previously stable values, and it successfully passed TM5 1usmus (three cycles) without error.
> We're finally getting somewhere. _(This was done with stock core multipliers, not my overclocked ones.)_
> 
> After a good night's sleep, I'll try to pinpoint whether there is VCCSA degradation or not. _(Core degradation has definitely occurred, though.)_
> In the meanwhile, I'll do another overnight anta777 ABSOLUT run just to be safe.


What is your VCCA voltage? I'm on 1.22 V, but it seems on MSI you can't set adaptive SA. Tempted to try and flick the adaptive voltage button in XTU and see if that works (though I would prefer no XTU installation at all). I might lift SA voltage a notch before trying that so I don't get any data corruption in case adaptive voltage adds instability. SA over 1.20 V changes from white to red in my bios (but it did the same on Z490). I get memory errors at 1.20 V with my current RAM settings.


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Ya, will do - I dont have any idea what to set voltage at....used to be easy: 1.4 and work my way down (10th gen) but these chips need a lot less with no real target set voltage. How do i limit the amp to the 243A limit? Also, how did you get your VROUT and AMP OUT readings on your hwinfo for the edge 690...I have the z790 edge and its not there (newest HWinfo). Do I have to change the voltage type to VCCsense in the bios or something....ugh lol


Give this a whirl. Set all clocks and voltage to auto. Set LLC to auto ( the values set are AC LL .08 and DC LL 1.02 which are the same as LLC6 ). In advanced CPU settings, set CPU Lite load to normal and mode 1. Reboot. While running an all core load, your v core should dip to ~1.17 and VIDs should be ~1.162. Power draw should be ~243W. If that isn’t stable, try going to mode 2, repeat. My chip is stable on Mode1.


----------



## RichKnecht

fray_bentos said:


> What is your VCCA voltage? I'm on 1.22 V, but it seems on MSI you can't set adaptive SA. Tempted to try and flick the adaptive voltage button in XTU and see if that works (though I would prefer no XTU installation at all). I might lift SA voltage a notch before trying that so I don't get any data corruption in case adaptive voltage adds instability. SA over 1.20 V changes from white to red in my bios (but it did the same on Z490). I get memory errors at 1.20 V with my current RAM settings.


SA changes to red over 1.2 on my board as well. No idea why because on Auto, SA goes to 1.35. I set it to 1.25 as I think 1.35 is a bit excessive for manually entered XMP values.


----------



## Kocicak

Does a first core in Raptor CPU occasionally falling down to 800 MHz instead of 1100 have any significance?

BTW I let one 13900K run at 6 GHz at 1.45V and cca 85°C for 10 minutes 3 (only three) threads in Cinebench, I went away, returned, and the computer has restarted in the meantime. The cpu could not run benchmarks anymore even in stock settings, I needed to give it a little positive voltage offset to stabilize it . Was it a lemon? Is 1.45V too much? What was the problem?


----------



## fray_bentos

Kocicak said:


> Does a first core in Raptor CPU occasionally falling down to 800 MHz instead of 1100 have any significance?
> 
> BTW I let one 13900K run at 6 GHz at 1.45V and cca 85°C for 10 minutes 3 (only three) threads in Cinebench, I went away, returned, and the computer has restarted in the meantime. The cpu could not run benchmarks anymore even in stock settings, I needed to give it a little positive voltage offset to stabilize it . Was it a lemon? Is 1.45V too much? What was the problem?


The problem is that you absolutely raped the CPU. There are degradation stories at even 1.28 V (load).


----------



## Kocicak

I can see the CPU getting this voltage by itself at stock settings. It is full of sensors, so I presume if it sensed some overheating in one core it would switch to another core. It run only VERY LIGHT light load - light in the sense it could freely move it around the CPU. Or if it sensed too much heat where it could not get rid of it, it should have shut down to prevent damage. But it seems the damage occured anyway.


----------



## imrevoau

stop killing your poor CPU's guys


----------



## fray_bentos

Kocicak said:


> I can see the CPU getting this voltage by itself at stock settings. It is full of sensors, so I presume if it sensed some overheating in one core it would switch to another core. It run only VERY LIGHT light load - light in the sense it could freely move it around the CPU. Or if it sensed too much heat where it could not get rid of it, it should have shut down to prevent damage. But it seems the damage occured anyway.


Hint: the settings your mobo applies when you first drop your CPU into it are not "stock". Boards these days overvolt the hell out of every chip out of the box. Lots of people here had >1.35 V being applied from the start, when really their chips were perfectly stable at 1.15 to 1.20 V load (i.e. using the true _stock_ Intel load lines).


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> Give this a whirl. Set all clocks and voltage to auto. Set LLC to auto ( the values set are AC LL .08 and DC LL 1.02 which are the same as LLC6 ). In advanced CPU settings, set CPU Lite load to normal and mode 1. Reboot. While running an all core load, your v core should dip to ~1.17 and VIDs should be ~1.162. Power draw should be ~243W. If that isn’t stable, try going to mode 2, repeat. My chip is stable on Mode1.


with these settings cb23 wont even launch, watchclock error crash. No idea where to start, crazy.


----------



## Ichirou

fray_bentos said:


> What is your VCCA voltage? I'm on 1.22 V, but it seems on MSI you can't set adaptive SA. Tempted to try and flick the adaptive voltage button in XTU and see if that works (though I would prefer no XTU installation at all). I might lift SA voltage a notch before trying that so I don't get any data corruption in case adaptive voltage adds instability. SA over 1.20 V changes from white to red in my bios (but it did the same on Z490). I get memory errors at 1.20 V with my current RAM settings.


Now 1.32V instead of 1.31V. VCCSA is fine up to 1.35V.

I've personally degraded VCCSA on another chip when going above 1.40V though. 


Uncle Dubbs said:


> with these settings cb23 wont even launch, watchclock error crash. No idea where to start, crazy.


Too low Vcore. CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT is 99% of the time not enough Vcore.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> Now 1.32V instead of 1.31V. VCCSA is fine up to 1.35V.
> 
> I've personally degraded VCCSA on another chip when going above 1.40V though.
> 
> Too low Vcore. CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT is 99% of the time not enough Vcore.


I left everything on auto, so I would have to use a manual vcore v then? I don't want to degrade this thing - I just want to see what I have...was way easier on 10th gen haha


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> I left everything on auto, so I would have to use a manual vcore v then? I don't want to degrade this thing - I just want to see what I have...was way easier on 10th gen haha


Yes.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

fray_bentos said:


> Hint: the settings your mobo applies when you first drop your CPU into it are not "stock". Boards these days overvolt the hell out of every chip out of the box. Lots of people here had >1.35 V being applied from the start, when really their chips were perfectly stable at 1.15 to 1.20 V load (i.e. using the true _stock_ Intel load lines).


Stock on MSI board (auto) is:

Advanced CPU confiig

CPU Lite Load Control - normal
CPU Lite Load: is mode 9 (is this the same as LL Calibration mode 9?) system auto does this mode

CPU Lite Load Control - advanced (I switch to advanced to see)

CPU AC LL: 50
CPU DC LL: 80

Under DigitALL Power I left CPU loadline calib control on auto: 2 does show a flat line. When I set this to two 2 - it changes the ACLL and DCLL to 1 each.


----------



## Kocicak

I may just add that this is a *special K sku intended for overclocking* and as such it must have some onboard self-protection mechanisms. I run it BELOW max temperature, with 180W power limit (consuming way less than that), with light load (I just checked and windows task manager reports 3 threads of CNB as 18% load), with non extreme voltage and just 200 MHz over. And it degraded after few minutes?!

It must have been a dud, which had some flaky bit in it, which got worse. The second option is that these CPUs are really fragile and sensitive generally, *well they should not be sold as a K CPU then! 

If they are so sensitive, Intel should sell them locked and make sure, that MB manufacturers are not pushing too high voltage in them!!! 

If the process these CPUs are made with is really not that good for these frequencies, the CPUs should be sold at lower frequencies they can survive!!!*


----------



## Ichirou

Kocicak said:


> I may just add that this is a *special K sku intended for oveclocking* and as such it must have some onboard self-protection mechanisms. I run it BELOW max temperature, with 180W power limit (consuming way less than that), with light load (I just checked and windows task manager reports 3 threads of CNB as 18% load), with non extreme voltage and just 200 MHz over. And it degraded after few minutes?!
> 
> It must have been a dud, which had something flaky bit in it, which got worse. The second option is that these CPUs are really fragile and sensitive generally, *well they should not be sold as a K CPU then!
> 
> If they are so sensitive, Intel should sell them locked and make sure, that MB manufacturers are not pushing too high voltage in them!!!
> 
> If the process these CPUs are made with is really not that good for these frequencies, the CPUs should be sold at lower frequencies they can survive!!!*


Both Intel and AMD don't care anymore because it is a race to produce the fastest CPU. 

It's kind of like NVIDIA stopped giving a damn about power consumption since the RTX 3000 series.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> Yes.


So, the magical question is then: If I have to use an override voltage, what is the safe set starting point and which LL ABC's have to be set and at what? I have left all clocks and everything on default. It runs 5500 default all clock all the time anyway with bios defaults...I feel like it should be boosting higher or I could set some of these cores to run higher.


----------



## fray_bentos

Uncle Dubbs said:


> with these settings cb23 wont even launch, watchclock error crash. No idea where to start, crazy.


You don't have to use override voltages, it'll work fine on Auto voltage, Auto LLC and Auto clocks for now (you can change the clocks later) IF you follow the instructions you were given by @RichKnecht. Increase lite load to 2 and keep going up on that until stable, that'll have the effect of increasing your voltages under load. Leave LLC on Auto (= LLC6) in the DIGITal power menu. Don't use LLC2 that is far too aggressive. LLC is different from LiteLoad.


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> So, the magical question is then: If I have to use an override voltage, what is the safe set starting point and which LL ABC's have to be set and at what? I have left all clocks and everything on default. It runs 5500 default all clock all the time anyway with bios defaults...I feel like it should be boosting higher or I could set some of these cores to run higher.


I wrote up a guide for optimized overclocking on MSI boards already.


----------



## fray_bentos

Kocicak said:


> I may just add that this is a *special K sku intended for overclocking* and as such it must have some onboard self-protection mechanisms. I run it BELOW max temperature, with 180W power limit (consuming way less than that), with light load (I just checked and windows task manager reports 3 threads of CNB as 18% load), with non extreme voltage and just 200 MHz over. And it degraded after few minutes?!
> 
> It must have been a dud, which had some flaky bit in it, which got worse. The second option is that these CPUs are really fragile and sensitive generally, *well they should not be sold as a K CPU then!
> 
> If they are so sensitive, Intel should sell them locked and make sure, that MB manufacturers are not pushing too high voltage in them!!!
> 
> If the process these CPUs are made with is really not that good for these frequencies, the CPUs should be sold at lower frequencies they can survive!!!*


No. You applied voltages that were too hard. It wasn't a dud, but it is now. When was it ever OK to throw 1.45 V at a CPU? Anyone?


----------



## Falkentyne

Kocicak said:


> Does a first core in Raptor CPU occasionally falling down to 800 MHz instead of 1100 have any significance?
> 
> BTW I let one 13900K run at 6 GHz at 1.45V and cca 85°C for 10 minutes 3 (only three) threads in Cinebench, I went away, returned, and the computer has restarted in the meantime. The cpu could not run benchmarks anymore even in stock settings, I needed to give it a little positive voltage offset to stabilize it . Was it a lemon? Is 1.45V too much? What was the problem?


I don't believe this.
I don't think you were really at "stock" settings when you had cores at 6 ghz. Roberto thought he was back at stock awhile ago in a chat with me but I saw his asus monitoring screenshot in OCtool, and he still had per core usage active with all the cores at x55. (monitoring said he was in offset mode). That's not stock.

Clear CMOS (don't just click 'load optimized defaults') manually, with the PSU unplugged, then try to run your benchmarks. That will guarantee you are back at stock.
Report your results.


----------



## Kocicak

I got rid of the weak CPU, now I have another one. I will be a little bit more cautious with it. Now I am trying 5900/5700 with auto voltage and limited to 180W.


----------



## Ichirou

@Falkentyne
Woke up to 22 errors after 7+ hours with TM5 anta777 ABSOLUT. Looks like I'll have to keep testing further to see where the issue lies.
My primary suspicion is VCCSA at the moment, so I will boost that up a bit more and retest. But after a BIOS reflash first for any potential corruption.


----------



## fray_bentos

Kocicak said:


> I got rid of the weak CPU, now I have another one. I will be a little bit more cautious with it. Now I am trying 5900/5700 with auto voltage and limited to 180W.


Poor store/2nd owner.


----------



## Kocicak

fray_bentos said:


> Poor store/2nd owner.


Poor Intel. They should better protect their products against fools - both users and MB manufacturers. And better not sell CPUs outside their comfortable frequency, power and voltage range.


----------



## Falkentyne

Uncle Dubbs said:


> I left everything on auto, so I would have to use a manual vcore v then? I don't want to degrade this thing - I just want to see what I have...was way easier on 10th gen haha





Ichirou said:


> Yes.


Someone earlier wrote why on MSI, why all of the VIDs were the exact same at x54-x58 (exactly 1.35v) when they set "override mode" to 1.35v.
seems 'override mode' overrides the native vids again, just like Gigabyte's "override mode" and you're actually still using SVID mode, just with VID target changed.

He said that to use actual fixed vcore on MSI, you keep the voltage mode on "auto", but you type in the desired starting vcore without changing the voltage mode.
Then you set TVB Voltage Optimization to disabled and manually set AC/DC loadlines to 1, and set "Socket sense" sensor mode.
That apparently sets the native vids to the native value at x54-x58 and the VID will be the same at both idle and load, and will change properly at lower multipliers (Note that the E-core native VID will limit how low the P core VID can go, this could be anywhere between 1.15v to 1.30v depending on how good or bad your E-core SP rating is, if that happens to someone trying to check x54 and lower, set E cores to x40 to verify)..


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

fray_bentos said:


> You don't have to use override voltages, it'll work fine on Auto voltage, Auto LLC and Auto clocks for now (you can change the clocks later) IF you follow the instructions you were given by @RichKnecht. Increase lite load to 2 and keep going up on that until stable, that'll have the effect of increasing your voltages under load. Leave LLC on Auto (= LLC6) in the DIGITal power menu. Don't use LLC2 that is far too aggressive. LLC is different from LiteLoad.


Thanks, Yes I tried what he suggested to the tee, I will try mode 2 under CPU lite load, because lite load mode 1 wont even start the test on cb23...it just crashes. Also cb23 says in running win 10 when im running 11...is that just a glitch? I'm running the multi test not single core.


----------



## Telstar

Ichirou said:


> Both Intel and AMD don't care anymore because it is a race to produce the fastest CPU.
> 
> It's kind of like NVIDIA stopped giving a damn about power consumption since the RTX 3000 series.


QFT.


----------



## Ichirou

Going to start with a conservative run of y-cruncher Main + N64/HNT/VST to make sure the cores and VCCSA are adequately stable, and then rerun TM5 tests.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Falkentyne said:


> Someone earlier wrote why on MSI, why all of the VIDs were the exact same at x54-x58 (exactly 1.35v) when they set "override mode" to 1.35v.
> seems 'override mode' overrides the native vids again, just like Gigabyte's "override mode" and you're actually still using SVID mode, just with VID target changed.
> 
> He said that to use actual fixed vcore on MSI, you keep the voltage mode on "auto", but you type in the desired starting vcore without changing the voltage mode.
> Then you set TVB Voltage Optimization to disabled and manually set AC/DC loadlines to 1, and set "Socket sense" sensor mode.
> That apparently sets the native vids to the native value at x54-x58 and the VID will be the same at both idle and load, and will change properly at lower multipliers (Note that the E-core native VID will limit how low the P core VID can go, this could be anywhere between 1.15v to 1.30v depending on how good or bad your E-core SP rating is, if that happens to someone trying to check x54 and lower, set E cores to x40 to verify)..


Hmm, ok I did leave it on auto and typed in 1.35...but I didnt change the sensor type...I didnt even see it. Lets see if I can figure it out I guess...I dont think I set the LLC under digitall power...i just left that on auto...on 10th I always used LLC 3.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> @Falkentyne
> Woke up to 22 errors after 7+ hours with TM5 anta777 ABSOLUT. Looks like I'll have to keep testing further to see where the issue lies.
> My primary suspicion is VCCSA at the moment, so I will boost that up a bit more and retest. But after a BIOS reflash first for any potential corruption.


TM5 ABSOLUT is usually vDIMM or DRAM temp related. IMO Karhu or TMP are better tests for VCCSA.

You're doing all this testing with stock CPU, right?


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> TM5 ABSOLUT is usually vDIMM or DRAM temp related. IMO Karhu or TMP are better tests for VCCSA.
> 
> You're doing all this testing with stock CPU, right?


Now I am, yes. And with liberal amounts of Vcore too, to rule out the lack of it.
Just trying to pinpoint where the issue lies. I'm fairly confident it is due to the CPU core degradation causing a plethora of issues.

This is strictly a test bench that's never used outside of benching, and the RAM is under water.
It passed ABSOLUT overnight at only ~1.64V in the past, so the RAM should not be at fault at all. Doesn't really make sense.
But I'll still raise VDIMM along with VCCSA to rule it out.

For the time being, y-cruncher Main + N64/HNT/VST passed with literal VDIMM and VCCSA, which implies VCCSA is enough.
I'm going to retry TM5 1usmus (six cycles) and anta777 ABSOLUT again. Will provide updates.


----------



## fray_bentos

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Hmm, ok I did leave it on auto and typed in 1.35...but I didnt change the sensor type...I didnt even see it. Lets see if I can figure it out I guess...I dont think I set the LLC under digitall power...i just left that on auto...on 10th I always used LLC 3.


You are right about MSI auto on Z490/Z590 being LLC3, but auto is now LLC6 from Z690 onwards on MSI (on 13th gen, not sure about 12th). Presumably the default is droopy for a reason (the architecture is more sensitive to voltage).


----------



## Ichirou

fray_bentos said:


> You are right about MSI auto on Z490/Z590 being LLC3, but auto is now LLC6 from Z690 onwards on MSI (on 13th gen, not sure about 12th). Presumably the default is droopy for a reason (the architecture is more sensitive to voltage).


I had a mixed experience with LLC being on Auto between my 12900KF and my 13900KF.
Back with BIOS V1.22, LLC on Auto = Mode 3. But on BIOS V1.91, LLC on Auto = Mode 5.
There's a lot of variance, and I think MSI occasionally changes it with a board or BIOS update.

It's probably best to set it yourself to keep things less random.


----------



## Exilon

Kocicak said:


> Poor Intel. They should better protect their products against fools - both users and MB manufacturers. And better not sell CPUs outside their comfortable frequency, power and voltage range.


Don't worry, the K-tax is meant to cover these kinds of returns and RMAs. Everyone else pays for it.

This thread has gotten a little hysterical over degradation. A little burn-in is typical and that's why you don't run at Vmin right out of the box and expect it to hold even in the short term.

My 9900K degraded by 20mV after a few days and then held there for two years until I sold it.

If you don't want any degradation at all, keep the CPU in the box!


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Thanks, Yes I tried what he suggested to the tee, I will try mode 2 under CPU lite load, because lite load mode 1 wont even start the test on cb23...it just crashes. Also cb23 says in running win 10 when im running 11...is that just a glitch? I'm running the multi test not single core.





fray_bentos said:


> You don't have to use override voltages, it'll work fine on Auto voltage, Auto LLC and Auto clocks for now (you can change the clocks later) IF you follow the instructions you were given by @RichKnecht. Increase lite load to 2 and keep going up on that until stable, that'll have the effect of increasing your voltages under load. Leave LLC on Auto (= LLC6) in the DIGITal power menu. Don't use LLC2 that is far too aggressive. LLC is different from LiteLoad.


So I had to go up to lite load 4 just to be able to run a multi thread test, got a snip and I think it scored 40,300 after i stopped it.










Falkentyne said:


> Someone earlier wrote why on MSI, why all of the VIDs were the exact same at x54-x58 (exactly 1.35v) when they set "override mode" to 1.35v.
> seems 'override mode' overrides the native vids again, just like Gigabyte's "override mode" and you're actually still using SVID mode, just with VID target changed.
> 
> He said that to use actual fixed vcore on MSI, you keep the voltage mode on "auto", but you type in the desired starting vcore without changing the voltage mode.
> Then you set TVB Voltage Optimization to disabled and manually set AC/DC loadlines to 1, and set "Socket sense" sensor mode.
> That apparently sets the native vids to the native value at x54-x58 and the VID will be the same at both idle and load, and will change properly at lower multipliers (Note that the E-core native VID will limit how low the P core VID can go, this could be anywhere between 1.15v to 1.30v depending on how good or bad your E-core SP rating is, if that happens to someone trying to check x54 and lower, set E cores to x40 to verify)..


So, I dont seem to have a sensor mode option in the bios...no socket sense or vcc sense or antyhing...on this $500 board lol, and to confirm I did everything else listed here ...set the voltage to 1.35 and left as auto (didnt use override mode). Those screens I posted were all I could come up - am I missing something?

Martin replied to me on hwinfo ...doesn't seem to have a software-accessible VRM allowing monitoring of those values.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Kocicak said:


> Does a first core in Raptor CPU occasionally falling down to 800 MHz instead of 1100 have any significance?
> 
> BTW I let one 13900K run at 6 GHz at 1.45V and cca 85°C for 10 minutes 3 (only three) threads in Cinebench, I went away, returned, and the computer has restarted in the meantime. The cpu could not run benchmarks anymore even in stock settings, I needed to give it a little positive voltage offset to stabilize it . Was it a lemon? Is 1.45V too much? What was the problem?


I'm curious... 
How did you run this test in 3 cores (or threads) ?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

imrevoau said:


> stop killing your poor CPU's guys


I have my 10900K running OCTVB (4 cores at 5.6Ghz) to this days with Adaptive voltage @1.525V
Take a look at the temps... 4 cores can run 56x at the same time if temps are around 50C



















No degradation so far....
Do you know why?

Because I didn't run 30 minutes full load tests 5 times every day...

The problem is not to run 6GHz @ 1.52v.
The problem is POWER.

Stop using P95 or any other synthetic load that push the CPU up 250~300W 5 times every day...
And stop doing it for more than 1 or 2 minutes.

Want to test? Run a game !

If you need the PC to render images, tune the CPU for it!
If you need to run a heavy software, tune the CPU for it!

Every time you run 5 minutes of R23/P-95 your CPU "degraded" to do that.


----------



## Kocicak

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm curious...
> How did you run this test in 3 cores (or threads) ?


Top left corner: File, then Preferences, tick custom number of threads and choose how many threads you want.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fray_bentos said:


> No. You applied voltages that were too hard. It wasn't a dud, but it is now. When was it ever OK to throw 1.45 V at a CPU? Anyone?


[email protected] 1.3v gaiming.... P57x/E47x/R50x


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Kocicak said:


> Top left corner: File, then Preferences, tick custom number of threads and choose how many threads you want.


You aimed to 3 cores and shoot !!! LOL


----------



## Ichirou

@Falkentyne @acoustic
Well, I can't seem to pass even TM5 1usmus. I'm going to let the test bench take a break and retest another day. Maybe it's just tired or something.
I experienced a similar situation in the past on Z390 where stressing for overly long periods of time would cause TM5 to fail. Letting the system take a break would magically fix it.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Take a look at my 13900K
3 cores able to run at same time at 62x...
IF TEMPS ARE AROUND 50C
Adaptive voltage @ 1.455v


----------



## Krzych04650

What are the stock values for all the PLL voltages like CPU, Ring, MC and etc? My board doesn't have offsets for them so I can only enter the full value and it doesn't show what current values are.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@RobertoSampaio / @shamino1978
Can you test please something?Can you measure the real power consumption?
I have used this wattmeter from my electricity provider accuracy +/- 0,3% and 3 digits of the reading power.
CLM1000 HOME Christ-Elektronik | Energiemessung, Logger, Solar | Bürklin Elektronik
I dont think that the gauge isn´t correct.Can it be that the board measurement is ever to low?

Board Z690Strix D4 SP102(P109/E88), 100W is without CPU idle.Bios 2103 ME 16.1.25.2020 [22/09/2022]
[email protected] Bios Default nothing changed
IDLE 100W without CPU + ram/vrm under load i don´t know how much it is i have take 110W as without cpu.
Perhaps the vrm goe´s unefficient but 390W vs. 295W, but it has 16*80A Vishay SiC659 stages (1280A max)



500W hole system* real 390W* *CPU* shown *295W*(auto watt reading nothing changed)








[email protected]/UV
385W hole system arround* real 275W* shown *250W* ( AC/DC like auto reading)









[email protected]/UV without HT
310W hole system *real* *200W *shown *200W*( AC/DC like auto reading)









P.S.
Dont think about the temp´s i have strong h2o cooling and chip is delided with HS, so it look like less watt.
Perhaps it´s 5-10W less CPU but not more i think, before i have think the rest of the power consumption is from other hw part´s, but as i have tested without HT
i have seen that isn´t so.


----------



## Falkentyne

Krzych04650 said:


> What are the stock values for all the PLL voltages like CPU, Ring, MC and etc? My board doesn't have offsets for them so I can only enter the full value and it doesn't show what current values are.


0.900v.
They are set in 15mv increments.
Note: CPU PLL Termination Voltage and CPU Standby Voltage, which default to 1.05v, are not the same thing as this.
And some boards call this "VCC VTT" and some call this "CPU 1.05v".
I think on MSI these two voltages are linked to one rail.


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> I have my 10900K running OCTVB (4 cores at 5.6Ghz) to this days with Adaptive voltage @1.525V
> Take a look at the temps... 4 cores can run 56x at the same time if temps are around 50C
> View attachment 2583828
> 
> 
> View attachment 2583830
> 
> 
> 
> No degradation so far....
> Do you know why?
> 
> Because I didn't run 30 minutes full load tests 5 times every day...
> 
> The problem is not to run 6GHz @ 1.52v.
> The problem is POWER.
> 
> Stop using P95 or any other synthetic load that push the CPU up 250~300W 5 times every day...
> And stop doing it for more than 1 or 2 minutes.
> 
> Want to test? Run a game !
> 
> If you need the PC to render images, tune the CPU for it!
> If you need to run a heavy software, tune the CPU for it!
> 
> Every time you run 5 minutes of R23/P-95 your CPU "degraded" to do that.



I have to politely disagree with you here.
I think the situation is a lot more complicated than what you are saying.
Because we can't see what each individual core is actually getting in the end. Since they are not FIVR'd.

"3 cores R23 at 1.45v" via affinity editor is not the same thing as a 3 core load.
This ambiguity is why I absolutely refuse to use by core usage.
I cannot take this risk with my chess studies.
Chess requires all cores to be stable at the vcore vmin of the weakest core.
If just ONE core--ANY one core degrades, let's say 200mhz, Stockfish will only be stable at 5.4 ghz.
That's just an example.

I think there is too much that is unknown.
For example a situation I saw when I first started using c-states back on Z390 (and then I stopped using them).
When I saw the Super I/O vcore value showing up as 0.800v, while the "VR VOUT" read 1.250v.

When I asked about this, this had something to do with the core logic being put to sleep at idle, but this happening AFTER the VRM side, so the VRM shows the source voltage and not the voltage the CPU is actually receiving, because the VRM is not sleeping.
So it could in fact be C-states causing @RobertoSampaio 's CPU's to not crater the cores . I don't know. I am not an engineer. But again there is too much going on that we simply don't know about.

If you lock 3 cores via affinity to R23, this could prevent the cores from getting gated and could cause the 3 active cores to get 1.45v, with all 3 cores at max current load.
And byebye CPU.

And still no one on this forum can answer this simple question. Not a single person. And I'll challenge anyone to answer this logically.

Going from ADL sheet: 8+8=280A, 8+4=240A, then 8+0 (8 P cores with e cores off) should be 200 amps ICCMAX right?
Now we have 8 INDEPENDENT cores with cache shared between them (L3, not L1 or L2).

1520mv - (200 * 1.1 mohm) = 1.30v die sense.
So that's 25 amps per core.

Right? Simple. Right?

So what happens if ONE core is running at 25 amps and all other 7 cores are idle?
Does that mean that THAT ONE CORE can run 100% safely at:

1520mv - (25 * 1.1mohm) =1.492v ??? <----ONE CORE running 25 A load.
versus
1520mv - ((3.125 * 8) * 1.1 mohm)) = 1.492v (each core has a tiny load of 3.125 amps, total load 25A) <---safe.

Because I've seen a vcore report as 1.50v when trying Roberto's per core usage thing in single thread (and that's without messing with affinity editor), and that's with the "typical" 1.720v VR voltage limit.

I challenge ONE person here to prove to me that the FIRST case is safe and that won't turn that one core to swiss cheese.

This is why I will never trust this method of overclocking regardless of what anyone says. I can't take this risk.


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> If you need the PC to render images, tune the CPU for it!
> If you need to run a heavy software, tune the CPU for it!


For professional use that require 100% stability - run the CPU at stock!

Btw CB23 test is not that brutal... Prime95 full AVX is.


----------



## Telstar

Falkentyne said:


> For example a situation I saw when I first started using c-states back on Z390 (and then I stopped using them).


Why did you stop using c-states? I like them because of the power efficiency (I do light load most of the day).


----------



## Falkentyne

Telstar said:


> Why did you stop using c-states? I like them because of the power efficiency (I do light load most of the day).


C-states on fixed vcore and sync all cores doesn't do much.
And I need fixed vcore because of Stockfish.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Falkentyne said:


> I have to politely disagree with you here.
> I think the situation is a lot more complicated than what you are saying.
> Because we can't see what each individual core is actually getting in the end. Since they are not FIVR'd.
> 
> "3 cores R23 at 1.45v" via affinity editor is not the same thing as a 3 core load.
> This ambiguity is why I absolutely refuse to use by core usage.
> I cannot take this risk with my chess studies.
> Chess requires all cores to be stable at the vcore vmin of the weakest core.
> If just ONE core--ANY one core degrades, let's say 200mhz, Stockfish will only be stable at 5.4 ghz.
> That's just an example.
> 
> I think there is too much that is unknown.
> For example a situation I saw when I first started using c-states back on Z390 (and then I stopped using them).
> When I saw the Super I/O vcore value showing up as 0.800v, while the "VR VOUT" read 1.250v.
> 
> When I asked about this, this had something to do with the core logic being put to sleep at idle, but this happening AFTER the VRM side, so the VRM shows the source voltage and not the voltage the CPU is actually receiving, because the VRM is not sleeping.
> So it could in fact be C-states causing @RobertoSampiao 's CPU's to not crater the cores . I don't know. I am not an engineer. But again there is too much going on that we simply don't know about.
> 
> If you lock 3 cores via affinity to R23, this could prevent the cores from getting gated and could cause the 3 active cores to get 1.45v, with all 3 cores at max current load.
> And byebye CPU.
> 
> And still no one on this forum can answer this simple question. Not a single person. And I'll challenge anyone to answer this logically.
> 
> Going from ADL sheet: 8+8=280A, 8+4=240A, then 8+0 (8 P cores with e cores off) should be 200 amps ICCMAX right?
> Now we have 8 INDEPENDENT cores with cache shared between them (L3, not L1 or L2).
> 
> 1520mv - (200 * 1.1 mohm) = 1.30v die sense.
> So that's 25 amps per core.
> 
> Right? Simple. Right?
> 
> So what happens if ONE core is running at 25 amps and all other 7 cores are idle?
> Does that mean that THAT ONE CORE can run 100% safely at:
> 
> 1520mv - (25 * 1.1mohm) =1.492v ??? <----ONE CORE running 25 A load.
> versus
> 1520mv - ((3.125 * 8) * 1.1 mohm)) = 1.492v (each core has a tiny load of 3.125 amps, total load 25A) <---safe.
> 
> Because I've seen a vcore report as 1.50v when trying Roberto's per core usage thing in single thread (and that's without messing with affinity editor), and that's with the "typical" 1.720v VR voltage limit.
> 
> I challenge ONE person here to prove to me that the FIRST case is safe and that won't turn that one core to swiss cheese.
> 
> This is why I will never trust this method of overclocking regardless of what anyone says. I can't take this risk.


I completely understand your point of view...

As I said, we need to tune the CPU for our specific use...

There are a lot of people who just buy the hardware, turn it on and use it for work or games... And these people are running the CPU "by core", with the CPU's internal vf curve, and adaptable voltage... And these pcs work for years .

When we decide to modify the settings, we need to know what we are doing... Therefore, my recommendation is not to define one way or another, but to understand how things work.
I don't know everything (far from it)... I just like to share and help with what I've learned...


----------



## Telstar

Falkentyne said:


> C-states on fixed vcore and sync all cores doesn't do much.
> And I need fixed vcore because of Stockfish.


I see. I use adaptive, so it's allright.


----------



## Ichirou

Telstar said:


> I see. I use adaptive, so it's allright.


C-states don't even do anything on MSI since MSI has some sort of complex algorithm to automatically scale down the multipliers based on load.
You can't even turn it off, which is kind of strange, really. Still runs even if you disable everything remotely related to adaptive multipliers.
I don't really mind, though. Good for longevity. The poor VDDQ optimization bugs me more.


----------



## Telstar

Ichirou said:


> C-states don't even do anything on MSI since MSI has some sort of complex algorithm to automatically scale down the multipliers based on load.


weird. I'm getting a z790 strix-a anyway.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> I'm not sure if it would be worth it to me since everything I use this PC for involves all cores. I rarely use anything that uses one core/thread as I am not a gamer.


I just remembered something regarding this that I can't remember if I mentioned.

For a long time I was running my 10900K at 5.1-5.2 all core as people used to say all core OC was better for gaming?

Turns out to be completely false, setting the all core OC to even jut 100Mhz under the stock single core performance causes significant performance loss in games and at the cost of higher temps and power draw. Also when running at stock, it still regularly boosted up to 5.1+ as needed.

For games all core OCs don't work anymore, unless its the same or greater that the stock boost (so 5.0 all core on my 12600k is much better than 4.9 stock boost). But for the 900k chips its become difficult to almost impossible to do that now, even my 10900K needed over 1.4v for 5.3 all core and wasn't possible to keep it under tjmaxx on a 280mm AIO.

So for gaming, a 13900K / KS left at stock with an undervolt is much better than going for an all core boost, but maybe I will try getting 2 cores to 6.2, and the rest to +100 over stock at the most when I get one. Higher frequency on 2 cores is superior to all cores at a lower frequency for that.

But ofc if you're not using the PC for gaming and have a need for all core performance, that doesn't apply.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Falkentyne's case with stockfish is a great example. The most important thing for him is chess studies, so he needs a reliable setup for extremely heavy software. In that case synchronizing the cores and fixing the voltage is by far the best option.

Another example is an overclocking competition. You just want to reach a high score, beat a record and that's it. No one is going to keep the machine running at that point.

Although I called my guide "for beginners" and it contains some more complicated things, what I propose is something that is feasible on a daily basis for those who are not willing to do delid, build a super water cooler, or anything fancy. Something possible for anyone to do and with the design features of the CPU.


----------



## Betroz

bhav said:


> But ofc if you're not using the PC for gaming and have a need for all core performance, that doesn't apply.


I don't know what games you are playing, but for Battlefield games all-core is better. Singel core boost is more of a gimmick if you ask me.


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> I just remembered something regarding this that I can't remember if I mentioned.
> 
> For a long time I was running my 10900K at 5.1-5.2 all core as people used to say all core OC was better for gaming?
> 
> Turns out to be completely false, setting the all core OC to even jut 100Mhz under the stock single core performance causes significant performance loss in games and at the cost of higher temps and power draw. Also when running at stock, it still regularly boosted up to 5.1+ as needed.
> 
> For games all core OCs don't work anymore, unless its the same or greater that the stock boost (so 5.0 all core on my 12600k is much better than 4.9 stock boost). But for the 900k chips its become difficult to almost impossible to do that now, even my 10900K needed over 1.4v for 5.3 all core and wasn't possible to keep it under tjmaxx on a 280mm AIO.
> 
> So for gaming, a 13900K / KS left at stock with an undervolt is much better than going for an all core boost, but maybe I will try getting 2 cores to 6.2, and the rest to +100 over stock at the most when I get one. Higher frequency on 2 cores is superior to all cores at a lower frequency for that.
> 
> But ofc if you're not using the PC for gaming and have a need for all core performance, that doesn't apply.


I never encountered this issue on my 10900K QS (above average SP chip too of 94, clocked better than my SP84 10900K retail that I ended up selling).
I tested ST/MT performance and it scaled perfectly as long as I wasn't yeeting the ring ratio. x52 was better than x49 reliably in all usage.
of course some games preferred HT disabled, but overclocking always gave higher perf.
What motherboard did you use? Are you sure you weren't yeeting the cache?


----------



## Telstar

I think for games 2c and 4c boost makes sense, as long as the rest is not under stock (+1/2 bins if we have got a good chip).


----------



## fray_bentos

Exilon said:


> Don't worry, the K-tax is meant to cover these kinds of returns and RMAs. Everyone else pays for it.
> 
> This thread has gotten a little hysterical over degradation. A little burn-in is typical and that's why you don't run at Vmin right out of the box and expect it to hold even in the short term.
> 
> My 9900K degraded by 20mV after a few days and then held there for two years until I sold it.
> 
> If you don't want any degradation at all, keep the CPU in the box!


Dear chip burner, "burn in" is BS.


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> I never encountered this issue on my 10900K QS (above average SP chip too of 94, clocked better than my SP84 10900K retail that I ended up selling).
> I tested ST/MT performance and it scaled perfectly as long as I wasn't yeeting the ring ratio. x52 was better than x49 reliably in all usage.
> of course some games preferred HT disabled, but overclocking always gave higher perf.
> What motherboard did you use? Are you sure you weren't yeeting the cache?


Mines SP 97 and it turned out to boost to what I was OCIng it to anyway?

I never got around to actually benching any games, just left it at stock now instead of needing to worry about 5.2 all core temps.

Asus Strix ITX, cache I believe only went up to 47x which I had it set to. 48x would give bsods.


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> I don't know what games you are playing, but for Battlefield games all-core is better. Singel core boost is more of a gimmick if you ask me.


Well yea I don't play many games from EA in general, mostly strategies and RPGs.


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> I don't know what games you are playing, but for Battlefield games all-core is better. Singel core boost is more of a gimmick if you ask me.


Still waiting for the benchmark that is showing boost clocks are higher in a game than all core  Don't think even CS go is faster with high boost clocks vs all core


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> Mines SP 97 and it turned out to boost to what I was OCIng it to anyway?
> 
> I never got around to actually benching any games, just left it at stock now instead of needing to worry about 5.2 all core temps.
> 
> Asus Strix ITX, cache I believe only went up to 47x which I had it set to. 48x would give bsods.


Not talking about boost
Talking about Vmin required for passing 30 minutes of Realbench 2.56 without a WHEA Error.
The SP94 QS required 1.243v with some VRM tweaks.
The SP84 required 1.350v (die sense).

This was at 5.2 ghz, 4.7 cache.


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> Not talking about boost
> Talking about Vmin required for passing 30 minutes of Realbench 2.56 without a WHEA Error.
> The SP94 QS required 1.243v with some VRM tweaks.
> The SP84 required 1.350v (die sense).
> 
> This was at 5.2 ghz, 4.7 cache.


As we know from the 10900 era.. plenty of people ran OCs and had no idea about the WHEA/L0 Parity/Integrity issues. Pretty sure most people who bragged about high overclocks were simply unaware that they were throwing WHEAs all day in certain apps.


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> Not talking about boost
> Talking about Vmin required for passing 30 minutes of Realbench 2.56 without a WHEA Error.
> The SP94 QS required 1.243v with some VRM tweaks.
> The SP84 required 1.350v (die sense).
> 
> This was at 5.2 ghz, 4.7 cache.


Oh 5.2 / 4.7 is what my OC on it was, could have been the cache was too high then as you revealed, but I hadn't noticed any errors when I stress tested it, but I was only using IBT back then.


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> Oh 5.2 / 4.7 is what my OC on it was, could have been the cache was too high then as you revealed, but I hadn't noticed any errors when I stress tested it, but I was only using IBT back then.


"intel burn test"?
If that's that old program that was first posted on Xtremesystems during the _Core 2_ QX9650 days, that program used VERY ANCIENT linpack binaries. If I recall, it's an even more pedestrian load than using the almost as ancient LinX 0.6.5 program that didn't support AVX instructions.
That program is completely useless for testing any CPU newer than an x58 CPU (it isn't even that great on Sandy Bridge).


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> "intel burn test"?
> If that's that old program that was first posted on Xtremesystems during the _Core 2_ QX9650 days, that program used VERY ANCIENT linpack binaries. If I recall, it's an even more pedestrian load than using the almost as ancient LinX 0.6.5 program that didn't support AVX instructions.
> That program is completely useless for testing any CPU newer than an x58 CPU (it isn't even that great on Sandy Bridge).


TIL.

I use cinebench and OCCT now.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Nizzen said:


> Still waiting for the benchmark that is showing boost clocks are higher in a game than all core  Don't think even CS go is faster with high boost clocks vs all core


This is the point ...
You can "sync" all cores to full load and use the thermal opportunity to boost them ...

Let's say I can't go too far from full load -> p56/e44...
This would be my sync of all oc cores with fixed voltage...

And if I let the cores run at 58x as soon as the thermal opportunity allows...
Why wouldn't I?

I can run all cores at 58x and if the temperature goes up, the clock goes back to 56x...
Why would it be worse than syncing everything to 56x?

I never tested whether it would give me some FPS or not, but running Windows software I think it would be better.


----------



## Nizzen

RobertoSampaio said:


> This is the point ...
> You can "sync" all cores to full load and use the thermal opportunity to boost them ...
> 
> Let's say I can't go too far from full load -> p56/e44...
> This would be my sync of all oc cores with fixed voltage...
> 
> And if I let the cores run at 58x as soon as the thermal opportunity allows...
> Why wouldn't I?
> 
> I can run all cores at 58x and if the temperature goes up, the clock goes back to 56x...
> Why would it be worse than syncing everything to 56x?
> 
> I never tested whether it would give me some FPS or not, but running Windows software I think it would be better.


Right now I'm running AI and all core in BF 2042 is 5700mhz. It's turning out to be colder than setting all core to 5700 manualy. Need that 6.1ghz boost when I'm writing on forums


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Nizzen said:


> Right now I'm running AI and all core in BF 2042 is 5700mhz. It's turning out to be colder than setting all core to 5700 manualy. Need that 6.1ghz boost when I'm writing on forums


I did a test a few days ago...
I synced to P55/E45 and backed up my system drive using Macrium reflect. This process took 2'12".
I applied the OCTVB settings and the same backup took 1'58".
I think it depends on what kind of use we make... To watch youtube it doesn't make any difference.


----------



## Exilon

fray_bentos said:


> Dear chip burner, "burn in" is BS.


In headphones, "burn-in" is a psychoacoustic phenomenon caused by the placebo effect and is fact BS from a hardware perspective.

In CPUs, burn-in is the step before a CPU is binned to get most of the early-life failure and degradation out of the way. Since burn-in time is model based, you will get samples where a chip isn't finished burning-in and experiences alarmingly fast degradation at near stock settings and then stabilize. This partly why the CPUs ship with so much Vcore margin out of the box.

You can see what Intel does in their reliability presentation at IEEE 2020. 


https://attend.ieee.org/repp/wp-content/uploads/sites/244/s1k2.pdf


----------



## Exilon

RobertoSampaio said:


> I did a test a few days ago...
> I synced to P55/E45 and backed up my system drive using Macrium reflect. This process took 2'12".
> I applied the OCTVB settings and the same backup took 1'58".
> I think it depends on what kind of use we make... To watch youtube it doesn't make any difference.


For watching YouTube, I'd rather it not boost up beyond 5.0GHz at all. I wish there were a better way to tell the OS what to consider a high-performance application. You could do this with XTU profiles but it's clunky at best.


----------



## fray_bentos

Exilon said:


> In headphones, "burn-in" is a psychoacoustic phenomenon caused by the placebo effect and is fact BS from a hardware perspective.
> 
> In CPUs, burn-in is the step before a CPU is binned to get most of the early-life failure and degradation out of the way. Since burn-in time is model based, you will get samples where a chip isn't finished burning-in and experiences alarmingly fast degradation at near stock settings and then stabilize. This partly why the CPUs ship with so much Vcore margin out of the box.
> 
> You can see what Intel does in their reliability presentation at IEEE 2020.
> 
> 
> https://attend.ieee.org/repp/wp-content/uploads/sites/244/s1k2.pdf
> 
> 
> View attachment 2583881
> 
> 
> View attachment 2583882
> 
> View attachment 2583883


Thanks for the informative post. I'm not expecting to experience any "burn-in" running 1.20 V under load (I hope not) 13600KF @5.4 GHz all core. However, if a user is applying 1.45 V, then "burn-in"/chip destruction, or however you want to frame it should be expected.


----------



## mattskiiau

Hey, looking for some guidance, these are my current settings:
55P, 45E, 50 Cache, LLC5 (Asus), TVB+2 (57P) @ 1.35v fixed.

Does the above look like a reasonable daily? 
Or am I better off chasing 57P static with more fixed voltage? It's keeping cool at 1.35v under gaming loads.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Exilon said:


> For watching YouTube, I'd rather it not boost up beyond 5.0GHz at all. I wish there were a better way to tell the OS what to consider a high-performance application. You could do this with XTU profiles but it's clunky at best.


I agree with you...
If I set the economy windows power plan profile, my AC power meter reduce from 310W (all my desk, including monitor, etc) to 245W.


----------



## digitalfrost

Exilon said:


> For watching YouTube, I'd rather it not boost up beyond 5.0GHz at all. I wish there were a better way to tell the OS what to consider a high-performance application. You could do this with XTU profiles but it's clunky at best.


Process Lasso allows you to designate high performance processes and you can choose a different power plan for these. Lasso will switch it then automatically.


----------



## affxct

Ok this might sound like a dumb idea to some people, but I think an easy way of going about is passing some or other load cycling stress test that you usually would at absolute Vmin and then just adding on 20-30mV thereafter.

As long as your actual load voltage isn’t terribly high and you’re using conservative values to OC relative to which SKU you own, I think it’s pretty effective to just lock in your daily. You also avoid having to run stuff like y-cruncher component stress tester or P95.


----------



## Wolverine2349

I got my 2nd Core i9 13900K today and checked the CPU force score and it is better.

First Core i9 13900K CPU

Everything stock: 146-148

E-cores off and everything else auto: 120s (do not remember what)

2nd Core i9 13900K:

Everything stock: 134-135

E-cores off and everything else stock: 114

Hoping toi be able to run this one as fast at much lower vcore and temps or maybe a little faster.


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> This is the point ...
> You can "sync" all cores to full load and use the thermal opportunity to boost them ...
> 
> Let's say I can't go too far from full load -> p56/e44...
> This would be my sync of all oc cores with fixed voltage...
> 
> And if I let the cores run at 58x as soon as the thermal opportunity allows...
> Why wouldn't I?
> 
> I can run all cores at 58x and if the temperature goes up, the clock goes back to 56x...
> Why would it be worse than syncing everything to 56x?
> 
> I never tested whether it would give me some FPS or not, but running Windows software I think it would be better.


From what I understand, in games you don't want the cores to go up and down in frequency as that adds latency and hurts the 1% and 0.1% lows. The same reason why people disable c-states. At least it used to be like this.


----------



## imrevoau

Betroz said:


> From what I understand, in games you don't want the cores to go up and down in frequency as that adds latency and hurts the 1% and 0.1% lows. The same reason why people disable c-states. At least it used to be like this.


Having core clocks bouncing around can cause a ton of stuttering. It's the same with GPU's too and why I recommend undervolting.


----------



## sew333

Hi guys. I have an question. Is any sense to change from 12900K to 13900K I am on rtx 4090. I feel bootlenecked on 1440P and + using dlss in games like WD LEGION and CB 2077. Thx
Will be massive update to fps?


----------



## Telstar

OCCT has never failed me (pun intended)


----------



## imrevoau

sew333 said:


> Hi guys. I have an question. Is any sense to change from 12900K to 13900K I am on rtx 4090. I feel bootlenecked on 1440P and + using dlss in games like WD LEGION and CB 2077. Thx
> Will be massive update to fps?


For the performance gain probably not but I'm assuming you can afford it so sure? Personally would wait for the 13900KS tho


----------



## Exilon

digitalfrost said:


> Process Lasso allows you to designate high performance processes and you can choose a different power plan for these. Lasso will switch it then automatically.


It kind of works. The problem is Windows power plan quirks sabotage it.
In balanced power plan, setting processor max state to below 100% puts E-cores to base clock. 
In power saving, P-cores refuse to turbo up at all


----------



## digitalfrost

Exilon said:


> It kind of works. The problem is Windows power plan quirks sabotage it.
> In balanced power plan, setting processor max state to below 100% puts E-cores to base clock.
> In power saving, P-cores refuse to turbo up at all


I've never seen that problem with the E-Cores at base clock. I've been toying with my own balanced power plan. Give it a try if you like.

https://mega.nz/file/kfcQ1AAL#JsqEzNcUzxngDkxUUY95PHC2bb4oA1SP5oXtLD6nCWs
Import in admin cmd shell with powercfg -import


----------



## tps3443

Rockitcool cool sent me another copper IHS for free. And guess what? This 2nd IHS also does NOT fit contact frame.

*PLEASE WATCH THE ENTIRE VIDEO. To understand. *


----------



## HyperC

What is all this random complaints I keep seeing about cpu's degrading? Is it from mix of bad cooling and wattage? Reason I ask this is because I am sitting @5.8 all core and thinking of going 6.0 so guessing maybe the safest route would be stressing the Pcores with the ecores disabled?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Rockitcool cool sent me another copper IHS for free. And guess what? This 2nd IHS also does NOT fit contact frame.
> 
> *PLEASE WATCH THE ENTIRE VIDEO. To understand. *


Just use the stock IHS; it's not that big of a difference anyway.


HyperC said:


> What is all this random complaints I keep seeing about cpu's degrading? Is it from mix of bad cooling and wattage? Reason I ask this is because I am sitting @5.8 all core and thinking of going 6.0 so guessing maybe the safest route would be stressing the Pcores with the ecores disabled?


The CPUs have been degrading since Alder Lake. People just choose to ignore the signs and continue to clock their chips high regardless.

Intel limits the 13th Gen to 253W, and this is, honestly, pretty damn accurate.
If you consider how only a dozen or so runs of Cinebench R23 30m is enough to cause a chip to degrade at only 300W.

The "safest route" would be not to overclock the chip at all and simply undervolt at stock.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Just use the stock IHS; it's not that big of a difference anyway.


I know. I’m just making a point here. Or else people will maybe keep buying them and wasting their money. The IHS doesn’t fit, THE END LOL.


@Ichirou my new 13900KF will be here tomorrow. I’ll post a force 2 as soon as it’s running. “fingers crossed”


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I know. I’m just making a point here. Or else people will maybe keep buying them and wasting their money. The IHS doesn’t fit, THE END LOL.
> 
> 
> @Ichirou my new 13900KF will be here tomorrow. I’ll post a force 2 as soon as it’s running. “fingers crossed”


Canada Post doesn't work during the weekends, so I am not sure when my BestBuy 13900K will arrive.
But the initial e-mail of shipment claimed it would be as late as the 25th.


----------



## snakeeyes111

I try more next days.


----------



## bhav

Fortunately my 12600K hasnt degraded yet, I ran 1.4v SA for a while because previously that was considered safe, but I think I was ok because I only used it in G2.

CPU volts I haven't gone past 1.38v LLC3 because its only on a 140mm AIO, it needs 1.38v LLC3 for 5.1 all core which this AIO can't handle, but it will be able to do that in my air mini case with 280mm.

Turned it down to 1.35v SA now and backed down from 4900 to 4800 on the ram.


----------



## CptSpig

Daily Driver Apex Z790 13900K. CPU OC P-Cores 62, 62, 61, 61, 59, 59, 57, 57 E-Cores 42 to 46. Memory 8000 Mhz.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

Exilon said:


> In headphones, "burn-in" is a psychoacoustic phenomenon caused by the placebo effect and is fact BS from a hardware perspective.
> 
> In CPUs, burn-in is the step before a CPU is binned to get most of the early-life failure and degradation out of the way. Since burn-in time is model based, you will get samples where a chip isn't finished burning-in and experiences alarmingly fast degradation at near stock settings and then stabilize. This partly why the CPUs ship with so much Vcore margin out of the box.
> 
> You can see what Intel does in their reliability presentation at IEEE 2020.
> 
> 
> https://attend.ieee.org/repp/wp-content/uploads/sites/244/s1k2.pdf
> 
> 
> View attachment 2583881
> 
> 
> View attachment 2583882
> 
> View attachment 2583883


I think I experience this with a 9900k, I ran it stock for about a year and it progressivly needed more voltage, the voltage leveled out a while later


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Fortunately my 12600K hasnt degraded yet, I ran 1.4v SA for a while because previously that was considered safe, but I think I was ok because I only used it in G2.
> 
> CPU volts I haven't gone past 1.38v LLC3 because its only on a 140mm AIO, it needs 1.38v LLC3 for 5.1 all core which this AIO can't handle, but it will be able to do that in my air mini case with 280mm.
> 
> Turned it down to 1.35v SA now and backed down from 4900 to 4800 on the ram.


It’s not about how much voltage your running to the CPU. It’s about the work load with that given amount of voltage you are using.

For example, if I run my [email protected] and it’s running 5.6-5.7Ghz on all cores through Battlefield 2042 gaming which is perfectly fine! Or if I ran Cinebench R23, or decided to try for Prime 95. The difference is huge. The amperage/wattage in Battlefield is lower and safe. While R23 would not be safe, it would be tons of wattage and power that could degrade the CPU.

The same scenario for my 13900KF could be used as well only much higher clock speeds, just keep the cpu cool and below 240 amps should be just fine.


----------



## tps3443

@CptSpig 

SP rating?


----------



## CptSpig

tps3443 said:


> @CptSpig
> 
> SP rating?


----------



## tps3443

CptSpig said:


> View attachment 2584077


How many did you bin?


----------



## RichKnecht

CptSpig said:


> Daily Driver Apex Z790 13900K. CPU OC P-Cores 62, 62, 61, 61, 59, 59, 57, 57 E-Cores 42 to 46. Memory 8000 Mhz.
> 
> View attachment 2584074
> View attachment 2584075
> View attachment 2584074
> View attachment 2584075


How are you drawing only 230W at those settings?


----------



## bhav

Reading more about the rumoured 350w on the 13900KS, its apparently only there for the 6.0 boost, which sounds unlikely that even 2 cores at 6.0 would consume that much power, so its likely just a false rumour as they would likely degrade fast at that much power.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Reading more about the rumoured 350w on the 13900KS, its apparently only there for the 6.0 boost, which sounds unlikely that even 2 cores at 6.0 would consume that much power, so its likely just a false rumour as they would likely degrade fast at that much power.


Back when the 12900K was first tested by Tom's Hardware on launch with a decent AIO, they found that the max turbo boost only lasted for literally a few seconds before it throttled down.
I imagine the 13900KS is going to be the same situation. 6.0 GHz for a few seconds, and then it clocks down to their baseline 5.7 GHz.


----------



## CptSpig

tps3443 said:


> How many did you bin?


I only ordered this one from Antonline. Got lucky!


----------



## CptSpig

RichKnecht said:


> How are you drawing only 230W at those settings?


Adaptive Voltage.


----------



## tps3443

CptSpig said:


> I only ordered this one from Antonline. Got lucky!


Yeah you did! I feel like you could run just a solid 6Ghz on the P-Cores. Have you tried that?


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443
Made the decision to buy and test drive a Strix Z790-A to compare to the Z690 Edge. Gonna see if the price drops on Black Friday first, though.
I'm hitting a brick wall with VDDQ on this Edge, which is limiting future overclocking potential. MSI updates their BIOSes way too slowly.


----------



## jtclfo

.


----------



## CptSpig

tps3443 said:


> Yeah you did! I feel like you could run just a solid 6Ghz on the P-Cores. Have you tried that?


Not yet this is my daily overclock. I just set this up and I have not hooked up the chiller for all core overclock to see what this setup will do....


----------



## RichKnecht

CptSpig said:


> Adaptive Voltage.


Hmm..ok. I have mine running at default clocks undervolted. My wattage is 250 with 1.17 VID and 1.18 V core at all core load. Did you set a voltage and then set it to adaptive? Just trying to wrap my head around this.


----------



## CptSpig

RichKnecht said:


> Hmm..ok. I have mine running at default clocks undervolted. My wattage is 250 with 1.17 VID and 1.18 V core at all core load. Did you set a voltage and then set it to adaptive? Just trying to wrap my head around this.


Yes, it's all about temperature. The colder the temps the lower the voltage. What you are seeing is idle voltage. When stressed it goes up substantially.


----------



## dante`afk

CptSpig said:


> I only ordered this one from Antonline. Got lucky!


can confirm, we probably have the same bin, I ordered just one from antononline on release and have the same SP values.


----------



## CptSpig

dante`afk said:


> can confirm, we probably have the same bin, I ordered just one from antononline on release and have the same SP values.


----------



## tps3443

jtclfo said:


> Wow that’s crazy. Is this exclusive to the frame you’re using or is this also the same behavior on TG’s frame? When I installed the TG it was visually flush and square so I’m wondering now where the tolerance issue lies


Rockitcool told me it works with all frames and mailed me another Copper IHS that doesn’t fit LOL. Their website also says “Works with all frames”


----------



## tps3443

dante`afk said:


> can confirm, we probably have the same bin, I ordered just one from antononline on release and have the same SP values.


What is your batch#?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443
> Made the decision to buy and test drive a Strix Z790-A to compare to the Z690 Edge. Gonna see if the price drops on Black Friday first, though.
> I'm hitting a brick wall with VDDQ on this Edge, which is limiting future overclocking potential. MSI updates their BIOSes way too slowly.


I use to be in denial, but yeah I think if your after peak efficiency and peak performance Asus motherboard is probably the best way to go. I’m so tempted to grab a Z790 Apex right now and just roll on! They have the Vf curves and per core stuff dialed in so nicely. Plus, you can see an SP rating! Lol


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> Just use the stock IHS; it's not that big of a difference anyway.
> 
> The CPUs have been degrading since Alder Lake. People just choose to ignore the signs and continue to clock their chips high regardless.
> 
> Intel limits the 13th Gen to 253W, and this is, honestly, pretty damn accurate.
> If you consider how only a dozen or so runs of Cinebench R23 30m is enough to cause a chip to degrade at only 300W.
> 
> The "safest route" would be not to overclock the chip at all and simply undervolt at stock.




Is the Power (POUT) value accurate for the wattage of the CPU. As long as 253 watt or below is it ok and if above degradation in only 30 minutes is quite possible or even likely?


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> Is the Power (POUT) value accurate for the wattage of the CPU. As long as 253 watt or below is it ok and if above degradation in only 30 minutes is quite possible or even likely?


It's accurate enough.

And I cannot tell you what is safe or not, but your best chances is to stay under 253W, which is what Intel covers under their warranty.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> It's accurate enough.
> 
> And I cannot tell you what is safe or not, but your best chances is to stay under 253W, which is what Intel covers under their warranty.


Technically no one in this thread qualifies for warranty. Even clicking XMP on your ram invalidates the warranty.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> It's accurate enough.
> 
> And I cannot tell you what is safe or not, but your best chances is to stay under 253W, which is what Intel covers under their warranty.



Thanks for the tip. Where can I set the power limit?? Is it PT1 or PTL1 or something like that? And can I do it with a static overclock meaning CPU will just throttle to lower speed if it like it already does if temp hits 100C?


----------



## bhav

Wolverine2349 said:


> Thanks for the tip. Where can I set the power limit?? Is it PT1 or PTL1 or something like that? And can I do it with a static overclock meaning CPU will just throttle to lower speed if it like it already does if temp hits 100C?


There should be a bunch of settings somewhere in the bios that let you enter the numbers for the watts.


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> Thanks for the tip. Where can I set the power limit?? Is it PT1 or PTL1 or something like that? And can I do it with a static overclock meaning CPU will just throttle to lower speed if it like it already does if temp hits 100C?


Depends on motherboard. But universally it is known as PL1 and PL2, long and short duration, respectively.
Generally you'd make them both the same value. But some people like to manually raise the limit for X Tau amount of seconds for the short duration for certain burst loads.


----------



## dante`afk

CptSpig said:


> View attachment 2584111
> View attachment 2584111


----------



## Ichirou

@CptSpig @dante`afk 
Chances are, Antonline's given good batches from Intel.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> @CptSpig @dante`afk
> Chances are, Antonline's given good batches from Intel.


They give bad ones too lol. Silicon lottery is silicon lottery.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> They give bad ones too lol. Silicon lottery is silicon lottery.


As I've mentioned before, I've had an insider tell me that Intel issues specific batches to each retailer, for RMA tracking purposes.
The retailers are actually not permitted to send in any batches for RMA that they are not allocated.

Sure, there may be sample to sample variance, but batches are all made with the same equipment at that exact point in time, so the variance tends to be minor.
Hence, to some extent, there is bias towards certain retailers in terms of whether they get A stock or B stock.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> As I've mentioned before, I've had an insider tell me that Intel issues specific batches to each retailer, for RMA tracking purposes.
> The retailers are actually not permitted to send in any batches for RMA that they are not allocated.
> 
> Sure, there may be sample to sample variance, but batches are all made with the same equipment at that exact point in time, so the variance tends to be minor.
> Hence, to some extent, there is bias towards certain retailers in terms of whether they get A stock or B stock.


Yes, but most of these retailers all ship from the same warehouse is what I mean. Just like returns all go back to the same place. Antononline is probably shipping from California City of Industry too lol. It’s all eCommerce, which is just selling stuff you don’t even have on hand. It’s a real popular thing nowadays.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Yes, but most of these retailers all ship from the same warehouse is what I mean. Just like returns all go back to the same place. Antononline is probably shipping from California City of Industry too lol. It’s all eCommerce, which is just selling stuff you don’t even have on hand. It’s a real popular thing nowadays.


The retailers don't request Intel to directly ship customers chips. They each receive stock from Intel and then ship them out from their own warehouses later on.

Fact of the matter is, Intel issues each retailer different batches.
Whether those batches are good/bad is up for speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are biases based on how likely a retailer would RMA chips back to Intel.
A retailer that often sends in RMAs might get better batches to try to lessen the likelihood of that happen. And vice versa.

It's all about mitigating costs to maximize profit at the end of the day. Business


----------



## fray_bentos

tps3443 said:


> It’s not about how much voltage your running to the CPU. It’s about the work load with that given amount of voltage you are using.
> 
> For example, if I run my [email protected] and it’s running 5.6-5.7Ghz on all cores through Battlefield 2042 gaming which is perfectly fine! Or if I ran Cinebench R23, or decided to try for Prime 95. The difference is huge. The amperage/wattage in Battlefield is lower and safe. While R23 would not be safe, it would be tons of wattage and power that could degrade the CPU.
> 
> The same scenario for my 13900KF could be used as well only much higher clock speeds, just keep the cpu cool and below 240 amps should be just fine.


What is going to happen when you finally open a game that pounds the CPU with 
unexpected CPU-intensive shader compilation for a few minutes? Horizon: Zero dawn comes to mind. That's not a safe OC.


----------



## cstkl1

Ichirou said:


> Yes.


what i can tell ya. sa dont cross 1.55. 
1.2-1.3 already sufficient


----------



## dipsdots

CptSpig said:


> Daily Driver Apex Z790 13900K. CPU OC P-Cores 62, 62, 61, 61, 59, 59, 57, 57 E-Cores 42 to 46. Memory 8000 Mhz.
> 
> View attachment 2584074
> View attachment 2584075
> View attachment 2584074
> View attachment 2584075


Very nice. Do you mind uploading your Apex profile?


----------



## affxct

bhav said:


> Technically no one in this thread qualifies for warranty. Even clicking XMP on your ram invalidates the warranty.


Practically speaking, unless you do something insane to your chip, tuning within a certain envelope isn’t even something that should trigger voided warranty and they’d never be able to tell what actually happened to it. I think it’s more of a deterrent than a rule. I also don’t know what’s up with RAM warranty. It doesn’t state anyway that you can’t overvolt your RAM. Then again we obviously shouldn’t go daily’ing 1.65-1.74V and then be upset if we observe degradation.

I mean how would a CPU die anyway? Either due to the board VRM blowing a power stage (knock on wood), oxide breakdown (knock on wood) or extremely bad electro-migration because you just refuse to stop destroying the chip with AVX loads XD. Other than you could drop something really heavy on the IHS and crack the die or maybe like burn up a pad?

That or you’re just cursed and one of your two IMCs decides to quit (knock on wood).


----------



## RichKnecht

Those running adaptive voltage, can you share your settings? I’m not sure exactly how it is supposed to work. Im running at default clocks and I’m trying to get power draw to a minimum. Pulling ~ 247W, but I think I can get it lower.


----------



## OC2000

dante`afk said:


> can confirm, we probably have the same bin, I ordered just one from antononline on release and have the same SP values.


Glad to hear Same batches are giving same SP values. I have the same batch # as someone else who also has a P SP of 120. Unfortunately can't check until my Apex arrives.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

bhav said:


> Technically no one in this thread qualifies for warranty. Even clicking XMP on your ram invalidates the warranty.


My mother board at default invalidates it lol.


----------



## Latchback

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> My mother board at default invalidates it lol.


Sorry about your mother. Your valid to me.


----------



## CptSpig

dipsdots said:


> Very nice. Do you mind uploading your Apex profile?


I updated my bios to 0031 and it was a bust. So I am starting over and probably won't get to it until the weekend.


----------



## bwana

CptSpig said:


> Daily Driver Apex Z790 13900K. CPU OC P-Cores 62, 62, 61, 61, 59, 59, 57, 57 E-Cores 42 to 46. Memory 8000 Mhz.
> 
> View attachment 2584074
> View attachment 2584075
> View attachment 2584074
> View attachment 2584075


HOW DID YOU GET A z790 APEX!?
Those boards will not be released until 11/30

Are you 'connected'?


----------



## Ichirou

bwana said:


> HOW DID YOU GET A z790 APEX!?
> Those boards will not be released until 11/30
> 
> Are you 'connected'?


Some people already managed to order it retail. Now sure what you're on.


----------



## Nizzen

bwana said:


> HOW DID YOU GET A z790 APEX!?
> Those boards will not be released until 11/30
> 
> Are you 'connected'?


Has been in stock here in Norway since 15. November


----------



## CptSpig

bwana said:


> HOW DID YOU GET A z790 APEX!?
> Those boards will not be released until 11/30
> 
> Are you 'connected'?


That was Newegg and they changed the release date to the 21st. Central Computer started selling a week early so I snag a board and canceled my Newegg pre-order.


----------



## Ichirou

I'm pretty sure the 13900KF I have has degraded again, even at stock clocks. Wattage is anywhere from 200-300W while it's boosting around stress tests.

This 13th Gen... is kind of a disaster. I fear for anyone who even runs R23 more than once or twice.

I imagine Intel's already getting an influx of RMAs from people who have degraded their chips just from auto voltages.

Going to see if I can save this chip somehow. Will start over from scratch.


----------



## Brandur

Hey guys, I have a question. I set 1.35V LLC4 on my Z790 Apex and with 55/43/45 the CPU runs through R20 with 1.15V without any problems. But in Idle, the Voltage is 1.31V instead of the 1.35V I set in the Bios. Is this normal?


----------



## Ichirou

Brandur said:


> Hey guys, I have a question. I set 1.35V LLC4 on my Z790 Apex and with 55/43/45 the CPU runs through R20 with 1.15V without any problems. But in Idle, the Voltage is 1.31V instead of the 1.35V I set in the Bios. Is this normal?


Idle/low loads are fine even up to 1.50V. It's when the chip is 100% that it matters having the chip Vdroop to sane voltages.


----------



## Brandur

Yeah, but why does it show 1.31V, although I set 1.35V in Idle?


----------



## Ichirou

Brandur said:


> Yeah, but why does it show 1.31V, although I set 1.35V?


Because the voltage in the BIOS is different from the real voltage. This is why you use HWiNFO to monitor.


----------



## RichKnecht

Brandur said:


> Hey guys, I have a question. I set 1.35V LLC4 on my Z790 Apex and with 55/43/45 the CPU runs through R20 with 1.15V without any problems. But in Idle, the Voltage is 1.31V instead of the 1.35V I set in the Bios. Is this normal?


Perfectly normal.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> I'm pretty sure the 13900KF I have has degraded again, even at stock clocks. Wattage is anywhere from 200-300W while it's boosting around stress tests.
> 
> This 13th Gen... is kind of a disaster. I fear for anyone who even runs R23 more than once or twice.
> 
> I imagine Intel's already getting an influx of RMAs from people who have degraded their chips just from auto voltages.
> 
> Going to see if I can save this chip somehow. Will start over from scratch.


Mine hasn't changed (yet). Then again, I haven't really hammered it with benchmarks.


----------



## dipsdots

CptSpig said:


> I updated my bios to 0031 and it was a bust. So I am starting over and probably won't get to it until the weekend.


0031 is not working well for you?


----------



## CptSpig

dipsdots said:


> 0031 is not working well for you?


When I got MC SP it does some weird stuff so I will clear everything and try again.


----------



## dipsdots

CptSpig said:


> When I got MC SP it does some weird stuff so I will clear everything and try again.


Do you have the chiller running all the time? Iooked at the temps you posted and they seem incredibly low. Did you delid?


----------



## CptSpig

dipsdots said:


> Do you have the chiller running all the time? Iooked at the temps you posted and they seem incredibly low. Did you delid?


No I don't have the chiller running. Just this setup see pictures.


----------



## VULC

bhav said:


> I just remembered something regarding this that I can't remember if I mentioned.
> 
> For a long time I was running my 10900K at 5.1-5.2 all core as people used to say all core OC was better for gaming?
> 
> Turns out to be completely false, setting the all core OC to even jut 100Mhz under the stock single core performance causes significant performance loss in games and at the cost of higher temps and power draw. Also when running at stock, it still regularly boosted up to 5.1+ as needed.
> 
> For games all core OCs don't work anymore, unless its the same or greater that the stock boost (so 5.0 all core on my 12600k is much better than 4.9 stock boost). But for the 900k chips its become difficult to almost impossible to do that now, even my 10900K needed over 1.4v for 5.3 all core and wasn't possible to keep it under tjmaxx on a 280mm AIO.
> 
> So for gaming, a 13900K / KS left at stock with an undervolt is much better than going for an all core boost, but maybe I will try getting 2 cores to 6.2, and the rest to +100 over stock at the most when I get one. Higher frequency on 2 cores is superior to all cores at a lower frequency for that.
> 
> But ofc if you're not using the PC for gaming and have a need for all core performance, that doesn't apply.


I'm running 5.7ghz sync all core with TVB +2 and my gaming performance is much better. I also run Ultimate power profile when gaming so I'm always on the highest frequency and my games are butter smooth with excellent 1% lows. If you have uneven clocks your 1% lows won't be as good also games are using more then 2 cores I mean seeing 6ghz on hwinfo is nice but for gaming it's pointless. My E Cores are off also because if the game hits those cores my lows suffer considerably they are only meant for background tasks and the scheduler is all over the place. The E cores also take up L3 cache which is also bad for gaming.


----------



## Ichirou

FWIW, with my RAM on XMP, I can pass y-cruncher Main 10B and also N64/HNT/VST with a minimum Vavg of 1.18V VR VOUT.
So chances are, the IMC is getting unstable due to heat. I'll have to rework my memory overclock a bit to factor this in.


----------



## Telstar

VULC said:


> I'm running 5.7ghz sync all core with TVB +2 and my gaming performance is much better. I also run Ultimate power profile when gaming so I'm always on the highest frequency and my games are butter smooth with excellent 1% lows. If you have uneven clocks your 1% lows won't be as good also games are using more then 2 cores I mean seeing 6ghz on hwinfo is nice but for gaming it's pointless. My E Cores are off also because if the game hits those cores my lows suffer considerably they are only meant for background tasks and the scheduler is all over the place. The E cores also take up L3 cache which is also bad for gaming.


How much power does your cpu draw while gaming?


----------



## Ichirou

It seems that Vcore degradation also leads to VCCSA degradation too, even if your VCCSA is low (under 1.35V).
Probably due to the extreme heat on the die spreading to the IMC as well.

I used to be able to run 4,200 CL14 1T Gear 1 at 1.31V VCCSA in y-cruncher, but now I need 1.33V instead.
However, things feel a lot more stable now that I've actually _reduced_ the Vcore with an undervolt at stock.

Continuing to run tests as we speak.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> It seems that Vcore degradation also leads to VCCSA degradation too, even if your VCCSA is low (under 1.35V).
> Probably due to the extreme heat on the die spreading to the IMC as well.
> 
> I used to be able to run 4,200 CL14 1T Gear 1 at 1.31V VCCSA in y-cruncher, but now I need 1.33V instead.
> However, things feel a lot more stable now that I've actually _reduced_ the Vcore with an undervolt at stock.
> 
> Continuing to run tests as we speak.


You degraded another one? Stop killing these 13900Ks!!!!!!


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> You degraded another one? Stop killing these 13900Ks!!!!!!


It's my money... to _burn_ 🤷‍♂️ 
Haha


----------



## VULC

Telstar said:


> How much power does your cpu draw while gaming?


I'm on 1080p its drawing 132.16w on the package power.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Brandur said:


> Yeah, but why does it show 1.31V, although I set 1.35V in Idle?


Are you talking about vcore or VID?


----------



## fray_bentos

Brandur said:


> Hey guys, I have a question. I set 1.35V LLC4 on my Z790 Apex and with 55/43/45 the CPU runs through R20 with 1.15V without any problems. But in Idle, the Voltage is 1.31V instead of the 1.35V I set in the Bios. Is this normal?


Use adaptive voltage for the sake of your chip.


----------



## VULC

1.4v LLC 4 on Asus is fine unless you're a bios junky and run hours long R23 or Y Cruncher. I'm always under 253w and 177A If you're playing games you're good. Overwatch just pegged my cpu to 100% hitting 80 degrees on first launch to test my OC. They must get many support tickets with bad over clocks it's your games fault.


----------



## RichKnecht

fray_bentos said:


> Use adaptive voltage for the sake of your chip.


Been trying to figure out where to set adaptive at. No idea how to use it. Been using auto and at defaults, my VIDs are @ 1.17 and V core is 1.18 running R23 with max power draw at 244W.


----------



## Slickman

Right now I have my 13700K on adaptive at an undervolt of -130mv. I was thinking of adding some voltage back to it and overclock by 100mhz on P and E cores or just P cores. How much voltage do you think I'd need to add back to achieve this? Thanks


----------



## yzonker

Has anyone tried using a video encoder like Handbrake to test stability rather than CB or YCruncher? I've certainly seen Handbrake crash when CB passes and Handbrake pulls less power than either of the other 2. It also appears to hit the memory pretty hard based on the temps I saw while it was running.


----------



## dipsdots

13900K. batch 2X36 from Antonline: SP105 / P116 / E85 / MC 77


----------



## RichKnecht

Slickman said:


> Right now I have my 13700K on adaptive at an undervolt of -130mv. I was thinking of adding some voltage back to it and overclock by 100mhz on P and E cores or just P cores. How much voltage do you think I'd need to add back to achieve this? Thanks


What did you set adaptive to? i can’t figure out how to setup adaptive without the chip using tons of power. I have to be doing something wrong.


----------



## RichKnecht

yzonker said:


> Has anyone tried using a video encoder like Handbrake to test stability rather than CB or YCruncher? I've certainly seen Handbrake crash when CB passes and Handbrake pulls less power than either of the other 2. It also appears to hit the memory pretty hard based on the temps I saw while it was running.


I actually use photoshop and batch ~2000 45 MP files. That will throw an error before R23 does.


----------



## VULC

dipsdots said:


> 13900K. batch 2X36 from Antonline: SP105 / P116 / E85 / MC 77


They are getting nice bins. My 13900k is the same bin SP 105 P116 E 85. I've seen many people with this SP it seems like the majority of 13th gen are at this rating.


----------



## CptSpig

Ichirou said:


> It's my money... to _burn_ 🤷‍♂️
> Haha


Get some better cooling! No pun intended.


----------



## chibi

CptSpig said:


> Get some better cooling! No pun intended.


I think he's on a Mora already. Next step would be chiller/sub ambient territory.


----------



## dipsdots

CptSpig said:


> No I don't have the chiller running. Just this setup see pictures.
> 
> View attachment 2584194
> View attachment 2584195
> View attachment 2584194
> View attachment 2584195


nice, i have the same setup pretty much - Mora420 with 4x A20's


----------



## Ichirou

CptSpig said:


> Get some better cooling! No pun intended.


MO-RA 420 with an extra 1080 mm rad and delid isn't enough apparently  


chibi said:


> I think he's on a Mora already. Next step would be chiller/sub ambient territory.


Not gonna run a chiller since that's an extra what, 200-300W? And takes up physical space in my room.
If anything, I'm still binning more chips for better quality instead.


----------



## HemuV2

guys my 13900K running 5.7GHz/4.0ghz/49x ring is at 1.447V on auto and 1.412 in game, it's 65-67C and 150ish W, is this okay for gaming? Seems 5.7ghz needs this voltage on my chip. hyperthreading disabled btw


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> guys my 13900K running 5.7GHz/4.0ghz/49x ring is at 1.447V on auto and 1.412 in game, it's 65-67C and 150ish W, is this okay for gaming? Seems 5.7ghz needs this voltage on my chip. hyperthreading disabled btw


Anything under 200W is probably fine.


----------



## CptSpig

chibi said:


> I think he's on a Mora already. Next step would be chiller/sub ambient territory.





Ichirou said:


> MO-RA 420 with an extra 1080 mm rad and delid isn't enough apparently
> 
> Not gonna run a chiller since that's an extra what, 200-300W? And takes up physical space in my room.
> If anything, I'm still binning more chips for better quality instead.


It was a joke!  You said it was your money to burn.


----------



## HemuV2

@RobertoSampaio could you please explain what "guardband voltage" is? How does it cause degradation


----------



## fray_bentos

HemuV2 said:


> guys my 13900K running 5.7GHz/4.0ghz/49x ring is at 1.447V on auto and 1.412 in game, it's 65-67C and 150ish W, is this okay for gaming? Seems 5.7ghz needs this voltage on my chip. hyperthreading disabled btw


I wouldn't take advice on OCing if I were you from someone who already degraded 2x 13900Ks. What voltage can you run 100 MHz lower with? Looks to me like you already crossed the point where voltage increases are not worth the gain. And the risk.

You could probably run it at 5.5 GHz p cores and 1.15 to 1.17 V underload, and game with <65 W. Why burn over 150 W for no perceivable difference?


----------



## ViTosS

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443
> Made the decision to buy and test drive a Strix Z790-A to compare to the Z690 Edge. Gonna see if the price drops on Black Friday first, though.
> I'm hitting a brick wall with VDDQ on this Edge, which is limiting future overclocking potential. MSI updates their BIOSes way too slowly.


Nicely done, I'm waiting for my Strix Z790-A too, should be here by the end of the week, I saw a video from that guy ''Frame Chasers'' he compares Z690 to Z790 and the Z790 was worse in the max frequency achievable on the RAM


----------



## acoustic

HemuV2 said:


> guys my 13900K running 5.7GHz/4.0ghz/49x ring is at 1.447V on auto and 1.412 in game, it's 65-67C and 150ish W, is this okay for gaming? Seems 5.7ghz needs this voltage on my chip. hyperthreading disabled btw


Why are E Cores clocked down below stock?


----------



## Ichirou

ViTosS said:


> Nicely done, I'm waiting for my Strix Z790-A too, should be here by the end of the week, I saw a video from that guy ''Frame Chasers'' he compares Z690 to Z790 and the Z790 was worse in the max frequency achievable on the RAM


The memory training is better on the Z790, especially with the RTLs. But the frequency being worse, that's an interesting find.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> The memory training is better on the Z790, especially with the RTLs. But the frequency being worse, that's an interesting find.


It's frame chasers.. that's the same moron who said the 13900k was going to be 0% faster than a 12900k.

People need to stop watching his garbage. He's a clown.


----------



## VULC

ViTosS said:


> Nicely done, I'm waiting for my Strix Z790-A too, should be here by the end of the week, I saw a video from that guy ''Frame Chasers'' he compares Z690 to Z790 and the Z790 was worse in the max frequency achievable on the RAM


Believe it or not the z690a has 80A power stages and the z790a has 70A power stages.


----------



## RichKnecht

Can someone help me understand this? I have my chip running at 55/43 on auti voltage. Under load, VIDs are 1.17 and V core is 1.18. AC LL is set to 2 and DC LL is set to 102 which is the same as LLC6 on this MSI board .If I go into bios and set the P cores to 56 and reboot, under load my voltages go to 1.37 under load. The only thing changed was P Core from auto to 56. Can't wrap my head around it.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> The memory training is better on the Z790, especially with the RTLs. But the frequency being worse, that's an interesting find.


I think they just validated z790 for higher DDR5 frequency.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Can someone help me understand this? I have my chip running at 55/43 on auti voltage. Under load, VIDs are 1.17 and V core is 1.18. AC LL is set to 2 and DC LL is set to 102 which is the same as LLC6 on this MSI board .If I go into bios and set the P cores to 56 and reboot, under load my voltages go to 1.37 under load. The only thing changed was P Core from auto to 56. Can't wrap my head around it.


Stop using auto voltage.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Stop using auto voltage.


 I'm trying to use adaptive but it's just not working as it should. I want to stay away from fixed voltage as I want the chip to power down when idle.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> I'm trying to use adaptive but it's just not working as it should. I want to stay away from fixed voltage as I want the chip to power down when idle.


On MSI, it still does, even on Override. Try it and see for yourself.

Override is still using CPU VID; it's not overriding the VRM. You can see clocks drop as well as CPU Wattage reflect it.


----------



## VULC

ViTosS said:


> Nicely done, I'm waiting for my Strix Z790-A too, should be here by the end of the week, I saw a video from that guy ''Frame Chasers'' he compares Z690 to Z790 and the Z790 was worse in the max frequency achievable on the RAM


What's funny?



https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asus-rog-strix-z690a-gaming-review











ROG STRIX Z790-A GAMING WIFI D4 | Motherboards | ROG AU


The ROG Strix Z790-A Gaming WiFi D4 supercharges builds with a robust 16-stage power solution, bountiful connectivity, and smart performance. It features four M.2 slots with heatsinks, a PCIe® 5.0 x16 slot, USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 support, WiFi 6E, AI Overclocking, AI Cooling II, AI Networking, Two-Way...



rog.asus.com


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I'm trying to use adaptive but it's just not working as it should. I want to stay away from fixed voltage as I want the chip to power down when idle.





acoustic said:


> On MSI, it still does, even on Override. Try it and see for yourself.
> 
> Override is still using CPU VID; it's not overriding the VRM. You can see clocks drop as well as CPU Wattage reflect it.


^ This.
I've mentioned it several times already. MSI natively clocks the system down during idle.


----------



## Telstar

ViTosS said:


> Nicely done, I'm waiting for my Strix Z790-A too, should be here by the end of the week, I saw a video from that guy ''Frame Chasers'' he compares Z690 to Z790 and the Z790 was worse in the max frequency achievable on the RAM


not exactly: it was better with 2 dimms, worse with 4.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> The memory training is better on the Z790, especially with the RTLs. But the frequency being worse, that's an interesting find.


Its not surprising, I was running 4400 flat 16s g1 on my z490 tomahawk and can only manage 4133 flat 15s on my z790 edge. I dont think the RTLs are better, in fact I posted flat 62s with those...now its 69s (I know they always go up with each gen) if I'm lucky depending on v's etc. Maybe the training is hit and miss...there certainly are a lot more options in here now but no explanation of what all this stuff really does ...and most don't even show a value. I find the training specifically slower ...and there is a lot of variance and instability. Also, cant get the timings as tight. so I dunno - seems they've over complicated it or something....but im praying its because its a new product...but not really holding out hope since I saw the same kinds of timings on z690 from posts here from all the regular mem clockers. I have memory training retry disabled and disabled stop and go training.,..these are both new to me from z490.,.but when it doesnt work I dont want it to keep trying! lol


----------



## jeiselramos

13900K P5.5/4.4/R4.6
SP103 P111 E88 / MSI FORCE 142
MSI Z690 Unify X
VCC SENSE
Vcore 1.36v LLC7
E-Core L2 Offset +0.05v
Core PLL 0.99
Ring PLL 0.93
E-Core L2 PLL 0.96
I haven't tweaked the ram yet 😜


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> ^ This.
> I've mentioned it several times already. MSI natively clocks the system down during idle.


I know. Maybe my version of hwinfo is screwed up. Beacause if I go in and set p cores to 56 and reboot, hwinfo still shows 55. I’m going to uninstall it then reinstall. There has got to be something going on here.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

HemuV2 said:


> @RobertoSampaio could you please explain what "guardband voltage" is? How does it cause degradation


I found a good article about loadlines, guardband etc...
A guardband is necessary and it's not a bad thing. The degradation is not caused by the guardband, but if you insist on sending a power-virus to the CPU the guardband will be "consumed" over time.




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357268050_DarkGates_A_Hybrid_Power-Gating_Architecture_to_Mitigate_the_Performance_Impact_of_Dark-Silicon_in_High_Performance_Processors


----------



## VULC

RobertoSampaio said:


> I found a good article about loadlines, guardband etc...
> A guardband is necessary and it's not a bad thing. The degradation is not caused by the guardband, but if you insist on sending a power-virus to the CPU the guardband will be "consumed" over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357268050_DarkGates_A_Hybrid_Power-Gating_Architecture_to_Mitigate_the_Performance_Impact_of_Dark-Silicon_in_High_Performance_Processors


Roberto, do you recommend running CEP policy disabled or enabled on a sync all core OC?


----------



## Netarangi

Anything to worry about when disabling c states? I assume it runs a bit hotter so will degrade faster? Not planning to have this cpu more than 3 years so not fussed.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

VULC said:


> Roberto, do you recommend running CEP policy disabled or enabled on a sync all core OC?


Think about a car and the engine wear.
Its your car... If you decide to drive all days reaching 7000RPM your engine will need an early maintenance.
With the CPU it's the same thing... You'll need more and more voltage until it dies...
The question is: how many times do you need to run a P-95 to adjust the CPU? 
Isn't it easier for you to adjust approximately and then go up 10mv and that's it? Then just watch netflix and relax.. Play a game... LOL.
If necessary, increase another 10mv. But I bet a lot of people here run a benchmark test 10 times a day... LOL


----------



## affxct

Well I guess the new meta is daily’ing 1.2V with AVX load Vcore down below 1.15V?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RobertoSampaio said:


> Think about a car and the engine wear.
> Its your car... If you decide to drive all days reaching 7000RPM your engine will need an early maintenance.
> With the CPU it's the same thing... You'll need more and more voltage until it dies...
> The question is: how many times do you need to run a P-95 to adjust the CPU?
> Isn't it easier for you to adjust approximately and then go up 10mv and that's it? Then just watch netflix and relax.. Play a game... LOL.
> If necessary, increase another 10mv. But I bet a lot of people here run a benchmark test 10 times a day... LOL


God I wish I could play more games instead of tweaking lol


----------



## tps3443

Newegg has lost my 13900KF shipping showed it was being re-routed from Wyoming or some crazy stuff like that “Other Side of country”. Anyways, I ran to Best Buy and they had ONE 13900K in stock. I picked it up. Later looking batch number X241M860.

checking THE FORCE2 RATING Now.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Long live to the king (CPU) !!!!


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

tps3443 said:


> Newegg has lost my 13900KF shipping showed it was being re-routed from Wyoming or some crazy stuff like that “Other Side of country”. Anyways, I ran to Best Buy and they had ONE 13900K in stock. I picked it up. Later looking batch number X241M860.
> 
> checking THE FORCE2 RATING Now.
> 
> View attachment 2584246


Hope it's a good one good luck.


----------



## Telstar

the 3 digits after the X refers to the production week? i remember some translation for batch numbers long ago...


----------



## bwana

CptSpig said:


> That was Newegg and they changed the release date to the 21st. Central Computer started selling a week early so I snag a board and canceled my Newegg pre-order.


Your ram looks like 5600 hynix. and you got it to 8000? Looks like you got lucky with it too. source?


----------



## VULC

RobertoSampaio said:


> Think about a car and the engine wear.
> Its your car... If you decide to drive all days reaching 7000RPM your engine will need an early maintenance.
> With the CPU it's the same thing... You'll need more and more voltage until it dies...
> The question is: how many times do you need to run a P-95 to adjust the CPU?
> Isn't it easier for you to adjust approximately and then go up 10mv and that's it? Then just watch netflix and relax.. Play a game... LOL.
> If necessary, increase another 10mv. But I bet a lot of people here run a benchmark test 10 times a day... LOL


Why? I'm on Power Saver plan running 800hz on desktop and in-game 5700mhz all core reaching 132w my package power cap is on 85 degrees. All these transients and bios settings cause delay and latency not good for gaming.


----------



## CptSpig

bwana said:


> Your ram looks like 5600 hynix. and you got it to 8000? Looks like you got lucky with it too. source?


Yes, green sticks 5600 from SuperBuy in China.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

VULC said:


> Why? I'm on balanced power plan running 1000mhz desktop and in game 5700mhz all core reaching 132w my package power cap is on 85 degrees. All these transients and bios settings cause delay and latency not good for gaming.


You can configure it as a protection... 
You decide the value...


----------



## tps3443

@Ichirou

FORCE2 is 124!!!

ITS A GOOD ONE!!!!! better than my other one. My other one did like Force 135 with these temps. With much higher idle voltage in bios too.

How the heck it’s better than my last one.. WTH


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> 
> FORCE2 is 124!!!
> 
> ITS A GOOD ONE!!!!! better than my other one. My other one did like Force 135 with these temps. With much higher idle voltage in bios too.
> 
> How the heck it’s better than my last one.. WTH
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2584250


There's always lucky people and unlucky people.
I'm part of the latter 

I do have a BestBuy chip coming soon though, so maybe there's some hope?
Let me know what your absolute Vmin is when running 55/43/45 in y-cruncher Main.

If it want to sell it to me and bin another chip, I'm totally open to the offer, though 
Throw the poor man a bone...


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> There's always lucky people and unlucky people.
> I'm part of the latter
> 
> I do have a BestBuy chip coming soon though, so maybe there's some hope?
> Let me know what your absolute Vmin is when running 55/43/45 in y-cruncher Main.
> 
> If it want to sell it to me and bin another chip, I'm totally open to the offer, though
> Throw the poor man a bone...


Well, let’s see how this 13900KF turns out. Tracking updated to Friday delivery. Maybe I can hook you up, if it’s a low Force2 rating. I have a good feeling about it.


----------



## VULC

So if you run 1.26v under load vs 1.28v under load what's the point of continues binning maybe 5 degrees of temps? Just trying to figure out the goal. Like an SP 116 does 1.28v and a SP 121 does 1.26v 🤷


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Well, let’s see how this 13900KF turns out. Tracking updated to Friday delivery. Maybe I can hook you up, if it’s a low Force2 rating. I have a good feeling about it.


Would really appreciate it. I've been binning so many chips (and got scammed twice) across these two gens that it's just getting tiresome.
I can't even resume building my waterloop because I don't have a chip worthy of putting under water for the long run :|


----------



## Falkentyne

Brandur said:


> Yeah, but why does it show 1.31V, although I set 1.35V in Idle?


There is current load even at idle.
You're probably pulling about 30 amps.
LLC4 is 0.98 mohms.
Ohm's law and vdroop reduces target voltage basead on load.
1350mv - (0.98 * 30 Currrent IOUT) = 1320mv=1.320v.
Rounds down to 1.31v because of 9mv resolution on the Vcore sensor.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> So if you run 1.26v under load vs 1.28v under load what's the point of continues binning maybe 5 degrees of temps? Just trying to figure out the goal. Like an SP 116 does 1.28v and a SP 121 does 1.26v 🤷


It only matters if you're planning to run above stock. If you're an undervolter, any chip will do since they'll all run 55/43/45 under reasonable voltage just fine.


----------



## mattskiiau

Lots of talk on degradation here has me worried. 
How am I looking for my daily? Any advice would be appreciated in regards to tweaking.

*Mobo*: Asus asus z690-a d4 (LLC5) | 55P/43E/50C (+1TVB)

*Idle*:
VID: 1.291v
Vcore:1.288v
VCCSA 1.136v
VRM Current: 20A
VRM Power: 22w


*Load Cinebench*:
VID: 1.181v
Vcore: 1.243v
VCCSA: 1.152v
VRM Current: 199A
VRM Power: 230w


----------



## Ichirou

mattskiiau said:


> Lots of talk on degradation here has me worried.
> How am I looking for my daily? Any advice would be appreciated in regards to tweaking.
> 
> *Mobo*: Asus asus z690-a d4 (LLC5) | 55P/43E/50C (+1TVB)
> 
> *Idle*:
> VID: 1.291v
> Vcore:1.288v
> VCCSA 1.136v
> VRM Current: 20A
> VRM Power: 22w
> 
> 
> *Load Cinebench*:
> VID: 1.181v
> Vcore: 1.243v
> VCCSA: 1.152v
> VRM Current: 199A
> VRM Power: 230w
> 
> View attachment 2584251


You're probably safe as long as you stay under 253W, the Intel specified maximum for Turbo.


----------



## Falkentyne

HemuV2 said:


> @RobertoSampaio could you please explain what "guardband voltage" is? How does it cause degradation


Guardband voltage is the voltage that your CPU can be undervolted to, to run below stock operation.
On Asus boards, you can usually see what the stock VID is just by setting a fixed multiplier (sync all cores) and using LLC4-LLC6 and look at the VID under load, while under fixed vcore.
(basically, if you use "Sync all cores" and "Auto" vcore, then the cpu Vcore should equal what the "VID" is reporting. If you can lower your vcore below this amount manually, your guardband is the "original" vcore, down to how much you can reduce the vcore, until you are unstable.

On my chip at 5.5 ghz, I get a VID of 1.19v and at 5.6 ghz, a VID of 1.225v, while running Stockfish chess.
So if I can run at a die sense voltage _below_ this value, that's basically my guardband, or my "overclocking headroom."

So if my load vcore was 1.19v and = VID 1.19v at 5.5 ghz (Sync all cores) and i could set a load vcore (by using bios target voltage, e.g. 1.265v bios set + LLC6) to get 1.157v under load and be stable, but 1.148v would get WHEA error, then my guard band is 40mv (1.19v - 1.15v).

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## tps3443

OMG this CHIP is a flipping G!!!

I can run 5.5-5.8 [email protected] 1.081V [email protected] 217 watts 😭😭😭

Default 5.5-5.8 ratios.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> OMG this CHIP is a flipping G!!!
> 
> I can run 5.5-5.8 [email protected] 1.081V [email protected] 217 watts 😭😭😭
> 
> Default 5.5-5.8 ratios.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2584252


It shows as 1.14V VR VOUT in your screenshot though


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> On MSI, it still does, even on Override. Try it and see for yourself.
> 
> Override is still using CPU VID; it's not overriding the VRM. You can see clocks drop as well as CPU Wattage reflect it.


You can fix this by entering in a voltage manually while NOT changing the vcore mode to "override", apparently.
Just keep it on auto and then enter a voltage below this value.
You can test this and see if it works by doing the following:

Go to Lite Load advanced, and set AC and DC loadline to 0.01 mohms (may be "1" in your BIOS).
Go to Thermal Velocity Boost Voltage Optimizations and set it to Disabled (TVB Voltage Opt. = Disabled).

Then go to the CPU vcore section, keep it on "Auto" but go below it and enter a value like 1.250v, and set Loadline Calibration to Mode 3

Now boot windows and check the CPU VID and compare it to the VR VOUT value shown.
If it's something between 1.30v-1.38v, then it worked. The CPU native VID is the value you see, but the CPU Vcore is much lower than that since it's going to be using the value you entered as the target vcore (before vdroop).


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> It shows as 1.14V VR VOUT in your screenshot though


Under load it is 1.081. Or, I could run the R23 longer and just let you see the average which would be 1.08* after 30 minutes


----------



## Slickman

My 13700K is weird, well probably my motherboard is doing something weird with the voltage. It can run with -0.15v at 5.4ghz all core but if I set 2 of the cores 100mhz higher at 5.5ghz I couldn't get it stable with almost no undervolt at all(-.03 is where I stopped testing). So basically my overclock is +100mhz on all but 2 cores because it already had 2 cores set at 5.4ghz at stock.


----------



## tps3443

This chip does the limbo test far better than my last one. Lower Force2 rating, less idle voltage in the bios, R23 stock with everything on auto consumes 30 watts less power. The VID's in windows are also lower while stock. During "Ultra lower power testing" meaning just dumping the V-Core off as low as possible shows this chip goes lower, and runs cooler, while using less power all the way around. However, I have not tested actual overclocking at all yet so who knows.


----------



## dante`afk

bwana said:


> HOW DID YOU GET A z790 APEX!?
> Those boards will not be released until 11/30
> 
> Are you 'connected'?


On Friday Newegg changed availability to 11/21 until they sold out, that's how I got mine as well











goal: I have 12 hours time over 3 days until I fly into vacation to get a stable 8400+ setup ^^


----------



## tps3443

dante`afk said:


> On Friday Newegg changed availability to 11/21 until they sold out, that's how I got mine as well
> 
> View attachment 2584253
> 
> 
> 
> goal: I have 12 hours time over 3 days until I fly into vacation to get a stable 8400+ setup ^^


That’s awesome! It looks beautiful! Unfortunately I’ve just blew $668 dollars with tax on yet another 13900K. So I definitely ain’t buying an Apex now, because this new chip is a keeper for sure “I’m in-love” ❤ 😂

I hope you enjoy it. Awesome motherboard you got there!


----------



## bwana

Ichirou said:


> It matters if you're sticking to DDR4.
> 64+ GB is still much stronger on DDR4 than it is on DDR5. And I don't think that'll change for quite some time.


can you point me to some references for this? I thought DDR4 64g required 4 sticks and that is significantly slower than 2 sticks due to mem topology.


----------



## Ichirou

bwana said:


> can you point me to some references for this? I thought DDR4 64g required 4 sticks and that is significantly slower than 2 sticks due to mem topology.


4x16 GB Micron B-die is stronger than pretty much anything on DDR5 right now. But maybe in the future there will be better improvements for 2x32 GB DDR5 DIMMs.

Both the ASUS Strix and the MSI Edge have good support for 4x16 GB Micron B-die. Memory slots are strong enough regardless of topology.
Only thing that matters is CPU IMC quality.


----------



## tps3443

@Ichirou I’ll test that 13900KF when it comes in on Friday and I’ll let you know what it’s looking like.


----------



## RichKnecht

So I spent 3 hours trying to get override or adaptive voltage settings to work to my liking without drawing a ton of power and came to a conclusion. I should have bought the ugly ### silver/white Asus board because I hate the MSI bios.Live and learn.


----------



## tps3443

Intel 13900K on Ambient water cooling, NOT delidded, and drawing less than 215 watts, all while breaking 41K in R23. I'm absolutely impressed.

Batch# X241M860


----------



## CptSpig

dipsdots said:


> 0031 is not working well for you?


bios 0031 is the best right now. 5600 Hynix at 8000 voltages dropped by 8mv!


----------



## ThinbinJim

tps3443 said:


> OMG this CHIP is a flipping G!!!
> 
> I can run 5.5-5.8 [email protected] 1.081V [email protected] 217 watts 😭😭😭
> 
> Default 5.5-5.8 ratios.


So you got a cheap 13900KS early 
Can it do 5.9-6.0 R23?


----------



## mattskiiau

RichKnecht said:


> So I spent 3 hours trying to get override or adaptive voltage settings to work to my liking without drawing a ton of power and came to a conclusion. I should have bought the ugly ### silver/white Asus board because I hate the MSI bios.Live and learn.


If it helps you feel better, 
on my Asus board at 55P(+1TVB),43E,50C, I use adaptive of -0.007v to keep stable. Pretty much the same power/heat/voltage keeping it stable at a fix voltage.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Falkentyne said:


> You can fix this by entering in a voltage manually while NOT changing the vcore mode to "override", apparently.
> Just keep it on auto and then enter a voltage below this value.
> You can test this and see if it works by doing the following:
> 
> Go to Lite Load advanced, and set AC and DC loadline to 0.01 mohms (may be "1" in your BIOS).
> Go to Thermal Velocity Boost Voltage Optimizations and set it to Disabled (TVB Voltage Opt. = Disabled).
> 
> Then go to the CPU vcore section, keep it on "Auto" but go below it and enter a value like 1.250v, and set Loadline Calibration to Mode 3
> 
> Now boot windows and check the CPU VID and compare it to the VR VOUT value shown.
> If it's something between 1.30v-1.38v, then it worked. The CPU native VID is the value you see, but the CPU Vcore is much lower than that since it's going to be using the value you entered as the target vcore (before vdroop).


Wouldn’t the cpu vcore value be close to 1.25 because if I used llc 3…it’s pretty flat. The VID will be between 1.3-1.38? But under load we need it to run lower…so I use a droopier llc/lite load setting to droop it? On my board I don’t have vr vout so I don’t know what to compare it to.


----------



## dipsdots

CptSpig said:


> bios 0031 is the best right now. 5600 Hynix at 8000 voltages dropped by 8mv!
> View attachment 2584276
> View attachment 2584276


that's pretty awesome! Upload our profile when you have a chance!


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou I’ll test that 13900KF when it comes in on Friday and I’ll let you know what it’s looking like.


Thank you very much 


RichKnecht said:


> So I spent 3 hours trying to get override or adaptive voltage settings to work to my liking without drawing a ton of power and came to a conclusion. I should have bought the ugly ### silver/white Asus board because I hate the MSI bios.Live and learn.


I've used both the ASUS Strix and the MSI Edge. I still prefer the latter.
It takes a little while to get used to, but once you do, it's so much easier to use.

The only reason why I'm considering going back to the ASUS Strix is due to the possible better memory overclocking.
But if it doesn't turn out to reward me in any meaningful manner, I'm going to refund.


----------



## tps3443

ThinbinJim said:


> So you got a cheap 13900KS early
> Can it do 5.9-6.0 R23?


I haven’t tried 5.9 or 6.0, I’m not gonna stress the chip out with all that. It runs 5.8 all-core very easily though, with my water chiller off, I know that much. I may stretch it’s legs tomorrow. This chip also runs really really cool. Cooler than my other 13900KF that was delidded.

I’m going to go easy on it, and run a per core overclock to maximize performance, and stay well under 300 watts.


----------



## fray_bentos

RichKnecht said:


> I know. Maybe my version of hwinfo is screwed up. Beacause if I go in and set p cores to 56 and reboot, hwinfo still shows 55. I’m going to uninstall it then reinstall. There has got to be something going on here.


Do you have XTU installed, or some other OC software such as Dragon Centre? If so you need to uninstall them as they override board set OCs, even if they don't appear to be actively running.


----------



## fray_bentos

Ichirou said:


> Would really appreciate it. I've been binning so many chips (and got scammed twice) across these two gens that it's just getting tiresome.
> I can't even resume building my waterloop because I don't have a chip worthy of putting under water for the long run :|


But why are you doing these things binning (and burning) for what goal?


----------



## HemuV2

Falkentyne said:


> Guardband voltage is the voltage that your CPU can be undervolted to, to run below stock operation.
> On Asus boards, you can usually see what the stock VID is just by setting a fixed multiplier (sync all cores) and using LLC4-LLC6 and look at the VID under load, while under fixed vcore.
> (basically, if you use "Sync all cores" and "Auto" vcore, then the cpu Vcore should equal what the "VID" is reporting. If you can lower your vcore below this amount manually, your guardband is the "original" vcore, down to how much you can reduce the vcore, until you are unstable.
> 
> On my chip at 5.5 ghz, I get a VID of 1.19v and at 5.6 ghz, a VID of 1.225v, while running Stockfish chess.
> So if I can run at a die sense voltage _below_ this value, that's basically my guardband, or my "overclocking headroom."
> 
> So if my load vcore was 1.19v and = VID 1.19v at 5.5 ghz (Sync all cores) and i could set a load vcore (by using bios target voltage, e.g. 1.265v bios set + LLC6) to get 1.157v under load and be stable, but 1.148v would get WHEA error, then my guard band is 40mv (1.19v - 1.15v).
> 
> Hope that makes sense.


so basically it's the difference between vf curve voltage and min stable voltage at set multiplier. Got it!


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> Intel 13900K on Ambient water cooling, NOT delidded, and drawing less than 215 watts, all while breaking 41K in R23. I'm absolutely impressed.
> 
> Batch# X241M860
> 
> View attachment 2584273


This has to be impossible ***, mine draws 300+W for that score


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> Would really appreciate it. I've been binning so many chips (and got scammed twice) across these two gens that it's just getting tiresome.
> I can't even resume building my waterloop because I don't have a chip worthy of putting under water for the long run :|


How many 13900K did you bin so far? How's your imc lottery been like? Core should be fine considering most of them are good bins and rarely you'd find an i9 that's a dud


----------



## Ichirou

fray_bentos said:


> But why are you doing these things binning (and burning) for what goal?


It's fun. Plus, this is the final generation I'll be using in terms of CPUs for quite a while.


----------



## HemuV2

I do not understand how your VIDs are so low, does asus show higher vids or something? By default my cpu is doing 1.4+ volts in gaming at 150W that's like 1.3+ die sense if i calculate based on llc. Is this bad? I'm running ht off and 5.7ghz/4.0ghz/49x ring on 109/73 sp chip


----------



## Ichirou

Ichirou said:


> It's fun. Plus, this is the final generation I'll be using in terms of CPUs for quite a while.


Two. One 13900K that was just awful on all fronts, and another 13900KF that has a good IMC.
But it has already degraded and is struggling to run 4,200 MHz CL14 1T Gear 1, which was previously rock stable.


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> Two. One 13900K that was just awful on all fronts, and another 13900KF that has a good IMC.
> But it has already degraded and is struggling to run 4,200 MHz CL14 1T Gear 1, which was previously rock stable.


So what SA should i hard limit my cpu to make sure i don't degrade the imc? I tried sa 1.35 vdimm 1.55 and vddq 1.35 for 4133cl15 g12t and it errored very quickly on OCCT memory test. It seems to pass when i let it decide the timings, like at 4200 it chooses cl17 timings and 1.33V SA


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> So what SA should i hard limit my cpu to make sure i don't degrade the imc? I tried sa 1.35 vdimm 1.55 and vddq 1.35 for 4133cl15 g12t and it errored very quickly on OCCT memory test. It seems to pass when i let it decide the timings, like at 4200 it chooses cl17 timings and 1.33V SA


Max 1.35V daily. VDDQ can be higher.


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> I do not understand how your VIDs are so low, does asus show higher vids or something? By default my cpu is doing 1.4+ volts in gaming at 150W that's like 1.3+ die sense if i calculate based on llc. Is this bad? I'm running ht off and 5.7ghz/4.0ghz/49x ring on 109/73 sp chip


Sounds right I'm doing 1.28v all core 5.7ghz/4.9 ring E cores off HT on.
1.4v LLC 4 on a P 116 and E 85.


----------



## VULC

I had my CPU input voltage on 1.86v and it totally through out my memory OC on Asus bios mem test put it back to auto and my memory OC is rock solid.


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> I do not understand how your VIDs are so low, does asus show higher vids or something? By default my cpu is doing 1.4+ volts in gaming at 150W that's like 1.3+ die sense if i calculate based on llc. Is this bad? I'm running ht off and 5.7ghz/4.0ghz/49x ring on 109/73 sp chip


Don't listen bro all epeen bullshit.


----------



## imrevoau

Either I have a golden 13700KF or the disparity between the i7s and i9s have shrunk.


----------



## bhav

bwana said:


> can you point me to some references for this? I thought DDR4 64g required 4 sticks and that is significantly slower than 2 sticks due to mem topology.


4x16 SR With Micron B die turns out easy to overclock, reference = Ichirou's sig.

2x32 Micron B die DR was a thing for a long time and cheap per GB on ballistix 3600 kits.

Someone in the memory section just upgraded to 2x32 Gb DDR4 with some sticks from Mushkin.

So also a lot of people saying 'why stick to DDR4, you will want 64 Gb DDR5 next'.

Well yes I was thinking of that but maybe also no, all the good m die and a die DDR5 results are 2x16.

Both 2x32 and 4x16 is pure trash on DDR5, my only mistake was not having bought 2 of my current kit.


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> It's fun. Plus, this is the final generation I'll be using in terms of CPUs for quite a while.


I wonder what happens to the CPUs you destroy lol, also after the paste is all over the ihs you can still return it? That's crazy


----------



## bhav

HemuV2 said:


> I wonder what happens to the CPUs you destroy lol, also after the paste is all over the ihs you can still return it? That's crazy


Depends on if you live in the Commonwealth.

Queens law (RIP), all new goods bought online need to have at least 14 days returns even if used if customer is unhappy with the item.

Not everywhere offers it on goods without a problem unless its unopened, some places like Amazon '30 days moneyback for any reason '.

Some tech stores offer it too, in all cases they make sure people aren't abusing it.

So what Ichirou does is perfectly legal, if highly immoral. Beat the crap out of new CPU, return under 'Return for any reason' policy. Do one per store so its not abuse of the policy. If you still need to test more than 1 per store then you have to start selling them yourself.


I did this just once wirh a 5820k that wouldn't stabilize 4.2 and got a second from elsewhere that did 4.3 which was still meh but ok. Could have kept binning like Ichirou but its simply wrong.

This time just get KS.


----------



## bhav

Been trying to find a second 4400CL19 Ballistix max kit, literally no one selling them, unless you count the single ebay listing for £300 ewww no.

Thinking to offer £100 in the wanted section, but then I remembered import taxes so not worth it unless its a UK seller.

Should I even bother appealing to Crucial support for a second kit?


----------



## affxct

imrevoau said:


> Either I have a golden 13700KF or the disparity between the i7s and i9s have shrunk.


My personal 13700K:
55/44/48 - 1.296V VR VOUT for R23
54/43/47 - 1.225V VR VOUT for R23
53/42/46 - 1.149V VR VOUT for R23

I conduct AVX load testing late during the evening or during the very early morning hours, so these are in context of sub 20c ambient temp.

I have an SP 79 (89/59) according to both a Z690-A and a Hero. I made sure to update the Hero’s ME correctly with the special steps to reset VID etc. I’m happy with this chip and it doesn’t seem to have degraded with the AVX loads I test, but I think most would regard this as a bad bin.


----------



## imrevoau

affxct said:


> My personal 13700K:
> 55/44/48 - 1.296V VR VOUT for R23
> 54/43/47 - 1.225V VR VOUT for R23
> 53/42/46 - 1.149V VR VOUT for R23
> 
> I conduct AVX load testing late during the evening or during the very early morning hours, so these are in context of sub 20c ambient temp.
> 
> I have an SP 79 (89/59) according to both a Z690-A and a Hero. I made sure to update the Hero’s ME correctly with the special steps to reset VID etc. I’m happy with this chip and it doesn’t seem to have degraded with the AVX loads I test, but I think most would regard this as a bad bin.


I don't have an Asus board so no SP, but to pass R23 at 5.5 core I need 1.22 load


----------



## RichKnecht

I just installed XTU a week ago to try and find decent settings so I didnt have to constantly reboot. I’ll uninstall it and try again.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Intel 13900K on Ambient water cooling, NOT delidded, and drawing less than 215 watts, all while breaking 41K in R23. I'm absolutely impressed.
> 
> Batch# X241M860
> 
> View attachment 2584273


Looks like static voltage?

Edit; Based on your screenshot, I just punched in a static 1.16 CPU voltage, LLC 5 ( 25 AC LL 80 DC LL ) and it passes R23 with a VID showing 1.117 @ 220W..


----------



## affxct

imrevoau said:


> I don't have an Asus board so no SP, but to pass R23 at 5.5 core I need 1.22 load


1.22 load would definitely be die sense. Yeah that beats mine by 80mV. So you can do 5.6 at reasonable voltage. I’m actually on the Dark, but I had a Hero for a few days to mess with.


----------



## imrevoau

affxct said:


> 1.22 load would definitely be die sense. Yeah that beats mine by 80mV. So you can do 5.6 at reasonable voltage. I’m actually on the Dark, but I had a Hero for a few days to mess with.


For me, 5.7 is about far as I'm willing to take it (roughly 1.31 load voltage is required to be y-cruncher stable IIRC) since I don't want to degrade the chip however I've dialed it to 5.5.

I'm on the A-Pro currently since I'm not very picky with features and it did everything I needed


----------



## bwana

Unkzilla said:


> Some quick results for my 13600kf -
> 
> 1.25v 5.6ghz pcore - e cores disabled
> 
> 1.31v 5.6ghz pcore - e cores enabled (default)
> 
> 1.30v 5.7ghz pcore - e cores disabled
> 
> All of the above pass 1hr OCCT
> 
> Assume 1.36v or slightly above would let me enable e cores and 5.7ghz on pcore but it's too hard to cool


custom loop? AIO?
@VULC custom loop? AIO?

Are these clocks everyone is reporting an all core clock? 
Isn't it possible that everyone has at least one golden core that can do 6.2 but some people have a crappier weak core that limits their all core clock?


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Looks like static voltage?
> 
> Edit; Based on your screenshot, I just punched in a static 1.16 CPU voltage, LLC 5 ( 25 AC LL 80 DC LL ) and it passes R23 with a VID showing 1.117 @ 220W..



That’s awesome especially if your core ratios are at Auto, with a X58 boost on (2) cores. Share a screen shot.


----------



## affxct

imrevoau said:


> For me, 5.7 is about far as I'm willing to take it (roughly 1.31 load voltage is required to be y-cruncher stable IIRC) since I don't want to degrade the chip however I've dialed it to 5.5.
> 
> I'm on the A-Pro currently since I'm not very picky with features and it did everything I needed


Wait, you need 1.22 to pass 5.5 but only 1.31 to pass 5.7? That's kinda wild. Scaling is insane.


----------



## imrevoau

affxct said:


> Wait, you need 1.22 to pass 5.5 but only 1.31 to pass 5.7? That's kinda wild. Scaling is insane.


Yeah, it kind of drops off a cliff past that.5.8 requires voltages that are basically completely unsafe with this information we have now, and 5.9 is out of the question 100%

It feels good to finally get a decent chip though. My 12700KF needed 1.32 load voltage for y-cruncher stable 5 ghz.


----------



## jeiselramos

Ok I did a bunch of test, tested LLC from 5 to 7 with and without 1000Khz switching frequency.
Tested ycruncher SFT to pass 3 loops without WHEA

13900K 55/44/46 + 7000C32
VCC Sense + Override Mode 
1.36 LLC 7 -> 1.2
1.31 LLC 7 + 1000khz -> 1.15
1.28 LLC 6 -> 1.15
1.27 LLC 6 + 1000Khz -> 1.155
1.2 LLC 5 -> 1.143
1.2 LLC 5 + 1000Khz -> 1.15

A good thing about 1000Khz you can drop A TON the vcore under full load if you're using LLC7 because without i couldn't pass SFT without WHEA and it shows the real power draw and not 255A every time with 330w+

I hope that could help somebody here 😜


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> Looks like static voltage?
> 
> Edit; Based on your screenshot, I just punched in a static 1.16 CPU voltage, LLC 5 ( 25 AC LL 80 DC LL ) and it passes R23 with a VID showing 1.117 @ 220W..


One pass doesn't mean anything. Needs 30min throttle test to even call it stable in the most minor sense.


----------



## affxct

imrevoau said:


> Yeah, it kind of drops off a cliff past that.5.8 requires voltages that are basically completely unsafe with this information we have now, and 5.9 is out of the question 100%
> 
> It feels good to finally get a decent chip though. My 12700KF needed 1.32 load voltage for y-cruncher stable 5 ghz.


In that regard, you deserved a gift. However, a friend of mine had a similarly poor bin of a 12700K.


----------



## imrevoau

affxct said:


> In that regard, you deserved a gift. However, a friend of mine had a similarly poor bin of a 12700K.


This is my first decent chip since I had a 2500k lol. My 8700K was similarly awful


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> One pass doesn't mean anything. Needs 30min throttle test to even call it stable in the most minor sense.


I know. It was stable in R23, but as soon as I tried to batch photos in Photoshop, I got an error. I am at .1.17 now and appears to be fine. R23 isn't a good test for what I do as it will pass the 30 minute test, but doesn't fair too well when batching a bunch of photos.


----------



## jeiselramos

jeiselramos said:


> 13900K P5.5/4.4/R4.6
> SP103 P111 E88 / MSI FORCE 142
> MSI Z690 Unify X
> VCC SENSE
> Vcore 1.36v LLC7
> E-Core L2 Offset +0.05v
> Core PLL 0.99
> Ring PLL 0.93
> E-Core L2 PLL 0.96
> I haven't tweaked the ram yet 😜
> View attachment 2584235





jeiselramos said:


> Ok I did a bunch of test, tested LLC from 5 to 7 with and without 1000Khz switching frequency.
> Tested ycruncher SFT to pass 3 loops without WHEA
> 
> 13900K 55/44/46 + 7000C32
> VCC Sense + Override Mode
> 1.36 LLC 7 -> 1.2
> 1.31 LLC 7 + 1000khz -> 1.15
> 1.28 LLC 6 -> 1.15
> 1.27 LLC 6 + 1000Khz -> 1.155
> 1.2 LLC 5 -> 1.143
> 1.2 LLC 5 + 1000Khz -> 1.15
> 
> A good thing about 1000Khz you can drop A TON the vcore under full load if you're using LLC7 because without i couldn't pass SFT without WHEA and it shows the real power draw and not 255A every time with 330w+
> 
> I hope that could help somebody here 😜


Little update


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> That’s awesome especially if your core ratios are at Auto, with a X58 boost on (2) cores. Share a screen shot.


I had to bump it up to 1.175 v core as I was getting errors in Photoshop. I did notice that on an all core full load, all the p cores are at 55. It doesn’t boost to 5.8. Is that normal? It will go to 5.8 when opening Firefox, Photoshop, etc. But as soon as I load all the cores, it will max out at 55. Now, at full load with the 1.75 v core, it shows 1.13 VID and 1.54 v core. LLC remains at 5.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> Looks like static voltage?
> 
> Edit; Based on your screenshot, I just punched in a static 1.16 CPU voltage, LLC 5 ( 25 AC LL 80 DC LL ) and it passes R23 with a VID showing 1.117 @ 220W..


So you left vcore auto but typed in 1.16 and set your llc 5, but the 25 AC ll/80 dc ll you set manually under advanced/lite load control? You left all cores/ring at defaults?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

tps3443 said:


> That’s awesome especially if your core ratios are at Auto, with a X58 boost on (2) cores. Share a screen shot.


Ya that’s what I was thinking…my vids always are really high at idle or game but I think it’s because there really ist much load and I’ve left llc and lite load all default and auto voltage.

pretty sure my cb23 just crashes at everything default and it’s not temp
Related and I haven’t stressed/benched this thing at all. I do have a ram oc so maybe that’s messing it up I dunno. I feel like some llc must be set.

are people just using the benchmate Version?


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> *So you left vcore auto but typed in 1.16 and set your llc 5*, but the 2*5 AC ll/80 dc ll you set manually under advanced/lite load control*? You left all cores/ring at defaults?


No, I gave up on auto and Adaptive. I set it to Override and so far, at 1.175, it is running great. For me, the real test is Photoshop. For some reason, if the voltage is just a bit too low, it will fail when batching photos. It will pass 30 minutes of R23 with ~1.68 override voltage.

Yes I have LLC at 5 and AC LL at 30 and DC LL at 80. All cores/ring are at default. I have no interest in over clocking it, just trying for the lowest voltage and power draw/heat.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> No, I gave up on auto and Adaptive. I set it to Override and so far, at 1.175, it is running great. For me, the real test is Photoshop. For some reason, if the voltage is just a bit too low, it will fail when batching photos. It will pass 30 minutes of R23 with ~1.68 override voltage.


Realbench might be a good test too compared to R23. I've seen R23 pass an hour of continuous testing, but then Handbrake fail.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> No, I gave up on auto and Adaptive. I set it to Override and so far, at 1.175, it is running great. For me, the real test is Photoshop. For some reason, if the voltage is just a bit too low, it will fail when batching photos. It will pass 30 minutes of R23 with ~1.68 override voltage.


Maybe because you’ve got a core bumping up to 5.8Ghz during your work load and that’s causing the crash, due to not enough voltage. I typically use Prime 95 Small FFT’s for 30 minutes or 1 hour and call it good. Run a single thread test see if it passes.


----------



## tps3443

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Ya that’s what I was thinking…my vids always are really high at idle or game but I think it’s because there really ist much load and I’ve left llc and lite load all default and auto voltage.
> 
> pretty sure my cb23 just crashes at everything default and it’s not temp
> Related and I haven’t stressed/benched this thing at all. I do have a ram oc so maybe that’s messing it up I dunno. I feel like some llc must be set.
> 
> are people just using the benchmate Version?


I have noticed R23 can crash with too low SA voltage. Something to keep in mind.


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> Realbench might be a good test too compared to R23. I've seen R23 pass an hour of continuous testing, but then Handbrake fail.


I used Realbench with my 10980XE and it was OK. However, believe it or not, I would still get errors when batching large numbers of photos. I always had to bump it up .005 to make it work.


----------



## tps3443

13900K FORCE 2 rating with cool water!


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> 13900K FORCE 2 rating with cool water!
> 
> View attachment 2584370


Really wish MSI included the force rating on the Tomahawk board. They really cheaped out in a lot areas that they didn't need to. V OUT and Socket sense are also good examples. There is a reason why Asus boards cost more. I just wanted to try something different. Oh well.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Really wish MSI included the force rating on the Tomahawk board. They really cheaped out in a lot areas that they didn't need to. V OUT and Socket sense are also good examples. There is a reason why Asus boards cost more. I just wanted to try something different. Oh well.


Force 2 is consistent for sure so far. It’s accurate, and very much real. Asus does the same thing though, they don’t put SP ratings in their lower end boards. I think MSI will improve this even further in the future.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Force 2 is consistent for sure so far. It’s accurate, and very much real. Asus does the same thing though, they don’t put SP ratings in their lower end boards. I think MSI will improve this even further in the future.


 I am old. So this will probably be my last PC I build as when I retire, I won't be batching 1000s of photos each weekend. I should have done more research before purchasing this board. However, i HAD to do something as my X299 board took a dump and I needed something for my work.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

tps3443 said:


> I have noticed R23 can crash with too low SA voltage. Something to keep in mind.


Ya it could have been low when I was trying to play with my ram…I think daily max safe I can find here is 1.35v sa …my board I noticed will always use .02v less so if I set 1.35 it’ll use 1.33 almost all the time. I will try some more tonight to see if I can override a low voltage like rich.

when I was trying to clock up anything over 4133g1 flat 15s or 16s I left sa just to see what bios wanted and it was always over 1.4…so that was a no go. Not sure if doing anything to over lock my ring or cores would help to reduce that…


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> I am old. So this will probably be my last PC I build as when I retire, I won't be batching 1000s of photos each weekend. I should have done more research before purchasing this board. However, i HAD to do something as my X299 board took a dump and I needed something for my work.


No worries man! The motherboard you have is perfectly fine. I would just use it and enjoy it! Seems like you chose the right CPU for sure. The 13900K is gonna run for about a decade before it needs an upgrade.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> Really wish MSI included the force rating on the Tomahawk board. They really cheaped out in a lot areas that they didn't need to. V OUT and Socket sense are also good examples. There is a reason why Asus boards cost more. I just wanted to try something different. Oh well.


Right….like I don’t need 7 m2 slots but would really love a vrm with proper power readouts and a force 2…even in the z790 edge I got!!!


----------



## RobertoSampaio

New 0803 BIOS available for some MBs.






RaptorLake Resources


i will use this as a collection of test bioses/tools/info targeted towards Raptorlake + z69/790 NOTE for Z690: You must update ME on your Z690 to properly support raptorlake (if you are on dual bioses then you need to do this to both bioses) 1) d/l and install ME driver...



rog.asus.com


----------



## VULC

bwana said:


> custom loop? AIO?
> @VULC custom loop? AIO?
> 
> Are these clocks everyone is reporting an all core clock?
> Isn't it possible that everyone has at least one golden core that can do 6.2 but some people have a crappier weak core that limits their all core clock?


420mm Arctic LFII


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Right….like I don’t need 7 m2 slots but would really love a vrm with proper power readouts and a force 2…even in the z790 edge I got!!!


Not going off topic but.... I bought my X299 Rampage VI Omega for* $850* and a month later the Encore comes out touting the SP rating amongst other things I would have liked to have for less money, One of the reasons I didn't buy an Asus board. That chafed my choder.


----------



## WayWayUp

is anyone doing direct die with 13th gen?
I cant find a direct die frame anywhere.
rocketcool has the delid kit but no frame. Can i reuse 10th gen frame?


----------



## raad11

Ngl, I'm pretty satisfied with the performance so far, but the efficiency and scaling with overclocks leaves a bit to be desired when compared to 12th gen.

Originally, I had to tune the 12900K same as how I did the 13900K now. But by the current BIOS on Z690, I went with LLC3, 0.60/1.10 (these were the Auto values for LLC3 which board auto selected, I just entered them in manually to make sure so otherwise it's all just Auto). TVB Optimizations = On, all voltages on Auto. Set ratios to 53x from 1 core to 8 cores, and had TVB downbin on 8 active cores from 53x->50x at 64 C and 50x->49x at 76-78 C or so.

And that's all. And it worked. Does 4.9 all core at under 200 watts (1.17 VID in Hwinfo64), and runs games at 5.3 all core at under 60 C and usually 90-110 watts in games like Overwatch. Passes timespy extreme cpu test without any additional modifications needed.

But stock LLC settings with a 13900K installed are 1.10/0.42 or something like that which pushes 5.5 all core to 290+ watts. TVB Optimizations = On didn't do much here. So to maintain 5.8 all core during gaming it's pushing 150 watts average. No way around it. Plus that darned microcode bug which adds 10-20 watts extra heat to all core loads due to screwing up voltage.

I hope the 13900KS will perform better in terms of power needed at 5.7 to 5.9GHz.


----------



## tps3443

This 13900K Batch X241M860 is a really really fantastic CPU!

Anyways, I am running 6.1Ghz boost and 5.8Ghz on the rest of the P-Cores. I may bump that to 5.9Ghz, because it can do 5.9 all core at power levels that will not degrade or harm the CPU. I have the cache at 5.1Ghz which does not even effect VID’s at all lol. I am just thrilled with this 13900K! I don’t know what to say… ❤

This chip hammers that 6.1Ghz boost so easily.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

tps3443 said:


> This 13900K Batch X241M860 is a really really fantastic CPU!
> 
> Anyways, I am running 6.1Ghz boost and 5.8Ghz on the rest of the P-Cores. I may bump that to 5.9Ghz, because it can do 5.9 all core at power levels that will not degrade or harm the CPU. I have the cache at 5.1Ghz which does not even effect VID’s at all lol. I am just thrilled with this 13900K! I don’t know what to say… ❤
> 
> This chip hammers that 6.1Ghz boost so easily.


Well this "last one at Bestbuy" got me going. Going to pick up the last one here in the city at Bestbuy tonight and try the lottery again. I will test it in the morning after work.

I'll sell locally and take a loss on the worse of the two.


----------



## tps3443

13900KS first look.


----------



## tps3443

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Well this "last one at Bestbuy" got me going. Going to pick up the last one here in the city at Bestbuy tonight and try the lottery again. I will test it in the morning after work.
> 
> I'll sell locally and take a loss on the worse of the two.


I hope it’s a good one! Best Buy sells great samples apparently. It’s practically a 13900KS. And this has told me that its all a gamble whether it be a 13900K or 13900KF!


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> 13900KS first look.


Sure helps to have chilled water. Great score as well. But, you have to wonder if that 5% is really noticeable in real world applications. I'd like to try and boost this chip, but honestly I am loving the temps and drawing only 223W is a bonus. It's a far cry from my 10980XE rig that could draw 1K watts!


----------



## gtz

tps3443 said:


> This 13900K Batch X241M860 is a really really fantastic CPU!
> 
> Anyways, I am running 6.1Ghz boost and 5.8Ghz on the rest of the P-Cores. I may bump that to 5.9Ghz, because it can do 5.9 all core at power levels that will not degrade or harm the CPU. I have the cache at 5.1Ghz which does not even effect VID’s at all lol. I am just thrilled with this 13900K! I don’t know what to say… ❤
> 
> This chip hammers that 6.1Ghz boost so easily.


Damn 2 for 2!!! Crazy that your second chip wound up better than your first chip (that was already great).

But I don't feel as shafted with my sample anymore. With the newest BIOS and maybe burn in (maybe) I can do all core at 5.6P/4.4E/4.7R with under load 1.25VR out vs close to 1.3 vr out. Also hopefully my RAM blocks get here soon I will be able to stabilize 7200-7400 on my cheapo team group m die kit and 4 dimm evga Classy board. This board did a complete 180 for with this BIOS vs launch.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Sure helps to have chilled water. Great score as well. But, you have to wonder if that 5% is really noticeable in real world applications. I'd like to try and boost this chip, but honestly I am loving the temps and drawing only 223W is a bonus. It's a far cry from my 10980XE rig that could draw 1K watts!


The chiller is not what make this possible, because I can turn it off and make a new video, it’s all about the CPU. It’s always all about the CPU regardless of how fancy your cooling is. My water temp is set to 60F liquid as it always is. My force 2 rating is also the same 124 with 75F liquid or even 60F liquid. I had to drop my water temp to 39F to see a Force 2 rating finally drop to 117 after clicking it a gazillion times (I tested it this morning) lol.

I have a [email protected] all cores on a 240 AIO. You can’t get a 11900K to do that on direct die with (50) chillers. It does that because the cpu can do that.

Low power is nice, and yes I can set a nice 5.5 P-Core, 4.3 E-Core, 4.5 cache and I drop below 195 watts. But I’m leaving performance on the table. May as well use the CPU to its fullest. We’re not always pushing R23 on all cores at once, so for general usage, running the cores as high as they can go is the best option.

Its not fun when you have a guy using your same CPU, and he’s using a measly AIO and he runs circles around you with lower temps and lower power all because his chip is good 😂 I’ve had this happen to me, and it made my cooling look like a joke.

Last but not least, you may have a great CPU your self. So that’s definitely something to keep in mind @RichKnecht


----------



## Thunderclap

tps3443 said:


> This 13900K Batch X241M860 is a really really fantastic CPU!
> 
> Anyways, I am running 6.1Ghz boost and 5.8Ghz on the rest of the P-Cores. I may bump that to 5.9Ghz, because it can do 5.9 all core at power levels that will not degrade or harm the CPU. I have the cache at 5.1Ghz which does not even effect VID’s at all lol. I am just thrilled with this 13900K! I don’t know what to say… ❤
> 
> This chip hammers that 6.1Ghz boost so easily.


That is insane... Congrats on the golden sample! It gives me hope the 13900KS will be able to do 5.8GHz all-core out of the box, while having a 6.2-6.3 boost with a little bit of tweaking. Since most of us will never get this lucky (let alone twice in a row) with our chips.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> The chiller is not what make this possible, because I can turn it off and make a new video, it’s all about the CPU. It’s always all about the CPU regardless of how fancy your cooling is. My water temp is set to 60F liquid as it always is. My force 2 rating is also the same 124 with 75F liquid or even 60F liquid. I had to drop my water temp to 39F to see a Force 2 rating finally drop to 117 after clicking it a gazillion times (I tested it this morning) lol.
> 
> I have a [email protected]z all cores on a 240 AIO. You can’t get a 11900K to do that on direct die with (50) chillers. It does that because the cpu can do that.
> 
> Low power is nice, and yes I can set a nice 5.5 P-Core, 4.3 E-Core, 4.5 cache and I drop below 195 watts. But I’m leaving performance on the table. May as well use the CPU to its fullest. We’re not always pushing R23 on all cores at once, so for general usage, running the cores as high as they can go is the best option.
> 
> Its not fun when you have a guy using your same CPU, and he’s using a measly AIO and he runs circles around you with lower temps and lower power all because his chip is good 😂


Funny thing is, I think I have a decent chip and I’d love to do a gentle OC on it, but at this point, I have no idea where to start. There is a “little me” standing on my shoulder telling me to do it. But, when I think about doing it, I wimp out. This was the first day since I put together this setup that I actually worked. All day it ran smooth as butter. Not a hiccup. I guess I’m just paranoid about degrading it due to high wattage. I really don’t care about power draw as my PC has its own dedicated 20A line right to the breaker box. I did that when I was on X299. That ate power.


----------



## HemuV2

imrevoau said:


> Yeah, it kind of drops off a cliff past that.5.8 requires voltages that are basically completely unsafe with this information we have now, and 5.9 is out of the question 100%
> 
> It feels good to finally get a decent chip though. My 12700KF needed 1.32 load voltage for y-cruncher stable 5 ghz.


Surely can't beat my 12700KF


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> 13900KS first look.


First off please get a strixA board or something for SP, and second could you please tell me how returning the chip works, like say you got a dud how do you return it after you've spread thermal paste all over the ihs?


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Funny thing is, I think I have a decent chip and I’d love to do a gentle OC on it, but at this point, I have no idea where to start. There is a “little me” standing on my shoulder telling me to do it. But, when I think about doing it, I wimp out. This was the first day since I put together this setup that I actually worked. All day it ran smooth as butter. Not a hiccup. I guess I’m just paranoid about degrading it due to high wattage. I really don’t care about power draw as my PC has its own dedicated 20A line right to the breaker box. I did that when I was on X299. That ate power.


You probably do have a great sample. Running them stock with the lowest fixed voltage on these MSI board seems to be the way to go. I use to run a EVGA X299 Dark and a 7980XE, I had 4x8GB matched set of DDR4 4000 CL14. It was a great setup while it lasted, and platform lasted for years and years. But they were power hogs once overclocked. 

Maybe just try and bump your E-Cores to x45, and set your cache to x47-x48. That should get you started for sure. I’d recommend staying below 1.300V, and try 56 P-Cores then maybe 57 P-Cores. I would recommend staying below 300 watts and below 240 amps per HWinfo. That should keep you well away from any degradation territory.


----------



## raad11

tps3443 said:


> 13900KS first look.


Yeah 290 watts for 5.8 all-core would be good for a KS. That's the limit of what an AIO can cool for 1-3 CB runs while keeping temps under 90 C. I think my chip can do 5.7 at 300-310, but that's beyond my cooling.

More importantly, the stock VID curve should allow it to downclock to 5.7, 5.6, etc at lower voltages to maintain lower temps (I like using the package temperature threshold value in Asus BIOS).

EDIT: Also, you should be able to boost to 6.2 no problem, though you may need a little extra voltage. Or just figure out which cores can do it at the voltage you're already at. I set mine to boost to 6.1 on Cores 0 and 1 because they're coldest.


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> Surely can't beat my 12700KF
> View attachment 2584458


That's bugged update the bios.


----------



## VULC

Every 10 degree drop in temps gives you 100Mhz even if you have a SP in the 120s on your P Cores. I have an SP 116 on an AIO that guy full of it my chiller don't do anything l m f a o.


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> First off please get a strixA board or something for SP, and second could you please tell me how returning the chip works, like say you got a dud how do you return it after you've spread thermal paste all over the ihs?


Unfortunately, I’m not buying any more motherboards. If I do, It’ll be an Apex Z790. And that’s probably not happening because it’s expensive. As for buying and returning CPU’s Best Buy has a return policy, but you should maybe wipe off the thermal paste first tough if you are planning on returning anything 👌.



raad11 said:


> Yeah 290 watts for 5.8 all-core would be good for a KS. That's the limit of what an AIO can cool for 1-3 CB runs while keeping temps under 90 C. I think my chip can do 5.7 at 300-310, but that's beyond my cooling.
> 
> More importantly, the stock VID curve should allow it to downclock to 5.7, 5.6, etc at lower voltages to maintain lower temps (I like using the package temperature threshold value in Asus BIOS).
> 
> EDIT: Also, you should be able to boost to 6.2 no problem, though you may need a little extra voltage. Or just figure out which cores can do it at the voltage you're already at. I set mine to boost to 6.1 on Cores 0 and 1 because they're coldest.


Setting 5.7 all core or 5.8 all core produces a lot less power. However, since I am allowing 6.1 boost I have to increase the voltage in the bios to compensate for the single cores to boost up and be able to feed and stabilize them.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> Every 10 degree drop in temps gives you 100Mhz even if you have a SP in the 120s on your P Cores. I have an SP 116 on an AIO that guy full of it my chiller don't do anything l m f a o.


I’d take the SP120+ P-Cores on a 420MM AIO cooler over a SP110+ P-Cores on a chiller any day of the week.


----------



## Slickman

I noticed strange behavior after paying attention to my CPU core voltage in HWMonitor with my MSI Z690 Tomahawk DDR4 and 13700K. I was trying to test max undervolt so in the bios I have it set to adaptive+offset. I kept increasing and increasing offset until I got to -210mv and I figured something has to be wrong for it to still be able to run. I set it back to stock and it runs at 1.25v on load. Then I noticed with an offset it will only go down to 1.2V, so essentially anything over a 0.05 to 0.06 offset is not doing anything more. Is this normal behavior?


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> I’d take the SP120+ P-Cores on a 420MM AIO cooler over a SP110+ P-Cores on a chiller any day of the week.


What for a 20mv drop on the voltage? It shouldn't make any difference unless you're going from a P core SP 105 to 120 5 points ain't nothing.


----------



## CptSpig

tps3443 said:


> I’d take the SP120+ P-Cores on a 420MM AIO cooler over a SP110+ P-Cores on a chiller any day of the week.


I would take P-121 E-88 MC SP 79 on a chiller!


----------



## tubs2x4

RichKnecht said:


> I'm trying to use adaptive but it's just not working as it should. I want to stay away from fixed voltage as I want the chip to power down when idle.


If you set your all core up to what you want then leaving voltage auto.. just changing the llc to a higher number on asus will lower the total voltage.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

tps3443 said:


> I’d take the SP120+ P-Cores on a 420MM AIO cooler over a SP110+ P-Cores on a chiller any day of the week.


How much u would sell a sp 113, 124 p , 96 e, 88 mc?


----------



## CptSpig

Thanh Nguyen said:


> How much u would sell a sp 113, 124 p , 96 e, 88 mc?


$1,200.00 Plus a Z790 Dark.


----------



## tps3443

CptSpig said:


> I would take P-121 E-88 MC SP 79 on a chiller!
> 
> View attachment 2584485


If you listen, you can hear mine kicking on in this video towards the end. 😁 anyways, that’s a great setup you’ve got. You’re using my radiator too Btw.


----------



## tps3443

@CptSpig 

What type of overclock are you running daily?


----------



## RichKnecht

Has anyone figured out MSI’s LLC impedances? I found some info for Z690 boards, but no info on the Z790s. Could they be the same? On Z690, LLC 8 translates into 1.10 mOhm so I’m thinking on Z790 it should be the same as that is an Intel spec. After that, who knows. Why doesn’t MSI publish info like this? Every time I try to figure it out with my board all it sets is .01/.01. Also, in the bios, if you leave Lite Load on normal and Auto for the mode, my board will set it to mode 1. Apparently, this is the best it gets According to a MSI benchmarking video.


----------



## CptSpig

tps3443 said:


> @CptSpig
> 
> What type of overclock are you running daily?


Daily Driver Apex Z790 13900K. CPU OC P-Cores 62, 62, 61, 61, 59, 59, 57, 57 E-Cores 42 to 46. Memory 8000 Mhz.


----------



## Topuz

I have a hypothetical question... I have a decent air cooler, DeepCool AK620, but still, it can't handle over ~1.26V under sustained load without hitting tjmax. If my 13600K is _never_ going to run heavy all core workloads, would it be ok to use a bit higher voltage (say, something approaching 1.3V) which would enable higher clocks for gaming and test stability with OCCT since ycruncher or R23 would cause theremal throttling?


----------



## digitalfrost

RichKnecht said:


> Has anyone figured out MSI’s LLC impedances? I found some info for Z690 boards, but no info on the Z790s. Could they be the same? On Z690, LLC 8 translates into 1.10 mOhm so I’m thinking on Z790 it should be the same as that is an Intel spec. After that, who knows. Why doesn’t MSI publish info like this? Every time I try to figure it out with my board all it sets is .01/.01. Also, in the bios, if you leave Lite Load on normal and Auto for the mode, my board will set it to mode 1. Apparently, this is the best it gets According to a MSI benchmarking video.


You can tune it yourself. Just run some high load and enable logging in HWiNFO. Take the top 2% or top 5% of Package Power values, and then compare the VID to the Vcore. If it's identical your DC_LL is tuned correctly. Alas, this also only works perfectly if you have VR OUT measurement on your board. If not, you can get close but not perfect.

I wrote a small python program to analyze these log files, here's the output with LLC8 and DC_LL 110 on Z690 PRO with Socket Sense:



Code:


       VID   Vcore Vdroop    Power   Ampere      mOhms
0   1120mv  1166mv  -46mv  142.74W  122.42A  -0.38mOhm
1   1126mv  1168mv  -42mv  142.90W  122.34A  -0.34mOhm
2   1124mv  1168mv  -44mv  142.93W  122.38A  -0.36mOhm
3   1129mv  1168mv  -39mv  142.94W  122.38A  -0.32mOhm
4   1122mv  1168mv  -46mv  142.55W  122.05A  -0.38mOhm
5   1134mv  1168mv  -34mv  142.95W  122.39A  -0.28mOhm
6   1127mv  1168mv  -41mv  142.92W  122.36A  -0.34mOhm
7   1125mv  1166mv  -41mv  142.99W  122.63A  -0.33mOhm
8   1121mv  1168mv  -47mv  142.66W  122.14A  -0.38mOhm
9   1132mv  1166mv  -34mv  142.81W  122.48A  -0.28mOhm
10  1125mv  1168mv  -43mv  143.04W  122.46A  -0.35mOhm
11  1126mv  1168mv  -42mv  142.68W  122.16A  -0.34mOhm
12  1129mv  1168mv  -39mv  143.10W  122.52A  -0.32mOhm
13  1130mv  1166mv  -36mv  142.72W  122.40A  -0.29mOhm
14  1126mv  1166mv  -40mv  142.81W  122.48A  -0.33mOhm
15  1124mv  1168mv  -44mv  142.91W  122.36A  -0.36mOhm
16  1125mv  1168mv  -43mv  142.59W  122.08A  -0.35mOhm
17  1122mv  1166mv  -44mv  142.59W  122.29A  -0.36mOhm
18  1128mv  1168mv  -40mv  142.53W  122.03A  -0.33mOhm
19  1121mv  1166mv  -45mv  142.50W  122.22A  -0.37mOhm
20  1123mv  1168mv  -45mv  142.07W  121.64A  -0.37mOhm
21  1124mv  1164mv  -40mv  142.00W  121.99A  -0.33mOhm
22  1124mv  1166mv  -42mv  141.94W  121.73A  -0.35mOhm
23  1126mv  1166mv  -40mv  142.38W  122.11A  -0.33mOhm
24  1127mv  1168mv  -41mv  142.33W  121.86A  -0.34mOhm
25  1123mv  1166mv  -43mv  142.34W  122.08A  -0.35mOhm
26  1118mv  1166mv  -48mv  142.18W  121.94A  -0.39mOhm
27  1200mv  1166mv   34mv  142.29W  122.03A   0.28mOhm

Average LLC: -0.32mOhms

If it's tuned perfecty the average LLC value should be close to 0. It's not, but as I said this is Socket Sense and I'm pretty confident a Vdroop of ~25mv between VRM and Socket is reasonable. So I think this is correct, but as my board does not offer VROUT I can only guess. Still, it's in the right ballpark and I think that's already a win. If you do this measurement with DC_LL 1 the average LLC value will tell you exactly what DC_LL you need to set. If not, this is an offset to the value currently set.

If you want to send me a HWiNFO log I can also analyze it for you.


----------



## Slickman

Does anyone know why my Z690 Tomahawk DDR4 motherboard is only allowing a 50mv undervolt on my 13700K? I set it to Adaptive+Offset but anything over 50mv dorsn't seem to apply. My CPU goes from 1.25v on load to 1.2v and no matter what I put on the offset past 50mv the load voltage won't go lower. 🤷


----------



## RichKnecht

digitalfrost said:


> You can tune it yourself. Just run some high load and enable logging in HWiNFO. Take the top 2% or top 5% of Package Power values, and then compare the VID to the Vcore. If it's identical your DC_LL is tuned correctly. Alas, this also only works perfectly if you have VR OUT measurement on your board. If not, you can get close but not perfect.
> 
> I wrote a small python program to analyze these log files, here's the output with LLC8 and DC_LL 110 on Z690 PRO with Socket Sense:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> VID   Vcore Vdroop    Power   Ampere      mOhms
> 0   1120mv  1166mv  -46mv  142.74W  122.42A  -0.38mOhm
> 1   1126mv  1168mv  -42mv  142.90W  122.34A  -0.34mOhm
> 2   1124mv  1168mv  -44mv  142.93W  122.38A  -0.36mOhm
> 3   1129mv  1168mv  -39mv  142.94W  122.38A  -0.32mOhm
> 4   1122mv  1168mv  -46mv  142.55W  122.05A  -0.38mOhm
> 5   1134mv  1168mv  -34mv  142.95W  122.39A  -0.28mOhm
> 6   1127mv  1168mv  -41mv  142.92W  122.36A  -0.34mOhm
> 7   1125mv  1166mv  -41mv  142.99W  122.63A  -0.33mOhm
> 8   1121mv  1168mv  -47mv  142.66W  122.14A  -0.38mOhm
> 9   1132mv  1166mv  -34mv  142.81W  122.48A  -0.28mOhm
> 10  1125mv  1168mv  -43mv  143.04W  122.46A  -0.35mOhm
> 11  1126mv  1168mv  -42mv  142.68W  122.16A  -0.34mOhm
> 12  1129mv  1168mv  -39mv  143.10W  122.52A  -0.32mOhm
> 13  1130mv  1166mv  -36mv  142.72W  122.40A  -0.29mOhm
> 14  1126mv  1166mv  -40mv  142.81W  122.48A  -0.33mOhm
> 15  1124mv  1168mv  -44mv  142.91W  122.36A  -0.36mOhm
> 16  1125mv  1168mv  -43mv  142.59W  122.08A  -0.35mOhm
> 17  1122mv  1166mv  -44mv  142.59W  122.29A  -0.36mOhm
> 18  1128mv  1168mv  -40mv  142.53W  122.03A  -0.33mOhm
> 19  1121mv  1166mv  -45mv  142.50W  122.22A  -0.37mOhm
> 20  1123mv  1168mv  -45mv  142.07W  121.64A  -0.37mOhm
> 21  1124mv  1164mv  -40mv  142.00W  121.99A  -0.33mOhm
> 22  1124mv  1166mv  -42mv  141.94W  121.73A  -0.35mOhm
> 23  1126mv  1166mv  -40mv  142.38W  122.11A  -0.33mOhm
> 24  1127mv  1168mv  -41mv  142.33W  121.86A  -0.34mOhm
> 25  1123mv  1166mv  -43mv  142.34W  122.08A  -0.35mOhm
> 26  1118mv  1166mv  -48mv  142.18W  121.94A  -0.39mOhm
> 27  1200mv  1166mv   34mv  142.29W  122.03A   0.28mOhm
> 
> Average LLC: -0.32mOhms
> 
> If it's tuned perfecty the average LLC value should be close to 0. It's not, but as I said this is Socket Sense and I'm pretty confident a Vdroop of ~25mv between VRM and Socket is reasonable. So I think this is correct, but as my board does not offer VROUT I can only guess. Still, it's in the right ballpark and I think that's already a win. If you do this measurement with DC_LL 1 the average LLC value will tell you exactly what DC_LL you need to set. If not, this is an offset to the value currently set.
> 
> If you want to send me a HWiNFO log I can also analyze it for you.


That’s pretty awesome. So when I do this, I set the LLC to the desired value. Then set lite load to auto?Edit, never mind I reread your post a few times and understand it now.


----------



## Topuz

digitalfrost said:


> You can tune it yourself. Just run some high load and enable logging in HWiNFO. Take the top 2% or top 5% of Package Power values, and then compare the VID to the Vcore. If it's identical your DC_LL is tuned correctly. Alas, this also only works perfectly if you have VR OUT measurement on your board. If not, you can get close but not perfect.
> 
> I wrote a small python program to analyze these log files, here's the output with LLC8 and DC_LL 110 on Z690 PRO with Socket Sense:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> VID   Vcore Vdroop    Power   Ampere      mOhms
> 0   1120mv  1166mv  -46mv  142.74W  122.42A  -0.38mOhm
> 1   1126mv  1168mv  -42mv  142.90W  122.34A  -0.34mOhm
> 2   1124mv  1168mv  -44mv  142.93W  122.38A  -0.36mOhm
> 3   1129mv  1168mv  -39mv  142.94W  122.38A  -0.32mOhm
> 4   1122mv  1168mv  -46mv  142.55W  122.05A  -0.38mOhm
> 5   1134mv  1168mv  -34mv  142.95W  122.39A  -0.28mOhm
> 6   1127mv  1168mv  -41mv  142.92W  122.36A  -0.34mOhm
> 7   1125mv  1166mv  -41mv  142.99W  122.63A  -0.33mOhm
> 8   1121mv  1168mv  -47mv  142.66W  122.14A  -0.38mOhm
> 9   1132mv  1166mv  -34mv  142.81W  122.48A  -0.28mOhm
> 10  1125mv  1168mv  -43mv  143.04W  122.46A  -0.35mOhm
> 11  1126mv  1168mv  -42mv  142.68W  122.16A  -0.34mOhm
> 12  1129mv  1168mv  -39mv  143.10W  122.52A  -0.32mOhm
> 13  1130mv  1166mv  -36mv  142.72W  122.40A  -0.29mOhm
> 14  1126mv  1166mv  -40mv  142.81W  122.48A  -0.33mOhm
> 15  1124mv  1168mv  -44mv  142.91W  122.36A  -0.36mOhm
> 16  1125mv  1168mv  -43mv  142.59W  122.08A  -0.35mOhm
> 17  1122mv  1166mv  -44mv  142.59W  122.29A  -0.36mOhm
> 18  1128mv  1168mv  -40mv  142.53W  122.03A  -0.33mOhm
> 19  1121mv  1166mv  -45mv  142.50W  122.22A  -0.37mOhm
> 20  1123mv  1168mv  -45mv  142.07W  121.64A  -0.37mOhm
> 21  1124mv  1164mv  -40mv  142.00W  121.99A  -0.33mOhm
> 22  1124mv  1166mv  -42mv  141.94W  121.73A  -0.35mOhm
> 23  1126mv  1166mv  -40mv  142.38W  122.11A  -0.33mOhm
> 24  1127mv  1168mv  -41mv  142.33W  121.86A  -0.34mOhm
> 25  1123mv  1166mv  -43mv  142.34W  122.08A  -0.35mOhm
> 26  1118mv  1166mv  -48mv  142.18W  121.94A  -0.39mOhm
> 27  1200mv  1166mv   34mv  142.29W  122.03A   0.28mOhm
> 
> Average LLC: -0.32mOhms
> 
> If it's tuned perfecty the average LLC value should be close to 0. It's not, but as I said this is Socket Sense and I'm pretty confident a Vdroop of ~25mv between VRM and Socket is reasonable. So I think this is correct, but as my board does not offer VROUT I can only guess. Still, it's in the right ballpark and I think that's already a win. If you do this measurement with DC_LL 1 the average LLC value will tell you exactly what DC_LL you need to set. If not, this is an offset to the value currently set.
> 
> If you want to send me a HWiNFO log I can also analyze it for you.


Sorry for the basic question, but what's the actual benefit of getting the VID and score to match? And why not VCC Sense instead of Socket Sense?


----------



## digitalfrost

RichKnecht said:


> That’s pretty awesome. So when I do this, I set the LLC to the desired value. Then set lite load to auto?


No. MSI does not tune the Auto values correctly. Set LLC to the desired value, set DC_LL to 1 and create a log file. From there you can determine what DC_LL should be and that also tells you roughly the Vdroop of the LLC chosen.



Topuz said:


> Sorry for the basic question, but what's the actual benefit of getting the VID and score to match? And why not VCC Sense instead of Socket Sense?


It's just a matter of reporting. Unless you got VR OUT reading you don't know the real vcore. On my board I think there is no difference in LLC between Socket and VCC, but other MSI boards were shown to have different loadline between the settings.

As for why you want this see here:









Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...


A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...




www.overclock.net







> DC_LL=LLC: The CPU performs correct VID and power calculations;
> DC_LL<LLC: The CPU performs higher than real VID and power calculations;
> DC_LL>LLC: The CPU performs lower than real VID and power calculations.


----------



## tps3443

CptSpig said:


> Daily Driver Apex Z790 13900K. CPU OC P-Cores 62, 62, 61, 61, 59, 59, 57, 57 E-Cores 42 to 46. Memory 8000 Mhz.
> 
> View attachment 2584497
> View attachment 2584497
> 
> View attachment 2584498
> View attachment 2584498



Man, that's really awesome!

*PS:* I’m not like trying to race you or anything lol, honestly I’d be damn excited to be reflecting anything like your chip. Because you’ve got a crazy good sample (One of the best).

I am trying something very similar right now though. 5.9-6.2. My CPU can somehow manage 6.2Ghz boost without any fuss, so I am extremely happy with this. How did I get so lucky? 

Anyways, this is 6.2Ghz Boost, 5.9Ghz all cores. I have not done any E-Core tuning yet at all, but I'll get there soon hopefully.


----------



## GQNerd

Got this K dialed in a bit more on the Unify board.

SP106/116P/88E (This was on z690 prime board, no idea on MC yet... msi force2 was 124)
5.8 All Pcore
4.6 All Ecore
5.0 Ring
RAM @ 7200 CL34 

MSI Unify X - VCCsense, Vcore @1.325, LLC 2, VRVOUT reports 1.323 so looks good..
Max package power 307w, way lower than the 320-340 I was getting before. 

Room for improvement with better cooling, but I'm happy with this for now.. (single d5 pump, 360mm push/pull rad)











Grabbing a Z790 Hero or Apex this weekend, and have some 7600 A-die en route as well.. Might bin another 13900k if I find one in store when I pick up the board. 

Gonna be a fun weekend!


----------



## tps3443

Miguelios said:


> Got this K dialed in a bit more on the Unify board.
> 
> SP106/116P/88E (This was on z690 prime board, no idea on MC yet... msi force2 was 124)
> 5.8 All Pcore
> 4.6 All Ecore
> 5.0 Ring
> RAM @ 7200 CL34
> 
> MSI Unify X - VCCsense, Vcore @1.325, LLC 2, VRVOUT reports 1.323 so looks good..
> Max package power 307w, way lower than the 320-340 I was getting before.
> 
> Room for improvement with better cooling, but I'm happy with this for now.. (single d5 pump, 360mm push/pull rad)
> 
> View attachment 2584508
> 
> 
> 
> Grabbing a Z790 Hero or Apex this weekend, and have some 7600 A-die en route as well.. Might bin another 13900k if I find one in store when I pick up the board.
> 
> Gonna be a fun weekend!


Your above settings were a spitting image of my last CPU “13900KF” and what I used on my Unify-X not even kidding. I used the same settings as you to a T. It was a Force 134. I was happy with it, I was gonna keep it. And someone begged me to sell it to them, so I did.

I assumed it was probably a 116/88 chip as well. But I never knew for sure.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

5.8 p core 4.6 e 50 ring.8000c35 ram ( not stable on dark) and now no post on apex.


----------



## tps3443

Thanh Nguyen said:


> 5.8 p core 4.6 e 50 ring.8000c35 ram ( not stable on dark) and now no post on apex.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2584518
> 
> 
> View attachment 2584517


Hey, what are you saying? Did something happen to your CPU?


----------



## GQNerd

tps3443 said:


> Your above settings were a spitting image of my last CPU “13900KF” and what I used on my Unify-X not even kidding. I used the same settings as you to a T. It was a Force 134. I was happy with it, I was gonna keep it. And someone begged me to sell it to them, so I did.
> I assumed it was probably a 116/88 chip as well. But I never knew for sure.


Nice.. what were you able to push it to and remain stable? (I know u prefer efficiency for your daily) 

I was able to hit 44.5k routinely in R23 by boosting two P cores to 5.9, Cache to 4.7, and Ring to 5.1.. but I had a few WHEA errors. - And was hitting 355-360+w lmaoooo

I still need to tune RAM.. but hoping I can squeeze out 5.9 on one of the Z790 Asus boards. (easier to mess with voltages than MSI)


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

tps3443 said:


> Hey, what are you saying? Did something happen to your CPU?


Its no post when i oc ram on apex. Put those 6400c32 stick to replace 7600 stick and the same thing happens. It post to code 79 then pc shut down. What is going on?pc will post Only if I use default bios setting.


----------



## tps3443

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Its no post when i oc ram on apex. Put those 6400c32 stick to replace 7600 stick and the same thing happens. It post to code 79 then pc shut down. What is going on?pc will post Only if I use default bios setting.


Your bios may be corrupt. I’d say reflash new bios. Or try a full full cmos reset. Pull battery, pull power, and hold down bios reset button 30 seconds etc. Check Dimm slots, and cpu pins for debris. Clean anything important with alcohol and re-seat.


----------



## CptSpig

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Its no post when i oc ram on apex. Put those 6400c32 stick to replace 7600 stick and the same thing happens. It post to code 79 then pc shut down. What is going on?pc will post Only if I use default bios setting.


On the Apex did you update the Intel ME driver and firmware? It's needed on both bios.


----------



## tps3443

Miguelios said:


> Nice.. what were you able to push it to and remain stable? (I know u prefer efficiency for your daily)
> 
> I was able to hit 44.5k routinely in R23 by boosting two P cores to 5.9, Cache to 4.7, and Ring to 5.1.. but I had a few WHEA errors. - And was hitting 355-360+w lmaoooo
> 
> I still need to tune RAM.. but hoping I can squeeze out 5.9 on one of the Z790 Asus boards. (easier to mess with voltages than MSI)


I found it was best to just keep my prior 13900KF at 5.8 P-Cores, 4.6 E-Cores, and x48-51 cache with 1.325 LLC 2 while running normal ambient water. I noticed I couldn’t get very high single core clocks either. That chip threw a fuss with overclocking high single cores to 6Ghz or 6.1 “Not gonna happen” I could do 6Ghz on all P-Cores with very very very low water temps though. This CPU responded to cold water abnormally well though, which I thought was kinda funny. Silicon is silicon though. They’re all different.

I’ve gotten a new sample lastnight, it is a 13900K from Best Buy and it’s just crazy different. This Chip clocks a few cores to 6.2 with the rest at 5.9, and even 5.1 Cache/ring and it’s like psshhhhh whatever, almost like it doesn’t even phase it. Variation in samples is pretty substantial from what I’m seeing.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

CptSpig said:


> On the Apex did you update the Intel ME driver and firmware? It's needed on both bios.


Not yet


----------



## CptSpig

tps3443 said:


> I found it was best to just keep it at 5.8 P-Cores, 4.6 E-Cores, and x48-51 cache with 1.325 LLC 2. I noticed I couldn’t get single cores to clock very high either. They threw a fuss over clocking high single cores to 6Ghz or 6.1 “Not gonna happen” I could do 6Ghz on all
> P-Cores with very very very low water temps though. This CPU responded to cold wcoldater abnormally well.


All hardware loves cold water like 2C!


----------



## CptSpig

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Not yet


Version 2020.


----------



## RichKnecht

digitalfrost said:


> No. MSI does not tune the Auto values correctly. Set LLC to the desired value, set DC_LL to 1 and create a log file. From there you can determine what DC_LL should be and that also tells you roughly the Vdroop of the LLC chosen.
> 
> It's just a matter of reporting. Unless you got VR OUT reading you don't know the real vcore. On my board I think there is no difference in LLC between Socket and VCC, but other MSI boards were shown to have different loadline between the settings.
> 
> As for why you want this see here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...
> 
> 
> A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


What do I use to open the log file? I downloaded the HWInfo generic file reader, but it doesn't look like what you posted.


----------



## tps3443

CptSpig said:


> All hardware loves cold water like 2C!


Not that cold lol. This chip would totally transform with just 15c water. It would like turn in to something else. It was a split personality lol.


----------



## digitalfrost

RichKnecht said:


> What do I use to open the log file? I downloaded the HWInfo generic file reader, but it doesn't look like what you posted.


You can use LibreOffice. Or Google Sheets. Any text editor works as well.


----------



## raad11

I've told a couple people that if they flashed their BIOS and ME in the wrong order and have bugged SP score, it doesn't matter if they're going to manually tune loadlines values and voltages (for both full load and peak boost) , unless they're getting inexplicable crashes from the E-Cores. I'm not giving bad advice, am I? That's what my experience was.


----------



## RichKnecht

digitalfrost said:


> You can use LibreOffice. Or Google Sheets. Any text editor works as well.


Doesn't look like what you posted, lol. There s a ton of stuff here


----------



## bscool

raad11 said:


> I've told a couple people that if they flashed their BIOS and ME in the wrong order and have bugged SP score, it doesn't matter if they're going to manually tune loadlines values and voltages (for both full load and peak boost) , unless they're getting inexplicable crashes from the E-Cores. I'm not giving bad advice, am I? That's what my experience was.


Is there really a right order?

On multiple z690 and z790 MB I have flashed both ways as in Bios and then ME firmware and on other MB did ME firmware and then bios and in all cases I get the same SP on 4 different MB. 2021 z690 Apex, 2022 z690 Apex, z690 Strix d4 and z790 Apex using the same CPU.


I really dont know but from what I can tell it hasnt made a difference for me.


----------



## raad11

bscool said:


> Is there really a right order?
> 
> On multiple z690 and z790 MB I have flashed both ways as in Bios and then ME and on other MB did ME firmware and then bios and in all cases I get the same SP on 4 different MB. 2021 z690 Apex, 2022 z690 Apex, z690 Strix d4 and z790 Apex.


Plenty of people posting bugged SPs. I don't think mine is, but all my cores have same VID and order is 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7


----------



## bscool

raad11 said:


> Plenty of people posting bugged SPs. I don't think mine is, but all my cores have same VID and order is 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7


I thought that was because they didnt update the ME firmware. I know when I had old ME firmware the SP was off. Using an old bios with new ME firmware SP was also off. I needed both new bios and ME firmware to display accurate SP. 

If order matters I havent seen it in my own experience.


----------



## raad11

bscool said:


> I thought that was because they didnt update the ME firmware. I know when I had old ME firmware the SP was off. Using an old bios with new ME firmware SP was also off. I needed both new bios and ME firmware to display accurate SP.
> 
> If order matters I havent seen it in my own experience.


If you update BIOS before ME, you get the wrong SP, but then updating ME again doesn't fix it. You gotta go through this whole thing of removing CPU from socket and resetting CMOS.


----------



## Swolley

Undervolted 13700k 2 and a half hours of simulated usage CPU efficiency test


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Updated Me and still cant post with xmp ram. What me u guys install?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

My batch. Picked it up today. Get it installed in the morning. I think it’s a good batch, we’ll see.


----------



## RichKnecht

MrTOOSHORT said:


> My batch. Picked it up today. Get it installed in the morning. I think it’s a good batch, we’ll see.
> 
> View attachment 2584543


Pretty close to my chip, Mine is X236F650


----------



## RichKnecht

digitalfrost said:


> You can use LibreOffice. Or Google Sheets. Any text editor works as well.


I think I got it. I found an online calculator where you can punch in the VCore value and watts used and it tells you Amps and mOhms  I punched in the numbers in my bios and it is within .003. Close enough I think. So it seems LLC6 on a Z790 Tomahawk is ~ 59 mOhms


----------



## jeiselramos

RichKnecht said:


> I think I got it. I found an online calculator where you can punch in the VCore value and watts used and it tells you Amps and mOhms  I punched in the numbers in my bios and it is within .003. Close enough I think. So it seems LLC6 on a Z790 Tomahawk is ~ 59 mOhms


Link?


----------



## CptSpig

Delete


----------



## Nizzen

Thanh Nguyen said:


> How much u would sell a sp 113, 124 p , 96 e, 88 mc?


Why sell LOL
Sell it on hwbot


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> I think I got it. I found an online calculator where you can punch in the VCore value and watts used and it tells you Amps and mOhms  I punched in the numbers in my bios and it is within .003. Close enough I think. So it seems LLC6 on a Z790 Tomahawk is ~ 59 mOhms


So what does that mean you set the cpu lite load ac/dc to? How do you know what LLC to pick? 6 has quite a bit of droop on msi boards I think …and the vids are always changing - I spent all night playing with different llc and AC/DC LLs and none of it really matters because I’m not sure what voltage to set or what to look for or calculate


----------



## HemuV2

VULC said:


> That's bugged update the bios.


It's not, the chip is garbage


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

digitalfrost said:


> You can tune it yourself. Just run some high load and enable logging in HWiNFO. Take the top 2% or top 5% of Package Power values, and then compare the VID to the Vcore. If it's identical your DC_LL is tuned correctly. Alas, this also only works perfectly if you have VR OUT measurement on your board. If not, you can get close but not perfect.
> 
> I wrote a small python program to analyze these log files, here's the output with LLC8 and DC_LL 110 on Z690 PRO with Socket Sense:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> VID   Vcore Vdroop    Power   Ampere      mOhms
> 0   1120mv  1166mv  -46mv  142.74W  122.42A  -0.38mOhm
> 1   1126mv  1168mv  -42mv  142.90W  122.34A  -0.34mOhm
> 2   1124mv  1168mv  -44mv  142.93W  122.38A  -0.36mOhm
> 3   1129mv  1168mv  -39mv  142.94W  122.38A  -0.32mOhm
> 4   1122mv  1168mv  -46mv  142.55W  122.05A  -0.38mOhm
> 5   1134mv  1168mv  -34mv  142.95W  122.39A  -0.28mOhm
> 6   1127mv  1168mv  -41mv  142.92W  122.36A  -0.34mOhm
> 7   1125mv  1166mv  -41mv  142.99W  122.63A  -0.33mOhm
> 8   1121mv  1168mv  -47mv  142.66W  122.14A  -0.38mOhm
> 9   1132mv  1166mv  -34mv  142.81W  122.48A  -0.28mOhm
> 10  1125mv  1168mv  -43mv  143.04W  122.46A  -0.35mOhm
> 11  1126mv  1168mv  -42mv  142.68W  122.16A  -0.34mOhm
> 12  1129mv  1168mv  -39mv  143.10W  122.52A  -0.32mOhm
> 13  1130mv  1166mv  -36mv  142.72W  122.40A  -0.29mOhm
> 14  1126mv  1166mv  -40mv  142.81W  122.48A  -0.33mOhm
> 15  1124mv  1168mv  -44mv  142.91W  122.36A  -0.36mOhm
> 16  1125mv  1168mv  -43mv  142.59W  122.08A  -0.35mOhm
> 17  1122mv  1166mv  -44mv  142.59W  122.29A  -0.36mOhm
> 18  1128mv  1168mv  -40mv  142.53W  122.03A  -0.33mOhm
> 19  1121mv  1166mv  -45mv  142.50W  122.22A  -0.37mOhm
> 20  1123mv  1168mv  -45mv  142.07W  121.64A  -0.37mOhm
> 21  1124mv  1164mv  -40mv  142.00W  121.99A  -0.33mOhm
> 22  1124mv  1166mv  -42mv  141.94W  121.73A  -0.35mOhm
> 23  1126mv  1166mv  -40mv  142.38W  122.11A  -0.33mOhm
> 24  1127mv  1168mv  -41mv  142.33W  121.86A  -0.34mOhm
> 25  1123mv  1166mv  -43mv  142.34W  122.08A  -0.35mOhm
> 26  1118mv  1166mv  -48mv  142.18W  121.94A  -0.39mOhm
> 27  1200mv  1166mv   34mv  142.29W  122.03A   0.28mOhm
> 
> Average LLC: -0.32mOhms
> 
> If it's tuned perfecty the average LLC value should be close to 0. It's not, but as I said this is Socket Sense and I'm pretty confident a Vdroop of ~25mv between VRM and Socket is reasonable. So I think this is correct, but as my board does not offer VROUT I can only guess. Still, it's in the right ballpark and I think that's already a win. If you do this measurement with DC_LL 1 the average LLC value will tell you exactly what DC_LL you need to set. If not, this is an offset to the value currently set.
> 
> If you want to send me a HWiNFO log I can also analyze it for you.


So is this based on an override/set vcore or auto/set vcore. I can do either, and set the ac/dc to 1/1 and then enable logging for everything a do like one pass in cb23…I pretty much seem to need 1.2v just to run cb23/llc3 and that’s with sa at 1.35. Llc 8 wouldn’t even boot


----------



## HemuV2

raad11 said:


> I've told a couple people that if they flashed their BIOS and ME in the wrong order and have bugged SP score, it doesn't matter if they're going to manually tune loadlines values and voltages (for both full load and peak boost) , unless they're getting inexplicable crashes from the E-Cores. I'm not giving bad advice, am I? That's what my experience was.


So when i got my board i flashed it to 2103 bios booted up with my 12700KF update ME and then booted 13900K to get sp 97 109/73, what should i do Incase it's incorrect


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> It's not, the chip is garbage


I’m surprised you didn’t exchange it for another one. You’re still rocking the same chip? What setup do you run it with daily anyways?


----------



## fray_bentos

tps3443 said:


> You probably do have a great sample. Running them stock with the lowest fixed voltage on these MSI board seems to be the way to go. I use to run a EVGA X299 Dark and a 7980XE, I had 4x8GB matched set of DDR4 4000 CL14. It was a great setup while it lasted, and platform lasted for years and years. But they were power hogs once overclocked.
> 
> Maybe just try and bump your E-Cores to x45, and set your cache to x47-x48. That should get you started for sure. I’d recommend staying below 1.300V, and try 56 P-Cores then maybe 57 P-Cores. I would recommend staying below 300 watts and below 240 amps per HWinfo. That should keep you well away from any degradation territory.


Stop peddling fixed voltage. It really isn't needed. Adaptive all the way.


----------



## fray_bentos

Slickman said:


> I noticed strange behavior after paying attention to my CPU core voltage in HWMonitor with my MSI Z690 Tomahawk DDR4 and 13700K. I was trying to test max undervolt so in the bios I have it set to adaptive+offset. I kept increasing and increasing offset until I got to -210mv and I figured something has to be wrong for it to still be able to run. I set it back to stock and it runs at 1.25v on load. Then I noticed with an offset it will only go down to 1.2V, so essentially anything over a 0.05 to 0.06 offset is not doing anything more. Is this normal behavior?


This is known behaviour. The same voltage is shared by e and p cores. You are prevented from lowering voltage below the minimum VID specified on chip for the e cores (the value of which is hidden from the user). Once you hit this minimum voltage, you might as well start upping p core ratio until you hit instability. I am pretty sure that @Falkentyne worked this out a few pages ago. Try searching for "guardband".


----------



## VULC

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Its no post when i oc ram on apex. Put those 6400c32 stick to replace 7600 stick and the same thing happens. It post to code 79 then pc shut down. What is going on?pc will post Only if I use default bios setting.


Your ram doesnt XMP


Thanh Nguyen said:


> Updated Me and still cant post with xmp ram. What me u guys install?


Some kits don't even XMP stock increase VDDQ voltage.


----------



## tps3443

fray_bentos said:


> Stop peddling fixed voltage. It really isn't needed. Adaptive all the way.


Why not fixed? Chip idles at like 3.8 watts. It’s great.


----------



## fray_bentos

tps3443 said:


> Why not fixed? Chip idles at like 3.8 watts. It’s great.


Mine also idles at ~3.5 W. However, we know this is a relatively delicate architecture, so best minimise voltage exposure as much as possible.


----------



## imrevoau

so just had a look at my batch and manufacture location, Batch L234E380, from Malaysia

this information is pretty useless but this is the first chip I've had that wasn't made in Vietnam, so that's interesting.


----------



## Swolley

1.25w idle lol


----------



## fray_bentos

Uncle Dubbs said:


> So what does that mean you set the cpu lite load ac/dc to? How do you know what LLC to pick? 6 has quite a bit of droop on msi boards I think …and the vids are always changing - I spent all night playing with different llc and AC/DC LLs and none of it really matters because I’m not sure what voltage to set or what to look for or calculate


Either A) Pick a target voltage under load you are happy with and change settings until you hit that. B) Pick a clock ratio you are happy with and see the minimum voltage you need for stability (without exceeding your voltage cap). C) Back down on expectations as needed.


----------



## Electrosoft

VULC said:


> Every 10 degree drop in temps gives you 100Mhz even if you have a SP in the 120s on your P Cores. I have an SP 116 on an AIO that guy full of it my chiller don't do anything l m f a o.





tps3443 said:


> I’d take the SP120+ P-Cores on a 420MM AIO cooler over a SP110+ P-Cores on a chiller any day of the week.





VULC said:


> What for a 20mv drop on the voltage? It shouldn't make any difference unless you're going from a P core SP 105 to 120 5 points ain't nothing.





tps3443 said:


> If you listen, you can hear mine kicking on in this video towards the end. 😁 anyways, that’s a great setup you’ve got. You’re using my radiator too Btw.


Easy solution @tps3443 go pick up a 360mm-420mm AIO of your choice and compare/contrast results to your custom setup.


----------



## X61

tps3443 said:


> Anyways, this is 6.2Ghz Boost, 5.9Ghz all cores. I have not done any E-Core tuning yet at all, but I'll get there soon hopefully.


Nice sample! Are you stable at these settings? Could you run 4-5 iterations of y-cruncher stress test (all tests selected) with hwinfo open and post a screenshot here.


----------



## fray_bentos

Swolley said:


> 1.25w idle lol
> View attachment 2584578


That's your IA Cores power. Your min package power is 7.8 W. My min package power shows 2.1 W, but I am on 13600KF. Average package power when idle is 3.5 W though. My IA shows 1.3 W min.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

What is the explanation why my 13700KF drops -1 ( 53x) on Cinebench R23 but keep my desired clock ( 54x ) on other things. ( game, 3dmark etc )


----------



## Slickman

Could there be a problem with my system since I got a Z690 Tomahawk and flashed the newest bios to it before use so it would run with my 13700K? I updated everything else after I got it up and running. Was asking because I see alot of posts about issues with updating bios first and then other stuff afterwards. What's SP that everybody keeps talking about? How do I see mine and how do I know if it's a good number?


----------



## Slickman

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> What is the explanation why my 13700KF drops -1 ( 53x) on Cinebench R23 but keep my desired clock ( 54x ) on other things. ( game, 3dmark etc )


Is it thermal throttling? Are you at 95+ C when this is happening? If so an undervolt can fix that.


----------



## fray_bentos

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> What is the explanation why my 13700KF drops -1 ( 53x) on Cinebench R23 but keep my desired clock ( 54x ) on other things. ( game, 3dmark etc )


Run HWiNFO64 and check "IA Limit reasons" and look which entries under this see a "Yes" and report back.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

@Slickman Nope. Im already trying uV for 5.4 all cores. Around 1.260 vout for 5.4

@fray_bentos TVB is disabled. Set 270W power limit. 512 IA limit aswell EDIT: Yes IA limit reason = YES when reached 95c+

This behaviour only exists in Turbo Ratio Offset + mode. If set set all core 54, i get solid 5.4 on all cores but i need downclock for voltages in idle ( all core mode does prevent this )


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Pc still does not post with xmp or manual oc ram after Me updated. Only works with default bios. It shut down when posting at code 76 or so. What is going on?


----------



## RichKnecht

jeiselramos said:


> Link?


Online Conversion - Ohm's Law Calculator This is what I used. I ran 20 R23 runs while enabling logging in HWINFO, with my chosen vcore and DC LL set to 1 as suggested in an earlier post by @digitalfrost . I then averaged all the core VIDs and power draw wattages and entered them in the calculator. I took the result and set DC LL to that value and adjusted AC LL until vcore and VIDs matched while under load. I started with AC LL set to half of DC LL. Please don’t take this as fact, as I am not sure it’s the right way to do it, but it worked.


----------



## RichKnecht

fray_bentos said:


> Stop peddling fixed voltage. It really isn't needed. Adaptive all the way.


That’s my next step. I’m using override now set to 1.175. That results in a vcore of 1.154 under full load using LLC5. This gets me stable at default clocks. It’s actually stable at 1.65, but I get errors while batching photos in Photoshop so I raised it .01 and it’s fine. Power draw is 223W under all core load. So where would one start setting adaptive from there? It idles at 5W and 26C at 21C ambient and 23C water temp.


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> So is this based on an override/set vcore or auto/set vcore. I can do either, and set the ac/dc to 1/1 and then enable logging for everything a do like one pass in cb23…I pretty much seem to need 1.2v just to run cb23/llc3 and that’s with sa at 1.35. Llc 8 wouldn’t even boot


I did that and based it on override voltage set to 1.175 and DC LL set to 1 as he said. Enabled logging and ran 20 R23 tests. Averaged the VIDS and power draw and punched them into this calculator: 



Online Conversion - Ohm's Law Calculator



I then took that value and set my DC LL to that. I rebooted and the VIDs and vcore were very close. I then set AC LL to a value that made the VIDs and vcore (under load) match. That resulted , for LLC 5, in a DC LL of 59 and AC LL of 24. Both VIDs and vcore match (1.154) under full load. I hope someone can verify if I did this right as I am not expert by any means.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I stopped using fixed voltage and sync all cores years ago, when I bought the 10900k.


----------



## Slickman

I understand why my bios sets 2 p cores at a higher clock but why isn't it cores 0 and 1? On mine it's 2 random cores, I think cores 6 and 7.


----------



## digitalfrost

Slickman said:


> I understand why my bios sets 2 p cores at a higher clock but why isn't it cores 0 and 1? On mine it's 2 random cores, I think cores 6 and 7.


It uses the two best cores. If you install Intel XTU they will be marked with a *.
For me it's core 4+5.


----------



## ThinbinJim

Slickman said:


> I understand why my bios sets 2 p cores at a higher clock but why isn't it cores 0 and 1? On mine it's 2 random cores, I think cores 6 and 7.


Best cores are decided by intel during production and not by the motherboard or bios


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> Online Conversion - Ohm's Law Calculator This is what I used. I ran 20 R23 runs while enabling logging in HWINFO, with my chosen vcore and DC LL set to 1 as suggested in an earlier post by @digitalfrost . I then averaged all the core VIDs and power draw wattages and entered them in the calculator. I took the result and set DC LL to that value and adjusted AC LL until vcore and VIDs matched while under load. I started with AC LL set to half of DC LL. Please don’t take this as fact, as I am not sure it’s the right way to do it, but it worked.


Was your digiALL power LCC set to 6 or auto?


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Was your digiALL power LCC set to 6 or auto?


Set to 5


----------



## Telstar

fray_bentos said:


> Mine also idles at ~3.5 W. However, we know this is a relatively delicate architecture, so best minimise voltage exposure as much as possible.


A high (lets say 1.4) voltage at idle will not cause any damage, then it droops, unless u use a crazy LLC (and I'm sure tps does not). You lose some efficiency not going adaptive, though.


----------



## tps3443

X61 said:


> Nice sample! Are you stable at these settings? Could you run 4-5 iterations of y-cruncher stress test (all tests selected) with hwinfo open and post a screenshot here.


Ermmmmm How much power does that test load up? I’m not for hammering my cpu with unrealistic loads, I use it for work/gaming. It will do R23 for 30 minutes though. It’s absolutely stable enough for me.



RobertoSampaio said:


> I stopped using fixed voltage and sync all cores years ago, when I bought the 10900k.


I’m getting there.


----------



## X61

tps3443 said:


> Ermmmmm How much power does that test load up? I’m not for hammering my cpu with unrealistic loads, I use it for work/gaming. It will do R23 for 30 minutes though. It’s absolutely stable enough for me.


Those are not unrealistic loads, those tests are mathematical calculations (Pi and other constants), some of which work mostly with the memory, others with CPU - a very good set of tests intended to test the overall system stability. R23 is a performance benchmark, it is not a stability test by any means.


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> Ermmmmm How much power does that test load up? I’m not for hammering my cpu with unrealistic loads, I use it for work/gaming. It will do R23 for 30 minutes though. It’s absolutely stable enough for me.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m getting there.


Use the best chip for gaming/work. Trash chips for prime95/"y-cruncher"


----------



## raad11

HemuV2 said:


> So when i got my board i flashed it to 2103 bios booted up with my 12700KF update ME and then booted 13900K to get sp 97 109/73, what should i do Incase it's incorrect


I think you're good since you had both updated before you put in the Raptor Lake chip. The problem seems to be when they are not both updated and then the RPL CPU is put in, and then the BIOS reads the VID table.


----------



## tps3443

@RobertoSampaio

So, I’m using an adaptive voltage right now and I have a nice boost setup ranging from 62,62,61,61,59,59,57,57 on the cores depending on the load, x51 Cache, and x45 E-Cores. I am using Advanced offsets with adaptive to control the 57 under heavy load and bring that down to lower power levels etc. But, just to be clear I’m hitting VID’s upwards of like 1.443V when I’m boosting to the moon In lighter loads. I assume this is perfectly fine right?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> I did that and based it on override voltage set to 1.175 and DC LL set to 1 as he said. Enabled logging and ran 20 R23 tests. Averaged the VIDS and power draw and punched them into this calculator:
> 
> 
> 
> Online Conversion - Ohm's Law Calculator
> 
> 
> 
> I then took that value and set my DC LL to that. I rebooted and the VIDs and vcore were very close. I then set AC LL to a value that made the VIDs and vcore (under load) match. That resulted , for LLC 5, in a DC LL of 59 and AC LL of 24. Both VIDs and vcore match (1.154) under full load. I hope someone can verify if I did this right as I am not expert by any means.


I mean, I don’t know if it’s right but it can’t be all wrong because you’re able to do the work you need at safe temps and voltages and power draw. I think you have a pretty good chip, I haven’t been able to narrow down a voltage yet (on default clocks) but seems like I’m higher…1.185 but then crashed on my while playing with it last night and will continue tonight. What did you set the ac LL to when you had dc LL set to 1? I think I see how your coming up with the values…it’s better to set based on top 5% vs the average?

The ac ll was guess testing to match under load?


----------



## WayWayUp

so nobody is doing direct die with 13th gen?
It seems like everybody is still using an ihs....


----------



## bwana

CptSpig said:


> Daily Driver Apex Z790 13900K. CPU OC P-Cores 62, 62, 61, 61, 59, 59, 57, 57 E-Cores 42 to 46. Memory 8000 Mhz.
> 
> View attachment 2584497
> View attachment 2584497
> 
> View attachment 2584498
> View attachment 2584498


Awesome dude! which sticks?


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> I mean, I don’t know if it’s right but it can’t be all wrong because you’re able to do the work you need at safe temps and voltages and power draw. I think you have a pretty good chip, I haven’t been able to narrow down a voltage yet (on default clocks) but seems like I’m higher…1.185 but then crashed on my while playing with it last night and will continue tonight. *What did you set the ac LL to when you had dc LL set to 1?* I think I see how your coming up with the values…*it’s better to set based on top 5% vs the average?*
> 
> The ac ll was guess testing to match under load?


I had AC LL set to auto (1) when I set DC LL to 1. I'd like to go back to LLC6, but not sure I want to mess with stuff now that it's running the way I like it.

I tried using the top 5%, but VIDs really didn't vary that much so I just averaged all of them out. Worst case, if I did the calculations correctly, is that I am a few mOhms off +/-


----------



## jtclfo

.


----------



## tps3443

WayWayUp said:


> so nobody is doing direct die with 13th gen?
> It seems like everybody is still using an ihs....


The original solder is very very good! I have already delidded one 13900K. And I’m not delidding this one. It’s not that large of an improvement, very minor actually. Unless you’ve got a super cool direct die IHS kit, don’t even think about it.

One of the guys on here has one setup, with good results.


----------



## Telstar

tps3443 said:


> So, I’m using an adaptive voltage right now and I have a nice boost setup ranging from 62,62,61,61,59,59,57,57 on the cores depending on the load, x51 Cache, and x45 E-Cores. I am using Advanced offsets with adaptive to control the 57 under heavy load and bring that down to lower power levels etc. But, just to be clear I’m hitting VID’s upwards of like 1.443V when I’m boosting to the moon In lighter loads. I assume this is perfectly fine right?


Yes, Buildzoid was using like 1.42...
I think your chip can do better at the same voltages: try 63-63-62-62-58-58-58-58. I believe 6 core boost is basically never used, apps go full core or less than 4, especially games.


----------



## dante`afk

WayWayUp said:


> so nobody is doing direct die with 13th gen?
> It seems like everybody is still using an ihs....


i'm on direct die, and @Thanh Nguyen as well.


----------



## WayWayUp

thanks for responding guys

heres my dilemma I ordered the delid kit but i dont have a frame. I dont believe there is a direct die frame for 13th gen?
I have a 10th gen frame but looking online there appears to be capacitors that make it hard for a frame i.e 1005 cap thats the same height as the die

so my question is, how do you have this set?
I do still have the Optimus Foundation block with Pro-XE Nickle and it worked great for 10900k direct die

what are my options for going direct die after delid? do i need a specialized cooler for this since there is no contact frame? unless that little piece of plastic that comes with the kit is supposed to be used to keep it in place?


----------



## CptSpig

digitalfrost said:


> It uses the two best cores. If you install Intel XTU they will be marked with a *.
> For me it's core 4+5.


They are also marked in the bios.


----------



## CptSpig

bwana said:


> Awesome dude! which sticks?





bwana said:


> Awesome dude! which sticks?


Green A-Die 5600.


----------



## tps3443

Telstar said:


> Yes, Buildzoid was using like 1.42...
> I think your chip can do better at the same voltages: try 63-63-62-62-58-58-58-58. I believe 6 core boost is basically never used, apps go full core or less than 4, especially games.


Yeah I’m after the fastest turbo boost settings I can run. I’ll give that setup a try! Thanks.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

tps3443 said:


> @RobertoSampaio
> 
> So, I’m using an adaptive voltage right now and I have a nice boost setup ranging from 62,62,61,61,59,59,57,57 on the cores depending on the load, x51 Cache, and x45 E-Cores. I am using Advanced offsets with adaptive to control the 57 under heavy load and bring that down to lower power levels etc. But, just to be clear I’m hitting VID’s upwards of like 1.443V when I’m boosting to the moon In lighter loads. I assume this is perfectly fine right?


Perfect fine...
If your system run 6.2GHz with, let's say, 1.6v and 30A, we are talking about less than 50W.
If you are using adaptive voltage your CPU will "talk" to the VRM and when the load arrives the CPU will report the required VID for that load and frequency and everything will be fine.
When you set a voltage override (fixed voltage) and sync all cores, you stop this communication between the CPU and the VRM...
And so if you send a load to the CPU you better have decided on a correct voltage because the CPU will scream to the VRM for a new VID and the signal will not get to the VRM. LOL


----------



## Bilco

So I'm still on page 246 trying to read and catch up, anything over 200A is killing the chip? So 1.287vcore while pulling 344w on LLC7(z690 Apex) during R23. Gaming the CPu maybe pulls 90w at 1.36v. From what I am reading this will kill the chip? Are stock settings even safe then?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

tps3443 said:


> Yeah I’m after the fastest turbo boost settings I can run. I’ll give that setup a try! Thanks.


I'm running
P:63x2 - 61x4 - 59x6 - 57x8 (+2 Boost OCTVB)
E:49x2 - 48x4 - 47x8x - 46x16
R:55x~49x
With an exclusive Adaptive voltage for each core.


----------



## Ichirou

fray_bentos said:


> Stop peddling fixed voltage. It really isn't needed. Adaptive all the way.





tps3443 said:


> Why not fixed? Chip idles at like 3.8 watts. It’s great.





tps3443 said:


> @RobertoSampaio
> 
> So, I’m using an adaptive voltage right now and I have a nice boost setup ranging from 62,62,61,61,59,59,57,57 on the cores depending on the load, x51 Cache, and x45 E-Cores. I am using Advanced offsets with adaptive to control the 57 under heavy load and bring that down to lower power levels etc. But, just to be clear I’m hitting VID’s upwards of like 1.443V when I’m boosting to the moon In lighter loads. I assume this is perfectly fine right?


Kind of pointless when Adaptive Voltage is all messed up on MSI boards. But might be all right for gaming loads?
Really have to monitor HWiNFO closely to make sure the wattage isn't going 400W+. Or just cap PL1/PL2 to 253W or something.


RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm running
> P:63x2 - 61x4 - 59x6 - 57x8 (+2 Boost OCTVB)
> E:49x2 - 48x4 - 47x8x - 46x16
> R:55x~49x
> With an exclusive Adaptive voltage for each core.
> View attachment 2584628
> 
> 
> View attachment 2584630
> 
> View attachment 2584631


Kind of ironic considering that the 12th Gen and 13th Gen have the Vcore shared between the P-cores, E-cores, and Ring.
All of that is just for looks only. It's an Intel mechanical limitation, not something the BIOS can get around.

It'll still push the highest voltage running at any given point in time.
But the multipliers and temperature may be optimized better, sure.


----------



## dirceura1

send the cmo of your bios, it is with z690 or z790?
thx





Roberto Sampaio said:


> estou correndo
> P:63x2 - 61x4 - 59x6 - 57x8 (+2 Boost OCTVB)
> E:49x2 - 48x4 - 47x8x - 46x16
> R:55x~49x
> Com uma tensão adaptativa exclusiva para cada núcleo.
> View attachment 2584628
> 
> 
> View attachment 2584630
> 
> View attachment 2584631
> 
> [/CITAR]


----------



## tps3443

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm running
> P:63x2 - 61x4 - 59x6 - 57x8 (+2 Boost OCTVB)
> E:49x2 - 48x4 - 47x8x - 46x16
> R:55x~49x
> With an exclusive Adaptive voltage for each core.
> View attachment 2584628
> 
> 
> View attachment 2584630
> 
> View attachment 2584631


That’s awesome, I’m still working on setting mine up properly. But so far so good. I really think I’m going to have to grab a Z790 Apex for full potential though.

My last 13900KF did not want to boost or run these higher frequencies so easily. It did a great job running 5.8 or 5.9 all cores with voltage and brute cooling. But it was really fussy with the higher frequencies. This current 13900K doesn’t seem to care at all. Also, I don’t know if my current chip can run 6.3Ghz? I got a BSOD with adaptive voltage running 6.3Ghz. So I’m trying to set a Advanced VF Curve and add some more + offset up top for the x63 cores. For some reason the Unify-X is making it tough though it’s just not doing what I tell it. I’m trying to compensate or remove voltage from the top end and bottom end but it’s just keeping the same settings. So, I’m stuck at 62,62,61,61,58,58,58,58 for now.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Kind of pointless when Adaptive Voltage is all messed up on MSI boards. But might be all right for gaming loads?
> Really have to monitor HWiNFO closely to make sure the wattage isn't going 400W+. Or just cap PL1/PL2 to 253W or something.
> 
> Kind of ironic considering that the 12th Gen and 13th Gen have the Vcore shared between the P-cores, E-cores, and Ring.
> All of that is just for looks only. It's an Intel mechanical limitation, not something the BIOS can get around.
> 
> It'll still push the highest voltage running at any given point in time.
> But the multipliers and temperature may be optimized better, sure.


Yeah it does okay. I’m having to lower the lite load to compensate for all core loads and reduce power. I use CPU-Z bench and HWinfo for monitoring as a safety net to check power consumption first before running anything heavier.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> *Kind of pointless when Adaptive Voltage is all messed up on MSI boards. *But might be all right for gaming loads?
> Really have to monitor HWiNFO closely to make sure the wattage isn't going 400W+. Or just cap PL1/PL2 to 253W or something.
> 
> Kind of ironic considering that the 12th Gen and 13th Gen have the Vcore shared between the P-cores, E-cores, and Ring.
> All of that is just for looks only. It's an Intel mechanical limitation, not something the BIOS can get around.
> 
> It'll still push the highest voltage running at any given point in time.
> But the multipliers and temperature may be optimized better, sure.


Maybe this is why I was having so many issues trying to get adaptive to work. I'm only running 1.175 in Override mode and the chip idles @ 1.16, 27C, and 11W. Not sure Adaptive would save me all that much. Maybe if I let the PC idle all the time, but it's only powered up when I'm working. Right now I am thinkinking "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".


----------



## bhav

Does fixed voltage keep the voltage fixed when it might not be needed? So the CPU downclocks but the voltage runs higher than it needs to?

I've used fixed up to now for OC but tried using offset when undervolting, I think positive offset and a bump to a middle LLC value might be safer?

If I run my 12600K at 4.9 all core stock, its unstable, if I raise the LLC from 4 to 3 (1 is high), it stabilizes.

For undervolt testing I leave LLC on 4. Trying to screen for the maximum clocks I can get at 125w due to Asrock 125w long limit.

Then I might try practicing individual per core, turns out my board does have it but it wasn't actually the 'per core OC' setting :x

Per core in bios = how many cores are loaded OC.

The other option = forced per core. Dumb Asrock.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Yeah it does okay. I’m having to lower the lite load to compensate for all core loads and reduce power. I use CPU-Z bench and HWinfo for monitoring as a safety net to check power consumption first before running anything heavier.


In other news, the BestBuy 13900K has arrived, so time to give it a whirl. With this dried up tube of Thermaltake TF7 🇹🇲 that came with the correction frame. Should be fine for now.
Will report back soonish with stock XMP, lowest VR VOUT in y-cruncher Main 10B.

For reference, my average 13900KF needed 1.18V VR VOUT minimum for Main 10B. If this chip is better, it should need less.


RichKnecht said:


> Maybe this is why I was having so many issues trying to get adaptive to work. I'm only running 1.175 in Override mode and the chip idles @ 1.16, 27C, and 11W. Not sure Adaptive would save me all that much. Maybe if I let the PC idle all the time, but it's only powered up when I'm working. Right now I am thinkinking "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".


There's a reason why sugil0ver swears by override/manual. It's just so much easier to deal with.


bhav said:


> Does fixed voltage keep the voltage fixed when it might not be needed? So the CPU downclocks but the voltage runs higher than it needs to?
> 
> I've used fixed up to now for OC but tried using offset when undervolting, I think positive offset and a bump to a middle LLC value might be safer?
> 
> If I run my 12600K at 4.9 all core stock, its unstable, if I raise the LLC from 4 to 3 (1 is high), it stabilizes.
> 
> For undervolt testing I leave LLC on 4. Trying to screen for the maximum clocks I can get at 125w due to Asrock 125w long limit.


MSI is different. When you're on idle, everything just drops down and you use like 25W or less.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> MSI is different. When you're on idle, everything just drops down and you use like 25W or less.


Right, so I think you said in the guide to just use offset on the MSI boards, I'll try that when its eventually setup.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Right, so I think you said in the guide to just use offset on the MSI boards, I'll try that when its eventually setup.


By all means, you could give adaptive a try, but it probably won't differ by much.
You use the exact same process for figuring out the voltages as you would with override. Except you gotta figure out the AC_LL and DL_LL values as well, which are beyond me.


----------



## bhav

Or wait is offset the same as adaptive?

Now I'm getting more co nfu se d.

And yea I was wrong, its override for the MSI board, so since it already downvolts on its own I'll use that, and maybe eventually compare override and adaptive.

Motherboard and new 4tb nvme STILL WAITING FOR CASE!!


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

digitalfrost said:


> You can tune it yourself. Just run some high load and enable logging in HWiNFO. Take the top 2% or top 5% of Package Power values, and then compare the VID to the Vcore. If it's identical your DC_LL is tuned correctly. Alas, this also only works perfectly if you have VR OUT measurement on your board. If not, you can get close but not perfect.
> 
> I wrote a small python program to analyze these log files, here's the output with LLC8 and DC_LL 110 on Z690 PRO with Socket Sense:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> VID   Vcore Vdroop    Power   Ampere      mOhms
> 0   1120mv  1166mv  -46mv  142.74W  122.42A  -0.38mOhm
> 1   1126mv  1168mv  -42mv  142.90W  122.34A  -0.34mOhm
> 2   1124mv  1168mv  -44mv  142.93W  122.38A  -0.36mOhm
> 3   1129mv  1168mv  -39mv  142.94W  122.38A  -0.32mOhm
> 4   1122mv  1168mv  -46mv  142.55W  122.05A  -0.38mOhm
> 5   1134mv  1168mv  -34mv  142.95W  122.39A  -0.28mOhm
> 6   1127mv  1168mv  -41mv  142.92W  122.36A  -0.34mOhm
> 7   1125mv  1166mv  -41mv  142.99W  122.63A  -0.33mOhm
> 8   1121mv  1168mv  -47mv  142.66W  122.14A  -0.38mOhm
> 9   1132mv  1166mv  -34mv  142.81W  122.48A  -0.28mOhm
> 10  1125mv  1168mv  -43mv  143.04W  122.46A  -0.35mOhm
> 11  1126mv  1168mv  -42mv  142.68W  122.16A  -0.34mOhm
> 12  1129mv  1168mv  -39mv  143.10W  122.52A  -0.32mOhm
> 13  1130mv  1166mv  -36mv  142.72W  122.40A  -0.29mOhm
> 14  1126mv  1166mv  -40mv  142.81W  122.48A  -0.33mOhm
> 15  1124mv  1168mv  -44mv  142.91W  122.36A  -0.36mOhm
> 16  1125mv  1168mv  -43mv  142.59W  122.08A  -0.35mOhm
> 17  1122mv  1166mv  -44mv  142.59W  122.29A  -0.36mOhm
> 18  1128mv  1168mv  -40mv  142.53W  122.03A  -0.33mOhm
> 19  1121mv  1166mv  -45mv  142.50W  122.22A  -0.37mOhm
> 20  1123mv  1168mv  -45mv  142.07W  121.64A  -0.37mOhm
> 21  1124mv  1164mv  -40mv  142.00W  121.99A  -0.33mOhm
> 22  1124mv  1166mv  -42mv  141.94W  121.73A  -0.35mOhm
> 23  1126mv  1166mv  -40mv  142.38W  122.11A  -0.33mOhm
> 24  1127mv  1168mv  -41mv  142.33W  121.86A  -0.34mOhm
> 25  1123mv  1166mv  -43mv  142.34W  122.08A  -0.35mOhm
> 26  1118mv  1166mv  -48mv  142.18W  121.94A  -0.39mOhm
> 27  1200mv  1166mv   34mv  142.29W  122.03A   0.28mOhm
> 
> Average LLC: -0.32mOhms
> 
> If it's tuned perfecty the average LLC value should be close to 0. It's not, but as I said this is Socket Sense and I'm pretty confident a Vdroop of ~25mv between VRM and Socket is reasonable. So I think this is correct, but as my board does not offer VROUT I can only guess. Still, it's in the right ballpark and I think that's already a win. If you do this measurement with DC_LL 1 the average LLC value will tell you exactly what DC_LL you need to set. If not, this is an offset to the value currently set.
> 
> If you want to send me a HWiNFO log I can also analyze it for you.


What did you set your cpu voltage at to boot llc 8?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Or wait is offset the same as adaptive?
> 
> Now I'm getting more co nfu se d.
> 
> And yea I was wrong, its override for the MSI board, so since it already downvolts on its own I'll use that, and maybe eventually compare override and adaptive.
> 
> Motherboard and new 4tb nvme STILL WAITING FOR CASE!!


Yes, even the Override (manual) mode downvolts everything automatically. Feel free to compare and see whether one's better than the other.


----------



## bhav

I've been so tempted to get a real Z690 for my 12600K too in the sales, but it wasn't ever meant to be overclocked in the first place anyway (was originally planed to be a non K build).

Both the ITX/AX Z690 and H670 boards have a price premium as being the only valid ITX DDR4 boards for 12th / 13th gen, so they will hold their value well despite being crap for OCing. They also cost a lot more currently than what I paid for them.

I think I'll wait after Z790 is EOL, and if necessary upgrade the tomahawk and use that with the 12600k / also pick up a 13600K.


----------



## HemuV2

can someone tell me how i can find correct VID value at set config on asus boards like what settings should i run in bios to get correct reading in hwinfo?


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Yes, even the Override (manual) mode downvolts everything automatically. Feel free to compare and see whether one's better than the other.


 It doesn't down volt on this board, not all that much anyway. It will down clock the cores though. On adaptive, the VIDs and VCore would drop to ~.788 or so. On override it stays at 1.162 which is not much different than my 1.175 VCore.


----------



## chibi

HemuV2 said:


> can someone tell me how i can find correct VID value at set config on asus boards like what settings should i run in bios to get correct reading in hwinfo?











Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...


A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...




www.overclock.net





See this post ☝


----------



## Luggage

tps3443 said:


> Ermmmmm How much power does that test load up? I’m not for hammering my cpu with unrealistic loads, I use it for work/gaming. It will do R23 for 30 minutes though. It’s absolutely stable enough for me.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m getting there.


Don’t know if it differs much between Amd and Intel but: YC, p95 small fft, linx and stockfish are quite similarly “heavy” on my 5800x with cold water at ~200W using tuned PBO settings to not hit limits. Meanwhile R23 can’t pull more than ~155-160W…


http://imgur.com/a/TUtASyX


(Max I’ve ever seen was suicide run yc 2.5b manual oc at >230W


http://imgur.com/PA7b0oV

 )


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Right, so I think you said in the guide to just use offset on the MSI boards, I'll try that when its eventually setup.


Both Adaptive and fixed voltages are excellent and good at different things. Only you can decide what’s best. And it greatly depends on many factors. Motherboard model, and even CPU quality. 

Just to give an example. I can dial in a very nice 5.8Ghz or even 5.9Ghz all core overclock easily with a fixed voltage. The system uses very little power, it’s stable as anything and it even idles at only like 3-4 watts. I don’t know what MSI does, but it uses very little power during idle. This is great because it sets that one voltage amount under all cores and it uses the least amount of power possible.

Now, with Adaptive I can let the CPU stretch its legs out. 6.2Ghz on (2) cores, 6.1Ghz on (4) cores, and 5.8Ghz on all (8) cores. Adaptive works nice because the chip uses hardly any power at all idle and even under normal loads it’s very low power, and it’s able to supply that extra juice when those single cores start running up in frequency, which is practically all the time. However, I am losing a lot of efficiency under an all core load with adaptive. Not a massive amount, but about 25-30+ watts of extra power. But, I don’t live on running R23 lol. During normal work loads, so this actually feels and seems like the best option.

I really love them both. I feel like a fixed overide voltage may be best for an average 13900K. If you have a sample that can boost higher than normal I would recommend adaptive/Vf curve. Both have their benefits. And I feel like if I had a Z790 Asus motherboard I could really reap all the benefits of running full on adaptive the way it’s supposed to be done.

It’s hard for me because I have ran fixed vcore since forever and a half lol. I’m trying to explore my options though, and I’m open to sticking with adaptive so far especially seeing how it makes the CPU much faster with what I’m doing while working during the day.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> In other news, the BestBuy 13900K has arrived, so time to give it a whirl. With this dried up tube of Thermaltake TF7 🇹🇲 that came with the correction frame. Should be fine for now.
> Will report back soonish with stock XMP, lowest VR VOUT in y-cruncher Main 10B.
> 
> For reference, my average 13900KF needed 1.18V VR VOUT minimum for Main 10B. If this chip is better, it should need less.
> 
> There's a reason why sugil0ver swears by override/manual. It's just so much easier to deal with.
> 
> MSI is different. When you're on idle, everything just drops down and you use like 25W or less.


That’s awesome! I’m excited to hear how this sample turns out. And let us know what the batch is. I’m curious. Seems like they took a minute to get that chip to you.


----------



## bhav

Luggage said:


> Don’t know if it differs much between Amd and Intel but: YC, p95 small fft, linx and stockfish are quite similarly “heavy” on my 5800x with cold water at ~200W using tuned PBO settings to not hit limits. Meanwhile R23 can’t pull more than ~155-160W…
> 
> (Max I’ve ever seen was suicide run yc 2.5b manual oc at >230W )


Mind me asking which stockfish app people here are running?

Is it the same thing as Chess.com?

I'd like to find something better thats hopefully free or cheap with full customizable stockfish, the free AI options on chess.com are very limited.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

bhav said:


> Does fixed voltage keep the voltage fixed when it might not be needed? So the CPU downclocks but the voltage runs higher than it needs to?
> 
> I've used fixed up to now for OC but tried using offset when undervolting, I think positive offset and a bump to a middle LLC value might be safer?
> 
> If I run my 12600K at 4.9 all core stock, its unstable, if I raise the LLC from 4 to 3 (1 is high), it stabilizes.
> 
> For undervolt testing I leave LLC on 4. Trying to screen for the maximum clocks I can get at 125w due to Asrock 125w long limit.
> 
> Then I might try practicing individual per core, turns out my board does have it but it wasn't actually the 'per core OC' setting :x
> 
> Per core in bios = how many cores are loaded OC.
> 
> The other option = forced per core. Dumb Asrock.





> Does fixed voltage keep the voltage fixed when it might not be needed? So the CPU downclocks but the voltage runs higher than it needs to?


On Unify X with OVERRIDE voltage, core clocks drop but voltage stay same for 24/7. What you set is what u got for LLC3 ( for example i set 1.280v in bios ) i get 1.277 IDLE and 4K gaming i get 1.273 vrout stable


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> That’s awesome! I’m excited to hear how this sample turns out. And let us know what the batch is. I’m curious. Seems like they took a minute to get that chip to you.


X236F733

So far, I've tested the Vcore and VCCSA (still pending VDDQ or L2 Voltage yet).

This chip is, if we retroactively compare this to my 13900KF pre-degradation, it is +0.01-0.02V VR VOUT worse. So slightly worse sample.
But if we compare it to my 13900KF _now_, it needs the exact same VR VOUT.

However, the IMC is marginally better as it can pass y-cruncher Main 10B and the Component Stress Tests (N64/HNT/VST) at ~1.30V VCCSA so far (with 4,200 CL14 1T Gear 1).
That's a bit stronger than my 13900KF pre-degradation at 1.31V VCCSA. However, 1.28V VCCSA failed to pass.

I've lost the silicon lottery again 
I will let you know whether L2 Voltage and VDDQ have improved, later.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

tps3443 said:


> Both Adaptive and fixed voltages are excellent and good at different things. Only you can decide what’s best. And it greatly depends on many factors. Motherboard model, and even CPU quality.
> 
> Just to give an example. I can dial in a very nice 5.8Ghz or even 5.9Ghz all core overclock easily with a fixed voltage. The system uses very little power, it’s stable as anything and it even idles at only like 3-4 watts. I don’t know what MSI does, but it uses very little power during idle. This is great because it sets that one voltage amount under all cores and it uses the least amount of power possible.
> 
> Now, with Adaptive I can let the CPU stretch its legs out. 6.2Ghz on (2) cores, 6.1Ghz on (4) cores, and 5.8Ghz on all (8) cores. Adaptive works nice because the chip uses hardly any power at all idle and even under normal loads it’s very low power, and it’s able to supply that extra juice when those single cores start running up in frequency, which is practically all the time. However, I am losing a lot of efficiency under an all core load with adaptive. Not a massive amount, but about 25-30+ watts of extra power. But, I don’t live on running R23 lol. During normal work loads, so this actually feels and seems like the best option.
> 
> I really love them both. I feel like a fixed overide voltage may be best for an average 13900K. If you have a sample that can boost higher than normal I would recommend adaptive/Vf curve. Both have their benefits. And I feel like if I had a Z790 Asus motherboard I could really reap all the benefits of running full on adaptive the way it’s supposed to be done.
> 
> It’s hard for me because I have ran fixed vcore since forever and a half lol. I’m trying to explore my options though, and I’m open to sticking with adaptive so far especially seeing how it makes the CPU much faster with what I’m doing while working during the day.


Every change in the beginning is a little uncomfortable. 
Even if it's for the better. 
Since 10900K the best option is adaptive voltage. 
It is even possible to limit all cores to the same frequency and use the VF curve as if it were a fixed voltage. 
But since the 10900K, synchronizing all the cores and locking the voltage is like taking a Ferrari engine and leaving it at a fixed rpm and in a single gear.


----------



## dipsdots

Has anyone else noticed SP values changing upon delidding? One of the Gigabyte guys had a SP109 chip change to SP98 post delidding - mind you it still performs the same but curious how that's possible


----------



## dipsdots

Ichirou said:


> X236F733
> 
> So far, I've tested the Vcore and VCCSA (still pending VDDQ or L2 Voltage yet).
> 
> This chip is, if we retroactively compare this to my 13900KF pre-degradation, it is +0.01-0.02V VR VOUT worse. So slightly worse sample.
> But if we compare it to my 13900KF _now_, it needs the exact same VR VOUT.
> 
> However, the IMC is marginally better as it can pass y-cruncher Main 10B and the Component Stress Tests (N64/HNT/VST) at ~1.30V VCCSA so far (with 4,200 CL14 1T Gear 1).
> That's a bit stronger than my 13900KF pre-degradation at 1.31V VCCSA. However, 1.28V VCCSA failed to pass.
> 
> I've lost the silicon lottery again
> I will let you know whether L2 Voltage and VDDQ have improved, later.


I think if you are serious about binning, you'll have to buy 10 chips and accept that you'll burn $500


----------



## bhav

dipsdots said:


> I think if you are serious about binning, you'll have to buy 10 chips and accept that you'll burn $500


Yea the 1 per store thing to take advantage of commonwealth trade laws seems limiting.

At this point, ichirou should just wait for 13900KS, we already know good OC 13900Ks are very rare.


----------



## Ichirou

dipsdots said:


> I think if you are serious about binning, you'll have to buy 10 chips and accept that you'll burn $500


I've binned six 12900's and three 13900's so far


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> I've binned six 12900's and three 13900's so far


Did you also return all the 12900s for full refund?

This law needs to exclude you.


----------



## tps3443

dipsdots said:


> Has anyone else noticed SP values changing upon delidding? One of the Gigabyte guys had a SP109 chip change to SP98 post delidding - mind you it still performs the same but curious how that's possible


I have delidded every CPU I own, and I truly believe it’s not worth delidding the 13900K. Intel has that solder down right. They have figured something out in the R&D. And I know there is some variation with solder and the IHS and all that. But this current 13900K I have runs cooler or just as cool as my re-lidded 13900KF. And I did that 13900KF right. Lots of LM, lapped the bottom of the IHS so it floated on the die only. I don’t understand it.


----------



## warbucks

tps3443 said:


> I have delidded every CPU I own, and I truly believe it’s not worth delidding the 13900K. Intel has that solder down right. They have figured something out in the R&D. And I know there is some variation with solder and the IHS and all that. But this current 13900K I have runs cooler or just as cool as my re-lidded 13900KF. And I did that 13900KF right. Lots of LM, lapped the bottom of the IHS so it floated on the die only. I don’t understand it.


The die size is bigger this generation which means larger surface area which is better for cooling. Combined with other improvements to the architecture.


----------



## RichKnecht

OK, let's talk adaptive voltage. Right now I am using override @ 1.175V which gives me 1.54 under full load in both VCore and VIDs since I finally learned how to use DC LL and AC LL.To use adaptive, do I set voltage to auto and see what the VIDs are then set that voltage in bios and apply a negative offset? If that's how it works, what is the chance that I can still wind up with the voltages I am seeing now with 1.175? Does adaptive with an offset drop voltages across the board, or just under load? I don't want to BSOD at idle when voltage drops.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Did you also return all the 12900s for full refund?
> 
> This law needs to exclude you.


No, some took losses. I think of all those eight chips combined so far, I probably lost around $500-600 CAD?


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443
Minimum VCCSA is 1.29V for 4,200 CL14 1T Gear 1 on 4x16 GB Micron B-die.
So the cores are slightly weaker, but the IMC is slightly better.

Gonna tighten the L2 Voltage now. I needed 1.26V on my 13900KF post-degradation to pass. Let's see how much this chip needs.
Will be an indicator for ring/cache strength.

Update: 1.23V L2 Voltage passes y-cruncher as well. Gonna test even lower to see if the cache is stronger.


----------



## Luggage

bhav said:


> Mind me asking which stockfish app people here are running?
> 
> Is it the same thing as Chess.com?
> 
> I'd like to find something better thats hopefully free or cheap with full customizable stockfish, the free AI options on chess.com are very limited.


Dunno - just tried to follow @Falkentyne ’s instructions from some 12900 thread for testing. I don’t play chess


----------



## bhav

Luggage said:


> Dunno - just tried to follow @Falkentyne ’s instructions from some 12900 thread for testing. I don’t play chess


Lame. Chess has now become a stability test lol.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Lame. Chess has now become a stability test lol.


Just use y-cruncher.


----------



## dipsdots

tps3443 said:


> I have delidded every CPU I own, and I truly believe it’s not worth delidding the 13900K. Intel has that solder down right. They have figured something out in the R&D. And I know there is some variation with solder and the IHS and all that. But this current 13900K I have runs cooler or just as cool as my re-lidded 13900KF. And I did that 13900KF right. Lots of LM, lapped the bottom of the IHS so it floated on the die only. I don’t understand it.


From my own testing, it's worth about 8-11 degree core temp which is quite a lot


----------



## Electrosoft

tps3443 said:


> I have delidded every CPU I own, and I truly believe it’s not worth delidding the 13900K. Intel has that solder down right. They have figured something out in the R&D. And I know there is some variation with solder and the IHS and all that. But this current 13900K I have runs cooler or just as cool as my re-lidded 13900KF. And I did that 13900KF right. Lots of LM, lapped the bottom of the IHS so it floated on the die only. I don’t understand it.





warbucks said:


> The die size is bigger this generation which means larger surface area which is better for cooling. Combined with other improvements to the architecture.


Die size and architectural improvements are fixed regardless of using stock IHS w/ sTIM from Intel or delidding unless you're suggesting the larger surface area for dissipation and improvements to the architecture compensates for the classic inefficiencies of Intel's sTIM application process since 9th gen?



dipsdots said:


> From my own testing, it's worth about 8-11 degree core temp which is quite a lot


Variances = YMMV but I have always found a good delid results in temp reductions.


----------



## Ichirou

@dipsdots @Electrosoft
My 13900KF sample didn't react well to the delid. Only dropped like 4-5C at best. From 91C worst core to 87C =\

@tps3443 
L2 Voltage at 1.20V passed y-cruncher. Simply insane. The ring on this chip must be godly. And I haven't even tested lower yet.


----------



## Slickman

I've been trying to keep an undervolt while overclocking since I got my 13700K. I've finally been able to keep a +100mhz overclock across the board(P+E) while still being at -30mv from stock. P cores can get in the high 80's while stress testing and maybe one will touch 90. Still much better than stock which would throttle and slow the CPU down. I think with more tweaking I can get it to run with -35 to -40mv.


----------



## tps3443

warbucks said:


> The die size is bigger this generation which means larger surface area which is better for cooling. Combined with other improvements to the architecture.


Yes but some things are just unexplained. Like the 9980XE and 10980XE. Massive dies, we could cool down 1,000 watts of CPU power with really good ambient water cooling. However, delidding those chips provided substantial gains. Even the 11900K die is larger than the 13900K die, but delidding an 11900K saw a seriously massive temp drop. I’m just not feeling the whole delid thing with 13th gen. Which was one of the driving factors in actually selling my last 13900KF. It ran nice and cool and all that, but I was ready to just grab another stock and soldered 13900K and leave it be. 



Ichirou said:


> @dipsdots @Electrosoft
> My 13900KF sample didn't react well to the delid. Only dropped like 4-5C at best. From 91C worst core to 87C =\
> 
> @tps3443
> L2 Voltage at 1.20V passed y-cruncher. Simply insane. The ring on this chip must be godly. And I haven't even tested lower yet.


Yeah, I had some improvements from the delid. But it’s not enough to warrant a delid on this current 13900K. I’d rather keep its current TIM which is 100% consistent and it will last forever LOL.

Hey, what is the stock Intel default L2 E-Core voltage supposed to be anyways?


----------



## Wolverine2349

My final and stable overclock results with Core i9-13900K:

e-cores disabled

P cores all core tried 5.7GHz and almost got it stable fully and in fact thought it was as it passed 2 iterations of Y Cruncher and non-AVX Prime95 for Blend and Large FFT 30 minutes each. Also passed OCCT Large Data set variable and AIDA64 system stability test with no issues. Also passed Linpack XTREME 1.1.5 8 runs no issues

VCORE at 1.38 LLC6.

CPU runs very hot with an NH-D15S on CInebench hits 98C and sometimes even 101C and throttles. Think I am stable and all is good just high temps are normal for these chips especially on air and that 5.7GHz clock. Though hold on, I see Windows Hardware error or 2 after running Cinebench R23 where nothing else gave it any errors so I was not really stable or on edge for something to break it and Cinebench R23 did by giving some WHEAs per HWInfo64

So I dialed back my overclock down to 5.6GHz and VCORE down to 1.325.

Fully stable passes everything easily with flying colors and no WHEAs. And Cinebench R23 temps peak at 95C and only average 91C where as on prior 13900K it required1.35V to be fully stable and Cinebench averaged 95C with 98C peak.

And DDR5 XMP stability is great on the MSI Z690 Unify X for my Corsair Vengeance DDR5 6600 32GB (2 X 16GB) 32-39-39-76 1.4v with BIOS E7D28IMS.A81.

However do not use latest November BIOS 7D28vA8 as it induced DDR5 XMP stability issues galore.

Overall a happy overclock. 5.6GHz 8 and 16 thread core monster chip with the best IPC there is right now and hope trade blows gaming with upcoming Ryzen 7000 X3D.


----------



## bhav

CPUs are beautiful, delidding them makes you a monster!


----------



## bhav

13900KS and 13th gen non K launch date confirmed, Jan 3rd:









Intel to launch 13th Gen Core non-K CPUs and B760 motherboards on January 3rd, 2023 - VideoCardz.com


Intel to unleash more Raptors at CES 2023 January 3rd to be a very busy day for PC enthusiast. Intel is reportedly launching the remaining of the desktop 13th Gen Core lineup at CES 2023. The company will launch as many as 16 new CPUs, designed to operate with lower TDP than unlocked gaming...




videocardz.com





Went ahead and preordered the Arctic 420 AIO.

RGB with controller was in stock and on black friday sale for £109, but I don't want the RGB fans, the normal one was £107, also I'd prefer to have it arrive after I have the new case in case it somehow doesn't fit.

Ideally if Phanteks release 140mm versions of their mega 120mm fan, I'd want 3 of those instead of RGB.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

New chip a lil better than the other. Nothing great. Will wait for KS.


----------



## bhav

Rechecked the thread on the 140mm T30 fans, still expected early 2023 so fingers crossed they're not too far off from the 13900KS release.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Hey, what is the stock Intel default L2 E-Core voltage supposed to be anyways?


No idea. Probably around 1.20V? I'm pretty sure it's board/BIOS dependent though


----------



## bhav

Ah crap, accidentally preordered the 360mm AIO oops. 360 and 420 were the same price.

Support ticket sent.

No ETA on the 420 either, but I don't want one yet and don't want the RGB one.


----------



## tps3443

MrTOOSHORT said:


> New chip a lil better than the other. Nothing great. Will wait for KS.


Exchange it for another one man, I feel like the later batch 13900K’s X241+ are potentially better. It’s just a hunch, but maybe Intel was binning a lot during the (X233-X238) 13900K’s time period. I don’t really know for sure.

But right now I practically have a 13900KS. it will do 5.8-6.2Ghz or 5.9-6.2Ghz.

I mean a 13900KS only does 5.7
Ghz all cores with 6.0Ghz boost, it doesn’t take a golden 13900K to achieve that either, I feel like they’re gonna be close to tapped out with maybe +100-200Mhz left in the tank if that.

The average 13900KS will probably be nothing more than a good 13900K. Not great, but good. I wish that wasn’t the case, but it’s the marketing hype alone that Intel already has in the bag right now lol. “ introducing the first 6Ghz CPU rahhhhhhh” lol. And it’s really only 6Ghz on (2) cores.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> I mean a 13900KS only does 5.7
> Ghz all cores with 6.0Ghz boost, it doesn’t take a golden 13900K to achieve that either, I feel like they’re gonna be close to tapped out with maybe +100-200Mhz left in the tank if that.


All core clock for 13900KS hasn't been confirmed, it might only be 5.6.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Exchange it for another one man, I feel like the later batch 13900K’s X241+ are potentially better. It’s just a hunch, but maybe Intel was binning a lot during the (X233-X238) 13900K’s time period. I don’t really know for sure.
> 
> But right now I practically have a 13900KS. it will do 5.8-6.2Ghz or 5.9-6.2Ghz.
> 
> I mean a 13900KS only does 5.7
> Ghz all cores with 6.0Ghz boost, it doesn’t take a golden 13900K to achieve that either, I feel like they’re gonna be close to tapped out with maybe +100-200Mhz left in the tank if that.
> 
> The average 13900KS will probably be nothing more than a good 13900K. Not great, but good. I wish that wasn’t the case, but it’s the marketing hype alone that Intel already has in the bag right now lol. “ introducing the first 6Ghz CPU rahhhhhhh” lol. And it’s really only 6Ghz on (2) cores.


Yeah, as long as you test your overclock in your own applications and make sure the wattage isn't extreme, it should be fine to boost up to 6.0+ GHz with added voltage.
Not all applications immediately demand 300W no matter what. 1.40V+ VR VOUT at only 100W for X or Y game is really not a big deal.

Naturally, if your workloads do demand a lot of power, then you'd keep the voltage tame and the multipliers conservative.


bhav said:


> All core clock for 13900KS hasn't been confirmed, it might only be 5.6.


Considering how these chips degrade pretty hard, I wouldn't be surprised if Intel makes an adjustment to the base turbo clock prior to release.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> Online Conversion - Ohm's Law Calculator This is what I used. I ran 20 R23 runs while enabling logging in HWINFO, with my chosen vcore and DC LL set to 1 as suggested in an earlier post by @digitalfrost . I then averaged all the core VIDs and power draw wattages and entered them in the calculator. I took the result and set DC LL to that value and adjusted AC LL until vcore and VIDs matched while under load. I started with AC LL set to half of DC LL. Please don’t take this as fact, as I am not sure it’s the right way to do it, but it worked.


Okie dokie, so I've applied this method (I also used LL5 for now) and came up with AC LL = 25 ; DC LL = 75. I had to set vcore to 1.21v to get anything resembling stable. The problem is, everytime you adjust the set vcore it changes everything in the equation. So, not one hundo on this but I ran a pass of cb23 and adjusted the AC LL to 25...the point where the current VIDS match the current Vcore draw:









Now, its just a matter of figuring out what kind of wiggle room I have I guess...may be able to try increasing the 55x cores to 56x (leaving cores 4 and 5 at 58x) and continuing...than ring or ecores or ecores/than ring...not sure the more logical approach there? Im going to game for a few hours and see how it holds up.

An update came out today for hwinfo64 and I had hoped there was an updated vrm readout for me but alas, not this time.


----------



## tubs2x4

tps3443 said:


> Exchange it for another one man, I feel like the later batch 13900K’s X241+ are potentially better. It’s just a hunch, but maybe Intel was binning a lot during the (X233-X238) 13900K’s time period. I don’t really know for sure.
> 
> But right now I practically have a 13900KS. it will do 5.8-6.2Ghz or 5.9-6.2Ghz.
> 
> I mean a 13900KS only does 5.7
> Ghz all cores with 6.0Ghz boost, it doesn’t take a golden 13900K to achieve that either, I feel like they’re gonna be close to tapped out with maybe +100-200Mhz left in the tank if that.
> 
> The average 13900KS will probably be nothing more than a good 13900K. Not great, but good. I wish that wasn’t the case, but it’s the marketing hype alone that Intel already has in the bag right now lol. “ introducing the first 6Ghz CPU rahhhhhhh” lol. And it’s really only 6Ghz on (2) cores.


You only speak of “average” but Imagine The “good” 13900ks…


----------



## bhav

tubs2x4 said:


> You only speak of “average” but Imagine The “good” 13900ks…


Heres to hoping I get one as golden as my 10900K.


----------



## Ichirou

TM5 1usmus (six cycles) seems to be going smoothly so far with my classic 4,200 CL14 1T Gear 1 config.
I did need to reflash the BIOS because it was constantly freezing at random times, though. Must've gotten corrupt during my CPU undervolting tests in y-cruncher.

If everything goes out well, I'll test 4,266 MHz CL14 
Even if the cores may be average, this chip may be a keeper if only for the golden IMC. I will still try to push the cores under 253W in my personal workloads though.

@bhav @tps3443


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> No, some took losses. I think of all those eight chips combined so far, I probably lost around $500-600 CAD?


If you just waited for the KS, you would save money by just buying 1 lol.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> If you just waited for the KS, you would save money by just buying 1 lol.


Life is too short, and time is money. I'll make it back. Besides, binning chips can be fun to some extent.
I'm going to sell the 13900KF on FB Market and see if I can recoup some of the losses. It _is_ a chip that can achieve quite a bit after all; I'm sure someone will bite.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> TM5 1usmus (six cycles) seems to be going smoothly so far with my classic 4,200 CL14 1T Gear 1 config.
> I did need to reflash the BIOS because it was constantly freezing at random times, though. Must've gotten corrupt during my CPU undervolting tests in y-cruncher.
> 
> If everything goes out well, I'll test 4,266 MHz CL14
> Even if the cores may be average, this chip may be a keeper if only for the golden IMC. I will still try to push the cores under 253W in my personal workloads though.
> 
> @bhav @tps3443


I wish there was a sfc /scannow for BIOS's 😋 I wonder if somehow I corrupted mine...I can only get 4133 2T G1 out my kit...and its a decent kit that did 4400 G1 on z490 board and tighter terts to boot. I think I have better voltage control on this CPU now though so I may try to push it again...I can boot 4400 G1 flat 16s but couldnt stabilize it.

Is that the micron bdie kit your running? I think the stuff in your sig is old...


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, as long as you test your overclock in your own applications and make sure the wattage isn't extreme, it should be fine to boost up to 6.0+ GHz with added voltage.
> Not all applications immediately demand 300W no matter what. 1.40V+ VR VOUT at only 100W for X or Y game is really not a big deal.
> 
> Naturally, if your workloads do demand a lot of power, then you'd keep the voltage tame and the multipliers conservative.
> 
> Considering how these chips degrade pretty hard, I wouldn't be surprised if Intel makes an adjustment to the base turbo clock prior to release.


I tested it today actually during work. I have my CPU at :

62,62,61,61,58,58 P-Cores
x51 cache
x45 E-Cores
DDR5 7600
Adaptive voltage
Auto LLC
TVB disabled
No power limits
VID’s ranging from 1.266V-1.454V
Average VID is 1.399.

CPU Package power didn’t exceed 99 watts Lol. Max package temp= 24C-53C. Using the system for about 8 hours. 

I think I’m good with these settings. Great chip!


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> I wish there was a sfc /scannow for BIOS's 😋 I wonder if somehow I corrupted mine...I can only get 4133 2T G1 out my kit...and its a decent kit that did 4400 G1 on z490 board and tighter terts to boot. I think I have better voltage control on this CPU now though so I may try to push it again...I can boot 4400 G1 flat 16s but couldnt stabilize it.
> 
> Is that the micron bdie kit your running? I think the stuff in your sig is old...


The main way of figuring out whether or not your BIOS is corrupt is to simply run TM5 1usmus/anta777 with a perfectly stable memory overclock.
If it throws errors even though you know 100% that it was stable in the past, it's most likely corrupt.

If you don't already have a stable baseline, then you can presume that any sort of BSODs/freezing/errors you encounter during stress tests have a potential of corrupting the BIOS.
So just reflash the BIOS anyway to be safe. You can always save the profile to a USB and reload it.

Yes, it is the same Micron B-die kit. 4x16 GB. I'm full on pushing it to the limit.

@tps3443
I'll slap 1.45V at the chip in the BIOS and give adaptive voltage another try as well with this new chip, but with PL1/PL2 capped at 253W.
Let's see how smart the BIOS is and what the average effective clocks push up to. It'll probably be worse than 57/45 P/E all-core though, since I still have an average sample.
Cinebench R23 will probably result in worse or equal scores.


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Okie dokie, so I've applied this method (I also used LL5 for now) and came up with AC LL = 25 ; DC LL = 75. I had to set vcore to 1.21v to get anything resembling stable. *The problem is, everytime you adjust the set vcore it changes everything* in the equation. So, not one hundo on this but I ran a pass of cb23 and adjusted the AC LL to 25...the point where the current VIDS match the current Vcore draw:
> 
> View attachment 2584688
> 
> 
> Now, its just a matter of figuring out what kind of wiggle room I have I guess...may be able to try increasing the 55x cores to 56x (leaving cores 4 and 5 at 58x) and continuing...than ring or ecores or ecores/than ring...not sure the more logical approach there? Im going to game for a few hours and see how it holds up.
> 
> An update came out today for hwinfo64 and I had hoped there was an updated vrm readout for me but alas, not this time.


Right, when you adjust v core up or down AC LL and DC LL revert back to auto. So after you adjust the voltage, just change them back to the previous values. DC LL, since it is based on LLC impedance, should remain the same, but you may or may not have to adjust AC LL a bit.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> If everything goes out well, I'll test 4,266 MHz CL14


hmmmmmm










Nvm, instant errors.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

tps3443 said:


> I tested it today actually during work. I have my CPU at :
> 
> 62,62,61,61,58,58 P-Cores
> x51 cache
> x45 E-Cores
> DDR5 7600
> Adaptive voltage
> Auto LLC
> TVB disabled
> No power limits
> VID’s ranging from 1.266V-1.454V
> 
> CPU Package power didn’t exceed 99 watts Lol. Max package temp= 24C-53C. Using the system for about 8 hours.
> 
> I think I’m good with these settings. Great chip!


Did you literally just change the voltage type to adaptive, change the multipliers on the cores and run it? You must have a god chip or something...because if its that easy I am going to play with it as well and just save this BIOS profile for when it goes south. 😋 Under load what is the voltage...like 1.266?


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Did you literally just change the voltage type to adaptive, change the multipliers on the cores and run it? You must have a god chip or something...because if its that easy I am going to play with it as well and just save this BIOS profile for when it goes south. 😋 Under load what is the voltage...like 1.266?


He has a golden chip. Easily P-SP of 120+.

The easy way of doing it is to simply slap a ton of voltage at the chip, set some LLC level that isn't flat, and cap PL1 and PL2 to a relatively safe wattage like 253W.

Then just monitor the *effective *clocks in HWiNFO to see what each core averages to. Test with your preferred test, or your own workloads.


----------



## tps3443

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Did you literally just change the voltage type to adaptive, change the multipliers on the cores and run it? You must have a god chip or something...because if its that easy I am going to play with it as well and just save this BIOS profile for when it goes south. 😋 Under load what is the voltage...like 1.266?


I would go for the highest clocks your CPU will allow you to run. All I did was set the “Adaptive advanced VF curve” option in bios, but literally thats all I did with it. I also changed “lite load” down to #3 or #4 afterwards. Lite load is on #9 by default on the Unify-X I think. The lower the lite load, the lower the load voltage is when all cores are stressed to the max in something like R23 etc.etc.

Honestly, even if someone can only run like 5.5Ghz all cores on their specific 13900K. I would recommend using something like 59,59,58,58,56,56,55,55 on the P-Cores. I think probably anyone can do that with any sample.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

tps3443 said:


> I would go for the highest clocks your CPU will allow you to run. All I did was set the “Adaptive advanced VF curve” option in bios, but literally thats all I did with it. I also changed “lite load” down to #3 or #4 afterwards. Lite load is on #9 by default on the Unify-X I think. The lower the lite load, the lower the load voltage is when all cores are stressed to the max in something like R23 etc.etc.
> 
> Honestly, even if someone can only run like 5.5Ghz all cores on their specific 13900K. I would recommend using something like 59,59,58,58,56,56,55,55 on the P-Cores. I think probably anyone can do that with any sample.


Ya mode 9 cpu lite load is the default on my z790 edge d4 board as well. Hmm well I probably try this at some point just to see, I’m thinking those multipliers …my board defaulted cores 4 and 5 as the 58x and I think 0-4 are the next best but I’m only guessing from observing voltage behaviour on the cores. Not even sure if mine has adaptive advanced VF curve.
Edit: you manually set the p core multipliers though right…in that order you posted or had a process to select the cores?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I would go for the highest clocks your CPU will allow you to run. All I did was set the “Adaptive advanced VF curve” option in bios, but literally thats all I did with it. I also changed “lite load” down to #3 or #4 afterwards. Lite load is on #9 by default on the Unify-X I think. The lower the lite load, the lower the load voltage is when all cores are stressed to the max in something like R23 etc.etc.
> 
> Honestly, even if someone can only run like 5.5Ghz all cores on their specific 13900K. I would recommend using something like 59,59,58,58,56,56,55,55 on the P-Cores. I think probably anyone can do that with any sample.


The Lite Load values confuse me. Do you simply go from 9 to 1 until it starts to fail or cause regressive performance, with adaptive voltage?


----------



## Bilco

tps3443 said:


> I have delidded every CPU I own, and I truly believe it’s not worth delidding the 13900K. Intel has that solder down right. They have figured something out in the R&D. And I know there is some variation with solder and the IHS and all that. But this current 13900K I have runs cooler or just as cool as my re-lidded 13900KF. And I did that 13900KF right. Lots of LM, lapped the bottom of the IHS so it floated on the die only. I don’t understand it.


Dunno what you are doing, I got 13C+ temp reduction from delid


----------



## tps3443

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Ya mode 9 cpu lite load is the default on my z790 edge d4 board as well. Hmm well I probably try this at some point just to see, I’m thinking those multipliers …my board defaulted cores 4 and 5 as the 58x and I think 0-4 are the next best but I’m only guessing from observing voltage behaviour on the cores. Not even sure if mine has adaptive advanced VF curve.
> Edit: you manually set the p core multipliers though right…in that order you posted or had a process to select the cores?


I didn’t test what cores were best. I just set the ratios and it works. It runs the frequency on all of them depending on the load. This is HWinfo that I left it open for work today. I have been running this setup since yesterday, and it's just awesome. R23 stable, and stable for anything I throw at it. Single thread testing is also stable as well. I'm not gonna stress the chip out with some crazy loads or anything like that. So, I am calling it as it is. Good enough!


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> The Lite Load values confuse me. Do you simply go from 9 to 1 until it starts to fail or cause regressive performance, with adaptive voltage?


I just lower lite load 1 at a time until it is not stable. Then I go back to where it was stable. It reduces power across the board.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I didn’t test what cores were best. I just set the ratios and it works. It runs the frequency on all of them depending on the load. This is HWinfo that I left it open for work today. I have been running this setup since yesterday, and it's just awesome. R23 stable, and stable for anything I throw at it. Single thread testing is also stable as well. I'm not gonna stress the chip out with some crazy loads or anything like that. So, I am calling it as it is. Good enough!
> 
> View attachment 2584692


What did you set your Vcore in BIOS and LLC to anyway?


tps3443 said:


> I just lower lite load 1 at a time until it is not stable. Then I go back to where it was stable. It reduces power across the board.


Sounds about right to me. Similar process with LLC; just increase the Vdroop until it fails with the Vcore you set.


----------



## tps3443

Bilco said:


> Dunno what you are doing, I got 13C+ temp reduction from delid


Hey, that's awesome. I am the type of person who will re-mount a cpu and block a gazillion times just to get it right, or until I am on my last drop of thermal paste/liquid metal 😝 . I have delidded a lot of chips. And it is what it is. I saw a difference in temps, it just wasn't anything to write home about.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> What did you set your Vcore in BIOS and LLC to anyway?
> 
> Sounds about right to me. Similar process with LLC; just increase the Vdroop until it fails with the Vcore you set.


LLC is on Auto, and I didn't set a V-Core with this configuration. I just selected "Advanced adaptive VFcurve"


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> LLC is on Auto, and I didn't set a V-Core. I just selected "Advanced adaptive VFcurve"


Ah, I see. Well, I suppose that works too, so long as the wattage is within reasonable limits.

It might even be more optimized than manually overclocking the cores, lol. But that assumes all-core multipliers, not individually optimized ones.

I'll have to give it a try as well. I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## BenchAndGames

Is this any good ? 
13700k SP 86
P-core SP 96
E-core SP 68


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Ah, I see. Well, I suppose that works too, so long as the wattage is within reasonable limits.
> 
> It might even be more optimized than manually overclocking the cores, lol. But that assumes all-core multipliers, not individually optimized ones.
> 
> I'll have to give it a try as well. I'm genuinely curious.


Running R23 (All-Core) is 300 watts with these settings I do lose some efficiency in an all-core load, because I am essentially running auto voltage with 5.8-6.2 multipliers lol. However, if I just set a locked 5.8Ghz all-core in the bios and a fixed voltage I can get by with much less power. But you know what, I don't need to run R23 anymore really lol. I mostly work and play games when I can. And in games, it uses hardly any power at all.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Running R23 (All-Core) is 300 watts with these settings I do lose some efficiency in an all-core load, because I am essentially running auto voltage with 5.8-6.2 multipliers lol. However, if I just set a locked 5.8Ghz all-core in the bios and a fixed voltage I can get by with much less power. But you know what, I don't need to run R23 anymore really lol. I mostly work and play games when I can. And in games, it uses hardly any power at all.


Yeah, it does seem like the smart play. I'll have to give it a try after I get this memory TM5 stable. Still trying to figure out why the PC freezes; too low voltage somewhere.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

tps3443 said:


> I just lower lite load 1 at a time until it is not stable. Then I go back to where it was stable. It reduces power across the board.


If you set the lite load mode and then switch to advanced I believe it reveals the ac/dc it sets doesn’t it? You have to reboot I think to see it …or you could just check the readout in hwinfo with sensors off. Pretty sure I noticed that yesterday when playing around.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 Fiddling with multipliers and voltages now would make everything a lot more confusing, so I'll leave it for after I've locked in my final memory overclock


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> I just lower lite load 1 at a time until it is not stable. Then I go back to where it was stable. It reduces power across the board.


When I was using the normal setting in Lite Load and set it to auto, it went to 1. I was under the impression that was a good thing. However, I am now using advanced and setting DC LL to LLC impedance and fine tuning AC LL until Vcore and VIDs match. At the moment I am trying a "gentle" OC at 56P/44E/48R @ 1.22V static vcore. That results in a 1,198 vcore and 1.198VID under full load.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> When I was using the normal setting in Lite Load and set it to auto, it went to 1. I was under the impression that was a good thing. However, I am now using advanced and setting DC LL to LLC impedance and fine tuning AC LL until Vcore and VIDs match. At the moment I am trying a "gentle" OC at 56P/44E/48R @ 1.22V static vcore. That results in a 1,198 vcore and 1.198VID under full load.


On my “Ultra low power OC” 5.5-5.8 boost ratio with x51 cache, and 45 E-Cores, using fixed voltage my lite load auto sets to 1 as well. Don’t know why.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 Fiddling with multipliers and voltages now would make everything a lot more confusing, so I'll leave it for after I've locked in my final memory overclock


How much ram voltage do you need for 4200CL14?

Does 4266CL14 work yet?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> How much ram voltage do you need for 4200CL14?
> 
> Does 4266CL14 work yet?


Still minimizing the core voltages to the absolute rock bottom before testing 4,266 MHz.
I passed TM5 1usmus (six cycles) so far, but needed to give Vcore a slight bump in voltage to get rid of the freezing. Raised it by +0.02V; didn't try +0.01V (will try that later).

L2 Voltage of 1.17V _almost_ passed y-cruncher perfectly. Alas, it ended up passing with a single WHEA error.
Still, it's insanely low compared to the 1.26V minimum with my 13900KF. This chip has a really good ring, or E-cores (haven't tested yet).

Oh right, I forgot to mention.
4,200 CL14 needs 1.64-1.67V VDIMM. I say a range, because in the past, I could do it with 1.64V. But now I test with 1.67V. I'll have to give you an updated answer later.
VDDQ is still 1.62V for now, but I'll see if I can drop it. 4,266 MHz will come later.

Update: 1.17-1.19V L2 Voltage gives errors in y-cruncher at different times. It could be due to BIOS corruption, but I'll just sit on 1.20V for the time being.
Gonna reflash and retest 1.20V L2 just to make sure it is still stable.

Update 2: It seems that the Vcore does in fact need to be raised by +0.02V. Any less, and y-cruncher can randomly fail.
This might explain why TM5 kept freezing as well.

However, L2 Voltage is indeed stable down to 1.18V. 1.17V gave a WHEA error, so I won't be retesting that.
Going to try reducing VDDQ now.


----------



## Betroz

@Nizzen and @cstkl1 
Have you guys found out what the DDR5 *sweetspot *for Raptor Lake is?
Sure DDR5 8400 C34 is cool and all, but is gaming performance _really _any better vs say 6400-7400 range?


----------



## fray_bentos

Ichirou said:


> The Lite Load values confuse me. Do you simply go from 9 to 1 until it starts to fail or cause regressive performance, with adaptive voltage?


Yes


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> @Nizzen and @cstkl1
> Have you guys found out what the DDR5 *sweetspot *for Raptor Lake is?
> Sure DDR5 8400 C34 is cool and all, but is gaming performance _really _any better vs say 6400-7400 range?


7000mhz c30 is very good, because 7000mhz tweaked was 35% higher minimum fps in Battlefield than 4800xmp. Need to test 7000 m-die VS 8400 a-die soon in BF 2042 
I would say from 6400 tweaked, it's pretty much sweetspot. Easy to work on most motherboards today.


----------



## fray_bentos

RichKnecht said:


> When I was using the normal setting in Lite Load and set it to auto, it went to 1. I was under the impression that was a good thing. However, I am now using advanced and setting DC LL to LLC impedance and fine tuning AC LL until Vcore and VIDs match. At the moment I am trying a "gentle" OC at 56P/44E/48R @ 1.22V static vcore. That results in a 1,198 vcore and 1.198VID under full load.


I am pretty sure that when you change certain settings away from auto (e.g. voltage modes/specify voltage), then the MSI board will enforce/grey out LiteLoad at 1. That's certainly the way it was on my Z490. You have to go and check after a reboot when changing certain settings.

When voltage mode is auto, then LiteLoad defaults to 9 and can usually be lowered to 1 or 2 depending on chip quality.


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> 7000mhz c30 is very good, because 7000mhz tweaked was 35% higher minimum fps in Battlefield than 4800xmp. Need to test 7000 m-die VS 8400 a-die soon in BF 2042
> I would say from 6400 tweaked, it's pretty much sweetspot. Easy to work on most motherboards today.


Thank you. If I go for RL I will not buy the Asus Apex this time, because it is too expensive compared to my Z490 Apex, and because I don't do any XOC stuff so why buy that. But I know memory performance is very important, so I would need a decent _enough _motherboard that can do _up to_ 7000 C30.


----------



## Ichirou

Betroz said:


> Thank you. If I go for RL I will not buy the Asus Apex this time, because it is too expensive compared to my Z490 Apex, and because I don't do any XOC stuff so why buy that. But I know memory performance is very important, so I would need a decent _enough _motherboard that can do _up to_ 7000 C30.


Z690 EVGA Dark or MSI Unify-X


----------



## Betroz

Ichirou said:


> Z690 EVGA Dark or MSI Unify-X


The EVGA Dark is a XOC motherboard too...


----------



## Ichirou

Betroz said:


> The EVGA Dark is a XOC motherboard too...


Then get an MSI Carbon or something, and test drive it with the intention to refund if it doesn't work.
I don't think anyone here has actually bought a lower tier DDR5 board.


----------



## Betroz

Ichirou said:


> I don't think anyone here has actually bought a lower tier DDR5 board.


Hehe I think you are right! 
I was thinking maybe an Asus Strix board.

Edit : Like the ASUS ROG STRIX Z790-F GAMING WIFI


----------



## Ichirou

Betroz said:


> Hehe I think you are right!
> I was thinking maybe an Asus Strix board.


The QVL and max memory frequency lists should be a decent indicator for memory slot strength.
Each board comes with compatibility lists; you should check those to see if some XMP RAM kits at 7,000+ MHz are listed.


----------



## Che

tps3443 said:


> I tested it today actually during work. I have my CPU at :
> 
> 62,62,61,61,58,58 P-Cores
> x51 cache
> x45 E-Cores
> DDR5 7600
> Adaptive voltage
> Auto LLC
> TVB disabled
> No power limits
> VID’s ranging from 1.266V-1.454V
> Average VID is 1.399.
> 
> CPU Package power didn’t exceed 99 watts Lol. Max package temp= 24C-53C. Using the system for about 8 hours.
> 
> I think I’m good with these settings. Great chip!


Nice and great work! Did those numbers include any benches or validation runs like R23?


----------



## Ichirou

Che said:


> Nice and great work! Did those numbers include any benches or validation runs like R23?


His chip drops to 58x all-core in R23 (which is what his golden sample can handle with low Vcore). The boosts above 60x are just for lower wattage loads.


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav
4,200 MHz CL14 1T Gear 1 passed TM5 1usmus (six cycles) with only 1.59V VDDQ minimum. That's still better than my 13900KF needing 1.62V.
I've now optimized my CPU voltages. I've still yet to optimize the RAM's VDIMM, VTT, and VPP, but those aren't too difficult to deal with now that I have a baseline.

Since it is late, I'm just going to run this through anta777 ABSOLUT overnight as a final confirmation.

For posterity: 55/43/45 @ 1.20V VR VOUT, 1.29V VCCSA, 1.59V VDDQ, 1.18V L2 Voltage - Stable in y-cruncher Main 10B + N64/HNT/VST


----------



## Che

Ichirou said:


> His chip drops to 58x all-core in R23 (which is what his golden sample can handle with low Vcore). The boosts above 60x are just for lower wattage loads.


That's insane I've never seen a 13900K max out at only 53 degrees!


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

Betroz said:


> @Nizzen and @cstkl1
> Have you guys found out what the DDR5 *sweetspot *for Raptor Lake is?
> Sure DDR5 8400 C34 is cool and all, but is gaming performance _really _any better vs say 6400-7400 range?


zero %0.1 low difference between tight 7000 M die VS XMP 7600 XMP A die.


----------



## Betroz

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> zero %0.1 low difference between tight 7000 M die VS XMP 7600 XMP A die.


That would suggest that memory bandwith at 7000 is enough to feed a RL CPU. What about the latency difference due to tight sub-timings?


----------



## Che

Betroz said:


> That would suggest that memory bandwidth at 7000 is enough to feed a RL CPU. What about the latency difference due to tight sub-timings?


Even DDR4 isn't bandwidth limited in games it's like going from PCIE Gen 3 on a GPU vs PCIE Gen4 a bigger pool of unneeded bandwidth will give you a 1% increase. Some games even beat DDR5 because they scale better with tighter timings and latency of DDR4.


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> @Nizzen and @cstkl1
> Have you guys found out what the DDR5 *sweetspot *for Raptor Lake is?
> Sure DDR5 8400 C34 is cool and all, but is gaming performance _really _any better vs say 6400-7400 range?


7600 da min i think adie 
8k-8400 really silicon lottery on cpu/ram and need watercooling on ram


----------



## Betroz

Che said:


> Even DDR4 isn't bandwidth limited in games it's like going from PCIE Gen 3 on a GPU vs PCIE Gen4 a bigger pool of unneeded bandwidth will give you a 1% increase. Some games even beat DDR5 because they scale better with tighter timings and latency of DDR4.


Yeah but multiplayer games like Battlefield benefit from faster memory as Nizzen said. Much more so than singel player games. I am looking for the sweetspot. I don't care about 1-2% better performance either, but 10% or more - for sure.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> 8k-8400 really silicon lottery on cpu/ram and need watercooling on ram


I don't plan on aiming that high.


----------



## Che

Betroz said:


> Yeah but multiplayer games like Battlefield benefit from faster memory as Nizzen said. Much more so than singel player games. I am looking for the sweetspot. I don't care about 1-2% better performance either, but 10% or more - for sure.


Faster memory is lower latency, not bandwidth. All game assets fit in 65GB/s of bandwidth or lower and that's only if you're playing on 1080p where you are CPU limited if you're on a higher res you're GPU limited and RAM isn't even as important.


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> I don't plan on aiming that high.


7600 then. btw tuned tight timing vs xmp. is like maybe 1-2% or even less. so just get it working.


----------



## VULC

8000 ddr5 needs a binned 13900k IMC with a 12 layer PCB mobo.


----------



## Fissa

What voltages do you guys feed to get ecores stable at 4.6ghz?


----------



## Betroz

So all 13700K/13900K can at least do 7000 C30? Cause I won't be doing any CPU binning, and I have only an AIO.
If I'm smart I will wait and see how good the upcoming Ryzen 7700X 3D is before I decide what to buy...but I kinda prefer Intel so.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

Betroz said:


> So all 13700K/13900K can at least do 7000 C30? Cause I won't be doing any CPU binning, and I have only an AIO.
> If I'm smart I will wait and see how good the upcoming Ryzen 7700X 3D is before I decide what to buy...but I kinda prefer Intel so.


Chances are high if you own 2 DIMM motherboard with avg dram chip bin ( for hynix M ) 

For Hynix A, you can hassle free buy a XMP 7200 kit and call it a win


----------



## Betroz

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> Chances are high if you own 2 DIMM motherboard with avg dram chip bin ( for hynix M )
> 
> For Hynix A, you can hassle free buy a XMP 7200 kit and call it a win


No Apex or Dark this time - too expensive for my needs. The ROG STRIX Z790-F GAMING WIFI is one I have looked at, at that is 4-dimm.


----------



## Telstar

Core i7-13700K Overclocked to 6000 MHz With Z690 Torpedo EK X | SkatterBencher #50 - YouTube 
stratgy 4 is a good guide for MSI users especially


----------



## digitalfrost

OCTVB rules. 58x4, 56x8 with less than 1.3v.


----------



## affxct

Betroz said:


> No Apex or Dark this time - too expensive for my needs. The ROG STRIX Z790-F GAMING WIFI is one I have looked at, at that is 4-dimm.


Dark is 450


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> On my “Ultra low power OC” 5.5-5.8 boost ratio with x51 cache, and 45 E-Cores, using fixed voltage my lite load auto sets to 1 as well. Don’t know why.


Because you have a good chip. I read somewhere, cant find it now, that the lower you can run Lite load, the better the sample. However, I don’t think the VIDs matched the Vcore when I was using Lite load mode settings. Wondering how important that is anyway. According to Roberto, it’s what you want. All I know is, coming from X299, there are many more variables to keep track of. I’m going to try that adaptive VF curve setting and see what it does compared to what I am running now.


----------



## Betroz

affxct said:


> Dark is 450


And not for sale in Norway where I live.


----------



## pat182

i got my 13900kf 5.6 all p core at 1.29v, what voltage should i expect putting to reach 5.8 all core ? also i have put a 255watts limit so it doesnt burn itself to oblivion, its gonna be mostly for gaming, when its heavy load, it drops to 4ghz all 32 cores cause of the power limit and its fine by me.

just need the raw speed for gaming and daylie light load


----------



## RichKnecht

RichKnecht said:


> Because you have a good chip. I read somewhere, cant find it now, that the lower you can run Lite load, the better the sample. However, I don’t think the VIDs matched the Vcore when I was using Lite load mode settings. Wondering how important that is anyway. According to Roberto, it’s what you want. All I know is, coming from X299, there are many more variables to keep track of.* I’m going to try that adaptive VF curve setting and see what it does compared to what I am running now.*


So that's a bust. Voltages soar to 1.38, temps in the mid 90s, and power draw over 370W. Not working so well here.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Fissa said:


> What voltages do you guys feed to get ecores stable at 4.6ghz?


Are you talking about ecores at 46x running full load?
Vcore=1.14v in my case.


----------



## imrevoau

pat182 said:


> i got my 13900kf 5.6 all p core at 1.29v, what voltage should i expect putting to reach 5.8 all core ? also i have put a 255watts limit so it doesnt burn itself to oblivion, its gonna be mostly for gaming, when its heavy load, it drops to 4ghz all 32 cores cause of the power limit and its fine by me.
> 
> just need the raw speed for gaming and daylie light load


Hard to tell for sure but probably around 1.34-1.35


----------



## bhav

**** the 360mm AIO that wasn't due until 15th december somehow dispatched. They said they can still cancel it and get the courier to return it to them before it gets to me, but refund after they get it back.

Ordered the 420 after.

2 x 420 Aio support on the case I'm getting, it could technically support 3 but only comes with 1 front or top bracket.


----------



## RichKnecht

I tried using adaptive+offset to get my CPU voltage to 1.22 ( where I had it set at override) and no matter what offset I punch in, it won't let me go below 1.25. My guess is that any lower and the programmed VID table is taking over. I have Lite Load set to auto (goes to mode 1 every time) and LLC set to auto as well. Ironically, with LLC set to auto, it applies the same values (24AC LL and 57 DC LL ) I was using when I set up those values manually. I just don't get it. Why bother using adaptive if I get lower power draw and lower temps with a static voltage?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> I tried using adaptive+offset to get my CPU voltage to 1.22 ( where I had it set at override) and no matter what offset I punch in, it won't let me go below 1.25. My guess is that any lower and the programmed VID table is taking over. I have Lite Load set to auto (goes to mode 1 every time) and LLC set to auto as well. Ironically, with LLC set to auto, it applies the same values (24AC LL and 57 DC LL ) I was using when I set up those values manually. I just don't get it. Why bother using adaptive if I get lower power draw and lower temps with a static voltage?


Ya but what are you under load…wattage and vcore


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Ya but what are you under load…wattage and vcore


They don't drop under .1.245. They dropped to 1.19 with my override voltage setting of 1.22. Power draw was also much higher...301W


----------



## bhav

Hmmm, another plan I'm now thinking of doing. Instead of keeping the H670 and getting a non K, wait for 13th gen EOL and get a 13600K and another Z790 DDR4 when they go on sale for the second build.

Then 12600K & Z690 for the test bench. Its overkill but keeps full ram OC.

Will depend on the non K prices.

Or wait nvm, don't want to waste money on all that when the 13900KS will eventually become the second build, will stick to the 12600K and a non K, hopefully 13400F price wont be too high, otherwise 13100F or sale price on 12100F


----------



## CptSpig

Betroz said:


> @Nizzen and @cstkl1
> Have you guys found out what the DDR5 *sweetspot *for Raptor Lake is?
> Sure DDR5 8400 C34 is cool and all, but is gaming performance _really _any better vs say 6400-7400 range?





Nizzen said:


> 7000mhz c30 is very good, because 7000mhz tweaked was 35% higher minimum fps in Battlefield than 4800xmp. Need to test 7000 m-die VS 8400 a-die soon in BF 2042
> I would say from 6400 tweaked, it's pretty much sweetspot. Easy to work on most motherboards today.


For me A-Die 8000 works best in game.


----------



## bhav

What a **** up this was.


----------



## RichKnecht

RichKnecht said:


> They don't drop under .1.245. They dropped to 1.19 with my override voltage setting of 1.22. Power draw was also much higher...301W


OK, thanks to @digitalfrost I was able to drop voltage lower to get where I wanted to be by enabling TVB Optimization, so I tried something. Right now, I am at P57/E45/R48 using Adaptive + Offset yielding 1.253V under load. It passed R23, but better yet, passed my Photoshop batch process which always turned up errors when R23 passed fine.Wondering if I should set E Cores at 46 with these settings..

EDIT I guess we lose the down clocking and idle voltage drop once we set the cores higher than stock?


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> OK, thanks to @digitalfrost I was able to drop voltage lower to get where I wanted to be by enabling TVB Optimization, so I tried something. Right now, I am at P57/E45/R48 using Adaptive + Offset yielding 1.253V under load. It passed R23, but better yet, passed my Photoshop batch process which always turned up errors when R23 passed fine.Wondering if I should set E Cores at 46 with these settings..
> 
> EDIT I guess we lose the down clocking and idle voltage drop once we set the cores higher than stock?


Does increasing the ring past X48 cause a higher voltage demand?


----------



## digitalfrost

RichKnecht said:


> EDIT I guess we lose the down clocking and idle voltage drop once we set the cores higher than stock?


Not me. I'm also on MSI.










This is advanced VF curve or whatever it's called.


----------



## Ichirou

Fissa said:


> What voltages do you guys feed to get ecores stable at 4.6ghz?


Average sample is around 1.32V VR VOUT.


Betroz said:


> So all 13700K/13900K can at least do 7000 C30? Cause I won't be doing any CPU binning, and I have only an AIO.
> If I'm smart I will wait and see how good the upcoming Ryzen 7700X 3D is before I decide what to buy...but I kinda prefer Intel so.


There were some 12900K samples that could only do 6,800 MHz. So I think that there is a small chance a 13th Gen won't even run 7,000 MHz.


pat182 said:


> i got my 13900kf 5.6 all p core at 1.29v, what voltage should i expect putting to reach 5.8 all core ? also i have put a 255watts limit so it doesnt burn itself to oblivion, its gonna be mostly for gaming, when its heavy load, it drops to 4ghz all 32 cores cause of the power limit and its fine by me.
> 
> just need the raw speed for gaming and daylie light load


I'm pretty sure you can just use Adaptive at some ridiculously high voltage so long as you cap the wattage. The BIOS will figure out the rest depending on loads.

Adaptive just sets a limit to the maximum voltage the board can allocate to the chip. Coupled with LLC and Lite Load adjustments.


----------



## RichKnecht

digitalfrost said:


> Not me. I'm also on MSI.
> 
> View attachment 2584784
> 
> 
> This is advanced VF curve or whatever it's called.


That's odd. I'm using adaptive + offset and clocks/voltage are static. I am also using the balanced power plan. I have to be missing something somewhere...


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> That's odd. I'm using adaptive + offset and clocks/voltage are static. I am also using the balanced power plan. I have to be missing something somewhere...


Offset works off of VIDs. So naturally the board has to set one in stone. You should use Adaptive only.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Average sample is around 1.32V VR VOUT.
> 
> There were some 12900K samples that could only do 6,800 MHz. So I think that there is a small chance a 13th Gen won't even run 7,000 MHz.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you can just use Adaptive at some ridiculously high voltage so long as you cap the wattage. The BIOS will figure out the rest depending on loads.


I’m gonna try and mess around with my E-Cores next. I have never even posted with them beyond 45 once. I just set 45 and kinda roll on. Hopefully they too are good.


----------



## VULC

pat182 said:


> i got my 13900kf 5.6 all p core at 1.29v, what voltage should i expect putting to reach 5.8 all core ? also i have put a 255watts limit so it doesnt burn itself to oblivion, its gonna be mostly for gaming, when its heavy load, it drops to 4ghz all 32 cores cause of the power limit and its fine by me.
> 
> just need the raw speed for gaming and daylie light load


If youre gaming turn E cores off because they take up L3 cache and like you said it runs up the power and voltage requirements on regular cooling. Your games will run heaps better you need all that 36mb of L3 for games. You will most likely be able to achieve and all core of 5.7ghz without anything exotic for cooling and slightly under 1.3v and on R23 you won't hit the power limit anymore.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Does increasing the ring past X48 cause a higher voltage demand?


No, but I get an error now at 49 using the same voltage.I have SA at auto (1.35). Maybebump it up a little? It's showing [email protected] 1.253 and vcore at 1.252


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Offset works off of VIDs. So naturally the board has to set one in stone. You should use Adaptive only.


Adaptive throws some crazy voltage. Like 1.4.That's why I am using it with an offset.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I’m gonna try and mess around with my E-Cores next. I have never even posted with them beyond 45 once. I just set 45 and kinda roll on. Hopefully they too are good.


46x should be doable for everyone, with enough voltage. 47x is when voltage requirements start to shoot up for many chips.


VULC said:


> If youre gaming turn E cores off because they take up L3 cache and like you said it runs up the power and voltage requirements on regular cooling. Your games will run heaps better you need all that 36mb of L3 for games. You will most likely be able to achieve and all core of 5.7ghz without anything exotic for cooling and slightly under 1.3v and on R23 you won't hit the power limit anymore.


My avid gamer friend thoroughly tested many games with/without the E-cores enabled, and swears by non-E-core gaming. 

Instead, he sets up a separate power plan to easily park the E-cores when he starts a gaming session. 


RichKnecht said:


> No, but I get an error now at 49 using the same voltage.I have SA at auto (1.35). Maybebump it up a little? It's showing [email protected] 1.253 and vcore at 1.252


Not enough Vcore. 


RichKnecht said:


> Adaptive throws some crazy voltage. Like 1.4.That's why I am using it with an offset.


It doesn't matter. Current does. And when you're capping off the wattage, that current has to be lowered by the board to stay under it.

Side note: I think there needs to be some sort of low load test to see how high the cores could boost based on wattage/thermal curves instead of manual voltage. Something better than idle but less intensive than R23.

I have a feeling that TM5 could actually fit that description, since it typically uses around half the wattage of R23 in my experience even on Override Mode, but can support running all cores to the max.


----------



## VULC

The ring and cores get their voltage from v core you need to run 1.38v to 1.4v on idle to power them or 4.9 to 5.1 ring will crash.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> 46x should be doable for everyone, with enough voltage. 47x is when voltage requirements start to shoot up for many chips.
> 
> My avid gamer friend thoroughly tested many games with/without the E-cores enabled, and swears by non-E-core gaming.
> 
> Instead, he sets up a separate power plan to easily park the E-cores when he starts a gaming session.
> 
> Not enough Vcore.
> 
> It doesn't matter. Current does. And when you're capping off the wattage, that current has to be lowered by the board to stay under it.


I just changed VDDQ to auto which sets it to 1.20 (had it set to 1.35) and errors are gone. As for adaptive why would I let it use that much power when it doesn't need it? Sorry, this adaptive thing isn't sinking in. Remember, I am an old guy.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I just changed VDDQ to auto which sets it to 1.20 (had it set to 1.35) and errors are gone. As for adaptive why would I let it use that much power when it doesn't need it? Sorry, this adaptive thing isn't sinking in. Remember, I am an old guy.


Because Adaptive Voltage = Max Voltage Allowed. 

Boards and BIOSes are smart now. With the various voltage optimization technologies enabled, the chip will naturally clock down everything depending on load. And the power usage should scale accordingly. Especially with a power limit set. 

But with Offset Voltage, that is based on a static VID, which means it forces a specific baseline instead of letting the board play around with the VIDs dynamically.


----------



## digitalfrost

Ichirou said:


> Side note: I think there needs to be some sort of low load test to see how high the cores could boost based on wattage/thermal curves instead of manual voltage. Something better than idle but less intensive than R23.


I like running Geekbench 5 single core in the background while just using the machine.



Code:


C:\Program Files (x86)\Geekbench 5>geekbench_x86_64.exe --single-core --no-upload

I just start this, then in Process Lasso [x] keep process running. This will infinitely restart the geekbench while loading only 1 core. Together with normal PC usage you get a pretty good picture.


----------



## fray_bentos

RichKnecht said:


> So that's a bust. Voltages soar to 1.38, temps in the mid 90s, and power draw over 370W. Not working so well here.


Did you drop LLC to 6 or 7 or 8?


----------



## Ichirou

digitalfrost said:


> I like running Geekbench 5 single core in the background while just using the machine.
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> C:\Program Files (x86)\Geekbench 5>geekbench_x86_64.exe --single-core --no-upload
> 
> I just start this, then in Process Lasso [x] keep process running. This will infinitely restart the geekbench while loading only 1 core. Together with normal PC usage you get a pretty good picture.


TM5 works too, but you need a power plan hack on W10 to make sure the P-cores don't get parked. W11 should be fine though. 

Effective Clocks are always tacked at max. In my observation, the Power POUT is usually around 100-130W. Compared to R23 which goes to 250-300W (at my voltage setting).


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> I tried using adaptive+offset to get my CPU voltage to 1.22 ( where I had it set at override) and no matter what offset I punch in, it won't let me go below 1.25. My guess is that any lower and the programmed VID table is taking over. I have Lite Load set to auto (goes to mode 1 every time) and LLC set to auto as well. Ironically, with LLC set to auto, it applies the same values (24AC LL and 57 DC LL ) I was using when I set up those values manually. I just don't get it. Why bother using adaptive if I get lower power draw and lower temps with a static voltage?


You use adaptive primarily just so you can boost other cores higher. Other than that, using a fixed voltage is good enough. If you are just setting a fixed all core, then I’d just set a low fixed voltage with auto LLC.


----------



## RichKnecht

fray_bentos said:


> Did you drop LLC to 6 or 7 or 8?


I actually have LLC and Lite Load on auto right now. This sets the board to "mode 1" in Lite Load.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> You use adaptive primarily just so you can boost other cores higher. Other than that, using a fixed voltage is good enough. If you are just setting a fixed all core, then I’d just set a fixed voltage.


Yes, I have all cores at the same values as every program I use is optimized for multi threads. I do not use any single thread programs


----------



## fray_bentos

RichKnecht said:


> OK, thanks to @digitalfrost I was able to drop voltage lower to get where I wanted to be by enabling TVB Optimization, so I tried something. Right now, I am at P57/E45/R48 using Adaptive + Offset yielding 1.253V under load. It passed R23, but better yet, passed my Photoshop batch process which always turned up errors when R23 passed fine.Wondering if I should set E Cores at 46 with these settings..
> 
> EDIT I guess we lose the down clocking and idle voltage drop once we set the cores higher than stock?


No, I have p and e cores OC'd using offset +4 and they downclock just fine.


----------



## RichKnecht

fray_bentos said:


> No, I have p and e cores OC'd using offset +4 and they downclock just fine.


Hmmm...I am doing something wrong then. I just changed them from Auto to the values I posted

EDIT I changedto turbo ratio offset and everything downclocks and downvolts. However now the voltage went from 1.253 to 1.4


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav
TM5 anta777 ABSOLUT sort-of passed. It managed to pass 4-5 cycles (around 5-6 hours) error-free, and then at some point during the 6th cycle, it threw a single error.
So it de facto passed ABSOLUT already (since the default is three cycles), but something overheated at some point later on. I'll just consider this to be a win.

Gonna experiment with 4,266 MHz now.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> @bhav
> TM5 anta777 ABSOLUT sort-of passed. It managed to pass 4-5 cycles (around 5-6 hours) error-free, and then at some point during the 6th cycle, it threw a single error.
> So it de facto passed ABSOLUT already (since the default is three cycles), but something overheated at some point later on. I'll just consider this to be a win.
> 
> Gonna experiment with 4,266 MHz now.


Does 4266CL14 even boot on your kit?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Does 4266CL14 even boot on your kit?


Yes... I've tested up to 4,300 MHz already. But it's just not stable (for obvious reasons).


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> 46x should be doable for everyone, with enough voltage. 47x is when voltage requirements start to shoot up for many chips.
> 
> My avid gamer friend thoroughly tested many games with/without the E-cores enabled, and swears by non-E-core gaming.
> 
> Instead, he sets up a separate power plan to easily park the E-cores when he starts a gaming session.
> 
> Not enough Vcore.
> 
> It doesn't matter. Current does. And when you're capping off the wattage, that current has to be lowered by the board to stay under it.
> 
> Side note: I think there needs to be some sort of low load test to see how high the cores could boost based on wattage/thermal curves instead of manual voltage. Something better than idle but less intensive than R23.
> 
> I have a feeling that TM5 could actually fit that description, since it typically uses around half the wattage of R23 in my experience even on Override Mode, but can support running all cores to the max.


I'll tell you why they made E Cores? So when Linus hits start on R23 it shows a high number on reviews and to compete with AMD. It would have been much better to have 10 P cores or more.


----------



## RichKnecht

OK...getting close. Do you leave voltage on auto when using adaptive or do you enter your own voltage?


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> OK...getting close. Do you leave voltage on auto when using adaptive or do you enter your own voltage?


...

Adaptive Voltage = Max Allowable Voltage

That's all it is.

Nobody really knows what the auto max value would be. So just set it yourself, along with an LLC.


----------



## Ichirou

.


----------



## digitalfrost

RichKnecht said:


> OK...getting close. Do you leave voltage on auto when using adaptive or do you enter your own voltage?


I use advanced offset and change the highest VF point if I want more Vcore. Since we're on MSI, it doesn't work like on ASUS. You cannot edit VF#11 only like on ASUS, instead the highest VF you edit will also raise the vcore for all ratios below that are not factory fused. See here:






I think this behaviour is identical wheter or not you use advanced offset or adaptive. In other words, increasing Vcore for the highest bin will always also raise your allcore vcore, except if your allcore is a factory fused VF (i.e. 54x for 13700k).

You can play with this by dropping allcore ratio to factory fused via OCTVB at a certain temperature.

For this reason I would be very conservative raising OC ratio vcore, either by adv. offset or adaptive on MSI.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> 46x should be doable for everyone, with enough voltage. 47x is when voltage requirements start to shoot up for many chips.
> 
> My avid gamer friend thoroughly tested many games with/without the E-cores enabled, and swears by non-E-core gaming.
> 
> Instead, he sets up a separate power plan to easily park the E-cores when he starts a gaming session.
> 
> Not enough Vcore.
> 
> It doesn't matter. Current does. And when you're capping off the wattage, that current has to be lowered by the board to stay under it.
> 
> Side note: I think there needs to be some sort of low load test to see how high the cores could boost based on wattage/thermal curves instead of manual voltage. Something better than idle but less intensive than R23.
> 
> I have a feeling that TM5 could actually fit that description, since it typically uses around half the wattage of R23 in my experience even on Override Mode, but can support running all cores to the max.





RichKnecht said:


> OK...getting close. Do you leave voltage on auto when using adaptive or do you enter your own voltage?


If you set it on auto it will use whatever it needs to achieve your core clock ratio. You will throttle if you exceed tjmax. You need to test lowest stable to avoid extra power and heat.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> ...
> 
> Adaptive Voltage = Max Allowable Voltage
> 
> That's all it is.
> 
> Nobody really knows what the auto max value would be. So just set it yourself, along with an LLC.


OK, for now it's on Auto and LLC6 and Mode 5 and I am close (I think)..Everything is downvolting/clocking. Hitting 60 on up to 4 P cores and 57/45 on full load. VIDs are at 1.123 and V core goes to 1.262. 303W. Now to see if I can drop that a bit. REALLY appreciate the patience and help everyone has given me. Looks like I may have a decent chip after all


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> If you set it on auto it will use whatever it needs to achieve your core clock ratio. You will throttle if you exceed tjmax. You need to test lowest stable to avoid extra power and heat.


Couldn't have explained it better myself.
You set your core ratios, and the BIOS will try to achieve (up to) them on load, subject to the manually set adaptive voltage limit, as well as wattage limit.

Hence, you could just set it on Auto or some high value, and just let the board figure the rest out, with LLC and Lite Load manually set for consistency.

@bhav Boots up so far:


----------



## tps3443

@RichKnecht 

Let me show you my bios in a few. And you can play around with something similar, just to demonstrate how I run my setup. 


RichKnecht said:


> OK, for now it's on Auto and LLC6 and Mode 5 and I am close (I think)..Everything is downvolting/clocking. Hitting 60 on up to 4 P cores and 57/45 on full load. VIDs are at 1.123 and V core goes to 1.262. 303W. Now to see if I can drop that a bit. REALLY appreciate the patience and help everyone has given me. Looks like I may have a decent chip after all


Also, I’d recommend disabling TVB Voltage Optimization in the bios. TVB can cause some instability when you start cranking up the boost on fewer cores. Because, it’s altering your VID’s based on temperature.

You are essnentially using your CPU the way it was intended though. Adaptive/auto and using LLC or lite load to compensate is the proper method for overclocking these modern chips.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> You are essnentially using your CPU the way it was intended though. Adaptive/auto and using LLC or lite load to compensate is the proper method for overclocking these modern chips.


Just gotta make sure to test in your own games/workloads, or some medium load test that is stronger than idle but weaker than R23, to simulate average loads.
I'll have to pinpoint something free that could work for everyone universally and could be used as a comparison metric. Maybe some sort of free 3DMark test? Not sure.

TM5 technically works, but the P-cores do get parked on W10 without a power plan hack, so that's not universally feasible.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Just gotta make sure to test in your own games/workloads, or some medium load test that is stronger than idle but weaker than R23, to simulate average loads.
> I'll have to pinpoint something free that could work for everyone universally and could be used as a comparison metric. Maybe some sort of free 3DMark test? Not sure.
> 
> TM5 technically works, but the P-cores do get parked on W10 without a power plan hack, so that's not universally feasible.


I don't think P Cores get parked if E Cores disabled but I downgraded to Win 10 because Win 11 is a hot mess for gaming, fps and stability are way better.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> I don't think P Cores get parked if E Cores disabled but I downgraded to Win 10 because Win 11 is a hot mess for gaming.


If the E-cores are disabled, the P-cores indeed run at max in TM5. But that doesn't really apply for people who want to run with their E-cores on .

When stress testing memory, you gotta test it across _all_ the enabled cores, not just some cores.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Just gotta make sure to test in your own games/workloads, or some medium load test that is stronger than idle but weaker than R23, to simulate average loads.
> I'll have to pinpoint something free that could work for everyone universally and could be used as a comparison metric. Maybe some sort of free 3DMark test? Not sure.
> 
> TM5 technically works, but the P-cores do get parked on W10 without a power plan hack, so that's not universally feasible.


I actually use R23 to get a general sense of stability or instability. Once it’s doing 30 minutes of that, I load up Photoshop and batch process a few 1000 pictures. That can rear up instabilities that R23 doesn’t catch.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> @RichKnecht
> 
> Let me show you my bios in a few. And you can play around with something similar, just to demonstrate how I run my setup.
> 
> 
> Also, I’d recommend disabling TVB Voltage Optimization in the bios. TVB can cause some instability when you start cranking up the boost on fewer cores. Because, it’s altering your VID’s based on temperature.
> 
> You are essnentially using your CPU the way it was intended though. Adaptive/auto and using LLC or lite load to compensate is the proper method for overclocking these modern chips.


Thanks! I think I have a decent chip here. I think it can really shine if I tweak it just right.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I actually use R23 to get a general sense of stability or instability. Once it’s doing 30 minutes of that, I load up Photoshop and batch process a few 1000 pictures. That can rear up instabilities that R23 doesn’t catch.


That's the thing. R23 is considered a heavy yet conservative stress test. But that's not great for testing the CPU at P-core clocks well above 57-58x.
If you use auto/adaptive/OCTVB/etc. to push your cores beyond 57-58x, you should still test them for stability.
However, there is no universal test that cando that besides field testing with your games/workloads.

Hence, I wonder whether there _is _some test out there that's weaker than R23, but stronger than idle. So that people _can _test the cores at 59x or higher.

So far, the only test that comes to mind is TM5, as it _does _stress the CPU (specifically IMC and ring) enough to cause issues such as freezing if there isn't enough Vcore.
And when no cores are parked, they _all _run at their maximum effective clocks. TM5 only uses around half the wattage that R23 does, so it would be perfect.


----------



## tps3443

This is my daily settled overclock, and I have been running it for 2 days now! I am so happy with my CPU right now. The voltage goes where it goes and does what it needs to all by itself. This CPU is so stable right now in anything I run. And I even have C-States enabled, so it even downclocks automatically to 800Mhz  .

P-Cores Boost 6.2Ghz
P-Cores (All-Core load) 5.8Ghz
E-Cores 4.5Ghz
Cache 5.1Ghz
Adaptive Voltage, Auto LLC.

As you can see, I am losing some efficiency on an "ALL CORE LOAD" but that's because my voltage is literally on Auto. But it makes all of my cores all stable up to 6.2Ghz. During gaming I average about 67-122 watts peak power, so there is that too.

I love this CPU!! Okay, no more running R23. It's good to go the distance now. I feel like I have an amazing sample. And I feel content which is difficult to obtain when testing processors. 🙃


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> This is my daily settled overclock, and I have been running it for 2 days now! I am so happy with my CPU right now. The voltage goes where it goes and does what it needs to all by itself. This CPU is so stable right now in anything. I run. And I have C-States enabled, so it even downclocks automatically to 800Mhz  .
> 
> P-Cores Boost 6.2Ghz
> P-Cores (All-Core load) 5.8Ghz
> E-Cores 4.5Ghz
> Cache 5.1Ghz
> Adaptive Voltage, Auto LLC.
> 
> As you can see, I am losing some efficiency on an "ALL CORE LOAD" but that's because my voltage is literally on Auto. But it makes all of my cores all stable up to 6.2Ghz.
> 
> I love this CPU!! Okay, no more running R23. It's good to go the distance now.
> 
> View attachment 2584820


Does your board not support "Effective Clock" readings in HWiNFO? Because the raw "Clock" readings are inaccurate; they're just the _values_ fed by the BIOS.

Even if the board feeds the full 6,200 MHz, it might actually be 5,800 MHz effective during load. Here's a screenshot of a proper effective load:








An incorrect one would be the Clocks showing as 5,500 MHz on all the P-cores, but the Effective Clocks show much less, or parked.

If you monitor the Effective Clocks during R23, you will see them fluctuate heavily. But the Clocks will remain static at whatever you set the load clocks to be.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> If the E-cores are disabled, the P-cores indeed run at max in TM5. But that doesn't really apply for people who want to run with their E-cores on .
> 
> When stress testing memory, you gotta test it across _all_ the enabled cores, not just some cores.


Depends on your use case but this is purely a gaming PC with no graphic design, video editing, video encoding, etc. Everyone should test for their own use case.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Depends on your use case but this is purely a gaming PC with no graphic design, video editing, video encoding, etc. Everyone should test for their own use case.


Of course. I was just proposing for some medium load test that could be universally used to compare overclocks and stability amongst people for non-static voltages.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Does your board not support "Effective Clock" readings in HWiNFO? Because the raw "Clock" readings are inaccurate; they're just the _values_ fed by the BIOS.
> 
> Even if the board feeds the full 6,200 MHz, it might actually be 5,800 MHz effective during load. Here's a screenshot of a proper effective load:
> View attachment 2584822
> 
> An incorrect one would be the Clocks showing as 5,500 MHz on all the P-cores, but the Effective Clocks show much less, or parked.
> 
> If you monitor the Effective Clocks during R23, you will see them fluctuate heavily. But the Clocks will remain static at whatever you set the load clocks to be.


During R23 it runs 5.8 on all cores. During single thread it runs 6.2 on (2) cores, 6.1 on (4) cores, 5.8 on (6) and 5.8 on (8) cores. I know that the single thread performance is reflecting properly by testing CPU-Z and selecting individual threads, and watching the frequency, and also by the score in R23 single/ CPU-Z single/Geekbench 5 etc.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 
In other news, I think I'm just going to settle with a delid-only, not direct die.
Considering how these chips degrade so easily, I wouldn't push it over 253W anyway, which is easy to cool with my water loop.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

tps3443 said:


> I’m gonna try and mess around with my E-Cores next. I have never even posted with them beyond 45 once. I just set 45 and kinda roll on. Hopefully they too are good.


We don’t want to see how good the rest of your s*** is ok….ok we do 😂


----------



## tps3443

This is R23 single threaded. Not sure if this is correct for 6.2, I guess it's right.

@RobertoSampaio Is this normal single threaded performance for 6.2?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

tps3443 said:


> This is my daily settled overclock, and I have been running it for 2 days now! I am so happy with my CPU right now. The voltage goes where it goes and does what it needs to all by itself. This CPU is so stable right now in anything I run. And I even have C-States enabled, so it even downclocks automatically to 800Mhz  .
> 
> P-Cores Boost 6.2Ghz
> P-Cores (All-Core load) 5.8Ghz
> E-Cores 4.5Ghz
> Cache 5.1Ghz
> Adaptive Voltage, Auto LLC.
> 
> As you can see, I am losing some efficiency on an "ALL CORE LOAD" but that's because my voltage is literally on Auto. But it makes all of my cores all stable up to 6.2Ghz. During gaming I average about 67-122 watts peak power, so there is that too.
> 
> I love this CPU!! Okay, no more running R23. It's good to go the distance now. I feel like I have an amazing sample. And I feel content which is difficult to obtain when testing processors. 🙃
> 
> View attachment 2584820


where are you actually setting those multipliers though...its my turn to start messing with adpative lol. do you just set them all to 62x and it works? *** hah


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav @bscool
















Do I dare 4,300 CL14? This was so easy to pass.


----------



## Xiph

Ichirou said:


> View attachment 2584834
> 
> Do I dare 4,300 CL14? This was so easy to pass.


What is Aida64 showing with settings like that?


----------



## bhav

4300CL14 is likely 1.7v+ territory, why can't my new case have arrived already to setup my MSI board 



Xiph said:


> What is Aida64 showing with settings like that?


Aida is pointless on Micron kits because they need too high trfc.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

tps3443 said:


> This is my daily settled overclock, and I have been running it for 2 days now! I am so happy with my CPU right now. The voltage goes where it goes and does what it needs to all by itself. This CPU is so stable right now in anything I run. And I even have C-States enabled, so it even downclocks automatically to 800Mhz  .
> 
> P-Cores Boost 6.2Ghz
> P-Cores (All-Core load) 5.8Ghz
> E-Cores 4.5Ghz
> Cache 5.1Ghz
> Adaptive Voltage, Auto LLC.
> 
> As you can see, I am losing some efficiency on an "ALL CORE LOAD" but that's because my voltage is literally on Auto. But it makes all of my cores all stable up to 6.2Ghz. During gaming I average about 67-122 watts peak power, so there is that too.
> 
> I love this CPU!! Okay, no more running R23. It's good to go the distance now. I feel like I have an amazing sample. And I feel content which is difficult to obtain when testing processors. 🙃
> 
> View attachment 2584820


You are feeling good because you started to use adaptive voltage...  LOL


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> 4300CL14 is likely 1.7v+ territory, why can't my new case have arrived already to setup my MSI board
> 
> 
> 
> Aida is pointless on Micron kits because they need too high trfc.


AIDA64 is still all right for reading RWC bandwidth. But for latency, use Intel MLC instead.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

tps3443 said:


> This is R23 single threaded. Not sure if this is correct for 6.2, I guess it's right.
> 
> @RobertoSampaio Is this normal single threaded performance for 6.2?
> 
> View attachment 2584833



YES !!!

You did better than me....


----------



## VULC

You need 311w for that totally insane. Adaptive is nice and all but to run it you need the cooling to back it up. I'd be hitting 107 degrees if I unlocked limits with those settings.


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav So, minor update. It seems that it's going to be quite difficult getting this config y-cruncher stable. I'm not even sure where the issue lies.
Also, it takes like 2-3 minutes to train in order to boot to desktop, whereas 4,200 MHz and below doesn't need any effort at all to train. BIOS issue there.

I'll update again if I manage to gain any semblance of stability in y-cruncher. But for the time being, it's just shouting "NOPE!"


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> @bhav So, minor update. It seems that it's going to be quite difficult getting this config y-cruncher stable. I'm not even sure where the issue lies.
> Also, it takes like 2-3 minutes to train in order to boot to desktop, whereas 4,200 MHz and below doesn't need any effort at all to train. BIOS issue there.
> 
> I'll update again if I manage to gain any semblance of stability in y-cruncher. But for the time being, it's just shouting "NOPE!"


I know what this is, it sounds like when I hit 4600CL15 on the 10900K. it took ages to train, configure etc.

It will run a lot of things stable, but still throw out errors, its like 99% stable and normal memtests won't catch any errors.

Its like 1-2 bsods a month while gaming, not worth it when you lose progress and such.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

VULC said:


> You need 311w for that totally insane. Adaptive is nice and all but to run it you need the cooling to back it up. I'd be hitting 107 degrees if I unlocked limits with those settings.


Yes and no, you need a really good sample, Robert has the same cooling (arctic lf 2 420-although I dunno if he modified it) as me in some kind of tropical climate 😂


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> I know what this is, it sounds like when I hit 4600CL15 on the 10900K. it took ages to train, configure etc.
> 
> It will run a lot of things stable, but still throw out errors, its like 99% stable and normal memtests won't catch any errors.
> 
> Its like 1-2 bsods a month while gaming, not worth it when you lose progress and such.


Yeah, similar situation here. It's likely due to the BIOS not being optimized for this heavy of an overclock. Probably needs a lot of time to train the Slews and Vrefs.
TM5 is fine, but y-cruncher just doesn't want to budge.

I'm gonna try yeeting the voltages to see if it changes anything. If not, I'll strictly test TM5, and then dial it back to 4,200 MHz CL14.
Perhaps the ASUS Strix Z790-A would fare better?

Update: Didn't help. Gonna test 4,300 MHz CL14 in TM5 only, and then dial things back.


----------



## VULC

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Yes and no, you need a really good sample, Robert has the same cooling (arctic lf 2 420-although I dunno if he modified it) as me in some kind of tropical climate 😂


LF2 no way lol. I'm hitting Intel limits 253w at 87 degrees with adaptive hahaha. My P cores are 116 his are 119. Adaptive tutorial should say chiller needed at the top. They are maxing out on 70 degrees at 310 plus watts.


----------



## Ichirou

Well, since there's not much more for me to do, I may as well give Adaptive a whirl. Let's see how this turns out for me. @tps3443
Just gonna let it be a mystery box and see what this chip can handle.

Yeeting 1.45V Adaptive, LLC Mode 3 flat, and Lite Load on Auto. Probably let the core multipliers be auto for now just to see what they clock to.
Nevermind, if you don't change the core multipliers, it just sets it to 55x and 43x, lol. Gonna adjust it manually. Locking ring to 50x though.


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443
> Minimum VCCSA is 1.29V for 4,200 CL14 1T Gear 1 on 4x16 GB Micron B-die.
> So the cores are slightly weaker, but the IMC is slightly better.
> 
> Gonna tighten the L2 Voltage now. I needed 1.26V on my 13900KF post-degradation to pass. Let's see how much this chip needs.
> Will be an indicator for ring/cache strength.
> 
> Update: 1.23V L2 Voltage passes y-cruncher as well. Gonna test even lower to see if the cache is stronger.


If it's x234 or later say bye bye to high SP i guess especially for K, KF could still be good


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443
Finally getting somewhere. It seems that only the Advanced VF Offset mode actually works properly. The Adaptive mode is mega busted lol.
What a weird way of fiddling with voltages. Leave the VF Offsets and LLC on Auto, but adjust Lite Load until it is stable.
It's almost as if you should take a hands-off approach and let the board figure everything out, so long as you cap off the wattage.

Weird. Very weird. But weirdly optimizes well.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443
> Finally getting somewhere. It seems that only the Advanced VF Offset mode actually works properly. The Adaptive mode is mega busted lol.
> What a weird way of fiddling with voltages. Leave the VF Offsets and LLC on Auto, but adjust Lite Load until it is stable.
> It's almost as if you should take a hands-off approach and let the board figure everything out, so long as you cap off the wattage.
> 
> Weird. Very weird. But weirdly optimizes well.



I've been playing with adaptive tonight on my z690 dark. Talk about weird and broke, Lord have mercy it's bad. I managed 6ghz though utilizing it.


----------



## Ichirou

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> I've been playing with adaptive tonight on my z690 dark. Talk about weird and broke, Lord have mercy it's bad. I managed 6ghz though utilizing it.


Yeah, I'm just playing around with it right now. TM5 1usmus has been helpful so far, quickly throwing errors if a config is bad.
I seem to have better luck at 58x than 60x so far (since I have a poor sample), so I'm gonna try to reach some sort of baseline first before trying higher.
The wattage isn't maxed out at 253W yet, so there is still room to go.

In theory, it should be possible to adjust the cores individually to optimize them as well.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Well, since there's not much more for me to do, I may as well give Adaptive a whirl. Let's see how this turns out for me. @tps3443
> Just gonna let it be a mystery box and see what this chip can handle.
> 
> Yeeting 1.45V Adaptive, LLC Mode 3 flat, and Lite Load on Auto. Probably let the core multipliers be auto for now just to see what they clock to.
> Nevermind, if you don't change the core multipliers, it just sets it to 55x and 43x, lol. Gonna adjust it manually. Locking ring to 50x though.


I set x62 and 58 on mine with auto adaptive 253w limit and voltage was idiling at 1.6v dropped to 1.08v at 4800 P and 3300 E Cores, Asus AI doesn't like my cooler. I'll go back to 5.7ghz all P core at 1.28v.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, I'm just playing around with it right now. TM5 1usmus has been helpful so far, quickly throwing errors if a config is bad.
> I seem to have better luck at 58x than 60x so far (since I have a poor sample), so I'm gonna try to reach some sort of baseline first before trying higher.
> The wattage isn't maxed out at 253W yet, so there is still room to go.
> 
> In theory, it should be possible to adjust the cores individually to optimize them as well.


I don’t feel so bad now. I’ll have to wait until family leaves before I can go play around with it again.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> LF2 no way lol. I'm hitting Intel limits 253w at 87 degrees with adaptive hahaha. My P cores are 116 his are 119. Adaptive tutorial should say chiller needed at the top. They are maxing out on 70 degrees at 310 plus watts.


If I turn my chiller off the CPU only runs 10c hotter so 79C package temp through R23. Yes, I have good cooling. it’s a Pora3 (1080x45) radiator (2) D5 pumps, Optimus Signature Nickel V2 waterblock, and Coolermaster CryoFuse thermal paste. I don’t need the chiller, I use the chiller because I don’t want my samplehaving any chance of potentially degrang, and I like my GPU to run as coo. Even my M.2 is water cooled and runs about 14C. I like water cooling stuff. But yes my last 13900KF which was a Force 134 rating could not run these settings it acted a little fussy even boosting up to 6Ghz.


PS: The Pora3 is a term I came up with (“Poor man’s Mora”) AKA Alphacool Nexxxos.


----------



## RichKnecht

How are you guys pulling so little power with high clocks? I’m at 1.34 adaptive with 1.223 under load and I am at 300W.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> Hmmm...I am doing something wrong then. I just changed them from Auto to the values I posted
> 
> EDIT I changedto turbo ratio offset and everything downclocks and downvolts. However now the voltage went from 1.253 to 1.4


@tps3443 
I set mine to turbo ratio offset and then set those....but mine isnt downclocking....its only downclocking on the multipliers I used...for sure I have something wrong lol. Maye someone knows what I'm supposed to change:

LLC = 6 (mode 7 wouldn't run cb23)
Lite load control: normal - Mode 3 (mode 1 and 2 wouldn't run cb23)


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> How are you guys pulling so little power with high clocks? I’m at 1.34 adaptive with 1.223 under load and I am at 300W.


same with mine...I think they are limiting the power draw...I changed my PL1/2 to box cooler but then the score just sucks...but temps are really good lol...still seems to be boosting to.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> How are you guys pulling so little power with high clocks? I’m at 1.34 adaptive with 1.223 under load and I am at 300W.


Adaptive is busted out of its ass and you shouldn't use it.
Also, LLC and Lite Load tweaking.

@tps3443
I'm still a bit confused about the relationship between LLC and Lite Load.
Right now, with LLC at Mode 4 and Lite Load at 5, my VR VOUT is sitting at 1.48V, but the Current is only 140A. So 200W or so.
How do you lower the VR VOUT/Vcore? Or is that being handled by the VF Curves?
I have it set to 58x on the P-cores right now.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

VULC said:


> If you set it on auto it will use whatever it needs to achieve your core clock ratio. You will throttle if you exceed tjmax. You need to test lowest stable to avoid extra power and heat.


so are you saying set a cpu voltage but leave it on auto vs override?


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> If I turn my chiller off the CPU only runs 10c hotter so 79C package temp through R23. Yes, I have good cooling. it’s a Pora3 (1080x45) radiator (2) D5 pumps, Optimus Signature Nickel V2 waterblock, and Coolermaster CryoFuse thermal paste. I don’t need the chiller, I use the chiller because I don’t want my samplehaving any chance of potentially degrang, and I like my GPU to run as coo. Even my M.2 is water cooled and runs about 14C. I like water cooling stuff. But yes my last 13900KF which was a Force 134 rating could not run these settings it acted a little fussy even boosting up to 6Ghz.
> 
> 
> PS: The Pora3 is a term I came up with (“Poor man’s Mora”) AKA Alphacool Nexxxos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2584861


79! How? I’m running 3 360s with dual D5s and a SigV2. Is the MoRa that good?!


----------



## Ichirou

It seems that the Lite Load control affects the Vcore as a whole. As you increase it going from 1 to 20, the Vcore rises.
At Lite Load Mode 5 even, it's already at 1.50V Vcore... Lite Load 3 is 1.45V or so, which is a much safer spot to be for a maximum.

I guess that basically sets the "baseline" for what the Vcore should be, and while the VF Offsets are playing around, LLC helps to droop the Vcore down.

Layman's terms:
You gotta either work with Lite Load as a baseline, or LLC as a baseline, and tweak the other to suit. (Assuming the Advanced VF Offset is left on Auto.)
Lite Load is more or less akin to what your Vcore is on idle.

If you use Lite Load as the baseline, you lock in one value and then try to increase LLC to increase Vdroop (or decrease to increase overshoot).
If you use LLC as the baseline, you lock in one value and then try to decrease Lite Load to reduce Vcore (or increase to raise Vcore).
But generally, you shouldn't raise LLC above Mode 3 (flat). If you have to do that, you should adjust the Lite Load instead, or temper your overclock.


----------



## VULC

Uncle Dubbs said:


> so are you saying set a cpu voltage but leave it on auto vs override?


Yeah, set adaptive to 1.4v as a base line then try different LLC starting from 4 and go up but this is on an Asus board.


----------



## Ichirou

Using TM5 1usmus as a medium load to simulate most gaming scenarios. All effective clocks are maxed out and not fluctuating.

For 59/45/50, Lite Load 1 and LLC Mode 5 is okay for a few minutes. LLC Mode 6 will cause KMODE. (I haven't tested beyond a few minutes though.)
60x on the P-cores simply won't play ball no matter how much I juice the Lite Load to (with LLC on Mode 3 flat). That's 1.50V+ Vcore already.

Gonna see what the E-cores and Ring can go up to on Lite Load 1 and LLC Mode 5. Let's see whether it can pass the default three cycles.
TM5 1usmus is a fairly good test as it stresses the memory in combination with the CPU. Games don't really do that.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Using TM5 1usmus as a medium load to simulate most gaming scenarios. All effective clocks are maxed out and not fluctuating.
> 
> For 59/45/50, Lite Load 1 and LLC Mode 5 is okay for a few minutes. LLC Mode 6 will cause KMODE. (I haven't tested beyond a few minutes though.)
> 60x on the P-cores simply won't play ball no matter how much I juice the Lite Load to (with LLC on Mode 3 flat). That's 1.50V+ Vcore already.
> 
> Gonna see what the E-cores and Ring can go up to on Lite Load 1 and LLC Mode 5. Let's see whether it can pass the default three cycles.
> TM5 1usmus is a fairly good test as it stresses the memory in combination with the CPU. Games don't really do that.


So what voltage mode did you decide on?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> So what voltage mode did you decide on?


what did you set Rich so the cores downclocked properly? My all run at 6.1 and take way too much power lol


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> So what voltage mode did you decide on?


Advanced VF Offset. Adaptive doesn't work right.
Basically does the exact same thing, but you gotta tweak the voltages with a bit of a roundabout method instead, involving LLC and Lite Load (AC/DC LL).
Never going to be 100% optimized, but you could alleviate that a bit by individually clocking some cores higher if there is room to do so.
Again, this is game stable only. It likely won't pass y-cruncher, and might have mixed results with R23. I haven't tested both yet, but I'm not getting my hopes up.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Advanced VF Offset. Adaptive doesn't work right.
> Basically does the exact same thing, but you gotta tweak the voltages with a bit of a roundabout method instead, involving LLC and Lite Load (AC/DC LL).
> Never going to be 100% optimized, but you could alleviate that a bit by individually clocking some cores higher if there is room to do so.
> Again, this is game stable only. It likely won't pass y-cruncher, and might have mixed results with R23. I haven't tested both yet, but I'm not getting my hopes up.


Thanks. I don’t really care about y cruncher or any other test that batters the crap out of a CPU with loads 99% of our systems will never experience. I care about real world.


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> what did you set Rich so the cores downclocked properly? My all run at 6.1 and take way too much power lol


I’ll pm you later when I figure it out.


----------



## digitalfrost

RichKnecht said:


> Thanks. I don’t really care about y cruncher or any other test that batters the crap out of a CPU with loads 99% of our systems will never experience. I care about real world.


It can save a lot of Vcore if you use OCTVB to simpy down bin 8-core loads at a certain temperature. Like a temperature above your typical gaming temp.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> 79! How? I’m running 3 360s with dual D5s and a SigV2. Is the MoRa that good?!


Yes, it’s that good! I had (3) 360’s once before too. They’re all sitting in the closet with the case they were in lol. My system is also open air too. I will say though, this 13900K RUNS FLIPPING COOL man!!! It runs as cool as my last delidded 13900KF and that thing ran amazingly cool.

Test bench is a Primo Chill Praxis Wetbench Full complete Edition. I have the flat legs on it, with the side wings off. I have the angled legs too, and wings, but I’m just not using them. I wish it was the black color, but when I bought it they only have the white one. For some reason they just never had the black one in stock. 😒


----------



## tps3443

Uncle Dubbs said:


> @tps3443
> I set mine to turbo ratio offset and then set those....but mine isnt downclocking....its only downclocking on the multipliers I used...for sure I have something wrong lol. Maye someone knows what I'm supposed to change:
> 
> LLC = 6 (mode 7 wouldn't run cb23)
> Lite load control: normal - Mode 3 (mode 1 and 2 wouldn't run cb23)
> 
> View attachment 2584859
> View attachment 2584860
> View attachment 2584862
> View attachment 2584863


These are my bios settings. Also, LLC is on Auto. I forgot to show that. I hope this helps.


----------



## RichKnecht

digitalfrost said:


> It can save a lot of Vcore if you use OCTVB to simpy down bin 8-core loads at a certain temperature. Like a temperature above your typical gaming temp.


Does that apply the settings in bios or do you make a profile which loads when Windows starts?


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Yes, it’s that good! I had (3) 360’s once before too. They’re all sitting in the closet with the case they were in lol. My system is also open air too. I will say though, this 13900K RUNS FLIPPING COOL man!!! It runs as cool as my last delidded 13900KF and that thing ran amazingly cool.
> 
> Test bench is a Primo Chill Praxis Wetbench Full complete Edition. I have the flat legs on it, with the side wings off. I have the angled legs too, and wings, but I’m just not using them. I wish it was the black color, but when I bought it they only have the white one. For some reason they just never had the black one in stock. 😒
> 
> View attachment 2584882
> 
> View attachment 2584883
> 
> View attachment 2584884


That setup has a low W.A.F. ( wife acceptance factor ). other than benchmarking, my pc rarely breaks 50C.


----------



## RichKnecht

digitalfrost said:


> It can save a lot of Vcore if you use OCTVB to simpy down bin 8-core loads at a certain temperature. Like a temperature above your typical gaming temp.


I don’t game, although sometimes I think about it. I am a pro photographer and edit lots of photos and videos. All of my work involves using all cores. I don’t use anything that loads only 1 or 2 cores.


----------



## digitalfrost

RichKnecht said:


> Does that apply the settings in bios or do you make a profile which loads when Windows starts?












Or you could use Intel XTU.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> That setup has a low W.A.F. ( wife acceptance factor ). other than benchmarking, my pc rarely breaks 50C.


Its a daily work station for me. The yellow fans are hideous. So I’m gonna replace those and I may remove the Pora3 all together and try out “Chiller only” the chiller has proven its self for over a year now daily. It’s so reliable, like crazy reliable. Everything about the system is designed to be the best at whats it’s designed for. Even those ugly yellow Arctic P120 Bionix fans.


----------



## cstkl1

VULC said:


> 8000 ddr5 needs a binned 13900k IMC with a 12 layer PCB mobo.


ram


----------



## mattskiiau

.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 Let me know if your next sample is any better/worse. Still open to taking good chips.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 Let me know if your next sample is any better/worse. Still open to taking good chips.


It will be here tomorrow actually.

I’m really hoping for Force 124 or better!

The first thing I’m gonna do is just pop it in with exact same bios setting and see if it works like this one does. Fingers crossed.


----------



## Wolverine2349

VULC said:


> The ring and cores get their voltage from v core you need to run 1.38v to 1.4v on idle to power them or 4.9 to 5.1 ring will crash.



My ring is stable at 5GHz with 1.325V and also all P cores stable at 5.6GHz. Though e-cores are disabled. Maybe with e-cores on you need much higher vcore for stable ring at 4.9GHz or more??


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> It will be here tomorrow actually.
> 
> I’m really hoping for Force 124 or better!
> 
> The first thing I’m gonna do is just pop it in with exact same bios setting and see if it works like this one does. Fingers crossed.


I sure hope you win the lottery again, because I certainly have the worst luck on the planet. I really want a high quality chip.


----------



## RichKnecht

When trying to use adaptive voltage of any sort, like X299 10XXX series, you can not enter a value lower than what the VID table specifies. Anything less than 1.35 (for my chip) will be ignored by ANY of the Adaptive voltage settings. I set 1.3, it shows 1.37. Right now I have it at 1.35 Adaptive VF curve advanced (P57/E45/R49) and with LLC7 it drops to 1.28 VCore and 1.254 VID which is 313W. Still more voltage than static, but it clocks down at idle, so it's a trade off. I'm trying something else now, and I'll see what happens.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> When trying to use adaptive voltage of any sort, like X299 10XXX series, you can not enter a value lower than what the VID table specifies. Anything less than 1.35 (for my chip) will be ignored by ANY of the Adaptive voltage settings. I set 1.3, it shows 1.37. Right now I have it at 1.35 Adaptive VF curve advanced (P57/E45/R49) and with LLC7 it drops to 1.28 VCore and 1.254 VID which is 313W. Still more voltage than static, but it clocks down at idle, so it's a trade off. I'm trying something else now, and I'll see what happens.


Leaving in adaptive/can get pretty high too…will mostly depend on chip quality, but I can boost really good clocks and game with more fps  I don’t run anything heavier than that except for maybe memory testing when ever I have time to go down that rabbit hole again. Maybe I can push it some more and get another fan for my ram lol


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> I sure hope you win the lottery again, because I certainly have the worst luck on the planet. I really want a high quality chip.


13900KS, Jan 3rd paper launch date.


----------



## mattskiiau

Can someone help me understand this or what I'm doing wrong?

On my Asus z690 board, using Voltage Offset of 1.35v. LLC5 setting is AC:0.10 / DC: 0.73.

When I dial this in manually for AI AC and AI DC, my load VCORE is different.
My idle vcore is higher too. 🤔


EDIT: never mind figured it out.


----------



## affxct

Betroz said:


> And not for sale in Norway where I live.


I imported mine from Amazon. It ended up being not too expensive. I think assume 550 after you receive it via shipping and customs (not sure what fees you guys incur).


----------



## Betroz

affxct said:


> I imported mine from Amazon. It ended up being not too expensive. I think assume 550 after you receive it via shipping and customs (not sure what fees you guys incur).


Thanks for the input, but getting a EVGA Dark board is not THAT important for me.


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> I sure hope you win the lottery again, because I certainly have the worst luck on the planet. I really want a high quality chip.


I would probably say it's the other way around, tps is the lucky one and you're just getting the median chips


----------



## Luggage

tps3443 said:


> Its a daily work station for me. The yellow fans are hideous. So I’m gonna replace those and I may remove the Pora3 all together and try out “Chiller only” the chiller has proven its self for over a year now daily. It’s so reliable, like crazy reliable. Everything about the system is designed to be the best at whats it’s designed for. Even those ugly yellow Arctic P120 Bionix fans.


Just get a couple of y-connectors and valves and you can bypass the rad or chiller as you want - the rad is fighting the chiller anyway if you run it in one loop. 


http://imgur.com/a/lxLlPxl

think of my super-pora as your chiller and my internal rads as your pora


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> I sure hope you win the lottery again, because I certainly have the worst luck on the planet. I really want a high quality chip.


Or your region just got the worst batches


----------



## affxct

Betroz said:


> Thanks for the input, but getting a EVGA Dark board is not THAT important for me.


Woah dude. I was just trying to clarify… XD


----------



## RichKnecht

VULC said:


> Yeah, set adaptive to 1.4v as a base line then try different LLC starting from 4 and go up but this is on an Asus board.


Adaptive set at 1.4 is way too high for me. I set it to 1.34 with LLC 7 mode 1 and it’s OK. Still a touch too much voltage. The modes set AC and DC LL values According to the LLC level you set. You will get to a point that setting the mode lower will not change anything. Right now I can run mode 1,2, or 3 and there is no difference in voltages. There appears to be a voltage “floor” and for me, that’s 1.27 or a touch lower. I’m going to reinvestigate my mount as I think hitting 92 with 3 360s seems wrong when drawing 310W.


----------



## don1376

On Unify X/13900k I found a good combo of settings for cpu power that are working great for me. 2p60,4p58,8p57/45e/50r. Llc3, liteload mode 1, VF offset curve and with TVB optimization enabled the VF point offsets actually work right. Right now I'm at - 0.035 at points 54 and 57 and - 0.030 at point 60. My vids and vrout are almost identical at 1.3v and droop to 1.28–1.29v. I still maybe able to go lower. I was increasing my offset at each point 0.005v at a time and testing. That's were I stopped at last night. Clocks and volts downclock right and hitting max temp of 93c in R23 running just a 5 min loop for quick test. And machine feels really happy. My cpu has force rating of 154. I was pulling right round 240 to 260amps. Going to see if I can go even lower on volts later today. At work atm so no screenshots now.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

don1376 said:


> On Unify X/13900k I found a good combo of settings for cpu power that are working great for me. 2p60,4p58,8p57/45e/50r. Llc3, liteload mode 1, VF offset curve and with TVB optimization enabled the VF point offsets actually work right. Right now I'm at - 0.035 at points 54 and 57 and - 0.030 at point 60. My vids and vrout are almost identical at 1.3v and droop to 1.28–1.29v. I still maybe able to go lower. I was increasing my offset at each point 0.005v at a time and testing. That's were I stopped at last night. Clocks and volts downclock right and hitting max temp of 93c in R23 running just a 5 min loop for quick test. And machine feels really happy. My cpu has force rating of 154. I was pulling right round 240 to 260amps. Going to see if I can go even lower on volts later today. At work atm so no screenshots now.


So I guess you have to use vf point offsets when using adaptive in order to get vr out and vids to match under load?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Finally able to boot xmp 7600 on my apex z790 due to too much pressure on the rgb ring of the direct die, but now pc shut down when run r23. I swapped my 12900k to the board and it still shut down when run r23. PSU or faulty board guys? I think 90% is mobo.


----------



## don1376

Uncle Dubbs said:


> So I guess you have to use vf point offsets when using adaptive in order to get vr out and vids to match under load?


I had to use llc3 and liteload 1 with VF offset and TVB Voltage Optimization enabled for my VF offsets to work on MSI Unify X to get them to match and start out at reasonable volts before applying offsets.


----------



## RichKnecht

RobertoSampaio said:


> YES !!!
> 
> You did better than me....
> 
> View attachment 2584839


Interesting score. I am running P57,E45, and R 49 and I am ~ 42300. Not that it really matters any way, just find it interesting. Do you know what your effective clocks were?


----------



## digitalfrost

tps3443 said:


> These are my bios settings. Also, LLC is on Auto. I forgot to show that. I hope this helps.


Regarding TVB voltage optimizations: I use it because it saves a ton of vcore, but it's so hard to get these CPU stable with all the factors that are involved. The OC I posted yesterday was stable during daytime, but at night it was 21°C here and suddenly it didn't work anymore. And it's not like I'm degrading the CPU, we're talking ~1.3v vcore, <80°C and I have IccMax set.

At the end I ended up with this:

AC 20 DC 80 LLC8 Socket Sense

57x1 74
57x2 70
57x3 66
57x4 62
56x5 64
56x6 60
56x7 56 62
56x8 52 58

Downbins are -1 each. It's good enough for 57x in light loads and 56x in games because the CPU will mostly stay cool enough for 56x. I had AC_LL 1 before, but I figure if you can run AC_LL 1 that only means your allcore frequency is not high enough 

Any clocks for 4 cores and below are mostly useless for me since the CPU will almost never boost to them anyway, at least in my system. Probably have to much stuff running the background. Couldn't get 58x stable without adding voltage and I didn't wanna do that.


----------



## RichKnecht

digitalfrost said:


> Regarding TVB voltage optimizations: I use it because it saves a ton of vcore, but it's so hard to get these CPU stable with all the factors that are involved. The OC I posted yesterday was stable during daytime, but at night it was 21°C here and suddenly it didn't work anymore. And it's not like I'm degrading the CPU, we're talking ~1.3v vcore, <80°C and I have IccMax set.
> 
> At the end I ended up with this:
> 
> AC 20 DC 80 LLC8 Socket Sense
> 
> 57x1 74
> 57x2 70
> 57x3 66
> 57x4 62
> 56x5 64
> 56x6 60
> 56x7 56 62
> 56x8 52 58
> 
> Downbins are -1 each. It's good enough for 57x in light loads and 56x in games because the CPU will mostly stay cool enough for 56x. I had AC_LL 1 before, but I figure if you can run AC_LL 1 that only means your allcore frequency is not high enough


TVB does save v core, but up to a point. If I try and set voltage to anything lower than 1.35, it does not get applied. It resorts to the VID table Intel programmed into the chip. This goes for any adaptive setting on my board. Right now I went to 1.4 adaptive which nets me 1.26 vcore and 1.252 VID. I am on LLC 7 mode 3.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

RichKnecht said:


> Interesting score. I am running P57,E45, and R 49 and I am ~ 42300. Not that it really matters any way, just find it interesting. Do you know what your effective clocks were?


Nice question...
Effective clock is a kind of calculation that basically take in count the core frequency, the core load and time...
As far I know, there is no a benchmark software that measure it for us...
The AIDA memory test (the latency test to be more precise) is one that satisfy some conditions, and you can see your system maximum effective clock.
The other way is to let the PC running for all day long (do not turn it off)... And with some lucky any software will load one core at high frequency that HW-info can measure it.









The AIDA latency test uses the Core#0T#0 for this test...
If you have the patience to assign manually (with process lasso or windows task manager) the AIDA test for each core/thread, you can measure it for all cores.











Here you can find my tests...









Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...


A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...




www.overclock.net


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Interesting score. I am running P57,E45, and R 49 and I am ~ 42300. Not that it really matters any way, just find it interesting. Do you know what your effective clocks were?


62,62,61,61,58,58,58,58
5.1Ghz ring
4.5Ghz E-Cores

R23 MT scores reflects 5.8Ghz (8 cores)
R23 ST scores reflects 6.2Ghz (2 cores)

5.7 vs 5.8 is minimal in terms of R23 performance because this test heavily relies on E-Cores, but 5.7 vs 5.8 is not minimal in terms of CPU ability. As we are really only adding +100MHz to a portion of our CPU which is why the scores are not going to be day and night. If I change priority from low to “Above normal” I can squeeze about another 250-300 points. Even with 6Ghz on all P-Cores It is tough to just barely break 44,000. Realistically I can score 41,200 with my cpu at 5.5 P-Cores. So R23 is a bad measure for testing your 8 p core performance. But it’s great for single threaded.

I was asking @RobertoSampaio about his R23 single threaded score because his single cores are clocked very high too with adaptive.


----------



## mgkhn

think after bios update get proper sp for my cpu ( first time shows sp100-p114-e79) @Falkentyne


----------



## Wolverine2349

RichKnecht said:


> Interesting score. I am running P57,E45, and R 49 and I am ~ 42300. Not that it really matters any way, just find it interesting. Do you know what your effective clocks were?



Is that all core all the time?? What vcore are you at??

I have e-cores disabled and can only hit 5.6GHz P cores and ring at 5GHz with 1.325V at LLC6 for full stability that passes Y Cruncher, Cinebench, OCCT Large Data Variable, Prime 95 Blend and Large FFT with AVX disabled, and Linpack XTREME 8 runs and 2 hours of AIDA 64 System stability test with CPU, RAM, CPU cache and floating point checked.

If I put my P cores at 5.7GHz, needed 1.38V and was able to pass all tests and thought I was stable though temps easily hit 100C and it throttles. However found that eventually I got a WHEA error or 2 running Cinebench R23 so was not stable afterall.

What kind of cooling do you have for your setup?


----------



## energie80

I’m using 5.8 ring 51 1.33 ll auto gaming stable


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> Is that all core all the time?? What vcore are you at??
> 
> I have e-cores disabled and can only hit 5.6GHz P cores and ring at 5GHz with 1.325V at LLC6 for full stability that passes Y Cruncher, Cinebench, OCCT Large Data Variable, Prime 95 Blend and Large FFT with AVX disabled, and Linpack XTREME 8 runs and 2 hours of AIDA 64 System stability test with CPU, RAM, CPU cache and floating point checked.
> 
> If I put my P cores at 5.7GHz, needed 1.38V and was able to pass all tests and thought I was stable though temps easily hit 100C and it throttles. However found that eventually I got a WHEA error or 2 running Cinebench R23 so was not stable afterall.
> 
> What kind of cooling do you have for your setup?


Average sample 13900K/KF should net you 42,300 with 56/46/50.

And a proper cooling solution that isn't some air cooler.


----------



## don1376

When using VF curve offset for cpu volts you have to make sure your ring VF curve voltage isn't higher then what you're trying to set a certain VF point offset to. Especially with ring over 50. The VF curve with the highest volts at same ratio will override the others. Was happening to me with ring set to 51.


----------



## Ichirou

If the wattage never exceeds 253W (Intel spec), does the voltage or current matter?

Watts = Volts x Amps, so however high/low the voltage is, the current would just be lower/higher relative to it, equating to 253W (in this case).


----------



## tps3443

13900KF out for delivery. This will be my 3rd chip to test.


----------



## warbucks

I installed my Z790 APEX last night along with the first 13900k I bought. SP105, P117/E81, MC SP70.

Tested 8000Mhz CL36 and it passed with pretty reasonable voltages. I've started to tighten and now I'm testing again.


----------



## digitalfrost

Ichirou said:


> If the wattage never exceeds 253W (Intel spec), does the voltage or current matter?
> 
> Watts = Volts x Amps, so however high/low the voltage is, the current would just be lower/higher relative to it, equating to 253W (in this case).


I think it does. Just set IccMax low and you will see the CPU throttle even at light loads (IA electrical design point in HWiNFO). It's not so simple. I cannot explain it either, but different loads seem to create different amperages and I'm not sure simple ohms law applies here. Or it does, but our measurement intervals are too long to catch the spikes.

Think of it this way: You're transferring are file via a 1Gbit/s (=125Mbyte/s) network link, but Explorer shows 75Mbyte/s transfer speed. It's not like you suddenly got a slower interface. It's always running at 1Gbit/s and 1Gbit/s only it does not know anything else. But sometimes it does pause for various reasons and your measurement interval of 1 second averages it out to 75Mbyte/s. But within that second, stuff happens.

Much like your Vcore sensor will not register undershoot or overshoot of the VRM. I would not assume you're safe just by staying under 253W. Besides, in the official Intel documents they recommend 188W:


----------



## Ichirou

digitalfrost said:


> I think it does. Just set IccMax low and you will see the CPU throttle even at light loads (IA electrical design point in HWiNFO). It's not so simple. I cannot explain it either, but different loads seem to create different amperages and I'm not sure simple ohms law applies here. Or it does, but our measurement intervals are too long to catch the spikes.
> 
> Think of it this way: You're transferring are file via a 1Gbit/s (=125Mbyte/s) network link, but Explorer shows 75Mbyte/s transfer speed. It's not like you suddenly got a slower interface. It's always running at 1Gbit/s and 1Gbit/s only it does not know anything else. But sometimes it does pause for various reasons and your measurement interval of 1 second averages it out to 75Mbyte/s. But within that second, stuff happens.
> 
> Much like your Vcore sensor will not register undershoot or overshoot of the VRM. I would not assume you're safe just by staying under 253W. Besides, in the official Intel documents they recommend 188W:
> 
> View attachment 2584982


Ah, I see. Then why the advertised 253W turbo? Or is that for short bursts? PL2 is already the short-duration.
What would you say is a safe amperage?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> If the wattage never exceeds 253W (Intel spec), does the voltage or current matter?
> 
> Watts = Volts x Amps, so however high/low the voltage is, the current would just be lower/higher relative to it, equating to 253W (in this case).


With my golden 11900K that ran 5.5 and 4000+ on the memory with Gear (1). I let that chip hit heavy amperage’s and high wattage I didn’t even think much about degradation. I mean after all 5.5Ghz with a 4.6Ghz ring on that 8/16 core 11900K was about 330+ watts in just R23 for 30 minutes and I did a lot of those, including Y-Cruncher 2.5B, Prime 95 AVX. Running it for over a year and now it’s on a 240mm AIO inside a case at 5.4Ghz all cores with the memory still at 4,000 Gear (1).

All I did was keep it running really really cool. And it was fed 1.500+ Vcore for over a year daily at 5.5Ghz All cores. The silicon is just as good as it’s ever been.

I’m gonna say staying below 340 watts and staying below 80-85C is probably the ticket for keeping a chip good.

With my 13900K I don’t exceed 310 ish watts worst case scenario, and temps are below 70C worst case scenario. So I am certain it will hold out just fine for years even. Under gaming my max is only 116 watts now with a average of 90ish watts. I think everyone should try to stay inside these parameters. We’re only exceeding the max Intel spec power by about 20% and that’s only if we’re wanting to hammer R23 all day lol. I’m always below Intel spec 99% of the time technically.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> With my golden 11900K that ran 5.5 and 4000+ on the memory with Gear (1). I let that chip hit heavy amperage’s and high wattage I didn’t even think much about degradation. I mean after all 5.5Ghz with a 4.6Ghz ring on that 8/16 core 11900K was about 330+ watts in just R23 for 30 minutes and I did a lot of those, including Y-Cruncher 2.5B, Prime 95 AVX. Running it for over a year and now it’s on a 240mm AIO inside a case at 5.4Ghz all cores with the memory still at 4,000 Gear (1).
> 
> All I did was keep it running really really cool. And it was fed 1.500+ Vcore for over a year daily at 5.5Ghz All cores. The silicon is just as good as it’s ever been.
> 
> I’m gonna say staying below 340 watts and staying below 80-85C is probably the ticket for keeping a chip good.


So in your experience, temps are the most important?
I've degraded a few 12/13th Gens with just a few hours of y-cruncher and 300W average or so thus far, so things are a bit concerning in my eyes.
Temps were in the 80-90's though.


----------



## acoustic

Those chips were built on different nodes and aren't really comparable. 12th gen and 13th gen can be compared obviously, but beyond that, it's a bit of a guessing game.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> So in your experience, temps are the most important?
> I've degraded a few 12/13th Gens with just a few hours of y-cruncher and 300W average or so thus far, so things are a bit concerning in my eyes.
> Temps were in the 80-90's though.



How bad was the degradation of them?

If you keep 13th gen below 253 watts and below 95C is it safe form degradation?


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> How bad was the degradation of them?
> 
> If you keep 13th gen below 253 watts and below 95C is it safe form degradation?


Below 253W = Will probably be safe according to Intel
Below 95C = Will probably degrade over the long run


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> So in your experience, temps are the most important?
> I've degraded a few 12/13th Gens with just a few hours of y-cruncher and 300W average or so thus far, so things are a bit concerning in my eyes.
> Temps were in the 80-90's though.


I do not run a stress test that long anymore, and haven’t in a while, unless you can keep that cpu really cool like 60’s-70’s maybe 80 tops it should be fine. Yes, I think temps are the most important factor. I would use a different combination of testing for like 30 minutes to an hour, and use memory stability testing and just call it good. No need to stress a CPU out. I mean, I could probably go set all of my cores to just 6.2Ghz and run it daily. Would it be stable in R23? Probably not lol. But it would probably never crash if I just used the computer as normal. Gaming/work etc.

Honestly, I think testing memory for stability and using a R23 30 minutes and R15 30 minutes is good enough. I tested Prime 95 non AVX on my last CPU for 30 minutes and it was good. 

The last CPU I degraded was a 7980XE and it was running 80’s-90’s temps for hours and hours during stability testing. It lost about 10-15% of its original ability. I quit doing that ever since.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I do not run a stress test that long anymore, and haven’t in a while, unless you can keep that cpu really cool like 60’s-70’s maybe 80 tops it should be fine. Yes, I think temps are the most important factor. I would use a different combination of testing for like 30 minutes to an hour, and use memory stability testing and just call it good. No need to stress a CPU out. I mean, I could probably go set all of my cores to just 6.2Ghz and run it daily. Would it be stable in R23? Probably not lol. But it would probably never crash if I just used the computer as normal. Gaming/work etc.
> 
> Honestly, I think testing memory for stability and using a R23 30 minutes and R15 30 minutes is good enough. I tested Prime 95 non AVX on my last CPU for 30 minutes and it was good.
> 
> The last CPU I degraded was a 7980XE and it was running 80’s-90’s temps for hours and hours during stability testing. It lost about 10-15% of its original ability. I quit doing that ever since.


I'm actually testing out a 80C temp limit as we speak, in different workloads with adaptive voltage. Just to see how the BIOS handles it.
I want the chip to clock higher during low loads, not just get tacked at 55/43/45x all the time.

A power limit of 253W causes the clocks to drop to like 47/38/43 in R23, lol.


----------



## energie80

I don’t know why you keep pushing stress test…


----------



## Ichirou

energie80 said:


> I don’t know why you keep pushing stress test…


It's generally good practice to at least test some high load to make sure your PC doesn't crash when it inevitably happens at some random point down the line.
It doesn't matter if the cores clock down; it should at least be stable at those lowered clocks.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> I'm actually testing out a 80C temp limit as we speak, in different workloads with adaptive voltage. Just to see how the BIOS handles it.
> I want the chip to clock higher during low loads, not just get tacked at 55/43/45x all the time.
> 
> A power limit of 253W causes the clocks to drop to like 47/38/43 in R23, lol.


I feel like the new generation of PC guys are changing and so are the processors we have today. I’ve been overclocking since 2004, and I know for the longest time it was all about stability testing for like 8-24 hours, or something crazy like linpack extreme this, Linpack extreme that. Like it was so bad, if you posted an abnormally high overclock that was not below average, the first guy would call you out and be like. “IT AINT SHHHSTABLE THOUGH”🤣 then a huge debate about how one guy says it’s only “TRUE STABLE” if you bury your PC in the hot desert and unplug all fans and burn in a LINPACK test for 267 days. “Then it’s stable” lol. Anything less is not acceptable haha.

Okay, I’m kidding. But seriously our processors are pushing a whole new power envelope and amperage nowadays. A lot of people are after just game stable. Put the chip in, test a few things and just use it and enjoy it. I mean, people have different needs and do different things. So there really isn’t a standard for any of us. We all know when and if our computer is actually not stable I’d hope so at least. So we should run it up to what is stable and what works for us. No need to melt our processors down in a test. Just run them as fast as they can sustain for what we are doing everyday.

I think testing memory stability is far more important maybe like 1-2 hours, and testing the cpu for 10 to 30 minutes HEAVY load is perfectly fine. Anymore is just not needed.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I feel like the new generation of PC guys are changing and so are the processors we have today. I’ve been overclocking since 2004, and I know for the longest time it was all about stability testing for like 8-24 hours, or something crazy like linpack extreme this, Linpack extreme that. Like it was so bad, if you posted an abnormally high overclock that was not below average, the first guy would call you out and be like. “IT AINT SHHHSTABLE THOUGH”🤣 then a huge debate about how one guy says it’s only “TRUE STABLE” if you bury your PC in the hot desert and unplug all fans and burn in a LINPACK test for 267 days. “Then it’s stable” lol. Anything less is not acceptable haha.
> 
> Okay, I’m kidding. But seriously our processors are pushing a whole new power envelope and amperage nowadays. A lot of people are after just game stable. Put the chip in, test a few things and just use it and enjoy it. I mean, people have different needs and do different things. So there really isn’t a standard for any of us. We all know when and if our computer is actually not stable I’d hope so at least. So we should run it up to what is stable and what works for us. No need to melt our processors down in a test. Just run them as fast as they can sustain for what we are doing everyday.
> 
> I think testing memory stability is far more important maybe like 1-2 hours, and testing the cpu for 10 to 30 minutes is perfectly fine.


You hit it right on the nail. Back in the olden days, it was all about "proving" your overclocks with the hardest stress tests to make sure they weren't just flukes.
But now, these 12th/13th Gen chips are so sensitive, even Cinebench R23 can be risky to run over extended periods of time.

TM5 1usmus would be the perfect medium load stress test for people here to use, if it didn't park the P-cores on W10 (without a power plan hack) when the E-cores are on.
Easier than R23, but better than idle. And it stress tests the memory as well at the same time. Only uses 150-200W at most even with an intense 59-60x overclock.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> Below 253W = Will probably be safe according to Intel
> Below 95C = Will probably degrade over the long run



Yeah interesting. I did exceed 253 watt barely and briefly at 5.7GHz maybe like 265 watts only during Y Cruncher SFT part. You mentioned you degraded some chips at 300+ watts after only a few hours. Could a chip degrade a little over 253 watts near 100C for 5 to 10 minutes or close to 100C but at only like 220 to 230 watts for 10 to 20 minutes?? Or is it hard to say and no one knows for sure?

Below 95C may degrade it over long term you think?? What temp would you say to keep it at or below to not degrade it over the long term with power below 253 watts?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Only heard of one guy here that "degraded" his 13xxx series. Anyone else? I have two 13900k cpus, they are fine.


----------



## tps3443

Wolverine2349 said:


> Yeah interesting. I did exceed 253 watt barely and briefly at 5.7GHz maybe like 260 watts. You mentioned you degraded some chips at 300+ watts after only a few hours. Could a chip degrade a little over 253 watts near 100C for 5 to 10 minutes or close to 100C but at only like 220 to 230 watts for 10 to 20 minutes?? Or is it hard to say and no one knows for sure?


Stop stress testing if you can’t cool it down. Just use the processor.


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> Yeah interesting. I did exceed 253 watt barely and briefly at 5.7GHz maybe like 260 watts. You mentioned you degraded some chips at 300+ watts after only a few hours. Could a chip degrade a little over 253 watts near 100C for 5 to 10 minutes or close to 100C but at only like 220 to 230 watts for 10 to 20 minutes?? Or is it hard to say and no one knows for sure?


Let us know once you test it yourself 


MrTOOSHORT said:


> Only heard of one guy here that "degraded" his 13xxx series. Anyone else? I have two 13900k cpus, they are fine.


Me. As well as a friend of mine with a similar batch and retailer source. A day of R23 caused our chips to have to run with +0.02V. Was running at around 300W.
And as for VCCSA, I degraded another chip by +0.02V when I ran it at 1.40V. Didn't even stress it for very long, only a few hours. Not a concern for DDR5 though.

After my 13900KF degraded, I couldn't pass TM5 anymore with my 4,200 CL14 config, no matter what I tried. Works just fine on a new chip, though.


----------



## DBCooper1

Greetings, 

I have a 13700K/Z690 Dark and trying to increase my single core performance. I'm running a 59x2,58x3,57x4,56x6,55x8 ratio, 50 ring, and 43 e-cores with adaptive voltage and max droop. I'm experimenting using the V/F curve (points 1-7) and upped the last point (#7) +90mv and more of the middle point #5 I gave -10mv. I'm trying to increase the voltage on the top end but keep my all core voltage as low as possible. What point in the V/F curve should I be applying negative voltage to maintain a lower voltage all core? #5 or #6 or both?


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> Let us know once you test it yourself
> 
> Me. As well as a friend of mine with a similar batch and retailer source. A day of R23 caused our chips to have to run with +0.02V. Was running at around 300W.
> And as for VCCSA, I degraded another chip by +0.02V when I ran it at 1.40V. Didn't even stress it for very long, only a few hours. Not a concern for DDR5 though.
> 
> After my 13900KF degraded, I couldn't pass TM5 anymore with my 4,200 CL14 config, no matter what I tried. Works just fine on a new chip, though.



Well not sure but maybe I already degraded it at 5.7GHz 1.38V as it passed Y Cruncher 2 iterations twice And Prime95 AVX off Large FFTs and Blend and OCCT Large Data Set and Linpack XTREME.

Temps with Y Cruncher SFT part especially got so hot even with my room cooled by opened window of cold weather and got to 101C and throttling. But no errors. So I thought I was stable.

I ran Cinebench with normal room temps just to test my cooling then suddenly saw 1 or 2 WHEA then realized 5.7GHz at 1.38V LLC 6 was not stable after all or my chip degraded?? Hard to believe it would pass Y Cruncher which is very tough with no WHEAs then Cinebench spit out a WHEA or 2.

So I backed down to 5.6GHz 1.325V LLC 6 and passed almost every test smooth sailing and no WHEA. Even Y Cruncher torturous SFT with window open and cold house peaked at only 95C and no throttling and that is like the most brutal test. Though Prime95 blend with AVX on the power usage exceeded 250 watts and may have even hit 270 watts and BSOD, though Prime95 AVX on is beyond torture for anything especially Intel CPUs and power usage got so bad and high for air that I just called it unrealistic and thought all good as it passed all Y Cruncher and everything else. No test at 5.6GHz 1.325V LLC 6 ever hit above the 230 watts for POUT except for Prime95 AVX on Blend when it got to Small FFT part. Even Y Cruncher SFT I believe peaked at 230 watts for my 5.6GHz 1.325V LLC 6.


----------



## energie80

I just normally use the pc, playing a lot of Warzone 2 without crashes is enough to me
13900k making a lot of heat and wattage and almost nothing can handle it so no point stressing


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> Well not sure but maybe I already degraded it at 5.7GHz 1.38V as it passed Y Cruncher 2 iterations twice And Prime95 AVX off Large FFTs and Blend and OCCT Large Data Set and Linpack XTREME.
> 
> Temps with Y Cruncher SFT part especially got so hot even with my room cooled by opened window of cold weather and got to 101C and throttling. But no errors. So I thought I was stable.
> 
> I ran Cinebench with normal room temps just to test my cooling then suddenly saw 1 or 2 WHEA then realized 5.7GHz at 1.38V LLC 6 was not stable after all or my chip degraded?? Hard to believe it would pass Y Cruncher which is very tough with no WHEAs then Cinebench spit out a WHEA or 2.
> 
> So I backed down to 5.6GHz 1.325V LLC 6 and passed almost every test smooth sailing and no WHEA. Even Y Cruncher torturous SFT with window open and cold house peaked at only 95C and no throttling and that is like the most brutal test. Though Prime95 blend with AVX on the power usage exceeded 250 watts and may have even hit 270 watts and BSOD, though Prime95 AVX on is beyond torture for anything especially Intel CPUs and power usage got so bad and high for air that I just called it unrealistic and thought all good as it passed all Y Cruncher and everything else. No test at 5.6GHz 1.325V LLC 6 ever hit above the 230 watts for POUT except for Prime95 AVX on Blend when it got to Small FFT part. Even Y Cruncher SFT I believe peaked at 230 watts for my 5.6GHz 1.325V LLC 6.


If you're hitting over 85C, you'd probably be slowly killing it over the long run with any heavy sustained load.


----------



## digitalfrost

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Only heard of one guy here that "degraded" his 13xxx series. Anyone else? I have two 13900k cpus, they are fine.


I can no longer do what my CPU did when it was brand new, but I have experienced this many times before. If you OC a CPU immediately you will often be very happy with the result only to later accept a slightly lower OC as 24/7 stable. I agree with @Exilon here Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...

I have for sure degraded my 12700K. It ran around 1.35-1.38v during gaming but it seems that was already too much. It was foolish of me to try and replicate what @RobertoSampaio did. I am very thankful for his guides, I think it's the best resource to understand the platform, but you cannot do on MSI what he's doing on ASUS. That said, the board prices for ASUS are rather high and I'm quite happy with my PRO Z690-A for the money _if_ you understand its limits.

I landed a very good 13700K and I don't want to risk it, so I keep my Tjmax lower than 100°, I set IccMax and I try to keep power targets that my cooling system can actually keep cool (I have Noctua NH-D15). The high singlecore boost as on ASUS are impossible on MSI unless you overvolt everything below, once you understand that and tune the CPU to run most efficiently, then use OCTVB to squeeze out the last bit of performance it's really nice.

With regard to stability testing. Back when we only had 1 CPU core, being Prime stable 24/7 was a pretty good test. Then we got 2 cores, 4 cores. Now it's 8 cores + X. I think it's insane to want a 16 core / 32 threads CPU to just keep the same performance across all cores. It's really impressive if you can achieve it and you need good cooling to do so, but really, I wonder what relevance Cinebench has for everyday usage? Putting 300W into a CPU for 30mins repeatedly is surely extreme usage. What game does that? If we get 32 core / 64 thread CPUs y'all gonna cool 600W or what?

Besides, for most people allcore loads will throttle anyway. Either due to power, thermal or amperage. I see no problem with that. It's not a normal use case. Yes it must be stable, but why not just drop clocks in these loads? It has no relevance to everyday usage. If you have a multicore load that scales really well with cores, the best way is to have a lot of very efficient cores, not some very fast cores.

Personally, I really like to use Geekbench to judge stability. If it can pass 3 runs of Geekbench it'll be good for almost anything. And that takes way less than 30mins. With all the variables these CPUs have (TVB volt opt) and the by core loads + OCTVB it's really hard to arrive at something that works all year round.


----------



## tps3443

New 13900KF has arrived and it’s in hand! I’ll report back later of its Force2 rating and capability. 

Batch X238L101.

This is my 3rd 13900K to test.

13900KF Batch# X238L435 Force 134
13900K Batch#X141M860 Force 124
13900KF Batch X238L101 Force ???


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> New 13900KF has arrived and it’s in hand! I’ll report back later of its Force2 rating and capability.
> 
> Batch X238L101.
> 
> This is my 3rd 13900K to test.
> 
> 13900KF Batch# X238L435 Force 134
> 13900K Batch#X141M860 Force 124
> 13900KF Batch X238L101 Force ???
> 
> 
> View attachment 2585013


I call dibs if it's stronger


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> I call dibs if it's stronger


If it’s better, I will let go of my Force 124. Which is a straight up crazy good sample. I haven’t even finished digging in to it yet. I need to finish testing limits of the Ring, and check my E-Cores out past x45.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> If it’s better, I will let go of my Force 124. Which is a straight up crazy good sample. I haven’t even finished digging in to it yet. I need to finish testing limits of the Ring, and check my E-Cores out past x45.


I know, I was just kidding 
Let me know how this one turns out


----------



## RobertoSampaio

digitalfrost said:


> I can no longer do what my CPU did when it was brand new, but I have experienced this many times before. If you OC a CPU immediately you will often be very happy with the result only to later accept a slightly lower OC as 24/7 stable. I agree with @Exilon here Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> I have for sure degraded my 12700K. It ran around 1.35-1.38v during gaming but it seems that was already too much. It was foolish of me to try and replicate what @RobertoSampaio did. I am very thankful for his guides, I think it's the best resource to understand the platform, but you cannot do on MSI what he's doing on ASUS. That said, the board prices for ASUS are rather high and I'm quite happy with my PRO Z690-A for the money _if_ you understand its limits.
> 
> I landed a very good 13700K and I don't want to risk it, so I keep my Tjmax lower than 100°, I set IccMax and I try to keep power targets that my cooling system can actually keep cool (I have Noctua NH-D15). The high singlecore boost as on ASUS are impossible on MSI unless you overvolt everything below, once you understand that and tune the CPU to run most efficiently, then use OCTVB to squeeze out the last bit of performance it's really nice.
> 
> With regard to stability testing. Back when we only had 1 CPU core, being Prime stable 24/7 was a pretty good test. Then we got 2 cores, 4 cores. Now it's 8 cores + X. I think it's insane to want a 16 core / 32 threads CPU to just keep the same performance across all cores. It's really impressive if you can achieve it and you need good cooling to do so, but really, I wonder what relevance Cinebench has for everyday usage? Putting 300W into a CPU for 30mins repeatedly is surely extreme usage. What game does that? If we get 32 core / 64 thread CPUs y'all gonna cool 600W or what?
> 
> Besides, for most people allcore loads will throttle anyway. Either due to power, thermal or amperage. I see no problem with that. It's not a normal use case. Yes it must be stable, but why not just drop clocks in these loads? It has no relevance to everyday usage. If you have a multicore load that scales really well with cores, the best way is to have a lot of very efficient cores, not some very fast cores.
> 
> Personally, I really like to use Geekbench to judge stability. If it can pass 3 runs of Geekbench it'll be good for almost anything. And that takes way less than 30mins. With all the variables these CPUs have (TVB volt opt) and the by core loads + OCTVB it's really hard to arrive at something that works all year round.


I think running games with 1.4v is not a problem...
My 10900k, 12900k and 13900K run games at that voltage...
And if you take a look at the native intel VF curve of some 13900K's you'll see a voltage of 1.4V...











Some bad 12900K CPUs even had 1.5V on the curve.










When gaming, your CPU will run a variable load consuming something like 100W to 150W at less than 80C.

The degradation is not caused when CPU is 20% loaded at 1.4V - 150W - 80C...
But when you run 1.2V - 300W - temp > 95C for 30 minutes several times per day...

And you are completely right... We need stable running CPU for our daily use and reality...


----------



## energie80

My cpu never goes past 65 when gaming, mostly 60 at 1.33 5.8ghz


----------



## Ichirou

RobertoSampaio said:


> When gaming, your CPU will run a variable load consuming something like 100W to 150W at less than 80C.
> 
> The degradation is not caused when CPU is 20% load at 1.4V - 150W - 80C...
> But when you run 1.2V - 300W - temp > 95C for 30 minutes several times per day...


This is precisely why I'm using TM5 to "test." It caps off around 180W, and pushes all of the effective clocks to the max, while also stress testing the memory hard.
If any cores are unstable, it results in a variety of issues such as errors, freezing, and BSODs. Hence, it should emulate gaming loads quite accurately.

I currently have my chip set to around ~1.42V VR VOUT, but with a 80C temperature limit. The rest is up to the BIOS to freely allocate for stability.
I'm managing up to 61x on a few cores so far, and 59x on the worst ones. 46x E-Cores, and 50x Ring. And this is just with an average bin chip.

Naturally, it's going to downclock pretty heavily in R23 or y-cruncher. But that's fine, and well within expectation.


----------



## digitalfrost

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think running games with 1.4v is not a problem...
> My 10900k, 12900k and 13900K run games at that voltage...
> And if you take a look at the native intel VF curve of some 13900K's you'll see a voltage of 1.4V...
> 
> Some bad 12900K CPUs even had 1.5V on the curve.
> 
> When gaming, your CPU will run a variable load consuming something like 100W to 150W at less than 80C.
> 
> The degradation is not caused when CPU is 20% load at 1.4V - 150W - 80C...
> But when you run 1.2V - 300W - temp > 95C for 30 minutes several times per day...
> 
> And you are completely right... We need stable running CPU for our daily use and reality...


I don't know why it happened I can only tell you I had my 12700K little over a year and at the end it stopped being stable at what used to work before despite having sane power limits, not very high temperature and I'm not someone to run stress tests all day. It ran below 1.4v in gaming, most of the time around 100W. Still it happened.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

digitalfrost said:


> I don't know why it happened I can only tell you I had my 12700K little over a year and at the end it stopped being stable at what used to work before despite having sane power limits, not very high temperature and I'm not someone to run stress tests all day. It ran below 1.4v in gaming, most of the time around 100W. Still it happened.


CPU degradation is expected. Just like me over 50 years old I can't climb a tree anymore... LOL.
And that's why manufacturers leave extra voltage on their systems. If they delivered everything extremely optimized, in a short time they would have a series of RMAs.


----------



## fitnessgrampacertest

I finally won the Silicon Lottery 🥲🥲
P-Cores: 116
E-Cores: 85
MC: 83
[x] feels good man


----------



## don1376

DBCooper1 said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I have a 13700K/Z690 Dark and trying to increase my single core performance. I'm running a 59x2,58x3,57x4,56x6,55x8 ratio, 50 ring, and 43 e-cores with adaptive voltage and max droop. I'm experimenting using the V/F curve (points 1-7) and upped the last point (#7) +90mv and more of the middle point #5 I gave -10mv. I'm trying to increase the voltage on the top end but keep my all core voltage as low as possible. What point in the V/F curve should I be applying negative voltage to maintain a lower voltage all core? #5 or #6 or both?
> View attachment 2585004


Both


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fitnessgrampacertest said:


> I finally won the Silicon Lottery 🥲🥲
> P-Cores: 116
> E-Cores: 85
> MC: 83
> [x] feels good man
> View attachment 2585040
> 
> View attachment 2585041


You can run at least 2 cores at 61 to 62x with this CPU :👏👏👏
Maybe 63x ....


----------



## fitnessgrampacertest

RobertoSampaio said:


> You can run at least 2 cores at 61 to 62x with this CPU :👏👏👏
> Maybe 63x ....


I figured as much!!! The only thing holding me back right now is my Asus ROG Ryujin 360 is making poor contact with my CPU. I will hit 98°C - 100°C at 235 watts package power 🙃 

Probably going to go to Microcenter this weekend and buy a contact frame to fix that


----------



## tps3443

fitnessgrampacertest said:


> I figured as much!!! The only thing holding me back right now is my Asus ROG Ryujin 360 is making poor contact with my CPU. I will hit 98°C - 100°C at 235 watts package power 🙃
> 
> Probably going to go to Microcenter this weekend and buy a contact frame to fix that


Don’t cook your CPU if you can’t COOL it. Just run games etc lol.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fitnessgrampacertest said:


> I figured as much!!! The only thing holding me back right now is my Asus ROG Ryujin 360 is making poor contact with my CPU. I will hit 98°C - 100°C at 235 watts package power 🙃
> 
> Probably going to go to Microcenter this weekend and buy a contact frame to fix that


I had this issue with my AF-II...
It was solved with a Grizzly Kryonaut Extreme and a lot of work trying to adjust the CPU block...

But core#5 and #7 like to run hot even at light loads.


----------



## tps3443

@Ichirou

I‘ve got you a good one JUST FOR YOU!! 🤪 Kidding.. The one from Newegg turned out to be a DUD. 










*Also, It FAILED to post with this chip while trying to load my 6.2Ghz profile, that I created on my really good 13900K. Lol.

So heads up everyone! It is the CPU that makes high overclocking possible, not the cooling. My Batch X241M860 really is a great sample. And the Force rating does not lie. *


----------



## fitnessgrampacertest

RobertoSampaio said:


> I had this issue with my AF-II...
> It was solved with a Grizzly Kryonaut Extreme and a lot of work trying to adjust the CPU block...
> 
> But core#5 and #7 like to run hot even at light loads.
> View attachment 2585046


Your hwinfo64 dashboard is chaos lol. Love it


----------



## tps3443

fitnessgrampacertest said:


> Your hwinfo64 dashboard is chaos lol. Love it


It really is, we can always recognize it’s @RobertoSampaio by his HWinfo screen alone.


----------



## RichKnecht

Wolverine2349 said:


> Is that all core all the time?? What vcore are you at??
> 
> I have e-cores disabled and can only hit 5.6GHz P cores and ring at 5GHz with 1.325V at LLC6 for full stability that passes Y Cruncher, Cinebench, OCCT Large Data Variable, Prime 95 Blend and Large FFT with AVX disabled, and Linpack XTREME 8 runs and 2 hours of AIDA 64 System stability test with CPU, RAM, CPU cache and floating point checked.
> 
> If I put my P cores at 5.7GHz, needed 1.38V and was able to pass all tests and thought I was stable though temps easily hit 100C and it throttles. However found that eventually I got a WHEA error or 2 running Cinebench R23 so was not stable afterall.
> 
> What kind of cooling do you have for your setup?


Yes 5.7 all core. I do not do any single core testing as everything i do relies on multi thread performance. So I don’t boost any one or two cores. This passes 30 min of R 23. I don’t use y cruncher or Prime 95 as those batter the crap out a chip with loads it will never see in my real world use. Once it passes R23, I load up 2000 45MP pictures and batch process them. If that‘s good to go, I’m ready for business. This methodology worked with X58 and X299. The X299 rig ran for years without a hiccup.

im using 2 45 mm thick 360 rads and a 60mm thick 360 rad with 2 D5 pumps and an Optimus Sig V2 CPU block. All fans and pumps are controlled by Aquasuite and fan speed is determined by wate temps.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> So in your experience, temps are the most important?
> I've degraded a few 12/13th Gens with just a few hours of y-cruncher and 300W average or so thus far, so things are a bit concerning in my eyes.
> Temps were in the 80-90's though.


Temperatures kill any electronics, even if they were designed for it. I use to install custom home theaters and we always fan cooled all components in the rack. . When a component failed, 9 times out of 10, it was because of a fan failure and excessive heat. Never because they listened to the system really loud. Bad analogy I know.


----------



## dante`afk

for some reason i get barely any benefit from direct die, removed it twice, double checked, contact seems fine. 30 minutes cb23. first is on unifyx, other on apex. but also 30w more.


delid + copper ihs:











direct die:










maybe with this gen its almost neglectable compared to lm + ihs vs direct die.


----------



## VULC

fitnessgrampacertest said:


> I finally won the Silicon Lottery 🥲🥲
> P-Cores: 116
> E-Cores: 85
> MC: 83
> [x] feels good man
> View attachment 2585040
> 
> View attachment 2585041


Exact same as mine.


----------



## tps3443

dante`afk said:


> for some reason i get barely any benefit from direct die, removed it twice, double checked, contact seems fine. 30 minutes cb23. first is on unifyx, other on apex.
> 
> 
> delid + copper ihs:
> View attachment 2585058
> 
> 
> 
> 
> direct die:
> View attachment 2585059
> 
> 
> 
> maybe with this gen its almost neglectable compared to lm + ihs vs direct die.


Delidding the 13900K is not worth it.. I’ve done it. Small gains. My new chip runs cooler as it is, than my last delidded 13900KF.


----------



## RichKnecht

dante`afk said:


> for some reason i get barely any benefit from direct die, removed it twice, double checked, contact seems fine. 30 minutes cb23. first is on unifyx, other on apex. but also 30w more.
> 
> 
> delid + copper ihs:
> View attachment 2585058
> 
> 
> 
> 
> direct die:
> View attachment 2585059
> 
> 
> 
> maybe with this gen its almost neglectable compared to lm + ihs vs direct die.


Direct die or not, you hsve great temp spread between cores.


----------



## dipsdots

Collected some batch info from a few forums, included stuff that has been posted here and some that I binned


*CPU**Batch**SP**P-Core**E-Core**MC SP*13900KX236105116857413900KX236105116857813900KX236110121887913900K1021098813900K1141211018413900K113123848813900K951047813900KX2331051158513900K981077913900K991078013900K941037513900K1091138813900K1001147313900K981078013900K971068113900K1021128313900K110119938813900K1001108013900K1141249413900K1061139413900K11910213900K1108813900K1061158813900K1061168813900K1031118813900KX2431041138876


*AVERAGES*SP Rating104P-Core113E-Core86MC SP81SP High114SP Low94P High124P Low103E High102E Low73MC High88MC Low74


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Direct die or not, you hsve great temp spread between cores.


At lower wattage it’s better too. Once wattage starts stepping up it grows substantially.


----------



## tps3443

dipsdots said:


> Collected some batch info from a few forums, included stuff that has been posted here and some that I binned
> 
> 
> *CPU**Batch**SP**P-Core**E-Core**MC SP*13900KX236105116857413900KX236105116857813900KX236110121887913900K1021098813900K1141211018413900K113123848813900K951047813900KX2331051158513900K981077913900K991078013900K941037513900K1091138813900K1001147313900K981078013900K971068113900K1021128313900K110119938813900K1001108013900K1141249413900K1061139413900K11910213900K1108813900K1061158813900K1061168813900K1031118813900KX2431041138876
> 
> 
> *AVERAGES*SP Rating104P-Core113E-Core86MC SP81SP High114SP Low94P High124P Low103E High102E Low73MC High88MC Low74


That’s awesome, thanks for sharing. I finally ended up with a chip that I’m happy with. Not sure of the SP rating, but it’s the best of (3) I have tested. It’s batch X241M860


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> 
> I‘ve got you a good one JUST FOR YOU!! 🤪 Kidding.. The one from Newegg turned out to be a DUD.
> 
> View attachment 2585045
> 
> 
> *Also, It FAILED to post with this chip while trying to load my 6.2Ghz profile, that I created on my really good 13900K. Lol.
> 
> So heads up everyone! It is the CPU that makes high overclocking possible, not the cooling. My Batch X241M860 really is a great sample. And the Force rating does not lie. *


Isn't Force 150 or so just average?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

dante`afk said:


> for some reason i get barely any benefit from direct die, removed it twice, double checked, contact seems fine. 30 minutes cb23. first is on unifyx, other on apex. but also 30w more.
> 
> 
> delid + copper ihs:
> View attachment 2585058
> 
> 
> 
> 
> direct die:
> View attachment 2585059
> 
> 
> 
> maybe with this gen its almost neglectable compared to lm + ihs vs direct die.


The vcore in your direct die screen shot shows a bigger diff to your vids compared to your vids vs vcore earlier…but the load v’s look good 🤷‍♂️ maybe it was already a really good chip …I mean your running 57/47/44 and barely touching 75c


----------



## tps3443

@dante`afk 
I noticed your very low SA voltage, I use to run mine like this too, until I discovered it actually effects CPU stability in R15/R23. I tested mine down to 1.000V and upwards up 1.075V even. And the CPU seems stable at first, but it actually wasn’t stable. It made it feel like the CPU needed more voltage to find stability, when in reality it was the low SA voltage causing problems here. I have a Unity-X motherboard. Something to keep in mind is all.

If you increase that SA voltage, you can probably get away with less CPU voltage to find the same stability. I run just 1.250 now. I can probably reduce it to maybe 1.175V. but that’s probably it.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Isn't Force 150 or so just average?


That’s what @sugi0lover says. I believe that’s definitely average. It failed to post right away on my 6.2 profile. And the idle bios voltage was 0.989V. My current chip idles in bios at like 0.927V. While idle bios voltage is not a definitive answer, it’s an indication in the right direction. I tested a 11900K that was a turd, but it had a drastically lower idle bios voltage than my gold top 1% 11900K lol.


----------



## owikh84

tps3443 said:


> That’s awesome, thanks for sharing. I finally ended up with a chip that I’m happy with. Not sure of the SP rating, but it’s the best of (3) I have tested. It’s batch X241M860


I think need to see the best and worst vid.
I've seen some chips with SP120+ Pcore having worst vid (1.378v) similar to my SP118 Pcore (1.378v worst and best vids).


----------



## tps3443

owikh84 said:


> I think need to see the best and worst vid.
> I've seen some chips with SP120+ Pcore having worst vid (1.378v) similar to my SP118 Pcore (1.378v worst and best vids).


Always test a chip first definitely. I always do, I tried to post a few settings with the Force 149 before removing it just to be sure.

But yeah, my last chip was a Force 127 cool water but it overclocked very well and ran 5.8 all cores with a very low VID’s, but after 5.9Ghz it literally fell apart completely LOL. Now, my current chip is a Force 117 with cold water but it absolutely kills my last chip in overclocks. I can run 6.2 now with low VID’s and just adaptive voltage. Plus, the ring laughs at 5.1, it simply doesn’t alter VID’s at all! I love that.

The feel of hand overclocking difference was immediately noticeable though. You could just feel that difference right away that it was better.

My current chip is a keeper though, I freakin love it!!


----------



## Wolverine2349

dipsdots said:


> Collected some batch info from a few forums, included stuff that has been posted here and some that I binned
> 
> 
> *CPU**Batch**SP**P-Core**E-Core**MC SP*13900KX236105116857413900KX236105116857813900KX236110121887913900K1021098813900K1141211018413900K113123848813900K951047813900KX2331051158513900K981077913900K991078013900K941037513900K1091138813900K1001147313900K981078013900K971068113900K1021128313900K110119938813900K1001108013900K1141249413900K1061139413900K11910213900K1108813900K1061158813900K1061168813900K1031118813900KX2431041138876
> 
> 
> *AVERAGES*SP Rating104P-Core113E-Core86MC SP81SP High114SP Low94P High124P Low103E High102E Low73MC High88MC Low74



Strange because I had a 13900K with SP of 98 and P core SP 107 and e-core SP 80. And it seemed like a dud per those. But its force score was 148 which is around average as 150 is average so barely above average.

I sold it off as it needed 1.35V LLC 6 to be stable 5.6GHz all core with e-cores off and was hoping for a better bin

I got another 13900K and its force rating was 134 which is better than average and a better bin but not as good as I was hoping for but good enough none the less. This one only needs 1.325V LLC6 to be stable at 5.6GHz all core with ring at 5GHz with e-cores off. Though my Asus boards are gone so have no idea what the SP score is.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fitnessgrampacertest said:


> Your hwinfo64 dashboard is chaos lol. Love it


My second mini monitor is the best... LOL.


----------



## dante`afk

tps3443 said:


> @dante`afk
> I noticed your very low SA voltage, I use to run mine like this too, until I discovered it actually effects CPU stability in R15/R23. I tested mine down to 1.000V and upwards up 1.075V even. And the CPU seems stable at first, but it actually wasn’t stable. It made it feel like the CPU needed more voltage to find stability, when in reality it was the low SA voltage causing problems here. I have a Unity-X motherboard. Something to keep in mind is all.
> 
> If you increase that SA voltage, you can probably get away with less CPU voltage to find the same stability. I run just 1.250 now. I can probably reduce it to maybe 1.175V. but that’s probably it.


usually I have it higher, but currently trying to get 8200/8400 to work on the ram and it seems to prefer lower


----------



## dante`afk

Uncle Dubbs said:


> The vcore in your direct die screen shot shows a bigger diff to your vids compared to your vids vs vcore earlier…but the load v’s look good 🤷‍♂️ maybe it was already a really good chip …I mean your running 57/47/44 and barely touching 75c


yea I'm a bit biased probably, because on 12900k it was marginally better difference, but then again we have more cores and more wattage draw here with the 13900k











I disassembled it a third time now, polished both IHS and DIE again with Autosol for several minutes.


temps kinda still the same











so that's probably as good as it gets


----------



## tps3443

dante`afk said:


> yea I'm a bit biased probably, because on 12900k it was marginally better difference, but then again we have more cores and more wattage draw here with the 13900k
> 
> View attachment 2585076
> 
> 
> 
> I disassembled it a third time now, polished both IHS and DIE again with Autosol for several minutes.
> 
> 
> temps kinda still the same
> 
> View attachment 2585077
> 
> 
> 
> so that's probably as good as it gets


That’s a lot of work too! Don’t you have to drain the loop every time you re-mount?


----------



## dante`afk

not this time, I put in everywhere quick disconnects now ^^ for every piece


----------



## tps3443

dante`afk said:


> not this time, I put in everywhere quick disconnects now ^^ for every piece


I need to set these up… I don’t really know where to start. I have 3/8 5/8 tubing. Not really sure which ones to buy? Several brands available.

Especially now that I have a water cooled M.2 as well.


----------



## dante`afk

tps3443 said:


> I need to set these up… I don’t really know where to start. I have 3/8 5/8 tubing. Not really sure which ones to buy? Several brands available.
> 
> Especially now that I have a water cooled M.2 as well.


I love the koolance QDCs, almost zero flow restriction

for tubing:
QD3-FS10X16-BK
QD3-MS10X16-BK

threaded to mount on blocks:
QD3-FSG4-BK
QD3-MSG4-BK


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I need to set these up… I don’t really know where to start. I have 3/8 5/8 tubing. Not really sure which ones to buy? Several brands available.
> 
> Especially now that I have a water cooled M.2 as well.


Just buy the cheap Bykski QDCs from AliExpress/Formula Mods. They use G1/4s.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Just buy the cheap Bykski QDCs from AliExpress/Formula Mods. They use G1/4s.


Those koolance ones are not too bad on price. I primarily want them for my GPU. I typically run a full block on my GPU, and it’s always a pain without QDC’s. And probably my M.2.


----------



## Agent-A01

dipsdots said:


> Collected some batch info from a few forums, included stuff that has been posted here and some that I binned
> 
> 
> *CPU**Batch**SP**P-Core**E-Core**MC SP*13900KX236105116857413900KX236105116857813900KX236110121887913900K1021098813900K1141211018413900K113123848813900K951047813900KX2331051158513900K981077913900K991078013900K941037513900K1091138813900K1001147313900K981078013900K971068113900K1021128313900K110119938813900K1001108013900K1141249413900K1061139413900K11910213900K1108813900K1061158813900K1061168813900K1031118813900KX2431041138876
> 
> 
> *AVERAGES*SP Rating104P-Core113E-Core86MC SP81SP High114SP Low94P High124P Low103E High102E Low73MC High88MC Low74


I have two from the same batch.
X236
1: SP105 P116 E85 MC 72-73
2. SP104 P113 E88 MC 71-73


----------



## imrevoau

So what's considered a "good" P SP? I'm assuming 115+?


----------



## tps3443

I’m kinda tempted to check out another Bestbuy chip. Man, I feel like their chips are good. Lol. Grabbed just one from them and it was amazing!!!


----------



## tps3443

imrevoau said:


> So what's considered a "good" P SP? I'm assuming 115+?


Slightly better than average. Unless the chip has rocking E-Cores.


----------



## Ichirou

imrevoau said:


> So what's considered a "good" P SP? I'm assuming 115+?


Golden is P-SP 120+.
110+ is above average.
100+ is average.
Anything below and you can curse the gods lol

As for E-SP, that would be:
100+ = diamond
90+ = golden
80+ = above average
Below = rip


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> Golden is P-SP 120+.
> 110+ is above average.
> 100+ is average.
> Anything below and you can curse the gods lol
> 
> As for E-SP, that would be:
> 100+ = diamond
> 90+ = golden
> 80+ = above average
> Below = rip


About what I assumed, cheers


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 Spent the better part of the day binning the cores for medium loads. Haven't tested R23/y-cruncher yet, but at least in TM5, here are my findings:


Spoiler



13900K BestBuy Core Binning

TM5 1usmus (two cycles)
1.45V Adaptive, Lite Load 1, LLC Mode 3
4x16 GB Micron B-die @ 4,200 CL14 1T Gear 1

L2 Voltage @ 1.33V is stable with the E-Cores at 46x
1.34V is required with E-Core Cluster 4 @ 48x
(1.32V or less throws WHEA errors and Errors 0+9)

Ring @ 50x is stable, 51x freezes after two minutes

VR VOUT 1.43V, Current ~133A, Wattage ~190W
Hottest Core Temp: 69C

P0 - Stable @ 61x, 62x throws KERNEL_SECURITY_CHECK_FAILURE BSOD instantly
P1 - Stable @ 61x, 62x throws UNEXPECTED_KERNEL_MODE_TRAP after reaching desktop
P2 - Stable @ 61x, 62x freezes during boot
P3 - Stable @ 60x, 61x throws KERNEL_SECURITY_CHECK_FAILURE BSOD instantly
P4 - Stable @ 59x, 60x throws Error 6 instantly
P5 - Stable @ 61x, 62x throws ATTEMPTED_EXECUTE_OF_NOEXECUTE_MEMORY instantly
P6 - Stable @ 59x, 60x freezes within 2-3 minutes
P7 - Stable @ 60x, 61x freezes and throws WHEA errors

E1 - Stable @ 46x, 47x freezes quickly
E2 - Stable @ 46x, 47x throws CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT after running for a long while
E3 - Stable @ 46x, 47x throws Error 6 instantly
E4 - Stable @ 48x, 49x causes Windows to bug out and not allow you to login

P-Core Quality: 0/5, 1, 2, 7, 3, 6, 4
E-Core Quality: 4, 2, 3, 1

Optimized Config:
4 P-Cores @ 61x, 2 P-Cores @ 60x, 2 P-Cores @ 59x
1 E-Core Cluster @ 48x, 3 E-Core Clusters @ 46x


----------



## Shadowdane

Got my 2nd 13700K today.. The first one would not run XMP (DDR5-7200) at all, tried lower speeds anything at or above 5800Mhz would give memory errors (10-15 seconds into TM5 runs) even with insanely high IMC & VCCSA voltages. Spent nearly a week trying to troubleshoot it and then finally just said screw it and ordered a 2nd CPU to give it a try.

I gotta say I'm happy with how well my 2nd chip undervolts! Stock ratios but I'm very happy with 1.16v for 5.3/4.2 and keeping under 190W for Cinebench R23! Running G.Skill DDR5-7200 34-45-45-52-2T. Did a quick pass of TM5 and no memory errors, but going to do a longer run overnight.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 Spent the better part of the day binning the cores for medium loads. Haven't tested R23/y-cruncher yet, but at least in TM5, here are my findings:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 13900K BestBuy Core Binning
> 
> TM5 1usmus (two cycles)
> 1.45V Adaptive, Lite Load 1, LLC Mode 3
> 4x16 GB Micron B-die @ 4,200 CL14 1T Gear 1
> 
> L2 Voltage @ 1.33V is stable with the E-Cores at 46x
> 1.34V is required with E-Core Cluster 4 @ 48x
> (1.32V or less throws WHEA errors and Errors 0+9)
> 
> Ring @ 50x is stable, 51x freezes after two minutes
> 
> VR VOUT 1.43V, Current ~133A, Wattage ~190W
> Hottest Core Temp: 69C
> 
> P0 - Stable @ 61x, 62x throws KERNEL_SECURITY_CHECK_FAILURE BSOD instantly
> P1 - Stable @ 61x, 62x throws UNEXPECTED_KERNEL_MODE_TRAP after reaching desktop
> P2 - Stable @ 61x, 62x freezes during boot
> P3 - Stable @ 60x, 61x throws KERNEL_SECURITY_CHECK_FAILURE BSOD instantly
> P4 - Stable @ 59x, 60x throws Error 6 instantly
> P5 - Stable @ 61x, 62x throws ATTEMPTED_EXECUTE_OF_NOEXECUTE_MEMORY instantly
> P6 - Stable @ 59x, 60x freezes within 2-3 minutes
> P7 - Stable @ 60x, 61x freezes and throws WHEA errors
> 
> E1 - Stable @ 46x, 47x freezes quickly
> E2 - Stable @ 46x, 47x throws CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT after running for a long while
> E3 - Stable @ 46x, 47x throws Error 6 instantly
> E4 - Stable @ 48x, 49x causes Windows to bug out and not allow you to login
> 
> P-Core Quality: 0/5, 1, 2, 7, 3, 6, 4
> E-Core Quality: 4, 2, 3, 1
> 
> Optimized Config:
> 4 P-Cores @ 61x, 2 P-Cores @ 60x, 2 P-Cores @ 59x
> 1 E-Core Cluster @ 48x, 3 E-Core Clusters @ 46x


Did you just get this cpu? What’s the batch on this one?


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> I feel like the new generation of PC guys are changing and so are the processors we have today. I’ve been overclocking since 2004, and I know for the longest time it was all about stability testing for like 8-24 hours, or something crazy like linpack extreme this, Linpack extreme that. Like it was so bad, if you posted an abnormally high overclock that was not below average, the first guy would call you out and be like. “IT AINT SHHHSTABLE THOUGH”🤣 then a huge debate about how one guy says it’s only “TRUE STABLE” if you bury your PC in the hot desert and unplug all fans and burn in a LINPACK test for 267 days. “Then it’s stable” lol. Anything less is not acceptable haha.
> 
> Okay, I’m kidding. But seriously our processors are pushing a whole new power envelope and amperage nowadays. A lot of people are after just game stable. Put the chip in, test a few things and just use it and enjoy it. I mean, people have different needs and do different things. So there really isn’t a standard for any of us. We all know when and if our computer is actually not stable I’d hope so at least. So we should run it up to what is stable and what works for us. No need to melt our processors down in a test. Just run them as fast as they can sustain for what we are doing everyday.
> 
> I think testing memory stability is far more important maybe like 1-2 hours, and testing the cpu for 10 to 30 minutes HEAVY load is perfectly fine. Anymore is just not needed.


2004? Bro i was a toddler then😭


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> Let us know once you test it yourself
> 
> Me. As well as a friend of mine with a similar batch and retailer source. A day of R23 caused our chips to have to run with +0.02V. Was running at around 300W.
> And as for VCCSA, I degraded another chip by +0.02V when I ran it at 1.40V. Didn't even stress it for very long, only a few hours. Not a concern for DDR5 though.
> 
> After my 13900KF degraded, I couldn't pass TM5 anymore with my 4,200 CL14 config, no matter what I tried. Works just fine on a new chip, though.


I wonder what happens to SP, would it change once the degradation kicks in? Because 20mV is like -4 on SP


----------



## HemuV2

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think running games with 1.4v is not a problem...
> My 10900k, 12900k and 13900K run games at that voltage...
> And if you take a look at the native intel VF curve of some 13900K's you'll see a voltage of 1.4V...
> 
> View attachment 2585034
> 
> 
> 
> Some bad 12900K CPUs even had 1.5V on the curve.
> 
> View attachment 2585035
> 
> 
> When gaming, your CPU will run a variable load consuming something like 100W to 150W at less than 80C.
> 
> The degradation is not caused when CPU is 20% loaded at 1.4V - 150W - 80C...
> But when you run 1.2V - 300W - temp > 95C for 30 minutes several times per day...
> 
> And you are completely right... We need stable running CPU for our daily use and reality...


So what would you suggest for stability especially considering some of us run on AIOs even cinebench gets toasty. What's a good stability test to check whether my CPU is getting enough vcore for set multiplier and not just clock stretching? I run r6 benchmark on low settings to see if it's maxing out fps or not, usually when my CPU isn't supplied with the voltage it needs at that frequency the fps drops in the benchmark, it'll still pass tests but the fps won't hit 1000+ anymore rather it'll be in the 800-900 zone, probably sounds stupid but this is one i figured to find out if the vcore is enough or not at a particular frequency, first i do default vf and check fps then i do manual voltage, usually default vf is the least i need to get max fps


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> 
> I‘ve got you a good one JUST FOR YOU!! 🤪 Kidding.. The one from Newegg turned out to be a DUD.
> 
> View attachment 2585045
> 
> 
> *Also, It FAILED to post with this chip while trying to load my 6.2Ghz profile, that I created on my really good 13900K. Lol.
> 
> So heads up everyone! It is the CPU that makes high overclocking possible, not the cooling. My Batch X241M860 really is a great sample. And the Force rating does not lie. *


So bestbuy is the way to go, I'll keep that in mind 😂


----------



## HemuV2

dipsdots said:


> Collected some batch info from a few forums, included stuff that has been posted here and some that I binned
> 
> 
> *CPU**Batch**SP**P-Core**E-Core**MC SP*13900KX236105116857413900KX236105116857813900KX236110121887913900K1021098813900K1141211018413900K113123848813900K951047813900KX2331051158513900K981077913900K991078013900K941037513900K1091138813900K1001147313900K981078013900K971068113900K1021128313900K110119938813900K1001108013900K1141249413900K1061139413900K11910213900K1108813900K1061158813900K1061168813900K1031118813900KX2431041138876
> 
> 
> *AVERAGES*SP Rating104P-Core113E-Core86MC SP81SP High114SP Low94P High124P Low103E High102E Low73MC High88MC Low74


Mine is x236 sp 97 109/73


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> That’s awesome, thanks for sharing. I finally ended up with a chip that I’m happy with. Not sure of the SP rating, but it’s the best of (3) I have tested. It’s batch X241M860


I think @Falkentyne knows a method where it spits out VIDs that you'd see on asus bios and that should tell you SP


----------



## ViTosS

Guys just received my motherboard (Asus Z790 Strix-A DDR4), for some really strange reason one of my RAM sticks (2x8GB 3600CL15-15-15-35 1.35v XMP) ONLY posts in slot 1 and 3 alone (not 2 and 4), the other RAM stick posts in all the four slots (1, 2, 3 and 4) without problem, to use both sticks I HAVE to put in slot 1 or 3 (the stick that only works on these 2 slots) and the ''good'' stick in slot 2 or 4, all other combinations like the recommended 2 and 4 doesn't work, the ''good'' stick works alone in all four slots and the ''bad'' stick only works on 1 and 3 alone, together I need to set them that way, it's really strange problem, I use both sticks without problem on my Z490 and 10900k in 2 and 4 combination.

Alright if someone can help with that I appreciate, another question, this is my SP (not so bad I think) and below are the voltages, I need to set the same voltage for all the 3 ''Actual VRM Core Voltage, Global Core SVID Voltage and Cache SVID Voltage''? This is new to me, and I used to disable SVID in my 10900k, when I disable now (latest BIOS and ME FW btw) the board simply won't post.

Edit.: Also max bootable frequency in G1 (with 1 stick unfortunately) I found is 4300Mhz.


----------



## HemuV2

imrevoau said:


> So what's considered a "good" P SP? I'm assuming 115+?


Good I'd say is 110 pcore and 85 e core, above that is pretty good and you should keep the sample unless you want golden. If it's <110 and <85 you can try again, keep in mind ecores are important, low sp ecores will increase your voltage requirement substantially and affect OC, so atleast 85 on ecore would help with aggressive OCs as for pcore around 110 is pretty good and above 115 is golden imo


----------



## HemuV2

ViTosS said:


> Guys just received my motherboard (Asus Z790 Strix-A DDR4), for some really strange reason one of my RAM sticks (2x8GB 3600CL15-15-15-35 1.35v XMP) ONLY posts in slot 1 and 3 alone (not 2 and 4), the other RAM stick posts in all the four slots (1, 2, 3 and 4) without problem, to use both sticks I HAVE to put in slot 1 or 3 (the stick that only works on these 2 slots) and the ''good'' stick in slot 2 or 4, all other combinations like the recommended 2 and 4 doesn't work, the ''good'' stick works alone in all four slots and the ''bad'' stick only works on 1 and 3 alone, together I need to set them that way, it's really strange problem, I use both sticks without problem on my Z490 and 10900k in 2 and 4 combination.
> 
> Alright if someone can help with that I appreciate, another question, this is my SP (not so bad I think) and below are the voltages, I need to set the same voltage for all the 3 ''Actual VRM Core Voltage, Global Core SVID Voltage and Cache SVID Voltage''? This is new to me, and I used to disable SVID in my 10900k, when I disable now (latest BIOS and ME FW btw) the board simply won't post.
> 
> Edit.: Also max bootable frequency in G1 (with 1 stick unfortunately) I found is 4300Mhz.
> 
> View attachment 2585095
> View attachment 2585096


Same I have 109/73 and my imc is also 4300 bootable, this is a slightly above average 13900K sample if you ask me


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> I’m kinda tempted to check out another Bestbuy chip. Man, I feel like their chips are good. Lol. Grabbed just one from them and it was amazing!!!


Return the dud and go get another bestbuy sample lol might as well grab a cheap used asus board at this point, imagine your SP readings😭 or atleast borrow one for a day


----------



## bscool

ViTosS said:


> Guys just received my motherboard (Asus Z790 Strix-A DDR4), for some really strange reason one of my RAM sticks (2x8GB 3600CL15-15-15-35 1.35v XMP) ONLY posts in slot 1 and 3 alone (not 2 and 4), the other RAM stick posts in all the four slots (1, 2, 3 and 4) without problem, to use both sticks I HAVE to put in slot 1 or 3 (the stick that only works on these 2 slots) and the ''good'' stick in slot 2 or 4, all other combinations like the recommended 2 and 4 doesn't work, the ''good'' stick works alone in all four slots and the ''bad'' stick only works on 1 and 3 alone, together I need to set them that way, it's really strange problem, I use both sticks without problem on my Z490 and 10900k in 2 and 4 combination.
> 
> Alright if someone can help with that I appreciate, another question, this is my SP (not so bad I think) and below are the voltages, I need to set the same voltage for all the 3 ''Actual VRM Core Voltage, Global Core SVID Voltage and Cache SVID Voltage''? This is new to me, and I used to disable SVID in my 10900k, when I disable now (latest BIOS and ME FW btw) the board simply won't post.
> 
> Edit.: Also max bootable frequency in G1 (with 1 stick unfortunately) I found is 4300Mhz.
> 
> View attachment 2585095
> View attachment 2585096


I looked back at your older posts. You had problems with a MSI MB too it looks like. Could it be the CPU? That is what it looks/sounds like to me.

Weird how you have issues on 2 different MBs.









[OFFICIAL] MSI Z790 Owners Thread


Dunno, I thought it wouldn't be grounded nor a great idea to have the psu on a wooden desk. Power supply is the grounding point. And yeah, they'll work pretty much anywhere electronics work.




www.overclock.net


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Did you just get this cpu? What’s the batch on this one?


No, it's still the same chip. It's just that TM5 isn't as intensive as R23. Much more similar to a gaming load, but with the memory being stressed as the primary function.


----------



## ViTosS

bscool said:


> I looked back at your older posts. You had problems with a MSI MB too it looks like. Could it be the CPU? That is what it looks/sounds like to me.
> 
> Weird how you have issues on 2 different MBs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [OFFICIAL] MSI Z790 Owners Thread
> 
> 
> Dunno, I thought it wouldn't be grounded nor a great idea to have the psu on a wooden desk. Power supply is the grounding point. And yeah, they'll work pretty much anywhere electronics work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Yes the problem I had with MSI Z790 Edge (I returned) it was that I couldn't pass 2666Mhz or enable XMP, but both sticks was being recognized normally, tomorrow I will see if I can borrow a pair of DDR4 from local store to test if I can boot, what is strange is that one stick only works in 1 and 3 while the other works in all the four slots, and both sticks works normally on Z490...


----------



## bscool

ViTosS said:


> Yes the problem I had with MSI Z790 Edge (I returned) it was that I couldn't pass 2666Mhz or enable XMP, but both sticks was being recognized normally, tomorrow I will see if I can borrow a pair of DDR4 from local store to test if I can boot, what is strange is that one stick only works in 1 and 3 while the other works in all the four slots, and both sticks works normally on Z490...


Are you using an after market contact frame on the CPU?

If not it sounds like CPU or some issue with it be it contacts are dirty or defective CPU.


----------



## VULC

ViTosS said:


> Yes the problem I had with MSI Z790 Edge (I returned) it was that I couldn't pass 2666Mhz or enable XMP, but both sticks was being recognized normally, tomorrow I will see if I can borrow a pair of DDR4 from local store to test if I can boot, what is strange is that one stick only works in 1 and 3 while the other works in all the four slots, and both sticks works normally on Z490...


Many of these CPU IMCs don't XMP I had to run VDDQ at 1.39v on 4 x 8GB DDR4 to XMP on one 12900K that I returned, everything else was on auto.


----------



## ViTosS

bscool said:


> Are you using an after market contact frame on the CPU?
> 
> If not it sounds like CPU or some issue with it be it contacts are dirty or defective CPU.


Yes I'm using Thermalright, but when I had the MSI Z790 I tried with stock ILM (no contact frame) and the problem was the same...


VULC said:


> Many of these CPU IMCs don't XMP I had to run VDDQ at 1.39v on 4 x 8GB DDR4 to XMP on one 12900K that I returned, everything else was on auto.


Problem is that the stick simply doesn't ger recognized at 2133Mhz speeds, while the other one go easy 4300Mhz and enable XMP and everything. Tried to mess with VDDQ, SA and VDIMM, no success.


----------



## dipsdots

Ichirou said:


> Golden is P-SP 120+.
> 110+ is above average.
> 100+ is average.
> Anything below and you can curse the gods lol
> 
> As for E-SP, that would be:
> 100+ = diamond
> 90+ = golden
> 80+ = above average
> Below = rip


I would say P-Core 120+ is 1% CPU
P-Core 115-120 is top 10%
P-Core 110-115 is top 20%

E-Core, anything above 90 seems to be 1%. Above 100 seems like 0.1%

MC anything above 90 is 1%


----------



## bigfootnz

With all this talk adaptive OC vs static OC, I've done small test. I've used games with built-in benchmark to test two settings. First one is all core static P56, E45&R49. Second one is 2x59, 4x58, 6x57 and 8x56, E45&R49. In these 5 games both setting scored the same result, including SOTR in 1080p lowest. Only win for adaptive OC, even this is questionable, was in AC Odyssey and difference was less than 5%. Games like BF or COD are pointless to test, as adaptive OC with them behives like static but just with higher voltage/consumption.

I was running adaptive OC for some period of time. But for gaming, especially BF or COD, I do not see point. If PC is used mostly for gaming I'll still use static OC

Adaptive OC 2x59, 4x58, 6x57 and 8x56, E45&R49




















































Static OC P56, E45&R49



















































Only when I would use adaptive OC for gaming is older single threaded games. But again this is only for gaming usage.


----------



## fray_bentos

If one stick wo


ViTosS said:


> Yes I'm using Thermalright, but when I had the MSI Z790 I tried with stock ILM (no contact frame) and the problem was the same...
> 
> Problem is that the stick simply doesn't ger recognized at 2133Mhz speeds, while the other one go easy 4300Mhz and enable XMP and everything. Tried to mess with VDDQ, SA and VDIMM, no success.


If one stick works, but swapping the other stick into the same slot does not work then the issue is clearly your RAM. End of the story.


----------



## fray_bentos

bigfootnz said:


> With all this talk adaptive OC vs static OC, I've done small test. I've used games with built-in benchmark to test two settings. First one is all core static P56, E45&R49. Second one is 2x59, 4x58, 6x57 and 8x56, E45&R49. In these 5 games both setting scored the same result, including SOTR in 1080p lowest. Only win for adaptive OC, even this is questionable, was in AC Odyssey and difference was less than 5%. Games like BF or COD are pointless to test, as adaptive OC with them behives like static but just with higher voltage/consumption.
> 
> I was running adaptive OC for some period of time. But for gaming, especially BF or COD, I do not see point. If PC is used mostly for gaming I'll still use static OC
> 
> Adaptive OC 2x59, 4x58, 6x57 and 8x56, E45&R49
> 
> View attachment 2585113
> View attachment 2585114
> View attachment 2585115
> View attachment 2585116
> View attachment 2585117
> View attachment 2585118
> View attachment 2585119
> View attachment 2585120
> 
> 
> 
> Static OC P56, E45&R49
> 
> View attachment 2585121
> View attachment 2585122
> View attachment 2585123
> View attachment 2585125
> View attachment 2585124
> View attachment 2585126
> View attachment 2585127
> View attachment 2585128
> 
> 
> Only when I would use adaptive OC for gaming is older single threaded games. But again this is only for gaming usage.


The only reason your adaptive voltage is higher under loads is because you haven't set your adaptive voltage up as well as you could do. Lower LLC (easiest) and/or change load lines.


----------



## BenchAndGames

Ichirou said:


> Golden is P-SP 120+.
> 110+ is above average.
> 100+ is average.
> Anything below and you can curse the gods lol
> 
> As for E-SP, that would be:
> 100+ = diamond
> 90+ = golden
> 80+ = above average
> Below = rip


But this I guess its for 13900k, because for 13700k there is no way so such a high SP...what will be the SP table rating for the 13700k ?


----------



## VULC

Welp looks like I degraded my memory controller and probably my cpu OC all core required voltage haven't tested that yet. Started getting memory errors in game and 1.34v VCCSA no longer is stable. Now I need 1.343v VCCSA both in TM5 Extreme and Asus bios mem test to pass. Tried to adjust my Vcore to run 1.35v LLC5 instead of 1.40v LLC 4 messed up and used LLC 6 and 7 by mistake might of been running 1.35v or higher during an R23 runs not sure what triggered it but stay away from R23 on these CPUs R23 is a CPU virus at high voltage.


----------



## VULC

@Ichirou what test do you recommend for a all core OC verification not running R23 anymore.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> @Ichirou what test do you recommend for a all core OC verification not running R23 anymore.


With the E-cores enabled? And what OS?


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> With the E-cores enabled? And what OS?


Disabled E Cores, Win 10.


----------



## Luggage

tps3443 said:


> I feel like the new generation of PC guys are changing and so are the processors we have today. I’ve been overclocking since 2004, and I know for the longest time it was all about stability testing for like 8-24 hours, or something crazy like linpack extreme this, Linpack extreme that. Like it was so bad, if you posted an abnormally high overclock that was not below average, the first guy would call you out and be like. “IT AINT SHHHSTABLE THOUGH”🤣 then a huge debate about how one guy says it’s only “TRUE STABLE” if you bury your PC in the hot desert and unplug all fans and burn in a LINPACK test for 267 days. “Then it’s stable” lol. Anything less is not acceptable haha.
> 
> Okay, I’m kidding. But seriously our processors are pushing a whole new power envelope and amperage nowadays. A lot of people are after just game stable. Put the chip in, test a few things and just use it and enjoy it. I mean, people have different needs and do different things. So there really isn’t a standard for any of us. We all know when and if our computer is actually not stable I’d hope so at least. So we should run it up to what is stable and what works for us. No need to melt our processors down in a test. Just run them as fast as they can sustain for what we are doing everyday.
> 
> I think testing memory stability is far more important maybe like 1-2 hours, and testing the cpu for 10 to 30 minutes HEAVY load is perfectly fine. Anymore is just not needed.


Yea I always forget people buy I9 or R9 cpu's "Just to Game"


----------



## yzonker

bigfootnz said:


> With all this talk adaptive OC vs static OC, I've done small test. I've used games with built-in benchmark to test two settings. First one is all core static P56, E45&R49. Second one is 2x59, 4x58, 6x57 and 8x56, E45&R49. In these 5 games both setting scored the same result, including SOTR in 1080p lowest. Only win for adaptive OC, even this is questionable, was in AC Odyssey and difference was less than 5%. Games like BF or COD are pointless to test, as adaptive OC with them behives like static but just with higher voltage/consumption.
> 
> I was running adaptive OC for some period of time. But for gaming, especially BF or COD, I do not see point. If PC is used mostly for gaming I'll still use static OC
> 
> Adaptive OC 2x59, 4x58, 6x57 and 8x56, E45&R49
> 
> View attachment 2585113
> View attachment 2585114
> View attachment 2585115
> View attachment 2585116
> View attachment 2585117
> View attachment 2585118
> View attachment 2585119
> View attachment 2585120
> 
> 
> 
> Static OC P56, E45&R49
> 
> View attachment 2585121
> View attachment 2585122
> View attachment 2585123
> View attachment 2585125
> View attachment 2585124
> View attachment 2585126
> View attachment 2585127
> View attachment 2585128
> 
> 
> Only when I would use adaptive OC for gaming is older single threaded games. But again this is only for gaming usage.


This is the same as I found. For gaming, an all core OC is just as good since most newer games run enough threads to knock the CPU back down to the 8x setting. I think the better approach is to do an all core OC with higher voltage and throttle it back with some combination of temp/power limits and/or VF curve adjustments to avoid hammering the CPU too hard with a heavy workload.


----------



## bigfootnz

fray_bentos said:


> The only reason your adaptive voltage is higher under loads is because you haven't set your adaptive voltage up as well as you could do. Lower LLC (easiest) and/or change load lines.


This is not correct. I've adjusted adaptive voltage to be stable for my use case. For example if I drop AC more then I would not be stable in Karhu. Second reason why with adaptive OC my idle and game voltage are higher as I use lower LLC, as if I'm not wrong with adaptive OC it is recommended to use lower LLC compared to static OC. At least that is how I feel comfortable to use adaptive OC. If I'm not wrong most of the people who is using adaptive OC are using lower LLC.

Here are two screen shots from HWinfo playing BF5. One is with static OC and second one is with adaptive. Current and temp are almost the same, only load voltages are higher with adaptive together with higher power. This is really small difference and not noticeable.
Static OC








Adaptive OC:








My point is that with modern games and especially AAA games I do not see point in using adaptive voltage as it is much harder to dial in and there is any advantage with higher load frequencies.


----------



## Telstar

Shadowdane said:


> Got my 2nd 13700K today..


batch numbers? Mine is X235 and I cannot find any data about it. cannot test it right now.


----------



## Telstar

BenchAndGames said:


> But this I guess its for 13900k, because for 13700k there is no way so such a high SP...what will be the SP table rating for the 13700k ?


10-15 points lower.


----------



## affxct

tps3443 said:


> I feel like the new generation of PC guys are changing and so are the processors we have today. I’ve been overclocking since 2004, and I know for the longest time it was all about stability testing for like 8-24 hours, or something crazy like linpack extreme this, Linpack extreme that. Like it was so bad, if you posted an abnormally high overclock that was not below average, the first guy would call you out and be like. “IT AINT SHHHSTABLE THOUGH”🤣 then a huge debate about how one guy says it’s only “TRUE STABLE” if you bury your PC in the hot desert and unplug all fans and burn in a LINPACK test for 267 days. “Then it’s stable” lol. Anything less is not acceptable haha.
> 
> Okay, I’m kidding. But seriously our processors are pushing a whole new power envelope and amperage nowadays. A lot of people are after just game stable. Put the chip in, test a few things and just use it and enjoy it. I mean, people have different needs and do different things. So there really isn’t a standard for any of us. We all know when and if our computer is actually not stable I’d hope so at least. So we should run it up to what is stable and what works for us. No need to melt our processors down in a test. Just run them as fast as they can sustain for what we are doing everyday.
> 
> I think testing memory stability is far more important maybe like 1-2 hours, and testing the cpu for 10 to 30 minutes HEAVY load is perfectly fine. Anymore is just not needed.


“bury your PC”

Lmao imagine locking your PC into some sort of container with no airflow and then burying it. Darn.


----------



## bscool

https://www.pc-canada.com/item/i9-13900ks-desktop-processormm-99c7kt-24-cores-36mbcache-6-0ghz/bx8071513900ks


----------



## gecko991

bscool said:


> https://www.pc-canada.com/item/i9-13900ks-desktop-processormm-99c7kt-24-cores-36mbcache-6-0ghz/bx8071513900ks


Dam that was fast.


----------



## bscool

Lets me add to cart but I cant checkout since I am in US.

Does it let anyone in Canada actually checkout?


----------



## kmellz

Really happy with this chip, SP99 P111/E76(lol) running auto/adaptive pretty much everything, best case SVID, +2 TVB with +20C offset
Between 56-58 ratio, 71c -1 80c -1 TVB, 4200mhz ram, ring auto down 46min 50max, sits at 50 all the time unless it's super heavy loads it seems.
CB 23 ended up at 41.5k or so
Good ****! Gonna have to spend some time to dial in ram timings a bit more, maybe get the speed up another step.

Can we check MC score on 690 boards or is that just 790? Got the latest 2203 bios


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

affxct said:


> “bury your PC”
> 
> Lmao imagine locking your PC into some sort of container with no airflow and then burying it. Darn.


I see you have Kingpin. I just figured out I can indeed run 7600MHz memory. I had to bump up the IMC PLL voltage this whole time... I sat here this morning going through all the voltages going up and down one by one finding the median they liked, and it was failing consistently no matter what. I did balance my other voltages out good though and figured I'd try to set the IMC PLL setting at the bottom of the OC BIOS tab to 1.4 and it's stable now and running tm5 extreme. 

Just figured I'd post this info here for people having issues getting over 7400 like I was with their 7600 kit if they have the Kingpin Z690 Dark.


----------



## affxct

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> I see you have Kingpin. I just figured out I can indeed run 7600MHz memory. I had to bump up the IMC PLL voltage this whole time... I sat here this morning going through all the voltages going up and down one by one finding the median they liked, and it was failing consistently no matter what. I did balance my other voltages out good though and figured I'd try to set the IMC PLL setting at the bottom of the OC BIOS tab to 1.4 and it's stable now and running tm5 extreme.
> 
> Just figured I'd post this info here for people having issues getting over 7400 like I was with their 7600 kit if they have the Kingpin Z690 Dark.


I'm not entirely sure if 1.4 IMC PLL is safe. I use 0.96 on all my PLLs. I don't really know what the safe limit of PLLs is but 1.4 sounds kinda high. The most I've seen is 1.02V from Buildzoid.


----------



## dipsdots

Looks like 13900KS will be $849/$799 msrp/street price


----------



## WayWayUp

Interesting spread right?
This is with a z790 apex after updating bio
I just started messing with new rig need some time to tweak it


----------



## HemuV2

WayWayUp said:


> View attachment 2585191
> 
> Interesting spread right?
> This is with a z790 apex after updating bio
> I just started messing with new rig need some time to tweak it


You need to update ME firmware too


----------



## bscool

WayWayUp said:


> View attachment 2585191
> 
> Interesting spread right?
> This is with a z790 apex after updating bios


What is your ME firmware version? This is what mine shipped with IMG_20221119_145345598.jpg

I updated my ME firmware before bios update so I dont know what it would have showed for SP with older ME.

Link to ME Firmware and Driver RaptorLake Resources


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Guys, what do you think about using Asus Ram Cache?
It is worth it?


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

affxct said:


> I'm not entirely sure if 1.4 IMC PLL is safe. I use 0.96 on all my PLLs. I don't really know what the safe limit of PLLs is but 1.4 sounds kinda high. The most I've seen is 1.02V from Buildzoid.



Yeah, never mind it went unstable again after a reboot. It had it stable though, so something is changing. Grrr


----------



## Nizzen

RobertoSampaio said:


> Guys, what do you think about using Asus Ram Cache?
> It is worth it?


If it was worth it, every was using it 
I'm using Optane 900/905p (345MB/s 4k random read @ QD=1) for OS and most used programs/games. 
Better is Optane P5800X


----------



## tps3443

What are y’all expecting the average 13900KS to come out like? P-Cores / E-Cores?


----------



## tps3443

WayWayUp said:


> View attachment 2585191
> 
> Interesting spread right?
> This is with a z790 apex after updating bio
> I just started messing with new rig need some time to tweak it


Wow, that’s pretty crazy. Let me know how your E-Cores turn out. Crazy insane P-Cores though. Let me know how they all overclock.

Still a really interesting CPU.


----------



## WayWayUp

tips?

also it switched to 116/88 in the bios


----------



## Shkiz0

WayWayUp said:


> View attachment 2585196
> 
> View attachment 2585198
> 
> View attachment 2585197
> 
> 
> tips?
> 
> also it switched to 116/88 in the bios


1: Install Intel Management Engine Interface (MEI) Driver
2: Update ME (run admin)


----------



## dipsdots

WayWayUp said:


> View attachment 2585196
> 
> View attachment 2585198
> 
> View attachment 2585197
> 
> 
> tips?
> 
> also it switched to 116/88 in the bios


you need to install MEI driver first, then update FW. FW should switch to 2020 after


----------



## CptSpig

Shkiz0 said:


> 1: Install Intel Management Engine Interface (MEI) Driver
> 2: Update ME (run admin)





dipsdots said:


> you need to install MEI driver first, then update FW. FW should switch to 2020 after


If you have a dual bios board you must update ME on both bios.


----------



## tps3443

This is a binning statistics from 12900K and 12900KF and 12900KS.

It looks like the 12900KS really wasn’t better than an average or good 12900K/KF.

Are we expecting the 13900KS to be a similar situation?

If anything the best P-Core on a 12900K was better than the best P-Core on a 12900KS, and they tested less 12900K chips. And with the mere (28) 12900KF samples tested, they came out just as good or better than the 12900KS.


----------



## acoustic

SP score on the 12900KS did not match with 12900K/KF. SP100 12900KS was better than SP100 12900K/KF.


----------



## gtz

tps3443 said:


> This is a binning statistics from 12900K and 12900KF and 12900KS.
> 
> It looks like the 12900KS really wasn’t better than an average or good 12900K/KF.
> 
> Are we expecting the 13900KS to be a similar situation?
> 
> If anything the best P-Core on a 12900K was better than the best P-Core on a 12900KS, and they tested less 12900K chips. And with the mere (28) 12900KF samples tested, they came out just as good or better than the 12900KS.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2585200


If I remember correctly, a 12900KS with a p core of 100 was equal to a P core of around 110 on the 12900K/F.

Could not really compare both numbers.


----------



## WayWayUp

No I just had issues with drivers because I plopped in my Samsung m.2 from my old computer onto the new mobo. I didn’t even have a driver for network adapter I had to go on to another computer and download it to a disk drive

so stupid
Next time I’m doing fresh windows install


----------



## don1376

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> 
> I‘ve got you a good one JUST FOR YOU!! 🤪 Kidding.. The one from Newegg turned out to be a DUD.
> 
> View attachment 2585045
> 
> 
> *Also, It FAILED to post with this chip while trying to load my 6.2Ghz profile, that I created on my really good 13900K. Lol.
> 
> So heads up everyone! It is the CPU that makes high overclocking possible, not the cooling. My Batch X241M860 really is a great sample. And the Force rating does not lie. *


I have force rating of 154 and mine still clocks pretty good. No 62, but 60 on 2P and 57 all core, 45e and 50r. 1.28v under full load. Max temp 86c.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I don't know if it's a good advice... But every time I go to update ME, I load BIOS defaults first... I don't want a bad OC to crash this process...


----------



## SoldierRBT

I still believe people should test their CPUs regardless of SP value. My Pcore 110 is the best out of 4 chips and has a VID similar to Pcore 118+. Stock 55/43/45 Y-cruncher stable only 1.11v underload with 8200 RAM. 

IMC is much more important to bin in my opinion. Keep best IMC, cores can scale with temp/volts.


----------



## ViTosS

My P SP 111 needs 1.160v load voltage to pass CR23, about 230-245W, reaches 75-80, Y-Cruncher I was able to pass too but it downclocks to 5.3Ghz to keep in the 253W limit margin, I pretend to delid and relid (not going direct die) and also buy 3x Phanteks T30 fans to replace my Arctic P12's


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Disabled E Cores, Win 10.


Then just run y-cruncher's main test (with as much memory populated as possible). It's only like 6-7 minutes even with the 48 GB setting. Even less if you have less memory.
And then run the component stress tests: N64, HNT, VST, for one loop to test the IMC. Takes about 6-7 minutes as well.

This will be much more stable than R23, for a fraction of the time.

@tps3443 
I spoke too soon about the overclock. Something's screwing up somewhere.
After I locked in everything (as I posted about) and finished off with the E-cores, I can't even rerun the same test again without freezing/BSODing.
Reflashed the BIOS a million times, no dice.

Maybe a core or two already degraded... at max 190W after handful of hours?
That's just insane.


----------



## tps3443

I think my E-Cores are decent 😍. I have them all at x47 and power usage did not go up from x45.

(AUTO Voltage) (Auto LLC)
(P-Cores)
62,62,61,61,58,58,58,58
(E-Cores)
47,47,47,47,47,47,47,47
47,47,47,47,47,47,47,47
(Ring/Cache)
@5,100Mhz


----------



## RobertoSampaio

tps3443 said:


> I think my E-Cores are decent 😍. I have them all at x47 and power usage did not go up from x45.
> 
> (AUTO Voltage) (Auto LLC)
> (P-Cores)
> 62,62,61,61,58,58,58,58
> (E-Cores)
> 47,47,47,47,47,47,47,47
> 47,47,47,47,47,47,47,47
> (Ring/Cache)
> @5,100Mhz
> 
> View attachment 2585231



This is one of the highest CB scores I've ever seen...
And you have a very low Max_VID for 62x...
I'm curious about your CPU SP score...


----------



## Ichirou

I'm trying to play around with the Advanced VF Offset, but I can't seem to actually "offset" anything?
There isn't even a base voltage value to refer off of.

No matter what I change the offset to, it's always tacked at 1.25V VR VOUT on load at 48x.
What should I be doing to actually allow it to work properly? What is the base voltage?


----------



## tps3443

RobertoSampaio said:


> This is one of the highest CB scores I've ever seen...
> And you have a very low Max_VID for 62x...
> I'm curious about your CPU SP score...


This chip is something that’s for sure. The VID’s stay low regardless of what I’m doing to it. It’s surprising for sure.

As for the CB scores. I can do much better with a chip like this. But, I’m not gonna stress it out like that.



Ichirou said:


> I'm trying to play around with the Advanced VF Offset, but I can't seem to actually "offset" anything?
> There isn't even a base voltage value to refer off of.
> 
> No matter what I change the offset to, it's always tacked at 1.25V VR VOUT on load.
> What should I be doing to actually allow it to work properly? What is the base voltage?


I am just using straight “Auto” now, that’s it. It seems to work far better. Not adaptive, not advanced adaptive etc. Just “Auto”


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I am just using “Auto” that’s it. It seems to work better.


That's the thing. With them on Auto, and Lite Load 1, if I set a 80C temp limit, it just constantly drops all of the P-cores to 48x on load. When it can easily do up to 52-53x at this temp.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Ichirou said:


> I'm trying to play around with the Advanced VF Offset, but I can't seem to actually "offset" anything?
> There isn't even a base voltage value to refer off of.
> 
> No matter what I change the offset to, it's always tacked at 1.25V VR VOUT on load at 48x.
> What should I be doing to actually allow it to work properly? What is the base voltage?


Welcome to the intel 13900K VF curve offset "bug". LOL


----------



## Ichirou

RobertoSampaio said:


> Welcome to the intel 13900K VF curve offset "bug". LOL


New to it. Mind giving the rough explanation?

I'm just trying to figure out a way to optimize the CPU on a heavy load. Instead of it clocking down to 48x all the time.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> New to it. Mind giving the rough explanation?
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out a way to optimize the CPU on a heavy load. Instead of it clocking down to 48x all the time.


I noticed my last 13900KF did this when I set any sort of amperage limit in the bios. It was like a glitch.


----------



## VULC

Just got a 13900KF I caught the bin bug now. If I sell one going to sell the COD code too so I'll probably recoup the cash as well which is a bonus.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> Just got a 13900KF I caught the bin bug now. If I sell one going to sell COD code too so will probably recoup the cash as well which is bonus.


It’s FUN! Very very fun. I’m done binning though lol. Honestly I’m not even getting a 13900KS at this point. I found my chip, and I hope everyone else does too.

I want to enjoy the CPU, and not waste anymore time being without one. If I didn’t have a good one, I’d still be testing for one lol.

Once 13900KS comes out, we probably have 6-7 months before a new generation starts the cycle over again.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I noticed my last 13900KF did this when I set any sort of amperage limit in the bios. It was like a glitch.


Amperage limit is on auto, though. But I did set an 80C temp limit.

Gonna try without a temp limit for like a quick run of R23.

It... BSODs.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> This is a binning statistics from 12900K and 12900KF and 12900KS.
> 
> It looks like the 12900KS really wasn’t better than an average or good 12900K/KF.
> 
> Are we expecting the 13900KS to be a similar situation?
> 
> If anything the best P-Core on a 12900K was better than the best P-Core on a 12900KS, and they tested less 12900K chips. And with the mere (28) 12900KF samples tested, they came out just as good or better than the 12900KS.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2585200


KF is the go I think because Intel aren't taking the good ones for KS so there is more high bin KF in the pool.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> KF is the go I think because Intel aren't taking the good ones for KS so there is more high bin KF in the pool.


I thought this too. Trust me, it’s not. Most of the best chips on here are 13900K’s. It’s all random.

My current CPU is a 13900K. And it’s literally magical.

I have tested (2) 13900KF’s and (1) 13900K. I’ll be hanging on to my 13900K 😎

You may find a great 13900KF, and if you do that’s excellent! But I truly believe it is all random and luck of the draw with either option.


----------



## VULC

VULC said:


> Welp looks like I degraded my memory controller and probably my cpu OC all core required voltage haven't tested that yet. Started getting memory errors in game and 1.34v VCCSA no longer is stable. Now I need 1.343v VCCSA both in TM5 Extreme and Asus bios mem test to pass. Tried to adjust my Vcore to run 1.35v LLC5 instead of 1.40v LLC 4 messed up and used LLC 6 and 7 by mistake might of been running 1.35v or higher during an R23 runs not sure what triggered it but stay away from R23 on these CPUs R23 is a CPU virus at high voltage.


Interesting I dropped ring to 49 because I saw no improvement on Aida score vs 51 and I can run 1.34v SA again is Aida latency bugged? Maybe it's a good idea to leave ring down bin enabled for safety?


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> New to it. Mind giving the rough explanation?
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out a way to optimize the CPU on a heavy load. Instead of it clocking down to 48x all the time.


I have to set my VF offset at a point above the actual ratio I want it to affect along with the next ratio below it and have TVB Voltage Optimization enabled. Using llc3 and normal liteload mode 1 on Unify X. Works great for me volts match, stay steady under load and down clock.

I also have to keep my ring at 50. At 51 it overrides my cpu VF curve and stats using the ring VF curve because 51r requires more volts the my cpu VF offset.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> I thought this too. Trust me, it’s not. Most of the best chips on here are 13900K’s. It’s all random.
> 
> My current CPU is a 13900K. And it’s literally magical.


I mean you obviously can still get a good K, is KF a left over bad K or that must just be 13700 I'm guessing? Going off your stats for 12th gen it is true that KF gives you more chance of a consistent P core rating.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> I mean you obviously can still get a good K, is KF a left over bad K or that must just be 13700 I'm guessing?


I don’t think the KF is a bad K. I think it may have been that originally. But a lot of people are willing to pay nearly the same with less features and Intel has just standardized that and started profiting on it. So they sell both K and KF. And if they happen to have any K models that have bad IGP, it can be a KF. It’s a win win for everyone. I just feel like your luck is the same with either model In my own experience so far.

My 13900K is a newer batch X241 and its just incredible. And people have X236 and earlier 13900K’s that are incredible too. And the same goes for the 13900KF model. I think Intel has enough good silicon to go around where they can leave plenty of really good lottery winning 13900K and lottery winning 13900KF models in the mix.


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> I have to set my VF offset at a point above the actual ratio I want it to affect along with the next ratio below it and have TVB Voltage Optimization enabled. Using llc3 and normal liteload mode 1 on Unify X. Works great for me volts match, stay steady under load and down clock.
> 
> I also have to keep my ring at 50. At 51 it overrides my cpu VF curve and stats using the ring VF curve because 51r requires more volts the my cpu VF offset.


The situation I'm experiencing is that on a low load, things are performing fine, but on a high load, the BIOS downclocks (in accordance with the temp limit), while also needlessly overvolting that downclock.

For example, with a low load, I could run up to 60x on the P-Cores with 1.42V VR VOUT. That's fine.
But with a high load, the BIOS throws 1.35V VR VOUT at the chip and only runs it at 48x. When I know for a fact that this chip can do 55x at 1.20V VR VOUT.

Not really sure how to correct this issue. I don't even know what the baseline voltage it tries to adjust from is (on Advanced VF Offset mode). Any suggestions?


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> The situation I'm experiencing is that on a low load, things are performing fine, but on a high load, the BIOS basically downclocks (as per the temp limit), while also needlessly overvolting that downclock.
> 
> For example, with a low load, I could run up to 60x on the P-Cores with 1.42V VR VOUT. That's fine.
> But with a high load, the BIOS throws 1.35V VR VOUT at the chip and only runs it at 48x. When I know for a fact that this chip can do 55x at 1.20V VR VOUT.
> 
> Not really sure how to correct this issue. I don't even know what the baseline voltage it tries to adjust from is (on Advanced VF Offset mode). Any suggestions?


If your ring ratio requires more volts from its VF curve when you get down clocked to 48 it going to use the volts your ring ratio requires.

According to Scatterbench.


----------



## fitnessgrampacertest

RobertoSampaio said:


> My second mini monitor is the best... LOL.
> View attachment 2585075


Is that also hwinfo64? that looks pretty snazzy im ngl


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> If your ring ratio requires more volts from its VF curve when you get down clocked to 48 it going to use the volts your ring ratio requires.
> 
> According to Scatterbench.


So you're saying that when the BIOS downclocks, it's based off of the Ring's VF Curve, and not the P-Cores'?

Assuming that is true, is there any way to clock the P-Cores higher with a high load?


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> The situation I'm experiencing is that on a low load, things are performing fine, but on a high load, the BIOS downclocks (in accordance with the temp limit), while also needlessly overvolting that downclock.
> 
> For example, with a low load, I could run up to 60x on the P-Cores with 1.42V VR VOUT. That's fine.
> But with a high load, the BIOS throws 1.35V VR VOUT at the chip and only runs it at 48x. When I know for a fact that this chip can do 55x at 1.20V VR VOUT.
> 
> Not really sure how to correct this issue. I don't even know what the baseline voltage it tries to adjust from is (on Advanced VF Offset mode). Any suggestions?


I saw this behaviour on Asus with Adaptive and by core OC set. It was down clocking to 48x. The Asus AI even tells you to set Adaptive and the voltage to try.


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> So you're saying that when the BIOS downclocks, it's based off of the Ring's VF Curve, and not the P-Cores'?
> 
> Assuming that is true, is there any way to clock the P-Cores higher with a high load?


It uses whichever of the 3 VF curves requires the highest volts at a given ratio. P, E, or R.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> The situation I'm experiencing is that on a low load, things are performing fine, but on a high load, the BIOS basically downclocks (as per the temp limit), while also needlessly overvolting that downclock.
> 
> For example, with a low load, I could run up to 60x on the P-Cores with 1.42V VR VOUT. That's fine.
> But with a high load, the BIOS throws 1.35V VR VOUT at the chip and only runs it at 48x. When I know for a fact that this chip can do 55x at 1.20V VR VOUT.
> 
> Not really sure how to correct this issue. I don't even know what the baseline voltage it tries to adjust from is (on Advanced VF Offset mode).


Did you change your lite load already?

I know what you mean though. I wish I could reduce mine some more too during heavy all core loads. Because I know my chip can do 5.8 or higher all cores with a whole lot less voltage when it’s fixed by me in the bios. But to run my auto voltage or adaptive voltage for 58-62 the heavy load 5.8Ghz voltage applied is more than it really needs to compensate for top end frequency too I guess. Fortunately it’s not too much extra so it’s very manageable. 

I think it is determined by the CPU’s quality, and it’s giving it a little more than it really needs to compensate for extra heavy loads I suppose Like AVX. The cpu is calling for what it really needs worst case scenario stability? I don’t know.


----------



## don1376

You only have access to the P core VF curve unless Asus gives acces to the E VF curve now also.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> I saw this behaviour on Asus with Adaptive and by core OC set. It was down clocking to 48x. The Asus AI even tells you to set Adaptive and the voltage to try.





don1376 said:


> It uses whichever of the 3 VF curves requires the highest volts at a given ratio. P, E, or R.





tps3443 said:


> Did you change your lite load already?
> 
> I know what you mean though. I wish I could reduce mine some more too during heavy all core loads. Because I know my chip can do 5.8 or higher all cores with a whole lot less voltage when it’s fixed by me in the bios. But to run my auto voltage or adaptive voltage for 58-62 the heavy load 5.8Ghz voltage applied is more than it really needs to compensate for top end frequency too I guess. Fortunately it’s not too much extra so it’s very manageable.
> 
> I think it is determined by the CPU’s quality, and it’s giving it a little more than it really needs to compensate for extra heavy loads I suppose Like AVX. The cpu is calling for what it really needs worst case scenario stability? I don’t know.


If this is the case, it means that I should be setting a max Ring ratio, not a min+max one. But the MSI BIOS doesn't even let you set a range.
I'll test leaving the Ring at Auto. Let's see what happens.

Update: It's certainly different now. Before, it ran at 48/38/50 with 1.35V VR VOUT. Now it's doing 51/41/45 at 1.24V VR VOUT.
So the whole issue all this time was the Ring's VF Curve screwing with everything.

But this also brings up another issue: the ring will never clock over 45x for low loads either, since 45x is Auto.
Does that mean I have to strike some sort of balance with the ring?


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> If this is the case, it means that I should be setting a max Ring ratio, not a min+max one. But the MSI BIOS doesn't even let you set a range.
> I'll test leaving the Ring at Auto. Let's see what happens.


I had to set my ring at 50. 51 would override my cpu volts set to offset to 1.26 underload. 1.28 no load. Otherwise my volts jumps to 1.35v. Totally ignoring my P core VF offsets.
My sig still shows my 51r when I was using auto for volts with 1.31 set but cpu would never downclock or down volt like it now does.

Also on msi llc3 liteload mode 1, TVB volt optimization enabled. Running negative 0.060 offset for points 54,57 and 60. No limits on power or temp. Heavy benchmarks I see about 240 to 260amps max temp 86c. I mainly game and don't run benchmarks all the time so not worried about amps being alittle high under heaviest loads.


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> I had to set my ring at 50. 51 would override my cpu volts set to offset to 1.26 underload. 1.28 no load. Otherwise my volts jumps to 1.35v. Totally ignoring my P core VF offsets.


In my case, 50x Ring runs at 1.35V VR VOUT on load. But all of the P/E-Cores perform awful.
Could OCTVB get around this issue of optimizing cores during low/high loads? Or not quite?

It almost seems like having the min+max ring option on an ASUS board would be beneficial for this type of situation.


----------



## tps3443

don1376 said:


> I had to set my ring at 50. 51 would override my cpu volts set to offset to 1.26 underload. 1.28 no load. Otherwise my volts jumps to 1.35v. Totally ignoring my P core VF offsets.


Yeah it’s all dependent on CPU quality. My last 13900KF would overide the VID’s with my ring set to 49 or higher. My current can run 51 ring and it does not change VID’s at all same with E-Cores too.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Yeah it’s all dependent on CPU quality. My last 13900KF would overide the VID’s with my ring set to 49 or higher. My current can run 51 ring and it does not change VID’s at all same with E-Cores too.


So for MSI boards, it boils down to whether or not the ring is overriding the minimum VID on a high load?


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> In my case, 50x Ring runs at 1.35V VR VOUT on load. But all of the P/E-Cores perform awful.
> Could OCTVB get around this issue of optimizing cores during low/high loads? Or not quite?
> 
> It almost seems like having the min+max ring option on an ASUS board would be beneficial for this type of situation.


Have you tried enabling TVB volts optimization or is it already?


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> So for MSI boards, it boils down to whether or not the ring is overriding the minimum VID on a high load?


In all boards according to Scatter bench. It's an Intel thing. Otherwise you cpu would crash with core volts dropped lower then what ring requires.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> So for MSI boards, it boils down to whether or not the ring is overriding the minimum VID on a high load?


Yeah if it’s Auto voltage or even fixed voltage. You will see that VID jump in HWinfo if you start bumping the ring too high, or the P-Cores too high, or even the E-Cores too high. It’s gonna override the Normal VID’s to compensate for the higher OC’s to maintain stability from the CPU. Unless the CPU sample is really really good then it won’t alter VID’s at all.

And this is any motherboard type that will do this.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi guys...
Do you know if the X299 DIMM2 device will work at the z790?


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> Have you tried enabling TVB volts optimization or is it already?


Nope; it's disabled on Auto. Should I be enabling it? What would it do?


RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi guys...
> Do you know if the X299 DIMM2 device will work at the z790?


You mean, DDR4?


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> Nope; it's disabled on Auto. Should I be enabling it? What would it do?
> 
> You mean, DDR4?


For me it keeps my core vids lower with same stability. I can't even get my VF offsets to work unless I have it enabled.


----------



## tps3443

@Ichirou 

Have you tested to see where the ring folds the VID’s at? I would leave it at x45 and tune the P-Cores and E-Cores with auto voltage. Then slowly bring up the ring and see where the chip falls off a cliff at. If the VID’s start jumping up at a certain point then just go back 1-2 on the ring.


----------



## don1376

That and llc3 with liteload mode 1 was only way I could get vids and vrout to read almost equal and cpu stable at full all core load at 57 to run stable at 1.26 and 86c max. With above VF offsets set.


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> For me it keeps my core vids lower with same stability. I can't even get my VF offsets to work unless I have it enabled.


I will give it a shot. What about the other TVB options? Or are they not necessary?


tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> 
> Have you tested to see where the ring folds the VID’s at? I would leave it at x45 and tune the P-Cores and E-Cores with auto voltage. Then slowly bring up the ring and see where the chip falls off a cliff at. If the VID’s start jumping up at a certain point then just go back 1-2 on the ring.


Well, even with the Ring on Auto (45x) for now, the P/E-cores only clock up to 51x/48x in R23. Raising the Ring won't really change that.


----------



## VULC

VULC said:

Welp looks like I degraded my memory controller and probably my cpu OC all core required voltage haven't tested that yet. Started getting memory errors in game and 1.34v VCCSA no longer is stable. Now I need 1.343v VCCSA both in TM5 Extreme and Asus bios mem test to pass. Tried to adjust my Vcore to run 1.35v LLC5 instead of 1.40v LLC 4 messed up and used LLC 6 and 7 by mistake might of been running 1.35v or higher during an R23 runs not sure what triggered it but stay away from R23 on these CPUs R23 is a CPU virus at high voltage.




VULC said:


> Interesting I dropped ring to 49 because I saw no improvement on Aida score vs 51 and I can run 1.34v SA again is Aida latency bugged? Maybe it's a good idea to leave ring down bin enabled for safety?


I can safely disregard all this now. What threw my Memory OC out was the hot day we had here yesterday as I just passed with 1.34v SA in the cool of the morning. Just bumped SA to 1.343v and I'm covered for summer. 😅😅


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> I will give it a shot. What about the other TVB options? Or are they not necessary?
> 
> Well, even with the Ring on Auto (45x) for now, the P/E-cores only clock up to 51x/48x in R23. Raising the Ring won't really change that.


The other options I have disabled. Do you have any limits set like watts, amps or temp. Might be what's holding your ratios back.


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> The other options I have disabled. Do you have any limits set like watts, amps or temp. Might be what's holding your ratios back.


80C temp limit. I'll test TVB Voltage Optimizations enabled and the temp limit disabled.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> VULC said:
> 
> Welp looks like I degraded my memory controller and probably my cpu OC all core required voltage haven't tested that yet. Started getting memory errors in game and 1.34v VCCSA no longer is stable. Now I need 1.343v VCCSA both in TM5 Extreme and Asus bios mem test to pass. Tried to adjust my Vcore to run 1.35v LLC5 instead of 1.40v LLC 4 messed up and used LLC 6 and 7 by mistake might of been running 1.35v or higher during an R23 runs not sure what triggered it but stay away from R23 on these CPUs R23 is a CPU virus at high voltage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can safely disregard all this now. What threw my Memory OC out was the hot day we had here yesterday as I just passed with 1.34v SA in the cool of the morning. Just bumped SA to 1.343v and I'm covered for summer. 😅😅


Don’t stress the chip if you can’t keep it cool. Once something is degraded you can’t go back. I’m glad it’s not but still! Don’t stress it unless you can keep it cool. Also, are you running DDR4? DDR4 is a little scary how much SA voltage it needs no?


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> 80C temp limit. I'll test TVB Voltage Optimizations enabled and the temp limit disabled.


And still ratios where limited?


----------



## Baka_boy

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think running games with 1.4v is not a problem...
> My 10900k, 12900k and 13900K run games at that voltage...
> And if you take a look at the native intel VF curve of some 13900K's you'll see a voltage of 1.4V...
> 
> View attachment 2585034
> 
> 
> 
> Some bad 12900K CPUs even had 1.5V on the curve.
> 
> View attachment 2585035
> 
> 
> When gaming, your CPU will run a variable load consuming something like 100W to 150W at less than 80C.
> 
> The degradation is not caused when CPU is 20% loaded at 1.4V - 150W - 80C...
> But when you run 1.2V - 300W - temp > 95C for 30 minutes several times per day...
> 
> And you are completely right... We need stable running CPU for our daily use and reality...


Did you come sneak into my house and took a picture of my uber 1.408V sample? 😄

Seriously, I don't event care about it. It's fun to tweak. The gains here and there isn't even that important. The baseline performance is good enough for what I use it for. Course, I still can't help myself from tweaking it as far as it can go within reasonable power limits.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Ichirou said:


> Nope; it's disabled on Auto. Should I be enabling it? What would it do?
> 
> You mean, DDR4?



No...
Im talking about the DIMM2 adaptor for M2
I dont have that one sent with the z790... But I have a friend that has one from x299...
I'd like to know If I can use that one from x299 in the z790.


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> And still ratios where limited?


Haven't tested yet. Just running a short stability test on low load for now. Will let you know after.


RobertoSampaio said:


> No...
> Im talking about the DIMM2 adaptor for M2
> 
> View attachment 2585257
> 
> View attachment 2585258


What... in the world is that, even?


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> Don’t stress the chip if you can’t keep it cool. Once something is degraded you can’t go back. I’m glad it’s not but still! Don’t stress it unless you can keep it cool. Also, are you running DDR4? DDR4 is a little scary how much SA voltage it needs no?


Just going to play games now and no more R23 going to use the testing regime @Ichirou suggested. 


Yeah, I'm on DDR4, 4 X 8GB Vipers at 4100Mhz CL16, 1.35v SA is the limit and seems to be safe.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Just going to play games now and no more R23 going to use the testing regime @Ichirou suggested.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm on DDR4, 4 X 8GB Vipers at 4100Mhz CL16, 1.35v SA is the limit and seems to be safe.
> 
> View attachment 2585259


Start with the selective component stress test first. Since it's three different tests (around two mins each), you get results quicker for IMC stability.


----------



## acoustic

So tempted by the Z690 KINGPIN for $449..


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> So tempted by the Z690 KINGPIN for $449..


Where at?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Where at?


tps be going "YOINK" xD

@don1376
Disabling the temp limit causes the PC to crash with a low voltage BSOD.
With it enabled instead alongside TVB, I get around 51.6x and ~42x on the P/E cores. 1.23V VR VOUT.
Not much of a change. Slight improvement though.


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> Where at?


EVGA store


----------



## HemuV2

so i dont think i have done this yet, but here is my cpu running cinebench at locked 55/43/45x stock configuration, as you can see the package power and vrm power are different. i have set it to 1.36V llc5 in bios and this is around 1.206V die sense for this config to run without complaints. would like @Falkentyne @RobertoSampaio @Ichirou input on this as they seem to have seen tons of samples at this point, when i lowered voltage to like 1.34 it ran only 2-3 loops and errored(not WHEA but CB crashed). this is 109/73 sample btw


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> tps be going "YOINK" xD
> 
> @don1376
> Disabling the temp limit causes the PC to crash with a low voltage BSOD.
> With it enabled instead alongside TVB, I get around 51.6x and ~42x on the P/E cores. 1.23V VR VOUT.
> Not much of a change. Slight improvement though.


You try no temp limit with TVB enabled? From there play with your llc and offsets till can get it stable with comfortable volts. Don't know what else to say. Llc3 and liteload mode 1 with - 0.060v offsets at 54, 57 and 60 worked best for me. 1.26v under load and max temp of 86c when all cores loaded at 57p, 45e, 50r and 2 cores will boost to 60 under single core load.

Force rating of 154.


----------



## Ichirou

@don1376 @tps3443
With the Ring set to 47x, oddly enough, I get better results in R23. 52/42/47 at 1.23V VR VOUT.
Gonna keep boosting the ring higher until things act up. Maybe TVB _is _indeed helping out.

I think that, if the Temp Limit is on Auto, the BIOS tells the CPU that it's fine to attempt the low load overclock I put in (which is impossible to stabilize at a high load).
Hence, it just throws a BSOD claiming low voltage.

But when you implement a temp limit, it invokes the various optimization algorithms to try to clock the chip down.

Update: At 49x Ring, I get 52.7x / 42.7x P/E instead. 1.26V VR VOUT. 85C Temp Limit.


----------



## yzonker

acoustic said:


> So tempted by the Z690 KINGPIN for $449..


I saw that. But after that fiasco with their borked 13th gen bios update that bricked a bunch of people, I don't think I could ever run one of their boards again. They fixed it, but what a $hit show.


----------



## Ichirou

yzonker said:


> I saw that. But after that fiasco with their borked 13th gen bios update that bricked a bunch of people, I don't think I could ever run one of their boards again. They fixed it, but what a $hit show.


Something like that happened? Did they at least RMA the boards for those users?

Update: At 50x Ring, I get ~50x / ~41x P/E. 1.28V VR VOUT. So it's probably throttling hard at this point even with TVB enabled.
This must be where the VIDs start getting borked by the Ring. @tps3443
Gonna try raising the Temp Limit to a manual 100C (instead of Auto).


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> so i dont think i have done this yet, but here is my cpu running cinebench at locked 55/43/45x stock configuration, as you can see the package power and vrm power are different. i have set it to 1.36V llc5 in bios and this is around 1.206V die sense for this config to run without complaints. would like @Falkentyne @RobertoSampaio @Ichirou input on this as they seem to have seen tons of samples at this point, when i lowered voltage to like 1.34 it ran only 2-3 loops and errored(not WHEA but CB crashed). this is 109/73 sample btw
> 
> View attachment 2585265


It looks like an average sample that’s fixed voltage is running a slightly lower power consumption than what the auto voltage would take it too. I would probably stick to a profile like this. These chips are crazy fast stock anyways.


----------



## chibi

RobertoSampaio said:


> My second mini monitor is the best... LOL.
> View attachment 2585075


That's pretty cool Roberto, maybe time for a new guide!


----------



## acoustic

yzonker said:


> I saw that. But after that fiasco with their borked 13th gen bios update that bricked a bunch of people, I don't think I could ever run one of their boards again. They fixed it, but what a $hit show.


By that logic, I'd guess ASUS is off the list for you too, then? Seems like MSI is all we have left, lol..

I think I'm going to pass on the Z690 DARK, but damn is it tempting for $480 after tax+shipping. If I was running A-Die, I'd probably push the button on it, but since I'm sticking with my Kingston M-Die kit, I don't think I'd get anything out of buying it.


----------



## Ichirou

@don1376 @tps3443
Update: A 95C+ temp limit errors out in R23.

With a 90C temp limit, I get 52.8~53.5x/43.0~44.7x P/E instead, with 50x Ring. 1.29V VR VOUT.
This is much, _much_ closer to stock. But there is a lot of run-to-run variance though, as TVB kicks in and clocks things down more aggressively based on temps.
Still, you do achieve the 40K score in R23, which I suppose is good enough.

I imagine that with a proper delid, the results should be even better and more consistent. I'll give it a shot later.

I think what TVB Voltage Optimization does is that it tries to scale the P/E-Core frequencies according to your temps.
The Ring Ratio will change the VIDs and minimum VR VOUT, sure, but TVB helps to keep the frequencies more in-line with that adjustment.
It's still not as optimized as a manual override overclock, but it is decent enough.

I'm not sure why setting a temp limit of 95C+ causes the chip to go poop, though. Shouldn't be happening.
I think it's because when you increase the temp limit, VR VOUT might be increasing as well when TVB is enabled.
Going from 85C to 90C made VR VOUT increase from 1.28V to 1.29V, even though all settings were the same.

In any case, if I could somehow get the P-Cores running at 55x after a delid, I'm okay with keeping the chip.


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> @don1376 @tps3443
> Update: A 95C+ temp limit errors out in R23.
> 
> With a 90C temp limit, I get 52.8~53.5x/43.0~44.7x P/E instead, with 50x Ring. 1.29V VR VOUT.
> This is much, _much_ closer to stock. But there is a lot of run-to-run variance though, as TVB kicks in and clocks things down more aggressively based on temps.
> Still, you do achieve the 40K score in R23, which I suppose is good enough.
> 
> I imagine that with a proper delid, the results should be even better and more consistent.


What llc and liteload settings are you running? As you lower them your vrout will lower also along with Temps till you get to low.

Seems at only 53p your vrout could be much lower.


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> What llc and liteload settings are you running? As you lower them your vrout will lower also along with Temps till you get to low.
> 
> Seems at only 53p your vrout could be much lower.


Lite Load Mode 1, LLC Mode 3. Basically flat for everything. Adaptive Voltage of 1.45V (for low load overclocking).
If I increase LLC to increase Vdroop, my low load overclock gets unstable. But I can give it a test drive, sure.
If increasing LLC helps improve high load overclocks, I'll just have to strike a balance between the two loads.


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> Lite Load Mode 1, LLC Mode 3. Basically flat for everything. Adaptive Voltage of 1.45V (for low load overclocking).
> If I increase LLC to increase Vdroop, my low load overclock gets unstable.


OK same llc and liteload I'm using. I have temp limit of 100c but using VF offset as adaptive I couldn't get the volts I wanted. And only way VF offsets would work for me was TVB enabled. Current max temp is 86c. Velocity 2 block, lapped cpu, contact frame, LM and 2 360 rads with push/pull fans.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

RobertoSampaio said:


> No...
> Im talking about the DIMM2 adaptor for M2
> I dont have that one sent with the z790... But I have a friend that has one from x299...
> I'd like to know If I can use that one from x299 in the z790.
> 
> View attachment 2585257
> 
> View attachment 2585258


Apex x299 to Apex z690 , they are different. I know first hand. So I think no for x299 to z790.


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> OK same llc and liteload I'm using. I have temp limit of 100c but using VF offset as adaptive I couldn't get the volts I wanted. And only way VF offsets would work for me was TVB enabled.


LLC Mode 4 throws low voltage BSOD with the 90C temp limit.
But with a 85C temp limit instead, it does 51.5x and 41.8x with 50x ring. But 1.27V VR VOUT.

How exactly do you play around with the VF Offsets? Can you show an example of what you plugged in, so I could refer to it as a baseline?


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> LLC Mode 4 throws low voltage BSOD with the 90C temp limit.
> But with a 85C temp limit instead, it does 51.5x and 41.8x with 50x ring. But 1.27V VR VOUT.
> 
> How exactly do you play around with the VF Offsets? Can you show an example of what you plugged in, so I could refer to it as a baseline?


Yea give me a min.


----------



## tps3443

Imagine running all (16) E-Cores at 4.7Ghz with power and temps and VID’s and stability like they are at only 4.4Ghz. That’s exactly how my chip is responding.

I’m thinking these would have to be like SP94-SP100 E-Cores?


----------



## Mainstream

Working on another 13900k, and these temps don't seem possible .
Running D5 pump with 3 x 360 rads and Heatkiller iv block . .
Currently running Asus AI overclock at 105 % because all core 5500 Pcore and 4300 Ecore unstable .

Only thing I can think of is too much pressure on cpu block causing uneven spread even with lga 1700frame? SP Score at 99


----------



## Ichirou

Mainstream said:


> View attachment 2585268
> 
> 
> Working on another 13900k, and these temps don't seem possible .
> Running D5 pump with 3 x 360 rads and Heatkiller iv block . .
> Currently running Asus AI overclock at 105 % because all core 5500 Pcore and 4300 Ecore unstable .
> 
> Only thing I can think of is too much pressure on cpu block causing uneven spread even with lga 1700frame?


What are your chip's SP scores?


----------



## Mainstream

Ichirou said:


> What are your chip's SP scores?


Sorry Just edited before you posted. At SP score of 99


----------



## Ichirou

Mainstream said:


> Sorry Just edited before you posted. At SP score of 99


For the P-Cores and the E-Cores. Not the overall SP.


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> LLC Mode 4 throws low voltage BSOD with the 90C temp limit.
> But with a 85C temp limit instead, it does 51.5x and 41.8x with 50x ring. But 1.27V VR VOUT.
> 
> How exactly do you play around with the VF Offsets? Can you show an example of what you plugged in, so I could refer to it as a baseline?


i forgot i dropped my all core to 56 but here's my settings. R23 I get right at 41,800 score max temp 86c.


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> i forgot i dropped my all core to 56 but here's my settings. R23 I get right at 41,800 score max temp 86c.
> View attachment 2585271
> 
> View attachment 2585272
> 
> View attachment 2585273


So what exactly happens during low loads and high loads for you? And what is your CPU Force score for reference?


----------



## Mainstream

Ichirou said:


> For the P-Cores and the E-Cores. Not the overall SP.


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> So what exactly happens during low loads and high loads for you? And what is your CPU Force score for reference?


Low loads like what? If running mem test i hover around 50c, gaming about the same. I don't really know what to run to test low load.


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> Low loads like what? If running mem test i hover around 50c, gaming about the same. I don't really know what to run to test low load.


If you've got TM5 1usmus, run that, making sure the effective clocks are maxed out (and the P-Cores aren't parked).

On a side note, based on your VF Offsets, if I wanted to run 1.35V VR VOUT at 59x, but 1.20V VR VOUT at 55x, what should I set? (For Advanced VF Offset)
Same Load Line and LLC as yours.


----------



## WayWayUp

got some limited testing in. Looks like i have a decent sample. i didnt do any tweaking yet besides just setting the first 2 cores to 60, then 59,58,57 for the rest with TVB +2
No other changes outside of just xmp for memory

for whatever reason though im able to beat most people (almost everyone? ) on the leaderboards in physics score and i see it was boosting to 6200Mhz even with the cheapest 280aio i could find.

now is the rough part i have to delid the cpu and go direct die with liquid metal and hook it up to a huge custom loop to which I have to Hard tube from scratch. It will be a long process 😫


----------



## RobertoSampaio

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Apex x299 to Apex z690 , they are different. I know first hand. So I think no for x299 to z790.


I'm not sure, but I hope if they are different, they shouldn't fit from one to another...


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> If you've got TM5 1usmus, run that, making sure the effective clocks are maxed out (and the P-Cores aren't parked).
> 
> On a side note, based on your VF Offsets, if I wanted to run 1.35V VR VOUT at 59x, but 1.20V VR VOUT at 55x, what should I set? (For Advanced VF Offset)
> Same Load Line and LLC as yours.


Here's a 2 min run of TM5. As far as what to set offsets like you want I'm really not sure. I'm still figuring out how they all work myself. I know whatever you set and offset at a certain point to the 3 ratios above it and below it get interpolated so it doesn't just effect that one ratio. I would guess a higher negative offset at point 54 which will also lower points 52, 53, 55 and 56. So would need less of a negative offset at 57 because the 57 offset will also lower 55, 56, 58 and 59.


----------



## tps3443

WayWayUp said:


> View attachment 2585270
> 
> 
> got some limited testing in. Looks like i have a decent sample. i didnt do any tweaking yet besides just setting the first 2 cores to 60, then half 59 and half 58 with and set TVB +1
> No other changes outside of just xmp for memory
> 
> for whatever reason though im able to beat most people (almost everyone? ) on the leaderboards in physics score and i see it was boosting to 6100MHz even with the cheapest 280aio i could find.
> 
> now is the rough part i have to delid the cpu and go direct die with liquid metal and hook it up to a huge custom loop to which I have to Hard tube from scratch. It will be a long process 😫


I would reconsider the delid, I mean I’m with you man! I delid all my chips lol. BUT, I’m leaving my current chip soldered and how it is from the factory. I already delidded a 13900KF, it was like a 6C difference. But, what’s silly is my new 13900K runs slightly cooler than it did, and this better sample is not even delidded.

Maybe you’ll see a reduction better than me. But it has me at the point where I’m thinking Intel did a great job with their TIM. They improved thermal transfer! I know the die is larger. But my 11900K die is larger than a 13900K die, and I saw a large temp reduction in delidding all of my 11900K’s, and any other CPU’s for that matter. But not the 13900K.. For some reason it wasn’t enough of a difference to make it worth it.

But if you do bare die and all that, could you run some good before and after results with HWinfo?

I know another person who experienced the same who is very well known to the forums. I think he saw about a 2-4C improvement. And I didn’t believe him at first. I was like pfshhhhhh ”I CAN DELID my chip, and I WILL SEE AN IMPROVEMENT better than him” “He maybe didn’t do it right”. And sure enough, it was very minimal. So, I’m not touching my 13900K. leaving it stock.


----------



## Telstar

Ichirou said:


> @don1376 @tps3443
> With the Ring set to 47x, oddly enough, I get better results in R23. 52/42/47 at 1.23V VR VOUT.


Yeah, balancing is hard.


----------



## WayWayUp

You make some good points
While I have everything on my ghetto test bench I will make sure to record temps so I can do a before and after to show the difference 

I do think Intel did a good job this time and that’s why I am going bare die instead of copper ihs


----------



## tps3443

WayWayUp said:


> You make some good points
> While I have everything on my ghetto test bench I will make sure to record temps so I can do a before and after to show the difference
> 
> I do think Intel did a good job this time and that’s why I am going bare die instead of copper ihs


@dante`afk did not see a difference with Cooper IHS or Bare die. He re-mounted that thing over and over too.

I hope your results are great. But a chip with SP127 P-Cores is already going to run nice and cool. I think you’ve probably got the highest P-cores ever seen lol.


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> Here's a 2 min run of TM5. As far as what to set offsets like you want I'm really not sure. I'm still figuring out how they all work myself. I know whatever you set and offset at a certain point to the 3 ratios above it and below it get interpolated so it doesn't just effect that one ratio. I would guess a higher negative offset at point 54 which will also lower points 52, 53, 55 and 56. So would need less of a negative offset at 57 because the 57 offset will also lower 55, 56, 58 and 59.
> View attachment 2585282


Do you not have an Effective Clock reading? It should be under the Core Clocks.


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> Do you not have an Effective Clock reading? It should be under the Core Clocks.


Yea here's effective from same run, just haven't cleared it or used computer besides here on forum since.


----------



## fray_bentos

Mainstream said:


> View attachment 2585268
> 
> 
> Working on another 13900k, and these temps don't seem possible .
> Running D5 pump with 3 x 360 rads and Heatkiller iv block . .
> Currently running Asus AI overclock at 105 % because all core 5500 Pcore and 4300 Ecore unstable .
> 
> Only thing I can think of is too much pressure on cpu block causing uneven spread even with lga 1700frame? SP Score at 99


Rate limiting heat transfer is from the CPU to IHS. Physics.


----------



## GQNerd

Drove to CC for the Hero, but it was sold out, so I 'settled' for this:










Doesn't match my Rig, but I'll make it work


----------



## tps3443

Miguelios said:


> Drove to CC for the Hero, but it was sold out, so I 'settled' for this:
> 
> View attachment 2585289
> 
> 
> Doesn't match my Rig, but I'll make it work


NICE!!!!!!

I want one lol!!!


----------



## bhav

Still sitting here with a 6 weeks or so unused Mag tomahawk for the 'early december' release date of my case, then waiting further for the Jan 3rd paper launch date on 13900KS.

And a pre ordered Arctic 420 AIO ... If I don't get it before the CPU lol 13900KS on 140mm AIO incoming!

Also not going to get a riser cable for the case as they 'only' go up to gen 4, and at some point I'll want a gen 5 one, so waiting for however long it takes for gen 5 cables before using vertical GPU.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Still sitting here with a 6 weeks or so unused Mag tomahawk for the 'early december' release date of my case, then waiting further for the Jan 3rd paper launch date on 13900KS.
> 
> And a pre ordered Arctic 420 AIO ... If I don't get it before the CPU lol 13900KS on 140mm AIO incoming!
> 
> Also not going to get a riser cable for the case as they 'only' go up to gen 4, and at some point I'll want a gen 5 one, so waiting for however long it takes for gen 5 cables before using vertical GPU.


I bought and had my MSI Unify-X/ and 32GB DDR5 memory for a while too, I was just waiting on the right CPU to build with and actually get to use it. I bought it 2 weeks before 13th gen pre-orders went live. And then waited an additional (4) weeks after pre-ordering for launch day, shipping, etc. 6 weeks in total was well worth the wait! Plus I spent more time without a chip locating the right sample to keep out of the (3) I’ve tested.

I’m sure it’ll be worth the wait for a 13900KS.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> I bought and had my MSI Unify-X/ and 32GB DDR5 memory for a while too, I was just waiting on the right CPU to build with and actually get to use it. I bought it 2 weeks before 13th gen pre-orders went live. And then waited an additional (4) weeks after pre-ordering for launch day, shipping, etc. 6 weeks in total was well worth the wait! Plus I spent more time without a chip locating the right sample to keep out of the (3) I’ve tested.
> 
> I’m sure it’ll be worth the wait for a 13900KS.


Oh I'll be setting it up as soon as the case arrives with my 12600K though.

Unused 4 Tb SN850X waiting to be installed too.


----------



## VULC

Settled on this.

5.7Ghz all core, e cores disabled, R23 1.315v LLC 6 droop to Vcore 1.288, Core requested 1.279v, temps top out at 87 degrees.

205W R23, during game play 125W.

RAM 4100Mhz CL16 1.5125v, 1.343v SA (HwInfo reports 1.328v), 1.39v VDDQ.

Stats during gameplay.


----------



## Wolverine2349

VULC said:


> Settled on this.
> 
> 5.7Ghz all core, e cores disabled, R23 1.315v LLC 6 droop to Vcore 1.288, Core requested 1.279v, temps top out at 87 degrees.
> 
> 205W R23, during game play 125W.
> 
> RAM 4100Mhz CL16 1.5125v, 1.343v SA (HwInfo reports 1.328v), 1.39v VDDQ.
> 
> Stats during gameplay.
> 
> View attachment 2585303



That's pretty good. No WHEAs I take it. I also have e-cores disabled and using LLC6. Could you pass any other tests like Y Cruncher and OCCT and Linpack XTREME.

What kind of cooling do you have?

I tried 5.7GHz at 1.38V and seemed to pass almost all tests but then saw a WHEA or 2 on Cinebench R23 and had to settle for 5.6GHz at 1.325V and super stable and much better temps and no throttling.


----------



## digitalfrost

Ichirou said:


> Lite Load Mode 1, LLC Mode 3. Basically flat for everything. Adaptive Voltage of 1.45V (for low load overclocking).
> If I increase LLC to increase Vdroop, my low load overclock gets unstable. But I can give it a test drive, sure.
> If increasing LLC helps improve high load overclocks, I'll just have to strike a balance between the two loads.


You realize that 1.45v adaptive is much too high with LLC3?


tps3443 said:


> These are my bios settings. Also, LLC is on Auto. I forgot to show that. I hope this helps.


Re: TVB volt opt.

I changed my mind. I spent the evening OCing and testing. When I started it was 24°C in the room and everything was stable. It's winter here, and I opened the window and let the room cool down to 18°C. You can easily see how the VID and Vcore drops and it's just insane how it turns a once stable OC into something that just doesn't work anymore.

I like the general idea. It would be a fantastic tool if they'd let you control the slope.


----------



## bhav

Pffft, intel 8th / 9th and 10th gen I just stuck LLC to max and zero issues!

12th / 13th gen hello instant degradation.


----------



## tps3443

digitalfrost said:


> You realize that 1.45v adaptive is much too high with LLC3?
> 
> Re: TVB volt opt.
> 
> I changed my mind. I spent the evening OCing and testing. When I started it was 24°C in the room and everything was stable. It's winter here, and I opened the window and let the room cool down to 18°C. You can easily how the VID and Vcore drops and it's just insane how it turns a once stable OC into something that just doesn't work anymore.


I have changed my overclock up some too.

P-Cores 62,62,61,61,58,58,58,58
[email protected] 4.7Ghz (All of them)
[email protected]
TVB= Off
Voltage= Auto
LLC= Auto
No power limits. 

Stable through R23 multithreaded, and only uses 312 watts max of power. In games it’s max power is 116 watts and averages only 90 watts. Single threaded is 2,450+ in R24. And R23 multithreaded can score right past 44,000 with above normal priority.

I’m leaving it just like this daily now.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> I have changed my overclock up some too.
> 
> P-Cores 62,62,61,61,58,58,58,58
> [email protected] 4.7Ghz (All of them)
> [email protected]
> TVB= Off
> Voltage= Auto
> LLC= Auto
> No power limits.
> 
> Stable through R23 multithreaded, and only uses 312 watts max of power. In games it’s max power is 116 watts and averages only 90 watts. Single threaded is 2,450+ in R24. And R23 multithreaded can score right past 44,000 with above normal priority.
> 
> I’m leaving it just like this daily now.


Is this like an SP over 9000 chip?


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Pffft, intel 8th / 9th and 10th gen I just stuck LLC to max and zero issues!
> 
> 12th / 13th gen hello instant degradation.


That’s not true. You can degrade any chip we just aren’t pumping nearly as much power through those chips. It’s usually extended stress test and 90C+ temps with high wattage and amperage that harms chips.

What happening is people are overclocking their chips to the very limits of stability one day. “Meaning it’s just barely stable” so the next day it’s not stable at all. And they assume degradation. When in reality it could be anything like hotter ambients etc. 

People are literally pumping 350-400 watts through those chips and don’t even realize it. Pay attention, be careful, and it will be just fine.

My last 13900KF was stressed heavily, it didn’t it flinch and it did not lose any of its ability. I pressed it through 6Ghz all core in R23 benches numerous times.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Is this like an SP over 9000 chip?


It’s good enough to keep, and not worry over the KS models. Not sure of the SP rating.


----------



## digitalfrost

tps3443 said:


> I have changed my overclock up some too.


So get this:


The same overclock that was not completely stable with TVB volt on at 1.45 adaptive
Is now stable at 1.4 adaptive with TVB volt off


----------



## acoustic

bhav said:


> Pffft, intel 8th / 9th and 10th gen I just stuck LLC to max and zero issues!
> 
> 12th / 13th gen hello instant degradation.


It was never a good idea to run max LLC.


----------



## Ichirou

digitalfrost said:


> You realize that 1.45v adaptive is much too high with LLC3?
> 
> Re: TVB volt opt.
> 
> I changed my mind. I spent the evening OCing and testing. When I started it was 24°C in the room and everything was stable. It's winter here, and I opened the window and let the room cool down to 18°C. You can easily see how the VID and Vcore drops and it's just insane how it turns a once stable OC into something that just doesn't work anymore.
> 
> I like the general idea. It would be a fantastic tool if they'd let you control the slope.


It is strictly for low loads. I deliberately take advantage of TVB and temp limit throttling to make the chip downclock during high loads.
So during high loads, it drops to like, 1.30V VR VOUT or less (still tweaking). During low loads, the wattage is at most 180-200W.


----------



## digitalfrost

Ichirou said:


> It is strictly for low loads. I deliberately take advantage of TVB and temp limit throttling to make the chip downclock during high loads.
> So during high loads, it drops to like, 1.30V VR VOUT or less (still tweaking). During low loads, the wattage is at most 180-200W.


It's interesting. So I've re-enabled TVB volt opt, set adaptive to 1.485v and it also works. I have less effective vcore than with TVB volt off. Guess it's a matter of if you're scared to set high voltages...


----------



## VULC

Wolverine2349 said:


> That's pretty good. No WHEAs I take it. I also have e-cores disabled and using LLC6. Could you pass any other tests like Y Cruncher and OCCT and Linpack XTREME.
> 
> What kind of cooling do you have?
> 
> I tried 5.7GHz at 1.38V and seemed to pass almost all tests but then saw a WHEA or 2 on Cinebench R23 and had to settle for 5.6GHz at 1.325V and super stable and much better temps and no throttling.


No Whea, haven't tested ycruncher or the others you mentioned. TM5 Extreme, R23 and Asus mem test in bios is stable. In game at 1080p 360hz never go over 69 degrees.


----------



## Ichirou

digitalfrost said:


> It's interesting. So I've re-enabled TVB volt opt, set adaptive to 1.485v and it also works. I have less effective vcore than with TVB volt off. Guess it's a matter of if you're scared to set high voltages...


Yeah. When you set a temp limit, the BIOS will consider the PC to be running under a high load as soon as the temp limit is hit, and will force the CPU to downclock.
VR VOUT drops, and so does the clocks, subsequently.

As for TVB, I have it enabled since it seems that the multipliers are clocked higher than when it is disabled, once the temp limit is hit.

I'm experimenting with the VF Offsets right now because I think I may be able to optimize both the low loads _and_ the high loads as well.
Will report back with my findings.


----------



## bhav

Some rumoured leaks on the 13900KS pricing, apparently 22% higher than 13900K, but people on r/intel saying its cheaper than the 12900KS launch price:









Intel Core i9-13900KS 6GHz CPU is 22% more expensive than i9-13900K according to Canadian retailer - VideoCardz.com


Intel Core i9-13900KS and 65W 13th Gen Core series listed PC-Canada has now listed almost all of the upcoming Intel 13th Series processors. It is no secret that Intel will be launching more Raptor Lake CPUs very soon. In just 5 weeks, the company is set to introduce a long lineup of desktop and...




videocardz.com





Also the comments are sad, just a flood of those 'people at home' that tech sites like to cater to.

Few people understand binning, even less so when it comes to the IMC.

'Imagine paying that much more for 200 higher MHZ, sucker edition'.

Its 200 more MHZ at lower voltage, better bin, which also increases chances of a better IMC, or I can do like Ichirou and buy 1000 13900Ks, degrade them then send them back.

Lower temps at those stock clocks than what you would get OCing an average 13900K to the same. Ofc I don't need it at all, but its something I plan on keeping through at least 2 more gens so I want a good one.


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> Some rumoured leaks on the 13900KS pricing, apparently 22% higher than 13900K, but people on r/intel saying its cheaper than the 12900KS launch price:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900KS 6GHz CPU is 22% more expensive than i9-13900K according to Canadian retailer - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900KS and 65W 13th Gen Core series listed PC-Canada has now listed almost all of the upcoming Intel 13th Series processors. It is no secret that Intel will be launching more Raptor Lake CPUs very soon. In just 5 weeks, the company is set to introduce a long lineup of desktop and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videocardz.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the comments are sad, just a flood of those 'people at home' that tech sites like to cater to.
> 
> Few people understand binning, even less so when it comes to the IMC.
> 
> 'Imagine paying that much more for 200 higher MHZ, sucker edition'.
> 
> Its 200 more MHZ at lower voltage, better bin, which also increases chances of a better IMC, or I can do like Ichirou and buy 1000 13900Ks, degrade them then send them back.
> 
> Lower temps at those stock clocks than what you would get OCing an average 13900K to the same. Ofc I don't need it at all, but its something I plan on keeping through at least 2 more gens so I want a good one.


At this point I think everyone should objectively know the 13900KS is a waste of money. You're not gonna notice any difference in anything by getting a couple 100mhz more out of the chip. However, obviously most people here don't care, they want the best  Intel know that. That's why they sell them.


----------



## bhav

imrevoau said:


> At this point I think everyone should objectively know the 13900KS is a waste of money. You're not gonna notice any difference in anything by getting a couple 100mhz more out of the chip. However, obviously most people here don't care, they want the best  Intel know that. That's why they sell them.


Ideally the KS shouldn't exist at all, and all such bins should be sold as the normal K.

Theres pretty much zero silicon lottery going on with these chips, most are bad because of Intel's binning.

Also with the rumours going around there will be a Raptor Lake refresh later in 2023, like are they really going to be holding back chips that long or will they be completely new chips?


----------



## acoustic

I've finally started dialing in my chip.

The goal is stock P Core behavior, with optimized E Core and Ring, while undervolting.

MSI LLC7 // AC_LL 20 ; DC_LL 89 (tuned for LLC7)

P Core stock (55x8/58x2)
E Core 45x16
Ring 50x

1.190v VR VOUT ; gives me 255w/210A in CB23. 41800 CB23 score.

Beautiful efficiency!


----------



## Nizzen

imrevoau said:


> At this point I think everyone should objectively know the 13900KS is a waste of money. You're not gonna notice any difference in anything by getting a couple 100mhz more out of the chip. However, obviously most people here don't care, they want the best  Intel know that. That's why they sell them.


Ks is waste, when memory oc is meta for gaming performance 
I want a good sample anyway LOL


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> Ideally the KS shouldn't exist at all, and all such bins should be sold as the normal K.
> 
> Theres pretty much zero silicon lottery going on with these chips, most are bad because of Intel's binning.
> 
> Also with the rumours going around there will be a Raptor Lake refresh later in 2023, like are they really going to be holding back chips that long or will they be completely new chips?


32 e core 8 p core chip incoming


----------



## Nizzen

Anyone want to stresstest cpu in a game?
Try BF 2042 with the new patch 

Crazy load on MANY cores! Yes the performance is better than ever


----------



## Xiph

Knowing that my socket sense P-core Vmin out are: x55=1.296V and x56=1.33V like this:
1. P-x55 E-x44 1.296V -> stable
2. P-x56 E-x43 1.33V -> stable
3. P-x56 E-x44 1.33V ->internal cpu errors.

Why third one is not stable? Is it because slightly higher temperature? As we can see from settings 1 and 2, 1.33V should be enough for P and E-cores. I know that 1.36V will work for third settings, but that's too much (power and temperature).


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> Anyone want to stresstest cpu in a game?
> Try BF 2042 with the new patch
> 
> Crazy load on MANY cores! Yes the performance is better than ever


Yeah I noticed this aswell with my super old 10900KF @ 5.1 allcore - up to *185W* load in BF2042 with Season 3


----------



## BoredErica

I see 2 primary levers for getting heavier all core loads stable when gaming is stable at a fixed voltage: Lower power limit and lower thermal throttling temperature. If CPU doesn't downclock aggressively enough I can still crash though. I don't run into issues with high current draws because I'm sacrificing all core perf to try to stabilize higher clockspeeds are lighter loads without going too high on voltage.

I think maybe 5.65-5.6ghz is stable at 1.35v @ 130w limit. 5.7-5.72ghz stable at 1.39v @ 140w limit. Temp limit at 80C. Games can hit power limit, but only for split second and typically only when first getting into main menu of the game. An exception is my non-modded Minecraft startup since it causes 15s of 100% CPU utlization. With mods it seems startup is way slower and uses fewer cores.

This is with 13600k and no E cores. I picked up longer stutters in Oblivion with E cores on. Yet in FO4 I noticed less consistent frame times and little lower avg fps with neither HT nor E cores. So, I ended up w/ Ecores off + HT on. (Both games were tested with a script that kills background processes and benches game automatically at multiple passes to reduce margin of error.) There is a feature in my MSI bios that claims to park E cores when scroll lock is enabled for legacy games that struggle with E cores on. Doesn't seem to do anything for me. Maybe I'm doing something wrong.

Some fun little benchies:








13600kf is so massively faster than my old 5600x it's ludicrous. 79% higher perf in FO4/SSE, far faster game startup when modded in SSE. And that's on the same sticks of ram I used for 5600x no less. Can't wait to hear people tell me CPUs don't matter for gaming above _insert random resolution here_ when they know nothing about my use case and I never asked for their opinion. ._. CPU limited at 8k render in Oblivion, hooray!


----------



## kunit13

Hey! New to intel! Last system was Ryzen 5950x. Should I be concerned with VID voltage? I know VID is just "what the cpu" wants but seeing the 1.55v is concerning me (also reading some threads back about degrading). My vcore voltage is fixed 1.33v. Underload (r20) it runs at VID registers 1.39v.
13900kf (waterblock/lapped).
I just did a all core OC (5.7p 4.5e 4.8r). I only game on this rig (Warzone 2). 

Z790 Gig Master (if that matters).


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> Yeah I noticed this aswell with my super old 10900KF @ 5.1 allcore - up to *185W* load in BF2042 with Season 3


Finally games are starting to actual use cpu power 

I can already see people cry about the computer is unstable in this game


----------



## VULC

Nizzen said:


> Finally games are starting to actual use cpu power
> 
> I can already see people cry about the computer is unstable in this game


Overwatch 2 when you launch for the first time spins up the CPU to 100% usage for 10 seconds just to test your OC. I think Activision had enough complaints about a "bug" with their game. 😅 😅


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Has anyone make a DirectDie Frame for sockel 1700?


----------



## VULC

kunit13 said:


> Hey! New to intel! Last system was Ryzen 5950x. Should I be concerned with VID voltage? I know VID is just "what the cpu" wants but seeing the 1.55v is concerning me (also reading some threads back about degrading). My vcore voltage is fixed 1.33v. Underload (r20) it runs at VID registers 1.39v.
> 13900kf (waterblock/lapped).
> I just did a all core OC (5.7p 4.5e 4.8r). I only game on this rig (Warzone 2).
> 
> Z790 Gig Master (if that matters).
> 
> View attachment 2585373


Try and set a lower adaptive voltage and test if its stable.


----------



## Krautmaster

I noticed that the sytem needs to be placed into "*Best Performance" energy* setting with Raptor Lake! Else many workloads only use the E Cores and that would be okay if it would be more efficient, but its not. by far not. The same tasks with same power limit take easily 30% longer with higher clocking E cores only.

Its a complete mess that best performance is more effective than the balanced energy setting. Wonder what the sense behind that thread shedulling should be. It would make more sense to always use all cores and the place the foreground task into higher priority instead of cutting down and keeping the P cores ideling on some workloads.


----------



## mattskiiau

Is there an Asus z790 STRIX which uses die sense?


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> Ks is waste, when memory oc is meta for gaming performance
> I want a good sample anyway LOL


You already have a 13900KS.😎

13900KS is only 5.7Ghz (8) cores and a 6.0Ghz boost on (2) cores. I think nearly any 13900K can do this with good cooling lol. Obviously only good samples can handle it with weak cooling and low power. But the fact remains plenty of crap 13900KS samples will exist because they meet the guidelines of 5.7/6.0.


----------



## ju-rek

del


----------



## CptSpig

I have been testing my best daily / gaming overclock. 8000MT no CPU OC and 7600mt 5.7 to 6.2 P-per core 4.6 e-cores. The 7600 tighter timmings and lower voltages with CPU OC gives the best performance on my system. Best frame rates and smoothest overall experience in most games.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> You already have a 13900KS.😎
> 
> 13900KS is only 5.7Ghz (8) cores and a 6.0Ghz boost on (2) cores. I think nearly any 13900K can do this with good cooling lol. Obviously only good samples can handle it with weak cooling and low power. But the fact remains plenty of crap 13900KS samples will exist because they meet the guidelines of 5.7/6.0.


I think Intel will try for 5.7 GHz all-core at at least 1.33-1.35V VR VOUT. Otherwise, they'd just sell it as a 13900K.
Anything above, and it's kind of uncoolable with even reasonably good cooling, and would degrade kind of easily.

Intel wouldn't want people complaining about how it can't even run R23 without throttling and getting worse scores, after all.
So they'll still be above average bins compared to the 13900K. But might not be a whole lot. Maybe a P-SP of 115+? Or CPU Force of at most 135.
A -0.05 to -0.08V VR VOUT reduction in comparison to the *average *13900K.


----------



## tps3443

CptSpig said:


> I have been testing my best daily / gaming overclock. 8000MT no CPU OC and 7600mt 5.7 to 6.2 P-per core 4.6 e-cores. The 7600 tighter timmings and lower voltages with CPU OC gives the best performance on my system. Best frame rates and smoothest overall experience in most games.
> 
> View attachment 2585433
> View attachment 2585433


Thanks for sharing! That really is looking good for daily. My profile is very similar to yours. Only I‘m running the 5.8-6.2 P-Cores, with x47 on my E-Cores. Right now I’m working on slowly reducing other system voltages like SA/VDDQ/VDD2 etc. And then I’ll leave it be.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 @don1376 
Tried to reduce the VR VOUT on high load, but it's just not possible without dropping the ring clock, as it keeps boosting up the minimum VID required. Just poor chip sample.
I think it would be possible on an ASUS board though, since they allow you to set a range for the ring clock as opposed to one static value (or auto, which throws 45x at it).
I'm becoming more and more tempted to try out the ASUS Strix Z790-A, in hopes of not only optimized low/high load overclocking, but also the potential for better 4,266 MHz handling.

As for optimizing VCCSA and VDDQ, you need to use y-cruncher and TM5, respectively. Otherwise, you'll never figure out the minimum voltages required outside of long-term field testing.


----------



## marti69

hi guys sorry im late to the party just got my 13900k with z790 hero been deliding it yesterday the cpu is sp 110 (121 p core and 92 e core) memory mc is 84 i got it to 6ghz p core and 4.8ghz ecore cinebench r23 stable i also can run 6.4ghz single core

























































also 6.1 ghz all core with e cores disable ambient temp is 25c water temp is 26 to 27c.


----------



## don1376

marti69 said:


> hi guys sorry im late to the party just got my 13900k with z790 hero been deliding it yesterday the cpu is sp 110 (121 p core and 92 e core) memory mc is 84 i got it to 6ghz p core and 4.8ghz ecore cinebench r23 stable i also can run 6.4ghz single core
> View attachment 2585455
> View attachment 2585456
> View attachment 2585457
> View attachment 2585458
> View attachment 2585459
> View attachment 2585460
> View attachment 2585461
> View attachment 2585462
> 
> also 6.1 ghz all core with e cores disable ambient temp is 25c water temp is 26 to 27c.
> 
> View attachment 2585462
> 
> View attachment 2585459
> 
> View attachment 2585460
> 
> View attachment 2585458
> 
> View attachment 2585457
> 
> View attachment 2585456
> 
> View attachment 2585455
> 
> View attachment 2585461


You won the lottery. Grats.


----------



## Netarangi

Is it common practice to disable hyperthreading if _just_ gaming?


----------



## Nizzen

Netarangi said:


> Is it common practice to disable hyperthreading if _just_ gaming?


No need for 13900k. If you want, it's possible 
Some games does work better with less threads, so maybe.


----------



## slayer6288

Nizzen said:


> Anyone want to stresstest cpu in a game?
> Try BF 2042 with the new patch
> 
> Crazy load on MANY cores! Yes the performance is better than ever
> 
> View attachment 2585353


They actually updated this pile to be more multi threaded?


----------



## Nizzen

slayer6288 said:


> They actually updated this pile to be more multi threaded?


Yes!


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

Nizzen said:


> Anyone want to stresstest cpu in a game?
> Try BF 2042 with the new patch
> 
> Crazy load on MANY cores! Yes the performance is better than ever
> 
> View attachment 2585353


Exactly ! 

20v20 or more PvP maps are 100x better then, CPU killer, CPU degrader, power virus programs like y-cruncher,prime95 and linpack.

You dont need those on gaming pc. A simple method is large PvP online game . Battlefront 2 20v20 is great example of real world %100 stability test for RAM OC and CPU OC


----------



## tps3443

@marti69 

What type of improvement did you see from delidding with overclocks? Did you test the chips overclocks before delidding?


----------



## marti69

tps3443 said:


> @marti69
> 
> What type of improvement did you see from delidding with overclocks? Did you test the chips overclocks before delidding?


yes i did test before delid temps was awful i hit 96c with 5.8ghz p cores and 4.7 ecore after delid and direct die almost drop 21 to 22c


----------



## tps3443

marti69 said:


> yes i did test before delid temps was awful i hit 96c with 5.8ghz p cores and 4.7 ecore after delid and direct die almost drop 21 to 22c


What kind of direct die setup are you running? Also, what’s your max power consumption at 6Ghz all cores?


----------



## marti69

tps3443 said:


> What kind of direct die setup are you running? Also, what’s your max power consumption at 6Ghz all cores?


 im using an ek velocity cpu block direct die i did mod the screws to have the correct pressure power is around 300w with 6ghz and 4.8 ecores


----------



## tps3443

marti69 said:


> im using an ek velocity cpu block direct die i did mod the screws to have the correct pressure power is around 300w with 6ghz and 4.8 ecores


Auto voltage or fixed?


----------



## chibi

mattskiiau said:


> Is there an Asus z790 STRIX which uses die sense?


Should be all of them except the Strix z790-I ITX board.


----------



## chibi

Guys is my SP bugged? I updated the MEI Drivers, then the ME Firmware and finally flashed bios to latest Beta 0804. all my vids are the same in the SP page. My VF Curve has different values though for what it's worth.

X236F batch 13900k


----------



## Ichirou

chibi said:


> Guys is my SP bugged? I updated the MEI Drivers, then the ME Firmware and finally flashed bios to latest Beta 0804. all my vids are the same in the SP page. My VF Curve has different values though for what it's worth.
> 
> X236F batch 13900k
> View attachment 2585481
> 
> 
> View attachment 2585482
> 
> 
> View attachment 2585483


No, you got a golden chip. Time to test drive it


----------



## chibi

Ichirou said:


> No, you got a golden chip. Time to test drive it


Can't yet, on a tiny Noctua C14S cooler. Prepping mora first and waiting on memory block. Maybe in a few weeks it will stretch it's legs under water.

Also, how important is Die vs Socket sense for the voltage monitor? My board only has socket sense. Will it be accurate with adaptive voltage using AC DC LL tuning?


----------



## Ichirou

chibi said:


> Can't yet, on a tiny Noctua C14S cooler. Prepping mora first and waiting on memory block. Maybe in a few weeks it will stretch it's legs under water.
> 
> Also, how important is Die vs Socket sense for the voltage monitor? My board only has socket sense. Will it be accurate with adaptive voltage using AC DC LL tuning?


I'll ship the delid kit back to you once I'm done binning chips. It really sucks that my luck with the lottery is awful.
If you need it urgently, I can ship it back. Otherwise, I'll settle after the 13900KS releases and I try one of those chips.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> No, you got a golden chip. Time to test drive it


Is it just me, or are we seeing a lot of golden 13900K chips lately?

PS: My cache is at 52! VID’s unchanged.


Seeing what @marti69 did with his has me wanting to delid mine!! Terrible influence lol.. Ughh I hate to delid another though. But this is probably the right one to delid if I’m gonna do it again.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Is it just me, or are we seeing a lot of golden 13900K chips lately?
> 
> PS: My cache is at 52! VID’s unchanged.
> 
> 
> Seeing what @marti69 did with his has me wanting to delid mine!! Terrible influence lol.. Ughh I hate to delid another though. But this is probably the right one to delid if I’m gonna do it again.


You are. I'm not


----------



## CptSpig

marti69 said:


> hi guys sorry im late to the party just got my 13900k with z790 hero been deliding it yesterday the cpu is sp 110 (121 p core and 92 e core) memory mc is 84 i got it to 6ghz p core and 4.8ghz ecore cinebench r23 stable i also can run 6.4ghz single core
> also 6.1 ghz all core with e cores disable ambient temp is 25c water temp is 26 to 27c


Use Spoiler?


----------



## HemuV2

marti69 said:


> hi guys sorry im late to the party just got my 13900k with z790 hero been deliding it yesterday the cpu is sp 110 (121 p core and 92 e core) memory mc is 84 i got it to 6ghz p core and 4.8ghz ecore cinebench r23 stable i also can run 6.4ghz single core
> View attachment 2585455
> View attachment 2585456
> View attachment 2585457
> View attachment 2585458
> View attachment 2585459
> View attachment 2585460
> View attachment 2585461
> View attachment 2585462
> 
> also 6.1 ghz all core with e cores disable ambient temp is 25c water temp is 26 to 27c.
> 
> View attachment 2585462
> 
> View attachment 2585459
> 
> View attachment 2585460
> 
> View attachment 2585458
> 
> View attachment 2585457
> 
> View attachment 2585456
> 
> View attachment 2585455
> 
> View attachment 2585461


Wow that's a golden sample! You already got yourself a Ks! @tps3443 perhaps you can compare your package power vcore and clocks with this guy and get rough estimate of your potential golden K


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> Wow that's a golden sample! You already got yourself a Ks! @tps3443 perhaps you can compare your package power vcore and clocks with this guy and get rough estimate of your potential golden K


I can’t exactly compare, he is on direct die. Which apparently works very very well when setup right.

I’m leaving my chip stock and soldered.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

tps3443 said:


> I can’t exactly compare, he is on direct die. Which apparently works very very well when setup right.
> 
> *I’m leaving my chip stock and soldered.*



I wouldn't delid neither, a beast already. Also makes the cpu look cheap afterwords, very light = cheap feeling 

another note, my cpu is @55/44/49 for 1.17v VROUT load on RealBench, and Y-Cruncher for my testing so far. 

Not too bad I think.


----------



## Ichirou

MrTOOSHORT said:


> I wouldn't delid neither, a beast already. Also makes the cpu look cheap afterwords, very light = cheap feeling
> 
> another note, my cpu is @55/44/49 for 1.17v VROUT load on RealBench, and Y-Cruncher for my testing so far.
> 
> Not too bad I think.


That's equivalent or slightly better than my 13900KF sample. So average. P-SP of 100-105.


----------



## Krautmaster

how to set the LLC on MSI Boards properly? There are "CPU Advanced Configuration" settings with a Lite Load Control with Mode 0 to XX and there is also a Setting with like Mode 1 - 9. Wonder how both settings compare.

If i set the lite load control to a lower value eg 2-4 the VID displayed in HWINFO gets lower, it also seems to get unstable. But will I have to tweak both load line settings? With what setting to start with. Lite Load Control seems to be like 9 of 23 by default.


----------



## don1376

Krautmaster said:


> how to set the LLC on MSI Boards properly? There are "CPU Advanced Configuration" settings with a Lite Load Control with Mode 0 to XX and there is also a Setting with like Mode 1 - 9. Wonder how both settings compare.
> 
> If i set the lite load control to a lower value eg 2-4 the VID displayed in HWINFO gets lower, it also seems to get unstable. But will I have to tweak both load line settings?


Yes, you'll have to adjust liteload for whichever llc you choose. If you go through this thread, i know lot of pages, but theres lot of post scattered through on the different advanced liteload values. Actually I believe the Unify X thread here has more on MSI liteload values, sry.


----------



## Ichirou

Krautmaster said:


> how to set the LLC on MSI Boards properly? There are "CPU Advanced Configuration" settings with a Lite Load Control with Mode 0 to XX and there is also a Setting with like Mode 1 - 9. Wonder how both settings compare.
> 
> If i set the lite load control to a lower value eg 2-4 the VID displayed in HWINFO gets lower, it also seems to get unstable. But will I have to tweak both load line settings?


Lite Load basically sets the VR VOUT (Vcore) on idle, and sets what the baseline voltage is.
Unless you have a reason to, it's kind of better to leave on Mode 1, which is the lowest. Increasing it raises the voltage.

LLC is actually placed in a different spot, above the voltage tweaks. It goes from Mode 1 to 8 or something, and the higher the value, the more the Vdroop.
Mode 3 is basically flat LLC. Keeps voltages basically the same as what you set them, maybe plus-minus 0.01V.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Ichirou said:


> That's equivalent or slightly better than my 13900KF sample. So average. P-SP of 100-105.


I'll take average over garbage anyday lol.


----------



## Electrosoft

tps3443 said:


> I can’t exactly compare, he is on direct die. Which apparently works very very well when setup right.
> 
> I’m leaving my chip stock and soldered.


Taking into account the DD vs stock IHS, go ahead and compare for giggles.


----------



## chibi

Ichirou said:


> I'll ship the delid kit back to you once I'm done binning chips. It really sucks that my luck with the lottery is awful.
> If you need it urgently, I can ship it back. Otherwise, I'll settle after the 13900KS releases and I try one of those chips.


No rush, I'm not into binning. You still have your use case to settle with intel, haha.


----------



## mattskiiau

chibi said:


> Should be all of them except the Strix z790-I ITX board.


Is that something new to Z790 STRIX?

My Z690 Strix-A doesn't have die sense.


----------



## imrevoau

tps3443 said:


> You already have a 13900KS.😎
> 
> 13900KS is only 5.7Ghz (8) cores and a 6.0Ghz boost on (2) cores. I think nearly any 13900K can do this with good cooling lol. Obviously only good samples can handle it with weak cooling and low power. But the fact remains plenty of crap 13900KS samples will exist because they meet the guidelines of 5.7/6.0.


My 13700KF can do that lol


----------



## mehdikab2121

tps3443 said:


> Is it just me, or are we seeing a lot of golden 13900K chips lately?
> 
> PS: My cache is at 52! VID’s unchanged.
> 
> 
> Seeing what @marti69 did with his has me wanting to delid mine!! Terrible influence lol.. Ughh I hate to delid another though. But this is probably the right one to delid if I’m gonna do it again.


Go for it totaly worth it,i use fixed voltage by the way to get 6ghz all core and 6.4ghz boost i nred to set 1.42v on bios llc6 it gives 1.3v under all cores load i know it seem a lot but since im under 79c with direct die i dont think its an issue.


----------



## HemuV2

mattskiiau said:


> Is that something new to Z790 STRIX?
> 
> My Z690 Strix-A doesn't have die sense.


I have the same board, it shows different wattage for cpu package and vrm vcore by EC, which one is correct?


----------



## Ichirou

Ordered the MSI Z790 Edge to test. There was no sale on both Black Friday and Cyber Monday.
Gonna see whether or not memory overclocking is improved compared to the Z690 Edge.


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> Ordered the MSI Z790 Edge to test. There was no sale on both Black Friday and Cyber Monday.
> Gonna see whether or not memory overclocking is improved compared to the Z690 Edge.


why not asus it would be fun to see those SPs


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> Ordered the MSI Z790 Edge to test. There was no sale on both Black Friday and Cyber Monday.
> Gonna see whether or not memory overclocking is improved compared to the Z690 Edge.


im gonna guess this in advance and say its either the same or actually worse than your z690 xD


----------



## HemuV2

mehdikab2121 said:


> Go for it totaly worth it,i use fixed voltage by the way to get 6ghz all core and 6.4ghz boost i nred to set 1.42v on bios llc6 it gives 1.3v under all cores load i know it seem a lot but since im under 79c with direct die i dont think its an issue.


how hard is it? if i get a KS im definitely gonna try and delid my K!


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Ordered the MSI Z790 Edge to test. There was no sale on both Black Friday and Cyber Monday.
> Gonna see whether or not memory overclocking is improved compared to the Z690 Edge.


Frame chasers already did a test with Strix z690a vs z790a for memory.


----------



## Nizzen

VULC said:


> Frame chasers already did a test with Strix z690a vs z790a for memory.


"Test"
His "testing" always getting the results he wants and that suits his thoughts. 
If the "testing" is good or not, it doesn't matter. He is just trying to get more "likes" and "views". Moooore money


----------



## VULC

Nizzen said:


> "Test"
> His "testing" always getting the results he wants and that suits his thoughts.
> If the "testing" is good or not, it doesn't matter. He is just trying to get more "likes" and "views". Moooore money


Not this video. His using the same CPU and tested 4x8 and 2x16 how is he suiting his thoughts? Both boards did 4200mhz cl19 and the z790 was erroring out on 4200 only getting 4133Mhz. There is a difference for DDR5 because z790 is validated for higher frequency in DDR5 but DDR4 remains the same.


----------



## HemuV2

my motherboard(z690A strix) shows different wattage for cpu package and vrm vcore by EC in hw info when i use manual voltage, which one is the correct reading? On auto voltage they're pretty close
@RobertoSampaio any idea why this is happening and which reading is true?


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> my motherboard(z690A strix) shows different wattage for cpu package and vrm vcore by EC in hw info when i use manual voltage, which one is the correct reading? On auto voltage they're pretty close
> @RobertoSampaio any idea why this is happening and which reading is true?


VRM Core is watts the VRM is supplying. Package is what the CPU is actually using.


----------



## xarot

Looks like my SP97 is still on the main page as the lowest anyone has. Been running single core up to 6 GHz via TVB and not OCing anything else at all. Quite happy with it anyway. Maybe not worth it changing chips as these platforms go by so fast I probably wouldn't had OCd a new chip any further than that before 13900KS or 14900K pops up. LOL.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Ordered the MSI Z790 Edge to test. There was no sale on both Black Friday and Cyber Monday.
> Gonna see whether or not memory overclocking is improved compared to the Z690 Edge.


Do you have the _1usmus_v3 cfg_ file? Can you please post?


----------



## Telstar

VULC said:


> Not this video. His using the same CPU and tested 4x8 and 2x16 how is he suiting his thoughts?


yes, that video was actually good.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> *Lite Load basically sets the VR VOUT (Vcore) on idle, and sets what the baseline voltage is*.
> Unless you have a reason to, it's kind of better to leave on Mode 1, which is the lowest. Increasing it raises the voltage.
> 
> LLC is actually placed in a different spot, above the voltage tweaks. It goes from Mode 1 to 8 or something, and the higher the value, the more the Vdroop.
> Mode 3 is basically flat LLC. Keeps voltages basically the same as what you set them, maybe plus-minus 0.01V.


Lite load sets the AC LL and DC LL according to what LLC level you set. Once you find a Lite Load setting that works with your LLC setting, switch Lite Load from normal to manual and enter the values shown. Then you can tweak AC LL until you find instability and raise it a notch or two from there. For example, I am running LLC 7 and Mode 4 sets AC LL to 20 and DC LL to 80. I then slightly lowered my AC LL to 18 to save a bit of power. It may not sound like much, but it does make a difference.


----------



## Wam7

I'm going to pick up a 13600K(F) or 13700K(F) today but trying to decide which, silicon lottery notwithstanding, probably gives the highest *SINGLE *threaded overclock?

Which would you guys opt for?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

HemuV2 said:


> my motherboard(z690A strix) shows different wattage for cpu package and vrm vcore by EC in hw info when i use manual voltage, which one is the correct reading? On auto voltage they're pretty close
> @RobertoSampaio any idea why this is happening and which reading is true?


A difference of about 10W to 15W is normal... The adjustment is made with DC_LL. Try +/- 0.02 and observe.


----------



## 7empe

FYI, This is my current oc for 13900KF (108 SP, 118 P, 88 E, 81 MC) on Z690 Apex:









[OFFICIAL] Asus Strix/Maximus Z690 Owners Thread


I have a stupid question so I got the z690 formula. I checked the bios and it says to update Intel firmware before upgrading the bios. Would it matter if I upgrade the bios then the firmware? Save the link for later (beta bioses) RaptorLake Resources Heres the correct order... And how to...




www.overclock.net


----------



## RichKnecht

7empe said:


> FYI, This is my current oc for 13900KF (108 SP, 118 P, 88 E, 81 MC) on Z690 Apex:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [OFFICIAL] Asus Strix/Maximus Z690 Owners Thread
> 
> 
> I have a stupid question so I got the z690 formula. I checked the bios and it says to update Intel firmware before upgrading the bios. Would it matter if I upgrade the bios then the firmware? Save the link for later (beta bioses) RaptorLake Resources Heres the correct order... And how to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


What are your temps like with those settings. Trying to figure out temps here...I'm baffled.


----------



## 7empe

RichKnecht said:


> What are your temps like with those settings. Trying to figure out temps here...I'm baffled.


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> why not asus it would be fun to see those SPs





VULC said:


> Frame chasers already did a test with Strix z690a vs z790a for memory.


Because @MisterSheikh booted 4,533 MHz Gear 1 on the Z790 Edge DDR4. Empirical evidence is better than a gamble. 

Besides, the Edge looks better, and SP is pointless when you should be field testing anyway. Takes only a few hours at most to find Vmin and compare. 


VULC said:


> Do you have the _1usmus_v3 cfg_ file? Can you please post?


I'll link you after I'm on my PC.


----------



## RichKnecht

Has anyone on a MSI board messed around with switching frequency?


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> Has anyone on a MSI board messed around with switching frequency?


Set to 500Khz


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Because @MisterSheikh booted 4,533 MHz Gear 1 on the Z790 Edge DDR4. Empirical evidence is better than a gamble.
> 
> Besides, the Edge looks better, and SP is pointless when you should be field testing anyway. Takes only a few hours at most to find Vmin and compare.
> 
> I'll link you after I'm on my PC.


Maybe he got a nice IMC the board proly not playing that great of a roll in getting 4533Mhz. Hard to compare when it's a different CPU maybe a board could be 1 or 2 bins higher but each board is different. Anyway let us know the findings.


----------



## digitalfrost

RichKnecht said:


> Has anyone on a MSI board messed around with switching frequency?


For the Z690 PRO-A buildzoid measured best behaviour at 677Khz (max). Other people on ASUS had problems initally when raising switching frequency to high levels, not sure it it's been fixed yet. But I think this was 800-1k hz. Honestly if switching frequency matters you are at the edge of stability anyway.


----------



## WayWayUp

any news on 12gen 13thgen direct die frames?

I just delid last night and have conductonaut coming today but i think i will just use Kryonaut if no frame is available
I would be worried about liquid metal having good enough contact


----------



## RichKnecht

digitalfrost said:


> For the Z690 PRO-A buildzoid measured best behaviour at 677Khz (max). Other people on ASUS had problems initally when raising switching frequency to high levels, not sure it it's been fixed yet. But I think this was 800-1k hz. Honestly if switching frequency matters you are at the edge of stability anyway.


I was just curious. I have it set to Auto, but I have no idea what "Auto" is. I know sometimes "Auto" values can be unnecessarily high, so I figured I'd ask. You can see some values in the bios on auto settings, however most are hidden.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Because @MisterSheikh booted 4,533 MHz Gear 1 on the Z790 Edge DDR4. Empirical evidence is better than a gamble.


I still maintain that G1 clocks are only affected by the IMC, anything the mobo can run in G2, it can run with a compatible IMC in G1.

But I will be able to confirm when I get around to testing my 12600K on the Z790 board, if it does any better in G1 then thats my theory wrong, even if its a different brand and range of board.


----------



## Ichirou

@VULC 1usmus Error Diagnosis
For TM5 1usmus.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> I still maintain that G1 clocks are only affected by the IMC, anything the mobo can run in G2, it can run with a compatible IMC in G1.
> 
> But I will be able to confirm when I get around to testing my 12600K on the Z790 board, if it does any better in G1 then thats my theory wrong, even if its a different brand and range of board.


It does matter. Even different BIOS versions have different training and different minimum timing tolerances. And some are better optimized to allow you to reduce VCCSA/VDDQ.

Back with my 12900KF, I could only boot tRDRD_sg and tWRWR_sg at 5 with BIOS V1.22. No other BIOS allowed it.
But it required so much more VCCSA that I simply dialed it back to 6.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> It does matter. Even different BIOS versions have different training and different minimum timing tolerances. And some are better optimized to allow you to reduce VCCSA/VDDQ.
> 
> Back with my 12900KF, I could only boot tRDRD_sg and tWRWR_sg at 5 with BIOS V1.22. No other BIOS allowed it.
> But it required so much more VCCSA that I simply dialed it back to 6.


You are adding more variables to what I stated though. I already get better results with an older bios. but again its the same for G1 / G2. If maximum clock / timings reduces for G1, it also reduces in G2.

Simply setting G1 / G2 doesn't seem to change the settings the ram can run at the same frequency in both.

So 4000 G1 & G2 settings on my kit are identical, G2 doesn't allow better timings over G1 is what I'm saying.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> You are adding more variables to what I stated though. I already get better results with an older bios. but again its the same for G1 / G2. If maximum clock / timings reduces for G1, it also reduces in G2.
> 
> Simply setting G1 / G2 doesn't seem to change the settings the ram can run at the same frequency in both.
> 
> So 4000 G1 & G2 settings on my kit are identical, G2 doesn't allow better timings over G1 is what I'm saying.


The point I'm trying to make is that the board and BIOS does in fact matter. But we are talking edge-of-stability tier.
Before you reach the theoretical limits of your board/BIOS, the IMC is 80% of the overclocking.

There's a reason why even now, DDR5 boards are limiting memory overclocking. So people are forced to cherry pick boards.
Gear 1 is *not *the same as Gear 2, and should never be construed as such. It's a whole different territory.


----------



## Krautmaster

@RichKnecht 
It's odd. On MSI tomahawk Z690
Currently restored stock bios settings for testing. 
P = 57x
E = 45x
No power limit for tests.
If I go with 
DigialAll Power Load Calibration Control Mode 3 
and adaptive voltage 1,45V, the board tells me below CPU advanced setting = Mode 1 for Lite Load Control.
Rest all Auto.
In HW info this results in vids of 1.44V.
Strangely FFMPEG is not 100% stable with that on 5700mhz. CPU is on 80°C loading FFMPEG.

If I set the digitall power LLC to Auto and the Lite Load Control to around 3-5 it has way way lower vids.

1.45V seems to be extremely high for 5700. Especially as with Digital LLC on Auto and Lite Load Mode 4, it's only giving me 1.35V on 8x5800 MHz as per hwinfo and the temps are higher + 300W, so seems like we can't trust in HWinfo vids at all?


----------



## Ichirou

Krautmaster said:


> @RichKnecht
> It's odd. On MSI tomahawk Z690
> Currently restored stock bios settings for testing.
> P = 57x
> E = 45x
> No power limit for tests.
> If I go with
> DigialAll Power Load Calibration Control Mode 3
> and adaptive voltage 1,45V, the board tells me below CPU advanced setting = Mode 1 for Lite Load Control.
> Rest all Auto.
> In HW info this results in vids of 1.44V.
> Strangely FFMPEG is not 100% stable with that on 5700mhz. CPU is on 80°C loading FFMPEG.
> 
> If I set the digitall power LLC to Auto and the Lite Load Control to around 3-5 it has way way lower vids.
> 
> 1.45V seems to be extremely high for 5700. Especially as with Digital LLC on Auto and Lite Load Mode 4, it's only giving me 1.35V on 8x5800 MHz as per hwinfo and the temps are higher + 300W, so seems like we can't trust in HWinfo vids at all?


It's more like the Adaptive Mode on MSI is f**ked up beyond all recognition, and is extremely hard to reach any semblance of correlation with.
Making Override Mode the far more superior and less confusing one to use.


----------



## Krautmaster

But even then the LLC settings (which are confusing doubled) may make up to 0.1V +- which might only be presented in terms of heat on cores = not showing up in any SW.

I mean seriously I can get 8x5.6 GHz stable with 1,32V as well as 1.5V depending on the LCC settings with same temperature and power.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> It's more like the Adaptive Mode on MSI is f**ked up beyond all recognition, and is extremely hard to reach any semblance of correlation with.
> Making Override Mode the far more superior and less confusing one to use.


I don't think it's the adaptive mode that's screwed up. The problem lies in trying to set the adaptive voltage lower that what's programmed into the chip's VID table I am using adaptive + offset. and have voltage set to 1.36 with a -.07 offset. Works just fine. I'm getting 1.258 vcore and 1.223 VIDs ate my current 57/45/49 OC. I am using LLC7 Mode 4 (modified) So far everything seems OK. Been batching photos, editing video, etc with no issues. I'd just like to get power to below 300W under full load and drop temps.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> I don't think it's the adaptive mode that's screwed up. The problem lies in trying to set the adaptive voltage lower that what's programmed into the chip's VID table I am using adaptive + offset. and have voltage set to 1.36 with a -.07 offset. Works just fine. I'm getting 1.258 vcore and 1.223 VIDs ate my current 57/45/49 OC. I am using LLC7 Mode 4 (modified) So far everything seems OK. Been batching photos, editing video, etc with no issues. I'd just like to get power to below 300W under full load and drop temps.


Well, that's just the issue. Adaptive Mode should override the VID table and set it to what you tell it, regardless of whether it's above or below the native table. Override Mode should override the VRM and leave the VID table alone - it should be ignored, but it doesn't. For some reason, Adaptive Mode and Override Mode are basically identical. Both are controlling voltage through the VID table.

I've gone with using Advanced Offset (V/F). Using 0.140mv undervolt at the 58x multiplier, and using AC_LL to tune my load voltage for 55x multiplier, since for some reason, I have no 55x Ratio showing in my V/F Table, which makes even less sense since that's the native all-core ratio. I have 58, 57, 54, 51.. why isn't 55x there? Beats me.


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> Well, that's just the issue. *Adaptive Mode should override the VID table* and set it to what you tell it, regardless of whether it's above or below the native table. Override Mode should override the VRM and leave the VID table alone - it should be ignored, but it doesn't. For some reason, Adaptive Mode and Override Mode are basically identical. Both are controlling voltage through the VID table.
> 
> *I've gone with using Advanced Offset (V/F). Using 0.140mv undervolt at the 58x multiplier, and using AC_LL to tune my load voltage for 55x multiplier, since for some reason, I have no 55x Ratio showing in my V/F Table, which makes even less sense since that's the native all-core ratio. I have 58, 57, 54, 51.. why isn't 55x there? Beats me.*


One would think. However, it worked the same way on my X299 machine with my 10980XE. Adaptive would not allow you to use a voltage lower than the pre-progammed VID table. So I am used to that.

Love to see your settings there, as that mode confused the crap out of me  EDIT Are you on MSI? If so, where did you find the VID table in the bios?


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Well, that's just the issue. Adaptive Mode should override the VID table and set it to what you tell it, regardless of whether it's above or below the native table. Override Mode should override the VRM and leave the VID table alone - it should be ignored, but it doesn't. For some reason, Adaptive Mode and Override Mode are basically identical. Both are controlling voltage through the VID table.
> 
> I've gone with using Advanced Offset (V/F). Using 0.140mv undervolt at the 58x multiplier, and using AC_LL to tune my load voltage for 55x multiplier, since for some reason, I have no 55x Ratio showing in my V/F Table, which makes even less sense since that's the native all-core ratio. I have 58, 57, 54, 51.. why isn't 55x there? Beats me.


I still haven't managed to optimize my chip for both low loads and high loads. It's either one or the other. If both, the high load is poorly optimized and ends up using excessive voltage.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> One would think. However, it worked the same way on my X299 machine with my 10980XE. Adaptive would now allow you to use a voltage lower than the pre-progammed VID table. So I am used to that.
> 
> Love to see your settings there, as that mode confused the crap out of me


There's a lot of oddities with the MSI BIOS, like when you set a Current Limit (A) of 300A, but the chip will downclock as if it's power-limited despite only pushing 182A at those settings with no limits.

It's quirky. I do prefer the MSI layout over ASUS, but some things are not as refined.

As for Adaptive Mode, yeah X299 had problems with it too. I remember people struggling to run Per-Core OCs due to the VID table breaking. That's not traditionally how it's worked with 11/10/9/8th gens, at least in my experience.

As for using the V/F table, it's pretty straight forward! If you're running a 57x all-core OC, you set Voltage Mode to "Advanced Offset (V/F)", and it enables another menu underneath it. Go into that, and you can set the voltage offset for that specific ratio. I use it for the 58x multiplier since the native VID table overvolts like crazy. I can run 57x all-core at 1.25v, so I know I can do 58x at around 1.30v at a minimum.

Using the Offset allows me to change just the 58x ratio. Instead of the chip jumping up to crazy voltages on desktop/low load usage, it now only goes to ~1.31v under loads that allow the chip to boost the two cores to 58x.

I think using the 54x Ratio works for 55x, but I'm not sure. I don't understand why they don't just list one for each ratio and instead make us have to figure out which one will apply through random testing.. but I'm not a BIOS engineer.

I've been testing with Ring at 49x to see how much lower it can go (since Ring at 50x seems to the most voltage hungry) and I'm down to 1.17v under load in Realbench. Stock P Core (58x2/55x8) and 45x16 E Core.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> There's a lot of oddities with the MSI BIOS, like when you set a Current Limit (A) of 300A, but the chip will downclock as if it's power-limited despite only pushing 182A at those settings with no limits.
> 
> It's quirky. I do prefer the MSI layout over ASUS, but some things are not as refined.
> 
> As for Adaptive Mode, yeah X299 had problems with it too. I remember people struggling to run Per-Core OCs due to the VID table breaking. That's not traditionally how it's worked with 11/10/9/8th gens, at least in my experience.
> 
> As for using the V/F table, it's pretty straight forward! If you're running a 57x all-core OC, you set Voltage Mode to "Advanced Offset (V/F)", and it enables another menu underneath it. Go into that, and you can set the voltage offset for that specific ratio. I use it for the 58x multiplier since the native VID table overvolts like crazy. I can run 57x all-core at 1.25v, so I know I can do 58x at around 1.30v at a minimum.
> 
> Using the Offset allows me to change just the 58x ratio. Instead of the chip jumping up to crazy voltages on desktop/low load usage, it now only goes to ~1.31v under loads that allow the chip to boost the two cores to 58x.
> 
> I think using the 54x Ratio works for 55x, but I'm not sure. I don't understand why they don't just list one for each ratio and instead make us have to figure out which one will apply through random testing.. but I'm not a BIOS engineer.
> 
> I've been testing with Ring at 49x to see how much lower it can go (since Ring at 50x seems to the most voltage hungry) and I'm down to 1.17v under load in Realbench. Stock P Core (58x2/55x8) and 45x16 E Core.


Even with the Ring on Auto, and tweaking the offsets to the most relevant VF group to the multipliers I want (59x on low load, and 55x on high load), although the low load is working fine, the high load gets ignored due to the native VID overwriting it. Just slaps 1.36V at the chip and clocks it down to like, 52x (yuck)


----------



## Krautmaster

i've heard the V/F table is bugged below BLK of 100.0, I can also set like more than -200mV on many points with any issue and no change when i check the voltages in HWinfo.
If I limit to like 120W, and i set the ring to eg 51 or 49 whatever, the performance is lower than with ring on auto. Give it a try. CB23 / CB21 for example.

Example:









I can run my FFMPEG benchmark with 8x58 + 16x45. Load Line Calibration on Mode 1, Lite Load Control on Mode 5.
Adaptive 1.45V
HWInfo shows me 1.35V on load, its even temperature throtteling time to time with slightly over 300W.

I can reboot, set 56x8 instead and set Load Line Calibration to Mode 3, Lite Load Control to Mode 1.
Adaptive 1.45V
That gives me >1,45V, struggeling to get 5600Mhz stable with that then and it tells me 80°C at 350W which seems to be less voltage showing 1.45V as it might have been in the first setting which showed 1.35V.

See here. Load Line 3 and Lite Load Auto









Adaptive 1.55V, no throtteling, <300W? Other than the above screen its running but not 100% Stable, temps are lower. The real voltage might dip a lot dies to LLC Mode 3 ? So even while showing 1.51V it might be lower than above where HW Info tells me 1.35V? Temps seem to be lower too so ... 0.2V reading difference?


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Even with the Ring on Auto, and tweaking the offsets to the most relevant VF group to the multipliers I want (59x on low load, and 55x on high load), although the low load is working fine, the high load gets ignored due to the native VID overwriting it. Just slaps 1.36V at the chip and clocks it down to like, 52x (yuck)


What's your AC_LL set to? I've found using AC_LL helps to tweak the voltage for high load. I'm using AC_LL 20, DC_LL 89 with LLC7. Try using a droopier LLC; tight LLC has always been bad. I found LLC7 to be very good for balancing high/low loads, since the higher loads give you more droop. This allows you to use your AC_LL to tweak high load voltage, and the V/F Offset to manage your low load.

I'm not seeing low voltage requests causing the chip to downclock. The only time I see that is if I set a Current Limit(A) in the BIOS. I've left it on 512A and set a short/long duration 300W limit, even though at these low voltages, nothing is pushing close to that now. I'm running CB23 at a smooth 245watts.

As I keep dropping the voltage, I'm just lowering my AC_LL slightly. About to try AC_LL 18 now, should put me around ~1.165v underload, where I'm currently at 1.170v.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> What's your AC_LL set to? I've found using AC_LL helps to tweak the voltage for high load. I'm using AC_LL 20, DC_LL 89 with LLC7. Try using a droopier LLC; tight LLC has always been bad. I found LLC7 to be very good for balancing high/low loads, since the higher loads give you more droop. This allows you to use your AC_LL to tweak high load voltage, and the V/F Offset to manage your low load.
> 
> I'm not seeing low voltage requests causing the chip to downclock. The only time I see that is if I set a Current Limit(A) in the BIOS. I've left it on 512A and set a short/long duration 300W limit, even though at these low voltages, nothing is pushing close to that now. I'm running CB23 at a smooth 245watts.
> 
> As I keep dropping the voltage, I'm just lowering my AC_LL slightly. About to try AC_LL 18 now, should put me around ~1.165v underload, where I'm currently at 1.170v.


Give me a baseline to start with and I'll test it out.


----------



## Krautmaster

What CPU voltage set?

I can recommend using TVB Points to optimize for high load by getting into efficient range on full load


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> What's your AC_LL set to? I've found using AC_LL helps to tweak the voltage for high load. I'm using AC_LL 20, DC_LL 89 with LLC7. Try using a droopier LLC; tight LLC has always been bad. I found LLC7 to be very good for balancing high/low loads, since the higher loads give you more droop. This allows you to use your AC_LL to tweak high load voltage, and the V/F Offset to manage your low load.
> 
> I'm not seeing low voltage requests causing the chip to downclock. The only time I see that is if I set a Current Limit(A) in the BIOS. I've left it on 512A and set a short/long duration 300W limit, even though at these low voltages, nothing is pushing close to that now. I'm running CB23 at a smooth 245watts.
> 
> As I keep dropping the voltage, I'm just lowering my AC_LL slightly. About to try AC_LL 18 now, should put me around ~1.165v underload, where I'm currently at 1.170v.


Are you running default clocks? Really curious because your power draw is so low. Right now with P57/E45/R49 I pulling 298W. VIDs are 1.223 and vcore drops to 1.258. We are close on LLC AC and DC settings.


----------



## WayWayUp

now that we have complied enough scores

what are is the expected range for for p core 

below average
average
good
and golden

is 116+ golden or is it 120+ ?
whats good like 110-115?

We should adjust for bias as people with good scores are more likely to chime in and report so better not assume those are just average when really they are above average


----------



## Krautmaster

In CB23, im also with 300W on 57/45 at around 1.25V as per Hwinfo but as said, that is a lie. ^^


----------



## Ichirou

WayWayUp said:


> now that we have complied enough scores
> 
> what are is the expected range for for p core
> 
> below average
> average
> good
> and golden
> 
> is 116+ golden or is it 120+ ?
> whats good like 110-115?
> 
> We should adjust for bias as people with good scores are more likely to chime in and report so better not assume those are just average when really they are above average


The same question again...

For P-SP:
120+ = Golden
110+ = Above Average
100+ = Average
~100 = rip


----------



## WayWayUp

yea probably been asked but this thread is over 300 pages and im not going through all of it lol


----------



## RichKnecht

Krautmaster said:


> In CB23, im also with 300W on 57/45 at around 1.25V as per Hwinfo but as said, that is a lie. ^^
> View attachment 2585726


Pretty much identical to mine but my vcore drops to 1.258. Same power draw too. Max temp for me is 91 but I’d like it to be lower. My VRMs don’t get that warm though as my upper radiator fans blow down over them.


----------



## Krautmaster

Yeah if u push the cooling I'm round 90-95 too and 300W and no throttling. Did not try to set more negative offset. It's adaptive on Auto -0.01V
Digi LLC mode 2, Lite load 20/89

But as said. Depending on the LLC I can get same temperature and consumption with 1.4V+
Edit: Like urs









Edit. That way I started but if I lower the MSI Digi LLC to any below 2 it gets rapidly instable. You may try to tweak it by going to multi 60, use TVB to set eg 80 °C and -3x offset. That way I hold 8x6Ghz in Games easily.
With LLC Mode 3 stable but i had to do like +0.01V on the highest two A/V Points


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> The same question again...
> 
> For P-SP:
> 120+ = Golden
> 110+ = Above Average
> 100+ = Average
> ~100 = rip


89 💀


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> I was just curious. I have it set to Auto, but I have no idea what "Auto" is. I know sometimes "Auto" values can be unnecessarily high, so I figured I'd ask. You can see some values in the bios on auto settings, however most are hidden.


I thought 500khz was the auto mode…(thought the buildzoid video referenced above explained it but that could be board dependant) …but ya it’s another one of those settings that doesn’t reveal the auto value. Someone did post some stuff on their MSI mobo testing at 1000khz if you do a search not too far back in thread.


----------



## Krautmaster

@RichKnecht
What kind of CPU voltage setting do u use for ur 57x8 setting from few posts back? Did u set any specific voltage or auto with offsets? I can do 60x8 and let it throttle to the stable 57 via TVB but the board pushes 0.05V more as required (when on 57) with the Turbo set to 60


----------



## Wilco183

affxct said:


> 89 💀


SP or P-SP?


----------



## AlphaGaming17

Ichirou said:


> The same question again...
> 
> For P-SP:
> 120+ = Golden
> 110+ = Above Average
> 100+ = Average
> ~100 = rip


I got a overall SP of 98, 106P, 86E

Z790 hero 7003 bios


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Give me a baseline to start with and I'll test it out.


LLC 6 or 7. ACLL 20 DCLL 80.


----------



## affxct

Wilco183 said:


> SP or P-SP?


13700K 79-89-59 💀☠

Yes, I attempted the Falkentyne method to no avail. It’s a legit SP 79 on two different boards. 🥹🔫


----------



## RichKnecht

Krautmaster said:


> @RichKnecht
> What kind of CPU voltage setting do u use for ur 57x8 setting from few posts back? Did u set any specific voltage or auto with offsets? I can do 60x8 and let it throttle to the stable 57 via TVB but the board pushes 0.05V more as required (when on 57) with the Turbo set to 60


I’m using adaptive + offset with a voltage of 1.36 and an offset of .07. That gets me 1.258 vcore and VIDs at 1.223.


----------



## Wilco183

affxct said:


> 13700K 79-89-59 💀☠
> 
> Yes, I attempted the Falkentyne method to no avail. It’s a legit SP 79 on two different boards. 🥹🔫


Geez, that's pound-for-pound worse than my first 13900k - SP94 104/76. Can that even be degraded?


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Give me a baseline to start with and I'll test it out.


Let me get these settings finalized and long-term stability tested (overnight Realbench with some COD MW2 tonight before bed) and then I'll share my settings. I don't like sharing settings and claiming stability, but it's not been thoroughly tested. I would be doing you guys a disservice. I found CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT blue-screens 1hr into Realbench 2.56, despite being CB23 30min stable + gaming stable.

At a minimum, you can start testing yourself if you'd like. I'd start with LLC7, Switching Freq @ 500Khz, AC_LL 25, DC_LL 89. DC_LL 89 matches to LLC7. If you change LLC, DC_LL will need to be adjusted, but I believe you know that.



RichKnecht said:


> Are you running default clocks? Really curious because your power draw is so low. Right now with P57/E45/R49 I pulling 298W. VIDs are 1.223 and vcore drops to 1.258. We are close on LLC AC and DC settings.


I'm currently running stock P-Cores (55x8, 58x2), E-Cores *43x16* (so stock -- was 45x16 earlier, but I'm not sure what's causing the WATCHDOG BSOD's, currently trying to see if it's the E-Cores), and Ring @ 50x. I'm up to 1.215v under-load, but much of this is still in-the-air as I'm finalizing/chasing down the last couple issues. Much of this voltage adjustment is through AC_LL, and nothing else.

I'm also not sure if my big negative offset at the 58x ratio is causing the blue-screens. The good thing about Realbench is that as each Handbrake/Blender calculation finishes, it causes the load to fluctuate and gets the chip to jump around a bit. It's been more effective for me at finding instability than anything else except Y-Cruncher, but I won't run that as a stress-test anymore due to the current it blasts through the chip. I'll do a couple runs for benching but as far as running it long-term? No thank you.


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> Let me get these settings finalized and long-term stability tested (overnight Realbench with some COD MW2 tonight before bed) and then I'll share my settings. I don't like sharing settings and claiming stability, but it's not been thoroughly tested. I would be doing you guys a disservice. I found CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT blue-screens 1hr into Realbench 2.56, despite being CB23 30min stable + gaming stable.
> 
> At a minimum, you can start testing yourself if you'd like. I'd start with LLC7, Switching Freq @ 500Khz, AC_LL 25, DC_LL 89. DC_LL 89 matches to LLC7. If you change LLC, DC_LL will need to be adjusted, but I believe you know that.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm currently running stock P-Cores (55x8, 58x2), E-Cores *43x16* (so stock -- was 45x16 earlier, but I'm not sure what's causing the WATCHDOG BSOD's, currently trying to see if it's the E-Cores), and Ring @ 50x. I'm up to 1.215v under-load, but much of this is still in-the-air as I'm finalizing/chasing down the last couple issues. Much of this voltage adjustment is through AC_LL, and nothing else.
> 
> I'm also not sure if my big negative offset at the 58x ratio is causing the blue-screens. The good thing about Realbench is that as each Handbrake/Blender calculation finishes, it causes the load to fluctuate and gets the chip to jump around a bit. It's been more effective for me at finding instability than anything else except Y-Cruncher, but I won't run that as a stress-test anymore due to the current it blasts through the chip. I'll do a couple runs for benching but as far as running it long-term? No thank you.


Keep your settings and try dropping ring to 49.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> Keep your settings and try dropping ring to 49.


Yep, that's actually what I'm trying right now. Stock P+E-Cores, with Ring @ 49x. I pulled a CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT BSOD 13minutes into Realbench.

I don't know how good this chip is. I know it can do 57/43/45 @ 1.250v VR VOUT in CB23, so I'd imagine the P-Cores don't need 1.215v VR VOUT for 5.5Ghz. I could have weak E-Cores or weak Ring; just a matter of narrowing it down 

EDIT: 16minutes in now, and still going. I think it's safe to pin the blame on the Ring. Going to let this go to 25min before I put the E-Cores back to 45x.

Just for others reference, CB23 30min passed @ 50x Ring and 45xE-Cores with lower VR VOUT than this. I don't think it's a good way to test any form of stability. Realbench seems much more functional, and it's also slightly lower power usage than CB23. I'm using 240watts right now with 1.215v VR VOUT. Seems to test the entire package better than CB23.

I don't remember what caused me to download and start using it again, but I'm glad I did. I used to use Realbench as my main stability test with prior generations.


----------



## RichKnecht

Good to hear. I always used Realbench when I was using X299..


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> CPU degradation is expected. Just like me over 50 years old I can't climb a tree anymore... LOL.
> And that's why manufacturers leave extra voltage on their systems. If they delivered everything extremely optimized, in a short time they would have a series of RMAs.


The problem is, those VF points that you see are based on _2 core_ load, Those 1.408/1.418v VIDs that you see are based on two cores turbo boosting to 5.8 ghz on a light workload running on no more than 4 threads. And also based on Intel stock TDP and electrical limits being used. Your fallacy here is assuming that just because those cores say 1.408/1.418v VID, it means that all 8 of the P-cores are designed to run at 1.418v load. Not only are they NOT designed to, if you tried to do it, not only would you seriously degrade your CPU, but you would be unable to cool it!

Remember how "CEP" works? MSI enables this by default when NOT on fixed vcore mode (and I'm still unable to be certain how to use fixed vcore mode on MSI, I think it's "Vcore mode: Auto" with entering in a manual vcore under it, because changing this to "Override" changes the CPU VID, not the CPU Vcore directly, but anyway, Asus disables it (unless this changed recently for MSI also).
And if your load vcore is lower than the V/F value, you will get clock cycles cut (phantom throttling). 

I'll repeat: CEP is NOT the "BIOS set voltage"--it's the LOAD voltage that must equal or exceed the V/F point, otherwise CEP "thinks" the CPU is being undervolted and thus it causes phantom throttling as it "thinks" the CPU isn't getting enough voltage.

Now OF COURSE, the CPU may need WAY less than the V/F point voltage at reasonable values (5.4 ghz, 5.5 ghz, etc) and remember that the V/F values are interpolated between two "known" VF Points.

Example if there is a VF at 5.1 ghz and a VF At 5.4 ghz, you simply take number of steps between the two points (5.4 ghz - 5.1 ghz is 3 steps) then divide the difference in VID (From step 1 to step 2) by the # of VF steps.

So if that's 3 steps (5.4 ghz to 5.1 ghz) and 5.4 ghz was 1.28v and 5.1 ghz is 1.19v, lt's convert this to millivolts:
1280 and 1190.
1280-1190=90mv

90mv / 3 = 30mv
So 5.2 ghz would have a V/F value of 1.220v, 5.3 ghz would have a value of 1.250v, and then you get 1.280v for 5.4 ghz (this is the interpolation for how you get the missing V/F values).

Now if you can run at a STABLE voltage below the V/F, that's your guardband, see?
You don't want to eat into your guardband prematurely. See??


I 200% guarantee you that if anyone attempted to run 1.408v "Die sense" load (regardless of what you see on the V/F page) under all core load at 5.8 ghz sync all cores, you ARE going to degrade that chip and eat up all its guardband overclocking headroom, either slowly or quickly--and I would bet anyone hard money on this.


----------



## Falkentyne

dipsdots said:


> I would say P-Core 120+ is 1% CPU
> P-Core 115-120 is top 10%
> P-Core 110-115 is top 20%
> 
> E-Core, anything above 90 seems to be 1%. Above 100 seems like 0.1%
> 
> MC anything above 90 is 1%


Problem is, my E core SP is 94, and that runs x46 E cores at 1.234v (Die sense) load no problem at all in R23 and Minecraft, but Stockfish crashes IN SECONDS at this with an "Engine error.", regardless what the P cores are set to. So for Stockfish I can't go higher than x45 on E cores. And If I yeet the voltage even higher, the chip gets uncoolable and then i end up exceeding the max safe amps/volts limit I imposed on myself and risk premature degradation AND 100C+ temps.


----------



## tps3443

I’ve been testing a new 13900K today. This one is Batch X241M888 (4th chip) Force rating is like 143. So definitely nothing spectacular.

But hey! It still runs 5.7-6.2Ghz on the P-cores. Average ring, average E-cores

This is a Slightly above average chip. I could definitely rock this daily. All chips perform within like 1-3% right whether it be SP98 or SP115 lol

(This thing is nothing like my other CPU, but it’s amazing for just an average chip, regardless it’s still a 13900K at the end of the day lol)


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> 13700K 79-89-59 💀☠
> 
> Yes, I attempted the Falkentyne method to no avail. It’s a legit SP 79 on two different boards. 🥹🔫


The 13700 (and 13600 and so on) have different SP tiers; they can't really be compared. They'll always be somewhat worse overall compared to the 13900.


acoustic said:


> Yep, that's actually what I'm trying right now. Stock P+E-Cores, with Ring @ 49x. I pulled a CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT BSOD 13minutes into Realbench.
> 
> I don't know how good this chip is. I know it can do 57/43/45 @ 1.250v VR VOUT in CB23, so I'd imagine the P-Cores don't need 1.215v VR VOUT for 5.5Ghz. I could have weak E-Cores or weak Ring; just a matter of narrowing it down
> 
> EDIT: 16minutes in now, and still going. I think it's safe to pin the blame on the Ring. Going to let this go to 25min before I put the E-Cores back to 45x.
> 
> Just for others reference, CB23 30min passed @ 50x Ring and 45xE-Cores with lower VR VOUT than this. I don't think it's a good way to test any form of stability. Realbench seems much more functional, and it's also slightly lower power usage than CB23. I'm using 240watts right now with 1.215v VR VOUT. Seems to test the entire package better than CB23.
> 
> I don't remember what caused me to download and start using it again, but I'm glad I did. I used to use Realbench as my main stability test with prior generations.


CLOCK_WATCHDOG = too low Vcore at that moment in time.


tps3443 said:


> I’ve been testing a new 13900K today. This one is Batch X241M888 (4th chip) Force rating is like 143. So definitely nothing spectacular.
> 
> But hey! It still runs 5.7-6.2Ghz on the P-cores. Average ring, average E-cores
> 
> This is a Slightly above average chip. I could definitely rock this daily. All chips perform within like 1-3% right whether it be SP98 or SP115 lol
> 
> (This thing is nothing like my other CPU, but it’s amazing for just an average chip, regardless it’s still a 13900K at the end of the day lol)
> 
> View attachment 2585776


Great, now you can rock this chip and give me your CPU Force 117 chip 
Just let me know your price (dead serious)


----------



## BoredErica

Falkentyne said:


> The problem is, those VF points that you see are based on _2 core_ load, Those 1.408/1.418v VIDs that you see are based on two cores turbo boosting to 5.8 ghz on a light workload running on no more than 4 threads. And also based on Intel stock TDP and electrical limits being used. Your fallacy here is assuming that just because those cores say 1.408/1.418v VID, it means that all 8 of the P-cores are designed to run at 1.418v load. Not only are they NOT designed to, if you tried to do it, not only would you seriously degrade your CPU, but you would be unable to cool it!


Yes but, what if the user aggressively power limits the CPU? Light loads often trip all core p core multipliers, so being able to set high all core multipliers is beneficial for many lightly threaded, old games even if they were made before quad cores existed.

In other news, I ran an aggressive power target w/ HT enabled, E cores off, and it passed 15min stockfish, immediately failed opening Minecraft (which does use all cores fully). Very interesting. If I enable E core and disable HT, that might be a good bonus for all core perf by putting less stress on p cores, rendering it more stable. WIth HT off and E cores on, Minecraft startup passed many iterations at same power limit.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> The 13700 (and 13600 and so on) have different SP tiers; they can't really be compared. They'll always be somewhat worse overall compared to the 13900.
> 
> CLOCK_WATCHDOG = too low Vcore at that moment in time.
> 
> Great, now you can rock this chip and give me your CPU Force 117 chip
> Just let me know your price (dead serious)


I have a 13900KF coming if it's any good you can have my K SP 116 E85 if you're interested.


----------



## HemuV2

WayWayUp said:


> now that we have complied enough scores
> 
> what are is the expected range for for p core
> 
> below average
> average
> good
> and golden
> 
> is 116+ golden or is it 120+ ?
> whats good like 110-115?
> 
> We should adjust for bias as people with good scores are more likely to chime in and report so better not assume those are just average when really they are above average


Imo 110+ is very good and 116+ is golden. If u get pcore SP <105 then it's below avg. Anything between 105 and 110 is avg. For ecores I'm not sure, 85+ is good and 90+ is insane. If it's <80 then say bye bye to ecore OC at low voltage.


----------



## HemuV2

affxct said:


> 13700K 79-89-59 💀☠
> 
> Yes, I attempted the Falkentyne method to no avail. It’s a legit SP 79 on two different boards. 🥹🔫


Try getting a replacement? Or is tht not possible in za?


----------



## 7empe

Ichirou said:


> The 13700 (and 13600 and so on) have different SP tiers; they can't really be compared. They'll always be somewhat worse overall compared to the 13900.
> 
> CLOCK_WATCHDOG = too low Vcore at that moment in time.
> 
> Great, now you can rock this chip and give me your CPU Force 117 chip
> Just let me know your price (dead serious)


If you see CLOCK_WATCHDOG and dump file is being created (BSOD with % progress) then it's a core failing due to too low vcore. If it is BSOD with freeze (0%) or immediate shutdown without BSOD then it is ring failing.


----------



## 7empe

HemuV2 said:


> Try getting a replacement? Or is tht not possible in za?


Does SP79 keeps advertised speed of 55x all core at all? If so, what's the die sense vcore needed?


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

affxct said:


> 13700K 79-89-59 💀☠
> 
> Yes, I attempted the Falkentyne method to no avail. It’s a legit SP 79 on two different boards. 🥹🔫


Wait you have SP79 13700K with 5.4 P with 1.225 vout ? The F, I must have SP70 then, absolute garbage chip. 1.258 vout for 5.4


----------



## fray_bentos

Krautmaster said:


> i've heard the V/F table is bugged below BLK of 100.0, I can also set like more than -200mV on many points with any issue and no change when i check the voltages in HWinfo.
> If I limit to like 120W, and i set the ring to eg 51 or 49 whatever, the performance is lower than with ring on auto. Give it a try. CB23 / CB21 for example.
> 
> Example:
> View attachment 2585707
> 
> 
> I can run my FFMPEG benchmark with 8x58 + 16x45. Load Line Calibration on Mode 1, Lite Load Control on Mode 5.
> Adaptive 1.45V
> HWInfo shows me 1.35V on load, its even temperature throtteling time to time with slightly over 300W.
> 
> I can reboot, set 56x8 instead and set Load Line Calibration to Mode 3, Lite Load Control to Mode 1.
> Adaptive 1.45V
> That gives me >1,45V, struggeling to get 5600Mhz stable with that then and it tells me 80°C at 350W which seems to be less voltage showing 1.45V as it might have been in the first setting which showed 1.35V.
> 
> See here. Load Line 3 and Lite Load Auto
> View attachment 2585708
> 
> 
> Adaptive 1.55V, no throtteling, <300W? Other than the above screen its running but not 100% Stable, temps are lower. The real voltage might dip a lot dies to LLC Mode 3 ? So even while showing 1.51V it might be lower than above where HW Info tells me 1.35V? Temps seem to be lower too so ... 0.2V reading difference?


Don't use LLC1 on MSI (if you value the life of your chip).


----------



## Falkentyne

HemuV2 said:


> so i dont think i have done this yet, but here is my cpu running cinebench at locked 55/43/45x stock configuration, as you can see the package power and vrm power are different. i have set it to 1.36V llc5 in bios and this is around 1.206V die sense for this config to run without complaints. would like @Falkentyne @RobertoSampaio @Ichirou input on this as they seem to have seen tons of samples at this point, when i lowered voltage to like 1.34 it ran only 2-3 loops and errored(not WHEA but CB crashed). this is 109/73 sample btw
> 
> View attachment 2585265


1.34v Bios set + LLC5 is about 1.190v die sense load.
I think that you're crashing because of the poor E-cores.
if you set them to x42, I bet you would pass this.
And since you don't BSOD and R23 just completely crashes, if it's never a BSOD that's a pretty good reason


----------



## fray_bentos

Krautmaster said:


> Yeah if u push the cooling I'm round 90-95 too and 300W and no throttling. Did not try to set more negative offset. It's adaptive on Auto -0.01V
> Digi LLC mode 2, Lite load 20/89
> 
> But as said. Depending on the LLC I can get same temperature and consumption with 1.4V+
> Edit: Like urs
> View attachment 2585728
> 
> 
> Edit. That way I started but if I lower the MSI Digi LLC to any below 2 it gets rapidly instable. You may try to tweak it by going to multi 60, use TVB to set eg 80 °C and -3x offset. That way I hold 8x6Ghz in Games easily.
> With LLC Mode 3 stable but i had to do like +0.01V on the highest two A/V Points
> View attachment 2585733


Your overclock is in degradation territory.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> CEP is NOT the "BIOS set voltage"--it's the LOAD voltage that must equal or exceed the V/F point, otherwise CEP "thinks" the CPU is being undervolted and thus it causes phantom throttling as it "thinks" the CPU isn't getting enough voltage.


And that don't happen on Asus boards?

Is it just me or has overclocking gotten much more complicated with the 12th and 13th gen... Jumping from Z490/10900KF to Z790/13900KF seems scary almost


----------



## HemuV2

Falkentyne said:


> 1.34v Bios set + LLC5 is about 1.190v die sense load.
> I think that you're crashing because of the poor E-cores.
> if you set them to x42, I bet you would pass this.
> And since you don't BSOD and R23 just completely crashes, if it's never a BSOD that's a pretty good reason


Yes it's just showing an error window and closing r23 but not bluescreening, i remember my 12700KF did the same thing at 4ghz ecore but blue screened if pcores failed.


----------



## HemuV2

7empe said:


> Does SP79 keeps advertised speed of 55x all core at all? If so, what's the die sense vcore needed?


Regardless of SP any cpu will do the stock configuration at reasonable voltage, beyond that even 200mhz might be an issue if your SP is super low, but for i7 i dunno how the numbers work as we haven't seen many i7 sp numbers on here


----------



## HemuV2

Falkentyne said:


> 1.34v Bios set + LLC5 is about 1.190v die sense load.
> I think that you're crashing because of the poor E-cores.
> if you set them to x42, I bet you would pass this.
> And since you don't BSOD and R23 just completely crashes, if it's never a BSOD that's a pretty good reason


So which of these the high end boards directly report this die Sense without having to use the formula? That's actually pretty convenient i wonder why all z690 don't have it. So the hero/ux/apex etc just show this low AF die sense on the vcore reading?


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> So which of these the high end boards directly report this die Sense without having to use the formula? That's actually pretty convenient i wonder why all z690 don't have it. So the hero/ux/apex etc just show this low AF die sense on the vcore reading?


Seems Gigabyte is updating both chipsets with the latest bios only Asus holding out don't know about MSI.


----------



## 7empe

HemuV2 said:


> Regardless of SP any cpu will do the stock configuration at reasonable voltage, beyond that even 200mhz might be an issue if your SP is super low, but for i7 i dunno how the numbers work as we haven't seen many i7 sp numbers on here


Well, my colleague's 13900k had SP71 (can't remember p-cores score) and it could not maintain 55x all-core at reasonable cooling. It required something like 1.30V die-sense, which without water cooling is impossible to cool down to avoid throttling. He just gave it back claiming that product does not meet advertised criteria and he got a new one, much better chip. Every chip has to run at advertised speed with stock (air?) cooling.


----------



## HemuV2

7empe said:


> Well, my colleague's 13900k had SP71 (can't remember p-cores score) and it could not maintain 55x all-core at reasonable cooling. It required something like 1.30V die-sense, which without water cooling is impossible to cool down to avoid throttling. He just gave it back claiming that product does not meet advertised criteria and he got a new one, much better chip. Every chip has to run at advertised speed with stock (air?) cooling.


ngl 1.3 die sense is direct die zone imo, 13900K does 5.9 or more at that voltage.


----------



## energie80

what you guys think about p58 ring 50 @1.33 LLC Auto?
degradation? just gaming at 60°


----------



## RichKnecht

fray_bentos said:


> Don't use LLC1 on MSI (if you value the life of your chip).


I wouldn’t go any higher than 4 on MSI and that’s pushing it.


----------



## HemuV2

energie80 said:


> what you guys think about p58 ring 50 @1.33 LLC Auto?
> degradation? just gaming at 60°


What is your SP? Because gaming is not very stressful and you might be starving it of voltage causing lower performance than 57/49 config, check what it requires at auto voltage and lower by 5-10mV because 58 is very high frequency for any undervolt imo


----------



## 7empe

energie80 said:


> what you guys think about p58 ring 50 @1.33 LLC Auto?
> degradation? just gaming at 60°


1.33v die sense? Or just set in the bios? Auto llc is something like 3 or 4. Depends on AC_LL but no way you will degrade it whatsoever if 1.33 is a bios voltage (guess 1.25-1.27 die sense?)


----------



## 7empe

HemuV2 said:


> ngl 1.3 die sense is direct die zone imo, 13900K does 5.9 or more at that voltage.


While testing IMC stability, are you hammering with y-cruncher N32 or prime95 large? If so at stock clocks or at clocks after OC (including ring)? IMO it’s nice to find the SA/MC voltages for the memory that work with stock 55x pcores and 45x ring but it won’t pass (error in ycruncher but no bsod) at 58x pcores and higher ring (like 50-52x). Not sure if this is critical for gaming which does not hammer cpu ring-memory pipeline so much… just wonder what may cause this instability - lack of SA/MC voltage or rather vcore.


----------



## 7empe

Anyone can confirm that VDD2 (MC voltage on ASUS mobo) is board (not cpu) specific? As far as I know it’s generated by board (power source near dimm sockets) and drives cpu-dimm bus. However I could not find intel spec on that.


----------



## energie80

7empe said:


> 1.33v die sense? Or just set in the bios? Auto llc is something like 3 or 4. Depends on AC_LL but no way you will degrade it whatsoever if 1.33 is a bios voltage (guess 1.25-1.27 die sense?)


Just set in bios on override, I’m on msi unify x.
Should be around 1.3 under load


----------



## HemuV2

7empe said:


> While testing IMC stability, are you hammering with y-cruncher N32 or prime95 large? If so at stock clocks or at clocks after OC (including ring)? IMO it’s nice to find the SA/MC voltages for the memory that work with stock 55x pcores and 45x ring but it won’t pass (error in ycruncher but no bsod) at 58x pcores and higher ring (like 50-52x). Not sure if this is critical for gaming which does not hammer cpu ring-memory pipeline so much… just wonder what may cause this instability - lack of SA/MC voltage or rather vcore.


I don't even stress test lol i just run a puny 4000cl15 OC with 1.32SA/vddq and 1.5V dimm it should be stable.


----------



## WayWayUp

today ill mess with E cores. so far ive left those on auto. I skipped 12th gen so i dunno where to even start with ecores i guess i have so reading up to do

sp 88 with direct die and strong cooling. any suggested settings. I know it will depend on voltages but ive been testing both llc4 and llc5 lately if that helps


----------



## 7empe

HemuV2 said:


> I don't even stress test lol i just run a puny 4000cl15 OC with 1.32SA/vddq and 1.5V dimm it should be stable.


Oh ok. Not sure why I have assumed that you’re running ddr5 ☺


----------



## Telstar

affxct said:


> 13700K 79-89-59 💀☠
> 
> Yes, I attempted the Falkentyne method to no avail. It’s a legit SP 79 on two different boards. 🥹🔫


batch #?


----------



## 7empe

WayWayUp said:


> today ill mess with E cores. so far ive left those on auto. I skipped 12th gen so i dunno where to even start with ecores i guess i have so reading up to do
> 
> sp 88 with direct die and strong cooling. any suggested settings. I know it will depend on voltages but ive been testing both llc4 and llc5 lately if that helps


My approach is first to disable all ecores and find the highest all core pcores ratio in terms of stability vs thermals I’m ok with under heavy load. Then enable ecores and sync all of them to stock 43x. You will have to uptick vcore while with ecores by 20-30mV due to larger vdroop caused by higher power draw. When stable, increase all core ecores one ratio higher. Test. Repeat if stable. If unstable then you may want to try +10 mV just in case you’re on the edge. Going higher is worthless in terms of performance vs heat output and unnecessary overvolting the pcores. At the end increase ring ratio until stable.


----------



## Arni90

Betroz said:


> And that don't happen on Asus boards?
> 
> Is it just me or has overclocking gotten much more complicated with the 12th and 13th gen... Jumping from Z490/10900KF to Z790/13900KF seems scary almost


ASUS boards disable IA CEP, and probably CPU Undervoltage protection as well.
MSI disables IA CEP and CPU Undervoltage protection by default as well on new BIOS versions, at least for my Unify-X.

Overclocking hasn't *really* become more complicated, it's just that some people have begun to explore the documentation a bit more closely (and noticed that the documentation is slightly lacking). You can still go by the tried and true _sync all cores_ and override VCore without issue, you're really only losing out on per-core usage ratios.

At the end of the day, it's really just VCore and CPU core multipliers, which follows a very close relationship until temperatures hit 70C or so (at which point VCore demands start increasing nonlinearly).

Override, VF offsets, Adaptive voltage + offset, AC loadline, and LLC are all doing the exact same thing in the end: adjusting VCore. You really don't need to make it more complicated unless you want to.


----------



## Betroz

Arni90 said:


> At the end of the day, it's really just VCore and CPU core multipliers, which follows a very close relationship until temperatures hit 70C or so


Even a 360mm AIO will struggle to cool a 13900K at stock in CB23 from what I have seen, so to keep the CPU under 70C will probably require a delidd and a MO-RA3?

But @Nizzen have said that memory OC is the META anyways with these CPU's.


----------



## Arni90

Betroz said:


> Even a 360mm AIO will struggle to cool a 13900K at stock in CB23 from what I have seen, so to keep the CPU under 70C will probably require a delidd and a MO-RA3?


That just means the 13900K is pushed beyond reason out of the box, like most top-tier CPUs released since the i9-9900K and AMD Zen 2


----------



## RichKnecht

Arni90 said:


> ASUS boards disable IA CEP, and probably CPU Undervoltage protection as well.
> MSI disables IA CEP and CPU Undervoltage protection by default as well on new BIOS versions, at least for my Unify-X.
> 
> Overclocking hasn't *really* become more complicated, it's just that some people have begun to explore the documentation a bit more closely (and noticed that the documentation is slightly lacking). You can still go by the tried and true _sync all cores_ and override VCore without issue, you're really only losing out on per-core usage ratios.
> 
> At the end of the day, it's really just VCore and CPU core multipliers, which follows a very close relationship until temperatures hit 70C or so (at which point VCore demands start increasing nonlinearly).
> 
> Override, VF offsets, Adaptive voltage + offset, AC loadline, and LLC are all doing the exact same thing in the end: adjusting VCore. You really don't need to make it more complicated unless you want to.


I think this is true to some extent. The last 2 platforms I used were X58 and X299. The main difference is that I jumped into those platforms when they were both well into their lifespans. There were so many people who tweaked their chips, overclocking guides, etc available online that it made overclocking a bit easier. With this generation, even though it's close to 12th generation, the addition of more e-cores, cache, etc kind of makes it new. It's not simply a refresh like what happened to X299 when they went to the 10XXX series. This platform seems to allow more tweaking, or should I say "fine tuning" which can make things a little more challenging. So far, I've learned quite a bit thanks to the folks here and I am enjoying the ride although, at times, is frustrating. Right now I am trying to deal with heat associated with power draw. I feel that something somewhere is amiss as my temps seem higher than what they should be at the power draw I am at.


----------



## Krautmaster

@RichKnecht
Remember ur and my similar settings few pages earlier? 57x8 + 45x16. I switched from 57 to Turbo Offset +2 on my MSI.
That results in pretty similar power and efficiency on full load but lifts the SC performance quite a bit. Very harmonic setting so far with A/V Points.
Nothing special but 57 all core at around 1.26 load voltages while enjoying 6Ghz turbo. Also having 100.25 BCK set. Guess I'll stick with it
LLC mode 3 and Lite Load advanced 20/89

CB23 result - is that okay so far?


----------



## bhav

So I just spotted this and the top two results are very interesting:










Its only one game sure, but everyone kept asking for it as it allegedly uses up all the cores.


----------



## BoredErica

Crazy discovery. I could run chess or Cinebench, but instant fail to start Minecraft. I turn off HT, turn on E cores, Minecraft starts fine now. I think HT puts extra strain on P cores and it doesn't downclock enough in spite of aggressive power limiting. I needed 1.35v to stabilize gaming but Minecraft startup required 1.39v @ 140w power limit so I had to raise vcore to 1.39v just for that. Now I can do 1.35v @ 160w limit for everything. All core perf gets nice boost.

I set every core to x54 except 1 core at x55 to see voltage to pass a stress test. 1.3/1.31/1.31/1.32/1.3/1.3v, so cores seem roughly similar. I can still cap core 1/2/3 and try higher multiplier for 3 core max multiplier. I can also run 1.4v 160w limit to do 58/57/57/57/58/58.

All my tests were run at 100.6 base clock input into mobo, so I get ~5.72ghz rather than 5.7ghz etc.

I'm ending my friendship with HT and starting my friendship with E cores. It's helping me stabilize all core. I asked Skatterbench, he says he doesn't think WIndows recognizes some cores having higher max pcore mult on i5 (no TB Max 3.0 on i5) so it will randomly shuffle work between cores rather than prioritize faster cores.


----------



## bhav

BoredErica said:


> Crazy discovery. I could run chess or Cinebench, but instant fail to start Minecraft. I turn off HT, turn on E cores, Minecraft starts fine now. I think HT puts extra strain on P cores and it doesn't downclock enough in spite of aggressive power limiting. I needed 1.35v to stabilize gaming but Minecraft startup required 1.39v @ 140w power limit so I had to raise vcore to 1.39v just for that. Now I can do 1.35v @ 160w limit for everything. All core perf gets nice boost.
> 
> I set every core to x54 except 1 core at x55 to see voltage to pass a stress test. 1.3/1.31/1.31/1.32/1.3/1.3v, so cores seem roughly similar. I can still cap core 1/2/3 and try higher multiplier for 3 core max multiplier. I can also run 1.4v 160w limit to do 58/57/57/57/58/58.
> 
> All my tests were run at 100.8 base block input into mobo, so I get ~5.72ghz rather than 5.7ghz etc.
> 
> I'm ending my friendship with HT and starting my friendship with E cores. It's helping me stabilize all core.


Hidden advantage to all these e cores, you can turn HT off


----------



## WayWayUp

that game looks to be very latency intensive 

all the reviewers of the 13900k used bunk memory like the standard 6000 ddr5 with high latency.

Imagine if they used 7800 cl 36 the gains over 7950 would be immense.


----------



## Betroz

BoredErica said:


> I'm ending my friendship with HT and starting my friendship with E cores. It's helping me stabilize all core. I asked Skatterbench, he says he doesn't think WIndows recognizes some cores having higher max pcore mult on i5 (no TB Max 3.0 on i5) *so it will randomly shuffle work between cores rather than prioritize faster cores.*


If that is true, then one would think that 1% and 0.1% low fps would be worse.


----------



## Krautmaster

4221


acoustic said:


> I've finally started dialing in my chip.
> 
> The goal is stock P Core behavior, with optimized E Core and Ring, while undervolting.
> 
> MSI LLC7 // AC_LL 20 ; DC_LL 89 (tuned for LLC7)
> 
> P Core stock (55x8/58x2)
> E Core 45x16
> Ring 50x
> 
> 1.190v VR VOUT ; gives me 255w/210A in CB23. 41800 CB23 score.
> 
> Beautiful efficiency!


how do u set CPU voltage in bios in detail?

Edit: btw, its still crazy ineffective. Limited to 80W my 13900K needs ~20 Minutes to complete my FFMPEG Benchmark listed here:








[USER BENCHMARK] CPU FFMPEG X265 Preset Performance Benchmark Liste


Hallo liebe Gemeinde, ich habe vor einiger Zeit mal ein kleines Batch Script zusammengehackt welches ein definiertes 4K Sample nach X265 wandelt. Dabei kommt eine neue HDR FFMPEG.exe auf Basis des aktuellen GIt Repositories zum Einsatz, sollte alles Optimierungen aktueller CPU Architekturen...




bit.ly




With 300W or Stock it may do the same in 14 min, so say max 30% faster at 4 times power 

Thats why i do like unlimited for 56s and then a long power limit of ~100W


----------



## affxct

Telstar said:


> batch #?


X235K609


----------



## BoredErica

Betroz said:


> If that is true, then one would think that 1% and 0.1% low fps would be worse.


It shuffles across cores anyways, except some are at 5.7, some 5.8ghz. So it should be no worse than 5.7 all core at very least.


----------



## Telstar

affxct said:


> X235K609


damn, it's close to mine. vietnam or made somewhere else?


----------



## Telstar

double sry


----------



## Telstar

nvm


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> I've finally started dialing in my chip.
> 
> The goal is stock P Core behavior, with optimized E Core and Ring, while undervolting.
> 
> MSI LLC7 // AC_LL 20 ; DC_LL 89 (tuned for LLC7)
> 
> P Core stock (55x8/58x2)
> E Core 45x16
> Ring 50x
> 
> 1.190v VR VOUT ; gives me 255w/210A in CB23. 41800 CB23 score.
> 
> Beautiful efficiency!


These are actually great settings. Really not all that much different in performance compared to my 57/45/49 settings, but draws 40+W less and about 9C cooler. R23 goes from 42350 to 41890. I may be sticking with this setup.


----------



## Krautmaster

same for me which is also pretty similar. Ill deal with 57/60 Turbo as for hard power limit which im using for long task, there is no real difference between these settings. So at 80W both voltage curves seem to be similar no matter if the highest turbo is 60 or 58


----------



## VULC

affxct said:


> X235K609


Mine is X235K422 but 13900k


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

acoustic said:


> I've finally started dialing in my chip.
> 
> The goal is stock P Core behavior, with optimized E Core and Ring, while undervolting.
> 
> MSI LLC7 // AC_LL 20 ; DC_LL 89 (tuned for LLC7)
> 
> P Core stock (55x8/58x2)
> E Core 45x16
> Ring 50x
> 
> 1.190v VR VOUT ; gives me 255w/210A in CB23. 41800 CB23 score.
> 
> Beautiful efficiency!


Exactly bud

After wasting my time with 54P, my trash chip did not drop to " my desired " level of low voltage. I gave up on 54P and settled down on 53P 44-E-47R ( wanna try 48 ) ,( which also made my override voltage mode, drop to 6w idle and as low as 28c in cores )

Now im sitting at 1.235 vOUT ( i know seems a lot for uV but 700 series have worse bin, and mine is maybe below average) with 31260 ( dropped 400 points compared to 5.4P and 1.258vOUT in R23. Idles at 6W.Consumes 240W.Down from 255W Exactly what i want since 2 weeks.


----------



## bhav

Scan's ETA on my case changed to 2nd Dec, but my pre order is with OCUK and I won't be cancelling as theres a chance the person picking the order might not notice I cancelled and already had the motherboard on the order refunded.

Thermaltake said both stores ETA is early December anyway.


----------



## Carillo

Super Cool Raptor lake Direct Die comming up boys and girls 😅 poor guy is working his *** off trying to reply on Facebook, email ,and do all the labor and design all by himself. Let’s hope he hires someone soon 🙏


----------



## affxct

VULC said:


> Mine is X235K422 but 13900k


I don’t know how to read batch numbers at all to be dead honest.


----------



## affxct

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> Exactly bud
> 
> After wasting my time with 54P, my trash chip did not drop to " my desired " level of low voltage. I gave up on 54P and settled down on 53P 44-E-47R ( wanna try 48 ) ,( which also made my override voltage mode, drop to 6w idle and as low as 28c in cores )
> 
> Now im sitting at 1.235 vOUT ( i know seems a lot for uV but 700 series have worse bin, and mine is maybe below average) with 31260 ( dropped 400 points compared to 5.4P and 1.258vOUT in R23. Idles at 6W.Consumes 240W.Down from 255W Exactly what i want since 2 weeks.
> View attachment 2585856


Out of curiosity, what SP rating do you have?


----------



## affxct

It honestly sucks that we need to daily chips at 1.25Vmin>. I miss 1.3Vmin OCs and safe max 95c operation.


----------



## Arni90

Betroz said:


> If that is true, then one would think that 1% and 0.1% low fps would be worse.


As long as the main thread is on a P-core, it doesn't matter what cores the other threads are on


----------



## tps3443

This 13900K that is “Above average Force2= 143” runs 6.0Ghz on (2)) P-Cores and 5.7Ghz on (8) P-Cores. 4.5Ghz on E-Cores, @284 watts max through R23. That’s a 13900KS essentially.

If anyone is interested and doesn’t want to gamble with getting a bad Force2 150+ retail cpu, let me know. I listed it in the marketplace. It’s a very solid CPU. No golden sample, but definitely above average the ring is very good and it’s a nice chip overall.


----------



## energie80

I got 143 and can run p58 and 50 ring 1.33


----------



## tps3443

energie80 said:


> I got 143 and can run p58 and 50 ring 1.33


That definitely makes sense. I’m running an efficient overclock on it though. It’s only pushing 284 watts max through [email protected] 5.7-6.0Ghz with 4.5Ghz on the E-Cores. So it’s actually really solid so far. And it’s such a great daily profile.

This chips ring will actually run up to x52 totally fine lol. I was quite surprised by that. Your overclock makes sense though, but I was trying to find the most efficient overclock for it, not necessarily the “Highest”


----------



## energie80

I don’t even bench, it’s daily gaming profile 😅 can also run ring 51x, solid chip


----------



## tps3443

energie80 said:


> I don’t even bench, it’s daily gaming profile 😅 can also run ring 51x, solid chip


They actually are very solid! I’m genuinely impressed. And every 13900K should be at this level!!!

I’m absolutely content with a chip of this magnitude.


----------



## acoustic

CB23 is a poor test for ring stability, I've found. Realbench seems to hit it harder.. or at least Blender/Handbrake combo. CB23 will pass things that games will crash in, at least when it comes to E-Core/Ring stability. Seems good for P-Core voltage requirements, though.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> CB23 is a poor test for ring stability, I've found. Realbench seems to hit it harder.. or at least Blender/Handbrake combo. CB23 will pass things that games will crash in, at least when it comes to E-Core/Ring stability. Seems good for P-Core voltage requirements, though.


Yeah, I run a random assortment of things. Especially when boosting single cores higher you’ve gotta run a variety of stuff to make sure it’s good. I definitely don’t do the “extreme power” “For Forever” stress testing anymore like the old days lol.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 Just bought a P-SP 123 chip from someone. He wishes to remain anonymous so I won't say more. I'll let you know how it turns out.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 Just bought a P-SP 123 chip from someone. He wishes to remain anonymous so I won't say more. I'll let you know how it turns out.


NICE! How much does a chip like that cost anyways?

You’ll be able to just run auto voltages with Uber high frequencies lol. It’s very nice.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> NICE! How much does a chip like that cost anyways?
> 
> You’ll be able to just run auto voltages with Uber high frequencies lol. It’s very nice.


I... can't say more, lol 

In any case, I'll see what I can achieve with just low loads


----------



## Ichirou

@acoustic So, would something like AC_LL at 1, LLC Mode 8 (whatever is the droopiest), and 1.45V Adaptive be a good start?
DC_LL set to like 80 and then just pull that down as much as stability allows.


----------



## VULC

Settings VCCSA to auto runs it at 1.345v and drops to 1.328v interesting bios thinks it's safe no issues.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> This 13900K that is “Above average Force2= 143” runs 6.0Ghz on (2)) P-Cores and 5.7Ghz on (8) P-Cores. 4.5Ghz on E-Cores, @284 watts max through R23. That’s a 13900KS essentially.
> 
> If anyone is interested and doesn’t want to gamble with getting a bad Force2 150+ retail cpu, let me know. I listed it in the marketplace. It’s a very solid CPU. No golden sample, but definitely above average the ring is very good and it’s a nice chip overall.


Love to know how you guys are pulling less than 300W. I’m at 2x60, 8x57, 16x45, and 49 ring and I’m at 305W and 1.252 vcore. So pretty similar settings. Edit: love to see bios settings on that one.


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> CB23 is a poor test for ring stability, I've found. Realbench seems to hit it harder.. or at least Blender/Handbrake combo. CB23 will pass things that games will crash in, at least when it comes to E-Core/Ring stability. Seems good for P-Core voltage requirements, though.


If I can pass R23, I throw 2000 pictures into Photoshop and run a batch process. If it passes that, I know I’ll be ok.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> @acoustic So, would something like AC_LL at 1, LLC Mode 8 (whatever is the droopiest), and 1.45V Adaptive be a good start?
> DC_LL set to like 80 and then just pull that down as much as stability allows.


Sorry for the late(r) reply, I was letting the system run stability tests for a while and found it would freeze up when it went idle for an extended period, so was fixing that up.

As for DC_LL, etc; no. You shouldn't just randomly set DC_LL to a value. If LLC7 needs 89, then LLC8 will need more than DC_LL 89 to match. I'd expect anywhere from 98-101.

Try LLC Mode 7, DC_LL 89. It should match if your board VRM LLC behaves the same as the Unify-X. Use Advanced Offset mode and control frequency through the V/F curve. I'm assuming you're doing 57x8 and 59x2? You can control 59x through the 58x ratio and 57x has it's own ratio that you can use to offset.

AC_LL, would start at 25. I found that too low will cause system hangs when monitor goes to sleep and system sits idle for a while. The settings I'm using right now are:

Stock P-Core (58x2 / 55x8)
E-Core @ 45x16
Ring @ 49x (50x on the ring is what was causing my issues earlier)

LLC7
AC_LL 24
DC_LL 89

Advanced Offset (V/F)

-0.050mv @ 58x ratio
-0.050mv @ 57x ratio (pretty sure I don't need this one)
-0.010mv @ 54x ratio (controls 55x all-core)

I'm getting 1.195-1.200v in Realbench, pulling ~240watts. In COD MW2, looks like 1.32-1.35v and only 60-70watts max. Nice and cool, and power efficient.


----------



## VULC

RichKnecht said:


> Love to know how you guys are pulling less than 300W. I’m at 2x60, 8x57, 16x45, and 49 ring and I’m at 305W and 1.252 vcore. So pretty similar settings. Edit: love to see bios settings on that one.


Silicon lottery and better cooling solution.


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> Sorry for the late(r) reply, I was letting the system run stability tests for a while and found it would freeze up when it went idle for an extended period, so was fixing that up.
> 
> As for DC_LL, etc; no. You shouldn't just randomly set DC_LL to a value. If LLC7 needs 89, then LLC8 will need more than DC_LL 89 to match. I'd expect anywhere from 98-101.
> 
> Try LLC Mode 7, DC_LL 89. It should match if the VRM LLC behaves the same as the Unify-X. Use Advanced Offset mode and control frequency through the V/F curve. I'm assuming you're doing 57x8 and 59x2? You can control 59x through the 58x ratio and 57x has it's own ratio that you can use to offset.
> 
> AC_LL, would start at 25. I found that too low will cause system hangs when monitor goes to sleep and system sits idle for a while. The settings I'm using right now are:
> 
> Stock P-Core (58x2 / 55x8)
> E-Core @ 45x16
> Ring @ 49x (50x on the ring is what was causing my issues earlier)
> 
> LLC7
> AC_LL 24
> DC_LL 89
> 
> Advanced Offset (V/F)
> 
> -0.050mv @ 58x ratio
> -0.050mv @ 57x ratio (pretty sure I don't need this one)
> -0.010mv @ 54x ratio (controls 55x all-core)
> 
> I'm getting 1.195-1.200v in Realbench, pulling ~240watts. In COD MW2, looks like 1.32-1.35v and only 60-70watts max. Nice and cool, and power efficient.


On my Z790 Tomahawk, LLC 7 is AC LL 20 and DC LL 80. LLC 8 is AC LL 20 and DC LL 102.


----------



## RichKnecht

VULC said:


> Silicon lottery and better cooling solution.


I think I have a good chip. Just trying to stay under 90C under loads like R23. Never hits 60 in real world use. Unfortunately I don’t have a board that shows how good my chip is.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> On my Z790 Tomahawk, LLC 7 is AC LL 20 and DC LL 80. LLC 8 is AC LL 20 and DC LL 102.


AC_LL is OK to set to what you want, as long as it's stable - doesn't have to be paired specifically to an LLC setting, though a droopier LLC will likely want higher AC_LL. DC_LL, on the other hand, *has* to be paired to the LLC in order for the motherboard to read correctly.

How did you match your DC_LL and LLC? On your Tomahawk, you don't have VR VOUT readings, correct? It's a bit more challenging as the "vCore" reading in HWINFO is not accurate. The "vCore" sensor typically reads anywhere from 0.020mv-0.030mv higher than actual, at least on my Unify-X.


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> AC_LL is OK to set to what you want, as long as it's stable - doesn't have to be paired specifically to an LLC setting, though a droopier LLC will likely want higher AC_LL. DC_LL, on the other hand, *has* to be paired to the LLC in order for the motherboard to read correctly.
> 
> How did you match your DC_LL and LLC? On your Tomahawk, you don't have VR VOUT readings, correct? It's a bit more challenging as the "vCore" reading in HWINFO is not accurate. The "vCore" sensor typically reads ~0.030mv higher than actual, at least on my Unify-X.


Set an LLC level, then set Lite Load to Normal and Auto. Boot and open the CPU page in HWINFO. Scroll down and you will see the AC and DC LL values. I did this at default settings. I then tried it with a gentle OC and values for each were the same. Oh, and LLC 5 shows 20 and 60. 

Interesting about the vcore reading. If true, my chip is actually running at 1.245 vcore under load with 60x2, 57x8, 49 ring. VIDs show 1.223.


----------



## sblantipodi

acoustic said:


> that's the native all-core ratio. I have 58, 57, 54, 51.. why isn't 55x there? Beats me.


Native all core ratio is 54 not 55


----------



## acoustic

sblantipodi said:


> Native all core ratio is 54 not 55


My chip was a day-1 purchase that runs 55x natively. Completely stock and all-core boost is 55x


----------



## CptSpig

tps3443 said:


> NICE! How much does a chip like that cost anyways?
> 
> You’ll be able to just run auto voltages with Uber high frequencies lol. It’s very nice.


$620.00 at Antonline and a bit of luck!


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> Set an LLC level, then set Lite Load to Normal and Auto. Boot and open the CPU page in HWINFO. Scroll down and you will see the AC and DC LL values. I did this at default settings. I then tried it with a gentle OC and values for each were the same. Oh, and LLC 5 shows 20 and 60.
> 
> Interesting about the vcore reading. If true, my chip is actually running at 1.245 vcore under load with 60x2, 57x8, 49 ring. VIDs show 1.223.


That is curious. I wonder how accurate it is.

I matched my VID and VR VOUT at LLC7 at 89. 80 would put me slightly off. Interesting.

Yes your vCore reading is going to be high. Your "die sense" is anywhere from 0.010-0.030mv lower.


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> My chip was a day-1 purchase that runs 55x natively. Completely stock and all-core boost is 55x


Same here. Default clocks are P55/E43


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Sorry for the late(r) reply, I was letting the system run stability tests for a while and found it would freeze up when it went idle for an extended period, so was fixing that up.
> 
> As for DC_LL, etc; no. You shouldn't just randomly set DC_LL to a value. If LLC7 needs 89, then LLC8 will need more than DC_LL 89 to match. I'd expect anywhere from 98-101.
> 
> Try LLC Mode 7, DC_LL 89. It should match if your board VRM LLC behaves the same as the Unify-X. Use Advanced Offset mode and control frequency through the V/F curve. I'm assuming you're doing 57x8 and 59x2? You can control 59x through the 58x ratio and 57x has it's own ratio that you can use to offset.
> 
> AC_LL, would start at 25. I found that too low will cause system hangs when monitor goes to sleep and system sits idle for a while. The settings I'm using right now are:
> 
> Stock P-Core (58x2 / 55x8)
> E-Core @ 45x16
> Ring @ 49x (50x on the ring is what was causing my issues earlier)
> 
> LLC7
> AC_LL 24
> DC_LL 89
> 
> Advanced Offset (V/F)
> 
> -0.050mv @ 58x ratio
> -0.050mv @ 57x ratio (pretty sure I don't need this one)
> -0.010mv @ 54x ratio (controls 55x all-core)
> 
> I'm getting 1.195-1.200v in Realbench, pulling ~240watts. In COD MW2, looks like 1.32-1.35v and only 60-70watts max. Nice and cool, and power efficient.


Love this concise explanation. I'll start with this.


acoustic said:


> AC_LL is OK to set to what you want, as long as it's stable - doesn't have to be paired specifically to an LLC setting, though a droopier LLC will likely want higher AC_LL. DC_LL, on the other hand, *has* to be paired to the LLC in order for the motherboard to read correctly.
> 
> How did you match your DC_LL and LLC? On your Tomahawk, you don't have VR VOUT readings, correct? It's a bit more challenging as the "vCore" reading in HWINFO is not accurate. The "vCore" sensor typically reads anywhere from 0.020mv-0.030mv higher than actual, at least on my Unify-X.


Should I just do a raw AC and DC readout with them set to Auto first (and LLC locked in), and then run them down afterwards?


acoustic said:


> That is curious. I wonder how accurate it is.
> 
> I matched my VID and VR VOUT at LLC7 at 89. 80 would put me slightly off. Interesting.
> 
> Yes your vCore reading is going to be high. Your "die sense" is anywhere from 0.010-0.030mv lower.


So the goal is to try to get the VIDs to match your VR VOUT? Is that the DC_LL value?


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> That is curious. I wonder how accurate it is.
> 
> I matched my VID and VR VOUT at LLC7 at 89. 80 would put me slightly off. Interesting.
> 
> Yes your vCore reading is going to be high. Your "die sense" is anywhere from 0.010-0.030mv lower.


If you set a high LLC, like 2, AC and DCLL are 1. No way I would use any LLC setting higher than 5. There would be no voltage drop and spikes, IMO, would be a scary reality.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Love this concise explanation. I'll start with this.
> 
> Should I just do a raw AC and DC readout with them set to Auto first (and LLC locked in), and then run them down afterwards?
> 
> So the goal is to try to get the VIDs to match your VR VOUT? Is that the DC_LL value?


In my experience, AC LL affects the VIDs. Lower AC LL lowers VIDs and higher raises them. It also affects vcore, but to a lesser extent. If @acoustic is right about my vcore being higher, then my actual vcore is about .004 higher than my VIDs. I’m using LLC 7 at 20 AC and 80 DC.


----------



## acoustic

Here's some benchies I just did.

DDR5 M-Die @ 7000 32-41-41-40
Stock P-Core (55x8 / 58x2)
45x16 E-Cores
49x Ring

Y-Cruncher 2.5b : 51.515s --








CPU-Z : 921.5 ST / 17415.2 MT --








SuperPI 32m : 274.599s --








CB23 : 41964 --








Overall settings:


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> In my experience, AC LL affects the VIDs. Lower AC LL lowers VIDs and higher raises them. It also affects vcore, but to a lesser extent. If @acoustic is right about my vcore being higher, then my actual vcore is about .004 higher than my VIDs. I’m using LLC 7 at 20 AC and 80 DC.


Pretty much all MSI Vcore readings are +0.02V higher than VR VOUT (with VCC Sense). So just subtract that much and you'll figure out your die sense.

But if you really want confirmation, I'm going to be testing out the Z790 Edge myself on Friday, so I can give you an accurate comparison between all three voltages.
VCC Sense Vcore + VR VOUT on the Z690 Edge, and VCC Sense Vcore on the Z790 Edge, at the exact same settings.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Love this concise explanation. I'll start with this.
> 
> Should I just do a raw AC and DC readout with them set to Auto first (and LLC locked in), and then run them down afterwards?
> 
> So the goal is to try to get the VIDs to match your VR VOUT? Is that the DC_LL value?


Set LLC Mode 7. I'm fairly certain DC_LL 89 should work for you - I don't think other MSI boards behave any differently in this aspect. If you want to check for yourself, you'd match your Core VIDs (at stock) to your VR VOUT reading. DC_LL controls the VID reading (not VR VOUT) and when set correctly, displays accurate power consumption. AC_LL will affect your VR VOUT and VIDs, but you want to match DC_LL to your VIDs without AC_LL interference, so you want to set AC_LL to "1" when doing your matching.

Yes, VID match VR VOUT = correct DC_LL value.



RichKnecht said:


> In my experience, AC LL affects the VIDs. Lower AC LL lowers VIDs and higher raises them. It also affects vcore, but to a lesser extent. If @acoustic is right about my vcore being higher, then my actual vcore is about .004 higher than my VIDs. I’m using LLC 7 at 20 AC and 80 DC.


AC_LL does affect the VID, and it also affects your VR VOUT/vCore. DC_LL changes VID reading but does not actually change voltage.


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> Here's some benchies I just did.
> 
> DDR5 M-Die @ 7000 32-41-41-40
> Stock P-Core (55x8 / 58x2)
> 45x16 E-Cores
> 49x Ring
> 
> Y-Cruncher 2.5b : 51.515s --
> View attachment 2585908
> 
> 
> CPU-Z : 921.5 ST / 17415.2 MT --
> View attachment 2585909
> 
> 
> SuperPI 32m : 274.599s --
> View attachment 2585910
> 
> 
> CB23 : 41964 --
> View attachment 2585911
> 
> 
> Overall settings:
> View attachment 2585912


Your scores are slightly higher than mine in R23 which is due to memory speed. I’m running 3600 DDR4 @ 15 15 15 36.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Set LLC Mode 7. I'm fairly certain DC_LL 89 should work for you - I don't think other MSI boards behave any differently in this aspect. If you want to check for yourself, you'd match your Core VIDs (at stock) to your VR VOUT reading. DC_LL controls the VID reading (not VR VOUT) and when set correctly, displays accurate power consumption. AC_LL will affect your VR VOUT and VIDs, but you want to match DC_LL to your VIDs without AC_LL interference, so you want to set AC_LL to "1" when doing your matching.
> 
> Yes, VID match VR VOUT = correct DC_LL value.
> 
> 
> 
> AC_LL does affect the VID, and it also affects your VR VOUT/vCore. DC_LL changes VID reading but does not actually change voltage.


So set LLC to Mode 7, set the CPU to Advanced VF Offset (but leave everything on Auto), and then set Lite Load to Advanced, and AC to 1, but DC to Auto.
Then just boot up and compare the VIDs to VR VOUT on idle, and try to adjust DC_LL so that they match.
Afterwards, you would keep trying to drop AC_LL based on actual testing with an overclock until unstable? (Or raise, since it's at 1)


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> So set LLC to Mode 7, set the CPU to Advanced VF Offset (but leave everything on Auto), and then set Lite Load to Advanced, and AC to 1, but DC to Auto.
> Then just boot up and compare the VIDs to VR VOUT on idle, and try to adjust DC_LL so that they match.
> Afterwards, you would keep trying to drop AC_LL based on actual testing with an overclock until unstable? (Or raise, since it's at 1)


Set DC_LL to "1" as well, and then tune DC_LL until VR VOUT and VID matches. Since we know 89 matches on my Unify-X, I'd start at 80 and go from there. You'd raise DC_LL until it matches, as I can't imagine less than 80 will match at LLC7.

Once you've matched, I'd start with AC_LL at 25, and go from there. You can adjust your voltages for 2-core load through the offset page, and even for all-core if you want. I found going too low on AC_LL was causing system hangs at idle, even if the voltage was still within what's stable. I'm currently running AC_LL 24.

I think most chips can do a -0.040mv undervolt at the 58x ratio as a starting point.


----------



## sblantipodi

RichKnecht said:


> Same here. Default clocks are P55/E43


That is your motherboard pushing 300w at stocks settings with non stock frequencies.

Intel specs says 5.4GHz max turbo.


----------



## Falkentyne

RichKnecht said:


> In my experience, AC LL affects the VIDs. Lower AC LL lowers VIDs and higher raises them. It also affects vcore, but to a lesser extent. If @acoustic is right about my vcore being higher, then my actual vcore is about .004 higher than my VIDs. I’m using LLC 7 at 20 AC and 80 DC.


I wrote a very long post earlier about the effect of ACLL on native CPU VID from 0.01 mohms to 1.1 mohms in 0.1 mohm steps, but seems like everyone ignored it


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 Just bought a P-SP 123 chip from someone. He wishes to remain anonymous so I won't say more. I'll let you know how it turns out.


RIP 13900K SP 123 11/2022-11/2022 💀


----------



## affxct

HemuV2 said:


> Try getting a replacement? Or is tht not possible in za?


It’s not really a faulty chip in any way so there wouldn’t be any sense in me trying to RMA it. It’s actually not a terrible performer surprisingly.


----------



## affxct

7empe said:


> Does SP79 keeps advertised speed of 55x all core at all? If so, what's the die sense vcore needed?


The SP 79 I mentioned is a 13700K. But for 55/44/48, I need 1.3Vmin to be rock solid. Probably not P95 solid, but it’s basically IBT Vmin+30mV overhead. Lately I’ve just been using IBT because it doesn’t run a constant load and it’s great for stressing the uncore, but I add the overhead when I’m done for other applications that will hit the cores harder.

My CPU’s (and my friend’s SP 84’s) stock VIDs are at around 1.3Vmin under load, so curiously, if they sold this 13700K as a 55P/42E/45R chip, odds are it would probably be daily’able if one owns a 420 AIO at minimum.


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> RIP 13900K SP 123 11/2022-11/2022 💀


It arrives in December, so maybe it's safe


----------



## affxct

7empe said:


> Anyone can confirm that VDD2 (MC voltage on ASUS mobo) is board (not cpu) specific? As far as I know it’s generated by board (power source near dimm sockets) and drives cpu-dimm bus. However I could not find intel spec on that.


That should be 100% true.


----------



## VULC

Any experience with the fab in Malaysia? Plus this KF box is miniature. OG August chip will take a squiz tomorrow.


----------



## RichKnecht

sblantipodi said:


> That is your motherboard pushing 300w at stocks settings with non stock frequencies.
> 
> Intel specs says 5.4GHz max turbo.


It doesn't hit 300W at defaults. It hits 300W at my current settings. P 60x2, P57x8,E 45x16, Ring 4.9. Actually, it's 298W. 1.375 adaptive with a .7 offset. It will actually boost to 6.0 x 8 on really light loads.


----------



## RichKnecht

Falkentyne said:


> I wrote a very long post earlier about the effect of ACLL on native CPU VID from 0.01 mohms to 1.1 mohms in 0.1 mohm steps, but seems like everyone ignored it


How did I miss that?


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> View attachment 2585952
> 
> 
> Any experience with the fab in Malaysia? Plus this KF box is miniature. OG August chip will take a squiz tomorrow.


So this is an engineering sample or something?


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> View attachment 2585952
> 
> 
> Any experience with the fab in Malaysia? Plus this KF box is miniature. OG August chip will take a squiz tomorrow.


Honestly, any of them can be good. I’ve tested similar batches with one another. And they are both very very different.


----------



## tps3443

PS:

Cinebench R15 is harder to run than R23 with Intel 13th gen LOL. Less power, and it crashes easier!


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> PS:
> 
> Cinebench R15 is harder to run than R23 with Intel 13th gen LOL. Less power, and it crashes easier!


Different instruction sets. This is why Cinebench isn't all that great for stability testing, and y-cruncher is much better.


----------



## Falkentyne

RichKnecht said:


> How did I miss that?


5200 mhz, TVB Opt: Off, DCLL 0.01 mohms

Idle, Cinebench R23, Prime95 30.8 b16

VID:

Note: R23 load was close to VID of Small FFT AVX disabled.

ACLL 0.01 mohms: 1.275v, 1.275, 1.276.

ACLL 0.1 mohms: 1.300v idle, R23 load: 1.303v. AVX small FFT load: 1.308v
ACLL 0.2 mohms: 1.330v idle, r23 load: 1.338v, AVX small FFT load: 1.343v

ACLL 0.3 mohms: 1.360v idle, r23 load: 1.373v, AVX small FFT load: 1.378v
small FFT SSE load: 1.368v

ACLL 0.4 mohms: 1.390v idle, r23 load: 1.408v, AVX small FFT load: 1.413v,
small FFT SSE load: 1.403v

ACLL 0.5 mohms: 1.420v idle, r23 load: 1.443v, AVX small FFT load: 1.448v,
small FFT SSE load: 1.433v

ACLL 0.6 mohms: 1.450v idle, R23 load: 1.473v, AVX small FFT load: 1.488v,
small FFT SSE load: 1.468v

ACLL 0.7 mohms: 1.480v idle, R23 load: 1.508v, AVX small FFT load: 1.523v,
small FFT SSE load: 1.498v

ACLL 0.8 mohms: 1.505-1.510v idle, R23 load: 1.543v, AVX small FFT load: 1.558v
small FFT SSE load: 1.533v

ACLL 0.9 mohms: 1.540-1.550v idle, R23 load: 1.578v, AVX small FFT load: 1.593v
small FFT SSE load: 1.568v

ACLL 1.0 mohms: 1.565-1.575v idle, R23 load: 1.613v, AVX small FFT load: 1.633v
small FFT SSE load: 1.598v

ACLL 1.1 mohms: 1.595-1.605v idle, R23 load: 1.648v, AVX small FFT load: 1.663-1.668v, small FFT SSE load: 1.663v

So it seems that every 0.1 mohm adds 30mv (linear) to native CPU VID, and load voltage scales very slightly upwards a certain small % over native VID (100C point used) depending on current, and increasing as ACLL goes higher.

for heavy AVX: 1mv at 0.01 mohms, 8mv at 0.1 mohms, about 68mv at 1 mohm, for AVX power virus loads.
Less for R23, even less for SSE.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> So this is an engineering sample or something?


No legit KF


----------



## tps3443

How do y’all feel about identical batch numbers? Anyone tried this theory with 13th gen? Is the silicon similar to one another?? I haven’t tested identical batches yet.

I’ve tested identical batches with 11th gen, both were identically garbage 😂

Someone on here had identical batch numbers, wondering if his chips were the same or similar lol.


----------



## tubs2x4

affxct said:


> The SP 79 I mentioned is a 13700K. But for 55/44/48, I need 1.3Vmin to be rock solid. Probably not P95 solid, but it’s basically IBT Vmin+30mV overhead. Lately I’ve just been using IBT because it doesn’t run a constant load and it’s great for stressing the uncore, but I add the overhead when I’m done for other applications that will hit the cores harder.
> 
> My CPU’s (and my friend’s SP 84’s) stock VIDs are at around 1.3Vmin under load, so curiously, if they sold this 13700K as a 55P/42E/45R chip, odds are it would probably be daily’able if one owns a 420 AIO at minimum.


1.3v under load? What’s wrong with that or you can’t cool it?


----------



## VULC

On Asus bios should you leave VRM Vcore voltage on Auto and set just the CPU Core voltage?


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

affxct said:


> Out of curiosity, what SP rating do you have?


I dont have access to SP reading ( no asus ) 

my force 2 rating is 161-159

Interestingly we bought 2 chips from same place with same batch. He had Asus and got a SP of 89. His chip did 1.250 vout for 5.4, mine is 1.258.I may have SP88-85. His IMC is waay weaker then mine tho


----------



## WayWayUp

ive been tweaking my setting to try and find 24/7 daily oc. I keep getting better scores with each little thing I tweak
Currently running 2x 61/60/59/58 all core with additional +2 tvb option. I’m not sure what I did exactly but I haven’t seen it boost to 6.3 even tho with prior settings 6.2 boosted all the time. Thermals seem fine…

With e cores I believe 4x 46 test 45
and ring I keep experimenting with both 50 and 51









i was also running TSE cpu test in a loop
Yes I know my SA is high, it’s on auto i have to tweak it
Not sure if that was related to xmp on my memory or Maximus tweak 2 or what


----------



## BoredErica

Ichirou said:


> Pretty much all MSI Vcore readings are +0.02V higher than VR VOUT (with VCC Sense). So just subtract that much and you'll figure out your die sense.
> 
> But if you really want confirmation, I'm going to be testing out the Z790 Edge myself on Friday, so I can give you an accurate comparison between all three voltages.
> VCC Sense Vcore + VR VOUT on the Z690 Edge, and VCC Sense Vcore on the Z790 Edge, at the exact same settings.





acoustic said:


> Set DC_LL to "1" as well, and then tune DC_LL until VR VOUT and VID matches. Since we know 89 matches on my Unify-X, I'd start at 80 and go from there. You'd raise DC_LL until it matches, as I can't imagine less than 80 will match at LLC7.
> 
> Once you've matched, I'd start with AC_LL at 25, and go from there. You can adjust your voltages for 2-core load through the offset page, and even for all-core if you want. I found going too low on AC_LL was causing system hangs at idle, even if the voltage was still within what's stable. I'm currently running AC_LL 24.


I'm using LLC Mode 4 on z690 MSI a ddr4. I set AC_LL to 1, multipliers to stock, CPU to Advanced VF Offset set, at default. VCC sense. Under chess load, looks like DC_LL 44 is correct then?









I was using 28 previously so I guess HWinfo was over-reporting the power usage of CPU slightly? But now HWinfo package power reads ~25w at idle @ 1.36v override mode...


===
In other news, the other day I just realized the teamGB video fray bentos linked showing how OCing does nothing for perf featured testing on a 3060 which I just find hilarious.


----------



## affxct

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> I dont have access to SP reading ( no asus )
> 
> my force 2 rating is 161-159
> 
> Interestingly we bought 2 chips from same place with same batch. He had Asus and got a SP of 89. His chip did 1.250 vout for 5.4, mine is 1.258.I may have SP88-85. His IMC is waay weaker then mine tho


That’s insane, like I honestly don’t know how my 79 is doing 1.225 VOUT. It’s definitely stable.


----------



## affxct

tubs2x4 said:


> 1.3v under load? What’s wrong with that or you can’t cool it?


Apparently degradation happens. I’m inclined to believe it as it’s been tested by a knowledgeable site member and he conducted a lot of testing.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

affxct said:


> That’s insane, like I honestly don’t know how my 79 is doing 1.225 VOUT. It’s definitely stable.


You have Dark K|NGP|N whole different story.
How is your IMC ?


----------



## 7empe

Falkentyne said:


> So it seems that every 0.1 mohm adds 3mv (linear) to native CPU VID


You mean 30mv.


----------



## affxct

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> You have Dark K|NGP|N whole different story.
> How is your IMC ?


VR VOUT should be the same pretty much. Currently it’s doing 7400, but it isn’t necessarily a chip limit. The KP can’t really do above 7400 reliably right now. Graphically Challenged Tweeted a few days ago that EVGA are working on a BIOS for better 7600-7800 support, but it’s yet to be seen. Been on the release fix BIOS for the last month and a bit now. Obviously it could also be a skill issue, but I’ll know what the IMC limits are once (if) they release a new BIOS with higher memory speed support.


----------



## VULC

Should of quit while I was ahead KF was a dud SP97. P cores 111, E cores 71.

Update: WT, put my K back in and it's now SP99!!!

Update 2: Had to downgrade bios to previous version and then update to latest bios. Asus sux will now have to re test my sample.

When you swap chips bios screws up and resets ffs! I'm assuming the KF was slightly weaker because was SP97 vs my current SP99 🤷


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

VULC said:


> Should of quit while I was ahead KF was a dud SP97. P cores 111, E cores 71.
> 
> Update: WT, put my K back in and it's now SP99!!!
> 
> Update 2: Had to downgrade bios to previous version and then update to latest bios. Asus sux will now have to re test my sample.
> 
> When you swap chips bios screws up and resets ffs!



My z690 king pin dark did it as well. I think every motherboard does it. I swapped my 13900k and the old ones ecore limit was transfered over to the new cup until a complete bios flash / reset of everything and now it's ecores clock up to 47 instead of 45..

I had reset the bios and cleared it etc too I should mention. Only the complete new flash resolved it..


----------



## digitalfrost

7empe said:


> You mean 30mv.


If it was 30mv you would have +1.5v applied at AC_LL 50.


----------



## RichKnecht

BoredErica said:


> I'm using LLC Mode 4 on z690 MSI a ddr4. I set AC_LL to 1, multipliers to stock, CPU to Advanced VF Offset set, at default. VCC sense. Under chess load, looks like DC_LL 44 is correct then?
> View attachment 2585971
> 
> 
> I was using 28 previously so I guess HWinfo was over-reporting the power usage of CPU slightly? But now HWinfo package power reads ~25w at idle @ 1.36v override mode...
> 
> 
> ===
> In other news, the other day I just realized the teamGB video fray bentos linked showing how OCing does nothing for perf featured testing on a 3060 which I just find hilarious.


Did you create that chart? If HWINFO did it, how did you get it to show values that way?


----------



## tubs2x4

affxct said:


> Apparently degradation happens. I’m inclined to believe it as it’s been tested by a knowledgeable site member and he conducted a lot of testing.


Ok. I guess everyone has different tolerances.


----------



## HemuV2

VULC said:


> Should of quit while I was ahead KF was a dud SP97. P cores 111, E cores 71.
> 
> Update: WT, put my K back in and it's now SP99!!!
> 
> Update 2: Had to downgrade bios to previous version and then update to latest bios. Asus sux will now have to re test my sample.
> 
> When you swap chips bios screws up and resets ffs! I'm assuming the KF was slightly weaker because was SP97 vs my current SP99 🤷


Wait why did your SP change? So what's the actual SP


----------



## digitalfrost

2x60
4x58
6x57
8x56

Adaptive 1500mv
TVB volt opt on
AC_LL 10
DC_LL 110

IccMax 245A
PL1 125W / PL2 188W










(This is probably the 58x result I have too much stuff running in the background)





















Vcore readout is Socket Sense.


----------



## tps3443

Has anyone tested (2) of the same batches? Are they both good? Or both bad?


----------



## OC2000

tps3443 said:


> How do y’all feel about identical batch numbers? Anyone tried this theory with 13th gen? Is the silicon similar to one another?? I haven’t tested identical batches yet.
> 
> I’ve tested identical batches with 11th gen, both were identically garbage 😂
> 
> Someone on here had identical batch numbers, wondering if his chips were the same or similar lol.


I have an Identical Batch number to someone who received an P core 120 (he didn't mention e Cores or total SP, mine ended up a P core of 113 / 80 / 72 (SP 102 overall) so a dud. Ordered a new one. Will play the silicon lottery one more time before the KS comes out.


----------



## WayWayUp

113 isn’t a dud bro
But 80 e core isn’t the greatest

still I guarantee you a ton of users would easily exchange chips

that guy from ASUS who always does the long overclocking videos
He received a hand selected chip. The e cores were insane, like 102. I think that’s the highest ive seen
But the p core was 119
Just to put into perspective how rare p 120 is


----------



## tps3443

WayWayUp said:


> 113 isn’t a dud bro
> But 80 e core isn’t the greatest
> 
> still I guarantee you a ton of users would easily exchange chips
> 
> that guy from ASUS who always does the long overclocking videos
> He received a hand selected chip. The e cores were insane, like 102. I think that’s the highest ive seen
> But the p core was 119
> Just to put into perspective how rare p 120 is


Yeah, and you got a SP P127! That’s crazy. Not the strongest E-Cores, but still a really nice CPU. Easily the highest recorded on here.


----------



## tps3443

OC2000 said:


> I have an Identical Batch number to someone who received an P core 120 (he didn't mention e Cores or total SP, mine ended up a P core of 113 / 80 / 72 (SP 102 overall) so a dud. Ordered a new one. Will play the silicon lottery one more time before the KS comes out.


I’m with you. I’ve tested (4) samples so
far.


----------



## RichKnecht

Unlike previous gen chips, even the bad ones are winners.


----------



## tps3443

OC2000 said:


> I have an Identical Batch number to someone who received an P core 120 (he didn't mention e Cores or total SP, mine ended up a P core of 113 / 80 / 72 (SP 102 overall) so a dud. Ordered a new one. Will play the silicon lottery one more time before the KS comes out.


Thanks.


----------



## affxct

tubs2x4 said:


> Ok. I guess everyone has different tolerances.


Wait, are you running 1.3Vmin? 🤔


----------



## tps3443

We need some of that magical thermal paste. They can call it “Miracle Gel”

You spread it on the CPU IHS and it boost your SP rating by +25 points lol.

So if you’ve got a DUD of a chip maybe SP108 P-Cores, spread the “Miracle Paste” on there and BAMM!!!! SP 132 P-Core lol.

”Thanks Miracle Gel!!“

I can kinda of imagine the infomercials playing of it already!


----------



## WayWayUp

yea but then people with golden chips would use the same gel and the dud chip people would still be envious


----------



## digitalfrost

tps3443 said:


> You spread it on the CPU IHS and it boost your SP rating by +25 points lol.


I take two!


----------



## tps3443

WayWayUp said:


> yea but then people with golden chips would use the same gel and the dud chip people would still be envious


Yep!! You’d be SP152 on the P-Cores
Probably 6.6Ghz all cores easy LOL.


----------



## WayWayUp

tps3443 said:


> Yeah, and you got a SP P127! That’s crazy. Not the strongest E-Cores, but still a really nice CPU. Easily the highest recorded on here.


when i updated ME and cleared cmos my e cores went up to 88
not the best but at least decent right?
like that is maybe average/ above average?
I havent been tracking e scores as much as p so im not sure whats normal

either way though its not worth the heat. I just set them to 46 (4) 45 (16). works without issue
the guy from asus with golden e cores is running them at 4.8Mhz  and hes conservative with power


----------



## cletus-cassidy

tps3443 said:


> How do y’all feel about identical batch numbers? Anyone tried this theory with 13th gen? Is the silicon similar to one another?? I haven’t tested identical batches yet.
> 
> I’ve tested identical batches with 11th gen, both were identically garbage 😂
> 
> Someone on here had identical batch numbers, wondering if his chips were the same or similar lol.


I binned a ton of 12900Ks last year and, based on that data, it seemed like batch info is no longer particularly useful for identifying better SP chips. Happy to share that data here again if folks can't find.


----------



## carlox97

Slight RAM OC: 3800 MHz; 16-18-18-38; Gear 1; CR2; DRAM 1.38 V; VCCSA 1.35 V

I upgraded my CPU 12700k -> 13700k and now PC won't post with the same ram OC, even bumping DRAM to 1.45V and VCCSA to 1.4 V is useless.

Is it possible Asus messed something up in the BIOS? I've seen 2 users having the same problem and it seems a bit strange. Do you have suggestions?


----------



## Agent-A01

tps3443 said:


> Has anyone tested (2) of the same batches? Are they both good? Or both bad?


Yes, I posted my pair a few days ago.

SP105(P116 E85) and SP104(P113 E88)


----------



## WayWayUp

Agent-A01 said:


> Yes, I posted my pair a few days ago.
> 
> SP105(P116 E85) and SP104(P113 E88)


how do you feel about those chips? keeping the 116?
good samples


----------



## RichKnecht

Does anyone know what the latest ME version is?


----------



## bscool

RichKnecht said:


> Does anyone know what the latest ME version is?


List off all the latest drivers and will work with any manufacture except audio drivers are Asus specific.

Easy way to find specific drivers for a platform is *ctrl f* and search for z790 and 7xx or z690 and 6xx etc..






[INDEX] All My Firmware/Drivers/Software Threads


All My Firmware/Drivers/Software Threads



rog.asus.com






ME Firmware, dont confuse with MEI Driver, I see many do it.






[FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)


Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)



rog.asus.com


----------



## tps3443

WayWayUp said:


> when i updated ME and cleared cmos my e cores went up to 88
> not the best but at least decent right?
> like that is maybe average/ above average?
> I havent been tracking e scores as much as p so im not sure whats normal
> 
> either way though its not worth the heat. I just set them to 46 (4) 45 (16). works without issue
> the guy from asus with golden e cores is running them at 4.8Mhz  and hes conservative with power


My E-Cores on my good chip I tested are amazing! The chip was probably SP119-SP120 P-Cores, and SP94-SP100 E-Cores easily. I ran the E-Cores at 4.7Ghz and power and voltage stayed the same from 4.5Ghz. The Ring would also run 5.2Ghz and the VID’s stayed the same. Very very solid CPU. Best I’ve ever tested.

The Force2 rating was 124 hot and 117 on cold water. So, I’m thinking maybe P119/E94+


----------



## bhav

So I can't remember if I mentioned this or not yet, but you remember that auto 6 Ghz OC thing that Gigabyte had planned?

Well its now available on their boards, and it sets core voltage to 1.5v.

So I tried telling people DO NOT DO THIS on reddit, and they think 'theres no evidence that these CPUs degrade at stock' ... because they think mobo auto OC is stock :x

Just going to leave them to it and laugh when their chips melt.


----------



## affxct

bhav said:


> So I can't remember if I mentioned this or not yet, but you remember that auto 6 Ghz OC thing that Gigabyte had planned?
> 
> Well its now available on their boards, and it sets core voltage to 1.5v.
> 
> So I tried telling people DO NOT DO THIS on reddit, and they think 'theres no evidence that these CPUs degrade at stock' ... because they think mobo auto OC is stock :x
> 
> Just going to leave them to it and laugh when their chips melt.


Unluko maluko


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> My E-Cores on my good chip I tested are amazing! The chip was probably SP119-SP120 P-Cores, and SP94-SP100 E-Cores easily. I ran the E-Cores at 4.7Ghz and power and voltage stayed the same from 4.5Ghz. The Ring would also run 5.2Ghz and the VID’s stayed the same. Very very solid CPU. Best I’ve ever tested.
> 
> The Force2 rating was 124 hot and 117 on cold water. So, I’m thinking maybe P119/E94+


At what VR VOUT?


bhav said:


> So I can't remember if I mentioned this or not yet, but you remember that auto 6 Ghz OC thing that Gigabyte had planned?
> 
> Well its now available on their boards, and it sets core voltage to 1.5v.
> 
> So I tried telling people DO NOT DO THIS on reddit, and they think 'theres no evidence that these CPUs degrade at stock' ... because they think mobo auto OC is stock :x
> 
> Just going to leave them to it and laugh when their chips melt.


Well, that's basically the primary way you do it: slap 1.40V+ at the chip and have it run on adaptive to drop clocks during high loads.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> At what VR VOUT?
> 
> Well, that's basically the primary way you do it: slap 1.40V+ at the chip and have it run on adaptive to drop clocks during high loads.


VR Out was 1.197V underload with the CPU set at 5.8-6.2Ghz and 5.2Ghz ring with 4.7Ghz E-Cores. Lowest I’d ever seen at such a frequency. That was around 314 watts.

I never tested just a fixed 5.8Ghz. But if I did, the VROut would have probably been even lower. Voltage was higher to compensate for all the cores I would let hit 6.2Ghz.


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> My E-Cores on my good chip I tested are amazing! The chip was probably SP119-SP120 P-Cores, and SP94-SP100 E-Cores easily. I ran the E-Cores at 4.7Ghz and power and voltage stayed the same from 4.5Ghz. The Ring would also run 5.2Ghz and the VID’s stayed the same. Very very solid CPU. Best I’ve ever tested.
> 
> The Force2 rating was 124 hot and 117 on cold water. So, I’m thinking maybe P119/E94+


can i have it xD


----------



## HemuV2

bhav said:


> So I can't remember if I mentioned this or not yet, but you remember that auto 6 Ghz OC thing that Gigabyte had planned?
> 
> Well its now available on their boards, and it sets core voltage to 1.5v.
> 
> So I tried telling people DO NOT DO THIS on reddit, and they think 'theres no evidence that these CPUs degrade at stock' ... because they think mobo auto OC is stock :x
> 
> Just going to leave them to it and laugh when their chips melt.


i mean 1.5+V for 2 core boost is nothing no?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> VR Out was 1.197V underload with the CPU set at 5.8-6.2Ghz and 5.2Ghz ring with 4.7Ghz E-Cores. Lowest I’d ever seen at such a frequency. That was around 314 watts.
> 
> I never tested just a fixed 5.8Ghz. But if I did, the VROut would have probably been even lower.


In R23, I presume?


----------



## Pk1

Alright here's hoping that my 13900k is amazing just like @tps3443 . Mine is batch# X241M858 also purchased from Best Buy. I only have a z790 tomahawk so no way to tell SP/FORCE numbers. I'm sure they cut his die directly out of the center and mine is a borderline 13600k. Lol.


----------



## tps3443

Pk1 said:


> Alright here's hoping that my 13900k is amazing just like @tps3443 . Mine is batch# X241M858 also purchased from Best Buy. I only have a z790 tomahawk so no way to tell SP/FORCE numbers. I'm sure they cut his die directly out of the center and mine is a borderline 13600k. Lol.


Tell me the idle bios voltage once you pop the CPU in, with a fresh cleared CMOS, no XMP applied or anything.

I can give you an idea if the Force prediction based on idle bios voltage. All 13900K’s I have tested thus far have their own idle bios voltage. Higher is worse lower is better!


Force 149= 0.989V
Force 143= 0.972V
Force 134= 0.959V
Force 124= 0.927V









I have them all memorized, batches, voltages, and abilities.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> In R23, I presume?


Yeah.


----------



## tps3443

I have this 13900K Force 143 at DDR5 7800 C36! Running like a beastazoid!!!


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> Wait why did your SP change? So what's the actual SP


My original is 105 P 116 and E 85. I had to erase bios completely and flash again to get it back. I'm assuming the KF is a 103. Going to put it on with a fan cooler and test again.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Tell me the idle bios voltage once you pop the CPU in, with a fresh cleared CMOS, no XMP applied or anything.
> 
> I can give you an idea if the Force prediction based on idle bios voltage. All 13900K’s I have tested thus far have their own idle bios voltage. Higher is worse lower is better!
> 
> 
> Force 149= 0.989V
> Force 143= 0.972V
> Force 134= 0.959V
> Force 124= 0.927V
> 
> I have them all memorized, batches, voltages, and abilities.


Huh. Interesting. Does it change from boot-to-boot, or always constantly one static voltage?


----------



## mxthunder

Does anyone know if the thermal grizzly contact frame is compatable with 13th gen CPUs as well? Is it worth getting? I just pulled the trigger on a 13900k, and it will be under a waterblock in my custom loop - I dont want to leave anything out that could make a significant difference in cooling.









Thermal Grizzly Intel 12th Gen CPU Contact Frame - Micro Center


Get it now! With the 12th Gen CPU Contact Frame by der8auer, Thermal Grizzly provides an assembly aid for Intel mainboards with the LGA1700 socket. The contact frame replaces the mainboards stock ILM to improve the cooling performance of CPU coolers through optimized contact pressure.




www.microcenter.com


----------



## energie80

It is


----------



## SoldierRBT

mxthunder said:


> Does anyone know if the thermal grizzly contact frame is compatable with 13th gen CPUs as well? Is it worth getting? I just pulled the trigger on a 13900k, and it will be under a waterblock in my custom loop - I dont want to leave anything out that could make a significant difference in cooling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thermal Grizzly Intel 12th Gen CPU Contact Frame - Micro Center
> 
> 
> Get it now! With the 12th Gen CPU Contact Frame by der8auer, Thermal Grizzly provides an assembly aid for Intel mainboards with the LGA1700 socket. The contact frame replaces the mainboards stock ILM to improve the cooling performance of CPU coolers through optimized contact pressure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.microcenter.com


Get thermalright 
Thermal grizzly contact frame does not fit on Z790 Apex + 13900KF. I just got the thermalright one and it works perfectly.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Huh. Interesting. Does it change from boot-to-boot, or always constantly one static voltage?


It stays the same with that CPU. Better chips have lower idle voltage in the MSI Bios. Applying a heavy memory overclock or XMP could potentially effect it though.

But a fresh bios reset, and going in to the bios seeing the idle voltage will give you a very very good idea of what that Force rating will be.

what is yours?


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Tell me the idle bios voltage once you pop the CPU in, with a fresh cleared CMOS, no XMP applied or anything.
> 
> I can give you an idea if the Force prediction based on idle bios voltage. All 13900K’s I have tested thus far have their own idle bios voltage. Higher is worse lower is better!
> 
> 
> Force 149= 0.989V
> Force 143= 0.972V
> Force 134= 0.959V
> Force 124= 0.927V
> View attachment 2586065
> 
> 
> I have them all memorized, batches, voltages, and abilities.


I think this method is flawed. My chip, at default everything, idles at .740.As I am typing this, it is jumping to .838.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> I think this method is flawed. My chip, at default everything, idles at .740.As I am typing this, it is jumping to .838.


reset your bios, then Set your lite load to #9 which is default for Unify-X. Then try again.

Whether this method only works across comparing the Unify-X or other motherboards, regardless these chips have their own bios voltage that they request. They are all different too. Once I see that voltage my heart sinks because I know if the chip is good or bad before even clicking “Force2” 😭


----------



## Agent-A01

WayWayUp said:


> how do you feel about those chips? keeping the 116?
> good samples


They seemed like pretty decent samples, very similar voltage required for CB23 (obviously 116 needs slightly less mv) and both IMCs are pretty equal.

Only needed like 1.14-.16v die sense in CBR23

No plans on selling the 116 but I guess if someone really wanted it they could have it.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> reset your bios, then Set your lite load to #9 which is default for Unify-X. Then try again.
> 
> Whether this method only works across comparing the Unify-X or other motherboards, regardless these chips have their own bios voltage that they request. They are all different too. Once I see that voltage my heart sinks because I know if the chip is good or bad before even clicking “Force2” 😭


So, set Lite Load to 9 and then save and reload the BIOS?


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> reset your bios, then Set your lite load to #9 which is default for Unify-X. Then try again.
> 
> Whether this method only works across comparing the Unify-X or other motherboards, regardless these chips have their own bios voltage that they request. They are all different too. Once I see that voltage my heart sinks because I know if the chip is good or bad before even clicking “Force2” 😭


Ok bios reset to defaults, mode 9, vcore=.818 VIDs are .724 EDIT: Maybe my DDR4 boards is different? Sitting here at idle with 2x60, 8x57, 16x45, and 4.9 ring it's at vcore .739 and VIDs at .728 as I type.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Ok bios reset to defaults, mode 9, vcore=.818 VIDs are .724


Okay, it doesn’t work for you then. Your motherboard is not applying the chip requirements. It’s applying just the minimum I guess.

Either way lower is better. That’s the first sign on a Unity-X lol.


----------



## affxct

tps3443 said:


> I have this 13900K Force 143 at DDR5 7800 C36! Running like a beastazoid!!!


Making me wish I had purchased a Unity-X before I even went for the refurbished Apex.


----------



## tps3443

@RichKnecht

You need to fix your CPU to 3.0Ghz. Because that’s what it says mine is at when I’m giving these voltages.


Screen shot of CPU FORCE 149 below


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Okay, it doesn’t work for you then. Your motherboard is not applying the chip requirements. It’s applying just the minimum I guess.
> 
> Either way lower is better. That’s the first sign on a Unity-X lol.


Still think this is a decent chip. At the settings I listed above, under load, Vcore drops to 1.270 and VIDs are 1.252. I can get it a bit lower but I set the voltage with a little "buffer"


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Still think this is a decent chip. At the settings I listed above, under load, Vcore drops to 1.270 and VIDs are 1.252. I can get it a bit lower but I set the voltage with a little "buffer"


Set your clocks to 3.0Ghz then boot in bios with auto voltage.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Set your clocks to 3.0Ghz then boot in bios with auto voltage.


So 30x on the P-cores, Lite Load 9, and everything else auto?


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Set your clocks to 3.0Ghz then boot in bios with auto voltage.


.932


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> .932


Is your chip almost as golden as tps's?


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Is your chip almost as golden as tps's?


LOL...I don't know. All I know is it's running 2x60, 8x57, 16x45 and 49 ring at 1.27Vcore and 1,252VIDs under load. It can go lower to just pass R23, but then it fails my Photoshop test. If your right about vcore readings, then it's closer to 1.25 under load vcore-wise


----------



## Nizzen

SoldierRBT said:


> Get thermalright
> Thermal grizzly contact frame does not fit on Z790 Apex + 13900KF. I just got the thermalright one and it works perfectly.


Strange... I'm using Thermal grizzly frame on my 13900kf and z790 apex. 🤯
What doesn't fit?


----------



## Ichirou

Nizzen said:


> Strange... I'm using Thermal grizzly frame on my 13900kf and z790 apex. 🤯
> What doesn't fit?


Sounds like when people claimed the NH-D15 would not work on the Z690 Strix, when I had it working just fine.


----------



## BoredErica

RichKnecht said:


> Did you create that chart? If HWINFO did it, how did you get it to show values that way?


I did it with Excel.
My power usage is dipping into 20w at idle so this is probably wrong. I wonder if I should've done the vid = vrout testing at my current voltage instead?


----------



## VULC

ㅤ


----------



## SoldierRBT

Nizzen said:


> Strange... I'm using Thermal grizzly frame on my 13900kf and z790 apex. 🤯
> What doesn't fit?


I tried a couple of times and couldn’t make it fit properly. The screws weren’t long enough to hold it in place.
I got the thermalright the next day and worked perfectly. I’ve seen a few with same issue on the Z790 Extreme


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

tps3443 said:


> Set your clocks to 3.0Ghz then boot in bios with auto voltage.


Ya you mean to check with a clear bios, I remember seeing mine in the .7xs I just don’t remember what


----------



## carlox97

Xiph said:


> It is bug.
> Under CL17, set manually tCWL=tCL.
> I had this same problem with Strix-A.


how did you discover that?


----------



## RichKnecht

BoredErica said:


> I did it with Excel.
> My power usage is dipping into 20w at idle so this is probably wrong. I wonder if I should've done the vid = vrout testing at my current voltage instead?


My chip idles at 12W


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> .932


Is lite load on 9? With Auto LLC? And no advanced lite load options set?

If that’s the case then it may actually be a good cpu. But, if it is actually a good chip, then setting a x51 or X52 ring will have absolutely no effect on that chips stability or voltages. It would be like changing your date in the bios “It does nothing to it lol” The same goes for the E-Cores, setting them at 4.7Ghz did not effect stability or change the power consumption, until I set them all to 4.8Ghz. 

As for having a 0.932V I can manipulate other chips to have this voltage or go below it. So you want to make sure everything else is on auto. Reset bios, set 3Ghz and record voltages.


----------



## tubs2x4

affxct said:


> Wait, are you running 1.3Vmin? 🤔


I’m on a 12gen but I run 1.32v under full load. Probably don’t need that but it passes ycruncher so it’s stable enough for me. I know cb23 likely can drop 0.025-0.030mv for sure but whatever.


----------



## BoredErica

RichKnecht said:


> My chip idles at 12W


Oh never mind then lol. RPL is way more power efficient for my gaming than I imagined then. 65w while gaming in Skyrim, 50s for Oblivion, 80s for FO4. My current draws must be L. O. W. Now with ecores on too.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Is lite load on 9? With Auto LLC? And no advanced lite load options set?
> 
> If that’s the case then it may actually be a good cpu. But, if it is actually a good chip, then setting a x51 or X52 ring will have absolutely no effect on that chips stability or voltages. It would be like changing your date in the bios “It does nothing to it lol” The same goes for the E-Cores, setting them at 4.7Ghz did not effect stability or change the power consumption, until I set them all to 4.8Ghz.
> 
> As for having a 0.932V I can manipulate other chips to have this voltage or go below it. So you want to make sure everything else is on auto. Reset bios, set 3Ghz and record voltages.


OK, did it 3 times...









FWIW batch is X236F650


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> LOL...I don't know. All I know is it's running 2x60, 8x57, 16x45 and 49 ring at 1.27Vcore and 1,252VIDs under load. It can go lower to just pass R23, but then it fails my Photoshop test. If your right about vcore readings, then it's closer to 1.25 under load vcore-wise



This is my Force 143 chip which is merely average or slightly better than average.


----------



## dante`afk

tps3443 said:


> This 13900K that is “Above average Force2= 143” runs 6.0Ghz on (2)) P-Cores and 5.7Ghz on (8) P-Cores. 4.5Ghz on E-Cores, @284 watts max through R23. That’s a 13900KS essentially.
> 
> If anyone is interested and doesn’t want to gamble with getting a bad Force2 150+ retail cpu, let me know. I listed it in the marketplace. It’s a very solid CPU. No golden sample, but definitely above average the ring is very good and it’s a nice chip overall.


Aren’t you running your chiller on all your screenshots? No one will get the same results as you with the same cpu and different cooling solution


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> OK, did it 3 times...
> View attachment 2586075


Like I said before. “Thinking it’s good, is one thing” It’s fun to be hopeful. But this testing methodology isn’t exactly reliable lol. We are merely guessing.

So, if it’s a good chip. Let’s say CPU Force 130 or lower. You can squeak out sub 280 watts at 5.8Ghz all cores no problem through R23. And setting a high ring will have no effect on stability or voltages. If your bios voltage is 0.932V that just means your bios voltage is 0.932V lol.

The chip should perform well. And only you can tell us that.


----------



## tps3443

dante`afk said:


> Aren’t you running your chiller on all your screenshots? No one will get the same results as you with the same cpu and different cooling solution


I think Sugi0lover breaks 45.5K R23 with an AIO lol. His CPU quality is fully responsible.

I would take SP120+ on a AIO anyday of the week.

My chiller is set to 60F liquid. And it can’t make bad chips good chips. I wish it could. 😭


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Like I said before. “Thinking it’s good, is one thing” It’s fun to be hopeful. But this testing methodology isn’t exactly reliable lol. We are merely guessing.
> 
> So, if it’s a good chip. Let’s say CPU Force 130 or lower. You can squeak out sub 280 watts at 5.8Ghz all cores no problem through R23. And setting a high ring will have no effect on stability or voltages. If your bios voltage is 0.932V that just means your bios voltage is 0.932V lol.
> 
> The chip should perform well. And only you can tell us that.


Hmmm...not sure what to tell ya but this is at 298W @57x8 45x16 and 49 ring. Like I said in a PM, I think something is going on with my cooling situation. I just have to find the time to take it apart and check the mounting of the Thermalright frame and check the block...again. No idea why it runs hot when my water maxes out at 24.7.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> I think Sugi0lover breaks 45.5K R23 with an AIO lol. His CPU quality is fully responsible.
> 
> I would take SP120+ on a AIO anyday of the week.
> 
> *My chiller is set to 60F liquid.* And it can’t make bad chips good chips. I wish it could. 😭


LOL...that's about 10C lower than my ambient temp!


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Like I said before. “Thinking it’s good, is one thing” It’s fun to be hopeful. But this testing methodology isn’t exactly reliable lol. We are merely guessing.
> 
> So, if it’s a good chip. Let’s say CPU Force 130 or lower. You can squeak out sub 280 watts at 5.8Ghz all cores no problem through R23. And setting a high ring will have no effect on stability or voltages. If your bios voltage is 0.932V that just means your bios voltage is 0.932V lol.
> 
> The chip should perform well. And only you can tell us that.


CMOS reset. Set P-cores to 30x, and Lite Load to 9. Saved and rebooted BIOS.

Vcore reading in BIOS is 0.950V for this chip.


tps3443 said:


> I think Sugi0lover breaks 45.5K R23 with an AIO lol. His CPU quality is fully responsible.
> 
> I would take SP120+ on a AIO anyday of the week.
> 
> My chiller is set to 60F liquid. And it can’t make bad chips good chips. I wish it could. 😭


What VR VOUT or Vcore did he throw at the chip, though? I have a similar quality chip coming in.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> LOL...that's about 10C lower than my ambient temp!


My water temp without it is 73F. I’m wondering what your water flow is like to have such high temps though. I didnt even notice any real improvements from a delid. It’s almost like the CPU is at its best thermal transfer already.


----------



## Nizzen

SoldierRBT said:


> I tried a couple of times and couldn’t make it fit properly. The screws weren’t long enough to hold it in place.
> I got the thermalright the next day and worked perfectly. I’ve seen a few with same issue on the Z790 Extreme


I remember the screws where a bit short, but they are actual long enough  Use a bit force to push the frame down when "screwing"


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> My water temp without it is 73F. I’m wondering what your water flow is like to have such high temps though. I didnt even notice any real improvements from a delid. It’s almost like the CPU is at its best thermal transfer already.


Delidding only reduced temps by like 5C or so for me.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> CMOS reset. Set P-cores to 30x, and Lite Load to 9. Saved and rebooted BIOS.
> 
> Vcore reading in BIOS is 0.950V for this chip.
> 
> What VR VOUT or Vcore did he throw at the chip, though? I have a similar quality chip coming in.


If the voltage method is right, that is a Force 132 CPU you’ve got.

I can’t remember what his VROut was. It’s a great chip though. If you have one of those coming, you’re doing something right.


----------



## 7empe

digitalfrost said:


> If it was 30mv you would have +1.5v applied at AC_LL 50.


It is 30 mV. This kind of math is quite simple.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Delidding only reduced temps by like 5C or so for me.


Well, don’t delid your nice chip! I certainly wouldn’t touch it lol. What cooling do you use anyways?


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Delidding only reduced temps by like 5C or so for me.


You don't get much improvement over solder, its not like the 8700K where delidding would drop temps by over 20c.


----------



## tps3443

@RichKnecht your chip is maybe a
Force2= 126

I’m guessing here. But it makes sense.

But if it is you should be slaying some nice 5.8-6.2Ghz P-Cores with 4.6-4.7 E-cores and a 5.1Ghz+ ring.

Do you know your water flow?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> If the voltage method is right, that is a Force 132 CPU you’ve got.
> 
> I can’t remember what his VROut was. It’s a great chip though. If you have one of those coming, you’re doing something right.


Your approximation method is flawed. Because all I have is an average chip.


bhav said:


> You don't get much improvement over solder, its not like the 8700K where delidding would drop temps by over 20c.


Most people who delidded or went direct die reported drops of 10 to 20c respectively.


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> its not like the 8700K where delidding would drop temps by over 20c.


Or am5


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Your approximation method is flawed. Because all I have is an average chip.


!! 

That’s funny.


----------



## tps3443

Well, the voltages are right on my side of things. I just know that higher force was always a higher idle bios voltage for each chip everytime. But, we are using different motherboard types. All you can do is pop in your new chip and set the same settings 3Ghz LiteLoad 9 and see how much lower the voltage is. It will probably be like 0.835 LOL.


----------



## affxct

tubs2x4 said:


> I’m on a 12gen but I run 1.32v under full load. Probably don’t need that but it passes ycruncher so it’s stable enough for me. I know cb23 likely can drop 0.025-0.030mv for sure but whatever.


On 12th Gen I think that’s fine, it seems to be 13th Gen that has the issue.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> My water temp without it is 73F. I’m wondering what your water flow is like to have such high temps though. I didnt even notice any real improvements from a delid. It’s almost like the CPU is at its best thermal transfer already.


What’s your ambient temp? Mine is 70F/21C. I thought I was doing ok running water 3C over ambient. Like I said, something’s wrong.


----------



## gecko991

I run that too on an Apex 690 on liquid no issues at all with an average 12900KF. Looking to test a 13900k though.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> What’s your ambient temp? Mine is 70F/21C. I thought I was doing ok running water 3C over ambient. Like I said, something’s wrong.


It may be Waterflow, may be block has bad contact, these Optimus blocks are super super restrictive.

My ambient temps are like 72F. I leave my big radiator insulated with a towel.


----------



## gecko991

What rad you using may I ask tps3443. Is it the Mora3 in your sig?


----------



## Ichirou

gecko991 said:


> What rad you using may I ask tps3443.


The PO-RA 420 🇹🇲


----------



## gecko991

Ha ha ha lol.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> The PO-RA 420 🇹🇲


Ohhh! You running a Pora too? Lol

Poor mans Mora is awesome!


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Ohhh! You running a Pora too? Lol


No, I was answering for you xD


----------



## bhav

Soooo what is that crazy big fan thing and where do I get it?


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> It may be Waterflow, may be block has bad contact, these Optimus blocks are super super restrictive.
> 
> My ambient temps are like 72F. I leave my big radiator insulated with a towel.


That’s my guess. Water flow. I rearranged my loop when I redid this system and I think I made it worse. Used elbows instead of long sweeping curves of tube. Looks nicer, but it’s probably super restrictive. When I had the 10980, the V2 was getting input directly from one of the D5s. Now both D5s are in series and push through 2 360s before going to the block. I’ll let you know when I figure it out.


----------



## WayWayUp

explain when you say delid
there are so many ways to do things after delid
copper ihs? contact frame? water block choice?

I delid the other day but decided to go direct die. Normally i would use Liquid metal but until a direct die frame is out i will skip out on LM as probability of accident is sky high.

using kryonaught straight to optimus block

i really want to do LM. when getting rid of the ihs the surface for heat transfer is tiny. LM performance would be amplified here


----------



## tps3443

gecko991 said:


> What rad you using may I ask tps3443. Is it the Mora3 in your sig?


I’m running a PORA-3 and 1/2HP Waterchiller.

Pora3 is “Poor man’s Mora” AKA Alphacool 1080/1260 style rads


----------



## WayWayUp

whats wrong with the *Alphacool NexXxoS UT60* ?

I would like to see a showdown with temps of both compared to the Mora

the mora3 was out of stock so i just bought the alphacool. Still havent set it up
im building out a core p7. so i already have 3 rads planned one for each plane. But with the way the mora and alphacool look i thought it would be cool to stick it behind the main chasis 
way overkill i know.
also dont know how to split it up. I was going with duel res/pumps with 2x420mm for the gpu and a seperate cpu loop with its own pump/res and its own 420

now i have another 1080 to work with
2,340mm of rads to work with across to 2 loops


----------



## VULC

KF bin another average chip. K 116 85


----------



## tps3443

WayWayUp said:


> whats wrong with the *Alphacool NexXxoS UT60* ?
> 
> I would like to see a showdown with temps of both compared to the Mora


Nothing at all! They perform the same or better.

I have a UT45


----------



## WayWayUp

VULC said:


> KF bin another average chip.


your being coy
thats a good chip. is it golden? no!
but on the higher end of above average
very solid you can sell for above face value


----------



## tps3443

Where should I buy my next 13900K from? Keep trying Best Buy?


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> Where should I buy my next 13900K from? Keep trying Best Buy?


I thought you already had a good one?

What is wrong with you? You need a psychiatric evaluation asap!


----------



## mgkhn

5.8p/4.6e/5.0r load voltage 1.225


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> Where should I buy my next 13900K from? Keep trying Best Buy?


Why not buy a very good binned cpu? Put enough money on the table, and it's "pay to win"


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> View attachment 2586094
> 
> 
> KF bin another average chip. K 116 85


P-SP 110+ is above average.


tps3443 said:


> Where should I buy my next 13900K from? Keep trying Best Buy?


Try some ghetto store.


----------



## Ichirou

mgkhn said:


> 5.8p/4.6e/5.0r load voltage 1.225
> View attachment 2586095


What is your P-SP?


----------



## mgkhn

Ichirou said:


> What is your P-SP?


p 115 and e 91


----------



## VULC

By the time you keep losing money on binning so many chips, you might as well save the money and buy a KS. I did 2 on 12900K and 2 now that's my max.


----------



## RichKnecht

mgkhn said:


> 5.8p/4.6e/5.0r load voltage 1.225
> View attachment 2586095


Great temps with close core to core spread for 300w power draw. What cooling?


----------



## Wilco183

bhav said:


> I thought you already had a good one?
> 
> What is wrong with you? You need a psychiatric evaluation asap!


With dude's recent chip track record, I'd be getting it while the getting is good as well. Reminds me of some lyrics from a goodie I listened to on the way in to work this morning...

"Oh, he feels the pistons screaming
Steam breaking on his brow
Old Charlie stole the handle
And the train, it won't stop going
No way, it could slow down"


----------



## mgkhn

RichKnecht said:


> Great temps with close core to core spread for 300w power draw. What cooling?


thank you, custom loop with mora 420 (9x noctua p14s) with ek velocity2 block also thermalright frame


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> Why not buy a very good binned cpu? Put enough money on the table, and it's "pay to win"


I don’t know anyone with one. Plus, I enjoy testing them.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> I thought you already had a good one?
> 
> What is wrong with you? You need a psychiatric evaluation asap!


I want a Force 110 okay jeez 😂. Yeah we all need psych evals done lol.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I don’t know anyone with one. Plus, I enjoy testing them.


Don't you already have a P-SP 120+ chip though?


tps3443 said:


> I want a Force 110 okay jeez 😂. Yeah we all need psych evals done lol.


I don't think the scaling is accurate. My upcoming chip's P-SP is 123, which is just behind sugi's 124. But I don't think it would be rated a CPU Force of 100-110.


----------



## CptSpig

tps3443 said:


> Where should I buy my next 13900K from? Keep trying Best Buy?


Antonline! That's where I got my P-Core SP 121. Batch #236


----------



## Ichirou

mgkhn said:


> thank you, custom loop with mora 420 (9x noctua p14s) with ek velocity2 block also thermalright frame


What was the score in R23 by the way?


----------



## mgkhn

Ichirou said:


> What was the score in R23 by the way?


 multi 43k single 2280


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Don't you already have a P-SP 120+ chip though?
> 
> I don't think the scaling is accurate. My upcoming chip's P-SP is 123, which is just behind sugi's 124. But I don't think it would be rated a CPU Force of 100-110.


That chip I tested is probably a P119/E94. Because it was a Force 124 with ambient water. Sugi’s SP124 is Force 109. So this makes me think its maybe a SP119? I’m not really sure what it is.

But, if you bought a SP123 then it’s probably like a Force 110-115 most likely I’d guess at-least that. Unless Sugi posted his Force 2 rating with like 5C temp water.

But yeah, I’m hunting for a lower force2.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> That chip I tested is probably a P119/E94. Because it was a Force 124 with ambient water. Sugi’s SP124 is Force 109. So this makes me think its maybe a SP119? I’m not really sure what it is.
> 
> But, if you bought a SP123 then it’s probably like a Force 110-115 most likely I’d guess at-least that. Unless Sugi posted his Force 2 rating with like 5C temp water.
> 
> But yeah, I’m hunting for a lower force2.


@chibi might sell you his if you ask nicely.


----------



## chibi

Ichirou said:


> @chibi might sell you his if you ask nicely.


Just to clarify, it's sp110, p121, e88. Don't know mc sp as my strix board is not supported.

Can't run any tests so it will be a blind purchase for anyone interested as my cpu idles in bios at 56 degrees in my sff case at stock settings.


----------



## tubs2x4

mgkhn said:


> 5.8p/4.6e/5.0r load voltage 1.225
> View attachment 2586095


Looks like a good one


----------



## CptSpig

chibi said:


> Just to clarify, it's sp110, p121, e88. Don't know mc sp as my strix board is not supported.
> 
> Can't run any tests so it will be a blind purchase for anyone interested as my cpu idles in bios at 56 degrees in my sff case at stock settings.


This is a good CPU same exact SP as mine. Mine will run 8000mt with P 5.7 to 6.2 per core E 4.6 overclock. 24c at idle on water no chiller. Bios 0802 top pic and bios 0031 with lower voltages and no CPU OC on memory.


----------



## tps3443

Anyone know for sure if all 13900K’s can run DDR5 8000? I’m testing DDR5 7800 on my current 13900K. And it seems to handle it abnormally easy. Easier than I can remember. I’m wondering if 7600+ is close to the IMC point on most CPU’s?

Anyone know?


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> Anyone know for sure if all 13900K’s can run DDR5 8000? I’m testing DDR5 7800 on my current 13900K. And it seems to handle it abnormally easy. Easier than I can remember. I’m wondering if 7600+ is close to the IMC point on most CPU’s?
> 
> Anyone know?


Not all depends on the board I've seen people on z690 Unify only get 7800, Apex 8200.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

dante`afk said:


> Aren’t you running your chiller on all your screenshots? No one will get the same results as you with the same cpu and different cooling solution


Under heavy cooling any "avg" Chip can do 5,9Ghz with 15° H2O.
Your chip.do then 6-6,1


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> Not all depends on the board I've seen people on z690 Unify only get 7800, Apex 8200.


Well that’s what I thought too. But I could never stabilize 7800 before on the other tested 13900K’s. But this one is like Pshhhhh w/e. 😎.

So it has me really wondering. Maybe when you are on the limits of the motherboard a better IMC helps? I’m not really sure.


----------



## gecko991

I have a solid Apex and need to test a good 13900k.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> Well that’s what I thought too. But I could never stabilize 7800 before on the other tested 13900K’s. But this one is like Pshhhhh w/e. 😎.
> 
> So it has me really wondering. Maybe when you are on the limits of the motherboard a better IMC helps? I’m not really sure.


Yes, it's the IMC on a good board.


----------



## tps3443

PhoenixMDA said:


> Under heavy cooling any "avg" Chip can do 5,9Ghz with 15° H2O.
> Your chip.do then 6-6,1


If I got my water down to 5C I could maybe squeak out 5.8 all cores. “MAYBE” But maybe not too. 5.7-6.0 is its limits on 15c water. It is slightly above average. Maybe SP110-SP112 P-Cores.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Anyone know for sure if all 13900K’s can run DDR5 8000? I’m testing DDR5 7800 on my current 13900K. And it seems to handle it abnormally easy. Easier than I can remember. I’m wondering if 7600+ is close to the IMC point on most CPU’s?
> 
> Anyone know?


I'm pretty sure 8,000+ MHz depends entirely on IMC. But 7,800 MHz and below should be pretty much the standard.


tps3443 said:


> If I got my water down to 5C I could maybe squeak out 5.8 all cores. “MAYBE” But maybe not too. 5.7-6.0 is its limits on 15c water. It is slightly above average. Maybe SP110-SP112 P-Cores.


Well, someone just posted their screenshot of 58x in R23 with just 300W or so Package Power. And that was only with a P-SP 115 chip.
Your golden chip should do that easily.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> I'm pretty sure 8,000+ MHz depends entirely on IMC. But 7,800 MHz and below should be pretty much the standard.
> 
> Well, someone just posted their screenshot of 58x in R23 with just 300W or so Package Power. And that was only with a P-SP 115 chip.
> Your golden chip should do that easily.


Definitely. I did 260 watts with my Force 134. For R23 (30 Minutes straight) Just imagine what a SP123 can do lol.

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]


----------



## Pk1

tps3443 said:


> Tell me the idle bios voltage once you pop the CPU in, with a fresh cleared CMOS, no XMP applied or anything.
> 
> I can give you an idea if the Force prediction based on idle bios voltage. All 13900K’s I have tested thus far have their own idle bios voltage. Higher is worse lower is better!
> 
> 
> Force 149= 0.989V
> Force 143= 0.972V
> Force 134= 0.959V
> Force 124= 0.927V
> View attachment 2586065
> 
> 
> I have them all memorized, batches, voltages, and abilities.


Looks like .954v. Been a hassle tearing down loop, installing everything and trying to setup. I'll do some playing around tomorrow and see if I have a hero or a zero.


----------



## Ichirou

Pk1 said:


> Looks like .954v. Been a hassle tearing down loop, installing everything and trying to setup. I'll do some playing around tomorrow and see if I have a hero or a zero.


It's not a consistent test across boards/chips. Better to just do your own testing with R23 and stock multipliers of 55/43/45 to find the minimum Vcore/VR VOUT.


----------



## tps3443

Pk1 said:


> Looks like .954v. Been a hassle tearing down loop, installing everything and trying to setup. I'll do some playing around tomorrow and see if I have a hero or a zero.


Yeah, we were only messing around is all. It only works if you have a Unify-X then we can compare chips etc, but in that case you can read your own Force2 rating lol.


----------



## RichKnecht

Tonight I was messing around with LLC, AC LL, and DC LL. My VIDs and Vcore were so far apart and I wanted to see if I could get them closer to see if I could gain stability at lower voltages. Well, here is what I came up with. LLC7 on my board translates to DC LL of 69. Here is how I came up with it. I set the bios to all defaults (again) and used an online calculator to figure out resistance based on Mv and Watts. It was close. It gave me 65. So I punched it in with AC LL set to 1 and tweaked it up and down until I came up with 69. Dead on. Vcore/VIDs perfect match. So I entered a starting AC LL of 20 to see if I could lower the VIDs a little but they still match within .002mv, Is this a bad thing? I am using adaptive + advanced vf curve and I am using that to decrease overall vcore. I hope I am doing it right. If I am, I think I have finally figured this out.


----------



## HemuV2

Bro the heck am i reading lol since when is SP 116 even average? If i had sp116 I'd skip the KS. People here seem a little too spoiled! Average is sp 105-110 imo not 116. If you have sp115+ 80+ please keep your chip or sell it to someone looking for a good bin. Genuinely surprised someone called that a dud😆


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> Bro the heck am i reading lol since when is SP 116 even average? If i had sp116 I'd skip the KS. People here seem a little too spoiled! Average is sp 105-110 imo not 116. If you have sp115+ 80+ please keep your chip or sell it to someone looking for a good bin. Genuinely surprised someone called that a dud😆


Yeah SP115+ P-Cores is definitely good and worthy of keeping. I think some of us are after that extra oomph though which will reliably propel us to 6Ghz all cores with good cooling. I think we have a goal in mind of SP120 or better, so when we get SP115/SP116/SP117/SP118 we’re just not quite happy yet.

Once I get my hands on an SP120+ chip I’m probably gonna lap the IHS. No delidding or any of that. But I have seen some huge gains when the IHS is properly lapped of like 6-7C reductions alone.

One thing that’s good about the 13900K is they are all great chips regardless of how good the silicon is. Even the worst 13900K is a massive leap over even the best 12900KS samples.


----------



## HemuV2

VULC said:


> View attachment 2586094
> 
> 
> KF bin another average chip. K 116 85


It's really good


----------



## PhoenixMDA

tps3443 said:


> If I got my water down to 5C I could maybe squeak out 5.8 all cores. “MAYBE” But maybe not too. 5.7-6.0 is its limits on 15c water. It is slightly above average. Maybe SP110-SP112 P-Cores.


I have only P109, i think under extrem strong cooling arround P105/106+ can do 5,9ghz allcore, i had one P102 with that i think isn´t possible.
The delid bring me perhaps 100mhz more and with voltage to the limit now i think 6Ghz perhaps possible if it´s cold enough, but the current is then for me to high.

It´s really no especially chip,but the imc is ok and perhaps it´s not easy to find a imc can do 4400, my is not far away and so it´s ok for me with DDR4.
In that gen also the avg Chip´s are really not bad.... where is no reason for me to search a better one.
SP102(P109/E88) 5,9/4,5 AC


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> Yeah SP115+ P-Cores is definitely good and worthy of keeping. I think some of us are after that extra oomph though which will reliably propel us to 6Ghz all cores with good cooling. I think we have a goal in mind of SP120 or better, so when we get SP115/SP116/SP117/SP118 we’re just not quite happy yet.
> 
> Once I get my hands on an SP120+ chip I’m probably gonna lap the IHS. No delidding or any of that. But I have seen some huge gains when the IHS is properly lapped of like 6-7C reductions alone.
> 
> One thing that’s good about the 13900K is they are all great chips regardless of how good the silicon is. Even the worst 13900K is a massive leap over even the best 12900KS samples.


Lol 12900KS best sample < worst 13700K it's insane


----------



## HemuV2

PhoenixMDA said:


> I have only P109, i think under extrem strong cooling arround P105/106+ can do 5,9ghz allcore, i had one P102 with that i think isn´t possible.
> The delid bring me perhaps 100mhz more and with voltage to the limit now i think 6Ghz perhaps possible if it´s cold enough, but the current is then for me to high.
> 
> It´s really no especially chip,but the imc is ok and perhaps it´s not easy to find a imc can do 4400, my is not far away and so it´s ok for me with DDR4.
> SP102(P109/E88) 5,9/4,5 AC
> View attachment 2586153
> View attachment 2586154


I wish i had those ecores lol mine is 109/73💀


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

tps3443 said:


> Well that’s what I thought too. But I could never stabilize 7800 before on the other tested 13900K’s. But this one is like Pshhhhh w/e. 😎.
> 
> So it has me really wondering. Maybe when you are on the limits of the motherboard a better IMC helps? I’m not really sure.


New A80 bios helped immensely. Maybe u updated the bios.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

HemuV2 said:


> I wish i had those ecores lol mine is 109/73💀


It´s much more important what your IMC is possible to doIf that bad then you can be really sad...
My first 13900k had a SP92 (P102/E73), that is the second one.


----------



## HemuV2

PhoenixMDA said:


> It´s much more important what your IMC is possible to doIf that bad then you can be really sad...
> My first 13900k had a SP92 (P102/E73), that is the second one.


My imc boots 4300, but my bios sucks so I can't really test it properly. Rn I'm running 4000cl15 stable


----------



## imrevoau

Forcing the most out of the IMC is difficult. In the end it doesn't matter but I'd love to see 70000MB/s Read. Sadly I just don't think the IMC is up to it for now.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

HemuV2 said:


> My imc boots 4300, but my bios sucks so I can't really test it properly. Rn I'm running 4000cl15 stable


Only by MSI and Asus i know that you can get great results also with DR Kit´s.
The impact between 4000 to 4300 or my 4377 is not so much as you think.


----------



## bass junkie xl

z790 strix D4 / 13900k / 32gb @ 4,300 c15 Gear 1 10 cycles of tm5 absolute , y cruncher main tested passed first time trying 4300 passed didnt have to tinker with it might try 4400 c16 ?


----------



## RichKnecht

All I can say is, that if you are reading this thread, is that over clocking is in your brain. We spend so much time to literally try and squeeze out maybe a 5% performance bump, myself included. I told myself that I would leave it at default and undervolt it instead of overclocking it. Yeah right. A couple posts in and I was headed down the yellow brick road looking for that 5%. Sure, R23 scores went up, but real world use, I’ll never notice. I don’t play games so maybe you get a few fps extra, no idea. The one thing overclocking did was to show me that something is amiss with my cooling. I’m sure I’ll figure it out, or hope to. I did learn a lot from the patient folks here and I try to share what I now know from experience on what works and what doesn’t. What I really need to do is stop messing with this thing and get some work done 😜


----------



## Telstar

bass junkie xl said:


> z790 strix D4 / 13900k / 32gb @ 4,300 c15 Gear 1 10 cycles of tm5 absolute , y cruncher main tested passed first time trying 4300 passed didnt have to tinker with it might try 4400 c16 ?


Yes, try.


----------



## affxct

HemuV2 said:


> Lol 12900KS best sample < worst 13700K it's insane


I have the literal worst 13700K on Earth, so hit me up if you need data for comparison.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> All I can say is, that if you are reading this thread, is that over clocking is in your brain. We spend so much time to literally try and squeeze out maybe a 5% performance bump, myself included. I told myself that I would leave it at default and undervolt it instead of overclocking it. Yeah right. A couple posts in and I was headed down the yellow brick road looking for that 5%. Sure, R23 scores went up, but real world use, I’ll never notice. I don’t play games so maybe you get a few fps extra, no idea. The one thing overclocking did was to show me that something is amiss with my cooling. I’m sure I’ll figure it out, or hope to. I did learn a lot from the patient folks here and I try to share what I now know from experience on what works and what doesn’t. What I really need to do is stop messing with this thing and get some work done 😜


Now, imagine popping in a new and different 13900K. The tuning restarts all over again! Lol


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Now, imagine popping in a new and different 13900K. The tuning restarts all over again! Lol


LMAO...no thanks. I am too old for this stuff  However, I did figure out the whole LLC/DC LL/AC LL thing a few posts ago. VIDs and Vcore match under full load and I am able to boost all cores to 6.0 under light/medium loads. So I AM getting SOMEWHERE. Sill it uses more voltage than needed, butVIDs are programmed so high that I can't lower voltage anymore. No matter how high of an offset I use, I hit a 1.262 voltage "floor"


----------



## DBCooper1

affxct said:


> I have the literal worst 13700K on Earth, so hit me up if you need data for comparison.


I have the same motherboard/cpu as you. How are you determining your min VR VOUT?


----------



## affxct

DBCooper1 said:


> I have the same motherboard/cpu as you. How are you determining your min VR VOUT?


I checked my SP on two Asus boards that I’ve tested over the last month. In terms of Vmin, my chip doesn’t seem to be doing too bad with R23 requirements, but I’m not sure. It should be the worst based on P-SP and E-SP alone. Also the fact that I can’t train above D4-4000. I’ve trained D5-8000, but of course the Dark is currently incapable of even attempting daily’ing that, not that my IMCs would be up for it anyway.


----------



## RichKnecht

I gave up on memory OCing with anything higher than the rated XMP values. Pretty disappointing since this 4x16 (16 16 16 36) B-die kit did so well with X299. I don't even know where to start. Memory Try It! should be called Memory Russian Roulette because it throws so many errors you feel like shooting yourself. Maybe when I have a spare month or so I'll give it another go. But since I don't do any gaming, I'm not sure what OCing the memory would even do. I mean, this thing is blazing fast now.


----------



## HemuV2

bass junkie xl said:


> z790 strix D4 / 13900k / 32gb @ 4,300 c15 Gear 1 10 cycles of tm5 absolute , y cruncher main tested passed first time trying 4300 passed didnt have to tinker with it might try 4400 c16 ?
> 
> View attachment 2586190
> 
> View attachment 2586188
> View attachment 2586191


P/E sp?


----------



## HemuV2

affxct said:


> I have the literal worst 13700K on Earth, so hit me up if you need data for comparison.


I MEAN it does 5.5 stable which is a dream for KS so


----------



## HemuV2

imrevoau said:


> Forcing the most out of the IMC is difficult. In the end it doesn't matter but I'd love to see 70000MB/s Read. Sadly I just don't think the IMC is up to it for now.
> View attachment 2586177


mine does 70+ at just 4000


----------



## RichKnecht

OK, for those who are interested ( or care )....here are the MSI DC LL values for the most popular LLC levels according to my setup using a Z790 Tomahawk:

LLC 4 ~ 29 mOhms (approx)
LLC 5 ~ 42 mOhms (approx)
LLC 6 ~ 58 mOhms (approx)
LLC 7 69 mOhms, tested to be exact on my board
LLC 8 ~ 98 mOhms (approx)

If you try one of those values other than LLC7 ,you may have to add or subtract a couple mOhms to get a VID/Vcore match as I didn't put in the time for those values.. Once you find your match, adjust AC LL to around 20 and check stability. If it's stable, you can try lowering the voltage a little.


----------



## Spiriva

.


----------



## T0XiiC

Hey, I own the i9 13900k since last week. Been adjusting my voltages only (dont really care about max overclock, at least yet) 

My mainboard is the gigabyte Z690 Aorus Master. LLC is set to Extreme and I set the "fixed voltage" to 1.230V in Bios. 5.5GHz P Core / stock rest cause 4.4 E Core would crash after a few mins. 5.6 would need 1.3V at least in bios, while I havent tested it yet for longer than 15min OCCT. 


Those are screens from HWinfo while cinebench was running for like 2mins,just to show you the readings under full load.

















Does this look okay? anything I need worry about? 

Or is there even someone else in here with an aorus board that uses different settings than fixed voltage? Never tried something else, so I didnt bother with it. 

And what is a safe 24/7 voltage for raptor lake without worrying about degrading?

Thanks for any answer!


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> OK, for those who are interested ( or care )....here are the MSI DC LL values for the most popular LLC levels according to my setup using a Z790 Tomahawk:
> 
> LLC 4 ~ 29 mOhms (approx)
> LLC 5 ~ 42 mOhms (approx)
> LLC 6 ~ 58 mOhms (approx)
> LLC 7 69 mOhms, tested to be exact on my board
> LLC 8 ~ 98 mOhms (approx)
> 
> If you try one of those values other than LLC7 ,you may have to add or subtract a couple mOhms to get a VID/Vcore match as I didn't put in the time for those values.. Once you find your match, adjust AC LL to around 20 and check stability. If it's stable, you can try lowering the voltage a little.


You based this off of vCore reading in HWINFO, right? Since your board does not have VR VOUT?


----------



## 7empe

My quite golden 13900KF SP 108 (P 118, E 88, MC 81) on Asus Z690 Apex (bios 2203).
LLC 3, AC_LL=23
Adaptive Voltage 1470 mV

P-Cores: 62x3, 61x5, 60x6, 59x7 and 58x all-core.
E-Cores: 47x all-core.
Ring: 51x

With OCTVB it goes +2 to the above, but visible mainly in gaming due to low OCTVB temp thresholds (default, no offsets yet).


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> You based this off of vCore reading in HWINFO, right? Since your board does not have VR VOUT?


Correct. Most say that Vcore is reading ~ .02 higher on MSI boards than it actually is, so I am VERY close. If I knew exactly what my VR out was, it wouldn't take much to make a small adjustment to get them to match again. I mean... .02 is margain of error territory. There are so many things I wish I knew about this board before I bough it, but it's doing just fine now that I know its quirks.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> Correct. Most say that Vcore is reading ~ .02 higher on MSI boards than it actually is, so I am VERY close. If I knew exactly what my VR out was, it wouldn't take much to make a small adjustment to get them to match again. I mean... .02 is margain of error territory. There are so many things I wish I knew about this board before I bough it, but it's doing just fine now that I know its quirks.


Yeah it's a rough estimate. Tying the DC_LL to that more inaccurate reading probably doesn't matter all that much.. you're talking about maybe ~10 watts of inaccuracy in power reporting, maybe? 15 max?


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> Yeah it's a rough estimate. Tying the DC_LL to that more inaccurate reading probably doesn't matter all that much.. you're talking about maybe ~10 watts of inaccuracy in power reporting, maybe? 15 max?


Exactly. Before vcore was showing 1.278 under load and VIDs were showing 1.23. Not close at all. Now both are showing 1.264 under full load. Maybe someone will try LLC 7 with AC set to 20 and DC set to 69 and we will see the results.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Set DC_LL to "1" as well, and then tune DC_LL until VR VOUT and VID matches. Since we know 89 matches on my Unify-X, I'd start at 80 and go from there. You'd raise DC_LL until it matches, as I can't imagine less than 80 will match at LLC7.
> 
> Once you've matched, I'd start with AC_LL at 25, and go from there. You can adjust your voltages for 2-core load through the offset page, and even for all-core if you want. I found going too low on AC_LL was causing system hangs at idle, even if the voltage was still within what's stable. I'm currently running AC_LL 24.
> 
> I think most chips can do a -0.040mv undervolt at the 58x ratio as a starting point.


Forgot to ask. After DC_LL is locked in with the LLC, do you leave AC_LL at 1 while you overclock, and _after_ you're done with the multipliers and minimum Vcore necessary, _then_ you try to increase AC_LL from 1?
@RichKnecht


----------



## WayWayUp

I’m a little disappointed I was expecting more from memory but maybe I’m just naive 

Getting 8000m/t I was hoping for 8200 but memtest produced errors. Also it hates cl34. I have a better chance of getting 8200 than I do cas 34. Also running tweak 2 and it perfected RTLs 

Running 8000 36 46 46 36
Increasing memory voltages didn’t do anything, I probably need more SA or IO. I was able to get TRFC down to 575 without issues
Running 50 ring prob can do 51 but still just testing
I’m very happy with the cpu though. 6.2/6.1/5.9/5.8 all core without TBV and it runs with comfortable voltages and great temperatures


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Forgot to ask. After DC_LL is locked in, do you leave AC_LL as 1 while you overclock, and after you're done doing so with the multipliers and Vcore, _then_ you try to increase AC_LL from 1?


I started at 25, and then tried to move it down. Ended up sticking with 24, since any lower was causing issues at idle.

Once you have DC_LL set up correctly with AC_LL at "1", and then set AC_LL to whatever number you desire, the VIDs won't match exactly anymore, but that's OK. DC_LL should be matched to the raw VID without manipulation from AC Loadline; just wanted to clarify that.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> I started at 25, and then tried to move it down. Ended up sticking with 24, since any lower was causing issues at idle.


Wait, so... Set AC_LL to 1 to begin with, then lock in an LLC and adjust DC_LL so that the VIDs match Vcore _strictly on idle_.

After that's done, raise AC_LL to 25, and then do your overclocking, and _after_ you're done that, try to drop AC_LL towards 1?


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Wait, so... Set AC_LL to 1 to begin with, then lock in an LLC and adjust DC_LL so that the VIDs match Vcore _strictly on idle_.
> 
> After that's done, raise AC_LL to 25, and then do your overclocking, and _after_ you're done that, try to drop AC_LL towards 1?


I edited my post to clarify.

You are matching VID with VCore under load, not idle. I used CB23 for the load.

As for AC_LL, it is a tool to change your load voltages. I found that if you set it too low, even if that set voltage works fine with a higher AC_LL, you will end up with issues at idle. Makes sense since AC_LL affects idle as well, since it's a loadline.

Ultimately, 25 is a good starting point. You can try moving it around to manipulate your voltage, but going too low can be an issue too.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> I edited my post to clarify.
> 
> You are matching VID with VCore under load, not idle. I used CB23 for the load.


That confuses me more. How could you match it under load if AC_LL 1 would just crash?


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> That confuses me more. How could you match it under load if AC_LL 1 would just crash?


I didn't crash, at least not immediately, but if that happens you can use something lighter.. maybe TM5 or Karhu.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ok, this is what I did and it worked perfectly ( for me ). I set DC and AC LL to 1. Ran 20 R23 loads. Took the average of the v core readings and put them in an online resistance calculator. The value it gave me was 65. I entered 65 as the DC LL box and left AC on 1. Booted it up and 65 seemed too low. I adjusted the value up and when I entered 69 and booted, voltages matched perfectly, even when it clocked down at idle. I then entered bios and entered 30 as the AC LL value as I read that a good starting place for AC LL is half of the DC value. Voltages at this point did not match. I then kept lowering AC LL until voltages matched. That value is 20. Right now at idle or all core load, vcore and VIDs match exactly. Both show 1.264 under full load. . I am using the adaptive advanced VF curve setting at 1.375V with a negative .070 offset for the 57x clock setting. Jeez, I hope that makes sense.


----------



## RichKnecht

Let me add that I tried AC LL at 18 and even though it passed R23, it failed my Photoshop test. I raised it back to 20 and it seems just fine. Again, at these settings, my vcore and VIDs match under load. They are within .002 of each other at idle.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Ok, this is what I did and it worked perfectly ( for me ). I set DC and AC LL to 1. Ran 20 R23 loads. Took the average of the v core readings and put them in an online resistance calculator. The value it gave me was 65. I entered 65 as the DC LL box and left AC on 1. Booted it up and 65 seemed too low. I adjusted the value up and when I entered 69 and booted, voltages matched perfectly, even when it clocked down at idle. I then entered bios and entered 30 as the AC LL value as I read that a good starting place for AC LL is half of the DC value. Voltages at this point did not match. I then kept lowering AC LL until voltages matched. That value is 20. Right now at idle or all core load, vcore and VIDs match exactly. Both show 1.264 under full load. . I am using the adaptive advanced V2 curve setting at 1.375V with a negative .070 offset for the 57x clock setting. Jeez, I hope that makes sense.


Made a lot more sense than I thought it would. Only question: At what point do you plug in your overclock and Vcore adjustment? Before or after AC_LL is optimized?

Also, the Z690 Edge doesn't even have the Adaptive + Advanced VF mode yet.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Made a lot more sense than I thought it would. Only question: At what point do you plug in your overclock and Vcore adjustment? Before or after AC_LL is optimized?
> 
> Also, the Z690 Edge doesn't even have the Adaptive + Advanced VF mode yet.


After AC is optimized. When I loaded my previous OC, I punched in 20 and 69 and voltages matched once again. So I guess I did something right. The most important part is getting DC LL impedance to match LLC impedance.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> After AC is optimized. When I loaded my previous OC, I punched in 20 and 69 and voltages matched once again. So I guess I did something right. The most important part is getting DC LL impedance to match LLC impedance.


So leave the core multipliers and Vcore on stock, optimize DC_LL, and _then _optimize AC_LL, both under idle and load, and _then _plug in your overclock and Vcore adjustments?

Is there any particular reason why LLC 7 is preferred over the other LLC settings? Or is it just that it's best to max out Vcore and LLC Vdroop, and then adjust offsets to suit?


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> So leave the core multipliers and Vcore on stock, optimize DC_LL, and _then _optimize AC_LL, both under idle and load, and _then _plug in your overclock and Vcore adjustments?
> 
> Is there any particular reason why LLC 7 is preferred over the other LLC settings? Or is it just that it's best to max out Vcore and LLC Vdroop, and then adjust offsets to suit?


Yes, start with all defaults. Tune DC, then AC just under load. Then plug in your overclock with those values. Since you tuned DC LL to LLC and tuned AC LL to DCLL, any voltage you use should behave in the same manner as it did when using default voltage. That’s how it worked here.

Not really. I just picked 7 as that seemed to be what people were using.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Yes, start with all defaults. Tune DC, then AC just under load. Then plug in your overclock with those values. Since you tuned DC LL to LLC and tuned AC LL to DCLL, any voltage you use should behave in the same manner as it did when using default voltage. That’s how it worked here.
> 
> Not really. I just picked 7 as that seemed to be what people were using.


Got a very clear picture now. Will give it a test later.


----------



## tps3443

With all of the CPU samples I have tested, and also looking at others Force 2 and Asus SP rating.

*I have created a MSI FORCE 2 CONVERSION for Asus P-Core SP rating. 

This is going by only “P-Core SP rating” 

P-Core SP124= Force 109
P-Core SP123= Force 112
P-Core SP122= Force 115
P-Core SP121= Force 118
P-Core SP120= Force 121
P-Core SP119= Force 124
P-Core SP118= Force 127
P-Core SP117= Force 130
P-Core SP116= Force 133
P-Core SP115= Force 136
P-Core SP114= Force 139
P-Core SP113= Force 142
P-Core SP112= Force 145
P-Core SP111= Force 148
P-Core SP110= Force 151
P-Core SP109= Force 154
P-Core SP108= Force 157
P-Core SP107= Force 160
P-Core SP106= Force 163


I hope this helps!! I think the chart is accurate as it directly correlates with my tested CPU’s and other people CPU’s too! *


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> With all of the CPU samples I have tested, and also looking at others Force 2 and Asus SP rating.
> 
> *I have created a MSI FORCE 2 CONVERSION for Asus P-Core SP rating.
> 
> This is going by only “P-Core SP rating”
> 
> P-Core SP124= Force 109
> P-Core SP123= Force 112
> P-Core SP122= Force 115
> P-Core SP121= Force 118
> P-Core SP120= Force 121
> P-Core SP119= Force 124
> P-Core SP118= Force 127
> P-Core SP117= Force 130
> P-Core SP116= Force 133
> P-Core SP115= Force 136
> P-Core SP114= Force 139
> P-Core SP113= Force 142
> P-Core SP112= Force 145
> P-Core SP111= Force 148
> P-Core SP110= Force 151
> P-Core SP109= Force 154
> P-Core SP108= Force 157
> P-Core SP107= Force 160
> P-Core SP106= Force 163
> 
> 
> I hope this helps!! I think the chart is accurate as it directly correlates with my tested CPU’s and other people CPU’s too! *


Microsoft Excel to the rescue!

On a side note, doesn't that mean your golden chip is already P-SP 121 or so?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Microsoft Excel to the rescue!
> 
> On a side note, doesn't that mean your golden chip is already P-SP 121 or so?


My chip is Force 124 on normal water.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> My chip is Force 124 on normal water.


So it's only accurate... with typical cooling solutions and not chillers xD


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> So it's only accurate... with typical cooling solutions and not chillers xD


Correct.

Force2 can be manipulated with really cold 5C water and clicking it a billion times Lol.


----------



## don1376

tps3443 said:


> With all of the CPU samples I have tested, and also looking at others Force 2 and Asus SP rating.
> 
> *I have created a MSI FORCE 2 CONVERSION for Asus P-Core SP rating.
> 
> This is going by only “P-Core SP rating”
> 
> P-Core SP124= Force 109
> P-Core SP123= Force 112
> P-Core SP122= Force 115
> P-Core SP121= Force 118
> P-Core SP120= Force 121
> P-Core SP119= Force 124
> P-Core SP118= Force 127
> P-Core SP117= Force 130
> P-Core SP116= Force 133
> P-Core SP115= Force 136
> P-Core SP114= Force 139
> P-Core SP113= Force 142
> P-Core SP112= Force 145
> P-Core SP111= Force 148
> P-Core SP110= Force 151
> P-Core SP109= Force 154
> P-Core SP108= Force 157
> P-Core SP107= Force 160
> P-Core SP106= Force 163
> 
> 
> I hope this helps!! I think the chart is accurate as it directly correlates with my tested CPU’s and other people CPU’s too! *


Unify X Force2 rating 154. I show .964v in bios with posted setting. 3ghz all auto. Does that match your conversion table? Gives my 13900k an SP109. On loop no chiiler.


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> Unify X Force2 rating 154. I show .964v in bios with posted setting. 3ghz all auto. Does that match your conversion table? Gives my 13900k an SP109.


@tps3443 should really be listing the VR VOUT for each tier with 55/43/45 as well.

What is your minimum when you run 55/43/45?


----------



## tps3443

don1376 said:


> Unify X Force2 rating 154. I show .964v in bios with posted setting. 3ghz all auto. Does that match your conversion table? Gives my 13900k an SP109. On loop no chiiler.


Force 154 is SP109-SP110 most likely.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Force 154 is SP109-SP110 most likely.


You should start gathering 55/43/45 minimum VR VOUT and matching it to the tiers as well so people without a Unify or ASUS board can get a rough estimate for where their chip sits. Can just interpolate most of the tiers after a handful or two of readings.


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 should really be listing the VR VOUT for each tier with 55/43/45 as well.
> 
> What is your minimum when you run 55/43/45?


Min VR OUT under load is 1.2v under R23 load with those clocks set. Everything else auto. 1.24v idle Force2 154


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 should really be listing the VR VOUT for each tier with 55/43/45 as well.
> 
> What is your minimum when you run 55/43/45?


That’s the thing we don’t really know. All chips are different in different areas. My Force 134 had abnormally low VID’s for 5.8Ghz so it could do crazy 260 watt R23 runs for 30 minutes on all cores totally stable. But, at 5.7Ghz it was normal VID’s worse off then even slightly lower SP chips Lol.

We only now have an approximate estimation to guess the P-Core SP based on the Force rating number which seems to be accurate. But even having a good SP doesn’t always guarantee a good chip. It most likely will be good chip, but chances are it’s really phenomenal in one area at least.


----------



## VULC

116 does the job, considering I had an SP93 P core 12900K I'm happy 😊 may the force be with you.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> That’s the thing we don’t really know. All chips are different in different areas. My Force 134 had abnormally low VID’s for 5.8Ghz so it could do crazy 260 watt R23 runs for 30 minutes on all cores totally stable. But, at 5.7Ghz it was normal VID’s worse off then even slightly lower SP chips Lol.
> 
> We only now have an approximate estimation to guess the P-Core SP based on the Force rating number which seems to be accurate. But even having a good SP doesn’t always guarantee a good chip. It most likely will be good chip, but chances are it’s really phenomenal in one area at least.


Looking forward to seeing you list VR VOUT minimums for 55/43/45 as well in the chart


----------



## RichKnecht

VULC said:


> 116 does the job, considering I had an SP93 P core 12900K I'm happy 😊 may the force be with you.


We are at a point where the difference between a “good“ chip and “bad” chip is, at best, a 7% difference in performance. Time to sit back and enjoy the speed.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> That’s the thing we don’t really know. All chips are different in different areas. My Force 134 had abnormally low VID’s for 5.8Ghz so it could do crazy 260 watt R23 runs for 30 minutes on all cores totally stable. But, at 5.7Ghz it was normal VID’s worse off then even slightly lower SP chips Lol.
> 
> We only now have an approximate estimation to guess the P-Core SP based on the Force rating number which seems to be accurate. But even having a good SP doesn’t always guarantee a good chip. It most likely will be good chip, but chances are it’s really phenomenal in one area at least.


I think the lower VIDs at 58 are due to the way the VID table is programmed. These chips aren’t spec’ed for an all p-core 58 multiplier. That’s my guess.


----------



## HemuV2

RichKnecht said:


> We are at a point where the difference between a “good“ chip and “bad” chip is, at best, a 7% difference in performance. Time to sit back and enjoy the speed.


Even the worst sample will do 5.6 albeit at high voltage and decent samples will do 5.7-5.8 and golden 5.9-6 so very minor difference and i expect KS to do 6ghz all core easily will probably match sp116+ pcore chips


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> Even the worst sample will do 5.6 albeit at high voltage and decent samples will do 5.7-5.8 and golden 5.9-6 so very minor difference and i expect KS to do 6ghz all core easily will probably match sp116+ pcore chips


KS is only validated to hit 6ghz on 2 cores so maybe this gen KS still be a nothing burger like 9900KS.


----------



## RichKnecht

HemuV2 said:


> Even the worst sample will do 5.6 albeit at high voltage and decent samples will do 5.7-5.8 and golden 5.9-6 so very minor difference and i expect KS to do 6ghz all core easily will probably match sp116+ pcore chips


The KS will be the 1700 socket’s swan song. Then, in typical Intel fashion, the new chips/ sockets will be announced making the 1309KS like the 1200KS. The 14th gen will be better and the vicious cycle will start all over again. I thought my 10980 would be my last chip. But a bad motherboard forced me to get a 13900K. This chip is more than I’ll ever need, especially since I plan on retirement next year. Then I’ll spend my money on my other disease, cameras. I wish I had cheap hobbies like collecting classic cars…😜


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> KS is only validated to hit 6ghz on 2 cores so maybe this gen KS still be a nothing burger like 9900KS.


 It would be cool to bin (100) 13900KS chips and keep the best (2) of the bunch! Man, if only I was rich. I could really be the lamest person ever! 🤣

That would be a blast though. My goodness.


----------



## dirceura1

Could you share your bios? And bios 2203 too?









7empe said:


> Meu bastante dourado 13900KF SP 108 (P 118, E 88, MC 81) no Asus Z690 Apex (bios 2203).
> LLC 3, AC_LL=23
> Tensão adaptável 1470 mV
> 
> P-Cores: 62x3, 61x5, 60x6, 59x7 e 58x all-core.
> Núcleos E: 47x all-core.
> Anel: 51x
> 
> Com OCTVB vai +2 para o acima, mas visível principalmente em jogos devido aos baixos limiares de temperatura OCTVB (padrão, sem compensações ainda).
> 
> View attachment 2586252
> 
> [/CITAR]


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> I gave up on memory OCing with anything higher than the rated XMP values. Pretty disappointing since this 4x16 (16 16 16 36) B-die kit did so well with X299. I don't even know where to start. Memory Try It! should be called Memory Russian Roulette because it throws so many errors you feel like shooting yourself. Maybe when I have a spare month or so I'll give it another go. But since I don't do any gaming, I'm not sure what OCing the memory would even do. I mean, this thing is blazing fast now.


Rich, post a screenshot of your timings and voltages in ddr4 thread as they are and lets see what we can do...I'm sure some of us can help...a bunch of us use msi boards and some are running 4x...we can do better than xmp =)

Use dragon ball and dragon power...if you need em I'll see if I can post a link or something.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> Exactly. Before vcore was showing 1.278 under load and VIDs were showing 1.23. Not close at all. Now both are showing 1.264 under full load. Maybe someone will try LLC 7 with AC set to 20 and DC set to 69 and we will see the results.


I can try this weekend.


----------



## Telstar

RichKnecht said:


> The KS will be the 1700 socket’s swan song.


Dont be so sure, a RPL refresh is in the air.


----------



## Ichirou

Telstar said:


> Dont be so sure, a RPL refresh is in the air.


Just a rumoured RPL 13900KSS (tentative name). But I highly doubt its authenticity. Don't see a point behind the release.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

tps3443 said:


> It would be cool to bin (100) 13900KS chips and keep the best (2) of the bunch! Man, if only I was rich. I could really be the lamest person ever! 🤣
> 
> That would be a blast though. My goodness.


just like...go work at intel and get us all good chips - prob solved.


----------



## tps3443

Uncle Dubbs said:


> just like...go work at intel and get us all good chips - prob solved.


We need the Intel master book with all serial numbers and VID’s recorded.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

tps3443 said:


> We need the Intel master book with all serial numbers and VID’s recorded.


Ok your idea seems better…operation ITWAT, instead of tps working at Intel…who’s in? Ok, I just re read that acronym, maybe not good, whose in for an operation to rename the operation.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> We need the Intel master book with all serial numbers and VID’s recorded.


Or just get a job as the dude who quality checks the chips for Intel, and deliberately marks the diamond bins as "faulty"


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Or just get a job as the dude who quality checks the chips for Intel, and deliberately marks the diamond bins as "faulty"


I wonder if there is like a SP150 P-Core 13900K LOL. I remember seeing SP130+ 10900K’s. So I imagine so.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I wonder if there is like a SP150 P-Core 13900K LOL. I remember seeing SP130+ 10900K’s. So I imagine so.


There should be.
But it's probably in the hands of some 18yo dude in his basement who doesn't know a thing about overclocking and only watches anime all day long and never games


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Rich, post a screenshot of your timings and voltages in ddr4 thread as they are and lets see what we can do...I'm sure some of us can help...a bunch of us use msi boards and some are running 4x...we can do better than xmp =)
> 
> Use dragon ball and dragon power...if you need em I'll see if I can post a link or something.


Thank you! Will do. I really don’t want to reload Windows at this point. Reinstalling all my editing programs isn’t fun. Especially when I forget all the passwords. 🙃


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Thank you! Will do. I really don’t want to reload Windows at this point. Reinstalling all my editing programs isn’t fun. Especially when I forget all the passwords. 🙃


I hate doing all that too! I mean, I need to setup a Windows 11 install exactly how I want it, and back it up. Then if I break my windows due to overclocking I can just run that backup. I don’t know why I choose the hard way everytime lol. Reinstalling windows, reinstalling everything else too.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> I hate doing all that too! I mean, I need to setup a Windows 11 install exactly how I want it, and back it up. Then if I break my windows due to overclocking I can just run that backup. I don’t know why I choose the hard way everytime lol. Reinstalling windows, reinstalling everything else too.


I try and put as many programs on a separate m.2 drive. However, some don’t like that. I always create a restore point when I mess with memory. It’s not a guarantee, but it makes me feel better. I had to reinstall Windows a few times back in my X58 overclocking days. Especially when I started using Xeons.


----------



## tps3443

Doesn’t the 13900KS launch 01/03/2022?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Doesn’t the 13900KS launch 01/03/2022?


Rumoured/leaked, but not officially announced.
It's just going to be 5.7/6.0 GHz anyway. Maybe 5.8 GHz if we're lucky, but chances are, considering how these chips degrade so easily, it'll be 5.7 GHz base.
Just P-SP 115+ 13900K chips rebranded as 13900KS.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Rumoured/leaked, but not officially announced.
> It's just going to be 5.7/6.0 GHz anyway. Maybe 5.8 GHz if we're lucky, but chances are, considering how these chips degrade so easily, it'll be 5.7 GHz base.
> Just P-SP 115+ 13900K chips rebranded as 13900KS.


I say 5.5/6.0 no way they are getting 5.7 all core with an AIO they wouldn't advertise that with e-cores enabled.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> Id say 5.5/6.0 no way they are getting 5.7 all core with an AIO they wouldn't advertise that.


[/QUOTE]

If the chips are good they can. I had a Force 134/SP116 P-Core 13900K and it did 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz ring @ 263 watts during a 30 minute R23 run. Intel can do it with 5.7 and a better chip easily.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> If the chips are good they can. I had a Force 134/SP116 P-Core 13900K and it did 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz ring @ 263 watts during a 30 minute R23 run. Intel can do it with 5.7 and a better chip easily.


Yeah, but what if Timmy buys the chip with a Noctua how can he get that? So he will just return it and say it didn't hit the advertised clocks.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> Yeah, but what if Timmy buys the chip with a Noctua how can he get that? So he will just return it and say it didn't hit the advertised clocks.


The auto voltage and auto LLC is what really gets to poor Timmy’s $30 dollar air cooler. I’ll be curious to see what Intel does for sure. If it’s binned super well, they can definitely pull it off though. Any sample 13900K can become pretty efficient.


----------



## imrevoau

RichKnecht said:


> We are at a point where the difference between a “good“ chip and “bad” chip is, at best, a 7% difference in performance. Time to sit back and enjoy the speed.


7% is still overselling the difference imho.


----------



## tps3443

imrevoau said:


> 7% is still overselling the difference imho.


It’s not just performance but the power usage, voltages, and low temps, and also how easily OCed stability is achieved that makes the really good chips worth it. Performance gain is pretty minimal.

But yeah, no massive gains. It’s just pure awesome at the end of the day and that’s all there is to it lol!


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Yeah, but what if Timmy buys the chip with a Noctua how can he get that? So he will just return it and say it didn't hit the advertised clocks.





tps3443 said:


> The auto voltage and auto LLC is what really gets to poor Timmy’s $30 dollar air cooler. I’ll be curious to see what Intel does for sure. If it’s binned super well, they can definitely pull it off though. Any sample 13900K can become pretty efficient.


I imagine it'll be marketed with the expectation of at least a 360mm AIO.
And even if not, it'll downclock and people have themselves to blame for trying to use a cooler that isn't meant for such high wattage.


----------



## don1376

RichKnecht said:


> Exactly. Before vcore was showing 1.278 under load and VIDs were showing 1.23. Not close at all. Now both are showing 1.264 under full load. Maybe someone will try LLC 7 with AC set to 20 and DC set to 69 and we will see the results.


LLC7 and 20/69 work great for me. With 0.060 negative offset at 54, 57, and 60 at idle I get 1.29v VROUT and VID couldn't be more in sync. Under load VROUT drops to 1.20v and VIDS show 1.23v with R23 running with all cores showing 5602.1 effective clocks and max temp 76c. I can probably raise my 8 core ratio to 57 now and still be in safe Temps and power.


----------



## RichKnecht

don1376 said:


> LLC7 and 20/69 work great for me. With 0.060 negative offset at 54, 57, and 60 at idle I get 1.29v VROUT and VID couldn't be more in sync. Under load VROUT drops to 1.20v and VIDS show 1.23v with R23 running with all cores showing 5602.1 effective clocks and max temp 76c. I can probably raise my 8 core ratio to 57 now and still be in safe Temps and power.


Awesome. Good to know that LLC7= 69 mOhms on a Unify as well. That means the rest of my values must be pretty close. Maybe +/- 1-4 mOhms.


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> If the chips are good they can. I had a Force 134/SP116 P-Core 13900K and it did 5.8Ghz P-Cores, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz ring @ 263 watts during a 30 minute R23 run. Intel can do it with 5.7 and a better chip easily.


30min CB23 doesn't mean jack in terms of a stable chip for baseline settings. The processor has to be stable in a lot more varied workloads than that to be sold at advertised speeds.

CB23 doesn't seem to mean much of anything with 13th gen, especially since Blender/Handbrake seem to be exposing errors more efficiently, and those aren't even considered heavy workloads these days.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> 30min CB23 doesn't mean jack in terms of a stable chip for baseline settings. The processor has to be stable in a lot more varied workloads than that to be sold at advertised speeds.
> 
> CB23 doesn't seem to mean much of anything with 13th gen, especially since Blender/Handbrake seem to be exposing errors more efficiently, and those aren't even considered heavy workloads these days.


Your right. It just makes me think a really good 13900KS should be okay.

I bet the 13900KS will probably consume the same power as an average sample 13900K running stock 5.5/5.8.


----------



## RichKnecht

@Ichirou before you start tweaking, with your present OC, set LLC to 7, AC LL to 20 and DC LL to 69 and see what happens.


----------



## tubs2x4

Be nice if the KS takes at min 100mv less voltage on avg at 5.7 than a k/kf can do.


----------



## Ichirou

tubs2x4 said:


> Be nice if the KS takes at min 100mv less voltage on avg at 5.7 than a k/kf can do.


Depends on what voltage you consider a "K/KF" can do. The range is quite vast right now, depending on quality.

I'm pretty confident that the majority of KS's will simply be P-SP 115+ 13900K's.
Or P-SP 110+ with more aggressive voltages. Will probably depend on whether they can meet demand.


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

don1376 said:


> LLC7 and 20/69 work great for me. With 0.060 negative offset at 54, 57, and 60 at idle I get 1.29v VROUT and VID couldn't be more in sync. Under load VROUT drops to 1.20v and VIDS show 1.23v with R23 running with all cores showing 5602.1 effective clocks and max temp 76c. I can probably raise my 8 core ratio to 57 now and still be in safe Temps and power.


Do your Unify-X drops vOUT in idle ? Like 0.9v. My vOUT stay same 1.3v in idle but vcore drops 0.9v for example


----------



## bigfootnz

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> Do your Unify-X drops vOUT in idle ? Like 0.9v. My vOUT stay same 1.3v in idle but vcore drops 0.9v for example


Vrout does not drop on idle on Unify-X


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

bigfootnz said:


> Vrout does not drop on idle on Unify-X


So does it feed high idle voltage to cpu then ?
Or vout supplying high idle voltage to vrm ? My cpu drops 0.9vcore. Confused for vout


----------



## RichKnecht

bigfootnz said:


> Vrout does not drop on idle on Unify-X


I don’t believe that vrout drops at idle on any board But v core should if set up properly.


----------



## bigfootnz

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> So does it feed high idle voltage to cpu then ?
> Or vout supplying high idle voltage to vrm ? My cpu drops 0.9vcore. Confused for vout


Not sure how that works, but Vcore drops. On other hand now I'm using static voltage so for me Vcore and Vrout are always same


----------



## StreaMRoLLeR

bigfootnz said:


> Not sure how that works, but Vcore drops. On other hand now I'm using static voltage so for me Vcore and Vrout are always same


Static voltage gang !
Me too. I found most stability and lowest game W consumption with static and LLC3 flat. 1.255 set in bios 1.253 in vout  ez pz


----------



## RichKnecht

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> Static voltage gang !
> Me too. I found most stability and lowest game W consumption with static and* LLC3 flat*. 1.255 set in bios 1.253 in vout  ez pz


The thing is we want some v droop in there, Having a "flat" voltage curve can cause voltage spikes when the load is released from the CPU. These spikes happen so fast that the only way to "see" them is with an oscilloscope. This was a big deal when I was running X299 and I can't imagine it being any different with these chips. Then again, this is just my take on it.


----------



## marti69

tps3443 said:


> My chip is Force 124 on normal water.


what is batch number of your golden chip?


----------



## don1376

StreaMRoLLeR said:


> Do your Unify-X drops vOUT in idle ? Like 0.9v. My vOUT stay same 1.3v in idle but vcore drops 0.9v for example


Mine does opposite vrout drops to 1.2v while vids show 1.23v. But happy with setting. Stable in R23, CB3 and CB5. Scores are equal or better and temp is way down. Like almost 10c lower.
Wait sorry at idle they are identical. 1.29 approximately for both. Don't really pay attention to vcore but at idle it matched also within 0.002v


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Rich, post a screenshot of your timings and voltages in ddr4 thread as they are and lets see what we can do...I'm sure some of us can help...a bunch of us use msi boards and some are running 4x...we can do better than xmp =)
> 
> Use dragon ball and dragon power...if you need em I'll see if I can post a link or something.


Looks like Dragon Power doesn't support my board


----------



## Ben Diss

Newbie question here. Can anyone explain or point to an explanation of why we want VROut and VID to match?


----------



## RichKnecht

Ben Diss said:


> Newbie question here. Can anyone explain or point to an explanation of why we want VROut and VID to match?


You want them to match *initially* to calibrate DC LL to the LLC setting you are using. So in my case, I am using LLC7 on a MSI board. which corresponds to a DC LL value of 69. I explained in a previous post how I figured that out and posted approximate values for other LLC settings. From there, I entered an arbitrary value for AC LL. I picked 30, as it is roughly half of the DC LL value. Then you lower the AC LL value until the chip is unstable. Then raise it a couple notches. All of this can be considered "fine tuning" as is not necessary. But this "fine tuning" allows you to achieve greater efficency for a given OC. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## Telstar

Ichirou said:


> Just a rumoured RPL 13900KSS (tentative name). But I highly doubt its authenticity. Don't see a point behind the release.


No, I think a full lineup if meteor lake is not ready for desktop.


----------



## Telstar

RichKnecht said:


> I always create a restore point when I mess with memory. It’s not a guarantee, but it makes me feel better.


Windows restore saved my ass so many times.


----------



## tps3443

Telstar said:


> Windows restore saved my ass so many times.


Glad I have that feature back!. On my golden 11900K Z590 Dark platform. It was a Raid 0 M.2 setup so that wouldn’t work. It was lightning fast, but you can’t see the drives outside of windows lol. I went to a single big M.2 Gen4 for 13th gen 😎


----------



## fray_bentos

RichKnecht said:


> Looks like Dragon Power doesn't support my board


Version 1.0.0.12 is working for my lowly Z690-P Pro.


----------



## RichKnecht

fray_bentos said:


> Version 1.0.0.12 is working for my lowly Z690-P Pro.


I tried looking for older versions but all of the download links are no longer working. OK, found 1.9.0.12 and it opens, but itwants me to update to the latest version.


----------



## Rexbag

Hi all. I'm building a 13700k machine on this mini-ITX mobo and just ordered this G.Skill RipJaws S5 Series 2x32GB DDR5 6000 CL32-38-38-96 kit.

My questions:

1) How can I tell if this is likely to be Hynix M-die as opposed to Samsung? On my Ryzen 5900x system I've got a lot of experience now tweaking my DDR4 and I'd like to do some tweaking on this DDR5 setup, and my understanding is that Hynix M-die is going to be my best bet. From something I heard Buildzoid say it would seem these may be Hynix because the rest of the primaries aren't 36, which he said would indicate it was probably Samsung.

2) How hard is it going to be to push this 2x32GB kit up to higher frequencies? I know, silicon lottery, etc. I'm talking about the fact that it's two two-channel DIMMs as opposed to two single-channel DIMMs. I understand that the two two-channel DIMMs will stress the IMC harder and therefor it's likely I won't be able to push these as hard as, say, two 16GB DIMMs that were otherwise the same. It's not four DIMMs, which I've read is significantly harder to push on DDR5 than it was on DDR4 with b-die, but how similar is the situation of two two-channel DIMMs compared to the difficulty of tweaking four single-channel DIMMs?

3) I decided on 64GB of memory because one of the things I'll be doing on this machine is video editing using 4K clips in Adobe Premiere Pro. There's a non-trivial chance that this could actually use more than 32GB of RAM. I'm taking a gamble that the potential speedup of having over 32GB of RAM will exceed the potential loss of tweaked speed and timings due to the two dual-channel DIMMs, but I don't know this for a fact. It kind of depends on how much harder it is to tweak these two 32GB DIMMs as compared to M-die 16GB DIMMs.


----------



## don1376

Rexbag said:


> Hi all. I'm building a 13700k machine on this mini-ITX mobo and just ordered this G.Skill RipJaws S5 Series 2x32GB DDR5 6000 CL32-38-38-96 kit.
> 
> My questions:
> 
> 1) How can I tell if this is likely to be Hynix M-die as opposed to Samsung? On my Ryzen 5900x system I've got a lot of experience now tweaking my DDR4 and I'd like to do some tweaking on this DDR5 setup, and my understanding is that Hynix M-die is going to be my best bet. From something I heard Buildzoid say it would seem these may be Hynix because the rest of the primaries aren't 36, which he said would indicate it was probably Samsung.
> 
> 2) How hard is it going to be to push this 2x32GB kit up to higher frequencies? I know, silicon lottery, etc. I'm talking about the fact that it's two two-channel DIMMs as opposed to two single-channel DIMMs. I understand that the two two-channel DIMMs will stress the IMC harder and therefor it's likely I won't be able to push these as hard as, say, two 16GB DIMMs that were otherwise the same. It's not four DIMMs, which I've read is significantly harder to push on DDR5 than it was on DDR4 with b-die, but how similar is the situation of two two-channel DIMMs compared to the difficulty of tweaking four single-channel DIMMs?
> 
> 3) I decided on 64GB of memory because one of the things I'll be doing on this machine is video editing using 4K clips in Adobe Premiere Pro. There's a non-trivial chance that this could actually use more than 32GB of RAM. I'm taking a gamble that the potential speedup of having over 32GB of RAM will exceed the potential loss of tweaked speed and timings due to the two dual-channel DIMMs, but I don't know this for a fact. It kind of depends on how much harder it is to tweak these two 32GB DIMMs as compared to M-die 16GB DIMMs.


Shouldnt you ask in ddr5 thread?


----------



## Rexbag

don1376 said:


> Shouldnt you ask in ddr5 thread?


Oh snap! I read the title wrong since I had RAM on my brain. I read this as 13*000 and RAM bins, etc. My bad, I need to slow down and actually read. Hooked on phonics really did work for me!


----------



## VULC

RichKnecht said:


> You want them to match *initially* to calibrate DC LL to the LLC setting you are using. So in my case, I am using LLC7 on a MSI board. which corresponds to a DC LL value of 69. I explained in a previous post how I figured that out and posted approximate values for other LLC settings. From there, I entered an arbitrary value for AC LL. I picked 30, as it is roughly half of the DC LL value. Then you lower the AC LL value until the chip is unstable. Then raise it a couple notches. All of this can be considered "fine tuning" as is not necessary. But this "fine tuning" allows you to achieve greater efficency for a given OC. Hope that makes sense.


Asus does it automatically doesn't it?


----------



## RichKnecht

VULC said:


> Asus does it automatically doesn't it?


Yes. Asus automatically sets DC LL to the correct value for whatever LLC you set. You still need to tweak AC LL, but that’s not all that hard.


----------



## HemuV2

RichKnecht said:


> Yes. Asus automatically sets DC LL to the correct value for whatever LLC you set. You still need to tweak AC LL, but that’s not all that hard.


Can you tell how i can tweak it for LLC 5? I know the resistance is 0.73


----------



## Ichirou

My MSI Z790 Edge DDR4 arrived. Going to do a comparison with the Z690 Edge now.
For reference: 1.24V (BIOS) VCC Sense @ LLC Mode 5, Lite Load Mode 1, Stock Multipliers of 55/43/45, Cinebench R23

Z690 Edge HWiNFO (Rounded Active Values): 1.23V Vcore, 1.20V VR VOUT, 215A, ~260W

Will post Z790 values in a bit. And will also test to see if 4,266 MHz is stable, and whether I can boot over 4,400 MHz (both in Gear 1).


----------



## bsdinis

Got my 13700K OCCT stable for multiple hours with these settings, full specs in my signature.

1~2 P-cores 57x, 3~8 P-cores 55x, from stock 54x/53x
ring 51x, from stock 48x
V/F Curve points 1 to 9 at -50mV, point 10 at -30mV and point 11 at 0mV
all voltages Auto, except SA manually set to 900mV
LLC Auto(3)
don't care about E-cores for now
PL1 & PL2 at 253W


----------



## fray_bentos

Ichirou said:


> My MSI Z790 Edge DDR4 arrived. Going to do a comparison with the Z690 Edge now.
> For reference: 1.24V (BIOS) VCC Sense @ LLC Mode 5, Lite Load Mode 1, Stock Multipliers of 55/43/45, Cinebench R23
> 
> Z690 Edge HWiNFO (Rounded Active Values): 1.23V Vcore, 1.20V VR VOUT, 215A, ~260W
> 
> Will post Z790 values in a bit. And will also test to see if 4,266 MHz is stable, and whether I can boot over 4,400 MHz (both in Gear 1).


Prediction: the mobo will make little to no difference.


----------



## Ichirou

Ichirou said:


> My MSI Z790 Edge DDR4 arrived. Going to do a comparison with the Z690 Edge now.
> For reference: 1.24V (BIOS) VCC Sense @ LLC Mode 5, Lite Load Mode 1, Stock Multipliers of 55/43/45, Cinebench R23
> 
> Z690 Edge HWiNFO (Rounded Active Values): 1.23V Vcore, 1.20V VR VOUT, 215A, ~260W
> 
> Will post Z790 values in a bit. And will also test to see if 4,266 MHz is stable, and whether I can boot over 4,400 MHz (both in Gear 1).





fray_bentos said:


> Prediction: the mobo will make little to no difference.


The Z790 Edge does not have any VR VOUT readings as others have previously stated.
With the exact same reference settings plugged in, the Vcore in HWiNFO reports as ~1.22V when running R23.

4,400 MHz still boots, and does in fact pass y-cruncher with auto timings, which is quite nice. Previously it wouldn't even run y-cruncher on the Edge.
This was tested with 1.37V VCCSA. 1.35V does not work.









Sadly, after attempting to drop VCCSA and tighten some timings, the board pretty much bricked?
Having trouble even with CMOS resets and BIOS reflashes. Gonna try a BIOS flashback via USB. Annoying.

Update: Even the BIOS flashback never stops. I had to forcefully power it off and boot up just to see if it worked or not. Which it did.
Reflashing the BIOS again to be 100% sure it is clean. Yikes, MSI.

-----------------------------------------

Anyway, summary in regards to the voltage discrepancies:
*1.24V VCC Sense in BIOS @ LLC 5 and Lite Load 1

Z690 Edge: ~1.23V Vcore (HWiNFO), ~1.20V VR VOUT
Z790 Edge: ~1.22V Vcore (HWiNFO), ~1.19V VR VOUT (Estimated)
Z790 Strix: ~1.19V Vcore (HWiNFO), ~1.19V VR VOUT (Estimated)*

-----------------------------------------

Since it seems that my CPU's IMC isn't strong enough for tightened memory on 4,400 MHz, I'm gonna test 4,300 MHz tightened instead.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> The Z790 Edge does not have any VR VOUT readings as others have previously stated.
> With the exact same reference settings plugged in, the Vcore in HWiNFO reports as ~1.22V when running R23.
> 
> 4,400 MHz still boots, and does in fact pass y-cruncher with auto timings, which is quite nice. Previously it wouldn't even run y-cruncher on the Edge.
> This was tested with 1.37V VCCSA. 1.35V does not work.
> View attachment 2586538
> 
> 
> Sadly, after attempting to drop VCCSA and tighten some timings, the board pretty much bricked?
> Having trouble even with CMOS resets and BIOS reflashes. Gonna try a BIOS flashback via USB. Annoying.
> 
> Update: Even the BIOS flashback never stops. I had to forcefully power it off and boot up just to see if it worked or not. Which it did.
> Reflashing the BIOS again to be 100% sure it is clean. Yikes, MSI.
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Anyway, summary in regards to the voltage discrepancies:
> *1.24V VCC Sense in BIOS @ LLC 5 and Lite Load 1
> 
> Z690 Edge: ~1.23V Vcore, ~1.20V VR VOUT
> Z790 Edge: ~1.22V Vcore*
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Since it seems that my CPU's IMC isn't strong enough for tightened memory on 4,400 MHz, I'm gonna test 4,300 MHz tightened instead.


yes, im finding the booting and training very slow on this board....especially compared to my z490 tomahawk...its weird. I turned off the number of retrain tries and retrain if mem o/.c failed to off as well so it doesnt just keep trying to train after a failure....but even after doing this...its slower. hopefully like a new bios will be better. what bios version you running?


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> yes, im finding the booting and training very slow on this board....especially compared to my z490 tomahawk...its weird. I turned off the number of retrain tries and retrain if mem o/.c failed to off as well so it doesnt just keep trying to train after a failure....but even after doing this...its slower. hopefully like a new bios will be better. what bios version you running?


V1.30, since @MisterSheikh could do 4,400 MHz CL16 stable and boot 4,533 MHz with it.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> V1.30, since @MisterSheikh could do 4,400 MHz CL16 stable and boot 4,533 MHz with it.


ya the one they revised all weird, I may try it again this weekend but I dunno


----------



## bhav

God dammit I was in the wrong thread wondering why no new replies were happening cos I thought it was this one lol.

....

Arctic 420 AIO dispatched, and my refund for the 360 was processed yesterday.

And the case is in stock at both Scan and OCUK, but my order with OCUK didn't dispatch yet, I sent a webnote as it was 2 hours past their phonelines closing, hopefully it will dispatch tomorrow or monday at the latest.

Z790 SOON!!!!


----------



## RichKnecht

HemuV2 said:


> Can you tell how i can tweak it for LLC 5? I know the resistance is 0.73


I would set AC LL to 20-25 and go from there. If you raise AC LL it raises voltage/VIDs, lowering it lowers voltage/VIDs.


----------



## VULC

RichKnecht said:


> I would set AC LL to 20-25 and go from there. If you raise AC LL it raises voltage/VIDs, lowering it lowers voltage/VIDs.


So it's just used to tweak your voltage under load to get it at min stable?


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav The Z790 Edge is better than the Z690 Edge by virtue of being able to actually run 4,266+ MHz in y-cruncher. Stability requires a bit of voltage tweaking though.

Honestly, 4,300 MHz seems a lot more easier to stabilize than 4,266 MHz though. Not really sure why. Trains a lot faster too.


----------



## HemuV2

@RobertoSampaio i have been reading your guide and for now i set the DC LL to 0.73 in bios because my LLC is 5 but I'm not sure where to start AC LL, should i match AC and DC LL and set both to 0.73 and keep going down? You said llc 3 1.1 AC/DC is Intel's recommended but I'm using LLC 5 and the picture in your guide had LLC 4 with slightly higher 1.02 DC LL than LLC4 0.98 and 0.2 AC LL but your sample is sp 119 mine is 109 so where should i start for AC LL


----------



## RobertoSampaio

HemuV2 said:


> @RobertoSampaio i have been reading your guide and for now i set the DC LL to 0.73 in bios because my LLC is 5 but I'm not sure where to start AC LL, should i match AC and DC LL and set both to 0.73 and keep going down? You said llc 3 1.1 AC/DC is Intel's recommended but I'm using LLC 5 and the picture in your guide had LLC 4 with slightly higher 1.02 DC LL than LLC4 0.98 and 0.2 AC LL but your sample is sp 119 mine is 109 so where should i start for AC LL


Start with AC_LL = 0.2 and test...
There is no rule for it... 
And in the 13900k if you add voltage in the vf curve you need to tune AC_LL again.
So the AC_LL for me may not work for you.


----------



## HemuV2

RobertoSampaio said:


> Start with AC_LL = 0.2 and test...
> There is no rule for it...
> And in the 13900k if you add voltage in the vf curve you need to tune AC_LL again.
> So the AC_LL for me may not work for you.


I'm doing 5500/4300/49ring at 1.38V llc5 and i set dc ll to 1.2 and AC LL to 0.1 and the vrm power matched cpu package at 266W. But vcore is 1.296V under load while VIDs are 1.18-1.19V


----------



## HemuV2

so i did two configs on the same 55/43/49 1.38 llc5 @RobertoSampaio in your guide you mention that we must keep changing DC LL to find what resistance our LLC is but what about the AC LL in this testing? should it remain auto? should it be a low fixed value? please assist. i must also add that if i change AC ll it also changes cpu package power again so whatever DCLL i thought was correct is again an errenous value








the first one was acll 0.1 and dc ll 1.20 here i matched the cpu package power and vrm power
the next one i did was acll 0.4 and dc ll 1.21 and here i matched the VID under load to vcore but idle VID was 1.5V









in both cases the vcore under load was constant 1.296 and the vrm power was 266W so these values seem to be unaffected by ac/dc ll the only things changing are cpu package power and VIDs.
i am a little lost but i guess this is some progress.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

HemuV2 said:


> so i did two configs on the same 55/43/49 1.38 llc5 @RobertoSampaio in your guide you mention that we must keep changing DC LL to find what resistance our LLC is but what about the AC LL in this testing? should it remain auto? should it be a low fixed value? please assist. i must also add that if i change AC ll it also changes cpu package power again so whatever DCLL i thought was correct is again an errenous value
> View attachment 2586600
> 
> the first one was acll 0.1 and dc ll 1.20 here i matched the cpu package power and vrm power
> the next one i did was acll 0.4 and dc ll 1.21 and here i matched the VID under load to vcore but idle VID was 1.5V
> View attachment 2586601
> 
> 
> in both cases the vcore under load was constant 1.296 and the vrm power was 266W so these values seem to be unaffected by ac/dc ll the only things changing are cpu package power and VIDs.
> i am a little lost but i guess this is some progress.


What MB do you have?
Are you using fixed voltage?


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> @bhav
> View attachment 2586604


If my new board won't stabilize 4200CL14 G2, I will have to burgle you now.

Is your trfc untuned? I got mine down to 655 at 4800. Oh it is, trefi at stock as well.


----------



## HemuV2

RobertoSampaio said:


> What MB do you have?
> Are you using fixed voltage?


z690A strix ddr4 yes manual voltage 1.38 llc5


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> @bhav
> View attachment 2586604


Crazy for gear 1 what's latency like with those settings and what are voltages?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> If my new board won't stabilize 4200CL14 G2, I will have to burgle you now.
> 
> Is your trfc untuned? I got mine down to 655 at 4800. Oh it is, trefi at stock as well.


Initial testing. I want to find some baseline in y-cruncher before proceeding any further.

The Z790 Edge is better than the Z690 Edge. Works better with 4,266+ MHz. But below that, not really necessary.
However, 4,266 MHz itself seems to be wildly unstable, while 4,300 MHz is much easier to stabilize. Probably a hole.

A friend of mine had a similar experience with 4,266 MHz on his Z790 Strix. Might be a universal issue.


VULC said:


> Crazy for gear 1 what's latency like with those settings and what are voltages?


Can't provide you with this yet since it's massively untuned. Will let you know once I have a final tightened overclock.

*Update*: Secondaries (aside from loose tWR and tCWL) inputted.


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> Initial testing. I want to find some baseline in y-cruncher before proceeding any further.
> 
> The Z790 Edge is better than the Z690 Edge. Works better with 4,266+ MHz. But below that, not really necessary.
> However, 4,266 MHz itself seems to be wildly unstable, while 4,300 MHz is much easier to stabilize. Probably a hole.
> 
> A friend of mine had a similar experience with 4,266 MHz on his Z790 Strix. Might be a universal issue.
> 
> Can't provide you with this yet since it's massively untuned. Will let you know once I have a final tightened overclock.
> 
> *Update*: Secondaries (aside from loose tWR and tCWL) inputted.
> View attachment 2586605


You recovered it? What happened?


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> You recovered it? What happened?


Recovered what?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

HemuV2 said:


> z690A strix ddr4 yes manual voltage 1.38 llc5


Using voltage override (manual/fixed) the AC_LL has no effect.
When you set manual voltage you "brake" the CPU communication to the VRM.


----------



## HemuV2

RobertoSampaio said:


> Using voltage override (manual/fixed) the AC_LL has no effect.
> When you set manual voltage you "brake" the CPU communication to the VRM.


so what is the suggested method?


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> Recovered what?


You said the board bugged out and started acting weird even after CMOS and re-flashing.


----------



## RichKnecht

HemuV2 said:


> I'm doing 5500/4300/49ring at 1.38V llc5 and i set dc ll to 1.2 and AC LL to 0.1 and the vrm power matched cpu package at 266W. But vcore is 1.296V under load while VIDs are 1.18-1.19V


You need to raise the AC LL. Try what Roberto said, 20-ish


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> You said the board bugged out and started acting weird even after CMOS and re-flashing.


Ah, right. Yeah.

So after my BIOS started to freeze (aka it got corrupted), I tried to reflash the BIOS.
After it finished and the PC restarted, it just stayed black indefinitely. Wouldn't do anything.
I tried to CMOS reset a bunch of times, but it didn't help either.
So I was forced to BIOS flashback, but it just kept flashing the flashback LED indefinitely for ages.
I forcefully powered off the PC, thinking it was hard bricked and doomed, but apparently the flash worked?
I then proceeded to normally reflash the BIOS again just to be safe.

And now we're here: 4,300 MHz CL14 1T Gear 1


----------



## X61

RichKnecht said:


> Awesome. Good to know that LLC7= 69 mOhms on a Unify as well. That means the rest of my values must be pretty close. Maybe +/- 1-4 mOhms.


On my MSI PRO Z790-P / 13900KF I set LLC #7 and DC_LL = 75. The difference between Vcore and VID is ~ 0.001-0.004v when all cores are under load (P5.6GHz / E4.3GHz). When only one or two P cores are under load (6.0GHz) the difference is 0.003-0.006v. I set my AC_LL = 5. This way, I have 1.240-1.245v Vcore/VID under a load of all cores during Cinebench R23 (score ~41300 pts). The system also passes Prime95 Small FFTs, y-cruncher stress tests, Linpack Xtreme, etc.


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> Ah, right. Yeah.
> 
> So after my BIOS started to freeze (aka it got corrupted), I tried to reflash the BIOS.
> After it finished and the PC restarted, it just stayed black indefinitely. Wouldn't do anything.
> I tried to CMOS reset a bunch of times, but it didn't help either.
> So I was forced to BIOS flashback, but it just kept flashing the flashback LED indefinitely for ages.
> I forcefully powered off the PC, thinking it was hard bricked and doomed, but apparently the flash worked?
> I then proceeded to normally reflash the BIOS again just to be safe.
> 
> And now we're here: 4,300 MHz CL14 1T Gear 1


That’s definitely an experience. Wow.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

HemuV2 said:


> so what is the suggested method?


It would be nice you understand both methods... 

I prefer adaptive voltage from 10900k...


----------



## OffBeatViBE

Is there any difference in bin quality between the 13700K and KF


----------



## WayWayUp

with my overly aggressive settings 62 x2 , 61 x2, 59 x2, 58 x2 I noticed some stability issues. I can run it but it demands more power and i also noticed that TVB NEVER goes off

now I adjusted down to 60,60, 59,59,59,59, 58,58. Runs fantastic with minimal voltage and +2 TVB constantly boosts to give me up to 6.2Ghz

the aggressive settings are nice if im trying to push benchmark scores but its stupid for 24/7. Im very happy with the new cpu settings and will now push for higher memory OC.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Does anyone know how to save msi bios settings to a text file? Yes, I asked in msi mobos


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> Ah, right. Yeah.
> 
> So after my BIOS started to freeze (aka it got corrupted), I tried to reflash the BIOS.
> After it finished and the PC restarted, it just stayed black indefinitely. Wouldn't do anything.
> I tried to CMOS reset a bunch of times, but it didn't help either.
> So I was forced to BIOS flashback, but it just kept flashing the flashback LED indefinitely for ages.
> I forcefully powered off the PC, thinking it was hard bricked and doomed, but apparently the flash worked?
> I then proceeded to normally reflash the BIOS again just to be safe.
> 
> And now we're here: 4,300 MHz CL14 1T Gear 1


Ya that’s good, mine acts similarly with overclock fails, boots a bunch, basically hard power it off and recover. I can’t get 4300 to work at cl 14, 15 or 16, nothing above 4133 will work so I don’t know what’s up with that but I think I am gonna try bios 13 vs 133 some more.


----------



## X61

A bit stupid question but is there Windows software for MSI Z790 motherboards that allows control of the CPU/case fan speeds?


----------



## HemuV2

OffBeatViBE said:


> Is there any difference in bin quality between the 13700K and KF


chances of getting very bad bin are higher with KF


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Ya that’s good, mine acts similarly with overclock fails, boots a bunch, basically hard power it off and recover. I can’t get 4300 to work at cl 14, 15 or 16, nothing above 4133 will work so I don’t know what’s up with that but I think I am gonna try bios 13 vs 133 some more.


My 13900KF with its golden IMC is still available for sale and it's only +0.02V worse in VCCSA compared to this one


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> My 13900KF with its golden IMC is still available for sale and it's only +0.02V worse in VCCSA compared to this one


sp?


----------



## Ben Diss

X61 said:


> A bit stupid question but is there Windows software for MSI Z790 motherboards that allows control of the CPU/case fan speeds?


Argus Monitor works well.


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> sp?


P-SP of like, 105, and E-SP of like, 80. Roughly around that.
That's why I only priced it a bit under MSRP. I just want my money back, lol.


----------



## fray_bentos

Ichirou said:


> The Z790 Edge does not have any VR VOUT readings as others have previously stated.
> With the exact same reference settings plugged in, the Vcore in HWiNFO reports as ~1.22V when running R23.
> 
> 4,400 MHz still boots, and does in fact pass y-cruncher with auto timings, which is quite nice. Previously it wouldn't even run y-cruncher on the Edge.
> This was tested with 1.37V VCCSA. 1.35V does not work.
> View attachment 2586538
> 
> 
> Sadly, after attempting to drop VCCSA and tighten some timings, the board pretty much bricked?
> Having trouble even with CMOS resets and BIOS reflashes. Gonna try a BIOS flashback via USB. Annoying.
> 
> Update: Even the BIOS flashback never stops. I had to forcefully power it off and boot up just to see if it worked or not. Which it did.
> Reflashing the BIOS again to be 100% sure it is clean. Yikes, MSI.
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Anyway, summary in regards to the voltage discrepancies:
> *1.24V VCC Sense in BIOS @ LLC 5 and Lite Load 1
> 
> Z690 Edge: ~1.23V Vcore, ~1.20V VR VOUT
> Z790 Edge: ~1.22V Vcore*
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Since it seems that my CPU's IMC isn't strong enough for tightened memory on 4,400 MHz, I'm gonna test 4,300 MHz tightened instead.


The mobo is simply failing because this supposed-faster-RAM OC is unstable. The prediction stands.


----------



## Ichirou

fray_bentos said:


> The mobo is simply failing because this supposed-faster-RAM OC is unstable. The prediction stands.


You... Don't really keep up with the posts, do you?

I'm already pretty much stable with 4,300 CL14 1T Gear 1 tightened right now.
Just working on some more timings and voltages.

Previously, the Z690 Edge wouldn't even _try_ to run y-cruncher at 4,266+ MHz.
Like, it wouldn't even start for a second.

With 4,300 MHz on this board, y-cruncher is pretty much a breeze, subject to VCCSA (as it should).
So the Z790 Edge is indeed better. Not sure if due to BIOS improvements, or memory slots/traces being better.


----------



## fray_bentos

Ichirou said:


> You... Don't really keep up with the posts, do you?
> 
> I'm already pretty much stable with 4,300 CL14 1T Gear 1 tightened right now.
> Just working on some more timings and voltages.
> 
> Previously, the Z690 Edge wouldn't even _try_ to run y-cruncher at 4,266+ MHz.
> Like, it wouldn't even start for a second.
> 
> So the Z790 Edge is indeed better.


So 100 MHz faster? The prediction stands.


----------



## Ichirou

fray_bentos said:


> So 100 MHz faster? The prediction stands.


What?

4,266-4,300 MHz wouldn't run y-cruncher no matter what on the Z690 Edge.
But on the Z790 Edge, it runs just fine, subject to VCCSA.

I own both boards physically, in my hands, and actually tested. It isn't speculation.
The Z790 Edge is better.

And +100 MHz on DDR4 Gear 1 is a _massive _difference. It isn't DDR5.


----------



## Ichirou

Minor Update: With this Z790 Edge, I can boot with the tertiary tWRRD_dd at ~4 compared to the 8 minimum at 4,133+ MHz on the Z690 Edge.
A minor training improvement.

it does seem that as frequency increases, the tRDWR group needs to loosened a lot more with Micron B-die.
tRDWR_ at flat 14 was fine up until 4,200 MHz. But at 4,300, fails y-cruncher VST at flat 17 without boosting VCCSA.
Actual difference in AIDA is like none, but just thought I'd mention.

Gonna try to get tRDRD_sg and tWRWR_sg to 7, but I don't think it'll be possible.
It actually worked. And passed y-cruncher too. Setting them to 6 would not boot, though.

Will also try to get tRDRD_dd and tWRWR_dd to 8, but don't think it'll be possible either.
I stand corrected again. It actually passed y-cruncher. Gonna try even lower. 7 passed as well, but 6 would not POST.
This is already better than Z690, as 8 was the minimum that would boot at 4,200 MHz even.
(Both don't really mean much in the grand scheme of things, but would look nice on paper.)

At the moment, with most stuff tightened (only exception being tREFI on Auto), I only need ~1.37V VCCSA to pass N64/HNT/VST.
Have not yet tested lower, along with most other voltages. Still in the "Can this pass y-cruncher at least?" phase.
@bhav @bscool


----------



## WayWayUp

What’s considered high voltage for ddr5 Adie?

I was running 8000cl36 comfortably at 1.5/1.5 vdd/vddq

trying to bring latency down. Tested cl34 @1.6/1.6
It was tm5 stable but memtest found 2 errors in a 1hr stress test
I’ve now tried 1.63/1.63 and it’s perfect. Passes all stress tests
Still I’m very satisfied with current settings. Running Maximus tweak 2
I have tRFC at 575. It seems ddr5 is much weaker than ddr4 in this setting
what’s the limit for what ppl run daily for voltage?


----------



## energie80

Depends on temperature…my 7600 doesn’t go past 1.5 😵‍💫


----------



## Ichirou

WayWayUp said:


> What’s considered high voltage for ddr5 Adie?
> 
> I was running 8000cl36 comfortably at 1.5/1.5
> 
> trying to bring latency down. Tested cl34 @1.6/1.6
> It was tm5 stable but memtest found 2 errors in a 1hr stress test
> I’ve now tried 1.63/1.63 and it’s perfect. Passes all stress tests
> 
> what’s the limit for what ppl run daily? I would love to have 8,200 stable but perhaps need a bios update or better memory sticks


Honestly, nobody can give you a straight answer since A-Die and even M-Die are still relatively new.
There isn't enough empirical evidence over time to give a surefire opinion on what is "safe," not just for VDIMM but for the IMC voltages as well, on DDR5.
You'll just have to tread cautiously.


----------



## Ichirou

*Update*: I had to loosen tRDRD_sg/dd and tWRWR_sg/dd to 8 to reduce the VCCSA requirement, as it was hitting the IMC a bit too hard.
Would need 1.40V (or even more) to pass y-cruncher Main 10B with them set to 7, although N64/HNT/VST could be stabilized with less.
Will edit later on with a more finalized overclock and voltages. But for the most part, I'm basically done, with the exception of tRFC and tREFI.

@bhav I've almost finalized my 4,300 CL14 overclock


----------



## bhav

'I've looked into this for you and the order is in queue for dispatch, this is expected to leave us within the next few working days. '

CASE CASE CASE GIVE ME CASE SEND ME CASE!


----------



## RichKnecht

X61 said:


> A bit stupid question but is there Windows software for MSI Z790 motherboards that allows control of the CPU/case fan speeds?


I gave up on motherboard fan controls and bought an Aquacomputer Octo. I have both pumps and all 12 fans controlled via Aquasuite. Fans ramp up slowly as water temp rises. no more loud fans under load. Why I waited so long to do this i have no idea.


----------



## yzonker

RichKnecht said:


> I gave up on motherboard fan controls and bought an Aquacomputer Octo. I have both pumps and all 12 fans controlled via Aquasuite. Fans ramp up slowly as water temp rises. no more loud fans under load. Why I waited so long to do this i have no idea.


I'll say up front I have an Octo as well, but before that I used Argus Monitor to control everything by water temp and it worked fine. Obviously you have to have a mobo with temp sensor headers though, which many don't.


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav
While trying to stay under 1.40V VCCSA, y-cruncher fails when trying to push tRFC 720 on 4,300 MHz CL14.
I'll keep it loose at 750 for now, since that seems to pass with flying colours.

tREFI is also a bit of a hassle to deal with, and I don't think I'll be able to max it out or get even close to doing so.
The BIOS fails to boot 65,536 no matter what, although something decently close like 64,000 does boot. I'll have to experiment.

I won't have results for you for a little bit, as I need to TM5 stabilize this RAM as well. I'll keep you updated.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> @bhav
> While trying to stay under 1.40V VCCSA, y-cruncher fails when trying to push tRFC 720 on 4,300 MHz CL14.
> I'll keep it loose at 750 for now, since that seems to pass with flying colours.
> 
> tREFI is also a bit of a hassle to deal with, and I don't think I'll be able to max it out or get even close to doing so.
> The BIOS fails to boot 65,536 no matter what, although something decently close like 64,000 does boot. I'll have to experiment.
> 
> I won't have results for you for a little bit, as I need to TM5 stabilize this RAM as well. I'll keep you updated.


Hmmm, I don't think thats any good then.

My DJR at CL16 460 trfc is about the same as the micron B die at CL14 560 when comparing 4000G1.

Seems like -1 CL is the same as -50 trfc in that bandwidth & latency comparison thread.

How much vdimm for 4300CL14?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Hmmm, I don't think thats any good then.
> 
> My DJR at CL16 460 trfc is about the same as the micron B die at CL14 560 when comparing 4000G1.
> 
> Seems like -1 CL is the same as -50 trfc in that bandwidth & latency comparison thread.
> 
> How much vdimm for 4300CL14?


All dies need to scale tRFC higher as the frequency increases. That's kind of inevitable.
I can obviously run a lower tRFC at 4,200 MHz and lower, but this is different territory. I'll see how low I can get tRFC, later.
I remember in the past being able to tighten tRFC with Micron a _tiny bit extra_ by boosting VDIMM. Not a lot, but still something.

Tentatively 1.71V VDIMM, with almost everything tightened except tRFC 750 and tREFI 36,000. But not 100% confirmed since I haven't fully run TM5 yet.


----------



## WayWayUp

Hmm maybe keep this for educational purposes… I have tRFC set to 575 comfortably
8000Mhz cl34 for a die ddr5
So ultimately it is possible to tune down even at high transfer rates.

If this was still z690 and 12th gen I would be on ddr4 still,
But this new generation it feels the downsides to ddr5 are limited; its time to make the move!

I get it though if saving money.

Also, I need some advise.
im coming from 10th gen where tREFI was set to 65535
So naturally it’s what I’m running. I’ve read that it now goes much higher
Any benefit in setting it higher than this?


----------



## bhav

WayWayUp said:


> Hmm maybe keep this for educational purposes… I have tRFC set to 575 comfortably
> 8000Mhz cl34 for a die ddr5
> So ultimately it is possible to tune down even at high transfer rates.
> 
> If this was still z690 and 12th gen I would be on ddr4 still,
> But this new generation it feels the downsides to ddr5 are limited; its time to make the move!
> 
> I get it though if saving money.


The downsides to DDR5 were only when running 4 dimms.

Its the same across every generation.

DDR4 has only just reached 2dpc DR 4000 with Z690 / Z790, so realistically its going to be a very long time for 2dpc DR DDR5 to ever mature.

When DDR4 launched I doubt you could even do 4 x DR 2666.

DDR5 averages so far are looking like:

2xSR = 7000+
2xDR = 6400ish?
4xSR = ????
4xDR = 4000-4400CL40 G2.

We need to demand more 2 slot boards from mobo manufacturers!

For high capacity 4 dimm setups you really want to stick to previous gen mature ram standards.


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav @bscool
tRFC and tREFI still have room to go.
Intel MLC latency minimum I witnessed on a fresh restart was 42.5 ns; this was a later run with HWiNFO in the background, so it's a bit slower.


----------



## bhav

Just realizing how sketchy that makes the XMP timings on Ballistix Max 4400 look.

Apparently 19-19-19 is meant to work at 4400. Not without insane SA.

One of the kits being sold on Ebay has the same issue in the description - 'XMP only works after manually adjusting the timings'.


----------



## bhav

Even with bids, this one is at £150, still too much for a second hand one of these now:









Crucial Ballistix Max DDR4 4400 32GB | eBay


Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Crucial Ballistix Max DDR4 4400 32GB at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products.



www.ebay.co.uk





I was thinking £120 max for a second hand kit.

Other 2x32 DDR4 kits are at under £50 bid, people know how good this stuff is. Stupid micron discontinued it way too early.


----------



## Luggage

RichKnecht said:


> I gave up on motherboard fan controls and bought an Aquacomputer Octo. I have both pumps and all 12 fans controlled via Aquasuite. Fans ramp up slowly as water temp rises. no more loud fans under load. Why I waited so long to do this i have no idea.


Just know that aquasuite service gives quite a latency hit. If you don’t need the monitoring the octo will run just fine stand alone with the service turned off.


----------



## Ichirou

I paid $650 USD for my kit, so... I don't think it's ridiculous pricing.
I posted my most up to date overclock by the way. TM5 and y-cruncher stable.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> I paid $650 USD for my kit, so... I don't think it's ridiculous pricing.
> I posted my most up to date overclock by the way. TM5 and y-cruncher stable.


Yea thats how much micron B die cost when it was new. Its not new anymore, and the sale price was already £180 for 2x16. Originally for 2x16 Crucial it was £350.

I don't need 64 Gb any time soon, but I'd rather have another kit of this by the time I do, so I'll just keep watching the second hand prices.

I know what people are doing as I would try to do the same if I was selling it. Buy it for the £180 sale price, try to sell second hand for below full price.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Yea thats how much micron B die cost when it was new. Its not new anymore, and the sale price was already £180 for 2x16. Originally for 2x16 Crucial it was £350.
> 
> I don't need 64 Gb any time soon, but I'd rather have another kit of this by the time I do, so I'll just keep watching the second hand prices.
> 
> I know what people are doing as I would try to do the same if I was selling it. Buy it for the £180 sale price, try to sell second hand for below full price.


I don't think people buy RAM to flip it anymore, unless it's newer DDR5 dies like Hynix.

Update: It seems that if I want to stay under 1.38V VCCSA max, I'm forced to loosen some tertiaries (lower bandwidth) in order to raise tREFI (raise bandwidth and lower latency). If I just try to raise tREFI, I BSOD from the lack of VCCSA. 

A balancing act. But works out in the end. Maybe if I had an even stronger IMC, I could have the best of both worlds.


----------



## Nizzen

WayWayUp said:


> What’s considered high voltage for ddr5 Adie?
> 
> I was running 8000cl36 comfortably at 1.5/1.5 vdd/vddq
> 
> trying to bring latency down. Tested cl34 @1.6/1.6
> It was tm5 stable but memtest found 2 errors in a 1hr stress test
> I’ve now tried 1.63/1.63 and it’s perfect. Passes all stress tests
> Still I’m very satisfied with current settings. Running Maximus tweak 2
> I have tRFC at 575. It seems ddr5 is much weaker than ddr4 in this setting
> what’s the limit for what ppl run daily for voltage?


Under 1.7v is normal on water


----------



## RichKnecht

Luggage said:


> Just know that aquasuite service gives quite a latency hit. If you don’t need the monitoring the octo will run just fine stand alone with the service turned off.


I use HWINFO for monitoring. I only open Aquasuite if I want to tweak something.


----------



## dirceura1

my sp is bugged, I have z690 apex and a hero, in hero it appears sp 123 and not apex 99 even appeared 94 , as I have another cpu with sp101 in apex and in hero I did the tests and it is lower than what is bugged , how can this be?


UploadDeImagens.com.br - WhatsApp_Image_2022-12-03_at_15.46.08.jpeg




UploadDeImagens.com.br - WhatsApp_Image_2022-12-03_at_15.48.16.jpeg




UploadDeImagens.com.br - WhatsApp_Image_2022-12-03_at_22.36.06.jpeg


----------



## acoustic

woops, thought this was the ddr5 thread lol


----------



## Ichirou

dirceura1 said:


> my sp is bugged, I have z690 apex and a hero, in hero it appears sp 123 and not apex 99 even appeared 94 , as I have another cpu with sp101 in apex and in hero I did the tests and it is lower than what is bugged , how can this be?
> 
> 
> UploadDeImagens.com.br - WhatsApp_Image_2022-12-03_at_15.46.08.jpeg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UploadDeImagens.com.br - WhatsApp_Image_2022-12-03_at_15.48.16.jpeg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UploadDeImagens.com.br - WhatsApp_Image_2022-12-03_at_22.36.06.jpeg


Z690 ASUS boards are inaccurate.
Also, P-SP 130+ chips don't exist.


----------



## bscool

dirceura1 said:


> my sp is bugged, I have z690 apex and a hero, in hero it appears sp 123 and not apex 99 even appeared 94 , as I have another cpu with sp101 in apex and in hero I did the tests and it is lower than what is bugged , how can this be?
> 
> 
> UploadDeImagens.com.br - WhatsApp_Image_2022-12-03_at_15.46.08.jpeg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UploadDeImagens.com.br - WhatsApp_Image_2022-12-03_at_15.48.16.jpeg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UploadDeImagens.com.br - WhatsApp_Image_2022-12-03_at_22.36.06.jpeg


You need to update to the latest ME firmware to display accurate SP.

Install ME driver first and then update ME firmware

ME Driver



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/LGA1700/M3904/Intel_MEI_V2220.3.1.0_WIN10_WIN11_64-bit.zip



ME Firmware



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/03CHIPSET/MEUpdateTool_16.1.25.2020_T.zip




Edit usually you update the ME firmware before bios update so if SP still shows off after updating ME firmware try reflashing the bios to one of the latest.


----------



## Falkentyne

bscool said:


> You need to update to the latest ME firmware to display accurate SP.
> 
> Install ME driver first and then update ME firmware
> 
> ME Driver
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/LGA1700/M3904/Intel_MEI_V2220.3.1.0_WIN10_WIN11_64-bit.zip
> 
> 
> 
> ME Firmware
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/03CHIPSET/MEUpdateTool_16.1.25.2020_T.zip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit usually you update the ME firmware before bios update so if SP still shows off after updating ME firmware try reflashing the bios to one of the latest.


You have to both update ME firmware (first), then BIOS to latest version, then AFTER doing this, CPU must be removed and re-inserted.


----------



## X61

What's the best tool for deliding 13900K/KF?


----------



## Ichirou

X61 said:


> What's the best tool for deliding 13900K/KF?


The same RockItCool delidding kit for the 12th Gen works just fine for the 13th Gen.
The issue is actually acquiring one, due to extremely low supply, and (as of recent) poor line of communication with the maker.


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav Loosening tRDRD_sg/dd and tWRWR_sg/dd from 7 to 8 and raising VCCSA by +0.01V to 1.39V has allowed me to pass y-cruncher and TM5 1usmus with tREFI at 48,000 instead of 36,000. As I get closer and closer to max tREFI, it'll get harder and harder to pass without making further concessions to timings and VCCSA. But I'll see how close I can get under 1.39V VCCSA max.

So far, loosening those tertiaries and boosting tREFI in exchange has not resulted in any perceivable bandwidth loss. But the latency has improved. So it's a good trade-off.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> @bhav Loosening tRDRD_sg/dd and tWRWR_sg/dd from 7 to 8 and raising VCCSA by +0.01V to 1.39V has allowed me to pass y-cruncher and TM5 1usmus with tREFI at 48,000 instead of 36,000. As I get closer and closer to max tREFI, it'll get harder and harder to pass without making further concessions to timings and VCCSA. But I'll see how close I can get under 1.39V VCCSA max.
> 
> So far, loosening those tertiaries and boosting tREFI in exchange has not resulted in any perceivable bandwidth loss. But the latency has improved. So it's a good trade-off.


Shouldn't this be in the DDR4 thread ichi? lol


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Shouldn't this be in the DDR4 thread ichi? lol


Shut up. I can do what I want 🙃


----------



## Pk1

Is Z690/Z790 Tomahawk able to get VROUT readings in HWinfo64? I wish they made a Unify for DDR4...


----------



## Ichirou

Pk1 said:


> Is Z690/Z790 Tomahawk able to get VROUT readings in HWinfo64? I wish they made a Unify for DDR4...


Only Z690 boards support VR VOUT. The Edge definitely does, but I can't be certain about the Tomahawk.
Also, I'm selling my Z690 Edge DDR4 at a discount by the way, if you are interested.
Will do 4,200 MHz CL14 with Micron B-die and 4,266 MHz CL14 with Samsung B-die, CPU IMC and RAM willing.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Only Z690 boards support VR VOUT. The Edge definitely does, but I can't be certain about the Tomahawk.
> Also, I'm selling my Z690 Edge DDR4 at a discount by the way, if you are interested.
> Will do 4,200 MHz CL14 with Micron B-die and 4,266 MHz CL14 with Samsung B-die, CPU IMC and RAM willing.


Wait, what? Z690 only?

It's typically been MEG series only, but the Edge is MPG, so that's weird.. but maybe MPG series have it as well. The Z790 ACE should have the Renesas VRM with VR VOUT support. If the Z690 Edge does, then I'd imagine the Z790 Edge should as well - might just be a case of Martin needing to update HWINFO, if it's not showing for you.


----------



## bhav

acoustic said:


> Shouldn't this be in the DDR4 thread ichi? lol


No it shouldn't, it should be in every thread.

Well yes, and it should be in that thread too, and in every 'welcome to OCnet' thread.

Maybe then people will stop hitting the 'XMP' button and asking why their VCCSA is automatically running at 1.38v at 'stock' settings (Sigh, reddit).


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Wait, what? Z690 only?
> 
> It's typically been MEG series only, but the Edge is MPG, so that's weird.. but maybe MPG series have it as well. The Z790 ACE should have the Renesas VRM with VR VOUT support. If the Z690 Edge does, then I'd imagine the Z790 Edge should as well - might just be a case of Martin needing to update HWINFO, if it's not showing for you.


Yes, pretty much everyone with an MSI Z790 so far is missing a VR VOUT reading. Massive copout.
I have the Z790 Edge now, and it does not have the reading.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Yes, pretty much everyone with an MSI Z790 so far is missing a VR VOUT reading. Massive copout.
> I have the Z790 Edge now, and it does not have the reading.


Most likely, it's not that it doesn't have it, it's just that Martin hasn't updated HWINFO to support it. Hit him up on HWINFO forums and ask about it, I'm sure he can add support for it. The Z690 series only recently received VR VOUT readings - Martin added support for the controller.


----------



## bass junkie xl

Ichirou said:


> Shut up. I can do what I want 🙃


lol


----------



## Ichirou

Too lazy. You can do it if you want though 🙃


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

acoustic said:


> Wait, what? Z690 only?
> 
> It's typically been MEG series only, but the Edge is MPG, so that's weird.. but maybe MPG series have it as well. The Z790 ACE should have the Renesas VRM with VR VOUT support. If the Z690 Edge does, then I'd imagine the Z790 Edge should as well - might just be a case of Martin needing to update HWINFO, if it's not showing for you.


No the z790 edge doesn’t have it, neither tomahawk has it (z690/z790) but the z690 edge does…I got ripped


----------



## acoustic

Uncle Dubbs said:


> No the z790 edge doesn’t have it, neither tomahawk has it (z690/z790) but the z690 edge does…I got ripped


See post above


----------



## bhav

Uncle Dubbs said:


> No the z790 edge doesn’t have it, neither tomahawk has it (z690/z790) but the z690 edge does…I got ripped


I've read a lot about it, but mostly skimmed.

Whats so important about VR vout?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> I've read a lot about it, but mostly skimmed.
> 
> Whats so important about VR vout?


It's more or less equivalent to ASUS die sense, which is an accurate Vcore reading.

Also, the Z790 Edge is managing to run my config at less VDDQ compared to the Z690 Edge.
I can do 1.57V instead of 1.59V minimum. So the board optimized VDDQ a little.

@bhav I'm almost done tuning this kit. I can do tREFI 65520. I just needed to loosen some tertiaries and boost VCCSA by +0.01V.
65536 refuses to boot. I don't know why. BIOS bug.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

acoustic said:


> Most likely, it's not that it doesn't have it, it's just that Martin hasn't updated HWINFO to support it. Hit him up on HWINFO forums and ask about it, I'm sure he can add support for it. The Z690 series only recently received VR VOUT readings - Martin added support for the controller.


I already asked him and said he couldn’t…






Missing VR vout and the current / power readings - MSI z790 edge D4...


Hi, can't find the VR vout and the current / power readings (like amps in and out etc) and I have the z790 edge...Im using the latest Hwinfo64...is there some setting im missing? Im using the latest beta - 7.33-4905. People using the z690 edge have all of these readouts...maybe I am doing...




www.hwinfo.com





maybe more people should ask I dunno


----------



## acoustic

Uncle Dubbs said:


> I already asked him and said he couldn’t…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missing VR vout and the current / power readings - MSI z790 edge D4...
> 
> 
> Hi, can't find the VR vout and the current / power readings (like amps in and out etc) and I have the z790 edge...Im using the latest Hwinfo64...is there some setting im missing? Im using the latest beta - 7.33-4905. People using the z690 edge have all of these readouts...maybe I am doing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hwinfo.com


Nice, thanks for asking.

You said it's showing Intersil ISL as the VRM? That's weird.. I wonder why they changed it. Cost savings, maybe? For reference, all Z690 MEG series boards use the Renesas RAA229131 regulator. I'm really curious if MSI moved to the Intersil for the Z790 ACE as well, because if they did, that's really strange. I'm not familiar with Intersil or their regulators..


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

acoustic said:


> Nice, thanks for asking.
> 
> You said it's showing Intersil ISL as the VRM? That's weird.. I wonder why they changed it. Cost savings, maybe? For reference, all Z690 MEG series boards use the Renesas RAA229131 regulator. I'm really curious if MSI moved to the Intersil for the Z790 ACE as well, because if they did, that's really strange. I'm not familiar with Intersil or their regulators..


Not even sure…just gave him whatever I could but he probably knows …also msi said replied to my Ticket and said they wouldn’t be doing any improvement to it or some such…so unlikely I guess.


----------



## acoustic

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Not even sure…just gave him whatever I could but he probably knows …also msi said replied to my Ticket and said they wouldn’t be doing any improvement to it or some such…so unlikely I guess.


Yeah, good on you for taking the time to do that. We only had VR VOUT readings appear earlier this year on Z690; took some time before we were able to read it in HWINFO, so that's why I was saying it might just be a similar case of "wait and see."

ISL69269IRAZ-T Renesas / Intersil | Mouser

Apparently, Intersil and Renesas are the same and/or interchangeable names. Mouser says it's a digital controller, so I would imagine it has to be readable somehow, but I'm not an expert on this. Maybe Martin can chime in on what he would need in order to read it.

Hey, mention this: Intersil ISL 69269 sensors blanking out | HWiNFO Forum

Seems Gigabyte (and ASROCK) used the Intersil ISL69269 on their Z490/Z590 boards, and it used to report in HWINFO just fine. Martin might be able to work with that kind of info.

Good luck!


----------



## Arni90

bhav said:


> Whats so important about VR vout?


It's only important if you want to compare your VCore to other people with some degree of accuracy.

At the end of the day, what kind of clock speed results you end up with are dependent on too many factors for it to be comparable anyway, but people here like to compare regardless.


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> No the z790 edge doesn’t have it, neither tomahawk has it (z690/z790) but the z690 edge does…I got ripped


Honestly, all boards these days should have at least one temp sensor input. The fact that you have to buy a third party device to allow fan control via water temp is so lame. Now, back to our regularly scheduled program…


----------



## mxthunder

Just starting to get my feet wet with 13th gen overclocking. Bought a 13900KF.
Coming from 10th and 11th gen platforms - trying the same strategy I had with those at least to get something simple setup.
Thus far - leaving everything on auto, and just setting LLC to medium, and manually setting the Vcore. When Vcore is on auto, the chip got so hot even under a custom loop that it would throttle. like 1.4V+ under load.
Set 1.28V - medium LLC - all clocks on auto so basically getting a flat 5500 across all the P cores - temps are now in the low 70s under linpack load.
What is a good P core "all core" flat frequency to shoot for? Is there really any headroom on 13th gen?


----------



## bhav

mxthunder said:


> Just starting to get my feet wet with 13th gen overclocking. Bought a 13900KF.
> Coming from 10th and 11th gen platforms - trying the same strategy I had with those at least to get something simple setup.
> Thus far - leaving everything on auto, and just setting LLC to medium, and manually setting the Vcore. When Vcore is on auto, the chip got so hot even under a custom loop that it would throttle. like 1.4V+ under load.
> Set 1.28V - medium LLC - all clocks on auto so basically getting a flat 5500 across all the P cores - temps are now in the low 70s under linpack load.
> What is a good P core "all core" flat frequency to shoot for? Is there really any headroom on 13th gen?


For all cores most chips only seem to manage 5.7, 5.8 all core is rare.


----------



## dante`afk

whats the difference?


----------



## bhav

dante`afk said:


> whats the difference?


USD 14.13.


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav On a side note, I should probably retry 4,000 MHz CL13 again.
On the Z690 Edge, I only managed to boot into it _once _before it never trained again.
Maybe now that the Z790 Edge is stronger, I could give it another whirl.
The bandwidth will suck in comparison to 4,300 MHz CL14, but it would still be cool to stabilize.
Will let you know if it works after I'm done testing TM5 anta777 ABSOLUT.









Here is the final 4,300 CL14 config. VDIMM 1.70V, VCCSA 1.39V, VDDQ 1.57V.


----------



## sugi0lover

dante`afk said:


> whats the difference?
> 
> View attachment 2586894


Set language to Thai (It seems English site is not updated properly)


----------



## Ichirou

sugi0lover said:


> Set language to Thai (It seems English site is not updated properly)
> View attachment 2586907


Oh hey, it's been a while since I last saw you.
While you're here, could you shed some detail on what you managed to achieve with your P-SP 124 chip?


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Honestly, all boards these days should have at least one temp sensor input. The fact that you have to buy a third party device to allow fan control via water temp is so lame. Now, back to our regularly scheduled program…


This is one feature I love about the Unify-X. It has temp Sensor plugs, and includes temp sensors in the box. I normally always know my water temp because my chiller has a LCD read out. But I’m able to see it in more places of the loop and even in Hwinfo. All of my previous and really expensive $600+ dollar EVGA Dark motherboards didn’t even include temp sensors..The MSI motherboard has really surprised and changed my outlook on the brand. I can even run pretty fast enough memory speeds at DDR5 7800. I want to go run out and buy a Asus Z790 Apex but I feel like it would just be a waste of more money. I just want to enjoy my CPU and system.


----------



## fray_bentos

Ichirou said:


> @bhav
> Here is the final 4,300 CL14 config. VDIMM 1.70V, VCCSA 1.39V, VDDQ 1.57V.


Bonkers voltages all round.


----------



## Ichirou

fray_bentos said:


> Bonkers voltages all round.


Shrug. It is what it is. VDIMM isn't really a big deal on water though. VCCSA is CPU IMC based.

VDDQ should be -0.10V less if MSI actually bothered to optimize their BIOS.

Z690 Edge, V1.22 only needed 1.49V for a config that would later need 1.59V on V1.70 and onwards? Seriously?
And it doesn't seem like it's changed much with the Z790 Edge, although it's slightly lower.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> This is one feature I love about the Unify-X. It has temp Sensor plugs, and includes temp sensors in the box. I normally always know my water temp because my chiller has a LCD read out. But I’m able to see it in more places of the loop and even in Hwinfo. All of my previous and really expensive $600+ dollar EVGA Dark motherboards didn’t even include temp sensors..The MSI motherboard has really surprised and changed my outlook on the brand. I can even run pretty fast enough memory speeds at DDR5 7800. I want to go run out and buy a Asus Z790 Apex but I feel like it would just be a waste of more money. I just want to enjoy my CPU and system.


My $850 Omega board had them too. But, that’s my point. You shouldn’t 
have to spend a fortune to get what I feel is a much needed feature Even AIOs could benefit from a temp sensor. The days of fans ramping up and down continuously are long gone since most CPUs these days benefit from water cooling.


----------



## Sync0r

mxthunder said:


> Just starting to get my feet wet with 13th gen overclocking. Bought a 13900KF.
> Coming from 10th and 11th gen platforms - trying the same strategy I had with those at least to get something simple setup.
> Thus far - leaving everything on auto, and just setting LLC to medium, and manually setting the Vcore. When Vcore is on auto, the chip got so hot even under a custom loop that it would throttle. like 1.4V+ under load.
> Set 1.28V - medium LLC - all clocks on auto so basically getting a flat 5500 across all the P cores - temps are now in the low 70s under linpack load.
> What is a good P core "all core" flat frequency to shoot for? Is there really any headroom on 13th gen?


Hey, I just started messing around with my 13700KF, currently have the E cores disabled and I'm getting 5.7Ghz across all P cores (with IHS), 5.9Ghz across all P Cores (Delided with direct die cooling). I think I can probably get 6Ghz stable with a bit more work.


----------



## Telstar

RichKnecht said:


> I gave up on motherboard fan controls and bought an Aquacomputer Octo. I have both pumps and all 12 fans controlled via Aquasuite. Fans ramp up slowly as water temp rises. no more loud fans under load. Why I waited so long to do this i have no idea.


You did right. But honestly, if you don't have a custom loop, motherboard fan controls are fine for most people.


----------



## bhav

bhav said:


> Even with bids, this one is at £150, still too much for a second hand one of these now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crucial Ballistix Max DDR4 4400 32GB | eBay
> 
> 
> Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Crucial Ballistix Max DDR4 4400 32GB at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ebay.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking £120 max for a second hand kit.
> 
> Other 2x32 DDR4 kits are at under £50 bid, people know how good this stuff is. Stupid micron discontinued it way too early.


Winning bid was £182 *** thats full sale price still for second hand


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Winning bid was £182 *** thats full sale price still for second hand


I have some Corsair Dom Platz I’d let go of. Samsung B-Die and Dual rank. They are 3600C14 Part# is 4.31. Fantastic DDR4. They are very purdy looking too!! 😃


----------



## Ichirou

Sync0r said:


> Hey, I just started messing around with my 13700KF, currently have the E cores disabled and I'm getting 5.7Ghz across all P cores (with IHS), 5.9Ghz across all P Cores (Delided with direct die cooling). I think I can probably get 6Ghz stable with a bit more work.


Stable in R23, or just your own workload?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

acoustic said:


> Yeah, good on you for taking the time to do that. We only had VR VOUT readings appear earlier this year on Z690; took some time before we were able to read it in HWINFO, so that's why I was saying it might just be a similar case of "wait and see."
> 
> ISL69269IRAZ-T Renesas / Intersil | Mouser
> 
> Apparently, Intersil and Renesas are the same and/or interchangeable names. Mouser says it's a digital controller, so I would imagine it has to be readable somehow, but I'm not an expert on this. Maybe Martin can chime in on what he would need in order to read it.
> 
> Hey, mention this: Intersil ISL 69269 sensors blanking out | HWiNFO Forum
> 
> Seems Gigabyte (and ASROCK) used the Intersil ISL69269 on their Z490/Z590 boards, and it used to report in HWINFO just fine. Martin might be able to work with that kind of info.
> 
> Good luck!


Just fyi Martin did reply to me:

Yes, but the other thing is how these controllers are connected to the mainboard. It seems that in some cases they are not accessible or connected to other proprietary hosts.


----------



## acoustic

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Just fyi Martin did reply to me:
> 
> Yes, but the other thing is how these controllers are connected to the mainboard. It seems that in some cases they are not accessible or connected to other proprietary hosts.


Ah. That sucks, and a pretty big blunder from MSI. Relying on the vCore reading in HWINFO is simply not accurate; makes it far more difficult to match DC_LL to your LLC without VR VOUT giving you essentially die-sense voltage readings.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> I have some Corsair Dom Platz I’d let go of. Samsung B-Die and Dual rank. They are 3600C14 Part# is 4.31. Fantastic DDR4. They are very purdy looking too!! 😃


I'm only interested in the same setup Ichirou has, you can't do this with 64 Gb of any other die, and I already have 32 Gb of the same stuff. As it turns out its the most expensive DDR4 you can get, and is still expensive on second hand.

£180 was good when DDR5 started at £400, its not a good price for it anymore plus its second hand.

I don't think 32 Gb will last another 2+ generations which I want to skip, I use all the mods, and Anno 1800 with all the current expansions minus one sits at 28 Gb usage, then theres the 1 expansion that the person that tested that didn't have, and 1 more still planned in Season 4, and I just bought the season 4 pass.

If they add anymore seasons of expansions still, its going over 32 Gb if you want to keep instant lag free loading between expansion content.

The way it works is the entire game gets cached to the ram so it doesn't have to load from the SSD between content, instant loading from one part of the game to another. Some people with 16 Gb get crashes to desktop, but I think it might be people whose ram had instability as its going to run 16 Gb at 100% load at all times.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> I'm only interested in the same setup Ichirou has, you can't do this with 64 Gb of any other die, and I already have 32 Gb of the same stuff. As it turns out its the most expensive DDR4 you can get, and is still expensive on second hand.
> 
> £180 was good when DDR5 started at £400, its not a good price for it anymore plus its second hand.
> 
> I don't think 32 Gb will last another 2+ generations which I want to skip, I use all the mods, and Anno 1800 with all the current expansions minus one sits at 28 Gb usage, then theres the 1 expansion that the person that tested that didn't have, and 1 more still planned in Season 4, and I just bought the season 4 pass.
> 
> If they add anymore seasons of expansions still, its going over 32 Gb if you want to keep instant lag free loading between expansion content.
> 
> The way it works is the entire game gets cached to the ram so it doesn't have to load from the SSD between content, instant loading from one part of the game to another. Some people with 16 Gb get crashes to desktop, but I think it might be people whose ram had instability as its going to run 16 Gb at 100% load at all times.


I play RUST and it uses lots of ram! Much Better performance if you turn the Windows page file off. But, with Windows PF off it uses all of my 32GB ram and the game starts running choppy. With Page file on, it only uses like 12GB of ram.

I think we are already past the point of 32GB of ram, it’s just our page file is saving all of us and we don’t even know it lol.

I discovered that turning the Page File off fixes any weird stutters or skips and makes the 0.1% lows much better for a lot of games. Some titles don’t need this. But the down side is when you turn it off, we all need 64GB of ram.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> I play RUST and it uses lots of ram! Much Better performance if you turn the Windows page file off. But, with Windows PF off it uses all of my 32GB ram and the game starts running choppy. With Page file on, it only uses like 12GB of ram.
> 
> I think we are already past the point of 32GB of ram, it’s just our page file is saving all of us and we don’t even know it lol.
> 
> I discovered that turning the Page File off fixes any weird stutters or skips and makes the 0.1% lows much better for a lot of games. Some titles don’t need this. But the down side is when you turn it off, we all need 64GB of ram.


Ikeep forgetting my page file, it was only at 4 Gb, I went and set 32 Gb on the second partition on boot drive.

Now what I dont know is if I have a 130 Gb and 800 Gb partition on my boot drive (130 for windows), is setting the page file on the remaining 800 slower than using another drive?

In any case, I'd rather not have it wreck my 4 Tb drives anyway.

And then all the people that say 16 Gb is enough, I should suggest they turn their page file off then and see if its really still enough.


----------



## mxthunder

Sync0r said:


> Hey, I just started messing around with my 13700KF, currently have the E cores disabled and I'm getting 5.7Ghz across all P cores (with IHS), 5.9Ghz across all P Cores (Delided with direct die cooling). I think I can probably get 6Ghz stable with a bit more work.


What Vcore and LLC?
I had to up mine to 1.36 from 1.28 - linpack was 100% stable and the machine gamed fine, but prime small FFTs was giving me BSOD after < 10 min.
WIth 1.36 set I am getting about 1.275 under load.


----------



## RichKnecht

I don’t game and 32 GB just doesn’t cut it for me. I usually have 2-4 photo editing programs open at any given time. Ram usage is usually around 45-50 gb while processing photos. I was going to go to 128gb when I was running X299, but never pulled the trigger.


----------



## Sync0r

Ichirou said:


> Stable in R23, or just your own workload?


Yeah stable in R23, OCCT and several hours of gaming. Will test further to make sure.


----------



## Ichirou

Sync0r said:


> Yeah stable in R23, OCCT and several hours of gaming. Will test further to make sure.


Do the scores seem accurate, or is there any throttling involved?
Also, what kind of Vcore and wattage are you pushing onto the chip?


----------



## Sync0r

mxthunder said:


> What Vcore and LLC?
> I had to up mine to 1.36 from 1.28 - linpack was 100% stable and the machine gamed fine, but prime small FFTs was giving me BSOD after < 10 min.
> WIth 1.36 set I am getting about 1.275 under load.


Ah much higher vCore, 1.5v LLC6, 1.45v load. That's for 5.9Ghz P Cores, E cores off. I'll try some prime small FFTs and see.


----------



## acoustic

Sync0r said:


> Ah much higher vCore, 1.5v LLC6, 1.45v load. That's for 5.9Ghz P Cores, E cores off. I'll try some prime small FFTs and see.


Yeah, that chip ain’t gonna last. 1.45v load AND with higher LLC? I’d love to see the wattage/current running Y-Cruncher or P95 small FFT lol

Those transient spikes must be monstrous.


----------



## Ichirou

Sync0r said:


> Ah much higher vCore, 1.5v LLC6, 1.45v load. That's for 5.9Ghz P Cores, E cores off. I'll try some prime small FFTs and see.





acoustic said:


> Yeah, that chip ain’t gonna last. 1.45v load AND with higher LLC? I’d love to see the wattage/current running Y-Cruncher or P95 small FFT lol
> 
> Those transient spikes must be monstrous.


Yeah... If that chip is consistently hitting over 300W, you can say goodbye to it within a month.
But if you only do low loads like games or something, it might be all right.


----------



## mxthunder

Anyone know where in hwinfo64 I can read my package power? it showed up for my 10900k but wont show up for my new CPU. Even Tried to reinstall it.


----------



## Ichirou

mxthunder said:


> Anyone know where in hwinfo64 I can read my package power? it showed up for my 10900k but wont show up for my new CPU. Even Tried to reinstall it.
> View attachment 2587032


It doesn't show _anywhere_ in HWiNFO?
God, you really gotta ditch that board for a proper one. Why does Gigabyte suck so much?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

acoustic said:


> Ah. That sucks, and a pretty big blunder from MSI. Relying on the vCore reading in HWINFO is simply not accurate; makes it far more difficult to match DC_LL to your LLC without VR VOUT giving you essentially die-sense voltage readings.


Ya, I’m still gonna feed that back to msi through my ticket I have…but unlikely to make a difference.


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Ya, I’m still gonna feed that back to msi through my ticket I have…but unlikely to make a difference.


I already tried contact MSI about various things regarding the BIOS. They largely don't care and ultimately keep telling you to test their latest BIOS.
It's a dead end.


----------



## mxthunder

Ichirou said:


> It doesn't show _anywhere_ in HWiNFO?
> God, you really gotta ditch that board for a proper one. Why does Gigabyte suck so much?


There is no need to hate on gigabyte - it works on ALL my other gigabyte boards. It is a proper motherboard - sought it out specifically.
I have owned many high end gig boards over the years and never had a single issue - they are all still going strong.
Every asus board I have owned has died in that time frame.


----------



## Sync0r

Ichirou said:


> Yeah... If that chip is consistently hitting over 300W, you can say goodbye to it within a month.
> But if you only do low loads like games or something, it might be all right.


Has anyone actually killed one? And if the temperature is ok does it matter?

Yeah I'll just be gaming on it.


----------



## Nizzen

mxthunder said:


> There is no need to hate on gigabyte - it works on ALL my other gigabyte boards. It is a proper motherboard - sought it out specifically.
> I have owned many high end gig boards over the years and never had a single issue - they are all still going strong.
> Every asus board I have owned has died in that time frame.


The best Gigabyte MB I ever had was the *X58A-OC *

There isn't a motherboard in the world without a single issue.....

How is the 7000+ DDR5 on the Z690 Aorus Master?


----------



## Ichirou

Sync0r said:


> Has anyone actually killed one? And if the temperature is ok does it matter?
> 
> Yeah I'll just be gaming on it.


I've personally degraded several 13900s already at 300W in just a few hours of stress testing, so yes.
Temperature did not matter.


mxthunder said:


> You again - already made your hate for gigabyte known.
> Good luck with what? My systems work great.


Gigabyte boards are really only made to work with the RAM on XMP.
As soon as you try to do any extensive memory overclocking, it falls flat on its face with massive inconsistencies.
People have documented plenty of issues with their Z690 boards back then, and easily corrected them by swapping to ASUS/MSI/EVGA.
But if you only use XMP, then it's whatever. Not a big deal.

Since you're evidently a Gigabyte fan, it's a pointless argument to endeavour in.
I share no bias towards any particular company, and have used several different ones.
I do buy with the full expectation of customer service/warranties being absolutely useless, though.


----------



## mxthunder

I dont OC ram - so I dont really care about that.
They offer features that no other brand does. That is why I continue to buy them generation after generation. Every time I make a purchase, I research extensively. I dont just blindly choose gigabyte.
IMO - the best VRM solutions, best PCIe layouts, best implementation of flex IO, etc.
Back in the day, they were the only company to implement a PLX chip board on Z77 that offered a bypass slot, but also let you do x16/x16 on a mainstream board. Back in the day I cared a lot about SLI and doing crazy things with GPUs and they were always the way to go.


----------



## Ichirou

mxthunder said:


> I dont OC ram - so I dont really care about that.
> They offer features that no other brand does. That is why I continue to buy them generation after generation. Every time I make a purchase, I research extensively. I dont just blindly choose gigabyte.
> IMO - the best VRM solutions, best PCIe layouts, best implementation of flex IO, etc.
> Back in the day, they were the only company to implement a PLX chip board on Z77 that offered a bypass slot, but also let you do x16/x16 on a mainstream board. Back in the day I cared a lot about SLI and doing crazy things with GPUs and they were always the way to go.


Yes, that is their main selling point: unique features. It's similar to how ASRock focuses on looks and water cooling.
To be fair, Gigabyte does make pretty good AMD boards. I don't deny that. They probably have a better development team on their AMD side of things.
Their Intel side is more along the lines of "as long as it works for the general public and costs less, it's fine."

In any case, without derailing off topic too far: you'll need to swap your board to get a wattage reading.


----------



## bhav

mxthunder said:


> I dont OC ram - so I dont really care about that.


Most people on OVERCLOCK.net do. So stop recommending their products on a forum that is dedicated to overclocking maybe?

Even Asrock boards OC ram better, and doing so on them is an absolutely **** experience.


----------



## mxthunder

1. Never recommended anything to anybody - was simply defending myself since I got attacked by multiple people for simply owning a gigabyte board.
2. I said i dont overclock RAM - but I am clearly here for advice overclocking the CPU s0o0o0.....


----------



## Ichirou

mxthunder said:


> 1. Never recommended anything to anybody - was simply defending myself since I got attacked by multiple people for simply owning a gigabyte board.
> 2. I said i dont overclock RAM - but I am clearly here for advice overclocking the CPU s0o0o0.....


Gigabyte will be bashed here for quite a long time, considering their quality spans anywhere from decent to awful depending on the product.
While most other companies at least have some consistency in terms of quality. But naturally, there will be lemons here and there, and customer service can be a hit or miss.

Gigabyte GPUs and PSUs have been crap lately, but their monitors/mouse/keyboard and AMD boards have been good.

You can try something like Core Temp/HW Monitor/Speccy to see if they have a wattage reading.
Alternatively, buy an actual wattage meter and measure it on the wall. And then just subtract the GPU and around 50-100W for the rest of the system for an estimate.


----------



## Telstar

tps3443 said:


> I play RUST and it uses lots of ram! Much Better performance if you turn the Windows page file off.


try fixed size pagefile = ram amount.


----------



## mxthunder

Thanks. Not really super concerned about it, more something interesting to know and wondered if I was overlooking something since it worked on all my other motherboards. I can put a clamp meter on the +12V CPU wires if it really comes down to it.
I have never bought anything besides gigabyte motherboards so no comment on that.
All I can say is that I have never had one fail, and have had multiple Asus and MSI boards die on me in the last 20 years.


----------



## yzonker

Ichirou said:


> Yes, that is their main selling point: unique features. It's similar to how ASRock focuses on looks and water cooling.
> To be fair, Gigabyte does make pretty good AMD boards. I don't deny that. They probably have a better development team on their AMD side of things.
> Their Intel side is more along the lines of "as long as it works for the general public and costs less, it's fine."
> 
> In any case, without derailing off topic too far: you'll need to swap your board to get a wattage reading.


Yea I was just thinking that (AMD boards). I've had a x570 Ultra for a long time and it has been a great board. OC'ed ram fairly well, 2 temp sensor headers, 2 amp fan headers and even let me bclk OC my 5800x3D.


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> Hard to hate them when none of them when none of their boards work when OCing ram, and their PSUs blow up.


Not the first psu that blew out, it only means poor QC after the oem makes them.
I have nothing against or for giga, but each brand has made some bad product, someone more than others


----------



## bhav

mxthunder said:


> 1. Never recommended anything to anybody











10600k vs 11600k & newer


My build is an older 7600k & looking for help on an upgrade. Now I get by on lowest graphic settings. The GPU is a Sapphire 3 fan Vega 64. Mostly I play Div2. The graphics card works ok but the CPU is limiting & probably the ram as well. I can figure out the ram but I am uncertain on the CPU &...




www.overclock.net







mxthunder said:


> All I can say is that I have never had one fail





mxthunder said:


> Well the onboard NIC died on my Z490 aorus master


----------



## mxthunder

bhav said:


> 10600k vs 11600k & newer
> 
> 
> My build is an older 7600k & looking for help on an upgrade. Now I get by on lowest graphic settings. The GPU is a Sapphire 3 fan Vega 64. Mostly I play Div2. The graphics card works ok but the CPU is limiting & probably the ram as well. I can figure out the ram but I am uncertain on the CPU &...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


I was talking about in this thread but you seem to be everywhere.
The NIC didnt actually fail - i put it into my HTPC when I upgraded my main rig and the NIC worked there - something got borked with the drivers on my other rig.
And I was talking about the board dying - not a 3rd party component on the board failing.


----------



## tps3443

I have a good beater 13900K that we could all potentially learn from. I don’t mind sending it to its doom of degradation. I think they are pretty tough chips if you can keep it cool! 

I usually keep really low temps though, so I’m thinking this sample probably would not degrade very easily Lol.

I wouldn’t do this to a Gold/Diamond level cpu! 😬

Especially not my baby that’ll be here on 12/12







😍


----------



## TraumatikOC

mxthunder said:


> Anyone know where in hwinfo64 I can read my package power? it showed up for my 10900k but wont show up for my new CPU. Even Tried to reinstall it.
> View attachment 2587032


should be under CPU [#0]
and might want to update, newer v 7.33.4920


----------



## CptSpig

tps3443 said:


> I have a good beater 13900K that we could all potentially learn from. I don’t mind sending it to its doom of degradation. I think they are pretty tough chips if you can keep it cool!
> 
> I usually keep really low temps though, so I’m thinking this sample probably would not degrade very easily Lol.
> 
> I wouldn’t do this to a Gold/Diamond level cpu! 😬
> 
> Especially not my baby that’ll be here on 12/12
> View attachment 2587041
> 😍


Beat up that golden chip you will buying the new hot chip in six months anyway! 😁


----------



## Ichirou

I just realized that it is possible to compare voltages between the Z690 and Z790 Edge by simply comparing the CPU Package Power.
By matching them exactly, it would be possible to set up AC_LL and DC_LL on the Z790 Edge to get close to Z690 VR VOUT.

I will make an Excel sheet to calculate the difference between Vcore and VR VOUT from all of my screenshots taken on the Z690 Edge to date, and average them out.
And then I'll run R23 to try and match my Z790 Edge to the Z690 via both Vcore and/or CPU Package Power.
This will allow me to sync the Z790's Vcore to the Z690's, and subsequently VR VOUT.

*Update: *With a sample size of 68 Vcore & VR VOUT readings, the average difference between them is 0.0187V (Vcore is that much higher).
Now, I must attempt to do an R23 run on my Z790 and match the Vcore exactly with a reading I took on the Z690, and compare the CPU Package Power.
If the Vcore reading is the same between boards, the CPU Package Power should be the same too, making syncing up with VR VOUT much easier.


----------



## acoustic

mxthunder said:


> There is no need to hate on gigabyte - it works on ALL my other gigabyte boards. It is a proper motherboard - sought it out specifically.
> I have owned many high end gig boards over the years and never had a single issue - they are all still going strong.
> Every asus board I have owned has died in that time frame.
> View attachment 2587035


😂

I remember the high-end ultra premium Gigabyte board I had. When the TITAN X came out and I tried to run them in SLI, the board wouldn't POST. Take one card out, works fine with either one individually. Came down to an issue with the Gigabyte BIOS. Other Mobo manufacturers pushed updates to fix it (something to do with so much vRAM).. put a ticket in with Gigabyte and they essentially told me to get bent. I offered to help with any troubleshooting or information they might need to fix it, and they said no thanks.

Never again.

Edit: Christ, didn't see the 20 posts going on about this. Nevermind 😂😂


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> I already tried contact MSI about various things regarding the BIOS. They largely don't care and ultimately keep telling you to test their latest BIOS.
> It's a dead end.


you just gotta sweet talk em a bit =)


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> 😂
> 
> I remember the high-end ultra premium Gigabyte board I had. When the TITAN X came out and I tried to run them in SLI, the board wouldn't POST. Take one card out, works fine with either one individually. Came down to an issue with the Gigabyte BIOS. Other Mobo manufacturers pushed updates to fix it (something to do with so much vRAM).. put a ticket in with Gigabyte and they essentially told me to get bent. I offered to help with any troubleshooting or information they might need to fix it, and they said no thanks.
> 
> Never again.
> 
> Edit: Christ, didn't see the 20 posts going on about this. Nevermind 😂😂


I just cant stand their bios at all. I feel so confused about it. Applying fixed voltages, or other voltage types doesn’t work at all. I’m at the point now where I’d prefer an Asus motherboard, but I can definitely live with my MSI board long term. They would have to physically give me a motherboard for free, or else I wouldnt be going after a Gigabyte motherboard. Years ago I didn’t care at all, I bought the cheapest open box anything that I could try to overclock with 😂


----------



## bhav

Telstar said:


> try fixed size pagefile = ram amount.


I just got around to setting this, 32 Gb page file on the second partition of my 1tb boot drive.

My now 11 year old 128 Gb Crucial M4 is still at 89% health, but still I'm not putting page file on either of my 4 Tb drives.


----------



## Ichirou

*Update 2: *It seems that with the Z790 Edge, you cannot match CPU Package Power exactly with the same settings on the Z690.
The Vcore shown in HWiNFO is *different *between the Z790 and Z690 Edge, even if the CPU Package Power is similar.

For example (based on HWiNFO readings): 1.248V on the Z690 Edge = *270W*. But on the Z790, 1.262V = *271W*, while 1.256V = *267W*.
*With Lite Load Mode 1 and LLC Mode 5*, the Vcore on the Z790 Edge is measured *much higher* than on the Z690 at similar wattage.

=======================================================================

@acoustic
When handling AC and DC, should I be matching the Current, Minimum, Maximum or Average?
Let's just say that the VIDs are all over the place and I have to decide which one it is I actually want to align.
Would it be the Minimum and Maximum, since they're static and wouldn't change?


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> *Update 2: *It seems that with the Z790 Edge, you cannot match CPU Package Power exactly with the same settings on the Z690.
> The Vcore shown in HWiNFO is *different *between the Z790 and Z690 Edge, even if the CPU Package Power is similar.
> 
> For example (based on HWiNFO readings): 1.248V on the Z690 Edge = *270W*. But on the Z790, 1.262V = *271W*, while 1.256V = *267W*.
> *With Lite Load Mode 1 and LLC Mode 5*, the Vcore on the Z790 Edge is measured *much higher* than on the Z690 at similar wattage.
> 
> =======================================================================
> 
> @acoustic
> When handling AC and DC, should I be matching the Current, Minimum, Maximum or Average?
> Let's just say that the VIDs are all over the place and I have to decide which one it is I actually want to align.


I eyeball it off of the current during a load like CB23. Your VID/vCore shouldn't be bouncing around so much, though..?

If using CB23; start it, reset HWINFO logging, and then match to the average after the pass finishes.

Also, with the whole comparison between Z690/Z790, just remember that they are using entirely different voltage regulators, so software reporting could be different. Kind of hard to compare.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> I eyeball it off of the current during a load like CB23. Your VID/vCore shouldn't be bouncing around so much, though..?
> 
> If using CB23; start it, reset HWINFO logging, and then match to the average after the pass finishes.
> 
> Also, with the whole comparison between Z690/Z790, just remember that they are using entirely different voltage regulators, so software reporting could be different. Kind of hard to compare.


Oh yeah, I know they are hard to compare, but I think I'm onto something.
As long as the CPU Package Power is similar between the two boards, I can adjust the rest to suit.
The VIDs would simply need to be: *HWiNFO Vcore (on Z790) - Offset (to match VR VOUT)*


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Oh yeah, I know they are hard to compare, but I think I'm onto something.
> As long as the CPU Package Power is similar between the two boards, I can adjust the rest to suit.
> The VIDs would simply need to be: *HWiNFO Vcore (on Z790) - Offset (to match VR VOUT)*


Hmm.. I see what you're thinking, but this is assuming that either board is accurately reading Package Power, which is manipulated by DC_LL.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Hmm.. I see what you're thinking, but this is assuming that either board is accurately reading Package Power, which is manipulated by DC_LL.


Yes, I've noticed that as well.

I'm still trying to figure out how everything ties in. It might not be possible after all, though.
How exactly does DC_LL and AC_LL modify the voltage and wattage? Understanding that may help me narrow things down.
The goal right now is to raise the VIDs, but lower the wattage.

Food for thought: Since the Vcore is inaccurate on Z790 anyway (due to the lack of a VR VOUT), wouldn't it be pointless tweaking AC_LL?

That is, you could just tweak your multipliers and voltages, etc. with AC_LL set to 1.
Then, once you've found your "minimum stable Vcore," gradually adjust DC_LL to lower the VIDs until you become unstable.

Because from what I can tell, AC_LL only increases the voltage. It doesn't decrease it. I can't set a value less than 1.
So if DC_LL is accurately set anyway, it would've already raised the VIDs enough to match, meaning you'd be overvolting for no reason via AC_LL.

Correct me if I'm wrong though. Perhaps these settings are just borked on Z790 boards due to the lack of VR VOUT.

=========================================================

If I try to run R23, Vdroop hits and my VIDs sink extremely low.
But as soon as I try to adjust AC/DC to raise those VIDs, the wattage just shoots up hard.
This is with Adaptive + Advanced VF Offset mode.

Wouldn't it be better for me to just adjust the VIDs to match VR VOUT on current idle?
Or should I just match the VIDs to the inaccurate Vcore value to keep life easy?


----------



## imrevoau

Sync0r said:


> Has anyone actually killed one? And if the temperature is ok does it matter?
> 
> Yeah I'll just be gaming on it.


The insanely high voltage is not worth it. We aren't clock limited anyway.


----------



## Juiced46

I am looking for a little help here. I am running a 13900k on an Asus TUF D4 Gaming wifi Z690 mobo with 32gb Gskill DDR4 3600 RAM. I am running a Lian Li 360mm AIO and a 4090. 

With BIOS at default settings and XMP 1 enabled, Cinebench R20 score is about 15500 and CPU package temps are around 98*c. 

OC'd all core to 5.6 and E cores on Auto, I manually tuned voltage to a 1.30vCore with an LLC6. No other changes were done in the BIOS. PC will run stable and Cinebench R20 is scoring around 15600 with a CPU package temp of 90*c. 

If I try a 5.7 all core it will crash Cinebench R20, I went up to 1.40 vCore and stopped there. It crashes Cinebench within a few seconds, it does not BSOD, I just get an error and Cinebench stops. 

Should I give up and just go back to 5.6 all core and just do 1-2 cores at 5.7 if I can get that stable?

I can run a 5.7 all core with a 1.40 vCore on Timespy and it does not crash. Max temps are 78*c during a CPU test and no errors. But it crashes Cinebench. 

Also my Timespy CPU score seems low compared to others in stock form. I am getting around 20800, where I am seeing others getting 24-25k. 

This is on a Win 10 system with 21H2, I have not updated to 22H2 after reading about performance issues.


----------



## Ichirou

Juiced46 said:


> I am looking for a little help here. I am running a 13900k on an Asus TUF D4 Gaming wifi Z690 mobo with 32gb Gskill DDR4 3600 RAM. I am running a Lian Li 360mm AIO and a 4090.
> 
> With BIOS at default settings and XMP 1 enabled, Cinebench R20 score is about 15500 and CPU package temps are around 98*c.
> 
> OC'd all core to 5.6 and E cores on Auto, I manually tuned voltage to a 1.30vCore with an LLC6. No other changes were done in the BIOS. PC will run stable and Cinebench R20 is scoring around 15600 with a CPU package temp of 90*c.
> 
> If I try a 5.7 all core it will crash Cinebench R20, I went up to 1.40 vCore and stopped there. It crashes Cinebench within a few seconds, it does not BSOD, I just get an error and Cinebench stops.
> 
> Should I give up and just go back to 5.6 all core and just do 1-2 cores at 5.7 if I can get that stable?
> 
> I can run a 5.7 all core with a 1.40 vCore on Timespy and it does not crash. Max temps are 78*c during a CPU test and no errors. But it crashes Cinebench.
> 
> Also my Timespy CPU score seems low compared to others in stock form. I am getting around 20800, where I am seeing others getting 24-25k.
> 
> This is on a Win 10 system with 21H2, I have not updated to 22H2 after reading about performance issues.


Try dropping it to like 1.20V instead.


----------



## imrevoau

@Ichirou if you have active airflow on your DIMMs what voltage would you say is okay? At the moment I start hitting errors with around 1.54VDIMM (with no cooling) You think I could run something like 1.65 with a fan blowing? I think I could squeeze a decent amount more performance out with more voltage.


----------



## Ichirou

imrevoau said:


> @Ichirou if you have active airflow on your DIMMs what voltage would you say is okay? At the moment I start hitting errors with around 1.54VDIMM (with no cooling) You think I could run something like 1.65 with a fan blowing? I think I could squeeze a decent amount more performance out with more voltage.


Depends on the RAM's heatspreaders and the die type. Need to provide more info.
But for most overclockable dies, 1.60V is fine with a dedicated fan.

But if you're a gamer and your modern GPU is exhausting heat onto the RAM, that changes things.


----------



## Juiced46

Ichirou said:


> Try dropping it to like 1.20V instead.


 It didnt like 1.2 and it crashed R20 immediately. This was on All core 5.6. Unless you meant to try it on the default speeds?


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> Depends on the RAM's heatspreaders and the die type. Need to provide more info.
> But for most overclockable dies, 1.60V is fine with a dedicated fan.
> 
> But if you're a gamer and your modern GPU is exhausting heat onto the RAM, that changes things.


Good point, it's this kit: Are you a human?

I want to try go for 1T CR or run flat 15s (or maybe both, all though that might be harder) flat 15's is an inconsistent mess to train, if I set it in MSI Dragon Ball I can pass 3 runs of ABSOLUTE but half the time if I set it in BIOS it doesn't even boot lol.


----------



## imrevoau

Juiced46 said:


> It didnt like 1.2 and it crashed R20 immediately. This was on All core 5.6. Unless you meant to try it on the default speeds?


Your chip might not be great tbh, 5.7 in R23 should be quite easily doable for the vast majority of 13900K's


----------



## Ichirou

Juiced46 said:


> It didnt like 1.2 and it crashed R20 immediately. This was on All core 5.6. Unless you meant to try it on the default speeds?


You need to undervolt your CPU as much as you can. So just dial it back to what you could pass R20 with, and keep pulling that Vcore down more and more until you can't anymore.


imrevoau said:


> Good point, it's this kit: Are you a human?
> 
> I want to try go for 1T CR or run flat 15s (or maybe both, all though that might be harder) flat 15's is an inconsistent mess to train, if I set it in MSI Dragon Ball I can pass 3 runs of ABSOLUTE but half the time if I set it in BIOS it doesn't even boot lol.


This is Samsung B-die, right?
Try 4,000 15-15-15-35-2T at 1.58V VDIMM, 1.35V VCCSA, 1.35V VDDQ.

@acoustic
If we were to _strictly_ go by the Vcore discrepancy between Z690 and Z790, then since we know that 1.248V on the Z690 is 270W Package, and 1.262V on the Z790 is 271W (close enough), I would just need to somehow set AC_LL and DC_LL so that 1.262V Vcore ends up with 1.243V VID instead, while staying at 270-271W, on load.

If my board currently drops the VIDs like a rock while already pushing wattages high, how should I tweak AC_LL or DC_LL to raise the VIDs without pushing the wattages higher?

Also, I just noticed that with *Adaptive + Advanced VF Offset Mode, *no matter what it is you set the Core Voltage to, if you've fiddled with the AC_LL and DC_LL, the Vcore setting in the BIOS gets ignored no matter what you change it to. VF Offsets are determined from the VIDs derived from AC_LL and DC_LL.


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> You need to undervolt your CPU as much as you can. So just dial it back to what you could pass R20 with, and keep pulling that Vcore down more and more until you can't anymore.
> 
> This is Samsung B-die, right?
> Try 4,000 15-15-15-35-2T at 1.58V VDIMM, 1.35V VCCSA, 1.35V VDDQ.


Yep, 4000 flat 15's is easy, even at 1.25 SA and just 1.5VDIMM. The board just starts having very weird training issues at 4133, where flat 15's either train with 0 issue and pass all tests, or it refuses to boot, lol.


----------



## Ichirou

imrevoau said:


> Yep, 4000 flat 15's is easy, even at 1.25 SA and just 1.5VDIMM. The board just starts having very weird training issues at 4133, where flat 15's either train with 0 issue and pass all tests, or it refuses to boot, lol.
Click to expand...

You need to lock in your RTTs and RTLs. Or enable Fast Boot.
For the RTTs, try 80-48-34. WR-PARK-NOM. Both sets.


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> You need to undervolt your CPU as much as you can. So just dial it back to what you could pass R20 with, and keep pulling that Vcore down more and more until you can't anymore.
> 
> This is Samsung B-die, right?
> Try 4,000 15-15-15-35-2T at 1.58V VDIMM, 1.35V VCCSA, 1.35V VDDQ.
> 
> @acoustic
> If we were to _strictly_ go by the Vcore discrepancy between Z690 and Z790, then since we know that 1.248V on the Z690 is 270W Package, and 1.262V on the Z790 is 271W (close enough), I would just need to somehow set AC_LL and DC_LL so that 1.262V Vcore ends up with 1.243V VID instead, while staying at 270-271W, on load.
> 
> If my board currently drops the VIDs like a rock while already pushing wattages high, how should I tweak AC_LL or DC_LL to raise the VIDs without pushing the wattages higher?





Ichirou said:


> You need to lock in your RTTs and RTLs. Or enable Fast Boot.
> For the RTTs, try 80-48-34. WR-PARK-NOM. Both sets.


I'll give that a go when I have some time, cheers. I think I did look RTT's and RTTL's but I think I have fast boot disabled so I'll give that a go.


----------



## Juiced46

imrevoau said:


> Your chip might not be great tbh, 5.7 in R23 should be quite easily doable for the vast majority of 13900K's





Ichirou said:


> You need to undervolt your CPU as much as you can. So just dial it back to what you could pass R20 with, and keep pulling that Vcore down more and more until you can't anymore.


Thanks guys. I am calling it a night for tonight. Lowest I can get vCore down to on All Core 5.6 was 1.29. @ 1.276 it crashes R20 and R23. 
All core 5.7 on R20 or R23 its just not having it for some reason. Unless I am missing a BIOS setting. Only thing I changed was to LLC6, manual voltage and XMP 1 and setting all core. No other changes. 

I have a contact frame coming on Wednesday. I will take a look to see if its bending and/or if I had good contact with my AiO, reseat the CPU and see what happens when that is installed. Not sure if that is going to help any or if this chip is a dud.


----------



## Ichirou

Juiced46 said:


> Thanks guys. I am calling it a night for tonight. Lowest I can get vCore down to on All Core 5.6 was 1.29. @ 1.276 it crashes R20 and R23.
> All core 5.7 on R20 or R23 its just not having it for some reason. Unless I am missing a BIOS setting. Only thing I changed was to LLC6, manual voltage and XMP 1 and setting all core. No other changes.
> 
> I have a contact frame coming on Wednesday. I will take a look to see if its bending and/or if I had good contact with my AiO, reseat the CPU and see what happens when that is installed. Not sure if that is going to help any or if this chip is a dud.


Yeah... 57x all-core is not easy. You should just accept that it isn't realistic and dial things back down.

It's not so much that your chip is a dud, it's more just that it's not a realistic clock to drive.

if you were to test 55x all-core, I'm sure the Vcore would drop like a rock.

What is your SP rating for the P-cores and the E-cores?


----------



## tps3443

Juiced46 said:


> Thanks guys. I am calling it a night for tonight. Lowest I can get vCore down to on All Core 5.6 was 1.29. @ 1.276 it crashes R20 and R23.
> All core 5.7 on R20 or R23 its just not having it for some reason. Unless I am missing a BIOS setting. Only thing I changed was to LLC6, manual voltage and XMP 1 and setting all core. No other changes.
> 
> I have a contact frame coming on Wednesday. I will take a look to see if its bending and/or if I had good contact with my AiO, reseat the CPU and see what happens when that is installed. Not sure if that is going to help any or if this chip is a dud.


Sounds just like my current chip which is only an average sample 13900K. It does 5.7-6.0Ghz but you need to juice it up really good first. It holds up great though. I have to run 1.340V for MSI LLC3 5.7Ghz all cores. My last chip could run 5.7Ghz with 1.225V in bios Auto LLC.

I’ve sent 430 watts through it already several times no [email protected] all cores 😎 she’s a tough lil chipola right here.

Running 5.7Ghz all cores on average chips needs good cooling. I would stick to 5.7Ghz and just don’t run Cinebench.. Or if you want a true stability, go for 5.6 on (8) cores and higher frequency on less cores.


----------



## Falkentyne

Juiced46 said:


> Thanks guys. I am calling it a night for tonight. Lowest I can get vCore down to on All Core 5.6 was 1.29. @ 1.276 it crashes R20 and R23.
> All core 5.7 on R20 or R23 its just not having it for some reason. Unless I am missing a BIOS setting. Only thing I changed was to LLC6, manual voltage and XMP 1 and setting all core. No other changes.
> 
> I have a contact frame coming on Wednesday. I will take a look to see if its bending and/or if I had good contact with my AiO, reseat the CPU and see what happens when that is installed. Not sure if that is going to help any or if this chip is a dud.


Do you know the P core and E core SP of your CPU?


----------



## TurricanM3

After 3 chips were rather mediocre to bad i caught a 13700k pearl:










Lowest possible CB23 @5600:










This is even much better than my 13900k SP104 (113/87).
What SP ratings do the best 13700k have here?


----------



## Ichirou

TurricanM3 said:


> After 3 chips were rather mediocre to bad i caught a 13700k pearl:
> 
> View attachment 2587088
> 
> 
> Lowest possible CB23 @5600:
> 
> View attachment 2587089
> 
> 
> This is even much better than my 13900k SP104 (113/87).
> What SP ratings do the best 13700k have here?


Nobody really knows since people don't really bin 13700K's. But hey, if you scored better voltages, that's great


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav You jelly?
TM5 1usmus six cycles stable. I gotta retest ABSOLUT a few times until it passes since it does overheat randomly.








And with Enhanced Interleaving disabled, 50x ring, and a clean reboot:
















@bscool I just retested 4,100 MHz CL13 on this Z790 Edge, and it trained and booted in literally one try. Amazing.
This board's much better than the Z690 Edge. Let's see if I can tighten this beast. Or see how high of a frequency I can run on CL13 xD


----------



## imrevoau

@Ichirou You're a legend, I got 4266 to boot 

So 4266 is looking out of reach to stabilise, but 4200 is looking good.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> @bhav You jelly?


I CANT EVEN BOOT 4000CL13 OR GET 4200CL14 STABLE FOR 10 SECONDS!

Hopefully my new board can.

I think it is a board issue, because theres no way there isn't headroom between 4133CL14 on the current board and 4533CL15 on Z490.

It just seems the Asrock board wont apply more than 1.6v during training, the latest bios adds 1.65v which again does nothing like the custom 1.75v they sent me.

New case tomorrow, Z790 Tomahawk shortly thereafter, also just got my replacement cablemod 8 pin CPU cable, go go go go!


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> I CANT EVEN BOOT 4000CL13 OR GET 4200CL14 STABLE FOR 10 SECONDS!
> 
> Hopefully my new board can.
> 
> I think it is a board issue, because theres no way there isn't headroom between 4133CL14 on the current board and 4533CL15 on Z490.


I could only boot 4,000 MHz CL13 once on the Z690 Edge. And then it could never do it again. 

This one does it without any issue, although 4,100 MHz is a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to training when the timings are tightened. Still, when it does boot, it does get pretty far with y-cruncher. 

I'd need to spend more time in order to properly stabilize it, but I won't bother optimizing the voltages since the scores across the board are worse than 4,300 MHz CL14. 

It's still cool to be the first person in the world to run this as a daily-able config and not just some quick bench


----------



## MisterSheikh

Ichirou said:


> I could only boot 4,000 MHz CL13 once on the Z690 Edge. And then it could never do it again.
> 
> This one does it without any issue, although 4,100 MHz is a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to training when the timings are tightened. Still, when it does boot, it does get pretty far with y-cruncher.
> 
> I'd need to spend more time in order to properly stabilize it, but I won't bother optimizing the voltages since the scores across the board are worse than 4,300 MHz CL14.
> 
> It's still cool to be the first person in the world to run this as a daily-able config and not just some quick bench


Just wait till I post mine chief 😉.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> I could only boot 4,000 MHz CL13 once on the Z690 Edge. And then it could never do it again.
> 
> This one does it without any issue, although 4,100 MHz is a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to training when the timings are tightened. Still, when it does boot, it does get pretty far with y-cruncher.
> 
> I'd need to spend more time in order to properly stabilize it, but I won't bother optimizing the voltages since the scores across the board are worse than 4,300 MHz CL14.
> 
> It's still cool to be the first person in the world to run this as a daily-able config and not just some quick bench


Hush, 4533CL15 > You 

(Yes I'm jelly).

And just you wait till mine is setup too with 13900KS and Z790 

For now the ram testing will have to be in G2 though.


----------



## bhav

@storm-chaser Ichirou just done 4300CL14 and 4100CL13 with 4x16 Gb on Micron B die, can your lol only 16 Gb 2x8 Samsung B die even do that?


----------



## MisterSheikh

bhav said:


> Hush, 4533CL15 > You
> 
> (Yes I'm jelly).
> 
> And just you wait till mine is setup too with 13900KS and Z790
> 
> For now the ram testing will have to be in G2 though.


bhav, just get a z790 edge ddr4 😆


----------



## bhav

MisterSheikh said:


> bhav, just get a z790 edge ddr4 😆


I'm sure tomahawk will do the same.

If it does lol @ Ichirou.

If not I'll buy the edge later when it goes on EOL sales, which I already plan to as I want the tomahawk to replace the Asrock Z690 for second system.

I'm going to be testing for high frequency G2 first though, want to see if I can hit DJR numbers.


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> I'm sure tomahawk will do the same.
> 
> If it does lol @ Ichirou.
> 
> If not I'll buy the edge later when it goes on EOL sales, which I already plan to as I want the tomahawk to replace the Asrock Z690 for second system.
> 
> I'm going to be testing for high frequency G2 first though, want to see if I can hit DJR numbers.


If there's no memory performance difference between the Z790 MSI boards you could just get a Z790 A Pro, which is now basically a 690 Tomahawk on the updated platform IIRC

Actually I think the VRM's are also better than the Tomahawk, but obviously that isn't really a concern to begin with xd


----------



## bhav

imrevoau said:


> If there's no memory performance difference between the Z790 MSI boards you could just get a Z790 A Pro, which is now basically a 690 Tomahawk on the updated platform IIRC
> 
> Actually I think the VRM's are also better than the Tomahawk, but obviously that isn't really a concern to begin with xd


Yea I'm pretty sure of that.

Tomahawk isn't just better VRM, it has external clear cmos, thinner heatspreaders around the socket for Arctic mounts, and it comes with a USB drive for drivers / utilities. It also has polished silver finish on the circuitry, Pro-A is all unpolished coppery / bronze lines running through the board, tomahawk is all silver / metallic.

In the UK at launch it cost £5 more. Pro-A Z790 was £319, Tomahawk was £325 so ...

Edge was £100 more than Tomahawk, and nothing really different other than being white tbh.

As I mentioned, I want the tomahawk to update the desk build too, so EOL sales when next gen comes out and I maybe pick up a higher end board for the 13900K, and a 13600K for the second build, and sell the 12600K & Asrock Z690 then.

Even if next gen is better, I'm sticking to these micron kits I have.

Another difference with the Pro-A, because theres an extra PCI-E 4x slot, the second M.2 slot doesn't have a heatsink. Tomahawk has 1 les x4 slot, but a heatsink on the second M.2 as well, this helps for me as I am going to be using 2 x 4 Tb drives, and the two top slots have a separate heatsink.

I already have a pair of top M.2 heatsinks, which I only needed because the Asrock board's stock heatsink doesn't fit with bottom cooled M.2 drives. Already tested with the tommahawk, 1mm heatsink and 1mm pad on the bottom fits under the boards top heatsink, but causes the M.2 to drive to bend noticably, 1mm sink and 0.5mm pad and much less insignificant bending.

So if you have double sided M.2s and most boards don't have bottom cooling, you want to try and stick to 1.5mm thickness on the bottom, maybe better if you can find 0.5mm sinks and pads.

The bottom two slots have a shared heatsink, so two drives in those slots are going to be heating each other one up as well.

Little things like this you need to look at between motherboards.

But in any case, £5-10 more for the tomahawk is a no brainer decision, unless for some reason you really need an extra 4x slot.


----------



## imrevoau

I think 4200 is the limit of my IMC unless I'm missing anything else, while 4266 boots, the stability is horrid, and even at 4200 (which passed 2 hours of ABSOLUTE) is struggling to train RTL's unless I set them (which is 75/75 atm, so a bit high still)


----------



## bhav

imrevoau said:


> I think 4200 is the limit of my IMC unless I'm missing anything else, while 4266 boots, the stability is horrid, and even at 4200 (which passed 2 hours of ABSOLUTE) is struggling to train RTL's unless I set them (which is 75/75 atm, so a bit high still)


You sure its not the ram / timings?

Try test the 4266 settings in G2, if its stable then its the IMC, if its unstable its the ram.


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> You sure its not the ram / timings?
> 
> Try test the 4266 settings in G2, if its stable then its the IMC, if its unstable its the ram.


it's not the kit, I tested G2 on z690 and managed to post 4533


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Yes, I've noticed that as well.
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out how everything ties in. It might not be possible after all, though.
> How exactly does DC_LL and AC_LL modify the voltage and wattage? Understanding that may help me narrow things down.
> The goal right now is to raise the VIDs, but lower the wattage.
> 
> Food for thought: *Since the Vcore is inaccurate on Z790 anyway (due to the lack of a VR VOUT), wouldn't it be pointless tweaking AC_LL?*
> 
> That is, you could just tweak your multipliers and voltages, etc. with AC_LL set to 1.
> Then, once you've found your "minimum stable Vcore," *gradually adjust DC_LL to lower the VIDs until you become unstable*.
> 
> Because from what I can tell, AC_LL only increases the voltage. It doesn't decrease it. I can't set a value less than 1.
> *So if DC_LL is accurately set anyway, it would've already raised the VIDs enough to match, meaning you'd be overvolting for no reason via AC_LL.*
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong though. Perhaps these settings are just borked on Z790 boards due to the lack of VR VOUT.
> 
> =========================================================
> 
> If I try to run R23, Vdroop hits and my VIDs sink extremely low.
> But as soon as I try to adjust AC/DC to raise those VIDs, the wattage just shoots up hard.
> This is with Adaptive + Advanced VF Offset mode.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better for me to just adjust the VIDs to match VR VOUT on current idle?
> Or should I just match the VIDs to the inaccurate Vcore value to keep life easy?


I don't think so. We are talking a 5% (approx) variance correct? If you can tweak AC LL to a point where VIDs/Vcore match, or are close, I'd call it a win. Yhat's margin of error territory. And, as over clockers, we live by marcin of error most of the time.

Once you find the DC LL that matches LLC, you really don't want to touch DC LL. In a way, if you alter that DC LL value, you are also affecting LLC so why not just leave LLC on auto if you want to keep adjusting DC LL?

For instance, I have DC LL set to 69 and LLC set to 7. If I set AC LL to 1,VIDs match vcore @ around 1.252. However, voltage is too low and I need to raise AC LL to 20, which also raises vcore which gives me 1.264 and stability. VIDs and vcore still match. So I figure, with the vcore/VR Vout being different and not being able to "see" the difference, I am about 95% there. Close enough for me.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Sounds just like my current chip which is only an average sample 13900K. It does 5.7-6.0Ghz but you need to juice it up really good first. It holds up great though. *I have to run 1.340V for MSI LLC3 5.7Ghz all cores*. My last chip could run 5.7Ghz with 1.225V in bios Auto LLC.
> 
> I’ve sent 430 watts through it already several times no [email protected] all cores 😎 she’s a tough lil chipola right here.
> 
> *Running 5.7Ghz all cores on average chips needs good cooling*. I would stick to 5.7Ghz and just don’t run Cinebench.. Or if you want a true stability, go for 5.6 on (8) cores and higher frequency on less cores.


 Is that 1.34V under load or at rest?

I am still banging my head against the wall in the cooling department. I am using 3 360mm radiators and fans set to 1400rpm and dual D5s running at 100%. At these settings my 2 EK PE360s should be able to cool 293W each and my EZ XE360 should be able to cool 318W. So why am I struggling to cool 298W? At idle, ambient is 20C, water is at 23C and under load water will go to ~25C with ~20C ambient and CPU temp goes to 91 on the hottest core. That's a 66C delta over water temp! I don;t think that is normal. People with 360mm AIOs are getting better temps than this 

I am going to tear it all apart as soon as my 3090ti power cable gets here and try to figure out *** is going on. Maybe I;ll swap my Optimus Sig V2 for the foundation I have sitting here. I know the EK rads aren't the best, but at 1400rpm fan speed, they should do the job.


----------



## bhav

I just had a thought back to the claim of 'none of my brand X motherboards have failed, therefore they're the best'.

Isn't the reason why a lot of Asus and MSI boards fail because of what we do to those poor boards?

And maybe because the 'higher quality components / build' that allow you to push higher ram clocks = higher chance of bricking the board. The X99 MSI board I had that a lot of people had die within the first 6 months happened when overclocking the ram and the no boot error code displayed was a ram error. Likewise the current issue with dimm slots failing on Asus DDR5 boards looks to be when slots 2 & 4 are populated and high OCs attempted, which are the weaker ones in a daisy chain config.

Most of my recent boards as it turns out have now been Asrock, I've been through 4 in total, currently own 3 for my secondary builds. I get those because they are the cheap and reliable ones for stock setting builds, and the M-ITX ones for the price are amazing, they never die, never fail. But they support much lower CPU & memory overclocking, and are very difficult to OC on, so they aren't even running at the frequencies & timings that Asus / MSI boards can. Same with running Gigabyte boards at JEDEC or stock XMP ram.

For trying to get DDR5 7000+, or DDR4 4000+ G1, you need an Asus or MSI board. I'm going to be excited the next few weeks testing for ram OC differences between Asrock Z690 and MSI Z790 to confirm this, my theory being that 4000G1 should stabilize with CPU OC on the new board, as well as 5000+ G2.


----------



## pat182

so my 13900kf on a z690 msi pro a is doing some weird stuff, bios OC setting doesnt do anything anymore, i have to ajust it in intel Xtreme tuning to make any cpu changes


----------



## acoustic

pat182 said:


> so my 13900kf on a z690 msi pro a is doing some weird stuff, bios OC setting doesnt do anything anymore, i have to ajust it in intel Xtreme tuning to make any cpu changes


Clear CMOS, load optimized defaults, and re-flash the BIOS.


----------



## ju-rek

Ichirou said:


> And with Enhanced Interleaving disabled


How to enable/disable it on MSI motherboards?


----------



## HemuV2

guys is 1.4V llc5 manual voltage bad for 13900k running synced 5.7? bad as in will it degrade the chip?


----------



## RichKnecht

HemuV2 said:


> guys is 1.4V llc5 manual voltage bad for 13900k running synced 5.7? bad as in will it degrade the chip?


Is that idle voltage or voltage under load? What is the power draw? I am guessing manual=override?


----------



## HemuV2

RichKnecht said:


> Is that idle voltage or voltage under load? What is the power draw? I am guessing manual=override?


manual 1.4 llc 5 in bios i only game so its like 60-65C and 120-140W


----------



## RichKnecht

So it stays at 1.4 even under load?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

HemuV2 said:


> guys is 1.4V llc5 manual voltage bad for 13900k running synced 5.7? bad as in will it degrade the chip?


I'll tell you my opinion...
I don't know if you have any knowledge about power electronics... but every time I imagine a cpu consuming 200 Amps I start to believe in extraterrestrial technology... lol. a current like that is worthy of a welding machine... I work with electrical generators of the order of 20 mega watts and the excitation current of such a generator is less than 250A... it's surreal for a cpu to be able to flow more than 200A.... so don't worry about the voltage... seeing it by itself is not the biggest problem. When a bird lands on a high voltage line of thousands of volts, it doesn't even realize the risk it is taking and nothing happens because there is no electric current passing through it... so it survives... however a few milliamps at that voltage will kill it. so does the CPU. a voltage of 1.5v without current will not degrade your CPU. the voltage set * Ampere is what will cause problem. and it's no use keeping the temperature low... it's like you have a pipe that can withstand a maximum pressure and liquid flow and you exceed one of these parameters. if the pipe holds 200 liters per second at a pressure of 1.2kgfcm2 and you exceed the pressure or the flow something will go wrong... in the cpu we can say that 1.2v * 200A is close to the limit... 1.2*200= 240w ... no matter what you do, if you exceed these parameters you will experience above normal degradation. If you keep testing the CPU close to the limit your CPU will degrade... It's like a person that eat a lot o sugar every day... One day this person will need to live with diabetes. and even then she might live longer than me who don't eat sugar...lol

The conclusion... I wrote a lot and said noting... Lolol


----------



## HemuV2

RichKnecht said:


> So it stays at 1.4 even under load?


Depends on load, in cinebench it's like 1.32 but my board doesn't have die sense. So 1.4V set in bios shows 1.385V in hw info and EC shows 190W @ 152amps so i think it's like 1.28V die sense im Cinebench. Gaming is like 120W or so


----------



## HemuV2

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'll tell you my opinion...
> I don't know if you have any knowledge about power electronics... but every time I imagine a cpu consuming 200 Amps I start to believe in extraterrestrial technology... lol. a current like that is worthy of a welding machine... I work with electrical generators of the order of 20 mega watts and the excitation current of such a generator is less than 250A... it's surreal for a cpu to be able to flow more than 200A.... so don't worry about the voltage... seeing it by itself is not the biggest problem. When a bird lands on a high voltage line of thousands of volts, it doesn't even realize the risk it is taking and nothing happens because there is no electric current passing through it... so it survives... however a few milliamps at that voltage will kill it. so does the CPU. a voltage of 1.5v without current will not degrade your CPU. the voltage set * Ampere is what will cause problem. and it's no use keeping the temperature low... it's like you have a pipe that can withstand a maximum pressure and liquid flow and you exceed one of these parameters. if the pipe holds 200 liters per second at a pressure of 1.2kgfcm2 and you exceed the pressure or the flow something will go wrong... in the cpu we can say that 1.2v * 200A is close to the limit... 1.2*200= 240w ... no matter what you do, if you exceed these parameters you will experience above normal degradation. If you keep testing the CPU close to the limit your CPU will degrade... It's like a person that eat a lot o sugar every day... One day this person will need to live with diabetes. and even then she might live longer than me who don't eat sugar...lol
> 
> The conclusion... I wrote a lot and said noting... Lolol


That's a great explanation, i like your pressure vs flow rate analogy. Also that voltage 1.2 that you talk about, is that die sense? My board shows vcore but it's high. Never below 1.3 Really. If i calculate my die sense from Vset - impedance*current it's like 1.27-1.28 in cinebench also this is 1.385V which is 1.4V set in bios. LLC 5. Is there anything wrong I'm calculating here?


----------



## RichKnecht

HemuV2 said:


> Depends on load, in cinebench it's like 1.32 but my board doesn't have die sense. So 1.4V set in bios shows 1.385V in hw info and EC shows 190W @ 152amps so i think it's like 1.28V die sense im Cinebench. Gaming is like 120W or so


Should be fine. Roberto explained it perfectly.


----------



## digitalfrost

HemuV2 said:


> manual 1.4 llc 5 in bios i only game so its like 60-65C and 120-140W


Should be fine. If you respect the Intel default IccMax of 307A:



Code:


Max VID at 307A with 1.10mOhms: 1520mv
Max VID at 307A with 0.73mOhms: 1406mv

Voltage at 307A with 1.10mOhms: 1182mv
Voltage at 307A with 0.73mOhms: 1182mv


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

ju-rek said:


> How to enable/disable it on MSI motherboards?


Under advanced dram settings…where all the timings are. Interleave should be enabled for dual rank, enhanced bandwidth is a different setting under newer msi boards (was not on my z490)…toppc has a vid with some results from it…but generally auto performs quite well..I don’t know what it even does..because he doesn’t have subtitles or English lol...and may vary with each setup so you’d have to play around and then check mlc/Aida if you want…there’s also always run variance so who really knows lol.


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> I just got around to setting this, 32 Gb page file on the second partition of my 1tb boot drive.
> 
> My now 11 year old 128 Gb Crucial M4 is still at 89% health, but still I'm not putting page file on either of my 4 Tb drives.


One of the good things of having an Optane is the insane provisioning. I have written only 6TB (of 2 petabytes) over 3 years as OS drive with fixed pagefile. It will last til old age lol


----------



## bhav

Telstar said:


> One of the good things of having an Optane is the insane provisioning. I have written only 6TB (of 2 petabytes) over 3 years as OS drive with fixed pagefile. It will last til old age lol


They cost a lot and only gen 3 though.

So is a gen 3 optane SSD still better for boot drive & page file than a gen 4 drive?

Like this thing thats cheap now:






Intel/Solidigm 660p Series 1TB M.2 NVMe SSD | Ebuyer.com


Get a great deal on a Intel/Solidigm 660p Series 1TB M.2 NVMe SSD as well as thousands of products at Ebuyer!




www.ebuyer.com


----------



## Telstar

TurricanM3 said:


> After 3 chips were rather mediocre to bad i caught a 13700k pearl:


Yummy, that's awesome. Out of curiosity, what's the batch number?


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> They cost a lot and only gen 3 though.


Gen4 is the DC5800 but costs 1k for 400MB, way more than when launched 



> So is a gen 3 optane SSD still better for boot drive & page file than a gen 4 drive?


IMO yes. Random IOPS rules for OS.
I have bught gen4 ssds but keeping this for windows, and it will last forever.

PS: th 660p is NOT optane, just a regular ssd. You should look at 900p and 905p. They are not M2, they are U2 with a m2 adapter card.


----------



## raad11

Would you guys recommend the 2203 BIOS from Asus? (Strix Z690-A D4)

Noticed something weird. Shader compilation in Fortnite will throw some WHEA errors and crash (the game will shut down, not the PC) until I bring it down to 5.5 GHz. The chip is CB23 stable for 5.6 and 5.7 GHz. At 5.5, it uses up 240+ watts for a few seconds while it compiles shaders.

Luckily I can just change speeds in Windows Power Plan settings, so it's not really a hassle to deal with but I thought that was interesting. Once shader compile is done on first run after new GPU driver install, I can go back to my normal clocks and game runs fine.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I don't think so. We are talking a 5% (approx) variance correct? If you can tweak AC LL to a point where VIDs/Vcore match, or are close, I'd call it a win. Yhat's margin of error territory. And, as over clockers, we live by marcin of error most of the time.
> 
> Once you find the DC LL that matches LLC, you really don't want to touch DC LL. In a way, if you alter that DC LL value, you are also affecting LLC so why not just leave LLC on auto if you want to keep adjusting DC LL?
> 
> For instance, I have DC LL set to 69 and LLC set to 7. If I set AC LL to 1,VIDs match vcore @ around 1.252. However, voltage is too low and I need to raise AC LL to 20, which also raises vcore which gives me 1.264 and stability. VIDs and vcore still match. So I figure, with the vcore/VR Vout being different and not being able to "see" the difference, I am about 95% there. Close enough for me.


So it would be all right to just set up DC_LL to match HWiNFO Vcore? On Adaptive + Advanced VF Offset mode.


Uncle Dubbs said:


> Under advanced dram settings…where all the timings are. Interleave should be enabled for dual rank, enhanced bandwidth is a different setting under newer msi boards (was not on my z490)…toppc has a vid with some results from it…but generally auto performs quite well..I don’t know what it even does..because he doesn’t have subtitles or English lol...and may vary with each setup so you’d have to play around and then check mlc/Aida if you want…there’s also always run variance so who really knows lol.


No idea what the actual feature itself does, but with my RAM, it boosts everything across the board. Actually measured.


----------



## bhav

Telstar said:


> PS: th 660p is NOT optane, just a regular ssd. You should look at 900p and 905p. They are not M2, they are U2 with a m2 adapter card.


Yea well nvm with those then, over £600 for 480 Gb lol.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> *So it would be all right to just set up DC_LL to match HWiNFO Vcore? On Adaptive + Advanced VF Offset mode.*
> 
> No idea what the actual feature itself does, but with my RAM, it boosts everything across the board. Actually measured.


Yes, That is how I have mine set up and it's been rock solid. I matched DC LL to LLC.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Yes, That is how I have mine set up and it's been rock solid. I matched DC LL to LLC.


All right, I'll give that a shot later.

In the meanwhile, I gotta stabilize 4,100 MHz CL13 to gloat to @bhav


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> All right, I'll give that a shot later.
> 
> In the meanwhile, I gotta stabilize 4,100 MHz CL13 to gloat to @bhav


I have yet to mess with memory. @Uncle Dubbs gave me some settings to try, but I really need to get this cooling figured out.


----------



## acoustic

DC_LL won’t really affect stability all that much outside of having it extremely, extremely wrong. It’ll mess up your reporting, though, like power readings.

Boards without VR VOUT will be slightly inaccurate since matching DC_LL to the VID/vCore reading is going to inherently be at least a bit off. How much will it be off? I don’t know for sure.

DC_LL 89 with LLC7 is what matches my VID/VR VOUT on my Unify-X, for example. DC_LL/LLC pairing can be shared as long as both boards are using the same voltage regulator.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> All right, I'll give that a shot later.
> 
> In the meanwhile, I gotta stabilize 4,100 MHz CL13 to gloat to @bhav


I hope ur ram dies.

Well no, then I can't steal it.

Buuuut, whatchu gonna do if I somehow manage 4133CL13 or over 4300CL14 on mah new board?


----------



## Agent-A01

mxthunder said:


> I have never bought anything besides gigabyte motherboards ....and have had multiple Asus and MSI boards die on me in the last 20 years.


What? lol



raad11 said:


> Would you guys recommend the 2203 BIOS from Asus? (Strix Z690-A D4)
> 
> Noticed something weird. Shader compilation in Fortnite will throw some WHEA errors and crash (the game will shut down, not the PC) until I bring it down to 5.5 GHz. The chip is CB23 stable for 5.6 and 5.7 GHz. At 5.5, it uses up 240+ watts for a few seconds while it compiles shaders.
> 
> Luckily I can just change speeds in Windows Power Plan settings, so it's not really a hassle to deal with but I thought that was interesting. Once shader compile is done on first run after new GPU driver install, I can go back to my normal clocks and game runs fine.


Fortnite shader compilation(or any games that do it) will use 100% of the CPU.
If you are crashing it just means you do not have full load stability.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> I hope ur ram dies.
> 
> Well no, then I can't steal it.
> 
> Buuuut, whatchu gonna do if I somehow manage 4133CL13 or over 4300CL14 on mah new board?


Doubt [X]


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Nobody really knows since people don't really bin 13700K's. But hey, if you scored better voltages, that's great


I’ve been seeing several people binning 13700K’s! Instead of buying (1) or (2) 13900K’s, they buy 3 or 4 13700K’s and keep the best. They just want really good P-Cores. And it’s really a 12900KS on steroids. Not a bad idea, and it’s all just as fun!

I’m anxiously awaiting to hear how your SP123 P-Core chip is. 😬

Are you gonna stay below a certain voltage/wattage/amperage level? Or are you gonna push as much as it can handle?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I’ve been seeing several people binning 13700K’s! Instead of buying (1) or (2) 13900K’s, they buy 3 or 4 13700K’s and keep the best. They just want really good P-Cores. And it’s really a 12900KS on steroids. Not a bad idea, and it’s all just as fun!
> 
> I’m anxiously awaiting to hear how your SP123 P-Core chip is. 😬


Arrives sometime today. But I probably won't have time to bench it. Have things to do.


----------



## HemuV2

digitalfrost said:


> Should be fine. If you respect the Intel default IccMax of 307A:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Max VID at 307A with 1.10mOhms: 1520mv
> Max VID at 307A with 0.73mOhms: 1406mv
> 
> Voltage at 307A with 1.10mOhms: 1182mv
> Voltage at 307A with 0.73mOhms: 1182mv


so current is not an issue because im mostly gaming and hyperthreading and 8 ecores are off so its 8p 8e HT off 5.7/34x/50x at 1.4V llc5 which is 1.385 in hwinfo somehow asus does that. im just worried about the 1.385 degrading the cpu over time


----------



## affxct

mxthunder said:


> There is no need to hate on gigabyte - it works on ALL my other gigabyte boards. It is a proper motherboard - sought it out specifically.
> I have owned many high end gig boards over the years and never had a single issue - they are all still going strong.
> Every asus board I have owned has died in that time frame.
> View attachment 2587035


That’s a pretty sweet collection


----------



## digitalfrost

HemuV2 said:


> so current is not an issue because im mostly gaming and hyperthreading and 8 ecores are off so its 8p 8e HT off 5.7/34x/50x at 1.4V llc5 which is 1.385 in hwinfo somehow asus does that. im just worried about the 1.385 degrading the cpu over time


If you have 1.385v VID stock and 120W consumed in gaming and tuned DC_LL correctly, we can infer from that amperes are 86A before Vdroop / 91A after Vdroop. Vcore during gaming should then be around 1.319-1.322v, which is fine. No guarantees but from what I understand about the platform you should be safe.


----------



## Telstar

tps3443 said:


> I’ve been seeing several people binning 13700K’s! Instead of buying (1) or (2) 13900K’s, they buy 3 or 4 13700K’s and keep the best. They just want really good P-Cores. And it’s really a 12900KS on steroids. Not a bad idea, and it’s all just as fun!


I'm so tempted to do that...


----------



## bhav

Telstar said:


> I'm so tempted to do that...


I'd imagine though that with 13700K base clocks being much lower, the lower limit on SP values are much greater.

So more chance of getting a bad chip than a good one.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Arrives sometime today. But I probably won't have time to bench it. Have things to do.


Are you going to stay below a certain level with it? Like SUB 230 amps or SUB 300 watts? Or are you gonna crank it up?


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> I'd imagine though that with 13700K base clocks being much lower, the lower limit on SP values are much greater.
> 
> So more chance of getting a bad chip than a good one.


Definitely some good 13700K’s out in the wild! They have less E-Cores that seems to help keep package temps and power low so they overclock pretty well. I believe there is a guy on here running 5.9 or 6Ghz on his 13700K.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Are you going to stay below a certain level with it? Like SUB 230 amps or SUB 300 watts? Or are you gonna crank it up?


Still max 253W. But since the chip is binned, I should be able to achieve nice clocks even with the lower TDP.
Gonna try to optimize it for both low and high loads. The ring clock's VID at 50x or higher shouldn't be too big of a deal anymore. Or at least, I hope it isn't.
Don't really want it forcing a minimum Vcore during high loads.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Still max 253W. But since the chip is binned, I should be able to achieve nice clocks even with the lower TDP.
> Gonna try to optimize it for both low and high loads. The ring clock's VID at 50x or higher shouldn't be too big of a deal anymore. Or at least, I hope it isn't.
> Don't really want it forcing a minimum Vcore during high loads.


My last chip acted as if a high ring clocks didn’t phase it one bit, and it didn’t force higher VID’s with a high x51 ring. From what I remember even x52 ring didn’t change the VID’s. It was nice! You’ll see.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> My last chip acted as if a high ring clocks didn’t phase it one bit, and it didn’t force higher VID’s with a high x51 ring. From what I remember even x52 ring didn’t change the VID’s. It was nice! You’ll see.


Perhaps it's, as SkatterBench has detailed before, due to the fact that Intel only has VIDs stated up to a certain point before it's left to the board to interpolate the rest.
So ironically, if you were to set a really _high_ ring, it would just circumvent the preconfigured VIDs by Intel.

At the moment, with this 13900K I'm on, 50x ring forces a minimum of 1.27V Vcore (HWiNFO Z790) with Advanced VF Offset. Doesn't matter how I fiddle around with the voltages. 
So R23 ends up running the CPU at like, 52/40/50 with meh wattage.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 MSI finally seems to be reaching some common ground in their e-mail discussions with me. There might be a slight chance I can convince them to make their BIOSes better.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> Definitely some good 13700K’s out in the wild! They have less E-Cores that seems to help keep package temps and power low so they overclock pretty well. I believe there is a guy on here running 5.9 or 6Ghz on his 13700K.


Disable 8 e cores on the 13900K, get less package temps?

Or even better, 13900K & 16 e cores & HT off.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 MSI finally seems to be reaching some common ground in their e-mail discussions with me. There might be a slight chance I can convince them to make their BIOSes better.


In what aspect?


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> In what aspect?


Trying to convince them to add Ring Clock range, and CPU Force 2 to the Edge.
Also trying to get clarification on their Vcore and how accurate it is compared to the true VRM voltage.

I'm not expecting much, but at least they're receptive instead of defensive now.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Trying to convince them to add Ring Clock range, and CPU Force 2 to the Edge.
> Also trying to get clarification on their Vcore and how accurate it is compared to the true VRM voltage.
> 
> I'm not expecting much, but at least they're receptive instead of defensive now.


Update your ticket right now to ask for CPU Force 2 on all DDR4 boards!

Unless the DDR5 boards below the edge don't have it.

And nvm, I also sent a ticket to ask for it.


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> Yea well nvm with those then, over £600 for 480 Gb lol.


The second best thing for OS currently is the samsung 990 pro, which is also way overpriced in EU and i guess UK too.


----------



## bhav

Telstar said:


> The second best thing for OS currently is the samsung 990 pro, which is also way overpriced in EU and i guess UK too.


I'll stick to my 1 Tb SN850 for now, but that can eventually go in my second or third system. I don't think there would be much difference between that and a 990 pro.

How about the fast SK Hynix ones? Their 1 / 2 Tb are supposed to be almost as good as the 990 pro.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Update your ticket right now to ask for CPU Force 2 on all DDR4 boards!
> 
> Unless the DDR5 boards below the edge don't have it.
> 
> And nvm, I also sent a ticket to ask for it.


Nah, it only makes sense for the MSI Z790 Edge, considering it is their premium DDR4 board. The lower models don't really need it.
It's just that it was silly to limit it strictly to DDR5.


----------



## bhav

EEK. took a look at my prior MSI support centre messages from a long time ago ...

'All your X99 Godlikes are faulty! I will never buy another MSI product again!!!'.

Well I didn't mean it, that was just initial madness when £500 motherboard went boom in a few months.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Nah, it only makes sense for the MSI Z790 Edge, considering it is their premium DDR4 board. The models don't really need it.
> It's just that it was silly to limit it strictly to DDR5.


Oh and NVM, it was only a feature available on their MEG Z690 boards anyway.

So I suppose you had it on the Z690 edge and not on the Z790?


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> I'll stick to my 1 Tb SN850 for now, but that can eventually go in my second or third system. I don't think there would be much difference between that and a 990 pro.
> 
> How about the fast SK Hynix ones? Their 1 / 2 Tb are supposed to be almost as good as the 990 pro.


10% to 20%. I'm not sure you would *feel* that in everyday use. 
SK hyniX are closer to SN850 than the 990pro. So yeah, stick with the WD.


----------



## acoustic

bhav said:


> Oh and NVM, it was only a feature available on their MEG Z690 boards anyway.
> 
> So I suppose you had it on the Z690 edge and not on the Z790?


Yes, it was on the Z690 Edge, which is weird since the Edge is _MPG_ branded, not MEG, but it seems to have been an outlier.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Oh and NVM, it was only a feature available on their MEG Z690 boards anyway.
> 
> So I suppose you had it on the Z690 edge and not on the Z790?





acoustic said:


> Yes, it was on the Z690 Edge, which is weird since the Edge is _MPG_ branded, not MEG, but it seems to have been an outlier.


No. Both the Z690 and Z790 Edge DDR4 do not have CPU Force 2.

I was just proposing for MSI to add it, since it is their premium DDR4 board. It makes no sense to limit it to DDR5 when not everyone uses DDR5.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> No. Both the Z690 and Z790 Edge DDR4 do not have CPU Force 2.
> 
> I was just proposing for MSI to add it, since it is their premium DDR4 board. It makes no sense to limit it to DDR5 when not everyone uses DDR5.


Woops, thought we were talking about VR VOUT, not FORCE 2!


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Woops, thought we were talking about VR VOUT, not FORCE 2!


Yeah, CPU Force 2. It was reserved for their best boards, which is cool, but implying that DDR4 is irrelevant and that the Edge doesn't deserve it for that reason is silly.
You might as well buy a Tomahawk or Pro since there isn't really much of a difference from the Edge.

But as for VR VOUT, the Z790 Edge definitely needs some sensor for the true VRM voltage.
Or at least some clarification on how accurate the Vcore reading is.


----------



## digitalfrost

Ichirou said:


> Also trying to get clarification on their Vcore and how accurate it is compared to the true VRM voltage.


If they would just give out their LLC mOhms like ASUS it wouldn't even matter since you'd know the VID would be identical to Vcore anyway, no matter what the sensor reads.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> I have yet to mess with memory. @Uncle Dubbs gave me some settings to try, but I really need to get this cooling figured out.


Meh, the cooling for your cpu you can figure later haha, just stick a fan on the ram and ka-blam! @Ichirou runs quad channel too but microns…can you post a screen shot again of what it is right now…just the timings again..


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> You might as well buy a Tomahawk or Pro since there isn't really much of a difference from the Edge.


As I already told you, you paid the 'white motherboard' tax.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, CPU Force 2. It was reserved for their best boards, which is cool, but implying that DDR4 is irrelevant and that the Edge doesn't deserve it for that reason is silly.
> You might as well buy a Tomahawk or Pro since there isn't really much of a difference from the Edge.
> 
> But as for VR VOUT, the Z790 Edge definitely needs some sensor for the true VRM voltage.
> Or at least some clarification on how accurate the Vcore reading is.


Yep, that is my advice-should have stayed tomahawk or even the pro if it has what you need, power and ram are basically same.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> Trying to convince them to add Ring Clock range, and CPU Force 2 to the Edge.
> Also trying to get clarification on their Vcore and how accurate it is compared to the true VRM voltage.
> 
> I'm not expecting much, but at least they're receptive instead of defensive now.


Ya they told me they would let them know my thoughts on improvement lol


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Meh, the cooling for your cpu you can figure later haha, just stick a fan on the ram and ka-blam! @Ichirou runs quad channel too but microns…can you post a screen shot again of what it is right now…just the timings again..


There is no Quad Channel with DDR4 on ADL/RPL. That's only for DDR5.


Uncle Dubbs said:


> Yep, that is my advice-should have stayed tomahawk or even the pro if it has what you need, power and ram are basically same.


The Tomahawk and Pro look ugly though.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Disable 8 e cores on the 13900K, get less package temps?
> 
> Or even better, 13900K & 16 e cores & HT off.


 Disabling E-Cores on a 13900K is not gonna put that $200+ back in your pocket though. But yeah I’m pro 13900K all the way! But some people aren’t gonna pay more than $400 for a CPU.


----------



## acoustic

Someone did the testing already and found that disabling E-Cores hurt performance on the 13900K, and disabling HT didn’t generate higher clocks on the P-Cores to offset the loss of threads. I thought that HT Off would help as well, but apparently not. Now that Ring clock does not suffer due to the E-Cores being enabled, there’s no reason to disable them anymore outside of outlier cases where a game does not like the high physical core count.

I forget where the post is, probably lost in the last thirty pages of ichirou talking about ddr4 OCing LOL


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> Disabling E-Cores on a 13900K is not gonna put that $200+ back in your pocket though. But yeah I’m pro 13900K all the way! But some people aren’t gonna pay more than $400 for a CPU.


The problem is by the time you're done binning 4 13700Ks and losing however much on the resale values, you could have spent the same and got a 13900K.

So binning 13700Ks makes no sense.

Could say the same about 13900K vs 13900KS, except the latter isn't released yet.


----------



## sew333

Hello i have an question. Someone said that 12900k is too weak for Cyberpunk 2077 and Rtx 4090. Listen to him? 
I have 12900K and Rtx 4090 and i have bottleneck using 1440P and DLSS,thx.

So is sense to change to 13900K?


----------



## Ichirou

sew333 said:


> Hello i have an question. Someone said that 12900k is too weak for Cyberpunk 2077 and Rtx 4090. Listen to him?
> I have 12900K and Rtx 4090 and i have bottleneck using 1440P and DLSS,thx.
> 
> So is sense to change to 13900K?


Just monitor your CPU usage on another screen and see whether or not it's maxing out hard.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> The problem is by the time you're done binning 4 13700Ks and losing however much on the resale values, you could have spent the same and got a 13900K.
> 
> So binning 13700Ks makes no sense.
> 
> Could say the same about 13900K vs 13900KS, except the latter isn't released yet.


If I buy (3) 13700K’s from Bestbuy and ‘keep the best return the rest’ You’re not losing anything. This is what everyone is doing.


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Meh, the cooling for your cpu you can figure later haha, just stick a fan on the ram and ka-blam! @Ichirou runs quad channel too but microns…can you post a screen shot again of what it is right now…just the timings again..


It’s all taken apart right now. Redoing the loop and cleaning everything, again. As soon as I get it put back together, I’ll post another screenshot.


----------



## digitalfrost

Ichirou said:


> Just monitor your CPU usage on another screen and see whether or not it's maxing out hard.


He should not monitor CPU usage, but GPU usage. If GPU usage is below 99%, CPU is too slow.


----------



## Ichirou

digitalfrost said:


> He should not monitor CPU usage, but GPU usage. If GPU usage is below 99%, CPU is too slow.


Eh, different approaches to the same result. But yeah


----------



## fray_bentos

pat182 said:


> so my 13900kf on a z690 msi pro a is doing some weird stuff, bios OC setting doesnt do anything anymore, i have to ajust it in intel Xtreme tuning to make any cpu changes


Uninstall XTU. It overrides bios settings even when "not running".


----------



## fray_bentos

Ichirou said:


> Trying to convince them to add Ring Clock range, and CPU Force 2 to the Edge.
> Also trying to get clarification on their Vcore and how accurate it is compared to the true VRM voltage.
> 
> I'm not expecting much, but at least they're receptive instead of defensive now.


I agree, the only thing missing on my MSI board is ring frequency not being able to be set as adaptive. At stock it downclocks, so I've left mine at that.


----------



## digitalfrost

Ichirou said:


> Eh, different approaches to the same result. But yeah


It's not the same. For example Escape from Tarkov is an incredibly CPU bound game that will hugely profit from a couple of fast cores. But it does not load all your cores like a mondern game optimized for console would. So if you look at your CPU utilization in Tarkov, it will be below 100%, by far, but you are still CPU bound. The only way to notice this is to look at the GPU utilization, because if this happens you will have scenes where your GPU is way below 100%. And that is the core of the matter. You can be CPU bound even way below 100% CPU utilization. But if you achieve 99% GPU utilization, you are never CPU bound.

Sure you can say EFT is a badly optimized game but that doesn't change the fact that getting a faster CPU will hugely improve the experience.

e: NFS Unbound is a game that will trigger the current limit of my CPU, it uses every core it can get to the fullest. I have not looked at CPU utilization but it surely would look very high in Unbound. However, my GPU is never below 99% so the game is not CPU limited despite showing high CPU utilization values.


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> Someone did the testing already and found that disabling E-Cores hurt performance on the 13900K, and disabling HT didn’t generate higher clocks on the P-Cores to offset the loss of threads. I thought that HT Off would help as well, but apparently not. Now that Ring clock does not suffer due to the E-Cores being enabled, there’s no reason to disable them anymore outside of outlier cases where a game does not like the high physical core count.
> 
> I forget where the post is, probably lost in the last thirty pages of ichirou talking about ddr4 OCing LOL


HT off helps in Spiderman Remastered, also less power consumption.


----------



## tps3443

digitalfrost said:


> It's not the same. For example Escape from Tarkov is an incredibly CPU bound game that will hugely profit from a couple of fast cores. But it does not load all your cores like a mondern game optimized for console would. So if you look at your CPU utilization in Tarkov, it will be below 100%, by far, but you are still CPU bound. The only way to notice this is to look at the GPU utilization, because if this happens you will have scenes where your GPU is way below 100%. And that is the core of the matter. You can be CPU bound even way below 100% CPU utilization. But if you achieve 99% GPU utilization, you are never CPU bound.
> 
> FALLOUT 4 is the WORST game ever because it also has this issue!!
> 
> Sure you can say EFT is a badly optimized game but that doesn't change the fact that getting a faster CPU will hugely improve the experience.
> 
> e: NFS Unbound is a game that will trigger the current limit of my CPU, it uses every core it can get to the fullest. I have not looked at CPU utilization but it surely would look very high in Unbound. However, my GPU is never below 99% so the game is not CPU limited despite showing high CPU utilization values.


It sucks that most games are like this It is common with DX11 titles. They use like 2 or 3 cores max and bounce around from 100% GPU usage down to hardly nothing.. Your GPU usage starts tanking to the floor if the CPU action gets too heavy and intensive. Literally you can have 3% CPU usage with only 15 fps, and your GPU usage is at 10-20% lol.. I can’t stand games like this. Ark Survival Evolved is another good example. It’s only able to use 1-3 cores and it’s maxing out those specific cores. So the more intensive the game is CPU/physics wise, the lower your FPS gets, because your GPU usage is dropping to compensate for the physics load of the game.

Fallout 4 also is amongst the worst to have this problem occur. Dropping GPU usage because the 2-3 cpu cores used are too busy drawing physics to allow GPU frames to pass as well. It is the stupidest issue ever that can’t be fixed.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 Chip arrived but can't test until later; busy today.


----------



## kunit13

I did quick test a week or so ago:
5.7/4.5/5ring vs 5.8/4.5/5ring but with HT off on warzone 2. (2 runs each same spot 60second Data log). I tried to find a spot on the map with buildings a little harder to render for the cpu. 13900kf.
Both fixed voltage. 

I did want to try either disabling some ecores clocks to maybe get better P Core thermals/clocks.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 Chip arrived but can't test until later; busy today.


Okay, let me give you my address.🤪
Kidding!

Hey what is the batch? I’m curious.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Okay, let me give you my address.🤪
> Kidding!
> 
> Hey what is the batch? I’m curious.


Couldn't tell you. The IHS was lapped and I wasn't provided the box.


----------



## digitalfrost

tps3443 said:


> Fallout 4 also is amongst the worst to have this problem occur. Dropping GPU usage because the 2-3 cpu cores used are too busy drawing physics to allow GPU frames to pass as well. It is the stupidest issue ever that can’t be fixed.


Honestly this issue made me come back to Intel. I was always an AMD guy, I enjoyed the AMD Athlon 3200+ (Winchester) back in the day (2004). But nothing good came after that.

As soon as AMD came out with the Ryzen in 2017, I got on the train. And I have to say, I came from a 2011 Sandy Bridge system (2500k) and the jump was amazing. I had some real multicore workloads like working on music and stuff, and the 1800X was 3 times as fast as my 2500k despite only having double the cores. AMD really did us all a favor pushing higher core counts into the mainstream.

That said, unoptimized games like we discussed gain incredibly well by having just some very fast cores, and Intel is still the king at that. I think if gaming is anything you cared about, Intel was probably the best choice up until the Ryzen 5000 series. 

I'm very interested to see what they can do with their 3D Vcache, 5800X3D has shown incredible performance (and at very low watts at that) that even Intel marketing department had to embarass themselves with that picture here:










Find the 5800X3D .

I might move to AMD again if they have a good 16C/32C CPU with 3D-Vcache, but I have to say you could barely overclock these AMD CPUs since they already ran pretty much max out of the box. And I had so much fun learning about these Intel platforms. It will be very interesting to see what the future will bring. I'm just happy competition is back again.


----------



## Nizzen

Ichirou said:


> Couldn't tell you. The IHS was lapped and I wasn't provided the box.


Sounds like one of mine that was bought from hwbot guys


----------



## ViTosS

acoustic said:


> Someone did the testing already and found that disabling E-Cores hurt performance on the 13900K, and disabling HT didn’t generate higher clocks on the P-Cores to offset the loss of threads. I thought that HT Off would help as well, but apparently not. Now that Ring clock does not suffer due to the E-Cores being enabled, there’s no reason to disable them anymore outside of outlier cases where a game does not like the high physical core count.
> 
> I forget where the post is, probably lost in the last thirty pages of ichirou talking about ddr4 OCing LOL


Well I've been experiencing some cores/threads not being utilized in many games, to not say all games I tested, don't know if Windows 11 22H2 doesn't manage the usage correctly or if it's normal on 13900k, but lots of threads are at 0% usage, some games like NFS Unbound only load hard the last E-Cores and the other P/E-Cores get to 0% or very low usage, I also saw some games if I disable all E-Cores the P-Cores are utilized correctly, just like a normal CPU like 10900k for example. Don't know if it's suppose to be like that with 13900k and latest Windows 11 available.


----------



## Ichirou

@ViTosS Windows can be configured via power plans (and hacks) to _allow_ all of the cores to function at 100% and not get parked, but ultimately, it lies on the game to actually utilize them. If the game isn't coded for it, it'll still park cores.


----------



## digitalfrost

The thing is if you actually keep ampere and power limits, having cores park greatly helps boost clocks on the ones that aren't parked.


----------



## ViTosS

Ichirou said:


> @ViTosS Windows can be configured via power plans (and hacks) to _allow_ all of the cores to function at 100% and not get parked, but ultimately, it lies on the game to actually utilize them. If the game isn't coded for it, it'll still park cores.


I see, from the ones I tested, HZD, SOTTR, BF 2042, AC Valhalla, NFS Unbound, FH5 and Spiderman Miles Morales, none of these utilizes all the cores. Some seem to not utilize the ''threads'' of the P-Cores, or MSI AB is somehow not repporting correctly, but I see P-Cores in a lot of games having their threads not utilized, and E-Cores is another mess.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Couldn't tell you. The IHS was lapped and I wasn't provided the box.


That’s awesome. I’m most likely going to do the same to this SP121 P-Core chip.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> That’s awesome. I’m most likely going to do the same to this SP121 P-Core chip.


So you're planning to lap it and resell it without the box? xD


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> There is no Quad Channel with DDR4 on ADL/RPL. That's only for DDR5.
> 
> The Tomahawk and Pro look ugly though.
> View attachment 2587182
> View attachment 2587183


Lowest AIDA latency I was able to get was 48.1ns. I got some 46.3ns readings once but I can't replicate it again maybe something I installed on windows.


----------



## energie80

kunit13 said:


> I did quick test a week or so ago:
> 5.7/4.5/5ring vs 5.8/4.5/5ring but with HT off on warzone 2. (2 runs each same spot 60second Data log). I tried to find a spot on the map with buildings a little harder to render for the cpu. 13900kf.
> Both fixed voltage.
> 
> I did want to try either disabling some ecores clocks to maybe get better P Core thermals/clocks.
> 
> View attachment 2587197


Try 58x e cores off ht on


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> So you're planning to lap it and resell it without the box? xD


No way! I am going to Lap and keep It for 2 years. Not reselling the SP121 P-Core chip. Never ever. 😎


----------



## CptSpig

tps3443 said:


> No way! I am going to Lap and keep It for 2 years. Not reselling the SP121 P-Core chip. Never ever. 😎


Never?


----------



## gerardfraser

13700KF I tested 3 different games,two game just running around the other game a cut scene to see CPU boost clocks..So I set CPU range 5800Mhz low and 6000Mhz high.

I also did not bother syncing to the 0.001 of a second,was just testing to see boost clocks. 
00::00 BioShock2 Remastered
00:36 Cutscene-The Devil In Me
01:31 Alien Isolation


----------



## tps3443

CptSpig said:


> Never?



When I upgrade, it will move in to replace my top 1% 11900K CPU.


----------



## tps3443

This 13900K I have right now, which is just an average chip is kind of funny, because it takes a lot of voltage to achieve 5.7Ghz, but just a tiny bit more voltage gets you 5.8Ghz


----------



## bhav

So I thought I'd go to sleep early to prepare for a whole day of PC building tomorrow.

I fell asleep. I had a dream. The dream woke me up.

Only 1 hour 30 mins had passed, and I'm no longer tired.

Welp.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> So I thought I'd go to sleep early to prepare for a whole day of PC building tomorrow.
> 
> I fell asleep. I had a dream. The dream woke me up.
> 
> Only 1 hour 30 mins had passed, and I'm no longer tired.
> 
> Welp.


What are you building tomorrow?


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> What are you building tomorrow?


Everything minus the 13900KS.

Case arrives tomorrow, everything else already here.


----------



## imrevoau

Telstar said:


> I'm so tempted to do that...


Dude, it really is not worth it, even if you got the worlds worst chip. Just enjoy it man.


----------



## bhav

Imagine everyone wasting all this time binning all these chips then I'll get 1 KS and haha you wasted all that time and money.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Imagine everyone wasting all this time binning all these chips then I'll get 1 KS and haha you wasted all that time and money.


Cool story bro.

Anyway, working on the new chip now. Will take some time.


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> Cool story bro.
> 
> Anyway, working on the new chip now. Will take some time.


I'm interested in how the IMC will perform


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Cool story bro.
> 
> Anyway, working on the new chip now. Will take some time.


No memory overclocking @Ichirou lol.

Just P-Cores and E-Cores lol.


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> Imagine everyone wasting all this time binning all these chips then I'll get 1 KS and haha you wasted all that time and money.


Eh, it's not like the 13900KS is some godly CPU that is unreachable with a regular i9, if you have the time and patience binning early on can save you the hassle of having to wait a long time for a KS. To each their own tho, the KS will probably be crazy


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Imagine everyone wasting all this time binning all these chips then I'll get 1 KS and haha you wasted all that time and money.


I’m very happy for you. The 13900KS will be a great CPU.


----------



## bhav

I was trying to wait for a software bundle too but doesn't look like they're happening this time


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

I cant believe how easy this is . A work in progress .


----------



## tps3443

I am betting that @Ichirou is having a blast!


----------



## tps3443

HOMECINEMA-PC said:


> I cant believe how easy this is . A work in progress .
> View attachment 2587249


How much storage space do you have? Looks like a lot of drives on your Desktop!


----------



## gerardfraser

*** is the matter with my 13700Kf only boosting to 6200Mhz while PC Gaming.I am so pissed off,Did I wasted my money


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> How much storage space do you have? Looks like a lot of drives on your Desktop!


Off topic but I've now disabled all desktop shortcuts including recycle bin.

They can cause burn in on oleds.


----------



## bhav

gerardfraser said:


> *** is the matter with my 13700Kf only boosting to 6200Mhz while PC Gaming.I am so pissed off,Did I wasted my money


Yea you did, its crap. Send it to me.


----------



## gerardfraser

bhav said:


> Yea you did, its crap. Send it to me.


Ok I am going back to AMD 7700X best CPU I ever bought. Send my your address.


----------



## bhav

gerardfraser said:


> Ok I am going back to AMD 7700X best CPU I ever bought. Send my your address.


Yay time for me to get hacked / scammed / frisked in the pants?


----------



## gerardfraser

bhav said:


> Yay time for me to get hacked / scammed / frisked in the pants?


Well ok then,buy a 13900KS like you said. By the way I have sent and sold many CPU/GPUs on this site for free and also fair market value for good gear.My offer is recinded for free to you.


----------



## Ichirou

gerardfraser said:


> Well ok then,buy a 13900KS like you said. By the way I have sent and sold many CPU/GPUs on this site for free and also fair market value for good gear.My offer is recinded for free to you.


If you don't want your chip, I'll take it


----------



## bhav

gerardfraser said:


> Well ok then,buy a 13900KS like you said. By the way I have sent and sold many CPU/GPUs on this site for free and also fair market value for good gear.My offer is recinded for free to you.


Feel free to send it to Ichirou.


----------



## gerardfraser

Ichirou said:


> If you don't want your chip, I'll take it


Dude I am Canadian,I know you do not need a chip.I would pick a Canadian over anyone to send a chip to as I have done in the past.Rarley get a thank you on PC gear and just about never on free PC games I give to people.
Today I am just pissing off asus intel shills with a poor 13700kf that can beat the 13900K water cooler rigs on single core cinebench and pc gaming.I will give away this 13700KF but not to anyone on this forum after I buy another AMD system.


----------



## tps3443

gerardfraser said:


> *** is the matter with my 13700Kf only boosting to 6200Mhz while PC Gaming.I am so pissed off,Did I wasted my money


I’m after seeing if 6.3-6.4Ghz will run and work okay on my 13900K. But that’s definitely good for a 13700K during gaming Loads.


----------



## bhav

gerardfraser said:


> I will give away this 13700KF but not to anyone on this forum after I buy another AMD system.


Sure you will.


----------



## gerardfraser

bhav said:


> Sure you will.


Yeah I came this forum to lie to strangers on the internet looking for internet cred.

I can link some free PC game not actual gear to people for privacy stuff
RTX 4090 Ray Tracing 4K HDR PC Gameplay Watch Dogs Legion Free Game in Description - YouTube 
RTX 4090 4K HDR UNCHARTED Legacy of Thieves Collection Chapter 16 Free Game in Description - YouTube 
Blair Witch 4K AMD 7700X 5500Mhz free game key inside - YouTube
Metro Exodus EE 4K HDR Ray Tracing Extreme PC DLSS Gameplay AMD 7700X 5550 Mhz Free game key inside - YouTube
Stray 4K PC Game rtx 3090 12900k 5300mhz ending free game in description - YouTube 
Hitman 3 4k hdr ray tracing. Free Prime Game at Legacy Games - YouTube 
Crysis Remastered RTX 3090 12900K Free Prime Game at Legacy Games - YouTube 
Elden Ring Godskin Apostle & Godskin Noble & Snail & Borealis The Freezing Fog Boss Fight 4K HDR - YouTube 
Assassin's Creed Origins 4k hdr rtx 3090 Free Prime Game at Legacy Games - YouTube 
Control PC Game 4K HDR fReE cD kEy tO rEdEeM - YouTube 
Dragon Age Inquisition 4k fREE cD kEY - YouTube
Crysis 2 CD keys free.If they get used then they are gone .I have no more left. - YouTube 
Free Battlefield 5 Code to redeem - YouTube


----------



## gerardfraser

tps3443 said:


> I’m after seeing if 6.3-6.4Ghz will run and work okay on my 13900K. But that’s definitely good for a 13700K during gaming Loads.


Awesome can you show a video of a pc game running those clocks on 13900K ,which I believe 100%
13700KF 6200Mhz boost video


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

tps3443 said:


> How much storage space do you have? Looks like a lot of drives on your Desktop!


Ive just consolidated 3x4tb drives on to that 18tb drive. So they are back ups now


----------



## tps3443

gerardfraser said:


> Awesome can you show a video of a pc game running those clocks on 13900K ,which I believe 100%
> 13700KF 6200Mhz boost video


You’ll have to wait until next week 😉. 
I probably can’t run those type of speeds on my current 13900K.


----------



## bhav

HOMECINEMA-PC said:


> Ive just consolidated 3x4tb drives on to that 18tb drive. So they are back ups now
> View attachment 2587271


I think you would really benefit from looking up how to customize drive icons, will make it look nicer and help you manage them easier.


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

bhav said:


> I think you would really benefit from looking up how to customize drive icons, will make it look nicer and help you manage them easier.


I have a lot to look up its been many years lol


----------



## gerardfraser

tps3443 said:


> You’ll have to wait until next week. I can’t run those type of speeds on my current 13900K.


EDIT: I did forget to mention I can also run higher clocks than 6200Mhz anyway not important to talk about that.
That is interesting,I am using $100 dollar CPU cooler.I would buy a 13900K but I just play PC games so I actually run 5500Mhz 95% of the time,higher CPU clocks doing nothing in my use case.


----------



## bhav

HOMECINEMA-PC said:


> I have a lot to look up its been many years lol












Its much nicer than default icons.


----------



## tps3443

gerardfraser said:


> EDIT: I did forget to mention I can also run higher clocks than 6200Mhz anyway not important to talk about that.
> That is interesting,I am using $100 dollar CPU cooler.I would buy a 13900K but I just play PC games so I actually run 5500Mhz 95% of the time,higher CPU clocks doing nothing in my use case.


Honestly, I have never tried to set a high frequency all P-core speed for just gaming only stability. On my current chip I only run 5.7-6.0 P-Cores, 4.5 E-Cores, 5.2Ghz ring. But it’s a stable setup for everything.

I will give it a try though.


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav Out of sheer boredom, I'm doing Gear 2 testing:
On the Z690 Edge with four DIMMs, I could only boot up to 4,533 MHz, no matter what I tried.
On the Z790 Edge, I can boot up to 4,800 MHz CL18 with tRCD/tRP at 22, or 5,066 MHz CL18 with tRCD/tRP at 24. Couldn't get any higher even with full auto timings.


----------



## gerardfraser

tps3443 said:


> Honestly, I have never tried to set a high frequency all P-core speed for just gaming only stability. On my current chip I only run 5.7-6.0 P-Cores, 4.5 E-Cores, 5.2Ghz ring. But it’s a stable setup for everything.
> 
> I will give it a try though.


Well I have posted a few videos at same pc gaming clocks 6200Mhz in Cinebench and CPUz etc.I do not have the cooling for prime95 and it is not a competition and I know you can oerclock stuff but you just said you seen 6300-6400mhz on your 13900k.I can only post stuff I did for 2 months now.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> @bhav Out of sheer boredom, I'm doing Gear 2 testing:
> On the Z690 Edge with four DIMMs, I could only boot up to 4,533 MHz, no matter what I tried.
> On the Z790 Edge, I can boot up to 4,800 MHz CL18 with tRCD/tRP at 22, or 5,066 MHz CL18 with tRCD/tRP at 24. Couldn't get any higher even with full auto timings.


You should be able to do 4800CL17, my kits looking like it might do 4800CL16 if I can get 1.7v to actually work, which from your results it looks like it does on MSI boards.

Currently 4800CL16 is around 30mins stable in OCCT, so 1.7v should stabilize it.


----------



## bhav

gerardfraser said:


> Well I have posted a few videos at same pc gaming clocks 6200Mhz in Cinebench and CPUz etc.I do not have the cooling for prime95 and it is not a competition and I know you can oerclock stuff but you just said you seen 6300-6400mhz on your 13900k.I can only post stuff I did for 2 months now.


What is overclocking if not a competition?

I'd say you've won this thread so far! Congrats.


----------



## imrevoau

@Ichirou 4533 is about what I can post on my Z690 A Pro in G2, so it does seem there is some improvement to be had on Z790 (no matter how small realistically) To be fair though I think you did prove it pretty heavily with your testing anyway.


----------



## Ichirou

imrevoau said:


> @Ichirou 4533 is about what I can post on my Z690 A Pro in G2, so it does seem there is some improvement to be had on Z790 (no matter how small realistically) To be fair though I think you did prove it pretty heavily with your testing anyway.


Yeah, I did do some pretty thorough testing. The Z790 Edge is definitely stronger than its Z690 equivalent.
I would imagine the same applies for the lower tiers as well.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> @bhav Out of sheer boredom, I'm doing Gear 2 testing:
> On the Z690 Edge with four DIMMs, I could only boot up to 4,533 MHz, no matter what I tried.
> On the Z790 Edge, I can boot up to 4,800 MHz CL18 with tRCD/tRP at 22, or 5,066 MHz CL18 with tRCD/tRP at 24. Couldn't get any higher even with full auto timings.


DDR4? Nice. I really need to try to OC my memory again.


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> You should be able to do 4800CL17, my kits looking like it might do 4800CL16 if I can get 1.7v to actually work, which from your results it looks like it does on MSI boards.
> 
> Currently 4800CL16 is around 30mins stable in OCCT, so 1.7v should stabilize it.


Just use G1 :<


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> DDR4? Nice. I really need to try to OC my memory again.


This stuff is exclusive to the single rank DDR4 club using the highest bins of 2x8 samsung b die, 2x8 hynix DJR or 2x16 micron B die, the last being the only 16 Gb option and best ram for 4x16.



imrevoau said:


> Just use G1 :<


Have you not heard about my worst IMC and worst DDR4 Z690 board yet? The current crap I have was just to bide time until this 13th gen build.

Also I claim world records for DDR4 on Asrock boards, seriously I don't think anyone with functional brain would even attempt this on an M-ITX Asrock board, no idea how mine is still alive.

Case arriving in 3 hours.


----------



## pat182

so i tried pushing my 13900kf on aio 360mm, 5.8ghz all core not fully stable at 1.36v, 1.4 seems to be a good spot to make sure it doesnt crash. my msi z690 pro a was boosting to 1.42v at stock 5.5ghz, find it really odd it overvolt so much


----------



## energie80

pat182 said:


> so i tried pushing my 13900kf on aio 360mm, 5.8ghz all core not fully stable at 1.36v, 1.4 seems to be a good spot to make sure it doesnt crash. my msi z690 pro a was boosting to 1.42v at stock 5.5ghz, find it really odd it overvolt so much


voltages are high? Llc?


----------



## MarkDeMark

Hi
Anynone here knows how to reach the people at SuperCoolComputer - other than [email protected] which as far as I can see is not being answered at all. Please PM me if you do. Thanks


----------



## CptSpig

MarkDeMark said:


> Hi
> Anynone here knows how to reach the people at SuperCoolComputer - other than [email protected] which as far as I can see is not being answered at all. Please PM me if you do. Thanks


You can message him on Facebook.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> @bhav Out of sheer boredom, I'm doing Gear 2 testing:
> On the Z690 Edge with four DIMMs, I could only boot up to 4,533 MHz, no matter what I tried.
> On the Z790 Edge, I can boot up to 4,800 MHz CL18 with tRCD/tRP at 22, or 5,066 MHz CL18 with tRCD/tRP at 24. Couldn't get any higher even with full auto timings.


What does the bandwidth and latency look like…I’m curious to check mine but it’s always a hassle lol…even in gear 2 I highly doubt my kit will clock that high


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> What does the bandwidth and latency look like…I’m curious to check mine but it’s always a hassle lol…even in gear 2 I highly doubt my kit will clock that high


I haven't tightened the timings yet. 5,000 MHz also seems somewhat fussy about what timings it'll boot with. I have to dial in everything manually again as if overclocking fresh. Stopped for the night as it got late.


----------



## Telstar

imrevoau said:


> Dude, it really is not worth it, even if you got the worlds worst chip. Just enjoy it man.


ikr


----------



## bhav

Here we goooooooo:










Well no 13th gen yet.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Here we goooooooo:
> 
> View attachment 2587347
> 
> 
> Well no 13th gen yet.


That’s awesome. You could grab a cheap 13600K to use in the mean time until your 13900KS? Probably wouldn’t even know the difference when gaming/working.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> That’s awesome. Maybe grab a cheap 13600K to use in the mean time until your 13900KS? Probably wouldn’t even know the difference when gaming/working.


Erm I have a 12600k.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Erm I have a 12600k.


Oh okay. What did you run before that? I’m just curious.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> Oh okay. What did you run before that? I’m just curious.


2 systems, 10900K desktop, 12600K 4K from couch.

13900K for couch, 12600K for desktop, sell 10900K after.


----------



## Vici0us

Can anybody tell me what the stock voltage is on 13600K?


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> 2 systems, 10900K desktop, 12600K 4K from couch.
> 
> 13900K for couch, 12600K for desktop, sell 10900K after.


I always liked the 10900K. Such an amazing CPU even to this day.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> I always liked the 10900K. Such an amazing CPU even to this day.



Lol it's trash compared to the 12600K.

All I managed so far, I am slow, and the instructions are all in a random order:










Think it's motherboard / cpu and aio next.

Like literally the first page in the instructions is how to put the side panel on, before attaching the poles it goes onto or the stand or anything in the case. So I'm left to figure out the correct order of the pages.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Lol it's trash compared to the 12600K.
> 
> All I managed so far, I am slow, and the instructions are all in a random order:
> 
> View attachment 2587366
> 
> 
> Think it's motherboard / cpu and aio next.
> 
> Like literally the first page in the instructions is how to put the side panel on, before attaching the poles it goes onto or the stand or anything in the case. So I'm left to figure out the correct order of the pages.


You really think 10900K is trash? I have an 11900K that can put a whoopin on 12600K’s. And good 10900K’s could even surpass my 11900K though


----------



## acoustic

You mean a <1% sample can beat a bottom tier sample? Not exactly impressive, lol.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> You mean a <1% sample can beat a bottom tier sample? Not exactly impressive, lol.


Many would argue that the 10900K is better than my 11900K so that doesn’t even matter.

I thought the 10900K is still a great chip. And he said it’s trash 🧐. I don’t think the 10900K is trash at all.


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> Many would argue that the 10900K is better than my 11900K so that doesn’t even matter.


Many would be wrong lol. 11900K performed very well once people figured out how to handle that new IMC.

Just to clarify - I don’t think the 10900K is trash, but it hasn’t aged very well.. much of that is because Intel finally broke their 14nm wall shortly after. 10900K was one of my least favorite chips; plagued with WHEA/L0 Parity errors and the demons of Intel trying to shove 10 cores into that package.


----------



## Shkiz0

TurricanM3 said:


> After 3 chips were rather mediocre to bad i caught a 13700k pearl:
> 
> View attachment 2587088
> 
> 
> Lowest possible CB23 @5600:
> 
> View attachment 2587089
> 
> 
> This is even much better than my 13900k SP104 (113/87).
> What SP ratings do the best 13700k have here?


FPO / BATCH?


----------



## bhav

10900K was good, 11900K was trash. 12th gen invalidated and made everything prior mega trash.


----------



## Lord Alzov




----------



## Ichirou

@bhav Binned 13900K was defective; I sent it back and got a refund for it. Not sharing any additional details.
Gonna bin one last 13900K from BestBuy before giving up and waiting for the 13900KS instead.


----------



## acoustic

Binned 13900K was actually not binned at all, eh? Lol


----------



## Telstar

AFAIK gen to gen improvements were minor in 10th and 11th gen. 12th was major and again 13th is minor (but better oc margins)


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

bhav said:


> Lol it's trash compared to the 12600K.
> 
> All I managed so far, I am slow, and the instructions are all in a random order:
> 
> View attachment 2587366
> 
> 
> Think it's motherboard / cpu and aio next.
> 
> Like literally the first page in the instructions is how to put the side panel on, before attaching the poles it goes onto or the stand or anything in the case. So I'm left to figure out the correct order of the pages.


Got yourself an ikea case I see


----------



## fray_bentos

Vici0us said:


> Can anybody tell me what the stock voltage is on 13600K?


It depends on the chip, but mobos massively overvolt. Mine was upto 1.35 V but it actually stable at <1.17 V underload. In fact it's stable at that voltage with p coresat 5.7x2, 5.6x4, 5.5x4, 5.4x 6 on p cores and 4.3 GHz on the e cores!


----------



## fray_bentos

Telstar said:


> AFAIK gen to gen improvements were minor in 10th and 11th gen. 12th was major and again 13th is minor (but better oc margins)


I wouldn't say 12th to 13th gen is minor when you have 13600K matching 12700K in all loads and beating 12900K in gaming.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Binned 13900K was actually not binned at all, eh? Lol


I'd rather not talk about it. Getting scammed three times in a row with three "binned" chips from three different sellers _above _MSRP is not a good feeling.
I've managed to recoup most of the costs and walk off with a minor total net loss, so it's not really a big deal, but it's still a huge waste of time.

Moral of the story: Don't buy chips from others unless they are your friends. You're better off binning retail chips yourself, since you have refund protection.


----------



## Pk1

Ichirou said:


> I'd rather not talk about it. Getting scammed three times in a row with three "binned" chips from three different sellers _above _MSRP is not a good feeling.
> I've managed to recoup most of the costs and walk off with a minor total net loss, so it's not really a big deal, but it's still a huge waste of time.
> 
> Moral of the story: Don't buy chips from others unless they are your friends. You're better off binning retail chips yourself, since you have refund protection.


Sorry friend that really sucks. ****ty people ruin everything. I'm glad you didn't lose too much. Rooting for your next one to be sp130


----------



## bhav

Some progress, I'm slow and my back hurts.

But where's the top and back of the case? There is no top or back, only optional front or top.


----------



## Nizzen

Lord Alzov said:


>


hwinfo crashed?
Nice result anyway


----------



## Ichirou

Pk1 said:


> Sorry friend that really sucks. ****ty people ruin everything. I'm glad you didn't lose too much. Rooting for your next one to be sp130


Yeah, I'm just surprised that those people actually had it in them to charge _beyond_ MSRP. They should've been sold well below.
I figure their justification was, "This guy's a sucker, squeeze him for everything he's got."


bhav said:


> View attachment 2587383
> 
> 
> Some progress, I'm slow and my back hurts.
> 
> But where's the top and back of the case? There is no top or back, only optional front or top.


That's how that case is. They are optional addons. It's mostly a for-show case.


----------



## chibi

bhav said:


> Some progress, I'm slow and my back hurts.
> 
> But where's the top and back of the case? There is no top or back, only optional front or top.


That's all you get with air frame cases, lol.


----------



## Vici0us

bhav said:


> Some progress, I'm slow and my back hurts.
> 
> But where's the top and back of the case? There is no top or back, only optional front or top.


New case or new build? Which CPU, mobo, GPU?


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, I'm just surprised that those people actually had it in them to charge _beyond_ MSRP. They should've been sold well below.
> I figure their justification was, "This guy's a sucker, squeeze him for everything he's got."
> 
> That's how that case is. They are optional addons. It's mostly a for-show case.


People are jerks.
I sold a retail 10900k and Z490 Master, tested as advertised and it performed exactly as expected for the buyer.
Was an SP84 which clocked worse than my 10900k QS, but was good for a 5.1 ghz OC chip.


----------



## Telstar

fray_bentos said:


> I wouldn't say 12th to 13th gen is minor when you have 13600K matching 12700K in all loads and beating 12900K in gaming.


core to core is 5%. they improved the sku, but it's a different thing.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, I'm just surprised that those people actually had it in them to charge _beyond_ MSRP. They should've been sold well below.
> I figure their justification was, "This guy's a sucker, squeeze him for everything he's got."
> 
> That's how that case is. They are optional addons. It's mostly a for-show case.


I mean I knew that, I was just pointing it out for others just badly worded.

It works but have to reinstall winblows.


----------



## bhav

chibi said:


> That's all you get with air frame cases, lol.


I know I just completely worded that post wrong, I was trying to point it out as a feature.


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> I'd rather not talk about it. Getting scammed three times in a row with three "binned" chips from three different sellers _above _MSRP is not a good feeling.
> I've managed to recoup most of the costs and walk off with a minor total net loss, so it's not really a big deal, but it's still a huge waste of time.
> 
> Moral of the story: Don't buy chips from others unless they are your friends. You're better off binning retail chips yourself, since you have refund protection.


Sorry to hear. People suck


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

Got some deliveries


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav
*tRTP @ 6 and tCWL @ 10. Let's go.*


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> @bhav
> *tRTP @ 6 and tCWL @ 10. Let's go.*
> View attachment 2587450


Aida SS?


----------



## Nizzen

Ichirou said:


> @bhav
> *tRTP @ 6 and tCWL @ 10. Let's go.*
> View attachment 2587450


Have you tested dualrank b-die ddr4 on z790?
How much faster is it possible to get on this platform?


----------



## sugi0lover

Wow this is the highest 13900K SP I have ever seen, by safedisk



Spoiler: 13900K SP (P, E)

























Spoiler: 13900K MC SP


----------



## tibcsi0407

Yo guys,

I have a strange issue. My rig was stable on P57X E46X R50X with RAM on 7600 tight timings, until yesterday when I changed two fittings to 90° because the tube was not fitted correctly between my Monarch4x and the CPU block.
So I installed the fittings and now I can't even make it stable on my previous settings. 
What did I wrong. Maybe some of you has experienced similar problems and have any idea what's the issue.
The piping with stable OC:









The piping where the previous values are not working anymore:










Any idea where should I start finding the issue? 

I've already tried to clrear cmos, and load old profile
flashed the same BIOS
reapplied the TIM on the CPU

My flow looks okay, it's between 700-800 l/h acc. to the Alphacool sensor.


----------



## HemuV2

sugi0lover said:


> Wow this is the highest 13900K SP I have ever seen, by safedisk
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 13900K SP (P, E)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2587478
> 
> View attachment 2587476
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 13900K MC SP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2587477


retail K?


----------



## acoustic

Those are absurd numbers. I'm really curious what performance the Gracemont cores are capable of if they can be clocked up as high as an E 100+ might.


----------



## RichKnecht

tibcsi0407 said:


> Yo guys,
> 
> I have a strange issue. My rig was stable on P57X E46X R50X with RAM on 7600 tight timings, until yesterday when I changed two fittings to 90° because the tube was not fitted correctly between my Monarch4x and the CPU block.
> So I installed the fittings and now I can't even make it stable on my previous settings.
> What did I wrong. Maybe some of you has experienced similar problems and have any idea what's the issue.
> The piping with stable OC:
> View attachment 2587484
> 
> 
> The piping where the previous values are not working anymore:
> View attachment 2587483
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea where should I start finding the issue?
> 
> I've already tried to clrear cmos, and load old profile
> flashed the same BIOS
> reapplied the TIM on the CPU
> 
> My flow looks okay, it's between 700-800 l/h acc. to the Alphacool sensor.


Have you tried reseating the CPU?


----------



## tibcsi0407

RichKnecht said:


> Have you tried reseating the CPU?


Yep, but it was okay before, didn't even touch it before. 
I am thinking, maybe my loop has some air inside, so I will try to bleed it.


----------



## acoustic

tibcsi0407 said:


> Yep, but it was okay before, didn't even touch it before.
> I am thinking, maybe my loop has some air inside, so I will try to bleed it.


I don’t think air in the loop would cause issues without symptoms such as high temperatures. I know you said you re-applied TIM, but could be a case where the cooler mount is too tight, or too loose, compared to the original mount.

Another thing to consider, is that the previous settings were not fully stable. For example, you may have gotten a lucky training event one time, and then it saved. Now it’s not training the same, and causing instability. What portion of your OC do you think is causing the instability? CPU? RAM? If it’s RAM, try boosting DRAM voltage +0.005mv; might just need a slight bump. With CPU, could be the same scenario.


----------



## tibcsi0407

acoustic said:


> I don’t think air in the loop would cause issues without symptoms such as high temperatures. I know you said you re-applied TIM, but could be a case where the cooler mount is too tight, or too loose, compared to the original mount.
> 
> Another thing to consider, is that the previous settings were not fully stable. For example, you may have gotten a lucky training event one time, and then it saved. Now it’s not training the same, and causing instability. What portion of your OC do you think is causing the instability? CPU? RAM? If it’s RAM, try boosting DRAM voltage +0.005mv; might just need a slight bump. With CPU, could be the same scenario.


I played a lot with tightening the screws on the block, didn't help. Now I removed a lot of air from the system and now I got some degree. I believe it is still not bleeded fully.

It was 1 hour AIDA 4 checkmark stable and 1 hour CBR23. 

The temps are higher now than before.


----------



## tubs2x4

RichKnecht said:


> Have you tried reseating the CPU?


What do you mean reseat cpu? It has notches and very little movement once it’s in those notches… how does it become unseated? Or you mean the cooler/aio block?


----------



## acoustic

tibcsi0407 said:


> I played a lot with tightening the screws on the block, didn't help. Now I removed a lot of air from the system and now I got some degree. I believe it is still not bleeded fully.
> 
> It was 1 hour AIDA 4 checkmark stable and 1 hour CBR23.
> 
> The temps are higher now than before.


What did you use for memory stability testing? I won’t sugarcoat it; CB23 isn’t testing memory, and AIDA is mostly useless.

Higher temps could cause your issues, but how much higher?


----------



## RichKnecht

tubs2x4 said:


> What do you mean reseat cpu? It has notches and very little movement once it’s in those notches… how does it become unseated? Or you mean the cooler/aio block?


I know there is little to no movement, but sometimes removing and reinstalling the CPU can “fix” things. From your pictures, it looks like the tubing you changed was in the CPU area. So I would check everything there.


----------



## tibcsi0407

acoustic said:


> What did you use for memory stability testing? I won’t sugarcoat it; CB23 isn’t testing memory, and AIDA is mostly useless.
> 
> Higher temps could cause your issues, but how much higher?


TM5 Usmus, then AIDA with the full system. But now I had the issue even on XMP.
It depends, I believe it has stability issues even in a second if the CPU jump a lot in temps.
Now the hottest core in CBR23 is 88 C° with P56X E44X R50X. I am getting there


----------



## acoustic

tibcsi0407 said:


> TM5 Usmus, then AIDA with the full system. But now I had the issue even on XMP.
> It depends, I believe it has stability issues even in a second if the CPU jump a lot in temps.
> Now the hottest core in CBR23 is 88 C° with P56X E44X R50X. I am getting there


Set that pump to 100% and start tiling the case LOL


----------



## tibcsi0407

acoustic said:


> Set that pump to 100% and start tiling the case LOL


That's what I am doing.  
The level in the reservoir dropped by a lot.


----------



## Thunderclap

No improvement whatsoever for the all-core clocks, both for the P-cores and E-cores. Not only that, but now both the 13900K and 13900KS are listed at 5.4GHz instead of 5.5GHz for maximum all-core P-core clocks. What gives?

I'm starting to wonder if the 13900KS will be worth the wait and price premium at all if they end up being nothing more than slightly above average 13900K's.


----------



## RichKnecht

Thunderclap said:


> No improvement whatsoever for the all-core clocks, both for the P-cores and E-cores. Not only that, but now both the 13900K and 13900KS are listed at 5.4GHz instead of 5.5GHz for maximum all-core P-core clocks. What gives?
> 
> I'm starting to wonder if the 13900KS will be worth the wait and price premium at all if they end up being nothing more than slightly above average 13900K's.


Not worth it to me at all. Why pay a premium for a chip that MAY perform 3-5% better than a K? There are better ways to spend one's money.


----------



## Telstar

nah, especially when we'll have rpl refresh next fall


----------



## gtz

Telstar said:


> nah, especially when we'll have rpl refresh next fall


Intel giving us another sku beyond the 13900KS on this socket?


----------



## dante`afk

HemuV2 said:


> retail K?


na, dudes' living at the source.


----------



## Hexes

tibcsi0407 said:


> Yo guys,
> 
> I have a strange issue. My rig was stable on P57X E46X R50X with RAM on 7600 tight timings, until yesterday when I changed two fittings to 90° because the tube was not fitted correctly between my Monarch4x and the CPU block.
> So I installed the fittings and now I can't even make it stable on my previous settings.
> What did I wrong. Maybe some of you has experienced similar problems and have any idea what's the issue.
> The piping with stable OC:
> 
> Any idea where should I start finding the issue?
> 
> I've already tried to clrear cmos, and load old profile
> flashed the same BIOS
> reapplied the TIM on the CPU
> 
> My flow looks okay, it's between 700-800 l/h acc. to the Alphacool sensor.


I binned a few 13900K chips and they wouldn't even start with the same ILM contact pressure as I used for 12900K/KS CPUs. I had to loosen up the screws a lot until they started booting successfully. I have heard similar stories from others that Raptor Lake can't tolerate as much socket contact pressure as Alder Lake CPUs could. Too much (or too little) contact pressure will manifest as instability and not posting, for example. One time overclocking and benching this 13900K sample the PC just shut down and would only boot again after I loosened up the waterblock screws as well and they surely weren't overly tight.

I would advice playing around with the contact pressure and see if stability improves.


----------



## tibcsi0407

Hexes said:


> I binned a few 13900K chips and they wouldn't even start with the same ILM contact pressure as I used for 12900K/KS CPUs. I had to loosen up the screws a lot until they started booting successfully. I have heard similar stories from others that Raptor Lake can't tolerate as much socket contact pressure as Alder Lake CPUs could. Too much (or too little) contact pressure will manifest as instability and not posting, for example. One time overclocking and benching this 13900K sample the PC just shut down and would only boot again after I loosened up the waterblock screws as well and they surely weren't overly tight.
> 
> I would advice playing around with the contact pressure and see if stability improves.


I Will try that, thank you!


----------



## acoustic

It’s very strange to me how sensitive LGA1700 seems to be in terms of socket/contact pressure compared to prior generations. You’d think this was Intel’s first time doing LGA mounting based off of how finicky it can be at times.

I can’t say I’ve personally had any issues, even when I was using the stock ILM. I’ve never had a situation where re-seating the CPU has changed overclockability, even with the Thermalright contact frame. I tightened it as much as I can without torquing the **** out of it, just used common sense..


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Aida SS?


I'll show you later; not on the machine right now. 


Nizzen said:


> Have you tested dualrank b-die ddr4 on z790?
> How much faster is it possible to get on this platform?


I don't have any Samsung B-Die DR on hand anymore. But my friend stabilized 4,300 MHz 15-16-16-XX with his on a Z790 Strix-A. And I think @PhoenixMDA did the same. 


Thunderclap said:


> No improvement whatsoever for the all-core clocks, both for the P-cores and E-cores. Not only that, but now both the 13900K and 13900KS are listed at 5.4GHz instead of 5.5GHz for maximum all-core P-core clocks. What gives?
> 
> I'm starting to wonder if the 13900KS will be worth the wait and price premium at all if they end up being nothing more than slightly above average 13900K's.


LMAO, my predictions were pretty much on point. Or if anything, even higher than they should've been. 

Intel is full-blown not even improving manufacturing processes. They're just binning for P-SP 115+ 13900K chips and relabelling them as 13900KS's. 

Only 54/60 reinforces the fact that they know that the chips degrade _hard_ and that they have to keep the chip at overall lower TDP so they don't degrade too quickly for too many RMAs.

@sugil0ver Is his chip available for sale ? Just kidding.

If you can hook me up through your Korean friends with a good chip, I'd still be interested in buying one at a good price. Would like you to personally test for authenticity though. Let me know.


----------



## DeLaHoya

tibcsi0407 said:


> I Will try that, thank you!


Hi! I had similar problem when I installed waterblock for my ram. The tubes twisted ram sticks in their slots, so I got constant errors. I just played around re-seating the ram block, untill I got it to work properly.


----------



## acoustic

I think they’re working towards getting past the Intel 7 node. The goal isn’t to be on this node for long, considering it was so late to market versus the rapid advancement of TSMC’s ability to downscale.

I doubt they’re putting much money or R&D into maturing the current node we’re on. If they do, Intel is going to end up in the same situation they were in with 14nm, and they can’t afford that level of blunder again if they want to maintain market relativity.


----------



## RichKnecht

Hexes said:


> I binned a few 13900K chips and they wouldn't even start with the same ILM contact pressure as I used for 12900K/KS CPUs. I had to loosen up the screws a lot until they started booting successfully. I have heard similar stories from others that Raptor Lake can't tolerate as much socket contact pressure as Alder Lake CPUs could. Too much (or too little) contact pressure will manifest as instability and not posting, for example. One time overclocking and benching this 13900K sample the PC just shut down and would only boot again after I loosened up the waterblock screws as well and they surely weren't overly tight.
> 
> I would advice playing around with the contact pressure and see if stability improves.


I’m battling temps at the moment. Can’t seem to get a handle on what’s going on. 3 360s, 15 fans, and a Sig V2 and temps hit 91 with 1.26V. CPU is the only the only thing in the loop. Waiting on fluid at the moment. Just cleaned everything out again and nothing was obvious. I was thinking I tightened the contact frame too much or had a crappy mount on the block. I hope all this work I doing pays off.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I’m battling temps at the moment. Can’t seem to get a handle on what’s going on. 3 360s, 15 fans, and a Sig V2 and temps hit 91 with 1.26V. CPU is the only the only thing in the loop. Waiting on fluid at the moment. Just cleaned everything out again and nothing was obvious. I was thinking I tightened the contact frame too much or had a crappy mount on the block. I hope all this work I doing pays off.


That's... honestly about right, if you're hitting 300W. You gotta delid and/or direct die these chips.


----------



## acoustic

Ordered my Lian Li V3000 Plus! Says shipping 12/09, with delivery 12/14. I expect 12/10 or 12/11, since there’s a Newegg warehouse not far from me. I usually get things ~2 days earlier.


----------



## tibcsi0407

DeLaHoya said:


> Hi! I had similar problem when I installed waterblock for my ram. The tubes twisted ram sticks in their slots, so I got constant errors. I just played around re-seating the ram block, untill I got it to work properly.


That's what I didn't try! Thank you. Did you have CPU instability too?


----------



## HemuV2

Thunderclap said:


> No improvement whatsoever for the all-core clocks, both for the P-cores and E-cores. Not only that, but now both the 13900K and 13900KS are listed at 5.4GHz instead of 5.5GHz for maximum all-core P-core clocks. What gives?
> 
> I'm starting to wonder if the 13900KS will be worth the wait and price premium at all if they end up being nothing more than slightly above average 13900K's.


this thread is full of high SP samples so not worth it in general tho i think KS will be SP110+ on pcore. so its definitely a sure shot "above avg" sample


----------



## tps3443

@bhav

Did you see what the 13900KS clocks are? You may consider just grabbing a regular 13900K and playing the lottery and saving some money.


@Ichirou 

I’ve been testing my current “Force 143” 13900K quite a bit. I have it at 5.8Ghz on (8) P-Cores, 6.0Ghz on (4) core boost, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, and 5.2Ghz Ring.

I’ve been hammering this thing on ambient water with lots of power. Chiller has been off for a few days. It’s holding up great. I think Intel has those 13900KS chips de-tuned primarily for low power and nice cool operation on the average persons cooler right out of the box. Most stock 13900K reviews you see on the internet from places like PC Gamer and others etc, show this stock 13900K drawing like 350+ watts. Which is very unrealistic. Now just imagine what the auto voltages will do with the 13900KS pushing 5.6-5.7 all cores it’s gonna be crazy power. Under realistic usage, I think the chips are plenty durable. I’ve been really pushing this one lately, and it has displayed amazing results with what just a normal 13900K can do.


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> this thread is full of high SP samples so not worth it in general tho i think KS will be SP110+ on pcore. so its definitely a sure shot "above avg" sample





tps3443 said:


> @bhav
> 
> Did you see what the 13900KS clocks are? You may consider just grabbing a regular 13900K and playing the lottery and saving some money.
> 
> 
> @Ichirou
> 
> I’ve been testing my current “Force 143” 13900K quite a bit. I have it at 5.8Ghz on (8) P-Cores, 6.0Ghz on (4) core boost, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, and 5.2Ghz Ring.
> 
> I’ve been hammering this thing on ambient water with lots of power. Chiller has been off for a few days. It’s holding up great. I think Intel has those 13900KS chips de-tuned primarily for low power and nice cool operation on the average persons cooler right out of the box. Most stock 13900K reviews you see on the internet from places like PC Gamer and others etc, show this stock 13900K drawing like 350+ watts. Which is very unrealistic. Now just imagine what the auto voltages will do with the 13900KS pushing 5.6-5.7 all cores it’s gonna be crazy power. Under realistic usage, I think the chips are plenty durable.


Yes, this is what I predict as well.
The chips degrade too easily (esp. with average coolers), so Intel is forced to keep the primary boost clocks low but only allow one core to hit 60x (just to show off, I guess).
So in reality, it's likely going to be above average P-SP 110+ bins of 13900K's. But they're gonna charge like $200 more because people are gullible enough to buy them.

I guess I'm stuck with binning 13900K/KF's until I score a good one, then...
On that note, I have another BestBuy 13900K arriving today. I'll let you know how that turns out. @tps3443

@chibi If the next chip you get is another P-SP 120+, I'd be interested.

In regards to tCWL 10, I can't stabilize it without boosting VDIMM further, but that reaches uncoolable territory (even on water), so it won't be possible.
I'd have to loosen some tertiaries or something to pull down the VDIMM requirement.
It is y-cruncher stable so far, though. Just not TM5 1usmus stable.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Yes, this is what I predict as well.
> The chips degrade too easily (esp. with average coolers), so Intel is forced to keep the primary boost clocks low but only allow one core to hit 60x (just to show off, I guess).
> So in reality, it's likely going to be above average P-SP 110+ bins of 13900K's. But they're gonna charge like $200 more because people are gullible enough to buy them.
> 
> I guess I'm stuck with binning 13900K/KF's until I score a good one, then...
> On that note, I have another BestBuy 13900K arriving today. I'll let you know how that turns out. @tps3443
> 
> @chibi If the next chip you get is another P-SP 120+, I'd be interested.


I think most 13900K’s are pretty solid though. Even out of just (2) chips you can probably find a good average chip or slightly above average chip.

I know you’re binning IMC on DDR4, so I don’t really know how they are in that department. They all have ran DDR5 7600-7800 with me though Lol.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I think most 13900K’s are pretty solid though. Even out of just (2) chips you can probably find a good average chip or slightly above average chip.
> 
> I know you’re binning IMC on DDR4, so I don’t really know how they are in that department. They all have ran DDR5 7600-7800 with me though Lol.


I haven't gotten a single above average chip yet, though. They're all P-SP ~110. Which is honestly ridiculous.
Three 13900K/KF's so far. Plus 1 if you count the one that didn't work.
The one that'll arrive today will be my fourth. The DDR4 IMC isn't as important as the cores for me right now, so long as it can run 4,200 MHz CL14.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> I haven't gotten a single above average chip yet, though. They're all P-SP ~110. Which is honestly ridiculous.
> Three 13900K/KF's so far. Plus 1 if you count the one that didn't work.
> The one that'll arrive today will be my fourth. The DDR4 IMC isn't as important as the cores for me right now, so long as it can run 4,200 MHz CL14.


Wish you could see the force rating of them.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Wish you could see the force rating of them.


Don't really need to when you can just field test to know. All three of the retail chips I've tested so far were meh.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Don't really need to when you can just field test to know. All three of the retail chips I've tested so far were meh.


The one I have now is not amazing at 5.5GHz, and not really amazing at 5.7Ghz. But it can manage 5.8Ghz with just 0.015mv more than what 5.7Ghz needs. So technically it would be anothing spectacular chip on just anyone’s cooling because it only does stock frequency boost with 265 watts max while undervolted. And it’s too hot and power hungry for 5.7Ghz. But since it’s already there it can do 5.8, which not many would be able to cool down. So while it does pretty much suck, it has its positives. The ring is also at 5.2. The E-Cores are all done at 4.5 as well.

Its like an all or nothing type of CPU. High ass voltage for 5.7Ghz, may as well run 5.8!

But, I think it’s a good enough CPU considering. Force rating reads 143-146 depending on the day.


----------



## Hexes

So I bought 4 tray and 2 retail 13900Ks to bin the best sample for myself. I had to bin only 4 until it wasn't necessary to even open the other boxes anymore – struck gold.

1st sample: SP93, P102/E75 (tray)
2nd sample: SP101, P110/E83 (tray)
3rd sample: SP102, P113/E81 (tray)
4th sample: SP112, P120/E96 (tray)










I binned like 6x 12900K and 9x 12900KS samples before. All were tray and none was any good so pretty damn happy to get this especially from the tray samples.

Quickly slapped my waterblock on it with the worst TIM I have and the contact is obviously awful, but I did some initial testing on it. The IMC (at least DDR4 part of it) is absolutely insane.

It can run fixed at stock settings p55/e43/c45 at ~1.175v socket sense (LLC3 1.32v BIOS set) passing CB R23 for 30 mins. 1.172v passed but got WHEAs. However, to me the most interesting part is the IMC. This beast can run 4400 MHz CL15 stable with tight timings. Posts 4500 MHz CL15 no problem. I'll make a separate post on the IMC discussion thread.










I have a GEN 12 direct die block here which I intend to put on it probably this weekend if not already tomorrow.


----------



## Carillo

New cpu today 

batch X243K057

No testing until tomorrow unfortunately. Anyone of you have same batch ? 😅


----------



## fireanimal

I just got my 2nd 13900KF batch X236F742 but not sure if I should even test it, seems like X236 wasnt the best??? Also I seen a post regarding the serial number and what part of the wafer or something it came from, but I can't seem to find it now? This one I just got the Ser# starts with U20D1

Thanks


----------



## Nizzen

Carillo said:


> New cpu today
> 
> batch X243057
> 
> No testing until tomorrow unfortunately. Anyone of you have same batch ? 😅
> View attachment 2587538


POG Champ


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> @bhav
> 
> Did you see what the 13900KS clocks are? You may consider just grabbing a regular 13900K and playing the lottery and saving some money.
> 
> 
> @Ichirou
> 
> I’ve been testing my current “Force 143” 13900K quite a bit. I have it at 5.8Ghz on (8) P-Cores, 6.0Ghz on (4) core boost, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, and 5.2Ghz Ring.
> 
> I’ve been hammering this thing on ambient water with lots of power. Chiller has been off for a few days. It’s holding up great. I think Intel has those 13900KS chips de-tuned primarily for low power and nice cool operation on the average persons cooler right out of the box. Most stock 13900K reviews you see on the internet from places like PC Gamer and others etc, show this stock 13900K drawing like 350+ watts. Which is very unrealistic. Now just imagine what the auto voltages will do with the 13900KS pushing 5.6-5.7 all cores it’s gonna be crazy power. Under realistic usage, I think the chips are plenty durable. I’ve been really pushing this one lately, and it has displayed amazing results with what just a normal 13900K can do.





Ichirou said:


> I haven't gotten a single above average chip yet, though. They're all P-SP ~110. Which is honestly ridiculous.
> Three 13900K/KF's so far. Plus 1 if you count the one that didn't work.
> The one that'll arrive today will be my fourth. The DDR4 IMC isn't as important as the cores for me right now, so long as it can run 4,200 MHz CL14.


can you tell me your voltage and cpu package power stats at a set pcore freq and ring with ecores and HT off, mine is p109 so we can get a ballpark


----------



## Kocicak

Is there any CPU quality rating on a Gigabyte motherboard? I cant find anything.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> That's... honestly about right, if you're hitting 300W. You gotta delid and/or direct die these chips.


Yeah, 305W. Only in testing though. Real usage doesn’t see 70C. I thought I saw people running AF 420s with lower temps. Not doing the delid thiing again. Did it on X299 and it was a pain to get just the right contact between the die and block.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> The one I have now is not amazing at 5.5GHz, and not really amazing at 5.7Ghz. But it can manage 5.8Ghz with just 0.015mv more than what 5.7Ghz needs. So technically it would be anothing spectacular chip on just anyone’s cooling because it only does stock frequency boost with 265 watts max while undervolted. And it’s too hot and power hungry for 5.7Ghz. But since it’s already there it can do 5.8, which not many would be able to cool down. So while it does pretty much suck, it has its positives. The ring is also at 5.2. The E-Cores are all done at 4.5 as well.
> 
> Its like an all or nothing type of CPU. High ass voltage for 5.7Ghz, may as well run 5.8!
> 
> But, I think it’s a good enough CPU considering. Force rating reads 143-146 depending on the day.


So what is the voltage for 5.7?


----------



## Lord Alzov

Nizzen said:


> hwinfo crashed?
> Nice result anyway


No crash. ITs 142 CPU force with direct die.


----------



## Ichirou

Hexes said:


> So I bought 4 tray and 2 retail 13900Ks to bin the best sample for myself. I had to bin only 4 until it wasn't necessary to even open the other boxes anymore – struck gold.
> 
> 1st sample: SP93, P102/E75 (tray)
> 2nd sample: SP101, P110/E83 (tray)
> 3rd sample: SP102, P113/E81 (tray)
> 4th sample: SP112, P120/E96 (tray)
> 
> View attachment 2587530
> 
> 
> I binned like 6x 12900K and 9x 12900KS samples before. All were tray and none was any good so pretty damn happy to get this especially from the tray samples.
> 
> Quickly slapped my waterblock on it with the worst TIM I have and the contact is obviously awful, but I did some initial testing on it. The IMC (at least DDR4 part of it) is absolutely insane.
> 
> It can run fixed at stock settings p55/e43/c45 at ~1.175v socket sense (LLC3 1.32v BIOS set) passing CB R23 for 30 mins. 1.172v passed but got WHEAs. However, to me the most interesting part is the IMC. This beast can run 4400 MHz CL15 stable with tight timings. Posts 4500 MHz CL15 no problem. I'll make a separate post on the IMC discussion thread.
> 
> View attachment 2587532
> 
> 
> I have a GEN 12 direct die block here which I intend to put on it probably this weekend if not already tomorrow.


Nice. 2x8 GB Samsung B-Die SR? Or 2x16 GB DR?

I hope I can win the lottery too some day.


----------



## WayWayUp

switching cases proved to be complex. still in the process of moving my gpu to water and turning my p5 into a p7 but i wanted to play around with my settings and do some testing since i got the rest of it up and running










I rset Cmos, so i was curious what auto voltage settings would be with a clean slate. so i set all voltages to auto because i wanted to see what my cpu/mobo would ask for already knowing it would probably ask for too much but its a nice experiment

60,60,59.59,59,59,58,58. i also set TVB to +2 profile and set "best case scenario" in the mobo. ring is at 51 and ecores are at 4.6

at first everything seemed to be great and i had huge benchmark scores. Vcore seems to be around 1.40-1.41v default and around 1.22-1.24 under load llc5
SA seems to be around 1.31. these are all auto so i was fairly impressed as its regularly boosting to 6.2Ghz

so i proceeded to get aggressive with memory. my old 8000cl36 with tight subs worked flawlessly at 1.5v but getting aggressive with cas and further tightening of subs i needed 1.63v to pass tm5 and memtest64.


*However, after changing the memory settings i lost stability in r23 and i cant even run the benchmark. *
i have a few working theories. Im wondering if core package is getting too hot because of memory and its causing throttling. If it needed more voltage for r23 wouldnt the cpu simply ask the mobo for it? or will i have to manually set the voltages again? it took me forever to fine tune the voltages and i dont remember the settings i had and didnt save them. maybe if i change best case scenario to normal my mobo would request more adequate voltages than it is right now for such high overclock?

i will do more testing later but want to hear from someone else their opinion on what is the issue/what i should do


----------



## Ichirou

WayWayUp said:


> switching cases proved to be complex. still in the process of moving my gpu to water and turning my p5 into a p7 but i wanted to play around with my settings and do some testing since i got the rest of it up and running
> 
> View attachment 2587561
> 
> 
> I rset Cmos, so i was curious what auto voltage settings would be with a clean slate. so i set all voltages to auto because i wanted to see what my cpu/mobo would ask for already knowing it would probably ask for too much but its a nice experiment
> 
> 60,60,59.59,59,59,58,58. i also set TVB to +2 profile and set "best case scenario" in the mobo. ring is at 51 and ecores are at 4.6
> 
> at first everything seemed to be great and i had huge benchmark scores. Vcore seems to be around 1.40-1.41v default and around 1.22-1.24 under load llc5
> SA seems to be around 1.31. these are all auto so i was fairly impressed as its regularly boosting to 6.2Ghz
> 
> so i proceeded to get aggressive with memory. my old 8000cl36 with tight subs worked flawlessly at 1.5v but getting aggressive with cas and further tightening of subs i needed 1.63v to pass tm5 and memtest64.
> 
> 
> *However, after changing the memory settings i lost stability in r23 and i cant even run the benchmark. *
> i have a few working theories. Im wondering is vccio is set way too high because of memory oc and its causing throttling. If it needed more voltage for r23 wouldnt the cpu simply ask the mobo for it? or will i have to manually set the voltages again? it took me forever to fine tune the voltages and i dont remember the settings i had and didnt save them. maybe if i change best case scenario to normal my mobo would request more adequate voltages than it is right now for such high overclock?
> 
> as for IO, i have to change hwinfo parameters to actually show me. I didnt have much time last night for testing as i just finished first stage of building out new case
> 
> i will do more testing later but want to hear from someone else their opinion on what is the issue/what i should do


VCCIO doesn’t exist on Raptor Lake. Are you talking about VDD or VDDQ?
Try raising Vcore first.


----------



## Hexes

Ichirou said:


> Nice. 2x8 GB Samsung B-Die SR? Or 2x16 GB DR?
> 
> I hope I can win the lottery too some day.


It's 2x16 GB DR so yeah absolutely a lottery winner here. I think it's bound to happen to you as well.


----------



## Ichirou

Hexes said:


> It's 2x16 GB DR so yeah absolutely a lottery winner here. I think it's bound to happen to you as well.


Let me know if you decide to sell the chip, since I’ll pay a good price for it


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Let me know if you decide to sell the chip, since I’ll pay a good price for it


HAVE YOU NOT LEARNED


----------



## WayWayUp

i will try raising vcore and see whats up. man i have to tune voltages again this took me hours last time lol

ill also download one of the beta apex bios and see how that helps memory oc


----------



## tps3443

fireanimal said:


> I just got my 2nd 13900KF batch X236F742 but not sure if I should even test it, seems like X236 wasnt the best??? Also I seen a post regarding the serial number and what part of the wafer or something it came from, but I can't seem to find it now? This one I just got the Ser# starts with U20D1
> 
> Thanks



I have seen so many people with SP120+ chips on this forum by other members. *And most of them are X236F believe it or not*. Not sure if this is a coincidence or what. But, several SP120+ are all X236F


----------



## tps3443

WayWayUp said:


> i will try using a higher clock and see whats up. man i have to tune voltages again this took me hours last time lol



1.5V CPU VDDQ is perfectly safe, running 1.400V CPU VDD2 is also very safe as well. If you can get by with less, then why not ya know.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> I have seen so many people with SP120+ chips on this forum by other members. *And most of them are X236F believe it or not*. Not sure if this is a coincidence or what. But, several SP120+ are all X236F


X236F650 here


----------



## WayWayUp

is that helpful though? like, if you know the batch number is there a way you can select a certain batch for purchase online?


----------



## tps3443

WayWayUp said:


> is that helpful though? like, if you know the batch number is there a way you can select a certain batch for purchase online?


It is not helpful at all lol. You can buy (2) of the same batch and one is gold, and the other is MOLD.  maybe just a coincidence.
You already have an SP P-core 127 chip which is nuts as it is, so you need not worry with more lol.


----------



## Hexes

Ichirou said:


> Let me know if you decide to sell the chip, since I’ll pay a good price for it


I wanted this chip so bad that the price would be ridiculous and not worth it. I think you just need to keep binning them and you can realistically get a ~P115 somewhat easily. P120 range isn't very realistic and I would have been happy with less for sure. IMC was the unreal thing with this. I started going down from 1.35v VCCSA to see when it would error out in Linpack as I did with 12900K/KS at 4200 MHz CL15. Had to go down until 1.10v before I got errors. Checked many times if I was running it G2 or something like that.

The batch is X245H440. Was the same for the three top ones (P110, P113, P120). However, I don't believe there to be much correlation).


----------



## fireanimal

tps3443 said:


> I have seen so many people with SP120+ chips on this forum by other members. *And most of them are X236F believe it or not*. Not sure if this is a coincidence or what. But, several SP120+ are all X236F


Well my X238L is a SP100 P109 E83 so I will give this new one a test and see where its at. Thanks!


----------



## tps3443

Hexes said:


> I wanted this chip so bad that the price would be ridiculous and not worth it. I think you just need to keep binning them and you can realistically get a ~P115 somewhat easily. P120 range isn't very realistic and I would have been happy with less for sure. IMC was the unreal thing with this. I started going down from 1.35v VCCSA to see when it would error out in Linpack as I did with 12900K/KS at 4200 MHz CL15. Had to go down until 1.10v before I got errors. Checked many times if I was running it G2 or something like that.
> 
> The batch is X245H440. Was the same for the three top ones (P110, P113, P120). However, I don't believe there to be much correlation).


Did you test the IMC on the others as well? 

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like with DDR5 we're not concerned much with the IMC on 13th gen. I remember with my 11th gen I was flippin obsessed with IMC lol.


----------



## bylka-rage

Hi there. I have some questions if you please. Didn't know should I start new thread or not.

Some background first:
Bought i7-13700K this week to replace my i7-12700(non K). I have an air cooler(240W). My motherboard automatically set Vcore to about 1.45V with 13700K.

With Vcore offset=0mV (all stock & powerlimits=200W) I have in AIDA64 stressCPU PowerConsumption=170W and Vcore=1.425V (hwinfo64 readings) and CPU-Z 1Thread 881 score.
With Vcore offset=-50mV I have in AIDA64 stressCPU PowerConsumption=158W and Vcore=1.376V and CPU-Z 1Thread 865 score.

My old 12700 used about 1.2V and was quite cool. So Vcore = 1.40-1.45V in games and lower values in stresstests looked to me a little too high.

I couldnt find in the net 13700K-reviews with Vcore values in games and stresstests. Saw some videos with i9-12900K: looks like it could have 5.2GHz on all p-cores at 1.31V.

So the question is: are there voltages normal (1.45V at stock 5.2GHz on 13700K)? Or my luck is bad and my silicon chip is mediocre?

System specs:
CPU: i7-13700K (replaced old i7-12700)
CPU cooler: deepcool AK500
MB: asus tuf gaming b660m-plus wifi d4 (latest bios 2014 and ME)
RAM: g.skill ripjaws V dual rank 2x16gb (F4-3200C14D-32GVR)
OS: Win10 22H2

Thanks in advance.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Ichirou said:


> I'll show you later; not on the machine right now.
> 
> I don't have any Samsung B-Die DR on hand anymore. But my friend stabilized 4,300 MHz 15-16-16-XX with his on a Z790 Strix-A. And I think @PhoenixMDA did the same.
> 
> LMAO, my predictions were pretty much on point. Or if anything, even higher than they should've been.
> 
> Intel is full-blown not even improving manufacturing processes. They're just binning for P-SP 115+ 13900K chips and relabelling them as 13900KS's.
> 
> Only 54/60 reinforces the fact that they know that the chips degrade _hard_ and that they have to keep the chip at overall lower TDP so they don't degrade too quickly for too many RMAs.
> 
> @sugil0ver Is his chip available for sale ? Just kidding.
> 
> If you can hook me up through your Korean friends with a good chip, I'd still be interested in buying one at a good price. Would like you to personally test for authenticity though. Let me know.


With the new Bios Strix 2204 is 4400 Gear 1 stable possible, but not with the same hard Timings. 4400CL15 is then equal with my 4300CL15 with hard timings, but with more voltage.
That make not sense for me. The next thing is, i´m not sure, but it looks that at 4400CL15 i cant have my cache as the same frequency as 4300Cl15.
So i lose more as i win and i´m also to lazy to test anymore and crash my windows.I want to use my FE^^

The 2204 is really the best bios.


----------



## Hexes

tps3443 said:


> Did you test the IMC on the others as well?
> 
> Maybe it's just me, but I feel like with DDR5 we're not concerned much with the IMC on 13th gen. I remember with my 11th gen I was flippin obsessed with IMC lol.


No, just this one. To me there seems to be a bit less variance with DDR5 side of the IMC. Just a hunch, not actual data to give. 

By the way with these Raptor Lake CPUs it was harder than ever to get an accurate SP reading. It just wouldn't reset. Especially one CPU refused to spill out the correct reading and I had to leave the setup overnight without power/battery and it finally gave up. It wasn't the first time I was doing this so I believe I went with the proper steps, pretty much just like Falk has told us to do here. Perhaps it has something to do with this Z690 board.


----------



## Ichirou

Hexes said:


> I wanted this chip so bad that the price would be ridiculous and not worth it. I think you just need to keep binning them and you can realistically get a ~P115 somewhat easily. P120 range isn't very realistic and I would have been happy with less for sure. IMC was the unreal thing with this. I started going down from 1.35v VCCSA to see when it would error out in Linpack as I did with 12900K/KS at 4200 MHz CL15. Had to go down until 1.10v before I got errors. Checked many times if I was running it G2 or something like that.
> 
> The batch is X245H440. Was the same for the three top ones (P110, P113, P120). However, I don't believe there to be much correlation).


You still haven't told me whether or not you're willing to sell 
(Dead serious by the way. Send me a private message.)

You could just use one of your weaker chips (since you'd have to figure out how to resell them anyway while taking losses), and pocket the difference.


----------



## ViTosS

Damn 4400CL15, what a beast of IMC


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> @bhav
> 
> Did you see what the 13900KS clocks are? You may consider just grabbing a regular 13900K and playing the lottery and saving some money.


Yea but higher P core bin = better IMC right?

The all core being the same confirms the easy degradation theory, will wait and see how the prices are, and might just go for a 13600K instead and keep running in G2 if the G1 isn't much better.


----------



## Falkentyne

Hexes said:


> So I bought 4 tray and 2 retail 13900Ks to bin the best sample for myself. I had to bin only 4 until it wasn't necessary to even open the other boxes anymore – struck gold.
> 
> 1st sample: SP93, P102/E75 (tray)
> 2nd sample: SP101, P110/E83 (tray)
> 3rd sample: SP102, P113/E81 (tray)
> 4th sample: SP112, P120/E96 (tray)
> 
> 
> I binned like 6x 12900K and 9x 12900KS samples before. All were tray and none was any good so pretty damn happy to get this especially from the tray samples.
> 
> Quickly slapped my waterblock on it with the worst TIM I have and the contact is obviously awful, but I did some initial testing on it. The IMC (at least DDR4 part of it) is absolutely insane.
> 
> It can run fixed at stock settings p55/e43/c45 at ~1.175v socket sense (LLC3 1.32v BIOS set) passing CB R23 for 30 mins. 1.172v passed but got WHEAs. However, to me the most interesting part is the IMC. This beast can run 4400 MHz CL15 stable with tight timings. Posts 4500 MHz CL15 no problem. I'll make a separate post on the IMC discussion thread.
> 
> I have a GEN 12 direct die block here which I intend to put on it probably this weekend if not already tomorrow.


You can get the die sense voltage by using the Asus OCtool linked in Robertosampiao 's thread and going to Raw VRM on the left menu.


----------



## Arni90

bhav said:


> Yea but higher P core bin = better IMC right?


No correllation


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Yea but higher P core bin = better IMC right?
> 
> The all core being the same confirms the easy degradation theory, will wait and see how the prices are, and might just go for a 13600K instead and keep running in G2 if the G1 isn't much better.


No. There is no correlation.

Intel is full-blown just binning for P-SP 110+ 13900K chips and rebranding them as 13900KSes.


----------



## bhav

Oh well damnit, 13600K then?


----------



## Hexes

ViTosS said:


> Damn 4400CL15, what a beast of IMC


If someone is brave enough to run with high VCCSA (1.47v+ I would guess) I think you can do 4500CL15-15-15. Might work for gaming, for example.

I believe some people expect too much from 13900KS. It's not gonna be any better than last time. Just decent (not super) binned 13900K CPUs. Of course higher chance to get a good bin then but it comes with a price tag.


----------



## Ichirou

tRTP 6 passes y-cruncher and TM5 1usmus just fine without changing any voltages.
tCWL 10 passes y-cruncher but needs quite a bit more VDIMM to pass TM5 1usmus.

Trying to loosen tRDRD_sg and tWRWR_sg from 8 to 9 is a massive penalty to RWC bandwidth, whereas loosening from 7 to 8 was virtually unnoticeable before.
I'll try to stabilize this RAM at 1.72V in TM5 1usmus, but I imagine it's just going to overheat again. I'd need to put the RAM under a chiller, lol.

@Hexes So, are you willing to sell? The offer will remain on the table.
What minimum VCCSA do you need to run 4,400 MHz CL15 in y-cruncher?


----------



## WayWayUp

Ichirou said:


> tRTP 6 passes y-cruncher and TM5 1usmus just fine without changing any voltages.
> tCWL 10 passes y-cruncher but needs quite a bit more VDIMM to pass TM5 1usmus.
> 
> Trying to loosen tRDRD_sg and tWRWR_sg from 8 to 9 is a massive penalty to RWC bandwidth, whereas loosening from 7 to 8 was virtually unnoticeable before.
> I'll try to stabilize this RAM at 1.72V in TM5 1usmus, but I imagine it's just going to overheat again. I'd need to put the RAM under a chiller, lol.
> 
> @Hexes So, are you willing to sell? The offer will remain on the table.
> What minimum VCCSA do you need to run 4,400 MHz CL15 in y-cruncher?


how do you feel about 1.72v O.O

im running 1.63 here and i feel like im pushing it but havent tried any beta bios yet. maybe i can drop voltage with a test bios

The last time i tried putting my ram sticks under water i didnt heat it up with a heat gun and destroyed one of the sticks
This is on air sooooo i dont want to go any higher lol

also, because intel is stupid and never wants to give us enough lanes, im using the stupid dim.4 to keep x16 for my gpu.... which is unfortunate since the external dimm is huge and pressed up right next to the ram. it would be an awkward angle if i wanted to watercool the sticks


----------



## bhav

Hexes said:


> If someone is brave enough to run with high VCCSA (1.47v+ I would guess) I think you can do 4500CL15-15-15. Might work for gaming, for example.
> 
> I believe some people expect too much from 13900KS. It's not gonna be any better than last time. Just decent (not super) binned 13900K CPUs. Of course higher chance to get a good bin then but it comes with a price tag.


I've stopped running 1.4v SA or 1.7v ram now because I don't want to kill the ram or CPU (need to keep my current 12600K and next CPU for a long time).

Playing around at 1.65v vram, 1.55v VQQQ, 1.35v SA, best I can stabilize on my new board is 5000CL18.

5066CL18 and 5200CL19 would work but it seems they would need 1.7+v. While I already did that before for 4533CL15, you have to factor in the much higher frequency, plus the frequency to CL is still **** compared to 4533CL15 so it isn't worth the voltage. Also the 10900K could easily handle over 1.7v vdimm, I doubt 12th / 13th gen IMC can.

And I think I'll just go with the 13600K instead and that way I can just upgrade sooner to DDR5 next gen if I want to, and also that means I don't have to bother with tracking down another micron B die kit for cheap for 64 Gb. So yea, 13600K now, then maybe 15th gen refresh of 14th gen seems like a plan, along with 2x32 Gb DDR5 when it gets better (current 2x32 DDR5 doesn't OC good enough for me).


----------



## Ichirou

WayWayUp said:


> how do you feel about 1.72v O.O
> 
> im running 1.63 here and i feel like im pushing it but havent tried any beta bios yet. maybe i can drop. This is on air sooooo i dont want to go any higher lol


With my RAM and the waterblock on it, it will handle up to ~1.71V in 1usmus and ABSOLUT just fine, subject to some tRFC/tREFI tweaking.
But 1.72V and above, it's prone to overheat if I don't loosen those. Since I don't have a chiller or LN2 or something.

Physically, you can touch the heatspreaders during stress testing and they are still cool to the touch. Ever so _slightly _warm at most.
So the ICs themselves are getting too hot to dissipate.


bhav said:


> I've stopped running 1.4v SA or 1.7v ram now because I don't want to kill the ram or CPU (need to keep my current 12600K and next CPU for a long time).
> 
> Playing around at 1.65v vram, 1.55v VQQQ, 1.35v SA, best I can stabilize on my new board is 5000CL18.
> 
> 5066CL18 and 5200CL19 would work but it seems they would need 1.7+v. While I already did that before for 4533CL15, you have to factor in the much higher frequency, plus the frequency to CL is still **** compared to 4533CL15 so it isn't worth the voltage. Also the 10900K could easily handle over 1.7v vdimm, I doubt 12th / 13th gen IMC can.
> 
> And I think I'll just go with the 13600K instead and that way I can just upgrade sooner to DDR5 next gen if I want to.


Yeah, as the frequency rises and rises, the latency penalty increases and gradually makes it less and less worthwhile. And that's disregarding the gear mode.

Not sure why you're going on about with regards to 1.70V on the 12th/13th Gen. It's perfectly fine.
Just depends on the motherboard and BIOS.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Oh well damnit, 13600K then?


Thats a big change in mind set going from wanting a 13900KS to now wanting a 13600K, you may as well just keep your 12600K. If you are after upgrading, I would say grab a used 12900KS for a good deal or buy a 13900K. But, if you're good with a 13600K, then you're probably fine with the 12600K instead.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Thats a big change in mind set going from wanting a 13900KS to now wanting a 13600K, you may as well just keep your 12600K. I would say grab a used 12900KS for a good deal or buy a 13900K. But, if you're good with a 13600K, then your 12600K is probably fine as well.


Or just buy my binned 13900KF off me. It's being sold under MSRP anyway.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Or just buy my binned 13900KF off me. It's being sold under MSRP anyway.


Zero reason for people to discriminate against standard 13900K chips, even with the 13900KS nearby.


----------



## Hexes

Ichirou said:


> @Hexes So, are you willing to sell? The offer will remain on the table.
> What minimum VCCSA do you need to run 4,400 MHz CL15 in y-cruncher?


For the heavy tests like N64, HNT, VST? I don't run those as they require too much voltage for no reason compared to the stability I need in my daily use. I ran N64 once though and if I remember it right it took 0.02v more than y-cruncher 2.5B. HNT and VST wouldn't run. Actual VCCSA was ~1.37v and set maybe 1.39v or 1.4v.

Replied to you in private.


----------



## tps3443

Raptorlake-S Refresh is coming in Q3 2023. I am guessing it will be a 13950K. Round (3) of CPU's for LGA1700. My goodness, Intel using sockets this long on mainstream platforms is refreshing that's for sure!! It could be more clocks, more cores, maybe even more IPC. We don't really know yet. But I think that is why Intel skimped on the 13900KS.


----------



## digitalfrost

tps3443 said:


> Raptorlake-S Refresh is coming in Q3 2023. I am guessing it will be a 13950K. Round (3) of CPU's for LGA1700. My goodness, Intel using sockets this long on mainstream platforms is refreshing that's for sure!! It could be more clocks, more cores, maybe even more IPC. We don't really know yet. But I think that is why Intel skimped on the 13900KS.


You know I was am AMD guy since 2017, and I only went Intel because they wouldn't allow me to use 5800X3D on my X370 board. Later they did but then it was too late. Anyway, I'm glad I chose this platform and I'm looking forward for another upgrade next year


----------



## Ichirou

Hexes said:


> For the heavy tests like N64, HNT, VST? I don't run those as they require too much voltage for no reason compared to the stability I need in my daily use. I ran N64 once though and if I remember it right it took 0.02v more than y-cruncher 2.5B. HNT and VST wouldn't run. Actual VCCSA was ~1.37v and set maybe 1.39v or 1.4v.
> 
> Replied to you in private.


N64, HNT, and VST are lighter compared to all other y-cruncher tests. They're strictly focused on the IMC. Which is why it is the best to use to find the minimum VCCSA necessary.
If you need like 1.40V on load to pass them with 4,400 MHz CL15, that's seems about right compared to others who could do 4,300 MHz CL15 with the same die and capacity.
Just a bit better of an IMC, but not safe enough to daily. You'd have to dial it back to 4,300 MHz for a daily.

(I've degraded the IMC so far at 1.40V+, and also the cores themselves, so I speak from pretty thorough experience, lol.)


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> Thats a big change in mind set going from wanting a 13900KS to now wanting a 13600K, you may as well just keep your 12600K. If you are after upgrading, I would say grab a used 12900KS for a good deal or buy a 13900K. But, if you're good with a 13600K, then you're probably fine with the 12600K instead.


I'm keeping the 12600K for second build, its the 10900K thats being sold after both are done.

My 12600K needs replacing because it only does 4000G1, which is enough for my second E die kit.

Its only for gaming anyway, with 13600K, I can sell the 12600K and Asrock board next and pass the 13600K and MSI board down to build 2.

I think all 13600Ks posted here so far manage at least 4133G1 right? My kit maxes out at 4133 for CL14 anyway, so thats all I need as a minimum.

I'll still wait and see, 13900KS might bring lower prices on 13900K.


----------



## fireanimal

Well that turned out to be a bust, new X236F is SP101 P111 E81 ...damn


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Raptorlake-S Refresh is coming in Q3 2023. I am guessing it will be a 13950K. Round (3) of CPU's for LGA1700. My goodness, Intel using sockets this long on mainstream platforms is refreshing that's for sure!! It could be more clocks, more cores, maybe even more IPC. We don't really know yet. But I think that is why Intel skimped on the 13900KS.
> 
> View attachment 2587583


I'm not sure whether I'd be willing to wait another whole year for a 13950K, lol...
But it does mean that the 13900KS is a pointless purchase and that people should skip it.


----------



## bhav

Oh and if there is going to be a raptor lake refresh as RUMORED, 13600K now then that!

Although that will also require needing to find another ballistix max kit again.


----------



## bhav

Amazon.co.uk



Return policy: Returnable until Jan 31, 2023

£322 buy it, bin it, return if not 4133 or better on G1?

Oh wait its KF.

And K is only £5 more:



Amazon.co.uk



But not in stock and sold by third party, hmmm bin the KF maybe.

Well here we go, will get it tomorrow, order at 22:30 and still get it tomorrow, and returnable until Jan 31st with free return delivery. Only thing I'm interested in is the G1 IMC.










Tech stores were cheaper but only 14 days returns.


----------



## tps3443

digitalfrost said:


> You know I was am AMD guy since 2017, and I only went Intel because they wouldn't allow me to use 5800X3D on my X370 board. Later they did but then it was too late. Anyway, I'm glad I chose this platform and I'm looking forward for another upgrade next year


I have not ran AMD CPU’s since XP 3200 “Socket A/462“ processors and AGP video cards LOL. This was around when people were hoping AGP would last forever.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Amazon.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> Return policy: Returnable until Jan 31, 2023
> 
> £322 buy it, bin it, return if not 4133 or better on G1?
> 
> Oh wait its KF.
> 
> And K is only £5 more:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> But not in stock and sold by third party, hmmm bin the KF maybe.
> 
> Well here we go, will get it tomorrow, order at 22:30 and still get it tomorrow, and returnable until Jan 31st with free return delivery.
> 
> View attachment 2587584


Guy on HWBot has a binned 13600K for sale. Luumi is selling his own 13600K featured in some YouTube videos.







[FS] Intel 13600K & Hynix A-Die


Up for sale 2 items that I got quite recently. 1. Intel Core i5 13600K The very same CPU I used for recent results. P-Cores ranging between 7.3 and 7.6GHz in different tests and E-Cores up to 5.9GHz 1.35v. Just check out my recent results for accurate speeds. SOLD 2. 2x16GB Hynix A-Die 5600MHz 2 ...



community.hwbot.org


----------



## Hexes

Ichirou said:


> N64, HNT, and VST are lighter compared to all other y-cruncher tests. They're strictly focused on the IMC. Which is why it is the best to use to find the minimum VCCSA necessary.
> If you need like 1.40V on load to pass them with 4,400 MHz CL15, that's seems about right compared to others who could do 4,300 MHz CL15 with the same die and capacity.
> Just a bit better of an IMC, but not safe enough to daily. You'd have to dial it back to 4,300 MHz for a daily.
> 
> (I've degraded the IMC so far at 1.40V+, and also the cores themselves, so I speak from pretty thorough experience, lol.)


Not light for the IMC i.e. require more voltage which could lead to degradation. Personally I just don't see the reason to run them unless you are doing something daily that requires such level of stability. To me it's no different than running Prime95 or Furmark at hardest settings, for instance.

Just to give an example my 12900KS needed ~1.4v VCCSA to run OCCT Linpack without errors. This was enough for my PC (IMC) to be stable in my daily use. With Linpack and hardest (on the IMC) y-cruncher tests there is like 0.1v difference in VCCSA voltage.

My advice is don't do it unless you need to.


----------



## Ichirou

Since we know there is a Raptor Lake refresh, the 13900KS will likely end up being like the 12900KS again.
A last ditch attempt for Intel to squeeze some more profit out of first-gen RPL, and then create an even better chip with second-gen RPL that'll render the first-gen obsolete.
I might just sit on my current 13900K for the time being, now that I know that there is a potential 13950K.
But I did order another 13900K from BestBuy, so I'll give that a test first before returning it.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> Guy on HWBot has a binned 13600K for sale. Luumi is selling his own 13600K featured in some YouTube videos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [FS] Intel 13600K & Hynix A-Die
> 
> 
> Up for sale 2 items that I got quite recently. 1. Intel Core i5 13600K The very same CPU I used for recent results. P-Cores ranging between 7.3 and 7.6GHz in different tests and E-Cores up to 5.9GHz 1.35v. Just check out my recent results for accurate speeds. SOLD 2. 2x16GB Hynix A-Die 5600MHz 2 ...
> 
> 
> 
> community.hwbot.org


DDR5 binned though, and Amazon extended return window for christmas so no problem with trying it out and seeing if its enough for at least 4133CL14 G1.

Checking through 13600K vs 13900K 4K results again, the only major improvement is Civ 6 0.1% FPS, and thats still 95 on the 13600K at stock so who cares.

Civ 6 and Anno 1800 being the only games I need CPU perf for.

Hopefully it will be fine for G1 then I just keep it and upgrade sooner than planned.


----------



## fray_bentos

bylka-rage said:


> Hi there. I have some questions if you please. Didn't know should I start new thread or not.
> 
> Some background first:
> Bought i7-13700K this week to replace my i7-12700(non K). I have an air cooler(240W). My motherboard automatically set Vcore to about 1.45V with 13700K.
> 
> With Vcore offset=0mV (all stock & powerlimits=200W) I have in AIDA64 stressCPU PowerConsumption=170W and Vcore=1.425V (hwinfo64 readings) and CPU-Z 1Thread 881 score.
> With Vcore offset=-50mV I have in AIDA64 stressCPU PowerConsumption=158W and Vcore=1.376V and CPU-Z 1Thread 865 score.
> 
> My old 12700 used about 1.2V and was quite cool. So Vcore = 1.40-1.45V in games and lower values in stresstests looked to me a little too high.
> 
> I couldnt find in the net 13700K-reviews with Vcore values in games and stresstests. Saw some videos with i9-12900K: looks like it could have 5.2GHz on all p-cores at 1.31V.
> 
> So the question is: are there voltages normal (1.45V at stock 5.2GHz on 13700K)? Or my luck is bad and my silicon chip is mediocre?
> 
> System specs:
> CPU: i7-13700K (replaced old i7-12700)
> CPU cooler: deepcool AK500
> MB: asus tuf gaming b660m-plus wifi d4 (latest bios 2014 and ME)
> RAM: g.skill ripjaws V dual rank 2x16gb (F4-3200C14D-32GVR)
> OS: Win10 22H2
> 
> Thanks in advance.


Boards all overvolt these days by default. See if it will run stock clocks at 1.15 V to 1.17 V under load, then work from there. There are reports of degradation under heavy load at ~1.28 V in this very thread.


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav I've stabilized both tRCP 6 and tCWL 10. Heh. Didn't need to change anything besides increasing VDIMM.








Lowest observed Intel MLC latency was 37.9ns before, but it might've been a bug. I just tried retesting with tCWL 10, and the lowest I saw was 40.5ns after a few runs.
Next stop: Tighter tRFC. (Which will only be 1usmus stable. ABSOLUT needs much looser tRFC to pass, *especially *at this VDIMM.)


----------



## fray_bentos

Ichirou said:


> @bhav I've stabilized both tRCP 6 and tCWL 10. Heh. Didn't need to change anything besides increasing VDIMM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lowest observed Intel MLC latency was 37.9ns before, but it might've been a bug. I just tried retesting with tCWL 10, and the lowest I saw was 40.5ns after a few runs.
> Next stop: Tighter tRFC. (Which will only be 1usmus stable. ABSOLUT needs much looser tRFC to pass, *especially *at this VDIMM.)


Only 1.724 Vdimm. LOL


----------



## bhav

I don't really know much about the tertiarry timings, I just do the primaries / secondaries, just trefi and trfc



fray_bentos said:


> Only 1.724 Vdimm. LOL


1.725v is completely fine for micron B die, what I'm unsure of is if its ok for 12th / 13th gen long term, also its not worth it for G2 so I won't be using that much yet.

Will just push the vdimm more if the 13600KF I get tomorrow can do 4200+, but from already testing G1 speeds at G2, my kit can't do 4000CL13 or 4200CL14, but maybe the latter at 1.7v if the new chip allows it.

Ichirou got diamond bin micron B die and 4 sticks of it, always been jealous of that kit.

As long as I get 4133G1 out of it thats fine for me.


----------



## RichKnecht

Can we talk cooling for a sec? What are you guys using for a CPU block? Not really impressed with the Sig V2 on this chip. On X299 I had a 6 degree spread between cores ( 10980XE ). On this chip, it’s more like 15C spread which I think is pretty excessive. I am actually thinking of trying my old EVO Supremacy on it. 🙃


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Can we talk cooling for a sec? What are you guys using for a CPU block? Not really impressed with the Sig V2 on this chip. On X299 I had a 6 degree spread between cores ( 10980XE ). On this chip, it’s more like 15C spread which I think is pretty excessive. I am actually thinking of trying my old EVO Supremacy on it. 🙃


You gotta direct die ADL/RPL or else cooling will always suck.
A delid with liquid metal reapplied a dozen times might help with the temperature spread, though.
Just be careful you don't break off any SMDs.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> I don't really know much about the tertiarry timings, I just do the primaries / secondaries, just trefi and trfc
> 
> 
> 
> 1.725v is completely fine for micron B die, what I'm unsure of is if its ok for 12th / 13th gen long term, also its not worth it for G2 so I won't be using that much yet.
> 
> Will just push the vdimm more if the 13600KF I get tomorrow can do 4200+, but from already testing G1 speeds at G2, my kit can't do 4000CL13 or 4200CL14, but maybe the latter at 1.7v if the new chip allows it.
> 
> Ichirou got diamond bin micron B die and 4 sticks of it, always been jealous of that kit.
> 
> As long as I get 4133G1 out of it thats fine for me.


To be fair, one of the four sticks is an ugly duckling. I've binned the sticks before.
With the exact same config and memory slot, two sticks are the same, one stick needs +0.01V more, and the last stick needs like +0.03V more.
So in theory, if I were to get a better binned fourth stick, I could probably run this config at 1.69V or so instead.
But whatever. Doesn't really matter.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> Raptorlake-S Refresh is coming in Q3 2023. I am guessing it will be a 13950K. Round (3) of CPU's for LGA1700. My goodness, Intel using sockets this long on mainstream platforms is refreshing that's for sure!! It could be more clocks, more cores, maybe even more IPC. We don't really know yet. But I think that is why Intel skimped on the 13900KS.
> 
> View attachment 2587583


New chipset and mobo?


----------



## warbucks

VULC said:


> New chipset and mobo?


Nope, still Z790.


----------



## Topuz

If you had to guess do you think Raptor Lake Refresh will work on Z690? DDR4 maybe still?


----------



## Ichirou

Topuz said:


> If you had to guess do you think Raptor Lake Refresh will work on Z690? DDR4 maybe still?


It'll just be a 13950K/KF or something like that. It makes no sense for Intel to change the socket when they're already working on Meteor Lake.
Their goal is to cost cut and squeeze out whatever they can from this generation.

I think the 13950 will have 4-8 more E-Cores, and overall better manufacturing, so better core and likely IMC quality.
Or, it'll be exactly the same as it is now, but the P-Cores and E-Cores can clock higher.


----------



## tps3443

Topuz said:


> If you had to guess do you think Raptor Lake Refresh will work on Z690? DDR4 maybe still?


I am thinking YESS!!!

Our Z690 motherboards are gonna fall apart. Intel boards aren’t meant for going beyond 12 months without replacing the socket.


----------



## bhav

Topuz said:


> If you had to guess do you think Raptor Lake Refresh will work on Z690? DDR4 maybe still?


Its the same socket so no reason why it wouldn't, also further kills my interest in wasting money on a 13900KS just for the IMC when CPU wise I only need the 13600K / KF.

And actually CPU wise I only need the fastest non K I5, but it kills my ram OC so it has to be a 13600K/KF minimum.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I am thinking YESS!!!
> 
> Our Z690 motherboards are gonna fall apart. Intel boards aren’t meant for going beyond 12 months.


I think the Z690 boards will still function fine, but will struggle with higher memory frequencies, and most likely BIOSes being poorly optimized.


----------



## Topuz

I think I may just risk it and try seeing if this 13600K survives daily 5.8GHz which I managed to stabilize as a long term experiment and get 13950K next year if we retain Z690/DDR4 compatibility.


----------



## VULC

Well no need to wait and see what the "7950x3d" looks like then.


----------



## tps3443

I think Intel might add (2) more P-Cores for the 13950K. SICK!


----------



## VULC

warbucks said:


> Nope, still Z790.


The slide says W680 chipset?


----------



## TurricanM3

The cores marked are the best right?










But why doesn't AI OC prefer them?



















Instead they are chosen in order? 
The function is already implemented anyway (specific cores).


----------



## Topuz

My guess would be the same core count as 13900K but with higher frequencies, a bit lower required voltages and better IMC.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I think Intel might add (2) more P-Cores for the 13950K. SICK!


Honestly, unless their manufacturing processes improved, it's unlikely. The chips already overheat and degrade as it is.
Adding more cores would only make that happen faster.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> I think Intel might add (2) more P-Cores for the 13950K. SICK!


Will it even be worth it though with meteor lake right around the corner?

I'll see if theres any improvement to 2x32 DDR5 speeds before considering raptor lake refresh, ideally if 2x32 DDR5 SR modules get made in the next year.

And the all core degradation means higher base all core clock isn't likely to go up much, as is the case with the 13900KS.


----------



## Ichirou

TurricanM3 said:


> The cores marked are the best right?
> 
> View attachment 2587594
> 
> 
> But why doesn't AI OC prefer them?
> 
> View attachment 2587595
> 
> 
> View attachment 2587596
> 
> 
> Instead they are chosen in order?
> The function is already implemented anyway (specific cores)


Just estimations based on VIDs. Each motherboard has a different sort order.


Topuz said:


> My guess would be the same core count as 13900K but with higher frequencies, a bit lower required voltages and better IMC.


This is my guess as well.


bhav said:


> Will it even be worth it though with meteor lake right around the corner?
> 
> I'll see if theres any improvement to 2x32 DDR5 speeds before considering raptor lake refresh, ideally if 2x32 DDR5 SR modules get made in the next year.


Only for DDR4 users, pretty much. Or people who bought an expensive DDR5 board and don't want to buy another motherboard.
Or people who do upgrades whenever there is something new and never skip a gen or two.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> The slide says W680 chipset?


W680 looks like mainstream desktop Xeon’s brought back again. That’s pretty cool. Seeing a 1S Xeon desktop chip equivalent to a 13900KS would be pretty amazing even if it is locked.


----------



## Ichirou

If this next 13900K I receive from BestBuy isn't any better than my current 13900K, I'll just do a low load overclock for my current chip to maximize its performance (probably something like 60/46/50 again), and put it under water until next October.


----------



## tps3443

Good news is, I’ll have the same motherboard until 2024!! Sweet! Maybe it’s worth getting an Apex Z790 after all.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> You gotta direct die ADL/RPL or else cooling will always suck.
> A delid with liquid metal reapplied a dozen times might help with the temperature spread, though.
> Just be careful you don't break off any SMDs.


I remember being very nervous delidding my X299 chip, but that was Intel’s crappy TIM, not solder. The temp spread is the frustrating part. People with AIOs are getting better core temperature consistency that I am. My issue, I think, lies with my mount.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I remember being very nervous deluding my X299 chip, but that was Intel’s crappy TIM, not solder. The temp spread is the frustrating part. People with AIOs are getting better core temperature consistency that I am. My issue, I think, lies with my mount.


I assure you. You need to delid/direct die it.

I've done a delid of my 13900KF already. It's not that hard at all.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> I think Intel might add (2) more P-Cores for the 13950K. SICK!


Then they better figure out a way to cool that without delidding or chiller.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> Good news is, I’ll have the same motherboard until 2024!! Sweet! Maybe it’s worth getting an Apex Z790 after all.


 DDR4 G1 wise at least you don't need a super fancy motherboard.

Already went up to being able to boot 4000CL13 on my tomahawk which the Z690 couldn't, the main limitation is the IMC.


----------



## TurricanM3

Ichirou said:


> Just estimations based on VIDs. Each motherboard has a different sort order.


Based on VIDs? They are all the same for my cores.
Strange coincidence with the order. Descending clocks from top to bottom? Hard for me to believe.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> I assure you. You need to delid/direct die it.
> 
> I've done a delid of my 13900KF already. It's not that hard at all.


Only problem there is if you're ok sacrificing the warranty.

As I recently learned with my qnap switch that failed, Amazon will still give full refund with free return delivery if something fails and no questions asked, so if the 13600KF I get is good, no worry with OCing it as much as I want.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> Good news is, I’ll have the same motherboard until 2024!! Sweet! Maybe it’s worth getting an Apex Z790 after all.


I might wait 6 months or just before release in Q3 2023 and buy a 8000mhz ddr5 kit and a nice board.


----------



## VULC

New bios 2204 on z690 Strix a does it help SP scores?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> DDR4 G1 wise at least you don't need a super fancy motherboard.
> 
> Already went up to being able to boot 4000CL13 on my tomahawk which the Z690 couldn't, the main limitation is the IMC.


Z690 MSI boards couldn't do 4,000 CL13 either. Because I tried. Only boot once out of like, 200 tries.
And as mentioned before, 4,266+ MHz is largely unstable no matter what you try.

80% is the IMC. The other 20% is the motherboard and/or BIOS.


----------



## Shkiz0

VULC said:


> New bios 2204 on z690 Strix a does it help SP scores?


No


----------



## affxct

Shkiz0 said:


> No


Off-topic, but what P/MC SP is that 13700K and how much Vcore, SA, and TX do you need for those CPU and RAM OCs?

(If I may ask)


----------



## Wilco183

tps3443 said:


> Good news is, I’ll have the same motherboard until 2024!! Sweet! Maybe it’s worth getting an Apex Z790 after all.


Lovin' mine and you would too. Certainly MSI was aware of this refresh and has me wondering even more why they didn't field a follow-on Unify-X.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Then they better figure out a way to cool that without delidding or chiller.


Well considering some chips can run R23 stock at 300+ watts, and without changing anything but voltage, you can tune the same chip down to 215 watts. I’m thinking silicon quality, and properly optimized voltage would be key.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Well considering some chips can run R23 stock at 300+ watts, and without changing anything but voltage, you can tune the same chip down to 215 watts. I’m thinking silicon quality, and properly optimized voltage would be key.


And maybe modify/reprogram the VID tables


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav Managed to drop VDIMM to 1.71V instead of 1.72V and pass both y-cruncher and TM5 1usmus just fine, with tCWL 10.
I could test 1.70V again, but I imagine it'll fail. So I won't bother wasting any more time.


----------



## VULC




----------



## imrevoau

You need more than 13 minutes of ANTA extreme to make sure its stable lol


----------



## VULC

imrevoau said:


> You need more than 13 minutes of ANTA extreme to make sure its stable lol


Why do you need? It's been through every test and it's still going. I'll post in a sec for you, your royal ****en majesty.


----------



## imrevoau

VULC said:


> Why do you need? It's been through every test and it's still going. I'll post in a sec for you, your royal ****en majesty.


No need to get so hostile, I was letting you know so you don't run an unstable overclock that's gonna crash randomly.


----------



## Shadowdane

Well I'm pretty happy with this! Undervolted my i7-13700K
5.4Ghz P-Cores / LLC4 / 0.20 AC_LL / 0.98 DC_LL










It had scored 31500, but wanted to grab the screen shot at load for HWInfo and wiped out my score. lol


----------



## Shkiz0

affxct said:


> Off-topic, but what P/MC SP is that 13700K and how much Vcore, SA, and TX do you need for those CPU and RAM OCs?
> 
> (If I may ask)


SP 93 P104 E73 MC 69


----------



## VULC

imrevoau said:


> No need to get so hostile, I was letting you know so you don't run an unstable overclock that's gonna crash randomly.


CPU 1.3150v, vrout droop 1.279v, LLC6

VCCSA 1.345v, DRAM 1.53125v, VDDQ 1.39v


----------



## Ichirou

I've been playing around with Intel XTU for the last few hours, and it seems to be capable of balancing low/high load overclocks much better than the MSI BIOS can.

In a nutshell, all chips can be set to the same high load overclock (e.g. 55/43/45 in R23), but the low load overclock can scale freely depending on how good the chip is.
However, if you want to achieve something like 60x on the P-cores on a poor sample and need to compensate with a lot of voltage during low loads in order to do so, it reduces efficiency during high loads as a tradeoff by either clocking down further or requiring more wattage.

Basically: Decide how much wattage to offer during high loads (to achieve say, 55x stock). The maximum low load multipliers will scale depending on that and chip quality.

I think I should be able to achieve around 59-61x on the P-cores for this average chip as well during low loads, while still attaining 55x during high loads.
This method also allows me to maximize the performance of each core individually, without having to rely on "active cores" like OCTVB does.
I can also tweak the E-cores individually as well.

If anyone's interested, I'll be writing up an amendment to my guide later, once I've finalized my findings.


----------



## affxct

Shkiz0 said:


> SP 93 P104 E73 MC 69


Thank you for the info, that actually makes a lot of sense. That's an awesome chip you've got on your hands.


----------



## fray_bentos

Ichirou said:


> It'll just be a 13950K/KF or something like that. It makes no sense for Intel to change the socket when they're already working on Meteor Lake.
> Their goal is to cost cut and squeeze out whatever they can from this generation.
> 
> I think the 13950 will have 4-8 more E-Cores, and overall better manufacturing, so better core and likely IMC quality.
> Or, it'll be exactly the same as it is now, but the P-Cores and E-Cores can clock higher.


I wouldn't be so sure of the 13950K branding. They did do that with low end 10th gen rebrand and 4790K (Devil's Canyon) before that, but remember 13600 and below (non-K) is refreshed Alderlake and not Raptor lake and still gets the 13th gen moniker. Of course, they also used 10850K for the down-binned 10900K. Given that 13th gen K chips seem to easily attain +300 MHz on p and e cores. I suspect they'll just eat into this OC headspace for the 13X50-series/14th gen, depending on what they call it. Depending on what AMD achieve with the X3D chips, that'll probably look good enough on the benchmark charts to please the non-overclocking masses, provided that the prices are also OK.


----------



## fray_bentos

Topuz said:


> I think I may just risk it and try seeing if this 13600K survives daily 5.8GHz which I managed to stabilize as a long term experiment and get 13950K next year if we retain Z690/DDR4 compatibility.


What are your voltages and power usage like? Sounds dubious. I hit a steep voltage wall trying to hit even 5.7 GHz all core.


----------



## ju-rek

VULC said:


> CPU 1.3150v, vrout droop 1.279v, LLC6
> 
> VCCSA 1.345v, DRAM 1.53125v, VDDQ 1.39v


Did you know that when you conquer the FSB, AIDA distorts the results?


----------



## Carillo

Carillo said:


> New cpu today
> 
> batch X243K057
> 
> No testing until tomorrow unfortunately. Anyone of you have same batch ? 😅
> View attachment 2587538


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> I have seen so many people with SP120+ chips on this forum by other members. *And most of them are X236F believe it or not*. Not sure if this is a coincidence or what. But, several SP120+ are all X236F


my x236f270 is a 109/73 unlucky me lol


----------



## HemuV2

Carillo said:


> View attachment 2587663
> View attachment 2587664


okay im getting a little unconfortable now but wow that thing should run 5.9 on AIO lol @Ichirou i hope youre okay


----------



## Ichirou

Batch number is not a guarantee. It's just that it may have a chance of providing (on average) better bins compared to other batches.


----------



## bhav

13600KF on its way, but could be up to 10pm, but not bad given thats still under 24 hours since ordering.


----------



## Ichirou

If XTU causes your PC to crash, it gets kicked back to the BIOS no matter what, which takes time to train. And is a waste of time.
So you're better off force powering off the PC whenever it crashes instead.


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

Finally after several years the deskputer is reborn


----------



## imrevoau

HOMECINEMA-PC said:


> Finally after several years the deskputer is reborn
> View attachment 2587673
> View attachment 2587674
> View attachment 2587675
> View attachment 2587676


Nice VF mate


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

imrevoau said:


> Nice VF mate


Calais V mate 
It does things that i never thought a holden could do , like park itself ffs ! 
But this is my nugget


----------



## Ichirou

It's safe to say that I've successfully managed to manipulate XTU into allowing me to optimize low and high loads.
It's 5 AM now so I don't have final results yet, but I should be able to get 60-61x on some P-Cores cores and 59x on the rest during low loads, and 55x during high loads.
The E-Cores are stuck at 46x, while the Ring is 50x for now.
All of this pends stability testing, but that's not really a big deal now that I've gotten the methodology down. Will report back later.
Man, imagine what I could do with an actually good chip...


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> It's safe to say that I've successfully managed to manipulate XTU into allowing me to optimize low and high loads.
> It's 5 AM now so I don't have final results yet, but I should be able to get 60-61x on some P-Cores cores and 59x on the rest during low loads, and 55x during high loads.
> The E-Cores are stuck at 46x, while the Ring is 50x for now.
> All of this pends stability testing, but that's not really a big deal now that I've gotten the methodology down. Will report back later.
> Man, imagine what I could do with an actually good chip...


If I ever buy top end and get something well binned, I'll hit you up first for a good chip


----------



## Topuz

fray_bentos said:


> What are your voltages and power usage like? Sounds dubious. I hit a steep voltage wall trying to hit even 5.7 GHz all core.


60/60/59/59/58/58, 1.52V adaptive in BIOS, LLC8, ACLL 38, DCLL 98, TVB voltage optimizations ON, with TVB dropping those clocks by two bins at 75 and 85C to 58/58/57/57/56/56. Actual load voltage in gaming is ~1.4V at 5.8GHz, Cinebench drops to 5.6GHz at ~1.32V. Cooler is Arctic Liquid Freezer 280. Actual voltages are probably 0.02V lower since I only have VCC Sense on this motherboard. It did take a while to dial in but it passes everything, ycruncher, Cinebench, Prime95, and surprisingly the thing that gave me the most issues, Pugetbench for Photoshop. Power under heavy all core load can hit 220-230W but I really don't have that kind of loads in my daily work and to be honest I don't care even if I kill it. I'll report if things go downhill.


----------



## yzonker

From the specs we saw previously, it didn't seem like the 13900KS would be this much faster out of the box.









Intel Core i9-13900KS is 10% faster than i9-12900KS in first single-core synthetic tests - VideoCardz.com


Intel Core i9-13900KS appears on Geekbench The upcoming flagship Raptor Lake-S processor has just made a debut on a popular benchmarking platform. As many as three results of Intel Core i9-13900KS processors have just been shared with a public database at Geekbench. This gives us some ground for...




videocardz.com





Or am I missing something?


----------



## fray_bentos

Topuz said:


> 60/60/59/59/58/58, 1.52V adaptive in BIOS, LLC8, ACLL 38, DCLL 98, TVB voltage optimizations ON, with TVB dropping those clocks by two bins at 75 and 85C to 58/58/57/57/56/56. Actual load voltage in gaming is ~1.4V at 5.8GHz, Cinebench drops to 5.6GHz at ~1.32V. Cooler is Arctic Liquid Freezer 280. Actual voltages are probably 0.02V lower since I only have VCC Sense on this motherboard. It did take a while to dial in but it passes everything, ycruncher, Cinebench, Prime95, and surprisingly the thing that gave me the most issues, Pugetbench for Photoshop. Power under heavy all core load can hit 220-230W but I really don't have that kind of loads in my daily work and to be honest I don't care even if I kill it. I'll report if things go downhill.


Yeah, that's 100% degradation territory. My 13600KF at 1.16 V (also VCC sense) under heavy load hits 135 W max at 5.4 GHz all p-core. I'm getting 96% of your performance (5.4/5.6) for 56% of the power consumption (130/230); 100 W less. Why push so hard?


----------



## fray_bentos

yzonker said:


> From the specs we saw previously, it didn't seem like the 13900KS would be this much faster out of the box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900KS is 10% faster than i9-12900KS in first single-core synthetic tests - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900KS appears on Geekbench The upcoming flagship Raptor Lake-S processor has just made a debut on a popular benchmarking platform. As many as three results of Intel Core i9-13900KS processors have just been shared with a public database at Geekbench. This gives us some ground for...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videocardz.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or am I missing something?


10% faster vs. 12th gen part. i.e. negligibly faster than the 13th gen 13900K


----------



## yzonker

fray_bentos said:


> 10% faster vs. 12th gen part. i.e. negligibly faster than the 13th gen 13900K


13900k is in the chart at the bottom.


----------



## RackarN

Did anyone attempt direct die cooling on 13th gen yet? My X is horrible so I'm gonna do a delid on it. Tho, I'm thinking I might go direct die instead. I have the pressure mount so if anything works with that I'm a happy man. WB is velocity2


----------



## jerrytsao

Carillo said:


> View attachment 2587663
> View attachment 2587664


Congrats, this is the craziest non-bug P/E/MC SP I've ever seen


----------



## sugi0lover

As I got this request often, here is Shadow of the Tombraider CPU Average FPS Test
○ CPU : 13900K / P Cores 6.0Ghz / E Cores 4.7Ghz / Cache 5.2Ghz
○ VGA : RTX 4090 (watercooled & liquid metal applied)
○ Ram OC : 8533-34-47-47-34
○ MB : Z790 Apex
○ Cooling : MO-RA3 420 PRO + Noctua NF-A14 Industrial out on balcony



Spoiler: My setup

















Spoiler: Result


----------



## Lord Alzov

yzonker said:


> 13900k is in the chart at the bottom.
> 
> View attachment 2587705


13900k 5800 all core


----------



## Lord Alzov

RackarN said:


> Did anyone attempt direct die cooling on 13th gen yet? My X is horrible so I'm gonna do a delid on it. Tho, I'm thinking I might go direct die instead. I have the pressure mount so if anything works with that I'm a happy man. WB is velocity2


I have direct die


----------



## Nizzen

Lord Alzov said:


> 13900k 5800 all core
> View attachment 2587742


Why not provide more info with your results. Full hwinfo give us context if it's a good result or not 
Example: 5800 all core is good on 30c water. 5800 all core on chilled water is not so good 
Ln2 5800 is bad 😅😉


----------



## digitalfrost

Speaking of HWiNFO. How do you guys take these screenshots where you can see all of HWiNFO at the same time?


----------



## Lord Alzov

Nizzen said:


> Why not provide more info with your results. Full hwinfo give us context if it's a good result or not
> Example: 5800 all core is good on 30c water. 5800 all core on chilled water is not so good
> Ln2 5800 is bad 😅😉





Nizzen said:


> Why not provide more info with your results. Full hwinfo give us context if it's a good result or not
> Example: 5800 all core is good on 30c water. 5800 all core on chilled water is not so good
> Ln2 5800 is bad 😅😉


5800 on 30 water CB23 81c 6000 on 30 water CB 95+


----------



## bhav

Chips here but too tired to install it, will do so tomorrow.

I'm dreaming of 4400 G1! On a measly 13600KF.


----------



## raad11

Intel Core i9-13900KS Confirmed with 150W Base Power and 6 GHz Boost Speed


Intel is expanding its 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake" desktop processor family with a number of new SKUs, led by the new flagship Core i9-13900KS. A leaked company slide confirmed the upper-end SKUs' specs. Led from the top, the new i9-13900KS packs the same 8P+16E (8 performance cores + 16...




www.techpowerup.com





According to this, just the peak boost has gone up by 200 MHz but all-core turbo is still 5.4? For 13900KS.

That's... underwhelming. I was hoping for 5.7 all-core.

Gonna have to wait and see what 7000X3D chips are coming out. A 7950X3D might be too attractive to pass up. Only deterrent is DDR5.


----------



## raad11

By the way, any word yet on a fix for the microcode bug which boosts all-core voltages if you mess with the VF curve at 5800 and above?


----------



## RackarN

Lord Alzov said:


> I have direct die


Oh! May i ask what block? Also what mods did you have to do? I assume i have to sand down the contact frame atleast, looked at some pictures of the CPU without the spreader on seems like it's the die that's sits highest 🤔


----------



## raad11

Ichirou said:


> It's safe to say that I've successfully managed to manipulate XTU into allowing me to optimize low and high loads.
> It's 5 AM now so I don't have final results yet, but I should be able to get 60-61x on some P-Cores cores and 59x on the rest during low loads, and 55x during high loads.
> The E-Cores are stuck at 46x, while the Ring is 50x for now.
> All of this pends stability testing, but that's not really a big deal now that I've gotten the methodology down. Will report back later.
> Man, imagine what I could do with an actually good chip...


Do you experience the voltage bug in XTU where raising low load high frequency voltage results in high load all-core frequency using more voltage and more power too?

How does XTU interact with OCTVB? Or the VF curve?

My main problem with XTU is that the program crashed often or had problems when it had to update. If you apply changes via XTU, you can close XTU and changes will persist until system reboot, right?


----------



## Lord Alzov

RackarN said:


> Oh! May i ask what block? Also what mods did you have to do? I assume i have to sand down the contact frame atleast, looked at some pictures of the CPU without the spreader on seems like it's the die that's sits highest 🤔


I use Russian DIRECT DIE


----------



## HemuV2

HELP!! 
So my SP is 109/73 p/e and i ran 5.9ghz with and without ecores on with auto voltage. When they're off the auto voltage is set to 1.47 ish llc4 and load vcore in cbr23 is 1.410V @180-190W. When i turn on ecores auto voltage goes crazy and my vcore is 1.6+ . I'm not sure why that's happening, i know my ecores are the worst but surely 1.625V seems a bit much? Unironically It's instantly throttling. Intel really ruinee my OC once again WOW!


----------



## HemuV2

sugi0lover said:


> As I got this request often, here is Shadow of the Tombraider CPU Average FPS Test
> ○ CPU : 13900K / P Cores 6.0Ghz / E Cores 4.7Ghz / Cache 5.2Ghz
> ○ VGA : RTX 4090 (watercooled & liquid metal applied)
> ○ Ram OC : 8533-34-47-47-34
> ○ MB : Z790 Apex
> ○ Cooling : MO-RA3 420 PRO + Noctua NF-A14 Industrial out on balcony
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: My setup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2587725
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Result
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2587726


That's crazy mine is 376 max so far! And i think your GPU is helping here? I've a 3080/13900K @5.7ghz


----------



## tubs2x4

But your ddr5 speed not going to matter as much with big cpu cache.


----------



## HemuV2

Lord Alzov said:


> I use Russian DIRECT DIE
> View attachment 2587759
> 
> View attachment 2587760


What SP is this sample? I deactivated ecores and HT and tried 6000 all core but it wouldn't run cinebench at any voltage even 1.5, mine is pcore 109 so i guess wasn't good enough. I'm assuming yours is atleast 115


----------



## RackarN

Lord Alzov said:


> I use Russian DIRECT DIE
> View attachment 2587759
> 
> View attachment 2587760


Interesting! Would you mind linking a shop that have it?


----------



## Lord Alzov

HemuV2 said:


> What SP is this sample? I deactivated ecores and HT and tried 6000 all core but it wouldn't run cinebench at any voltage even 1.5, mine is pcore 109 so i guess wasn't good enough. I'm assuming yours is atleast 115


P-Core SP113 = Force 142


----------



## WayWayUp

llc6 puts me around 1.31v under load

you think i should simply add more voltage and run a lower llc or is it cool to leave it like this?
llc5 is generally fine for gaming even though it puts me at 1.22-1.24v.. its stuff like r23 that needs more with my high overclock


----------



## yzonker

HemuV2 said:


> That's crazy mine is 376 max so far! And i think your GPU is helping here? I've a 3080/13900K @5.7ghz


Run it either in 720p or move the resolution modifier all the way to the left. That should minimize GPU dependency.


----------



## HemuV2

Lord Alzov said:


> P-Core SP113 = Force 142


Did you check both SP and force rating?


----------



## acoustic

I have Force 134, but I think my P-Cores might be ****ty. I’m curious to test my E-Cores out and push those.

Oh, and my ring is poop.


----------



## Kocicak

RackarN said:


> Interesting! Would you mind linking a shop that have it?


You *do NOT WANT to support any Russians in any way now*. Either they are directly involved in the mess that is happening now (the worst tragedy Europe experiences since the second world war) or indirectly by not protesting and not doing anything else against it.


----------



## Ichirou

raad11 said:


> Do you experience the voltage bug in XTU where raising low load high frequency voltage results in high load all-core frequency using more voltage and more power too?
> 
> How does XTU interact with OCTVB? Or the VF curve?
> 
> My main problem with XTU is that the program crashed often or had problems when it had to update. If you apply changes via XTU, you can close XTU and changes will persist until system reboot, right?


Yes, but it is, in a way, logically accurate. When comparing between chips, both should be able to run the same high load multipliers at one particular set Vcore, but the better chip should be able to run higher low load multipliers instead. Think about it 

I don't have an ASUS board so I can't tell you. It functions like OCTVB but allows you to manually tweak each core to maximize its performance at a particular low load Vcore, instead of letting the BIOS guesstimate which cores to boost higher.

You can disable auto-reload in the XTU settings, and honestly, you should be. I'm not sure why it is enabled by default, as it can make things messy if an overclock isn't stable.

*Summary: *You decide what wattage it is you want to run at most during high loads, and try to adjust your global Vcore so that you can reach at least stock 55x on the P-Cores under that wattage (or less, if you want to allow a higher multiplier on low load). This will dictate what your maximum low load overclock will be.

You then tweak each P-Core individually so that you can maximize the multipliers for both the low load and the high load, via multiplier offsets.

The E-Cores can unfortunately only run with one multiplier for each cluster regardless of load, so you'll just have to maximize it for high loads.
The Ring Clock is static as well, so you might as well lock it at 50x and then test from there.


----------



## WayWayUp

with 60x2 59x4 58x2 with 1.4voltage and llc6 everything running smooth as butter. llc5 is smooth in all games between 1.2-1.24v depending on the scenario
unfortunately need llc 6 with this voltage for cinebench
but if im going to run llc 6 i found a good amount of head room. I can now run 60x2 and 59x6 with additional +2 TVB as well. constantly getting 6.2Mhz
i just dont know if i want to stay this route and whether its worth it. maybe go back to 58x2 time will tell. too many people spooking about voltage and degration even tho i believe im in a safe zone. 

unfortunately, i dont have good cache. 51 failed the aida64 stress cache test so i had to back down to 50 but i could tweak voltage if i want to run 51 i suppose


----------



## tps3443

WayWayUp said:


> with 60x2 59x4 58x2 with 1.4voltage and llc6 everything running smooth as butter. llc5 is smooth in all games between 1.2-1.24v depending on the scenario
> unfortunately need llc 6 with this voltage for cinebench
> but if im going to run llc 6 i found a good amount of head room. I can now run 60x2 and 59x6 with additional +2 TVB as well. constantly getting 6.2Mhz
> i just dont know if i want to stay this route and whether its worth it. maybe go back to 58x2 time will tell. too many people spooking about voltage and degration even tho i believe im in a safe zone.
> 
> unfortunately, i dont have good cache. 51 failed the aida64 stress cache test so i had to back down to 50 but i could tweak voltage if i want to run 51 i suppose


I’m curious to know how are your E-Cores perform? Your CPU is the craziest combination I have seen on here.


----------



## WayWayUp

my ecores are rated sp 88 after the bios update 
i set them to 46 for all. haven't really tried to tinker or push them

i think maybe they are above average? def seen higher tho, like the guy who has sp 102 e cores 😍


----------



## Ichirou

@acoustic
I noticed that with Lite Load Mode 1 (which sets AC_LL and DC_LL to 1 for both), on load, all of the Current/Minimum/Maximum/Average values are higher than the Vcore values.
Should I just leave it as-is, then? I'm pretty sure both AC_LL and DC_LL only raises the VIDs, not lower them (since you can't set them negative).


----------



## acoustic

@Ichirou Raising DC_LL lowers the VID readings, if I remember correctly. Haven't tuned DC_LL in a bit though lol


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> @Ichirou Raising DC_LL lowers the VID readings, if I remember correctly. Haven't tuned DC_LL in a bit though lol


Ah, hm. Will give that a try, then.
Does optimizing DC_LL technically offer any benefit? Or is it just to look neater? (Assuming you use enough Vcore for the multipliers you set.)
That is: does increasing DC_LL (to decrease the VIDs) "trick" the CPU into thinking that a frequency should (try to) run at a lower Vcore?


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Ah, hm. Will give that a try, then.
> Does optimizing DC_LL technically offer any benefit? Or is it just to look neater? (Assuming you use enough Vcore for the multipliers you set.)


As far as I know and have ever read/been told, DC_LL only affects reporting. AC_LL directly affects your actual voltages and too much/too little can be detrimental.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> As far as I know and have ever read/been told, DC_LL only affects reporting. AC_LL directly affects your actual voltages and too much/too little can be detrimental.


So DC_LL does nothing but just cause the VIDs to look visually appealing for the OCD people. I see.
I can't lower AC_LL any lower than 1.

If you've minimized the Vcore already for a particular multiplier, does that mean any AC_LL/DC_LL change wouldn't do you any good?


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> So DC_LL does nothing but just cause the VIDs to look visually appealing for the OCD people. I see.
> I can't lower AC_LL any lower than 1.
> 
> If you've minimized the Vcore already for a particular multiplier, does that mean any AC_LL/DC_LL change wouldn't do you any good?


Remember that DC_LL also affects all reporting, most importantly your CPU Package Power reporting. It's more than just VIDs!

If you've minimized your vCore settings, then AC/DC_LL won't do much. DC_LL should be done before anything else with AC_LL set to "1", and then an AC_LL value of 20-30 (25 good starting point) as you look for vMin.

You can also change things through an offset. I like to think of AC_LL as another tool in the bag to adjust my voltages how I like. I explained this a bit ago, but I like adjusting AC_LL to fine-tune my all-core load, and using the V/F Offset to get a more precise undervolt at my light-load 58x ratio.

Too low AC_LL _will_ cause idle/transient load BSODs/crashes. You might remember I was testing as low as 16-18 AC_LL at one point. Anything below 20 on my setup results in random crashes when the monitor goes to sleep, at idle, or desktop use.


----------



## SSBrain

Ichirou said:


> Does optimizing DC_LL technically offer any benefit?


Power limits are affected by the DC Loadline, so you might want to set it correctly if you use them (I do).


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Remember that DC_LL also affects all reporting, most importantly your CPU Package Power reporting. It's more than just VIDs!
> 
> If you've minimized your vCore settings, then AC/DC_LL won't do much. DC_LL should be done before anything else with AC_LL set to "1", and then an AC_LL value of 20-30 (25 good starting point) as you look for vMin.
> 
> You can also change things through an offset. I like to think of AC_LL as another tool in the bag to adjust my voltages how I like. I explained this a bit ago, but I like adjusting AC_LL to fine-tune my all-core load, and using the V/F Offset to get a more precise undervolt at my light-load 58x ratio.
> 
> Too low AC_LL _will_ cause idle/transient load BSODs/crashes. You might remember I was testing as low as 16-18 AC_LL at one point. Anything below 20 on my setup results in random crashes when the monitor goes to sleep, at idle, or desktop use.


Ah, I think I get it now. You increase AC_LL to some value like 20 to raise the Vcore initially, but then you would adjust the Vcore yourself to lower it from that raised Vcore.
Afterwards, you can tweak the AC_LL down again to lower the Vcore better than reducing it by -0.005V each decrement. Is that the idea?


SSBrain said:


> Power limits are affected by the DC Loadline, so you might want to set it correctly if you use them (I do).


How does DC_LL modify the CPU Package Power?

I'm doing testing using adaptive voltage and 55x on the P-Cores during heavy loads, and I can't meet 55x unless TVB Voltage Optimizations is enabled and I set 350W for PL2.
If I set 347.5W or less, it just clocks the multipliers lower than 55x when the Intel algorithms kick in. _(This is all with the same Vcore setting.)_

Would increasing DC_LL help alleviate that penalty? I should probably experiment.


----------



## SSBrain

Ichirou said:


> How does DC_LL modify the CPU Package Power?


If DC_LL is lower than it should be, VID will be higher and thus the reported power will be higher than it should be; and viceversa.

I don't know if tricking the power reporting with this would help with your issue.

A few tests here:



http://imgur.com/a/O8cxcdc


----------



## PhoenixMDA

sugi0lover said:


> As I got this request often, here is Shadow of the Tombraider CPU Average FPS Test
> ○ CPU : 13900K / P Cores 6.0Ghz / E Cores 4.7Ghz / Cache 5.2Ghz
> ○ VGA : RTX 4090 (watercooled & liquid metal applied)
> ○ Ram OC : 8533-34-47-47-34
> ○ MB : Z790 Apex
> ○ Cooling : MO-RA3 420 PRO + Noctua NF-A14 Industrial out on balcony
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: My setup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2587725
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Result
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2587726


In compare with DDR4 it´s really faster, it´s nearly the same conditions, i don´t think that i´m able to reach your result under normal conditions.

13900K / P Cores 6.0Ghz / E Cores 4.7Ghz / Cache 5.2Ghz 4300CL15-15


----------



## Ichirou

sugi0lover said:


> As I got this request often, here is Shadow of the Tombraider CPU Average FPS Test
> ○ CPU : 13900K / P Cores 6.0Ghz / E Cores 4.7Ghz / Cache 5.2Ghz
> ○ VGA : RTX 4090 (watercooled & liquid metal applied)
> ○ Ram OC : 8533-34-47-47-34
> ○ MB : Z790 Apex
> ○ Cooling : MO-RA3 420 PRO + Noctua NF-A14 Industrial out on balcony
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: My setup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2587725
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Result
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2587726


New binned CPU or the same one you mentioned to me about before?
Also, is there any chance you could hook me up with a good binned CPU through your Korean friends?


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Ah, I think I get it now. You increase AC_LL to some value like 20 to raise the Vcore initially, but then you would adjust the Vcore yourself to lower it from that raised Vcore.
> Afterwards, you can tweak the AC_LL down again to lower the Vcore better than reducing it by -0.005V each decrement. Is that the idea?
> 
> How does DC_LL modify the CPU Package Power?
> 
> I'm doing testing using adaptive voltage and 55x on the P-Cores during heavy loads, and I can't meet 55x unless TVB Voltage Optimizations is enabled and I set 350W for PL2.
> If I set 347.5W or less, it just clocks the multipliers lower than 55x when the Intel algorithms kick in. _(This is all with the same Vcore setting.)_
> 
> Would increasing DC_LL help alleviate that penalty? I should probably experiment.


I believe there's a bug with either MSI BIOS (but I've heard of ASUS users having this issue as well) or the Intel microcode that is causing the issue with power limits and/or current limits not being exceeded by the value you've set, but causing downclocking. Make sure CEP is disabled (should be disabled by default) and under-voltage protection is also disabled (enabled by default, iirc).. those can cause the downclocking as well.

Quite frankly I've just left maxed current/wattage, but utilized low voltages so that I don't exceed 300w regardless. CB23 peeks at ~260w at these settings, so I know normal gaming loads won't get past that, not even shader compiling scenarios.

Yes, that's my general idea of how I use AC_LL. You'll find that "1" value change +/- is a nice movement of your core voltage. Currently I'm running AC_LL 24, with all my little offsets for 58x and 54x (aka, 55x) ratios set. No idle crashes, and nice low voltages with a small buffer above vMin!


----------



## tps3443

HOMECINEMA-PC said:


> Calais V mate
> It does things that i never thought a holden could do , like park itself ffs !
> But this is my nugget
> View attachment 2587678


This is my nugget. PS: I love TITANIUM!!!! 😭


----------



## Ichirou

SSBrain said:


> If DC_LL is lower than it should be, VID will be higher and thus the reported power will be higher than it should be; and viceversa.
> 
> I don't know if tricking the power reporting with this would help with your issue.
> 
> A few tests here:
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/O8cxcdc


All I see is VIDs going down, CPU Package Power remaining the same, and Vcore going up.


acoustic said:


> I believe there's a bug with either MSI BIOS (but I've heard of ASUS users having this issue as well) or the Intel microcode that is causing the issue with power limits and/or current limits not being exceeded by the value you've set, but causing downclocking. Make sure CEP is disabled (should be disabled by default) and under-voltage protection is also disabled (enabled by default, iirc).. those can cause the downclocking as well.
> 
> Quite frankly I've just left maxed current/wattage, but utilized low voltages so that I don't exceed 300w regardless. CB23 peeks at ~260w at these settings, so I know normal gaming loads won't get past that, not even shader compiling scenarios.
> 
> Yes, that's my general idea of how I use AC_LL. You'll find that "1" value change +/- is a nice movement of your core voltage. Currently I'm running AC_LL 24, with all my little offsets for 58x and 54x (aka, 55x) ratios set. No idle crashes, and nice low voltages with a small buffer above vMin!


Right. My understanding of AC_LL is that it allows you to tweak the Vcore by smaller increments/decrements than just 0.05V with the standard Vcore setting.
Which may or may not matter to some people, depending on how tight they want that Vcore to be.

I'll check the BIOS to confirm what CEP and Undervoltage are set to. But I believe they are disabled by default as well.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Right. My understanding of AC_LL is that it allows you to tweak the Vcore by smaller increments/decrements than just 0.05V with the standard Vcore setting.
> Which may or may not matter to some people, depending on how tight they want that Vcore to be.
> 
> I'll check the BIOS to confirm what CEP and Undervoltage are set to. But I believe they are disabled by default as well.


Test it out! I think anywhere from 30 to 20 AC_LL, when utilizing a droopier LLC setting, is a good way to tweak your voltages. When you're using a flat LLC, I'd keep AC_LL as low as possible to avoid those heavy transients as much as you can. IMO, the less loadline the better, whether it's LLC or AC_LL.


----------



## Arni90

Kocicak said:


> You *do NOT WANT to support any Russians in any way now*. Either they are directly involved in the mess that is happening now (the worst tragedy Europe experiences since the second world war) or indirectly by not protesting and not doing anything else against it.


I don't disagree that what Putin's doing is abhorrent, but you shouldn't condemn people here just because of their nationality.
It's hard to rise up against the government when you don't know if people around you share your misgivings, and the russian government is unfortunately doing a very competent job of keeping it's population uninformed of the atrocities committed in Ukraine.

That said, here's where I got my direct die kit from: Inter Water Block


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Test it out! I think anywhere from 30 to 20 AC_LL, when utilizing a droopier LLC setting, is a good way to tweak your voltages. When you're using a flat LLC, I'd keep AC_LL as low as possible to avoid those heavy transients as much as you can. IMO, the less loadline the better, whether it's LLC or AC_LL.


Yeah, I'll give AC_LL and DC_LL tweaking a try later on. Not too hell bent on absolutely perfect optimization right now. But I do understand the nature of AC_LL much better.

Logically, wouldn't it be _easier_ to set an AC_LL value, set an adaptive voltage with LLC, and _then_ adjust DC_LL after all that?
Why recommend adjusting DC_LL first? Seems like it would only confuse things when tweaking AC_LL.


----------



## Arni90

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, I'll give AC_LL and DC_LL tweaking a try later on. Not too hell bent on absolutely perfect optimization right now. But I do understand the nature of AC_LL much better.
> 
> Logically, wouldn't it be _easier_ to set an AC_LL value, set an adaptive voltage with LLC, and _then_ adjust DC_LL after all that?
> Why recommend adjusting DC_LL first? Seems like it would only confuse things when tweaking AC_LL.


DC_LL has no impact on anything outside of your reported power draw...


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, I'll give AC_LL and DC_LL tweaking a try later on. Not too hell bent on absolutely perfect optimization right now. But I do understand the nature of AC_LL much better.
> 
> Logically, wouldn't it be _easier_ to set an AC_LL value, set an adaptive voltage with LLC, and _then_ adjust DC_LL after all that?
> Why recommend adjusting DC_LL first? Seems like it would only confuse things when tweaking AC_LL.


For most accurate reporting, DC_LL should match your LLC mOhm. You can only do that with AC_LL at 0.01 mOhm (aka "1" in MSI BIOS).


----------



## SSBrain

Ichirou said:


> All I see is VIDs going down, CPU Package Power remaining the same, and Vcore going up.


With incorrect DC_LL settings, the reported CPU Package Power under power-limited conditions will not change, but it will not represent the true power consumption of your CPU. A plausible example with simple numbers:



*DC_LL*​*Reported Package Power @ PL2 (W)*​*True Package Power (W)*​Too low​156​146​OK​156​156​Too high​156​168​


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

digitalfrost said:


> Speaking of HWiNFO. How do you guys take these screenshots where you can see all of HWiNFO at the same time?


The little arrows in the bottom left


----------



## Ichirou

SSBrain said:


> With incorrect DC_LL settings, the reported CPU Package Power under power-limited conditions will not change, but it will not represent the true power consumption of your CPU. A plausible example with simple numbers:
> 
> 
> 
> *DC_LL*​*Reported Package Power @ PL2 (W)*​*True Package Power (W)*​Too low​156​146​OK​156​156​Too high​156​168​


So if DC_LL is too high, although the CPU Package Power will look like it hasn't changed, it's internally feeding more wattage than it should?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, I'll give AC_LL and DC_LL tweaking a try later on. Not too hell bent on absolutely perfect optimization right now. But I do understand the nature of AC_LL much better.
> 
> Logically, wouldn't it be _easier_ to set an AC_LL value, set an adaptive voltage with LLC, and _then_ adjust DC_LL after all that?
> Why recommend adjusting DC_LL first? Seems like it would only confuse things when tweaking AC_LL.


I’m on LLC 7, ac ll 15, dc ll 80. Tis a thing of beauty.


----------



## SSBrain

Ichirou said:


> So if DC_LL is too high, although the CPU Package Power will look like it hasn't changed, it's internally feeding more wattage than it should?


Yes, but only under power-limited conditions. If no power limit is engaged, there shouldn't be any difference. Even extreme DC_LL values don't seem to make any difference in this regard.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Ah, I think I get it now. You increase AC_LL to some value like 20 to raise the Vcore initially, but then you would adjust the Vcore yourself to lower it from that raised Vcore.
> Afterwards, you can tweak the AC_LL down again to lower the Vcore better than reducing it by -0.005V each decrement. Is that the idea?
> 
> How does DC_LL modify the CPU Package Power?
> 
> I'm doing testing using adaptive voltage and 55x on the P-Cores during heavy loads, and I can't meet 55x unless TVB Voltage Optimizations is enabled and I set 350W for PL2.
> If I set 347.5W or less, it just clocks the multipliers lower than 55x when the Intel algorithms kick in. _(This is all with the same Vcore setting.)_
> 
> Would increasing DC_LL help alleviate that penalty? I should probably experiment.


CPU Package Power= Current IOUT (MSR) * VID_OUT

VID_OUT=VID_Native + TVB Voltage Optimizations Temp VID deflection + AC Loadline VID deflection - (DC Loadline mohms * IOUT)

On your MSI board, a value of "X" in the BIOS for AC/DC is "X /100" mohms, so 1 = 0.01 mohms, while Asus uses the direct value, unless I'm wrong.
Gigabyte used X/100 last I looked.


----------



## Ichirou

SSBrain said:


> Yes, but only under power-limited conditions. If no power limit is engaged, there shouldn't be any difference. Even extreme DC_LL values don't seem to make any difference in this regard.


Then, would tweaking DC_LL to not be synced with Vcore while a power limit is engaged be an artificial way to fool Intel's downclocking to push cores higher or lower during high loads?
I really should experiment with this. I still haven't bothered.


----------



## WayWayUp

are people really running 6Ghz all core? without TVB?

what kind of voltage do you need for this

im referring to both Sugi and Phoenix 

is this 24/7 settings?


----------



## Ichirou

WayWayUp said:


> are people really running 6Ghz all core? without TVB?
> 
> what kind of voltage do you need for this
> 
> im referring to both Sugi and Phoenix
> 
> is this 24/7 settings?


6 GHz all-core without TVB is possible if the chip is binned well enough for it.


----------



## VULC

PhoenixMDA said:


> In compare with DDR4 it´s really faster, it´s nearly the same conditions, i don´t think that i´m able to reach your result under normal conditions.
> 
> 13900K / P Cores 6.0Ghz / E Cores 4.7Ghz / Cache 5.2Ghz 4300CL15-15
> View attachment 2587799


8 fps at 1080pb that's only 2%.


----------



## VULC

All this AC_LL talk and my auto settings are only 0.009v difference.


----------



## sugi0lover

Ichirou said:


> New binned CPU or the same one you mentioned to me about before?
> Also, is there any chance you could hook me up with a good binned CPU through your Korean friends?


It's only so-so retail 13900K SP104 (P115, E83, MC 72) I have used for over a month.
I always try to bring out the max potential of the chip whether it's good or bad.
This chip can do 60/47/52 but stable ram oc seems like 8533 cl34 atm becuase of its weaker mc.
I am looking for SP 110 over + MC SP 80 over, but it seems hard to find the chip that meest both requirements.
I actually often got this question, but my Korean friends don't want to go through all troubles of opening USD bank account, exchanging USD, sending it overseas.


----------



## Ichirou

sugi0lover said:


> It's only so-so retail 13900K SP104 (P115, E83, MC 72) I have used for over a month.
> I always try to bring out the max potential of the chip whether it's good or bad.
> This chip can do 60/47/52 but stable ram oc seems like 8533 cl34 atm becuase of its weaker mc.
> I am looking for SP 110 over + MC SP 80 over, but it seems hard to find to meet both requirement.
> I actually often got this question, but my Korean friends don't want to go through all troubles of opening USD bank account, exchanging USD, sending it overseas.


What's the manual Vcore you need for 60/47/52?

And is it possible for you to act as escrow/middleman (like a forwarder)? You can take a commission if you want.


----------



## sugi0lover

Ichirou said:


> What's the manual Vcore you need for 60/47/52?
> 
> And is it possible for you to act as escrow/middleman (like a forwarder)? You can take a commission if you want.


This is bios text file that you can see all the info for my setup. and it's delidded (but not direct die since I am waiting for the 13th gen direct die)








13900_604752_8533C34_setting.txt







drive.google.com


----------



## WayWayUp

I believe you but with what voltage?
My bin is better across the board but I’m not the best tweaker of voltages

maybe share your bios file?
Currently I’m doing 60x2 and 59x6 with 1.4v (bios) but I have a lot of stuff on auto and I’m not ready to learn about DC_LL and what not

I switch between llc 5 and 6

don’t tell me it’s something like 1.5v llc7 or something ridiculous like that


----------



## Ichirou

sugi0lover said:


> This is bios text file that you can see all the info for my setup. and it's delided (but not direct die sicne I am waiting for the 13th gen direct die)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 13900_604752_8533C34_setting.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com


1.39V Die Sense; I see. That's really good.
What is the temp and wattage in R23?


----------



## WayWayUp

sugi0lover said:


> This is bios text file that you can see all the info for my setup. and it's delidded (but not direct die sicne I am waiting for the 13th gen direct die)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 13900_604752_8533C34_setting.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com


Thank you!
Hmm I do see llc7 is being used unfortunately 

I see you use Maximus tweak1
Personally I use tweak 2. Maybe I assumed tweak 2 was better.
Any rhyme or reason for tweak 1?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

VULC said:


> 8 fps at 1080pb that's only 2%.


Yes it´s only 2% but my Daily RamOC is 4300CL15-15 and for a daily DDR5 RamOC is that really good to be faster as DDR4 in SoT.
Most people are slower in the gaming benchmarks with tuned DDR5 as tuned DDR4 like my setting, but in Timespy CPU Score there DDR5 really awesome🙌.

My normal 24/7 is that Stock TVB+2 -22°, i use the lowest vcore for @stock clock and have most 5,6 or 5,7Ghz in game single core up to 6ghz.Much better performance/watt.
For bench 6/4,7/5,2 i have used +0.05 offset llc6 without TVB,with my watercooling is that easy.


----------



## RichKnecht

[


Ichirou said:


> 6 GHz all-core without TVB is possible if the chip is binned well enough for it.


i was under the impression that everyone had TVB disabled.


----------



## SSBrain

Ichirou said:


> Then, would tweaking DC_LL to not be synced with Vcore while a power limit is engaged be an artificial way to fool Intel's downclocking to push cores higher or lower during high loads?
> I really should experiment with this. I still haven't bothered.


I think the most straightforward way for avoiding power throttling would be simply using a higher power limit, unless there are motherboard limitations or bugs preventing going higher than 350W in this way.

I never encountered such behavior but I am not engaged in high-end overclocking.


----------



## Ichirou

SSBrain said:


> I think the most straightforward way for avoiding power throttling would be simply using a higher power limit, unless there are motherboard limitations or bugs preventing going higher than 350W in this way.
> 
> I never encountered such behavior but I am not engaged in high-end overclocking.


It's possible to set a higher power limit. It's just that the chip's gonna degrade hard, lol.
TVB has awful scaling for high loads. It'll just push the Vcore you set for low loads no matter what, even though it'll clock the multipliers as you desire.

Again, none of this would be an issue if my chip wasn't super average.


----------



## VULC

RichKnecht said:


> [
> 
> i was under the impression that everyone had TVB disabled.


Disable TVB enhancement it throttles your OC but you can have TVB +2 enabled just for low loads. Asus came out with sync all core +1 or 2 bins which I use and I get 5.8ghz all core under 30% CPU usage in game. This is at 1.279v as well. If you have better cooling the sync all core would hit 6.0 to 6.2Ghz easy.


----------



## WayWayUp

View attachment 2587834












just messing around for ****s and giggles
6ghz all core
Voltages on auto (I can probably lower them a lil bit) this was under game load with a benchmark that would have higher cpu utilization
LETS GOOO

Still boosting to 6.2

View attachment 2587838


I didn’t have intentions of running the comp like this. Was just interested in trying 
Now it’s time to try 6.1 all core 🤪


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 Did you get your chip yet? I'm curious to know what your Vmin is in R23 10m with stock 55/43/45.


----------



## tps3443

WayWayUp said:


> View attachment 2587834
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2587835
> 
> 
> just messing around for ****s and giggles
> 6ghz all core
> Voltages on auto (I can probably lower them a lil bit) this was under game load with a benchmark that would have higher cpu utilization
> LETS GOOO
> 
> Still boosting to 6.2
> 
> View attachment 2587838
> 
> 
> I didn’t have intentions of running the comp like this. Was just interested in trying
> Now it’s time to try 6.1 all core 🤪


Your chip can do it easy. Plus, you are on direct die right? But yeah, your chip is capable. Only SP120+ can do such speeds on all cores “Reliably”


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 Did you get your chip yet? I'm curious to know what your Vmin is in R23 10m with stock 55/43/45.


It is through customs, and in the US making its way to me. It says delivery by Monday 😎


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> It is through customs, and in the US making its way to me. It says delivery by Monday 😎


Same here, although my second 13900K from BestBuy should've arrived _yesterday_ had they actually knocked on the door instead of only pretending to have done so.


----------



## tps3443

Anyone try Battlefield 2042? It pushes a stock average quality 13900K to 250+ watts max power super easily. Seems crazy to me.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> Anyone try Battlefield 2042? It pushes a stock average quality 13900K to 250+ watts max power super easily. Seems crazy to me.


This is on 1080p?


----------



## bhav

Nice, just installed my 13600KF, and booted 4200 16-20-20 G1 with no effort.

Might do more, but more needs CL15 on my kit so not really a big deal.

4200CL14 .... I might need 1.7v just for that as 1.65v already didn't work, but 4133CL14 does.

Batch info:



Spoiler















So as it turns out I didnt need an expensive CPU just for a good IMC.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> This is on 1080p?


1440P.

The 250+ watts I think is something in the menus that maxes out the cpu maybe. It’s not that high during gameplay.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Nice, just installed my 13600KF, and booted 4200 16-20-20 G1 with no effort.
> 
> Might do more, but more needs CL15 on my kit so not really a big deal.
> 
> 4200CL14 .... I might need 1.7v just for that as 1.65v already didn't work, but 4133CL14 does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as it turns out I didnt need an expensive CPU just for a good IMC.


How did you get such an early batch of the 13600K? Even the reviewers of 13600K’s all had X233 or later. 

That’s pretty darn interesting.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> 1440P.
> 
> The 250+ watts I think is something in the menus that maxes out the cpu maybe. It’s not that high during gameplay.


Many games do that to test your OC. So you crash in the menu and not in game and send support requests to EA. Overwatch 2 pegged my cpu to 100% in menu.


----------



## bhav

Muehehehehehehehehe!

My first one, this on a 13600KF:










Needs 1.7v ram though damn.

Actually it wasn't the ram voltage thats the issue, 1.35v SA not enough for 4400.

I tried again to boot 4500 with 1.4v, wont work, so trying 1.37v to stabilise 4400 with 18-22-22 timings to start with.

1.7v dram, 1.5v vddq and 1.4v SA and still no stability at 4400G1 :cries:.

4300 15-20-20 with 1.6v / 1.4v / 1.35v is working.


----------



## VULC

bhav said:


> Muehehehehehehehehe!
> 
> My first one, this on a 13600KF:
> 
> View attachment 2587856
> 
> 
> Needs 1.7v ram though damn.
> 
> Actually it wasn't the ram voltage thats the issue, 1.35v SA not enough for 4400.
> 
> I tried again to boot 4500 with 1.4v, wont work, so trying 1.37v to stabilise 4400 with 18-22-22 timings to start with.
> 
> 1.7v dram, 1.5v vddq and 1.4v SA and still no stability at 4400G1 :cries:.
> 
> 4300 15-20-20 with 1.6v / 1.4v / 1.35v is working.


Is this Samsung b die or micron?


----------



## bhav

VULC said:


> Is this Samsung b die or micron?


Its in my sig. Micron, same stuff Ichirou is using. The ram itself is good for 4533CL15, the IMC I got is only happy up to 4300, 4400 won't stabilize, only boot.

Unless I risk trying 1.45v SA but I don't want to do that.

Mine still isnt stable at 4200CL14 with 1.65v, will see if 1.7v works and how far it goes, even just 4266CL14 might be doable, but I'm not getting 4300CL14 on my kit.


----------



## bhav

@Ichirou how much SA and VDDQ do you need for 4300CL14?

I got 4266CL14 to work so far.

So with 1.72v ram, more SA (1.4v) and VDDQ (1.5v) didn't stabilize 4300CL14. Dropped to 1.37v SA and 1.45v VDDQ and trying 1.73v ram.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> @Ichirou how much SA and VDDQ do you need for 4300CL14?
> 
> I got 4266CL14 to work so far.
> 
> So with 1.72v ram, more SA (1.4v) and VDDQ (1.5v) didn't stabilize 4300CL14. Dropped to 1.37v SA and 1.45v VDDQ and trying 1.73v ram.


1.39V and 1.57V respectively. 1.71V VDIMM (was tested after screenshot).


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> 1.39V and 1.57V respectively. 1.71V VDIMM (was tested after screenshot).
> View attachment 2587871


Thanks, will try boosting the VDDQ as well then, couldn't get 1.73v to work with lower on the others.

4266CL14 1.72v seems ok, I will use TM5 later but not y cruncher.

Ok so 1.72 / 1.6 / 1.4 still won't stabilize 4300CL14 for me, reduced VDDQ to 1.4, SA to 1.35 and trying up to 1.75v vdimm. If that still fails then it looks like just 4266CL14 for my kit.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> How did you get such an early batch of the 13600K? Even the reviewers of 13600K’s all had X233 or later.
> 
> That’s pretty darn interesting.


Sorry, only just saw your reply, no idea, I got it from Amazon, maybe because they charge more people don't buy it from them, £322 for this vs £299 at Scan currently.

Would rather pay the extra and get the free returns until Jan 31st anyway, looks like I won't need it now though. Also if anything goes wrong, Amazon refund and collect for free during the warranty period, so worth paying a little bit more.

I can get 4266CL14 to work with 1.72v, but trying to replicate Ichirou's settings for 4300.

Super glad I didn't waste money on the 13900KS now, all I needed was an IMC as good as this one, and 12600K / 13600K are plenty enough for CPU perf at 4K.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Thanks, will try boosting the VDDQ as well then, couldn't get 1.73v to work with lower on the others.
> 
> 4266CL14 1.72v seems ok, I will use TM5 later but not y cruncher.
> 
> Ok so 1.72 / 1.6 / 1.4 still won't stabilize 4300CL14 for me, reduced VDDQ to 1.4, SA to 1.35 and trying up to 1.75v vdimm. If that still fails then it looks like just 4266CL14 for my kit.


Don't get why you're too scared to run y-cruncher. If you don't run that, none of your results matter because they aren't validated.
At the very least, run N64/HNT/VST in the Component Stress Test. It's light on the CPU but is one of the best for finding minimum VCCSA. Only one loop, six minutes.


----------



## raad11

tps3443 said:


> 1440P.
> 
> The 250+ watts I think is something in the menus that maxes out the cpu maybe. It’s not that high during gameplay.





VULC said:


> Many games do that to test your OC. So you crash in the menu and not in game and send support requests to EA. Overwatch 2 pegged my cpu to 100% in menu.


That's probably shader compilation. Overwatch 2 has done this for me only after installing new GPU drivers otherwise menu framerate is locked to 60 by default. I never noticed it before. It hit 250+ watts for a few seconds. Fortnite for some reason actually crashes if I have it over 5.5 GHz for shader compile. But not other games, just Fortnite.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Don't get why you're too scared to run y-cruncher. If you don't run that, none of your results matter because they aren't validated.
> At the very least, run N64/HNT/VST in the Component Stress Test. It's light on the CPU but is one of the best for finding minimum VCCSA. Only one loop, six minutes.


Because of how many chips you degraded with it :x

I downloaded TM5, but 7zip wont open it for some reason, maybe need to restart but in the middle of OCCT test.

Up to 20mins at 1.74v currently, this is looking good ... please don't need 1.75v!

From reading around, vdimm only risks the ram, dont know some people think it will damage the CPU, its just VCCSA that can damage the IMC.

Already ran this ram for almost 6 months at 1.725v on Z490 ... will 1.75v be fine I wonder?

Also as tps pointed out, looks like I got lucky with an early batch 13600KF, so not going to do anything too risky CPU side, if the ram melts I can use my Micron E die and it has lifetime warranty.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Because of how many chips you degraded with it :x
> 
> I downloaded TM5, but 7zip wont open it for some reason, maybe need to restart but in the middle of OCCT test.
> 
> Up to 20mins at 1.74v currently, this is looking good ... please don't need 1.75v!
> 
> From reading around, vdimm only risks the ram, dont know some people think it will damage the CPU, its just VCCSA that can damage the IMC.
> 
> Already ran this ram for almost 6 months at 1.725v on Z490 ... will 1.75v be fine I wonder?


OCCT is kind of pointless as it doesn't stress the CPU nor the RAM strong enough. Waste of time for no reason.
Probably even worse for degradation than a six minute N/H/V test.

And you need to run at least TM5 1usmus for six cycles to validate the RAM. anta777 ABSOLUT is even harder.
If I can't pass either at 1.72-1.73V consistently _under water_, I highly doubt you can do so on air.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> OCCT is kind of pointless as it doesn't stress the CPU nor the RAM strong enough. Waste of time for no reason.
> Probably even worse for degradation than a six minute N/H/V test.
> 
> And you need to run at least TM5 1usmus for six cycles to validate the RAM. anta777 ABSOLUT is even harder.
> If I can't pass either at 1.72-1.73V consistently _under water_, I highly doubt you can do so on air.


Doesn't matter anyway, 4300CL14 isn't happening for my kit. 1.74v errored, and then 1.75v doesn't even boot for some reason.

Backed it down to 4266, 1.4v VDDQ, 1.35v SA, and testing for 1.71v vdimm.

Your sticks are diamond bin, even if one of them needs a little more voltage than the others.

Also, comparing to on Z490, it looks like 1.725v is where micron B die stops scaling, before I thought it was the 10900K IMC, but with this its more likely the ram.

Dimm temps were only 55c and 59c too.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Doesn't matter anyway, 4300CL14 isn't happening for my kit. 1.74v errored, and then 1.75v doesn't even boot for some reason.
> 
> Backed it down to 4266, 1.4v VDDQ, 1.35v SA, and testing for 1.71v vdimm.
> 
> Your sticks are diamond bin, even if one of them needs a little more voltage than the others.
> 
> Also, comparing to on Z490, it looks like 1.725v is where micron B die stops scaling, before I thought it was the 10900K IMC, but with this its more likely the ram.
> 
> Dimm temps were only 55c and 59c too.


My RAM is capable of scaling higher, but I'm both heat and IMC-limited. Not even sure if a chiller would help.
Some of the timings can be tightened further for even greater performance, but VCCSA needs to be raised in order to make up for that.
I've pretty much tightening my kit as much as possible under 1.39V VCCSA. It was just surprising that I could do tCWL 10 with it.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> My RAM is capable of scaling higher, but I'm both heat and IMC-limited. Not even sure if a chiller would help.
> Some of the timings can be tightened further for even greater performance, but VCCSA needs to be raised in order to make up for that.
> I've pretty much tightening my kit as much as possible under 1.39V VCCSA. It was just surprising that I could do tCWL 10 with it.


1.71v was a no go for 4266CL14 too, 1.72v already passed close to an hour OCCT so that looks like my limit, will likely still need to fiddle VCCSA and VDDQ a bit for 'game stable', but will try figure out how to get TM5 to install next.

Going from 1.6 to 1.68v sees very little increase in stability, then it suddenly spikes at 1.7v and 1.72v. Interesting, its been like that since initially using it on Z490.

Also going above 1.72v has never done anything, looks like the scaling limit for micron B die.

Will try retesting CL13 at 1.72v after I finish with maxing CL14 settings.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> 1.71v was a no go for 4266CL14 too, 1.72v already passed close to an hour OCCT so that looks like my limit, will likely still need to fiddle VCCSA and VDDQ a bit for 'game stable', but will try figure out how to get TM5 to install next.
> 
> Going from 1.6 to 1.68v sees very little increase in stability, then it suddenly spikes at 1.7v and 1.72v. Interesting, its been like that since initially using it on Z490.
> 
> Also going above 1.72v has never done anything, looks like the scaling limit for micron B die.
> 
> Will try retesting CL13 at 1.72v after I finish with maxing CL14 settings.











1usmus Error Diagnosis


Sheet1 1usmus_v3,Usage: Run TM5 with 1usmus (six cycles) to diagnose and correct errors, and then run anta777 ABSOLUT (nonstop overnight) for a final confirmation,ERROR #7,MirrorMove 2Mb [Mode0,P0],SEE ERROR #11 - If this error happens with Errors #1 and/or #11, it is most likely not enough VDI...




docs.google.com




You can fetch 1usmus from the link on the bottom of the page there.

You're probably going to have difficulty stabilizing CL13 since the training is a mess. I personally gave up even though I got very close.
Was frustrating having to deal with it only training once every 6-10 attempts at 4,100 MHz.
4,000 MHz might be easier though.


----------



## imrevoau

Seems like I should be happy with my IMC all things considered. I've seen people that can only stabilise 4000 with DR B Die on a 13700K/F.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> 1usmus Error Diagnosis
> 
> 
> Sheet1 1usmus_v3,Usage: Run TM5 with 1usmus (six cycles) to diagnose and correct errors, and then run anta777 ABSOLUT (nonstop overnight) for a final confirmation,ERROR #7,MirrorMove 2Mb [Mode0,P0],SEE ERROR #11 - If this error happens with Errors #1 and/or #11, it is most likely not enough VDI...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fetch 1usmus from the link on the bottom of the page there.
> 
> You're probably going to have difficulty stabilizing CL13 since the training is a mess. I personally gave up even though I got very close.
> Was frustrating having to deal with it only training once every 6-10 attempts at 4,100 MHz.
> 4,000 MHz might be easier though.


I am dumb and hate google docs, literally cant figure out how to download it.



imrevoau said:


> Seems like I should be happy with my IMC all things considered. I've seen people that can only stabilise 4000 with DR B Die on a 13700K/F.


Somehow my 13600KF is a very early batch with the IMC I was initially planning to spend on a 13900KS to get. 

I got lucky


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> I am dumb and hate google docs, literally cant figure out how to download it.
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow my 13600KF is a very early batch with the IMC I was initially planning to spend on a 13900KS to get.
> 
> I got lucky


You scroll down and click the link.


----------



## bhav

Passed a second full hour of OCCT after my initial 45min run, usually 2-3 hours of OCCT stability has always been fine for me.

But will still try get that TM5 setup soon.

1.72v ram, 1.4v vddq, 1.35v SA working. Any less on the ram doesn't work, same as when I tried to bench it and blue screened at 1.7v on my 10900K for 4533CL15.

Micron B die loves 1.72v.


----------



## Nizzen

WayWayUp said:


> Thank you!
> Hmm I do see llc7 is being used unfortunately
> 
> I see you use Maximus tweak1
> Personally I use tweak 2. Maybe I assumed tweak 2 was better.
> Any rhyme or reason for tweak 1?


Tweak 1 was "tighter timings" on older apex, so we have to assume the same here?
Harder to run tweak 1. I think a bit higher score in a few benchmarks.


----------



## Nizzen

VULC said:


> This is on 1080p?


After the new patch, 2042 is using the cpu it should be. Avx lod on many cores. Game is running smooth as butter 

250-300+ in 1080p


----------



## bhav

Stock voltage on my 13600KF is running at 1.375v and its doing 5.1 all core which I thought was just the single core turbo clock?

Only setting adjusted CPU wise in the bios was the 100 BCLK lock for my ram testing.

I'll try it again later with everything at stock, I can't actually seem to find what the all core clock should be for 13600K/KF.

Hmmm nvm, I didn't know this:









- Product Specifications | Intel


quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.




www.intel.co.uk













- Product Specifications | Intel


quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.




www.intel.co.uk





13600K 5.1 all core, 13700k 5.3, 13900k 5.4 though for whatever reason people get 5.5.

I thought it was lower based on the 12600K only being 4.5. Looks like I don't need to OC it all tbh.

But still 1.375v ewww.


----------



## fray_bentos

tps3443 said:


> How did you get such an early batch of the 13600K? Even the reviewers of 13600K’s all had X233 or later.
> 
> That’s pretty darn interesting.


Indeed, my 13600KF is X233, bought a month ago via TechNextDay in the UK for £281.


----------



## fray_bentos

VULC said:


> Many games do that to test your OC. So you crash in the menu and not in game and send support requests to EA. Overwatch 2 pegged my cpu to 100% in menu.


I am pretty certain that is not by design. It's because the framerate is uncapped, and the menu has low GPU load. This is what killed GPUs in that New World Amazon MMO game; this is why I always set a framerate cap in Nvidia control panel.


----------



## digitalfrost

bhav said:


> But still 1.375v ewww.


My 13700K also used 1.36v out of the box. Start playing with AC_LL. Mine was stable at AC_LL 1 (as opposed to 50 default on my board).


----------



## bhav

digitalfrost said:


> My 13700K also used 1.36v out of the box. Start playing with AC_LL. Mine was stable at AC_LL 1 (as opposed to 50 default on my board).


Right, its 1.36 min, 1.375 max. Will do that after the ram, finding its lowest stable tras is taking a while because still using OCCT like a noob.


----------



## fray_bentos

digitalfrost said:


> My 13700K also used 1.36v out of the box. Start playing with AC_LL. Mine was stable at AC_LL 1 (as opposed to 50 default on my board).


Yes, "stock" is really the min V/F table on the CPU, the only way to access this is to remove the overvoltage applied by the mobo, on MSI lower lite load from 12 to 1. On Asus, yes, playing with AC_LL is needed.


----------



## bhav

I'm using MSI so will look for that setting next. Tras 40 still was too low for 4266, trying 42 now.

It did need 34 for 4000, and 48 for 4800, stock is 46 for 4400.


----------



## bhav

fray_bentos said:


> Indeed, my 13600KF is X233, bought a month ago via TechNextDay in the UK for £281.


I guess no one buys from Amazon, also launch prices were like £380 for 13600K and £360 for 13600KF.

Paid £322 for this, batch X229 somehow and 4300 G1 IMC.

So I paid extra for free returns up to Jan 31st, except I don't need that now and got a gold roll on the IMC.


----------



## owikh84

tps3443 said:


> Anyone try Battlefield 2042? It pushes a stock average quality 13900K to 250+ watts max power super easily. Seems crazy to me.


Found this on Facebook:

After Battlefield 2042 Season 3 update, there are some players reporting of high cpu usage (100%) while running game that may causes certain sudden lags during gameplay. If any of you still facing such problem, can try the following temporary fix:

1. Delete everything in the cache folder. Go to My Documents>Battlefield2042>cache Folder and delete everything here.

2. Create one user.cfg file in the game installation folder.
Go to your game installation folder. Example>> C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Battlefield 2042. Then create user.cfg file here.

3. Identify and take note of your CPU core and thread numbers. Example: 6 cores 12 threads or 8 cores 16 threads.

4. In the created user.cfg file, key-in the following line of texts in relation to your CPU cores and threads. 
Example A: If CPU have 6 cores and 12 threads, key in as>>

Thread.ProcessorCount 6
Thread.MaxProcessorCount 6
Thread.MinFreeProcessorCount 0
Thread.JobThreadPriority 0
GstRender.Thread.MaxProcessorCount 12

Example B: If CPU have 8 cores and 16 threads, key-in as>>

Thread.ProcessorCount 8
Thread.MaxProcessorCount 8
Thread.MinFreeProcessorCount 0
Thread.JobThreadPriority 0
GstRender.Thread.MaxProcessorCount 16

Hopefully the above can help mitigate the problem of 100% Cpu usage while playing Battlefield 2042. 

Source of this solution came from the Battlefield 2042 Forum. Happy hunting guys #Battlefield2042 #Battlefield


----------



## Nizzen

owikh84 said:


> Found this on Facebook:
> 
> After Battlefield 2042 Season 3 update, there are some players reporting of high cpu usage (100%) while running game that may causes certain sudden lags during gameplay. If any of you still facing such problem, can try the following temporary fix:
> 
> 1. Delete everything in the cache folder. Go to My Documents>Battlefield2042>cache Folder and delete everything here.
> 
> 2. Create one user.cfg file in the game installation folder.
> Go to your game installation folder. Example>> C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Battlefield 2042. Then create user.cfg file here.
> 
> 3. Identify and take note of your CPU core and thread numbers. Example: 6 cores 12 threads or 8 cores 16 threads.
> 
> 4. In the created user.cfg file, key-in the following line of texts in relation to your CPU cores and threads.
> Example A: If CPU have 6 cores and 12 threads, key in as>>
> 
> Thread.ProcessorCount 6
> Thread.MaxProcessorCount 6
> Thread.MinFreeProcessorCount 0
> Thread.JobThreadPriority 0
> GstRender.Thread.MaxProcessorCount 12
> 
> Example B: If CPU have 8 cores and 16 threads, key-in as>>
> 
> Thread.ProcessorCount 8
> Thread.MaxProcessorCount 8
> Thread.MinFreeProcessorCount 0
> Thread.JobThreadPriority 0
> GstRender.Thread.MaxProcessorCount 16
> 
> Hopefully the above can help mitigate the problem of 100% Cpu usage while playing Battlefield 2042.
> 
> Source of this solution came from the Battlefield 2042 Forum. Happy hunting guys #Battlefield2042 #Battlefield


If you have 13900k, then there is no need to do anything. 5950x is no problem either. Haven't tested on low core cound cpu's.

Does anyone actual use Steam for battlefield?  I thought everyone was using Origin.


----------



## bhav

I have to use Uplay for Anno and Settlers games and it sucks, I never liked Origin either, just use it for dragon age and sims 4.

So recently Anno 1800 was put back on Steam, people that run that still need to load Uplay after launching the Steam copy so it doesn't even matter, its just the same as adding a shortcut to a non steam game except you also get steam achievements.


----------



## bhav

@Ichirou how long does testmem have to be run for to check for stability?

Also following the links you gave me earlier, I have [email protected], but I noticed you were using a long version which isn't in the config files I got.


----------



## affxct

bhav said:


> Because of how many chips you degraded with it :x
> 
> I downloaded TM5, but 7zip wont open it for some reason, maybe need to restart but in the middle of OCCT test.
> 
> Up to 20mins at 1.74v currently, this is looking good ... please don't need 1.75v!
> 
> From reading around, vdimm only risks the ram, dont know some people think it will damage the CPU, its just VCCSA that can damage the IMC.
> 
> Already ran this ram for almost 6 months at 1.725v on Z490 ... will 1.75v be fine I wonder?
> 
> Also as tps pointed out, looks like I got lucky with an early batch 13600KF, so not going to do anything too risky CPU side, if the ram melts I can use my Micron E die and it has lifetime warranty.


So, with D4 the voltages are a combined rail and hit the memory PHY on the CPU. That’s 1.75V hitting the PHY. It’s basically like asking whether or not 1.75 hitting the CPU on the VDD2 rail with D5 is safe. I’ve run 1.6 on my Dark before. I’m not totally certain how risky that is, but that’s effectively what the question is.


----------



## bhav

affxct said:


> So, with D4 the voltages are a combined rail and hit the memory PHY on the CPU. That’s 1.75V hitting the PHY. It’s basically like asking whether or not 1.75 hitting the CPU on the VDD2 rail with D5 is safe. I’ve run 1.6 on my Dark before. I’m not totally certain how risky that is, but that’s effectively what the question is.


As it turns out Micron B die stops scaling at around 1.72v anyway, and both me and ichirou are running that.

After adding a ram fan back, 4300CL14 might now be stable, got through 20 mins of 1usmus then tried lowering other timings and retesting, but still unsure how long it has to run for.

The temp on the hotter module dropped all the way from 59 to 43 after sustained load with open frame case & 140mm fan on top of the ram.


----------



## VULC




----------



## affxct

VULC said:


> View attachment 2587919


That’s the most unique Windows mouse pointer I’ve ever seen (if it is the mouse pointer).


----------



## Juiced46

tps3443 said:


> Sounds just like my current chip which is only an average sample 13900K. It does 5.7-6.0Ghz but you need to juice it up really good first. It holds up great though. I have to run 1.340V for MSI LLC3 5.7Ghz all cores. My last chip could run 5.7Ghz with 1.225V in bios Auto LLC.
> 
> I’ve sent 430 watts through it already several times no [email protected] all cores 😎 she’s a tough lil chipola right here.
> 
> Running 5.7Ghz all cores on average chips needs good cooling. I would stick to 5.7Ghz and just don’t run Cinebench.. Or if you want a true stability, go for 5.6 on (8) cores and higher frequency on less cores.


I had alittle more time to mess with it. I added in the contact frame and that dropped temps 10*c on the same settings. I have All core 5.6 very stable now. During gaming CPU temps are averaging 46c, and Cinebench R20 78c. 

I tried a few tests but confused on these results.

I set a Core ratio limit of 1 core 58,2 core 58, 56 for the remaining and just left voltage on Auto and instead of running Cinebench I went straight to gaming while monitoring temps. Temps were in the 65c range but it was hitting 5.8 on all cores while gaming. Shouldnt this setting only keep 1 or 2 cores to 5.8? I am thinking I am missing a setting somewhere in Bios. I tried this with 6.0 for 1 and 2 core limit as well. vCore was around 1.47 while gaming and max temp I saw was around 70c. But again, it went to 6.0 on all cores. But no crashes and it was stable for 30 mins while gaming. Not sure if this is correct, I am assuming no. 

I also tried All core 5.6 with a TVB Boost Profile +1 and +2, but this ended up boosting all cores again. Is this normal behavior? 



Falkentyne said:


> Do you know the P core and E core SP of your CPU?


I do not know, I checked in my BIOS and I do not see it. I have an Asus Z690 D4 Gaming Wifi board. I cannot find the SP score.


----------



## bhav

@Ichirou 1.72v ram, 1.4v VDDQ, 1.34v SA,

Pushing SA and VDDQ lower now.


----------



## HemuV2

Juiced46 said:


> I had alittle more time to mess with it. I added in the contact frame and that dropped temps 10*c on the same settings. I have All core 5.6 very stable now. During gaming CPU temps are averaging 46c, and Cinebench R20 78c.
> 
> I tried a few tests but confused on these results.
> 
> I set a Core ratio limit of 1 core 58,2 core 58, 56 for the remaining and just left voltage on Auto and instead of running Cinebench I went straight to gaming while monitoring temps. Temps were in the 65c range but it was hitting 5.8 on all cores while gaming. Shouldnt this setting only keep 1 or 2 cores to 5.8? I am thinking I am missing a setting somewhere in Bios. I tried this with 6.0 for 1 and 2 core limit as well. vCore was around 1.47 while gaming and max temp I saw was around 70c. But again, it went to 6.0 on all cores. But no crashes and it was stable for 30 mins while gaming. Not sure if this is correct, I am assuming no.
> 
> I also tried All core 5.6 with a TVB Boost Profile +1 and +2, but this ended up boosting all cores again. Is this normal behavior?
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know, I checked in my BIOS and I do not see it. I have an Asus Z690 D4 Gaming Wifi board. I cannot find the SP score.


its on the bottom right it takes a moment to load and itll show you voltage and overall SP, go to AI tweaker tab on the top and select AI features and itll show all SPs


----------



## bhav

SA 1.25v errors, 1.28v working! At 4300 14-20-20. The SA on this kit is purely for pushing TRCD and TRP. Not interested in going past 1.35v just for that.

1.26 / 1.27 might still work too, then I'll try lower vddq.


----------



## SesioN

is the der8auer Delid-Die-Mate 2 compatible with 13900k? I'm gonna lap and delid as my cpu seems to be very uneven.. getting 10c difference between some P cores on all core load..


----------



## fireanimal

So after 4 13900KF's these are the results I have found;

X238L - SP100 P109 E83
X236F - SP101 P111 E 81
X238L - SP94 P102 E78
X238L - SP102 P109 E88

Not great samples, keeping the SP102 for now, maybe the 12900KF's are not the best... or I am just not lucky lol. 

When I remounted my cooler though I replaced the NH-2 with Liquid Metal and it changed my cooler rating from a 167 to a 191


----------



## SesioN

fireanimal said:


> So after 4 13900KF's these are the results I have found;
> 
> X238L - SP100 P109 E83
> X236F - SP101 P111 E 81
> X238L - SP94 P102 E78
> X238L - SP102 P109 E88
> 
> Not great samples, keeping the SP102 for now, maybe the 12900KF's are not the best... or I am just not lucky lol.
> 
> When I remounted my cooler though I replaced the NH-2 with Liquid Metal and it changed my cooler rating from a 167 to a 191


I've also tried 4 samples,
3x 13900k (SP91, SP89, SP107)
1x 13900kf (SP102)


----------



## pipes

SesioN said:


> I've also tried 4 samples,
> 3x 13900k (SP91, SP89, SP107)
> 1x 13900kf (SP102)


You mean of this?









Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## fray_bentos

Juiced46 said:


> vcore was around 1.47 while gaming


Eeeek


----------



## WayWayUp

fireanimal said:


> So after 4 13900KF's these are the results I have found;
> 
> X238L - SP100 P109 E83
> X236F - SP101 P111 E 81
> X238L - SP94 P102 E78
> X238L - SP102 P109 E88
> 
> Not great samples, keeping the SP102 for now, maybe the 12900KF's are not the best... or I am just not lucky lol.
> 
> When I remounted my cooler though I replaced the NH-2 with Liquid Metal and it changed my cooler rating from a 167 to a 191


did you check the mc sp on these as well

it would have been valuable data

i also think cooler rating is kinda irrelevant but dont quote me. it just simply measures cpu temp in the bios not under load but that isnt too useful. if my room is warm the cooler score goes down. if i open a window (its cold in Illinois) my cooler score skyrockets
so its not really measuring your cooler very well. a single degree down in temp is enough to jump the cooler score

but yes im sure you get good temps with LM no disputing that


----------



## fireanimal

WayWayUp said:


> did you check the mc sp on these as well
> 
> it would have been valuable data


i wish my Strix Z790-I does not have MC SP


----------



## WayWayUp

any news on a direct die frame?

i cant believe nobody has made them for gen 12 and 13

i feel like im missing something... even rocketcool isnt selling them

right now im doing direct die bare with no frame. if i remove the cpu block the cpu itself will come out with it as it will be stuck to block via tim


----------



## WayWayUp

fireanimal said:


> i wish my Strix Z790-I does not have MC SP


the reason i ask, i think its under rated. with the 13900k, memory is meta. if you had a mc score of like 82 or something, you can probably run ddr5 8600 with tight timings across the board (with the right mobo) this would turn your slightly above average sp 102 chip to _nearly_ a golden chip! just because of how important memory is to these cpus

i have an incredible p sp rating. i can run 6ghz all core with 1.35v gaming load comfortably and even lower voltage if i switch to llc5.... but the mc rating is only 72
so 8000 cl34 runs well but simply trying 8200 is incredibly difficult to stabilize without loosening timings. so even with an incredible p score rating im still envious of other chips


----------



## mattxx88

WayWayUp said:


> the reason i ask, i think its under rated. with the 13900k, memory is meta. if you had a mc score of like 82 or something, you can probably run ddr5 8600 with tight timings across the board (with the right mobo) this would turn your slightly above average sp 102 chip to _nearly_ a golden chip! just because of how important memory is to these cpus
> 
> i have an incredible p sp rating. i can run 6ghz all core with 1.35v gaming load comfortably and even lower voltage if i switch to llc5.... but the mc rating is only 72
> so 8000 cl34 runs well but simply trying 8200 is incredibly difficult to stabilize without loosening timings. so even with an incredible p score rating im still envious of other chips


did you try other kits of ram or just one?


----------



## dante`afk

Carillo said:


> New cpu today
> 
> batch X243K057
> 
> No testing until tomorrow unfortunately. Anyone of you have same batch ? 😅
> View attachment 2587538



can you call it new if its already binned?


----------



## WayWayUp

just 1 kit. ram is so expensive. maybe if i play with a cheaper ram kit and try OC'ing that instead
this kit is like $400 for the teamgroup 7600 cl36 kit

i dont _need _higher. i can be very satisfied with 8000 but i cant figure out how to bring latency down to 50ns. right now im at 53.7ns
I'll post my timings in the ddr thread and maybe you guys can help me with my timings to bring it down to at least 52ns
i would be happy at that level


----------



## Nizzen

dante`afk said:


> can you call it new if its already binned?


New for him


----------



## bhav

Everyone be binning, I get what I wanted first try.

Ahahahahahaha!


----------



## bhav

So has anyone actually gotten 4533 G1 stable yet? Or was the best 4533 bootable / 4400 stable?

So for DDR4 IMC, 4533 boot / 4400 stable = diamond, 4400 boot / 4300 stable = gold?

Then again most people buying these won't know as they'll be using DDR5, and I think theres no correlation between the DDR4 and DDR5 IMC.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> @Ichirou how long does testmem have to be run for to check for stability?
> 
> Also following the links you gave me earlier, I have [email protected], but I noticed you were using a long version which isn't in the config files I got.





bhav said:


> View attachment 2587923
> 
> 
> @Ichirou 1.72v ram, 1.4v VDDQ, 1.34v SA,
> 
> Pushing SA and VDDQ lower now.


You have to modify the cfg file in the bin folder to change the cycle count to six.

A lot of errors are revealed later on and not in the default three cycles. 


bhav said:


> SA 1.25v errors, 1.28v working! At 4300 14-20-20. The SA on this kit is purely for pushing TRCD and TRP. Not interested in going past 1.35v just for that.
> 
> 1.26 / 1.27 might still work too, then I'll try lower vddq.


TM5 doesn't push VCCSA. You need to run y-cruncher to validate. Stop dawdling and just do it.

Otherwise none of your results matter.

tRCD and tRP scales with frequency on Micron and there is nothing you can do to improve that. Voltages don't affect them. There will always be minimums required for them at a particular frequency.


----------



## mattxx88

bhav said:


> So has anyone actually gotten 4533 G1 stable yet? Or was the best 4533 bootable / 4400 stable?
> 
> So for DDR4 IMC, 4533 boot / 4400 stable = diamond, 4400 boot / 4300 stable = gold?
> 
> Then again most people buying these won't know as they'll be using DDR5, and I think theres no correlation between the DDR4 and DDR5 IMC.


Since we have a thread dedicated to ddr4 if you ask there maybe you get more feedback, isn't it?


----------



## Csavez™

Well, I managed to stabilize 5.8ghz, cbr23 did not go above 90 °C during a 10-minute throttling test, and it is very friendly during games!


----------



## Ichirou

Csavez™ said:


> Well, I managed to stabilize 5.8ghz, cbr23 did not go above 90 °C during a 10-minute throttling test, and it is very friendly during games!
> View attachment 2587948
> 
> View attachment 2587949
> 
> View attachment 2587948
> View attachment 2587949


Very good core quality.


----------



## OC2000

Csavez™ said:


> Well, I managed to stabilize 5.8ghz, cbr23 did not go above 90 °C during a 10-minute throttling test, and it is very friendly during games!


Could you share your SP number please.


----------



## Ichirou

WayWayUp said:


> any news on a direct die frame?
> 
> i cant believe nobody has made them for gen 12 and 13
> 
> i feel like im missing something... even rocketcool isnt selling them
> 
> right now im doing direct die bare with no frame. if i remove the cpu block the cpu itself will come out with it as it will be stuck to block via tim


Nah, don't think they'll ever be developed. Only direct die block kits. 

How's bare die treating you though? Safe enough to try? I'm looking to do that myself as well.

One of the SMDs are taller than the die, but I imagine securing it and then using a convex waterblock should be okay.


----------



## Csavez™

OC2000 said:


> Could you share your SP number please.


----------



## OC2000

Nice!, almost same as mine (113 / 80) Gives me hope to get the same.


----------



## Falkentyne

Csavez™ said:


> Well, I managed to stabilize 5.8ghz, cbr23 did not go above 90 °C during a 10-minute throttling test, and it is very friendly during games!
> View attachment 2587948
> 
> View attachment 2587949
> 
> View attachment 2587948
> View attachment 2587949


Especially at those temps, your load vcore (die-sense) should be NO HIGHER than 1.239v if you want to avoid possibly slowly degrading that chip. And you're at 1.305v in the first screenshot.
Degradation isn't an "if" at those settings--it's a "how long will it take to chew through that chip's guardband."
(255A reported: 1520mv - (255 * 1.1 mohm) = 1239mv.

It's best to use your settings for quick bench runs only, not throttling or stress tests, unless you can reduce those temps below 80C.


----------



## Csavez™

Falkentyne said:


> Especially at those temps, your load vcore (die-sense) should be NO HIGHER than 1.239v if you want to avoid possibly slowly degrading that chip. And you're at 1.305v in the first screenshot.
> Degradation isn't an "if" at those settings--it's a "how long will it take to chew through that chip's guardband."
> (255A reported: 1520mv - (255 * 1.1 mohm) = 1239mv.
> 
> It's best to use your settings for quick bench runs only, not throttling or stress tests, unless you can reduce those temps below 80C.


Then at least 90% of the world's 13900k will DIE!
Asus gives it more with auto setting, I went negative with adaptive voltage.


----------



## Ichirou

Csavez™ said:


> Then at least 90% of the world's 13900k will DIE!
> Asus gives it more with auto setting, I went negative with adaptive voltage.


I've already degraded several chips myself within days, so there is no deceit involved.

Most consumers won't experience any issues since they just run their multipliers at stock and voltages on auto.
The board will scale the voltages higher automatically, which means they wouldn't notice it degrading.
Also, most people don't hammer their chips with 300W+ for extended periods of time.

Intel and the various motherboard companies are smart enough to design their products to last the duration of their warranties.


----------



## WayWayUp

Ichirou said:


> Nah, don't think they'll ever be developed. Only direct die block kits.
> 
> How's bare die treating you though? Safe enough to try? I'm looking to do that myself as well.
> 
> One of the SMDs are taller than the die, but I imagine securing it and then using a convex waterblock should be okay.


It’s been great so far
Unfortunately the cpu block needs to be super tight for good contact otherwise just get mobo errors
Other than that it’s great 👍🏻


----------



## Csavez™

Ichirou said:


> I've already degraded several chips myself within days, so there is no deceit involved.
> 
> Most consumers won't experience any issues since they just run their multipliers at stock and voltages on auto.
> The board will scale the voltages higher automatically, which means they wouldn't notice it degrading.
> Also, most people don't hammer their chips with 300W+ for extended periods of time.
> 
> Intel and the various motherboard companies are smart enough to design their products to last the duration of their warranties.


Maybe I'm in the wrong forum, but then where is the oc topic?
The average value is there in hwinfo, never look at the highest! 79 °C / 288w


----------



## Ichirou

WayWayUp said:


> It’s been great so far
> Unfortunately the cpu block needs to be super tight for good contact otherwise just get mobo errors
> Other than that it’s great 👍🏻


How tight is super tight? Or just enough so that it would finally boot?
And which waterblock are you using? Did you secure the SMDs from making contact with the cold plate?


----------



## Csavez™

Falkentyne said:


> Especially at those temps, your load vcore (die-sense) should be NO HIGHER than 1.239v if you want to avoid possibly slowly degrading that chip. And you're at 1.305v in the first screenshot.
> Degradation isn't an "if" at those settings--it's a "how long will it take to chew through that chip's guardband."
> (255A reported: 1520mv - (255 * 1.1 mohm) = 1239mv.
> 
> It's best to use your settings for quick bench runs only, not throttling or stress tests, unless you can reduce those temps below 80C.


Your formula is completely wrong, here is a 1-hour test with a weaker load, do you think it gives it 1.34v? Think again, look at the average consumption/temperature!


----------



## Carillo

dante`afk said:


> can you call it new if its already binned?


Can’t I ? To me it’s new.


----------



## motivman

Csavez™ said:


> Well, I managed to stabilize 5.8ghz, cbr23 did not go above 90 °C during a 10-minute throttling test, and it is very friendly during games!
> View attachment 2587948
> 
> View attachment 2587949
> 
> View attachment 2587948
> View attachment 2587949


how are your temps so low? is your processor delided?


----------



## Falkentyne

Csavez™ said:


> Your formula is completely wrong, here is a 1-hour test with a weaker load, do you think it gives it 1.34v? Think again, look at the average consumption/temperature!
> View attachment 2587987
> 
> 
> View attachment 2587990
> 
> View attachment 2587987
> View attachment 2587990



You disabled Asus EC in this test. Clever.
And my formula comes from Intel. You can tell them they're wrong, they clearly don't know what they're talking about on their specification guides, right?


----------



## Agent-A01

@Falkentyne 

Any ideas why setting ring ratio manually causes vcore to sit at >1.5v?
Doesn't matter the value, 46 to 50 results in the same high voltage.

Others reported the same issue


----------



## motivman

motivman said:


> how are your temps so low? is your processor delided?


Nevermind, I got my answer.


----------



## SSBrain

Falkentyne said:


> And my formula comes from Intel. You can tell them they're wrong, they clearly don't know what they're talking about on their specification guides, right?


Can you link the document with this formula?


----------



## fray_bentos

Csavez™ said:


> Maybe I'm in the wrong forum, but then where is the oc topic?
> The average value is there in hwinfo, never look at the highest! 79 °C / 288w


Try degradeyourcpu.net instead, perhaps?


----------



## Csavez™

Falkentyne said:


> You disabled Asus EC in this test. Clever.
> And my formula comes from Intel. You can tell them they're wrong, they clearly don't know what they're talking about on their specification guides, right?


Look at what CPUs Intel makes, this is the state before my tests!


----------



## Csavez™

motivman said:


> how are your temps so low? is your processor delided?


Yes!


----------



## Falkentyne

SSBrain said:


> Can you link the document with this formula?


it's the simple "default" DC loadline formula with max VID, _without_ offset capability (1.1 mohm, 1.520v)
(note: AC Loadline is adjustable based on motherboard socket impedance).
Intel does NOT allow for "loadline calibration" in their specifications.

The V/A curve isn't obvious unless you go back to their old Core 2 and older datasheets.


----------



## motivman

Csavez™ said:


> Yes!
> View attachment 2588010
> View attachment 2588011
> View attachment 2588012
> View attachment 2588013
> View attachment 2588014


what kit did you use please? Struggling with temps on mine.


----------



## Csavez™

motivman said:


> what kit did you use please? Struggling with temps on mine.


----------



## Csavez™

Falkentyne said:


> it's the simple "default" DC loadline formula with max VID, _without_ offset capability (1.1 mohm, 1.520v)
> (note: AC Loadline is adjustable based on motherboard socket impedance).
> Intel does NOT allow for "loadline calibration" in their specifications.
> 
> The V/A curve isn't obvious unless you go back to their old Core 2 and older datasheets.
> 
> View attachment 2588018


I still don't understand why you want to force the factory intel parameters on me, since I set all the important values manually!
Let's close the discussion! Thanks


----------



## Falkentyne

Csavez™ said:


> I still don't understand why you want to force the factory intel parameters on me, since I set all the important values manually!
> Let's close the discussion! Thanks


I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.
I already degraded enough chips. Including my 12900K.
It's your chip, you can do what you want. But if you suddenly find that a stable voltage you tested weeks or months ago is now generating WHEA's, you have no right to complain about it when you were warned in advance 
If you accept this responsibility, you can do as you wish.


----------



## Csavez™

Falkentyne said:


> I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.
> I already degraded enough chips. Including my 12900K.
> It's your chip, you can do what you want. But if you suddenly find that a stable voltage you tested weeks or months ago is now generating WHEA's, you have no right to complain about it when you were warned in advance
> If you accept this responsibility, you can do as you wish.


Don't worry, if it breaks, I'll buy another one, okay?


----------



## SSBrain

Falkentyne said:


> it's the simple "default" DC loadline formula with max VID, _without_ offset capability (1.1 mohm, 1.520v)
> (note: AC Loadline is adjustable based on motherboard socket impedance).


I understand where the values come from, but if there was a _modern_ public document (i.e. applicable for recent-generation processors) from Intel that showed that formula, that would clarify things up.



> Intel does NOT allow for "loadline calibration" in their specifications.


Their specifications for modern processors however indicate that the DC Loadline can range from 0 mOhm (minimum) to 1.1/1.7 mOhm (maximum) for 125W parts.

Doesn't this imply that the VRM loadline can indeed have a different impedance than 1.1/1.7 mOhm, and thus that altering the Loadline Calibration is allowed ?


----------



## motivman

Csavez™ said:


> View attachment 2588019


Nice system, but what delid kit did you use?


----------



## digitalfrost

SSBrain said:


> Their specifications for modern processors however indicate that the DC Loadline can range from 0 mOhm (minimum) to 1.1/1.7 mOhm (maximum) for 125W parts.


If we follow this and also take into account that AC should at most be equal to DC and DC should be tuned to loadline, I could make the case that AC_LL=1 at stock settings would be fine with 0 loadline.


----------



## SSBrain

digitalfrost said:


> If we follow this and also take into account that AC should at most be equal to DC and DC should be tuned to loadline, I could make the case that AC_LL=1 at stock settings would be fine with 0 loadline.


Exactly. That's also why that formula, which I see no suggestion of in the public datasheets for the last several generations of Intel CPUs, is confusing to me (although I do understand where it comes from) and I would like to see a more official source directly mentioning it.


----------



## digitalfrost

SSBrain said:


> Exactly. That's also why that formula, which I see no suggestion of in the public datasheets for the last several generations of Intel CPUs, is confusing to me (although I do understand where it comes from) and I would like to see a more official source directly mentioning it.


Coming back to our discussions about IccMax, I wonder if this would not just simply put the CPU even more into current throttling and thus scale voltage down this way...


----------



## Rbk_3

I had been running 5.6/5.0 with ecores off but decided I want to have the ecores on and I’m not even passing yCruncher at with clocks and voltage set to auto. That’s probably not a good sign.


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> I had been running 5.6/5.0 with ecores off but decided I want to have the ecores on and I’m not even passing yCruncher at with clocks and voltage set to auto. That’s probably not a good sign.


Need more info.


----------



## Rbk_3

ok I’ll post some screenshots in a bit


----------



## SSBrain

digitalfrost said:


> Coming back to our discussions about IccMax, I wonder if this would not just simply put the CPU even more into current throttling and thus scale voltage down this way...


From tests I made yesterday in this regard on my 12700K using a moderately low current limit, it seems that higher AC_LL values allow more current into the CPU for the same current limit and testing application, although it apparently still remains below IccMax. Other heavy multicore applications than Prime95 get current-limited to lower values.










I don't know if this is an annoying quirk of my MSI Z690 motherboard, or if it has to do with how the voltage correction due to AC LL is applied (it seems as if it is applied after the current limit, but I haven't investigated in detail).


----------



## fireanimal

WayWayUp said:


> the reason i ask, i think its under rated. with the 13900k, memory is meta. if you had a mc score of like 82 or something, you can probably run ddr5 8600 with tight timings across the board (with the right mobo) this would turn your slightly above average sp 102 chip to _nearly_ a golden chip! just because of how important memory is to these cpus
> 
> i have an incredible p sp rating. i can run 6ghz all core with 1.35v gaming load comfortably and even lower voltage if i switch to llc5.... but the mc rating is only 72
> so 8000 cl34 runs well but simply trying 8200 is incredibly difficult to stabilize without loosening timings. so even with an incredible p score rating im still envious of other chips


100% agree and wish I had the MC numbers from those. One thing I have noticed though, my original SP101 I was using could not get 8000c34 error free tried for days to play with voltages and it just was not happy odd error or 2 here and there. 

The SP102 I'm using now just passed 1000% memtest pro and currently running Ramtest to 10000% with the exact settings of the old one, so to me the MC is definitely stronger!


----------



## RichKnecht

i dont have any issues with people pushing their chips to the limit. Go for it. Love seeing the results. What does bother me ( a little) is when people post these crazy numbers but fail to mention the use of chillers, delidding, etc. Maybe Ill start a thread about OC and temps and what cooling method(s) used to get there. After all, its not only about voltage. Cooling has a major impact on attainable clocks and power draw. LOL at those who think using a chiller doesn‘t make that much of a difference.


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


> Need more info.


Some cores are hitting 100, this is a 360 Galahad AIO this is the error I get.


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> Some cores are hitting 100, this is a 360 Galahad AIO this is the error I get.
> View attachment 2588027
> View attachment 2588027


N64/HNT/VST is typically not enough VCCSA.

Overheating is what you'd expect: It's overheating. Gotta figure out why yourself. Whether cores are clocked too high, or voltage is too high, or cooler sucks, or paste sucks, or whatever.
For the most part, 330W is nigh uncoolable without a custom water loop, pretty much.


----------



## Csavez™

Falkentyne said:


> it's the simple "default" DC loadline formula with max VID, _without_ offset capability (1.1 mohm, 1.520v)
> (note: AC Loadline is adjustable based on motherboard socket impedance).
> Intel does NOT allow for "loadline calibration" in their specifications.
> 
> The V/A curve isn't obvious unless you go back to their old Core 2 and older datasheets.
> 
> View attachment 2588018


Here's another one-hour test with my friend Nathan Drake, and you can see that all values are well below the official limit!
I built my first machine 22 years ago, I have water cooling built 14 years ago, so you can say that I have a *little experience in the field of hardware*! 









And what's more, the 1.243 as die sense value you wrote corresponds to the 5500 p core, so according to your statement,* everyone who uses it higher than this value is killing their 13900k*!?


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


> N64/HNT/VST is typically not enough VCCSA.
> 
> Overheating is what you'd expect: It's overheating. Gotta figure out why yourself. Whether cores are clocked too high, or voltage is too high, or cooler sucks, or paste sucks, or whatever.
> For the most part, 330W is nigh uncoolable without a custom water loop, pretty much.


Just realized I had left VDDQ on auto so that may have been contributing also. I will set to tower cooler in my bios which is max 288W and see what I can do.


----------



## Falkentyne

SSBrain said:


> I understand where the values come from, but if there was a _modern_ public document (i.e. applicable for recent-generation processors) from Intel that showed that formula, that would clarify things up.
> 
> 
> 
> Their specifications for modern processors however indicate that the DC Loadline can range from 0 mOhm (minimum) to 1.1/1.7 mOhm (maximum) for 125W parts.
> 
> Doesn't this imply that the VRM loadline can indeed have a different impedance than 1.1/1.7 mOhm, and thus that altering the Loadline Calibration is allowed ?
> 
> View attachment 2588020


DC Loadline is based on certain specific SKU's.
So here, it's safe to replace "Dc loadline" with "loadline slope". While DC Loadline does NOT control the loadline slope, DC Loadline should be set to the same value as the LLC (as been discussed for countless posts now). But Intel doesn't allow LLC in their SVID settings--that's why XTU cannot control LLC--LLC is a motherboard hack.

If you look at laptop parts, laptops do not have a loadline calibration in their bioses, and the "vdroop" is _ALWAYS_ set to the "maximum" value shown, every single time.
If you unlock the bioses of MSI Laptops (this used to be the magic combo of left alt+right control + right shift+ F2) and go to "Intel VR settings", the "hardware" vdroop the laptop used would be represented by the DC Loadline value in Intel IA settings. That's how I found this out. Because laptops only control the CPU through SVID and MSR's. Note that like usual, if you changed DC Loadline, the vdroop is hardwired to the VRM, but VID and package power gets skewed.

It's only the AC Loadline value that can be set lower, as that controls the CPU's main operating voltage.


----------



## Csavez™

Falkentyne said:


> DC Loadline is based on certain specific SKU's.
> So here, it's safe to replace "Dc loadline" with "loadline slope". While DC Loadline does NOT control the loadline slope, DC Loadline should be set to the same value as the LLC (as been discussed for countless posts now). But Intel doesn't allow LLC in their SVID settings--that's why XTU cannot control LLC--LLC is a motherboard hack.
> 
> If you look at laptop parts, laptops do not have a loadline calibration in their bioses, and the "vdroop" is _ALWAYS_ set to the "maximum" value shown, every single time.
> If you unlock the bioses of MSI Laptops (this used to be the magic combo of left alt+right control + right shift+ F2) and go to "Intel VR settings", the "hardware" vdroop the laptop used would be represented by the DC Loadline value in Intel IA settings. That's how I found this out. Because laptops only control the CPU through SVID and MSR's. Note that like usual, if you changed DC Loadline, the vdroop is hardwired to the VRM, but VID and package power gets skewed.
> 
> It's only the AC Loadline value that can be set lower, as that controls the CPU's main operating voltage.


Jesus! You exaggerate what you shouldn't, look at my values during the game!!!! What are we talking about?
I think you are stuck with 9.gen intel cpu!

Look at your own tests, if I kill my cpu, "you" have already killed it 10x!
You fight with everyone here, this is your fetish!


----------



## Ichirou

Csavez™ said:


> Here's another one-hour test with my friend Nathan Drake, and you can see that all values are well below the official limit!
> I built my first machine 22 years ago, I have water cooling built 14 years ago, so you can say that I have a *little experience in the field of hardware*!
> View attachment 2588030
> 
> 
> And what's more, the 1.243 as die sense value you wrote corresponds to the 5500 p core, so according to your statement,* everyone who uses it higher than this value is killing their 13900k*!?
> View attachment 2588030


As long as you stay below 253W (Intel maximum turbo spec), you should be fine, regardless of what kind of voltage you throw at the chip.
The chip itself is rated up to 188W according to Intel's true specs of the chip, though. That is probably the 100% safe limit.

If you exceed 300W or so for any significantly lengthy period of time, you chip will quickly degrade.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

This one was good!!!
I got an effective clock higher than the CPU frequency... kkkk
How is this possible?


----------



## Csavez™

I use my machine 90% for gaming, 10% is for stability testing, otherwise your machine will not be stable, only if you run the necessary tests, if the cpu can't handle it, then I'll be a priest!


----------



## SSBrain

Falkentyne said:


> DC Loadline is based on certain specific SKU's.
> So here, it's safe to replace "Dc loadline" with "loadline slope". While DC Loadline does NOT control the loadline slope, DC Loadline should be set to the same value as the LLC (as been discussed for countless posts now). But Intel doesn't allow LLC in their SVID settings--that's why XTU cannot control LLC--LLC is a motherboard hack.


Indeed the CPU cannot control the LLC / VRM slope on its own, at least until the VRM will be fully integrated. The datasheets however not only imply that lower loadline impedances than the maximum are allowed, but also that the correct impedance should be communicated to the CPU via BIOS settings.

To me this tells that the CPU is designed to operate with different (lower) VRM impedances than the specification maximum _as long as it is configured to do so properly_, which is what I was getting at. This could be for example after manually changing the LLC setting in BIOS.

Relevant notes from 12th gen. VCC core specifications:











Falkentyne said:


> If you look at laptop parts, laptops do not have a loadline calibration in their bioses, and the "vdroop" is _ALWAYS_ set to the "maximum" value shown, every single time.
> If you unlock the bioses of MSI Laptops (this used to be the magic combo of left alt+right control + right shift+ F2) and go to "Intel VR settings", the "hardware" vdroop the laptop used would be represented by the DC Loadline value in Intel IA settings. That's how I found this out. Because laptops only control the CPU through SVID and MSR's. Note that like usual, if you changed DC Loadline, the vdroop is hardwired to the VRM, but VID and package power gets skewed.
> 
> It's only the AC Loadline value that can be set lower, as that controls the CPU's main operating voltage.


Laptops tend to be pretty much locked down in terms of hardware settings and overclocking capabilities due to hardware constraints. It can be expected that manufacturers will try using the droopiest voltage regulation they can get away with, and no way to change its LLC (therefore no point in changing the DC loadline if it's already set to the appropriate value).

I don't think this invalidates my general point.


----------



## Rbk_3

So my ecores are fine on auto and run at 43 but if I manually set to 43 or higher it isn’t stable. Any idea what might be going on here?


----------



## Ichirou

Guide for Intel XTU low/high load overclocking finalized here:








Simplified High/Low Load Intel XTU CPU Overclocking Guide


Building onto the guide I wrote out for MSI Z690/Z790 motherboards below, this time, I present to you a summarized guide on how to manipulate Intel XTU in order to optimize your performance for both high and low loads. It is by no means a perfect solution, and your low load potential is limited...




www.overclock.net




I'm too lazy to add screenshots. So enjoy reading plain text.

My optimized overclock on this average sample 13900K:
(Mostly) 60x P-Cores, 46x E-Cores, and 50x Ring @ Low Load
54x P-Cores, 46x E-Cores, and 50x Ring @ High Load
_(If I do 55x P-Cores on High Load, I end up with mostly 59x P-Cores on Low Load)_



> Core Binning - TM5 1usmus (six cycles) @ 4,300 MHz CL14 1T Gear 1
> 
> P0 - Stable @ 60x, 61x throws KMODE and other BSODs around 9 minutes ***
> P1 - Stable @ 60x, 61x throws WHEA errors, but can sometimes pass 61x ***
> P2 - Stable @ 60x, 61x throws random BSODs, but can sometimes pass @ 61x ***
> P3 - Stable @ 60x, 61x throws Error 15 around 14 minutes ***
> P4 - Stable @ 58x, 59x throws Error 6 instantly ***
> P5 - Stable @ 59x, 60x throws Errors 0 & 9 after a long while, but can sometimes pass 60x **
> P6 - Stable @ 60x, 61x throws WHEA error and BSOD at around 14 minutes *
> P7 - Stable @ 60x, 61x throws IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL instantly **
> 
> P-Core Quality: 1/2, 3/6, 0, 7, 5, 4


----------



## bhav

Been hitting ram stability and was wondering what was going on, again going through every other variable except the most obvious.

trfc 590 no boot hard brick needing bios reset, 600 boot and running? Obviously it needs to go a bit higher, will set it up to 700 first to fully rule it out. 

Actually back to auto trfc and trefi to rule them out while scanning for lower voltages. Might have been the trefi too, need to do them one by one not both together.


----------



## ghostmid31

spread spectrum always work on ddr4 non-external clock generator board?


----------



## affxct

Falkentyne said:


> it's the simple "default" DC loadline formula with max VID, _without_ offset capability (1.1 mohm, 1.520v)
> (note: AC Loadline is adjustable based on motherboard socket impedance).
> Intel does NOT allow for "loadline calibration" in their specifications.
> 
> The V/A curve isn't obvious unless you go back to their old Core 2 and older datasheets.
> 
> View attachment 2588018


Wait so, if use a static OC, as long as you respect this equation given whatever current load you’re running, the max Vmin is (relatively) safe?


----------



## tps3443

fray_bentos said:


> Eeeek


High voltage does not damage CPU’s. I see people are still confusing this, and worrying over it. You can send all the voltage you want to maintain stability for whatever frequency you’re trying to run. It’s all about the overall MAX amperage of the cpu, that we should be concerned about. We can send all the voltage we want and our CPU’s will be just fine in light load situations.

The higher the load is, the lower the voltage should be.

I think anyone should be after staying below 240 Amps under max load. Whatever voltage/frequency you use to accomplish staying under that amperage is up to you and your chips silicon quality.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Everyone be binning, I get what I wanted first try.
> 
> Ahahahahahaha!


If we could lower our needs/wants like you did then we would all already have what we wanted too lol. You went from wanting a 13900KS to a 13600K. So technically, you didn’t get what you wanted either.

You managed to say F’it and grabbed a 13600K, and rolled on. 😎


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> If we could lower our needs/wants like you did then we would all already have what we wanted too lol. You went from wanting a 13900KS to a 13600K. So technically, you didn’t get what you wanted either.
> 
> You managed to say F’it and grabbed a 13600K, and rolled on. 😎


So how many chips do you have on hand right now?


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> If we could lower our needs/wants like you did then we would all already have what we wanted too lol. You went from wanting a 13900KS to a 13600K. So technically, you didn’t get what you wanted either.
> 
> You managed to say F’it and grabbed a 13600K, and rolled on. 😎


No no, I didn't 'want' a 13900KS. I 'wanted' this IMC. I thought only way to get it without binning like everyone here was to get a KS.

Now if you want such an IMC plus CPU overclocking .... yea like good luck.

Will eventually see how mine overclocks.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> So how many chips do you have on hand right now?


Just one 13900K, been using it for a few weeks .


----------



## Falkentyne

affxct said:


> Wait so, if use a static OC, as long as you respect this equation given whatever current load you’re running, the max Vmin is (relatively) safe?


Yes, that's what I believe, and staying under that curve has kept my 13900K safe.
But people are free to believe what they want. It's their chip.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 @bhav I couldn't help myself. Now I'm binning motherboards...








Going to see whether the Strix Z790-A can stabilize 4,400 MHz compared to the Edge Z790, which struggles.
Will also take a look at the SP readouts, because why not.

Since Amazon has an extended return policy until the end of January, I may as well test and keep the better board. No reason not to bin them.

Although my 13900K cannot boot 4,533 MHz, the gap between 4,400 MHz and 4,533 MHz is quite wide.
It's quite possible that my chip can boot somewhere between those two frequencies. But I'd have to BCLK overclock to find out.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 @bhav I couldn't help myself. Now I'm binning motherboards...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going to see whether the Strix Z790-A can stabilize 4,400 MHz compared to the Edge Z790, which struggles.
> Will also take a look at the SP readouts, because why not.
> 
> Since Amazon has an extended return policy until the end of January, I may as well test and keep the better board. No reason not to bin them.


Thank you for testing this, I will be interested to know as I can boot 4400 but not stable at CL15.

But doesn't really matter for performance as 4400CL15 wouldn't be better enough than 4300CL14.

Also I found a stronger fan for my ram lying around, NZXT 140mm AIO box fan, 500-1800 + 300 RPM, the one I just plonked on is a low speed phanteks 3pin case fan.

Have a 4pin 120mm Lian Li 600 - 1500 RPM case fan too, no need to buy a new one just for the ram.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Thank you for testing this, I will be interested to know as I can boot 4400 but not stable at CL15.


I can boot 4,400 MHz, but only with tCL 17+. Any lower and it won't POST.
Not sure if it's an IMC thing, or quad DIMM issue, or board limitation with my kit, etc.

It's free to test anyway, as I can just return the weaker board for a full refund.


bhav said:


> But doesn't really matter for performance as 4400CL15 wouldn't be better enough than 4300CL14.


Not necessarily true... The difference between CL14 and CL15 is extremely minor. It just seems big on paper.
The potential bandwidth increase could easily balance it out.

What may really allow the Strix Z790 to shine is if it can run the same config as the Edge... at a _lower _VCCSA and/or VDDQ.
Which I will be thoroughly testing as well. Longevity bears a lot of value. Means the CPU isn't gonna die as quickly.

1.39V VCCSA and 1.57V VDDQ is... not exactly amazing. I'll test lowering the VDIMM too, but that's not really the board's fault.


----------



## bhav

Regarding the vdimm as I pointed out, for Micron B die its the same on all 3 motherboards I've used it on, stability spike at 1.7v and again at 1.72v. 1.6-1.68 doing pretty much nothing, and neither does up to 1.75v.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Regarding the vdimm as I pointed out, for Micron B die its the same on all 3 motherboards I've used it on, stability spike at 1.7v and again at 1.72v. 1.6-1.68 doing pretty much nothing, and neither does up to 1.75v.


That's because the frequencies and CAS latencies require different amounts. There are voltage jumps, just like CPU multipliers have voltage jumps.
The voltages in between (1.60-1.68V in your case) are used for stabilizing specific timings, such as the tertiaries, for bandwidth. So they do matter. But you've never tested it out.

In any case, the VDIMM shouldn't be any better on the Strix, since it's RAM-specific. But I'll still test it out anyway.


----------



## BoredErica

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 @bhav I couldn't help myself. Now I'm binning motherboards...
> Going to see whether the Strix Z790-A can stabilize 4,400 MHz compared to the Edge Z790, which struggles.
> Will also take a look at the SP readouts, because why not.
> 
> Since Amazon has an extended return policy until the end of January, I may as well test and keep the better board. No reason not to bin them.
> 
> Although my 13900K cannot boot 4,533 MHz, the gap between 4,400 MHz and 4,533 MHz is quite wide.
> It's quite possible that my chip can boot somewhere between those two frequencies. But I'd have to BCLK overclock to find out.


Did you ever figure out if vrout is vcore reading - 0.02v?


----------



## Ichirou

BoredErica said:


> Did you ever figure out if vrout is vcore reading - 0.02v?


No. It seems that the Z790 Edge reports Vcore completely different. So no baseline could be achieved.

If the Z790 Strix turns out to be equivalent or better, I don't think I could recommend MSI for DDR4, unless the price is right, or you prefer its aesthetics more.
The Z690 Edge is weaker compared to the Z790 Edge (as well as the Z690 Strix, due to a new revelation that it can boot 4,533 MHz Gear 1).
And the Z690 Strix is miles cheaper than the Z790 Edge by virtue of it being past-gen, which makes it a much easier recommendation. + It has a CMOS reset as well.
Besides, ASUS boards have SP readouts, which is also an incredibly useful feature to have.

I expect the Z790 Strix to surpass the Z790 Edge. The question is, by how much?


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> No. It seems that the Z790 Edge reports Vcore completely different. So no baseline could be achieved.
> 
> If the Z790 Strix turns out to be equivalent or better, I don't think I could recommend MSI for DDR4, unless the price is right, or you prefer its aesthetics more.
> The Z690 Edge is weaker compared to the Z790 Edge (as well as the Z690 Strix, due to a new revelation that it can boot 4,533 MHz Gear 1).
> And the Z690 Strix is miles cheaper than the Z790 Edge by virtue of it being past-gen, which makes it a much easier recommendation. + It has a CMOS reset as well.
> Besides, ASUS boards have SP readouts, which is also an incredibly useful feature to have.
> 
> I expect the Z790 Strix to surpass the Z790 Edge. The question is, by how much?


I think you're overblowing things a bit to not recommend MSI because you lose like 100~ MHz, most people aren't even gonna be able to stabilise 4400 anyway. MSI still are the best value.

Also even though this is an overclocking forum, let's be real, when is an extra 100MHz ever gonna matter? Lol

I'm still interested in how Asus Z790 performs though.


----------



## Ichirou

imrevoau said:


> I think you're overblowing things a bit to not recommend MSI because you lose like 100~ MHz, most people aren't even gonna be able to stabilise 4400 anyway. MSI still are the best value.
> 
> Also even though this is an overclocking forum, let's be real, when is an extra 100MHz ever gonna matter? Lol
> 
> I'm still interested in how Asus Z790 performs though.


Actually, the Z690 Strix is the best value now, if you want high-end memory overclocking for DDR4. It's equivalent to the Z790 Edge or even better.
Otherwise, at 4,200 MHz or below, any board works pretty much.

It's strictly a price game. But the Z790 Edge is hard to recommend now that the Z690 Strix can boot 4,533 MHz and stabilize 4,400 MHz.

I'm not biased to either company. I go with whichever is better, and my opinion can change at any time.


----------



## bhav

With DDR5, and lets say 2x32 / 4x16, don't Asus boards basically die?

Someone on reddit asking which board for 2x32 6400 DDR5, I said never gigabyte, Asus only seem good for 2x16, try the MSI Carbon.


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> Actually, the Z690 Strix is the best value now, if you want high-end memory overclocking for DDR4. It's equivalent to the Z790 Edge or even better.
> Otherwise, at 4,200 MHz or below, any board works pretty much.
> 
> It's strictly a price game. But the Z790 Edge is hard to recommend now that the Z690 Strix can boot 4,533 MHz and stabilize 4,400 MHz.
> 
> I'm not biased to either company. I go with whichever is better, and my opinion can change at any time.


To be honest I think if the only thing you're interested in is a board that just "works" The A Pro is probably the board to get, yeah it looks kinda ugly (I own one and it doesn't look as bad as people say though) At higher price points sure, I'm sure Asus probably are more tempting (especially with SP rating) to each their own really.


----------



## bhav

imrevoau said:


> To be honest I think if the only thing you're interested in is a board that just "works" The A Pro is probably the board to get, yeah it looks kinda ugly (I own one and it doesn't look as bad as people say though) At higher price points sure, I'm sure Asus probably are more tempting (especially with SP rating) to each their own really.


Imagine paying £200 more for a motherboard for just +100 on the ram, Ichirou be crazier than me.


----------



## Ichirou

imrevoau said:


> To be honest I think if the only thing you're interested in is a board that just "works" The A Pro is probably the board to get, yeah it looks kinda ugly (I own one and it doesn't look as bad as people say though) At higher price points sure, I'm sure Asus probably are more tempting (especially with SP rating) to each their own really.


For 4,200 MHz or below, any ASUS/MSI board works. Just go for budget. They're all overspecced for something like that.
But for anything above, the Z690 Strix seems to be the way to go for best of all worlds.

The reason why I'm testing is strictly because I have a bigger budget and want to get the absolute best.
The only thing that sucks is that I can never seem to bin a CPU with golden cores.


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> For 4,200 MHz or below, any ASUS/MSI board works. Just go for budget. They're all overspecced for something like that.
> But for anything above, the Z690 Strix seems to be the way to go for best of all worlds.
> 
> The reason why I'm testing is strictly because I have a bigger budget and want to get the absolute best.
> The only thing that sucks is that I can never seem to bin a CPU with golden cores.


I'm not telling you that it's a bad idea, I mean it's a bit crazy to me but I don't have a ton of cash. I think it's cool to do to be honest, I hope it improves your memory OC.


----------



## Ichirou

imrevoau said:


> I'm not telling you that it's a bad idea, I mean it's a bit crazy to me but I don't have a ton of cash. I think it's cool to do to be honest, I hope it improves your memory OC.


Oh yeah, it's totally understandable. I'm just being the guinea pig here doing the comparisons so nobody else has to.
I once owned the Z690 Strix as well, but shifted to the Z690 Edge because it handled my RAM better. But things have vastly changed after a year.

I'll probably end up keeping the Z790 Strix if it is at least equivalent to the Z790 Edge, since I do want to have the SP readouts for convenient future binning.


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

RichKnecht said:


> i dont have any issues with people pushing their chips to the limit. Go for it. Love seeing the results. What does bother me ( a little) is when people post these crazy numbers but fail to mention the use of chillers, delidding, etc. Maybe Ill start a thread about OC and temps and what cooling method(s) used to get there. After all, its not only about voltage. Cooling has a major impact on attainable clocks and power draw. LOL at those who think using a chiller doesn‘t make that much of a difference.


Im reusing chillers from my old gen 3 setup and im glad im using them again . The full load temps on this 13th gen is mindboggling


----------



## fray_bentos

tps3443 said:


> High voltage does not damage CPU’s. I see people are still confusing this, and worrying over it. You can send all the voltage you want to maintain stability for whatever frequency you’re trying to run. It’s all about the overall MAX amperage of the cpu, that we should be concerned about. We can send all the voltage we want and our CPU’s will be just fine in light load situations.
> 
> The higher the load is, the lower the voltage should be.
> 
> I think anyone should be after staying below 240 Amps under max load. Whatever voltage/frequency you use to accomplish staying under that amperage is up to you and your chips silicon quality.


There is no chance in hell the OC I was saying eeek to was drooping anywhere near enough not to be exceeding power/current limits under high load.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Oh yeah, it's totally understandable. I'm just being the guinea pig here doing the comparisons so nobody else has to.
> I once owned the Z690 Strix as well, but shifted to the Z690 Edge because it handled my RAM better. But things have vastly changed after a year.
> 
> I'll probably end up keeping the Z790 Strix if it is at least equivalent to the Z790 Edge, since I do want to have the SP readouts for convenient future binning.


What's the main difference between the micron b die and the Samsung b die 16gb X 2? Do you get higher bandwidth with micron?


----------



## bhav

VULC said:


> What's the main difference between the micron b die and the Samsung b die 16gb X 2? Do you get higher bandwidth with micron?


Samsung is better, but SR is only 2x8, its DR for 2x16.

Micron B die is the only SR 16 Gb modules for DDR4, you couldn't run close to the settings Ichirou does with any other 16 x 4 DDR4 modules.

The thing that makes Samsung B die much better is being able to run trfc at almost half of what Micron B die can. Only reason I bought the Micron kit was the £180 clearance sale it went on after DDR5 launch, you could get 4000 2x16 Patriot Viper Samsung B die for around £200 at the same time, or 4400+ for £250, but I bought the Crucial kit not knowing it was SR and prefer it for how much nicer it OCs (see my sig).

To get the same OCs on other kits, you can only do that with 2x8 Samsung B die or Hynix DJR, and the latter is highly binned and super expensive for 5000+ 2x8, my 3200 kit I tried for cheap caps out at 4200.

E.G you need to waste money on this crap for higher DDR4 clocks, and not that it matter now as you have to run it in G2:





__





Amazon.co.uk






www.amazon.co.uk


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> What's the main difference between the micron b die and the Samsung b die 16gb X 2? Do you get higher bandwidth with micron?


Micron B-die is only better than Samsung B-die when you exceed 32 GB, since it hammers the IMC less and gives you more room for overclocking.
At 32 GB or below, there is no reason not to go for Samsung B-die as performance is better across the board.


----------



## bhav

Bandwidth wise, I capped out at 77k at 5100, 4800 is a little under 75.

4300 is around 65k, but much better latency in G1. In terms of gaming, 4000G1 was faster for turn times in Civ 6 than 4800G2 still, 4300G1 vs 5100G2 will be the same amount of difference if any.

The differences you will never even notice, any gain in bandwidth gets offset by the latency hit, and very few things if any need more than 65 Gb/s bandwidth anyway.

When review sites did compare DDR4 to DDR5, at 4K 6000CL32 G2 has an average improvement of 0.8% compared to 3600CL16 G1. So G2 DDR4 speeds is losing performance across the board compared to 4000+ G1 settings.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Bandwidth wise, I capped out at 77k at 5100, 4800 is a little under 75.
> 
> 4300 is around 65k, but much better latency in G1. In terms of gaming, 4000G1 was faster for turn times in Civ 6 than 4800G2 still, 4300G1 vs 5100G2 will be the same amount of difference if any.
> 
> The differences you will never even notice, any gain in bandwidth gets offset by the latency hit, and very few things if any need more than 65 Gb/s bandwidth anyway.
> 
> When review sites did compare DDR4 to DDR5, at 4K 6000CL32 G2 has an average improvement of 0.8% compared to 3600CL16 G1. So G2 DDR4 speeds is losing performance across the board compared to 4000+ G1 settings.


If my IMC wasn't limiting me, I could probably boost the bandwidth across the board by another 3-5K by tightening timings further.


----------



## Nizzen

bhav said:


> With DDR5, and lets say 2x32 / 4x16, don't Asus boards basically die?
> 
> Someone on reddit asking which board for 2x32 6400 DDR5, I said never gigabyte, Asus only seem good for 2x16, try the MSI Carbon.


Reddit knowledge 🤣
Some friends @sugi0lover ran 2x32GB hynix ddr5 on high speed. Don't remember how fast..
2x dimm board wil allways be the best for memory oc.


----------



## bhav

Nizzen said:


> Reddit knowledge 🤣
> Some friends @sugi0lover ran 2x32GB hynix ddr5 on high speed. Don't remember how fast..
> 2x dimm board wil allways be the best for memory oc.


Oh yes, the 2 dimm boards will always be better, I just wasn't fully sure how the 4 slot boards that the guy was asking for fully compared, so I recommended the MSI.

But can a Gigabyte board even manage 6400 2x32??? I think most people here will agree no.


----------



## Nizzen

bhav said:


> Oh yes, the 2 dimm boards will always be better, I just wasn't fully sure how the 4 slot boards that the guy was asking for fully compared, so I recommended the MSI.
> 
> But can a Gigabyte board even manage 6400 2x32??? I think most people here will agree no.


I hven't seen any stable 8000mhz on air/water on gigabyte. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## affxct

Falkentyne said:


> Yes, that's what I believe, and staying under that curve has kept my 13900K safe.
> But people are free to believe what they want. It's their chip.


I think you’re onto something for sure. Given Ichirou’s testing, there’s definitely reason to believe this is true. At this point all I’m curious about is whether 12th Gen was as easy to degrade. It could be that 13900Ks in general are easier to degrade now because they have more cores and draw more Amps.


----------



## bhav

@Ichirou 










Check the temps now:










1.72v too lol.


----------



## affxct

Here’s a fun one guys. If a chip has a really bad SP and requires more Vcore at ambient, wouldn’t the chip technically be harder to degrade? I think the term is ‘leaky,’ if I’m not wrong.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> @Ichirou
> 
> View attachment 2588085
> 
> 
> Check the temps now:
> 
> View attachment 2588086
> 
> 
> 1.72v too lol.


What are the Effective Clocks while you run TM5? Take a screenshot of them after running for a few seconds?


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> What are the Effective Clocks while you run TM5? Take a screenshot of them after running for a few seconds?


You mean for ram or CPU?

5.1 p cores, 3.9 e cores, 4.5 ring on the CPU, ram just says 2150.

Oh the CPU effective clocks, they keep going up and down? Is that how it should be?


----------



## HemuV2

http://imgur.com/yO24RXQ

guys is there any way i can modify thermal velocity boost settings in bios like in XTU? i want this particular profile as it seems perfect for me however its greyed out in bios on everything set to auto


----------



## Lord Alzov

Nizzen said:


> Reddit knowledge 🤣
> Some friends @sugi0lover ran 2x32GB hynix ddr5 on high speed. Don't remember how fast..
> 2x dimm board wil allways be the best for memory oc.


I run 2x32 OEM hynix M-die 6600 cl 30 on watercool. 6400 on AIR


----------



## Nizzen

Lord Alzov said:


> I run 2x32 OEM hynix M-die 6600 cl 30 on watercool. 6400 on AIR


What dimm block are you using for Dual rank? Bitspower?


----------



## Telstar

Ichirou said:


> I couldn't help myself. Now I'm binning motherboards...
> Going to see whether the Strix Z790-A can stabilize 4,400 MHz compared to the Edge Z790, which struggles.
> Will also take a look at the SP readouts, because why not.


AFAIK the Strix is better with 2 dimms.
It will be interesting to see your results, but i suspect they will be about the same as the Edge 



bhav said:


> Samsung is better, but SR is only 2x8, its DR for 2x16.
> Micron B die is the only SR 16 Gb modules for DDR4, you couldn't run close to the settings Ichirou does with any other 16 x 4 DDR4 modules.
> The thing that makes Samsung B die much better is being able to run trfc at almost half of what Micron B die can.


Which speed should I set my goal at? I have 2x8 samsung b-die which I want to run in G1.


----------



## HemuV2

@RobertoSampaio i am running TVB with all voltages on auto and ring set to 50x. this is the configuration, i set AC/DC ll to 0.3/1.02 as per your guide. i want to check if this configuration is stable as my game kept crashing at +2 now i am running +1. what is a good way to ensure stability?


----------



## bhav

Telstar said:


> Which speed should I set my goal at? I have 2x8 samsung b-die which I want to run in G1.


4133CL14 I've seen a lot on 2x8 Samsung B die, then if the IMC goes higher, see how much higher it goes.

Bear in mind the 4300CL14 I just got, only actually works with a powerful fan on it.

So all the settings I was trying and it started erroring, turns out they're all fine now with the spare 140mm AIO fan I found put over the ram, 14-20-20-42-600-100,000 currently working - and yea it seems you can set trefi way above 65535 on DDR4 now, my Z690 board couldn't but the Z790 does?


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> 4133CL14 I've seen a lot on 2x8 Samsung B die, then if the IMC goes higher, see how much higher it goes.
> 
> Bear in mind the 4300CL14 I just got, only actually works with a powerful fan on it.


I have an intake fan which mostly cools the vrm, but at low speed since i cannot stand noise. 4133 will be then, maybe i'll try 4200


----------



## bhav

Telstar said:


> I have an intake fan which mostly cools the vrm, but at low speed since i cannot stand noise. 4133 will be then, maybe i'll try 4200


The Nzxt AIO fan I just put over the ram doesn't even make any noise, it just pushes more air due to being static pressure, TM5 runs not even going past 38c at 1.72v now, but also open frame.


----------



## Arni90

Telstar said:


> Which speed should I set my goal at? I have 2x8 samsung b-die which I want to run in G1.


As high as it goes, keep in mind that since you have B-die, you can run tRCD, tRP, tRAS, and tRFC *a lot* tighter than memecron. Even if you can "only" run CL15 at 4300 MT/s, you can still run tRCD and tRP 5 ticks tighter, and tRAS will easily run 24.


----------



## SesioN

Csavez™ said:


> Look at what CPUs Intel makes, this is the state before my tests!


I bet with you that my chip is just as bad. My P cores have a 10C temperature difference at full all core load. Like I'm easily hitting 100C on the affected cores, while other cores are 90-92C. Using a 420 aio with contact frame here. Resitting both does not change anything, tried a couple times with all kind of pressure on the screws.

I'll be delidding and swapping the IHS to copper or lapping as soon as the tool arrives. I'm hoping to get at least -15c, let's see.

Also question, I've a 13900k 107 SP (115P, 91E) and for some reason I'm having trouble getting the ring stable at above 4.7 Ghz, is it possible that my ring is this bad? Like ring 4.8 or 5.0 crashes my OC.


----------



## RichKnecht

SesioN said:


> I bet with you that my chip is just as bad. My P cores have a 10C temperature difference at full all core load. Like I'm easily hitting 100C on the affected cores, while other cores are 90-92C. Using a 420 aio with contact frame here. Resitting both does not change anything, tried a couple times with all kind of pressure on the screws.
> 
> I'll be delidding and swapping the IHS to copper or lapping as soon as the tool arrives. I'm hoping to get at least -15c, let's see.
> 
> Also question, I've a 13900k 107 SP (115P, 91E) and for some reason I'm having trouble getting the ring stable at above 4.7 Ghz, is it possible that my ring is this bad? Like ring 4.8 or 5.0 crashes my OC.


 I am running ting at 49 and honestly, i see little to no difference in performance over default. Now, raising e cores to 45 made quite an improvement in speed as every thing i use the PC for depends on multi threaded performance.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> Actually, the Z690 Strix is the best value now, if you want high-end memory overclocking for DDR4. It's equivalent to the Z790 Edge or even better.
> Otherwise, at 4,200 MHz or below, any board works pretty much.
> 
> It's strictly a price game. But the Z790 Edge is hard to recommend now that the Z690 Strix can boot 4,533 MHz and stabilize 4,400 MHz.
> 
> I'm not biased to either company. I go with whichever is better, and my opinion can change at any time.


I really think it’s mostly imc dependant, for a fact this kit runs 4400flat 16s g1 on 10th Gen z490, but will only run 4133flat 15s on z790 edge (almost identical voltages). Sure my bandwidth and my FPS are way better though  latency took a slight hit at just under 40ns vs 35ns. Doubt this is bios/board related but if it was, not sure they will improve it.


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> The Nzxt AIO fan I just put over the ram doesn't even make any noise, it just pushes more air due to being static pressure, TM5 runs not even going past 38c at 1.72v now, but also open frame.


I have to replace that fan (which is a silentwings3 140) with another 140 but white and with rgb, probably the lianli unifan V2, and see the speed/noise I can tolerate (it's bios controller), which is usually 20db.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> You mean for ram or CPU?
> 
> 5.1 p cores, 3.9 e cores, 4.5 ring on the CPU, ram just says 2150.
> 
> Oh the CPU effective clocks, they keep going up and down? Is that how it should be?
> 
> View attachment 2588092


Yeah. Are any cores getting parked and stuck near 0?


Telstar said:


> AFAIK the Strix is better with 2 dimms.
> It will be interesting to see your results, but i suspect they will be about the same as the Edge


I do too. It's mostly to see where it stands in terms of extreme memory overclocks. 


bhav said:


> 4133CL14 I've seen a lot on 2x8 Samsung B die, then if the IMC goes higher, see how much higher it goes.
> 
> Bear in mind the 4300CL14 I just got, only actually works with a powerful fan on it.
> 
> So all the settings I was trying and it started erroring, turns out they're all fine now with the spare 140mm AIO fan I found put over the ram, 14-20-20-42-600-100,000 currently working - and yea it seems you can set trefi way above 65535 on DDR4 now, my Z690 board couldn't but the Z790 does?


Is there any actual gain in performance?


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Yeah. Are any cores getting parked and stuck near 0?
> 
> I do too. It's mostly to see where it stands in terms of extreme memory overclocks.
> 
> Is there any actual gain in performance?


None of the cores getting parked, and yes bandwidth was scaling with trefi up to 250k, I @'d you the results in the samsung B die memory thread, however it was erroring all the way down to 112500 trefi.

As well as it starting to error which is proof its working.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> None of the cores getting parked, and yes bandwidth was scaling with trefi up to 250k, I @'d you the results in the samsung B die memory thread, however it was erroring all the way down to 112500 trefi.
> 
> As well as it starting to error which is proof its working.


So at what value does it actually pass?

With tREFIx9 at 127 or 255, you want to use a multiple of that x 1024, divided by an nominal integer value. I had some boot issues with it set to 127 though, and it seemed easier to error with, so I raised it to 255.

But that's all theoretical. It's harder to notice a difference under 65535 compared to above, with the difference widening from the thousands to tens of thousands.

I'll do some experiments today to see how things differ, and whether it is possible to break from the tREFIx9 formula.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> So at what value does it actually pass?
> 
> With tREFIx9 at 127 or 255, you want to use a multiple of that x 1024, divided by an nominal integer value. I had some boot issues with it set to 127 though, and it seemed easier to error with, so I raised it to 255.
> 
> But that's all theoretical. It's harder to notice a difference under 65535 compared to above, with the difference widening from the thousands to tens of thousands.


112500 passed, I just went with round numbers for now, 125000+ errors.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> 112500 passed, I just went with round numbers for now, 125000+ errors.


Will make an Excel sheet with various tREFI values over 60K and let you know what the differences are like.
As integer multiples of 127/255 x 1024, and also decimal multiples. (Assuming it boots.)

I might need to drop down to 4,200 CL14 since that could boot 65,536+. I'll have to see.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Will make an Excel sheet with various tREFI values over 60K and let you know what the differences are like.
> As integer multiples of 127/255 x 1024, and also decimal multiples. (Assuming it boots.)


Theres something else I'm theorizing based on this info:



John hughes said:


> From what I understand Trfc is cycles to refresh memory and trefi is how often it’s refreshed
> So with (round numbers) 300 trfc and 60k trefi is about the same performance as 600 Trfc and 120k trefi


Maybe 125k+ was erroring due to being above 120k at 600 trfc ...

I'm giving 120k a test, if it passes that means the stability issue was due to running higher than a 600 : 120k ratio, as I cant see why 250k even booted, and why 125k - 250k was all equally unstable with fast errors.

NVM this dumb theory, 120k errored. But you know I'm trying 115000 now :/


----------



## Juiced46

HemuV2 said:


> its on the bottom right it takes a moment to load and itll show you voltage and overall SP, go to AI tweaker tab on the top and select AI features and itll show all SPs


Thanks for the response. How long does it take to show? I let it sit for 5 mins and nothing other than this is showing. I also dont see any option for Ai Features. Is it possible my motherboard simply doesnt have this feature?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Theres something else I'm theorizing based on this info:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe 125k+ was erroring due to being above 120k at 600 trfc ...
> 
> I'm giving 120k a test, if it passes that means the stability issue was due to running higher than a 600 : 120k ratio, as I cant see why 250k even booted, and why 125k - 250k was all equally unstable with fast errors.
> 
> NVM this dumb theory, 120k errored. But you know I'm trying 115000 now :/


I've never heard of any relationship between tRFC and tREFI before. I would take that with a grain of salt.
They're both temperature-sensitive though. And depending on the die, result in performance improvements differently.

For example, with Samsung B-die, you gain more of a benefit tightening tRFC.
But with Micron B-die, you gain more of a benefit raising tREFI.
Ideally you'd want to optimize both, but if you are on the edge of stability (due to thermals) and had to pick one over the other, then there's your focus.

Also, strangely enough, I can boot above 65,536. There must be a hole at/around that value or something. BIOS bug.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> I've never heard of any relationship between tRFC and tREFI before. I would take that with a grain of salt.
> They're both temperature-sensitive though. And depending on the die, result in performance improvements differently.
> 
> For example, with Samsung B-die, you gain more of a benefit tightening tRFC.
> But with Micron B-die, you gain more of a benefit raising tREFI.
> Ideally you'd want to maximize both, but if you are on the edge of stability (due to thermals) and had to pick one over the other, then there's your focus.
> 
> Also, strangely enough, I can boot above 65,536. There must be a hole at/around that value or something. BIOS bug.


I'm at 38c on air, thermals aren't an issue anymore 

590 trfc is a hard brick though needing a clear cmos, thank god for the external button.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> I'm at 38c on air, thermals aren't an issue anymore


Temperature sensors are useless for memory overclocking as each timing reacts differently to thermals, and differ based on die.
Hence, it'll only ever be relative to your own setup, not anyone else's.

There's a reason why XMP could be safe up to 50-60C, but a tightened kit might act up even beyond 30C.


----------



## John hughes

Ichirou said:


> I've never heard of any relationship between tRFC and tREFI before. I would take that with a grain of salt.
> They're both temperature-sensitive though. And depending on the die, result in performance improvements differently.
> 
> For example, with Samsung B-die, you gain more of a benefit tightening tRFC.
> But with Micron B-die, you gain more of a benefit raising tREFI.
> Ideally you'd want to optimize both, but if you are on the edge of stability (due to thermals) and had to pick one over the other, then there's your focus.
> 
> Also, strangely enough, I can boot above 65,536. There must be a hole at/around that value or something. BIOS bug.


The relation is Trfc is how many idle cycles before refresh is complete to trefi how many cycles before a refresh happens 

So ur refreshing every 120k cycles (trefi) for 600 cycles (Trfc) 

performance would be the same with 300 Trfc and 60k trefi


----------



## Ichirou

John hughes said:


> The relation is Trfc is how many idle cycles before refresh is complete to trefi how many cycles before a refresh happens
> 
> So ur refreshing every 120k cycles (trefi) for 600 cycles (Trfc)
> 
> performance would be the same with 300 Trfc and 60k trefi


If that were accurate, that would imply that you could hypothetically match Samsung B-die's tRFC by doubling the tREFI with Micron B-die.

But with what I'm observing so far (still testing live), I'm not seeing any meaningful benefit going above 65,280.
Perhaps there are bandwidth limitations at 4,300 MHz, but typically tREFI ignores those.
And there aren't any limits with latency, which tREFI excels at minimizing. So I should be seeing latency reductions at the very least. But I'm not.

I'll show the full Excel sheet after I'm done. But with what I'm seeing so far, tREFI is being ignored above 65,536 and simply rounding down.
As it should, since DDR4 is, by technical design, limited to 65,536.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

HemuV2 said:


> View attachment 2588106
> 
> View attachment 2588105
> 
> @RobertoSampaio i am running TVB with all voltages on auto and ring set to 50x. this is the configuration, i set AC/DC ll to 0.3/1.02 as per your guide. i want to check if this configuration is stable as my game kept crashing at +2 now i am running +1. what is a good way to ensure stability?


I think you need to rise vf#8,9 and 10...

Try a positive offset of 90mv in vf #8,9,10 and set adaptive =1.46v...
When system start to tune the AC_LL again... Probably you will lowering it to 0.09 to 0.01...

Start with these settings
LLC#4
DC_LL =1.02
AC_LL= 0.05
Vf#8,9,10 =+90mv
Adaptive =1.46v


----------



## John hughes

Ichirou said:


> If that were accurate, that would imply that you could hypothetically match Samsung B-die's tRFC by doubling the tREFI with Micron B-die.
> 
> But with what I'm observing so far (still testing live), I'm not seeing any meaningful benefit going above 65,280.
> Perhaps there are bandwidth limitations at 4,300 MHz, but typically tREFI ignores those.
> And there aren't any limits with latency, which tREFI excels at minimizing. So I should be seeing latency reductions at the very least. But I'm not.
> 
> I'll show the full Excel sheet after I'm done. But with what I'm seeing so far, tREFI is being ignored above 65,536 and simply rounding down.
> As it should, since DDR4 is, by technical design, limited to 65,536.


I don’t no but that’s how those 2 settings work
Trfc is idle time why ram refreshes data and trefi is how many cycles before a refresh is needed
It might not be scaling for you as it’s not a limiting factor to your bandwidth/ latency

for me I’m stuck at 3600 mhz with tight timings, latency isn’t improving by my bandwidth is

but it’s only going to improve so much because 600 cycles every 15k is a lot of wasted cycles where the ram can’t do anything compared to
600 cycles every 120k cycles that’s an extra 105k cycles worth of working getting done before u drop 600 again to refresh

Xmp is 4 percent down time compared to 120k is 0.5 percent downtime for refreshing

So u can see a 3.5 percent improvement from stock but it’s margin of error going from 1 percent at 60k to 0.5 percent at 120k

you would have to convert cycles to senconds to calculate the ns improvement
But if your ram didn’t need to refresh at all you wouldn’t gain that much


----------



## tps3443

SesioN said:


> I bet with you that my chip is just as bad. My P cores have a 10C temperature difference at full all core load. Like I'm easily hitting 100C on the affected cores, while other cores are 90-92C. Using a 420 aio with contact frame here. Resitting both does not change anything, tried a couple times with all kind of pressure on the screws.
> 
> I'll be delidding and swapping the IHS to copper or lapping as soon as the tool arrives. I'm hoping to get at least -15c, let's see.
> 
> Also question, I've a 13900k 107 SP (115P, 91E) and for some reason I'm having trouble getting the ring stable at above 4.7 Ghz, is it possible that my ring is this bad? Like ring 4.8 or 5.0 crashes my OC.



SP107 chip is a pretty darn good sample. 90-100C is really warm though. I wouldn’t even bother with overclocking such a CPU unless you can keep it really cool. I would run the ring on Auto/default. Leave the P-Cores on Auto/default, and set your E-Cores on Auto/default. Then reduce voltage as much as possible. I imagine 1.200V with auto LLC would be stable with your CPU. Then slowly reduce by 0.010V little by little until you reach the limits.

Now as for the ring, really good chips can run x51 and x52 ring and it’s laughable how easy it is to stabilize this. It doesn’t require more voltage, and it doesn’t require more power and the CPU just does it no questions asked just as if it’s running stock. So it’s likely your ring is not very good. Leave it on Auto.

Easy way to check if your ring is good or bad. Is by simply setting the CPU to default settings, then record the VID’s in HWinfo. Change the ring to x51, then record the VID’s again. If the VID’s went up, then it means the chip is trying to draw more voltage automatically to compensate for the ring being so high. Of the (4) 13900K‘s I’ve tested only (1) chip did not change VID’s when the ring was set to x51.

If your CPU VID’s go up when setting a x51 ring, I would slowly reduce the ring until they do not go up. Try x50, then maybe try x49, or maybe even x48 or x47. A lot of 13900K’s need the ring set to 4.7-4.9 so it doesn’t effect VID’s. You could technically run the ring higher with more voltage, but this is highly inefficient! Because you are giving up +100Mhz essentially in voltages or more that you could be running on your P-Cores or E-Cores instead. And since you‘re temp limited anyways, I’d be after the lowest VID’s possible.


----------



## Arni90

Ichirou said:


> Will make an Excel sheet with various tREFI values over 60K and let you know what the differences are like.
> As integer multiples of 127/255 x 1024, and also decimal multiples. (Assuming it boots.)
> 
> I might need to drop down to 4,200 CL14 since that could boot 65,536+. I'll have to see.


Integer multiples of 127/255 x 1024?!? That formula is plain and simply wrong. It's some fantasy formula anta concocted while sniffing his own farts or something. In practice, higher tREFI will *always* perform better, it doesn't matter if it's a multiple of 127 x 2^10 / (3 x 5 x 17) or not.

Decimal multiples will only introduce any multiple of 2 and/or 5, that's even more arbitrary...


----------



## bhav

Sooooo, if it took 55mins in TM5 for 115000 trefi to error ... would 114500 be safe if it doesnt error? hmmm, getting close to the stability edge here.


----------



## Nizzen

bhav said:


> Sooooo, if it took 55mins in TM5 for 115000 trefi to error ... would 114500 be safe if it doesnt error? hmmm, getting close to the stability edge here.


Smells high dimm temperature


----------



## Ichirou

Arni90 said:


> Integer multiples of 127/255 x 1024?!? That formula is plain and simply wrong. It's some fantasy formula anta concocted while sniffing his own farts or something. In practice, higher tREFI will *always* perform better, it doesn't matter if it's a multiple of 127 x 2^10 / (3 x 5 x 17) or not.
> 
> Decimal multiples will only introduce any multiple of 2 and/or 5, that's even more arbitrary...


Eh, that's not really the purpose of this testing right now. Just some standard for values to test without being completely random.
The point is to determine whether or not there is an actual gain above 65,536, which is max spec for DDR4.
As long as tREFI increases, it _should_ result in a noticeable gain.


----------



## bhav

Nizzen said:


> Smells high dimm temperature


MY DIMM TEMP IS 38C MAX!

100k and 112k both already passed, 115k on the edge of fail.


----------



## Arni90

Ichirou said:


> Eh, that's not really the purpose of this testing right now. Just some standard for values to test without being completely random.
> The point is to determine whether or not there is an actual gain above 65,536, which is max spec for DDR4.
> As long as tREFI increases, it _should_ result in a noticeable gain.


Then use a binary search, much quicker...


----------



## John hughes

bhav said:


> MY DIMM TEMP IS 38C MAX!


That’s just where the sensor is tho doesn’t mean parts of the ram ain’t 50+


----------



## Falkentyne

Shouldn't this stuff be in the DDR4 12/13th gen thread?


----------



## tps3443

.


----------



## Ichirou

Arni90 said:


> Then use a binary search, much quicker...


You're about an hour too late.

@bhav I probably capped off my bandwidth at 4,300 MHz and can't scale any higher without raising the frequency more.
Oddly enough, if I tighten the tertiaries further and/or disable Enhanced Interleave, I'm able to surpass these bandwidth numbers by a significant amount.
I didn't bother testing tREFIx9 at 127 because I don't really think it's worth the time and effort.
I noticed that I don't even need to max out tREFI to achieve these numbers, so I might actually _loosen _it to tighten the tertiaries more.








The bandwidth _seems _to go higher as you increase tREFI, but honestly, it's still well within the margin of error.
Or the increase is nowhere near significant enough of a difference to warrant boosting tREFI so high. There isn't even a +1,000 MB/s improvement across the board.
The latency seems to be largely unaffected as well.

I might just drop tREFI to reduce the heat on my RAM, lol. Let me see how low I can go before I see an actual drop in scores.


----------



## John hughes

Ichirou said:


> You're about an hour too late.
> 
> @bhav I probably capped off my bandwidth at 4,300 MHz and can't scale any higher without raising the frequency more.
> Oddly enough, if I tighten the tertiaries further or disable Enhanced Interleave, I'm able to surpass these bandwidth numbers by a decent amount.
> I didn't bother testing tREFIx9 at 127 because I don't really think it's worth the time and effort.
> I noticed that I don't even need to max out tREFI to achieve these numbers, so I might actually _loosen _it to tighten the tertiaries more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bandwidth _seems _to go higher as you increase tREFI, but honestly, it's still well within the margin of error.
> Or the increase is nowhere near significant enough of a difference to warrant boosting tREFI so high. There isn't even a +1,000 MB/s improvement across the board.
> The latency seems to be largely unaffected as well.
> 
> I might just drop tREFI to reduce the heat on my RAM, lol. Let me see how low I can go before I see an actual drop in scores.


Like I said above xmp 15k trefi to 65k is 4 percent improvement 
65k to 120k is 0.5 percent improvement margin of error


----------



## Ichirou

Updated findings with tREFI below the DDR4 max:








It seems that I can pull down tREFI a bit and still maintain more or less the same performance.
Will do so to see if I can rebalance the timings and push performance higher.


----------



## John hughes

tps3443 said:


> SP107 chip is a pretty darn good sample. 90-100C is really warm though. I wouldn’t even bother with overclocking such a CPU unless you can keep it really cool. I would run the ring on Auto/default. Leave the P-Cores on Auto/default, and set your E-Cores on Auto/default. Then reduce voltage as much as possible. I imagine 1.200V with auto LLC would be stable with your CPU. Then slowly reduce by 0.010V little by little until you reach the limits.
> 
> Now as for the ring, really good chips can run x51 and x52 ring and it’s laughable how easy it is to stabilize this. It doesn’t require more voltage, and it doesn’t require more power and the CPU just does it no questions asked just as if it’s running stock. So it’s likely your ring is not very good. Leave it on Auto.
> 
> Easy way to check if your ring is good or bad. Is by simply setting the CPU to default settings, then record the VID’s in HWinfo. Change the ring to x51, then record the VID’s again. If the VID’s went up, then it means the chip is trying to draw more voltage automatically to compensate for the ring being so high. Of the (4) 13900K‘s I’ve tested only (1) chip did not change VID’s when the ring was set to x51.
> 
> If your CPU VID’s go up when setting a x51 ring, I would slowly reduce the ring until they do not go up. Try x50, then maybe try x49, or maybe even x48 or x47. A lot of 13900K’s need the ring set to 4.7-4.9 so it doesn’t effect VID’s. You could technically run the ring higher with more voltage, but this is highly inefficient! Because you are giving up +100Mhz essentially in voltages or more that you could be running on your P-Cores or E-Cores instead. And since you‘re temp limited anyways, I’d be after the lowest VID’s possible.


Iv not even looked at the stock ring speed on my 13600k I was under the impression I’d couldn’t go higher than e core clock speed ? But now saying that it sounds wrong lol,
How far can ring go on a 13600k I’m running stock clocks 1.15v offset


----------



## tps3443

John hughes said:


> Iv not even looked at the stock ring speed on my 13600k I was under the impression I’d couldn’t go higher than e core clock speed ? But now saying that it sounds wrong lol,
> How far can ring go on a 13600k I’m running stock clocks 1.15v offset


Maybe 51 too. Just give it a try. Too high and it’ll lock up lol.


----------



## John hughes

tps3443 said:


> Maybe 51 too. Just give it a try. Too high and it’ll lock up lol.


Ring oc help with memory latency ?


----------



## Ichirou

John hughes said:


> Ring oc help with memory latency ?


Yes. Reduces it if the ring clock increase is significant enough.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Ram should be every thread.


Unless one is trying to OC their memory and looking in the RAM threads and finding nothing new, and all of the info they are looking for is “lost” in an “Overclocking CPU” thread.


----------



## John hughes

Ichirou said:


> Yes. Reduces it if the ring clock increase is significant enough.


45 to 50 probly won’t do a lot then


----------



## Ichirou

John hughes said:


> 45 to 50 probly won’t do a lot then


45x to 50x is noticeable.


----------



## tps3443

John hughes said:


> 45 to 50 probly won’t do a lot then


Bring ring up +1 and check VID’s with HWInfo, reboot, rinse, repeat. When your p-core VID voltages start to increase at all, back the ring down -1 and stick to that. You can run the ring well past the E-Core frequency on 13th gen.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

bhav said:


> I'm at 38c on air, thermals aren't an issue anymore
> 
> 590 trfc is a hard brick though needing a clear cmos, thank god for the external button.


I bought a set of $10 jumper push button switches…it’s even faster unless you have an open/test bench than ya


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> 45x to 50x is noticeable.


As far as latency, or in general? I had my ring at 49 but went back to auto as I saw no performance, unless I am missing something, difference between the two.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> As far as latency, or in general? I had my ring at 49 but went back to auto as I saw no performance, unless I am missing something, difference between the two.


Primarily latency.
Also, +5x in ring is equivalent to about +1x in core.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> As far as latency, or in general? I had my ring at 49 but went back to auto as I saw no performance, unless I am missing something, difference between the two.


I have my current CPU at auto as well right now. It helps memory latency a little bit, which also helps FPS. As for any massive gains? I don’t think it’ll help hardly at all in your workloads.

I could be wrong though. With how the cores communicate on these processors, faster ring is always better but it depends on the workload. Fortunately with the 13900K, running the ring stock is plenty sufficient already. They already have a fast ring speed. I think stock it usually hovers around 45-49 depending on the CPU load.

Honestly, massive multithreaded gains seem to come from E-Core overclocking alone. E-Cores make up about 70% of the whole CPU. Whereas overclocking P-Cores alone is essentially only adjusting 30% of the CPU.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> I have my current CPU at auto as well right now. It helps memory latency a little bit, which also helps FPS. As for any massive gains? I don’t think it’ll help hardly at all in your workloads.
> 
> I could be wrong though. With how the cores communicate on these processors, faster ring is always better but it depends on the workload. Fortunately with the 13900K, running the ring stock is plenty sufficient already. They already have a fast ring speed. I think stock it usually hovers around 45-49 depending on the CPU load.
> 
> Honestly, massive multithreaded gains seem to come from E-Core overclocking alone. E-Cores make up about 70% of the whole CPU. Whereas overclocking P-Cores alone is essentially only adjusting 30% of the CPU.


Figuring out that now. Dropped from 57 to 56 on P cores and went from 45 to 46 on e cores. Going to go with it for a while and see how it goes.


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav


----------



## tps3443

Is this for real? DDR5 7800 is Super FAYST!


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> Is this for real? DDR5 7800 is Super FAYST!
> 
> View attachment 2588233


This is for real, and 8400 is even faster 😎🤟


----------



## John hughes

tps3443 said:


> Is this for real? DDR5 7800 is Super FAYST!
> 
> View attachment 2588233


This from the good old gamer chanle ? 
and yeah tuned up it looks awesome


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> Is this for real? DDR5 7800 is Super FAYST!
> 
> View attachment 2588233


Link to test?


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> Unless one is trying to OC their memory and looking in the RAM threads and finding nothing new, and all of the info they are looking for is “lost” in an “Overclocking CPU” thread.


I agree, thats why it should be in every thread so more people can abandon XMP.

I've already posted my results in the DDR4 threads, also on reddit, XS, and now MSI forum, but at some point I'm gonna get in trouble for putting in in too many threads.


----------



## bhav

Uncle Dubbs said:


> I bought a set of $10 jumper push button switches…it’s even faster unless you have an open/test bench than ya


Huh? External button is on the IO, just press and hold for a bit, its faster and easier than wiring your own switch.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> @bhav
> View attachment 2588211


Those results are useful. My tras might go lower still with the fan.

I see you also cant get 19-19 middle timings at 1.39v?

I think Crucial just copy pasted the 8 Gb modules XMP onto the 16 Gb ones and the middle timings are way off, 19-19 rated for 4400, but they don't even work at 4300 1.37+

I didn't test 1.4v SA but not going to at such high settings in G1.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

tps3443 said:


> Is this for real? DDR5 7800 is Super FAYST!
> 
> View attachment 2588233


That are 6,3% why not. 
By DDR4 between 3200Cl14-14 Auto and 4300cl15-15 hard subs are arround 20% in SoT and [email protected] with Subs is 2% faster in that test.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Those results are useful. My tras might go lower still with the fan.
> 
> I see you also cant get 19-19 middle timings at 1.39v?
> 
> I think Crucial just copy pasted the 8 Gb modules XMP onto the 16 Gb ones and the middle timings are way off, 19-19 rated for 4400, but they don't even work at 4300 1.37+
> 
> I didn't test 1.4v SA but not going to at such high settings in G1.


tRCD and tRP scales with frequency on Micron. Doesn't matter what you try to do.
In my experience, I just get instant Error 6's when I try to tighten either of them down by 1, and raising voltages did nothing.
They can tighten further if I drop down to 4,200 MHz or less.
Care to show me your RAM's product page? Would be curious to see.
It could very well be that it needs a ridiculous amount of VCCSA which is in no way worth it.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

bhav said:


> Huh? External button is on the IO, just press and hold for a bit, its faster and easier than wiring your own switch.


Yep, your giving that PC a reach around when I hold the trigger in my hand muahaha , basically I just don’t have to get out of my seat if I don’t want to, I save like 8 million ns


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> tRCD and tRP scales with frequency on Micron. Doesn't matter what you try to do.
> In my experience, I just get instant Error 6's when I try to tighten either of them down by 1, and raising voltages did nothing.
> They can tighten further if I drop down to 4,200 MHz or less.
> Care to show me your RAM's product page? Would be curious to see.
> It could very well be that it needs a ridiculous amount of VCCSA which is in no way worth it.











Crucial Ballistix MAX RGB 32GB Kit (2 x 16GB) DDR4-4400 Desktop Gaming Memory (Black) | BLM2K16G44C19U4BL | Crucial UK


Buy Crucial Ballistix MAX RGB 32GB Kit (2 x 16GB) DDR4-4400 Desktop Gaming Memory (Black) BLM2K16G44C19U4BL. FREE US Delivery, guaranteed 100% compatibility when ordering using our online tools.




uk.crucial.com





Extended timings - 19-19-19-43 

Even the ones people on ebay are selling, they add 'timings need to be adjusted for XMP to work'.

2x8 I think can do 19-19-19 4400 because someone posted 2x8 at 17-21-21 at 4800. 2x16 no way.


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> Link to test?


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


>


'Mix of 1080p and below'.

Not real, pure BS numbers.

Also going from 240 to 400 FPS does what exactlty?

Any review without 4K testing on a 4090 is obsolete and out of date info now and cannot be considered reliable, as 4090 has removed so much GPU bottleneck.

All these '1080p and below' reviews are the equivalent of 'we just hit the XMP button like people at home and run 4000 DDR4 in Gear 2!'.


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> 'Mix of 1080p and below'.
> 
> Not real, pure BS numbers.
> 
> Also going from 240 to 400 FPS does what exactlty?
> 
> Any review without 4K testing on a 4090 is obsolete and out of date info now and cannot be considered reliable, as 4090 has removed so much GPU bottleneck.
> 
> All these '1080p and below' reviews are the equivalent of 'we just hit the XMP button like people at home and run 4000 DDR4 in Gear 2!'.


I'm not sure what you're saying... These are meant to be straight up CPU tests. Also this guy tunes his RAM, I know because I've seen his twitter posts. Doing a CPU benchmark then running 4K is... Dumb? A lot of people (myself included) still play 1080p anyway, and that's where CPU's are more important than ever. I myself have a 390hz monitor.

There is an obvious disconnect between the people who want to buy a 4090 for crazy 4K graphics, and people that have high end hardware because they want the lowest latency possible @ 1080 (I will agree tho, the 4090 is maybe a bit much for 1080, I'd personally look at a 1440 240hz OLED if I have one)


----------



## bhav

imrevoau said:


> I'm not sure what you're saying... These are meant to be straight up CPU tests. Also this guy tunes his RAM, I know because I've seen his twitter posts. Doing a CPU benchmark then running 4K is... Dumb? A lot of people (myself included) still play 1080p anyway, and that's where CPU's are more important than ever. I myself have a 390hz monitor.


Its dumb because its only valid if you play at 1080p.

These differences don't carry over to 4K / Ultrawide.

An unbiased review would also include 4K.


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> Its dumb because its only valid if you play at 1080p.
> 
> These differences don't carry over to 4K / Ultrawide.
> 
> An unbiased review would also include 4K.


At 4k there would also probably be next to no performance difference between the CPUs though. 

If you're playing at 4K you realistically should just get a 13600K and then the comparison is meaningless.


----------



## acoustic

bhav said:


> Its dumb because its only valid if you play at 1080p.
> 
> These differences don't carry over to 4K / Ultrawide.
> 
> An unbiased review would also include 4K.


If it's faster in 1080p, it'll be faster in CPU limited scenarios at 4K. Why do you need to see 4K results to understand that one setting is faster than the other? It makes sense to check 4K if you're buying a new CPU with the intention of learning if you a new CPU will improve your framerate, but for the comparison of tuning the CPU, 1080p works well as it removes all GPU bottleneck and allows the tuning to show it's legs.

Also, for the love of god, there is a ****ing thread for discussing DDR4/DDR5 OCing, with a specific 12/13th gen DDR4 thread. Why are the last 4+ pages just DDR4 talk..


----------



## bhav

I posted my DDR4 results in 4 threads and this is the only one where it got replies so don't blame me for that!

Regarding resolution, even if you remove GPU bottleneck entirely, a difference of 40 FPS at 1080p still might only translate to a difference of 5 FPS at 4K.

At lower max frames, improvements also drop drastically even with GPU bottleneck removed.

Also when minimum FPS drops to <40, bandwidth does less than latency.


----------



## mickyc357

Apologies in advance, I haven't been able to read the whole thread.

Has there been any noticeable difference in SP/IMC between 13900K and 13900KF?

Also between Vietnam and China chips?

Thanks,


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Crucial Ballistix MAX RGB 32GB Kit (2 x 16GB) DDR4-4400 Desktop Gaming Memory (Black) | BLM2K16G44C19U4BL | Crucial UK
> 
> 
> Buy Crucial Ballistix MAX RGB 32GB Kit (2 x 16GB) DDR4-4400 Desktop Gaming Memory (Black) BLM2K16G44C19U4BL. FREE US Delivery, guaranteed 100% compatibility when ordering using our online tools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uk.crucial.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extended timings - 19-19-19-43
> 
> Even the ones people on ebay are selling, they add 'timings need to be adjusted for XMP to work'.
> 
> 2x8 I think can do 19-19-19 4400 because someone posted 2x8 at 17-21-21 at 4800. 2x16 no way.


It's probably because most of the latency reduction from tRCD / tRP has been focused towards tCL. So not much headroom is available for those two instead.


mickyc357 said:


> Apologies in advance, I haven't been able to read the whole thread.
> 
> Has there been any noticeable difference in SP/IMC between 13900K and 13900KF?
> 
> Also between Vietnam and China chips?
> 
> Thanks,


No. It's a total lottery, even among the exact same batches.
But now that Intel's binning chips for the 13900KS, you might want to stay with the 13900KF to avoid downbins with new batches.


----------



## Nizzen

mickyc357 said:


> Apologies in advance, I haven't been able to read the whole thread.
> 
> Has there been any noticeable difference in SP/IMC between 13900K and 13900KF?
> 
> Also between Vietnam and China chips?
> 
> Thanks,


Same


----------



## nickolp1974

marti69 said:


> im using an ek velocity cpu block direct die i did mod the screws to have the correct pressure power is around 300w with 6ghz and 4.8 ecores


can you show or explain this mod please


----------



## Pikaru

Decided to try my hand at binning one more time. Not extremely experienced overclocker, but I've dabbled for a few years.

Managed to get a decent one out of 4. Surprisingly it was from a much newer batch.

X234: SP98 P-104 Forgot E Score
X236: SP100 P-109 E-76
X236: SP101 P-109 E- Mid to high 80s
X245: SP104 P-113 E-88

SP101 chip wouldn't really manage anything above 5.6/4.5/5.0 without a ton of voltage and pumping out too much heat.

SP104 chip is still going through some trial and error but managed 5.7/4.5/5.0 at 1.32v set LLC6 on Z790 Extreme with CB23 and playing some games. Haven't done much more stability testing than that.


----------



## BoredErica

I benched my 13600kf vs 5600x and found 80% FPS increase in Skyrim in my testing at 4k. I've had people give me unwanted advice on how I should put money into the GPU at 4k. It's fingernails on the chalkboard when people keep assuming they know more about my situation than I do.









In Oblivion CPU test, I get the SAME RESULT at 960p or 8k. This is the extent of CPU side bottleneck. And I know it's unresponsive to ram, whereas Skyrim and FO4 do respond to faster ram.









And in scripted testing for FO4, 1% Ring increase is worth about 38% of 1% clock increase on my setup. (The right two columns are for Oblivion which I didn't use a script to test, so higher margin of error.)

And with scripting I can average runs. For measuring frame times I can make my character run in a straight line at high speed many, many times and average the results to decrease impact of run to run variance.


----------



## tps3443

SP121 P-core 13900K here. It works! It’s running in my rig. I have to work today, so I’ll report back later on how it performs.


----------



## John hughes

tps3443 said:


> SP121 P-core 13900K here. It works! It’s running in my rig. I have to work today, so I’ll report back later on how it performs.


Sp score only on Asus boards ?


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> SP121 P-core 13900K here. It works! It’s running in my rig. I have to work today, so I’ll report back later on how it performs.


My P-core 119 looks medicore compared to 121 🥺


----------



## Hexes

I delidded and put a direct die on my chip the other night and something interesting happened. I can now run even N64, HNT and VST tests with the same voltages (plus tRFC lowered from 320 to 280) and settings as before running only 2.5B. That used to be impossible for the IMC without very high SA voltage. Now it seems I can even reduce it by 20mv or so and the tests still run. One could try to explain it with lower temperatures but it's not like stock settings with undervolting were exactly hot either. That's why I believe the difference comes from lower socket contact pressure. I put 0,6mm washers under the ILM. The CPU also lost 1 SP point from total and P-cores. VIDs remained the same. Think I'm gonna cry a bit if it doesn't come back. 

I was comparing how the Supercool direct die block sits between the 12900K and 13900K, side by side, and to me it seems to tilt and spin more freely on 12900K as if it didn't sit very well on 13900K. I couldn't find any measurements of the die height so it's purely a sensation of mine that the die is lower on 13900K. With the Kapton tape to protect the pins on the left edge of the CPU it became very apparent the block just wasn't sitting well on it anymore. Due to these findings I made a decision to sand down the bottom edges of the direct die block, just a minuscule amount. If I had to guess less than 0,1mm. Then I removed the tape and put a very thin layer of conformal coating on the pins. Not that I think the block was touching them anyway after sanding but just to be sure.

After these steps trying the block on the die felt good so I put LM there and set it up. With stock settings I lost more than 10 degrees Celsius. At 58x P-cores with the same voltage the difference was ~20C. This also allowed me to dial down the voltage by 50mv (load) so the difference became even greater. That being said it's good to understand that my block had a bad contact with probably the cheapest TIM out there. Now the CPU easily runs also 59P/47E at 1.37v socket sense, but consumes ~330W which is not something I like to do too much despite temperatures staying at low 80's C in a regular 24C room, 24-26C water temp. Temperature-wise could probably run P-cores at 60x for a spin but somehow not very fond of even testing out having close to 400W on this chip. 😅

Next up need to upgrade my loop as with one pump it feels like it's struggling a bit with flow due to Mo-Ra3 420, QDs and with a lot of tubing plus 90 degree angles. Already making a sound. Overall very satisfied with the direct die block. Just to be clear this was with the GEN12 block. I don't think the GEN13 block has such issues. I assumed due to Christmas holidays and with plenty of orders at hand it would take more than a month for the next gen block to arrive. Therefore made a decision to go ghetto style on this and it apparently worked.

Here are two pics. One with fixed stock ratios before and the other one after direct die running 58P47E. Another difference is the stock CPU was running Cinebench R23 for 30 mins while the latter ran it only for 10 mins, so it might have still added a couple of degrees more or so. But as you can see the temperatures are very equal despite 55P/43E vs. 58P/47E. Both settings at the edge of stability. Scores would be higher but I was doing everything else on the background. Just a stability test.

Stock









58P/47E


----------



## warbucks

Hexes said:


> I delidded and put a direct die on my chip the other night and something interesting happened. I can now run even N64, HNT and VST tests with the same voltages (plus tRFC lowered from 320 to 280) and settings as before running only 2.5B. That used to be impossible for the IMC without very high SA voltage. Now it seems I can even reduce it by 20ms or and the tests still run. One could try to explain it with lower temperatures but it's not like stock settings with undervolting were exactly hot either. That's why I believe the difference comes from lower socket contact pressure. I put 0,6mm washers under the ILM. The CPU also lost 1 SP point from total and P-cores. VIDs remained the same. Think I'm gonna cry a bit if it doesn't come back.
> 
> I was comparing how the Supercool direct die block sits between the 12900K and 13900K, side by side, and to me it seems to tilt and spin more freely on 12900K as if it didn't sit very well on 13900K. I couldn't find any measurements of the die height so it's purely a sensation of mine that the die is lower on 13900K. With the Kapton tape to protect the pins on the left edge of the CPU it became very apparent the block just wasn't sitting well on it anymore. Due to these findings I made a decision to sand down the bottom edges of the direct die block, just a minuscule amount. If I had to guess less than 0,1mm. Then I removed the tape and put a very thin layer of conformal coating on the pins. Not that I think the block was touching them anyway after sanding but just to be sure.
> 
> After these steps trying the block on the die felt good so I put LM there and set it up. With stock settings I lost more than 10 degrees Celsius. At 58x P-cores with the same voltage the difference was ~20C. This also allowed me to dial down the voltage by 50ms (load) so the difference became even greater. That being said it's good to understand that my block had a bad contact with probably the cheapest TIM out there. Now the CPU easily runs also 59P/47E at 1.37v socket sense, but consumes ~330W which is not something I like to do too much despite temperatures staying at low 80's C in a regular 24C room, 24-26C water temp. Temperature-wise could probably run P-cores at 60x for a spin but somehow not very fond of even testing out having close to 400W on this chip. 😅
> 
> Next up need to upgrade my loop as with one pump it feels like it's struggling a bit with flow due to Mo-Ra3 420, QDs and with a lot of tubing plus 90 degree angles. Already making a sound. Overall very satisfied with the direct die block. Just to be clear this was with the GEN12 block. I don't think the GEN13 block has such issues. I assumed due to Christmas holidays and with plenty of orders at hand it would take more than a month for the next gen block to arrive. Therefore made a decision to go ghetto style on this and it apparently worked.
> 
> Here are two pics. One with fixed stock ratios before and the other one after direct die running 58P47E. Another difference is the stock CPU was running Cinebench R23 for 30 mins while the latter ran it only for 10 mins, so it might have still added a couple of degrees more or so. But as you can see the temperatures are very equal despite 55P/43E vs. 58P/47E. Both settings at the edge of stability. Scores would be higher but I was doing everything else on the background. Just a stability test.
> 
> Stock
> View attachment 2588321
> 
> 
> 58P/47E
> View attachment 2588322



The supercool direct die for 12th gen doesn't fully fit the 13th gen. I believe the 13th gen die size is a bit bigger and the height is a tiny bit lower compared to the 12th gen die which would explain your results after you sanded down the edges. Great results though! I may have to do the same for mine.


----------



## Ichirou

Hexes said:


> I delidded and put a direct die on my chip the other night and something interesting happened. I can now run even N64, HNT and VST tests with the same voltages (plus tRFC lowered from 320 to 280) and settings as before running only 2.5B. That used to be impossible for the IMC without very high SA voltage. Now it seems I can even reduce it by 20ms or and the tests still run. One could try to explain it with lower temperatures but it's not like stock settings with undervolting were exactly hot either. That's why I believe the difference comes from lower socket contact pressure. I put 0,6mm washers under the ILM. The CPU also lost 1 SP point from total and P-cores. VIDs remained the same. Think I'm gonna cry a bit if it doesn't come back.
> 
> I was comparing how the Supercool direct die block sits between the 12900K and 13900K, side by side, and to me it seems to tilt and spin more freely on 12900K as if it didn't sit very well on 13900K. I couldn't find any measurements of the die height so it's purely a sensation of mine that the die is lower on 13900K. With the Kapton tape to protect the pins on the left edge of the CPU it became very apparent the block just wasn't sitting well on it anymore. Due to these findings I made a decision to sand down the bottom edges of the direct die block, just a minuscule amount. If I had to guess less than 0,1mm. Then I removed the tape and put a very thin layer of conformal coating on the pins. Not that I think the block was touching them anyway after sanding but just to be sure.
> 
> After these steps trying the block on the die felt good so I put LM there and set it up. With stock settings I lost more than 10 degrees Celsius. At 58x P-cores with the same voltage the difference was ~20C. This also allowed me to dial down the voltage by 50ms (load) so the difference became even greater. That being said it's good to understand that my block had a bad contact with probably the cheapest TIM out there. Now the CPU easily runs also 59P/47E at 1.37v socket sense, but consumes ~330W which is not something I like to do too much despite temperatures staying at low 80's C in a regular 24C room, 24-26C water temp. Temperature-wise could probably run P-cores at 60x for a spin but somehow not very fond of even testing out having close to 400W on this chip. 😅
> 
> Next up need to upgrade my loop as with one pump it feels like it's struggling a bit with flow due to Mo-Ra3 420, QDs and with a lot of tubing plus 90 degree angles. Already making a sound. Overall very satisfied with the direct die block. Just to be clear this was with the GEN12 block. I don't think the GEN13 block has such issues. I assumed due to Christmas holidays and with plenty of orders at hand it would take more than a month for the next gen block to arrive. Therefore made a decision to go ghetto style on this and it apparently worked.
> 
> Here are two pics. One with fixed stock ratios before and the other one after direct die running 58P47E. Another difference is the stock CPU was running Cinebench R23 for 30 mins while the latter ran it only for 10 mins, so it might have still added a couple of degrees more or so. But as you can see the temperatures are very equal despite 55P/43E vs. 58P/47E. Both settings at the edge of stability. Scores would be higher but I was doing everything else on the background. Just a stability test.
> 
> Stock
> View attachment 2588321
> 
> 
> 58P/47E
> View attachment 2588322


Results seem seem a bit underwhelming for P-SP 120, compared to results I've seen with others. It's probably because you're staying under 283W. Feels like you're not doing the chip justice by not fully utilizing the chip like that.  

If you aren't gonna push it, sell it to me, lol. You could get those results with a P-SP 115-118 and a tad bit more voltage. Ask @tps3443.


----------



## Hexes

Ichirou said:


> Results seem seem a bit underwhelming for P-SP 120, compared to results I've seen with others. It's probably because you're staying under 283W. Feels like you're not doing the chip justice by not fully utilizing the chip like that.
> 
> If you aren't gonna push it, sell it to me, lol. You could get those results with a P-SP 115-118 and a tad bit more voltage. Ask @tps3443.


I don't want to degrade this chip, not yet anyway. 

How many chips you see running 58P/47E ~1.20v die-sense, under 290W and in a 24C room? I also want to add many post pictures without any relevant data. Why even show anything but effective clocks and proof of at least a 10 minute run. I bet some don't even know their chips are throttling like hell thinking they run like 6 GHz under 300W. 

Advice for posting overclocking pictures:


Show effective clocks.
Tell if you are using die-, socket- or whatever MSI-sense.
State water or room temp.
If it's CB R23 as it mostly is run more than the 10 second spin.

That's only of course if not outright clear from the pics posted.


----------



## Ichirou

Hexes said:


> I don't want to degrade this chip, not yet anyway.
> 
> How many chips you see running 58P/47E ~1.20v die-sense, under 290W and in a 24C room?


I meant that the chip can do more. But if 58x is all you're going for, you could do it with a weaker chip and not really notice any difference except a little more wattage. 

You should low load overclock it to fully realize its potential if you're gonna leave it like that. I honest wouldn't settle for that with a golden chip like yours 🤔


----------



## Hexes

Ichirou said:


> I meant that the chip can do more. But if 58x is all you're going for, you could do it with a weaker chip and not really notice any difference except a little more wattage.
> 
> You should low load overclock it to fully realize its potential if you're gonna leave it like that. I honest wouldn't settle for that with a golden chip like yours 🤔


Yeah I will probably set higher clocks but not use it at heavy voltage.


----------



## Telstar

imrevoau said:


> If you're playing at 4K you realistically should just get a 13600K and then the comparison is meaningless.


he actually did


----------



## RichKnecht

For those running "standard" CPU blocks ( HK IV, EK, Optimus ) did you put plastic washers under the studs that go through the MB? I know I did with my Sig V2 and I think that is what is causing my heat issues as it spaces the block up ever so slightly. On my X299 system, the block attached directly to the ILM so I didn't use them on that build.


----------



## Csavez™

My 24/7 profile is ready!
10 minute cbr23 throttling test.


----------



## warbucks

RichKnecht said:


> For those running "standard" CPU blocks ( HK IV, EK, Optimus ) did you put plastic washers under the studs that go through the MB? I know I did with my Sig V2 and I think that is what is causing my heat issues as it spaces the block up ever so slightly. On my X299 system, the block attached directly to the ILM so I didn't use them on that build.


Don't put washers. Install only what came with your sig v2. Adding washers will adjust the height of the stand off post.


----------



## RichKnecht

warbucks said:


> Don't put washers. Install only what came with your sig v2. Adding washers will adjust the height of the stand off post.


Yep...it's what I thought. I bet that's my issue. This same loop cooled my 10980 OC'ed to 4.8 and it heated my room. The loop now struggles with a chip drawing half the power.


----------



## RichKnecht

Csavez™ said:


> My 24/7 profile is ready!
> 10 minute cbr23 throttling test.
> 
> View attachment 2588336
> 
> View attachment 2588336


Looks good to me. Pretty close to where I was but I dropped the P Cores to 56 because of heat.Are you delidded or chiller ( or both) ?


----------



## Csavez™

RichKnecht said:


> Looks good to me. Pretty close to where I was but I dropped the P Cores to 56 because of heat.Are you delidded or chiller ( or both) ?


I recently wrote, delid and built water cooling.


----------



## digitalfrost

RichKnecht said:


> Looks good to me. Pretty close to where I was but I dropped the P Cores to 56 because of heat.Are you delidded or chiller ( or both) ?


You might want to use OCTVB to enjoy higher clocks when cold and auto down-bin when a certain temperature is reached.


----------



## tps3443

@sugi0lover

I bought a CPU that’s P-Cores are SP121. But the force2 rating is only 135-136.

How is that even possible?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> @sugi0lover
> 
> I bought a CPU that’s P-Cores are SP121. But the force2 rating is only 135-136.
> 
> How is that even possible?


What was your Force rating with your previous P-SP 118 or so chip?


----------



## warbucks

tps3443 said:


> @sugi0lover
> 
> I bought a CPU that’s P-Cores are SP121. But the force2 rating is only 135-136.
> 
> How is that even possible?


What were your temps in the MSI board? Temps affect CPU force score.


----------



## Ichirou

.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> What was your Force rating with your previous P-SP 118 or so chip?


124


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> 124


Lol

Then chances are you already had a P-SP 120+ chip, but it just had poor scaling beyond 62x or so.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 The verdict for this second BestBuy 13900K is in.
Same average cores as my Amazon 13900KF/BestBuy 13900K, but godawful DDR4 IMC.
Will be refunding it promptly. Gonna wait for people to approach me with golden bins, or try a 13900KS. I'm sick and tired of this.



> 12900K: Was a binned P-SP 101 that I got scammed with because the seller said it had a good DDR4 IMC, when it didn't. Resold it for an acceptable loss
> 12900K: Was mega garbage from Canada Computers, terrible on all fronts, I RMA'd it
> 12900K: Was somewhere between the first and second chip, from Newegg; not great overall
> 12900KF: Was a binned P-SP 99 with a beast 4,300 Gear 1 DDR4 IMC at the time; traded the third 12900K with a good friend for it
> 12900K: Was the chip I got after the RMA, which was also P-SP 99 but had a worse DDR4 IMC; sold it for a large loss
> 12900KS: Was a binned overclocker chip, but scammed again as it had been heavily degraded and unusable at even stock clocks. Resold it for an acceptable loss
> 
> 13900K: Was mega garbage from Canada Computers, terrible on all fronts
> 13900KF: Average cores but good IMC, stronger than the 12900KF, from Amazon
> 13900K: Slightly worse cores than the 13900KF, but better IMC, from BestBuy (using this now)
> 13900K: Was a binned P-SP 123 chip, but was defective and missing all of the SMDs on the front of the chip. Got a full refund for it, subtract return shipping
> 13900K: Average cores but awful IMC, from BestBuy


----------



## chibi

Bestbuy has no open box return policy, how are you able to return it?


----------



## Ichirou

chibi said:


> Bestbuy has no open box return policy, how are you able to return it?


I have friends who work at my local store.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> I have friends who work at my local store.


It's a shame you don't live near me. You can make friends with my local MC guys and have a blast binning chips. They have like 50 in stock :O


----------



## tps3443

This new chip is extraordinary good! But it has areas that are so so. I can barely explore its full potential. Too busy working ughhh. Lol

It Runs flipping insanely well at 5.8. But, it’s a weird cpu haha. Don’t know if that makes sense.

Crazy low VID’s though.


----------



## Telstar

mmmh low VID is my cup of tea


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> This new chip is extraordinary good! But it has areas that are so so. I can barely explore its full potential. Too busy working ughhh. Lol
> 
> It Runs flipping insanely well at 5.8. But, it’s a weird cpu haha. Don’t know if that makes sense.
> 
> Crazy low VID’s though.


Can't see VID....


----------



## Ichirou

fray_bentos said:


> Sick and tired of a scenario that you created for yourself? The origin of this is unrealistic expectations, moreover expectations that are completely arbitrary and self imposed. Does not compute. Do you have a diagnosis?


I spent $2,500 USD on watercooling parts for a system I don't plan to upgrade again for 5-10 years. And that's _if_ I decide to upgrade again, considering I have a family now.
Does it make sense to settle for an average chip?

If binning even the 13900KS fails me, I'll delid this 13900K I have and use it until the refresh.


----------



## Spicedaddy

People who buy chips to test usually have the decency to resell them used, not return them to the retailer for no reason.

When Best Buy stops selling CPUs one day, you'll know why.


----------



## Ichirou

Spicedaddy said:


> People who buy chips to test usually have the decency to resell them used, not return them to the retailer for no reason.
> 
> When Best Buy stops selling CPUs one day, you'll know why.


I'm fairly confident I'm not the only person in the entire world who is binning chips and refunding the weaker ones.

Also, the chips are still functional. If they aren't, they can just be RMA'd. So no loss to the retailer.
As long as you don't return chips that have been physically tampered with, I don't see where the issue is.


----------



## Nizzen

Spicedaddy said:


> People who buy chips to test usually have the decency to resell them used, not return them to the retailer for no reason.
> 
> When Best Buy stops selling CPUs one day, you'll know why.


Second best buy ; Selling only returned cpu's


----------



## chibi

tps3443 said:


> This new chip is extraordinary good! But it has areas that are so so. I can barely explore its full potential. Too busy working ughhh. Lol
> 
> It Runs flipping insanely well at 5.8. But, it’s a weird cpu haha. Don’t know if that makes sense.
> 
> Crazy low VID’s though.


Does it dance funny? Spill the details!


----------



## Agent-A01

Ichirou said:


> you could do it with a weaker chip and not really notice any difference


I believe you could go with that advice yourself.
Chasing a 1% CPU won't achieve any meaningful benefit over a P116 chip(which is already a top 10-15% CPU)


----------



## Ichirou

Agent-A01 said:


> I believe you could go with that advice yourself.
> Chasing a 1% CPU won't achieve any meaningful benefit over a P116 chip(which is already a top 10-15% CPU)


I've already given an answer to a similar comment to yours.
I'm not settling for less after already investing this much into a machine I plan to stick with for, what is likely to be, forever.
This machine's most likely my last hurrah as I retire and focus more on personal life and family.


----------



## Rbk_3

tps3443 said:


> Bring ring up +1 and check VID’s with HWInfo, reboot, rinse, repeat. When your p-core VID voltages start to increase at all, back the ring down -1 and stick to that. You can run the ring well past the E-Core frequency on 13th gen.


Check the VID at idle ?


----------



## Ichirou

@Falkentyne
Since I will be receiving the ASUS Z790 Strix soon, I may as well test how it correlates with the MSI Z790 Edge in terms of Vcore.
I'll do the _exact same_ test (y-cruncher and N/H/V) on both boards with the _exact same_ config (CPU and memory) to find the Vmin required to pass.
That'll allow me to find the difference in Vcore between the two boards (on ASUS die sense and MSI VCC sense).

We already know that the Z690 Edge is different though, and I don't really feel inclined to bring it back out of the box to retest.
But it shouldn't be difficult to use the past comparison results I made between the two MSI boards to get an approximation afterwards.


----------



## Agent-A01

Ichirou said:


> I've already given an answer to a similar comment to yours.
> I'm not settling for less after already investing this much into a machine I plan to stick with for, what is likely to be, forever.
> This machine's most likely my last hurrah as I retire and focus more on personal life and family.


Your last hurrah is still a pointless endeavor despite what you tell yourself.

All that time and money wasted to get 1-2% faster CPU and you could have got rid of that old DDR4 setup.
I bet you've spent more money than what a new Apex and a new G.skill 8000 DDR5 kit would have cost you..

At least that will bring way more tangible benefits. Especially so 5-10 years down the road.
But go ahead and tell yourself you're going to keep that setup for "forever". We've all told our self that lie until the upgrade bug bites


----------



## tps3443

New chip is running 6.3Ghz on single cores without a BSOD 🤣. That’s gotta mean something.

5.7 all core is only 1.180VROut during R23 (30) Minute test. 5.8Ghz all core is 1.230VROut. This is with x51 ring, and X45 E-Cores set.


I set 1.430V V-Core with the largest droop possible. So under load it falls to like 1.220V with a 5.7 all core with 6.3Ghz on less cores. Still tweaking.


----------



## Ichirou

Agent-A01 said:


> Your last hurrah is still a pointless endeavor despite what you tell yourself.
> 
> All that time and money wasted to get 1-2% faster CPU and you could have got rid of that old DDR4 setup.
> I bet you've spent more money than what a new Apex and a new G.skill 8000 DDR5 kit would have cost you..
> 
> At least that will bring way more tangible benefits. Especially so 5-10 years down the road.
> But go ahead and tell yourself you're going to keep that setup for "forever". We've all told our self that lie until the upgrade bug bites


I'm not one to throw away functional hardware either.
My RAM, GPU, storage drives, and case are fine. And they meet my needs.
If I went DDR5, I probably would get tempted to keep upgrading. So that in itself serves as an upgrade deterrent.

Priorities change once you're older and have a family.
I'm sure many who are in the same situation as I would agree.

Also, 64 GB at 7,000 MHz is pretty much impossible, let alone 8,000 MHz.
And that's the capacity I need for work. So my kit's still relevant for the time being.


----------



## Rbk_3

tps3443 said:


> I have my current CPU at auto as well right now. It helps memory latency a little bit, which also helps FPS. As for any massive gains? I don’t think it’ll help hardly at all in your workloads.
> 
> I could be wrong though. With how the cores communicate on these processors, faster ring is always better but it depends on the workload. Fortunately with the 13900K, running the ring stock is plenty sufficient already. They already have a fast ring speed. I think stock it usually hovers around 45-49 depending on the CPU load.
> 
> Honestly, massive multithreaded gains seem to come from E-Core overclocking alone. E-Cores make up about 70% of the whole CPU. Whereas overclocking P-Cores alone is essentially only adjusting 30% of the CPU.


I can't even take my ecores off auto or I am not stable. Even if I manually set them to 43 it won't be stable, but on auto they run at 43 and are stable. Is there a voltage I am missing or something?


----------



## chibi

tps3443 said:


> New chip is running 6.3Ghz on single cores without a BSOD 🤣. That’s gotta mean something.
> 
> 5.7 all core is only 1.180VROut during R23 (30) Minute test. 5.8Ghz all core is 1.230VROut. This is with x51 ring, and X45 E-Cores set.
> 
> 
> I set 1.430V V-Core with the largest droop possible. So under load it falls to like 1.220V with a 5.7 all core with 6.3Ghz on less cores. Still tweaking.


Hot dang! That's a good one


----------



## tps3443

chibi said:


> Hot dang! That's a good one


I have never seen a 13900K run 6.3Ghz on P-Core at all without a BSOD happening seconds in to loading windows. That definitely says something.

All I really want to do is run a 5.7 low power all-core with high single core boost on an adaptive voltage.


----------



## HyperC

RichKnecht said:


> It's a shame you don't live near me. You can make friends with my local MC guys and have a blast binning chips. They have like 50 in stock :O


Doesn't Microcenter have a cpu program for overclocking or did they end that


----------



## Agent-A01

Ichirou said:


> I'm not one to throw away functional hardware either.
> My RAM, GPU, storage drives, and case are fine. And they meet my needs.
> 
> Priorities change once you're older and have a family.
> I'm sure many who are in the same situation as I would agree.
> 
> Also, 64 GB at 7,000 MHz is pretty much impossible, let alone 8,000 MHz.
> Which is the capacity I need for work. So my kit's still relevant for now.


It's not throwing away functional hardware. Sell it to someone and upgrade to something that actually makes sense.

On the flip side of that, you're basically throwing away money searching for a golden ticket for no tangible benefit. 
How does that make any sense?

All that money could have gone to some pot of college funds for kids or w/e.

And btw 64GB 7800 is possible on apex. I've already seen a few post results of it.

Not attacking you or anything just trying to make you realize the reality of what you're doing is pointless.
I've binned(wasted money) on plenty of CPUs over the years. I only bought two 13900Ks and kept my SP105 (P116) chip and I am plenty happy with it.

Getting a >P120 chip would bring me no additional performance. I can guarantee you that any average 13900K with fast DDR5 will be faster than any 'golden' CPU on that DDR4 platform in real world tests.

So yeah, I don't think your priorities make any sense. I see others have said the same thing to you but at the end of the day it's your time and money to use as you please.


----------



## chibi

tps3443 said:


> All I really want to do is run a 5.7 low power all-core with high single core boost on an adaptive voltage.


That's my goal too, more towards stock core clocks for me so I don't need to chase high sp bins, lol! I'm just hoping for a great IMC. That's why I'm going to go with a rog board so I can utilize Robert's 13900k guide with adaptive voltage for long term use.









Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...


A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Ichirou

Agent-A01 said:


> It's not throwing away functional hardware. Sell it to someone and upgrade to something that actually makes sense.
> 
> On the flip side of that, you're basically throwing away money searching for a golden ticket for no tangible benefit.
> How does that make any sense?
> 
> All that money could have gone to some pot of college funds for kids or w/e.
> 
> And btw 64GB 7800 is possible on apex. I've already seen a few post results of it.
> 
> Not attacking you or anything just trying to make you realize the reality of what you're doing is pointless.
> I've binned(wasted money) on plenty of CPUs over the years. I only bought two 13900Ks and kept my SP105 (P116) chip and I am plenty happy with it.
> 
> Getting a >P120 chip would bring me no additional performance. I can guarantee you that any average 13900K with fast DDR5 will be faster than any 'golden' CPU on that DDR4 platform in real world tests.
> 
> So yeah, I don't think your priorities make any sense. I see others have said the same thing to you but at the end of the day it's your time and money to use as you please.


Fair judgement, and good points. I won't refute it.

The Z790 Apex is pretty much key to overclocking high on DDR5 right now, but it's virtually nonexistent in Canada.
So even if I were to theoretically go with your upgrade route, it wouldn't be possible right now.


----------



## chibi

Ichirou said:


> Fair judgement, and good points. I won't refute it.
> 
> The Z790 Apex is pretty much key to overclocking high on DDR5 right now, but it's virtually nonexistent in Canada.
> So even if I were to theoretically go with your upgrade route, it wouldn't be possible right now.


Canada computers had 2 available today on their online warehouse. Was in stock around 2 hours ago. All gone now.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> @Falkentyne
> Since I will be receiving the ASUS Z790 Strix soon, I may as well test how it correlates with the MSI Z790 Edge in terms of Vcore.
> I'll do the _exact same_ test (y-cruncher and N/H/V) on both boards with the _exact same_ config (CPU and memory) to find the Vmin required to pass.
> That'll allow me to find the difference in Vcore between the two boards (on ASUS die sense and MSI VCC sense).
> 
> We already know that the Z690 Edge is different though, and I don't really feel inclined to bring it back out of the box to retest.
> But it shouldn't be difficult to use the past comparison results I made between the two MSI boards to get an approximation afterwards.


_AFAIK_, only the DDR5 version of the Z790 Strix has die sense voltage selectable in Digi+VRM.
Shoot me if I'm wrong but I think the DDR4 version only has socket sense.
HOWEVER you can use the Asus OCTool program posted in RobertoSampiao's thread and go to the menus and choose Asus VRM to get the die sense from there.


----------



## Falkentyne

Agent-A01 said:


> Your last hurrah is still a pointless endeavor despite what you tell yourself.
> 
> All that time and money wasted to get 1-2% faster CPU and you could have got rid of that old DDR4 setup.
> I bet you've spent more money than what a new Apex and a new G.skill 8000 DDR5 kit would have cost you..
> 
> At least that will bring way more tangible benefits. Especially so 5-10 years down the road.
> But go ahead and tell yourself you're going to keep that setup for "forever". We've all told our self that lie until the upgrade bug bites


He's right, you know. You HAVE blown though a LOT of money. A decent CPU and a good DDR5 7800 kit would blow through anything you've spent all that time--and money on--testing on DDR4.
DDR4 gear 1 4300 is NOT faster than tweaked A-die 8000.


----------



## VULC

No 13950K Meteor Lake on track for 2023 z790 EOL









Intel CPU Roadmap Update: 14th Gen Meteor Lake (4nm) in Risk Production, 2nm in 2024, 1.8nm in 2025 | Hardware Times


Intel has reaffirmed its foundry roadmap, squashing rumors of next-gen CPU architecture and process delays. The latest update comes from IEEE, highlighting the chipmaker’s plans to regain process leadership by the end of 2024. Currently, the bulk of Intel’s CPU families is fabbed on the 7nm node...




www.hardwaretimes.com


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> He's right, you know. You HAVE blown though a LOT of money. A decent CPU and a good DDR5 7800 kit would blow through anything you've spent all that time--and money on--testing on DDR4.
> DDR4 gear 1 4300 is NOT faster than tweaked A-die 8000.


As mentioned, the Apex and 8,000 MHz was not a thing until very recent.
Most of my losses happened before the Apex was even released.

At the time, most people still thought that 7,600+ MHz was never gonna happen.
There was only M-die, as A-die wasn't released yet.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> As mentioned, the Apex and 8,000 MHz was not a thing until very recent.
> Most of my losses happened before the Apex was even released.


Yeah but you knew this was coming. I told you remember? Privately.
You should have trusted me.
Why do you think I skipped the 12900KS?


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> Yeah but you knew this was coming. I told you remember? Privately.
> You should have trusted me.


I don't recall you mentioning that Hynix would suddenly produce their A-die and that the Apex would support 8,000+ MHz?
Anyway, let's just agree to let sleeping dogs lie.


----------



## ViTosS

Falkentyne said:


> He's right, you know. You HAVE blown though a LOT of money. A decent CPU and a good DDR5 7800 kit would blow through anything you've spent all that time--and money on--testing on DDR4.
> DDR4 gear 1 4300 is NOT faster than tweaked A-die 8000.


Well the fastest DDR5 setup we saw here was from Sugi, 8500+Mhz tweaked and got 409fps in SOTTR, while DDR4 at 4300CL15 got 403fps, so not that big difference (yes same CPU clock, P/E/R etc), but I agree with you, future DDR5 are only getting better and will be the future platform, since he has a lot of money apparently to keep buying binned CPUs and reselling, could easily go with Z790 Apex and a good A-Die kit... I'm on DDR4 because is way cheaper for me haha. Also Z790 DDR5 mobo doesn't even exist in stores in my country, not to say Apex, that also would cost like 3x the price I paid on Strix-A. Third world country sucks


----------



## VULC

43000mhz matching 8400mhz in gaming within 2% 🤷. The best time to jump on DDR5 is 14th gen.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> I don't recall you mentioning that Hynix would suddenly produce their A-die and that the Apex would support 8,000+ MHz?



My other 13900K peaks at 252 watts in BF2042 bone stock.

So far this chip is peaking 214 watts however it’s running 5.7Ghz-6.3Ghz P-Cores with 4.5 E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Ring.


----------



## Agent-A01

Ichirou said:


> Fair judgement, and good points. I won't refute it.
> 
> The Z790 Apex is pretty much key to overclocking high on DDR5 right now, but it's virtually nonexistent in Canada.
> So even if I were to theoretically go with your upgrade route, it wouldn't be possible right now.


Well have someone from the states ship you one. Newegg and some other places get stock every week or two.

That's the more sensible option then to keep on trying to get a golden CPU with a golden IMC. 
Odds are very against your favor at this point.


----------



## Telstar

VULC said:


> No 13950K Meteor Lake on track for 2023 z790 EOL


I don't believe them


----------



## warbucks

VULC said:


> 43000mhz matching 8400mhz in gaming within 2% 🤷. The best time to jump on DDR5 is 14th gen.


It isn't just about max fps. The 1% and 0.1% lows including minimum fps are much better with DDR5.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> My other 13900K peaks at 252 watts in BF2042 bone stock.
> 
> So far this chip is peaking 214 watts however it’s running 5.7Ghz-6.3Ghz P-Cores with 4.5 E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Ring.


Is your memory tuned also?


----------



## VULC

warbucks said:


> It isn't just about max fps. The 1% and 0.1% lows including minimum fps are much better with DDR5.


They are all within 10 fps though.


----------



## warbucks

VULC said:


> They are all within 10 fps though.


Depends on the game. I've seen some games with much larger margins between DDR4 and DDR5 in their 1%, 0.1% and minimum fps.


----------



## warbucks

tps3443 said:


> My other 13900K peaks at 252 watts in BF2042 bone stock.
> 
> So far this chip is peaking 214 watts however it’s running 5.7Ghz-6.3Ghz P-Cores with 4.5 E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Ring.


That's a nice chip.


----------



## CptSpig

tps3443 said:


> My other 13900K peaks at 252 watts in BF2042 bone stock.
> 
> So far this chip is peaking 214 watts however it’s running 5.7Ghz-6.3Ghz P-Cores with 4.5 E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Ring.


Sounds Like a good chip! Time to overclock the memory 8000mt to 8400mt.


----------



## tps3443

6.3Ghz on (4) Cores. R23 single.

I no longer trust FORCE 2 rating.


----------



## SoldierRBT

13900KF SP103 5.6/4.4/4.9 - 8266MHz YC all tests enable 1.20v LLC7 (1.146v underload)


----------



## bhav

All I can see is beyond checking for IMC, binning 13900K for CPU clocks is completely pointless.

And I'm agreeing with all the people that said it would be crazy to buy a 13900KS for DDR4.

As soon as you get one that runs 4300G1 you keep it, never mind the CPU clocks, all that money wasted binning and no 4K Oled?

People saying 'but 4k oled expensive' well yea but as it turns out you need a mega CPU or Ram at higher res.

Meteor lake rumour mill showing 14th gen will have official 7500 LPDDR5X, and samsung has 8500 Mhz already announced. At that point it should be much easier to get 8000+ on a cheap motherboard with 64 Gb.

Also say you waste all this money binning 13900K, then theres going to be the KS, the raptor refresh, 14th gen and onwards.

When I got my 12600K the plan was no more 700k / 900k again as they do nothing for me, albeit all this crap about the DDR4 IMC being so crap now compared to 10900K. Its cheaper to just buy the next xx600K every single generation than it is to buy the 900k and keep it, also look at 12600K vs 10900k, 13600K vs 12900K, every generation now CPU perf is going up so much more than it was before Ryzens upped the competition.

Just took one 13600KF for me and golden IMC get. Cheap motherboard too, same ram as Ichirou that was also cheap and bought on EOL sale and 4300CL13.


----------



## Ichirou

I also forgot to mention that I already have my DDR4 sticks under water.
It's not exactly easy to place the old heatspreaders back on for resale (crap thermal tape?), and DDR4 RAM has poor resale value right now.

I would likely lose more money trying to sell my DDR4 kit and buying a new A-die kit, and also selling my current DDR4 motherboard at a loss and buying an Apex.
That alone would probably equate to like, an extra $500 USD lost? _Assuming_ I manage to sell everything.

The issue really boils down to timing. Nobody knew that Hynix would come out with A-die, and nobody knew that the Apex would be that much better than previous boards.
At this point, I might as well just stick with what I have, since it's equivalent to 7,500-8,000 MHz performance anyway. Disregarding bandwidth.

I'm managing to limit my binning losses through smart resale, so it's not as overblown as some here may believe.
I probably only lost like ~$400 USD at most to date.


----------



## RichKnecht

HyperC said:


> Doesn't Microcenter have a cpu program for overclocking or did they end that


I’m not sure. I’ll have to check when I make my next weekly visit. 🙃


----------



## VULC

DDR5 8000 is a nothing burger you need 7500 and higher to beat ddr4 and that's not in all games Cyber Punk for example likes DDR4 more then DDR5, unless you need bandwidth for work or video editing etc don't bother this gen.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> I also forgot to mention that I already have my DDR4 sticks under water.
> It's not exactly easy to place the old heatspreaders back on for resale (crap thermal tape?), and DDR4 RAM has poor resale value right now.
> 
> I would likely lose more money trying to sell my DDR4 kit and buying a new A-die kit, and also selling my current DDR4 motherboard at a loss and buying an Apex.
> That alone would probably equate to like, an extra $500 USD lost? _Assuming_ I manage to sell everything.
> 
> The issue really boils down to timing. Nobody knew that Hynix would come out with A-die, and nobody knew that the Apex would be that much better than previous boards.
> At this point, I might as well just stick with what I have, since it's equivalent to 7,500-8,000 MHz performance anyway. Disregarding bandwidth.
> 
> I'm managing to limit my binning losses through smart resale, so it's not as overblown as some here may believe.
> I probably only lost like ~$400 USD at most to date.



DDR4 has poor resale value are you a clown?

The ram you and I have is still selling for full price second hand, I already told you this.

The fact it got discontinued so quickly has driven the value up and yes people want this trash ram because they know about 4x16 SR.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> DDR4 has poor resale value are you a clown?
> 
> The ram you and I have is still selling for full price second hand, I already told you this.
> 
> The fact it got discontinued so quickly has driven the value up and yes people want this trash ram because they know about 4x16 SR.


I bought my kit for $650 USD. I'm not gonna get anywhere near that amount.
Plus, the heatspreaders are no longer stock, which cuts the price down even further due to no more warranty.
I'm not about to take a loss on what is a perfectly fine golden bin.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> I bought my kit for $650 USD. I'm not gonna get anywhere near that amount.
> Plus, the heatspreaders are no longer stock, which cuts the price down even further due to no more warranty.
> I'm not about to take a loss on what is a perfectly fine golden bin.


Well yea the issue there is you actually spent that much on the kit instead of a cheap 2x32 3600 kit. 

Even if you won the world record for 4x16 DDR4 overclock with it, if you had bought 2x32 3600 then you could simply have upgraded to 2x32 DDR5 and an Apex board now.

I simply like these two micron kits I already have, they were cheap like Hynix M die current prices, I just keep them until I get a CPU thats DDR5 only, maybe 15th / 16th gen next and by then 9000+ 2x32 should be possible.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Well yea the issue there is you actually spent that much on the kit instead of a cheap 2x32 3600 kit.
> 
> Even if you won the world record for 4x16 DDR4 overclock with it, if you had bought 2x32 3600 then you could simply have upgraded to 2x32 DDR5 and an Apex board now.
> 
> I simply like these two micron kits I already have, they were cheap like Hynix M die current prices, I just keep them until I get a CPU thats DDR5 only, maybe 15th / 16th gen next and by then 9000+ 2x32 should be possible.


The primary issue here is that although it _seems_ nonsensical to persist with DDR4 if my goal is "max performance," it's already too late.
The achievable "max performance" now wasn't significant enough 1-2 months ago. But I've been working on this system since the _start of the year._
Suddenly making a U-turn and taking another route now is only going to result in more losses.

My RAM is the deciding factor at this point, and the fact that it can achieve comparable max performance tuned as it is, it makes no sense to ditch it at a loss.
There's no changing the fact that I bought it expensive in the past. That's just how depreciation works.


----------



## Agent-A01

VULC said:


> DDR5 8000 is a nothing burger


Somebody has been watching too much frame chasers



Ichirou said:


> It's not exactly easy to place the old heatspreaders back on for resale (crap thermal tape?), and DDR4 RAM has poor resale value right now.


3M thermal tape looks just like oem. Not hard to reapply either


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> The primary issue here is that although it _seems_ nonsensical to persist with DDR4 if my goal is "max performance," it's already too late.
> The achievable "max performance" now wasn't significant enough 1-2 months ago. But I've been working on this system since the _start of the year._
> Suddenly making a U-turn and taking another route now is only going to result in more losses.
> 
> My RAM is the deciding factor at this point, and the fact that it can achieve comparable max performance tuned as it is, it makes no sense to ditch it at a loss.
> There's no changing the fact that I bought it expensive in the past. That's just how depreciation works.


Theres also no changing the fact that you already went through how many 13900Ks that did manage 4300G1 and they still weren't good enough for you?

This isn't going to be fixed by binning 100+ chips, we all know these chips are already pushed to the edge with little headroom, and Intel will be collecting higher Pcore bins for the KS now.

Stop wasting so much time and money and stick with the next chip you get that works at 4300G1.

You're not even pushing for a 1% difference with all this money, its probably not even a 0.1% improvement what you're doing for so much money.


----------



## acoustic

Agent-A01 said:


> Somebody has been watching too much frame chasers


WE DONT SAY THAT NAME HERE


----------



## VULC

Agent-A01 said:


> Somebody has been watching too much frame chasers


How do you know what Frame Chasers said? 🤔


----------



## tps3443

CptSpig said:


> Sounds Like a good chip! Time to overclock the memory 8000mt to 8400mt.


Gonna get there soon. I only have a Unify-X though. Most likely I will be stabilizing 7800


bhav said:


> All I can see is beyond checking for IMC, binning 13900K for CPU clocks is completely pointless.
> 
> And I'm agreeing with all the people that said it would be crazy to buy a 13900KS for DDR4.
> 
> As soon as you get one that runs 4300G1 you keep it, never mind the CPU clocks, all that money wasted binning and no 4K Oled?
> 
> People saying 'but 4k oled expensive' well yea but as it turns out you need a mega CPU or Ram at higher res.
> 
> Meteor lake rumour mill showing 14th gen will have official 7500 LPDDR5X, and samsung has 8500 Mhz already announced. At that point it should be much easier to get 8000+ on a cheap motherboard with 64 Gb.
> 
> Also say you waste all this money binning 13900K, then theres going to be the KS, the raptor refresh, 14th gen and onwards.
> 
> When I got my 12600K the plan was no more 700k / 900k again as they do nothing for me, albeit all this crap about the DDR4 IMC being so crap now compared to 10900K. Its cheaper to just buy the next xx600K every single generation than it is to buy the 900k and keep it, also look at 12600K vs 10900k, 13600K vs 12900K, every generation now CPU perf is going up so much more than it was before Ryzens upped the competition.
> 
> Just took one 13600KF for me and golden IMC get. Cheap motherboard too, same ram as Ichirou that was also cheap and bought on EOL sale and 4300CL13.


Binning for clocks is not pointless. Some of us are merely after a chip that isn’t eating it’s self alive just to run 5.7Ghz+


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> Gonna get there soon. I only have a Unify-X though. Most likely I will be stabilizing 7800
> 
> 
> Binning for clocks is not pointless. Some of us are merely after a chip that isn’t eating it’s self alive just to run 5.7Ghz+


Except you already had one of those and you already sold it because it still wasn't good enough lololol.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Except you already had one of those and you already sold it because it still wasn't good enough lololol.



It was absolutely good enough! I sold it because I let money convince me to sell, which was no one’s fault but my own. Which doesn’t even matter anyways, because I have an even better CPU now.


PS; We can all make rash decisions in the moment. We can only learn from those mistakes and move on. Fortunately I managed to come out okay on the other side.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> It was absolutely good enough! I sold it because I let someone more or less talk me in to it, which was no one’s fault but my own. Which doesn’t even matter anyways, because I have a better CPU now.
> 
> I’ve tested (3) really good CPU’s, and (2) average CPU’s.
> 
> I have a great one now!


Ok what does the new one do? I maybe missed the results.


----------



## BoredErica

I passed 11hr of Stockfish and failed opening Minecraft x20 times. I'm starting to wonder if my crash is more due to Minecraft bugging out than my OC being unstable currently. That's not to say Minecraft isn't more intense than Stockfish, because I can pass Stockfish 30min and fail opening Minecraft 1 time w/ whea error.

Very bizarre.


----------



## imrevoau

I love not having money to waste. It means no matter how bad or good my chip is, I have to be happy with it. But hey, my i7 will do 5.7ghz all core at acceptable voltages and run 4200 DR B Die. Could be much worse right?


----------



## sugi0lover

This is really a well balanced retail 13900K (SP114, P122 / E98 / Mc SP 88) by Doojin.



Spoiler: retail 13900K SP(P, E, MC)

























Spoiler: 8800 CL36 HCI test

















Spoiler: 9000 CL38 Booting Test


----------



## bhav

imrevoau said:


> I love not having money to waste. It means no matter how bad or good my chip is, I have to be happy with it. But hey, my i7 will do 5.7ghz all core at acceptable voltages and run 4200 DR B Die. Could be much worse right?


Yea since you're also getting 5.7, even if you tried to be like Ichirou and bin another for 4300 ram, you could end up with one that doesn't do more than 5.5 all core.

Very difficult to get DR past 4200 anyway, so maybe your IMC can and the ram cant.

I'll be happy with whatever CPU OC I get, don't care cos stock speed is fine. Just cant OC it yet because doing backups first. I left them running while I slept, I'm still to scared to go and see how little progress has been made. Then I gotta copy everything back after setting up raid 0 2x4 Tb nvme. Then I can OC the CPU, sigh.


----------



## VULC

BoredErica said:


> I passed 11hr of Stockfish and failed opening Minecraft x20 times. I'm starting to wonder if my crash is more due to Minecraft bugging out than my OC being unstable currently. That's not to say Minecraft isn't more intense than Stockfish, because I can pass Stockfish 30min and fail opening Minecraft 1 time w/ whea error.
> 
> Very bizarre.


Try Timespy it's test is weaker then R23 and Realbench and it still crashes my PC it's the only game app that does it. I am running 1.315v LLC6 so I put it up to 1.33v I passed the graphics tests and it crashes on the cpu test. I'd say it needs 1.335 to 1.34 to pass. Did 6 cycles of 1usmus_v3 and Asus bios MemTest all pass also. Thinking their app is bugged might be Win 10 with the app on 13900k who knows. Timespy CPU test when I passed it last only pushed my CPU to 85 degrees R23 pushing it way harder same as Realbench.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Ok what does the new one do? I maybe missed the results.


Boosting to the moon with 6.4Ghz on the (2) best cores, and 6.3Ghz can bounce around and boost on any of the other cores.

Right now I have it setup for a 6.3Ghz boost and 6.0Ghz on all P-Core. 1.430V set in bios with heavy droop of LLC#8. 

I’m gonna overclock my memory and do some memory stability testing here soon. I am gonna lap this CPU for sure. Great chip.

What’s funny, is that my last chip could beat it in 5.5Ghz low power. But, it cannot compare on the top end. The VID’s stay nice and low.

If I run 6Ghz auto voltage it sends 1.350V to all cores. It doesn’t commit CPUaside and jump off a cliff like some.


----------



## Ichirou

BoredErica said:


> I passed 11hr of Stockfish and failed opening Minecraft x20 times. I'm starting to wonder if my crash is more due to Minecraft bugging out than my OC being unstable currently. That's not to say Minecraft isn't more intense than Stockfish, because I can pass Stockfish 30min and fail opening Minecraft 1 time w/ whea error.
> 
> Very bizarre.


Different instruction sets and different programs having different requirements for different voltages.
Some programs want more Vcore, some want more VCCSA, some want more L2 voltage.
If you want to be thorough, try y-cruncher's full Component Stress Test, plus TM5 anta777 ABSOLUT.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> Boosting to the moon with 6.4Ghz on the (2) best cores, and 6.3Ghz can bounce around and boost on any of the other cores.
> 
> Right now I have it setup for a 6.3Ghz boost and 6.0Ghz on all P-Core. 1.430V set in bios with heavy droop of LLC#8.
> 
> I’m gonna overclock my memory and do some memory stability testing here soon. I am gonna lap this CPU for sure. Great chip.
> 
> What’s funny, is that my last chip could beat it in 5.5Ghz low power. But, it cannot compare on the top end. The VID’s stay nice and low.
> 
> If I run 6Ghz auto voltage it sends 1.350V to all cores. It doesn’t commit CPUaside and jump off a cliff like some.


How the ... So yea its what I predicted, Intel are seriously holding these bins back for the KS, and maybe even pre binning for the refresh already!

If Ichirou got that chip and it 'only' did 4200 G1, he would send it back.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Boosting to the moon with 6.4Ghz on the (2) best cores, and 6.3Ghz can bounce around and boost on any of the other cores.
> 
> Right now I have it setup for a 6.3Ghz boost and 6.0Ghz on all P-Core. 1.430V set in bios with heavy droop of LLC#8.
> 
> I’m gonna overclock my memory and do some memory stability testing here soon. I am gonna lap this CPU for sure. Great chip.
> 
> What’s funny, is that my last chip could beat it in 5.5Ghz low power. But, it cannot compare on the top end. The VID’s stay nice and low.
> 
> If I run 6Ghz auto voltage it sends 1.350V to all cores. It doesn’t commit CPUaside and jump off a cliff like some.


At this point, I'm tied between a couple of possible choices.
And the most sensible one seems to be to buy a chip from a friend who has an even stronger IMC, but not the absolute best cores. Just above average.
I think that's the safest and easiest route without having to spend more time, money, and effort.
Could ride it out until the refresh. Just balance out the low/high load and chill for a year.


----------



## Rbk_3

So I can't even pass Cinebench R23 on stock clocks at 1.36V MSI LLC3. This is pretty disappointing


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> So I can't even pass Cinebench R23 on stock clocks at 1.36V MSI LLC3. This is pretty disappointing
> View attachment 2588436


Have you tried lowering Vcore instead of raising it?


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


> Have you tried lowering Vcore instead of raising it?


Yes I tried 1.30 and it crashed instantly


----------



## tubs2x4

tps3443 said:


> Boosting to the moon with 6.4Ghz on the (2) best cores, and 6.3Ghz can bounce around and boost on any of the other cores.
> 
> Right now I have it setup for a 6.3Ghz boost and 6.0Ghz on all P-Core. 1.430V set in bios with heavy droop of LLC#8.
> 
> I’m gonna overclock my memory and do some memory stability testing here soon. I am gonna lap this CPU for sure. Great chip.
> 
> What’s funny, is that my last chip could beat it in 5.5Ghz low power. But, it cannot compare on the top end. The VID’s stay nice and low.
> 
> If I run 6Ghz auto voltage it sends 1.350V to all cores. It doesn’t commit CPUaside and jump off a cliff like some.


going to show come cb23 results at those speeds?


----------



## tps3443

Rbk_3 said:


> So I can't even pass Cinebench R23 on stock clocks at 1.36V MSI LLC3. This is pretty disappointing
> View attachment 2588436


Looks pretty toasty to me. I would consider better cooling.


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> Yes I tried 1.30 and it crashed instantly


Well, it's uncommon for there to be bottom of the barrel samples, but it does happen.
Refund/RMA it quoting that it keeps crashing no matter what, and get a new chip.
Or buy my 13900KF which has a good IMC


----------



## Rbk_3

tps3443 said:


> Looks pretty toasty to me. I would consider better cooling.


I have a 360 AIO. I just game and am in the 60s max. Still should be able to pass Cinebench at stock clocks at 1.23 vcore load voltage, no?


----------



## bhav

I want to start OCing my chip but can't, I need this to finish, and then again back after setting up raid 0:



Spoiler















Want to get my raid 0 gen 4 2x4 Tbs set up, HURRY UP!


----------



## tps3443

tubs2x4 said:


> going to show come cb23 results at those speeds?


Maybe. Let me enjoy it for 1 day before I start killing it first lol.


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


> Well, it's uncommon for there to be bottom of the barrel samples, but it does happen.
> Refund it quoting that it keeps crashing no matter what, and get a new chip.
> Or buy my 13900KF which has a good IMC


Return period is long past unfortunately


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> Return period is long past unfortunately


...And you never noticed this before?


----------



## bhav

Rbk_3 said:


> Return period is long past unfortunately


If it doesn't run at stock clocks then thats covered under the 3 year warranty, not just the initial return period.


----------



## tubs2x4

tps3443 said:


> Maybe. Let me enjoy it for 1 day before I start killing it first lol.


just a single core test and one round of muti core... not looking for 30 min test haha


----------



## Rbk_3

bhav said:


> If it doesn't run at stock clocks then thats covered under the 3 year warranty, not just the initial return period.


Well it will run if I leave my motherboard completely stock but the voltage is way higher than I would like.


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


> ...And you never noticed this before?


Had no intention of using ecores.

Increased by 0.01MV and seems stable at a Cinebench Load Voltage of 1.24V.
What is an expected stable stock Cinebench load voltage ?


----------



## Falkentyne

BoredErica said:


> I passed 11hr of Stockfish and failed opening Minecraft x20 times. I'm starting to wonder if my crash is more due to Minecraft bugging out than my OC being unstable currently. That's not to say Minecraft isn't more intense than Stockfish, because I can pass Stockfish 30min and fail opening Minecraft 1 time w/ whea error.
> 
> Very bizarre.


Which build of stockfish did you use, and are you sure you set it to 32 threads?
The hardest builds to run are the BMI (haswell instruction) builds. I'm not sure how close the AVX2 builds are in stress to BMI builds.
I've tested minecraft vs stockfish and minecraft loads at 30mv lower than Stockfish (BMI2) needs to be stable.


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> Had no intention of using ecores.
> 
> Increased by 0.01MV and seems stable at a Cinebench Load Voltage of 1.24V.
> What is an expected stable stock Cinebench load voltage ?


Depends on what kind of motherboard you have, due to different Vcore readouts.
I've had a few definitively average samples so far.
Stock is around the 1.20V true VR VOUT area, plus-minus 0.02V. At stock clocks.


----------



## bhav

Rbk_3 said:


> Well it will run if I leave my motherboard completely stock but the voltage is way higher than I would like.


Ok some easy workarounds:

1) Did you buy it from a tech store or somewhere like Amazon? If Amazon they don't test returned chips, you just say it doesn't work and they refund.

2) If tech stores, they will test, so better option is to use Intel support. They will ask you to run all the tests on your end using XTU and attach system config files, they can't tell if you've tweaked the lite load or LLC setting as technically that could just be your motherboard's stock setting, i.e Intel do not know what the stock setting for your motherboard is or isnt.

Set the motherboard as close to stock as you can, auto voltages yes but **** the chip up with the lite load setting, then proceed with Intel RMA. Say the motherboard is running at auto / stock.


----------



## Rbk_3

Ichirou said:


> Depends on what kind of motherboard you have, due to different Vcore readouts.
> I've had a few definitively average samples so far.
> Stock is around the 1.20V true VR VOUT area, plus-minus 0.02V. At stock clocks.


MSI Tomahawk Z690 there is no VR Out only Vcore reading


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> Yea since you're also getting 5.7, even if you tried to be like Ichirou and bin another for 4300 ram, you could end up with one that doesn't do more than 5.5 all core.
> 
> Very difficult to get DR past 4200 anyway, so maybe your IMC can and the ram cant.
> 
> I'll be happy with whatever CPU OC I get, don't care cos stock speed is fine. Just cant OC it yet because doing backups first. I left them running while I slept, I'm still to scared to go and see how little progress has been made. Then I gotta copy everything back after setting up raid 0 2x4 Tb nvme. Then I can OC the CPU, sigh.


The ram can do 4533+ (and I think that's a mobo limitation) It's not uncommon for B Die to do 4400+ at all. My mate had a 10900k that was daily stable @4533 with DR


----------



## BoredErica

Falkentyne said:


> Which build of stockfish did you use, and are you sure you set it to 32 threads?
> The hardest builds to run are the BMI (haswell instruction) builds. I'm not sure how close the AVX2 builds are in stress to BMI builds.
> I've tested minecraft vs stockfish and minecraft loads at 30mv lower than Stockfish (BMI2) needs to be stable.


14t because it's 13600kf no HT.

Just checked, I made a mistake and got avx2 because I DLed the official 15.1 build rather than through the dev build site where I always get bmi2. I'll redo it I guess.

I passed overnight on 15.1 avx2, but I am confident I passed 30min bmi2 on an earlier beta and failed starting Minecraft. My friend told me in their experience it's possible when starting modded Minecraft and tabbing back into Minecraft when it's starting up, there's a small chance the game will crash due to software error or something. I'll make sure I don't touch Minecraft when it's running in the future.

The problem is, not all Minecraft crashes cause WHEA errors. But there are definitely times where crashing enough times eventually causes WHEA errors. Then OFC I know it's OC related. But crashing w/o WHEA error is more common. I can try to keep crashing until I get whea error but it takes forever.

Sometimes it's just stable, sometimes it's so unstable I can't start Minecraft correctly no matter how many times I try to start the game. Last time I was playing with a friend, started up fine. Played several hours, game crashed. Minecraft keeps vomitting WHEA errors. If it's so bad, how did I get into the game in the first place? Maybe it's heat related, I dunno. But that's a drastic change for not much change in liquid temp.

I wrote a script that starts and stops Minecraft when I'm sleeping to check for WHEA errors.

Stability on this CPU is giving me a headache. xD









Ready to go for tonight.


----------



## bhav

imrevoau said:


> The ram can do 4533+ (and I think that's a mobo limitation) It's not uncommon for B Die to do 4400+ at all. My mate had a 10900k that was daily stable @4533 with DR


Depends on your definition of uncommon, maybe 25% of DR B die will do that, but on average that would still be uncommon.


----------



## Ichirou

Rbk_3 said:


> MSI Tomahawk Z690 there is no VR Out only Vcore reading


Okay. If you can pass R23 with stock clocks at 1.24V, that's just a bit below average. But not bottom of the barrel.
I'd still RMA it if possible though. I wouldn't want to keep a subpar chip like that.


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> Depends on your definition of uncommon, maybe 25% of DR B die will do that, but on average that would still be uncommon.


4400+ is not at all hard for the kit of RAM. it's usually always down to the IMC unless you have a really bad bin or old kit of B-Die like the 3000 c15 stuff (does that even come in DR?)


----------



## bhav

Not sure if I want to HT off now, for 13900K it would have been definite as there are plenty of e cores, maybe even on 13700K cos 8 P cores.

13600K 6p & 8e cores, I probably want HT left on as otherwise its only 14 threads.


----------



## bhav

imrevoau said:


> 4400+ is not at all hard for the kit of RAM. it's usually always down to the IMC unless you have a really bad bin or old kit of B-Die like the 3000 c15 stuff (does that even come in DR?)


Actually yea you're right, its when B die went up to 3200, maybe even 3600 they were difficult at 4000 / 4200+.

Newer ones come up to 4800 2x16, so on those its fine.

Also just hit 2.26 / 3.26 Tb on my game library backup, go go shouldn't be too long now.


----------



## bhav

Just a curiosity I came across while wading through and trying to help the bajillion people with overheating 13600Ks on reddit.

At stock 13600K, with DDR5 (tuned I think?) around 24k in cinebench, with my 4300 ram 23.5, people with stock XMP 23k.


----------



## VULC

SP rating is one thing but I have a 12 degree delta from my best to worse core.


----------



## tps3443

tubs2x4 said:


> just a single core test and one round of muti core... not looking for 30 min test haha


I’m keeping the power and temps low. I’m gonna keep a limit of 325 watts, and be happy with it. 6.0Ghz on all P-Cores at once, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Ring, Auto voltage, Auto LLC, all cores run at 1.336VROut under an all-core load like CPU-Z multi Bench. Or any heavy load really. This VROut is JUST amazing for 6Ghz!

it’s 100% stable in Battlefield 2042.

I have another 13900K, and I can’t even launch BF2042 at 5.7Ghz, even with 1.358 VRout. “Not kidding” I had to just run it stock on that chip for BF2042. This game will break your heart really quickly. I’m on to memory overclocking, and memory stability testing. PS: the other 13900K I have can Run Cinebench at 5.8Ghz even, but can't launch BF2042 at only 5.7Ghz.

This is a screenshot inside of a 128 man server, on Battlefield 2042. This chip is a G!

Honestly, I will probably run something heavier, but right now I could care less. 1.334Vr out is still high no matter how good a chip is, and I do not advise pushing that voltage with high power under a stressful load. No need to degrade a CPU. I'm honestly in disbelief right now with this thing. This CPU scales like a snake. 

I was playing around with 5.7, or 5.8 earlier thinking MEHH. Its really really low VROut on those. But where it actually shines is going PAST those frequencies.

I love this CPU right now.


----------



## tubs2x4

tps3443 said:


> I’m keeping the power and temps low. I’m gonna keep a limit of 325 watts, and be happy with it. 6.0Ghz on all P-Cores at once, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Ring, Auto voltage, all cores is 1.336VROut under an all-core load like CPU-Z multi Bench.
> 
> it’s 100% stable in Battlefield 2042.
> 
> I have another 13900K, and I can’t even launch BF2042 at 5.7Ghz, even with 1.358 VRout. “Not kidding” I had to just run it stock on that chip for BF2042. This game will break your heart really quickly. I’m on to memory overclocking, and memory stability testing. PS: the other 13900K I have can Run Cinebench at 5.8Ghz even, but can't launch BF2042 at only 5.7Ghz.
> 
> This is a screenshot inside of a 128 man server, on Battlefield 2042. This chip is a G!
> 
> Honestly, I will probably run it. But I'm in too much disbelief right now with this thing. This CPU scales like a snake.
> 
> View attachment 2588452


Ok


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I’m keeping the power and temps low. I’m gonna keep a limit of 325 watts, and be happy with it. 6.0Ghz on all P-Cores at once, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Ring, Auto voltage, Auto LLC, all cores run at 1.336VROut under an all-core load like CPU-Z multi Bench. Or any heavy load really. This VROut is JUST amazing for 6Ghz!
> 
> it’s 100% stable in Battlefield 2042.
> 
> I have another 13900K, and I can’t even launch BF2042 at 5.7Ghz, even with 1.358 VRout. “Not kidding” I had to just run it stock on that chip for BF2042. This game will break your heart really quickly. I’m on to memory overclocking, and memory stability testing. PS: the other 13900K I have can Run Cinebench at 5.8Ghz even, but can't launch BF2042 at only 5.7Ghz.
> 
> This is a screenshot inside of a 128 man server, on Battlefield 2042. This chip is a G!
> 
> Honestly, I will probably run something heavier, but right now I could care less. I'm honestly in disbelief right now with this thing. This CPU scales like a snake.
> 
> I was playing around with 5.7, or 5.8 earlier thinking MEHH. Its low VROut on those. But where it actually shines is going PAST those frequencies.
> 
> I love this CPU right now.
> 
> View attachment 2588452


Luckily one person understands why I'm hellbent on binning these chips


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Luckily one person understands why I'm hellbent on binning these chips


At this point Intel will be farming all the good K chips I'd be trying for KF.


----------



## bhav

So I help another person on reddit with an overheating 13600K, omg he offers me $40!

So I install cashapp, and cashapp block the payment 'for your protection'.

Frigging cashapp.


----------



## bhav

VULC said:


> At this point Intel will be raping all the good K chips I'd be trying for KF.


Or just wait for KS now.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Or just wait for KS now.


It's quite likely that any above average 13900K's will be rebranded a 13900KS now, yeah. The same thing happened with the 12900K.

I'm waiting on an update from my friend; depending on how his chip turns out, I may or may not proceed with binning a 13900KS.
I have no idea when the 13900KS will be released, though. It seems like a guessing game right now.

I think in the coming days or weeks, we will be seeing more and more binners parting with their P-SP 120+ chips in fear of the 13900KS release.
And their market price will gradually decrease to under $1,000 USD.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Luckily one person understands why I'm hellbent on binning these chips


This chip is absolutely awesome at high frequencies. Very very surprising turn of events with this processor. Leaving 6Ghz daily with auto voltage/ auto LLC.

The Force 2 rating upset me earlier, but when I began actually testing and saw 6.3Ghz, then 6.4Ghz. I knew something was special. It’s only when you push past the barrier of what most CPU’s cannot even do, and that is when this chip starts showing it’s self.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> This chip is absolutely awesome at high frequencies. Very very surprising turn of events with this processor. Leaving 6Ghz daily with auto voltage/ auto LLC.
> 
> The Force 2 rating upset me earlier, but when I began actually testing and saw 6.3Ghz, then 6.4Ghz. I knew something was special. It’s only when you push past the barrier of what most CPU’s cannot even do, and that is when this chip starts showing it’s self.


But you maybe got like a 1 in a million chip there, one that somehow Intel failed to bin.

I'm excited to try out my 13600KF overclocks, but god damn these necessary backups first.

I know, after the first round of backups are done, I'll just run my steam lib off the HDD for now.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> But you maybe got like a 1 in a million chip there, one that somehow Intel failed to bin.
> 
> I'm excited to try out my 13600KF overclocks, but god damn these necessary backups first.
> 
> I know, after the first round of backups are done, I'll just run my steam lib off the HDD for now.


It’s not 1 in a million that’s silly haha. But It’s probably more like 1 in 25 or maybe even 1 in 100. (I honestly don’t really know) I know that a few guys on here have SP120+ P-Core 13900K’s other than me.

Yea it’s an awesome CPU! The E-Cores won’t do 4.7Ghz from the looks of it. But 4.6 is more than acceptable for me. The ring also doesn’t like 5.2Ghz. But it laughs at 5.1Ghz and doesn’t effect VID’s at all! The golden P-Core scaling more than makes up for the other areas and some.

I may try 4.7 again on the E-Cores. I only tried once and had some other stuff going on that could have been what was causing instability.

So far, it’s golden all the way though.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> So far, it’s golden all the way though.


And if Ichirou had it, it would be classified a junk chip because only 4133 in G1 or some such.


----------



## SoldierRBT

bhav said:


> Or just wait for KS now.


In my experience, KS requires newer bios/ucode to work which can cause issues with previous stable ram OC settings.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> And if Ichirou had it, it would be classified a junk chip because only 4133 in G1 or some such.


Don’t know how good it’s IMC is. I’m motherboard limited.


----------



## imrevoau

tps3443 said:


> Don’t know how good it’s IMC is. I’m motherboard limited.


Well you're on DDR5, so for Ichirou's case, who knows how it performs with DDR4.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> And if Ichirou had it, it would be classified a junk chip because only 4133 in G1 or some such.


Technically, @tps3443's chip was a hand-off that I facilitated with @chibi, in hopes that the P-SP 123 chip would be better.
I just didn't expect it to be a scam. _Again_. Because I apparently have **** luck even without retail chips and _supposedly_ prebinned ones.

Had I not been approached with the P-SP 123 chip, or had I known it would've been a scam, I would have chibi's chip in my hands right now.
It was admitted a tough decision I had to make at the time. One or the other.


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> Bring ring up +1 and check VID’s with HWInfo, reboot, rinse, repeat. When your p-core VID voltages start to increase at all, back the ring down -1 and stick to that. You can run the ring well past the E-Core frequency on 13th gen.


Does ring depend on sp? How do i find max stable ring?


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> Does ring depend on sp? How do i find max stable ring?


OC ram first then check ring. Your ring wont go as high with ram OC'd


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> This chip is absolutely awesome at high frequencies. Very very surprising turn of events with this processor. Leaving 6Ghz daily with auto voltage/ auto LLC.
> 
> The Force 2 rating upset me earlier, but when I began actually testing and saw 6.3Ghz, then 6.4Ghz. I knew something was special. It’s only when you push past the barrier of what most CPU’s cannot even do, and that is when this chip starts showing it’s self.


Please find it's SP🙏


----------



## HemuV2

VULC said:


> OC ram first then check ring. Your ring wont go as high with ram OC'd


It is OCed I'm running 4000cl15 gear1


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> Does ring depend on sp? How do i find max stable ring?


Set the ring to x52 and see if the chip is stable without WHEA errors, or freezing, BSOD, etc. If it locks up, go down to x51. Some chips with the ring set too high and your VID’s/VROut will shoot up like crazy.


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> It is OCed I'm running 4000cl15 gear1


Most would be x49 ring in most cases. If you do a ram stress test you shouldn't find any errors with 49 most likely higher you will.


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> Please find it's SP🙏


This is my CPU’s SP.

And a beautifully done paste spread job when I installed it lol.


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> Does ring depend on sp? How do i find max stable ring?


There isn't any SP reading for the ring.


HemuV2 said:


> Please find it's SP🙏


His chip is P-SP 121.

I don't think any 13900 struggles with ring up to 49x. Even 50x is probably fine on most chips.


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> This is my CPU’s SP.
> 
> And a beautifully done paste spread job when I installed it lol.
> 
> View attachment 2588457
> 
> 
> View attachment 2588456
> View attachment 2588460


damn thats 50mV lower VID than mine lol


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> Set the ring to x52 and see if the chip is stable without WHEA errors, or freezing, BSOD, etc. If it locks up, go down to x51. Some chips with the ring set too high and your VID’s/VROut will shoot up like crazy.


should i run cinebench? also should i test mnax ring at 55x stock or the 57x i normally run?


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> should i run cinebench? also should i test mnax ring at 55x stock or the 57x i normally run?


Try 55/43/50 first.


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> There isn't any SP reading for the ring.
> 
> His chip is P-SP 121.
> 
> I don't think any 13900 struggles with ring up to 49x. Even 50x is probably fine on most chips.


IM RUNNING 50X, SO MINE PASSED VST AT 50X 10 TIMES NEVER TRIED 51X


----------



## RobertoSampaio

tps3443 said:


> I have never seen a 13900K run 6.3Ghz on P-Core at all without a BSOD happening seconds in to loading windows. That definitely says something.
> 
> All I really want to do is run a 5.7 low power all-core with high single core boost on an adaptive voltage.


I run
P - 63x2- 61x4 - 59x6 - 57x8 (+2 boost tvb)
E - 48x4 - 47x8 - 46x16
R - 55x~8x
Full load P55x/E46x/R49x @ 1.146v









Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...


A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...




www.overclock.net


----------



## RichKnecht

Rbk_3 said:


> I have a 360 AIO. I just game and am in the 60s max. Still should be able to pass Cinebench at stock clocks at 1.23 vcore load voltage, no?


It really depends on heat. At 1.23 load and 97 degrees you are at the limits of your cooling or the TIM application and/or mount is bad.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> There isn't any SP reading for the ring.
> 
> His chip is P-SP 121.
> 
> I don't think any 13900 struggles with ring up to 49x. Even 50x is probably fine on most chips.


I had my ring at 4.9 because it was touchy at 5.0. Switched it to auto and it boosts to 5.0 all the time. Go figure.


----------



## tps3443

RobertoSampaio said:


> I run
> P - 63x2- 61x4 - 59x6 - 57x8 (+2 boost tvb)
> E - 48x4 - 47x8 - 46x16
> R - 55x~8x
> Full load P55x/E46x/R49x @ 1.146v
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...
> 
> 
> A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


What I meant was from all the 13900K’s I’ve tested, none of them could run 6.3Ghz+ without an immediate BSOD. 

Besides your CPU, and a few others. Using 6.3Ghz on most chips would just BSOD immediately after loading windows, or right after single threaded testing.


----------



## bhav

What is lite load called on Asus boards? Also if anyone knows for Gigatrash and Ascrap?

Too many people with 100+c at stock on their 13th gen chips and they don't all have MSI boards so I can't help.


----------



## Rbk_3

Krzych04650 said:


> P55/E43/R45 passed with 1.152V load, 1.270 LLC Mode 3 on Z690 Tomahawk DDR4 on new 13900K. 13900KF needed 1.24-1.25V load to even start the benchmark without insta crashing. Literally 100mV difference between them. Insanity.
> View attachment 2580919
> 
> 
> Also, 400W at 1.346V load. Holy bananas.
> 
> View attachment 2580923
> 
> 
> The cooling handles it quite well though, it only starts hitting 100C at around 440-450W. Heavily multithreaded games pull around 190-220W at 1.45V load though, so no worries.


Damn, my 13900K on the same board needs 1.36 at LLC 3 and load Vcore of 1.24 to not crash on Cinebench, more in line with your KF.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

bhav said:


> What is lite load called on Asus boards? Also if anyone knows for Gigatrash and Ascrap?
> 
> Too many people with 100+c at stock on their 13th gen chips and they don't all have MSI boards so I can't help.


Calm down with your trashing of name brands already, you look foolish.


----------



## Krzych04650

Rbk_3 said:


> Damn, my 13900K on the same board needs 1.36 at LLC 3 and load Vcore of 1.24 to not crash on Cinebench, more in line with your KF.


Yea it sounds exactly like my KF. I don't know how it worked before, but binning tolerances with those chips are very loose. The difference between my K and KF was completely ridiculous, and it is not like my current 13900K is some kind of golden sample either, anything above 5.8 all core with HT enabled is not really realistic, 5.9 needs 1.4V load and 6.0 is completely off the table, the only reason why I am running 6.0 all core is because of HT disabled. To think that there are samples that need 100mV more for any given clock and still be called the same name is a bit absurd.

With GPUs it happens too, I had two 2080 Tis and one was basically 150 MHz and 120mV better than the other and needed 60W less power for any given clock, and these were 250W cards, just for perspective it is basically as if you had 110W difference from one 4090 to another. One was so good that it was maybe 15-30 MHz away from binned chips like Kingpin or HOF, and the other was probably like 1% away from not making it past QC. My KF and your K are probably exactly that, few mV or MHz away from becoming non-K. Silicon lottery can be brutal.


----------



## bhav

MrTOOSHORT said:


> you look foolish.


I find that to be a compliment, thank you.


----------



## Spicedaddy

Ichirou said:


> I'm fairly confident I'm not the only person in the entire world who is binning chips and refunding the weaker ones.
> 
> Also, the chips are still functional. If they aren't, they can just be RMA'd. So no loss to the retailer.
> As long as you don't return chips that have been physically tampered with, I don't see where the issue is.


Others do it, doesn't mean it's right.

They're still functional but cannot be sold as new, so it's a loss for the retailer. Why do you think Best Buy doesn't let you return CPUs? Like you said, you can return them because your friend works there and is defrauding his employer.

You're binning the shady way, that's why the CPU gods will keep sending you crappy chips!


----------



## tubs2x4

Spicedaddy said:


> Others do it, doesn't mean it's right.
> 
> They're still functional but cannot be sold as new, so it's a loss for the retailer. Why do you think Best Buy doesn't let you return CPUs? Like you said, you can return them because your friend works there and is defrauding his employer.
> 
> You're binning the shady way, that's why the CPU gods will keep sending you crappy chips!


How would you resell that as new when box will clearly be opened?


----------



## Rbk_3

RichKnecht said:


> It really depends on heat. At 1.23 load and 97 degrees you are at the limits of your cooling or the TIM application and/or mount is bad.


It is stable at 1.24 it seems. I am not thermal throttling yet, all the cores are under 95C except the one. 



gtz said:


> In the beginning I thought I was the lottery bin loser since I got my chip a day (maybe 2, go it on Saturday) after launch. I only had the engineering samples and tps3443 godlike sample to go by and my chip sucked. But as time went most people started receiving there chips and most chips are similar to ours so I don't feel like I lost the lottery as much.
> 
> The good thing is even if you are a lottery loser, these chips still scale well with voltage if you can keep the chip cool. I finally stabilized 5.7 and am pretty happy with the results. Not running anything special for memory, just 5600 sticks running at 6200. Overall pretty happy with the config. This weekend I will see if I can push ring and e cores since they are at 44e/47r.


To add to this, I need 1.24-1.25 load Vcore to run Cinebench at stock 55/44/45. In gaming it hardly makes any difference so I am trying to be ok with it lol


----------



## Rbk_3

Krzych04650 said:


> Yea it sounds exactly like my KF. I don't know how it worked before, but binning tolerances with those chips are very loose. The difference between my K and KF was completely ridiculous, and it is not like my current 13900K is some kind of golden sample either, anything above 5.8 all core with HT enabled is not really realistic, 5.9 needs 1.4V load and 6.0 is completely off the table, the only reason why I am running 6.0 all core is because of HT disabled. To think that there are samples that need 100mV more for any given clock and still be called the same name is a bit absurd.
> 
> With GPUs it happens too, I had two 2080 Tis and one was basically 150 MHz and 120mV better than the other and needed 60W less power for any given clock, and these were 250W cards, just for perspective it is basically as if you had 110W difference from one 4090 to another. One was so good that it was maybe 15-30 MHz away from binned chips like Kingpin or HOF, and the other was probably like 1% away from not making it past QC. My KF and your K are probably exactly that, few mV or MHz away from becoming non-K. Silicon lottery can be brutal.


Sucks, but at the end of the day it doesn't make a whole lot of difference at all gaming which is all I use my PC for. Just more of a mental thing knowing others that pay the same price are getting much better samples.


----------



## Spicedaddy

tubs2x4 said:


> How would you resell that as new when box will clearly be opened?


You don't sell it again as new. Here's how binning works for honest people:

1. Buy CPU
2. Test OC
3. Keep it if it's good, sell it as *used* if it's not (this costs you money)

Returning it hurts the retailer. Pretending it's defective hurts Intel.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> What is lite load called on Asus boards? Also if anyone knows for Gigatrash and Ascrap?
> 
> Too many people with 100+c at stock on their 13th gen chips and they don't all have MSI boards so I can't help.


If you are lowering lite load on MSI boards to reduce temps and power usage for people with poor cooling, I would highly recommend testing BF2042 and seeing if it even launches and runs properly. My other lesser quality 13900K runs through 5.7Ghz pretty well (30) Minutes of R23, HCI Memtest is solid as well. But it can’t even launch BF2042. The chip just wasn’t being fed enough juice. That game seems to be a very good stability test starting point, without drawing absurd amounts of power either. That auto voltage is being sent for a reason.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

tps3443 said:


> If you are lowering lite load on MSI boards to reduce temps and power usage for people with poor cooling, I would highly recommend testing BF2042 and seeing if it even launches and runs properly. My other lesser quality 13900K runs through 5.7Ghz pretty well (30) Minutes of R23, HCI Memtest is solid as well. But it can’t even launch BF2042. The chip just wasn’t being fed enough juice. That game seems to be a very good stability test starting point, without drawing absurd amounts of power either. That auto voltage is being sent for a reason.


So what 13900ks do you have, the 124 force rating one and a 134 force too? And the 134 force is actually the better one? And now you have an Asus board now? which one?

Trying to keep up, just have to sift through some binning and ddr4 posts that is getting tiring.


----------



## tps3443

Rbk_3 said:


> Sucks, but at the end of the day it doesn't make a whole lot of difference at all gaming which is all I use my PC for. Just more of a mental thing knowing others that pay the same price are getting much better samples.


You could potentially have a decent sample 13900K. Your cooling did not look very good to me. I think your power usage was maybe 290 watts but your cores were nearing 100C. When a CPU is running this hot, efficiency goes right out the window. The CPU wants to draw even more voltage to maintain the same frequency. Then it just runs even hotter than it did before, which usually leads in to a crash.

Plenty of people have really good chips and don’t even realize it. I’ve tested (5) 13900K’s and (3) of those (5) chips were absolutely phenomenal. So the likelihood of finding a good one is definitely much better than playing around with scratch off tickets lol.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> If you are lowering lite load on MSI boards to reduce temps and power usage for people with poor cooling, I would highly recommend testing BF2042 and seeing if it even launches and runs properly. My other lesser quality 13900K runs through 5.7Ghz pretty well (30) Minutes of R23, HCI Memtest is solid as well. But it can’t even launch BF2042. The chip just wasn’t being fed enough juice. That game seems to be a very good stability test starting point, without drawing absurd amounts of power either. That auto voltage is being sent for a reason.


I am making sure to remind them to test in cinebench after for stability and performance degradation.

As for poor cooling, even people with 280mm AIOs are hitting 100c at stock on 13600Ks, I didn't realize at first it was due to the auto volts.

Mine still maxes at 72c after setting lite load 1 on an Arctic 420mmAIO, but haven't put my bend corrector on yet as I wanted to test everything, and my mobo might need an RMA as I still can't get the LAN port to work.


----------



## tps3443

MrTOOSHORT said:


> So what 13900ks do you have, the 124 force rating one and a 134 force too? And the 134 force is actually the better one? And now you have an Asus board now? which one?
> 
> Trying to keep up, just have to sift through some binning and ddr4 posts that is getting tiring.


I bought the CPU knowing it was an SP121 P-Core 13900K, it was confirmed good by several people on here. The force2 rating is only 135ish though. Which kinda led me to think I was scammed lol. Only until I actually started manually overclocking and going past 5.8Ghz, and past 5.9Ghz, did I see it’s true greatness lol. I think Force2 is calculated off of idle temps and idle bios voltage. It’s just not accurate at all. The thing is, this is the only CPU I’ve tested of (5) that can run 6.3GHz and even 6.4Ghz on the cores during single threaded testing. It’s running 6.0Ghz P-Cores, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz ring daily now. Water chiller is off, auto voltage, auto LLC. VID’s are 1.350, and VROut is 1.336 under full load.

Force2 is just not accurate at all. Yesterday went from bad day, to an amazing day.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

I remember reading here that sp wasn't to be taken too seriously too. Ppl got average sp, but the cpu clocked like no other.

So you had 3 really good 13900s then, two average ones?

I only bought two, both average. I don't know if I'll get a KS this time like the 12900KS I had. I still get a good 3dmark cpu bench scores with mine when the weather is cold.

Like some ppl here say, even the average 13900Ks are fast good.


----------



## bhav

All 13900Ks are fast at stock, but some people here trying to get ones with 6.0+ all core and such.


----------



## warbucks

MrTOOSHORT said:


> I remember reading here that sp wasn't to be taken too seriously too. Ppl got average sp, but the cpu clocked like no other.
> 
> So you had 3 really good 13900s then, two average ones?
> 
> I only bought two, both average. I don't know if I'll get a KS this time like the 12900KS I had. I still get a good 3dmark cpu bench scores with mine when the weather is cold.
> 
> Like some ppl here say, even the average 13900Ks are fast good.


This here. I have a decent/average 13900k(SP105). The MC SP is 70 but I'm hitting 8200 with ease and pushing for 8400 once the ram is under water. You have to test these cpus to see what they can actually do and can't base it off the SP rating. I will probably skip the 13900KS and wait for the refresh towards the end of 2023(keep the same mobo/ram).


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> You could potentially have a decent sample 13900K. Your cooling did not look very good to me. I think your power usage was maybe 290 watts but your cores were nearing 100C. When a CPU is running this hot, efficiency goes right out the window. The CPU wants to draw even more voltage to maintain the same frequency. Then it just runs even hotter than it did before, which usually leads in to a crash.
> 
> *Plenty of people have really good chips and don’t even realize it*. I’ve tested (5) 13900K’s and (3) of those (5) chips were absolutely phenomenal. So the likelihood of finding a good one is definitely much better than playing around with scratch off tickets lol.


My chip seems pretty decent, but to be honest the gains from stock to 57/46/49 full load aren't worth it IMO. Just judging from R23 scores, I gained like 4% (40750 stock vs 42350 OC ). BUT, that comes at the expense of 325+ watts of power ( with possible degradation long term ) and hot cores. Right now I have it undervolted and am running all defaults (except for tweaked DCLL and ACLL) with a max temp of 70C and max power usage of 203W and idle power of 5W. All core load is 1.149V.


----------



## tps3443

MrTOOSHORT said:


> I remember reading here that sp wasn't to be taken too seriously too. Ppl got average sp, but the cpu clocked like no other.
> 
> So you had 3 really good 13900s then, two average ones?
> 
> I only bought two, both average. I don't know if I'll get a KS this time like the 12900KS I had. I still get a good 3dmark cpu bench scores with mine when the weather is cold.
> 
> Like some ppl here say, even the average 13900Ks are fast good.


So, SP rating on 13th gen seems to be accurate and legit. I know on 10th, and 11th it was not. Some lower SP chips were really amazing “Not very many” lol.

The thing is, my force 124 was still a great CPU it could even run 5.5Ghz at just slightly less voltage than this chip. But, it was an immediate BSOD for any cores beyond 6.2Ghz. 

The scaling on this new chip is where it’s at though. When you start clocking past 5.8 that’s where the Force 135 leaves the Force 124 in the dust. And it’s also labeled as an SP121 P-core cpu. I don’t think that is a coincidence.

All chips are different though. Chances are if it’s an SP115+ chip it’s gonna be a really great CPU. But if it’s a SP119+ it will most likely be stupid fast with insane top end overclocking.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> What is lite load called on Asus boards? Also if anyone knows for Gigatrash and Ascrap?
> 
> Too many people with 100+c at stock on their 13th gen chips and they don't all have MSI boards so I can't help.


AC_LL and DC_LL. 


tps3443 said:


> You could potentially have a decent sample 13900K. Your cooling did not look very good to me. I think your power usage was maybe 290 watts but your cores were nearing 100C. When a CPU is running this hot, efficiency goes right out the window. The CPU wants to draw even more voltage to maintain the same frequency. Then it just runs even hotter than it did before, which usually leads in to a crash.
> 
> Plenty of people have really good chips and don’t even realize it. I’ve tested (5) 13900K’s and (3) of those (5) chips were absolutely phenomenal. So the likelihood of finding a good one is definitely much better than playing around with scratch off tickets lol.


I've noticed from my binning that chips from American companies were slightly better. Not by a significant amount, but definitely noticeable. Still a lottery though. 

It's not a good idea now to bin 13900K's, though. Since the better ones are going to be rebranded 13900KSes.


----------



## Krzych04650

tps3443 said:


> If you are lowering lite load on MSI boards to reduce temps and power usage for people with poor cooling, I would highly recommend testing BF2042 and seeing if it even launches and runs properly. My other lesser quality 13900K runs through 5.7Ghz pretty well (30) Minutes of R23, HCI Memtest is solid as well. But it can’t even launch BF2042. The chip just wasn’t being fed enough juice. That game seems to be a very good stability test starting point, without drawing absurd amounts of power either. That auto voltage is being sent for a reason.


Yea AC Origins does that as well. These are very CPU heavy presumably AVX enabled games, and unlike stress tests like R23 they are erratic real world workloads and not a pretty controlled environment lab tests, they will not let you past the loading screen with unstable OC. And even if you do get past, you won't last very long.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> It's not a good idea now to bin 13900K's, though. Since the better ones are going to be rebranded 13900KSes.


Quite sure they've been doing that since the start.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Quite sure they've been doing that since the start.


Whether they have or haven't isn't important; the point is that it's going to be even more reserved for the 13900KSes now.


----------



## tps3443

Krzych04650 said:


> Yea AC Origins does that as well. These are very CPU heavy presumably AVX enabled games, and unlike stress tests like R23 they are erratic real world workloads and not a pretty controlled environment lab tests, they will not let you past the loading screen with unstable OC. And even if you do get past, you won't last very long.


It was the first thing I tested on my new CPU. 😎


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Quite sure they've been doing that since the start.


Maybe, but I think @Ichirou is right. I think Intel is aggressively binning the 13900Ks now with the release of the KS around the corner. I, for one, won't buy one as spending 30-50% more for a 5-6% performance bump is insane.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Maybe, but I think @Ichirou is right. I think Intel is aggressively binning the 13900Ks now with the release of the KS around the corner. I, for one, won't buy one as spending 30-50% more for a 5-6% performance bump is insane.


The performance bump is probably even less than that, since the main clocks are still running at 54x.

60x on a single core isn't going to net a whole lot over 57x, even assuming there to not be any throttling and the clock sticks.

I honestly don't know why Intel didn't raise the main clocks by even +1x. Did they get _that_ many degraded chips sent back?

I hope Intel prices it competitively. If not, AMD's just going to catch up with an X3D.


----------



## tubs2x4

Spicedaddy said:


> You don't sell it again as new. Here's how binning works for honest people:
> 
> 1. Buy CPU
> 2. Test OC
> 3. Keep it if it's good, sell it as *used* if it's not (this costs you money)
> 
> Returning it hurts the retailer. Pretending it's defective hurts Intel.


That’s what I’m saying how would that work… I guess I should have quoted other fella… so what’s does the “friends” at the retailer do with these cpus that don’t have open box returns? Send them back as rma? Cause they couldn’t put them on the shelf as new since you could see cpu box was opened.


----------



## WayWayUp

tps3443 said:


> My other 13900K peaks at 252 watts in BF2042 bone stock.
> 
> So far this chip is peaking 214 watts however it’s running 5.7Ghz-6.3Ghz P-Cores with 4.5 E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Ring.


im curious about the large spread here. is it so you can do 6.3 on the top cores?
my 24/7 settings i have settled on 60-58 with an average of 59, but i was able to get low power draw so im pretty happy about that. i do have a +2 tvb proflile set up as well, its nice and can acompish the general gist of what your trying to achieve in low core situations but i understand the tempation of 6.3 in general. amazing 🤜🤛

have you tested higher e core than 45x? just curious. maybe you dont want the heat?


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> The performance bump is probably even less than that, since the main clocks are still running at 54x.
> 
> 60x on a single core isn't going to net a whole lot over 57x, even assuming there to not be any throttling and the clock sticks.
> 
> I honestly don't know why Intel didn't raise the main clocks by even +1x. Did they get _that_ many degraded chips sent back?
> 
> I hope Intel prices it competitively. If not, AMD's just going to catch up with an X3D.


Apparently it is spreading misinformation that 13900Ks degrade with any significant overclocking with TDP going too much above 253w or SA over 1.4v.

The latest such opinion 'these chips are made to run at 100c, they're not going to degrade at that.' Well, good luck with that is what I suggest.

Bearing in mind the average overclocker will be ignoring tdp and just apply more volts and more clocks on a 360mm or less AIO.

Now if I had a 13900K, left my mobo on auto with watercooling 4000+ PL, and left it running at 100+c on each core, how long is it going to last?


----------



## WayWayUp

sugi0lover said:


> This is really a well balanced retail 13900K (SP114, P122 / E98 / Mc SP 88) by Doojin.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: retail 13900K SP(P, E, MC)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2588419
> 
> View attachment 2588420
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 8800 CL36 HCI test
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2588421
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 9000 CL38 Booting Test
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2588422


any interest in selling this?


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> *Apparently it is spreading misinformation that 13900Ks degrade with any significant overclocking with TDP going too much above 253w or SA over 1.4v.*
> 
> The latest such opinion 'these chips are made to run at 100c, they're not going to degrade at that.' Well, good luck with that is what I suggest.
> 
> Bearing in mind the average overclocker will be ignoring tdp and just apply more volts and more clocks on a 360mm or less AIO.
> 
> Now if I had a 13900K, left my mobo on auto with watercooling 4000+ PL, and left it *running at 100+c on each core, how long is it going to last?*


Degradation always worries me with this chip. Didn't think about it until I started reading this thread. It's one of the reasons I went back to defaults with a healthy undervolt. Heck, under volting is harder than over clocking.


----------



## Ichirou

tubs2x4 said:


> That’s what I’m saying how would that work… I guess I should have quoted other fella… so what’s does the “friends” at the retailer do with these cpus that don’t have open box returns? Send them back as rma? Cause they couldn’t put them on the shelf as new since you could see cpu box was opened.


The thing is, BestBuy _does_ accept refunds... for products considered "defective." I imagine the same goes for stores like Canada Computers as well.
I've been told that they either get resold as open-box after a Geek Squad 🇹🇲 inspection, or sent back for RMA after enough returned stock builds up.

Intel always grants each major retailer a certain number of free exchanges/RMAs, since they are their biggest customers.
The costs of those returns are already factored into their potential expenses.
The quantity of returns/RMAs will never be more than 5-10% of their total sales, so they always make enough profit to write them off.
Plus, they will refurbish most of those chips anyway, as they will likely be "accidental" RMAs of perfectly functional chips (i.e. consumer human error).

At the end of the day, it's all been factored into the equation already. It's just some minor inconvenience to the retailer and/or Intel.
Again, as long as a chip has not been physically tampered with, I fail to see how it affects any other consumers.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

tps3443 said:


> If you are lowering lite load on MSI boards to reduce temps and power usage for people with poor cooling, I would highly recommend testing BF2042 and seeing if it even launches and runs properly. My other lesser quality 13900K runs through 5.7Ghz pretty well (30) Minutes of R23, HCI Memtest is solid as well. But it can’t even launch BF2042. The chip just wasn’t being fed enough juice. That game seems to be a very good stability test starting point, without drawing absurd amounts of power either. That auto voltage is being sent for a reason.


I’ve noticed a big difference in dx11 vs dx12 …dx11 can game all day no probs…dx12 get many whea errors just loading games…ridiculous.


----------



## VULC

I returned a 12900K that was a bad bin that wouldn't XMP stock unless I ran 1.4v VDDQ. I told the store and they happily took it back for an exchange.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> I returned a 12900K that was a bad bin that wouldn't XMP stock unless I ran 1.4v VDDQ. I told the store and they happily took it back for an exchange.


Yeah, that's how most electronics stores work.
They issue you a refund/exchange, and then they deal with the RMA (in bulk) on their own, since they are allocated a certain amount of free RMAs by Intel.

Sometimes some stores would rather not waste time, so they have their own in-house technicians try to test the chips to see if they could simply be resold open-box.
Often times, many chips that are returned are perfectly fine, but maybe some other hardware the customer had caused compatibility issues.


----------



## RichKnecht

If I had a crappy chip I would be afraid to return it and get a crappier chip. That's how my luck goes. Glad this one is decent as was my 10980XE. Both from MC which is about 10 minutes away (VERY DANGEROUS)


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> If I had a crappy chip I would be afraid to return it and get a crappier chip. That's how my luck goes. Glad this one is decent as was my 10980XE. Both from MC which is about 10 minutes away (VERY DANGEROUS)


You could keep exchanging it... But it really depends on how lenient the staff in your store are. Some might get grumpy, some might not care.


----------



## RichKnecht

I have only exchanged one thing at MC and it was RAM i bought for my 10980XE. It would not run at XMP no matter what. I exchanged it for the 64GB b-die kit I am using now (which doesn't OC for crap).


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> I bought the CPU knowing it was an SP121 P-Core 13900K, it was confirmed good by several people on here. The force2 rating is only 135ish though. Which kinda led me to think I was scammed lol. Only until I actually started manually overclocking and going past 5.8Ghz, and past 5.9Ghz, did I see it’s true greatness lol. I think Force2 is calculated off of idle temps and idle bios voltage. It’s just not accurate at all. The thing is, this is the only CPU I’ve tested of (5) that can run 6.3GHz and even 6.4Ghz on the cores during single threaded testing. It’s running 6.0Ghz P-Cores, 4.5Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz ring daily now. Water chiller is off, auto voltage, auto LLC. VID’s are 1.350, and VROut is 1.336 under full load.
> 
> Force2 is just not accurate at all. Yesterday went from bad day, to an amazing day.


why cant @Ichirou get one like you did? his plight seems painful


----------



## pipes

i changed the el backplate for lga1200 to lga 1700 model for my supremacy evo but i made the footprint worse, can this help? Thermalright LGA1700-BCF Intel 12th/13th Generation Anti-Bending Buckle, Curved Pressure Plate, CPU Fixing Buckle, CPU Flex Correction Fixer (Black) https://amzn.eu/d/dUdDcSk

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, that's how most electronics stores work.
> They issue you a refund/exchange, and then they deal with the RMA (in bulk) on their own, since they are allocated a certain amount of free RMAs by Intel.
> 
> Sometimes some stores would rather not waste time, so they have their own in-house technicians try to test the chips to see if they could simply be resold open-box.
> Often times, many chips that are returned are perfectly fine, but maybe some other hardware the customer had caused compatibility issues.


can we like get 2 chips send back the worse one, get another, keep the better one and repeat this?


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> why cant @Ichirou get one like you did? his plight seems painful


He’s gonna get one very soon. I will say this, this is the first time I’ve had a truly amazing 13900K. My other samples were very very very good. But not SP120+ P-Core good like this one.

Pretty sure he’s negotiating a deal to get one from somebody.


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> He’s gonna get one very soon. I will say this, this is the first time I’ve had a truly amazing 13900K. My other samples were very very very good. But not SP120+ P-Core good like this one.
> 
> Pretty sure he’s negotiating a deal to get one from somebody.


so iirc you had bought 3 samples 1 good another very good and then a dud on top of these threee you also bought a binned one? is that correct?


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> can we like get 2 chips send back the worse one, get another, keep the better one and repeat this?


Most stores' return/exchange policies are ambiguous enough that it is legally permissible.
The employees might not like you doing it, but it is not unlawful. It's just taking advantage of flaws in their policies.
Some stores have gotten tired of this and enacted "unopened only" policies, but most stores still use traditional open box policies.

The issue is not so much the potential loss (they can typically RMA the chips for basically free), but the time and effort involved.
That's why some stores simply resell them as open box after a test run to see if it's still functional, perhaps with an extended warranty in case it's really faulty.

If anything, you'd probably get fed up with the binning soon enough that you'd stop doing it, anyway.
You have to go to/from the store (or wait for shipping) for the chip, and then you have to go through installing/uninstalling each chip and testing them.
This can and will eventually tire you out, and likely frustrate you.

ASUS boards make the job a little easier with their SP readouts, though. It's a binner's best friend.

In my case, I haven't gone to the same retailer twice except for this one time with the two BestBuy 13900K's.
But to be fair, I'm still holding onto one of their chips (since it is the best so far), so it's only one return I'm making in total to them.
All of my other chips were binned ones from second-hand sellers.


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> If you are lowering lite load on MSI boards to reduce temps and power usage for people with poor cooling, I would highly recommend testing BF2042 and seeing if it even launches and runs properly. My other lesser quality 13900K runs through 5.7Ghz pretty well (30) Minutes of R23, HCI Memtest is solid as well. But it can’t even launch BF2042. The chip just wasn’t being fed enough juice. That game seems to be a very good stability test starting point, without drawing absurd amounts of power either. That auto voltage is being sent for a reason.


Like I said many times. BF is the most fun stability tester


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> Like I said many times. BF is the most fun stability tester


My new chip is running 6.0Ghz P-Cores, 4.5Ghz E-cores, 5.1Ghz ring. Auto voltage, auto LLC, average power usage is 140 watts during BF2042. I’m loving it!!! 6Ghz on all P-Cores is so awesome for BF2042


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> My new chip is running 6.0Ghz P-Cores, 4.5Ghz E-cores, 5.1Ghz ring. Auto voltage, auto LLC, average power usage is 140 watts during BF2042. I’m loving it!!! 6Ghz on all P-Cores is so awesome for BF2042


How much did you end up getting it for if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> How much did you end up getting it for if you don't mind me asking?


Sure why not.

My new and current SP121 P-Core 13900K was $_,**_ USD shipped.

Now all the guys in here who own SP120+ P-Core chips are like hmmmm. 🏷


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Nizzen said:


> Like I said many times. BF is the most fun stability tester


If i do [email protected] with DLSS for more FPS it kick me over 45° and TVB down to 5,5Ghz^^ in my daily setting.
Up to 150W^^ and this value is correctly, i have checked with wattmeter.


----------



## tps3443

PhoenixMDA said:


> If i do [email protected] with DLSS for more FPS it kick me over 45° and TVB down to 5,5Ghz^^ in my daily setting.
> Up to 150W^^ and this value is correctly, i have checked with wattmeter.
> View attachment 2588533


It’s a great stabil test.


----------



## ViTosS

PhoenixMDA said:


> If i do [email protected] with DLSS for more FPS it kick me over 45° and TVB down to 5,5Ghz^^ in my daily setting.
> Up to 150W^^ and this value is correctly, i have checked with wattmeter.
> View attachment 2588533


Is this Windows 10? Because 11 22H2 the core usage is all over the place... Not all cores are being utilized. But I need to test it again to make sure.


----------



## Nizzen

ViTosS said:


> Is this Windows 10? Because 11 22H2 the core usage is all over the place... Not all cores are being utilized. But I need to test it again to make sure.


My old 7980xe in BF 2042, win 11









Fps is pretty good too


----------



## RichKnecht

With all this talk about games. I may have to get one. Haven’t gamed on a PC in ages and now I have a great machine to try it on.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

ViTosS said:


> Is this Windows 10? Because 11 22H2 the core usage is all over the place... Not all cores are being utilized. But I need to test it again to make sure.


I think both is in the limit,
Win11 i won´t install in many cases it´s slower, it´s more downgrade as upgrade.
In normal gameplay i drive the graphic card also [email protected]/0,88V, my monitor can do [email protected] 🤷‍♂️.graphic card and CPU do in every case then more as needed^^.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> With all this talk about games. I may have to get one. Haven’t gamed on a PC in ages and now I have a great machine to try it on.


You have a 3090Ti and a 13900K. 😎


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> You have a 3090Ti and a 13900K. 😎


I do like FPS games. I’m going to show my age here, but the last games I played on a PC were Doom and Battlefield. There was another, forget the name, where I was fighting Nazis. Began with a “W” if I remember correctly. I bought a Microsoft Force Feedback joystick. It was kind of cool ” back in the day”.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I do like FPS games. I’m going to show my age here, but the last games I played on a PC were Doom and Battlefield. There was another, forget the name, where I was fighting Nazis. Began with a “W” if I remember correctly. I bought a Microsoft Force Feedback joystick. It was kind of cool ” back in the day”.


Some Wolfenstein game?


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Some Wolfenstein game?


Yes! That was it.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> I do like FPS games. I’m going to show my age here, but the last games I played on a PC were Doom and Battlefield. There was another, forget the name, where I was fighting Nazis. Began with a “W” if I remember correctly. I bought a Microsoft Force Feedback joystick. It was kind of cool ” back in the day”.


Wolfestein bro, friggin awesome
Game, enemy territory was free ware class based fps- Id software engine.

the game is still around but it’s terribly optimized…like 30-60 Fps couldnt be bothered to figure it out


----------



## ViTosS

PhoenixMDA said:


> I think both is in the limit,
> Win11 i won´t install in many cases it´s slower, it´s more downgrade as upgrade.
> In normal gameplay i drive the graphic card also [email protected]/0,88V, my monitor can do [email protected] 🤷‍♂️.graphic card and CPU do in every case then more as needed^^.


So is it Windows 10 right? I didn't understand your reply, I said that in Windows 11 22H2 the individual core usage are not like that, so I presume it's Windows 10, I maybe will go back to it then. Also when you test RAM OC with TM5 in Windows 10, are all your 32 threads being fully utilized?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

ViTosS said:


> So is it Windows 10 right? I didn't understand your reply, I said that in Windows 11 22H2 the individual core usage are not like that, so I presume it's Windows 10, I maybe will go back to it then. Also when you test RAM OC with TM5 in Windows 10, are all your 32 threads being fully utilized?


Yes win 10 all threads will be used like by memtestpro but there you must start as admin.
Tm5, memtest make no difference between win10/11, win11 i had testet at first (but not with 22H2)
Performance at my last tests was in win10 better.
The performance issue with Win11 22H2 was confirmed from Microsoft.


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Wolfestein bro, friggin awesome
> Game, enemy territory was free ware class based fps- Id software engine.
> 
> the game is still around but it’s terribly optimized…like 30-60 Fps couldnt be bothered to figure it out


 I’ll have to look for something new. Then figure out what I’ll need for a controller. I do have some fancy rgb keyboard with the “clicky” switches a guy at MC recommended to me.


----------



## digitalfrost

RichKnecht said:


> With all this talk about games. I may have to get one. Haven’t gamed on a PC in ages and now I have a great machine to try it on.


The best stuff I have ever played:


Witcher 3 (there's an updated version coming out tomorrow with Raytracing)
Kingdom Come: Deliverance
Red Dead Redemption 2
XCOM 2

These are all available for little money since they are a couple of years old. If you enjoy a grind and like shooters look at Escape from Tarkov, but it's not an easy game to get into.


----------



## Falkentyne

I think I fixed the problem with the P-cores going to sleep and all the load going on the E-cores, when you alt tab out of an application to something like a browser or something, until focus is returned to the program.


----------



## ViTosS

PhoenixMDA said:


> Yes win 10 all threads will be used like by memtestpro but there you must start as admin.
> Tm5, memtest make no difference between win10/11, win11 i had testet at first (but not with 22H2)
> Performance at my last tests was in win10 better.
> The performance issue with Win11 22H2 was confirmed from Microsoft.


This is the usage with Windows 11 22H2 (using Ghost Spectre version, got it from @Nizzen, it's a more tweaked Windows and more light without telemetry and Windows Defender, etc), as you can see a lot of cores are not being utilized...


----------



## ViTosS

Definitely something weird with Windows 11 22H2, all the games are like this... Considering to go back to 10 now


----------



## Ichirou

You have to implement the power plan hack to unhide the hidden developer settings that allow you to enable both the Performant and Efficient cores under any load.


----------



## gecko991

Can't stand 11 I shall wait.


----------



## ViTosS

Ichirou said:


> You have to implement the power plan hack to unhide the hidden developer settings that allow you to enable both the Performant and Efficient cores under any load.


Tell me how please


----------



## BoredErica

Checking core to core variance...

Also I passed 6hr Stockfish @ 100.6 blck, x57/x50/x44 1.4v 160w PL1/PL2 for pcore/ring/ecore. Now I want to see if I can move vcore in bios back to 1.36v.


----------



## Klauspro

Мой лучший результат!
13700к
Z690 Аурус Мастер
Drr5 7100 hynix m-die
P 57/ e 45/ ring 49/ V 1.42
R 23 максимальная температура 95-97
В игре можно увидеть
Кастомное водяное охлаждение, EK Velocity 2, 3x 360/6см радиатор


----------



## digitalfrost




----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> With all this talk about games. I may have to get one. Haven’t gamed on a PC in ages and now I have a great machine to try it on.


Still copying my library back to my raid 0 now so I still can't try any games or CPU overclocking, initially it said 5 hours for writing them back to the SSDs, but its still only at 60%.

PC's been on for 48+ hours doing backups now.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

ViTosS said:


> Definitely something weird with Windows 11 22H2, all the games are like this... Considering to go back to 10 now


It´s better to use Win10, here is my normal Gameplay BFV [email protected] with RTX DLSS off
You see PCore as first used, RTX cost more CPU Power.I must look perhaps i can better the Watt if i change the LLC to harder🤔


----------



## tps3443

digitalfrost said:


> The best stuff I have ever played:
> 
> 
> Witcher 3 (there's an updated version coming out tomorrow with Raytracing)
> Kingdom Come: Deliverance
> Red Dead Redemption 2
> XCOM 2
> 
> These are all available for little money since they are a couple of years old. If you enjoy a grind and like shooters look at Escape from Tarkov, but it's not an easy game to get into.


I loved Kingdom Come Deliverance. I’ve beat it a few times. The massive battles are insane, fighting to the death in a huge battle, all while trying to loot the dead for their shiny plate off the ground armor at the same time 🤣

Cant wait for their sequel.


----------



## bhav

Still waiting for Star Citizen, but apparently everyone thinks its a vaporware cash cow scam at this point, never going to be released.


----------



## Nizzen

PhoenixMDA said:


> It´s better to use Win10, here is my normal Gameplay BFV [email protected] with RTX DLSS off
> You see PCore as first used, RTX cost more CPU Power.I must look perhaps i can better the Watt if i change the LLC to harder🤔
> View attachment 2588606


Pleace show us better performance in Battlefield in win 10 vs win 11 
On my computer, I doubt it's faster when I'm using Win 11 spectre H2


----------



## bhav

OMG WItcher 3 RTX update is out, BACKUPS HURRY UP I NEED TO PLAY THAT ASAP!!!!


----------



## digitalfrost

bhav said:


> OMG WItcher 3 RTX update is out, BACKUPS HURRY UP I NEED TO PLAY THAT ASAP!!!!


I cannot get the overlay to work but it seems to stutter despite OCed 13700k and RTX 3090...


----------



## GQNerd

Just some fine-tuning on the 13900k.. going to focus on RAM OC next

SP 106
P116, E88, MC79
6.0 4P cores, 5.8 All PCore
4.7 All Ecore
5.0 Ring
Max Power Draw 340w
Custom loop, Velocity2 block, d5 pump, single 360x45mm rad in push/pull


----------



## Ichirou

Miguelios said:


> Just some fine-tuning on the 13900k.. going to focus on RAM OC next
> 
> SP 106
> P116, E88, MC79
> 6.0 4P cores, 5.8 All PCore
> 4.7 All Ecore
> 5.0 Ring
> Max Power Draw 340w
> Custom loop, Velocity2 block, d5 pump, single 360x45mm rad in push/pull
> 
> View attachment 2588611


That is very good.


----------



## bhav

Teracopy lied to me, it said 5 hours to copy everything back to my lovely 8 Tb of 13k read and writes drive.

Still at 68% done 12+ hours later.


----------



## BoredErica

Falkentyne said:


> Which build of stockfish did you use, and are you sure you set it to 32 threads?
> The hardest builds to run are the BMI (haswell instruction) builds. I'm not sure how close the AVX2 builds are in stress to BMI builds.
> I've tested minecraft vs stockfish and minecraft loads at 30mv lower than Stockfish (BMI2) needs to be stable.


I ran some stress tests for 60s each and checked peak temps @ 160w P1/P2 1.38v vcore input into bios LLC4 on z690 MSI-A.
Stockfish 15.1 BMI 14T: 67c
Minecraft 1.19.2 w/ Optifine (startup, immediately go to test world. No other mods.) : 78c
Linpack 1.1.5: 72c
ycruncher N64: 75c
ycruncher VST: 73c
p95 Small ffts: 73c

What I'm saying is, *I'm getting higher peak temps STARTING MINECRAFT vs p95/ycruncher/Linpack. *Perhaps the heavy power limit affects throttling more and Minecraft in parts is avoiding significant power throttling. p95 was throttling clocks like crazy. Minecraft was so hot, it was throttling due to my 80c thermal limit.

1.35v SF passed 15m. Minecraft crashed startup on 1st try w/ WHEA.
1.36v Minecraft crashed startup on 1st try. Trying again froze my computer. 
1.37v Minecraft crashed startup 2 out of 20 times, no WHEA. (Tried 1.19.3 w/o Optifine and computer froze.)
1.38v Minecraft crashed startup 1 out of 25 times, 1 WHEA.
1.39v Minecraft crashed startup 1 out of many times, no WHEA. Thermal throttling.
1.4v SF passed 6hr

I will now try testing SF at 1.37v to see if SF will catch instability.

==
Under the notion that primary driver of degradation is current, by having a static power limit as voltage goes up, I am safe from high current because power limit in watts is lower than current in amps, especially at high voltage. Gain small bit of single thread at cost of a good chunk of multithread, because as power limit is same and voltage goes up I think throttling occurs more aggressively.

Example: 100.6 bclk x57 pcore, x50 ring, x44 ecore,160w p1/p2.
1.4v vcore input into bios, Stockfish nodes after 20s: 310,783k
1.35v: 348,212k

I guess there is slightly more wiggle room for higher power limit due to lower current draw at same power with higher voltage. But thermals are definitely going up. With my 80c thermal limit, I've just mostly traded power throttling for thermal throttling. Plus, the more lax I am with throttling at all core the more voltage I need to sustain the higher clocks on all core when my Skyrim was running fine at way lower voltages to begin with.

Since 13600kf ended up being a ludicrous 80% faster than 5600x with identical ram in Skyrim, I will probably upgrade CPUs more often in the future. I feel like I've done basic due diligence to avoid degradation but at end of the day I don't really know, nobody really knows. If I lose 1-2 multipliers 2yr down the line, that's the kick in the butt I need to upgrade my CPU anyways. 160w power limit means low max current and I'm still <1.4v. My days of running my CPU overnight with all core chess workload night after night contributing to Stockfish developement are over. I only pull 65w while gaming.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Nizzen said:


> Pleace show us better performance in Battlefield in win 10 vs win 11
> On my computer, I doubt it's faster when I'm using Win 11 spectre H2


Can you show me your timespy CPU Score?
29k-30k is with oc possible with DDR5.
No i don't install Win11^^.Microsoft has said they have with H2 a performance issue.
It can be that BF is faster Win11 in CPU Limit, but i'm not playing in 720p low 500FPS


----------



## bhav

So I've just sent a support ticket to Intel to ask if the default lite load and voltages are running according to Intel spec, and whether or not reducing the lite load would invalidate warranty.

Going to be very interested to see what they say.


----------



## Krzych04650

Wow, Witcher 3 next-gen is monstrously CPU bound in the cities with RT enabled. Fully tuned 13900K is only good for around 70-80 FPS in Novigrad in ultrawide, and that is with frame generation on, without it is in the 50s in most demanding places with low GPU usage. Ultrawide probably has like 15% hit to CPU, but still.

I did have some crashes, so I dropped my memory from 4100 to 3600 to see if it helps and not only it did resolve crashes but also it tanked the performance by like 10%. I was too lazy to connect RAM waterblock when putting in new GPU block since it is a temporary setup anyway and 4100 memory overclock is immediately unstable. I really had it squeezed to the very last bit.

I was watching some previews on YouTube yesterday and was really wondering what some youtubers were talking about when they said that they run in the 60s outside of the cities but have drops into 30s inside the city, since the game is much more GPU demanding outside than inside, but now it makes sense, especially since both of them had Ryzen 3000 setup, which is ultra slow.

More and more games with RT behave like this, or generally just new games, some lower-end CPUs that are ~2 times slower than tuned 13900K like R5 3600 are often not enough for 60 FPS even without RT and they drop into 30s with RT on in some games.

I just made a huge jump from 6900K to 13900K but it won't last very long it looks like. On one hand it is nice to see games finally using CPUs, but the question is will CPU makers have an answer for that or are we going to go back to 60 FPS gaming


----------



## bhav

Krzych04650 said:


> I just made a huge jump from 6900K to 13900K but it won't last very long it looks like.


I learned this lesson with 10900K > 12600K.

Better to just upgrade every gen to the 600k than buy a 900k and expect it to last.


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

Its a dirty one needs moar work but it boots and games 
Intel Core i7 13700KF @ 6001.44 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR (x86.fr)


----------



## Minciu

How bad or good is this 13700KF:


----------



## pipes

pipes said:


> i changed the el backplate for lga1200 to lga 1700 model for my supremacy evo but i made the footprint worse, can this help? Thermalright LGA1700-BCF Intel 12th/13th Generation Anti-Bending Buckle, Curved Pressure Plate, CPU Fixing Buckle, CPU Flex Correction Fixer (Black) https://amzn.eu/d/dUdDcSk
> 
> Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


Nobody use this?

Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

pipes said:


> Nobody use this?
> 
> Inviato dal mio MI 9 utilizzando Tapatalk


Ive ordered one thats something like that and a new cpu block


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

Minciu said:


> How bad or good is this 13700KF:
> 
> 
> View attachment 2588636


Try turning up the Bclk 300mhz then reboot


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> That is very good.


Especially with a single 360mm radiator. I can barely get those temps with 3 360s.


----------



## Telstar

Minciu said:


> How bad or good is this 13700KF:


good


----------



## HemuV2

Minciu said:


> How bad or good is this 13700KF:
> 
> 
> View attachment 2588636


Basically i9


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> That is very good.


His chip is a Force 124. Just like my last one.


----------



## Nizzen

bhav said:


> I learned this lesson with 10900K > 12600K.
> 
> Better to just upgrade every gen to the 600k than buy a 900k and expect it to last.


Buy "900k" every season and sell "900k" every season.


----------



## bhav

Nizzen said:


> Buy "900k" every season and sell "900k" every season.


If you want.

I thought that the 10900K should have lasted me a really long time. When I saw 12th gen numbers I had buyers remorse.


----------



## acoustic

bhav said:


> If you want.
> 
> I thought that the 10900K should have lasted me a really long time. When I saw 12th gen numbers I had buyers remorse.


10/11th gen were really poor purchases in hindsight. The 10900K plagued with Cache L0 and Parity WHEA errors due to Intel trying to force 10-cores into a package that was simply being pushed too hard, and the 11th gen acting as a test-bench for the MC design we see today, but again, cores that were wildly inefficient.

I don't know the sales numbers, but 11th gen would, I assume, be one of the worst selling generations Intel has made. Looking back on it, 11th generation was very clearly a stop-gap due to the issues getting the Intel 7 node spun-up and ready for mass-production.


----------



## Spicedaddy

Ichirou said:


> The thing is, BestBuy _does_ accept refunds... for products considered "defective." I imagine the same goes for stores like Canada Computers as well.
> I've been told that they either get resold as open-box after a Geek Squad 🇹🇲 inspection, or sent back for RMA after enough returned stock builds up.
> 
> Intel always grants each major retailer a certain number of free exchanges/RMAs, since they are their biggest customers.
> The costs of those returns are already factored into their potential expenses.
> The quantity of returns/RMAs will never be more than 5-10% of their total sales, so they always make enough profit to write them off.
> Plus, they will refurbish most of those chips anyway, as they will likely be "accidental" RMAs of perfectly functional chips (i.e. consumer human error).
> 
> At the end of the day, it's all been factored into the equation already. It's just some minor inconvenience to the retailer and/or Intel.
> Again, as long as a chip has not been physically tampered with, I fail to see how it affects any other consumers.


Justify it how you want in your mind, you're still wrong. 

RMAs are for defective products. A CPU is not defective if it runs at stock settings. If you want to bin, eat the cost of reselling the chips used. If you can't afford this, don't bin.


----------



## bhav

acoustic said:


> 10/11th gen were really poor purchases in hindsight. The 10900K plagued with Cache L0 and Parity WHEA errors due to Intel trying to force 10-cores into a package that was simply being pushed too hard, and the 11th gen acting as a test-bench for the MC design we see today, but again, cores that were wildly inefficient.
> 
> I don't know the sales numbers, but 11th gen would, I assume, be one of the worst selling generations Intel has made. Looking back on it, 11th generation was very clearly a stop-gap due to the issues getting the Intel 7 node spun-up and ready for mass-production.


I didnt really have any issues with my 10900K tbh, SP 97 and golden IMC. I'd say the auto voltage issues with 13th gen are far more significant a problem, especially for most users who never change bios settings.


----------



## bhav

Spicedaddy said:


> Justify it how you want in your mind, you're still wrong.
> 
> RMAs are for defective products. A CPU is not defective if it runs at stock settings. If you want to bin, eat the cost of reselling the chips used. If you can't afford this, don't bin.


Returning a CPU that works fine at stock as defective is terrible I agree, but then I'd argue that any 13th gen CPU can be considered defective if it hits 100c at stock bios on a 280mm AIO.

You can easily get an RMA from intel by simply running these chips at stock bios. If they even suggest the lite load trick, simply say 'no because I shouldn't have to change any bios settings'.

And that gives me an idea, use mine for 2 years, then file an RMA for 'overheating at stock settings'.


----------



## CptSpig

Nizzen said:


> Pleace show us better performance in Battlefield in win 10 vs win 11
> On my computer, I doubt it's faster when I'm using Win 11 spectre H2


For 12th and 13th gen Windows 11 Pro is best for gaming or synthetic bench marks.


----------



## bhav

So my backups finished, first thing I thought I would do is test my 13600KF temps at auto lite load:











Arctic 420 AIO, and I set the fans in bios to 100% as well wow. 1.409 stock VID under load.

No one can tell me that stock settings are not broken.

At lite load 1 stock fan speed, 72c max, at 100% fan speed 68c max.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> So my backups finished, first thing I thought I would do is test my 13600KF temps at auto lite load:
> 
> View attachment 2588647
> 
> 
> 
> Arctic 420 AIO, and I set the fans in bios to 100% as well wow. 1.409 stock VID under load.
> 
> No one can tell me that stock settings are not broken.
> 
> At lite load 1 stock fan speed, 72c max, at 100% fan speed 68c max.


It depends on the cpu quality and your cooling ability of what it does on auto.

I am running Auto everything for 6.0Ghz P-Cores and 4.7Ghz E-Cores. I could do this with 5.8Ghz on my last cpu.

No adjusted lite load. You don’t need to adjust lite load at all.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> It depends on the cpu quality and your cooling ability of what it does on auto.
> 
> I am running Auto everything for 6.0Ghz P-Cores and 4.7Ghz E-Cores. I could do this with 5.8Ghz on my last cpu.
> 
> No adjusted lite load. You don’t need to adjust lite load at all.


So everyone else except you is having this issue, and a 420mm artic freezer II isn't enough for auto bios settings on a 13600KF?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

CptSpig said:


> For 12th and 13th gen Windows 11 Pro is best for gaming or synthetic bench marks.


It's now fixed the performance issues?
Have you a screen of your timespy CPU Score with H2?


----------



## Krzych04650

I think my CPU just died. I've tried different things but mobo just blinks CPU red, DRAM yellow, CPU red, DRAM yellow... Changing to different memory sticks or trying different slots does nothing, there is even no difference between having RAM installed or not, same debug LEDs. It was precedeed by two days of strange instability that turned out to be RAM, until it just froze on Windows login screen and never came back. Looks like IMC died.


----------



## bhav

Krzych04650 said:


> I think my CPU just died. I've tried different things but mobo just blinks CPU red, DRAM yellow, CPU red, DRAM yellow... Changing to different memory sticks or trying different slots does nothing, there is even no difference between having RAM installed or not, same debug LEDs. It was precedeed by two days of strange instability that turned out to be RAM, until it just froze on Windows login screen and never came back. Looks like IMC died.


Damn what ram / vddq / sa volts were you running?


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> It depends on the cpu quality and your cooling ability of what it does on auto.
> 
> I am running Auto everything for 6.0Ghz P-Cores and 4.7Ghz E-Cores. I could do this with 5.8Ghz on my last cpu.
> 
> No adjusted lite load. You don’t need to adjust lite load at all.


What works for one person with a extremely binned sample does not work for the large majority of CPUs. I'm not sure why you would think the rules of your top 5% CPU would apply.

Lite Load (when set to Advanced; adjusting it on "Normal" is not something I would recommend) is a good tool to adjust the voltage you're pushing to the chip. I'd imagine due to the low VID of your processor, the AC_LL is already quite low, as the MSI board is adjusting the supplied voltage at "Auto" based off of your VID table. Unfortunately for most people, AC_LL is likely set higher due to higher VID tables. Auto also is not basing voltages off of cooling ability outside of TVB Voltage Optimization being enabled by default. If that's disabled, it's _really_ not using your cooling ability to determine set voltages.

Running Auto voltages doesn't make sense if you're trying to maximize the processor in terms of power consumption, or clocks.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> What works for one person with a extremely binned sample does not work for the large majority of CPUs. I'm not sure why you would think the rules of your top 5% CPU would apply.
> 
> Lite Load (when set to Advanced; adjusting it on "Normal" is not something I would recommend) is a good tool to adjust the voltage you're pushing to the chip. I'd imagine due to the low VID of your processor, the AC_LL is already quite low, as the MSI board is adjusting the supplied voltage at "Auto" based off of your VID table. Unfortunately for most people, AC_LL is likely set higher due to higher VID tables. Auto also is not basing voltages off of cooling ability outside of TVB Voltage Optimization being enabled by default. If that's disabled, it's _really_ not using your cooling ability to determine set voltages.
> 
> Running Auto voltages doesn't make sense if you're trying to maximize the processor in terms of power consumption, or clocks.


I have tested (5) 13900K’s you don’t have to adjust liteload. Any of them right out of the gate would use 285-326 watts of power on auto voltage and 5.5-5.8GHz with unlimited power during an R23 run.

Lite load tuning can reduce power down to 205-260 watts depending on CPU quality.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> I have tested (5) 13900K’s you don’t have to adjust liteload. Any of them right out of the gate would use 285-326 watts of power on auto voltage and 5.5-5.8GHz with unlimited power during an R23 run.
> 
> Lite load tuning can reduce power down to 205-260 watts depending on CPU quality.


Said the guy with a MORA3 1080x45 radiator.

Are you just being obtuse on purpose?


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Said the guy with a MORA3 1080x45 radiator.
> 
> Are you just being obtuse on purpose?


I’m not trying to be rude or funny.

I have a [email protected] on a 240MM AIO inside a case. It peaks at around 265 watts on that cooling.

How much power does a 13600K use?


----------



## Hexes

Krzych04650 said:


> I think my CPU just died. I've tried different things but mobo just blinks CPU red, DRAM yellow, CPU red, DRAM yellow... Changing to different memory sticks or trying different slots does nothing, there is even no difference between having RAM installed or not, same debug LEDs. It was precedeed by two days of strange instability that turned out to be RAM, until it just froze on Windows login screen and never came back. Looks like IMC died.


I had a similar thing happen with my 13900K during first time benching it with my waterblock. Used highest settings (most wattage) at the time and the computer just shut off. I suspected it might have had something to do with contact pressure instead of CPU dying as I was binning the chips just before that and 13900K wouldn't even boot with default 12900K ILM tightness. None of the 4 samples I had did boot.

Therefore the first thing I did was to loosen up the waterblock. Had to loosen it up several times until it booted again no problem. So I would suggest at least playing around with the contact pressure and/or reseating if you haven't already done that. 13900K doesn't like too much socket contact pressure.


----------



## Ichirou

Krzych04650 said:


> Wow, Witcher 3 next-gen is monstrously CPU bound in the cities with RT enabled. Fully tuned 13900K is only good for around 70-80 FPS in Novigrad in ultrawide, and that is with frame generation on, without it is in the 50s in most demanding places with low GPU usage. Ultrawide probably has like 15% hit to CPU, but still.
> 
> I did have some crashes, so I dropped my memory from 4100 to 3600 to see if it helps and not only it did resolve crashes but also it tanked the performance by like 10%. I was too lazy to connect RAM waterblock when putting in new GPU block since it is a temporary setup anyway and 4100 memory overclock is immediately unstable. I really had it squeezed to the very last bit.
> 
> I was watching some previews on YouTube yesterday and was really wondering what some youtubers were talking about when they said that they run in the 60s outside of the cities but have drops into 30s inside the city, since the game is much more GPU demanding outside than inside, but now it makes sense, especially since both of them had Ryzen 3000 setup, which is ultra slow.
> 
> More and more games with RT behave like this, or generally just new games, some lower-end CPUs that are ~2 times slower than tuned 13900K like R5 3600 are often not enough for 60 FPS even without RT and they drop into 30s with RT on in some games.
> 
> I just made a huge jump from 6900K to 13900K but it won't last very long it looks like. On one hand it is nice to see games finally using CPUs, but the question is will CPU makers have an answer for that or are we going to go back to 60 FPS gaming


This is why you properly stress test your RAM, and factor in the potential added GPU heat. 


Minciu said:


> How bad or good is this 13700KF:
> 
> 
> View attachment 2588636


Very good!


Spicedaddy said:


> Justify it how you want in your mind, you're still wrong.
> 
> RMAs are for defective products. A CPU is not defective if it runs at stock settings. If you want to bin, eat the cost of reselling the chips used. If you can't afford this, don't bin.


Funny thing is, I never once complained about taking losses on binned chips. I've only ranted about being scammed with second-hand resold chips. 

There's quite a difference. I know you can't afford to bin chips like others so you're just being salty, but if you're trying to tell me not to test and refund chips that I can and am allowed to do so, you can bite me


----------



## Krzych04650

Hexes said:


> I had a similar thing happen with my 13900K during first time benching it with my waterblock. Used highest settings (most wattage) at the time and the computer just shut off. I suspected it might have had something to do with contact pressure instead of CPU dying as I was binning the chips just before that and 13900K wouldn't even boot with default 12900K ILM tightness. None of the 4 samples I had did boot.
> 
> Therefore the first thing I did was to loosen up the waterblock. Had to loosen it up several times until it booted again no problem. So I would suggest at least playing around with the contact pressure and/or reseating if you haven't already done that. 13900K doesn't like too much socket contact pressure.


I did try that already unfortunately. I even tried loosening contact frame a bit, but that causes constant red debug light for CPU, so that is a different problem entirely. 

I did actually change to a different waterblock few days ago, so that is a bit of a strange coincidence, but probably just that. 

It looks exactly like IMC death, it was all fine and then now it is suddenly gone.



Ichirou said:


> This is why you properly stress test your RAM, and factor in the potential added GPU heat.


It was very stress tested, the reason why it was unstable was that the IMC was few hours and one reboot away from dying, which it now did.


----------



## Ichirou

Krzych04650 said:


> I did try that already unfortunately. I even tried loosening contact frame a bit, but that causes constant red debug light for CPU, so that is a different problem entirely.
> 
> I did actually change to a different waterblock few days ago, so that is a bit of a strange coincidence, but probably just that.
> 
> It looks exactly like IMC death, it was all fine and then now it is suddenly gone.
> 
> 
> 
> It was very stress tested, the reason why it was unstable was that the IMC was few hours and one reboot away from dying, which it now did.


What kind of voltages were you pumping into your chips??


----------



## Krzych04650

Ichirou said:


> What kind of voltages were you pumping into your chips??


Nothing major, 1.35 core, 1.35 vccsa, 1.35 l2, 1.5 vdimm and 1.5 vddq. It was a good sample. Maybe 1.5 vddq is not so okay after all, but who knows, there is no way to really tell for sure what died.


----------



## Hexes

I don't mind binning chips but I do it in a way it doesn't really bother anyone too much:


I buy only tray samples (so far, but was close to opening 2 retail samples this time but didn't)
I only check the SP, I don't install a cooler on them; I merely use an old heatsink with thermal pads on the bottom. Leaves no marks but makes sure there won't be overheating. Not really necessary.
On the ILM I use tape to protect the IHS side lids. Don't want to leave any scratches on the processor.

This way there won't be opened boxes and no marks on the processors.


----------



## acoustic

Hexes said:


> I don't mind binning chips but I do it in a way it doesn't really bother anyone too much:
> 
> 
> I buy only tray samples (so far, but was close to opening 2 retail samples this time but didn't)
> I only check the SP, I don't install a cooler on them; I merely use an old heatsink with thermal pads on the bottom. Leaves no marks but makes sure there won't be overheating. Not really necessary.
> On the ILM I use tape to protect the IHS side lids. Don't want to leave any scratches on the processor.
> 
> This way there won't be opened boxes and no marks on the processors.


Where are you grabbing tray samples from?


----------



## Hexes

Krzych04650 said:


> I did try that already unfortunately. I even tried loosening contact frame a bit, but that causes constant red debug light for CPU, so that is a different problem entirely.
> 
> I did actually change to a different waterblock few days ago, so that is a bit of a strange coincidence, but probably just that.
> 
> It looks exactly like IMC death, it was all fine and then now it is suddenly gone.


That's really unfortunate. Don't think you put any crazy stress on it as far as I can recall from your posts. Also voltages look ok so guess it was just a goner either way sooner or later.


----------



## Hexes

acoustic said:


> Where are you grabbing tray samples from?


Here in the EU I buy them from Proshop usually. There are many shops to buy them from, though.

By the way some of the processors have a lot of all kinds of marks on them. No doubt some tray samples go through a lot of hands.


----------



## Ichirou

Krzych04650 said:


> Nothing major, 1.35 core, 1.35 vccsa, 1.35 l2, 1.5 vdimm and 1.5 vddq. It was a good sample. Maybe 1.5 vddq is not so okay after all, but who knows, there is no way to really tell for sure what died.





Hexes said:


> That's really unfortunate. Don't think you put any crazy stress on it as far as I can recall from your posts. Also voltages look ok so guess it was just a goner either way sooner or later.


Yeah, these seem like okay voltages. I'd reckon the motherboard might be killing your chips. Some boards can and do do that.


Hexes said:


> I don't mind binning chips but I do it in a way it doesn't really bother anyone too much:
> 
> 
> 
> I buy only tray samples (so far, but was close to opening 2 retail samples this time but didn't)
> I only check the SP, I don't install a cooler on them; I merely use an old heatsink with thermal pads on the bottom. Leaves no marks but makes sure there won't be overheating. Not really necessary.
> On the ILM I use tape to protect the IHS side lids. Don't want to leave any scratches on the processor.
> 
> 
> This way there won't be opened boxes and no marks on the processors.


I do a similar process of just lightly testing each chip for the minimum voltage at stock and maximum bootable memory frequency.

Only the better chips stick around for further testing, and eventual resale second-hand. The bad ones quickly go back into the box. Very little use at all and packaged nicely so they can be resold as-is.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> It depends on the cpu quality and your cooling ability of what it does on auto.
> 
> I am running *Auto everything* for 6.0Ghz P-Cores and 4.7Ghz E-Cores. I could do this with 5.8Ghz on my last cpu.
> 
> *No adjusted lite load. You don’t need to adjust lite load at all.*


I have to disagree with this statement. Right now I am running at defaults. If I left everything on "Auto" it pulls ~ 264W and uses 1.28V under load which is totally unnecessary.. If I take the time to tweak DC LL to my LLC setting, then adjust AC LL for the minimum voltage needed to be stable. My power consumption drops to 203W and 1.159 Vcore which is a much healthier "environment" for my chip. I am not concerned about 1-2 cores boosting to X Ghz as everything I do relies on all cores/threads being utilized. I know I am probably one of the few that uses the chip this way.


----------



## Krzych04650

Hexes said:


> That's really unfortunate. Don't think you put any crazy stress on it as far as I can recall from your posts. Also voltages look ok so guess it was just a goner either way sooner or later.


Yea it was a very good sample that did not need very high voltages, core voltage I used was even below stock VF, and I used it only for gaming, apart from maybe some initial stress tesing.

I will probably buy a new one and then sell the one that comes back from RMA so I don't have to wait, it is literally the worst time for RMA with all the holidays incoming.

The worst thing about is that now that GPU waterblock showed up I finally had all the parts for final build after 2 months of gathering them with all the availability issues, and it lasted a whole 2 days...


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> I’m not trying to be rude or funny.
> 
> I have a [email protected] on a 240MM AIO inside a case. It peaks at around 265 watts on that cooling.
> 
> How much power does a 13600K use?


Its already in my screenshot, stock bios settings put 1.409v through a 13600KF under load, and 1.375v at idle, at least thats what its doing on my chip.

With that, even on a 420mm AIO it reaches 100c on a single core in under 5 mins of cinebench.

This is widespread and happening to just about everyone leaving their 13th gen CPUs at stock bios settings. The worst case I saw so far was 1.45v being put on a 13700K at stock bios.

Intel's initial response was basically 'take it up with the mobo manufacturer'.


----------



## MisterSheikh

bhav said:


> Its already in my screenshot, stock bios settings put 1.409v through a 13600KF under load, and 1.375v at idle, at least thats what its doing on my chip.
> 
> With that, even on a 420mm AIO it reaches 100c on a single core in under 5 mins of cinebench.
> 
> This is widespread and happening to just about everyone leaving their 13th gen CPUs at stock bios settings. The worst case I saw so far was 1.45v being put on a 13700K at stock bios.
> 
> Intel's initial response was basically 'take it up with the mobo manufacturer'.


what board is this


----------



## Spicedaddy

Ichirou said:


> Funny thing is, I never once complained about taking losses on binned chips. I've only ranted about being scammed with second-hand resold chips.
> 
> There's quite a difference. I know you can't afford to bin chips like others so you're just being salty, but if you're trying to tell me not to test and refund chips that I can and am allowed to do so, you can bite me


You're bragging about illegally returning products by using your friend, it shows your poor moral values.

Don't worry, I can afford it. Your personal attack shows that you're either a child or an addict that can't stop. Just one more CPU, I swear it's my last one.... hahaha 😂


----------



## bhav

MisterSheikh said:


> what board is this


Its irrelevant what board it is, when there are over 10 threads a day on r/Intel reporting the same issue on any and every board.


----------



## Ichirou

Spicedaddy said:


> You're bragging about illegally returning products by using your friend, it shows your poor moral values.
> 
> Don't worry, I can afford it. Your personal attack shows that you're either a child or an addict that can't stop. Just one more CPU, I swear it's my last one.... hahaha 😂


Since when did I brag? People were inquiring about how I was able to refund at BestBuy. I simply explained how.
The other retailers I go to have open-box policies, so no difficulty at all.

It's funny you call it a personal attack when you attempting to shun my actions has been one in itself.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Its already in my screenshot, stock bios settings put 1.409v through a 13600KF under load, and 1.375v at idle, at least thats what its doing on my chip.
> 
> With that, even on a 420mm AIO it reaches 100c on a single core in under 5 mins of cinebench.
> 
> *This is widespread and happening to just about everyone leaving their 13th gen CPUs at stock bios settings. The worst case I saw so far was 1.45v being put on a 13700K at stock bios.*
> 
> Intel's initial response was basically 'take it up with the mobo manufacturer'.


This, right here, is the problem. I bet MAYBE 1-3% of the people buying these chips goes through the steps, if leaving it at stock, of under volting their chips, Sure, Intel can blame the MB manufacturers, but in fact it is their own doing. Programming absurd VID tables into these chips which, in turn, leads to massive power consumption and heat. I went through this with X299, The VID tables were so screwed up, you couldn't run adaptive voltage because the VIDs were programmed so high. any reasonable voltage you set on adaptive would be immediately be overridden. You were forced to use a static voltage in order to do any overclocking.


----------



## bhav

Spicedaddy said:


> You're bragging about illegally returning products by using your friend, it shows your poor moral values.
> 
> Don't worry, I can afford it. Your personal attack shows that you're either a child or an addict that can't stop. Just one more CPU, I swear it's my last one.... hahaha 😂


They're not being returned as faulty or illegally. They are being returned under the advertised 'return for any reason if unhappy within 14-30 days' policy.

Currently Amazon have extended returns until Jan 31st, you can return items for any reason, even if you simply change your mind.

Every store offering this has an abuse policy, they monitor returns and block people that do it too much. So technically you can buy 1 chip per store that offers the policy and return it if unhappy.

Having said that, I disagree strongly with how many chips Ichirou keeps sending back while looking for one that is probably less than 1% of a top bin.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> This, right here, is the problem. I bet MAYBE 1-3% of the people buying these chips goes through the steps, if leaving it at stock, of under volting their chips, Sure, Intel can blame the MB manufacturers, but in fact it is their own doing. Programming absurd VID tables into these chips which, in turn, leads to massive power consumption and heat. I went through this with X299, The VID tables were so screwed up, you couldn't run adaptive voltage because the VIDs were programmed so high. ANy reasonable voltage you set on adaptive would be immediately be overridden. You were forced to use a static voltage in order to do any overclocking.


Thanks for the explanation, I'm going to quote your message to Intel support regarding the VID tables.


----------



## tps3443

I have my CPU at 6.0Ghz P-Cores, 4.8Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz ring. Running my 32 iterations of HCI Memtest now. These are how VID’s look under load. I feel like this chip could benefit from a delid. I never thought its temps were very good compared to the power draw or amperage it was producing. You can see a 10C core to core deviation at merely 200 watts. This should be 4-6C. Also, I’m testing just XMP stability now and then I’m moving on from there.

The E-Cores kind of surprised me on this chip.

PS: Does anyone have a better memory testing software? This is so annoying having to launch all of these each time. I think some people have the integrated GUI and it makes it easier.


----------



## Spicedaddy

Ichirou said:


> Since when did I brag? People were inquiring about how I was able to refund at BestBuy. I simply explained how.
> The other retailers I go to have open-box policies, so no difficulty at all.
> 
> It's funny you call it a personal attack when you attempting to shun my actions has been one in itself.


They were inquiring because they know Best Buy doesn't refund open-box CPUs. Your friend is marking working products as defective and you don't see a problem with that.

Nothing personal, just calling out what I see as bad practices.


----------



## tps3443

Spicedaddy said:


> They were inquiring because they know Best Buy doesn't refund open-box CPUs. Your friend is marking working products as defective and you don't see a problem with that.
> 
> Nothing personal, just calling out what I see as bad practices.


Best Buy will return open box CPU’s. Maybe that’s just in Canada.


----------



## chibi

tps3443 said:


> I have my CPU at 6.0Ghz P-Cores, 4.8Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz ring. Running my 32 iterations of HCI Memtest now. These are how VID’s look under load. I feel like this chip could benefit from a delid. I never thought its temps were very good compared to the power draw or amperage it was producing. You can see a 10C core to core deviation at merely 200 watts. This should be 4-6C. Also, I’m testing just XMP stability now and then I’m moving on from there.
> 
> The E-Cores kind of surprised me on this chip.
> 
> PS: Does anyone have a better memory testing software? This is so annoying having to launch all of these each time. I think some people have the integrated GUI and it makes it easier.
> 
> View attachment 2588678
> 
> View attachment 2588677


Get the pro version of HCI memtest. It opens just one window and you can enter the amount of threads to use.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I have my CPU at 6.0Ghz P-Cores, 4.8Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz ring. Running my 32 iterations of HCI Memtest now. These are how VID’s look under load. I feel like this chip could benefit from a delid. I never thought its temps were very good compared to the power draw or amperage it was producing. You can see a 10C core to core deviation at merely 200 watts. This should be 4-6C. Also, I’m testing just XMP stability now and then I’m moving on from there.
> 
> The E-Cores kind of surprised me on this chip.
> 
> PS: Does anyone have a better memory testing software? This is so annoying having to launch all of these each time. I think some people have the integrated GUI and it makes it easier.
> 
> View attachment 2588678
> 
> View attachment 2588677


TM5 with 1usmus six cycles and/or anta777 ABSOLUT, as long as no cores are getting parked. 

Also Karhu 10,000% as an alternative.


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> 10/11th gen were really poor purchases in hindsight. The 10900K plagued with Cache L0 and Parity WHEA errors due to Intel trying to force 10-cores into a package that was simply being pushed too hard, and the 11th gen acting as a test-bench for the MC design we see today, but again, cores that were wildly inefficient.
> 
> I don't know the sales numbers, but 11th gen would, I assume, be one of the worst selling generations Intel has made. Looking back on it, 11th generation was very clearly a stop-gap due to the issues getting the Intel 7 node spun-up and ready for mass-production.


11th gen did get rid of the parity errors. At least.
And btw the parity errors were gone in 12th gen but are back on raptor lake. But now they only happen if you're actually truly unstable, rather than trying to load up minecraft and the skyblocks sneezing at your player.


----------



## CptSpig

tps3443 said:


> PS: Does anyone have a better memory testing software? This is so annoying having to launch all of these each time. I think some people have the integrated GUI and it makes it easier.


TM5 Extreme 1 @anta777 3-cycles. Karhu 3200% or 60 minutes for 98% coverage no need for 10,000%. Watch temperatures if memory gets over 43 to 45c you will get errors. Karhu TM5


----------



## TurricanM3

Falkentyne said:


> If this is a Z690 board, you must update the Intel management engine firmware before using a 13900k, which you can get from the first post here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)
> 
> 
> Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you update the Intel management engine on your board?
> If this is a dual bios board, both bioses must be updated to the ME manually.
> Once you update ME, clear CMOS (unplug PSU cable/PSU back switch first!), delete all saved bios profiles and start from scratch (or just overwrite all saved profiles with the "defaults" given after the clear cmos).
> Then you should have absolutely no problems whatsoever trying the stress test (with the Bios set vcore I listed and LLC6, I forgot what I even wrote now).


Found your post via google.
What if i don't have an old CPU?
Got my Z690-A Strix D4 today. Had a Apex Z790 before and just got a 13700K+13900k.
Can't I just flash the 2204 via flashback without starting the system?
Which ME is inside the 2204? 2020?


----------



## Ichirou

TurricanM3 said:


> Found your post via google.
> What if i don't have an old CPU?
> Got my Z690-A Strix D4 today. Had a Apex Z790 before and just got a 13700K+13900k.
> Can't I just flash the 2204 via flashback without starting the system?
> Which ME is inside the 2204? 2020?


The Z690 ASUS boards boot 13th Gen chips just fine. They just aren’t optimal without the ME firmware updates.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> This is why you properly stress test your RAM, and factor in the potential added GPU heat.
> 
> Very good!
> 
> Funny thing is, I never once complained about taking losses on binned chips. I've only ranted about being scammed with second-hand resold chips.
> 
> There's quite a difference. I know you can't afford to bin chips like others so you're just being salty, but if you're trying to tell me not to test and refund chips that I can and am allowed to do so, you can bite me


The problem is you're returning _retail_ chips, which are shrinkwrapped and sealed.
If these were tray (OEM) chips, I don't think anyone would be complaining, because tray chips are often the ones mass binners desire since they can bin them at the shop then sell them guaranteed high SP for tons of money. I think many of the people who were doing stats on chips were doing tray OEM.
If I were going to bin chips like this, I would just buy a bunch of tray chips, keep the best, sell the next few that are above average for a bit over retail, then return the crappers. Of course I don't have the income to do this so I don't.
I would never do this for a retail boxed chip-I'd ebay it or give it to someone I like who needs a processor, at a massive discount if it were substandard..
Anyway I'm stepping out of this argument. For obvious reasons.


----------



## TurricanM3

Ichirou said:


> The Z690 ASUS boards boot 13th Gen chips just fine. They just aren’t optimal without the ME firmware updates.


I thought the sp rating gets broken among other things if you simply boot with a 13900k and have the old ME firmware / bios?
Why else did @Falkentyne describe the exact procedure to flash the new ME with an old CPU before you install the new Gen?


----------



## neteng101

tps3443 said:


> Best Buy will return open box CPU’s. Maybe that’s just in Canada.


They did last year in the US - I made a silly mistake thinking I got a defective one, then realized my mistake on the 2nd set I bought - had to return one CPU/MB of the 2 sets I bought. Open box CPU/MB... already realized my mistake so I did a return but didn't say they were defective even.

Not that I'm suggesting this should be exploited, but BB is pretty awesome AFAIK.


----------



## tps3443

neteng101 said:


> They did last year in the US - I made a silly mistake thinking I got a defective one, then realized my mistake on the 2nd set I bought - had to return one CPU/MB of the 2 sets I bought. Open box CPU/MB... already realized my mistake so I did a return but didn't say they were defective even.
> 
> Not that I'm suggesting this should be exploited, but BB is pretty awesome AFAIK.


So Bestbuy only returns broken CPU’s?


----------



## digitalfrost

tps3443 said:


> PS: Does anyone have a better memory testing software? This is so annoying having to launch all of these each time. I think some people have the integrated GUI and it makes it easier.


I liked Karhu.



Minciu said:


> How bad or good is this 13700KF:
> 
> 
> View attachment 2588636


This is about the same as mine, you should be able to do 55x/56x allcore easy. I run 2x60, 4x58, 6x57, 8x56.


----------



## dumassnoob

looks like i have chosen the worst moment in time to build my first computer in 15 years. i got a cpu(13900kf) with alleged memory controller issues, a board that is possibly defective(z790 UD) and likely can't run 4x16 Hynix A at a speed worth a ****. **** me. say a prayer for my build boys, i may have made an expensive mistake


----------



## HyperC

Holy poop I hit the 4400mhz CLUB BOIZZZZZ


----------



## tps3443

chibi said:


> Get the pro version of HCI memtest. It opens just one window and you can enter the amount of threads to use.


The E-Cores seem much better than SP88. More like SP98 lol. A lot of 13900K’s lock up and freeze with just 4.6-4.7Ghz E-Cores. While this chip is totally happy working at 4.8Ghz E-Cores.

I’ve been using it at work all day 6.0P/4.8E/5.1R with auto voltage. 1.350 VID’s. TVB voltage optimization is disabled.

4.8 E-Cores would never dream of working on my Force 124 CPU.

Once I get my memory setup right, I’m going to dial a high boost overclock back in. I may even dial it back to 5.9 to reduce that overall VROut voltage. But so far running 6.0Ghz-6.4Ghz boost Is very realistic with this cpu.


----------



## digitalfrost

Krzych04650 said:


> Wow, Witcher 3 next-gen is monstrously CPU bound in the cities with RT enabled. Fully tuned 13900K is only good for around 70-80 FPS in Novigrad in ultrawide, and that is with frame generation on, without it is in the 50s in most demanding places with low GPU usage. Ultrawide probably has like 15% hit to CPU, but still.


I love the game, I have a modded version that is 90Gbyte in size and played through it multiple times. It's sad you cannot play this with any meaningful RT. I have OCed 13700k and RTX 3090 and it is around 60FPS in the tutorial so I assume the cities will be worse. I consider 60FPS the absolute minimum and I can see it stutter at times which ruins the experience for me. This runs worse than Cyberpunk I think.









‘The Witcher 3 Remastered’ Performance Is Cyberpunk-Launch Level Bad On PC Right Now


The next-gen update to The Witcher 3 launched late last night on PS5, Xbox Series X and PC, and while it racked up great scores with its PS5 review copies, PC players are downloading the updated version of the ga...




www.forbes.com





I'm gonna wait a while maybe they can fix it. There's enough other to play over the holidays.


----------



## chibi

tps3443 said:


> The E-Cores seem much better than SP88. More like SP98 lol. A lot of 13900K’s lock up and freeze with just 4.6-4.7Ghz E-Cores. While this chip is totally happy working at 4.8Ghz E-Cores.
> 
> I’ve been using it at work all day 6.0P/4.8E/5.1R with auto voltage. 1.350 VID’s. TVB voltage optimization is disabled.
> 
> 4.8 E-Cores would never dream of working on my Force 124 CPU.
> 
> Once I get my memory setup right, I’m going to dial a high boost overclock back in. I may even dial it back to 5.9 to reduce that overall VROut voltage. But so far running 6.0Ghz-6.4Ghz boost Is very realistic with this cpu.


I hope my next chip is like this, hahah kidding


----------



## MisterSheikh

dumassnoob said:


> looks like i have chosen the worst moment in time to build my first computer in 15 years. i got a cpu(13900kf) with alleged memory controller issues, a board that is possibly defective(z790 UD) and likely can't run 4x16 Hynix A at a speed worth a **. ** me. say a prayer for my build boys, i may have made an expensive mistake


With all due respect, you're trying to run 4 SR sticks at a fast speed on a budget 4 dimmer when premium 4 dimmers struggle to do so. I'm not sure what you expected.


----------



## dumassnoob

MisterSheikh said:


> With all due respect, you're trying to run 4 SR sticks at a fast speed on a budget 4 dimmer when premium 4 dimmers struggle to do so. I'm not sure what you expected.


i expected 4 ram slots to work. you know, like it used to in the old days. wasn't aware of these "modern day" struggles.


----------



## Krzych04650

digitalfrost said:


> I love the game, I have a modded version that is 90Gbyte in size and played through it multiple times. It's sad you cannot play this with any meaningful RT. I have OCed 13700k and RTX 3090 and it is around 60FPS in the tutorial so I assume the cities will be worse. I consider 60FPS the absolute minimum and I can see it stutter at times which ruins the experience for me. This runs worse than Cyberpunk I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Witcher 3 Remastered’ Performance Is Cyberpunk-Launch Level Bad On PC Right Now
> 
> 
> The next-gen update to The Witcher 3 launched late last night on PS5, Xbox Series X and PC, and while it racked up great scores with its PS5 review copies, PC players are downloading the updated version of the ga...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna wait a while maybe they can fix it. There's enough other to play over the holidays.


I love the game too, whole trilogy, and I don't even know how much time I've spent modding them, and I generallly like what this new version is doing visually, but it definitely has serious issues. Like I already said in a different post, it feels a bit like bad SLI profile. I will probably save it for Arrow Lake + 5090.


----------



## tps3443

digitalfrost said:


> I love the game, I have a modded version that is 90Gbyte in size and played through it multiple times. It's sad you cannot play this with any meaningful RT. I have OCed 13700k and RTX 3090 and it is around 60FPS in the tutorial so I assume the cities will be worse. I consider 60FPS the absolute minimum and I can see it stutter at times which ruins the experience for me. This runs worse than Cyberpunk I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘The Witcher 3 Remastered’ Performance Is Cyberpunk-Launch Level Bad On PC Right Now
> 
> 
> The next-gen update to The Witcher 3 launched late last night on PS5, Xbox Series X and PC, and while it racked up great scores with its PS5 review copies, PC players are downloading the updated version of the ga...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna wait a while maybe they can fix it. There's enough other to play over the holidays.


I want to try and play it. I never got in to Witcher 3. I played for a few minutes years ago. But I didn’t play enough to get invested in to it. I’m waiting for Bethesda’s new game Starfield. I hope it’s good. I was disappointed in Cyberpunk 2077 too. It was okay. I played maybe 100 hours of it. The shooting physics are crap though. You can’t shoot long range, people disappear etc.. It’s lame lol. I want a new game that’s like Fallout 4, or a new game that’s like just Kingdom Come Deliverance! 😄 I was so deep in the story of KDC it was awesome, I actually really enjoyed the characters and story in general. This all has me wanting to try and play Witcher 3 Or something brand-new and fun. Any ideas? What’s good?


----------



## ViTosS

I'm on Windows 10 now, the usage is definitely different in some games, but there are some that is the same, I noticed difference in BF 2042, all cores are getting used, rare times where 1 or 2 cores stays at 0-1% but they are getting used later and variates with all the others, while in Windows 11 there was a lot of cores locked to 0% usage, also noticed something interesting in Warzone 2.0, simulating a RTX 4090 FPS I put the game 720p low and I had 240+fps with my RTX 3080Ti, and the usage of ALL CORES was insanely good to see, but when I put back to 4k (the resolution I play on my C1) a lot of cores are back to sleeping, interesting...


----------



## Falkentyne

ViTosS said:


> I'm on Windows 10 now, the usage is definitely different in some games, but there are some that is the same, I noticed difference in BF 2042, all cores are getting used, rare times where 1 or 2 cores stays at 0-1% but they are getting used later and variates with all the others, while in Windows 11 there was a lot of cores locked to 0% usage, also noticed something interesting in Warzone 2.0, simulating a RTX 4090 FPS I put the game 720p low and I had 240+fps with my RTX 3080Ti, and the usage of ALL CORES was insanely good to see, but when I put back to 4k (the resolution I play on my C1) a lot of cores are back to sleeping, interesting...
> View attachment 2588705
> View attachment 2588706
> View attachment 2588707


Run as administrator.


----------



## Nizzen

ViTosS said:


> I'm on Windows 10 now, the usage is definitely different in some games, but there are some that is the same, I noticed difference in BF 2042, all cores are getting used, rare times where 1 or 2 cores stays at 0-1% but they are getting used later and variates with all the others, while in Windows 11 there was a lot of cores locked to 0% usage, also noticed something interesting in Warzone 2.0, simulating a RTX 4090 FPS I put the game 720p low and I had 240+fps with my RTX 3080Ti, and the usage of ALL CORES was insanely good to see, but when I put back to 4k (the resolution I play on my C1) a lot of cores are back to sleeping, interesting...
> View attachment 2588705
> View attachment 2588706
> View attachment 2588707


2042 and Win 11 here:


----------



## digitalfrost

tps3443 said:


> This all has me wanting to try and play Witcher 3 Or something brand-new and fun. Any ideas? What’s good?


I don't know any alternatives to the ones you mentioned, I would play them if I knew  

If you haven't played Division 1 yet, it's nice this time of year because it plays in a snowy New York. Also has great coop mode for 4 friends, very good game for the holidays...but it's not KCD or Witcher 3. When playing Witcher 3, the old version runs very good with high FPS - or try the new one but it seems you must disable RT for any chance of a smooth experience.


----------



## Carillo

So this is just a quick test with the new Direct Die R13 for Raptor lake and the results are insane. 6.0p/4.8e/5.0r Apex Z790 Bios 0806 1.23 volt LOAD under 60 degree p-cores with 15 degree celsius on water in R23! Left the memory on stock just for this test. Thanks to Super Cool computer for 2 day shipping!


----------



## OC2000

where can I buy one of these pre binned chips lol


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> The Z690 ASUS boards boot 13th Gen chips just fine. They just aren’t optimal without the ME firmware updates.


I STILL CANT BOOT 4000 CR1 WAITING FOR NEW BIOS ASUS IS TAKING TIME!


----------



## tps3443

@Carillo

How were the temps in R23 before hand? How much did the direct die knock off? I’ve got a similar chip, and I’m thinking it’s time to do this my self 😈


Where can I buy the supercool 13th gen waterblock?


----------



## Carillo

tps3443 said:


> @Carillo
> 
> How were the temps in R23 before hand? How much did the direct die knock off? I’ve got a similar chip, and I’m thinking it’s time to do this my self 😈
> 
> 
> Where can I buy the supercool 13th gen waterblock?


The temps was horrible before, the IHS on this chip is like a banana, so bad contact with cooler. 5.8ghz got me 80 degree celsius, so it knocked off almost 30 degees!


----------



## tps3443

Carillo said:


> The temps was horrible before, the IHS on this chip is like a banana, so bad contact with cooler. 5.8ghz got me 80 degree celsius, so it knocked off almost 30 degees!


That’s exactly how my chip is too! I’ve tested several. This is by far the best of them all with crazy P-Core SP. But it’s also the hottest of them all. 

I’m going to have to setup direct die with mine ASAP. Or at least just delid.


----------



## Carillo

tps3443 said:


> That’s exactly how my chip is too! I’ve tested several. This is by far the best of them all with crazy P-Core SP. But it’s also the hottest of them all.
> 
> I’m going to have to setup direct die with mine ASAP. Or at least just delid.


Yeah i have tested a lot og them, and this is by far the hottest. Super cool computer is only supplier. Delidd will no fix your IHS, so you need DD


----------



## acoustic

Carillo said:


> Yeah i have tested a lot og them, and this is by far the hottest. Super cool computer is only supplier. Delidd will no fix your IHS, so you need DD


How'd you get the block? I have yet to see it in-stock. The website is down more than it's up these days too.


----------



## GQNerd

tps3443 said:


> I’ve been using it at work all day 6.0P/4.8E/5.1R with auto voltage. 1.350 VID’s. TVB voltage optimization is disabled.
> 
> Once I get my memory setup right, I’m going to dial a high boost overclock back in. I may even dial it back to 5.9 to reduce that overall VROut voltage. But so far running 6.0Ghz-6.4Ghz boost Is very realistic with this cpu.


Can you post some benchmark results for your new chip? You keep mentioning these high ass clocks, and I'm curious how it performs... single and multi R20/23, Geekbench etc.

I tried to look for your results, and only found that 6.3 R23 single.. which was impressive


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> Intel's initial response was basically 'take it up with the mobo manufacturer'.


Instead they should have enforced bios defaults to the specs limits.


----------



## chibi

Here's the link to the 13th gen direct die block from super cool. Need to keep an eye for stock, it was available last week but all gone now. No clue when the next batch will arrive.

I haven't seen their full copper ddr5 kit in stock at all, lol. Messaged him a few times and all went unanswered. 









Direct Die INTEL GEN12


Direct Die INTEL GEN12




www.supercoolcomputer.com


----------



## OC2000

madness how there is no competition on this


----------



## tps3443

Miguelios said:


> Can you post some benchmark results for your new chip? You keep mentioning these high ass clocks, and I'm curious how it performs... single and multi R20/23, Geekbench etc.
> 
> I tried to look for your results, and only found that 6.3 R23 single.. which was impressive


You have not found it, because I haven’t been running high power loads at all with it.

I did not stress out my Force 124 chip either, I babied that chip even though it could not run 6.3. I stay with low wattage. And I just use the CPU for my daily activities.

This CPU also runs abnormally HOTT!!! Even with low amperage and low VROut. It runs hotter than any other 13900K I have seen.

VROut at 6Ghz is 1.330ish volts. And Amperage is still fairly low too. This things factory IHS solder is pure garbage lol. Worst I have ever seen.


----------



## ViTosS

tps3443 said:


> You have not found it, because I haven’t been running high power loads at all with it.
> 
> I did not stress out my Force 124 chip either, I babied that chip even though it could not run 6.3. I stay with low wattage. And I just use the CPU for my daily activities.
> 
> This CPU also runs abnormally HOTT!!! Even with low amperage and low VROut. It runs hotter than any other 13900K I have seen.
> 
> VROut at 6Ghz is 1.330ish volts. And Amperage is still fairly low too. This things factory IHS solder is pure garbage lol. Worst I have ever seen.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2588731


340W and 65-75c? You call that hot? Meanwhile I can barely cool stock clocks with my 360mm AIO


----------



## tps3443

ViTosS said:


> 340W and 65-75c? You call that hot? Meanwhile I can barely cool stock clocks with my 360mm AIO


I have a water chiller with very cool water on it, so that’s why it’s running nice manageable temps right now lol. But it still runs a lot hotter than @Carillo cpu while he is running drastically warmer 15c water.


----------



## Hexes

ViTosS said:


> 340W and 65-75c? You call that hot? Meanwhile I can barely cool stock clocks with my 360mm AIO


If you see he has a water chiller at 8 Celsius or so and just a one spin of R23.


----------



## affxct

VULC said:


> How do you know what Frame Chasers said? 🤔


I like eating nothing burgers. They’re my favourite kind of burger.


----------



## RichKnecht

ViTosS said:


> 340W and 65-75c? You call that hot? Meanwhile I can barely cool stock clocks with my 360mm AIO


A lot of people here fail to mention chillers, delidding, direct die, etc. If someone posts crazy clocks with unde 80C temps, you know there are other “factors” involved. I like seeing these crazy numbers though. I just wish there was more “transparency “ involved.


----------



## tps3443

Hexes said:


> If you see he has a water chiller at 8 Celsius or so and just a one spin of R23.


This is why I rather not post them at all. I just enjoy my cpu to my self and run it. I’m not trying to prove anything.


----------



## GQNerd

ViTosS said:


> 340W and 65-75c? You call that hot? Meanwhile I can barely cool stock clocks with my 360mm AIO


LOL, that's what I was thinking.

Impressive results and he's def using a chiller.. I was curious about his power draw. He's drawing the same 340w that mine is @ 6.0 4cores 5.8 All-core, but I'm surprised it's only netting him +700pts Multi compared to mine, but his single core is way higher for now. 

Some of it is chip quality (his SP is higher), and some is definitely the cooling.. I'm not trying to dive back into exotic cooling, and like the fact my setup fits inside an o11DXL. Only thing I may consider in the future is de-lidding and direct-die cooling.

Intel knocked it out of the park this generation! <3 my 13900k


----------



## GQNerd

tps3443 said:


> This is why I rather not post them at all. I just enjoy my cpu to my self and run it. I’m not trying to prove anything.


You don't need to prove anything, but you definitely weren't just keeping it to yourself.. lol. I've seen 100 posts about how awesome your chip is, and just wanted to see that those frequencies are actually usable, and not just booting to the OS. 

Thanks for sharing, and awesome job tuning that chip! And you're still dialing-it in! kudos


----------



## Hexes

tps3443 said:


> This is why I rather not post them at all. I just enjoy my cpu to my self and run it. I’m not trying to prove anything.


People want to compare chips to one another. It's an overclocking thread (and forum) after all. There is no point to just post ambigious screens without any relevant info. What's the worst thing that can happen if you post effective clocks, duration of test, water temperature and so on to make actual comparisons between the chips? I'm sure most of us here want to see exactly just that.


----------



## dumassnoob

So, do i need to buy a contact frame for i9-13900kf on z790 mobo to prevent the cpu from bending? (asking because i don't know how to make a new thread or am probably in newbie jail or something)


----------



## RichKnecht

I’m half tempted to dig my 1HP aquarium chiller out of the garage. It cooled my reef tank no problem and my halide lights heated the whole basement. But that thing draws so much power it would be silly. Might be a fun winter experiment though. Hmmmm.….


----------



## RichKnecht

dumassnoob said:


> So, do i need to buy a contact frame for i9-13900kf on z790 mobo to prevent the cpu from bending? (asking because i don't know how to make a new thread or am probably in newbie jail or something)


They worked great on 12th gen. Not sure about 13th gen. I bought one, but have nothing to compare it to. I moved from a 10980XE HEDT platform to this one. Would still be running it if my MB didnt take a dump. Loved that chip.


----------



## Ichirou

OC2000 said:


> where can I buy one of these pre binned chips lol


Gotta know people. And be willing to pay a premium.


acoustic said:


> How'd you get the block? I have yet to see it in-stock. The website is down more than it's up these days too.


You could probably contact the Thai dude on Facebook. But whether or not he responds is another case altogether.


dumassnoob said:


> So, do i need to buy a contact frame for i9-13900kf on z790 mobo to prevent the cpu from bending? (asking because i don't know how to make a new thread or am probably in newbie jail or something)


Recommended. It's only $10 from AliExpress. Thermalright bracket.


----------



## Ichirou

dumassnoob said:


> i expected 4 ram slots to work. you know, like it used to in the old days. wasn't aware of these "modern day" struggles.





OC2000 said:


> where can I buy one of these pre binned chips lol


Depending on what you need, you could go for my 13900KF.
4,200 MHz CL14 1T Gear 1 stable with 4x16 GB Micron B-die SR.
Or 4,266 MHz CL15 Gear 1 with 2x16 GB Samsung B-die DR.
Below MSRP.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

TurricanM3 said:


> Found your post via google.
> What if i don't have an old CPU?
> Got my Z690-A Strix D4 today. Had a Apex Z790 before and just got a 13700K+13900k.
> Can't I just flash the 2204 via flashback without starting the system?
> Which ME is inside the 2204? 2020?


This forum has been down for a week no?


----------



## tps3443

This is better efficiency with only 15.5C water. This chip is stock IHS, it is not delidded, it does have the worst temps of any 13900K I’ve ever owned. 

Being able to run 5.9 P-Cores, and 4.7 E-Cores, with 5.1Ghz Ring. All while achieving sub 300 watts through R23 is pretty solid to me.


----------



## HyperC

Okay guys G1 4600Mhz loads windows then bsod = memory management do I need more ram voltage? SA @ 1.341 and ram 1.560


----------



## Ichirou

HyperC said:


> Okay guys G1 4600Mhz loads windows then bsod = memory management do I need more ram voltage? SA @ 1.341 and ram 1.560


2x8 GB Samsung B-die SR?
You gotta boost voltages across the board.
And even then, it might not ever be stable, if that is your max bootable frequency.
Max stable is 99% of the time one tier lower than your max bootable.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> I’m half tempted to dig my 1HP aquarium chiller out of the garage. It cooled my reef tank no problem and my halide lights heated the whole basement. But that thing draws so much power it would be silly. Might be a fun winter experiment though. Hmmmm.….


I say go for it! With the coldest water possible my other 13900K cannot even run 5.7 in Battlefield 2042 stable Lol. While my current cpu can run 6.0 in Battlefield with the chiller off. It is funny how that works.


----------



## warbucks

bhav said:


> So everyone else except you is having this issue, and a 420mm artic freezer II isn't enough for auto bios settings on a 13600KF?


Who is everyone else? Your sample size is tiny and you're exaggerating. There are so many user error variables that could be at play.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> I say go for it! With the coldest water possible my other 13900K cannot even run 5.7 in Battlefield 2042 stable Lol. While my current cpu can run 6.0 in Battlefield with the chiller off. It is funny how that works.


Kind of like my ring. It will do 4.9 all day, but wont go to 5.0. Set it to auto an it boosts to 5.0 all the time. Just one of the mysteries of the 13900K.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Kind of like my ring. It will do 4.9 all day, but wont go to 5.0. Set it to auto an it boosts to 5.0 all the time. Just one of the mysteries of the 13900K.


On Auto it only runs up-to 5.0 in idle scenarios/low load though. Once you run a load it drops to 4.5 I believe.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> On Auto it only runs up-to 5.0 in idle scenarios/low load though. Once you run a load it drops to 4.5 I believe.


That might be it. I’ve seen it go to 5.0 during some photoshop actions I wrote too. Either way, I have’t noticed any performance differences since going to auto. Then again, I gave up on memory overclocking for now and that’s probably where I’d notice the difference.


----------



## HyperC

Ichirou said:


> 2x8 GB Samsung B-die SR?
> You gotta boost voltages across the board.
> And even then, it might not ever be stable, if that is your max bootable frequency.
> Max stable is 99% of the time one tier lower than your max bootable.


I haven't been trying to push my ram that much before I was stable running SA 1.32 4266 15-15-15-30 with dram 1.55v and yes atm 2 sticks 4400 vipers.. 1 stick from other set makes my system not boot so have to warranty them


----------



## neteng101

tps3443 said:


> So Bestbuy only returns broken CPU’s?


No - I returned it as unwanted, not defective. Just said I didn't want them and they took it back for a full refund. Last thing I returned was an M2 drive recently - again open box, the Crucial P3 Plus drive was absolute crap and I found the SN850X I really wanted on sale a few days later, costs more but totally worth it.


----------



## Ichirou

HyperC said:


> I haven't been trying to push my ram that much before I was stable running SA 1.32 4266 15-15-15-30 with dram 1.55v and yes atm 2 sticks 4400 vipers.. 1 stick from other set makes my system not boot so have to warranty them


Are they 2x8 GB?

@Falkentyne @bscool
Initial impressions of the Z790 Strix compared to the Z790 Edge:
The Strix has absolutely gigantic heatsinks, which are not a problem per se, but they make the fan headers and CPU cooler stands next to them a pain in the ass to attach/detach.
A pretty massive design flaw, since anyone could have issues securing them tightly, especially the cooler stand. Which means poor CPU contact with the cold plate.

*But the biggest issue so far (even before I boot the PC) is that my radiator fans do NOT work in ANY fan header EXCEPT AIO_PUMP.*
However, my pumps work with any fan header regardless.

I'm not sure if this is a hardware or software issue, but it is indeed something for @shamino1978 to address.

For now, I'm going to update the BIOS and ME to get a proper SP reading. Will be back with it later.
At the moment, my current reading for this 13900K is SP 111/85 with the stock BIOS (0401).
*Update: *After ME and BIOS update, it is still 111/85.

*On the plus side, all of my Z790 Edge drivers work perfectly fine with the Z790 Strix.*
_(This was not the case when I went from the Z690 Strix to the Z690 Edge, however. Back then, the system would constantly BSOD until I reinstalled the OS.)_


----------



## HyperC

Yes 2x8gb and still I am the only person still using 1.20v VDDQ

Edit: Careful BB bans for a year on returns


----------



## Ichirou

HyperC said:


> Yes 2x8gb and still I am the only person still using 1.20v VDDQ
> 
> Edit: Careful BB bans for a year on returns


Makes sense then. 2x8 GB is not particularly hard to drive.
With 2x16 GB or more, 4,533 MHz would be the maximum bootable.

Your low VDDQ is because you only have 16 GB of RAM. It's not a lot to run.


----------



## tps3443

Anyone have a 13th gen Supercool direct die they want to sell? 🙃


----------



## imrevoau

tps3443 said:


> They're not being returned as faulty or illegally. They are being returned under the advertised 'return for any reason if unhappy within 14-30 days' policy.
> 
> Currently Amazon have extended returns until Jan 31st, you can return items for any reason, even if you simply change your mind.
> 
> Every store offering this has an abuse policy, they monitor returns and block people that do it too much. So technically you can buy 1 chip per store that offers the policy and return it if unhappy.
> 
> Having said that, I disagree strongly with how many chips Ichirou keeps sending back while looking for one that is probably less than 1% of a top bin.


I will probably be binning the Refresh of RPL but all I will be aiming for is an above average chip since I plan to keep it for at least 3 years probably. Hopefully I can get something decent the first go around


----------



## Ichirou

imrevoau said:


> I will probably be binning the Refresh of RPL but all I will be aiming for is an above average chip since I plan to keep it for at least 3 years probably. Hopefully I can get something decent the first go around


13900K: ~108/XX (since it's worse than the KF)
13900KF: 109/80
13900K (first): 111/85
13900K (second): ≈110/XX (since it's between the KF and first K)
@tps3443


----------



## BoredErica

Passed SF 12hr 1.37v yet failed Minecraft startup.

Nobody is interested in fact that Minecraft startup is hotter than P95 or ycruncher on my computer? hmm


----------



## tps3443

@Ichirou

I don’t know what post @imrevoau is quoting here. *But I did not post or type this. But it says I did? 🧐*


----------



## Ichirou

Well, aside from the initial impressions, I'm currently trying to boot 4,300+ MHz and failing, no matter what voltages I plug in.
The training takes quite some time as well, _much _longer than the Z790 Edge. Not very pleasing to see.

For the most part, the board is likely going to be returned after I check my upcoming chip's SP.
I wouldn't say that this board's giving me a headache _per se_, but it's certainly not playing nice.

I'll keep trying to get 4,300+ MHz to boot. But it's definitely not really working well. @bhav

@tps3443 That was by bhav IIRC. Was probably misquote.

Update: Well, the Clear CMOS button on the Z790 Strix is a downgrade from the one on the Z690 Strix.
On the Z690, you simply needed to power off the PC and then press the button, and it would enter the BIOS automatically.
But on the Z790, you need to power off the PSU and then press the button, and then reenter the BIOS. (Similar to the Z790 Edge, but not as convenient as the Z690's)


----------



## imrevoau

@tps3443 yeah *** I have no clue why it said that you said that XD I think it was bhav.


----------



## Ichirou

Man, what the hell... I can't even boot to desktop on XMP right now. Is the Z790 Strix _this_ awful?
Not even the Z690 Strix struggled this hard.

The memory slot design must've changed. Maybe the secondary slots are just godawful for four DIMM configurations.

---------------------------------------------------

CMOS reset.
Enable XMP, test boot.
Reaches desktop with XMP timings, but Gear 2.
Reenter BIOS, set Gear 1, lock in 4,000 MHz. Save and exit.
Boot loops and never POSTs.

ASUS must've really dropped the ball with the Z790. Because it shouldn't be this awful.
The Z690 Strix had no issue at all.

Latest BIOS and ME is installed.
This board makes me feel like some office joe who bought his first ever PC and is just trying to get his PC to work.

---------------------------------------------------

Retry with 3,600 MHz 1T Gear 1 instead (since literally every board on the planet can do this).
Boots just fine to desktop. VCCSA reads as 0.88V, and VDDQ reads as 1.20V.
Reenter BIOS, set 3,800 MHz instead, everything else still auto. Save and exit.
Boot loops and never POSTs.

Good god.


----------



## tps3443

@Ichirou
This chip runs 10C hotter than my last FORCE 124 CPU at the same power levels  This is what is really holding it back. Not sure why it runs so hot lol. I am thinking really badly warped IHS, or poor factory TIM.

But with that still being the case. Take a look at what it can actually do! It's really an amazing quality chip. 5.9Ghz on the P-Cores, and 4.7Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Ring at very low power levels. This chip is a baller. it smashes my Force 124.  and its a Force 135. (Makes no sense)

This is 1.305V set in the bios fixed voltage override.

People think I am silly when I say something is running hot. But, truthfully it is running hot. Much hotter than I'm used to seeing anyways. I want that 30C reduction from Super Cool bare die.


----------



## bhav

warbucks said:


> Who is everyone else? Your sample size is tiny and you're exaggerating. There are so many user error variables that could be at play.


Everyone with a stock vid that is set too high.

You realize that probably only around 5% of people using these chips even know what HWinfo is and how to check voltages?

Everytime someone posts this issue and I ask for and they provide a HWfifo screenie, its the same issue, excessive voltage being pumped into the chips at stock volts, and the same solution, reduce lite load, try 1 first and check stability.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> This chip runs 10C hotter than my last FORCE 124 CPU at the same power levels  This is what is really holding it back.
> 
> But with that still the case. Take a look at what it can actually do! Its amazing. 5.9Ghz on the P-Cores, and 4.7Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Ring at very very low power levels. This chip is a baller. it smashes my Force 124.  and its a Force 135. (Makes no sense)
> 
> View attachment 2588764


Very nice.
I'm not sure how I'd clock my chip, which I've already paid for and am waiting for it to be shipped.

Do I just set a flat voltage and optimize the cores?
Or should I low/high load overclock?

The former would lead to something like your 61x on all cores, while the latter would have something closer to stock on high load, but 63-65x all-core on low loads.
Decisions, decisions.

But that aside, I'm just going to keep ranting about how the Strix Z790-A is godawful.
It's so awful, I think even Gigabyte could beat it. With a Z690.

it's simply not optimized for four DIMMs of Micron. At all.


----------



## ViTosS

Ichirou said:


> Very nice.
> I'm not sure how I'd clock my chip, which I've already paid for and am waiting for it to be shipped.
> 
> Do I just set a flat voltage and optimize the cores?
> Or should I low/high load overclock?
> 
> The former would lead to something like your 61x on all cores, while the latter would have something closer to stock on high load, but 63-65x all-core on low loads.
> Decisions, decisions.
> 
> But that aside, I'm just going to keep ranting about how the Strix Z790-A is godawful.
> It's so awful, I think even Gigabyte could beat it. With a Z690.
> 
> it's simply not optimized for four DIMMs of Micron. At all.


When my Z790 Strix-A came, I was having problems to detect the second RAM stick, I changed many times through different slots, thought it was dead but then plugged in my MSI Z490 and working fine, had no idea, went to a local store grabbed a generic DDR4 stick just to make sure, then this stick still not being detected, after many times plugging and unplugging the RAM stick in different slots, it suddently recognized the RAM and I've been running without problem since then, no idea what could have happened.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Very nice.
> I'm not sure how I'd clock my chip, which I've already paid for and am waiting for it to be shipped.
> 
> Do I just set a flat voltage and optimize the cores?
> Or should I low/high load overclock?
> 
> The former would lead to something like your 61x on all cores, while the latter would have something closer to stock on high load, but 63-65x all-core on low loads.
> Decisions, decisions.
> 
> But that aside, I'm just going to keep ranting about how the Strix Z790-A is godawful.
> It's so awful, I think even Gigabyte could beat it. With a Z690.
> 
> it's simply not optimized for four DIMMs of Micron. At all.



I am still deciding myself to be honest. I am still tinkering with mine lol. I am trying a 6.4 on the (2) best and 6.3 on the others bouncing around but, I lose some efficiency on all-core loads because the VROut will be slightly higher. So just to keep 6.4Ghz boost, I add like 20-25 watts of extra package power to my CPU.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I am still deciding myself to be honest. I am still tinkering with mine lol. I am trying a 6.4 on the (2) best and 6.3 on the others bouncing around but, I lose some efficiency on all-core loads because the VROut will be slightly higher. So just to keep 6.4Ghz boost, I add like 20-25 watts of extra package power to my CPU.


Yep. That's the issue with Intel's downclocking algorithm. It overvolts during high loads.
If some motherboard company finally designs a way to allow someone to manually overclock high and low loads in the BIOS, that would be legendary.

MSI's Advanced VF Offset is _supposed_ to allow you to do that, but it really doesn't work as intended. At least, not from my testing.
Intel's stock VIDs still basically take over and set minimums to everything.

This is why I developed my Intel XTU guide; you just set some maximum wattage you're willing to sacrifice for high loads, and then you focus on maximizing the low loads.
It'll still net you something like 55/46/50 with an average chip at ~350W, but you can clock your low load to 60x or higher easily.
And with a quality binned chip, it would be able to do that at a lower wattage or do higher multipliers at the same wattage, during high loads.

So the real key (for now) is to just have a P-SP 120+ chip, lol.

In other words, this Strix Z790-A is getting canned. I'll just use it to check the SP of my binned chip once it arrives (to make sure it's genuine), and then I'll return it.
Extended holiday return policy at Amazon anyway.

@bhav: TL;DR: Strix Z790-A can't boot anything over 3,800 MHz with 4x16 GB Micron B-die regardless of VCCSA/VDDQ.


----------



## Falkentyne

BoredErica said:


> View attachment 2588759
> 
> Passed SF 12hr 1.37v yet failed Minecraft startup.
> 
> Nobody is interested in fact that Minecraft startup is hotter than P95 or ycruncher on my computer? hmm


This doesn't happen on my 13900K.
MC startup (multiple runs) is cooler than Cinebench R23. R23 is cooler than Stockfish. Y-cruncher SFT and LinX (35000 size) are both hotter than Stockfish. R15 is somehow less stable than R23 despite seemingly being slightly cooler.


----------



## dumassnoob

Ichirou said:


> Recommended. It's only $10 from AliExpress. Thermalright bracket.


I took the advice. only $15 from junglesite and here by christmas. thanks for the info


----------



## tps3443

@Ichirou
Honestly the best way to do it is. Set your (2-4) core loads to 6.3Ghz-6.4Ghz. Then set a fixed voltage in your bios guessing with maybe 1.350-1.400+ on what probably works for your chip. Load in to windows, and you’ll see that 6.3-6.4Ghz bouncing on all cores while on the desktop. Make sure it doesn’t freeze up, thats an easy part lol. If it does not freeze start stability testing with single thread apps only. If it does freeze up then add more voltage until it’s stable with single cores at 6.3 or 6.4+.

Next we want to make sure your all core loads are not deadly with power consumption and amperage so don’t just jump in head first with Cinebench lol. All core loads of (8) cores could be 5.9-6.1Ghz whatever you set for your chip. Run CPU-Z bench first which is light on power to get an idea where the load VROut will fall. Now you can assume it will be 30% more power and amperage for an actual R23 run.

Lower or increase LLC to find stability and your safe power max for Cinebench.

If the chip can get through Single thread testing, and Cinebench, and run BF2042, chances are it’s actually stable. No need for heavy long hours of all core loads.

^ This is the fastest way to check a chip without potentially damaging it. Just because the voltage is 1.350 or even 1.450+ doesn’t mean much. That’s only to feed the high boosters on low loads and single threaded stuff. The load VROut and load amperage is important for all core loads.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> Honestly the best way to do it is. Set your (2-4) core loads to 6.3Ghz-6.4Ghz. Then set a fixed voltage in your bios guessing with maybe 1.350-1.400+ on what probably works for your chip. Load in to windows, and you’ll see that 6.3-6.4Ghz bouncing on all cores while on the desktop. Make sure it doesn’t freeze up, thats an easy part lol. If it does not freeze start stability testing with single thread apps only. If it does freeze up then add more voltage until it’s stable with single cores at 6.3 or 6.4+.
> 
> Next we want to make sure your all core loads are not deadly with power consumption and amperage so don’t just jump in head first with Cinebench lol. All core loads of (8) cores could be 5.9-6.1Ghz whatever you set for your chip. Run CPU-Z bench first which is light on power to get an idea where the load VROut will fall. Then add 30% more power and amperage for an R23 run.
> 
> Lower or increase LLC to find stability and your safe power max for Cinebench.
> 
> If the chip can get through Single thread testing, and Cinebench, and run BF2042, chances are it’s actually stable. No need for heavy long hours of all core loads.
> 
> ^ This is the fastest way to check a chip without potentially damaging it. Just because the voltage is 1.350 or even 1.450+ doesn’t mean much. That’s only to feed the high boosters on low loads and single threaded stuff. The load VROut and load amperage is important for all core loads.


Eh, I prefer my methodology of using TM5. It's safer and would works across most workloads. Just gotta have some patience.
It also stress tests your memory, so that's a plus as well. Let's you know whether your RAM gets unstable as the cores boost higher.

@Falkentyne Since this Strix Z790-A is kind of useless now, I may as well test for Vmin with stock multipliers and compare it to the Edge Z790 after I swap back.
I'll just stick to 3,600 MHz on the memory for now (with XMP timings), and mirror that on the Edge later.
Just going to do a y-cruncher 5B run. So not quite as easy as 2.5B, but not as lengthy as 10B either.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Eh, I prefer my methodology of using TM5. It's safer and would works across most workloads. Just gotta have some patience.
> It also stress tests your memory, so that's a plus as well. Let's you know whether your RAM gets unstable as the cores boost higher.
> 
> @Falkentyne Since this Strix Z790-A is kind of useless now, I may as well test for Vmin with stock multipliers and compare it to the Edge Z790 after I swap back.
> I'll just stick to 3,600 MHz on the memory for now (with XMP timings), and mirror that on the Edge later.
> Just going to do a y-cruncher 5B run. So not quite as easy as 2.5B, but not as lengthy as 10B either.


Can you link TM5 here?


----------



## BoredErica

Falkentyne said:


> This doesn't happen on my 13900K.
> MC startup (multiple runs) is cooler than Cinebench R23. R23 is cooler than Stockfish. Y-cruncher SFT and LinX (35000 size) are both hotter than Stockfish. R15 is somehow less stable than R23 despite seemingly being slightly cooler.


I think it's an interaction between high voltage and low power limit. At 1.25v, unlimited p1/p2, P95 hits 80C, Minecraft <70c. At 1.38v, 160w p1/p2, P95 71c, Minecraft 76c.


----------



## CptSpig

tps3443 said:


> Can you link TM5 here?


I gave you a link in my earlier post.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Can you link TM5 here?











1usmus Error Diagnosis


Sheet1 1usmus_v3,Usage: Run TM5 with 1usmus (six cycles) to diagnose and correct errors, and then run anta777 ABSOLUT (nonstop overnight) for a final confirmation,ERROR #7,MirrorMove 2Mb [Mode0,P0],SEE ERROR #11 - If this error happens with Errors #1 and/or #11, it is most likely not enough VDI...




docs.google.com





You may need to use a power plan hack to make sure no P/E-cores get parked, if you are on W10.
Gotta monitor the Effective Clocks in HWiNFO.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> This chip runs 10C hotter than my last FORCE 124 CPU at the same power levels  This is what is really holding it back. Not sure why it runs so hot lol. I am thinking really badly warped IHS, or poor factory TIM.
> 
> But with that still being the case. Take a look at what it can actually do! It's really an amazing quality chip. 5.9Ghz on the P-Cores, and 4.7Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Ring at very low power levels. This chip is a baller. it smashes my Force 124.  and its a Force 135. (Makes no sense)
> 
> This is 1.305V set in the bios fixed voltage override.
> 
> People think I am silly when I say something is running hot. But, truthfully it is running hot. Much hotter than I'm used to seeing anyways. I want that 30C reduction from Super Cool bare die.
> 
> View attachment 2588764


It's running hotter at the same voltages or you pushed the voltages higher then the other chip to achieve 6.0Ghz all core?


----------



## VULC

Well binned 4 chips now and I'm done. Down $500AUD that's enough 😅😅

13900K 108/81
13900KF 113/88
13900KF 113/85
13900KF 108/80


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Well binned 4 chips now and I'm done. Down $500AUD that's enough 😅😅
> 
> 13900K 108/81
> 13900KF 113/88
> 13900KF 113/85
> 13900KF 108/80


Refund them?

@Falkentyne On the latest BIOS, I can't even run y-cruncher beyond a second no matter what Vcore I throw at it. And I have plenty of VCCSA and VDDQ as well.
It's only 3,600 MHz too. Loose timings. Instantly crashes each time.

Potential contact issue? Any ideas?


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Refund them?
> 
> @Falkentyne On the latest BIOS, I can't even run y-cruncher beyond a second no matter what Vcore I throw at it. And I have plenty of VCCSA and VDDQ as well.
> It's only 3,600 MHz too. Loose timings. Instantly crashes each time.
> 
> Potential contact issue? Any ideas?


Can't refund get charged restocking fee. Unless you can prove it's faulty.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> It's running hotter at the same voltages or you pushed the voltages higher then the other chip to achieve 6.0Ghz all core?


It runs much hotter, very strange I know. I tested the same bios profile as a previous Force 124 chip which was just 5.8-6.2Ghz, and it’s min/max core temp is 10C hotter on the better CPU. Voltage and power is actually slightly lower on this chip.

I’m thinking warped IHS? It needs super cool bare die for sure though. It idles hotter, and runs hotter all around.

5.9 P-Core 4.7 E-Core and running 5.2 Ring now. And it’s The easiest overclock I have ever seen on a 13900K. I’m literally so proud of this chip. 🤣 

To be totally honest, I can run 6.0 P-Core and 4.8 E-Core for daily just fine in all my work loads. But under Cinebench R23 the temps are too much. Power and voltages and amperages are all very reasonable though. So, ^ 6,0/4.8 is stable if I don’t run R23 lol. 

Most of these guys running 6.0Ghz during Cinebench R23 have 60C package temps and direct die. I’m all for it though. And I’m going to put it under direct die.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Can't refund get charged restocking fee. Unless you can prove it's faulty.


500 AUD sounds a helluva lot more of a loss than the restock fee.


tps3443 said:


> It runs much hotter. Same bios profile as a previous chip at 5.8-6.2Ghz and it’s exactly max core temp is 10C hotter in the better CPU. Voltage and power is actually slightly lower on this chip.
> 
> I’m thinking warped IHS. It needs super cool bare die.
> 
> 5.9P-Core 4.7 E-Core and running 5.2 Ring now. And it’s The easiest overclock I have ever seen on a 13900K. I’m so proud of it. 🤣


Well, you did use stock soldier instead of delid...


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> 500 AUD sounds a helluva lot more of a loss than the restock fee.
> 
> Well, you did use stock soldier instead of delid...


15% restock so say 140 each CPU or I could try sell private and it would be $100 loss each CPU but the second hand market is dead here. No big super markets like Best Buy sell CPUs.


----------



## Falkentyne

I can't help with memory related problems, especially DDR4. And I don't know if the problem is CPU or memory. I have a DDR5 board.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> I can't help with memory related problems, especially DDR4. And I don't know if the problem is CPU or memory. I have a DDR5 board.


It's not memory related though. It's just refusing to run y-cruncher. The RAM's running at really low spec with far more than enough IMC voltage.
It either throws CLOCK_WATCHDOG (not enough Vcore, even though it's far more than enough), or instantly errors.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> It's not memory related though. It's just refusing to run y-cruncher. The RAM's running at really low spec with far more than enough IMC voltage.
> It either throws CLOCK_WATCHDOG (not enough Vcore, even though it's far more than enough), or instantly errors.


Is this on Strix z790? I had issues where something would be rock solid stable and then do the same stability test again and it would not be stable. I think it's bios related but who knows.


----------



## bscool

Ichirou said:


> Refund them?
> 
> @Falkentyne On the latest BIOS, I can't even run y-cruncher beyond a second no matter what Vcore I throw at it. And I have plenty of VCCSA and VDDQ as well.
> It's only 3,600 MHz too. Loose timings. Instantly crashes each time.
> 
> Potential contact issue? Any ideas?


Which bios 806 or 703? I take it you mean 806, I see some have issues with it but I have only used it on Apex and it worked fine for me.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Is this on Strix z790? I had issues where something would be rock solid stable and then do the same stability test again and it would not be stable. I think it's bios related but who knows.





bscool said:


> Which bios 806 or 703? I take it you mean 806, I see some have issues with it but I have only used it on Apex and it worked fine for me.


Yep, Strix Z790-A. It can't boot anything 3,800+ MHz, but above and beyond that, it refuses to run y-cruncher no matter what.
BIOS 0703. The latest one on the ASUS Strix website.


----------



## bscool

Ichirou said:


> Yep, Strix Z790-A. It can't boot anything 3,800+ MHz, but above and beyond that, it refuses to run y-cruncher no matter what.
> BIOS 0703. The latest one on the ASUS Strix website.


Maybe try the latest 806. Otherwise I don't know.









0806


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> 500 AUD sounds a helluva lot more of a loss than the restock fee.
> 
> Well, you did use stock soldier instead of delid...


Force 124 was stock solder too. Neither chips delidded.


----------



## Ichirou

bscool said:


> Maybe try the latest 806. Otherwise I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0806
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Nevermind, I figured out why. The default LLC Vdroop was much steeper than on MSI. So I never gave it enough Vcore.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Nevermind, I figured out why. The default LLC Vdroop was much steeper than on MSI. So I never gave it enough Vcore.


Still doesn't seem like you're going to get 4 sticks 4300CL14 on this new board.

Also I'm sure lower vcore is better for ram overclocking.


----------



## Ichirou

bscool said:


> Maybe try the latest 806. Otherwise I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0806
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Is 0806 better than 0703? Based on your experience, even if it's on a different board.


----------



## bscool

Ichirou said:


> Is 0806 better than 0703? Based on your experience, even if it's on a different board.


806 worked well on Apex for me. I dont know if I ever used 703 since I got Apex recently.


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> Nevermind, I figured out why. The default LLC Vdroop was much steeper than on MSI. So I never gave it enough Vcore.


What are your SPs now that you have strix? What's ypur best sample interms of imc and SP


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> What are your SPs now that you have strix? What's ypur best sample interms of imc and SP











Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


I say go for it! With the coldest water possible my other 13900K cannot even run 5.7 in Battlefield 2042 stable Lol. While my current cpu can run 6.0 in Battlefield with the chiller off. It is funny how that works. Kind of like my ring. It will do 4.9 all day, but wont go to 5.0. Set it to auto...




www.overclock.net


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> 13900K: ~108/XX (since it's worse than the KF)
> 13900KF: 109/80
> 13900K (first): 111/85
> 13900K (second): ≈110/XX (since it's between the KF and first K)
> @tps3443


How was that 109/80 chip? What kind of OC could you daily and what voltage?


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> How was that 109/80 chip? What kind of OC could you daily and what voltage?


That's the one I'm selling.
56/46/51 is stable at 1.20-1.22V VCC Sense on the Z690 Edge.
I forgot exactly what that translated to in terms of R23 wattage though.
If you go with ~200W low loads, all of those cores will do 59x, and some scale up to 61x at the same voltage.

It's actually a little better than my current 13900K (111/85) in terms of low loads.
On this 13900K, most cores will do 60x, but two cores are screwed at 58-59x. Also under 200W.
This one will also be going on sale soon, once I receive the next binned 13900K I bought.

Both chips have golden DDR4 IMCs and will do 4,200-4,266 MHz Gear 1 minimum with the right board and RAM.
The 13900KF needs +0.02V more VCCSA to achieve whatever you want on the 13900K though.

Let me know if you want to buy.


----------



## OC2000

Ichirou said:


> Depending on what you need, you could go for my 13900KF.
> 4,200 MHz CL14 1T Gear 1 stable with 4x16 GB Micron B-die SR.
> Or 4,266 MHz CL15 Gear 1 with 2x16 GB Samsung B-die DR.
> Below MSRP.


Do you have the SP numbers? Im using DDR5 so hard to tell with DDR4 capability


----------



## Ichirou

OC2000 said:


> Do you have the SP numbers? Im using DDR5 so hard to tell with DDR4 capability


109/80 for that chip.


----------



## OC2000

Ichirou said:


> 109/80 for that chip.


mine is 113/80/72 would need something better than that unfortunately.


----------



## bhav

So this was interesting ...

I set the auto PL limits to 'boxed cooler 181w' and set lite load to auto.

It still pushes 1.4v maximum volts into the chip, then trottles it down to 1.25v and 4.8 Ghz P cores to reach the PL limit.

This isn't the motherboards fault if stock PL limits are enforced, the auto voltage is based on the VID specification built into the CPU.


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> Honestly the best way to do it is. Set your (2-4) core loads to 6.3Ghz-6.4Ghz. Then set a fixed voltage in your bios guessing with maybe 1.350-1.400+ on what probably works for your chip. Load in to windows, and you’ll see that 6.3-6.4Ghz bouncing on all cores while on the desktop. Make sure it doesn’t freeze up, thats an easy part lol. If it does not freeze start stability testing with single thread apps only. If it does freeze up then add more voltage until it’s stable with single cores at 6.3 or 6.4+.
> 
> Next we want to make sure your all core loads are not deadly with power consumption and amperage so don’t just jump in head first with Cinebench lol. All core loads of (8) cores could be 5.9-6.1Ghz whatever you set for your chip. Run CPU-Z bench first which is light on power to get an idea where the load VROut will fall. Now you can assume it will be 30% more power and amperage for an actual R23 run.
> 
> Lower or increase LLC to find stability and your safe power max for Cinebench.
> 
> If the chip can get through Single thread testing, and Cinebench, and run BF2042, chances are it’s actually stable. No need for heavy long hours of all core loads.
> 
> ^ This is the fastest way to check a chip without potentially damaging it. Just because the voltage is 1.350 or even 1.450+ doesn’t mean much. That’s only to feed the high boosters on low loads and single threaded stuff. The load VROut and load amperage is important for all core loads.


What voltage set in bios and LLC are you using to play all core 6ghz in Battlefield 2042?

I'm using 1.44v LLC5 for 6ghz all p-core, 47 e-core and 51 cache.


----------



## energie80

Nizzen said:


> What voltage set in bios and LLC are you using to play all core 6ghz in Battlefield 2042?
> 
> I'm using 1.44v LLC5 for 6ghz all p-core, 47 e-core and 51 cache.


voltage on load?


----------



## Nizzen

energie80 said:


> voltage on load?


1.305v


----------



## energie80

good one


----------



## Telstar

@Ichirou I think the strix is optimized for 2 ddr4 dimms. But try the beta bioses, they are continuously improving stuff.


----------



## bhav

Crap, looks like my chip won't overclock:










NVM, dynamic mode not working, changing to fixed mode works, under dynamic it won't boost to 5200 in cinebench either.


----------



## acoustic

bhav said:


> Crap, looks like my chip won't overclock:
> 
> View attachment 2588801
> 
> 
> NVM, dynamic mode not working, changing to fixed mode works, under dynamic it won't boost to 5200 in cinebench either.


Did you set a Current Limit?


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> That's the one I'm selling.
> 56/46/51 is stable at 1.20-1.22V VCC Sense on the Z690 Edge.
> I forgot exactly what that translated to in terms of R23 wattage though.
> If you go with ~200W low loads, all of those cores will do 59x, and some scale up to 61x at the same voltage.
> 
> It's actually a little better than my current 13900K (111/85) in terms of low loads.
> On this 13900K, most cores will do 60x, but two cores are screwed at 58-59x. Also under 200W.
> This one will also be going on sale soon, once I receive the next binned 13900K I bought.
> 
> Both chips have golden DDR4 IMCs and will do 4,200-4,266 MHz Gear 1 minimum with the right board and RAM.
> The 13900KF needs +0.02V more VCCSA to achieve whatever you want on the 13900K though.
> 
> Let me know if you want to buy.


mine also does 4200+ gear1 but i stuck to 4133 cuz asus ddr4 isnt supporting 13 gen properly yet. i cant even run cr1 on SR. i tried 59 x with tvb and it was crashing game sometimes prolly needed a +offset or something not sure


----------



## bhav

acoustic said:


> Did you set a Current Limit?


Not sure what that is, I would like to get dynamic mode working so it isn't locked to the OC at idle.

So currently 1.25v is good for 5.4 all core, 5.5 crashed.

Trying 1.3 now.

Looking worse than most 13900Ks though, I think the average for those is 5.5 at 1.25v?


----------



## acoustic

bhav said:


> Not sure what that is, I would like to get dynamic mode working so it isn't locked to the OC at idle.
> 
> So currently 1.25v is good for 5.4 all core, 5.5 crashed.
> 
> Trying 1.3 now.


It's under Advanced CPU. I noticed a bug with 13th gen/MSI BIOS; if any current limit is set, the chip will wildly downclock even if you are no where near your current limit. Make sure CEP and Under Voltage Protection are both disabled as well, also under the Advanced CPU page.

Try leaving P-Core Ratio on Auto, and then configuring the ratios through the Per-Core Ratio setting. Using both doesn't make sense, and could be causing an odd conflict. You could also try doing it vice-versa, so all-core ratio at 52, with Per-Core set to Auto.


----------



## bhav

acoustic said:


> It's under Advanced CPU. I noticed a bug with 13th gen/MSI BIOS; if any current limit is set, the chip will wildly downclock even if you are no where near your current limit. Make sure CEP and Under Voltage Protection are both disabled as well, also under the Advanced CPU page.
> 
> Try leaving P-Core Ratio on Auto, and then configuring the ratios through the Per-Core Ratio setting. Using both doesn't make sense, and could be causing an odd conflict. You could also try doing it vice-versa, so all-core ratio at 52, with Per-Core set to Auto.


Thanks, will look into that next.

Looks like I got a gold IMC but junk cores, 1.3v not enough for 5.6 all core.

Also no bsod but cinebench crash at 5.6 1.35v. Nooooooo junk chip!!!

Looks like just 5.4 on P cores for me.


----------



## Nizzen

bhav said:


> Thanks, will look into that next.
> 
> Looks like I got a gold IMC but junk cores, 1.3v not enough for 5.6 all core.
> 
> Also no bsod but cinebench crash at 5.6 1.35v. Nooooooo junk chip!!!
> 
> Looks like just 5.4 on P cores for me.


IMC > Cores 😎


----------



## bhav

So I can't change the current limit or disable it, and CEP was already disabled?

It's set to 512A which is the highest it goes, it's all set to max limits under the water cooling preset.

I'll just run 1.25v 5.4 P cores, good enough for me. Onto e cores and cache next.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Not sure what that is, I would like to get dynamic mode working so it isn't locked to the OC at idle.
> 
> So currently 1.25v is good for 5.4 all core, 5.5 crashed.
> 
> Trying 1.3 now.
> 
> Looking worse than most 13900Ks though, I think the average for those is 5.5 at 1.25v?


1.25 for 5.5 under load? My 13900K is running all defaults at 1.159 under loads like R23. That translates to about 228W and 72C hottest core. I’m using adaptive+offset values of 1.3V with -.06V offset.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> 1.25 for 5.5 under load? My 13900K is running all defaults at 1.159 under loads like R23. That translates to about 228W and 72C hottest core. I’m using adaptive+offset values of 1.3V with -.06V offset.


Yea I got binned cores that failed even 13700K specs it looks like.

Now I can't get any OC on the e cores to stick, even raising them to 40x they still sit at 3900, even with 1.25v L2 voltage.

Junk cores.


----------



## bhav

Anyone happen to know why I can't get my E core OCs to apply?

5.0 ring was unstable at 1.25v L2, but working at 1.35.

Figured it out, need more than 1.25v even for 4.0 e cores, mega junk chip.


----------



## dumassnoob

is there a faq posts where i can read all of these jargon terms. having trouble following along with the discussion


----------



## bhav

dumassnoob said:


> is there a faq posts where i can read all of these jargon terms. having trouble following along with the discussion


Just ask or try googling the terms.


----------



## neteng101

bhav said:


> Figured it out, need more than 1.25v even for 4.0 e cores, mega junk chip.


Unless you're using a very high end MB that does die sense voltage, don't compare your voltages to those using such setups. Die sense voltage will always be lower than Vcore voltage... 1.25v is nowhere near enough Vcore. Look to stabilize your OC around 1.3v Vcore at full load (can be higher at idle depending on how you set LLC).


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> Yea I got binned cores that failed even 13700K specs it looks like.
> 
> Now I can't get any OC on the e cores to stick, even raising them to 40x they still sit at 3900, even with 1.25v L2 voltage.
> 
> Junk cores.


last gen the i5 actually seemed to be better binned for clocks


----------



## bhav

neteng101 said:


> Unless you're using a very high end MB that does die sense voltage, don't compare your voltages to those using such setups. Die sense voltage will always be lower than Vcore voltage... 1.25v is nowhere near enough Vcore. Look to stabilize your OC around 1.3v Vcore at full load (can be higher at idle depending on how you set LLC).


I see, it looks like I've figured it out now.

At 1.3v I can get 5.5 all P core, but 4.5 Ecores required 1.32v which was too high and started hitting 100c on some P cores (contact frame not installed yet, want to do it after to compare temps).

So now I'm trying 1.3v, 4.4 Ecores, and 1 by 1 P cores over 5.5.


----------



## HemuV2

bhav said:


> Anyone happen to know why I can't get my E core OCs to apply?
> 
> 5.0 ring was unstable at 1.25v L2, but working at 1.35.
> 
> Figured it out, need more than 1.25v even for 4.0 e cores, mega junk chip.


My sp is 109/73 and on auto it used 1.412 vcore 330W for cinebench, if you have better ecores it might still use 1.35+ and 250W+, now 1.25 is really really low so obviously it would fail unless that 1.25V is diesense. Better Try 1.4V llc medium these chips have very high vcore requirements with OC like my asus Board suggests 1.4V llc5 for 5.7GHz


----------



## neteng101

bhav said:


> So now I'm trying 1.3v, 4.4 Ecores, and 1 by 1 P cores over 5.5.


Not surprised - you're hitting the average easy to hit marks. 5.5P 4.4E 4.8R is what I have on my 13700k with P-cores going all the way to 5.8 when light loaded (up to 2 core). Around 1.3v is the sweet spot for keeping temps reasonable unless you have really good cooling. When that next 0.1 increment takes a lot more voltage to get stable, its really not worth it anymore... that's when you hit the wall and it takes a lot to get over it.


----------



## energie80

I don’t care what the board says…I’m not going past 1.33 for static overclock


----------



## bhav

imrevoau said:


> last gen the i5 actually seemed to be better binned for clocks


Meh my 12600K needed 1.29v for 5.0 all core, 1.38v for 5.1, so this one is already miles ahead needing just 1.25 for 5.4 / 1.3 for 5.5.

Also 4.4 e cores and 5.0 ring, couldn't ever do that on the 12600K.

*_*

First 3 cores failed 5.6 instantly, 4th core lasted 4 loops, bumped it up to 1.31v and, well, ignoring the temps for now because no contact frame and only MX4 ...










Toasty. Gonna reduce the first 3 cores to 5.4 while testing the last 2.


----------



## persizi




----------



## RichKnecht

Looking back into this thread, I have been trying to figure out something, and my brain just can't do it. Let's look at 2 chips running R23 ( no particular chips ). The first chip is clocked at 55/43/45. Under load, this chip shows VIDs of 1,16 with a power draw of *230W *with temps~72C. The second chip is clocked at 56/45/48 with VIDs showing 1.28 with a power draw of* 205W with temps in the 90s. *How can the chip clocked higher, with higher VIDs and temps, draw less power? Is the board reporting incorrect voltages/power draw? My brain says the second chip should be drawing more power, right?


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> What voltage set in bios and LLC are you using to play all core 6ghz in Battlefield 2042?
> 
> I'm using 1.44v LLC5 for 6ghz all p-core, 47 e-core and 51 cache.



Auto voltage. Auto LLC. The Voltage in the bios says 1.350, the VID's say 1.350, Load VROut is 1.330-1.340.


----------



## bhav

Ok well, the last P core needs 1.32v for 5.6. Disabling HT also allows 5.6 on the second core, +100 on all e cores, and -15c temps ....

Looks like I won't be using HT.

3 cores 5.6
3cores 5.5
E cores 4.5
Ring 5.0

Only possible without HT at 1.32v and max temp on one core is 85c in cinebench. HT on it's close to 100.

Next I need to try again to get my LAN port to work before putting on the contact frame though, otherwise the mobo needs an RMA.

Screenshot:










If I want HT on, only 2 cores can do 5.6, and 4.4 on e cores, and 98c max.


----------



## Telstar

Yes, disabling HT helps with temps.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> Kind of like my ring. It will do 4.9 all day, but wont go to 5.0. Set it to auto an it boosts to 5.0 all the time. Just one of the mysteries of the 13900K.


Did you any voltage set or just adaptive or vf?


----------



## bhav

Telstar said:


> Yes, disabling HT helps with temps.


I might turn it on for just the 5.5 cores actually and see.


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Did you any voltage set or just adaptive or vf?


At the moment, I am running Adaptive+Offset. Settings are 1.3V with a -.06 offset which gives me 1.59 VIDs/VCore under load.


----------



## Ichirou

Telstar said:


> @Ichirou I think the strix is optimized for 2 ddr4 dimms. But try the beta bioses, they are continuously improving stuff.


I wouldn't say "optimized". I think the second channel is strictly for decoration, just like the quad DIMM DDR5 woes. ASUS definitely dropped the ball with this one.

Newer beta BIOS changed nothing. Still doesn't boot 4,000 MHz Gear 1.

There's almost no reason to recommend the Z790 Strix over the Edge now, since the Edge can do everything the Strix can, plus it has great overclocking with _both_ dual _and_ quad DIMM configurations. And it's cheaper too.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Looking back into this thread, I have been trying to figure out something, and my brain just can't do it. Let's look at 2 chips running R23 ( no particular chips ). The first chip is clocked at 55/43/45. Under load, this chip shows VIDs of 1,16 with a power draw of *230W *with temps~72C. The second chip is clocked at 56/45/48 with VIDs showing 1.28 with a power draw of* 205W with temps in the 90s. *How can the chip clocked higher, with higher VIDs and temps, draw less power? Is the board reporting incorrect voltages/power draw? My brain says the second chip should be drawing more power, right?


That is Silicon quality! My current 13900K will run 5.9P/4.7E/5.1R and use only around 290 watts or so through R23. Best I’ve had thus far.

I milked it down to 276 watts with really low voltage for one run for 5.9P/4.7E/5.1R, but it wasn’t truly stable like this.

People are setting an all-core OC and manually setting voltage. Some chips can do 200 watts at 5.5Ghz, others can do 260 watts at 5.5Ghz.

Just because the VID’s are higher, doesn’t mean anything. That load voltage is probably much lower on the lesser power chip. My VROut under load drops drastically while the load VID’s stay the same. It’s all down to silicon quality.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> I wouldn't say "optimized". I think the second channel is strictly for decoration, just like the quad DIMM DDR5 woes. ASUS definitely dropped the ball with this one.
> 
> Newer beta BIOS changed nothing. Still doesn't boot 4,000 MHz Gear 1.
> 
> There's almost no reason to recommend the Z790 Strix over the Edge now, since the Edge can do everything the Strix can, plus it has great overclocking with _both_ dual _and_ quad DIMM configurations. And it's cheaper too.


Could you test if its any better with just 2 sticks please?

Also its looking like all my cores might work at 5.6 with HT off, a fourth one is currently doing fine. The stronger ones might go higher!

HT sucks.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> That is Silicon quality! My current 13900K will run 5.9P/4.7E/5.1R and use only around 290 watts or so through R23.


I understand silicon quality and some chips needing less power for specific clocks. But how can a higher vcore draw less power.? Electrically, it doesn't make sense. It's like turning on a 100W light bulb in one house draws 100W and in another it draws 80W.


----------



## Telstar

Ichirou said:


> There's almost no reason to recommend the Z790 Strix over the Edge now, since the Edge can do everything the Strix can, plus it has great overclocking with _both_ dual _and_ quad DIMM configurations. And it's cheaper too.


For cpu overclocking, i think the strix bios is better or at least easier to use.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Could you test if its any better with just 2 sticks please?
> 
> Also its looking like all my cores might work at 5.6 with HT off, a fourth one is currently doing fine. The stronger ones might go higher!
> 
> HT sucks.


No. Because it's nigh impossible to detach two sticks without needing to rebalance them again afterwards when I reinstall them. You won't understand unless you water cool. Absolute nightmare getting proper slot and heatspreader contact.


Telstar said:


> For cpu overclocking, i think the strix bios is better or at least easier to use.


That's a subjective answer. I'm not biased, and I've come to love the MSI BIOS's interface. It's so much more easier to use and much more fluid once you get the hang of it. I was originally an ASUS user before I migrated to MSI.

The ASUS BIOS is slow and clunky. However, it does have a better search function, and less "random bugs", if I were to put it simply.

But the biggest benefit of MSI is their incredibly fast training.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> I understand silicon quality and some chips needing less power for specific clocks. But how can a higher vcore draw less power.? Electrically, it doesn't make sense. It's like turning on a 100W light bulb in one house draws 100W and in another it draws 80W.


Higher VID's mean nothing. The Chip with higher VID's could have a lower load Voltage.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> No. Because it's nigh impossible to detach two sticks without needing to rebalance them again afterwards when I reinstall them. You won't understand unless you water cool. Absolute nightmare getting proper slot and heatspreader contact.


Sorry actually I do get it, just forgot about them being watercooled.


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> Could you test if its any better with just 2 sticks please?


What I know is that with 2 ddr4 sticks, the strix z790 is better than the z690. No idea of comparison with the Edge.
I dont think i'll buy both boards, I'm not so fussy about ram OC


----------



## tps3443

@RichKnecht 

I can send around 1.450V in VIDs on all Cores, and this provides stability for high frequency light loads for 6.3-6.4Ghz single cores. But once I run R23 which is a full load the actual VROut voltage drops down to the 1.200's.


----------



## Telstar

tps3443 said:


> Higher VID's mean nothing. The Chip with higher VID's could have a lower load Voltage.


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## bhav

Telstar said:


> What I know is that with 2 ddr4 sticks, the strix z790 is better than the z690. No idea of comparison with the Edge.
> I dont think i'll buy both boards, I'm not so fussy about ram OC


Wouldn't really matter much anyway as my current board does what my IMC does, and it doesn't get much better for DDR4.

Also HT off, 5 cores pass 5.6 at 1.32v, one fails, trying 1.33v.

All seem to pass at 1.33v. Core 4 is the strongest, 6 a bit behind, 2 is meh, 3 & 5 junk, 1 ultra mega junk.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Wouldn't really matter much anyway as my current board does what my IMC does, and it doesn't get much better for DDR4.
> 
> Also HT off, 5 cores pass 5.6 at 1.32v, one fails, trying 1.33v.
> 
> All seem to pass at 1.33v. Core 4 is the strongest, 6 a bit behind, 2 is meh, 3 & 5 junk, 1 ultra mega junk.


It's unfortunate that your strong IMC was coupled with garbage cores. I got the same situation with both of my chips. Simply not satisfying and not a chip I would run over the long term. Hence the continued binning.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Higher VID's mean nothing. The Chip with higher VID's could have a lower load Voltage.


OK. but it still doesn't make sense to me even though that may be the case. VIDS aside, if VCore says 1.298 and it draws 205W @ 95C, and the other Vcore says 1.159 and draws 238W @ 72C that makes sense? I know how electricity and impedance work, so I am not all that dense.


----------



## RichKnecht

Telstar said:


> hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


You need more m's


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> That's the one I'm selling.
> 56/46/51 is stable at 1.20-1.22V VCC Sense on the Z690 Edge.
> I forgot exactly what that translated to in terms of R23 wattage though.
> If you go with ~200W low loads, all of those cores will do 59x, and some scale up to 61x at the same voltage.
> 
> It's actually a little better than my current 13900K (111/85) in terms of low loads.
> On this 13900K, most cores will do 60x, but two cores are screwed at 58-59x. Also under 200W.
> This one will also be going on sale soon, once I receive the next binned 13900K I bought.
> 
> Both chips have golden DDR4 IMCs and will do 4,200-4,266 MHz Gear 1 minimum with the right board and RAM.
> The 13900KF needs +0.02V more VCCSA to achieve whatever you want on the 13900K though.
> 
> Let me know if you want to buy.


What is this on the Strix in vcore, or on VR VOUT on the Edge?
Because 1.20v "socket sense" at 56/46/51 (30 min running cinebench R23--y-cruncher SFT will insta-crash, the vmin at x46 e cores is far too low at 1.13v die sense to pass without an > SP 100+ E core rating) is impossible unless you have an SP120+ or higher P-core chip.
1.20v socket sense is 1.13v die sense. Only the most golden chips can do that at 5.6 ghz. Even 5.5 ghz SP 110-114 (P-cores) chips struggle to do this at 1.13v die sense.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> OK. but it still doesn't make sense to me even though that may be the case. VIDS aside, if VCore says 1.298 and it draws 205W @ 95C, and the other Vcore says 1.159 and draws 238W @ 72C that makes sense? I know how electricity and impedance work, so I am not all that dense.


The simple answer is: Intel algorithms are hot trash with the VIDs and unnecessarily overvolt. This is why you can achieve more with a forced voltage that ignores the VIDs. 

But the disadvantage of using a forced voltage is that your low load overclock suffers more.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> It's unfortunate that your strong IMC was coupled with garbage cores. I got the same situation with both of my chips. Simply not satisfying and not a chip I would run over the long term. Hence the continued binning.


None of them are 13900K stock tier, even the two strongest ones would not do 5.8 with HT on at <1.3v.

Thats what you get with a 13600K I suppose, its fine for me though.

They do manage 13700K spec at 1.25v though, I guess the two fused off cores couldn't.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> What is this on the Strix in vcore, or on VR VOUT on the Edge?
> Because 1.20v "socket sense" at 56/46/51 is impossible unless you have an SP120+ or higher P-core chip.
> 1.20v socket sense is 1.13v die sense. Only the most golden chips can do that at 5.6 ghz. Even 5.5 ghz SP 110-114 chips struggle to do this at 1.13v die sense.


Yeah, I forgot to factor in the LLC, which caused a boatload of stability issues. I'll retest later today for a proper Vmin comparison.


----------



## digitalfrost

RichKnecht said:


> OK. but it still doesn't make sense to me even though that may be the case. VIDS aside, if VCore says 1.298 and it draws 205W @ 95C, and the other Vcore says 1.159 and draws 238W @ 72C that makes sense? I know how electricity and impedance work, so I am not all that dense.


I'm with you here. Obviously chips have leakage. A chip with high leakage will often be a better bin, because if you test at a specific vcore, the chip with higher leakage will run with lower effective vcore. These often OC very well when putting volts into them _if_ you can cool it. However that energy doesn't suddenly disappear. There should be no power/heat difference between a chip running at identical clocks with identical volts (at VRM) despite what happens in the chip.

I would wager the differences we're seeing are due to badly tuned DC_LL settings.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> You need more m's



It's all coming down to differences in CPU's and motherboards. You cannot always believe the VID's in HWInfo. Some people have TVB Voltage optimization enabled which is throwing off the VID's as well. And then there are some CPU's that show different VID's than one another. At the end of the day, we are after lowest possible voltage, amperage, and wattage. Then you still have CPU variation with temperatures too. I have a CPU right now that runs 10C hotter at the same bios settings while drawing slightly less power than another CPU.

Just as I said before with LLC, when someone is placing the CPU under a load, just because it has higher VID's doesn't mean that its effective voltage is not lower.


----------



## RichKnecht

digitalfrost said:


> I'm with you here. Obviously chips have leakage. A chip with high leakage will often be a better bin, because if you test at a specific vcore, the chip with higher leakage will run with lower effective vcore. These often OC very well when putting volts into them _if_ you can cool it. However that energy doesn't suddenly disappear. There should be no power/heat difference between a chip running at identical clocks with identical volts (at VRM) despite what happens in the chip.
> 
> I would wager the differences we're seeing are due to badly tuned DC_LL settings.


Yeah, something...somewhere out of whack. My DC LL is tuned to the LLC setting I am using and even though my Vcore and temps are low, power draw seems a bit high. Just trying to get a handle on why as some things (like this) make me crazier than I already am ( not a good thing for the wife ).


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> It's all coming down to differences in CPU's and motherboards. You cannot always believe the VID's in HWInfo. Some people have TVB Voltage optimization enabled which is throwing off the VID's as well. And then there are some CPU's that show different VID's than one another. At the end of the day, we are after lowest possible voltage, amperage, and wattage. Then you still have CPU variation with temperatures too. I have a CPU right now that runs 10C hotter at the same bios settings while drawing slightly less power than another CPU.
> 
> Just as I said before with LLC, when someone is placing the CPU under a load, just because it has higher VID's doesn't mean that its effective voltage is not lower.


That still doesn't explain why chip 1 with a Vcore of 1.15 @ 72C draws more power than chip 2 with a Vcore o 1.298 running at 98C..The hotter chip should draw more power by default as increasing heat increases power needed to overcome that heat. I don't want to beat it into the ground, just trying to understand.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> That still doesn't explain why chip 1 with a Vcore of 1.15 @ 72C draws more power than chip 2 with a Vcore o 1.298 running at 98C..The hotter chip should draw more power by default as increasing heat increases power needed to overcome that heat. I don't want to beat it into the ground, just trying to understand.


It's called: Intel just uses automated processes to guesstimate the VIDs for each chip, and then adds a significant amount extra on top to make sure there isn't any instability. 

Again, this is why an override voltage is necessary to optimize the performance. But your low load suffers. 

A BIOS improvement could allow for manual low/high load optimization, but it's too bad makers don't want to bother implementing it.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> That still doesn't explain why chip 1 with a Vcore of 1.15 @ 72C draws more power than chip 2 with a Vcore o 1.298 running at 98C..The hotter chip should draw more power by default as increasing heat increases power needed to overcome that heat. I don't want to beat it into the ground, just trying to understand.


Sounds like Chip2 is throttling due to 1.298vcore and 98C.

1.298 load V-Core is high.


----------



## Topuz

bhav said:


> Wouldn't really matter much anyway as my current board does what my IMC does, and it doesn't get much better for DDR4.
> 
> Also HT off, 5 cores pass 5.6 at 1.32v, one fails, trying 1.33v.
> 
> All seem to pass at 1.33v. Core 4 is the strongest, 6 a bit behind, 2 is meh, 3 & 5 junk, 1 ultra mega junk.


How are you testing the cores?


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Sounds like Chip2 is throttling due to 1.298vcore and 98C.
> 
> *1.298 load V-Core is high.*


Exactly. So how can it draw less power than a chip running at 1.159V? There are values I got by reading through this thread and don't have nything to do with my chip. I am just trying to figure this out.while I am waiting on a few things before I take this loop apart to change some stuff around.


----------



## Ichirou

Topuz said:


> How are you testing the cores?


Read my MSI overclocking guide.


RichKnecht said:


> Exactly. So how can it draw less power than a chip running at 1.159V? There are values I got by reading through this thread and don't have nything to do with my chip. I am just trying to figure this out.while I am waiting on a few things before I take this loop apart to change some stuff around.


You have two samples you're testing? Or you're just comparing to someone else's sample?


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Exactly. So how can it draw less power than a chip running at 1.159V? There are values I got by reading through this thread and don't have nything to do with my chip. I am just trying to figure this out.while I am waiting on a few things before I take this loop apart to change some stuff around.


I can’t really answer that. If anyone knows it’s gonna be @RobertoSampaio he knows all about the VID’s and load voltages etc. 

These chips are all so different it’s really crazy. They run the same and look the same, and do the same thing. But, from chip to chip and underneath the VID’s are different, how they respond is different, power and amperage is all different too. How they all crash is even different LOL.

I have seen one CPU draw drastically higher amperage but similar voltage and power to one another lol. So it all really comes down to just different chips and different bios settings driving them.


----------



## tps3443

Anyone running ring over 52?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Anyone running ring over 52?


Seems to only be possible during low loads. Better on ASUS boards due to it having a ring clock range to account for potential instability.

Also, you need a ridiculous amount of Vcore.


----------



## bhav

My bios won't even go over 51 ring, and I can only get 50 stable.

Ok so at 1.33v I can get 1 core to 5.8, 2 to 5.7, 3 to 5.6, e cores 4.5.

Going up to 1.36v, I can't stabilise the second strongest core at 5.8 nor e cores 4.6.

Going up to 1.34v I cant get any of the junk cores to 5.7.

So 5.8 / 5.7 / 5.7 / 5.6 / 5.6 / 5.6 with HT off at 1.33v is all I can do.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Read my MSI overclocking guide.
> 
> You have two samples you're testing? Or you're just comparing to someone else's sample?


There values are from what people have posted throughout this thread. As I read posts, some thing just "pop out" at me and I wonder " how can that be"? My own chip is running at defaults and set to 1.3V Adaptive with a -.06 offset and I am thinking it's not the best way to set it up. I am just trying for a decent undervolt until I can get this lop straightened out.


----------



## HyperC

Speaking of ring clocks I noticed it follows the vcore voltage if I look back at any of my screenshots testing hwinfo never shows any vdroop on ring. So would you have to manually set it or just leave it auto or go adaptive? Guess the better question is what is the max ring voltage


----------



## Ichirou

HyperC said:


> Speaking of ring clocks I noticed it follows the vcore voltage if I look back at any of my screenshots testing hwinfo never shows any vdroop on ring. So would you have to manually set it or just leave it auto or go adaptive? Guess the better question is what is the max ring voltage


Vcore is shared between the P-cores, E-cores, and Ring. Whichever is the weakest link.


----------



## dumassnoob

RichKnecht said:


> That still doesn't explain why chip 1 with a Vcore of 1.15 @ 72C draws more power than chip 2 with a Vcore o 1.298 running at 98C..The hotter chip should draw more power by default as increasing heat increases power needed to overcome that heat. I don't want to beat it into the ground, just trying to understand.


Ohms Law states that increasing voltage increases resistance, thus decreasing the amps, thus decreasing the potential power output (watts).


----------



## RichKnecht

dumassnoob said:


> Ohms Law states that increasing voltage increases resistance, thus decreasing the amps, thus decreasing the potential power *output* (watts).


Yes, I know this. But I am talking about power input/draw. One would think if the chip needed more vcore, input wattage/power draw, would increase correct?


----------



## bhav

HyperC said:


> Speaking of ring clocks I noticed it follows the vcore voltage if I look back at any of my screenshots testing hwinfo never shows any vdroop on ring. So would you have to manually set it or just leave it auto or go adaptive? Guess the better question is what is the max ring voltage


At 1.25 L2 voltage, I could only run 4.8 ring, at 1.3 I can run 5.0. 1.35 was not enough for 5.1, ofc different chips vary.

My ring clock is actually good, but I only got 1 'good' P core for a 13600, and its not even close to a 13900K's 5.8 cores.

Not personally bothered about the core clocks as they don't do much for me, just the lovely 4300 G1 IMC I got. E cores are actually useful because they allow you to turn of HT.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> At 1.25 L2 voltage, I could only run 4.8 ring, at 1.3 I can run 5.0. 1.35 was not enough for 5.1, ofc different chips vary.
> 
> My ring clock is actually good, but I only got 1 'good' P core for a 13600, and its not even close to a 13900K's 5.8 cores.
> 
> Not personally bothered about the core clocks as they don't do much for me, just the lovely 4300 G1 IMC I got. E cores are actually useful because they allow you to turn of HT.


TM5 strangely requires the most L2 voltage from my testing. But it's not really noticeable until you start to push both the CPU and memory really hard.
As I pushed them more and more, I could only eliminate errors by going from 1.18V L2 to 1.36V L2...


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> TM5 strangely requires the most L2 voltage from my testing. But it's not really noticeable until you start to push both the CPU and memory really hard.
> As I pushed them more and more, I could only eliminate errors by going from 1.18V L2 to 1.36V L2...


Oh right I need to retest the ram now after finishing the CPU OC.


----------



## l.kristensen.1981

Spiriva said:


> I couldnt resist! Its gonna be fun to pair it with the Strix 4090!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (8490kr = €776 or $764)


INSANE price! I paid 5800,- DKK


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Seems to only be possible during low loads. Better on ASUS boards due to it having a ring clock range to account for potential instability.
> 
> Also, you need a ridiculous amount of Vcore.


I can run x53 through R23. I'll have to test it more though and see if it’s actually stable. My CPU does not bsod/freeze in Windows until a x54 ring is set.

Its crazy that 13th gen allows such ring speeds at all.


----------



## l.kristensen.1981

I bought the Asus Z790 Maximus Hero and so far I am not happy with the contact frame. The screws from the mobo was very short and I suspect the frame not being even. I reseated two times and my water block dont have full contact. Now the water block is convex so it should match against the intel concave IHS. So I actually need some bend lol! I am gonna try tomorrow the OEM ILM. My water block is EK Quantum Magnitude, it specifically states is designed specific for the concave intel 1700 ihs. So I actually think in my case the contact frame is a bad solution. The top of the cpu has no contact and half the P cores are hotter than rest. Still in check, but limits my OC due to some cores going up to 10c higher. I redid it twice... I suspect the screws are to short and thereby "warping" the contact frame.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I can run x53 through R23. I'll have to test it more though and see if it’s actually stable. My CPU does not bsod/freeze in Windows until a x54 ring is set.
> 
> Its crazy that 13th gen allows such ring speeds at all.


Realistically, 52-53x is pretty much the cap even with golden P-SP 120+ chips.

The only reason why people like Roberto can push something ridiculous like 55x is because he throws up to 1.52V Vcore at the chip and never stress tests it. He only games.
I assure you that if he tried even a moderate light load stress test, it would throw WHEAs like crazy, if not BSODs.
And I'm not sure if he has a heavy memory overclock either. If so, that would only make it even harder to run, as it multiplies on top of the ring clock.

Low load overclocking is _very much_ dependent on the use-case you are using it with. Gaming is probably okay. But anything else, and you're bound to be unstable.


----------



## Nizzen

l.kristensen.1981 said:


> INSANE price! I paid 5800,- DKK



100 DKK*146.33200 SEK*

5800*1,4633 = 8487  = same price


----------



## RichKnecht

l.kristensen.1981 said:


> I bought the Asus Z790 Maximus Hero and so far I am not happy with the contact frame. The screws from the mobo was very short and I suspect the frame not being even. I reseated two times and my water block dont have full contact. Now the water block is convex so it should match against the intel concave IHS. So I actually need some bend lol! I am gonna try tomorrow the OEM ILM. My water block is EK Quantum Magnitude, it specifically states is designed specific for the concave intel 1700 ihs. So I actually think in my case the contact frame is a bad solution. The top of the cpu has no contact and half the P cores are hotter than rest. Still in check, but limits my OC due to some cores going up to 10c higher. I redid it twice... I suspect the screws are to short and thereby "warping" the contact frame.


Perhaps go back to the OEM bracket and do the "washer mod" to lessen the force the OEM bracket puts on the chip?


----------



## bhav

@Ichirou yay, ram is now BORKED UNSTABLE with the CPU OC even after setting ring and e cores to stock and CPU voltage to 1.36v lol.

I can't OC mah CPU


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> @Ichirou yay, ram is now BORKED UNSTABLE with the CPU OC even after setting ring and e cores to stock and CPU voltage to 1.36v lol.
> 
> I can't OC mah CPU


Did you actually stress test? Or did you just do some quick R23 run?


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Did you actually stress test? Or did you just do some quick R23 run?


While OCing only R23 oops. After testmem got BORK BORK BORK on startup. Also might be because I changed the drive letter, need to download it again.


----------



## tps3443

How do we contact the supercool bare die guy again?


----------



## bhav

@Ichirou oh god no testmem broken at stock bios what have I done?


----------



## chibi

tps3443 said:


> How do we contact the supercool bare die guy again?


Facebook messenger or email. Both methods I've tried a few times and never been answered.




bhav said:


> @Ichirou oh god no testmem broken at stock bios what have I done?


You can try clearing cmos and entere known good values again to tesy.


----------



## tps3443

chibi said:


> Facebook messenger or email. Both methods I've tried a few times and never been answered.
> 
> 
> 
> You can try clearing cmos and entere known good values again to tesy.


I might just have to offer something silly for someone to give me theirs LOL.


----------



## Telstar

tps3443 said:


> It's all coming down to differences in CPU's and motherboards. You cannot always believe the VID's in HWInfo.


But I do believe the VID in the bios - the SP rating is largely based on that.


----------



## bhav

Oh it just looks like my graphics driver got corrupted.

Testmem working agian.


----------



## warbucks

Ichirou said:


> No. Because it's nigh impossible to detach two sticks without needing to rebalance them again afterwards when I reinstall them. You won't understand unless you water cool. Absolute nightmare getting proper slot and heatspreader contact.
> 
> That's a subjective answer. I'm not biased, and I've come to love the MSI BIOS's interface. It's so much more easier to use and much more fluid once you get the hang of it. I was originally an ASUS user before I migrated to MSI.
> 
> The ASUS BIOS is slow and clunky. However, it does have a better search function, and less "random bugs", if I were to put it simply.
> 
> But the biggest benefit of MSI is their incredibly fast training.


What is slow and clunky exactly? I've used MSI/EVGA/Gibabyte/ASUs boards and ASUS has the best bios bar none.


----------



## bhav

So you know what I had done, earlier when I renamed my drive letters, I forgot to turn page file back on.

No page file during all the OC testing = rip background apps and whatever else, GPU drivers got busted during all the benching.

Testmem working with 5.4 all core and 4300G1, now just have to work it up to max OC with ram stability based on my previous maxed settings.


----------



## Ichirou

warbucks said:


> What is slow and clunky exactly? I've used MSI/EVGA/Gibabyte/ASUs boards and ASUS has the best bios bar none.


Again, subjective. "Best BIOS bar none" is a massive exaggeration.
I'm not biased towards any particular company, and I've used all four Z690/Z790 Strix/Edge boards this time around to try to find the best.

MSI's BIOS is just more fluid and organized. It initially came as quite a metaphorical "culture shock" to me when I went from ASUS to MSI, but after a good week or two of use, I came to like it. Plus, it reveals the values to a _lot_ more settings than ASUS, which means less of a guessing game.
Also, MSI has much better and faster training. If something works, it boots up instantly, doesn't need to think about it. So there's that too.

But MSI hasn't achieved 8,000+ MHz yet, so ASUS will have the DDR5 crown DDR5 for now.

@bhav DISM+SFC for the OS, and BIOS reflash.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> @bhav DISM+SFC for the OS, and BIOS reflash.


Oh yes thanks, I still need to learn how to do the former.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Oh yes thanks, I still need to learn how to do the former.




__
https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/kq69ay


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav Also, DISM+SFC does _not_ fix GPU driver issues. It's not classified as something Microsoft is responsible for covering. Stupid, I know.
You have to DDU and reinstall your GPU drivers manually.

It's really only an issue if you're gaming and it is unstable. Otherwise, I've never really experienced GPU driver corruption outside of that scenario.


----------



## bhav

I already did DDU and GPU driver reinstall, running DISM with the online option now.

Normally I just reinstall windows.


----------



## HyperC

@ tps3443 All items I'd paypal it just just me though , also when you ran 53 ring did you change the voltage or leave it auto?


----------



## VULC

l.kristensen.1981 said:


> I bought the Asus Z790 Maximus Hero and so far I am not happy with the contact frame. The screws from the mobo was very short and I suspect the frame not being even. I reseated two times and my water block dont have full contact. Now the water block is convex so it should match against the intel concave IHS. So I actually need some bend lol! I am gonna try tomorrow the OEM ILM. My water block is EK Quantum Magnitude, it specifically states is designed specific for the concave intel 1700 ihs. So I actually think in my case the contact frame is a bad solution. The top of the cpu has no contact and half the P cores are hotter than rest. Still in check, but limits my OC due to some cores going up to 10c higher. I redid it twice... I suspect the screws are to short and thereby "warping" the contact frame.


It's normal to have up to 10 degree delta between hottest and coolest core even with stock ILM.


----------



## bhav

So all that bother was simply because I had forgotten to turn page file back on:









Now just have to finish 6 loops.


----------



## VULC

I did some testing with higher ring above 4.9 but it didn't improve latency or fps not sure if it caps out or its doesn't scale.


----------



## bhav

Something I'm curious about now is if ring speed potential is tied to IMC quality, it seems that for 13600k / 13700k most people get 4.8-4.9 ring.

With my 4300G1 IMC I'm also getting 5.0 ring (30 mins 1usmus passed so far).

My P cores are garbage compared to 13900K but that was expected as Intel bin the chips, but the 6 cores I do have run 13700K boost clocks at 1.25v, and both the IMC and ring are golden.


----------



## Falkentyne

l.kristensen.1981 said:


> I bought the Asus Z790 Maximus Hero and so far I am not happy with the contact frame. The screws from the mobo was very short and I suspect the frame not being even. I reseated two times and my water block dont have full contact. Now the water block is convex so it should match against the intel concave IHS. So I actually need some bend lol! I am gonna try tomorrow the OEM ILM. My water block is EK Quantum Magnitude, it specifically states is designed specific for the concave intel 1700 ihs. So I actually think in my case the contact frame is a bad solution. The top of the cpu has no contact and half the P cores are hotter than rest. Still in check, but limits my OC due to some cores going up to 10c higher. I redid it twice... I suspect the screws are to short and thereby "warping" the contact frame.


"Contact frame"?
Are you talking about the STOCK Intel ILM? Because the "contact frame" ALWAYS refers to the OEM frame. So your post is confusing and ambiguous. The Intel stock ILM is NOT a contact frame. It's a loading mechanism clamp.
Please clarify.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> I did some testing with higher ring above 4.9 but it didn't improve latency or fps not sure if it caps out or its doesn't scale.


Ring clock benefits are much less pronounced compared to the core clock.
For the most part, a +5x increase in the ring is equivalent to a +1 increase on the core.
So if each +1x increase on the core is like 1-3 FPS at best, naturally, you're not gonna notice outside of margin of error.


bhav said:


> Something I'm curious about now is if ring speed potential is tied to IMC quality, it seems that for 13600k / 13700k most people get 4.8-4.9 ring.
> 
> With my 4300G1 IMC I'm also getting 5.0 ring (30 mins 1usmus passed so far).
> 
> My P cores are garbage compared to 13900K but that was expected as Intel bin the chips, but the 6 cores I do have run 13700K boost clocks at 1.25v, and both the IMC and ring are golden.


The ring clock is linked to the IMC in terms of stability, but it doesn't scale with it in terms of quality.
As you push your cores and/or memory overclock higher and higher, you may find yourself needing to boost the Vcore and/or L2 voltage to compensate.


----------



## VULC

Looks like the z690 Kingpin is goated with memory oc on air.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1584636887603744768


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Looks like the z690 Kingpin is goated with memory oc on air.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1584636887603744768


So the Z790 Apex is now pointless for most people wanting 8,000+ MHz since the Z690 Kingpin is significantly cheaper and not a paper launch?
Cool. The Z790 Kingpin will likely be even more promising.

Wait... This was almost two months ago. How was it never noticed?
Was the BIOS never released to the public or something? I'm confused.


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> Realistically, 52-53x is pretty much the cap even with golden P-SP 120+ chips.
> 
> The only reason why people like Roberto can push something ridiculous like 55x is because he throws up to 1.52V Vcore at the chip and never stress tests it. He only games.
> I assure you that if he tried even a moderate light load stress test, it would throw WHEAs like crazy, if not BSODs.
> And I'm not sure if he has a heavy memory overclock either. If so, that would only make it even harder to run, as it multiplies on top of the ring clock.
> 
> Low load overclocking is _very much_ dependent on the use-case you are using it with. Gaming is probably okay. But anything else, and you're bound to be unstable.


How does ring affect ram OC, I'm trying to run 4666 cl15 but i think my ring at 50x is destabilizing it


----------



## Nizzen

HemuV2 said:


> How does ring affect ram OC, I'm trying to run 4666 cl15 but i think my ring at 50x is destabilizing it


Direct effect


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

bhav said:


> @Ichirou oh god no testmem broken at stock bios what have I done?



Sounds like you pushed your setup too far and stuff's corrupted probably including your BIOS settings " not referring to your bios profiles ". I would go to default bios settings, bootup then shutdown then clear cmos then start all over from scratch reinstall windows everything and make a backup image of windows after getting everything back to normal again then get back to where you know you're stable overclock wise and save a profile in the BIOS . Then start playing again. I've had two corruptions when pushing to far so far and did what I just suggested and am okay now and still working things up on my side which is why I've been quiet.


----------



## bhav

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> Sounds like you pushed your setup too far and stuff's corrupted probably including your BIOS settings " not referring to your bios profiles ". I would go to default bios settings, bootup then shutdown then clear cmos then start all over from scratch reinstall windows everything and make a backup image of windows after getting everything back to normal again then get back to where you know you're stable overclock wise and save a profile in the BIOS . Then start playing again. I've had two corruptions when pushing to far so far and did what I just suggested and am okay now and still working things up on my side which is why I've been quiet.


No its fine, its just that I had disabled page file and forgot to turn it back on, so there was no memory left when starting the ram tests.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> No its fine, its just that I had disabled page file and forgot to turn it back on, so there was no memory left when starting the ram tests.


You really shouldn't be testing TM5 with anything else running to begin with.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Ichirou said:


> You really shouldn't be testing TM5 with anything else running to begin with.


He's corrupted everything and either he listens, or he doesn't.

Free Speach Is Knowledge.


----------



## bhav

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> He's corrupted everything and either he listens, or he doesn't.


Its all working, but failed TM5 twice in loop 6, looks like the 1.3v SA / VDDQ isn't enough with the OC.

Trying 1.35v VDDQ / 1.32v SA now.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

bhav said:


> Its all working, but failed TM5 twice in loop 6, looks like the 1.3v SA / VDDQ isn't enough with the OC.
> 
> Trying 1.35v VDDQ / 1.32v SA now.


Bro, reset everything and start over like I said please. You'll thank me later. Respect trust me.


----------



## bhav

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> Bro, reset everything and start over like I said please. You'll thank me later. Respect trust me.


I know, I've already done everything except reinstall windows.


----------



## VULC

bhav said:


> Its all working, but failed TM5 twice in loop 6, looks like the 1.3v SA / VDDQ isn't enough with the OC.
> 
> Trying 1.35v VDDQ / 1.32v SA now.


1 chip I needed 1.343 SA another needed 1.35. The same 2 needed 1.39 vddq and 1.45 also with 4 sticks.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

tps3443 said:


> I can’t really answer that. If anyone knows it’s gonna be @RobertoSampaio he knows all about the VID’s and load voltages etc.
> 
> These chips are all so different it’s really crazy. They run the same and look the same, and do the same thing. But, from chip to chip and underneath the VID’s are different, how they respond is different, power and amperage is all different too. How they all crash is even different LOL.
> 
> I have seen one CPU draw drastically higher amperage but similar voltage and power to one another lol. So it all really comes down to just different chips and different bios settings driving them.


IMO, we have to clarify some things...
To compare 2 CPUs we must use the same MB and same adjusts.

Here in the forum we have a lot of people with different MB, different adjusts, and different CPU, trying to compare which one is better. Ok. It's possible to have an idea, but not precisely...

It would be better if we compare using the same MB model, same DC_LL, same LLC#, AC_LL, adaptive/offset voltage, etc... Same p/e/r frequency and dram voltage and frequency... And the same benchmark software. It's a lot of things...

This way the numbers, results and conclusions will be consistent...

Any other comparison will be "a guess".

The only way you can run a higher voltage with less power is running with less work (load) or lower core frequency.
Any other tests that result less power at higher voltage is wrong.


----------



## bhav

VULC said:


> 1 chip I needed 1.343 SA another needed 1.35. The same 2 needed 1.39 vddq and 1.45 also with 4 sticks.


Simply looks like I can't stabilise the e cores / cache overclock, retesting stock CPU to make sure its not gone and degraded now.

Will just run 5.4 with HT on if that will at least work.


----------



## CptSpig

bhav said:


> Its all working, but failed TM5 twice in loop 6, looks like the 1.3v SA / VDDQ isn't enough with the OC.
> 
> Trying 1.35v VDDQ / 1.32v SA now.


TM5 Testing Errors


----------



## bhav

And now by the look of it you know what it is?

I really don't think that trefi 113000 was ever stable lol.


----------



## neteng101

Got more out of my 13700k OC - now running 5.5-5.8GHz P turbo ratio (2x5.8, 4x5.7, 6x5.6, 8x5.5), 4.4GHz E all-core, 4.9GHz ring, [email protected] (MSI, at load Vcore drops to around ~1.3V)... passes Y-cruncher 2.5b test. Mostly in the 80s during bench runs to test the CPU, y-cruncher spikes into the 90s but never hits thermal throttle. About all the heat I can manage on my 360 AIO.


----------



## slayer6288

Falkentyne said:


> "Contact frame"?
> Are you talking about the STOCK Intel ILM? Because the "contact frame" ALWAYS refers to the OEM frame. So your post is confusing and ambiguous. The Intel stock ILM is NOT a contact frame. It's a loading mechanism clamp.
> Please clarify.


Did you even read his post? What part of contact frame versus trying the oem ILM (Intel Locking Mechanism) did you not understand? And you play chess? lulz


----------



## tps3443

slayer6288 said:


> Did you even read his post? What part of contact frame versus trying the oem ILM (Intel Locking Mechanism) did you not understand? And you play chess? lulz


No need to be disrespectful to people.


----------



## tubs2x4

neteng101 said:


> Got more out of my 13700k OC - now running 5.5-5.8GHz P turbo ratio (2x5.8, 4x5.7, 6x5.6, 8x5.5), 4.4GHz E all-core, 4.9GHz ring, [email protected] (MSI, at load Vcore drops to around ~1.3V)... passes Y-cruncher 2.5b test. Mostly in the 80s during bench runs to test the CPU, y-cruncher spikes into the 90s but never hits thermal throttle. About all the heat I can manage on my 360 AIO.
> 
> View attachment 2588890


seems slow for a 13700 at 5.5... how fast is your ram?


----------



## neteng101

tubs2x4 said:


> seems slow for a 13700 at 5.5... how fast is your ram?


3866-19 - not a great kit, started life as a 3000.


----------



## bigfootnz

OK, I've just now swapped Velocity 2 with Velocity and my temp are 5C lower . I've done just quick 90sec CB23 test and you should compare only max temp, which will be after 30min average, between blocks. You can see clearly that Velocity is cooler for 5C.
Velocity 2







Velocity







My advice who ever is using Velocity 2 they should replace this block with what ever, excluding EKWB magnitude as per @motivman test. I've noticed same thing with two different Velocity 2 blocks, first one was RMA as one stud has snapped off.


----------



## Ichirou

bigfootnz said:


> OK, I've just now swapped Velocity 2 with Velocity and my temp are 5C lower . I've done just quick 90sec CB23 test and you should compare only max temp, which will be after 30min average, between blocks. You can see clearly that Velocity is cooler for 5C.
> Velocity 2
> View attachment 2588924
> 
> Velocity
> View attachment 2588923
> 
> My advice who ever is using Velocity 2 they should replace this block with what ever, excluding EKWB magnitude as per @motivman test. I've noticed same thing with two different Velocity 2 blocks, first one was RMA as one stud has snapped off.


Funny, I actually have the original Velocity. Specifically bought it because I thought the Velocity2 looked awful.
So the new one is actually worse... Looks like I dodged a bullet then.


----------



## bigfootnz

Ichirou said:


> Funny, I actually have the original Velocity. Specifically bought it because I thought the Velocity2 looked awful.
> So the new one is actually worse... Looks like I dodged a bullet then.


Yes, you have dodged bullet and saved money


----------



## bigfootnz

bigfootnz said:


> OK, I've just now swapped Velocity 2 with Velocity and my temp are 5C lower . I've done just quick 90sec CB23 test and you should compare only max temp, which will be after 30min average, between blocks. You can see clearly that Velocity is cooler for 5C.
> Velocity 2
> View attachment 2588924
> 
> Velocity
> View attachment 2588923
> 
> My advice who ever is using Velocity 2 they should replace this block with what ever, excluding EKWB magnitude as per @motivman test. I've noticed same thing with two different Velocity 2 blocks, first one was RMA as one stud has snapped off.


Update, I've just now played one match BF2042 and temp are 5-7C lower in average.


----------



## RichKnecht

bigfootnz said:


> OK, I've just now swapped Velocity 2 with Velocity and my temp are 5C lower . I've done just quick 90sec CB23 test and you should compare only max temp, which will be after 30min average, between blocks. You can see clearly that Velocity is cooler for 5C.
> Velocity 2
> View attachment 2588924
> 
> Velocity
> View attachment 2588923
> 
> My advice who ever is using Velocity 2 they should replace this block with what ever, excluding EKWB magnitude as per @motivman test. I've noticed same thing with two different Velocity 2 blocks, first one was RMA as one stud has snapped off.


Interesting. I am using an Optimus Sig V2 and I was thinking of putting my EK Supremacy Evo on instead. Not thrilled with the Sig V2 springless mounting. Getting even pressure is a pain. When I switched from the Evo to the V2 on X299 the difference in temps were like 1C. Nowhere near the 5-7C everyone was raving about. Think it was all marketing bs.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Interesting. I am using an Optimus Sig V2 and I was thinking of putting my EK Supremacy Evo on instead. Not thrilled with the Sig V2 springless mounting. Getting even pressure is a pain. When I switched from the Evo to the V2 on X299 the difference in temps were like 1C. Nowhere near the 5-7C everyone was raving about. Think it was all marketing bs.


If you take a minute to look up waterblock differences at a site like TPU, you'll find that even the "top tier" CPU waterblocks are only like, ~3C better than the rest of the competition at best, even cheap AliExpress brand tier. It's really not as pronounced as say, GPU water blocks.

So people generally shouldn't worry too much about that tiny gain and just focus on bang-for-buck and/or aesthetics instead.


----------



## BoredErica

XSPC Raystorm Neo/Edge/Pro are cheap and have low restriction. Less headaches for me. I go with that.


----------



## bhav

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> He's corrupted everything and either he listens, or he doesn't.
> 
> Free Speach Is Knowledge.


And indeed you were right, nothing was stable at stock bios last night, I had full panic thinking my IMC had degraded.

Reinstalled Windows this morning, passed 6 1usmus loops again at stock CPU and the 4300 ram OC.

Looks like I'll only be running 5.4 all core from here on, and not bothering with e cores or cache.

But I'm still thinking it might not have been the CPU overclock thats to blame, running trefi as high as I was even if its stable for 6 loops is bad, it takes too long for trefi errors to show up, and I was advised that running high trefi long term can corrupt files.


----------



## bhav

@Ichirou @FreeSpeechIsKnowledge 

Windows reinstall fixed it, 6 loops passed at stock CPU and P core OC:









Now do I really want to risk another brick with trying to OC the ecores and cache again, why yes! OFC I do!!! :x


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> If you take a minute to look up waterblock differences at a site like TPU, you'll find that even the "top tier" CPU waterblocks are only like, ~3C better than the rest of the competition at best, even cheap AliExpress brand tier. It's really not as pronounced as say, GPU water blocks.
> 
> So people generally shouldn't worry too much about that tiny gain and just focus on bang-for-buck and/or aesthetics instead.


Yeah, i read all the reviews and bought one anyway. I was trying to cool my monster 10980 chip and was under the impression that the V2 was “it”. Well after installing it, I gained 1C over my “out dated “ Evo. I’m going to put the Evo back on this weekend and see what happens.


----------



## energie80

RichKnecht said:


> Yeah, i read all the reviews and bought one anyway. I was trying to cool my monster 10980 chip and was under the impression that the V2 was “it”. Well after installing it, I gained 1C over my “out dated “ Evo. I’m going to put the Evo back on this week and see what happens.


Let me know 🙏


----------



## neteng101

bhav said:


> Now do I really want to risk another brick with trying to OC the ecores and cache again, why yes! OFC I do!!! :x


Save your bios settings in Excel on another PC, create an image of the boot drive with Macrium Reflect, have a USB rescue drive ready - a lot easier to recover if you brick it again.


----------



## bhav

neteng101 said:


> Save your bios settings in Excel on another PC, create an image of the boot drive with Macrium Reflect, have a USB rescue drive ready - a lot easier to recover if you brick it again.


I tried looking up how to make a USB rescue drive, all the sites overcomplicate with too much techsplaining and excessive needless info and I couldn't figure it out.

Ooof, and 32 Gb SD cards are a fiver now, 64 Gb £15, time to stock up.

Here we go, 3x64 Gb for £17 with the voucher https://www.amazon.co.uk/KEXIN-MicroSDHC-Memory-Smartphone-Security/dp/B08JYDZ75X/ref=sr_1_20?

Not sure if a gen 3 reader would do anything over my gen 2 one though as the cards aren't fast enough.


----------



## neteng101

bhav said:


> I tried looking up how to make a USB rescue drive, all the sites overcomplicate with too much techsplaining and excessive needless info and I couldn't figure it out.


Its built-in for Macrium Reflect, as long as you have the IMG file on a separate drive, you can easily clone it back.






Creating rescue media - KnowledgeBase v7.2 - Macrium Reflect Knowledgebase - KnowledgeBase v7.2 - Macrium Reflect Knowledgebase







knowledgebase.macrium.com


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

bhav said:


> @Ichirou @FreeSpeechIsKnowledge
> 
> Windows reinstall fixed it, 6 loops passed at stock CPU and P core OC:
> 
> View attachment 2588976
> 
> 
> Now do I really want to risk another brick with trying to OC the ecores and cache again, why yes! OFC I do!!! :x


I was watching your post and knew it. I had mine do it twice from playing with the memory settings. I have a macrium reflect image setup now myself.


----------



## bhav

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> I was watching your post and knew it. I had mine do it twice from playing with the memory settings. I have a macrium reflect image setup now myself.


I found the problem, 4.5 ecores passes, 5.0 ring does not.

Need lower ring. Actually trying 1.35v L2 voltage first see if that works, shouldn't mess up as long as I stop it as soon as it errors this time, rather than the hour or so of cinenbench runs that I did yesterday.

Also found a USB 3.0 SD reader reduced to a fiver, there we go, will set up a recovery disk after it all arrives.


----------



## neteng101

bhav said:


> I found the problem, 4.5 ecores passes, 5.0 ring does not.


For some reason my bios is bugged - won't set 4.5 E when I tried it recently, just seems to max out at 4.4 and ignore the 4.5 setting. Yeah, 5.0 ring is a hard wall for me too.


----------



## tibcsi0407

bhav said:


> I found the problem, 4.5 ecores passes, 5.0 ring does not.
> 
> Need lower ring. Actually trying 1.35v L2 voltage first see if that works, shouldn't mess up as long as I stop it as soon as it errors this time, rather than the hour or so of cinenbench runs that I did yesterday.
> 
> Also found a USB 3.0 SD reader reduced to a fiver, there we go, will set up a recovery disk after it all arrives.


You can add cache svid offset. For me it's 0.03V Then you need to add negative offset to the VRM vcore, and the ring will be stable for sure. Also, you can add some extra L2 voltage offset to make the E cores more stable.


----------



## bhav

tibcsi0407 said:


> You can add cache svid offset. For me it's 0.03V Then you need to add negative offset to the VRM vcore, and the ring will be stable for sure. Also, you can add some extra L2 voltage offset to make the E cores more stable.


Any further explanation how this works and where it might be in the MSI bios?

So if you add svid offset does it also raise vcore which you then have to reduce?


----------



## RichKnecht

bigfootnz said:


> OK, I've just now swapped Velocity 2 with Velocity and my temp are 5C lower . I've done just quick 90sec CB23 test and you should compare only max temp, which will be after 30min average, between blocks. You can see clearly that Velocity is cooler for 5C.
> Velocity 2
> View attachment 2588924
> 
> Velocity
> View attachment 2588923
> 
> My advice who ever is using Velocity 2 they should replace this block with what ever, excluding EKWB magnitude as per @motivman test. I've noticed same thing with two different Velocity 2 blocks, first one was RMA as one stud has snapped off.


Did you use the plastic washers under the CPU mounting studs? I have the EK 1700 back plate kit and contact frame so I am good there. Just need to know if I should add the washers or not.


----------



## mickyc357

When is the 13900ks due? 
Wondering whether I gamble now on a 13900kf or wait..
Gonna be running this in a z690 strix-a


----------



## bhav

mickyc357 said:


> When is the 13900ks due?
> Wondering whether I gamble now on a 13900kf or wait..
> Gonna be running this in a z690 strix-a


3rd January is the paper launch date.

Regarding KFs, a 13900KS or even better bin with a bricked iGPU = 13900KF, but super low chance of that happening.

Doesn't work for 13700KF / 13600KF as those still get binned.


----------



## tibcsi0407

bhav said:


> Any further explanation how this works and where it might be in the MSI bios?
> 
> So if you add svid offset does it also raise vcore which you then have to reduce?


They are on the same rail. If RING needs more Voltage than the cores it will raise the vcore. Needs to play with it. I have no idea where you can find in MSI BIOS, but I am sure it should be there somewhere.


----------



## bhav

tibcsi0407 said:


> They are on the same rail. If RING needs more Voltage than the cores it will raise the vcore. Needs to play with it. I have no idea where you can find in MSI BIOS, but I am sure it should be there somewhere.


Can simply raising the vcore a bit instead stabilize the ring?

So my OC needed 1.33v at LLC3, I tried 1.35v LLC5 which bsods, so trying it at LLC4 now.


----------



## anibalrz

It’s posible to degrade a 13900k delided at 1.38 5.9 e cores off never going over 90c ? i was able to run cinebench at that frecuency no problems and y cruncher , and from yesterday im not more able to do it , with the same profiles


----------



## energie80

anibalrz said:


> It’s posible to degrade a 13900k delided at 1.38 5.9 e cores off never going over 90c ? i was able to run cinebench at that frecuency no problems and y cruncher , and from yesterday im not more able to do it , with the same profiles


Llc?


----------



## anibalrz

energie80 said:


> Llc?


Negative 75% on evga z790 king pin


----------



## energie80

Possible


----------



## anibalrz

energie80 said:


> Possible


At load on cinebench vr out was reading 1,36 on the board in hwinfo


----------



## energie80

anibalrz said:


> At load on cinebench vr out was reading 1,36 on the board in hwinfo


That’s a lot but not sure if it can degrade your cpu so fast


----------



## anibalrz

energie80 said:


> That’s a lot but not sure if it can degrade your cpu so fast


I was running on that voltage for a month , gaming sessions and benchmark so i loss 100mhz i think


----------



## RichKnecht

anibalrz said:


> At load on cinebench vr out was reading 1,36 on the board in hwinfo


That is pretty high voltage. What was the wattage? If it were me, I'd definitely back off on the OC, delidded or not.


----------



## Madness11

Hello guys , I got this issue with linX 
With stock perfect , with any oc and voltage got this issue or PC just reboot ..


----------



## Madness11

I got broken apex 790?? Or cpu ;(


----------



## bhav

I tried both extra vcore and L2, can't make 5.0 ring work, and not really even worth it for extra voltage.

Will just have to run 4.9 like everyone else.


----------



## tibcsi0407

bhav said:


> Can simply raising the vcore a bit instead stabilize the ring?
> 
> So my OC needed 1.33v at LLC3, I tried 1.35v LLC5 which bsods, so trying it at LLC4 now.


Not always helps.


----------



## Falkentyne

tibcsi0407 said:


> You can add cache svid offset. For me it's 0.03V Then you need to add negative offset to the VRM vcore, and the ring will be stable for sure. Also, you can add some extra L2 voltage offset to make the E cores more stable.


What is the difference between using an "offset" vs using a manual voltage directly here (for svid core offset and vrm vcore negative offset, rather than manual/manual?)


----------



## Falkentyne

Madness11 said:


> Hello guys , I got this issue with linX
> With stock perfect , with any oc and voltage got this issue or PC just reboot ..


Glops over 1000 on LinX errors out on every CPU. This is a bug.


----------



## bhav

4.9 cache also won't work, 4.8 next 

Well 5.0 would work without the ram OC.


----------



## tibcsi0407

Falkentyne said:


> What is the difference between using an "offset" vs using a manual voltage directly here (for svid core offset and vrm vcore negative offset, rather than manual/manual?)


Dunno, I got the info from @Csavez™ . It's better to keep the VF curve rather than fixing it.


----------



## Madness11

Falkentyne said:


> Glops over 1000 on LinX errors out on every CPU. This is a bug.


What about reboot if no error ?? Also bug ???


----------



## Madness11

Sometimes error , sometime reboot


----------



## neteng101

Figured out my E-core issue - it was XTU doing something funky at startup, disabled that and got to 4.5 E too. Hit all the marks now I have for myself. Needed to bump L2 voltage from 1.25v to 1.30v to stabilize 4.5E.

At this point unless I cave in and get a new Z790 board and DDR5 memory, the rest is just about tapped out. 13700k @ 5.5-5.8P, 4.5E, 4.9R @ 1.36v LLC4 (MSI), 1.30v L2 voltage. RAM is unfortunate but its 64GB DDR4 @ 3866-19-23-23-44, VDDQ 1.35v, SA 1.25v (don't need lots of SA for 3866 D4 memory). Don't really know the true limits of my IMC but 4000 is definitely achievable on my other cheap 32GB memory kit.


----------



## bhav

neteng101 said:


> Figured out my E-core issue - it was XTU doing something funky at startup, disabled that and got to 4.5 E too. Hit all the marks now I have for myself. Needed to bump L2 voltage from 1.25v to 1.30v to stabilize 4.5E.
> 
> At this point unless I cave in and get a new Z790 board and DDR5 memory, the rest is just about tapped out. 13700k @ 5.5-5.8P, 4.5E, 4.9R @ 1.36v LLC4 (MSI), 1.30v L2 voltage. RAM is unfortunate but its 64GB DDR4 @ 3866-19-23-23-44, VDDQ 1.35v, SA 1.25v (don't need lots of SA for 3866 D4 memory). Don't really know the true limits of my IMC but 4000 is definitely achievable on my other cheap 32GB memory kit.


Reason why my CPU wouldn't overclock at first was also because XTU was installed, it overrides bios settings.


----------



## energie80

stop using xtu


----------



## Telstar

energie80 said:


> stop using xtu


just the disable the startup option


----------



## Trys0meM0re

Sorry for being a bit of topic, but i see alot of awesome memory clocks here with raptor lake, @Ichirou Do you think i can improve some of these timings, having a hard time getting them lower, or is this the max my kit can handle?
Thanks in advance

(EDIT running them @ 1.4V they seem to be acting up above that voltage)


----------



## Madness11

Guys if linX just reboot , 13900kf, 8000ddr5 . It's also bug ??? Or I got issue with hardware ( sometime just error )


----------



## bhav

Trys0meM0re said:


> Sorry for being a bit of topic, but i see alot of awesome memory clocks here with raptor lake, @Ichirou Do you think i can improve some of these timings, having a hard time getting them lower, or is this the max my kit can handle?
> Thanks in advance
> 
> (EDIT running them @ 1.4V they seem to be acting up above that voltage)
> 
> View attachment 2589002


It says micron, speed looks like B die, if so put it to 1.6v and you get 4000-4133CL14.

Also it needs a fan on it for this.

Check in taiphoon burner if it works whether its B or E die.


----------



## Trys0meM0re

bhav said:


> It says micron, speed looks like B die, if so put it to 1.6v and you get 4000-4133CL14.
> 
> Also it needs a fan on it for this.
> 
> Check in taiphoon burner if it works whether its B or E die.



Thanks for your reply, gonna try a bit more voltage, and gonna grab a fan from the attic. How you think recon these DIMMS can go before getting unstable? 40C?


----------



## Ichirou

Trys0meM0re said:


> Sorry for being a bit of topic, but i see alot of awesome memory clocks here with raptor lake, @Ichirou Do you think i can improve some of these timings, having a hard time getting them lower, or is this the max my kit can handle?
> Thanks in advance
> 
> (EDIT running them @ 1.4V they seem to be acting up above that voltage)
> 
> View attachment 2589002


Not sure if it is Micron B-die or not. But it should be.

Your main issue is going to be the low VDIMM. VDDQ may need to be raised as well, but not sure what it's set to right now.

You should not run over 1.35V VCCSA daily. That amount will cause the IMC to eventually degrade.


----------



## Madness11

Any one help please ?)


----------



## bhav

Trys0meM0re said:


> Thanks for your reply, gonna try a bit more voltage, and gonna grab a fan from the attic. How you think recon these DIMMS can go before getting unstable? 40C?


Depends on how far you push them, they can still go quite far under 60c.

For the 4300CL14 1.72v we run here, I found they want to be under 45c, but with an AIO fan mine sit at 33c with open frame.

And didn't even notice the voltages, reduce that SA to 1.35 max,


----------



## bhav

Also finally finished my full OC (with HT off):










With 4300CL14 ram, can only run 4800 ring.

Voltages, 1.3v SA works but fails after 4 or 5 loops Y cruncher, 1.31v should be fine, but just set it to 1.32v to get through this testing. 1.3v VDDQ, 1.72v vdimm.

The CPU uses 1.33v LLC3, just 1 core does 5.8, 2 x 5.7, rest 5.6. L2 voltage 1.3v for 4.5 e cores, no extra OC stability gained on any cores pushing to 1.36v CPU or 1.35v L2.


----------



## Brads3cents

Was able to run 6.1Ghz all core last night with only p116
Could be because of my cooling solution with bare die but I’m very satisfied 
I will probably back down though to 60x4 and 59x4 and focus pushing my memory OC

I have an “okay” MC of 76 but can’t for the life Of me get 8200 to run even tho 8000 runs great with tight timings


----------



## Ichirou

Brads3cents said:


> Was able to run 6.1Ghz all core last night with only p116
> Could be because of my cooling solution with bare die but I’m very satisfied
> I will probably back down though to 60x4 and 59x4 and focus pushing my memory OC
> 
> I have an “okay” MC of 76 but can’t for the life Of me get 8200 to run even tho 8000 runs great with tight timings


You need like MC SP 80+ for up to 8,600 MHz. So you're kind of in the right spot as it is.


----------



## yzonker

Telstar said:


> just the disable the startup option


I couldn't find that the other day when I was looking for a way to keep XTU from applying settings at startup. Where is it? I've had it do this same kind of crap to me too including re-applying an OC that was very unstable.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> If you take a minute to look up waterblock differences at a site like TPU, you'll find that even the "top tier" CPU waterblocks are only like, ~3C better than the rest of the competition at best, even cheap AliExpress brand tier. It's really not as pronounced as say, GPU water blocks.
> 
> So people generally shouldn't worry too much about that tiny gain and just focus on bang-for-buck and/or aesthetics instead.


Apparently not with the direct die super cool.


----------



## neteng101

yzonker said:


> I couldn't find that the other day when I was looking for a way to keep XTU from applying settings at startup. Where is it? I've had it do this same kind of crap to me too including re-applying an OC that was very unstable.


Advanced Settings, uncheck the restore tuning at startup...


----------



## bhav

I didn't even do anything in XTU, I just like looking through the tabs.

Ok, so now the first game I'm gonna play on this beastly PC .......

Dwarf Fortress :x


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> You need like MC SP 80+ for up to 8,600 MHz. So you're kind of in the right spot as it is.


On Asus motherboard SP reading in the bios when the memory is at default 5600Mhz and it shows the VID’s, SP rating, and E-Core SP etc. You can see the IMC voltage too. Most chips show 1.100V or 1.200V. But some chips show higher voltage which may lead me to think the IMC is not as good, because it’s automatically sending 1.200-1.300V to the IMC for 5600 DDR5.

If I change my DDR5 to 5600 or DDR5 7800 the IMC voltage is adjusted automatically.


----------



## Brads3cents

btw i wasnt able to get the supercool Direct die kit. its always out of stock on his website?

i just delid and did bare die with an Optimus Block but this proved tricky. I was noticing crazy temps at first, like just a simple run of 3dmark fire strike cpu test would read an average temperature of 93 degrees

what i figured out was that i didnt apply enough thermal paste. i repasted and my temps are phenomenal now. Also, there is nothing to keep the cpu in place other than the pressure from the block to the cpu. The optimus block is incredibly flat, in fact they market is as the worlds flattest cold plate. so there is no room for error and a lil extra thermal paste is required

but it works... and works well. and doesnt require a special cooler


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Apparently not with the direct die super cool.


No more delidding for me thanks. It was a PITA with X299 even though the results were great once you got just the right mount. Looking forward to see what happens when I switch out the V2 for the Evo. Maybe even try out the HK IV I have sitting here next to the Foundation block.My "spare" PC parts pi;e rivals my camera gear


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> No more delidding for me thanks. It was a PITA with X299 even though the results were great once you got just the right mount. Looking forward to see what happens when I switch out the V2 for the Evo. Maybe even try out the HK IV I have sitting here next to the Foundation block.My "spare" PC parts pi;e rivals my camera gear


That’s crazy you said your cold plate was checked and reinstalled right? Maybe it’s backwards? There is no instructions for proper direction on the Optimus cold plate install anyways, so we can only guess with it. Also, remove the center O-Ring It only restricts flow even further.

With no waterchiller on at all today. I just ran R23, and my max package temp is 77C. P-Cores run 68-76C. This on a stock CPU with a bios reset. No voltage tuning or LLC tuning etc. Everything is on auto/default besides XMP and tuned memory. And this chip runs hot for some reason compared to others.



The Optimus block restricts flow by crazy amounts, so I bet the other blocks will give you better temps for sure.

PS: My cpu is NOT delidded or lapped. My max power/wattage was 298 watts during the R23.


----------



## Ichirou

Brads3cents said:


> btw i wasnt able to get the supercool Direct die kit. its always out of stock on his website?
> 
> i just delid and did bare die with an Optimus Block but this proved tricky. I was noticing crazy temps at first, like just a simple run of 3dmark fire strike cpu test would read an average temperature of 93 degrees
> 
> what i figured out was that i didnt apply enough thermal paste. i repasted and my temps are phenomenal now. Also, there is nothing to keep the cpu in place other than the pressure from the block to the cpu. The optimus block is incredibly flat, in fact they market is as the worlds flattest cold plate. so there is no room for error and a lil extra thermal paste is required
> 
> but it works... and works well. and doesnt require a special cooler


Yeah, it's a bit of a unicorn, even if you contact him directly on Facebook (to which he only sparingly replies to people).

I've read reports of people who have killed their chips trying to bare die, so I'll just stick to a delid.

It's really not necessary to direct die these chips anyway, so long as they're binned well enough.
And if they aren't, you wouldn't want to run them hot anyway due to degradation.

@Falkentyne
I'm not sure what 'sense' this board is set to, but it's on default auto.

I tried a Main 10B run, but the Vcore fluctuated like crazy. So I tested SFT instead, and it seems to have fixed the fluctuations. I'll use this to compare the Z790 Strix and Edge instead.

To pass two loops of SFT, the absolute minimum Vcore on load required is 1.20-1.21V. Average 1.20V. CPU Package Power maximum is 287.4W.

The BIOS Vcore setting is 1.45V. LLC 4 is the auto setting for this board. Stock 55/43/45 multipliers.
3,600 MHz 1T Gear 1, auto timings on XMP II. Voltages for the RAM and IMC are auto as well.

Once I have this chip back in the Edge, I'll find the minimum Vcore there as well to compare. It won't be for a while though.


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> btw i wasnt able to get the supercool Direct die kit. its always out of stock on his website?
> 
> i just delid and did bare die with an Optimus Block but this proved tricky. I was noticing crazy temps at first, like just a simple run of 3dmark fire strike cpu test would read an average temperature of 93 degrees
> 
> what i figured out was that i didnt apply enough thermal paste. i repasted and my temps are phenomenal now. Also, there is nothing to keep the cpu in place other than the pressure from the block to the cpu. The optimus block is incredibly flat, in fact they market is as the worlds flattest cold plate. so there is no room for error and a lil extra thermal paste is required
> 
> but it works... and works well. and doesnt require a special cooler


I have always done this. But how is it touching the die? You have small SMD’s on the 13900K that are taller than the die it’s self. Please show me temps and mount.

Also, direct die requires a domed cold plate, so the center of the plate bows in and touches the die better. Flat cold plate is for a lapped IHS Only. ^ These are actually words from Optimus themselves on their website describing each cold plate. Just to reiterate, the Optimus direct die coldplate is domed and not flat. 

And you used thermalpaste as a Tim?


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> That’s crazy you said your cold plate was checked and reinstalled right? Maybe it’s backwards? There is no instructions for proper direction on the Optimus cold plate install anyways, so we can only guess with it. Also, remove the center O-Ring It only restricts flow even further.
> 
> With no waterchiller on at all today. I just ran R23, and my max package temp is 77C. P-Cores run 68-76C. This on a stock CPU with a bios reset. No voltage tuning or LLC tuning etc. Everything is on auto/default besides XMP and tuned memory. And this chip runs hot for some reason compared to others.
> 
> 
> 
> The Optimus block restricts flow by crazy amounts, so I bet the other blocks will give you better temps for sure.
> 
> PS: My cpu is NOT delidded or lapped. My max power/wattage was 298 watts during the R23.


Crazy indeed. Cold plate looks new, center o-ring removed since day 1, dual D5s, and remounted several times. I thought about throwing the o ring back in to see what happens, but my GPU is mounted vertically and it makes getting to the bottom 2 CPU thumb screws a little challenging. If the EVO is worse, I'll put the o-ring in the V2 and see what happens or try my Foundation block, When folks are running AIOs with better temps than me at similar settings, it makes me wonder. I'll be sure to post my finding good or bad.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Crazy indeed. Cold plate looks new, center o-ring removed since day 1, dual D5s, and remounted several times. I thought about throwing the o ring back in to see what happens, but my GPU is mounted vertically and it makes getting to the bottom 2 CPU thumb screws a little challenging. If the EVO is worse, I'll put the o-ring in the V2 and see what happens or try my Foundation block, When folks are running AIOs with better temps than me at similar settings, it makes me wonder. I'll be sure to post my finding good or bad.


How much power does your cpu consume stock/auto with XMP only? (Without voltage tuning)


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> How much power does your cpu consume stock/auto with XMP only? (Without voltage tuning)


Just did a R23 pass. Here are the settings and results:
55/43/Auto
Vcore 1.3 adaptive with -.06 offset yields Load 1.159
Power draw 228W
Water temp 21C
Hottest core 72C
Flow TBD after High Flow Next install this weekend, Right now pumps are at 80%
12 Noctua industrial 3000 RPM fans running at 1300RPM all set to intake
2 EK PE360s and 1 EK XE 360 in PC 011XL with side panel removed

You can see I have a decent loop and never had issues cooling my 10980 OC'ed to 4.8 all core. That chip would heat my room, no kidding. Power draw at the outlet for that system was 980W!


----------



## Brads3cents

tps3443 said:


> I have always done this. But how is it touching the die? You have small SMD’s on the 13900K that are taller than the die it’s self. Please show me temps and mount.
> 
> Also, direct die requires a domed cold plate, so the center of the plate bows in and touches the die better. Flat cold plate is for a lapped IHS Only. ^ These are actually words from Optimus themselves on their website describing each cold plate. Just to reiterate, the Optimus direct die coldplate is domed and not flat.
> 
> And you used thermalpaste as a Tim?


Maybe I’m not saying it correctly I’m using thermal grizzly tho. But i interchange the words Tim and thermal compound 
I never minded bare die but at least in the past they made frames
I keep seeing people mention that SMDs are taller than the die itself
I believe that’s incorrect
I remember when derb8er measured them in a video and they were “as tall” but not taller
And if I wasn’t getting adequate contact I promise you i wouldn’t be able to sign on to windows let alone play games and keep moving up the 3d mark leaderboards with a 6.1Ghz all core overclock
I can screen some temps later but now I’m at work


----------



## Brads3cents




----------



## yzonker

neteng101 said:


> Advanced Settings, uncheck the restore tuning at startup...
> 
> View attachment 2589012


Thanks. I'll have to look again and see if I have the same version installed. I did look at both of those tabs but didn't see it in the version I have.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Just did a R23 pass. Here are the settings and results:
> 55/43/Auto
> Vcore 1.3 adaptive with -.06 offset yields Load 1.159
> Power draw 228W
> Water temp 21C
> Hottest core 72C
> Flow TBD after High Flow Next install this weekend, Right now pumps are at 80%
> 12 Noctua industrial 3000 RPM fans running at 1300RPM all set to intake
> 2 EK PE360s and 1 EK XE 360 in PC 011XL with side panel removed
> 
> You can see I have a decent loop and never had issues cooling my 10980 OC'ed to 4.8 all core. That chip would heat my room, no kidding. Power draw at the outlet for that system was 980W!


But, how are your temps at 300 watts? Your block may be performing okay. But you’ve got your chip voltages dialed back for low power.


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> Maybe I’m not saying it correctly I’m using thermal grizzly tho. But i interchange the words Tim and thermal compound
> I never minded bare die but at least in the past they made frames
> I keep seeing people mention that SMDs are taller than the die itself
> I believe that’s incorrect
> I remember when derb8er measured them in a video and they were “as tall” but not taller
> And if I wasn’t getting adequate contact I promise you i wouldn’t be able to sign on to windows let alone play games and keep moving up the 3d mark leaderboards with a 6.1Ghz all core overclock
> I can screen some temps later but now I’m at work


If this works, I’m doing this TONIGHT!!

Anyways this is the Optimus block description.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> But, how are your temps at 300 watts? Your block may be performing okay. But you’ve got your chip voltages dialed back for low power.


At 300W I am in the low 90s with terrible core spread. Coldest core is 71C while hottest is 93C. That is with 328W power draw at 1.24 Load vcore. I really suspect mounting pressure or uneven mounting even though I have tried numerous times. Like I said in that PM, something is definitely wrong.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> At 300W I am in the low 90s with terrible core spread. Coldest core is 71C while hottest is 93C. That is with 328W power draw at 1.24 Load vcore. I really suspect mounting pressure or uneven mounting even though I have tried numerous times. Like I said in that PM, something is definitely wrong.


Mounting pressure has never been an issue for the Optimus Signature V2. It’s solid brass CNC and the mounting arms do not flex at all which is nice on a waterblock. I know the 10980XE can run high wattage and keep nice temps. But, that things die is also very massive too.

Are your pumps plugged in to PWM? I would run them to SATA or Molex power only. If plugged in to PWM sometimes it can restrict what 100% rpm really is.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Mounting pressure has never been an issue for the Optimus Signature V2. It’s solid brass CNC and the mounting arms do not flex at all which is nice on a waterblock. I know the 10980XE can run high wattage and keep nice temps. But, that things die is also very massive too.
> 
> Are your pumps plugged in to PWM? I would run them to SATA or Molex power only. If plugged in to PWM sometimes it can restrict what 100% rpm really is.


Pumps have 2 cables. A single wire cable is for PWM and power is provided by a second cable which is SATA. They are running in series. Order is pump 1> Pump 2> PE360>V2>PE360 #2>XE360>res/pump1. I have racked my brain with this. You don't want to know how much time I spent reading and comparing blocks and temps.When I take the loop apart tomorrow, I am going to go over everything. AIOs should not outperform this loop if I am correct. Not that it matters, but room temp is 19C and idle water temp is 21C. After an hour of Realbench, water temp is 27C. Fan speed is based on water temp via Aquasuite. I really didn't cut any corners ( at least I don't think I did ) with this loop.


----------



## Ichirou

Brads3cents said:


> Maybe I’m not saying it correctly I’m using thermal grizzly tho. But i interchange the words Tim and thermal compound
> I never minded bare die but at least in the past they made frames
> I keep seeing people mention that SMDs are taller than the die itself
> I believe that’s incorrect
> I remember when derb8er measured them in a video and they were “as tall” but not taller
> And if I wasn’t getting adequate contact I promise you i wouldn’t be able to sign on to windows let alone play games and keep moving up the 3d mark leaderboards with a 6.1Ghz all core overclock
> I can screen some temps later but now I’m at work


This is wrong, because I physically measured and examined the SMDs and die themselves from the side.
The SMDs are taller than the die.

The only possibility for the die to be equivalent in height is if you didn't use a razor blade to clear off the solder cleanly.

Check again.

@tps3443 You're taking a risk on a manual direct die. And again, I have read reports of people killing their chips already by attempting it.
Just stick to a delid. You really don't need more, especially with a binned golden chip.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Pumps have 2 cables. A single wire cable is for PWM and power is provided by a second cable which is SATA. They are running in series. Order is pump 1> Pump 2> PE360>V2>PE360 #2>XE360>res/pump1. I have racked my brain with this. You don't want to know how much time I spent reading and comparing blocks and temps.When I take the loop apart tomorrow, I am going to go over everything. AIOs should not outperform this loop if I am correct. Not that it matters, but room temp is 19C and idle water temp is 21C. After an hour of Realbench, water temp is 27C. Fan speed is based on water temp via Aquasuite. I really didn't cut any corners ( at least I don't think I did ) with this loop.


I have two D5 pumps and with the PWM plugged in, and power plug plugged in @100%=2,800RPM. If I unplug the PWM it immediately ramps up to 4,800RPM.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> I have two D5 pumps and with the PWM plugged in, and power plug plugged in @100%=2,800RPM. If I unplug the PWM it immediately ramps up to 4,800RPM.


Right now Aquasuite shows both pumps at 4683RPM (80%).Pumps and fans are plugged into an Aquacomputer Octo. No fans/pumps are plugged into the MB. BTW, I really appreciate you helping me out with this. A lot of people probably put me on "ignore"


----------



## Brads3cents

if your scared you can always try copper IHS and contact frame 

but you already have good temps plus a chiller so not sure you need to delid


----------



## Ichirou

Brads3cents said:


> if your scared you can always try copper IHS and contact frame
> 
> but you already have good temps plus a chiller so not sure you need to delid


Exactly. It's not at all necessary if you have a golden chip. A delid or even stock solder is already plenty enough.
It's really only for people who want to push those benchmarks, but that's just subjecting the chip to degradation anyway, regardless of temps.


----------



## bhav

What would I have done if my chip had degraded at <1.35 voltages?

It looked degraded, it felt degraded, the degradation was fortunately windows.

Its under 90c, hottest core 88 in cinebench at current 1.33v, will it degrade?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> What would I have done if my chip had degraded at <1.35 voltages?
> 
> It looked degraded, it felt degraded, the degradation was fortunately windows.
> 
> Its under 90c, hottest core 88 in cinebench at current 1.33v, will it degrade?


For the most part, the wattage is what matters most (in general). There's current consider, but it's an easy metric to refer to.
As long as you aren't passing Intel turbo spec for your 13600, you'll be fine.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> For the most part, the wattage is what matters most (in general). There's current consider, but it's an easy metric to refer to.
> As long as you aren't passing Intel turbo spec for your 13600, you'll be fine.


Well intel tdp for 13600K is 180w, mines running 210w so erm ...


----------



## neteng101

bhav said:


> Well intel tdp for 13600K is 180w, mines running 210w so erm ...


TDP is meaningless - eg. 13700k is 253w and I've done 320w sustained before. Unless you're pushing 1.4v or more, don't even worry about degradation. Voltage will do it, not current/power.


----------



## yzonker

bhav said:


> What would I have done if my chip had degraded at <1.35 voltages?
> 
> It looked degraded, it felt degraded, the degradation was fortunately windows.
> 
> Its under 90c, hottest core 88 in cinebench at current 1.33v, will it degrade?


Yea, have to be careful assuming degradation. I ran into something the other day that seemed like it was degradation (much higher voltage needed for 5.9 pcore in the Shadow of the Tomb Raider bench) but when I went back and tested for my minimum stock (55/43/45) voltage in Cinebench, I got the same voltage as when I first got the 13900k. 

So I concluded something else has changed, but I don't know what at this point. Possibly it's what you guys have mentioned in regards to a more aggressive memory OC/tune which I have changed.


----------



## Ichirou

neteng101 said:


> TDP is meaningless - eg. 13700k is 253w and I've done 320w sustained before. Unless you're pushing 1.4v or more, don't even worry about degradation. Voltage will do it, not current/power.


So many experienced people in the field would beg to differ. I'll allow them to come in and shoot down those claims hard. I'd rather not debate about it.

13700 and lower models might not be as susceptible to degradation due to the few number of cores. But it really depends on the workload.
If you want to experiment, I dare you to try running R23 for a few hours nonstop at 300W+. Just don't come crying back.


yzonker said:


> Yea, have to be careful assuming degradation. I ran into something the other day that seemed like it was degradation (much higher voltage needed for 5.9 pcore in the Shadow of the Tomb Raider bench) but when I went back and tested for my minimum stock (55/43/45) voltage in Cinebench, I got the same voltage as when I first got the 13900k.
> 
> So I concluded something else has changed, but I don't know what at this point. Possibly it's what you guys have mentioned in regards to a more aggressive memory OC/tune which I have changed.


I've had it happen on several chips already. It's chip degradation, without a doubt.


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> if your scared you can always try copper IHS and contact frame
> 
> but you already have good temps plus a chiller so not sure you need to delid


Unfortunately I have two Rockitcool copper IHS’s neither one fits the contact frame.


----------



## acoustic

neteng101 said:


> Unless you're pushing 1.4v or more, don't even worry about degradation. Voltage will do it, not current/power.


That's incorrect, unfortunately.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Unfortunately I have two Rockitcool copper IHS’s neither one fits the contact frame.


Couldnt you try the OEM ILM with the washer mod? I tried the Rocket cool copper IHS with my delidded 7900X and it may have gotten me 2C.


----------



## neteng101

acoustic said:


> That's incorrect, unfortunately.


Yeah I know I over simplified that - degradation has many factors to it, but bottom line unless someone is pumping high voltage at full load for extreme periods, its not going to happen easily unless they have outright terrible cooling.

@Ichirou - please stop y-crunching your CPUs for hours and days!


----------



## bscool

Here is a video with Intel testing stock 13700k(default PL1/2) and they show it drawing 400w at transient peaks(13:02 edit I also added pic at bottom of post) while running geek bench.

There is a series of video that has more info, this guy(Stephen Eastman) wrote the ATX spec that Intel uses. I found it interesting.









Take a trip inside Intel's power supply testing lab


Gordon went to Intel's intensive ATX testing facility to learn how power supplies are certified...and what happens when they fail




www.pcworld.com


----------



## Ichirou

neteng101 said:


> Yeah I know I over simplified that - degradation has many factors to it, but bottom line unless someone is pumping high voltage at full load for extreme periods, its not going to happen easily unless they have outright terrible cooling.
> 
> @Ichirou - please stop y-crunching your CPUs for hours and days!


You can't really claim "sustained load" if you're not actually pushing high wattage. Misleading.
Of course high voltage is largely all right if the load is low and the wattage is subsequently low as well.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> You can't really claim "sustained load" if you're not actually pushing high wattage. Misleading.
> Of course high voltage is largely all right if the load is low and the wattage is subsequently low as well.


I don't agree. Sustained is about duration, not intensity.


----------



## neteng101

Ichirou said:


> You can't really claim "sustained load" if you're not actually pushing high wattage. Misleading.


All I meant to say is that Intel's TDP is a useless number. Sustained load with wattage past Intel's TDP is nothing to worry about until you start exceeding a certain threshold, and using your voltage to tell you when you're likely to push too far and cause degradation because its actually a better tell of "safe" limits.

If I ask anyone here to tell me what the safe current/power (amps/watts) is for Intel CPU to avoid degradation, I bet there would be a ton of different answers.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> I've had it happen on several chips already. It's chip degradation, without a doubt.


What are you going to do with the degraded chips?


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> What are you going to do with the degraded chips?


Sell them? They're not dead or anything. Just needs a wee bit more voltage compared to before.
I'm not like some LN2 overclocker who degrades a chip so much it needs like 1.40V flat LLC to run stock, lol.
Each of the chips only need like +0.02V more_ at most_ compared to initial testing. I stop stressing as soon as I notice it.
So instead of 1.18V for stock, it would need 1.20V at worst. And I show video evidence of stability before selling.


----------



## bigfootnz

RichKnecht said:


> Did you use the plastic washers under the CPU mounting studs? I have the EK 1700 back plate kit and contact frame so I am good there. Just need to know if I should add the washers or not.


Yes, I’m using plastic washers.


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> Well intel tdp for 13600K is 180w, mines running 210w so erm ...


I dont think that's enough to have degraded your chip, unless it was for several hours at over 90 degrees.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Sell them? They're not dead or anything. Just needs a wee bit more voltage compared to before.
> I'm not like some LN2 overclocker who degrades a chip so much it needs like 1.40V flat LLC to run stock, lol.
> Each of the chips only need like +0.02V more_ at most_ compared to initial testing. I stop stressing as soon as I notice it.
> So instead of 1.18V for stock, it would need 1.20V at worst. And I show video evidence of stability before selling.


How is Intel RMA? I'd assume they will just send it back and say nothing is wrong.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> How is Intel RMA? I'd assume they will just send it back and say nothing is wrong.


Yep. Delidded chips are obviously a no-go, but a slightly degraded chip will simply be sent back.
_(If they aren't simply lazy and quickly exchange it without actually testing the chip.)_


----------



## yzonker

Ichirou said:


> So many experienced people in the field would beg to differ. I'll allow them to come in and shoot down those claims hard. I'd rather not debate about it.
> 
> 13700 and lower models might not be as susceptible to degradation due to the few number of cores. But it really depends on the workload.
> If you want to experiment, I dare you to try running R23 for a few hours nonstop at 300W+. Just don't come crying back.
> 
> I've had it happen on several chips already. It's chip degradation, without a doubt.


Well it could be but that doesn't explain why everything else I've run with that config still works along with the minimum stock voltage being the same. It was 1.17v before and still was last night. Same test you just referred to I think where you determined your chip degraded.


----------



## Ichirou

yzonker said:


> Well it could be but that doesn't explain why everything else I've run with that config still works along with the minimum stock voltage being the same. It was 1.17v before and still was last night. Same test you just referred to I think where you determined your chip degraded.


You gotta run it for hours on end lol. Also, gotta be 300W+ and hot.
(Don't recommend doing so though.)


----------



## yzonker

Ichirou said:


> You gotta run it for hours on end lol. Also, gotta be 300W+ and hot.
> (Don't recommend doing so though.)


To degrade or test? All I do is run some short benchmarks at higher speeds/voltage that never exceed 300w. Most I've seen is around 250w in the TSE CPU bench. 

Whenever I stability test I now limit to 250w or less in yCruncher too. I have been reading your posts.


----------



## Ichirou

yzonker said:


> To degrade or test? All I do is run some short benchmarks at higher speeds/voltage that never exceed 300w. Most I've seen is around 250w in the TSE CPU bench.
> 
> Whenever I stability test I now limit to 250w or less in yCruncher too. I have been reading your posts.


Mostly to bin cores while the memory's overclocked. The memory isn't a factor though; I made sure of that by testing stock from time to time.
Just don't do it . Stick to low load overclocking.


----------



## slayer6288

tps3443 said:


> No need to be disrespectful to people.


He acts like a jerk all the time here and like hes better than everyone else. Just keeping it status quo with him.


----------



## RichKnecht

Sitting here reading all these posts about degradation makes me wonder. Yeah, I know, you’re thinking, here we go…But seriously, if I was a conspiracy theory person, I would think Intel wants us to overclock these chips, then in 2 years or so when they are pretty much degraded, we buy new ones. This is called planned obsolescence. Just like when you buy an iPad. You download and install the Apple updates and then one day, Apple “updates” the OS on your iPad and suddenly it is so slow yo want to throw it against the wall. This happened to me 3 times. Twice on my iPads and once on my wife’s. OK, back to our regularly scheduled program.


----------



## tps3443

yzonker said:


> To degrade or test? All I do is run some short benchmarks at higher speeds/voltage that never exceed 300w. Most I've seen is around 250w in the TSE CPU bench.
> 
> Whenever I stability test I now limit to 250w or less in yCruncher too. I have been reading your posts.


I feel like all chips lose a slight edge in overclocking ability even when using them normally. Almost as if they all degrade a very very tiny amount after just a few hours of usage, or maybe 1 day or so. I think this is totally normal. Only someone who’s nipping off or adding +/- 0.005 volts at a time could see that. Sometimes we can also have bios variation from cmos reset to cmos reset. We knew something worked, and next day it doesn’t lol. That can’t just be me.

Every 13900K I’ve tested changed the tinniest amount the following day. Even chips that didn’t exceed 250 watts of power.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Sitting here reading all these posts about degradation makes me wonder. Yeah, I know, you’re thinking, here we go…But seriously, if I was a conspiracy theory person, I would think Intel wants us to overclock these chips, then in 2 years or so when they are pretty much degraded, we buy new ones. This is called planned obsolescence. Just like when you buy an iPad. You download and install the Apple updates and then one day, Apple “updates” the OS on your iPad and suddenly it is so slow yo want to throw it against the wall. This happened to me 3 times. Twice on my iPads and once on my wife’s. OK, back to our regularly scheduled program.


Apple admitted to that, they paid out. But they haven’t done that in a while.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Sitting here reading all these posts about degradation makes me wonder. Yeah, I know, you’re thinking, here we go…But seriously, if I was a conspiracy theory person, I would think Intel wants us to overclock these chips, then in 2 years or so when they are pretty much degraded, we buy new ones. This is called planned obsolescence. Just like when you buy an iPad. You download and install the Apple updates and then one day, Apple “updates” the OS on your iPad and suddenly it is so slow yo want to throw it against the wall. This happened to me 3 times. Twice on my iPads and once on my wife’s. OK, back to our regularly scheduled program.


Yes, this is quite evidently what most major consumer products are designed for. Phones, cars, PC hardware.
If things were built robust like they were from the 50's, they would never have any recurring customers = no future profit.
Companies are already losing money by the cyclical nature of things. With yearly/bi-yearly upgrades, they have to clear old stock at a loss.

Also, one reason why it happens is the push for innovation.
Sometimes technology reaches the maximum it can go for its generation, so companies are forced to squeeze that little bit left even if it might not be safe.
They just chalk it up to write-offs and the expectation that only 5-10% of a product is actually ever returned.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Apple admitted to that, they paid out. But they haven’t done that in a while.


Paid out? LOL. Not to me. Bastards🙃


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Yes, this is quite evidently what most major consumer products are designed for. Phones, cars, PC hardware.
> If things were built robust like they were from the 50's, they would never have any recurring customers = no future profit.
> Companies are already losing money by the cyclical nature of things. With yearly/bi-yearly upgrades, they have to clear old stock at a loss.
> 
> Also, one reason why it happens is the push for innovation.
> Sometimes technology reaches the maximum it can go for its generation, so companies are forced to squeeze that little bit left even if it might not be safe.
> They just chalk it up to write-offs and the expectation that only 5-10% of a product is actually ever returned.


I have a 35 year old fridge in my garage that proves your statement. As cold as it was on day 1.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> There values are from what people have posted throughout this thread. As I read posts, some thing just "pop out" at me and I wonder " how can that be"? My own chip is running at defaults and set to 1.3V Adaptive with a -.06 offset and I am thinking it's not the best way to set it up. I am just trying for a decent undervolt until I can get this lop straightened out.


Have you tried running adaptive without a voltage set…or did you tune the offsets based on core need from roberts guide? I’m just curious how it would run for your workload type if you just used adaptive and set the multiplier by groups like mine. Maybe it would get too hot for your workloads I dunno. I only draw like 100-150w gaming and voltage runs around 1.37-1.4…but I’m boosting 6.1/6/58, ring is 51 and all ecores 47.


----------



## 2ndLastJedi

I posted this is a different thread, im not sure which one is best for this type of question so i will post here also if this is the best thread.

I upgraded from a 10600k that was locked at 5GHz all the time to a 13600k that is at 5.3GHz but its clock speed fluctuates. How can i get the 13600k to stay locked to 5.3GHz?


----------



## yzonker

tps3443 said:


> I feel like all chips lose a slight edge in overclocking ability even when using them normally. Almost as if they all degrade a very very tiny amount after just a few hours of usage, or maybe 1 day or so. I think this is totally normal. Only someone who’s nipping off or adding +/- 0.005 volts at a time could see that. Sometimes we can also have bios variation from cmos reset to cmos reset. We knew something worked, and next day it doesn’t lol. That can’t just be me.
> 
> Every 13900K I’ve tested changed the tinniest amount the following day. Even chips that didn’t exceed 250 watts of power.


And that's one thing I forgot to mention. I have flashed to a newer bios since last time I ran the SotTR bench, so that could be what has changed as well.

Oh and the crash occurs on load as has been discussed previously in this thread. I greatly reduced the needed voltage by limiting power so it couldn't spike really high.


----------



## yzonker

RichKnecht said:


> Sitting here reading all these posts about degradation makes me wonder. Yeah, I know, you’re thinking, here we go…But seriously, if I was a conspiracy theory person, I would think Intel wants us to overclock these chips, then in 2 years or so when they are pretty much degraded, we buy new ones. This is called planned obsolescence. Just like when you buy an iPad. You download and install the Apple updates and then one day, Apple “updates” the OS on your iPad and suddenly it is so slow yo want to throw it against the wall. This happened to me 3 times. Twice on my iPads and once on my wife’s. OK, back to our regularly scheduled program.


But we were going to replace them anyway. Lol.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I have a 35 year old fridge in my garage that proves your statement. As cold as it was on day 1.


To be fair, innovation over the years have allowed many products to save on energy and/or water consumption or physical size, so it _can_ be a good thing.
Just have to balance out the cost-benefit of upgrading to the newer product, in that case.


2ndLastJedi said:


> I posted this is a different thread, im not sure which one is best for this type of question so i will post here also if this is the best thread.
> 
> I upgraded from a 10600k that was locked at 5GHz all the time to a 13600k that is at 5.3GHz but its clock speed fluctuates. How can i get the 13600k to stay locked to 5.3GHz?


Fluctuation tends to be due to either throttling, or workloads that aren't designed to maximize your CPU load.
You need to share more info.


----------



## Hexes

I don't even understand how can one tell the difference in stability with an accuracy of 0.02v or less. You can run 30 mins of Cinebench and end up with ~50 ms variance between runs that pass. That's with a system that has a fairly low coolant temperature variance. I'm not sure could I tell a difference of that small with a locked coolant temperature i.e. chiller. Even with a low hysteresis value I would imagine the coolant temperature varies enough to make a 0.02v difference within a margin of error.

Temperature has so massive effect on stability due to the nature of electronics that I don't think many even realise it, me included. Just look at @Carillo 's chip running 6 GHz at 1.23v die sense with 15C coolant. Try it with 25C water and see it drop ~1.5 bins with that voltage or having to add voltage past 1.3v to get it stable, if at all. That's an extreme example but to spot a 0.02v (or even less) difference you need a really stable environment.


----------



## 2ndLastJedi

Ichirou said:


> To be fair, innovation over the years have allowed many products to save on energy and/or water consumption or physical size, so it _can_ be a good thing.
> Just have to balance out the cost-benefit of upgrading to the newer product, in that case.
> 
> Fluctuation tends to be due to either throttling, or workloads that aren't designed to maximize your CPU load.
> You need to share more info.


Thanks for the reply.
Its not throttling, its just idling, i know it doesn't need to be at full speed to idle and would use more power and create heat but the 10th gen was always at full speed. 
Also in games the 13600k isn't hitting full boost, say COD it is only around 3GHz but bouncing around. I will need to try a more CPU intensive game to see if it hits 5.3. I just prefer it to stay boosted thinking the time it takes to boost could cause stutters, not that I've noticed any stutters. Just my OCD knowing the 10th gen was always at GHz and this is just chilling, lol
Like now here are my P and E cores.


----------



## Ichirou

2ndLastJedi said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> Its not throttling, its just idling, i know it doesn't need to be at full speed to idle and would use more power and create heat but the 10th gen was always at full speed.
> Also in games the 13600k isn't hitting full boost, say COD it is only around 3GHz but bouncing around. I will need to try a more CPU intensive game to see if it hits 5.3. I just prefer it to stay boosted thinking the time it takes to boost could cause stutters, not that I've noticed any stutters. Just my OCD knowing the 10th gen was always at GHz and this is just chilling, lol
> Like now here are my P and E cores.
> View attachment 2589069


Test a run of Cinebench R23 and report back with your results in HWiNFO. What are the maximum _Effective_ Clocks?


----------



## tps3443

Hexes said:


> I don't even understand how can one tell the difference in stability with an accuracy of 0.02v or less. You can run 30 mins of Cinebench and end up with ~50 ms variance between runs that pass. That's with a system that has a fairly low coolant temperature variance. I'm not sure could I tell a difference of that small with a locked coolant temperature i.e. chiller. Even with a low hysteresis value I would imagine the coolant temperature varies enough to make a 0.02v difference within a margin of error.
> 
> Temperature has so massive effect on stability due to the nature of electronics that I don't think many even realise it, me included. Just look at @Carillo 's chip running 6 GHz at 1.23v die sense with 15C coolant. Try it with 25C water and see it drop ~1.5 bins with that voltage or having to add voltage past 1.3v to get it stable, if at all. That's an extreme example but to spot a 0.02v (or even less) difference you need a really stable environment.


He has it on bare die too with a supercool block. So it’s literally running crazy crazy cool if you see his temps. I think he said he was running 5.8 before. I can’t remember. Or now he has same temps as 5.8 not sure. He said the direct die dropped 30c alone.

I want to eventually run a supercool bare die just like this.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> He has it on bare die too with a supercool block. So it’s literally running crazy crazy cool if you see his temps. I think he said he was running 5.8 before. I can’t remember. Or now he has same temps as 5.8 not sure. He said the direct die dropped 30c alone.
> 
> I want to eventually run a supercool bare die just like this.


By the time Supercool gets his manufacturing and customer service into anything remotely close to consistent, EK will likely be out with their direct die blocks.

I'm not sure why he's having such a hard time trying to capitalize on this market. He has a monopoly on the direct die 12/13th Gen scene right now.
He should be trying to grab as many customers as possible and expand his manufacturing. Make big $$$ while it lasts. He can charge any price that he wants and people will buy it.


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> I feel like all chips lose a slight edge in overclocking ability even when using them normally. Almost as if they all degrade a very very tiny amount after just a few hours of usage, or maybe 1 day or so. I think this is totally normal. Only someone who’s nipping off or adding +/- 0.005 volts at a time could see that. Sometimes we can also have bios variation from cmos reset to cmos reset. We knew something worked, and next day it doesn’t lol. That can’t just be me.
> 
> Every 13900K I’ve tested changed the tinniest amount the following day. Even chips that didn’t exceed 250 watts of power.


This is 100% completely true.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> By the time Supercool gets his manufacturing and customer service into anything remotely close to consistent, EK will likely be out with their direct die blocks.
> 
> I'm not sure why he's having such a hard time trying to capitalize on this market. He has a monopoly on the direct die 12/13th Gen scene right now.
> He should be trying to grab as many customers as possible and expand his manufacturing. Make big $$$ while it lasts. He can charge any price that he wants and people will buy it.


I keep hearing and seeing the results. It’s impressive! Everyone is always raving about a 30C reduction. I want one.

PS: apparently 12th gen and 13th gen Supercool variants are the same. There is only 1 model. Both are called Supercool G12’s


----------



## 2ndLastJedi

Ichirou said:


> Test a run of Cinebench R23 and report back with your results in HWiNFO. What are the maximum _Effective_ Clocks?


----------



## Ichirou

2ndLastJedi said:


> View attachment 2589092


And are those the correct clocks for your chip?
Because according to Intel's 13600K product page, it's 51x/39x. Which you are already surpassing.

So chances are, your game(s) are just throttling them down due to them not really using the cores.


----------



## 2ndLastJedi

Ichirou said:


> And are those the correct clocks for your chip?
> Because according to Intel's 13600K product page, it's 51x/39x. Which you are already surpassing.
> 
> So chances are, your game(s) are just throttling them down due to them not really using the cores.


Yeah that was my clock during the CB23 run. Here is CPUz








It is at this clock because XMP made the multiplier 103.05MHz. I do believe the clocks run lower because the games don't need the full speed, i just want them at full boost ...just because, lol


----------



## HyperC

Its really hard to say dropping 30c from the Direct die because guess what you end up pushing the cpu harder so the gains are there just stopping at your safe temps.. Maybe I haven't been able to notice the 30c claim because my pc sits in a closet and heat soaks 24/7 and have not cleaned my radiators in about a year I'll need to look for before and after direct die runs I probably made a post at one point can't remember... For all those that run your cpus passed 90c you got big ones cheers


----------



## Ichirou

2ndLastJedi said:


> Yeah that was my clock during the CB23 run. Here is CPUz
> View attachment 2589093
> 
> It is at this clock because XMP made the multiplier 103.05MHz. I do believe the clocks run lower because the games don't need the full speed, i just want them at full boost ...just because, lol


I'm guessing the High Performance plan does nothing?


----------



## tps3443

HyperC said:


> Its really hard to say dropping 30c from the Direct die because guess what you end up pushing the cpu harder so the gains are there just stopping at your safe temps.. Maybe I haven't been able to notice the 30c claim because my pc sits in a closet and heat soaks 24/7 and have not cleaned my radiators in about a year I'll need to look for before and after direct die runs I probably made a post at one point can't remember... For all those that run your cpus passed 90c you got big ones cheers


What are you running with the super cool block?


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Have you tried running adaptive without a voltage set…or did you tune the offsets based on core need from roberts guide? I’m just curious how it would run for your workload type if you just used adaptive and set the multiplier by groups like mine. Maybe it would get too hot for your workloads I dunno. I only draw like 100-150w gaming and voltage runs around 1.37-1.4…but I’m boosting 6.1/6/58, ring is 51 and all ecores 47.


I really don't use any single core applications. Right now I am undervolted at defaults until I redo my loop. Omce I have that done, I will punch in my 57/46/49 OC and see if the temps improved. I have also started using Realbench for testing again since that replicates my photo/video editing workloads pretty closely.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Yep. Delidded chips are obviously a no-go, but a slightly degraded chip will simply be sent back.
> _(If they aren't simply lazy and quickly exchange it without actually testing the chip.)_


Amazon let you return for full refund for change of mind even if they have been open.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> I really don't use any single core applications. Right now I am undervolted at defaults until I redo my loop. Omce I have that done, I will punch in my 57/46/49 OC and see if the temps improved. I have also started using Realbench for testing again since that replicates my photo/video editing workloads pretty closely.


Can you run test batches as trials…I mean, that’s your workload


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Can you run test batches as trials…I mean, that’s your workload


Yes, That is how I found out that "stability" in R23 means nothing (to me at least). I could run R23 forever and it would be fine. Load up 2000 or so pictures in a photoshop batch process and it would crash in less than a minute while using far LESS power than R23. When I was fine tuning this undervolt, I used the stress test in Realbench for an hour and it passed. Then I did a photoshop batch and it ran smooth as butter. I used Realbench in my X299 days and if my OC was stable with that, I never had an issue.


----------



## 2ndLastJedi

Ichirou said:


> I'm guessing the High Performance plan does nothing?


I guess not, i have it in ultimate performance mode even.








Here it is in game, the E cores are evenly spread and P cores only a couple get any load. This is Win 10 also.


----------



## Ichirou

2ndLastJedi said:


> I guess not, i have it in ultimate performance mode even.
> View attachment 2589105
> 
> Here it is in game, the E cores are evenly spread and P cores only a couple get any load. This is Win 10 also.
> View attachment 2589106


That just looks like it's functioning as it should.

The game isn't designed to use all of the P-cores, and the E-cores are only running because it's doing background tasks.


----------



## 2ndLastJedi

Ichirou said:


> That just looks like it's functioning as it should.
> 
> The game isn't designed to use all of the P-cores, and the E-cores are only running because it's doing background tasks.


This game is Assetto Corsa Competizione and with 30 Ai i should be very much CPU limited and i even dropped resolution scale down to 50% of 5760x1080, i do have a 141 fps cap in place and my GPU is dropping down to 90% usage, FPS aren't at the cap yet the CPU isn't boosting to 5.3GHz!! Why do you think?









Here is a close up of the overlay in case you cant zoom in.


----------



## Ichirou

2ndLastJedi said:


> This game is Assetto Corsa Competizione and with 30 Ai i should be very much CPU limited and i even dropped resolution scale down to 50% of 5760x1080, i do have a 141 fps cap in place and my GPU is dropping down to 90% usage, FPS aren't at the cap yet the CPU isn't boosting to 5.3GHz!! Why do you think?
> 
> View attachment 2589114


What happens when you remove the FPS cap?
And does HWiNFO indicate any sort of throttling?


----------



## 2ndLastJedi

Ichirou said:


> What happens when you remove the FPS cap?
> And does HWiNFO indicate any sort of throttling?


Just tried and....nothing changed


----------



## Ichirou

2ndLastJedi said:


> Just tried and....nothing changed
> View attachment 2589116


IIRC, doesn't the GPU hitting 100% load indicate that it's throttling? And not a CPU bottleneck?

Try removing the FPS limit in your first game.


----------



## 2ndLastJedi

2ndLastJedi said:


> Just tried and....nothing changed
> View attachment 2589116


I reset HWInfo64 also just to see if it read and thing more on other cores, it did go higher but still nowhere near 5.3!


----------



## 2ndLastJedi

Ichirou said:


> IIRC, doesn't the GPU hitting 100% load indicate that it's throttling? And not a CPU bottleneck?
> 
> Try removing the FPS limit in your first game.


NO, we need the GPU at 100% otherwise something else is the bottleneck. If the GPU is 90% or under the CPU or RAM is holding it back.


----------



## Ichirou

2ndLastJedi said:


> NO, we need the GPU at 100% otherwise something else is the bottleneck. If the GPU is 90% or under the CPU or RAM is holding it back.


Yes... That's the thing... If the GPU is maxed out and throttling, the CPU/RAM doesn't need to work as hard...

In your case, the CPU is already meeting the requirements for 141 FPS in your game, so the rest of the workload is being delegated to the GPU.

It's really only an issue if the FPS is unlimited, but _both_ the CPU _and_ the GPU are not maxed out. In that case, it indicates a game issue.


----------



## 2ndLastJedi

Ichirou said:


> Yes... That's the thing... If the GPU is maxed out and throttling, the CPU/RAM doesn't need to work as hard...
> 
> In your case, the CPU is already meeting the requirements for 141 FPS in your game, so the rest of the workload is being delegated to the GPU.
> 
> It's really only an issue if the FPS is unlimited, but _both_ the CPU _and_ the GPU are not maxed out. In that case, it indicates a game issue.


I'm going to try a more CPU intensive Sim and see what happens. But In ACC it was being limited by something to 133 fps. It wasn't GPU and CPU wasn't boosting. Maybe it is a game issue as you say.


----------



## tps3443

This is 5.8P/4.5E/5.1R. My water chiller is off, and this is realistically about the best non degradation OC without really pushing the cpu. This chip gets so dang HOT the higher the frequency is on it. Voltages are low, amperage is low, wattage is low. But cooking hot Lol!! My 11900K ran about 65C with 300+ watts no chiller. So its really something seeing this.

On another note, I have never owned a 13900K that runs 1.270V in the bios on ambient water @5.8/4.5/5.1. Crazy to think people are running 6.0Ghz P-Cores with ambient water and without a delid. And this is an SP121 P-Core CPU? Temps are holding it back so much. This is only 211 amps though, so there is that!

No water chiller, no delid, no tricks, no showing off.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> This is 5.8P/4.5E/5.1R. My water chiller is off, and this is realistically about as good as it’s going to get without smoking the chip daily. This chip gets so dang HOT the higher the frequency is on it. Voltages are low, amperage is low, wattage is low. But cooking hot Lol!!
> 
> On another note, I have never seen a 13900K run this with only 1.270V in the bios on ambient water. Crazy to think people are running 6.0Ghz P-Cores with ambient water and without a delid. And this is an SP121 P-Core CPU. Temps are holding it back so much. This is only 211 amps.
> 
> View attachment 2589118


That's good with E Cores on with my cooling I'm getting 5.7 all core with E cores off 1.279v.


----------



## bhav

Telstar said:


> I dont think that's enough to have degraded your chip, unless it was for several hours at over 90 degrees.


I ran it up to 98c at 1.32v HT on, for like 5 mins to get max temp reads, also 100c at stock bios and loadline just the get and screenshot the numbers.

Its at 88c max on one core, 86 on the next now.

I can technically get a replacement or refund anytime within the full warranty period due to the stock overheating, but I wouldn't get another 4300 G1 IMC.

Overclocking these with HT on looks like you have to stay under 1.3v with an AIO, or get a custom loop.

Also its no wonder why the all the core boost on 13900KS is still 5.4, 5.4 HT on is all mine can run at decent temps on 420 AIO an open frame.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> I ran it up to 98c at 1.32v HT on, for like 5 mins to get max temp reads, also 100c at stock bios and loadline just the get and screenshot the numbers.
> 
> Its at 88c max on one core, 86 on the next now.
> 
> I can technically get a replacement or refund anytime within the full warranty period due to the stock overheating, but I wouldn't get another 4300 G1 IMC.
> 
> Overclocking these with HT on looks like you have to stay under 1.3v with an AIO, or get a custom loop.
> 
> Also its no wonder why the all the core boost on 13900KS is still 5.4, 5.4 HT on is all mine can run at decent temps on 420 AIO an open frame.


You can buy my current 13900K off of me once the binned 13900K I bought arrives. I'll have to sell that one anyway. P-SP 111, and IMC is as you are aware.


----------



## VULC

I have a 13900KF 113/88
and a 13900K 116/85 if anyone is interested also. Both do 4133mhz cl16 with 4 X 8gb Samsung b die. 2 X 16gb would get you 4300 going off other 13900K results.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> You can buy my current 13900K off of me once the binned 13900K I bought arrives. I'll have to sell that one anyway. P-SP 111, and IMC is as you are aware.


Nah I don't need a more expensive chip than this or high clock speeds, and it looks like P Core SP is meaningless without a custom loop anyway.

Just if it fails I don't think I'd get a replacement with the same IMC.

Its already a huge step up from my 5.0 all core 12600K.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> I have a 13900KF 113/88
> and a 13900K 116/85 if anyone is interested also. Both do 4133mhz cl16 with 4 X 8gb Samsung b die. 2 X 16gb would get you 4300 going off other 13900K results.


Which chip are you running daily?


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> Which chip are you running daily?


I got 3 X 13900K coming im hoping it's better then them if not I'll be keeping the 116/85. I never abused Amazon return policy so I'm doing a one off for a 30 day change of mind return. Even if there is a better one I might keep the 116 and sell it for $1300 USD 😅😅


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> I got 3 X 13900K coming im hoping it's better then them if not I'll be keeping the 116/85. I never abused Amazon return policy so I'm doing a one off for a 30 day change of mind return. Even if there is a better one I might keep the 116 and sell it for $1300 USD 😅😅


That’s how much my P-Core SP121 was.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> I got 3 X 13900K coming im hoping it's better then them if not I'll be keeping the 116/85. I never abused Amazon return policy so I'm doing a one off for a 30 day change of mind return. Even if there is a better one I might keep the 116 and sell it for $1300 USD 😅😅


All three from Amazon at once? That's gonna trigger some red flags with them, lol. Amazon _does_ flag people who refund too much, too quickly.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> All three from Amazon at once? That's gonna trigger some red flags with them, lol. Amazon _does_ flag people who refund too much, too quickly.


Not in Australia they allow change of mind but you can't do it every time you buy an item. I'm a prime member and haven't done once in 5 years.


----------



## bhav

VULC said:


> Not in Australia they allow change of mind but you can't do it every time you buy an item. I'm a prime member and haven't done once in 5 years.


No its the same with Amazon everywhere, they flag based on returns per month or such, if you buy 3 and return 2 its likely they're going to catch that more easily than 1 CPU return a year and flag it as abuse.

Also when you do return them in this case, see if you can get some screenshots of 100c at stock bios settings, as thats a foolproof 100% legit reason for returning them rather than 'change of mind' and risking an account cancellation for returning several.

'I bought these 3 chips for my systems, but found that these 2 overheat'.


----------



## VULC

bhav said:


> No its the same with Amazon everywhere, they flag based on returns per month or such, if you buy 3 and return 2 its likely they're going to catch that more easily than 1 CPU return a year and flag it as abuse.
> 
> Also when you do return them in this case, see if you can get some screenshots of 100c at stock bios settings, as thats a foolproof 100% legit reason for returning them rather than 'change of mind' and risking an account cancellation for returning several.
> 
> 'I bought these 3 chips for my systems, but found that these 2 overheat'.


Are you sure 100 degrees is a legit reason? The advertised tj max is 100 degrees though.


----------



## bhav

VULC said:


> Are you sure 100 degrees is a legit reason? The advertised tj max is 100 degrees though.


100c is the maximum reported in software isn't it? So you can't actually display higher?

Intel refunded me on an 8700K that hit 95c at stock, and one of their technical ticket options is overheating so yes its valid.

Its also far more plausible than sending 2 back at the same time and saying you changed your mind.


----------



## 2ndLastJedi

Ichirou said:


> I'm guessing the High Performance plan does nothing?


I just did a test while running CPUz stress test and changing from Balanced, High performance and Ultimate performance nothing changed, Task manager shows only 4.6GHz while HWInfo shows 5258 but when changing to Power saving mode it does drop to 3GHz and loose performance. So Windows High performance setting thing does work in some way.
Maybe all my issues are just because ive not updated to Win 10.


----------



## Ichirou

2ndLastJedi said:


> I just did a test while running CPUz stress test and changing from Balanced, High performance and Ultimate performance nothing changed, Task manager shows only 4.6GHz while HWInfo shows 5258 but when changing to Power saving mode it does drop to 3GHz and loose performance. So Windows High performance setting thing does work in some way.
> Maybe all my issues are just because ive not updated to Win 10.


Wait... What OS are you running, lol?


----------



## HemuV2

Guys, i used 1.55V LLc5 for 5.9ghz(13900k) yesterday, my chip isn't fully activated i.e HT and 8 ecores are off. Would this degrade my chip if i daily it for gaming where it's 140ish amps 71-72C? @RobertoSampaio @sugi0lover


----------



## 2ndLastJedi

Ichirou said:


> Wait... What OS are you running, lol?


Win 10, i was supposed to say i haven't upgraded to 11, lol


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> Guys, i used 1.55V LLc5 for 5.9ghz(13900k) yesterday, my chip isn't fully activated i.e HT and 8 ecores are off. Would this degrade my chip if i daily it for gaming where it's 140ish amps 71-72C? @RobertoSampaio @sugi0lover


High voltage long term will degrade the fastest killer is temps but I wouldn't run it at 100% load with that voltage.


----------



## bhav

I'm thinking you don't want to go any higher than 1.35v on core, SA and L2 on these chips for long term use, also someone here killed their IMC with 1.35v SA and 1.5v VDDQ, so in general keep such voltages as low as possible.

If binning you want chips that can clock higher on lower volts, even for 420mm artic AIO and open frame, with HT on an no contact frame, 1.3v is looking like the limit, so I'll see how the HT on settings run with a contact frame added after sorting out my LAN port issues, pending new driver release from Intel still or an RMA.


----------



## Nizzen

bhav said:


> I'm thinking you don't want to go any higher than 1.35v on core, SA and L2 on these chips for long term use, also someone here killed their IMC with 1.35v SA and 1.5v VDDQ, so in general keep such voltages as low as possible.
> 
> If binning you want chips that can clock higher on lower volts, even for 420mm artic AIO and open frame, with HT on an no contact frame, 1.3v is looking like the limit, so I'll see how the HT on settings run with a contact frame added after sorting out my LAN port issues, pending new driver release from Intel still or an RMA.


Is there any proof that someone killed the imc with 1.35 SA and 1.5 VDDQ? I doubt 

Many people here running 1.3-1.35 SA with VDDQ way over 1.6v daily.....


----------



## VULC

Nizzen said:


> Is there any proof that someone killed the imc with 1.35 SA and 1.5 VDDQ? I doubt
> 
> Many people here running 1.3-1.35 SA with VDDQ way over 1.6v daily.....


I doubt 1.5v vddq will kill your IMC people need 1.4v to 1.45v minimum to run 4 sticks. I personal wouldn't go over 1.45v. On Asus bios vddq doesn't go red until 1.7v, 1.6v is still white for me.


----------



## bhav

Nizzen said:


> Is there any proof that someone killed the imc with 1.35 SA and 1.5 VDDQ? I doubt
> 
> Many people here running 1.3-1.35 SA with VDDQ way over 1.6v daily.....


Well theres no 100% way to know for sure but it was this post:









Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


I think my CPU just died. I've tried different things but mobo just blinks CPU red, DRAM yellow, CPU red, DRAM yellow... Changing to different memory sticks or trying different slots does nothing, there is even no difference between having RAM installed or not, same debug LEDs. It was precedeed...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Nizzen

bhav said:


> Well theres no 100% way to know for sure but it was this post:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> 
> I think my CPU just died. I've tried different things but mobo just blinks CPU red, DRAM yellow, CPU red, DRAM yellow... Changing to different memory sticks or trying different slots does nothing, there is even no difference between having RAM installed or not, same debug LEDs. It was precedeed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


So why are you saying:
"also someone here killed their IMC with 1.35v SA and 1.5v VDDQ, so in general keep such voltages as low as possible." ??


----------



## ju-rek

I set myself a priority that I do not go with memory speed above 1.3v SA and I stick to it.


----------



## VULC

ju-rek said:


> I set myself a priority that I do not go with memory speed above 1.3v SA and I stick to it.


My 1.35v VCCSA reads 1.328v to 1.344v. Anything over 4000mhz DRAM put VCCSA on auto bios will set it to 1.35v by itself. No one knows what happened to his chip in that example it could of been anything.


----------



## digitalfrost

My MSI board also set SA to 1.35v on Auto, however it works with only 1V 🤦‍♂️ They seem a bit aggressive with their voltages.


----------



## ju-rek

I have memory for 4000CL15, SA 1.26v, VQ 1.36v, DDR 1.52v. I don't need anything else to be happy.


----------



## bhav

Nizzen said:


> So why are you saying:
> "also someone here killed their IMC with 1.35v SA and 1.5v VDDQ, so in general keep such voltages as low as possible." ??


Because it was memory errors and such, so it could have been due to that.

So do what I did, find your max ram OC at 1.35v and whatever VDDQ, then lower them to the minimum that is still stable in Y cruncher.


----------



## Ichirou

digitalfrost said:


> My MSI board also set SA to 1.35v on Auto, however it works with only 1V 🤦‍♂️ They seem a bit aggressive with their voltages.


You don't need a lot for ~3,600 MHz.


----------



## digitalfrost

Ichirou said:


> You don't need a lot for ~3,600 MHz.


I could go higher I guess but I wonder if it's worth it. Does it really make a difference in games? 

My 12700K did not like booting even with 3800Mhz, relaxed timings and all, but I figure 13th gen would probably work a lot better?!


----------



## l.kristensen.1981

Nizzen said:


> 100 DKK*146.33200 SEK*
> 
> 5800*1,4633 = 8487  = same price


haha! You got me! Fair enough my friend!


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> Yes... That's the thing... If the GPU is maxed out and throttling, the CPU/RAM doesn't need to work as hard...
> 
> In your case, the CPU is already meeting the requirements for 141 FPS in your game, so the rest of the workload is being delegated to the GPU.
> 
> It's really only an issue if the FPS is unlimited, but _both_ the CPU _and_ the GPU are not maxed out. In that case, it indicates a game issue.


Ya, do you have the fps capped/Gsync on? Try uncapped like ichirou is saying to see if that changes anything.


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> No its the same with Amazon everywhere, they flag based on returns per month or such, if you buy 3 and return 2 its likely they're going to catch that more easily than 1 CPU return a year and flag it as abuse.


Per year. 2 return in a year shouldnt get a flag unless he buys very few things.


----------



## neteng101

digitalfrost said:


> My MSI board also set SA to 1.35v on Auto, however it works with only 1V 🤦‍♂️ They seem a bit aggressive with their voltages.


I use 1.25v SA for 3866 DDR4 - 4000 requires a lot more SA to even boot.

1.35v SA long term shouldn't be an issue - all boards seem to set SA to 1.35v when left in auto.

Leave SA in auto or set it to 1.35v, find your max memory OC settings and then tune SA down if possible.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Has anyone here noticed if you utilize more vcore droop and up your voltage appropriately to get stability your performance goes up? Your wattage goes up a lot as well. I think this is why Intel spec sheets state up to 1.72v is acceptable. They're basing it off the worst possible v droop. I hit some records for me last night playing around with this.


----------



## digitalfrost

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> Has anyone here noticed if you utilize more vcore droop and up your voltage appropriately to get stability your performance goes up? Your wattage goes up a lot as well. I think this is why Intel spec sheets state up to 1.72v is acceptable. They're basing it off the worst possible v droop. I hit some records for me last night playing around with this.


I saw something like this already with Alder Lake. I could never put my finger on it, plus these things are hard to cool as they are.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

digitalfrost said:


> I saw something like this already with Alder Lake. I could never put my finger on it, plus these things are hard to cool as they are.


I pulled 500watts at 5.8 ghz.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

bhav said:


> Well theres no 100% way to know for sure but it was this post:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> 
> I think my CPU just died. I've tried different things but mobo just blinks CPU red, DRAM yellow, CPU red, DRAM yellow... Changing to different memory sticks or trying different slots does nothing, there is even no difference between having RAM installed or not, same debug LEDs. It was precedeed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


He write CPU flashing red means that no CPU detectet, don´t must mean that the imc is broken....
If you see some of his test´s temp/watt........remember most Board´s shows less watt as it is in real.
Perhaps it can be also be that the Spring contacts are damdaged of the high current, that i had one time by 2500K i think it was 5.3-5.5 high Voltage/watt,
there was also the goldcontac then "dark"....
Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...

I drive 1,36V Bios and 1,55V Vdimm Bios 24/7 and have testet often up to 1,45V SA like you can see here.
No Problems at all


----------



## tps3443

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> I pulled 500watts at 5.8 ghz.


That’s really crazy. What kind of temps? I have pulled 400+watts with another 13900K. But it’s a poor sample so I don’t really care about it.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

tps3443 said:


> That’s really crazy. What kind of temps? I have pulled 400+watts with another 13900K. But it’s a poor sample so I don’t really care about it.














Looks like 95C lol.

I did this too for single core without the v droop.


----------



## RichKnecht

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> Has anyone here noticed if you utilize more vcore droop and up your voltage appropriately to get stability your performance goes up? Your wattage goes up a lot as well. I think this is why Intel spec sheets state up to 1.72v is acceptable. They're basing it off the worst possible v droop. I hit some records for me last night playing around with this.


Does this mean that using LLC values that allow more droop also make the chip draw more power?


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

RichKnecht said:


> Does this mean that using LLC values that allow more droop also make the chip draw more power?


From the looks of it yeah. Ohms law perhaps. Keep seeing people say that. The droop helps with temperatures so even though you're idling higher under light load idle temps high. Under stress the temps are normal because of the droop under heavy load. I was drooping to 1.29v under heavy load there and it maintained the 5.8 all core. I was nudging the voltages up until I reached that high score there.


----------



## HemuV2

@sugi0lover can you test with 800x600 and lowest res modifier @5.9GHz and 5100 ring? i just wanna see how much better ddr5 is at exact same configuration, your test on youtube is slightly higher res and 100% res modifier so it would be great if you could retest! this is 4200cl15 gear1 btw


----------



## Ichirou

neteng101 said:


> I use 1.25v SA for 3866 DDR4 - 4000 requires a lot more SA to even boot.
> 
> 1.35v SA long term shouldn't be an issue - all boards seem to set SA to 1.35v when left in auto.
> 
> Leave SA in auto or set it to 1.35v, find your max memory OC settings and then tune SA down if possible.


MSI boards like to set 1.45V VCCSA on auto :|


FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> Has anyone here noticed if you utilize more vcore droop and up your voltage appropriately to get stability your performance goes up? Your wattage goes up a lot as well. I think this is why Intel spec sheets state up to 1.72v is acceptable. They're basing it off the worst possible v droop. I hit some records for me last night playing around with this.


As long as you have unlimited power limits and don't thermal throttle, Intel won't downclock you.
But Intel does have safeguards in place to make sure you never actually hit 1.72V or 500W or whatever.
Those are 99% of the time user error due to limits being removed in the BIOS.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Ichirou said:


> MSI boards like to set 1.45V VCCSA on auto :|
> 
> As long as you have unlimited power limits and don't thermal throttle, Intel won't downclock you.
> But Intel does have safeguards in place to make sure you never actually hit 1.72V or 500W or whatever.
> Those are 99% of the time user error due to limits being removed in the BIOS.


Yeah I removed them lol. I just wanted a suicide run and noticed it.


----------



## Brads3cents

a few questions,
what are your cpu package temps at idle? Im trying to make sure im getting good temps with my setup.

I noticed that after i repasted my cpu cooler score jumped from 161 to 187 in the bios so i believe my cpu is getting good contact now but im curious of a few other things

Should i turn HT off? any performance penalty?
using a 60x4 59x4 spread, i notice there are 2 cores that are hot and bring my cpu package temp to 50 at idle which im concerned may be too high. But at the same time TVB is active during this and clocking my p cores to 61 so maybe that is reasonable

voltages on auto, sa was set to 1.32 looking at aida 64 sensor which i think is pretty good. in the bios MC vottage sits at 1.1 which i also believe is good as i have some aggressive memory timings. and just running all e cores at 46

maybe if i turn off HT i can get better temps?


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Brads3cents said:


> a few questions,
> what are your cpu package temps at idle? Im trying to make sure im getting good temps with my setup.
> 
> I noticed that after i repasted my cpu cooler score jumped from 161 to 187 in the bios so i believe my cpu is getting good contact now but im curious of a few other things
> 
> Should i turn HT off? any performance penalty?
> using a 60x4 59x4 spread, i notice there are 2 cores that are hot and bring my cpu package temp to 50 at idle which im concerned may be too high. But at the same time TVB is active during this and clocking my p cores to 61 so maybe that is reasonable
> 
> voltages on auto, sa was set to 1.32 looking at aida 64 sensor which i think is pretty good



I noticed that if you play with your voltage core by simply moving it up a little and down a little and testing it using whatever app you want I use y-cruncher and r23 you can see the sweet spot. If your cpu does it that's the right spot.


----------



## Brads3cents

i wish not to bother so much but can someone run fire strike ultra cpu test only and tell me their average cpu temp registered by 3dmark?

actual gaming temps are very low because i play at 4k, i was pleasantly surprised with Witcher update tho because dx12 strains the cpu and you dont even reach 100% gpu utilization. My cpu temps were higher downloading the game than they are playing it which is stupid lol


----------



## VULC

Intel releasing KS January 12th or it must be an announcement at CES?









Intel Core i9-13900KS shows 5% uplift over i9-13900K in leaked Cinebench R23 ST test - VideoCardz.com


Intel Core i9-13900KS 6GHz CPU allegedly tested with Cinebench software New benchmarks featuring Intel’s flagship 24-core CPU have been shared by “chi11eddog”. This leaker has already provided very similar test results featuring Intel 13th Gen Core non-K series just a few days ago. Thus far the...




videocardz.com


----------



## tps3443

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> Yeah I removed them lol. I just wanted a suicide run and noticed it.


Only the older bios sets high SA voltage. My old Unify-X bios would set 1.45+ auto. Now it’s only 1.288V SA on auto.


----------



## RichKnecht

VULC said:


> Intel releasing KS January 12th or it must be an announcement at CES?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900KS shows 5% uplift over i9-13900K in leaked Cinebench R23 ST test - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900KS 6GHz CPU allegedly tested with Cinebench software New benchmarks featuring Intel’s flagship 24-core CPU have been shared by “chi11eddog”. This leaker has already provided very similar test results featuring Intel 13th Gen Core non-K series just a few days ago. Thus far the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videocardz.com


My stock 13900 scores higher than that with my undervolt settings. Not impressed.


----------



## HemuV2

okay so my board suggest 1.4xxV llc5 for 5.9GHZ but even 1.5Vllc5 wasnt stable in cinebench, i think asus predicts for typical scenarios but in my extraordinary case where e core SP is very low this suggested bios voltage is completely off unless i turn off ecores. 1.55llc5 is where i get to run 5.9GHz. i didnt want to daily it so i dailed it back to 5.6/3.6/50x at 1.38llc5 which seemed alot more comfortable.


----------



## Ichirou

Brads3cents said:


> Should i turn HT off? any performance penalty?
> 
> maybe if i turn off HT i can get better temps?


Depends entirely on workload. You must test it out yourself.

You would, yes.


RichKnecht said:


> My stock 13900 scores higher than that with my undervolt settings. Not impressed.


Well, the KS is literally a K with two cores boosting slightly higher (60x instead of 58x). It's really not much of a difference.

You can take almost any P-SP 110+ 13900K/KF and just set the two stronger cores to 60x instead, with a slight Vcore boost, and achieve the same results.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Depends entirely on workload. You must test it out yourself.
> 
> You would, yes.
> 
> Well, the KS is literally a K with two cores boosting slightly higher (60x instead of 58x). It's really not much of a difference.
> 
> You can take almost any P-SP 110+ 13900K/KF and just set the two stronger cores to 60x instead, with a slight Vcore boost, and achieve the same results.


My local MC still has a boat load of 12900K and half a dozen KS at basically half price. I say, if you have a 13900K and want a KS, just wait. Youll be able to buy them for a song.


----------



## VULC

I wouldn't be buying a K manufactured in December that's for sure. Hopefully the ones I'm getting are November which they should be.


----------



## Brads3cents

Any reason to keep HT enabled if using e cores?
I just read somewhere that HT added 80 watts holy moly

all this time ive been messing around with HT on i think i will just disable them


----------



## VULC

Brads3cents said:


> Any reason to keep HT enabled if using e cores?
> I just read somewhere that HT added 80 watts holy moly
> 
> all this time ive been messing around with HT on i think i will just disable them


In games it creates more latency so most games it performs better with it off usually multiplayer games.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> My local MC still has a boat load of 12900K and half a dozen KS at basically half price. I say, if you have a 13900K and want a KS, just wait. Youll be able to buy them for a song.


The worst 13900K I tested could outperform a 13900KS. But that worst 13900K came at a great cost to achieve such results too.

I have (2) 13900K’s at the moment. One can do [email protected] watts R23, the other can do 5.7-6.0 at 215 watts R23. Huge difference right there. (Ambient water cooling) no delidding.

Now, I don’t think many 13900KS chips can do that. But who knows maybe they can manage with really low power especially if Intel binned them properly.

The KS model has never disappointed in the past. Some people get upset because they ready have a K model. But, I have a really good 13900K and so do other people. This has happen in the past numerous times.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

tps3443 said:


> The worst 13900K I tested could outperform a 13900KS. But that worst 13900K came at a great cost to achieve such results too.
> 
> I have (2) 13900K’s at the moment. One can do [email protected] watts R23, the other can do 5.7-6.0 at 215 watts R23. Huge difference right there. (Ambient water cooling) no delidding.
> 
> Now, I don’t think many 13900KS chips can do that. But who knows maybe they can manage with really low power especially if Intel binned them properly.



The bad thing with me is that I'm using a kingpin and the adaptive voltages tables etc. don't work right at all at least not for me they don't. Otherwise, I could probably be pushing 6.1GHz. All core scores the best with what I can do with this motherboard.


----------



## HemuV2

VULC said:


> I wouldn't be buying a K manufactured in December that's for sure. Hopefully the ones I'm getting are November which they should be.


some of the best samples are x243 for context x233 is the earliest. x236 was also good


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> The worst 13900K I tested could outperform a 13900KS. But that worst 13900K came at a great cost to achieve such results too.
> 
> I have (2) 13900K’s at the moment. One can do [email protected] watts R23, the other can do 5.7-6.0 at 215 watts R23. Huge difference right there. (Ambient water cooling) no delidding.
> 
> Now, I don’t think many 13900KS chips can do that. But who knows maybe they can manage with really low power especially if Intel binned them properly.
> 
> The KS model has never disappointed in the past. Some people get upset because they ready have a K model. But, I have a really good 13900K and so do other people. This has happen in the past numerous times.





Brads3cents said:


> Any reason to keep HT enabled if using e cores?
> I just read somewhere that HT added 80 watts holy moly
> 
> all this time ive been messing around with HT on i think i will just disable them


not only that even temps are high AF HT useless for gamers just adds heat and lag


----------



## genix

13900K SP *98* (*107P* / *80E*)
VRM Loadline = *Level 2*, DC LoadLine = *0.1* (synced with VRM LL to display SocketSense as VID), AC - 0.060, Vcore = DieSense
E-Core[*] Voltage Offset = -0.067V, TVB Voltage Optimizations = ON, All MCE / "Auto Enhancement" stuff - OFF
Real CPU Power (according to ASUS EC) = *222W*
All power-saving functons - enabled


----------



## Pk1

Totally random and probably inconsequential problem but it's bothering me. In HWinfo I keep getting GT Limit Reasons: Yes. It gives it for Max VR Voltage, ICCmax, PL4. iGPU VID is .320v. I've tried changing GT Voltage mode to negative offset and even turned GT LLC to mode 6 (MSI). Why is it doing this and does it actually matter?


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> some of the best samples are x243 for context x233 is the earliest. x236 was also good


Have a X235 SP 116 P CORE X245 SP 108 P CORE


----------



## RichKnecht

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> The bad thing with me is that I'm using a kingpin and the adaptive voltages tables etc. don't work right at all at least not for me they don't. Otherwise, I could probably be pushing 6.1GHz. All core scores the best with what I can do with this motherboard.
> 
> View attachment 2589175


Wow, thats a ton of power going through that chip.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> The worst 13900K I tested could outperform a 13900KS. But that worst 13900K came at a great cost to achieve such results too.
> 
> I have (2) 13900K’s at the moment. One can do [email protected] watts R23, the other can do 5.7-6.0 at 215 watts R23. Huge difference right there. (Ambient water cooling) no delidding.
> 
> Now, I don’t think many 13900KS chips can do that. But who knows maybe they can manage with really low power especially if Intel binned them properly.
> 
> The KS model has never disappointed in the past. Some people get upset because they ready have a K model. But, I have a really good 13900K and so do other people. This has happen in the past numerous times.


215W? What kind of amps and vcore does that use? Thats lower consumption by 25W than a chip running stock.


----------



## TraumatikOC

VULC said:


> Intel releasing KS January 12th or it must be an announcement at CES?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900KS shows 5% uplift over i9-13900K in leaked Cinebench R23 ST test - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-13900KS 6GHz CPU allegedly tested with Cinebench software New benchmarks featuring Intel’s flagship 24-core CPU have been shared by “chi11eddog”. This leaker has already provided very similar test results featuring Intel 13th Gen Core non-K series just a few days ago. Thus far the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> videocardz.com


Well thats why intel downgraded the 13900k to 5.7 from 5.8, well probably One of the reasons, make the 13900ks look a small bit better LOL


----------



## Hexes

RichKnecht said:


> 215W? What kind of amps and vcore does that use? Thats lower consumption by 25W than a chip running stock.


It's throttling or the wattage is wrong. There is no chip in the world that does 5.7+ GHz all-core at that wattage with room temp water non-delidded unless it's being run in a freezer. That wattage would be ~1.10v die-sense in R23 load with a good chip.

Make me eat my words and post a pic with  :


R23 running in the background with a timer.
VROUT shown.
Effective clocks shown.
Water temperature visible.


----------



## 2ndLastJedi

Thanks guys, im an idiot. I had set HWInfo to show effective clock thinking that was effectivly the current but turns out that is to quote for the developer
"The Effective frequency does not represent a particular real clock, but the average clock value where sleeping states do not contribute to clock.
So for example when a core is running: 800 MHz, 0 (sleep), 0 (sleep), 0 (sleep)
the average value (effective clock) is: (800 + 0 + 0 + 0) / 4 = 200 MHz "
Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## RichKnecht

Hexes said:


> It's throttling or the wattage is wrong. There is no chip in the world that does 5.7+ GHz all-core at that wattage with room temp water non-delidded unless it's being run in a freezer. That wattage would be ~1.10v die-sense in R23 load with a good chip.
> 
> Make me eat my words and post a pic with  :
> 
> 
> R23 running in the background with a timer.
> VROUT shown.
> Effective clocks shown.
> Water temperature visible.


Yeah, something is going on here. Even 315W would be a stretch.


----------



## Hexes

RichKnecht said:


> Yeah, something is going on here. Even 315W would be a stretch.


His chip is very good, in fact just equal with mine for sure. Has no problem of doing 5.8 GHz under 300W if kept cool even with regular ambient water. Temperature is the key here. The thing is I'm not sure if he can keep it cool without cold water with the regular IHS as the contact seems bad based on temps.


----------



## Krzych04650

bigfootnz said:


> OK, I've just now swapped Velocity 2 with Velocity and my temp are 5C lower . I've done just quick 90sec CB23 test and you should compare only max temp, which will be after 30min average, between blocks. You can see clearly that Velocity is cooler for 5C.
> Velocity 2
> View attachment 2588924
> 
> Velocity
> View attachment 2588923
> 
> My advice who ever is using Velocity 2 they should replace this block with what ever, excluding EKWB magnitude as per @motivman test. I've noticed same thing with two different Velocity 2 blocks, first one was RMA as one stud has snapped off.


I actually just switched from Velocity that I've taken out from old X99 system temporarily to new Velocity2 and also noticed higher temperatures, but this not because Velocity2 is worse, but because it requires more flow. It has much lower flow restriction and with the loop connected just to the CPU block and nothing else, flow with Velocity was 3.40 LPM and with Velocity2 4.10 LPM, and temps were the same. But with GPU block included, which also maxes out around 3.40 LPM, Velocity was still at max possible flow and Velocity2 lost 5-6 degrees because it was now only getting 3.40.

I am still going to keep Velocity2 because I already planned for it and need this particular port placement for aesthetics, but Velocity is just a better match for a single loop with GPU block since it needs much less flow and I don't know if there are GPU blocks with low enough flow restriction to not limit the flow for Velocity2. Alphacool things are known for high restriction though (I have 4090 ES block), so maybe there are, I don't know.

Velocity was really great for 13900K, surprisingly so, with 10C water temp I would only start hitting 99C at around 430W in few suicide R23 runs I did. I was a bit shocked by that, 6900K couldn't take even 300.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Hexes said:


> His chip is very good, in fact just equal with mine for sure. Has no problem of doing 5.8 GHz under 300W if kept cool even with regular ambient water. Temperature is the key here. The thing is I'm not sure if he can keep it cool without cold water with the regular IHS as the contact seems bad based on temps.



All core or just a few cores at a time?


----------



## Hexes

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> All core or just a few cores at a time?


All-core.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> 215W? What kind of amps and vcore does that use? Thats lower consumption by 25W than a chip running stock.


Honestly, it’s probably more than 25. Of my (5) tested 13900K’s they all draw 290-325 watts of power stock. You may be referring to 25 watt less than a chip with manipulated voltages or manipulated LLC’s.

5.7 voltage around 1.189 VROut under load. 1.210 set in bios. 

I’ll play around with 5.7 some more, and report back.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Honestly, it’s probably more than 25. Of my (5) tested 13900K’s they all draw 290-325 watts of power stock. You may be referring to 25 watt less than a chip with manipulated voltages or manipulated LLC’s.
> 
> 5.7 voltage around 1.189 VROut under load. 1.210 set in bios.
> 
> I’ll play around with 5.7 some more, and report back.


Correct my bad. Should heve said a tweaked stock clocks chip.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Yeah, something is going on here. Even 315W would be a stretch.


5.9Ghz would use 315 watts definitely. Maybe just a little less.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> 5.9Ghz would use 315 watts definitely. Maybe just a little less.


So that’s like 1.25V under load all cores?


----------



## RichKnecht

I think this thread is mature enough in that most of us have a handle on their chips. That being said, what voltage mode are you using? With 299 I was locked into Override as the VID tables were so screwed up, adaptive was a no go. I tried Override in the beginning but seems like a waste, plus I want it to drop down during idle periods. For now, I’ve settled on Adaptive+Offset. I was looking at the VF curve options, but they seem to be tailored to various levels of core usage and not all core loads unless I am missing something. BTW, I am a pro photographer/videographer not a gamer.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Yep. Delidded chips are obviously a no-go, but a slightly degraded chip will simply be sent back.
> _(If they aren't simply lazy and quickly exchange it without actually testing the chip.)_


Unless it no longer boots at stock, nothing you can do to prove degradation, and they'd have to believe you never overclocked.

With the amount of loadline pushed at stock anyway, good luck degrading them enough to stop booting.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> So that’s like 1.25V under load all cores?


This seems to be the sweet spot for the CPU without going crazy with power and voltage. It is still very efficient like this too, the VROut under load stays below 1.300.
R23 Priority is set for "Below Normal/default" running 4.7Ghz on the E-Cores is pretty power hungry.


----------



## tps3443

I think I’m gonna try and lap my CPU this weekend. It has the worst core to core temps of any 13900K I’ve seen.

I’m going to go to walmart and grab some sandpaper. What stage should I go with?

I was thinking 200/400/800/1200? I’ll tape it to some glass I have and try to make it perfectly flat and smooth.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> I think I’m gonna try and lap my CPU this weekend. It has the worst core to core temps of any 13900K I’ve seen.
> 
> I’m going to go to walmart and grab some sandpaper. What stage should I go with?
> 
> I was thinking 200/400/800/1200? I’ll tape it to some glass I have and try to make it perfectly flat and smooth.


I’d start with 200 or 400. Then 800 and finish with either 1200 or 1600. Use wet sandpaper and keep it wet. Worked well on my HEDT chip. Was actually thinking of doing the same if the EVO doesnt do anything.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> I’d start with 200 or 400. Then 800 and finish with either 1200 or 1600. Use wet sandpaper and keep it wet. Worked well on my HEDT chip. Was actually thinking of doing the same if the EVO doesnt do anything.


I lapped my 7980XE as well. It came out great. I eventually moved to direct die with it which was the best but difficult to get a perfect mount. I miss the 7980XE. hard to believe a 13900K just obliterates it lol.


----------



## tps3443

BATTLEFIELD 2042
5.9 P-Cores, 4.7 E-Cores, 5.1 Ring 

^ This averages only 102 watts of power lol.

Playing 2560x1440P

🤯🤯🤯😍😍😍


----------



## CptSpig

tps3443 said:


> I lapped my 7980XE as well. It came out great. I eventually moved to direct die with it which was the best but difficult to get a perfect mount. I miss the 7980XE. hard to believe a 13900K just obliterates it lol.


I have a 7980Xe as well and the 13900K does obliterate it in every way.


----------



## bigfootnz

Krzych04650 said:


> I actually just switched from Velocity that I've taken out from old X99 system temporarily to new Velocity2 and also noticed higher temperatures, but this not because Velocity2 is worse, but because it requires more flow. It has much lower flow restriction and with the loop connected just to the CPU block and nothing else, flow with Velocity was 3.40 LPM and with Velocity2 4.10 LPM, and temps were the same. But with GPU block included, which also maxes out around 3.40 LPM, Velocity was still at max possible flow and Velocity2 lost 5-6 degrees because it was now only getting 3.40.
> 
> I am still going to keep Velocity2 because I already planned for it and need this particular port placement for aesthetics, but Velocity is just a better match for a single loop with GPU block since it needs much less flow and I don't know if there are GPU blocks with low enough flow restriction to not limit the flow for Velocity2. Alphacool things are known for high restriction though (I have 4090 ES block), so maybe there are, I don't know.
> 
> Velocity was really great for 13900K, surprisingly so, with 10C water temp I would only start hitting 99C at around 430W in few suicide R23 runs I did. I was a bit shocked by that, 6900K couldn't take even 300.


I do not think that Velocity 2 is worse as it needs more flow. With both D5 @2400RMP flow with Velocity is 124LPH and with Velocity is 121LPH, this is with 3 360 radiators GPU and RAM block. This is almost statistical error. Also if is this like what you say that Velocity2 need higher flow then with increasing of the flow Velocity2 should preform almost same like Velocity but that is not the case. When I play games I run my one [email protected]% and second [email protected]% which gives me around 180-200LPH while gaming. This should be enough flow for Velocity2 but temperatures say something else. Velocity is 5-7C cooler then Velocity2 when I play games especially BF2042 which has really high CPU usage (around 60%) after season 3.

In my opinion Velocity2 is poorly designed block which I'll not use anymore.


----------



## Krzych04650

bigfootnz said:


> I do not think that Velocity 2 is worse as it needs more flow. With both D5 @2400RMP flow with Velocity is 124LPH and with Velocity is 121LPH, this is with 3 360 radiators GPU and RAM block. This is almost statistical error. Also if is this like what you say that Velocity2 need higher flow then with increasing of the flow Velocity2 should preform almost same like Velocity but that is not the case. When I play games I run my one [email protected]% and second [email protected]% which gives me around 180-200LPH while gaming. This should be enough flow for Velocity2 but temperatures say something else. Velocity is 5-7C cooler then Velocity2 when I play games especially BF2042 which has really high CPU usage (around 60%) after season 3.
> 
> In my opinion Velocity2 is poorly designed block which I'll not use anymore.


You just confirmed what I said. 180-200 LPH is 3.00-3.33 LPM which is a very similar situation to mine and the reason why Velocity2 is performing worse for you. You need 250-260 LPH for optimal performance with this block, while original Velocity needs only around 200. The fact that you get the same flow with both blocks proves it, every review shows that Velocity2 is capable of much higher flow. 

Whether it is poorly designed is debatable, it works fine on it's own if you can give that 4.10-4.20 LPM, but since a lot of other blocks especially GPU blocks restrict the flow to around 3.40-3.50 LPM, it is not a very good match for a single loop with more than one block.

I wonder what flow restriction EK GPU blocks have and if they also cannot do 4 LPM+, then I'd agree that Velocity2 is poorly designed as it would mean it cannot be paired with any GPU block and require separate loop for optimal performance.


----------



## bigfootnz

Krzych04650 said:


> You just confirmed what I said. 180-200 LPH is 3.00-3.33 LPM which is a very similar situation to mine and the reason why Velocity2 is performing worse for you. You need 250-260 LPH for optimal performance with this block, while original Velocity needs only around 200. The fact that you get the same flow with both blocks proves it, every review shows that Velocity2 is capable of much higher flow.
> 
> Whether it is poorly designed is debatable, it works fine on it's own if you can give that 4.10-4.20 LPM, but since a lot of other blocks especially GPU blocks restrict the flow to around 3.40-3.50 LPM, it is not a very good match for a single loop with more than one block.
> 
> I wonder what flow restriction EK GPU blocks have and if they also cannot do 4 LPM+, then I'd agree that Velocity2 is poorly designed as it would mean it cannot be paired with any GPU block and require separate loop for optimal performance.


When I was testing CPU OC I was running my both pumps @100%, as I wanted to check will high flow bring any benefits, which gives me around 285LPH which should be around 4.75LPM, and even with this flow it was produce higher CPU temp than regular Velocity. In my finding flow higher than 200LPH with Velocity2 has not improve anything, just like with Velocity. I was not able to just match regular Velocity with Velocity regardless of the flow. What is even worse Velocity2 is bigger and heavier piece of metal which preform lesser than lighter and smaller Velocity.

On other hand how many people are running flow around 4-5LPM or higher, not many. If this was block design with that need this flow to preform just like Velocity with much lesser flow, I can say for sure it is bad design. You can see plenty folks even here stating that one D5 is enough for loop like mine. Just imagine running Velocity2 with one D5? 

If Velocity2 was outperforming Velocity with 4-5LPM I could say that it is better, even that needs higher flow, but this didn't happen.


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> This seems to be the sweet spot for the CPU without going crazy with power and voltage. It is still very efficient like this too, the VROut under load stays below 1.300.
> R23 Priority is set for "Below Normal/default" running 4.7Ghz on the E-Cores is pretty power hungry.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2589213


is this the sp121?


----------



## bhav

Managed to get my LAN port working so went ahead and popped the contact frame on:









Dropped a whole 10c, down from 88 to 78 on the hottest cores, also stayed at 78 max for the full bench.

Now I wonder if I can get HT back on at these speeds, probably not.

HT on the 3 stronger cores still not stable at 1.37v, so trying for higher HT off clocks.


----------



## ju-rek

del


----------



## bhav

Tried all the way up to 1.4v, while still maxing at 90c, I couldn't stabilise +100 on hardly any cores so not worth it 

So just -10c with the contact frame at 1.33v, still nice for lower temps.


----------



## RichKnecht

Krzych04650 said:


> You just confirmed what I said. 180-200 LPH is 3.00-3.33 LPM which is a very similar situation to mine and the reason why Velocity2 is performing worse for you. You need 250-260 LPH for optimal performance with this block, while original Velocity needs only around 200. The fact that you get the same flow with both blocks proves it, every review shows that Velocity2 is capable of much higher flow.
> 
> Whether it is poorly designed is debatable, it works fine on it's own if you can give that 4.10-4.20 LPM, but since a lot of other blocks especially GPU blocks restrict the flow to around 3.40-3.50 LPM, it is not a very good match for a single loop with more than one block.
> 
> I wonder what flow restriction EK GPU blocks have and if they also cannot do 4 LPM+, then I'd agree that Velocity2 is poorly designed as it would mean it cannot be paired with any GPU block and require separate loop for optimal performance.


This gets me more anxious to replace my Sig V2 with my EK Evo. The evo, according to tests, performs similarly to the Velocity. We are running exact rads so I am very optimistic.


----------



## warbucks

RichKnecht said:


> This gets me more anxious to replace my Sig V2 with my EK Evo. The evo, according to tests, performs similarly to the Velocity. We are running exact rads so I am very optimistic.


Keep the sig v2, it's better than the EVO.


----------



## RichKnecht

warbucks said:


> Keep the sig v2, it's better than the EVO.


One would think. But my temps suck. I will take it apart (again) to make sure nothing is clogged, but it's really not doing all that well on the 13900K.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> One would think. But my temps suck. I will take it apart (again) to make sure nothing is clogged, but it's really not doing all that well on the 13900K.


Rotate the block. And clean the cold plate.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Rotate the block. And clean the cold plate.


Gonna try everything i can think of. I’ll have a better idea of what’s going on when I take it apart. Maybe I’ll swap the coldplate with the new Foundation block I have sitting here.


----------



## Pk1

RichKnecht said:


> Gonna try everything i can think of. I’ll have a better idea of what’s going on when I take it apart. Maybe I’ll swap the coldplate with the new Foundation block I have sitting here.


What kind of load are you running that gives you bad temps? I have Sig V2 with only 2x360mm rads and my temps seem to be fine. 5.6p/4.5e/5.1ring @ 1.28v bios LLC6 (MSI). I mostly game so perhaps if I was doing extended periods of 100% load my temps wouldn't be fine.


----------



## bhav

You know, I would actually rather be rooting for this 13900 non K ... If only they didn't have locked SA voltage:










It looks like all core is the same, single / 2 core boost is the only difference, looks like a flat 6.0 / 5.8 / 5.6 between the three chips.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> You know, I would actually rather be rooting for this 13900 non K ... If only they didn't have locked SA voltage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like all core is the same, single / 2 core boost is the only difference, looks like a flat 6.0 / 5.8 / 5.6 between the three chips.


With DDR5 it doesn’t matter. I can run about 1.1 SA voltage perfectly stable for even DDR5 7600+. I don’t think the SA voltage is a problem. Maybe only with DDR4.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> With DDR5 it doesn’t matter. I can run about 1.1 SA voltage perfectly stable for even DDR5 7600+. I don’t think the SA voltage is a problem. Maybe only with DDR4.


Its locked to 0.95v on non K, so you would still only get to around 6400 with 2 sticks DDR5.


----------



## Nizzen

bhav said:


> Its locked to 0.95v on non K, so you would still only get to around 6400 with 2 sticks DDR5.


We did around 7k with m-die 0.95 SA.


----------



## yzonker

Nizzen said:


> We did around 7k with m-die 0.95 SA.


Yup, KP board can do that for sure. Mine did.


----------



## bhav

Nizzen said:


> We did around 7k with m-die 0.95 SA.


Its down to CPU IMC as always, some people have done 4000 DDR4 with 0.95v SA too, but very few chips will and the timings will be crap.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Its down to CPU IMC as always, some people have done 4000 DDR4 with 0.95v SA too, but very few chips will and the timings will be crap.


Either way, the 13900 NON-K is still a great value. Intel has to gimp the CPU somehow. Or else little point in getting the 13900K.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> Either way, the 13900 NON-K is still a great value. Intel has to gimp the CPU somehow. Or else little point in getting the 13900K.


Yea thats correct. If SA voltage wasn't locked, there'd be very little point to the K series chips for a lot of users such as me.


----------



## GioCTRL

Hello everyone, been following this thread for weeks now. Thought I'd finally join the discussion as a fellow 13900k ddr4 warrior struggling with some weird ram training issues. 

Since I'm on a z690 edge d4 I unfortunately have no way of finding out my cpu SP values. What I can share is my 13900k running 5.8ghz ht & e-cores disabled at 1.28vcore under full load. Needs 1.35vcore under full load for 5.8ghz p with ht enabled. 

DDR4 IMC can boot 4300 DR and run 4266 sort of stable but not too keen on my imc yet (managed to corrupt my os once already so stuck to 4133c16 for now) unable to rule out my ram (trident z royals 2x16gb b-die 4000c16 1.4vdimm XMP) since I'm finding a strange vdimm-sweetspot behavior and training curiosities, on first boots of the day or even reboots with different settings that ram oc that passed (or should) tm5 absolute 3 cycles 0 errors now spits out errors and is extremely unstable. 

Question is am I at my imc limit and its just failing to train at times cause of that?

Would appreciate any Tipps/Tricks to solve this inconsistent behavior, cheers.


----------



## VULC

GioCTRL said:


> Hello everyone, been following this thread for weeks now. Thought I'd finally join the discussion as a fellow 13900k ddr4 warrior struggling with some weird ram training issues.
> 
> Since I'm on a z690 edge d4 I unfortunately have no way of finding out my cpu SP values. What I can share is my 13900k running 5.8ghz ht & e-cores disabled at 1.28vcore under full load. Needs 1.35vcore under full load for 5.8ghz p with ht enabled.
> 
> DDR4 IMC can boot 4300 DR and run 4266 sort of stable but not too keen on my imc yet (managed to corrupt my os once already so stuck to 4133c16 for now) unable to rule out my ram (trident z royals 2x16gb b-die 4000c16 1.4vdimm XMP) since I'm finding a strange vdimm-sweetspot behavior and training curiosities, on first boots of the day or even reboots with different settings that ram oc that passed (or should) tm5 absolute 3 cycles 0 errors now spits out errors and is extremely unstable.
> 
> Question is am I at my imc limit and its just failing to train at times cause of that?
> 
> Would appreciate any Tipps/Tricks to solve this inconsistent behavior, cheers.


I had similar issues on 1 CPU where it would be stable TM5 Extreme or 6 cycles 1usmus then that next day would get errors right away. I'd say it's the IMC or the ring not sure. This CPU I have 4 X 8gb b die stable 4133mhz CL 16-16-14-23, 300, 65535, 1.53v DIMM, 1.35v SA, 1.45v VDDQ. 2 X 16 should get you 4300 easy with less SA and VDDQ. I'm on a Strix z690 D4.

Running 1.35v full load is too harsh unless you got the cooling to support it. I'm running 5700mhz all core 1.279 HT on and E Cores off. Hitting 87 degrees.


----------



## yzonker

GioCTRL said:


> Hello everyone, been following this thread for weeks now. Thought I'd finally join the discussion as a fellow 13900k ddr4 warrior struggling with some weird ram training issues.
> 
> Since I'm on a z690 edge d4 I unfortunately have no way of finding out my cpu SP values. What I can share is my 13900k running 5.8ghz ht & e-cores disabled at 1.28vcore under full load. Needs 1.35vcore under full load for 5.8ghz p with ht enabled.
> 
> DDR4 IMC can boot 4300 DR and run 4266 sort of stable but not too keen on my imc yet (managed to corrupt my os once already so stuck to 4133c16 for now) unable to rule out my ram (trident z royals 2x16gb b-die 4000c16 1.4vdimm XMP) since I'm finding a strange vdimm-sweetspot behavior and training curiosities, on first boots of the day or even reboots with different settings that ram oc that passed (or should) tm5 absolute 3 cycles 0 errors now spits out errors and is extremely unstable.
> 
> Question is am I at my imc limit and its just failing to train at times cause of that?
> 
> Would appreciate any Tipps/Tricks to solve this inconsistent behavior, cheers.


Have you tried maxing out voltages to see if it behaves better? 1.35v SA and 1.55-1.6v VDDQ. Or even 1.4v SA temporarily. 

I have a Z690 Edge also. In particular, that board needs a lot of VDDQ to be stable (1.5v+). 

Also verify you are on the latest bios as it did improve mem stability for me and even let me go down to 1.25v SA at 4200CL15.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

yzonker said:


> Have you tried maxing out voltages to see if it behaves better? 1.35v SA and 1.55-1.6v VDDQ. Or even 1.4v SA temporarily.
> 
> I have a Z690 Edge also. In particular, that board needs a lot of VDDQ to be stable (1.5v+).
> 
> Also verify you are on the latest bios as it did improve mem stability for me and even let me go down to 1.25v SA at 4200CL15.


It’s really imc limited by the sounds of it, mine only does 4133 flat 15s and the odd time has similar behaviour. The newest 1.3 bios isn’t any better. I’m running the z790 edge … Gskill told me they would review for
Compatibility with the edge…but I don’t think it’ll matter. It’s either bios or imc…this kit ram no prob at 4400 flat 16s on 10th Gen gear 1.


----------



## yzonker

Uncle Dubbs said:


> It’s really imc limited by the sounds of it, mine only does 4133 flat 15s and the odd time has similar behaviour. The newest 1.3 bios isn’t any better. I’m running the z790 edge … Gskill told me they would review for
> Compatibility with the edge…but I don’t think it’ll matter. It’s either bios or imc…this kit ram no prob at 4400 flat 16s on 10th Gen gear 1.


Maybe, but we don't even know where @GioCTRL has the voltages now. And the latest bios for the Z690 Edge is 7D31v19. It definitely helped with stability. My min SA voltage was around 1.325v with the previous bios. Now I'm down to 1.25v and haven't even bothered to test lower. Possible the min is even less.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

yzonker said:


> Maybe, but we don't even know where @GioCTRL has the voltages now. And the latest bios for the Z690 Edge is 7D31v19. It definitely helped with stability. My min SA voltage was around 1.325v with the previous bios. Now I'm down to 1.25v and haven't even bothered to test lower. Possible the min is even less.


Hmm we’ll maybe there’s hope for me then


----------



## tps3443

*It’s so purdy….😭😭

I went ahead and lapped my SP121 P-Core 13900K. Now I just need the flat Optimus cold plate. My cold plate is intended for direct die. So, it’s fairly bowed out in the center intentionally.

So far it’s looking like a 3-5C reduction across most cores.

Upon first lapping, I could see that only a very tiny center portion of my IHS was actually touching the waterblock.*



















*BEFORE LAPPING CINEBENCH R23*












*AFTER LAPPING CINEBENCH R23










The above configurations were already laughably stable to begin with in anything. So, I’ll take any reduction in temps I can get! *


----------



## tps3443

I can allow 6.3Ghz boost on the best cores, and 6.2Ghz boost on any cores. 5.9Ghz boost on all cores. Ripping fast single thread. This is LLC6, so under heavy load the VROut drops quite a bit.


----------



## GioCTRL

yzonker said:


> Have you tried maxing out voltages to see if it behaves better? 1.35v SA and 1.55-1.6v VDDQ. Or even 1.4v SA temporarily.
> 
> I have a Z690 Edge also. In particular, that board needs a lot of VDDQ to be stable (1.5v+).
> 
> Also verify you are on the latest bios as it did improve mem stability for me and even let me go down to 1.25v SA at 4200CL15.


Running on the latest bios and saw the same behavior with SA requirements decreasing by a good 15-20% from previous installed bios.

*I've started with the usual "finding max stable frequency" with 1.35sa, necessary vddq* (max i can go to is 1.5vddq then it starts causing errors?? Possibly related to IO voltage maxing out at 1.1v on the z690 edge d4 and vddq not being allowed to be pushed more than 0.5v above ram io voltage(don't recall the exact naming in bios)) *and 1.55vdimm with lose timings* (19-19-19-39 rest auto) *i could go beyond 1.55vdimm but found a strange behavior when pushing too far in relation to ram frequency and causing instability cause of too high vdimm even though I've got a 140mm fan on the ram and keeping them below or at 40c, so settled with 1.52vdimm max. *(might have to test these sticks in another system)

With this procedure I've found 4266 17s flat to be absolute stable at 1.52vdimm, 1.34sa and 1.5vddq. But then on reboot it all went to crap and corrupted my boot loader... Also ruling out ring that gladly boots 5400mhz but 5300 being the first to show stability and 5200 being rocksolid without ram tuning, with ram tuned tightly I've settled on 50x ring. 

Considering the voltages and it being stable tm5 absolute with 0 errors this seems like a ram issue in the first place, as if the components on the dimms are not on par with the installed b-die modules. If it provides any help my imc gladly does 4400c16 on SR with a 2x8 patriot viper bdie kit.

Current sort of stable settings that still boots unstable from time to time even though tested for absolute stability for many times over and over again:

5.8ghz allcore 1.29vcore llc5 ht & e cores disabled, 5.0ghz Ring, 4133 16-16-16-36 trfc 400 trfc 65534, 1.52vdimm (settles to 1.51 in w11), 1.28sa (1.27vccsa in w11) and vddq found to be solid at 1.2v. Let me know if I'm missing smth. Cheers


----------



## bhav

Right .... So on my christmas to do list:

1) Steal Ichirou's ram

2) Steal TPS's CPU.


----------



## sblantipodi

Hi all, what is the default power plan you use on Windows?
Is there someone using "Ultimate Performance" or "High performance" power plan?

I noticed that using "Ultimate Performance" power plan solves some problems I have on Corsair iCue but the CPU never goes down 5.6GHz and 1.3V, will this damage the CPU on the long run?


----------



## VULC

GioCTRL said:


> Running on the latest bios and saw the same behavior with SA requirements decreasing by a good 15-20% from previous installed bios.
> 
> *I've started with the usual "finding max stable frequency" with 1.35sa, necessary vddq* (max i can go to is 1.5vddq then it starts causing errors?? Possibly related to IO voltage maxing out at 1.1v on the z690 edge d4 and vddq not being allowed to be pushed more than 0.5v above ram io voltage(don't recall the exact naming in bios)) *and 1.55vdimm with lose timings* (19-19-19-39 rest auto) *i could go beyond 1.55vdimm but found a strange behavior when pushing too far in relation to ram frequency and causing instability cause of too high vdimm even though I've got a 140mm fan on the ram and keeping them below or at 40c, so settled with 1.52vdimm max. *(might have to test these sticks in another system)
> 
> With this procedure I've found 4266 17s flat to be absolute stable at 1.52vdimm, 1.34sa and 1.5vddq. But then on reboot it all went to crap and corrupted my boot loader... Also ruling out ring that gladly boots 5400mhz but 5300 being the first to show stability and 5200 being rocksolid without ram tuning, with ram tuned tightly I've settled on 50x ring.
> 
> Considering the voltages and it being stable tm5 absolute with 0 errors this seems like a ram issue in the first place, as if the components on the dimms are not on par with the installed b-die modules. If it provides any help my imc gladly does 4400c16 on SR with a 2x8 patriot viper bdie kit.
> 
> Current sort of stable settings that still boots unstable from time to time even though tested for absolute stability for many times over and over again:
> 
> 5.8ghz allcore 1.29vcore llc5 ht & e cores disabled, 5.0ghz Ring, 4133 16-16-16-36 trfc 400 trfc 65534, 1.52vdimm (settles to 1.51 in w11), 1.28sa (1.27vccsa in w11) and vddq found to be solid at 1.2v. Let me know if I'm missing smth. Cheers


Just doing some testing got 4133mhz cl 15-15-14-23, 300, 65535 working by dropping ring min max from 49 to min max 48. Testing what I can get voltages down to.


----------



## VULC

sblantipodi said:


> Hi all, what is the default power plan you use on Windows?
> Is there someone using "Ultimate Performance" or "High performance" power plan?
> 
> I noticed that using "Ultimate Performance" power plan solves some problems I have on Corsair iCue but the CPU never goes down 5.6GHz and 1.3V, will this damage the CPU on the long run?


It won't do damage you aren't running the CPU at 100% load all the time.


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> Right .... So on my christmas to do list:
> 
> 1) Steal Ichirou's ram
> 
> 2) Steal TPS's CPU.


Or steal RAM from any of the thousands of users with B-Die


----------



## bhav

imrevoau said:


> Or steal RAM from any of the thousands of users with B-Die


Good luck with 64 Gb b die or anything other than Micron.


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> Good luck with 64 Gb b die or anything other than Micron.


Aren't you on 32


----------



## bhav

imrevoau said:


> Aren't you on 32


Hence why I would want to 'steal' Ichirou's.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Good luck with 64 Gb b die or anything other than Micron.


Yeah I’m using 64GB of b die and it won‘t OC for crap. Was much better on my much older 10980XE. So much for progress.


----------



## Krzych04650

Got another CPU and still the same problem, debug LEDs switching between CPU red and DRAM yellow regardless of RAM used, so it must be the board that is not working. The **** is going on here...

On one hand it is good since mobo is cheaper and that 13900K is a good sample, but damn. What a disaster, first waiting for 2 months to gather parts among all the availability issues and now this.


----------



## don1376

bigfootnz said:


> OK, I've just now swapped Velocity 2 with Velocity and my temp are 5C lower . I've done just quick 90sec CB23 test and you should compare only max temp, which will be after 30min average, between blocks. You can see clearly that Velocity is cooler for 5C.
> Velocity 2
> View attachment 2588924
> 
> Velocity
> View attachment 2588923
> 
> My advice who ever is using Velocity 2 they should replace this block with what ever, excluding EKWB magnitude as per @motivman test. I've noticed same thing with two different Velocity 2 blocks, first one was RMA as one stud has snapped off.


I'm using the Velocity 2 block and performs better then my old Velocity, Corsair or Phantacs blocks I also own. With my below over close I may hit 80c under heavy benched and gaming stay below 50c. Do have anti-bend frame, lapped cpu with LM. And less then 5c delta between cores. I know every system is different but maybe was mount. I actually bought a torque screwdriver so I could mount it with recommend torque it calls for. So I know it's nice and flat. 

Just my experience with it. Running 2 40mm 360 copper rads in push/pull setup.


----------



## bhav

I've never lapped a CPU and looks like I still wont be doing, tried testing 1.38+v again, only thing I can stabilize is +100 on e cores, 13600K P cores are too low binned for much higher than 5.6 on all cores. No headroom on my P cores above 1.33v.

Still for a 13600K / KF, most people don't seem to even get a single core capable of 5.8 Ghz with HT off like I did. These chips are where all the trash SPs go along with the stock clock only being 5.1.


----------



## RichKnecht

I have what may be a stupid question. But, when you guys are OC'ing (with MSI ) and you set 1 core to "X", 2 cores to "X", 3 cores to "X", what are you using in the bios to do that? TVB Optimization? Or manual core offsets? Just asking because I have a new editing program and it uses 1-2 cores and I'd like to speed it up if I can.


----------



## Brads3cents

so i dont recommend attempting bare die. You guys tweaked me out enough that I shaved down slightly a SMD that was particularly tall.
The problem is that i keep damaging my motherboard cpu pins somehow

I DONT KNOW HOW. but my working theory is that because there is no kind of frame, whenever i take off my cooler if i unscrew one side there is too much uneven pressure on the opposite side and it presses into the pins

I never touch the pins or come in contact whatsoever but somehow this is the second time i am seeing bent mobo pins. I have never in all my years had even one bent pin on any mobo but this has been a serious issue this time around.
The first time i was able to fix it with a magnifying glass but this time i think its done. Im getting code 55 error

I think i will reattach the stock IHS with LM and the stock frame... but unfortunately, i will probably need to buy another mobo and currently the apex is sold out everywhere

I cant find the lga 1700 pinout to see which pins are essential either


----------



## RichKnecht

Brads3cents said:


> so i dont recommend attempting bare die. You guys tweaked me out enough that I shaved down slightly a SMD that was particularly tall.
> The problem is that i keep damaging my motherboard cpu pins somehow
> 
> I DONT KNOW HOW. but my working theory is that because there is no kind of frame, whenever i take off my cooler if i unscrew one side there is too much uneven pressure on the opposite side and it presses into the pins
> 
> I never touch the pins or come in contact whatsoever but somehow this is the second time i am seeing bent mobo pins. I have never in all my years had even one bent pin on any mobo but this has been a serious issue this time around.
> The first time i was able to fix it with a magnifying glass but this time i think its done. Im getting code 55 error
> 
> I think i will reattach the stock IHS with LM and the stock frame... but unfortunately, i will probably need to buy another mobo and currently the apex is sold out everywhere
> 
> I cant find the lga 1700 pinout to see which pins are essential either


I will never try bare die/delidding again. I went through so much BS trying to get just the right contact with my X299 system. IF I do ANYTHING, I'll lap the IHS and CPU block. That's a BIG "if" though.


----------



## GioCTRL

Krzych04650 said:


> Got another CPU and still the same problem, debug LEDs switching between CPU red and DRAM yellow regardless of RAM used, so it must be the board that is not working. The **** is going on here...
> 
> On one hand it is good since mobo is cheaper and that 13900K is a good sample, but damn. What a disaster, first waiting for 2 months to gather parts among all the availability issues and now this.


Is it the z690 edge d4 and did you touch switching Frequency? I had the same issue a year back and it was caused by too fast vrm switching frequency, mobo and cpu got killed both. *DON'T TOUCH VRM SWITCHING FREQUENCY ON THE Z690 EDGE D4 EVERYONE!! *


----------



## energie80

dang


----------



## acoustic

Got a Z790 APEX otw. Newegg


----------



## chibi

acoustic said:


> Got a Z790 APEX otw. Newegg


Me too, mine should be here today according to the courier. Fingers crossed 🤞


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> Got a Z790 APEX otw. Newegg


No more $700 motherboards for me. I’ll spend my money on more camera gear instead.


----------



## Ichirou

Brads3cents said:


> so i dont recommend attempting bare die. You guys tweaked me out enough that I shaved down slightly a SMD that was particularly tall.
> The problem is that i keep damaging my motherboard cpu pins somehow
> 
> I DONT KNOW HOW. but my working theory is that because there is no kind of frame, whenever i take off my cooler if i unscrew one side there is too much uneven pressure on the opposite side and it presses into the pins
> 
> I never touch the pins or come in contact whatsoever but somehow this is the second time i am seeing bent mobo pins. I have never in all my years had even one bent pin on any mobo but this has been a serious issue this time around.
> The first time i was able to fix it with a magnifying glass but this time i think its done. Im getting code 55 error
> 
> I think i will reattach the stock IHS with LM and the stock frame... but unfortunately, i will probably need to buy another mobo and currently the apex is sold out everywhere
> 
> I cant find the lga 1700 pinout to see which pins are essential either


Can't say I didn't warn you. Direct die frames are necessary for a reason.
The Supercool direct die block simulates the same kind of mounting, albeit with a proprietary solution.
Just pressing your waterblock's cold plate onto the die when the SMDs are higher than the die is bound to cause problems.


GioCTRL said:


> Is it the z690 edge d4 and did you touch switching Frequency? I had the same issue a year back and it was caused by too fast vrm switching frequency, mobo and cpu got killed both. *DON'T TOUCH VRM SWITCHING FREQUENCY ON THE Z690 EDGE D4 EVERYONE!! *


Just set it to 500 MHz


----------



## tps3443

chibi said:


> Me too, mine should be here today according to the courier. Fingers crossed 🤞


You lucky!

Hows the new 13900K?


----------



## chibi

tps3443 said:


> You lucky!
> 
> Hows the new 13900K?


Don't have the board yet, still pending gpu as well so might be another few weeks.


----------



## don1376

I don't know why all the hate on the Velocity 2. Mounted correctly with equal torque on all posts and correct TIM application almost all blocks perform within a degree or 2 of each other. When I had my 3090 with EK top and bottom water blocks was flowing at around 180lpm and with below clocks stay under 88c stress testing and 50-55c gaming. Now with 4080 on air and just cpu doing around 230lpm and temps are roughly the same for cpu. My 13900k is lapped and using LM. It performs better then my Velocity 1, corsair xc7 I believe it is and my Phantec block I have. Not by much, about 5-6 degrees but I contribute that to now using LM. Not saying anyone's opinion is wrong, every setup is different and there's alot of variables.


----------



## warbucks

RichKnecht said:


> One would think. But my temps suck. I will take it apart (again) to make sure nothing is clogged, but it's really not doing all that well on the 13900K.


I dislike the mounting system for the sig v2. Grab the ek velocity 1700 backplate, some M4x25mm (or 30mm) machine screws and nuts. Use a washer between nut and block and tighten up nicely. This has been working way better for me than the out of the box system they provide. They are working on their own backplate for the sig v2 but I'm impatient.


----------



## Nizzen

don1376 said:


> I don't know why all the hate on the Velocity 2. Mounted correctly with equal torque on all posts and correct TIM application almost all blocks perform within a degree or 2 of each other. When I had my 3090 with EK top and bottom water blocks was flowing at around 180lpm and with below clocks stay under 88c stress testing and 50-55c gaming. Now with 4080 on air and just cpu doing around 230lpm and temps are roughly the same for cpu. My 13900k is lapped and using LM. It performs better then my Velocity 1, corsair xc7 I believe it is and my Phantec block I have. Not by much, about 5-6 degrees but I contribute that to now using LM. Not saying anyone's opinion is wrong, every setup is different and there's alot of variables.


I hate Velocity 2 because it is too big towards the dimms. Then it's impossible to use SuperCool Computer dimm waterblocks. Pretty good reason I think 
I use V2 on one of the other computers in the house. On Apex z690 with aircooled DDR5 @ 7000mhz.


----------



## don1376

Nizzen said:


> I hate Velocity 2 because it is too big towards the dimms. Then it's impossible to use SuperCool Computer dimm waterblocks. Pretty good reason I think
> I use V2 on one of the other computers in the house. On Apex z690 with aircooled DDR5 @ 7000mhz.


Makes total sense.


----------



## Ichirou

don1376 said:


> I don't know why all the hate on the Velocity 2. Mounted correctly with equal torque on all posts and correct TIM application almost all blocks perform within a degree or 2 of each other. When I had my 3090 with EK top and bottom water blocks was flowing at around 180lpm and with below clocks stay under 88c stress testing and 50-55c gaming. Now with 4080 on air and just cpu doing around 230lpm and temps are roughly the same for cpu. My 13900k is lapped and using LM. It performs better then my Velocity 1, corsair xc7 I believe it is and my Phantec block I have. Not by much, about 5-6 degrees but I contribute that to now using LM. Not saying anyone's opinion is wrong, every setup is different and there's alot of variables.





warbucks said:


> I dislike the mounting system for the sig v2. Grab the ek velocity 1700 backplate, some M4x25mm (or 30mm) machine screws and nuts. Use a washer between nut and block and tighten up nicely. This has been working way better for me than the out of the box system they provide. They are working on their own backplate for the sig v2 but I'm impatient.





Nizzen said:


> I hate Velocity 2 because it is too big towards the dimms. Then it's impossible to use SuperCool Computer dimm waterblocks. Pretty good reason I think
> I use V2 on one of the other computers in the house. On Apex z690 with aircooled DDR5 @ 7000mhz.


Subjective, but I chose the Velocity over the Velocity2 strictly due to aesthetics and not price or performance xD


----------



## don1376

Ichirou said:


> Subjective, but I chose the Velocity over the Velocity2 strictly due to aesthetics and not price or performance xD


Also makes sense.


----------



## warbucks

Ichirou said:


> Subjective, but I chose the Velocity over the Velocity2 strictly due to aesthetics and not price or performance xD





Nizzen said:


> I hate Velocity 2 because it is too big towards the dimms. Then it's impossible to use SuperCool Computer dimm waterblocks. Pretty good reason I think
> I use V2 on one of the other computers in the house. On Apex z690 with aircooled DDR5 @ 7000mhz.


I don't understand the need to design such large blocks when the socket and cpu are so much smaller. It also adds materials and extra costs that are unneeded in my opinion.


----------



## don1376

warbucks said:


> I don't understand the need to design such large blocks when the socket and cpu are so much smaller. It also adds materials and extra costs that are unneeded in my opinion.


Supposedly the V2 has some special flow design inside. Don't know if that's why it's bigger or if it's because they put the posts in the block itself and the 1700 mounting holes are farther apart.


----------



## acoustic

chibi said:


> Me too, mine should be here today according to the courier. Fingers crossed 🤞


I cancelled it. When I think about it, what am I paying $749 after shipping for? I already run 7000 stable on the Unify-X. Ultimately, I might get 7600 with my M-Die .. is that worth the dollars? As much as I'd love to just send it, I'd rather put that money aside for a new GPU next year.


----------



## Yamcha2209

tps3443 said:


> I can allow 6.3Ghz boost on the best cores, and 6.2Ghz boost on any cores. 5.9Ghz boost on all cores. Ripping fast single thread. This is LLC6, so under heavy load the VROut drops quite a bit.


Hi tps3443

Are you able to post your bios settings would be interested to see your setup.

Thanks mate


----------



## RichKnecht

warbucks said:


> I dislike the mounting system for the sig v2. Grab the ek velocity 1700 backplate, some M4x25mm (or 30mm) machine screws and nuts. Use a washer between nut and block and tighten up nicely. This has been working way better for me than the out of the box system they provide. They are working on their own backplate for the sig v2 but I'm impatient.


Agreed. The V2 mounting pressure feels vague. Seems very easy to tighten the block unevenly. I struggled with it when I had my direct die X299 setup. I really think that is my issue. I do have the EK 1700 back plate, m4 nuts/bolts and tried it. Again, uneven pressure and worse temps. I tried to do a “mix and match” approach using the EK hardware/springs, but the Optimus backplate doesn’t extend past the block body as much as the EK block does which results in poor contact. That’s why I’m going to try the Supremacy Evo. I thought about buying the Magnitude, but I’m not going to spend another $200+ on yet another block. I’d try a Velocity 2, but MC ( easily returnable ) seems to have stopped selling a lot of EK stuff.


----------



## don1376

RichKnecht said:


> Agreed. The V2 mounting pressure feels vague. Seems very easy to tighten the block unevenly. I struggled with it when I had my direct die X299 setup. I really think that is my issue. I do have the EK 1700 back plate, m4 nuts/bolts and tried it. Again, uneven pressure and worse temps. I tried to do a “mix and match” approach using the EK hardware/springs, but the Optimus backplate doesn’t extend past the block body as much as the EK block does which results in poor contact. That’s why I’m going to try the Supremacy Evo. I thought about buying the Magnitude, but I’m not going to spend another $200+ on yet another block. I’d try a Velocity 2, but MC ( easily returnable ) seems to have stopped selling a lot of EK stuff.


Yea, I bought a torque screw driver for that reason. Made all the difference having it equal on all 4 corners. It also works great when for example changing TIM or installing water block on video card. You know all screw are equal tight so you know you have flat pressure.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> No more $700 motherboards for me. I’ll spend my money on more camera gear instead.


Only £300 or even less for a 4300G1 mobo if you pick the MSI Pro-A.

Even then 7200 on M die is plenty enough on a Pro A or Tomahawk D5.


----------



## RichKnecht

don1376 said:


> Supposedly the V2 has some special flow design inside. Don't know if that's why it's bigger or if it's because they put the posts in the block itself and the 1700 mounting holes are farther apart.


 I compared the Foundation cold plate ( same as V2 ) and Supremacy cold plate side by side and the fin area is just a bit bigger on the Foundation. The claims of the V2 being “vastly superior” to the older EK blocks is purely marketing. The people who swear they got a 5-6C temp drop when they switched are hitting the peace pipe too hard. I saw a 1C difference at most. If you are using a brand X block, don’t fall into the hype surrounding the V2.

EDIT sorry you meant the EK V2. Again, the only difference is the cold plate having more fins.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> I cancelled it. When I think about it, what am I paying $749 after shipping for? I already run 7000 stable on the Unify-X. Ultimately, I might get 7600 with my M-Die .. is that worth the dollars? As much as I'd love to just send it, I'd rather put that money aside for a new GPU next year.


I felt the same way Lol, I have a Unify-X right now and it seems to be doing very well. But every time I see someone post and say “Z790 Apex on the way” I feel Just a little sadness inside for not have purchased one my self 😂.

Since I plan on spending a little more money on my setup, I’m thinking a Supercool direct die and quick release fittings are my next investment.


----------



## don1376

RichKnecht said:


> No special flow. I compared the Foundation cold plate ( same as V2 ) and Supremacy cold plate side by side and the fin area is just a bit bigger on the Foundation. The claims of the V2 being “vastly superior” to the older EK blocks is purely marketing. The people who swear they got a 5-6C temp drop when they switched are hitting the peace pipe too hard. I saw a 1C difference at most. If you are using a brand X block, don’t fall into the hype surrounding the V2.


Not saving its in any way superior. Just that mounted correctly with TIM applied right it works just as good as others +/- a degree or 2. I got a 5c+ improvent mainly cause I switch from thermal paste to LM after lapping cpu.


----------



## RichKnecht

don1376 said:


> Not saving its in any way superior. Just that mounted correctly with TIM applied right it works just as good as others +/- a degree or 2. I got a 5c+ improvent mainly cause I switch from thermal paste to LM after lapping cpu.


So you are using LM between the block and IHS? Hmmm. Aren’t you afraid of the LM leaking down onto the board?


----------



## don1376

RichKnecht said:


> So you are using LM between the block and IHS? Hmmm. Aren’t you afraid of the LM leaking down onto the board?


I made sure not to over apply it. And have anti Bending frame that fits pretty snug around IHS. Applied it roughly 2 months ago. Working great to this day.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> No special flow. I compared the Foundation cold plate ( same as V2 ) and Supremacy cold plate side by side and the fin area is just a bit bigger on the Foundation. The claims of the V2 being “vastly superior” to the older EK blocks is purely marketing. The people who swear they got a 5-6C temp drop when they switched are hitting the peace pipe too hard. I saw a 1C difference at most. If you are using a brand X block, don’t fall into the hype surrounding the V2.


The Signature V2 does work very well. Just like any of their water blocks for GPU’s etc. There is a reason why they sell out for months at a time. They absolutely work.

I’ve seen large differences first hand between standard EKWB water-blocks that are $80-$100 dollars get smashed by one.

Buy a new cold plate and see for your self.

Optimus Sig V2 works amazing, but it’s very restrictive and and needs a strong mix of automotive grade anti-corrosion coolant and flushing annually to maintain that good performance.

I want to see a picture of your cold plate fins. This is a picture of mine after 1 year of distilled water only. I replaced it with a brand new one. It could barely move water through it even with (2) D5’s at 100%. BARELY. Almost air tight lol.











*ALL FINS CLOGGED*


----------



## RichKnecht

don1376 said:


> I made sure not to over apply it. And have anti Bending frame that fits pretty snug around IHS. Applied it roughly 2 months ago. Working great to this day.


I take it that the board is in a case mounted vertically? I guess one could fill the tiny gap between the frame and IHS with a tiny bit of TIM to act like a gasket. Hmm, more ideas.


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> The Signature V2 does work very well. Just like any of their water blocks for GPU’s etc. There is a reason why they sell out for months at a time. They absolutely work.
> 
> I’ve seen large differences first hand between standard EKWB water-blocks that are $80-$100 dollars get smashed by one.
> 
> Buy a new cold plate and see for your self.
> 
> Optimus Sig V2 works amazing, but it’s very restrictive and and needs a strong mix of automotive grade anti-corrosion coolant and flushing annually to maintain that good performance.
> 
> I want to see a picture of your cold plate fins. This is a picture of mine after 1 year of distilled water only. I replaced it with a brand new one. It could barely move water through it even with (2) D5’s at 100%. BARELY. Almost air tight lol.
> 
> View attachment 2589456
> 
> 
> 
> *ALL FINS CLOGGED*
> 
> View attachment 2589455


Looks like some CHEAP destilled water 😅 Destilled oil maybe


----------



## YoungChris

tps3443 said:


> I have (2) 13900K’s at the moment. One can do [email protected] watts R23, the other can do 5.7-6.0 at 215 watts R23. Huge difference right there. (Ambient water cooling) no delidding.


Which is the chip you normally use? That first chip sounds super leaky.


----------



## RichKnecht

Sure here you go. This is my new Foundation plate I have indide the V2 at the moment. Same temps.







[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


----------



## don1376

RichKnecht said:


> I take it that the board is in a case mounted vertically? I guess one could fill the tiny gap between the frame and IHS with a tiny bit of TIM to act like a gasket. Hmm, more ideas.


Yes, mounted vertically. When appling the LM and block it was laying on table horizontally. Applied just a tiny dot of LM and spreaded it out with the q-tip looking applicator till it cover the whole IHS with a very thin and even coat. Looked with flash light after mounting block the best I could to see under block and no sign of LM oozing out. Done the same in past with other cpus. Never had a problem with any running out from in-between and temps are definitely better with it. When I do my loop maintenance every 6 to 8 months I also pull block, clean and reapply fresh. Works for me.


----------



## energie80

Im moving from velocity 2 to magnitude with flat plate, will let you know


----------



## RichKnecht

energie80 said:


> Im moving from velocity 2 to magnitude with flat plate, will let you know


EK actually makes a LGA1700 version of the Magnitude with a different jet plate insert.


----------



## energie80

RichKnecht said:


> EK actually makes a LGA1700 version of the Magnitude with a different jet plate insert.


Bought both flat and lga 1700 plates


----------



## Thunderclap

acoustic said:


> I cancelled it. When I think about it, what am I paying $749 after shipping for? I already run 7000 stable on the Unify-X. Ultimately, I might get 7600 with my M-Die .. is that worth the dollars? As much as I'd love to just send it, I'd rather put that money aside for a new GPU next year.


I know this will probably sound out of place on an OC forum, where people are chasing every last drop of performance regardless of what it costs, but... If most had a thought process like this, maybe we wouldn't be here paying more and more for overpriced motherboards every new generation.

Thumbs up for your decision.


----------



## kunit13

I have the v2 block. Been good. A couple of things I overlooked (my IHS is lapped) and did not realize the V2 has a concave plate. So I ordered a magnitude with a flat cold plate. Also after getting this APEX board with a solid V2 (heavy), I have some concerns with the board sagging over time. I will do some temp comparison once I get my OC right with this MOBO.
Side Note: my Apex wasn't bent but one of the rgb connecters was bent up. and my line in on the IO panel has some issues. Prob not going to send back due to avail.

Edit: Also its pain in the ass to remove the block. I like the top accessibility with Mag. I have the torque screw driver from EK. mine seems like its to much torque so I've just been going by feel.


----------



## tps3443

YoungChris said:


> Which is the chip you normally use? That first chip sounds super leaky.


I’m using a different CPU than either of the above.


----------



## CptSpig

kunit13 said:


> I have the v2 block. Been good. A couple of things I overlooked (my IHS is lapped) and did not realize the V2 has a concave plate. So I ordered a magnitude with a flat cold plate. Also after getting this APEX board with a solid V2 (heavy), I have some concerns with the board sagging over time. I will do some temp comparison once I get my OC right with this MOBO.
> Side Note: my Apex wasn't bent but one of the rgb connecters was bent up. and my line in on the IO panel has some issues. Prob not going to send back due to avail.
> 
> Edit: Also its pain in the ass to remove the block. I like the top accessibility with Mag. I have the torque screw driver from EK. mine seems like its to much torque so I've just been going by feel.


If you have the standoff in the center of the board by the block it will not sag.


----------



## kunit13

I do have it. The ease of the mag ;having the screws on the top side made it easy for me (and the flat plate). I was holding off until doing direct die but after reading some of the comments here I decided not direct die. I will delid as soon as my kit comes in though.


----------



## chibi

3pm local time, snowmaggedon has hit me. Apex still no where to be seen. Rip Canada Post


----------



## Dinnzy

So reset my contact frame and block in hopes of improving my memory OC, now on msi bios I’m getting into the Windows boot screen. I’ll get the Windows did not load properly warning, then I’m get stuck in post code 33. Is that form the mount or corrupted windows? I also just tightened the block rebooted again. Same error. Has this happened to anyone with the bracket b4?


----------



## bhav

Do people really struggle so much with the contact frame?

No issues after installing mine and much lower temps.

Waaaiiiitttt If I've just managed to hit 5333+ G2 over 5200 on the 12600K, could that be due to the contact frame and might 4400 G1 stabilize now hmmm.


----------



## Muut

bhav said:


> Do people really struggle so much with the contact frame?
> 
> No issues after installing mine and much lower temps.
> 
> Waaaiiiitttt If I've just managed to hit 5333+ G2 over 5200 on the 12600K, could that be due to the contact frame and might 4400 G1 stabilize now hmmm.


DJR ?


----------



## bhav

Muut said:


> DJR ?


Nope. Top stuff in my sig.


----------



## ssgwright

what clocks are you guys getting? So far I've managed 5.7 all core (up to 6.1 on 2), 46 e-core. I tried 51 on the bin but the system is so much more stable leaving it on auto. hit 42,550 on r23


----------



## Muut

bhav said:


> Nope. Top stuff in my sig.


Ok !
When I was on my 12600k I managed to do 5500 G2 but was stuck at 4133 G1. That was with DJR SR though.


----------



## bhav

On my 12600K only 5200 would boot on the new board. With the 13600K 5400 is currently booting.

Going to stability test tomorrow, was too tired after finishing 5333.


----------



## Muut

I did boot 6200 with one stick though. Not so great for as a daily driver


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Sure here you go. This is my new Foundation plate I have indide the V2 at the moment. Same temps.
> View attachment 2589457


[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

If that’s your cold plate then you’ve got a problem for sure. Maybe full tear down time to find it. 🤷‍♂️ I hope you figure it out.


----------



## RichKnecht

[/QUOTE]

If that’s your cold plate then you’ve got a problem for sure. Maybe full tear down time to find it. 🤷‍♂️ I hope you figure it out.
[/QUOTE]
Tell me about it. I’m not a newbie and it has me baffled. Time to start swapping stuff. Maybe a clogged radiator? I’m not ruling anything out.


----------



## Ichirou

Received the binned 13900K and did an initial test of it on the Strix for stability. The P-SP reading is 121, as promised.
To pass two loops of y-cruncher SFT without any WHEAs, I need at least ~1.14V Vcore.
The BIOS setting was 1.37V, with LLC 4 (default). This is with 3,600 MHz Gear 1, but auto XMP timings.









I was going to test the IMC tonight, but I hastily returned my Strix with my _new_ M.2 drive still within it. Panicked for a hot moment.
Called up the local post office manager's cell (he's my friend) and he told me to drop by first thing tomorrow morning. I should be able to retrieve it.
Close call. Totally didn't realize I forgot my M.2 in there because it was hidden under a heatsink. Only noticed after trying to set up the Edge again.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Received the binned 13900K and did an initial test of it on the Strix for stability. The P-SP reading is 121, as promised.
> To pass two loops of y-cruncher SFT without any WHEAs, I need at least ~1.14V Vcore.
> The BIOS setting was 1.37V, with LLC 4 (default). This is with 3,600 MHz Gear 1, but auto XMP timings.
> View attachment 2589532
> 
> 
> I was going to test the IMC tonight, but I hastily returned my Strix with my _new_ M.2 drive still within it. Panicked for a hot moment.
> Called up the local post office manager's cell (he's my friend) and he told me to drop by first thing tomorrow morning. I should be able to retrieve it.
> Close call. Totally didn't realize I forgot my M.2 in there because it was hidden under a heatsink. Only noticed after trying to set up the Edge again.


Oh you’ve ready got it! Awesome.


----------



## tps3443

@Ichirou

How’s R23 look at 5.5 with lowest stable vcore?

Some of these better chips may not do as well at 5.5 as others. My last force 124 was far better at 5.5 than my current chip just so you know. It’s kinda crazy how that works. Obviously my current chip can scale much better than the last chip. But still these CPU’s are very strange.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> 
> How’s R23 look at 5.5 with lowest stable vcore?
> 
> Some of these better chips may not do as well at 5.5 as others. My last force 124 was far better at 5.5 than my current chip just so you know. It’s kinda crazy how that works. Obviously my current chip can scale much better than the last chip. But still these CPU’s are very strange.


I didn't test. I was in a bit of a rush to head out and figured I'd just return the Strix while I was at it, so I did a quick test and then hardware uninstall.
But I shot myself in the foot with my oversight on the M.2.
I'm just lucky that the parcel hasn't been picked up by corporate yet and is still on site. Gonna head in first thing tomorrow morning to retrieve it, since I've got work later in the day.


----------



## tps3443

I’ll run it tomorrow @Ichirou I know my chip has lost a little tiny amount of edge. I could feel it immediately after the 1st day of using the chip. But that’s how all of my 13900K’s have been that I have tested, after just a few hours of benching or overclocking they degrade a very very tiny amount after about a day. Your chip has probably already degraded a tiny amount, and it’ll stay how it is now for years to come ( if it’s not abused too hard) I wouldn’t worry about it. If it hasn’t yet, then it probably will soon. Considering how fast it happens though, it’s probably already done. Day 1 of running my cpu I avoided Cinebench and ran 6Ghz P-Cores/ 4.7 E-Cores, 5.1 ring with auto voltage. Only gaming and work etc. 


I have not noticed anymore degradation since day 2 of owning this cpu. I typically run 5.9/4.7/[email protected] It stays consistent from day to day.


----------



## Electrosoft

Ichirou said:


> Received the binned 13900K and did an initial test of it on the Strix for stability. The P-SP reading is 121, as promised.
> To pass two loops of y-cruncher SFT without any WHEAs, I need at least ~1.14V Vcore.
> The BIOS setting was 1.37V, with LLC 4 (default). This is with 3,600 MHz Gear 1, but auto XMP timings.
> View attachment 2589532
> 
> 
> I was going to test the IMC tonight, but I hastily returned my Strix with my _new_ M.2 drive still within it. Panicked for a hot moment.
> Called up the local post office manager's cell (he's my friend) and he told me to drop by first thing tomorrow morning. I should be able to retrieve it.
> Close call. Totally didn't realize I forgot my M.2 in there because it was hidden under a heatsink. Only noticed after trying to set up the Edge again.


Congrats on finally getting a decent sample.

I've done the same thing a few times now and left M.2 drives in a laptop and a motherboard. Both were test drives I have laying around for benching and QA. I've also picked up used equipment with primary and/or secondary storage mediums inside that weren't meant to be there too.


----------



## Ichirou

Electrosoft said:


> Congrats on finally getting a decent sample.
> 
> I've done the same thing a few times now and left M.2 drives in a laptop and a motherboard. Both were test drives I have laying around for benching and QA. I've also picked up used equipment with primary and/or secondary storage mediums inside that weren't meant to be there too.


Yeah, a lot of smaller components tend to get forgotten due to oversight. And with M.2 drives or USB dongles and the like, it's even more likely to happen.

Luckily I noticed immediately upon returning home; otherwise it would not only be gone but be a hefty loss as well as I bought it brand new _just_ for the test bench.
It helps to be friends with the manager at the post office. Otherwise I would probably not be able to get access to my parcel again as easily.


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, a lot of smaller components tend to get forgotten due to oversight. And with M.2 drives or USB dongles and the like, it's even more likely to happen.
> 
> Luckily I noticed immediately upon returning home; otherwise it would not only be gone but be a hefty loss as well as I bought it brand new _just_ for the test bench.
> It helps to be friends with the manager at the post office. Otherwise I would probably not be able to get access to my parcel again as easily.


Hopefully the IMC lives up to expectations.


----------



## VULC

Got 2 X KFs from week 36 🙏


----------



## VULC

VULC said:


> Got 2 X KFs from week 36 🙏


Woot


----------



## bhav

@Ichirou @storm-chaser










5400CL18 get, time for another sig entry.

I cannot boot 5600, and on my 12600K on this motherboard could not boot 5333 before.

Tuning secondaries still before getting IMLC reads.


----------



## bhav

OK so despite passing stability it doesn't really work, bandwidth has tanked to just 43K, latency is 67.

At 4800 Gt I had 75k / 51ns so I'm completely stumped, going to set the 4800 settings again and see what reads I get.


----------



## NekoVampire

Good morning everyone, could someone tell me a good overclock configuration for the i7 13700k or some advice since I am new to this topic my setup would be the following


CPU: i7 13700k

CPU cooler : Noctua NH-D15 chromax.black.

GPU: 4090

Motherboard: msi z790 tomahawk max wifi

hard drives: 2 tb KC3000 and another 2 tb KC3000 nvme

RAM memory: Kingston Fury Renegade 16x2 (6400 MHz CL 32)

noctua 5000d box with 10 BioniX p140 fans

Power source: Rmx 1000w corsair



Even if you could tell me if you could touch the msi bios or some other parameter for its best performance, my idea is Streaming, rendering, vtuber, graphic design, games in general.(?)


----------



## bhav

NekoVampire said:


> Good morning everyone, could someone tell me a good overclock configuration for the i7 13700k


No way to tell for sure as 13700K SPs fluctuate widely. If lucky you got a chip where only 1 core wasn't good enough for 13900K spec, so up to 7 of the P cores could still be golden. At worst none of the cores will reach 5.8.

In general 5.6 all core with HT on should be possible, but for the worst bins requires a lot of voltage and will run far too hot for an air cooler.


----------



## xpulse

Hi All,
Have a temp problem on my i9-13900k, default settings No overclocking heat cpu to 100c on cinebench23, and result is very low 37900-38300. 

I tested with and without cpu plate, and my aio is arctic freeze II 420. 

Case is Lian li odyssey in performance mode. 
Mb aorus z790 master. 

And yes thermal throttle kick off of course on 100C and drop cpu clock to 4.2-4.4ghz. 

Thank you for any suggestions of help.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

xpulse said:


> Hi All,
> Have a temp problem on my i9-13900k, default settings No overclocking heat cpu to 100c on cinebench23, and result is very low 37900-38300.
> 
> I tested with and without cpu plate, and my aio is arctic freeze II 420.
> 
> Case is Lian li odyssey in performance mode.
> Mb aorus z790 master.
> 
> And yes thermal throttle kick off of course on 100C and drop cpu clock to 4.2-4.4ghz.
> 
> Thank you for any suggestions of help.


you and everyone who has a 13900k... Lol.

You will need a very good paste... I suggest grizzly extreme and adjust the loadlines...

Follow this guide. 
People with the same MB as you can help you with loadlines.









Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...


A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...




www.overclock.net


----------



## VULC

xpulse said:


> Hi All,
> Have a temp problem on my i9-13900k, default settings No overclocking heat cpu to 100c on cinebench23, and result is very low 37900-38300.
> 
> I tested with and without cpu plate, and my aio is arctic freeze II 420.
> 
> Case is Lian li odyssey in performance mode.
> Mb aorus z790 master.
> 
> And yes thermal throttle kick off of course on 100C and drop cpu clock to 4.2-4.4ghz.
> 
> Thank you for any suggestions of help.


Same AIO here I'm using the LGA1200 back plate with the LGA1700 standoffs on the Strix z690-a D4 with contact frame. With E Cores off, P cores with HT I get max temp 83 degrees on R23. When applying paste I spread it evenly over the whole IHS this helps temps as well.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> Woot
> 
> View attachment 2589564


Very nice. Test the chip out and see how she performs.


----------



## pipes

VULC said:


> Woot
> 
> View attachment 2589564


What do you show in this screenshot?


----------



## storm-chaser

bhav said:


> OK so despite passing stability it doesn't really work, bandwidth has tanked to just 43K, latency is 67.
> 
> At 4800 Gt I had 75k / 51ns so I'm completely stumped, going to set the 4800 settings again and see what reads I get.


Maybe try for 5300MHz @ CL18, if you haven't already?


----------



## bhav

storm-chaser said:


> Maybe try for 5300MHz @ CL18, if you haven't already?


Its not working period. 4800 17-22-22-48-660 on the new board is giving 61k bandwidth and 67ns latency compared with 75k / 51ns on the previous board.

Any idea why?


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> You will need a very good paste... I suggest grizzly extreme and adjust the loadlines...


Would setting SVID Behavior to Best Case Scenario do the same thing?


----------



## tps3443

pipes said:


> What do you show in this screenshot?


Looks like he posted a 13900K with an SP rating of SP107 overall. It has SP119 P-Cores, and SP85 E-Cores.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 I got my M.2 drive back from the post office 
But busy working today, so later.


----------



## pipes

tps3443 said:


> Looks like a 13900K with an SP rating of SP107 overall. It has SP119 P-Cores, and SP85 E-Cores.


This is my sp, MC is 74, p-core, e-core and overall


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Betroz said:


> Would setting SVID Behavior to Best Case Scenario do the same thing?


SVID behaviour is a loadline pre setting.
Once you set AC_LL and DC_LL manually SVID behaviour has no effect at all.


----------



## Telstar

NekoVampire said:


> Good morning everyone, could someone tell me a good overclock configuration for the i7 13700k or some advice since I am new to this topic my setup would be the following
> CPU: i7 13700k


The best thing I can do is to point you here:
SkatterBencher #50: Intel Core i7-13700K Overclocked to 6000MHz - SkatterBencher 
He's using a MSI board with the 13700k so that should work for you. Lower the ratios if your chip isn't as good as his.


----------



## tps3443

pipes said:


> This is my sp, MC, p-core, e-core and overall


 Does it overclock good?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 I got my M.2 drive back from the post office
> But busy working today, so later.



I think that was pure luck right there. My current M.2 is one of those Corsair watercooled ones. So it can't be hidden away by accident under a motherboard heatsink lol. But I think a lot of us have left M.2's inside of motherboard by accident.

How are you planning to run this CPU? Conservative 5.7 all core? Are you going to run a heavy OC like 5.8+? Or maybe a per core load OC with high boosting single cores with lots of VDroop?


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> I think that was pure luck right there. My current M.2 is one of those Corsair watercooled ones.


Watercooling the M.2?

But why???

Only way to make them go faster is Raid 0 like mine.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I think that was pure luck right there. My current M.2 is one of those Corsair watercooled ones. So it can't be hidden away by accident under a motherboard heatsink lol. But I think a lot of us have left M.2's inside of motherboard by accident.
> 
> How are you planning to run this CPU? Conservative 5.7 all core? Are you going to run a heavy OC like 5.8+? Or maybe a per core load OC with high boosting single cores with lots of VDroop?


If it was a watercooled M.2, it would _need_ to be detached to return the motherboard anyway, so kind of hard to miss.

Low-high load optimized. Most likely stock or 54x P-cores during high loads, and then whatever insane clocks I can push on low load.
I'll have to see. Gotta test the DDR4 IMC first, since that's more important. The CPU has to scale with it dialed in anyway.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Watercooling the M.2?
> 
> But why???
> 
> Only way to make them go faster is Raid 0 like mine.


Honestly, it cost the case as a normal M.2. However, I did some research and I saw KitGuru actually managed to throttle the air-cooled prior generation of my own M.2 SSD at 67C. Which hurt its write performance substantially, all he did was run an SSD benchmark 4-5 times back to back, and it throttled right on down. So, I wanted an M.2 that can never throttle under any circumstance regardless of the situation or not. Take a look below and tell me if it's silly? YES it is! Having a watercooled M.2 is pretty dumb. But it works regardless of what you say, and it cannot be throttled no matter how EXTREME the load may be.

I ran a Raid-0 M.2 SSD setup on my last Z590 setup. I did not like it...While it can be reliable, Windows cannot see the drives outside of Windows. So, I did not want to run Raid 0 M.2's anymore. I did try Raiding with (2-3) M.2's once. It is cool. But a single GEN4 M.2 is better for my situation and even faster than (2-3) Gen 3 M.2's Raided together. the drives in the video below are the prior generation so my current single drive is actually even faster.











*Temps on my SSD are currently 8C as I type this. I know its silly*.


----------



## pipes

tps3443 said:


> Does it overclock good?


I haven't overclocked yet, do you think it's wrong? how reliable is that prediction?


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Honestly, it cost the case as a normal M.2. However, I did some research and I saw KitGuru actually managed to throttle the air-cooled prior generation of my own M.2 SSD at 67C. Which hurt its write performance substantially, all he did was run an SSD benchmark 4-5 times back to back, and it throttled right on down. So, I wanted an M.2 that can never throttle under any circumstance regardless of the situation or not. Take a look below and tell me if it's silly? YES it is! Having a watercooled M.2 is pretty dumb. But it works regardless of what you say, and it cannot be throttled no matter how EXTREME the load may be.
> 
> I ran a Raid-0 M.2 SSD setup on my last Z590 setup. I did not like it...While it can be reliable, Windows cannot see the drives outside of Windows. So, I did not want to run Raid 0 M.2's anymore. I did try Raiding with (2-3) M.2's once. It is cool. But a single GEN4 M.2 is better for my situation and even faster than (2-3) Gen 3 M.2's Raided together. the drives in the video below are the prior generation so my current single drive is actually even faster.
> 
> View attachment 2589629
> 
> 
> 
> *Temps on my SSD are currently 8C as I type this. I know its silly*.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2589632


It really only matters if you do sustained transfers over a significantly long enough time.
The reason why it's largely pointless is because you're paying an extra premium for something most people will likely never need to worry about 90% of the time.
And the other 10% is tolerable as SSDs are natively fast to begin with. Would only require a few more seconds or minutes at most.
They aren't necessarily expensive waterblocks, but they do add complexity to the loop and an added potential point of failure for it.
Metal heatsinks (third-party or ones provided by the motherboard) are the best and easiest compromise.

On a side note (not that anyone would care), the Z790 Edge's VRM and MOSFET heatsinks are linked with a heatpipe, while the Z790 Strix's are not.
This means that I can slap on a mini waterblock onto the conjoined heatsink to cool them both together, rather than only one of them on the Strix.
Again, arguably unnecessary addition, but I hate how these heatsinks get mega hot and heat up the motherboard overall after just a little bit of stress testing.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> *Temps on my SSD are currently 8C as I type this. I know its silly*.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2589632


Ok how did you get the randoms so high?

My raid 0 read / writes dropped by a whole 1K after filling them up with my games, only 12.3k read / 12.7k write now


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> It really only matters if you do sustained transfers over a significantly long enough time.
> The reason why it's largely pointless is because you're paying an extra premium for something most people will likely never need to worry about 90% of the time.
> And the other 10% is tolerable as SSDs are natively fast to begin with. Would only require a few more seconds or minutes at most.
> They aren't necessarily expensive waterblocks, but they do add complexity to the loop and an added potential point of failure for it.
> Metal heatsinks (third-party or ones provided by the motherboard) are the best and easiest compromise.
> 
> On a side note (not that anyone would care), the Z790 Edge's VRM and MOSFET heatsinks are linked with a heatpipe, while the Z790 Strix's are not.
> This means that I can slap on a mini waterblock onto the conjoined heatsink to cool them both together, rather than only one of them on the Strix.
> Again, arguably unnecessary addition, but I hate how these heatsinks get mega hot and heat up the motherboard overall after just a little bit of stress testing.


When I bought my 2TB Corsair M.2 the Hydro XT was the same price as the air cooled model. Which was why I got it. It always runs 8C or 9C.  But yeah, I know it's pretty dumb otherwise.


----------



## chibi

Rip Apex delivery, ain't no courier making it out here today xD


----------



## RichKnecht

UGH, Not fun.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

chibi said:


> Rip Apex delivery, ain't no courier making it out here today xD
> View attachment 2589649


If they show up in a Santa hat I would ask to hug them


----------



## chibi

There's a good foot of extra snow dump from the previous day. Was out shoveling and every step taken my snow booties would get snow come in from close to knee height!


----------



## RichKnecht

chibi said:


> *There's a good foot of extra snow dump* from the previous day. Was out shoveling and every step taken my snow booties would get snow come in from close to knee height!


I HATE SNOW. I want to move to FL and sweat my *** off.


----------



## warbucks

Is anyone running 8400Mhz or higher on the Z790 Apex. I'd be curious to know what your timings and voltages are.


----------



## VULC

Uncle Jeff Bezos hitting me up for open box sales soon. 🤣🤣😅

The other thing don't touch any K batches from November Intel already farming those KS chips. From what I've seen only October and earlier are good.


----------



## tps3443

Running this profile right now, it is realistically probably the best option. I can maintain low VID's, load VROut is below 1.300V, and I can still boost to 6.2Ghz

6.2Ghz-5.9Ghz P-Cores
4.7Ghz E-Cores
5.1Ghz Ring

Running higher boost single cores of 6.3Ghz or 6.4Ghz really kinda sucks, because I cannot run the VROut load voltage that I want for a lower all core load of 5.9Ghz. I can get close, but not exactly.


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> Running this profile right now, it is realistically probably the best option. I can maintain low VID's, load VROut is below 1.300V, and I can still boost to 6.2Ghz
> 
> 6.2Ghz-5.9Ghz P-Cores
> 4.7Ghz E-Cores
> 5.1Ghz Ring
> 
> Running higher boost single cores of 6.3Ghz or 6.4Ghz really kinda sucks, because I cannot run the VROut load voltage that I want for a lower all core load of 5.9Ghz. I can get close, but not exactly.
> 
> View attachment 2589668
> 
> View attachment 2589669


Can you run 6.1 all core?


----------



## HemuV2

VULC said:


> Got 2 X KFs from week 36 🙏


How do you know week?


----------



## CptSpig

warbucks said:


> Is anyone running 8400Mhz or higher on the Z790 Apex. I'd be curious to know what your timings and voltages are.


Carillo, Nizzen and sugi0lover!


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> How do you know week?


X236

X = Vietnam
2 = 2022
36 = Week

These are the first KFs I've seen made in Vietnam all the others I had were from Malaysia. This must of been a K reject for the igpu but the IMC is decent I can do C15 4133, 1.55v Dimm, 1.35v SA, 1.45v VDDQ, with 4.8Ghz ring.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> When I bought my 2TB Corsair M.2 the Hydro XT was the same price as the air cooled model. Which was why I got it. It always runs 8C or 9C.  But yeah, I know it's pretty dumb otherwise.


Man explain your random reads / writes to me, how do I do that?


----------



## Nizzen

warbucks said:


> Is anyone running 8400Mhz or higher on the Z790 Apex. I'd be curious to know what your timings and voltages are.


----------



## HemuV2

warbucks said:


> Is anyone running 8400Mhz or higher on the Z790 Apex. I'd be curious to know what your timings and voltages are.


Sugi was running 8533 on his YouTube


----------



## HemuV2

VULC said:


> X236
> 
> X = Vietnam
> 2 = 2022
> 36 = Week
> 
> These are the first KFs I've seen made in Vietnam all the others I had were from Malaysia. This must of been a K reject for the igpu but the IMC is decent I can do C15 4133, 1.55v Dimm, 1.35v SA, 1.45v VDDQ, with 4.8Ghz ring.


Mine is a K x236 sample and it does 4200 stable


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> Mine is a K x236 sample and it does 4200 stable


Yeah, but I'm on 4 x 8GB b die. I need 2 x 16GB.

The temp delta looks good 7 degrees difference from the hottest to the coolest core on R23.


----------



## HemuV2

VULC said:


> Yeah, but I'm on 4 x 8GB b die. I need 2 x 16GB.
> 
> The temp delta looks good 7 degrees difference from the hottest to the coolest core on R23.


Oh yeah i was surprised you were limited to 4133 on such a nasty sample. I think on Single rank 8x2 you could do 4300 stable


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> Can you run 6.1 all core?


My chip can run and function perfectly fine at 6.1Ghz all cores, yes. But, it gets too hot for something like R23.

However, I purchased a supercool direct die waterblock from @Thanh Nguyen so I will be able to run much higher frequencies with reasonable temps.

My cpu runs absurdly hot compared to others, even with low wattage, low amperage, low voltage etc.

I have a really good CPU, but it needs direct die to see it’s full potential.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> Yeah, but I'm on 4 x 8GB b die. I need 2 x 16GB.
> 
> The temp delta looks good 7 degrees difference from the hottest to the coolest core on R23.


Its an X236F?


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> Its an X236F?


----------



## GioCTRL

Been testing my DDR4 tune again last few days and I can confirm im simply at my IMCs limit with latest bios at 4200 16-16-16-36 360 1.52vdimm, at 1.35vccsa, vddq at auto (changing it spits out memory oc failed instantly, ever since I updated my bios to the latest one)

Stability greatly differs from boot to boot, training is absolutely fu**ed here. Z690 edge d4 on the v19 bios with a 13900k x236f batch. I'd say it's a 1/3 chance that I boot with my ram properly trained.

Any ideas / Tipps on how to proceed next? Turnt all fast training methods to disabled in bios aswell and still keeps happening.


----------



## dumassnoob

will i be chastised for putting artic silver 5 on my 13900kf? It was the best paste back in my day, and i can see that has changed. is too late to get new paste before christmas. i think it will be fine. what do the sperts say of this forum?


----------



## RichKnecht

dumassnoob said:


> will i be chastised for putting artic silver 5 on my 13900kf? It was the best paste back in my day, and i can see that has changed. is too late to get new paste before christmas. i think it will be fine. what do the sperts say of this forum?


It will be fine. You may be able to shave off a few degrees going with Kryonaut or Kingpin Kpx. Kryonaut can be hard to spread though. Just remember that Artic Silver needs 100 hours or so to cure for the best temps it can provide.


----------



## tps3443

CptSpig said:


> Carillo, Nizzen and sugi0lover!
> 
> View attachment 2589673
> View attachment 2589674
> View attachment 2589675
> View attachment 2589675
> View attachment 2589674
> View attachment 2589673





CptSpig said:


> Carillo, Nizzen and sugi0lover!
> 
> View attachment 2589673
> View attachment 2589674
> View attachment 2589675
> View attachment 2589675
> View attachment 2589674
> View attachment 2589673



VERY VERY NICE RESULTS!!! Your temps are fantastic though, is that bare die? Based on the power consumption and idles temps I’m guessing it’s not cold water. But your maximums temps for 360ish watts are really really good. I cannot achieve such temps lol.


----------



## CptSpig

That's @sugi0lover maybe he will respond. Try using adaptive voltage temperatures will be much lower at idle. In widows when you are benching set power to High performance. When I have all p-cores set to 6.1 or 6.2 my idle temperature is around 24c. stock IHS with Thermalright contact frame and Grizzly Kryonaut. Running Cinebench R23 I never go over 70c. No chiller. Look at screen shot below 5.8 to 6.1 per-core adaptive with 8000mt memory. 39c with Karhu running. 52c max running Geekbench 3.


----------



## bhav

@Ichirou How are the P cores on your new chip?


----------



## yzonker

GioCTRL said:


> Been testing my DDR4 tune again last few days and I can confirm im simply at my IMCs limit with latest bios at 4200 16-16-16-36 360 1.52vdimm, at 1.35vccsa, vddq at auto (changing it spits out memory oc failed instantly, ever since I updated my bios to the latest one)
> 
> Stability greatly differs from boot to boot, training is absolutely fu**ed here. Z690 edge d4 on the v19 bios with a 13900k x236f batch. I'd say it's a 1/3 chance that I boot with my ram properly trained.
> 
> Any ideas / Tipps on how to proceed next? Turnt all fast training methods to disabled in bios aswell and still keeps happening.


That's weird with VDDQ. I can't even post at 4200 unless VDDQ is 1.5v+.


----------



## Brads3cents

tps3443 said:


> My chip can run and function perfectly fine at 6.1Ghz all cores, yes. But, it gets too hot for something like R23.
> 
> However, I purchased a supercool direct die waterblock from @Thanh Nguyen so I will be able to run much higher frequencies with reasonable temps.
> 
> My cpu runs absurdly hot compared to others, even with low wattage, low amperage, low voltage etc.
> 
> I have a really good CPU, but it needs direct die to see it’s full potential.


so i did mention to you when i ran 6.1 all core and thought the temps were okay but with auto voltages even with a high p score they mobo will absolutely ramp up voltage.
bare die did make it happen for me but it was complex with the pressure which ultimately damaged my mobo

i went ahead and ordered the copper ihs and contact frame
i know how hard it is to get the supercool kit, but i think it should be comparable to delid > liquid metal> copper ihs > contact frame. im curious about the temp difference , but i would imagine something like 3 C better with supercool kit...which is nice but wont make a difference for those of us unable to get the rocketcool. the difference wouldnt be enough for higher clocks

im excited for u though and look forward to hearing your results


----------



## tps3443

CptSpig said:


> That's @sugi0lover maybe he will respond. Try using adaptive voltage temperatures will be much lower at idle. In widows when you are benching set power to High performance. When I have all p-cores set to 6.1 or 6.2 my idle temperature is around 24c. stock IHS with Thermalright contact frame and Grizzly Kryonaut. Running Cinebench R23 I never go over 70c. No chiller. Look at screen shot below 5.8 to 6.1 per-core adaptive with 8000mt memory. 39c with Karhu running. 52c max running Geekbench 3.
> 
> View attachment 2589726
> View attachment 2589726


I thought the last numbers were yours, I was confused is all lol. I saw 6Ghz all P-cores 4.8 E-Cores and 360 watts with like 68-70C (very low temps)


----------



## Brads3cents

it feels like half the people in this thread have a p score of 110 or higher

im not sure if thats the norm or just a very vocal minority that is more than eager to share their results

but im now thinking people are underestimating the upcoming 13900ks
dont be suprised to see a dozen or so people showing off their p 120-125+ 13900ks' soon


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> so i did mention to you when i ran 6.1 all core and thought the temps were okay but with auto voltages even with a high p score they mobo will absolutely ramp up voltage.
> bare die did make it happen for me but it was complex with the pressure which ultimately damaged my mobo
> 
> i went ahead and ordered the copper ihs and contact frame
> i know how hard it is to get the supercool kit, but i think it should be comparable to delid > liquid metal> copper ihs > contact frame. im curious about the temp difference , but i would imagine something like 3 C better with supercool kit...which is nice but wont make a difference for those of us unable to get the rocketcool. the difference wouldnt be enough for higher clocks
> 
> im excited for u though and look forward to hearing your results


My current SP121 p-core cpu is not delidded. As for the Supercool direct die setup it is massively better than delidded with copper IHS and contact frame.

I delidded a different 13900K once before, and ran the contact frame with copper IHS, I didn’t see any difference vs. the stock cpu before delid. No improvement at all. I mounted and re-mounted a few gazillion thousand times, at best maybe a couple degrees lower in temps.

Something about the Supercool direct die setup is absolutely INSANE, and everyone knows how huge the reduction is. it’s really impressive. I know someone else who has one for sale, if you are interested.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> My current cpu is not delidded. As for the Supercool direct die setup it is massively better than delidded with copper IHS and contact frame.
> 
> I delidded a different 13900K once before, and ran the contact frame with copper IHS, I didn’t see any difference vs. the stock cpu before delid. No improvement at all. I mounted and re-mounted a few gazillion thousand times, at e a couple degrees lower in temps.
> 
> Something about the Supercool direct die setup is absolutely INSANE, and everyone knows how huge the reduction is. it’s really impressive. I know someone else who has one for sale, if you are interested.


I only saw a 5C improvement with my 13900KF when I delidded it. So not nearly as significant as everyone claimed (10C), but it's still there.

What's your other friend charging for the kit? I might consider it.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> I only saw a 5C improvement with my 13900KF when I delidded it. So not nearly as significant as everyone claimed (10C), but it's still there.
> 
> What's your other friend charging for the kit? I might consider it.


$100 bucks its a nickel one though. Bling bling 😁


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> it feels like half the people in this thread have a p score of 110 or higher
> 
> im not sure if thats the norm or just a very vocal minority that is more than eager to share their results
> 
> but im now thinking people are underestimating the upcoming 13900ks
> dont be suprised to see a dozen or so people showing off their p 120-125+ 13900ks' soon


Only a few people have SP110+ CPU’s.

As for the 13900KS, if it’s that good, sign us all up.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> $100 bucks its a nickel one though. Bling bling 😁


Hook me up with his deets.

In other news...

@bhav
On this chip, the VDDQ is worse (I can't pass y-cruncher with 1.57V like I did on my BestBuy 13900K). I had to raise it to (tentatively) ~1.60V to pass.
It seems there is massive chip variance when it comes to Vcore, VCCSA, as well as VDDQ.

I spent like half an hour trying to figure out why I couldn't run y-cruncher no matter what frequency. Now I know.


----------



## Brads3cents

i would be interested

cant offer or asking about buying anything in this thread tho

my friend made a joke to sugi about buying his cpu and got a permaban because of it 
the mods on this board are the most uptight ive ever seen and ive been on too many forums to count
so thats saying something
i wonder if they get off on it, like the cable company from south park


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Hook me up with his deets.
> 
> In other news...
> 
> @bhav
> On this chip, the VDDQ is worse (I can't pass y-cruncher with 1.57V like I did on my BestBuy 13900K). I had to raise it to (tentatively) ~1.60V to pass.
> It seems there is massive chip variance when it comes to Vcore, VCCSA, as well as VDDQ.
> 
> I spent like half an hour trying to figure out why I couldn't run y-cruncher no matter what frequency. Now I know.


Yeah, I needed 1.39v vddq on my 116 P 13900k this kf needs 1.45v.


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> i would be interested
> 
> cant offer or asking about buying anything in this thread tho
> 
> my friend made a joke to sugi about buying his cpu and got a permaban because of it
> the mods on this board are the most uptight ive ever seen and ive been on too many forums to count


Jeez. That’s crazy. I imagine so many people ask Sugi is all. Guy is probably bored to death from playing With Diamon lvl 13900K’s long before we got just golden sample ones haha.


----------



## tps3443

Also, I had someone trying to scam me by saying they had a Supercool direct die block kit. He had 1 single post, and I asked for proof of ownership username in pic etc, and he send a random picture from google. And he was like trying to make it a “Time sensitive“ “Hurry up” “Send PayPal Friends only” type of deal Lol. He was trying to scam me for $130 PayPal F&F obviously. Its amazing what people will do on here to rip people off. He responded to my WTB supercool direct die waterblock thread. 🤣 only he didn’t actually have one lol.


----------



## tps3443

This is 5.8Ghz-6.3Ghz. As you can see, we lose a lot of efficiency running an overclock like this due to higher load voltage. But it's still COOL!


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> This is 5.8Ghz-6.3Ghz. As you can see, we lose a lot of efficiency running an overclock like this due to higher load voltage. But it's still COOL!
> 
> View attachment 2589742
> 
> View attachment 2589743
> 
> 
> View attachment 2589745


Nice. I might consider that too but like, would be cooler to push 6.5+ on low load instead xD

This DDR4 IMC is a beast so far. After raising VDDQ to ~1.60V, I'm able to lower VCCSA more... and more... and more... and more...
I'm currently testing 1.31V VCCSA (compared to 1.39V on my previous 13900K)!


----------



## VULC

GioCTRL said:


> Running on the latest bios and saw the same behavior with SA requirements decreasing by a good 15-20% from previous installed bios.
> 
> *I've started with the usual "finding max stable frequency" with 1.35sa, necessary vddq* (max i can go to is 1.5vddq then it starts causing errors?? Possibly related to IO voltage maxing out at 1.1v on the z690 edge d4 and vddq not being allowed to be pushed more than 0.5v above ram io voltage(don't recall the exact naming in bios)) *and 1.55vdimm with lose timings* (19-19-19-39 rest auto) *i could go beyond 1.55vdimm but found a strange behavior when pushing too far in relation to ram frequency and causing instability cause of too high vdimm even though I've got a 140mm fan on the ram and keeping them below or at 40c, so settled with 1.52vdimm max. *(might have to test these sticks in another system)
> 
> With this procedure I've found 4266 17s flat to be absolute stable at 1.52vdimm, 1.34sa and 1.5vddq. But then on reboot it all went to crap and corrupted my boot loader... Also ruling out ring that gladly boots 5400mhz but 5300 being the first to show stability and 5200 being rocksolid without ram tuning, with ram tuned tightly I've settled on 50x ring.
> 
> Considering the voltages and it being stable tm5 absolute with 0 errors this seems like a ram issue in the first place, as if the components on the dimms are not on par with the installed b-die modules. If it provides any help my imc gladly does 4400c16 on SR with a 2x8 patriot viper bdie kit.
> 
> Current sort of stable settings that still boots unstable from time to time even though tested for absolute stability for many times over and over again:
> 
> 5.8ghz allcore 1.29vcore llc5 ht & e cores disabled, 5.0ghz Ring, 4133 16-16-16-36 trfc 400 trfc 65534, 1.52vdimm (settles to 1.51 in w11), 1.28sa (1.27vccsa in w11) and vddq found to be solid at 1.2v. Let me know if I'm missing smth. Cheers


You think this could be because you have too much pressure on the ILM or contact frame which is causing memory errors?


----------



## Ichirou

1.29V VCCSA is the absolute minimum required to be y-cruncher Main 10B and N64/HNT/VST stable.
Going to try to lower VDDQ now. Nevermind, 1.59V VDDQ instantly failed. 1.60V VDDQ is the minimum required.

That's for my 4,300 MHz CL14 1T Gear 1 tightened config. @bhav


----------



## VULC

@tps3443

Have you ever had issues with thermalrights contact frame causing memory instability if it's over tightened? I thought it could only happen on the Thermal Grizzly because TR have the rubber pads that stop the contact frame.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> @tps3443
> 
> Have you ever had issues with thermalrights contact frame causing memory instability if it's over tightened? I thought it could only happen on the Thermal Grizzly because TR have the rubber pads that stop the contact frame.


I actually had more stability with the TR frame than without, lol


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> I actually had more stability with the TR frame than without, lol


I think I might have overtighten it I'm going to try and re-seat it.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> @tps3443
> 
> Have you ever had issues with thermalrights contact frame causing memory instability if it's over tightened? I thought it could only happen on the Thermal Grizzly because TR have the rubber pads that stop the contact frame.


I thought that may have happen once before. But I have not had issues with it. I snug them all slowly in cross pattern until the screws are all firmly snug and all feel the same. Just try and re-mount and just snug them all again.


----------



## tubs2x4

VULC said:


> I think I might have overtighten it I'm going to try and re-seat it.


Don’t think you can over tighten it. Bottoms out on motherboard. I installed two of them and kept evenly turning screws until they all stopped.


----------



## ghostmid31

guys, someone can try overclock 13700k with fixed clock's without e-cores and HT?
need to know max clock with voltage.


----------



## tps3443

ghostmid31 said:


> guys, someone can try overclock 13700k with fixed clock's without e-cores and HT?
> need to know max clock with voltage.


This greatly depends on the 13700K. You could buy (2) and they are opposites of each other. Neither of us with 13900K’s can share settings or bios lol.

Buy (2) keep the best (1) 😈


----------



## imrevoau

ghostmid31 said:


> guys, someone can try overclock 13700k with fixed clock's without e-cores and HT?
> need to know max clock with voltage.


I can do 5.8 at 1.34 load voltage without e cores or HT but I think my 13700KF is relatively good. Results may vary


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> 1.29V VCCSA is the absolute minimum required to be y-cruncher Main 10B and N64/HNT/VST stable.
> Going to try to lower VDDQ now. Nevermind, 1.59V VDDQ instantly failed. 1.60V VDDQ is the minimum required.
> 
> That's for my 4,300 MHz CL14 1T Gear 1 tightened config. @bhav


MSI boards looking better and better everyday. That last update stabilised memory and dropped sa voltage requirements nothing like that coming from ASUS only memory SP gimmicks.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> MSI boards looking better and better everyday. That last update stabilised memory and dropped sa voltage requirements nothing like that coming from ASUS only memory SP gimmicks.


Actually, 1.39V was my minimum VCCSA on the latest BIOS for the Edge with my previous chip. This new chip's just that much stronger.

The only issue is, although my VCCSA requirement is much lower now, I can't really capitalize on it as trying to boost the frequency any higher results in difficulty training.
I guess I'll just tighten timings.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> I thought that may have happen once before. But I have not had issues with it. I snug them all slowly in cross pattern until the screws are all firmly snug and all feel the same. Just try and re-mount and just snug them all again.





tubs2x4 said:


> Don’t think you can over tighten it. Bottoms out on motherboard. I installed two of them and kept evenly turning screws until they all stopped.


I can confirm it was the contact frame. I reset bios it still had the issues then I seated the frame again but this time instead of going that extra 1/4 to tighten at the end I backed off as soon as I felt resistance. Now I know what happened on my 13900k as well. I thought something was wrong with the CPU but it happened to both. Now my desktop colours are back too lol was this bright white colour before with white backgrounds.


----------



## VULC

Only need 1.39v vddq now damn you contact frame.


----------



## ssgwright

hmmm r23 scores at 5.8 not any better than mine at 5.7 with much less voltage...


----------



## nickolp1974

acoustic said:


> Also, for the love of god, there is a ****ing thread for discussing DDR4/DDR5 OCing, with a specific 12/13th gen DDR4 thread. Why are the last 4+ pages just DDR4 talk..


the ignore button works a treat!!


----------



## energie80

VULC said:


> I can confirm it was the contact frame. I reset bios it still had the issues then I seated the frame again but this time instead of going that extra 1/4 to tighten at the end I backed off as soon as I felt resistance. Now I know what happened on my 13900k as well. I thought something was wrong with the CPU but it happened to both. Now my desktop colours are back too lol was this bright white colour before with white backgrounds.


What was your problem?


----------



## VULC

energie80 said:


> What was your problem?


Over tightened the thermalright contact frame. Just validating 4100mhz cl15-15-14-23 320 65535 now 4 X 8GB. 1.55v dimm, 1.35v SA, 1.39v VDDQ on my 13900KF on topic this is about 13900KF system agent / memory controller.


----------



## energie80

I mean what was that causing


----------



## VULC

energie80 said:


> I mean what was that causing


Memory instability, crashes, higher vddq, display going black, display colours going haywire, memory wouldn't train and would switch off PC instead.


----------



## Ichirou

@VULC Struggling really hard with this chip being really inconsistent in y-cruncher; definitely feel like there's a contact issue going on that's f**king with VDDQ.


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

CB doesn't like any of my oc's


----------



## VULC




----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> @VULC Struggling really hard with this chip being really inconsistent in y-cruncher; definitely feel like there's a contact issue going on that's f**king with VDDQ.


Overtightening the TR contact frame also caused chipset temps to go up 20 degrees.


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

VULC said:


> Overtightening the TR contact frame also caused chipset temps to go up 20 degrees.


I was very careful when i did mine


----------



## VULC

HOMECINEMA-PC said:


> I was very careful when i did mine


Didn't know that extra 1/4 turn would do that 🤦. Hope I didn't cause damage with 80 degree chipset temps. I dropped them to 70 degrees with min pch voltage. That wasn't the problem. I'm now on 55 degrees.


----------



## RichKnecht

‘


VULC said:


> Overtightening the TR contact frame also caused chipset temps to go up 20 degrees.


Hmmmmm…another thing I need to check.


----------



## energie80

at this point we better remove it lol


----------



## storm-chaser

bhav said:


> Its not working period. 4800 17-22-22-48-660 on the new board is giving 61k bandwidth and 67ns latency compared with 75k / 51ns on the previous board.
> 
> Any idea why?


What board are you running here?


----------



## bhav

storm-chaser said:


> What board are you running here?


New one is MSI MAG Tomahawk Z790, old on is Asrock Z690.

People think its simply the tertiary timings? I'm losing 15k bandwidth at 4800, and close to 40k at 5333+ over what it should be, also +15-20ns latency compared to the previous board.

Tertiary timings do not cause that big a loss!


----------



## SesioN

Brads3cents said:


> it feels like half the people in this thread have a p score of 110 or higher
> 
> im not sure if thats the norm or just a very vocal minority that is more than eager to share their results
> 
> but im now thinking people are underestimating the upcoming 13900ks
> dont be suprised to see a dozen or so people showing off their p 120-125+ 13900ks' soon


I have a SP107 (P115, E91) and it took me 4 CPUs to get there. I also wanted SP110+ but I figured the effort was getting too high and just kept the SP107.
So I can imagine, that people with SP110+ are either winning the "silicon lottery" or binning the same way I did, maybe getting 6 or 8 CPUs to try.

(Also some of the tested CPUs had SPs like 89 or 91, just so you can imagine the variety better )


----------



## bhav

SesioN said:


> I have a SP107 (P115, E91) and it took me 4 CPUs to get there. I also wanted SP110+ but I figured the effort was too high and just kept the SP107.
> So I can imagine, that people with SP110+ are either winning the "silicon lottery" or binning the same way I did, maybe getting 6 or 8 CPUs to try.
> 
> (Also some of the tested CPUs had SPs like 89 or 91, just so you can imagine the variety better )


13600K / KF are all like SP10 or such crap. Can't know for sure as I don't have an Asus board.


----------



## RichKnecht

Has anyone tried the "washer mod" witht the OEM ILM on the 13th gen chips or have the contact frames pretty much taken over? When I installed my CF, I remember making it pretty tight as I had a flashback to the contact frames on X299 needing to be pretty snug. @VULC mentioned above about an over tightened CF could raise temps and I am wondering if there is any merit to that statement.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> Has anyone tried the "washer mod" witht the OEM ILM on the 13th gen chips or have the contact frames pretty much taken over? When I installed my CF, I remember making it pretty tight as I had a flashback to the contact frames on X299 needing to be pretty snug. @VULC mentioned above about an over tightened CF could raise temps and I am wondering if there is any merit to that statement.


Contact frame is 15 bucks on amazon, 5 bucks on aliexpress imported from China. The price and results basically invalidate the washer mod, plus the contact frame is unbelievably simple to install.

I installed my contact frame carefully and stopped when just a little bit of hand pressure no longer turned the screws, 10c less CPU temps, ram still works, MB VRM temps under 40c. For anyone thats installed a lot of CPU coolers, its simple and easy, same thing, turn screws evenly, only tighten by hand, stop when resistance with minimal force.

CPU coolers you want a bit tighter though, contact frame as untight as possible, but obviously not completely loose.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Contact frame is 15 bucks on amazon, 5 bucks on aliexpress imported from China. The price and results basically invalidate the washer mod, plus the contact frame is unbelievably simple to install.
> 
> I installed my contact frame *carefully and stopped when just a little bit of hand pressure no longer turned the screws,* 10c less CPU temps, ram still works, MB VRM temps under 40c. For anyone thats installed a lot of CPU coolers, its simple and easy, same thing, turn screws evenly, only tighten by hand, stop when resistance with minimal force.
> 
> CPU coolers you want a bit tighter though, contact frame as untight as possible, but obviously not completely loose.


I am afraid I tightened mine a bit more than that. Now I am wondering if that has been my temp problem all along. Would make sense as others with the same CPU block ( and AIOs) have MUCH lower temps than me (chillers. etc aside).


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> I am afraid I tightened mine a bit more than that. Now I am wondering if that has been my temp problem all along. Would make sense as others with the same CPU block ( and AIOs) have MUCH lower temps than me (chillers. etc aside).


Right, screw each corner in diagonally with equal amounts, then up to when they stop turning with no pressure, then its like half a turn each with a bit of pressure.

Also bearing in mind when you initially take the ILM screws out, they are very easy to remove and not tightly installed to begin with.


----------



## imrevoau

@bhav how do you like the Arctic 420? Gonna move my PC over to a 7000D and just want the best cooling (without custom loops)


----------



## RichKnecht

Yeah, when I removed the ILM, I was surprised at how loose the screws were. Not tight at all.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> Yeah, when I removed the ILM, I was surprised at how loose the screws were. Not tight at all.


Which contact frame do you have?

With the Thermalright, I went diagonal pattern until they were snug with tiny resistance, and then gave it an 1/8 turn after that. The Thermal Grizzly frame seems to be slightly more sensitive to how tight you make it?


----------



## bhav

imrevoau said:


> @bhav how do you like the Arctic 420? Gonna move my PC over to a 7000D and just want the best cooling (without custom loops)


I mean theres nothing much to like or not like, it simply looked like the best 420mm AIO from the reviews.

Without the lite load adjusting and contact frame, it was still getting 100c in an open frame case.

After it maxes at 85c with prolonged cinebench runs at my max HT off OC.

Now it is quite a bit thick, even with the recessed AIO area on my case, it looks like a longer GPU would not fit over it, but regarding that I can vertically mount the GPU instead, but no idea how to also keep my ram fan installed then.

AIO on the top or front of the case wouldn't work for me as it would blowing right against the cabinet walls, the normal position its in blows air to the back of the cupboard which is open with the vents on top. It would also look crap having the AIO recess left visible.

Oh one good thing about the non RGB Arctic AIOs is they only need a single PWM fan header. Pugging into the CPU fan is advised as it enables fan control, plugging into the pump header sets it to 100% with no adjustment, though I have all the fans running at 100% anyway.


----------



## 2500k_2

9 Ghz on RAPTOR








Intel Core i9 13900K @ 9008.82 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR


[t14i1f] Validated Dump by elmor (2022-12-09 05:52:25) - MB: Asus ROG MAXIMUS Z790 APEX - RAM: 32768 MB




valid.x86.fr


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> Which contact frame do you have?
> 
> With the Thermalright, I went diagonal pattern until they were snug with tiny resistance, and then gave it an 1/8 turn after that. The Thermal Grizzly frame seems to be slightly more sensitive to how tight you make it?


I have the Thermalright. Didn't like the way the TG frame "floated" above the MB. I can guarantee my TR frame is TIGHT. I think I tightened until the screws stopped


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> I have the Thermalright. Didn't like the way the TG frame "floated" above the MB. I can guarantee my TR frame is TIGHT. I think I tightened until the screws stopped


The screws "stopped" for mine, but without me having to give it the ol' German "goodandtight" torque.

I would try adjusting your frame. Back the screws off, and re-torque them down with less force. It shouldn't be "loose", but there is a middle-ground between loose and cranked down, lol


----------



## 7empe

13900KF. P-Cores SP 118, E-Cores SP 88, MC SP 81. 1.295V under load needed for P59x all-core and E47x. Ring 51x.


----------



## Betroz

Have you guys tried to set both long and short power duration to 253W for 13900K? Can it maintain 5.5 allcore, or does it need an undervolt for that to be possible?


----------



## CptSpig

VULC said:


> MSI boards looking better and better everyday. That last update stabilised memory and dropped sa voltage requirements nothing like that coming from ASUS only memory SP gimmicks.


Asus just 9Ghz on 13900K! Man that board sucks! I wish I had a MSI?


----------



## RichKnecht

CptSpig said:


> Asus just 9Ghz on 13900K! Man that board sucks! I wish I had a MSI?


I'd still have an Asus board if they all didn't look like a pinball machine and were not all white/silver


----------



## Brads3cents

tps3443 said:


> I delidded a different 13900K once before, and ran the contact frame with copper IHS, I didn’t see any difference vs. the stock cpu before delid. No improvement at all. I mounted and re-mounted a few gazillion thousand times, at best maybe a couple degrees lower in


I’m thinking most likely something went wrong for you during the relid process as that seems to be where most people have issues
What did you use to attach the copper ihs?
I notice a lot of people use gasket sealer crap. You should be using a specialized glue just a dab in the corners and then a clamp afterwords for contact pressure. 
another area I see some mistakes is the Liquid Metal application
Did you apply LM on the copper ihs? Many people only apply it to the cpu. You must apply to both cpu and ihs


----------



## bhav

CptSpig said:


> Asus just 9Ghz on 13900K! Man that board sucks! I wish I had a MSI?


Cherry picked board, cherry picked CPU.

What you end up getting in the box with an Asus board now is a bigger gamble than binning CPUs. You can get a great Asus board, but you now have a much higher chance of getting a crap one with major problems compared to an MSI.


----------



## warbucks

bhav said:


> Cherry picked board, cherry picked CPU.
> 
> What you end up getting in the box with an Asus board now is a bigger gamble than binning CPUs. You can get a great Asus board, but you now have a much higher chance of getting a crap one with major problems compared to an MSI.


Of course those are cherry picked, as for your comment on them being a "gamble", I disagree. Z690 had it's issues, no doubt about it but if anything Z790 is back to your typical failure percentages which you see across all board manufacturers. Their bios support is bar none the best in the business and no one comes close.


----------



## Brads3cents

bhav said:


> Cherry picked board, cherry picked CPU.
> 
> What you end up getting in the box with an Asus board now is a bigger gamble than binning CPUs. You can get a great Asus board, but you now have a much higher chance of getting a crap one with major problems compared to an MSI.


i dont think its like last generation z690 the quality control is much better for z790 out of Asus. Especially for the Apex


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> I’m thinking most likely something went wrong for you during the relid process as that seems to be where most people have issues
> What did you use to attach the copper ihs?
> I notice a lot of people use gasket sealer crap. You should be using a specialized glue just a dab in the corners and then a clamp afterwords for contact pressure.
> another area I see some mistakes is the Liquid Metal application
> Did you apply LM on the copper ihs? Many people only apply it to the cpu. You must apply to both cpu and ihs


I didn’t re-seal the copper IHS at all. I just floated it on the die, to see the results first. I’ve delidded a lot of CPU’s with good results, and if it performs then I’d consider resealing it. The stock solder and stock IHS is good enough compared to delidding it, is all I’m saying. I allowed LM to soak in to the inner copper IHS area and reach equilibrium, and I applied sufficient LM to the die. The results were just very minimal compared to stock.

I ended up putting the stock IHS back on, and re-sealing the cpu it had temps that were slightly better than stock. I don’t have this CPU anymore, I sold it. It was actually a really good 13900KF though. One of the lowest power 5.8 chips I have seen besides my current chip.


----------



## bhav

warbucks said:


> Of course those are cherry picked, as for your comment on them being a "gamble", I disagree. Z690 had it's issues, no doubt about it but if anything Z790 is back to your typical failure percentages which you see across all board manufacturers. Their bios support is bar none the best in the business and no one comes close.


'failure percentage' is a different thing to 'two ram slots simply don't function / the LEDs don't work out of the box / CMOS battery cable came broken on brand new board'.

Asus do zero quality control on their boards and just ship them out straight from the assembly line without even switching them on.

So ones even with minor problems that would not have been sold if tested first at least not without an easy repair, you can end up getting one of those, or one with more major problems.


----------



## storm-chaser

They are all made at the same factories in China, that's the problem. Probably sending out boards contaminated with covid lol


----------



## bhav

storm-chaser said:


> They are all made at the same factories in China, that's the problem. Probably sending out boards contaminated with covid lol


Usually they are switched on and given basic testing before being sent out for sale. Asus seem to no longer do that.


----------



## Betroz

bhav said:


> Usually they are switched on and given basic testing before being sent out for sale. Asus seem to no longer do that.


Consumers are the beta testers now. Not just Asus, but across the industry. AAA games ship out full of bugs etc.


----------



## HemuV2

So 13900KS ES 9GHz!! That's probably an SP 120+ chip since last time they did 8.7 it was sp119.


----------



## CptSpig

RichKnecht said:


> I'd still have an Asus board if they all didn't look like a pinball machine and were not all white/silver


That's the best part!


----------



## SoldierRBT

HemuV2 said:


> So 13900KS ES 9GHz!! That's probably an SP 120+ chip since last time they did 8.7 it was sp119.


They are using same chip 8.8GHz just colder


----------



## CptSpig

bhav said:


> Cherry picked board, cherry picked CPU.
> 
> What you end up getting in the box with an Asus board now is a bigger gamble than binning CPUs. You can get a great Asus board, but you now have a much higher chance of getting a crap one with major problems compared to an MSI.


I must have been lucky with my three Apex boards!


----------



## tps3443

storm-chaser said:


> They are all made at the same factories in China, that's the problem. Probably sending out boards contaminated with covid lol


A lot of these high end PC parts are made in Taiwan Or China. But made with care and quality.


RichKnecht said:


> ‘
> 
> Hmmmmm…another thing I need to check.


SAME! I am gonna just barely tighten mine lol.


----------



## CptSpig

SoldierRBT said:


> They are using same chip 8.8GHz just colder


You hit the nail on the head! Number one problem in overclocking thermals.


----------



## Brads3cents

many times a higher p score wont help them overclock with ln2
there are other cirteria, how leaky the cpu is, ext. many factors

the sp119 chip they used is probably better than a sp124 chip for the purpose of what they were trying to achieve

in fact i bet the motherboard was more strictly binned than the cpu lol


----------



## warbucks

bhav said:


> 'failure percentage' is a different thing to 'two ram slots simply don't function / the LEDs don't work out of the box / CMOS battery cable came broken on brand new board'.
> 
> Asus do zero quality control on their boards and just ship them out straight from the assembly line without even switching them on.
> 
> So ones even with minor problems that would not have been sold if tested first at least not without an easy repair, you can end up getting one of those, or one with more major problems.


You actually believe they don't test their boards before shipping. That's funny. Again, you're making assumptions with no data.


----------



## tps3443

EVGA sells crap too. Poor bios support that takes forever to fix. When 11th gen launched, it took Evga 1 year to add “VCCIO AUX” to their bios menus on the Z490 Dark Kingpin motherboard. How can that board be labeled Kingpin when you cannot run higher than 3400 Gear (1) because we cannot manually increase VCCIO aux voltage? Lol. And guess what else, the debug LED’s failed on the Z490 Dark KP. I bought a Z590 Dark, and guess what? My debug LED’s are broken on that one too. But, at least it had “VCCIO AUX” in the bios.

I’m open to whatever motherboard brand at this point. But I got tired of EVGA and their games. By the time something is fixed it’s not relevant anymore or a new model is out. I’d take an Asus any day right now.

I’m running a MSI Unify-X and it works pretty good for the moment. I wish I had an Apex though. Your gonna run in to problems with any of these boards, all you can do is weight the benefits and pick what works best.


----------



## VULC

That record is set on 1 core 9Ghz with E Cores disabled. It was a 13900K but this time they had to go -250 degrees.


----------



## Nizzen

VULC said:


> That record is set on 1 core 9Ghz with E Cores disabled. It was a 13900K but this time they had to go -250 degrees.


I understand you aren't impressed 🤣


----------



## bhav

warbucks said:


> You actually believe they don't test their boards before shipping. That's funny. Again, you're making assumptions with no data.


The data is having owned two faulty Asus boards out of 3, and seeing that similar issues are increasingly common on their boards than other brands based on user feedback.


----------



## Telstar

VULC said:


> MSI boards looking better and better everyday. That last update stabilised memory and dropped sa voltage requirements nothing like that coming from ASUS only memory SP gimmicks.


Which model? I'm eyeing the Edge, but price in my region is so inflated


----------



## bhav

Telstar said:


> Which model? I'm eyeing the Edge, but price in my region is so inflated


For DDR4 even the Pro-A is fine and already overspecified, Tomahawk just extra features and stronger vrm. Edge is just white tax.


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> Asus do zero quality control on their boards and just ship them out straight from the assembly line without even switching them on.
> 
> So ones even with minor problems that would not have been sold if tested first at least not without an easy repair, you can end up getting one of those, or one with more major problems.


And the others do it?
I heard of several MSi boards DOA.
It's all a gamble and on top of that, they can fail during warranty or shortly after that.


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> For DDR4 even the Pro-A is fine and already overspecified, Tomahawk just extra features and stronger vrm. Edge is just white tax.


This is correct, but I need white.
I wanted to know which board had VULC btw.


----------



## Nizzen

bhav said:


> The data is having owned two faulty Asus boards out of 3, and seeing that similar issues are increasingly common on their boards than other brands based on user feedback.


I'm seeing new Apex z790 doing 8000mhz ddr5 every day. I see no MSI MB's doing it. Msi must be faulty in your world? 
We understand you aren't a fanboy of Asus, and that's OK 

Here in this thread, everyone is welcome 🧡 😘


----------



## bhav

Nizzen said:


> I'm seeing new Apex z790 doing 8000mhz ddr5 every day. I see no MSI MB's doing it. Msi must be faulty in your world?
> We understand you aren't a fanboy of Asus, and that's OK
> 
> Here in this thread, everyone is welcome 🧡 😘


Oh no I am a fanboy of Asus, but they keep scorning me too much.

I've not had an MSI board in ages, only got it because of how recommended they are for DDR4.

If I'd have gone DDR5, I would have wanted the Apex too, its price being a big reason why I still don't want to go DDR5.

Personally I just recommend sticking to M die which can hit the low 7000s on most boards, never any point getting the most expensive ram.


----------



## VULC

Telstar said:


> This is correct, but I need white.
> I wanted to know which board had VULC btw.


Strix z690a D4


----------



## dumassnoob

i just completed my build. is 95 cpu biscuit good? that is what the bios says.


----------



## Ichirou

Nizzen said:


> I'm seeing new Apex z790 doing 8000mhz ddr5 every day. I see no MSI MB's doing it. Msi must be faulty in your world?
> We understand you aren't a fanboy of Asus, and that's OK
> 
> Here in this thread, everyone is welcome 🧡 😘


The MSI Z790i Edge ITX can do it.
Their Godlike and Ace might be a hit or miss though. Not sure why four DIMM design.

@bhav Been running y-cruncher a few times at 1.52V so far, and seems to be stable. Still ~1.75V VDIMM.
VCCSA needed to be raised to 1.31V from 1.28V though. Was likely never fully stable but just got lucky with y-cruncher previously.

Gonna keep tightening voltages. Testing 1.51V VDDQ since 1.50V failed and corrupted the BIOS.
Nevermind, 1.51V VDDQ failed instantly. 1.52V is the minimum. Reflashing BIOS and testing lower VDIMM.


----------



## bhav

Also not to mention the insanity that is having to pay more for a 2 dimm ATX board than a 4 slot one, which is why I used ITX boards for quite a while on previous gens.


----------



## l.kristensen.1981

RichKnecht said:


> Perhaps go back to the OEM bracket and do the "washer mod" to lessen the force the OEM bracket puts on the chip?


So I did test the ILM and iti was much worse! Even with -.0095v offset the cores can reach 100c .. So even more bad contact! What I have set in motion is im going all in. I hate stuff like this especially when I used so much money on a water block that "should" be among the best. So I ordered the correct screws in length for the contact frame. I also ordered a flat cold plate for the water block. I ordered a delid kit were I am gonna use OEM IHS and liquid metal and no silicone or glue because the contact frame is a perfect lock for the IHS. SO after all this I hope for extreme results which I firmly believe is possible.. I did note so key details from another user I dident do in the past and that is to sand the bottom edge of the IHS so that it can spin on the DIE and not sit on the substrate and not making contact to die. This is the key detail I never did he has AMAZING temps with stock IHS and he dident even lap the top which I am gonna do. It will take up to a few weeks before I have all parts but I will post results.


----------



## VULC

Can someone tell me why I don't crash in R23 or Realbench and I pass TM5 1_usmus 6 cycles and bios PassMark memory test but I cant get TimeSpy graphics test 2 to run which is a 1440p benchmark. What voltage do I need to adjust? I mean it's not even pushing the CPU it's mostly GPU bound. I'm thinking it might be a certain memory timing.









I'm on:

1.315v LLC 6
SA 1.35v
DIMM 1.55v
VDDQ 1.39v


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Can someone tell me why I don't crash in R23 or Realbench and I pass TM5 1_usmus 6 cycles and bios PassMark memory test but I cant get TimeSpy graphics test 2 to run which is a 1440p benchmark. What voltage do I need to adjust? I mean it's not even pushing the CPU it's mostly GPU bound I'm on:
> 
> 1.315v LLC 6
> SA 1.35v
> DIMM 1.55v
> VDDQ 1.39v


It's your GPU.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> It's your GPU.


That's the thing I reset it to stock on Afterburner and it still doesn't pass. I'm playing other games no issues.


----------



## ju-rek

VULC said:


> Can someone tell me why I don't crash in R23 or Realbench and I pass TM5 1_usmus 6 cycles and bios PassMark memory test but I cant get TimeSpy graphics test 2 to run which is a 1440p benchmark. What voltage do I need to adjust? I mean it's not even pushing the CPU it's mostly GPU bound. I'm thinking it might be a certain memory timing.
> View attachment 2589860
> 
> 
> I'm on:
> 
> 1.315v LLC 6
> SA 1.35v
> DIMM 1.55v
> VDDQ 1.39v


Do you have any OC/UV on the graphics card?


----------



## Brads3cents

l.kristensen.1981 said:


> So I did test the ILM and iti was much worse! Even with -.0095v offset the cores can reach 100c .. So even more bad contact! What I have set in motion is im going all in. I hate stuff like this especially when I used so much money on a water block that "should" be among the best. So I ordered the correct screws in length for the contact frame. I also ordered a flat cold plate for the water block. I ordered a delid kit were I am gonna use OEM IHS and liquid metal and no silicone or glue because the contact frame is a perfect lock for the IHS. SO after all this I hope for extreme results which I firmly believe is possible.. I did note so key details from another user I dident do in the past and that is to sand the bottom edge of the IHS so that it can spin on the DIE and not sit on the substrate and not making contact to die. This is the key detail I never did he has AMAZING temps with stock IHS and he dident even lap the top which I am gonna do. It will take up to a few weeks before I have all parts but I will post results.


im concerned your making a mistake and this mimics tps who also didnt find any result from using the frame

i believe you should be securing a relid instead of floating it as you do. The thing about the contact frame is it bends the slicon slightly as designed. If your floating your ihs, and have completely flat contact pressure applied from your cpu cooler, then you have a situation where the cpu die itself is being rounded while the ihs is completely flat.

this may lead to poor contact between the die and ihs.. and this effect will be pronounced with liquid metal
if you glue down the ihs it can flex with the die and maintain contact

but if you insist to do it this way do not tighten down the contact frame only tighten by hand


----------



## bhav

With the temps my 3080 Ti FE, I basically won't ever be overclocking, not that it matters because GPUs auto boost now.

Demm toasty vram temps at 95c, I can run +500 on the vram but don't want to melt it.


----------



## bhav

Brads3cents said:


> im concerned your making a mistake and this mimics tps who also didnt find any result from using the frame
> 
> i believe you should be securing a relid instead of floating it as you do. The thing about the contact frame is it bends the slicon slightly as designed. If your floating your ihs, and have completely flat contact pressure applied from your cpu cooler, then you have a situation where the cpu die itself is being rounded while the ihs is completely flat.
> 
> this may lead to poor contact wih the die and ihs.. and this effect will be pronouced with liquid metal


Another thing with the contact frame is that it doesn't put anywhere near the same pressure on the CPU as the stock ILM does, so in the case of a delid it may no longer be putting enough pressure on the IHS to make good contact with the die.

Its looking like contact frame & delid has no point.


----------



## VULC

Going to uninstall this TimeSpy trash and try and reinstall.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

VULC said:


> Going to uninstall this TimeSpy trash and try and reinstall.


Is it a DX11 test? 
This test generates severe transient load on the CPU. 
Very good to test the stability of OCTVB. 
Normally, increasing the voltage for the high CPU frequencies will solve the error.


----------



## yzonker

VULC said:


> Going to uninstall this TimeSpy trash and try and reinstall.


Always could reset everything to default and see if it runs.


----------



## warbucks

bhav said:


> The data is having owned two faulty Asus boards out of 3, and seeing that similar issues are increasingly common on their boards than other brands based on user feedback.


Your data sample if you can even call it that is tiny and not relevant. For every post you see about someone having an issue with a product, there's multiple people who own the same product without any issues. Your bias is clear. Making statements like you do as if they are fact when based on practically no data isn't helpful.


----------



## bhav

warbucks said:


> Your data sample if you can even call it that is tiny and not relevant. For every post you see about someone having an issue with a product, there's multiple people who own the same product without any issues. Your bias is clear. Making statements like you do as if they are fact when based on practically no data isn't helpful.


Ok. Firstly I only noticed it following all the complaints on the Z690 boards.

Secondly I never said you can't get a good Asus board, I stated it looks like a bigger gamble.

Even when people get a high end Asus board that works, it still doesn't OC A die much past 7200 with other variables already considered. You do not see such a big variance as this with other brands.


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav After several BIOS reflashes and powered down RAM flushes, I can finally pass y-cruncher again. The corruption is super real, lol.
Before I fiddle around with the voltages any further, I'm gonna pass y-cruncher again and then rerun TM5.


----------



## VULC

RobertoSampaio said:


> Is it a DX11 test?
> This test generates severe transient load on the CPU.
> Very good to test the stability of OCTVB.
> Normally, increasing the voltage for the high CPU frequencies will solve the error.


Roberto is a genius everyone listen to this guy. I had +3 for the TVB changed it to AUTO and the crashes stopped. Increasing voltages woudnt fix it I guess +2 bins at 5.7Ghz all core is too much for my cooling.


----------



## CptSpig

Ichirou said:


> The MSI Z790i Edge ITX can do it.
> Their Godlike and Ace might be a hit or miss though. Not sure why four DIMM design.


Can they 8400 or 8533? Screen shots please?


----------



## storm-chaser

tps3443 said:


> A lot of these high end PC parts are made in Taiwan Or China. But made with care and quality.


I guarantee if they were made in the states, they would be better. Plus, no "accidental" covid contamination. 



tps3443 said:


> EVGA sells crap too. Poor bios support that takes forever to fix. When 11th gen launched, it took Evga 1 year to add “VCCIO AUX” to their bios menus on the Z490 Dark Kingpin motherboard. How can that board be labeled Kingpin when you cannot run higher than 3400 Gear (1) because we cannot manually increase VCCIO aux voltage? Lol. And guess what else, the debug LED’s failed on the Z490 Dark KP. I bought a Z590 Dark, and guess what? My debug LED’s are broken on that one too. But, at least it had “VCCIO AUX” in the bios.
> 
> I’m open to whatever motherboard brand at this point. But I got tired of EVGA and their games. By the time something is fixed it’s not relevant anymore or a new model is out. I’d take an Asus any day right now.
> 
> I’m running a MSI Unify-X and it works pretty good for the moment. I wish I had an Apex though. Your gonna run in to problems with any of these boards, all you can do is weight the benefits and pick what works best.


Had two MSI boards, Z390 ACE and Z390 Tomahawk. The Tomahawk ran perfect for one year and then one day just failed to post or even power up. The Z390 ACE was not much better, within one year the digital post code display fell apart, primary PCIe slot failed, forcing me to move my GPU to a lower slot, with much less room for fans to draw air for GPU. Even sent it back to MSI since it was still under warranty, noting specifically that I was RMAing it for bad primary GPU slot. What do they do? Repair the inconsequential boot code display and did nothing to fix the bad PCIe slot. While I like most MSI products, this experience unsettled me.


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav It seems that I need more VCCSA to pass y-cruncher now after this reduction in VDDQ.
Didn't realize that they had this sort of a relationship, but I guess they did. VCCSA is at like 1-1.33V now, compared to ~1.29V before.
I don't really mind per se; just find it strange 'tis all.


CptSpig said:


> Can they 8400 or 8533? Screen shots please?


Wouldn't know. But it can do 8,000 MHz, as rated.


----------



## bhav

CptSpig said:


> Can they 8400 or 8533? Screen shots please?


If I had gone DDR5 that MSI ITX would have been my board of choice, but with Hynix M die.

I never buy the expensive ram ICs, always the next one down.


----------



## tps3443

@Brads3cents

This is how I apply Liquid Metal if I am permanently re-sealing a CPU lid. I sold my golden 11900K, and it went to a new owner just a few days ago. I re-sealed the stock IHS, but not before doing this first. I have people still running my CPU’s even years after re-sealed. They will maintain the absolute best temps far beyond the effectiveness of the CPU.


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> @Brads3cents
> 
> This is how I apply Liquid Metal if I am permanently re-sealing a CPU lid. I sold my golden 11900K, and it went to a new owner just a few days ago. I re-sealed the stock IHS, but not before doing this first. I have people still running my CPU’s even years after re-sealed. They will maintain the absolute best temps far beyond the effectiveness of the CPU.


I delidded my 7980xe for about 6 years ago and using liquid metal. The performance is just like day 1. Same as my 10900k. Cooling performance is great, even after countless hours in use.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> If I had gone DDR5 that MSI ITX would have been my board of choice, but with Hynix M die.
> 
> I never buy the expensive ram ICs, always the next one down.


Hynix M-die's probably going to be (if it hasn't already) EOL, since there's no reason to produce it over A-die.
I wouldn't be surprised if the current stock are just remaining leftovers from the initial M-die batches.

But who knows. Considering that AMD users benefit more from M-die, maybe they'll keep issuing small batches to cater to them.


----------



## CptSpig

Ichirou said:


> @bhav It seems that I need more VCCSA to pass y-cruncher now after this reduction in VDDQ.
> Didn't realize that they had this sort of a relationship, but I guess they did. VCCSA is at like 1-1.33V now, compared to ~1.29V before.
> I don't really mind per se; just find it strange 'tis all.
> 
> Wouldn't know. But it can do 8,000 MHz, as rated.


Your talking XMP.net!


----------



## bhav

CptSpig said:


> Your talking XMP.net!


If it says 8000 official support, it will likely go higher, and also I don't think XMP reaches 8000.

Would be great if anyone could at least try the MSI ITX board before dismissing it, it has the 2 slot advantage at a much lower price point.


----------



## CptSpig

bhav said:


> If it says 8000 official support, it will likely go higher, and also I don't think XMP reaches 8000.
> 
> Would be great if anyone could at least try the MSI ITX board before dismissing it, it has the 2 slot advantage at a much lower price point.





bhav said:


> If it says 8000 official support, it will likely go higher, and also I don't think XMP reaches 8000.
> 
> Would be great if anyone could at least try the MSI ITX board before dismissing it, it has the 2 slot advantage at a much lower price point.


G.Skill has an 8000mt kit.


----------



## RichKnecht

I spent the entire day cleaning every piece of equipment in my loop. Verdict, CPU block crappy contact. I’ll post a pic or 2 later. The Optimus V2 block rocks on the IHS like a rocking chair on a hardwood floor. Same with the Foundation. Both with the internal o-rings removed. When the o-rings were installed, I couldn’t believe how much more they bowed the cold plate. Put the Evo Supremacy on with the EK 1700 backplate and installed the 11xx jet plate and insert. No rocking at all. Whether it’s better or not, we’ll see. I am leak testing it now. I usually let the pumps run for a few hours to get any air out. My wife seems pretty happy with the PC on the kitchen island. 😜I also installed the High Flow Next that has been sitting on my desk for the past two weeks. So I can now see what my flow is. Looking forward to seeing if there is any improvement. If not, its time to do some CPU and block lapping.


----------



## bhav

CptSpig said:


> G.Skill has an 8000mt kit.


Nice, though still I wouldn't classify that as an 'XMP.net' kit, such people would say 8000 DDR5 is <1% of ram.


----------



## CptSpig

bhav said:


> Nice, though still I wouldn't classify that as an 'XMP.net' kit, such people would say 8000 DDR5 is <1% of ram.


It was a joke (XMP.net).  I am using green OEM sticks 5600 at 8000mt daily. Very happy!


----------



## tps3443

I have been running this today for work, totally overkill but still fun. It is butter smooth in Battlefield and temps are not bad. It is a straight 6 like they did in the old days.


----------



## bhav

CptSpig said:


> It was a joke (XMP.net).  I am using green OEM sticks 5600 at 8000mt daily. Very happy!


Well yea, XMP.net is nicer shorter way to put 'we just hit XMP like all the people at home.net' - OC3d.net.

Someone here should get the MSI board and test it with the same kit compared to an Apex board and see.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Too bad I don't know how to overclock memories... LOL


----------



## jmb99

New to posting but I've been following this forum for 10+ years. Never had much of a reason to post till now 

I have a 13900K that I'm very happy with - I'm able to hold 5.7GHz all core at -0.180mV offset (~1.235V), which I think is pretty good based on what I've seen in this thread so far. However, I've been struggling with temps since mid last week. I initially had a 13900KF that I had to RMA due to being unstable from the factory (before even trying any overclocks/undervolts) that was pretty happy to run at 250+W and ~65°C (until it BSODs) with my current setup. When I replaced it with the new 13900K, it also ran great for a day or two until it suddenly started running 10-20°C warmer under pretty much all conditions.

Setup is a custom loop with a brand new Heatkiller IV Pro waterblock, a 360mm and a 120mm EKWB 44mm Quantum Surface, and a D5 pump/res combo. Idle temps are 30~33°C for each core, but 38~40°C package. Under load (5.7GHz all core ~1.23V ~270W) temps shoot to 90-95°C instantly (Tjmax set to 95°C), with pump & fans locked at 100%. Ambient is about 21°C. Don't have a water temp or flow meter, but from what I can tell (by feeling and looking), water temp is more or less ambient with no load, and flow is "fast enough." Currently running straight distilled water for testing purposes (I was using Thermaltake concentrate before, but the dye was coming out of solution and leaving deposits all over my water blocks after only a few weeks of use - I'll just be using diluted ethylene glycol from now on, but with the amount of draining/etc I've been doing I'm not bothering with that until I keep the same water for more than a day).

I initially had a Thermalright contact frame when the problem started occurring, so I tried reseating it, trying different tensions as suggested a few pages ago in this thread. When I removed it, I noticed that the adhesive on the foam pads (that contact the motherboard) had started to ooze a bit out. Not sure if that was having any effect, but worth noting (presumably due to getting hot from the CPU running at 95°C if I had to guess). I switched back to the stock ILM which actually got me better package temps than the frame with the same watt dissipation, by about 3°C under load. As for thermal paste, I was initially using Noctua NT-H2, but I also tried NT-H1, EKWB's Ectotherm, and Thermalright TF7, all of which made no difference.

Anyone have any suggestions on what to do here? I'm fairly confident I should have better temps than this given the setup. Beyond replacing the waterblock/coldplate or maybe trying the Thermal Grizzly contact frame I'm out of ideas.

This is XTU one update tick after clicking "Start" on R23 multicore. Package was ~38°C before starting, 92°C instantly and throttled at 95°C in less than a second. Max TDP was the 270W seen in the first tick which got throttled down to ~260W in about a second, and down to ~240W within 15 seconds. That doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## bhav

RobertoSampaio said:


> Too bad I don't know how to overclock memories... LOL
> 
> View attachment 2589933


Please don't tell me you have an Apex and don't even know how to use it :x


----------



## Ichirou

jmb99 said:


> New to posting but I've been following this forum for 10+ years. Never had much of a reason to post till now
> 
> I have a 13900K that I'm very happy with - I'm able to hold 5.7GHz all core at -0.180mV offset (~1.235V), which I think is pretty good based on what I've seen in this thread so far. However, I've been struggling with temps since mid last week. I initially had a 13900KF that I had to RMA due to being unstable from the factory (before even trying any overclocks/undervolts) that was pretty happy to run at 250+W and ~65°C (until it BSODs) with my current setup. When I replaced it with the new 13900K, it also ran great for a day or two until it suddenly started running 10-20°C warmer under pretty much all conditions.
> 
> Setup is a custom loop with a brand new Heatkiller IV Pro waterblock, a 360mm and a 120mm EKWB 44mm Quantum Surface, and a D5 pump/res combo. Idle temps are 30~33°C for each core, but 38~40°C package. Under load (5.7GHz all core ~1.23V ~270W) temps shoot to 90-95°C instantly (Tjmax set to 95°C), with pump & fans locked at 100%. Ambient is about 21°C. Don't have a water temp or flow meter, but from what I can tell (by feeling and looking), water temp is more or less ambient with no load, and flow is "fast enough." Currently running straight distilled water for testing purposes (I was using Thermaltake concentrate before, but the dye was coming out of solution and leaving deposits all over my water blocks after only a few weeks of use - I'll just be using diluted ethylene glycol from now on, but with the amount of draining/etc I've been doing I'm not bothering with that until I keep the same water for more than a day).
> 
> I initially had a Thermalright contact frame when the problem started occurring, so I tried reseating it, trying different tensions as suggested a few pages ago in this thread. When I removed it, I noticed that the adhesive on the foam pads (that contact the motherboard) had started to ooze a bit out. Not sure if that was having any effect, but worth noting (presumably due to getting hot from the CPU running at 95°C if I had to guess). I switched back to the stock ILM which actually got me better package temps than the frame with the same watt dissipation, by about 3°C under load. As for thermal paste, I was initially using Noctua NT-H2, but I also tried NT-H1, EKWB's Ectotherm, and Thermalright TF7, all of which made no difference.
> 
> Anyone have any suggestions on what to do here? I'm fairly confident I should have better temps than this given the setup. Beyond replacing the waterblock/coldplate or maybe trying the Thermal Grizzly contact frame I'm out of ideas.
> 
> This is XTU one update tick after clicking "Start" on R23 multicore. Package was ~38°C before starting, 92°C instantly and throttled at 95°C in less than a second. Max TDP was the 270W seen in the first tick which got throttled down to ~260W in about a second, and down to ~240W within 15 seconds. That doesn't seem right to me.
> View attachment 2589937


Let's just say that you shouldn't be hitting 90C with 270W. Gotta figure out where the contact issue is with your waterblock.
The only other possibility I can think of is a sh*tty solder job by Intel, but there's not much you can do about that besides an RMA or delid.


----------



## jmb99

Ichirou said:


> Let's just say that you shouldn't be hitting 90C with 270W. Gotta figure out where the contact issue is with your waterblock.
> The only other possibility I can think of is a sh*tty solder job by Intel, but there's not much you can do about that besides an RMA or delid.


That's what I figured, it seemed absurdly hot. I hope it won't need a delid, but with what I'm getting out of this chip already (even with terrible cooling) it might be the way to go regardless. Really don't want to return it and risk getting a dud.

I realized yesterday that Watercool makes an LGA1700 backplate for the Heatkiller, which they claim to be "optional." I've already ordered it, but I'm wondering if maybe the screw + washer + washer + standoff that they send by default (in place of the backplate) is causing some kind of weird pressure problem? Anyone else on here running a Heatkiller IV without the LGA1700 backplate?


----------



## bhav

A few posts with custom loops performing badly, I'm quite sure you have the wrong standoffs and / or backplate.


----------



## tps3443

@RichKnecht

I would highly recommend lapping your IHS!! Especially if you’re lapping your cold plate/waterblock flat to flat is the way to go if your really trying to improve temps. No need to delid your cpu. But lapping the IHS is very beneficial I dropped 5C alone on a lot of my cores. Even with my bowed cold plate.

I’m running 6Ghz P-Cores, 4.7Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz ring. And during BF2042 my hottest cores is probably 57C.

If you’re keeping this cpu for some years, why not lap it? Mine came out great. My chip is going under a supercool block via direct die this weekend. But, if I wouldn’t have found this supercool DD block I’d be happy with the lapping and just run that.

PS: Your Optimus cold plate is not flat intentionally that must be the direct die variant. They do sell a flat plate though. Wrong tool for the job type of situation is all.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

bhav said:


> Please don't tell me you have an Apex and don't even know how to use it :x


I have EXTREME with a CPU with MC_SP 93 and 2 ADATA 16GB XMP 6000MHz.


----------



## Viper69

Just got this CPU from Amazon, Batch X246J656. Seems way too good to be true.


----------



## VULC

Viper69 said:


> Just got this CPU from Amazon, Batch X246J656. Seems way too good to be true.
> 
> View attachment 2589961


If you're on latest bios with update ME it's true, if not then it's not true.


----------



## Ichirou

Viper69 said:


> Just got this CPU from Amazon, Batch X246J656. Seems way too good to be true.
> 
> View attachment 2589961


Misreading. Gotta update ME and BIOS.


----------



## Viper69

Running the latest of both, BIOS 2204 and ME 16.1.25.2020, so hopefully it is.


----------



## Ichirou

Viper69 said:


> Running the latest of both, BIOS 2204 and ME 16.1.25.2020, so hopefully it is.


Did you reseat CPU and reset CMOS?


----------



## tps3443

Viper69 said:


> Running the latest of both, BIOS 2204 and ME 16.1.25.2020, so hopefully it is.



That is an insane sample if it is real. All you can do is test. I mean, set 6.0-6.2Ghz auto voltage all-cores. Should be R23 good and done.

Or try 5.8Ghz at 1.200V I imagine such a sample can easily do that.


----------



## VULC

Do all core 6.1Ghz if it does then it's true.


----------



## VULC

Viper69 said:


> Running the latest of both, BIOS 2204 and ME 16.1.25.2020, so hopefully it is.


You're on Strix z690a? First flash 2004 or older bios then flash 2204. Though I think it's legit because z690a usually under reads SP not over.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> Do all core 6.1Ghz if it does then it's true.



Honestly, I am confident I could squeeze out a 6.1Ghz all-core with my SP121 P-Core cpu. I would think more like all-core 6.3 for a SP139 P-Core CPU lol.

Maybe the 13900KS models will be much better than we are expecting.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Honestly, I am confident I could squeeze out a 6.1Ghz all-core with my SP121 P-Core cpu. I would think more like all-core 6.3 for a SP139 P-Core CPU lol.
> 
> Maybe the 13900KS models will be much better than we are expecting.


Unlikely. Intel has no incentive to improve their manufacturing any further when they're focused on Meteor Lake right now.
There's a reason why their KS is only rated for 54/60. That's easily achievable with any P-SP 115+. 110+ even, with slightly more voltage.
It's much more cost effective to simply bin their current chips better. They already have easy serial number VID binning.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> Honestly, I am confident I could squeeze out a 6.1Ghz all-core with my SP121 P-Core cpu. I would think more like all-core 6.3 for a SP139 P-Core CPU lol.
> 
> Maybe the 13900KS models will be much better than we are expecting.


Maybe Intel are under promising then will over deliver? Who knows if it's true 6.0ghz is being really conservative with their marketing.


----------



## tps3443

@Ichirou that SP122 makes SP110's look bad lol. It looks legit. What do you think? I think I am totally jealous.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou that SP122 makes SP110's look bad lol. It looks legit. What do you think?


It isn't. There are tons of binners already. Nobody's really passed the P-SP 125 mark.
He needs to reseat the chip and reset CMOS. It's still reporting past readings.
The VIDs aren't flat, which is a tell-tale sign. They should be flat with the 13th Gen.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

bhav said:


> Well yea, XMP.net is nicer shorter way to put 'we just hit XMP like all the people at home.net' - OC3d.net.
> 
> Someone here should get the MSI board and test it with the same kit compared to an Apex board and see.


Stop tempting ichirou…although that could make him go ddr5 lol


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> It isn't. There are tons of binners already. Nobody's really passed the P-SP 125 mark.
> He needs to reseat the chip and reset CMOS. It's still reporting past readings.
> The VIDs aren't flat, which is a tell-tale sign. They should be flat with the 13th Gen.


I have 4 X 1.364 and 4 X 1.379 and mines legit. It's a bit of a weird one not an SP 121 or a SP 118.


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Stop tempting ichirou…although that could make him go ddr5 lol


Not really. I've got a good chip now that runs with low VCCSA and VDDQ.


----------



## Carillo

.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> I have 4 X 1.364 and 4 X 1.379 and mines legit. It's a bit of a weird one not an SP 121 or a SP 118.


That's just a minor difference. The other guy's is like 0.10V differences.


----------



## VULC

Carillo said:


> MY SP121 p-core is for sale. DM me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2589968
> View attachment 2589969


How much?


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> @RichKnecht
> 
> I would highly recommend lapping your IHS!! Especially if you’re lapping your cold plate/waterblock flat to flat is the way to go if your really trying to improve temps. No need to delid your cpu. But lapping the IHS is very beneficial I dropped 5C alone on a lot of my cores. Even with my bowed cold plate.
> 
> I’m running 6Ghz P-Cores, 4.7Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz ring. And during BF2042 my hottest cores is probably 57C.
> 
> If you’re keeping this cpu for some years, why not lap it? Mine came out great. My chip is going under a supercool block via direct die this weekend. But, if I wouldn’t have found this supercool DD block I’d be happy with the lapping and just run that.
> 
> PS: Your Optimus cold plate is not flat intentionally that must be the direct die variant. They do sell a flat plate though. Wrong tool for the job type of situation is all.
> 
> View attachment 2589948


No doubt. Let me see what this Evo does first. Both my V2 and Foundation plates are basically domed for sure. I know when I bought the V2 I bought the “ regular” one. Maybe I’ll buy the flat plate from Optimus. However if the Evo works, I may just leave it be. The V2 is 1-2C better at best according to every comparison test I’ve seen. I’ll find out tomorrow.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> I have 4 X 1.364 and 4 X 1.379 and mines legit. It's a bit of a weird one not an SP 121 or a SP 118.


Yeah, that's a good CPU you've got. I am happy with my chip right now. I went through a lot of chips and ended up just buying this one from someone else. Mine looks kind of like @Carillo CPU only he has better much E-Cores. You can see how much lower his E-Core VID's are.


----------



## VULC

@Ichirou his running 69 degrees in bios must be so over binning that he gave up putting the cooler on anymore lol.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 Intel 'accidentally' confirms Intel Core i9-13900KS has 150W base TDP - VideoCardz.com
Look at Name and Specification. The KS chips are just going to be binned and rebranded K's.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 Intel 'accidentally' confirms Intel Core i9-13900KS has 150W base TDP - VideoCardz.com
> Look at Name and Specification. The KS chips are just going to be binned and rebranded K's.


How do you mean? It says KS on CPUz?


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> How do you mean? It says KS on CPUz?


Look at Name.


----------



## VULC

Intel probably be selling SP 110 as KS


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Intel probably be selling SP 110 as KS


That's what I estimated. P-SP 115+ is a guarantee, although I wouldn't fault them for even using P-SP 110+ with higher voltage.


----------



## Viper69

This SP139 CPU is a dud, and I'm positive it's just being misreported at this point. It requires 320W at 5.7Ghz to keep Cinebench from popping WHEA errors and 5.8Ghz appears to be a complete no go, at least it runs cool. Back to Amazon it goes once I can acquire a 13900KS or a highly binned 13900K.


----------



## Ichirou

Viper69 said:


> This SP139 CPU is a dud, and I'm positive it's just being misreported at this point. It requires 320W at 5.7Ghz to keep Cinebench from popping WHEA errors and 5.8Ghz appears to be a complete no go, at least it runs cool. Back to Amazon it goes once I can acquire a 13900KS or a highly binned 13900K.


Told you. Reseat CPU + reset CMOS. Might fix the reading for you.


----------



## tps3443

Viper69 said:


> This SP139 CPU is a dud, and I'm positive it's just being misreported at this point. It requires 320W at 5.7Ghz to keep Cinebench from popping WHEA errors and 5.8Ghz appears to be a complete no go, at least it runs cool. Back to Amazon it goes once I can acquire a 13900KS or a highly binned 13900K.


That’s very unfortunate it was not the real deal. How many have you tested? I would try Bestbuy if you are binning chip. They have a solid return policy as well.


----------



## Viper69

tps3443 said:


> That’s very unfortunate it was not the real deal. How many have you tested? I would try Bestbuy if you are binning chip. They have a solid return policy as well.


This was actually my first 13900K. I just sold my 12900KS/Unify-X rig so wanted something to muck around with over the Holidays in my SP binning motherboard. I was extremely skeptical when I first saw the rating as I've never been very lucky with the silicon lottery. What do you usually tell BB for the reason of the return?


----------



## tps3443

My 13900K allows me to run some very low VDDQ, and low VDD2 voltages, and low SA voltages. It's really amazing. 

I am running DDR5 7400C34 with 1.300V VDDQ, and 1.300V VDD2, and 1.050V SA. So far stability is great with HCI memtest. And I can most likely go even lower. The only thing I can assume is my IMC is better than other 13900K's. All of my other chips needed 1.400V/1.400 VDDQ/VDD2 for just 7200XMP which was the auto voltage sent. My memory is not the best, it's really at the limits with 7600+ acquiring true stability anyways. I really wish I had some Hynix A-Die green sticks. I feel like I'd be better off. These manufactures that are selling all of this "XMP A-Die" are binning it pretty tightly.


----------



## tps3443

Viper69 said:


> This was actually my first 13900K. I just sold my 12900KS/Unify-X rig so wanted something to muck around with over the Holidays in my SP binning motherboard. I was extremely skeptical when I first saw the rating as I've never been very lucky with the silicon lottery. What do you usually tell BB for the reason of the return?



You can definitely exchange it. Just make sure you check your current chip properly OC wise.

Some chips with lower SP rating can OC really well at specific frequencies. Like you may see a SP115 that can run 5.7Ghz like a monster, or even 5.8Ghz. But it cannot boost single cores higher than 6.1. Or maybe it cannot do 5.8, or 5.9 all-cores (or maybe it can). I think SP113+ P-Cores is SOLID and worth keeping if you come across that! SP113+ P-cores would be the minimum I would keep. 

Tell Bestbuy whatever lol.


----------



## HemuV2

SoldierRBT said:


> They are using same chip 8.8GHz just colder











It's an actual KS but they kept calling it K😆


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> View attachment 2589985
> 
> It's an actual KS but they kept calling it K😆


A KS from week 30? Intel must of started early.


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> That's what I estimated. P-SP 115+ is a guarantee, although I wouldn't fault them for even using P-SP 110+ with higher voltage.


13900K does 5.8GHz all core and if you don't have cooling you can do it with ht and some ecores off, so 13900Ks should do 6ghz all core as that is rated boost. And rn only sp115+ can do it so i guess that's what KS will be. Like intel always allows their highest frequency to work all core if we manually force it, like 12900K could do 5.1 etc


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> 13900K does 5.8GHz all core and if you don't have cooling you can do it with ht and some ecores off, so 13900Ks should do 6ghz all core as that is rated boost. And rn only sp115+ can do it so i guess that's what KS will be. Like intel always allows their highest frequency to work all core if we manually force it, like 12900K could do 5.1 etc


Are you sure? Intel only guarantee 2 core boost. I don't see 6ghz all core. My SP 119 can't do 6ghz all core on a 420mm AIO.


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> 13900K does 5.8GHz all core and if you don't have cooling you can do it with ht and some ecores off, so 13900Ks should do 6ghz all core as that is rated boost. And rn only sp115+ can do it so i guess that's what KS will be. Like intel always allows their highest frequency to work all core if we manually force it, like 12900K could do 5.1 etc


There is no 60x all-core. It's only on two cores.


----------



## acoustic

De-lid/re-lid my 13900K. Went pretty poorly at first.. I heated the chip up a ton, but for some reason I still managed to ding the IHS up. It pushed the metal slightly, so I had to sand down the top a bit to get the "bump" out of it. Should have taken pictures. The chip didn't seem to fit in my original 12th gen de-lid tool either, I had to really use some force to get it to fit.. just wasn't the same as it went with my 12700K.

Temps are pretty solid though. ~8-10c drop and much more even temps across the cores. I went goofy mount on the Heatkiller IV Pro too, just so my loop runs were a bit better angled.

Unfortunately, my GPU re-mount did not go well. I'm idling at 68c in Windows.. so tomorrow will be another drain and have to take a look at what went wrong with the GPU. I might remove the silly jet-plate as well.. my flow took a huge hit adding a 480mm rad and the RAM waterblock. Went from cruising at well over 60G/H @ 74% pump speed, to 50G/H @ 100%, though the loop isn't bled yet.. but regardless, still a big hit.

Build went really well and I'm happy with the tube routing I achieved. I really like how I was able to get the High Flow Next tucked in so nicely under the top rad.

When I eventually change GPU next generation, I'll swap the 360mm rads out for 480s. I'm also going to need to figure out a second D5 to help the flow rate..


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> De-lid/re-lid my 13900K. Went pretty poorly at first.. I heated the chip up a ton, but for some reason I still managed to ding the IHS up. It pushed the metal slightly, so I had to sand down the top a bit to get the "bump" out of it. Should have taken pictures. The chip didn't seem to fit in my original 12th gen de-lid tool either, I had to really use some force to get it to fit.. just wasn't the same as it went with my 12700K.
> 
> Temps are pretty solid though. ~8-10c drop and much more even temps across the cores. I went goofy mount on the Heatkiller IV Pro too, just so my loop runs were a bit better angled.
> 
> Unfortunately, my GPU re-mount did not go well. I'm idling at 68c in Windows.. so tomorrow will be another drain and have to take a look at what went wrong with the GPU. I might remove the silly jet-plate as well.. my flow took a huge hit adding a 480mm rad and the RAM waterblock. Went from cruising at well over 60G/H @ 74% pump speed, to 50G/H @ 100%, though the loop isn't bled yet.. but regardless, still a big hit.
> 
> Build went really well and I'm happy with the tube routing I achieved. I really like how I was able to get the High Flow Next tucked in so nicely under the top rad.
> 
> When I eventually change GPU next generation, I'll swap the 360mm rads out for 480s. I'm also going to need to figure out a second D5 to help the flow rate..
> 
> View attachment 2589990


How is your GPU possibly running cool with that inlet/outlet setup like that? That's your issue for sure. All of the water is just pulling straight through the terminal and not flowing through the GPU fins inside of the block. You need to stagger the inlet and outlet, so it forces the path of water to go through the GPU. Water flows with least resistance so it's literally just flowing through the terminal only.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 The E-cores get _insanely_ voltage hungry once you enter 48x territory, lol


----------



## bhav

Intel responded regarding the stock overheating, also putting it here as well as the thread I just made for visibility:



> Please note that at the moment we can't specify any specifications regarding voltages as the datasheet has not been released yet and its ongoing revision. Most of the times manufacturers default settings will enable features that boost CPU's beyond recommended settings. Please check with the motherboard manufacturer to ensure that there are no settings that might affect the CPU performance. If such settings are enabled, please try to disable them and test. Since these are new products we expect that the default settings might need changing depending on each manufacturer.


TLDR:

'We have no data for correct 13th gen voltage, so AIBs be cray cray'


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> There is no 60x all-core. It's only on two cores.


No i meant you can do it manually with ht off. Like my 13900K peak is 5.8 and it can all core that with ht off even 5.9 but not 6.0, only really good bins are able to do 6.0 all core and that's what i believe the average KS will be


----------



## Nizzen

HemuV2 said:


> No i meant you can do it manually with ht off. Like my 13900K peak is 5.8 and it can all core that with ht off even 5.9 but not 6.0, only really good bins are able to do 6.0 all core and that's what i believe the average KS will be


I believe most new KS can do 5800 all core. 6ghz all core is hard, even with very good 13900k/kf today


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> How is your GPU possibly running cool with that inlet/outlet setup like that? That's your issue for sure. All of the water is just pulling straight through the terminal and not flowing through the GPU fins inside of the block. You need to stagger the inlet and outlet, so it forces the path of water to go through the GPU. Water flows with least resistance so it's literally just flowing through the terminal only.


Oversight in my loop design, for sure. I was under the assumption that the water would feed to the block regardless of staggering the terminals once fully pressurized. 

I'll be swapping the inlet to the far terminal and give that a shot. Not sure how I missed that, but I spent ~14hrs working on it yesterday. Probably happened from fatigue.


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> Oversight in my loop design, for sure. I was under the assumption that the water would feed to the block regardless of staggering the terminals once fully pressurized.
> 
> I'll be swapping the inlet to the far terminal and give that a shot. Not sure how I missed that, but I spent ~14hrs working on it yesterday. Probably happened from fatigue.


Did the same. My hands hurt.


----------



## HemuV2

@I


Nizzen said:


> I believe most new KS can do 5800 all core. 6ghz all core is hard, even with very good 13900k/kf today


 I'm sure you can do it.. also with ht off it shouldn't be too hard on 115+ samples since my 109 posts it just can't handle full load


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> Did the same. My hands hurt.


My hands are all split open today. My thumb especially from tightening compression fittings.. It took me a bit to realize I had gotten blood on 3 different fittings.. yikes. Had to clean them up.

My ADHD kicked in crazy yesterday lol.. 14hrs straight no food breaks, but I was definitely tired. Bit upset about the de-lid issues since I did everything the way I've always done it. I wonder if my very early Rockitcool de-lid tool is slightly different than the new revisions. The thing was maybe a hair off and I had to use force to get the chip to sit in it.

I may lap the IHS a bit more; I only went far enough to smooth out the edge I damaged, but the middle still has some nickel on it.

Still, at least she's running. Memory OC seemed fine despite remounting the chip with Thermalright frame; tested my 7000 settings with no issues for about 30min of Karhu.. the memory temps are awesome, looking forward to trying for 7200 now.


----------



## bhav

Just an observation, I'm no expert, but if you are building PCs until your fingers drip blood, you might want to consider seeking help.


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> My hands are all split open today. My thumb especially from tightening compression fittings.. It took me a bit to realize I had gotten blood on 3 different fittings.. yikes. Had to clean them up.
> 
> My ADHD kicked in crazy yesterday lol.. 14hrs straight no food breaks, but I was definitely tired. Bit upset about the de-lid issues since I did everything the way I've always done it. I wonder if my very early Rockitcool de-lid tool is slightly different than the new revisions. The thing was maybe a hair off and I had to use force to get the chip to sit in it.
> 
> I may lap the IHS a bit more; I only went far enough to smooth out the edge I damaged, but the middle still has some nickel on it.
> 
> Still, at least she's running. Memory OC seemed fine despite remounting the chip with Thermalright frame; tested my 7000 settings with no issues for about 30min of Karhu.. the memory temps are awesome, looking forward to trying for 7200 now.


I am actually a little nervous to turn it on today. No leaks, but everything is so neat and tidy. I’ll have to post a picture ( if it works ).


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Just an observation, I'm no expert, but if you are building PCs until your fingers drip blood, you might want to consider seeking help.


If you are posting in this thread trying to squeeze every bit of performance out of an already maxed out CPU, you should seek help.


----------



## warbucks

Ichirou said:


> Look at Name.


It's reading that name because CPU-Z needs to be updated.


----------



## dumassnoob

I am at 29C idle, but within seconds of doing benchmark the cpu package is reaching 90c, and shortly there after it hits 100c and thermal throttling. is it expected?


----------



## VULC

dumassnoob said:


> I am at 29C idle, but within seconds of doing benchmark the cpu package is reaching 90c, and shortly there after it hits 100c and thermal throttling. is it expected?


Yes that's normal unless you use a contact frame and delid and relid to drop 10 degrees.


----------



## Carillo

VULC said:


> How much?


sold


----------



## RichKnecht

Operation EVO is a success. Temps dropped ~10C with a nice even spread of TIM. Core temp spread is now 5C instead of 14+C. Now that I have the flow sensor installed, should it be around 230 liters per hour or more/less?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 The E-cores get _insanely_ voltage hungry once you enter 48x territory, lol


I run adaptive mode + offset if using 4.8 E-Cores. They are power hungry definitely. But if I’m using my PC as normal or for gaming its not really power hungry.

BF2042 does average 145 watts
BF2042 peaks at 201 watts

6.0P/4.8E/5.1R^


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> Oversight in my loop design, for sure. I was under the assumption that the water would feed to the block regardless of staggering the terminals once fully pressurized.
> 
> I'll be swapping the inlet to the far terminal and give that a shot. Not sure how I missed that, but I spent ~14hrs working on it yesterday. Probably happened from fatigue.


I figured that’s probably what’s happen. So it’s definitely not just me that does this. Rebuilding is time consuming.

Tearing it all down is fast as heck.. But once we have the pile of dirty parts to rebuild with, we’re like “*** 😳 I’ll be going to bed at 4AM tonight”


----------



## tps3443

Carillo said:


> sold


The last person that mentioned a SP110+ CPU dealt with the same thing, you better message ASAP and ask questions later. I knew you’d sell that in all 35 seconds after you originally posted.

Did you find an even better chip?


----------



## acoustic

bhav said:


> Just an observation, I'm no expert, but if you are building PCs until your fingers drip blood, you might want to consider seeking help.


You just don't love it enough 😂 sound like my fiance lol. It's honestly mostly because I like to make sure my compression fittings are nice and tight.. but that's also the price I pay for never having a system leak, ever. Always dry first shot.

Was able to fix the terminal without having to re-run the line. Just drained a bit and moved it over; this fixed my GPU temps, yay.

Unfortunately, my flow is atrocious. Ideally want 60G/H, but I'm at 41-42G/H with the pump maxed. Will need to figure out a second pump. 3 blocks, and I assume the RAM block adds a lot of restriction due to the small size, plus 3x Heatkiller rads (2x 360-L/1x480-S).

She's fighting for her life lol.

With the size of this case, maybe I'll do dual-loop.. I dunno. Looks awesome though!


----------



## RichKnecht

60 gallons/ hour? Both my D5 pumps are at 70% and my flow is 231 l/hr. I thought that was the target flow rate. Never mind...my brain is fried.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> You just don't love it enough 😂 sound like my fiance lol. It's honestly mostly because I like to make sure my compression fittings are nice and tight.. but that's also the price I pay for never having a system leak, ever. Always dry first shot.
> 
> Was able to fix the terminal without having to re-run the line. Just drained a bit and moved it over; this fixed my GPU temps, yay.
> 
> Unfortunately, my flow is atrocious. Ideally want 60G/H, but I'm at 41-42G/H with the pump maxed. Will need to figure out a second pump. 3 blocks, and I assume the RAM block adds a lot of restriction due to the small size, plus 3x Heatkiller rads (2x 360-L/1x480-S).
> 
> She's fighting for her life lol


Your fingers only fall off when using that black commercial EKWB tubing lol. That stuff is hell when tightening on compression fittings.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> 60 gallons/ hour? Both my D5 pumps are at 70% and my flow is 231 l/hr. I thought that was the target flow rate.


Yep. 231 L/H = 61 G/H, so you're good.

I'm down to 39 G/H, which is around 146 L/H. As it's bleeding, it's actually getting slower. Yikes. Definitely going to need to order this second pump ASAP, because this will negatively impact my temps considerably.

When I was only running 2x 360-L and CPU/GPU blocks, I was crushing it at 230L/H - 60 G/H with the pump tuned down to the low-mid 70s. There's just way more restriction in the loop now, and I pin that on the RAM block more than anything, I think. 3x rads and 3x blocks is a lot to ask of a single D5.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Your fingers only fall off when using that black commercial EKWB tubing lol. That stuff is hell when tightening on compression fittings.


Try using Primo Chill onyx black tubing. It's a little thicker that ZMT and you have to curse quite a bit to get each fitting to tighten. I thought it was just me.


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> Your fingers only fall off when using that black commercial EKWB tubing lol. That stuff is hell when tightening on compression fittings.


EK? Yuk!

Watercool EPDM w/ Bitspower compression fittings


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 The E-cores get _insanely_ voltage hungry once you enter 48x territory, lol


It is toasty for sure. Super cool DD should fix that though. My current chip can run 6.0P/4.8E for gaming, daily work, etc. Which would make this the first 13900K (That I have owned) even capable of doing that. I’ll stay away from Cinebench for the time being.

Also, I found that using an adaptive+offset is the most stable for 4.8 E-Cores. Just find how much offset you need with crashing etc.


----------



## Brads3cents

so the MC SP will change with how well your mounting solution is.
if you have something like a SP 120 chip but your MC score is under 80, i highly doubt this is associated with chip quality and most likely error on your end. There is chip to chip variance, but you should get something in the range of your chip quality
MC SP is the best indication of your mount and contact and if you feel you have unusally low score for the sp of your chip consider redoing it

I tested my theory back when i did bare die... with my old sp p116 chip.
I had a MC score of 72 and also noticed desktop colors were washed out/ darker than they should be
I changed mounting pressure an got a new MC score of 73
Since my desktop was still washed out i performed a complete remount of cpu, and torqued my block evenly slowly all 4 together instead of one by one and when i tested MC score it jumped to 76 !
please note my sp p and e scores were the same in all these scenarios only my MC score changed

while the 116 chip was definitely good enough for me and i had amazing results with bare die, i was ultimately looking for a chip that could do 8400-8600 M/T cl 34 and this cpu couldnt do that for me so i had to part with it


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> so the MC SP will change with how well your mounting solution is.
> if you have something like a SP 120 chip but your MC score is under 80, i highly doubt this is associated with chip quality and most likely error on your end. There is chip to chip variance, but you should get something in the range of your chip quality
> MC SP is the best indication of your mount and contact and if you feel you have unusally low score for the sp of your chip consider redoing it
> 
> I tested my theory back when i did bare die... with my old sp p116 chip.
> I had a MC score of 72 and also noticed desktop colors were washed out/ darker than they should be
> I changed mounting pressure an got a new MC score of 73
> Since my desktop was still washed out i performed a complete remount of cpu, and torqued my block evenly slowly all 4 together instead of one by one and when i tested MC score it jumped to 76 !
> please note my sp p and e scores were the same in all these scenarios only my MC score changed
> 
> while the 116 chip was definitely good enough for me and i had amazing results with bare die, i was ultimately looking for a chip that could do 8400-8600 M/T cl 34 and this cpu couldnt do that for me so i had to part with it


I’m thinking my MC SP is really good. I’m running 7400C34 (Fully optimized timings) with 1.250V VDD2, and 1.250V VDDQ, 1.050V SA. Memory voltage is 1.400V.


----------



## Brads3cents

I'm looking to buy a cpu with a MC score over 90,
Since we are so close to the KS launch i want to see how well they are binned, maybe try my luck this way. If they are meh i would buy someone's uber chip and surely make them happy with my offer
unfortunately, those seem rare
I saw maybe 2 or 3 of those in this entire thread


----------



## affxct

Guys which Intel temp sensor do you use? Between DTS, Enhanced and the sensor on the Z690 Dark, temps have a relatively wide range depending on the task. NZXT CAM is reading DTS and in-game it’s like 8c colder than the one being read by the Dark’s sensor. Not sure where Enhanced lies in correlation.


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> Yep. 231 L/H = 61 G/H, so you're good.
> 
> I'm down to 39 G/H, which is around 146 L/H. As it's bleeding, it's actually getting slower. Yikes. Definitely going to need to order this second pump ASAP, because this will negatively impact my temps considerably.
> 
> When I was only running 2x 360-L and CPU/GPU blocks, I was crushing it at 230L/H - 60 G/H with the pump tuned down to the low-mid 70s. There's just way more restriction in the loop now, and I pin that on the RAM block more than anything, I think. 3x rads and 3x blocks is a lot to ask of a single D5.


What about pump speeds? I have them synced now. Good or bad? I have the flow sensor at the end of my loop BTW.


----------



## acoustic

affxct said:


> Guys which Intel temp sensor do you use? Between DTS, Enhanced and the sensor on the Z690 Dark, temps have a relatively wide range depending on the task. NZXT CAM is reading DTS and in-game it’s like 8c colder than the one being read by the Dark’s sensor. Not sure where Enhanced lies in correlation.


Enhanced; Core Temperatures and Core Max. All other sensors are not as accurate, afaik.



RichKnecht said:


> What about pump speeds? I have them synced now. Good or bad? I have the flow sensor at the end of my loop BTW.


You can run the pump at whatever speed you'd like, but I'd run it at a speed that gets you to that 231 L/H when the water is at load temperature. As the water gets warmer, your flow goes up, so I would run my D5 where my flow would be around ~225 L/H (57-58 G/H), and once it was warmed up during load, I'd be around 232-235 L/H (61-62 G/H). Unfortunately, with this new setup, even with the D5 at 100% (4800-4850rpm), I'm down to 138 L/H. As the system bleeds it's just getting worse 

I can see a major difference in the way the water temperature is rising/falling compared to my old setup. Taking way longer to cool, and much quicker to heat up. Temps aren't all that great either, but considering the bad flow, it makes sense. It'll be fine for a week or two until I can figure out what I need to run dual pumps.

I'd imagine you want the pumps synced. Running them at separate speeds seems like it would be an issue.

I have mine between my RAM block and top rad. Shouldn't matter where it's placed, since with adequate flow you'd have temperature equilibrium within 0.5c-1c throughout the entire loop.


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> I'm looking to buy a cpu with a MC score over 90,
> Since we are so close to the KS launch i want to see how well they are binned, maybe try my luck this way. If they are meh i would buy someone's uber chip and surely make them happy with my offer
> unfortunately, those seem rare
> I saw maybe 2 or 3 of those in this entire thread


What’s considered good or bad for IMC anyways? I can’t see my IMC rating.


----------



## Brads3cents

i havent seen enough scores posted to form a better opinion than this but

i would say 70 and below is weak/poor
70-75 is average
75-80 is above average
80-85 is great
86-89 is amazing
90+ is golden

just fot reference carillos gold chip with p121 and e 102 has a 84 MC score

so its incredibly difficult to achieve 86+ and 90 is just unreal. Roberto has a 93 MC but is wasting it as hes not into memory overclocking and uses a 4 dim board

Sugi showed a p124 MC 94 chip which is the highest MC ive seen to date and he was able to log into windows at 9000 M/T

its harder to get golden MC than it is to get golden p rating


----------



## Trys0meM0re

Got my hands on a 13900KS and the SP value's are pretty underwhelming. P Cores 115 Ecores 85. 
Wil post a BIOS screenshot tomorrow. (its on a Z690 strix so no MC values, as far as i could find)


----------



## Ichirou

Trys0meM0re said:


> Got my hands on a 13900KS and the SP value's are pretty underwhelming. P Cores 115 Ecores 85.
> Wil post a BIOS screenshot tomorrow. (its on a Z690 strix so no MC values, as far as i could find)


Early sample? P-SP 115 is within expectation though.
We're not sure whether or not the KS scores need to be recalibrated like the 12900KS did.
However, because we know that the KS is literally just a rebranded K, it's most likely accurate.


----------



## storm-chaser

Anyone out there overclocking the 13600K/13600KF? Does it go as far as the 13900K? Noticed it has the highest base clock for any 13th gen chip.


----------



## tps3443

storm-chaser said:


> Anyone out there overclocking the 13600K/13600KF? Does it go as far as the 13900K? Noticed it has the highest base clock for any 13th gen chip.
> 
> View attachment 2590046


@bhav has one.


----------



## HemuV2

Trys0meM0re said:


> Got my hands on a 13900KS and the SP value's are pretty underwhelming. P Cores 115 Ecores 85.
> Wil post a BIOS screenshot tomorrow. (its on a Z690 strix so no MC values, as far as i could find)


literally what i was betting on lmao


----------



## tps3443

@Ichirou "4.8Ghz efficiency going out the window" is displayed on the previous page LOL. But you can get it to work though, even if it’s a voltage HOG.


----------



## bhav

storm-chaser said:


> Anyone out there overclocking the 13600K/13600KF? Does it go as far as the 13900K? Noticed it has the highest base clock for any 13th gen chip.
> 
> View attachment 2590046


I have a 13600KF and no none of them will reach 13900K numbers IMO.

They all look to be binned hard, also considering I got an earlier than review sample batch.

The best 13700K will have 7 cores that can manage 13900K spec and 1 core that can't.

The best 13600K will have 6 cores that can manage 13700K spec, with 2 that can't disabled.

On my chip with HT off, only 1 core can reach 5.8, 2c 5.7, 3c 5.6 at 1.33v

Going up to 1.4v, both nothing higher will stabilize, nor HT on at those clocks. HT on manages 1.32v 1c 5.7 2c 5.6, 3c 5.5, but gets absolutely roasting temps.

At 1.25v can do 5.4 all core under 80c no issue - 6 cores same spec as 13700K

None of the cores can do 5.8 with HT enabled. I've not seen anyone elses 13600K / KF do 5.8 on just 1 core either, even with HT off.

For 13700K, most user results seem to manage 5.6 all core HT on, my 13600KF 3 cores will only do 5.5 with HT on.


----------



## tps3443

@storm-chaser I would recommend a 13700KF as probably the ultimate chip. You can definitely have some fun binning for a really good one by merely testing 1 or 2 and that’s it. 13600K is obviously still an amazing CPU and will do it all of course, but from what @bhav is saying I think you’d probably have more fun with higher clocks with a 13700K. I saw one guy running like 6.2Ghz all-cores HT disabled. “gaming of course”


----------



## bhav

If you don't need the clock speeds, like at 4K, 13600K is fine, even 6c 5.4 HT on at under 80c is still a decent uplift over stock.

Also what people here push their 13900Ks to like TPS, you need to have water cooling to manage that. On an AIO better to stick to 13700K / 13600K.

Another problem though - with non K's coming out now finding a good 13700K will be harder as the 13900 non K is going to be taking all the chips that can do 5.4 all core / 5.6 2 cores.

Whichever chips cant even do 13600K spec, which I guess isn't many so Intel needed time to build stock will be 13500 / 13600 non K.

Rumours saying 13400 will be a 50/50 chip, alder lake or raptor lake, and now I think thats probably gonna be true as some 13th gen chips will have 1 dysfunctional e core group.

Edit - wait no, Raptor lake can't have 4 e cores, its 2 x 8 groups, so 1 that doesn't work = 8 E cores .....

Some 13700Ks will have 8 golden / diamond P cores and 1 e core cluster that didn't work! Big lucky dip gamble to try get one of those.


----------



## HemuV2

storm-chaser said:


> Anyone out there overclocking the 13600K/13600KF? Does it go as far as the 13900K? Noticed it has the highest base clock for any 13th gen chip.
> 
> View attachment 2590046


no lol 13900k goes 5.8+ with HT off


----------



## ssgwright

i can get 5.7 all core HT on, is it better to turn HT off and run higher clocks?


----------



## Ichirou

ssgwright said:


> i can get 5.7 all core HT on, is it better to turn HT off and run higher clocks?


Depends entirely on workload. Nobody can give you a right or wrong answer. You gotta test and compare the performance yourself.


----------



## HemuV2

ssgwright said:


> i can get 5.7 all core HT on, is it better to turn HT off and run higher clocks?


HT useless for gamers imo i have it off = les heat more fps


----------



## acoustic

Trys0meM0re said:


> Got my hands on a 13900KS and the SP value's are pretty underwhelming. P Cores 115 Ecores 85.
> Wil post a BIOS screenshot tomorrow. (its on a Z690 strix so no MC values, as far as i could find)


No reason to believe that the SP scores for KS are 1:1 with 13900K/KF. It wasn't the case with 12th gen.

P Core 115 KS could easily be 125 on 13900K/KF.


----------



## Carillo

tps3443 said:


> The last person that mentioned a SP110+ CPU dealt with the same thing, you better message ASAP and ask questions later. I knew you’d sell that in all 35 seconds after you originally posted.
> 
> Did you find an even better chip?


yes 😊


----------



## HemuV2

acoustic said:


> No reason to believe that the SP scores for KS are 1:1 with 13900K/KF. It wasn't the case with 12th gen.
> 
> P Core 115 KS could easily be 125 on 13900K/KF.


NO because the mobo doesnt know what a KS is yet so it would take it for a K and that score is pretty 1:1 with K SP scores


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> No reason to believe that the SP scores for KS are 1:1 with 13900K/KF. It wasn't the case with 12th gen.
> 
> P Core 115 KS could easily be 125 on 13900K/KF.


Current speculation is that the KS is just a rebranded K.
And honestly, based on all of the conjecture and educated guesses so far, I wouldn't doubt it.

Intel has nothing to gain by improving their manufacturing processes for the 13900KS.
It's not the same as it was for the 12900KS.

If they really did improve them, they wouldn't be selling the chip as just 54/60. That's a measly gain compared to the K's 54/58.
It would be significantly easier and more cost effective to just improve binning practices.


----------



## acoustic

HemuV2 said:


> NO because the mobo doesnt know what a KS is yet so it would take it for a K and that score is pretty 1:1 with K SP scores


That wasn't the case for 12th gen.


----------



## affxct

acoustic said:


> Enhanced; Core Temperatures and Core Max. All other sensors are not as accurate, afaik.
> 
> 
> 
> You can run the pump at whatever speed you'd like, but I'd run it at a speed that gets you to that 231 L/H when the water is at load temperature. As the water gets warmer, your flow goes up, so I would run my D5 where my flow would be around ~225 L/H (57-58 G/H), and once it was warmed up during load, I'd be around 232-235 L/H (61-62 G/H). Unfortunately, with this new setup, even with the D5 at 100% (4800-4850rpm), I'm down to 138 L/H. As the system bleeds it's just getting worse
> 
> I can see a major difference in the way the water temperature is rising/falling compared to my old setup. Taking way longer to cool, and much quicker to heat up. Temps aren't all that great either, but considering the bad flow, it makes sense. It'll be fine for a week or two until I can figure out what I need to run dual pumps.
> 
> I'd imagine you want the pumps synced. Running them at separate speeds seems like it would be an issue.
> 
> I have mine between my RAM block and top rad. Shouldn't matter where it's placed, since with adequate flow you'd have temperature equilibrium within 0.5c-1c throughout the entire loop.


The one from my board is hotter than all the others though?


----------



## acoustic

affxct said:


> The one from my board is hotter than all the others though?


I'd trust the chip to provide the most accurate temp reading over the board


----------



## Trys0meM0re

Ichirou said:


> Early sample? P-SP 115 is within expectation though.
> We're not sure whether or not the KS scores need to be recalibrated like the 12900KS did.
> However, because we know that the KS is literally just a rebranded K, it's most likely accurate.





Ichirou said:


> Early sample? P-SP 115 is within expectation though.
> We're not sure whether or not the KS scores need to be recalibrated like the 12900KS did.
> However, because we know that the KS is literally just a rebranded K, it's most likely accurate.


Yes bro early sample.


----------



## Brads3cents

can you do some testing with the chip to see how well it overclocks?

we can get a better indication this way instead of all us speculating

its also speculated that the 119 chip used for world record is a ks so perhaps people are on to something when they say it isnt 1:1


----------



## affxct

acoustic said:


> I'd trust the chip to provide the most accurate temp reading over the board


My logic is that surely the warmest one would be the most helpful? I just don’t know why it’s warmer though.


----------



## Trys0meM0re

Brads3cents said:


> can you do some testing with the chip to see how well it overclocks?
> 
> we can get a better indication this way instead of all us speculating
> 
> its also speculated that the 119 chip used for world record is a ks so perhaps people are on to something when they say it isnt 1:1


Let me say this, even with the KS, i' am jealous of the guys running sp120+ ( If you check my earlier screenshot, you see i run an ES there aswell )
Will do some OC'ing tomorrow


----------



## warbucks

Ichirou said:


> Current speculation is that the KS is just a rebranded K.
> And honestly, based on all of the conjecture and educated guesses so far, I wouldn't doubt it.
> 
> Intel has nothing to gain by improving their manufacturing processes for the 13900KS.
> It's not the same as it was for the 12900KS.
> 
> If they really did improve them, they wouldn't be selling the chip as just 54/60. That's a measly gain compared to the K's 54/58.
> It would be significantly easier and more cost effective to just improve binning practices.


Except we know there is a RP-L refresh coming Q4 2023 using the same node, so Intel does have something to gain by using the 13900KS as a test run for improving the current process. This is standard practice for any chip manufacturer.


----------



## tps3443

I wouldn’t mind trying out a 13900KS chip. I wonder how it would compare to my SP110. Only one way to find out. I think I’ll most likely keep what I’ve got though. It’s a very solid chip, and I’m pretty darn happy with it.


----------



## acoustic

affxct said:


> My logic is that surely the warmest one would be the most helpful? I just don’t know why it’s warmer though.


Helpfulness depends on the accuracy of it. Maybe @CENS can shed some light on this? Any idea how the motherboard is coming up with CPU temp, and is it more accurate than CPU Enhanced sensors?


----------



## tps3443

Edit:

Is 700%-813% good enough for stability with HCI Memtest on (32) threads at once?


----------



## SoldierRBT

tps3443 said:


> Is 600%-747% good enough for stability with HCI Memtest on (32) threads at once?


Yeah that's good enough to tell if sticks are happy with your settings. YC N64/HNT/VST is very good to avoid those CTD you can get while gaming since it tests IMC. If you wanna go beyond that enable N32, FFT, C17 tests. Careful with SFT test it draws a lot of power/current only run it at low frequency 5.6 or below.


----------



## tps3443

SoldierRBT said:


> Yeah that's good enough to tell if sticks are happy with your settings. YC N64/HNT/VST is very good to avoid those CTD you can get while gaming since it tests IMC. If you wanna go beyond that enable N32, FFT, C17 tests. Careful with SFT test it draws a lot of power/current only run it at low frequency 5.6 or below.



Okay, thanks. I ran it for about 4 hours. this is just a Daily gaming profile. 700-881%


----------



## acoustic

The forum has allowed users to sell binned products above MSRP for years.

No clue what's going on here. Carillo has always been a pretty stand-up guy on the forums.


----------



## tps3443

“Dog water” 🤣

I don’t know why I’m laughing over that but it’s a hilarious metaphor.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> If you are posting in this thread trying to squeeze every bit of performance out of an already maxed out CPU, you should seek help.


Here I am spending day after day trying to get this 5400 ram overclock to actually produce the right numbers, stupid tertiaries!


----------



## acoustic

Yikes. This seems like a lot of drama.

Here's some pics of the gargantuan. This case is ridiculously large.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> Yikes. This seems like a lot of drama.
> 
> Here's some pics of the gargantuan. This case is ridiculously large.
> 
> View attachment 2590086
> View attachment 2590087


It makes that 360 or 420 up top look like a little 240 AIO. Is that a 1000D?


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> Yikes. This seems like a lot of drama.
> 
> Here's some pics of the gargantuan. This case is ridiculously large.
> 
> View attachment 2590086
> View attachment 2590087


That would never fit under my desk. I’m using a 011 XL. I know its a common case but it fits inder my desk, fits my 3 360s, and looks great with the dual D5 front res.


----------



## chibi

That looks to be the new v3000+ case.


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> It makes that 360 or 420 up top look like a little 240 AIO. Is that a 1000D?


Lian Li V3000 Plus. 360 up top, 360 in front, and 480mm in the bottom. The front 360 will be replaced by a 480 when my order from Watercool comes in. Had to order another pump as my flow is really, really bad with the additions to the loop. One D5 trying to push 3 blocks and 3 rads was probably not a good idea. With the flow being so poor, my temps about match my old setup with CPU/GPU only with 2 360mm rads.



RichKnecht said:


> That would never fit under my desk. I’m using a 011 XL. I know its a common case but it fits inder my desk, fits my 3 360s, and looks great with the dual D5 front res.


I'm using an IKEA Karlby desk and the trussle legs.. and it barely slides under the desk. I don't run it under there since I like using the top as intake. Previous case was an 011D XL but I got a bit annoyed with the 360mm limitation, and using all three spots meant no fresh intake. I still have to throw an exhaust fan in, but with so much room inside the case, it's ventilating passively pretty well.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> Lian Li V3000 Plus. 360 up top, 360 in front, and 480mm in the bottom. The front 360 will be replaced by a 480 when my order from Watercool comes in. Had to order another pump as my flow is really, really bad with the additions to the loop. One D5 trying to push 3 blocks and 3 rads was probably not a good idea. With the flow being so poor, my temps about match my old setup with CPU/GPU only with 2 360mm rads.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm using an IKEA Karlby desk and the trussle legs.. and it barely slides under the desk. I don't run it under there since I like using the top as intake. Previous case was an 011D XL but I got a bit annoyed with the 360mm limitation, and using all three spots meant no fresh intake. I still have to throw an exhaust fan in, but with so much room inside the case, it's ventilating passively pretty well.


Did you fix the GPU temps?


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> Did you fix the GPU temps?


Yep! You were spot on about the terminal. When I read your post, I had a "duh" moment. Like I said, spent ~14hrs building (CPU de-lid, re-lid, scraping solder off with a exacto-knife because I didn't have any quicksilver left...) and definitely was just tired when I did my loop. Thankfully that seemed to be the only error.

I was lucky enough that the line I ran previously (to the wrong terminal), made it across to the farther one. That fixed it right up. ~11c delta between GPU Temp / Hot Spot, and about ~12c delta GPU Temp / WaterT. Solid for an EK GPU block. Due to the low flow, my water temps are getting higher than they probably should; hitting about 31-32c playing CoD MW2. GPU pulling ~380-400w and CPU @ 70-75w.

Can't wait to get the other 480 and the second D5 pump in, and see where it stands. I'm fully prepped for the 5090 now.


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> Lian Li V3000 Plus. 360 up top, 360 in front, and 480mm in the bottom. The front 360 will be replaced by a 480 when my order from Watercool comes in. Had to order another pump as my flow is really, really bad with the additions to the loop. One D5 trying to push 3 blocks and 3 rads was probably not a good idea. With the flow being so poor, my temps about match my old setup with CPU/GPU only with 2 360mm rads.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm using an IKEA Karlby desk and the trussle legs.. and it barely slides under the desk. I don't run it under there since I like using the top as intake. Previous case was an 011D XL but I got a bit annoyed with the 360mm limitation, and using all three spots meant no fresh intake. I still have to throw an exhaust fan in, but with so much room inside the case, it's ventilating passively pretty well.


I have all 12 fans as intake and no exhaust fans. The back of the case is so wide open that air exits pretty freely. I think my max case temp is usually right around ambient. I’ll eventually put my GPU under water, but right now it only gets in the 40s. I am just glad my temps are now under control. So glad I had that old Evo in a desk drawer.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> I have all 12 fans as intake and no exhaust fans. The back of the case is so wide open that air exits pretty freely. I think my max case temp is usually right around ambient. I’ll eventually put my GPU under water, but right now it only gets in the 40s. I am just glad my temps are now under control. So glad I had that old Evo in a desk drawer.


I ran top and bottom as intake in the 011D XL, with rear exhaust. Side fans were intake originally, and my waterT was getting higher than it should. Set the 3 side fans as exhaust and I dropped 3-4c on my WaterT. Was a pretty dramatic improvement.


----------



## tps3443

Just delivered: 

Supercool Direct die to the rescue!! It did cost me $150.00 shipped. But hey, what else can you do when something is sold out? lol.


----------



## Ichirou

So far, testing under the exact same low-high load conditions, the difference between P-SP 121 and P-SP 111 is... not significant, to tell the truth.

It's only like a 100-200 MHz increase across the board. But buying this chip binned costs double MSRP second-hand. Would not recommend.
It's possible to gain an extra 100-200 MHz by pumping the Vcore and/or running a tame memory overclock (e.g. XMP) though.

Anyone who already has a P-SP 110+ or better, don't bother buying a binned chip or a KS. Really. The difference is almost nonexistent.
Just add some more Vcore and you'll basically equivalent to a golden chip. Or bin a few retail chips until you score a better one.

And as mentioned before, direct die is really not necessary at all, especially if you delid the chip and lap the IHS.
By the time you actually see temps high enough to benefit from direct die, you're probably pushing 300W+, which is in degradation territory.


----------



## l.kristensen.1981

Brads3cents said:


> im concerned your making a mistake and this mimics tps who also didnt find any result from using the frame
> 
> i believe you should be securing a relid instead of floating it as you do. The thing about the contact frame is it bends the slicon slightly as designed. If your floating your ihs, and have completely flat contact pressure applied from your cpu cooler, then you have a situation where the cpu die itself is being rounded while the ihs is completely flat.
> 
> this may lead to poor contact between the die and ihs.. and this effect will be pronounced with liquid metal
> if you glue down the ihs it can flex with the die and maintain contact
> 
> but if you insist to do it this way do not tighten down the contact frame only tighten by hand


I will do the frame by hand no doubt there must only be little pressure …. I don’t see how the frame should bent the chip? It was specifically developed to counter this and make it straight. Securing it all corners equal preassure should give a perfect flat cpu as intended. I think the die is pretty straight but I’ll check ! This guy had amazing results and last time I delid and copper IHS it wasn’t that incredible before I went direct die, my main suspecion was that my custom IHS could stand on the substrate and I’m thinking not good contact with die…. I’ll try I can always do it over. But logically it sounds like the way to go.


----------



## l.kristensen.1981

bhav said:


> Another thing with the contact frame is that it doesn't put anywhere near the same pressure on the CPU as the stock ILM does, so in the case of a delid it may no longer be putting enough pressure on the IHS to make good contact with the die.
> 
> Its looking like contact frame & delid has no point.


 I do t think so I already seen amazing results with these combo, anyway I’m gonna try out


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> So far, testing under the exact same low-high load conditions, the difference between P-SP 121 and P-SP 111 is... not significant, to tell the truth.
> 
> It's only like a 100-200 MHz increase across the board. But buying this chip binned costs double MSRP second-hand. Would not recommend.
> It's possible to gain an extra 100-200 MHz by pumping the Vcore and/or running a tame memory overclock (e.g. XMP) though.
> 
> Anyone who already has a P-SP 110+ or better, don't bother buying a binned chip or a KS. Really. The difference is almost nonexistent.
> Just add some more Vcore and you'll basically equivalent to a golden chip. Or bin a few retail chips until you score a better one.
> 
> And as mentioned before, direct die is really not necessary at all, especially if you delid the chip and lap the IHS.
> By the time you actually see temps high enough to benefit from direct die, you're probably pushing 300W+, which is in degradation territory.


I think it’s worth it. I have an SP121 P-Core CPU. I’m running some pretty screaming settings with it. It’s flipping awesome!


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I think it’s worth it. I have an SP121 P-Core CPU. I’m running some pretty screaming settings with it. It’s flipping awesome!


It's fine for gaming, but once you involve some workloads, the non-Vcore voltage requirements shoot up.
I could do 62-63x all-core with this chip, but it's not really possible with my heavy memory overclock. Needs all voltages across the board to go up.
In my case, the deltas between different workloads is easily like +0.10V for the various non-Vcore voltages.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> It's fine for gaming, but once you involve some workloads, the non-Vcore voltage requirements shoot up.
> I could do 62-63x all-core with this chip, but it's not really possible with my heavy memory overclock. Needs all voltages across the board to go up.
> In my case, the deltas between different workloads is easily like +0.10V for the various non-Vcore voltages.


Precisely why I will continue to use my chip at default clocks and undervolted. And now that my temps are in check it’s just icing on the cake.


----------



## tps3443

Delidded. Supercool IHS glued down.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Delidded. Supercool IHS glued down.
> 
> View attachment 2590135
> 
> View attachment 2590137
> 
> View attachment 2590136


Is it just me, or does your lapped IHS have a literal circle on it?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Is it just me, or does your lapped IHS have a literal circle on it?


I drew the circle with a pencil while
it was in the delid tool so I could see if it moved, and how far it moved. Hard to see what you’re doing with a solid copper IHS.


----------



## Krzych04650

ssgwright said:


> i can get 5.7 all core HT on, is it better to turn HT off and run higher clocks?


For gaming, yes. Disabling HT will either massively reduce voltage requirements, temps and power or allow you to run around 200 MHz higher at the same voltage. 

I am running 60P/45E/52R at only 1.35V thanks to disabling HT, and so far I haven't found any games where HT On would be meaningfully faster, while I have found both games where running more than 16 threads has performance penalty, up to like 15% in some cases for 32 threads, and also where disabling E-cores has performance penalty, up to 10%, so the most efficient and performant way to run the CPU for gaming both in terms of clocks and optimal thread count/compatibility is 8P/8E/HT0, at least as far as I can see.

With this kind of a setup the CPU also only goes to around 240W in stress tests like R23, so it even stays within that stock 253W power limit and is very easy to cool and stress test. Fully enabled 8P/16E/HT1 will hit 400W at the same voltage, and you will never use all those threads in games, if anything they are actually harmful, so it makes no sense at all.


----------



## tps3443

Could someone help me out?

Which way does the the supercool go? And which is the inlet or outlet?


----------



## chibi

Inlet should be the center port so the flow gets distributed directly to the cpu core before exiting on the offset port.


----------



## VULC

Frame Chasers has the direct die setup on an Apex he showed in his last video. He dropped 10 degrees and only ran 5.8ghz all core in his benches for 7900xtx vs 4080 vs 4090. His CPU bottlenecked even at 8200mhz on the Apex with the 4090.


----------



## tps3443

chibi said:


> Inlet should be the center port so the flow gets distributed directly to the cpu core before exiting on the offset port.


ITS ALIVE!!!!

Delid, clean solder, polish die, clean residue, clean substrate, re-lid with Supercool IHS jet plate, mount supercool block, hook up hoses, power on and go!


----------



## storm-chaser

tps3443 said:


> Could someone help me out?
> 
> Which way does the the supercool go? And which is the inlet or outlet?
> 
> 
> View attachment 2590142
> 
> View attachment 2590143


Apparently, these guys have never comprehended the mythical "arrow" identifier as a means to tell the consumer which way the water flows through the block.


----------



## Ichirou

storm-chaser said:


> Apparently, these guys have never comprehended the mythical "arrow" identifier as a means to tell the consumer which way the water flows through the block.


IIRC the Supercool block doesn't even have one.


----------



## VULC

Carillo said:


> sold


It's ok I have a 119 already not going to pay 2.2x the price of a 13900k for 15mv over 4 of my cores.


----------



## storm-chaser

Ichirou said:


> IIRC the Supercool block doesn't even have one.


Heatkiller IV has half an arrow, but it's still easy to screw up. Full arrow would have done the trick.


----------



## l.kristensen.1981

Ichirou said:


> It's fine for gaming, but once you involve some workloads, the non-Vcore voltage requirements shoot up.
> I could do 62-63x all-core with this chip, but it's not really possible with my heavy memory overclock. Needs all voltages across the board to go up.
> In my case, the deltas between different workloads is easily like +0.10V for the various non-Vcore voltages.


this ..


bhav said:


> With the temps my 3080 Ti FE, I basically won't ever be overclocking, not that it matters because GPUs auto boost now.
> 
> Demm toasty vram temps at 95c, I can run +500 on the vram but don't want to melt it.


water cooling is the only way  my 4090 is max 60-65c and same memory 23gbit +1000


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> It's ok I have a 119 already not going to pay for 2.2x the price of a 13900k for 15mv over 4 of my cores.


What you have already could be even better than higher SP chips. It’s all about how it scales.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> What you have already could be even better than higher SP chips. It’s all about how it scales.


You might be right only a 7 degree delta for the coolest to hottest core. Who knows what it can do in the right hands.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> You might be right only a 7 degree delta for the coolest to hottest core. Who knows what it can do in the right hands.


I just know that with every bin all chips are different. My last chip definitely wasn’t no SP121 P-Core 13900K. However, at 5.5Ghz or 5.6Ghz it could dominate with like 200-215 watts of power during R23.

Now, my current chip is a SP121 P-core CPU. It couldn’t quite do those crazy low power 5.5Ghz runs Stable. However, my current CPU straight up whoops it in the top end.

I also tested a lower SP115 13900K that ran 5.8Ghz crazy well.

Then you’ve got E-Cores quality, ring, IMC, etc.

All chips are different. Your CPU could even suck lol. I don’t know. Probably not! 🤣 but it’s possible. None of these chips are similar in the least in my testing.


What are you running anyways?


----------



## kunit13

tps3443 said:


> Delidded. Supercool IHS glued down.
> 
> View attachment 2590135
> 
> View attachment 2590137
> 
> View attachment 2590136


T,
Just got my delid kit from Rockit. What did you use to glue down the waterblock? I’m deciding if I should glue it down or just let it float.


----------



## tps3443

kunit13 said:


> T,
> Just got my delid kit from Rockit. What did you use to glue down the waterblock? I’m deciding if I should glue it down or just let it float.


I am running super cool direct die setup. You want to glue down the IHS. If the IHS slides under clamping pressure bye bye SMD’s!! Unless you are running a contact frame, then no need. 

I used (4) small dabs of gorilla glue clear.


----------



## RichKnecht

Just ran an hour of Realbench to see if there really is a temp improvement between the Sig V2 and my old ass EK Supremacy Evo or if I was dreaming. After an hour with the V2, at default settings, undervolted (1.162 under load), max temp was 84. I just punched in my "old" OC (57/45/49) and ran an hour of Realbench and max temp was 80 with 1.252 under load. So, using the EK block with the OC, the chip is 4C cooler than it was with the V2 at defaults. Oh, and power draw went from 232W at defaults, to 272W with the OC. I am going to leave it like this and see how it does with daily workloads. My guess is it will do just fine.


----------



## kunit13

Ok perfect! Yah I’m using the TG contact frame… thanks.


----------



## tps3443

My 13900K feels like a god lol!

OMG. That’s all I can say.


----------



## tps3443

This is R23 at 6.0P-Core and 4.7 E-Cores 320 freakin watts!  Who's CPU is this? And where did mine go? I am in disbelief over this chip right now. Such a beast of a CPU! I love this X236F509


----------



## ssgwright

tps3443 said:


> This is R23 at 6.0P-Core and 4.7 E-Cores 320 freakin watts!  Who's CPU is this? And where did mine go? I am in disbelief over this!
> View attachment 2590168
> 
> 
> View attachment 2590166


damn you got some good cooling... mine is stable at 5.7 at 1.27v so I know I can go higher but my cooling...
I hit 99c at 5.7 on r23, maybe I should delid I'm running a custom loop 480 and 360 rad ek v2 block with bracket


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> This is R23 at 6.0P-Core and 4.7 E-Cores 320 freakin watts!  Who's CPU is this? And where did mine go? I am in disbelief over this!
> View attachment 2590168
> 
> 
> View attachment 2590166


What can it do with e-cores off? I'd guess 6.2 GHz all-core?

I'm trying to sell it but if not I'll just keep it. It's never seen over 95 degrees which is set as my core and package limit it throttles from 5.7ghz to 5.5ghz at 95 degrees in extreme small OCCT. If I did a delid and relid with LM I'd drop 10 degrees squeeze out another 100mhz. In the end memory OC matters just as much for gaming so all core clocks will provide diminishing returns at some point unless you can scale memory with it. I'm only running a LF II 420mm max 83 degrees with R23.


----------



## tps3443

@ssgwright

It’s a rocking chip man!! It could already do 5.9P/4.7E/5.1R before delid easily. Sounds like you may have a solid chip though. This one ran abnormally hot compared to other 13900K’s I have tested.

@VULC
I can run 6.2 with the E-Cores on. If they were off, I would say at least 6.3? or 6.4? I have never tried.


----------



## VULC

ssgwright said:


> damn you got some good cooling... mine is stable at 5.7 at 1.27v so I know I can go higher but my cooling...
> I hit 99c at 5.7 on r23, maybe I should delid I'm running a custom loop 480 and 360 rad ek v2 block with bracket


It's a shame these chips suck so much power that you need 1080mm worth of rads to use them to their full potential with e-cores on. Intel needs to do something about voltage requirements next-gen. If they can pull something off with an AIO would be crazy good for them.


----------



## bhav

l.kristensen.1981 said:


> this ..
> 
> water cooling is the only way  my 4090 is max 60-65c and same memory 23gbit +1000


Actually I spoke too soon, open frame case is a godsend, much lower GPU and Vram temps too!


----------



## tps3443

@VULC You asked what can it do with E-Cores off? I’m not sure. I know it can game and stuff at 6.2 before the delid with E-Cores on. I’m not sure what it can do in R23 though. I’m leaving it at 6.0/4.8 and I’m calling it done! I’m happy with it.


----------



## HemuV2

Intel 13th Gen Raptor Lake binning – over 500 CPUs tested! | Part 1: i9-13900K and 13900KF | igor'sLAB


Just in time for Christmas we have something special for you today. With the help of MIFCOM, we were allowed to bin a statistically not insignificant amount of CPUs (over 500 in total) and today we…




www.igorslab.de





13900K/KF binning data looks like 106 is avg pcore SP for K


----------



## HemuV2

The worst pcore SP is 99 lol imagine getting one of those. My 109 seems to be the average +1


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> The worst pcore SP is 99 lol imagine getting one of those. My 109 seems to be the average +1


Better late than never. Curious to see what the top bin is like.


----------



## Brads3cents

kunit13 said:


> T,
> Just got my delid kit from Rockit. What did you use to glue down the waterblock? I’m deciding if I should glue it down or just let it float.











From my copper ihs

what I used was
Loctite Super Glue Gel Tube, 0.07 oz, 1, Tube
$4.15 on amazon


----------



## Brads3cents

bhav said:


> Actually I spoke too soon, open frame case is a godsend, much lower GPU and Vram temps too!


Core p7 ftw!
420 x 3 rads, 
3 pumps/3 radiators
And a 1080mm external rad for good measure 

but I only gave the cpu 1 single 420 lol. I will change that eventually


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Better late than never. Curious to see what the top bin is like.


That’s where your chip came from “Igor’s Lab” probably that dude Skullbringer wrote that article, right above us.

I think we’re blessed to both have SP121 P-Core chips. I’m digging mine right now for sure.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> That’s where your chip came from “Igor’s Lab” probably that dude Skullbringer wrote that article, right above us.
> 
> I think we’re blessed to both have SP121 P-Core chips. I’m digging mine right now for sure.


Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if it's one of those chips, lol.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if it's one of those chips, lol.


You see how few SP110+ chips they found right? Like 1 or 2 literally lol.


----------



## storm-chaser

Do you guys mostly do static overclocks on these 13th gen chips?
Anyone doing turbo core OCing?
I was thinking turbo core might be a viable option. Like two cores at 6.1GHz and stager down from there...


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> You see how few SP110+ chips they found right? Like 1 or 2 literally lol.


Surprisingly much less than I expected. Makes me wonder if this is a pre- or post-KS-binned batch of chips.
I wouldn't be surprised if Intel's binning processes got much more strict and they pulled out a ton of good chips from the K's to rebrand as KSes.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Surprisingly much less than I expected. Makes me wonder if this is a pre- or post-KS-binned batch of chips.
> I wouldn't be surprised if Intel's binning processes got much more strict and they pulled out a ton of good chips from the K's to rebrand as KSes.


Maybe before the KFs are the same average. Didn't know 119 was so rare that's insane.


----------



## tps3443

storm-chaser said:


> Do you guys mostly do static overclocks on these 13th gen chips?
> Anyone doing turbo core OCing?
> I was thinking turbo core might be a viable option. Like two cores at 6.1GHz and stager down from there...


I have tried it plenty. It’s lots of fun! I’ve tested 6.4Ghz on the best (2) cores, 6.3Ghz can run on any of the other cores, and the all-core load is a lower overall frequency. You lose a little efficiency doing it this way though. It is super fast though!! Right now, I’ve just left 6.0 all cores though. It’s stable and very solid. I’m sure with my current voltage, I can run my best (2) cores at 6.2Ghz for boost without increasing my v-core. I’ll probably do that.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> Maybe before the KFs are the same average. Didn't know 119 was so rare that's insane.


SP119 P-Core is rare.


----------



## kunit13

Brad,

Do you use a contact frame with the IHS? I bought the kit with the IHS but have been seeing some conflicting reports that it does not fit with the contact frame 13th gen. 

Thanks




Brads3cents said:


> From my copper ihs
> 
> what I used was
> Loctite Super Glue Gel Tube, 0.07 oz, 1, Tube
> $4.15 on amazon



Storm,

I'd also like to know what most people are doing for gaming. Historically I've just used fixed vcore "all core". Seems like most folks in this forum use a var or adaptive OC. 





storm-chaser said:


> Do you guys mostly do static overclocks on these 13th gen chips?
> Anyone doing turbo core OCing?
> I was thinking turbo core might be a viable option. Like two cores at 6.1GHz and stager down from there...


----------



## mattxx88

storm-chaser said:


> Do you guys mostly do static overclocks on these 13th gen chips?
> Anyone doing turbo core OCing?
> I was thinking turbo core might be a viable option. *Like two cores at 6.1GHz and stager down from there*...


definetly adaptive OC


----------



## VULC

Probably on 1080p adaptive will drop to 5.5ghz all core during gaming on a standard AIO setup. Where you can run 5.7ghz all core on fixed voltage because most modern multiplayer games I play use 8 cores.


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> Better late than never. Curious to see what the top bin is like.


I don't think anyone will beat sugi's chip 😂 or even that retail pSP126 he showed us recently. On avg i expect the pcore SP of KS to go from 108 to 113ish basically+5 that's pretty good imo. But not worth 200+ over base K


----------



## kunit13

VULC said:


> Probably on 1080p adaptive will drop to 5.5ghz all core during gaming on a standard AIO setup. Where you can run 5.7ghz all core on fixed voltage because most modern multiplayer games I play use 8 cores.


for me the games I play I notice my clocks stay consistent. If try multicore ratio (60,60,59,59.......) it pretty much ends up at my all core anyway. 

thanks,


----------



## VULC

kunit13 said:


> for me the games I play I notice my clocks stay consistent. If try multicore ratio (60,60,59,59.......) it pretty much ends up at my all core anyway.
> 
> thanks,


You gaming at 1080p or 1440p? TVB gets me 5.8 to 5.9Ghz. Plus what's your cooling? I'm talking standard AIO cooling.


----------



## kunit13

VULC said:


> You gaming at 1080p or 1440p? TVB gets me 5.8 to 5.9Ghz. Plus what's your cooling? I'm talking standard AIO cooling.


1440p (but its wz2) so its cpu heavy. Currently custom loop and lapped (v2). This weekend I'm deliding and waiting on mag with a flat plate.


----------



## VULC

Yes for sure sure but no way you can compare 1080p CPU usage to 1440p. You would always be on 5.8 to 5.9 with 2 cores at 6ghz on 1440p.


kunit13 said:


> 1440p (but its wz2) so its cpu heavy. Currently custom loop and lapped (v2). This weekend I'm deliding and waiting on mag with a flat plate.


----------



## kunit13

VULC said:


> Yes for sure sure but no way you can compare 1080p CPU usage to 1440p. You would always be on 5.8 to 5.9 with 2 cores at 6ghz on 1440p.


True. Im learning as much as I can from you guys and using my KF as a test chip. So hopefully when the KS comes out I know what route is best.

thanks


----------



## mattxx88

We also need to see if the SP of the new KSs reflects that of the current normal K or KF, because with the 12900ks it didn't


----------



## VULC

mattxx88 said:


> We also need to see if the SP of the new KSs reflects that of the current normal K or KF, because with the 12900ks it didn't


They are changing the TDP so the curve will change but its still the same SP. They just took the regular K and changed the specs and rebranded but you can do that manually in bios.


----------



## Madness11

Guys , 13900kf 5.7p , 4.5e 4.9 ring , 1.354v llc6 , cn23 temps 1-2 cores hit 95c , is it ok ??? Or I got some issue ?? (310-320w tdp )


----------



## tps3443

@Ichirou

I think I figured it out, so most 13900K’s can run 5.7-5.8Ghz with good cooling. Coincidentally this is also right around the absolute thermal limits of the effective heat transfer of the factory Intel IHS/solder. However, when you delid a golden 13900K aka high SP chip, it absolutely soars! It’s able to stretch past those thermal limits now.

I was running 5.9P @1.315V prior, then after delid I booted up and all of a sudden running [email protected]! As I’m dropping off voltage left and right as if I swapped in a better chip. And it was still pushing through R23‘s. It’s just insane seeing something like that. Going from 1.315 to 1.265 bios voltage is huge.

So yes, you’re right! Delidding a 13900K is not worth it. Unless the chip is good. If it’s an SP116+ I’d say probably worth direct die for sure.

My chip always ran blazing hot. And I knew something was up with it. I Popped the IHS and bam. It runs 6.0Ghz/4.7GHz like it’s an easy going 5.7Ghz/4.5Ghz.

I did a full bios reset, setup my lower voltages for SA/VDDQ/VDD2 etc, and I’m going through Cinebench R23 @6.0 P-Cores/ 4.7 E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Ring, with a max of 310 watts. 🤯 VROut is 1.310V underload. Scoring 44.7K. This chip is just a boss man.


----------



## VULC

Madness11 said:


> Guys , 13900kf 5.7p , 4.5e 4.9 ring , 1.354v llc6 , cn23 temps 1-2 cores hit 95c , is it ok ??? Or I got some issue ?? (310-320w tdp )


Completely normal unless you get better cooling these chips are monsters.


----------



## mros83

Codiee1337 said:


> Because I hadn't had time to OC it properly. I couldn't even try to reach a better score... I just used the Asus AI OC feature. I'm a University student, this is my big brothers PC. (I personally built it for him with my two hands, acquired the CPU from his money, acquired a GPU from his money on launch date for example, basically I helped him get a new PC, but its from his money), because of that and I live in Hungary and in Debrecen, I had to travel to Budapest (brother lives there) 3 times (2 times (back and forth) via Train, and 1 time with car (200km) just to build his PC. Because I had 8AM classes in Debrecen on the University, I didn't have time for more sadly..  I think it could be OC'd to 5.8GHz AllCore fixed and 6.2GHz (P core) Single Core. With more tweaking a 6.2-6.0-5.8-5.6GHz stable OC can be achieved with 12900KS voltages(?) I guess. We'll see more tomorrow, and I'll OC the processor according to the independent reviews and my own experience.
> Few things to note here: CPU CONTACT FRAME IS INEVITABLE FOR OVERCLOCK.
> AIO IS ALSO INEVITABLE EVEN FOR STOCK USAGE!
> DELIDING AND POLISHING WILL ACHIEVE BETTER RESULTS!
> 
> *P.S: DON'T DRIVE 200KM WHILE TIRED AFTER ASSEMBLING PC AND BENCHING IT AND SLEEPING 3 HOURS! *


that's PASSION for something


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> 
> I think I figured it out, so most 13900K’s can run 5.7-5.8Ghz with good cooling. Coincidentally this is also right around the absolute thermal limits of the effective heat transfer of the factory Intel IHS/solder. However, when you delid a golden 13900K aka high SP chip, it absolutely soars! It’s able to stretch past those thermal limits now.
> 
> I was running 5.9P @1.315V prior, then after delid I booted up and all of a sudden running [email protected]! As I’m dropping off voltage left and right as if I swapped in a better chip. And it was still pushing through R23‘s. It’s just insane seeing something like that. Going from 1.315 to 1.265 bios voltage is huge.
> 
> So yes, you’re right! Delidding a 13900K is not worth it. Unless the chip is good. If it’s an SP116+ I’d say probably worth direct die for sure.
> 
> My chip always ran blazing hot. And I knew something was up with it. I Popped the IHS and bam. It runs 6.0Ghz/4.7GHz like it’s an easy going 5.7Ghz/4.5Ghz.
> 
> I did a full bios reset, setup my lower voltages for SA/VDDQ/VDD2 etc, and I’m going through Cinebench R23 @6.0 P-Cores/ 4.7 E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Ring, with a max of 310 watts. 🤯 VROut is 1.310V underload. Scoring 44.7K. This chip is just a boss man.


What's the temp drop from stock and what is the temp delta between cores?


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> 
> I think I figured it out, so most 13900K’s can run 5.7-5.8Ghz with good cooling. Coincidentally this is also right around the absolute thermal limits of the effective heat transfer of the factory Intel IHS/solder. However, when you delid a golden 13900K aka high SP chip, it absolutely soars! It’s able to stretch past those thermal limits now.
> 
> I was running 5.9P @1.315V prior, then after delid I booted up and all of a sudden running [email protected]! As I’m dropping off voltage left and right as if I swapped in a better chip. And it was still pushing through R23‘s. It’s just insane seeing something like that. Going from 1.315 to 1.265 bios voltage is huge.
> 
> So yes, you’re right! Delidding a 13900K is not worth it. Unless the chip is good. If it’s an SP116+ I’d say probably worth direct die for sure.
> 
> My chip always ran blazing hot. And I knew something was up with it. I Popped the IHS and bam. It runs 6.0Ghz/4.7GHz like it’s an easy going 5.7Ghz/4.5Ghz.
> 
> I did a full bios reset, setup my lower voltages for SA/VDDQ/VDD2 etc, and I’m going through Cinebench R23 @6.0 P-Cores/ 4.7 E-Cores, 5.1Ghz Ring, with a max of 310 watts. 🤯 VROut is 1.310V underload. Scoring 44.7K. This chip is just a boss man.


insane stats. also delidding is a skill i dont have lol wish i could tho but as a gamer i am happy since its clear ram OC is a lot more important with these chips and at 4200 cl15 i have reached my limit


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> What's the temp drop from stock and what is the temp delta between cores?


P-Core Delta is around 2-3C except for 1 core is a little wonky that runs like 10C cooler than the rest which is messing that delta up. I may open it back up and make sure nothing is causing that. But really, it’s probably fine.

The P-Cores cores dropped 10-17C in temps. The E-Cores dropped 14C or higher. The E-Core delta is very very good now.

You absolutely need to supercool your SP119. It’s stock IHS/solder is its limiter for sure.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> 
> I think I figured it out, so most 13900K’s can run 5.7-5.8Ghz with good cooling. . Scoring 44.7K. This chip is just a boss


Averages for all P cores with a good AIO and HT on look like:

13900K - 5.7 - 5.8
13700k - 5.6 - 5.7, but a larger variance for better or worse
13600k - 5.5 - 5.6

My one core on my 13600KF that will do 5.7 HT on / 5.8 HT off, thats like one diamond rare core for a 13600K lol.

All those 6 Ghz+ attempts, you need a solid high end water loop, with the best AIO looks like highest you might manage is 13900KS boosts with a small all core OC.


----------



## RichKnecht

VULC said:


> They are changing the TDP so the curve will change but its still the same SP. They just took the regular K and changed the specs and rebranded but you can do that manually in bios.


Unfortunately, the crappy VID tables will still be programmed into the chips. Supplying a crap load of voltage when the chip can, quite often, run just fine with less.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> This is R23 at 6.0P-Core and 4.7 E-Cores 320 freakin watts!  Who's CPU is this? And where did mine go? I am in disbelief over this chip right now. Such a beast of a CPU! I love this X236F509
> View attachment 2590168
> 
> 
> View attachment 2590166


Looks good, but it looks like you aren't using any (or auto) LLC correct? At those voltages, I would be afraid of voltage spikes once the load is released from the chip, Those spikes will not show up in any monitoring program. The only way to "see" them is with an oscilloscope. Not sure about 13th gen, but with X299 you wanted v-droop to compensate for such spikes as they could be quite significant. I can't imagine it being any different for these chips. That "flat" voltage curve you are "seeing" probably isn't "flat" at all. The spikes are probably more pronounced when benching as you are pulling max voltage at max clocks. Not too sure about how it works with gaming, but if the loads on the CPU are significant, I am sure the spikes will be there as well. Just putting it out there.


----------



## Brads3cents

kunit13 said:


> Brad,
> 
> Do you use a contact frame with the IHS? I bought the kit with the IHS but have been seeing some conflicting reports that it does not fit with the contact frame 13th gen.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Storm,
> 
> I'd also like to know what most people are doing for gaming. Historically I've just used fixed vcore "all core". Seems like most folks in this forum use a var or adaptive OC.


To date i haven't used the contact frame but ive seen plently of youtube videos that have contact frame with copper ihs so im not sure about the people on rocketcool saying it didnt fit. like 2 or 3 people

rocketcool themselves market it that it fits contact frames.
I ordered one myself for $14 off amazon but it doesnt come until Wednesday. Im not worried

as for fixed all core vs one by one i think both are viable. If you watch a guide for overclocking they most likely will do something like 60x2 59x2 58x2 57x2
ive done both and they both work well but setting all the cores to be the same is harder to run unless you pick a lower load like x57 or x58

Ive run as high as 6.1Ghz all core, with HT on and all ecores on. i cant even run r23 with these settings but i posted some killer 3d mark scores. A lot depends on your chip quality and cooling solution 

if you have loads that dont utilize all cores you may be better off raising your first cores higher than the rest and saving yourself power and heat


----------



## Brads3cents

HemuV2 said:


> Intel 13th Gen Raptor Lake binning – over 500 CPUs tested! | Part 1: i9-13900K and 13900KF | igor'sLAB
> 
> 
> Just in time for Christmas we have something special for you today. With the help of MIFCOM, we were allowed to bin a statistically not insignificant amount of CPUs (over 500 in total) and today we…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.igorslab.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 13900K/KF binning data looks like 106 is avg pcore SP for K


im glad you posted this. very interesting

so it looks like in terms of mode, your most likely to get an ecore rating of 83. 85, and 88
thats honestly higher than i thought. so many of those chips were 88

Food for thought, *the MC rating of the KFs are lower than the Ks*
so if your into memory overclocking dont buy the KF

some ugly data there for the kf. it looks like even some of the p 120 chips barely achieved over 70 mc score

on the flipside, it seems your much more likely to have an overall higher sp rating with the KF
so it seems this could be possibly due binning for the KS

for the 13900k, the most common SP score was 97, followed by 96 and 99. thats fairly disappointing
the KF has a more rounded distribution with the majority falling between 96 and 106

with all the chips combined, you need a p sp of 116 to be considered the top 10%

a score of 119 and higher seems incredably difficult.... only 2% of the chips tested were able to achieve at least 119 p

since the difference between 116 and 119 is minimal, if you can get your hands on a 116 consider yourself lucky and dont bother to continue binning as odds are you will need to test 50 chips just to move up your p score a few levels higher which may not even amount to a higher overclock


----------



## Latchback

Brads3cents said:


> im glad you posted this. very interesting
> 
> so it looks like in terms of mode, your most likely to get an ecore rating of 83. 85, and 88
> thats honestly higher than i thought. so many of those chips were 88
> 
> Food for thought, *the MC rating of the KFs are lower than the Ks*
> so if your into memory overclocking dont buy the KF
> 
> some ugly data there for the kf. it looks like even some of the p 120 chips barely achieved over 70 mc score
> 
> on the flipside, it seems your much more likely to have an overall higher sp rating with the KF
> so it seems this could be possibly due binning for the KS
> 
> for the 13900k, the most common SP score was 97, followed by 96 and 99. thats fairly disappointing
> the KF has a more rounded distribution with the majority falling between 96 and 106
> 
> with all the chips combined, you need a p sp of 116 to be considered the top 10%
> 
> a score of 119 and higher seems incredably difficult.... only 2% of the chips tested were able to achieve at least 119 p
> 
> since the difference between 116 and 119 is minimal, if you can get your hands on a 116 consider yourself lucky and dont bother to continue binning as odds are you will need to test 50 chips just to move up your p score a few levels higher which may not even amount to a higher overclock


I'm not sure how useful the MC SP number currently is. I'm seeing people in this very forum(and elsewhere) get 8000MTs++ on a crappy MC SP number.

I think most raptor lake MC can get pretty far.

MC SP might matter much more as DDR5 OCing and kits progress; for example achieving 9000-10000MTs we start seeing a much higher correlations.

For ram overclocking(raptor lake), motherboard is most important, followed by the mb bios version, then quality of the sticks themselves. 

Am I a bit salty I do not have an APEX? NO, why do you ask????? My 7800c34 is just fine on my not so extreme board.


----------



## Brads3cents

most of the people on this forum have an uber mobo like an apex and you can get 8000 MT with a MC score of 72
you still have many many timings to go through. when i fixed my mount my mc score jumped 4 points and instead of occasional errors in TM5 with trefi @ 65535 i would able to go error free with trefi 4x higher
it absolutely matters as everyone seems to be hitting a wall at 7800 to 8200 but those who have reported the highest MC ratings are showing 8600+ with even better timings and often even lower tRFC


----------



## acoustic

I believe the first runs of the Rockitcool Copper IHS suffer the wings being too large, and not allowing the frame to sit properly. Mine has this issue. I guess you can sand it down, but meh. There is far more temp improvement from the contact frame than there is with the Copper IHS, and the lack of nickel plating on the Die->IHS side requires a bit of extra work for liquid metal application.


----------



## warbucks

tps3443 said:


> P-Core Delta is around 2-3C except for 1 core is a little wonky that runs like 10C cooler than the rest which is messing that delta up. I may open it back up and make sure nothing is causing that. But really, it’s probably fine.
> 
> The P-Cores cores dropped 10-17C in temps. The E-Cores dropped 14C or higher. The E-Core delta is very very good now.
> 
> You absolutely need to supercool your SP119. It’s stock IHS/solder is its limiter for sure.


You're using a 12th gen direct die block from Supercool, correct?


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> I believe the first runs of the Rockitcool Copper IHS suffer the wings being too large, and not allowing the frame to sit properly. Mine has this issue. I guess you can sand it down, but meh. There is far more temp improvement from the contact frame than there is with the Copper IHS, and the lack of nickel plating on the Die->IHS side requires a bit of extra work for liquid metal application.


I tried to tell everyone. No one would hear me friend. Everyone said I was doing it wrong 🤣 lol.

I emailed Rockitcool as well, so they are aware of the problem!

Cooper IHS and contact frame doesn’t fit properly. I tested (2) Rockitcool copper 13th gen IHS‘s, and neither one fits.

Let me rephrase that, they will fit. Only not in a very safe or useable way. They’ll be leaned to one side and it will not make full contact with the die.


----------



## RichKnecht

Sitting here working on some photos and i just noticed all P cores are boosting to 6.0 during low power tasks. I have the P cores set to Turbo mode offset +2 in bios and "auto". Does this sound right?


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> Sitting here working on some photos and i just noticed all P cores are boosting to 6.0 during low power tasks. I have the P cores set to Turbo mode offset +2 in bios and "auto". Does this sound right?


Yes. 5.8 + 2 = 6.0


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> Yes. 5.8 + 2 = 6.0


But ALL of the P cores? Thought it was just the 2.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> But ALL of the P cores? Thought it was just the 2.


Oh. Weird. Do you have "Enhanced Turbo Boost" enabled in Advanced CPU config?


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> Oh. Weird. Do you have "Enhanced Turbo Boost" enabled in Advanced CPU config?


I have "Turbo boost" and "Turbo Boost 3.0" enabled. Didn't see an entry for Enhanced Turbo boost.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Sitting here working on some photos and i just noticed all P cores are boosting to 6.0 during low power tasks. I have the P cores set to Turbo mode offset +2 in bios and "auto". Does this sound right?


Keep going with it. You can dial out more than that even. I would use the turbo boost OC option, so you can dial in loads depending on how many cores are used. You can even set the best cores to only boost to the highest. 6.2GHz for example. And limit the others to 6.0 or 6.1. It leaves a KS model with no appeal at all lol.


----------



## tps3443

@RichKnecht

The reason why it shows 6Ghz on all cores is, all of your P-Cores are allowed to boost to 6Ghz when only (2) cores or less are underload. You have to physically limit the 6.0Ghz to the best specific cores if you want to see just 2 cores only at 6Ghz. Otherwise, it allows 6Ghz to be ran on all of them, “When a 2 core load is in effect only” this works best actually, because if you run a single thread test all of the cores are at 6Ghz already so no delay with windows grabbing the fastest cores to handle the lighter loads. But, once the load goes beyond 2+ cores they all drop to your normal speed.


----------



## ViTosS

That latest Windows 11 22H2 update (22621.963) I had a massive FPS drop in SOTTR benchmark


----------



## VULC

Latchback said:


> I'm not sure how useful the MC SP number currently is. I'm seeing people in this very forum(and elsewhere) get 8000MTs++ on a crappy MC SP number.
> 
> I think most raptor lake MC can get pretty far.
> 
> MC SP might matter much more as DDR5 OCing and kits progress; for example achieving 9000-10000MTs we start seeing a much higher correlations.
> 
> For ram overclocking(raptor lake), motherboard is most important, followed by the mb bios version, then quality of the sticks themselves.
> 
> Am I a bit salty I do not have an APEX? NO, why do you ask????? My 7800c34 is just fine on my not so extreme board.


I don't have the MC SP on the Strix z690a with my KF but I have 4 X 8gb b die sticks stable at 4100mhz 15-15-14-23 320 50000 cooled with a fan. With 2 X 16gb I'd get 4200cl16 or 4133cl15. Everyone I've seen mention it has gotten the same as well. VDDQ 1.39v, DRAM 1.55v, SA 1.35.


----------



## yzonker

ViTosS said:


> That latest Windows 11 22H2 update (22621.963) I had a massive FPS drop in SOTTR benchmark


Yea, I ran in to this with the Timespy CPU benchmark. Have you installed this update?






November 29, 2022—KB5020044 (OS Build 22621.900) Preview - Microsoft Support







support.microsoft.com





When I tried doing this, that KB never showed up in optional updates. Not sure if it was automatically installed with 22h2 or not. Performance was still bad so I rolled back to 21H2.


----------



## VULC

ViTosS said:


> That latest Windows 11 22H2 update (22621.963) I had a massive FPS drop in SOTTR benchmark


Go back to win 10 so much security updates and bloat on win 11 killing gaming performance. Win 10 performing way better for gaming.


----------



## ViTosS

yzonker said:


> Yea, I ran in to this with the Timespy CPU benchmark. Have you installed this update?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> November 29, 2022—KB5020044 (OS Build 22621.900) Preview - Microsoft Support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> support.microsoft.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I tried doing this, that KB never showed up in optional updates. Not sure if it was automatically installed with 22h2 or not. Performance was still bad so I rolled back to 21H2.


Not sure, since I'm using Ghost Spectre edition I can't update through Windows Update, need to wait for Ghost to publish new standalone build update.


----------



## ViTosS

VULC said:


> Go back to win 10 so much security updates and bloat on win 11 killing gaming performance. Win 10 performing way better for gaming.


Actually I went back to Win 10, the performance in SOTTR bench was exact the same, the only reason made me back to 11 is because Windows 10 is bugged when running TM5 stress test, it put load only on the E-Cores.


----------



## kunit13

VULC said:


> Go back to win 10 so much security updates and bloat on win 11 killing gaming performance. Win 10 performing way better for gaming.


I agree, we did some testing with WZ2 (yah i know lol), and win 10 21h2 had the best frames and 1%.....


----------



## VULC

ViTosS said:


> Actually I went back to Win 10, the performance in SOTTR bench was exact the same, the only reason made me back to 11 is because Windows 10 is bugged when running TM5 stress test, it put load only on the E-Cores.


Yeah, you need to run E cores off, as it make no difference for gaming because the P Cores get all the L3 cache with E Cores off but it's nice for R23.


----------



## ViTosS

VULC said:


> Yeah, you need to run E cores off, as it make no difference for gaming because the P Cores get all the L3 cache with E Cores off but it's nice for R23.


It does actually, had lower score with E-Cores off on SOTTR bench (didn't test others). And for memory stability the ideal is to have all the cores getting loaded when stress testing.


----------



## ViTosS

kunit13 said:


> I agree, we did some testing with WZ2 (yah i know lol), and win 10 21h2 had the best frames and 1%.....


Windows 10 WZ2 it utilizes ALL the P and E-Cores, Win 11 a lot of cores are 0-1%, not sure if just the reading is bugged or the CPU usage is actually not being used, but the framerate was the same when I tested.


----------



## yzonker

ViTosS said:


> It does actually, had lower score with E-Cores off on SOTTR bench (didn't test others). And for memory stability the ideal is to have all the cores getting loaded when stress testing.


Yea, I saw the same thing. SotTR seems to launch enough threads that the extra cores help slightly. I think it was only maybe 5 fps out of 380 or something like that.


----------



## ViTosS

ViTosS said:


> Windows 10 WZ2 it utilizes ALL the P and E-Cores, Win 11 a lot of cores are 0-1%, not sure if just the reading is bugged or the CPU usage is actually not being used, but the framerate was the same when I tested.


If you see here, Windows 10 all cores getting loaded, Windows 11 a lot 0-1%



Spoiler: Windows 10

















Spoiler: Windows 11















But if you see, on the same spot, the FPS is basically the same, even the usage in Windows 11 being weird



Spoiler: Windows 10

















Spoiler: Windows 11


----------



## VULC

ViTosS said:


> It does actually, had lower score with E-Cores off on SOTTR bench (didn't test others). And for memory stability the ideal is to have all the cores getting loaded when stress testing.


Should test actual in-game fps, not the bench. Many game benches are totally different from in-game.


----------



## kunit13

ViTosS said:


> Windows 10 WZ2 it utilizes ALL the P and E-Cores, Win 11 a lot of cores are 0-1%, not sure if just the reading is bugged or the CPU usage is actually not being used, but the framerate was the same when I tested.


You have to set you your render count. Or it will utilize your ecores. I have mine on with no issues? Passing tm5 and memtest @7800cl16. The reason why i keep my ecores on is sometimes I stream and have to use OBS to project my screen to my streaming PC. I have a 1440p monitor 240 so cloning screen does not work so well.


----------



## Nizzen

ViTosS said:


> That latest Windows 11 22H2 update (22621.963) I had a massive FPS drop in SOTTR benchmark


Does anyone update windows on a gaming rig? 
Can't imagine using Win 11 without disable windows update 😅
Ps : Using win 11 Ghost Spectre 
Performance is king!


----------



## HemuV2

Brads3cents said:


> im glad you posted this. very interesting
> 
> so it looks like in terms of mode, your most likely to get an ecore rating of 83. 85, and 88
> thats honestly higher than i thought. so many of those chips were 88
> 
> Food for thought, *the MC rating of the KFs are lower than the Ks*
> so if your into memory overclocking dont buy the KF
> 
> some ugly data there for the kf. it looks like even some of the p 120 chips barely achieved over 70 mc score
> 
> on the flipside, it seems your much more likely to have an overall higher sp rating with the KF
> so it seems this could be possibly due binning for the KS
> 
> for the 13900k, the most common SP score was 97, followed by 96 and 99. thats fairly disappointing
> the KF has a more rounded distribution with the majority falling between 96 and 106
> 
> with all the chips combined, you need a p sp of 116 to be considered the top 10%
> 
> a score of 119 and higher seems incredably difficult.... only 2% of the chips tested were able to achieve at least 119 p
> 
> since the difference between 116 and 119 is minimal, if you can get your hands on a 116 consider yourself lucky and dont bother to continue binning as odds are you will need to test 50 chips just to move up your p score a few levels higher which may not even amount to a higher overclock


yes and KF data is also more accurate coz more samples lol they are inferior in terms of mc sp and i guess overall chance of above avg bin cuz many were lower than 109


----------



## kunit13

Set your render count. 

Vulc,

As far as wz testing. Ive spent to much time optimizing. I usually test on the benchmark (mw2). Then run capframe X on the same part of the map... 






ViTosS said:


> If you see here, Windows 10 all cores getting loaded, Windows 11 a lot 0-1%
> 
> 
> 
> But if you see, on the same spot, the FPS is basically the same, even the usage in Windows 11 being weird


----------



## ViTosS

kunit13 said:


> You have to set you your render count. Or it will utilize your ecores. I have mine on with no issues? Passing tm5 and memtest @7800cl16. The reason why i keep my ecores on is sometimes I stream and have to use OBS to project my screen to my streaming PC. I have a 1440p monitor 240 so cloning screen does not work so well.


You mean in WZ2.0? I tried messing with that, the default is 16 (the maximum value also acceptable is 16), changed to 8, etc, nothing makes the usage like Windows 10. If you can show your Windows 11 utilizing all P and E-Cores in WZ2.0 I would like to see, because seems impossible, in the screenshot it appears that only the HT cores of respective P-Cores are not being utilized, while in Windows 10 it is.


Nizzen said:


> Does anyone update windows on a gaming rig?
> Can't imagine using Win 11 without disable windows update 😅
> Ps : Using win 11 Ghost Spectre
> Performance is king!


I update because this latest build .963 they said they fixed something that was affecting gaming performance, and yes I'm using Ghost Spectre, updated through his website with the latest standalone update.


----------



## kunit13

I dont run windows 11 (tried it and it was worse). But I can send you data for windows 10. I can send you some of my data without cluttering up this thread.
I ran collected quite a bit of data when switched from 5950x to 13900k. Tested renders from 4-8.

Below is wz2 ingame I ran these a few weeks ago. effective clocks.


----------



## ViTosS

kunit13 said:


> I dont run windows 11 (tried it and it was worse). But I can send you data for windows 10. I can send you some of my data without cluttering up this thread.
> I ran collected quite a bit of data when switched from 5950x to 13900k. Tested renders from 4-8.
> 
> Below is wz2 ingame I ran these a few weeks ago. effective clocks.
> View attachment 2590310


I know Windows 10 utilizes all the cores, I'm talking about Windows 11. I don't use Windows 10 because of the bug when stress testing with TM5.


----------



## kunit13

It doesn't utilize all cores?? Why would you want that? You want the PCores being used and ecores doing background ****? my ecores are pretty much idling. I have seen any bugs with TM5 and win 10 myself. Ill run another quick stress test TM


----------



## tps3443

@ViTosS 

What game is that you posted above with Win 10 and Win 11 comparison?


----------



## ViTosS

tps3443 said:


> @ViTosS
> 
> What game is that you posted above with Win 10 and Win 11 comparison?


Warzone 2.0, free to play game.


----------



## ViTosS

kunit13 said:


> It doesn't utilize all cores?? my ecores are pretty much idling. I have seen any bugs with TM5 and win 10 myself. Ill run another quick stress test.


It doesn't, it starts loading all the P and E, after a while all the load on P goes to 0% and only E are 100%.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> I have "Turbo boost" and "Turbo Boost 3.0" enabled. Didn't see an entry for Enhanced Turbo boost.


It’s “Enhanced Turbo” beneath “Turbo Boost Max Tech 3.0”

I forget exactly what it does, but my atrocious memory is telling me it’ll allow all cores to boost to your low-load speeds rather than just the stock two.


----------



## kunit13

Hey I'll send you a message. Dont want to clutter anymore of this thread with Warzone bro talk. 
Ill check on that today (running a quick 1usmus tm5/win10 ecore on test on my gaming rig). 



ViTosS said:


> It doesn't, it starts loading all the P and E, after a while all the load on P goes to 0% and only E are 100%.


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> It’s “Enhanced Turbo” beneath “Turbo Boost Max Tech 3.0”
> 
> I forget exactly what it does, but my atrocious memory is telling me it’ll allow all cores to boost to your low-load speeds rather than just the stock two.


l’ll look again later tonight. Not sure my bios has that parameter.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> l’ll look again later tonight. Not sure my bios has that parameter.


I'd be surprised if it didn't have it


----------



## imanoobie

ViTosS said:


> I know Windows 10 utilizes all the cores, I'm talking about Windows 11. I don't use Windows 10 because of the bug when stress testing with TM5.


what bug I'm 3hours into extreme lool


----------



## imanoobie

kunit13 said:


> Hey I'll send you a message. Dont want to clutter anymore of this thread with Warzone bro talk.
> Ill check on that today (running a quick 1usmus tm5/win10 ecore on test on my gaming rig).


add me to the chain I'm having serious problems on this game with 13700kf windows 10 , running 200fps and still feeling delayed and slow after half a match cant figure out what p and e Cores are doing even if I set only p Cores in games render worker count in config file


----------



## kunit13

imanoobie said:


> add me to the chain I'm having serious problems on this game with 13700kf windows 10 , running 200fps and still feeling delayed and slow after half a match cant figure out what p and e Cores are doing even if I set only p Cores in games render worker count in config file


Will do:


----------



## VULC

What svid cache voltage is everyone running to get 5.1ghz ring?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

VULC said:


> What svid cache voltage is everyone running to get 5.1ghz ring?


I'm running adaptive cache voltage of 1.44v for 5.5GHz.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> What svid cache voltage is everyone running to get 5.1ghz ring?


Auto in bios.

HWinfo reports 1.288V-1.290V Uncore VID underload for 5.1GHz.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> Auto in bios.
> 
> HWinfo reports 1.288V-1.290V Uncore VID underload for 5.1GHz.





RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm running adaptive cache voltage of 1.44v for 5.5GHz.


If you tune ram Ring will be much lower correct @RobertoSampaio?

I set ring to 5.2 and manually set the cache voltage to 1.178v and it's stable, not sure why on auto cache max stable ring is 49 but when I set it manually it seems to set the minimum constant voltage that it cant go under.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> If you tune ram Ring will be much lower correct @RobertoSampaio?
> 
> I set ring to 5.2 and manually set the cache voltage to 1.178v and it's stable, not sure why on auto cache max stable ring is 49 but when I set it manually it seems to set the minimum constant voltage that it cant go under.


It’s dependent on core voltage for me. Because my cores are all at 6.0Ghz, and 4.7Ghz on the E-Cores. So it’s the same VID voltage as those. 1.250-1.309.

If you lower or increase your cores voltage and frequency, it will also lower or increase.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

E-cores, P-cores and Ring share the same power rail... So the highest will win and be applied to Vcore.


----------



## VULC

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm running adaptive cache voltage of 1.44v for 5.5GHz.


If you set a manual cache voltage the VRM vcore has to supply what's the max safe for Asus guidelines? Obviously cores will get the highest everytime but if I want to increase ring it seems I have to manually set it for a all core OC to be stable at higher ring.


----------



## bscool

Edit


----------



## energie80

Can enabling e cores increase ram instability ?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

In my case the adaptive for cores will be applied for e-cores (49x) and adaptive for ring will be applied for 55x




















P-cores have a specific adaptive voltage for each P-core.


----------



## ViTosS

imanoobie said:


> what bug I'm 3hours into extreme lool


You sure? Expand the individual core/threads tab in HWiNFO64, check the usage of all the 32 if they are always at 100% while running, maybe your Windows not on ''ultimate maximum performance power plan''? Idk, for me it was really evident the problem, also @PhoenixMDA had the same problem and confirmed to me.


----------



## Thunderclap

Krzych04650 said:


> I am running 60P/45E/52R at only 1.35V thanks to disabling HT, and so far I haven't found any games where HT On would be meaningfully faster, while I have found both games where running more than 16 threads has performance penalty, up to like 15% in some cases for 32 threads, and also where disabling E-cores has performance penalty, up to 10%, *so the most efficient and performant way to run the CPU for gaming both in terms of clocks and optimal thread count/compatibility is 8P/8E/HT0*, at least as far as I can see.


So basically running it like a 13700K with HT turned off  

Has anyone actually compared a 13900K running as 8P/16E/HToff vs 8P/8E/HToff then compare it to a 13700K running the same 8P/8E/HToff configuration? Specifically the 8P/8E/HToff configuration for both the 13900K/13700K and seeing if the small bump in cache size and, say, 200-300MHz on top for the 13900K since it's better binned, makes any difference at all vs the 13700K?

Is that "60P/45E/52R" running as 8P/8E/HToff and is it on custom water loop or AIO? What are the temps like in-game?


----------



## VULC

Thunderclap said:


> So basically running it like a 13700K with HT turned off
> 
> Has anyone actually compared a 13900K running as 8P/16E/HToff vs 8P/8E/HToff then compare it to a 13700K running the same 8P/8E/HToff configuration? Specifically the 8P/8E/HToff configuration for both the 13900K/13700K and seeing if the small bump in cache size and, say, 200-300MHz on top for the 13900K since it's better binned, makes any difference at all vs the 13700K?
> 
> Is that "60P/45E/52R" running as 8P/8E/HToff and is it on custom water loop or AIO? What are the temps like in-game?


The problem is when the E cores get hit it dramatically effects performance I wouldn't substitute them for a HT. Not that a HT is better then an E core on its own but that P cores are way more powerful.


----------



## Thunderclap

VULC said:


> The problem is when the E cores get hit it dramatically effects performance I wouldn't substitute them for a HT. Not that a HT is better then an E core on its own but that P cores are way more powerful.


If I understand correctly, what you mean is that it's not worth disabling half of the E-cores on the 13900K and just run it as 8P/16E/HToff and push the clocks as high as possible with the extra thermal headroom by turning HT off?

The thing is, I wonder how much those extra 8 E-cores actually do, compared to the 13700K. We're talking strictly gaming.


----------



## bhav

energie80 said:


> Can enabling e cores increase ram instability ?


Not sure about enabling, but both e core and cache overclocking can make ram overclocks unstable. Raising L2 and core voltage a bit in those cases can help.


----------



## tps3443

I personally don’t like disabling HT, or disabling E-Cores.I want to overclock the CPU in its entirety to its fullest. If something is holding me back, I try to overcome that limitation as best as I can. But, I want a beast for multithreaded. I understand some people don’t care and only run games. Disabling a part of the CPU effects my OCD lol.


----------



## Thunderclap

tps3443 said:


> I personally don’t like disabling HT, or disabling E-Cores.I want to overclock the CPU in its entirety to its fullest. If something is holding me back, I try to overcome that limitation as best as I can. But, I want a beast for multithreaded. I understand some people don’t care and only run games. Disabling a part of the CPU effects my OCD lol.


I mean even with HT off, the 13900K is still a 24C/24T CPU vs a 24C/32T CPU at stock, so you ain't losing much MT performance, to be completely honest.  So unless you're running _heavily _multi-threaded workloads, I think HT off is pretty reasonable, especially for people running AIOs or even air cooling, since the thermal headroom means an extra few hundred MHz OC or even running stock clocks but at much more manageable temps.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

ViTosS said:


> You sure? Expand the individual core/threads tab in HWiNFO64, check the usage of all the 32 if they are always at 100% while running, maybe your Windows not on ''ultimate maximum performance power plan''? Idk, for me it was really evident the problem, also @PhoenixMDA had the same problem and confirmed to me.


Yes has taken only ecore´s and i have need arround 2h25min for anta777 extrem.


----------



## RackarN

So since i never could get the temps down on my 13700k i went and did a delid.. as i suspected it helped a lot! To the left of both pictures you see the solder being very thick, it pressed pretty hard on the CPU and had poor contact i would assume. At stock and undervolted 0.06 i still reached 100c while stress testing. And gaming was avg 75, peek 80. (Custom loop, 360 rad 60mm + 240mm rad, water temp 32c)

"Working as intended" i was told, and also "Intel has good solders" well.... 25c difference tells another story imo...not sure if i can use velocity2 as a direct die cooler just yet tho, kinda don't want to tear the loop apart just now.


----------



## kunit13

Thunder,

When i switched over from a 5950x to a 13900 I was testing a lot of different scenarios. 
This is some data from a few weeks ago. It was using the benchmark (recording with capx). Once I get my new setup a little more I will prob do actual in game. 

5.7hyperthread off vs 5.7 baseline (ht and ecores on), 5.7 ecores off. 






















Thunderclap said:


> So basically running it like a 13700K with HT turned off
> 
> Has anyone actually compared a 13900K running as 8P/16E/HToff vs 8P/8E/HToff then compare it to a 13700K running the same 8P/8E/HToff configuration? Specifically the 8P/8E/HToff configuration for both the 13900K/13700K and seeing if the small bump in cache size and, say, 200-300MHz on top for the 13900K since it's better binned, makes any difference at all vs the 13700K?
> 
> Is that "60P/45E/52R" running as 8P/8E/HToff and is it on custom water loop or AIO? What are the temps like in-game?


----------



## kunit13

R,


Im about to delid mine. Did you preheat the chip or just delid cold? My first delid......





RackarN said:


> So since i never could get the temps down on my 13700k i went and did a delid.. as i suspected it helped a lot! To the left of both pictures you see the solder being very thick, it pressed pretty hard on the CPU and had poor contact i would assume. At stock and undervolted 0.06 i still reached 100c while stress testing. And gaming was avg 75, peek 80. (Custom loop, 360 rad 60mm + 240mm rad, water temp 32c)
> 
> "Working as intended" i was told, and also "Intel has good solders" well.... 25c difference tells another story imo...not sure if i can use velocity2 as a direct die cooler just yet tho, kinda don't want to tear the loop apart just now.


----------



## RackarN

kunit13 said:


> R,
> 
> 
> Im about to delid mine. Did you preheat the chip or just delid cold? My first delid......


Not really, i ran CB23 for 10 minutes while I was preparing with q tips and stuff  the solder is extremely soft. I didn't have to crank the Allen key very hard at all, like I've seen people did on YouTube videos, but it's "safer" to heat it up a bit i suppose.. a hairdryer would do..


----------



## VULC

RobertoSampaio said:


> In my case the adaptive for cores will be applied for e-cores (49x) and adaptive for ring will be applied for 55x
> 
> View attachment 2590350
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2590348
> 
> 
> P-cores have a specific adaptive voltage for each P-core.
> 
> View attachment 2590349


This gets me 5.1Ghz ring and lowers ram latency to 47.5ns on AIDA. Running auto cache only stabilized ring at 4.9.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> This gets me 5.1Ghz ring and lowers ram latency to 47.5ns on AIDA. Running auto cache only stabilized ring at 4.9.
> 
> View attachment 2590367
> 
> 
> View attachment 2590369


It does lower latency for sure. However, Ring OC is highly dependent on CPU voltage just like the E-Cores are.

This is what 5.3 Ring looks like on mine.










I see like running some 13900K samples stock, do not like a OCed ring at all. Because we may be reducing their voltage to lower power and heat for 5.5Ghz and it starves them out on any sort of ring OC. Same for the E-Cores.


----------



## Thunderclap

kunit13 said:


> Thunder,
> 
> When i switched over from a 5950x to a 13900 I was testing a lot of different scenarios.
> This is some data from a few weeks ago. It was using the benchmark (recording with capx). Once I get my new setup a little more I will prob do actual in game.
> 
> 5.7hyperthread off vs 5.7 baseline (ht and ecores on), 5.7 ecores off.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2590364


Thanks for posting your findings. 

So pretty much no difference at all, at least in MW2, that is. 

Have you tried any other games? Can you push the clocks a bit further with HT off to see if that makes it improve the fps? Also, have you tried any other games (preferably heavier titles, like CP2077 or Witcher 3 with the latest update) to see if you get similar results?


----------



## kunit13

I haven't tried other games yet. This was on the benchmark. I think the benchmark is ok, but doesn't transfer as well as in game testing.
The E core thing is new to me so I need to do more testing. I guess I need to get out of the mindset "I paid for them I want use em" lol.
You should be able to push the clocks harder. Even with just turning HT off seems like higher clocks are easier to get game stable. 

Going DOWN ANOTHER rabbit hole......





Thunderclap said:


> Thanks for posting your findings.
> 
> So pretty much no difference at all, at least in MW2, that is.
> 
> Have you tried any other games? Can you push the clocks a bit further with HT off to see if that makes it improve the fps? Also, have you tried any other games (preferably heavier titles, like CP2077 or Witcher 3 with the latest update) to see if you get similar results?


----------



## ViTosS

You guys gotta test the games individually, each game reacts differently, for me SOTTR with E-Cores off was a massive FPS drop (this in Windows 11 btw), and E-Cores on with P-Cores with or without HT was the same FPS.


----------



## l.kristensen.1981

bhav said:


> Actually I spoke too soon, open frame case is a godsend, much lower GPU and Vram temps too!


I totally agree, my new pc is also in my first open frame. The DistroCase 350p. It’s the best ever .. I’m really happy with it


----------



## l.kristensen.1981

VULC said:


> It's a shame these chips suck so much power that you need 1080mm worth of rads to use them to their full potential with e-cores on. Intel needs to do something about voltage requirements next-gen. If they can pull something off with an AIO would be crazy good for them.


it depends on how you configure the chip. Stock which is blazing fast with voltage tweaks can run quite cool. Mine in gaming is like 50-60c water cooling and open case though. But the watts can come a long way down if no crazy OC And some trimming in power delivery. I have mine trimmed right now so that full power all cores no throttle draws 240w, so under normal use and gaming it’s quite good.

you can though if you want OC and make a nuclear power plant out of the chip though lol .. I’m waiting for that to delid relid lm, contact frame in next week though hehe 😜


----------



## storm-chaser

Brads3cents said:


> im glad you posted this. very interesting
> 
> so it looks like in terms of mode, your most likely to get an ecore rating of 83. 85, and 88
> thats honestly higher than i thought. so many of those chips were 88
> 
> Food for thought, *the MC rating of the KFs are lower than the Ks*
> so if your into memory overclocking dont buy the KF
> 
> some ugly data there for the kf. it looks like even some of the p 120 chips barely achieved over 70 mc score
> 
> on the flipside, it seems your much more likely to have an overall higher sp rating with the KF
> so it seems this could be possibly due binning for the KS
> 
> for the 13900k, the most common SP score was 97, followed by 96 and 99. thats fairly disappointing
> the KF has a more rounded distribution with the majority falling between 96 and 106
> 
> with all the chips combined, you need a p sp of 116 to be considered the top 10%
> 
> a score of 119 and higher seems incredably difficult.... only 2% of the chips tested were able to achieve at least 119 p
> 
> since the difference between 116 and 119 is minimal, if you can get your hands on a 116 consider yourself lucky and dont bother to continue binning as odds are you will need to test 50 chips just to move up your p score a few levels higher which may not even amount to a higher overclock


What is this MC rating, and where are you getting your data? 
Can you briefly explain MC and SP meaning, not familiar with their purpose. Assuming it's binning related, but I don't have a 13th gen (yet) so I'm just curious at this point.


----------



## VULC

storm-chaser said:


> What is this MC rating, and where are you getting your data?
> Can you briefly explain MC and SP meaning, not familiar with their purpose. Assuming it's binning related, but I don't have a 13th gen (yet) so I'm just curious at this point.


Silicon Prediction Asus algo to predict silicon quality.


----------



## mikasalo500

Hello everyone, I have the problem with my z790 Apex that the computer freezes in idle. Ram runs at 8000 and passes hours of testing, cpu is also overclocked but can run it in y cruncher without errors too. The error code is then Kernel Power ID41. I can also play and work for hours without any problems. Mostly it happens when I booted up the pc in the desktop. Here also my settings. Does the CPU need more Vcore? I've tried up to 1.46V, didn't help. Or do I need to increase IA AC? I'm at 0.13 now and still freezing...it also happens with ram on 7800 or 7600. Does anyone have an idea what it could be? And here my Settings...i tried also with 58 58 57 56 56 55 55 55, the same....


----------



## Ichirou

mikasalo500 said:


> Hello everyone, I have the problem with my z790 Apex that the computer freezes in idle. Ram runs at 8000 and passes hours of testing, cpu is also overclocked but can run it in y cruncher without errors too. The error code is then Kernel Power ID41. I can also play and work for hours without any problems. Mostly it happens when I booted up the pc in the desktop. Here also my settings. Does the CPU need more Vcore? I've tried up to 1.46V, didn't help. Or do I need to increase IA AC? I'm at 0.13 now and still freezing...it also happens with ram on 7800 or 7600. Does anyone have an idea what it could be? And here my Settings...i tried also with 58 58 57 56 56 55 55 55, the same....


Reflash the BIOS, and try reducing the cache to 45x for now if it has been raised.


----------



## mikasalo500

Ichirou said:


> Reflash the BIOS, and try reducing the cache to 45x for now if it has been raised.


In the meantime I had already updated to 0810. I didn't have these problems with 0806. I have now set the cache to auto and am testing...limiting the C states helped...many thanks for your help


----------



## Krzych04650

Thunderclap said:


> So basically running it like a 13700K with HT turned off
> 
> Has anyone actually compared a 13900K running as 8P/16E/HToff vs 8P/8E/HToff then compare it to a 13700K running the same 8P/8E/HToff configuration? Specifically the 8P/8E/HToff configuration for both the 13900K/13700K and seeing if the small bump in cache size and, say, 200-300MHz on top for the 13900K since it's better binned, makes any difference at all vs the 13700K?
> 
> Is that "60P/45E/52R" running as 8P/8E/HToff and is it on custom water loop or AIO? What are the temps like in-game?


Yea, basically. It will have 200-300 MHz better bin and more cache, IMC is random, also not sure about Ring bin, so I don't know how much a difference all that makes vs running 13700K, but it would probably be a few percentage points, maybe 5% at the high-end.

It is on custom water cooling and temps at 20C water temp are mostly in the 40s and 50s, very CPU bound and heavily multithreaded games where CPU power draw can exceed 150W can spike into 60s.


----------



## Betroz

I thought that with Alder/Raptor CPUs that games will only use P-cores while the E-cores do background stuff. Now reading this thread, this is clearly not the case. Not the same at all, but kind of like the "problems" with higher latency on AMD Ryzen with two CCDs like the 7950X.

I'm sitting on the fence here in regards to what to buy. Pick up a 13700K/13900K or wait for Ryzen 7000 3D. Coming from Z490/10900K I see the newest Intel plattform more complex to tune. Well my perception of if anyways. Talking about all the different voltages and having to deal with e-cores aswell. What I know is vcore, VCCIO, VCCSA and VDIMM...LOL


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> I thought that with Alder/Raptor CPUs that games will only use P-cores while the E-cores do background stuff. Now reading this thread, this is clearly not the case. Not the same at all, but kind of like the "problems" with higher latency on AMD Ryzen with two CCDs like the 7950X.
> 
> I'm sitting on the fence here in regards to what to buy. Pick up a 13700K/13900K or wait for Ryzen 7000 3D. Coming from Z490/10900K I see the newest Intel plattform more complex to tune. Well my perception of if anyways. Talking about all the different voltages and having to deal with e-cores aswell. What I know is vcore, VCCIO, VCCSA and VDIMM...LOL


Same "voltage" for p-cores, e-cores and ring now 😁
Set v-dimm, auto SA, auto MC (imc) if under ~8000mhz, auto TX.
Then play games 😊
Now it's almost too easy if you run "xmp tweaked" with 95% performance.

Happy christmas mate 🎅


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> Now it's almost too easy if you run "xmp tweaked" with 95% performance.


Thanks, and 95% is enough for me.

God jul ja 🎅


----------



## digitalfrost

Betroz said:


> I'm sitting on the fence here in regards to what to buy. Pick up a 13700K/13900K or wait for Ryzen 7000 3D. Coming from Z490/10900K I see the newest Intel plattform more complex to tune. Well my perception of if anyways. Talking about all the different voltages and having to deal with e-cores aswell. What I know is vcore, VCCIO, VCCSA and VDIMM...LOL


I think the platform longevity will be better on AM5, but right now, especially if you OC the 13th gen is the best gaming CPU IMHO. If you go Intel you will for sure need a new board soon and from the leaks it doesn't look so good for Intel in the coming year:






I had a ton of fun tuning this platform, if you're into that it's worth it for that alone. On Ryzen you can barely OC because the CPUs operate more like Nvidia GPU boost. For the money, I would wait for 7000X3D.


----------



## Nizzen

digitalfrost said:


> I think the platform longevity will be better on AM5, but right now, especially if you OC the 13th gen is the best gaming CPU IMHO. If you go Intel you will for sure need a new board soon and from the leaks it doesn't look so good for Intel in the coming year:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a ton of fun tuning this platform, if you're into that it's worth it for that alone. On Ryzen you can barely OC because the CPUs operate more like Nvidia GPU boost. For the money, I would wait for 7000X3D.


With AMD and "longevity" :
You will have countless of hours having "fun" with AGESA, thats for shure 
Most people with Zen: 
Buying X370 + 18xxx, sold to buy x470 and 2xxx. This again sold as a bundle to buy x570 and 5xxx cpu.
"Longevity" is a lie 😅

The few people actual running x370 with 5800x3d is actual ~zero


----------



## imrevoau

Do you guys think its fair to assume the 13900K runs cooler than the 13700K due to the addition of more e-cores? Since e-cores don't add as much heat as regular cores, a 13900K @ 250w should be a bit cooler than a 13700K @250.

I just say this because I am running a 13700KF (No direct die or contact frame, maybe I should?) And with a H170i, at around 260-270w of power draw, I start getting to the high 80's for temps, even into the 90s. I feel like I've seen people with big coolers run their 13900K's into the 300s without throttling


----------



## digitalfrost

Nizzen said:


> With AMD and "longevity" :
> You will have countless of hours having "fun" with AGESA, thats for shure
> Most people with Zen:
> Buying X370 + 18xxx, sold to buy x470 and 2xxx. This again sold as a bundle to buy x570 and 5xxx cpu.
> "Longevity" is a lie 😅
> 
> The few people actual running x370 with 5800x3d is actual ~zero


Absolutely true. I bought X370+18000X then upgraded to 3900XT and when I was convinced I wouldn't get 5800X3D I went Intel instead. A couple of months later they allowed 5800X3D on X370 but it was too late then...

In any case in the same time with Intel you went through 2 generations of socket 1151, to LGA 1200 to LGA 1700. And just as many chipsets.


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> You will have countless of hours having "fun" with AGESA, thats for shure


Yeah, and a reason why I went for 10900K back then. People say the 7000 series is better.
As with 58003D, RAM speed and tuning didn't matter as much because of the huge cache, the same would be true for 78003D. I could just buy a 6000C30 kit, set 1:1 with IF and load EXPO profile. Done. Spending many hours tweaking for that 2-5% better performance is time I would rather spend gaming. Getting old and lazy maybe


----------



## Telstar

Thunderclap said:


> The thing is, I wonder how much those extra 8 E-cores actually do, compared to the 13700K. We're talking strictly gaming.


Probably nothing except heavy MT games such as civ6.
The main difference between 13700k and 13900k in gaming is clocks.


----------



## HemuV2

imrevoau said:


> Do you guys think its fair to assume the 13900K runs cooler than the 13700K due to the addition of more e-cores? Since e-cores don't add as much heat as regular cores, a 13900K @ 250w should be a bit cooler than a 13700K @250.
> 
> I just say this because I am running a 13700KF (No direct die or contact frame, maybe I should?) And with a H170i, at around 260-270w of power draw, I start getting to the high 80's for temps, even into the 90s. I feel like I've seen people with big coolers run their 13900K's into the 300s without throttling


i mean the 13700K is also lower bin meaning itll run lower clocks at the same PL


----------



## Luggage

_sigh_ arguing on Reddit again - does ram speed/latency have any meaningful impact on R23 with 13th gen or is it just core and ring speed?

like zen doesn’t care at all …


http://imgur.com/a/AYEZibB


----------



## acoustic

R23 does not respond to memory speeds. Ring exclusively, I have not tested.. but I would make an educated guess and say no, it does not respond to ring either.


----------



## RackarN

I had the same cinebench as when i ran untweaked memory 4200mhz vs tight timings. (45ns vs 54, over 5k faster read/write) also with the ring clock o did this morning to 5ghz, same same.


----------



## Nizzen

It was fun playing Cinebench on Amd 1800x ages ago, because it sucked for gaming 
Stopped playing Cinebench after that 🤣


----------



## Ichirou

Nizzen said:


> With AMD and "longevity" :
> You will have countless of hours having "fun" with AGESA, thats for shure
> Most people with Zen:
> Buying X370 + 18xxx, sold to buy x470 and 2xxx. This again sold as a bundle to buy x570 and 5xxx cpu.
> "Longevity" is a lie 😅
> 
> The few people actual running x370 with 5800x3d is actual ~zero





digitalfrost said:


> Absolutely true. I bought X370+18000X then upgraded to 3900XT and when I was convinced I wouldn't get 5800X3D I went Intel instead. A couple of months later they allowed 5800X3D on X370 but it was too late then...
> 
> In any case in the same time with Intel you went through 2 generations of socket 1151, to LGA 1200 to LGA 1700. And just as many chipsets.


And now people with a Ryzen 5000 are stuck between a rock and a hard place because their DDR4 RAM cannot be reused on the 7000 series, lol. 


imrevoau said:


> Do you guys think its fair to assume the 13900K runs cooler than the 13700K due to the addition of more e-cores? Since e-cores don't add as much heat as regular cores, a 13900K @ 250w should be a bit cooler than a 13700K @250.
> 
> I just say this because I am running a 13700KF (No direct die or contact frame, maybe I should?) And with a H170i, at around 260-270w of power draw, I start getting to the high 80's for temps, even into the 90s. I feel like I've seen people with big coolers run their 13900K's into the 300s without throttling


That doesn’t make any sense and I am not sure why you would even propose the thought of it. 


Luggage said:


> _sigh_ arguing on Reddit again - does ram speed/latency have any meaningful impact on R23 with 13th gen or is it just core and ring speed?
> 
> like zen doesn’t care at all …
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/AYEZibB





acoustic said:


> R23 does not respond to memory speeds. Ring exclusively, I have not tested.. but I would make an educated guess and say no, it does not respond to ring either.





RackarN said:


> I had the same cinebench as when i ran untweaked memory 4200mhz vs tight timings. (45ns vs 54, over 5k faster read/write) also with the ring clock o did this morning to 5ghz, same same.


According to @sugil0ver, RAM and ring have almost virtually no influence. But they likely do affect the voltage requirements internally.


----------



## tps3443

I’ve got my ring stable at 5.3Ghz, at the same voltages that 5.1Ghz needs. Turns out, I was running too little memory voltage that was causing some instability in Call Of Duty MW2. I don’t trust HCI Memtest anymore. 1.395V to my DDR5 7400 was not enough. Even though it passed HCI Memtest to roughly 800%, it failed on COD MW2. I bumped DDR5 Dimm voltage to 1.440V, and it’s good to go!

I’m extremely happy with this chip though.
HT is on.
P-Cores @6.0Ghz
E-Cores @4.7Ghz
Ring @5.3Ghz
1.320V in bios.

^ I’ve been running this daily now. Cinebench R23 passes 30 minutes easily. Max power only 310 watts. I haven’t tried 4.8 E-Cores since going direct die. But, 4.8GHz did work totally fine. I’m absolutely loving this chip.


----------



## energie80

tps3443 said:


> I’ve got my ring stable at 5.3Ghz, at the same voltages that 5.1Ghz needs. Turns out, I was running too little memory voltage that was causing some instability in Call Of Duty MW2. I don’t trust HCI Memtest anymore. 1.395V to my DDR5 7400 was not enough. Even though it passed HCI Memtest to roughly 800%, it failed on COD MW2. I bumped DDR5 Dimm voltage to 1.440V, and it’s good to go!
> 
> I’m extremely happy with this chip though.
> HT is on.
> P-Cores @6.0Ghz
> E-Cores @4.7Ghz
> Ring @5.3Ghz
> 1.320V in bios.
> 
> ^ I’ve been running this daily now. Cinebench R23 passes 30 minutes easily. Max power only 310 watts. I haven’t tried 4.8 E-Cores since going direct die. But, 4.8GHz did work totally fine. I’m absolutely loving this chip.


warzone 2 is extremely sensitive, i use it for testing


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I’ve got my ring stable at 5.3Ghz, at the same voltages that 5.1Ghz needs. Turns out, I was running too little memory voltage that was causing some instability in Call Of Duty MW2. I don’t trust HCI Memtest anymore. 1.395V to my DDR5 7400 was not enough. Even though it passed HCI Memtest to roughly 800%, it failed on COD MW2. I bumped DDR5 Dimm voltage to 1.440V, and it’s good to go!
> 
> I’m extremely happy with this chip though.
> HT is on.
> P-Cores @6.0Ghz
> E-Cores @4.7Ghz
> Ring @5.3Ghz
> 1.320V in bios.
> 
> ^ I’ve been running this daily now. Cinebench R23 passes 30 minutes easily. Max power only 310 watts. I haven’t tried 4.8 E-Cores since going direct die. But, 4.8GHz did work totally fine. I’m absolutely loving this chip.


This is why you properly test the IMC and ring with the test suite that I detailed about a few times already.

Cinebench is terrible for anything but testing the cores standalone, and even then it’s a stretch.

It really doesn’t hurt to run y-cruncher N/H/V and TM5. They are light on the CPU. Even lighter than Cinebench, really.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> This is why you properly test the IMC and ring with the test suite that I detailed about a few times already.
> 
> Cinebench is terrible for anything but testing the cores standalone, and even then it’s a stretch.


My memory fails at stock 7200 XMP 1.400V running COD MW2.

COD MWF2 is amazing though!! I bumped to 1.440V DDR5 voltage and it’s good to go.


----------



## tps3443

I’m thinking about grabbing a Z790 Hero brand new for $500 bucks. Anyone overclocking memory on one? How is stability? It on par or slightly better than a MSI Unify-X?

I’m really after having an Asus bios in general. The Z790 Hero is more affordable than an Apex.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I’m thinking about grabbing a Z790 Hero brand new for $500 bucks. Anyone overclocking memory on one? How is stability? It on par or slightly better than a MSI Unify-X?
> 
> I’m really after having an Asus bios in general. The Z790 Hero is more affordable than an Apex.


Sidegrade that's most likely not going to be worth the cost of the Hero and/or the loss from reselling your Unify-X.
Also, many struggle to stabilize 8,000+ MHz even with an Apex, due to the ridiculous voltages required as you go past that barrier.

Overall, insane DDR5 early adoption tax and poor cost-performance.
Also, it's very likely going to make your current CPU overclock useless as it'll be harder on the chip as a whole.


----------



## acoustic

Dunno why you want the ASUS BIOS more. Doesn’t really offer you anything you don’t already have, unless you’re looking for test BIOS for pushing A Die above 7600.


----------



## Dinnzy

Kunits warzone FPS is legendary


----------



## VULC

What's up with Asus boards and memory? If you validate them stable then try different timings nothing becomes stable anymore and you have to reset bios. Is there are setting I can change to stop this?


----------



## bhav

So look at this CPU comparison, my score on the right (currently No.2), and the number 1 score on the left:










My CPU is at 1 core 5.7 HT on, the top result is at 6 Ghz. My CPU score still a lot higher from my ram.

My GPU won't boost as high to hit no.1 for 13600KF & 3080 Ti 

HT is on for the left result too as HT off 5.8 gives <8k CPU score.


----------



## acoustic

VULC said:


> What's up with Asus boards and memory? If you validate them stable then try different timings nothing becomes stable anymore and you have to reset bios. Is there are setting I can change to stop this?


Just means you're on the edge of stability, especially consistent training stability. You can try increasing CPU VDD2 or CPU VDDQ TX slightly and see if that helps.

I've experienced this in cases where the board is beyond it's functional limit. It'll achieve stability for a little bit, but eventually it'll have issues. If that's the case, not much you can do.


----------



## bhav

Hmmm, not so sure about HT off now, I can run HT on -100 on each core with the contact frame, only just tested while trying to get some top scores on 3D mark:


----------



## imrevoau

Ignore


----------



## bhav

AMD 7000 series being DDR5 only made it a hard pass for me, also they only seem to be able to go up to 6400 DDR5.

I made the 12th gen build knowing I could upgrade to 13th gen, keep DDR4, and replace my 10900K.


----------



## PoizenJam

Chiming in to add my SP info to the stack and ask a probably silly question about stability testing question. First, my 13900K : SP 102; 112 P-Core, 83 E-Core, 74 MC-SP. Not stellar, but not horrid. Might have considered returning and/or shopping for another but I got it for 20% off at launch (late Amazon delivery!) so willing to accept ~average.

As for my question - amongst my suite of stability testing software, the most challenging test for any configuration other-than-stock to pass appears to be the OCCT PSU Stress Test on Auto. Even where I should have significant headroom in Watts, I'll get WHEA errors or BSODs on this with even the mildest undervolts, even when power consumption should be significantly less than stock and more headroom in power should be available! This for configs that handle Y-cruncher benchmarks/tests and Cinebench fine. So here's my silly question: Is this a test I _should _be running when doing CPU overclock stress testing? I know it's intended to stress test PSUs, but shouldn't a stable OC pass it all the same?

As for my thinking for including OCCT _PSU_ test in my _CPU overclocking _stress testing in the first place, I wanted to find the maximum PL where my system could reliably avoid thermal throttling in a worst-case-scenario (i.e. CPU/GPU under full load).


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> And now people with a Ryzen 5000 are stuck between a rock and a hard place because their DDR4 RAM cannot be reused on the 7000 series, lol.
> 
> That doesn’t make any sense and I am not sure why you would even propose the thought of it.
> 
> 
> 
> According to @sugil0ver, RAM and ring have almost virtually no influence. But they likely do affect the voltage requirements internally.


Just ignore what I said, I had a theory in my head but I was extremely drunk and couldn’t formulate what I meant


----------



## Ichirou

PoizenJam said:


> Chiming in to add my SP info to the stack and ask a probably silly question about stability testing question. First, my 13900K : SP 102; 112 P-Core, 83 E-Core, 74 MC-SP. Not stellar, but not horrid. Might have considered returning and/or shopping for another but I got it for 20% off at launch (late Amazon delivery!) so willing to accept ~average.
> 
> As for my question - amongst my suite of stability testing software, the most challenging test for any configuration other-than-stock to pass appears to be the OCCT PSU Stress Test on Auto. Even where I should have significant headroom in Watts, I'll get WHEA errors or BSODs on this with even the mildest undervolts, even when power consumption should be significantly less than stock and more headroom in power should be available! This for configs that handle Y-cruncher benchmarks/tests and Cinebench fine. So here's my silly question: Is this a test I _should _be running when doing CPU overclock stress testing? I know it's intended to stress test PSUs, but shouldn't a stable OC pass it all the same?
> 
> As for my thinking for including OCCT _PSU_ test in my _CPU overclocking _stress testing in the first place, I wanted to find the maximum PL where my system could reliably avoid thermal throttling in a worst-case-scenario (i.e. CPU/GPU under full load).


Depends on what y-cruncher tests you're running. Also, L2 Cache voltage is important.
BSODs will depend on what the actual errors are. It'll pinpoint where the issue is.


----------



## PoizenJam

Ichirou said:


> Depends on what y-cruncher tests you're running. Also, L2 Cache voltage is important.
> BSODs will depend on what the actual errors are. It'll pinpoint where the issue is.


I've had configs pass several hours of Y-cruncher with all tests enabled (+ the Pi Benchmark) that later WHEA or BSOD on the OCCT PSU Stress test in <5 minutes. Usually a range of errors, typically the usual suspects for CPU/RAM (e.g. Error codes 0x101, 0x50, 0x3b), regardless of whether RAM is stock or XMP. To be sure, the RAM (2x32GB Gskill 5600Mhz CL30) has so far passed every error check and stress test I can throw at it at both stock and XMP if the CPU _isn't _OC'd, so I'm reasonably confident the RAM is fine.

I don't know, maybe there's something about the PSU that's not suitable for CPU stress testing. Oddly, It seems to draw far higher Watts to achieve the same all-core frequencies that I can get in, say, Cinebench.


----------



## Ichirou

PoizenJam said:


> I've had configs pass several hours of Y-cruncher with all tests enabled (+ the Pi Benchmark) that later WHEA or BSOD on the OCCT PSU Stress test in <5 minutes. Usually a range of errors, typically the usual suspects for CPU/RAM (e.g. 13, 101, 50, 3b), regardless of whether RAM is stock or XMP. To be sure, the RAM (2x32GB Gskill 5600Mhz CL30) has so far passed every error check and stress test I can throw at it at both stock and XMP if the CPU _isn't _OC'd, so I'm reasonably confident the RAM is fine.
> 
> I don't know, maybe there's something about the PSU that's not suitable for CPU stress testing. Oddly, It seems to draw far higher Watts to achieve the same all-core frequencies that I can get in, say, Cinebench.


That's what I meant. You need more L2 Cache voltage for the WHEAs.
BSOD depends entirely on what the BSOD is.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> That's what I meant. You need more L2 Cache voltage for the WHEAs.
> BSOD depends entirely on what the BSOD is.


How's the z790 edge memory oc? Asus Strix z690a seems like it's stable one day then not the next.


----------



## wtf_apples

Getting kinda spicy. So I could prob keep it lower than 300a to keep my cpu alive?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

VULC said:


> How's the z790 edge memory oc? Asus Strix z690a seems like it's stable one day then not the next.


I find it similar to your experience on my edge


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> How's the z790 edge memory oc? Asus Strix z690a seems like it's stable one day then not the next.


Well... As long as you don't corrupt it with unstable voltages and/or push extreme frequencies, it's quite fine.
But if you're like me where you're pushing the overclock so hard that the BIOS corrupts each time and the memory slots start to fail, then...


----------



## Betroz

Ichirou said:


> But if you're like me where you're pushing the overclock so hard that the BIOS corrupts each time and the memory slots start to fail, then...


Gotta feed that OCD


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Well... As long as you don't corrupt it with unstable voltages and/or push extreme frequencies, it's quite fine.
> But if you're like me where you're pushing the overclock so hard that the BIOS corrupts each time and the memory slots start to fail, then...


This is why DDR4 is so good right now, looks like any old board can do 2 sticks G1 frequencies.

And as with your 4 sticks, good luck trying to get that to happen with 4 sticks of DDR5.


----------



## RichKnecht

wtf_apples said:


> View attachment 2590500
> 
> 
> Getting kinda spicy. So I could prob keep it lower than 300a to keep my cpu alive?


400+W! I wouldn‘t be pushing that much current through that chip for too long. I’m running the same clocks and during R23 my chip draws about 282W


----------



## Lord Alzov

bhav said:


> So look at this CPU comparison, my score on the right (currently No.2), and the number 1 score on the left:
> 
> View attachment 2590478
> 
> 
> My CPU is at 1 core 5.7 HT on, the top result is at 6 Ghz. My CPU score still a lot higher from my ram.
> 
> My GPU won't boost as high to hit no.1 for 13600KF & 3080 Ti
> 
> HT is on for the left result too as HT off 5.8 gives <8k CPU score.


ISt windows 2h22 man it has up to 20% less result


----------



## bhav

Lord Alzov said:


> ISt windows 2h22 man it has up to 20% less result


That is what I have installed.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Ichirou said:


> Well... As long as you don't corrupt it with unstable voltages and/or push extreme frequencies, it's quite fine.
> But if you're like me where you're pushing the overclock so hard that the BIOS corrupts each time and the memory slots start to fail, then...


Done it quiet a few times now 😂


----------



## Csavez™

tps3443 said:


> I’ve got my ring stable at 5.3Ghz, at the same voltages that 5.1Ghz needs. Turns out, I was running too little memory voltage that was causing some instability in Call Of Duty MW2. I don’t trust HCI Memtest anymore. 1.395V to my DDR5 7400 was not enough. Even though it passed HCI Memtest to roughly 800%, it failed on COD MW2. I bumped DDR5 Dimm voltage to 1.440V, and it’s good to go!
> 
> I’m extremely happy with this chip though.
> HT is on.
> P-Cores @6.0Ghz
> E-Cores @4.7Ghz
> Ring @5.3Ghz
> 1.320V in bios.
> 
> ^ I’ve been running this daily now. Cinebench R23 passes 30 minutes easily. Max power only 310 watts. I haven’t tried 4.8 E-Cores since going direct die. But, 4.8GHz did work totally fine. I’m absolutely loving this chip.


Your gold chip may be getting tired!


----------



## neteng101

Nizzen said:


> The few people actual running x370 with 5800x3d is actual ~zero


Even B550/X570 is ancient by today's standards - PCIe lanes and modern connectivity is so lacking. And AM5 has rather expensive B650 boards that don't even come with 4 M2 slots?!

Only problem with Intel and OCing - even if the platform is supported, you still likely will be tempted to upgrade, eg. Z790 and massive DDR5 improvements vs. Z690, plus top tier OC boards cost more than the flagship CPU. Expensive hobby but at least we aren't crimped by Agesa setbacks and X3D and Infinity Cache ratio matching limitations.


----------



## CptSpig

VULC said:


> How's the z790 edge memory oc? Asus Strix z690a seems like it's stable one day then not the next.


Did you disable Fast Boot and MRC Fast Boot. When you have a stable overclock do a power cycle and enable FAST and MRC boot so the memory does not train every time you boot?


----------



## tps3443

Csavez™ said:


> Your gold chip may be getting tired!


Nope, I’m just an idiot who doesn’t stabilize things with proper testing. I stabilize the hard way. 🤣


----------



## bhav

Oh wow, I just had another reply from Intel support claiming that 5.1 Ghz is the single core boost only for a 13600KF, as specified on our Ark page > link.

Same link says 5.1 turbo, and 5.1 P core clocks, there is no separate single core boost on the 13600K / KF!!!

'Intel know more about their CPUs than you', lol it seems they don't.


----------



## Csavez™

tps3443 said:


> Nope, I’m just an idiot who doesn’t stabilize things with proper testing. I stabilize the hard way. 🤣


Take it back from the oc, and you'll see that the games don't freeze, you can even stabilize it to 10000% if the first game crashes!
I also pressed 6ghz, but it's unstable for everyone!
40min game:


----------



## tps3443

Csavez™ said:


> Take it back from the oc, and you'll see that the games don't freeze, you can even stabilize it to 10000% if the first game crashes!
> I also pressed 6ghz, but it's unstable for everyone!
> 40min game:
> View attachment 2590540
> View attachment 2590540


So, COD MW2 would not even launch with my CPU stock, and just XMP enabled. I thought it was the game, so I verified the game files and the same thing kept happening. I disabled XMP and ran DDR5 at 5600Mhz and the game worked just fine. So, I was not sure what was wrong with it. I re-enabled XMP and sent a little more memory voltage and it was running okay but crashed after an hour or less. Then I added 1.440V to my DDR5 which has fixed the issue. I have never seen a game do this at all, even BF2042 runs fine with XMP 7200 1.400V. I have summed this up to COD MWF2 is not stable at all with my memory at XMP 7200 and only 1.400V.


----------



## energie80

Is 1.45 llc 7 safe to use on msi? No benching no Ht. 56 temp while gaming


----------



## tps3443

energie80 said:


> Is 1.45 llc 7 safe to use on msi? No benching no Ht. 56 temp while gaming


Its safe.


----------



## Csavez™

tps3443 said:


> So, COD MW2 would not even launch with my CPU stock, and just XMP enabled. I thought it was the game, so I verified the game files and the same thing kept happening. I disabled XMP and ran DDR5 at 5600Mhz and the game worked just fine. So, I was not sure what was wrong with it. I re-enabled XMP and sent a little more memory voltage and it was running okay but crashed after an hour or less. Then I added 1.440V to my DDR5 which has fixed the issue. I have never seen a game do this at all, even BF2042 runs fine with XMP 7200 1.400V. I have summed this up to COD MWF2 is not stable at all with my memory at XMP 7200 and only 1.400V.


Unify x is the best z690 motherboard, but it's time to replace it, especially since you have such a good cpu, you get more with a memory setting of 8000+ than with a high cpu multiplier.


----------



## tps3443

Csavez™ said:


> Unify x is the best z690 motherboard, but it's time to replace it, especially since you have such a good cpu, you get more with a memory setting of 8000+ than with a high cpu multiplier.


Your absolutely right. So far DDR5 7400 C34 is the most I can truly stabilize on my Z690 Unify-X.. I can run it at 7600 or 7800 even. But it's not actually stable like that.


----------



## Csavez™

tps3443 said:


> Your absolutely right. So far DDR5 7400 C34 is the most I can truly stabilize on my Z690 Unify-X.. I can run it at 7600 or 7800 even. But it's not actually stable like that.


Buy an apex, guaranteed the 8000 with an a-die ram, but also the 8400.
It's a gskill 6400 ram.


----------



## RichKnecht

I’ve been messing around with voltages and I’m trying to figure something out. Let’s say I am running a 57/45/auto OC. Using the Advanced VF curve voltage settings of -.030 from 51-57. This OC is stable, under all core load, at a VID/vcore of 1.25. To get to this voltage there are 2 ways to do so. The first is to set LLC to 7, AC LL to 10 and DC LL to 69. The second method is to raise AC LL to 20 and apply a larger voltage offset. DC LL remains at 69 as that is the impedance value of LLC7 on my Z790 Tomahawk board. Is there any advantage of adjusting voltage using actual voltage offsets or simply adjusting AC LL? My thoughts are that by lowering the AC LL I am affecting the entire VF curve and by adjusting voltage offsets, I am only affecting the voltage curve of a particular frequency. @Falkentyne does this make sense? Is there advantage to either method?


----------



## energie80

tps3443 said:


> Its safe.


Thanks running 60x P 46x E 51 ring and 7600 tight on unify x


----------



## tps3443

energie80 said:


> Thanks running 60x P 46x E 51 ring and 7600 tight on unify x


VROut should be much lower anyways. What is your VROut avg/min while gaming?

Also, since you are sending higher voltages with lots of droop, you should be able to bump the single core load frequencies up a lot more too.


----------



## energie80

Vrout 1.311


----------



## tps3443

Ever since merely adding memory voltage I’ve been good to go with COD MWF2. Been playing over 4 hours today.

6.0P
4.7E
5.3R
HT= On
R23 (30 Min stable)
COD MWF2 (4+ Hour stable)
TVB Voltage optimization disabled.

Good enough for gaming!


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> Ever since merely adding memory voltage I’ve been good to go with COD MWF2. Been playing over 4 hours today.
> 
> 6.0P
> 4.7E
> 5.3R
> HT= On
> R23 (30 Min stable)
> COD MWF2 (4+ Hour stable)
> TVB Voltage optimization disabled.
> 
> Good enough for gaming!
> 
> View attachment 2590565
> 
> View attachment 2590566


Cpu power : 108w 😆


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> Cpu power : 108w 😆


Yep, COD doesn't use much.


----------



## VULC

Basically, RPL maxed out give or take 1 or 2ns on the latency and a 100Mhz or 2 on the CPU.


----------



## kunit13

Finished the delid and Liquid metal. Ended up just using the stock IHS. Ill save the all copper one for my KS.
Thanks for all the tips! A few things I noticed:
1. The new rockit IHS works with Thermal grizzlies contact frame.
2. The rockit delid tool does create a small flange on the side that pressure is applied.

I just touched it up with dremel
I relapped the IHS to make sure it wasn't bent from the delid (seemed fine).
3. I cant remember whos post I saw but as soon as I checked mem sp, I knew my first mount was bad. (i ****ing hate V2. cant wait for my top mount mag).

It seems to be a little better on temps. Due to all my remounting and trying to 1 arm/forehead mount the V2 I ran out of KPX. So I had barely enough Kryonut to finish.


----------



## GioCTRL

VULC said:


> Basically, RPL maxed out give or take 1 or 2ns on the latency and a 100Mhz or 2 on the CPU.
> 
> View attachment 2590586


That's some solid bandwidth, I'm stuck at 65 62.5 and 68gb/s in a z690 edge and 4133c16 g.skill dr bdie that can't go lower than 400trfc before ****ting the bed :/ any Tipps? I'm not too deep into the ram oc rabbit hole other than trefi trfc and primaries also ppd0 and RTL enabled that's all my ram tuning knowledge.


----------



## VULC

GioCTRL said:


> That's some solid bandwidth, I'm stuck at 65 62.5 and 68gb/s in a z690 edge and 4133c16 g.skill dr bdie that can't go lower than 400trfc before ****ting the bed :/ any Tipps? I'm not too deep into the ram oc rabbit hole other than trefi trfc and primaries also ppd0 and RTL enabled that's all my ram tuning knowledge.


I'm on SR 4 X 8GB b die. Try 1.525v DRAM, 1.39v VDDQ, and 1.35v SA. Just plug in those timings and see how you go. My ring and vcore 1.325v LLC 6. I mean with DR B die you should be able to get 4200 cl16, trfc doesn't matter just max out trefi 65534 and get ring to 5100mhz.


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> I’m thinking about grabbing a Z790 Hero brand new for $500 bucks. Anyone overclocking memory on one? How is stability? It on par or slightly better than a MSI Unify-X?
> 
> I’m really after having an Asus bios in general. The Z790 Hero is more affordable than an Apex.


Why not just get a msi itx 2 dimm


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

Okay , finally managed to dial in a daily oc that im reasonably pleased with of [email protected]@[email protected]@1.38vc loaded . Seeing some mad frame rates in my gaming ect .
Intel Core i7 13700KF @ 5800 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR (x86.fr)
Next is learning how to do this boost thingy . I feels so noob


----------



## Betroz

tps3443 said:


> Ever since merely adding memory voltage I’ve been good to go with COD MWF2. Been playing over 4 hours today.


That would imply that the XMP profile with 1.4v isn't properly stresstested by the manufacturer, yes? Or maybe the motherboard has an issue and not feeding the correct voltage? Seems strange to me. I mean that if you can pass Y-cruncher, TM5 anta777 extreme and HCI Memtest PRO for 2+ hours, it usually is stable for gaming...


----------



## KeyFree

Just installed and I have my 13900k stable at 56/46 and 50 on the ring.

My Aida l3 cache score seems very high tho. 36.7ns

ASUS z690 strix board, 2204 bios

Any ideas why it’s twice as high as others I’ve seen?

thanks!


----------



## Neo_Morpheus

I tried out no hyperthreading just to compare results like bhav has done on his 13600k. 16cores/16threads on the 13700kf, dropped a massive amount of temps so I could find a higher overclock, raising the voltage to 1.41V with 1.35V for 5.7GHz all core and 5.9GHz turbo, 46E 50R, with about 90c after one run in cinebench R23.

Compared some games and saw no difference (about .1% slower) and benchmarks were about 1% slower (Compared to 5.5GHz all core) I think I'm already going fast enough for the RTX 4080 so saw no change.

I wouldn't turn hyperthreading off unless you have bad cooling and don't have enough overclocking headroom. That said 13600k should be enough for a RTX3080ti without the need to turn H/T off as it makes other programs slower.


----------



## VULC

Betroz said:


> That would imply that the XMP profile with 1.4v isn't properly stresstested by the manufacturer, yes? Or maybe the motherboard has an issue and not feeding the correct voltage? Seems strange to me. I mean that if you can pass Y-cruncher, TM5 anta777 extreme and HCI Memtest PRO for 2+ hours, it usually is stable for gaming...


XMP is dead half the kits and mobos don't xmp. You have to put your own VDDQ voltages at XMP for them to run.


----------



## VULC

KeyFree said:


> Just installed and I have my 13900k stable at 56/46 and 50 on the ring.
> 
> My Aida l3 cache score seems very high tho. 36.7ns
> 
> ASUS z690 strix board, 2204 bios
> 
> Any ideas why it’s twice as high as others I’ve seen?
> 
> thanks!


Did you OC your BCLK, ie is it over 100?


----------



## Krzych04650

tps3443 said:


> Ever since merely adding memory voltage I’ve been good to go with COD MWF2. Been playing over 4 hours today.
> 
> 6.0P
> 4.7E
> 5.3R
> HT= On
> R23 (30 Min stable)
> COD MWF2 (4+ Hour stable)
> TVB Voltage optimization disabled.
> 
> Good enough for gaming!
> 
> View attachment 2590565
> 
> View attachment 2590566


That is some ridiculous chip. I am doing something like this but with HT Off and 1.35-1.37V. And this chip already is like 100-120mV better than the disaster of a 13900KF I had initially, and yours seems to be another 80-100mV better than mine, so what would be the difference between that bad KF I had and your chip, like 250mV at the same clock? That is some serious silicon lottery


----------



## VULC

@RobertoSampaio Merry Christmas by the way. When I set TVB, Boost until target 6000Mhz with 5.7ghz all core it only boosts 2 bins to 5.9Ghz when I clock all core 5.8ghz then it hits 6ghz with. boost until target or +2 bins. Why doesn't it obey the boost until target on 5.7ghz all core?


----------



## HemuV2

Krzych04650 said:


> That is some ridiculous chip. I am doing something like this but with HT Off and 1.35-1.37V. And this chip already is like 100-120mV better than the disaster of a 13900KF I had initially, and yours seems to be another 80-100mV better than mine, so what would be the difference between that bad KF I had and your chip, like 250mV at the same clock? That is some serious silicon lottery


his chip is sp121 that he bought prebinned. sp121 is too rare infact youd be lucky to get sp115+ and if you do best keep it lol


----------



## VULC

If anyone is interested I have for sale.

13900KF SP P Core 113 E SP 88
13900K SP P Core 116 E SP 85


----------



## energie80

Found a sweet spot at 60p 46E 51 Ring
1.45 llc7 Msi
8p 8e Ht off


----------



## fat4l

So..


In terms of SP, what do we consider "Golden" @13900k for P cores?
120+ ?


----------



## VULC

energie80 said:


> Found a sweet spot at 60p 46E 51 Ring
> 1.45 llc7 Msi
> 8p 8e Ht off


What's all core volts and temps?


----------



## Krzych04650

HemuV2 said:


> his chip is sp121 that he bought prebinned. sp121 is too rare infact youd be lucky to get sp115+ and if you do best keep it lol


Yea, I don't know what SP mine is because I am using MSI board, but if this is 121 and assuming this bad KF was 99 then mine is probably like 112-113. Generally satisfied with it. R23 at 55P/43E/45R needs 1.14V load, and stock VF points in BIOS are 1.24 at 55 and 1.312 at 58. KF was 1.26 at 55 and insane 1.42 at 58 and needed 1.28 for R23


----------



## energie80

VULC said:


> What's all core volts and temps?


1.311 vrout on load. 55/57 playing Warzone 2


----------



## HemuV2

Krzych04650 said:


> Yea, I don't know what SP mine is because I am using MSI board, but if this is 121 and assuming this bad KF was 99 then mine is probably like 112-113. Generally satisfied with it. R23 at 55P/43E/45R needs 1.14V load, and stock VF points in BIOS are 1.24 at 55 and 1.312 at 58. KF was 1.26 at 55 and insane 1.42 at 58 and needed 1.28 for R23


Wait is that die sense or? My VIDs are 1.418V for 5.8ghz on the vf and it's SP 109 pcore so i guess you can interpolate to find yours based on 5.8 VID


----------



## HemuV2

these are 2 tests a ran with all ecores off anf 5.8GHz locked, when i try hyper threading off the temps are fine but with ht on its hits 100C so fast and also without HT i set 1.45llc6 in bios and with HT it bluesceened and needed 1.48llc6, is this normal or is something terribly wrong? @Ichirou @RobertoSampaio i understand 5.8 is quite high but still the voltage requirement seems too high for a pcore sp109 no?


----------



## KeyFree

VULC said:


> Did you OC your BCLK, ie is it over 100?


No, it’s at 100


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> Why not just get a msi itx 2 dimm


I already have a Unity-X (2) Dimm. It’s working well enough for me. I’m probably gonna keep it and just be happy. It’s really a great motherboard either way.




Krzych04650 said:


> That is some ridiculous chip. I am doing something like this but with HT Off and 1.35-1.37V. And this chip already is like 100-120mV better than the disaster of a 13900KF I had initially, and yours seems to be another 80-100mV better than mine, so what would be the difference between that bad KF I had and your chip, like 250mV at the same clock? That is some serious silicon lottery


It is a really nice chip. It scales so flipping good. The one thing funny about this CPU is, it ran hotter than any of them, and it had the highest idle bios voltage of any of the other 13900K’s I have tested. How does that even make sense haha? The chip still has more room in it, and this 6.0P/4.7E Is not a stretch at all to run as a daily 24/7. I have not attempted any suicide runs since getting it all setup on Super cool Direct die. I played COD MWF2 for another 5+hours after that last screenshot. I don’t normally play games like that, but I’ve had a lot of fun playing COD MWF2 campaign on the hardest difficulty since buying the game the night before Christmas eve. If you are trying to achieve higher frequencies I would go after a Supercool Direct die setup.

The Supercool Direct die is a little tedious to setup, but worth it all the way. You have to delid your chip, clean solder off, clean residues off, polish the die, clean the substrate until no residue is left behind. Then prepare the new supercool IHS with LM, then LM the cpu die etc, then hook up water and you finally see if your CPU even still works after all of that poking and scraping you just did to it lol. But damn, when you see the difference it’s all worth it! I would give it a shot.


----------



## Krzych04650

tps3443 said:


> I already have a Unity-X (2) Dimm. It’s working well enough for me. I’m probably gonna keep it and just be happy. It’s really a great motherboard either way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a really nice chip. It scales so flipping good. The one thing funny about this CPU is, it ran hotter than any of them, and it had the highest idle bios voltage of any of the other 13900K’s I have tested. How does that even make sense haha? The chip still has more room in it, and this 6.0P/4.7E Is not a stretch at all to run as a daily 24/7. I have not attempted any suicide runs since getting it all setup on Super cool Direct die. I played COD MWF2 for another 5+hours after that last screenshot. I don’t normally play games like that, but I’ve had a lot of fun playing COD MWF2 campaign on the hardest difficulty since buying the game the night before Christmas eve. If you are trying to achieve higher frequencies I would go after a Supercool Direct die setup.
> 
> The Supercool Direct die is a little tedious to setup, but worth it all the way. You have to delid your chip, clean solder off, clean residues off, polish the die, clean the substrate until no residue is left behind. Then prepare the new supercool IHS with LM, then LM the cpu die etc, then hook up water and you finally see if your CPU even still works after all of that poking and scraping you just did to it lol. But damn, when you see the difference it’s all worth it! I would give it a shot.


Heh, that is indeed really bizarre, but I guess it is great that it turned out this way. I see you are having a lot of fun with it.

I am not that much of an overclocker, so no direct die for me, my setup is for gaming only and while I greatly enjoyed the process of maxing this platform out for gaming, I don't really go as far as delidding unless there are some tangible gains to be had for games specifically, which there aren't, scaling with core clock is already questionable as is, and I don't really need top binned chip, I just didn't want to have a terrible one.

I am satisfied with how things are now, for this particular setup that is, in general I'd like another 2x gain for those old single-threaded games  But in general with chips like 13900K and RTX 4090 the 120+ FPS in almost every game that people were already touting many years ago and that was absolutely not true back then is actually a reality now in 99% of games. Or at least it was for like 8 seconds, because now all the massively CPU bound RT games like Witcher 3 next-gen are starting to come out and it looks like we are going to be back to square one in no time whatsoever.

But maybe it is good, if new games will be as badly CPU bound as old single-threaded ones then everyone is going to need as much CPU power as they can get and all of this impotent nonsense talk about how CPU doesn't matter because everyone is GPU bound anyway is finally going to end and there is going to be some pressure on CPU manufacturers to finally start making gaming-specific chips in order to keep up rather than throwing some scraps for mainstream like they do now.


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> View attachment 2590665
> View attachment 2590666
> 
> these are 2 tests a ran with all ecores off anf 5.8GHz locked, when i try hyper threading off the temps are fine but with ht on its hits 100C so fast and also without HT i set 1.45llc6 in bios and with HT it bluesceened and needed 1.48llc6, is this normal or is something terribly wrong? @Ichirou @RobertoSampaio i understand 5.8 is quite high but still the voltage requirement seems too high for a pcore sp109 no?


Trying to run 5.8 GHz with a poor sample is the problem.


----------



## Ichirou

fat4l said:


> So..
> 
> 
> In terms of SP, what do we consider "Golden" @13900k for P cores?
> 120+ ?


P-SP 120+ is diamond
P-SP 115+ is golden (that's where the KSes are expected to be)
P-SP 110+ is above average
P-SP ~110 is average

But keep in mind that the difference between P-SP 111 and P-SP 121 is like +200 MHz across the board _at best_, with the same voltages.


----------



## Betroz

Are most 13700K able to do 5.5 allcore based on the data out there?


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> Are most 13700K able to do 5.5 allcore based on the data out there?


Looks like 5.6 all core is average for 13700K.


----------



## Latchback

tps3443 said:


> I already have a Unity-X (2) Dimm. It’s working well enough for me. I’m probably gonna keep it and just be happy. It’s really a great motherboard either way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a really nice chip. It scales so flipping good. The one thing funny about this CPU is, it ran hotter than any of them, and it had the highest idle bios voltage of any of the other 13900K’s I have tested. How does that even make sense haha? The chip still has more room in it, and this 6.0P/4.7E Is not a stretch at all to run as a daily 24/7. I have not attempted any suicide runs since getting it all setup on Super cool Direct die. I played COD MWF2 for another 5+hours after that last screenshot. I don’t normally play games like that, but I’ve had a lot of fun playing COD MWF2 campaign on the hardest difficulty since buying the game the night before Christmas eve. If you are trying to achieve higher frequencies I would go after a Supercool Direct die setup.
> 
> The Supercool Direct die is a little tedious to setup, but worth it all the way. You have to delid your chip, clean solder off, clean residues off, polish the die, clean the substrate until no residue is left behind. Then prepare the new supercool IHS with LM, then LM the cpu die etc, then hook up water and you finally see if your CPU even still works after all of that poking and scraping you just did to it lol. But damn, when you see the difference it’s all worth it! I would give it a shot.


Any tips on ordering the direct die from supercool? It is always out of stock and I heard its ni impossible to get for various reasons. Also I am assuming it is the more expensive/newer listing for 12th gen direct die on his site(there is 2 listing one more expensive and newer).

Thank you for any info, tips, on trying to get a dd waterblock from supercool or really anywhere else for my raptor 13900KF, runs too spicy.


----------



## Ichirou

Latchback said:


> Any tips on ordering the direct die from supercool? It is always out of stock and I heard its ni impossible to get for various reasons. Also I am assuming it is the more expensive/newer listing for 12th gen direct die on his site(there is 2 listing one more expensive and newer).
> 
> Thank you for any info, tips, on trying to get a dd waterblock from supercool or really anywhere else for my raptor 13900KF, runs too spicy.


Rely on second-hand, not Supercool direct. It's practically a unicorn with how slow his manufacturing is.
He's probably still dealing with hundreds of backorders.


----------



## Betroz

bhav said:


> Looks like 5.6 all core is average for 13700K.


You mean average among the golden samples here on OCN


----------



## Krzych04650

Betroz said:


> You mean average among the golden samples here on OCN


Igor's Lab did some binning of 500 chips and the average for P-cores actually is like 109, so he is right about 110 being average.

Intel 13th Gen Raptor Lake binning – over 500 CPUs tested! | Part 1: i9-13900K and 13900KF | Page 3 | igor'sLAB (igorslab.de)















The difference between K and KF is particularly interesting.


----------



## tps3443

Latchback said:


> Any tips on ordering the direct die from supercool? It is always out of stock and I heard its ni impossible to get for various reasons. Also I am assuming it is the more expensive/newer listing for 12th gen direct die on his site(there is 2 listing one more expensive and newer).
> 
> Thank you for any info, tips, on trying to get a dd waterblock from supercool or really anywhere else for my raptor 13900KF, runs too spicy.


Yep! Buy used. @Ichirou has one coming. I bought mine used lol. And he got his used too. Not just 2nd hand. But 3rd hand lol 😂

Not just that, but we also paid more than MSRP. Mine was $150 lol. His was $120 or so. 

Expect to offer more than MSRP. But they are WORTH IT!


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> Trying to run 5.8 GHz with a poor sample is the problem.


so 5.8 is a lot? i can do 5.7,5.8 with ht off tho 5.9 is like on the edge


----------



## Ichirou

HemuV2 said:


> so 5.8 is a lot? i can do 5.7,5.8 with ht off tho 5.9 is like on the edge


Yes. With average samples, 5.7 GHz all-core in R23 is pretty much the maximum you can achieve under 350W.
5.8 GHz typically involves a jump in voltage.


----------



## wtf_apples

RichKnecht said:


> 400+W! I wouldn‘t be pushing that much current through that chip for too long. I’m running the same clocks and during R23 my chip draws about 282W


Ya kinda scared me haha. Maybe a few minutes at that current. Ive reset and started with much less power. Really hope I didnt damage anything


----------



## Ichirou

wtf_apples said:


> Ya kinda scared me haha. Maybe a few minutes at that current. Ive reset and started with much less power. Really hope I didnt damage anything


This is why you find the absolute minimum voltage required for stock, and then after you do your various overclocking, retry that stock profile to see if it's still stable.
If not, it might've degraded.


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> Yes. With average samples, 5.7 GHz all-core in R23 is pretty much the maximum you can achieve under 350W.
> 5.8 GHz typically involves a jump in voltage.


whats the best sample you have rn? and whats the voltage freq ur doing on it


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> You mean average among the golden samples here on OCN


Based on the 13700K thread anyway

Also judging on my 13600KF likely being one of worst bins you can get for the P cores, it still does 5.4 all core at low voltage (<1.25), but climbs up to 1.3v needed for 5.5 all core with very little additional headroom with HT on.

For air cooling anyway, around 1.3v is the limit for temps, only chips I've seen doing 5.8 all core HT on or better around 1.3v are 13900K / 13900KF, 5.8 all core HT on at <253w on is very rare and looks like 13900 only territory.

With the 13900KS and 13900 non K coming out now, golden chips for 13900K and 13700K are going to become even harder to find.

As for 13900KF having higher SPs on average, thats not surprising, a golden chip with faulty iGPU becomes a 13900KF.

So with 13900KS coming out now, I would advise to stop gambling on the 13900K, also same goes for the 13700K as the 13900 non K is going to eat up all the good chips that can't run 13900K spec.


----------



## storm-chaser

Krzych04650 said:


> Igor's Lab did some binning of 500 chips and the average for P-cores actually is like 109, so he is right about 110 being average.
> 
> Intel 13th Gen Raptor Lake binning – over 500 CPUs tested! | Part 1: i9-13900K and 13900KF | Page 3 | igor'sLAB (igorslab.de)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between K and KF is particularly interesting.


So it appears the KF is actually a better bin than the K? At least in this testing?


----------



## bhav

storm-chaser said:


> So it appears the KF is actually a better bin than the K? At least in this testing?


Yes because faulty iGPU chips have to become 13900KF no matter how golden. 13700KF / 13600KF are binned so you won't get any luck.

13900KS and 13900 non K are going to be taking up all golden 13900K and 13700K chips now, so the time for binning those chips is over.


----------



## Betroz

bhav said:


> So with 13900KS coming out now, I would advise to stop gambling on the 13900K, also same goes for the 13700K as the 13900 non K is going to eat up all the good chips that can't run 13900K spec.


I'm still sitting on the fence. It would be a bad feeling if Ryzen 7000 3D comes out at the end of January, is faster than the 13900K, and I pulled the trigger _now _with a new Intel setup. But if the 7000 3D chip doesn't come out before summer, then I might aswell go for Intel now. See?


----------



## tps3443

storm-chaser said:


> So it appears the KF is actually a better bin than the K? At least in this testing?


Maybe. I’ve had (2) 13900KF’s one was good, one was a turd. But my current 13900K is better than both. It’s all luck in the end.


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> I'm still sitting on the fence. It would be a bad feeling if Ryzen 7000 3D comes out at the end of January, is faster than the 13900K, and I pulled the trigger _now _with a new Intel setup. But if the 7000 3D chip doesn't come out before summer, then I might aswell go for Intel now. See?


Nothing at all wrong with a 13900K average sample anyway, just going to be even slimmer pickings now for a golden one.


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> View attachment 2590665
> View attachment 2590666
> 
> these are 2 tests a ran with all ecores off anf 5.8GHz locked, when i try hyper threading off the temps are fine but with ht on its hits 100C so fast and also without HT i set 1.45llc6 in bios and with HT it bluesceened and needed 1.48llc6, is this normal or is something terribly wrong? @Ichirou @RobertoSampaio i understand 5.8 is quite high but still the voltage requirement seems too high for a pcore sp109 no?


5.6ghz all core 1.17v add 100mv for 5.7ghz and another 100mv for 5.8ghz etc. It's the cooling that is restricting the CPU so instead we have to disable HT etc to get the headroom to scale but these chips are basically tapped out at 6ghz all core best case scenario.


----------



## HemuV2

bhav said:


> Yes because faulty iGPU chips have to become 13900KF no matter how golden. 13700KF / 13600KF are binned so you won't get any luck.
> 
> 13900KS and 13900 non K are going to be taking up all golden 13900K and 13700K chips now, so the time for binning those chips is over.


i thought intel willingly fused some Igpus to get KF samples just for the sales


----------



## bhav

HemuV2 said:


> i thought intel willingly fused some Igpus to get KF samples just for the sales


They do that as well, but nothing you can do with an SP over 9000 chip with a faulty igpu other than sell it as a KF.


----------



## Krzych04650

storm-chaser said:


> So it appears the KF is actually a better bin than the K? At least in this testing?


It does look like it. 13900KF graph looks exactly as I would imagine, while 13900K distribution is very weird. However, I did get a disaster of a KF and a very nice K, so with just one or two tries it is completely random anyway. Also, 500 samples may sound like a lot, but in the grand scheme of things it is really not and only one test like that is probably not enough to draw definitive conclusions.



Betroz said:


> I'm still sitting on the fence. It would be a bad feeling if Ryzen 7000 3D comes out at the end of January, is faster than the 13900K, and I pulled the trigger _now _with a new Intel setup. But if the 7000 3D chip doesn't come out before summer, then I might aswell go for Intel now. See?


I wouldn't really worry about that. 7000X3D may end up faster in techtuber graphs on stock and with some basic low speed XMP, but tuned 13900K is up to 20% faster than what they are showing, and 7000X3D will not scale with anything, so it will already be at the maximum in those tests. Also the wild game to game inconsistency of Zen4 vanilla is only going to get worse, some games will fly away, while some others will stay slower than stock 12900K. Platform stability and reliability is also going to be better on Intel as always.

CES is like a week away so you may just as well wait for the X3D announcement now, but expecting 7000X3D to beat fully tuned 13900K by any significant margin is not very realistic. I was strongly considering 7000X3D myself but then realized that any plan that contains "wait for AMD" must not be very good.


----------



## Ichirou

Krzych04650 said:


> It does look like it. 13900KF graph looks exactly as I would imagine, while 13900K distribution is very weird. However, I did get a disaster of a KF and a very nice K, so with just one or two tries it is completely random anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't really worry about that. 7000X3D may end up faster in techtuber graphs on stock and with some basic low speed XMP, but tuned 13900K is 20% faster than what they are showing, and 7000X3D will not scale with anything, so it will already be at the maximum in those tests. Also the wild game to game inconsistency of Zen4 vanilla is only going to get worse, some games will fly away, while some others will stay slower than stock 12900K. Platform stability and reliability is also going to be better on Intel as always.
> 
> CES is like a week away so you may just as well wait for the X3D announcement now, but expecting 7000X3D to beat fully tuned 13900K by any significant margin is not very realistic.


The same kind of distribution happened with the 12900K/KF as well.
Intel's just binning K's for their KSes. That's all. So there are fewer strong samples with the K's.


----------



## kunit13

Who are the trusted resellers for binned chips? Also with KS coming out in a few weeks would it be worth it just to wait?


----------



## HemuV2

kunit13 said:


> Who are the trusted resellers for binned chips? Also with KS coming out in a few weeks would it be worth it just to wait?


ask @tps3443 xD


----------



## Ichirou

kunit13 said:


> Who are the trusted resellers for binned chips? Also with KS coming out in a few weeks would it be worth it just to wait?


There aren't any. Mostly friends of friends, and taking chances on binned chips people offer, which may or may not be legitimate.
I'd suggest waiting for a KS, or the Raptor Lake Refresh later next year.


----------



## HemuV2

Ichirou said:


> There aren't any. Mostly friends of friends, and taking chances on binned chips people offer, which may or may not be legitimate.
> I'd suggest waiting for a KS, or the Raptor Lake Refresh later next year.


cant wait to see what rpl refresh will be


----------



## storm-chaser

kunit13 said:


> Who are the trusted resellers for binned chips? Also with KS coming out in a few weeks would it be worth it just to wait?


I know it's one of those tough questions to answer. You know you're gonna want a RPL when they come out so it's wise just to wait for now 
KS is good, by track record, but really, how much more do you think we will get from KS vs an ordinary K? People are already hitting heat walls and voltage limits + cooling limits on the K and the only real difference is a 6GHz boost, and members here are already able to replicate that using turbo core overclocking on the K.


----------



## affxct

bhav said:


> Looks like 5.6 all core is average for 13700K.


Uhm


----------



## RichKnecht

HemuV2 said:


> cant wait to see what rpl refresh will be


No doubt it will make some of us start all over again as it will make the 13900KS irrelevant just like the 13900K made the 12900KS irrelevant. It's a vicious cycle.Sticking with my 13900K undervolt. Heck, I even got rid of the 2x58 cores as they do nothing for me. It's a flat 55/43 and it consumes a whopping 223W at full load. For the first time in YEARS, I can't hear my PC while working with it all day


----------



## kunit13

Yah I saw your posts a few weeks ago I didn’t want to go thru that stuff. Thanks for the info


----------



## Betroz

Krzych04650 said:


> I wouldn't really worry about that. 7000X3D may end up faster in techtuber graphs on stock and with some basic low speed XMP, but tuned 13900K is up to 20% faster than what they are showing, and 7000X3D will not scale with anything, so it will already be at the maximum in those tests


Yes, but for a 13900K to get to 8000+ DDR5 speeds you need an Apex board, a good IMC, binned memory and good cooling. Not to mention spending hours after hours tweaking.


----------



## Brads3cents

storm-chaser said:


> So it appears the KF is actually a better bin than the K? At least in this testing?


no because there is still the MC

MC rating, which can be just as important as sp rating, shows that the KF has a notably worse MC on average

odds are you will end up running your memory at a lower frequency with the kf which will have overall performance implications, not to mention timings

from what i can see, and i really dont like the way Igor presented the numbers, it looks like litterally half of the KFs fall in at 70MC and below.

with the regular "k" it seemed 76 was closer to average with a decent number of samples reaching 80 and beyond

on the kf achieving 80 mc was incredibly rare

I would have liked a better study on MC but thats what we have here

But it DOES seem that the kf has better odds at a higher SP, most likely due to intel binning for the KS right now


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> ask @tps3443 xD


I think plenty of good 13900K and 13900KF chips are out there in normal retail to warrant not needing to buy a 13900KS at all. These CPU’s are all thermally limited with their stock soldered IHS no matter how good the silicon is anyways. Which is why Intel restricted the 13900KS to 5.6Ghz all core because most of them will be in AIO’s with 1.5 ounce liquid capacity lol.

I think the best plan of action for anyone is to grab an SP113+ P-Core 13900K/KF and throw it on direct die and run 5.7-5.8 on all cores or higher, then run 6Ghz+ on (2) cores or more. This setup will far outperform the 13900KS, because it technically is a 13900KS only it’s on direct die, and it’ll be very efficient too with a custom loop.

I think finding a 13900K/KF with SP113+ P-Cores is vert easy with testing just one chip, maybe two at the most.

Then overclock your memory as high as possible. 😁 and be happy!

I’m not buying a 13900KS at all. I’m done and keeping my current chip as it’s a really really good sample.


----------



## Ichirou

Brads3cents said:


> no because there is still the MC
> 
> MC rating, which can be just as important as sp rating, shows that the KF has a notably worse MC on average
> 
> odds are you will end up running your memory at a lower frequency with the kf which will have overall performance implications, not to mention timings
> 
> from what i can see, and i really dont like the way Igor presented the numbers, it looks like litterally half of the KFs fall in at 70MC and below.
> 
> with the regular "k" it seemed 76 was closer to average with a decent number of samples reaching 80 and beyond


Did you not read the point that the article made about how the MC SP has almost zero correlation with the maximum bootable frequency and actually achievable stable frequency?
It's a totally moot metric that serves no meaningful purpose.

Apparently the MC SP algorithm tests the system agent at specific frequencies to see how well the chip scales, but I don't think it was calibrated for extreme 8,200+ MHz overclocks.
It's probably accurate up to 8,000 MHz only, and anything beyond has unpredictable scaling depending on chip-to-chip variance.


----------



## Brads3cents

tps3443 said:


> I think finding a 13900K/KF with SP113+ P-Cores is vert easy with testing just one chip, maybe two at the most.
> 
> Then overclock your memory as high as possible. 😁 and be happy!
> 
> I’m not buying a 13900KS at all. I’m done and keeping my current chip as it’s a really really good sample.


it shouldnt be QUITE so easy 
im not exactly sure about p113 but p115 is just over 9% of chips

meaning to get 115+ you need about 11 chips and odds are you will get 1. i would think 113 is a lot easier but that is fairly close to the average of p109-110

ideally to do a meaningful bin you want at least 5 points better than average so 115+ to get a top 10% chip

since the KS is speculated to be p115 minimum.... if you simply buy thr KS your guaranteeing yourself a top 10% chip with great odds of getting a p119+ which is like top 2%


----------



## Brads3cents

Ichirou said:


> Did you not read the point that the article made about how the MC SP has almost zero correlation with the maximum bootable frequency and actually achievable stable frequency?
> It's a totally moot metric that serves no meaningful purpose.
> 
> Apparently the MC SP algorithm tests the system agent at specific frequencies to see how well the chip scales, but I don't think it was calibrated for extreme 8,200+ MHz overclocks.
> It's probably accurate up to 8,000 MHz only, and anything beyond has unpredictable scaling depending on chip-to-chip variance.


so CPU VDDQ and VDD2 are not tested but system agent is and thats still a decent indicator.
Ive been following MC scores and the correlation to frequency and the people with an MC score of 72-78 struggle to run 8000-8200 MAX and thats on an apex board. Many of them have to settle for 7800

The people with an MC score of over 80 have easily been running 8200 with many of them getting 8400 and 8600. the people with a reading of 90 and higher have all hit 8600 and some like sugi have taken it even higher

so i absolutely see a correlation and fully believe MC rating to be meaningful

sugi booted windows at 9000 M/T with an MC rating of 94

i would like to see him do that with a MC rating of 74 and try for you to explain how it doesnt matter


----------



## Ichirou

Brads3cents said:


> so CPU VDDQ and VDD2 are not tested but system agent is and thats still a decent indicator.
> Ive been following MC scores and the correlation to frequency and the people with an MC score of 72-78 struggle to run 8000-8200 MAX and thats on an apex board. Many of them have to settle for 7800
> 
> The people with an MC score of over 80 have easily been running 8200 with many of them getting 8400 and 8600
> 
> so i absolutely see a correlation and fully believe MC rating to be meaningful


Reread the article.
Also, many people with an MC SP of 70+ stabilized 8,000+ MHz already.

Most of the issue boils down to luck, cooling and voltages.
The RAM needs to be binned as well, due to the nature of how a lot of the voltage control has been shifted over to the RAM instead.


----------



## jmb99

For people undervolting, are you still able to run extreme AVX loads stably? I have an SP109 13900k (admittedly not the best sample) with what I thought was a stable undervolt at 100mV overall and a small boost at 58x, tested with cinebench, blender, games, and a few other workloads. However, prime95 small FFTs crashes pretty much instantly, and it crashes all the way down to a voltage offset of only 15mV where it finally becomes stable at stock clocks. Anything higher is either a BSOD or application crash.

Is this normal for these chips? Are people just not testing heavy AVX workloads or running high AVX offsets, or did I just get really unlucky with my chip?


----------



## Brads3cents

Ichirou said:


> Reread the article.
> Also, many people with an MC SP of 70+ stabilized 8,000+ MHz already.
> 
> Most of the issue boils down to luck, cooling and voltages.
> The RAM needs to be binned as well, due to the nature of how a lot of the voltage control has been shifted over to the RAM instead.


from Igor "In addition,* I was already able to test that a high MC SP is often*, but not always, *also indicative of the maximum RAM clock rate that a CPU can support"*



Ichirou said:


> Also, many people with an MC SP of 70+ stabilized 8,000+ MHz already.


8000 isnt that special with an Apex mobo. The majority of MC 72+ with A die will be able to achieve 8000. This isnt the cream de la creme target
obviously, there are other factors as well. there are other voltages as well as the ram kit and motherboard
but to say its meaningless is silly. If i had a chip with a 60 mc im selling it no matter what the p rating is
and if i get a 90mc im absolutely keeping it and testing the heck out of it

i fully appreciate though that the mc rating is far from a guarantee but its still a nice indicator
people felt the same way about sp rating when it was introduced at first with many lower scores demonstrating high overclocks. but as you can see we all love high sp chips. I think the mc score with further evolve through time and perhaps with bios updates be even more reliable


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> it shouldnt be QUITE so easy
> im not exactly sure about p113 but p115 is just over 9% of chips
> 
> meaning to get 115+ you need about 11 chips and odds are you will get 1. I would think 113 is a lot easier but that is fairly close to the average of p109-110
> 
> ideally to do a meaningful bin you want at least 5 points better than average so 115+ to get a top 10% chip
> 
> since the KS is speculated to be p115 minimum.... if you simply buy thr KS your guaranteeing yourself a top 10% chip with great odds of getting a p119+ which is like top 2%


That’s not quite accurate though. I know a lot more people with SP 113+ P-Cores than the opposite.

@VULC what were all of your samples you just bought? I think he bought (3) all at once from Amazon, and has SP113, SP114, SP119.

I have tested (5) chips, and all of them would run 6Ghz all cores, no delid, with cold water through R23 except for (2). Those are good odds to me.

Maybe it’s luck. Maybe not. 🤷‍♂️

Anyone can buy (2) and see. You can call it “Taking the SP113+ challenge“ lol


----------



## Ichirou

jmb99 said:


> For people undervolting, are you still able to run extreme AVX loads stably? I have an SP109 13900k (admittedly not the best sample) with what I thought was a stable undervolt at 100mV overall and a small boost at 58x, tested with cinebench, blender, games, and a few other workloads. However, prime95 small FFTs crashes pretty much instantly, and it crashes all the way down to a voltage offset of only 15mV where it finally becomes stable at stock clocks. Anything higher is either a BSOD or application crash.
> 
> Is this normal for these chips? Are people just not testing heavy AVX workloads or running high AVX offsets, or did I just get really unlucky with my chip?


People enjoy being Cinebench stable with the 13th Gen


----------



## Betroz

Ichirou said:


> People enjoy being Cinebench stable with the 13th Gen


It's 2022 (soon 2023) and stability is just a matter of opinion...


----------



## Brads3cents

im not sure whats the significance of p 113 though 
i mean i guess its technically above average but is that worth it?
i dont think most ppl like to bin anyways since they usually take a loss on the sale of bad and average samples... if thats the case i just say buy the ks for the guarantee
especially right now as lots of binning has been done for the ks so your odds of a great sample are lower


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> People enjoy being Cinebench stable with the 13th Gen


The stock VID curve of most chips is incredibly high and if one needed maybe 1.25V to pass P95 SFFT at stock, I think 90% of people would end up seeing degradation. I can’t say off the top of my head what the current load of SFFT is because I’ve frankly never been a fan of P95, but I don’t know if it’s a good idea. I personally would rather never even attempt to run it. I managed to pass LinX with the newest binary with a batch of settings a few weeks ago so I have a rough idea of how my chip does under proper heavy loads, but P95 no way.


----------



## bhav

If anything needs AVX and the R23 stable OC becomes unstable, then use the AVX offset.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> People enjoy being Cinebench stable with the 13th Gen


If someone’s system is not stable it’ll crash sooner or later. Regardless, most of us all make an overclock stable through trial and error with daily activities from potential crashing that may or may not happen. So, in the end it will become stable through fine tuning via trial and error or they will revert to stock or slower speeds.


----------



## affxct

tps3443 said:


> If someone’s system is not stable it’ll crash sooner or later. Regardless most of us all make an overclock stable through trial and error with daily activities anyways from potential crashing. So, in the end it will become stable or they will revert to stock or slower speeds.


Funnily enough, I’ve noticed that in proper heavy workloads, your chip downclocks. I don’t know how or why this happens but even without AVX offset I’ve observed it with the Taichi and my Dark. I think Asus boards have a workaround for it, but I don’t think one can run above at their OC consistently in something like y-cruncher, P95 or LinX on boards like the Dark, ASRocks, and potentially MSI. Graphically Challenged had an OC y-cruncher stable that needed to be reworked for 30 mins of R23 and I theorised that this happened because his all-core OC on his Dark was actually downclocking in the heaviest portions of y-cruncher. Yeah. Basically only Asus users should even bother.


----------



## Betroz

bhav said:


> If anything needs AVX and the R23 stable OC becomes unstable, then use the AVX offset.


Not a good thing for online multiplayer gaming where latency matters. But normal apps sure.


----------



## RichKnecht

jmb99 said:


> For people undervolting, are you still able to run extreme AVX loads stably? I have an SP109 13900k (admittedly not the best sample) with what I thought was a stable undervolt at 100mV overall and a small boost at 58x, tested with cinebench, blender, games, and a few other workloads. However, prime95 small FFTs crashes pretty much instantly, and it crashes all the way down to a voltage offset of only 15mV where it finally becomes stable at stock clocks. Anything higher is either a BSOD or application crash.
> 
> Is this normal for these chips? Are people just not testing heavy AVX workloads or running high AVX offsets, or did I just get really unlucky with my chip?


I am undervolting, but with flat 55s, no 58 boost at all since everything I do requires all cores. 1 or 2 cores boosting to XX doesn’t help me at all. I have another OC profile stored in bios, but every time I compare the two, I go back to the undervolt. What type of AVX loads are you running? I don’t run benchmarks all day or slaughter the chip with Prime95 as it has nothing to do with my every day workloads.


----------



## tps3443

affxct said:


> Funnily enough, I’ve noticed that in proper heavy workloads, your chip downclocks. I don’t know how or why this happens but even without AVX offset I’ve observed it with the Taichi and my Dark. I think Asus boards have a workaround for it, but I don’t think one can run above at their OC consistently in something like y-cruncher, P95 or LinX on boards like the Dark, ASRocks, and potentially MSI. Graphically Challenged had an OC y-cruncher stable that needed to be reworked for 30 mins of R23 and I theorised that this happened because his all-core OC on his Dark was actually downclocking in the heaviest portions of y-cruncher. Yeah. Basically only Asus users should even bother.


I would just use your CPU for how you use it.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> People enjoy being Cinebench stable with the 13th Gen


Far from guaranteed stability though. It does give me an idea of what’s going on, but I don’t solely rely on it. I have started using Realbench again as it helped me with stability when I was on X299. I just don’t hammer the crap out of it with Prime95.


----------



## tubs2x4

Brads3cents said:


> it shouldnt be QUITE so easy
> im not exactly sure about p113 but p115 is just over 9% of chips
> 
> meaning to get 115+ you need about 11 chips and odds are you will get 1. i would think 113 is a lot easier but that is fairly close to the average of p109-110
> 
> ideally to do a meaningful bin you want at least 5 points better than average so 115+ to get a top 10% chip
> 
> since the KS is speculated to be p115 minimum.... if you simply buy thr KS your guaranteeing yourself a top 10% chip with great odds of getting a p119+ which is like top 2%


P115 would be cool if that’s the poorest you get. Hope the exores are somewhat better too.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> That’s not quite accurate though. I know a lot more people with SP 113+ P-Cores than the opposite.
> 
> @VULC what were all of your samples you just bought? I think he bought (3) all at once from Amazon, and has SP113, SP114, SP119.
> 
> I have tested (5) chips, and all of them would run 6Ghz all cores, no delid, with cold water through R23 except for (2). Those are good odds to me.
> 
> Maybe it’s luck. Maybe not. 🤷‍♂️
> 
> Anyone can buy (2) and see. You can call it “Taking the SP113+ challenge“ lol


I bought a K at launch it was 116/85
Then I bought a KF it was 113/88
Then bought 2 x KF 1 was SP 95 the other 99.
Swapped one of the above KFs for a K that was SP 94.
Then I bought 3 x K and 2 x KF from Amason, all the Ks were SP99 and lower, and 1 KF was SP 102 the last KF was 119/85. Waiting on Uncle Bezos to refund me to repay my buy now pay later cards so don't buy an open box from him if you live in Australia.


----------



## affxct

tps3443 said:


> I would just use your CPU for how you use it.


I actually do agree with that sentiment and the same goes for RAM and GPUs. Unfortunately I have experienced a BSOD in FIFA 23 and a WHEA in Ghostwire due to slightly to low of a VCore. With RAM, something slightly unstable will crash out in games like MWII MP after a couple of hours or so. Even in CS. CS especially seems to hate very slightly unstable GPU OCs and RAM OCs. It’s just never been the case for me that I could purely test in daily use. I always seem to need to be consistently able to pass something substantial to affirm daily’ability.


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> Not a good thing for online multiplayer gaming where latency matters. But normal apps sure.


Well even games that use AVX don't tend to push it any further than cinebech so that shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## jmb99

RichKnecht said:


> I am undervolting, but with flat 55s, no 58 boost at all since everything I do requires all cores. 1 or 2 cores boosting to XX doesn’t help me at all. I have another OC profile stored in bios, but every time I compare the two, I go back to the undervolt. What type of AVX loads are you running? I don’t run benchmarks all day or slaughter the chip with Prime95 as it has nothing to do with my every day workloads.


So that’s the thing, a few of my workloads do rely fairly heavily on AVX (Adobe Lightroom for instance, x265, plus some machine learning applications that I’m developing). However, I’ve not yet encountered any crashes or instability while running them at all, even with higher-than-stock clocks and undervolting. I’ve been testing my undervolts and OCs with Prime95 AVX _off _since day 1 with no issues, but realized today that it might be worth trying with AVX since some of my workloads are using it.

I’ve pretty much always relied on it as a final “yeah this is definitely stable” test. But I’m wondering now if there really are any non-synthetic workloads that are as AVX-stressful as P95.


----------



## RichKnecht

affxct said:


> I actually do agree with that sentiment and the same goes for RAM and GPUs. Unfortunately I have experienced a BSOD in FIFA 23 and a WHEA in Ghostwire due to slightly to low of a VCore. With RAM, something slightly unstable will crash out in games like MWII MP after a couple of hours or so. Even in CS. CS especially seems to hate very slightly unstable GPU OCs and RAM OCs. It’s just never been the case for me that I could purely test in daily use. I always seem to need to be consistently able to pass something substantial to affirm daily’ability.


My GPU (3090ti ) has a “gentle” OC and I run my RAM at manually entered XMP settings. I don’t have the time to reinstall Windows and reinstall a crap load of editing programs, re enter all the passwords for those programs and start over again due to some crazy OC. Happened to me twice when OCing RAM on my X299 machine for such small gains. Never again. I use this system to make money, so any “downtime” costs me money. All I know is that “out of the box”, it blows my old 10980XE away for less than HALF of what the X299 system cost me. Gotta admit though, I love seeing you guys max these things out and learning a thing or two. When I have some spare time, I’m going to try out a OC that Skatterbench has on line using TVB. Should be interesting and I’m sure I’ll learn a little more. In the end, I’m still just an old guy playing in a much younger crowd. 🙃


----------



## RichKnecht

jmb99 said:


> So that’s the thing, a few of my workloads do rely fairly heavily on AVX (Adobe Lightroom for instance, x265, plus some machine learning applications that I’m developing). However, I’ve not yet encountered any crashes or instability while running them at all, even with higher-than-stock clocks and undervolting. I’ve been testing my undervolts and OCs with Prime95 AVX _off _since day 1 with no issues, but realized today that it might be worth trying with AVX since some of my workloads are using it.
> 
> I’ve pretty much always relied on it as a final “yeah this is definitely stable” test. But I’m wondering now if there really are any non-synthetic workloads that are as AVX-stressful as P95.


I LIVE in Lightroom and Photoshop for at least 7 hours a day. So far, this undervolt has been doing just fine.


----------



## affxct

RichKnecht said:


> My GPU (3090ti ) has a “gentle” OC and I run my RAM at manually entered XMP settings. I don’t have the time to reinstall Windows and reinstall a crap load of editing programs, re enter all the passwords for those programs and start over again due to some crazy OC. Happened to me twice when OCing RAM on my X299 machine for such small gains. Never again. I use this system to make money, so any “downtime” costs me money. All I know is that “out of the box”, it blows my old 10980XE away for less than HALF of what the X299 system cost me. Gotta admit though, I love seeing you guys max these things out and learning a thing or two. When I have some spare time, I’m going to try out a OC that Skatterbench has on line using TVB. Should be interesting and I’m sure I’ll learn a little more. In the end, I’m still just an old guy playing in a much younger crowd. 🙃


I’m reluctant to say this because I respect that you need your main rig for work. In that regard perhaps it’s best you avoid going too deep into tuning. I will say that the only two times I’ve permanently damaged an OS is on my first attempt at Ryzen Curve Optimiser and an unstable RAM daily I used for like 5 months that I didn’t test sufficiently and that I didn’t have the cooling to properly support. Other than that, no matter how many times I BSOD or have issues loading OS, my D5 tuning has never been the sole reason for me having re-do Windows and that’s all down to knowing the ballpark of what will be required and I guess through feel/experience.

Essentially - if you wanted to do it, it could probably be done with little harm. It would have to be attempted correctly though, and you’d have to work within the obvious limits of your hardware, so you wouldn’t be able to throw random data rate attempts at your setup.


----------



## Krzych04650

Betroz said:


> Yes, but for a 13900K to get to 8000+ DDR5 speeds you need an Apex board, a good IMC, binned memory and good cooling. Not to mention spending hours after hours tweaking.


Sure you can pick the most expensive parts that you can possibly find to get 2% more performance than DDR4 setup, maybe, sometimes, but you can do that for any platform really, and this is not going to be a realistic representation for any of them.


----------



## Kocicak

tps3443 said:


> I think plenty of good 13900K and 13900KF chips are out there in normal retail to warrant not needing to buy a 13900KS at all.


I believe that there are characteristics other than just momentary ability to run at higher frequency. You may have a 13900K which appears to be able to run at the same frequencies as the 13900KS, but it may have some worse insulation layer somewhere causing some higher leak, which was identified in binning, and if you stress this CPU enough, some bad things will start happening in that weaker spot. 

I do not believe that the only difference between 13900K and 13900KS will be just speed, but that the KS versions will be more robust and resilient (at least on average).


----------



## tps3443

Kocicak said:


> I believe that there are characteristics other than just momentary ability to run at higher frequency. You may have a 13900K which appears to be able to run at the same frequencies as the 13900KS, but it may have some worse insulation layer somewhere causing some higher leak, which was identified in binning, and if you stress this CPU enough, some bad things will start happening in that weaker spot.
> 
> I do not believe that the only difference between 13900K and 13900KS will be just speed, but that the KS versions will be more robust and resilient (at least on average).


The 13900KS runs at 5.6Ghz (8) cores with 6.0Ghz on (2) cores. Running a 13900K at the same frequencies is not the issue. I truly believe any 13900K can do that reliably. It’s not a very tall order.

I’m certain that a 13900KS will be better on average then an average 13900K of course. But, the question we all want to know is will the top 1% or top 2% or even top 10% 13900K processors be better than an average run of the mill 13900KS?


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> The 13900KS runs at 5.6Ghz (8) cores


Are you sure about that? All the leaks said 5.4 all core, same as 13900K.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> The 13900KS runs at 5.6Ghz (8) cores with 6.0Ghz on (2) cores. Running a 13900K at the same frequencies is not the issue. I truly believe any 13900K can do that reliably. It’s not a very tall order.
> 
> I’m certain that a 13900KS will be better on average then an average 13900K of course. But, the question we all want to know is will the top 1% or top 2% or even top 10% 13900K processors be better than an average run of the mill 13900KS?


Whatever the KS turns out to be, I know I won’t be standing in line for one. Especially since we all know that they will be priced at about $850. That’s one hell of a premium to spend for what may be a 5% performance boost. I guess if you are a hard core gamer and want the highest fps possible you can go for it. If anything, I’m curious about the RL refresh.


----------



## fat4l

and whats the highest SP p core we have found so far ?


----------



## PoizenJam

I have a question that may be more of a general computing question than anything but... Why do some full all-core workloads draw more power than others? For example, why does a 55x/43x all-core sustained load on my 13900k take 280W in Cinebench R23 but to achieve 55x/43x all-core workload takes 300W to achieve in OCCT and 320W to achieve in certain Y-Cruncher tests? 

The voltage appears to stay the same, so I'm guessing there's an increased current being pulled at the same voltage. What I don't understand is why? Is it the instruction set? I guess I always assumed power draw would be proportional to core ratio or effective speed. I guess I'm not understanding what underpins the increased current draw for one workload vs another.


----------



## l.kristensen.1981

mikasalo500 said:


> Hello everyone, I have the problem with my z790 Apex that the computer freezes in idle. Ram runs at 8000 and passes hours of testing, cpu is also overclocked but can run it in y cruncher without errors too. The error code is then Kernel Power ID41. I can also play and work for hours without any problems. Mostly it happens when I booted up the pc in the desktop. Here also my settings. Does the CPU need more Vcore? I've tried up to 1.46V, didn't help. Or do I need to increase IA AC? I'm at 0.13 now and still freezing...it also happens with ram on 7800 or 7600. Does anyone have an idea what it could be? And here my Settings...i tried also with 58 58 57 56 56 55 55 55, the same....


I have freezes up until now with cache more than 45x. I simply put under max cache/ring 45x. I have not messed with it to get it permanent 50x. I don’t think it gives any gain and draw quite some more power/heat and is generally unstable. Try to set max 45x and no auto up and down 45/50x…. Impressive memory you got !

im very happy with mine too ! G Skill 6000 36-36-36-96 OC to 6600 same timings at 1.42v run incredible imo.

EDIT: Since I have managed to get it to run with P cores 5.7 and cache 5.0 also 5.5/4.9 stock is great..


----------



## RichKnecht

PoizenJam said:


> I have a question that may be more of a general computing question than anything but... Why do some full all-core workloads draw more power than others? For example, why does a 55x/43x all-core sustained load on my 13900k take 280W in Cinebench R23 but to achieve 55x/43x all-core workload takes 300W to achieve in OCCT and 320W to achieve in certain Y-Cruncher tests?
> 
> The voltage appears to stay the same, so I'm guessing there's an increased current being pulled at the same voltage. What I don't understand is why? Is it the instruction set? I guess I always assumed power draw would be proportional to core ratio or effective speed. I guess I'm not understanding what underpins the increased current draw for one workload vs another.


The instruction set is indeed the culprit. Some use AVX and some do not. Not to change the subject of your post, but if you are pulling 300W in R23 with 55/43 you need to tweak some voltages. As an example, my 13900K at 55/43 will run R23 at 232W. That aside, I have some photo editing programs that, if vcore is just a little bit too low, it will throw errors drawing only 100W or so but that same vcore will zip through R23 using 230W without a glitch.


----------



## l.kristensen.1981

Brads3cents said:


> Core p7 ftw!
> 420 x 3 rads,
> 3 pumps/3 radiators
> And a 1080mm external rad for good measure
> 
> but I only gave the cpu 1 single 420 lol. I will change that eventually


Lol hehe I’m using a thick 360 TT with 6 fans push pull for both my 13900K and 4090 and thats plenty. Open case though. (Distrocase 350p)


----------



## PoizenJam

RichKnecht said:


> The instruction set is indeed the culprit. Some use AVX and some do not. Not to change the subject of your post, but if you are pulling 300W in R23 with 55/43 you need to tweak some voltages. As an example, my 13900K at 55/43 will run R23 at 232W. That aside, I have some photo editing programs that, if vcore is just a little bit too low, it will throw errors drawing only 100W or so but that same vcore will zip through R23 using 230W without a glitch.


I appreciate your concern, but I was just using an example. I'm tunning LLC and AC/DC LL using Roberto's z790 Extreme guide, and I can do R23 at about ~260-265W. Unfortunately, that seems to be the best I can do. If I enforce power limits (MCE DISABLED with default PL1/2 and ICCMAX), it usually is only capable of 52-54 P and 41 - 42 E. My 13900K is SP 102 (112P/83E). I can reliably pass 30min R23 stability tests with V_LATCH MIN of 1.14V and a CORE_VID/VCORES of ~1.18V, which pulls ~256W according to the VCORE Power. But that doesn't reliably pass Y-Cruncher. I need to bump it a little (V_LATCH MIN of 1.15V and CORE_VID/VCORES of ~1.2V in R23) to reliably pass Y-Cruncher. That corresponds to the 260-265W power draw I mentioned above. So I can only _just barely_ undervolt relative to ASUS 'TRAINED' SVID profile.

Edit: I should mention I'm _also _populating just about every available PCI-E Gen4 lane on this build, using almost all the USB ports, and running 2x32GB DDR5 5600 CL30 RAM on a Z690... So if any of those things compromise undervolt & OC headroom that may explain why.


----------



## l.kristensen.1981

PoizenJam said:


> I appreciate your concern, but I was just using an example. I'm tunning LLC and AC/DC LL using Roberto's z790 Extreme guide, and I can do R23 at about ~260-265W. Unfortunately, that seems to be the best I can do. If I enforce power limits (MCE DISABLED with default PL1/2 and ICCMAX), it usually is only capable of 52-54 P and 41 - 42 E. My 13900K is SP 102 (112P/83E). I can reliably pass 30min R23 stability tests with V_LATCH MIN of 1.14V and a CORE_VID/VCORES of ~1.18V, which pulls ~256W according to the VCORE Power. But that doesn't reliably pass Y-Cruncher. I need to bump it a little (V_LATCH MIN of 1.15V and CORE_VID/VCORES of ~1.2V in R23) to reliably pass Y-Cruncher. That corresponds to the 260-265W power draw I mentioned above. So I can only _just barely_ undervolt relative to ASUS 'TRAINED' SVID profile.
> 
> Edit: I should mention I'm _also _populating just about every available PCI-E Gen4 lane on this build, using almost all the USB ports, and running 2x32GB DDR5 5600 CL30 RAM on a Z690... So if any of those things compromise undervolt & OC headroom that may explain why.


I started out using that guide, ended up. Useing manual voltage and LLC and only all core overclock also ultimate performance power profile windows … much easier and stable and no frequency and voltage up and down all over the place.


----------



## imrevoau

fat4l said:


> and whats the highest SP p core we have found so far ?


126 IIRC.


----------



## tps3443

fat4l said:


> and whats the highest SP p core we have found so far ?


I have seen someone with SP127 P-Cores on here. Chip must be a baller!


----------



## imrevoau

tps3443 said:


> I have seen someone with SP127 P-Cores on here. Chip must be a baller!


Honestly if I had a chip that good I'd just sell it and rebuy another chip. But I'm also not too fussed by "silicon lottery" as long as the chip isn't a complete failure


----------



## tps3443

imrevoau said:


> Honestly if I had a chip that good I'd just sell it and rebuy another chip. But I'm also not too fussed by "silicon lottery" as long as the chip isn't a complete failure


I love a good chip, which is my weakness. My current 13900K uses less power average in games at 6.0P/4.7E/5.1R with a fixed voltage, than if it was running stock 5.5P/4.3E/4.5R with auto/default voltage. It’s bonkers!


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

Betroz said:


> Are most 13700K able to do 5.5 allcore based on the data out there?


Too easy , but bench temps are gonna suck unless you have custom W/cooling set up with a good block and contact frame ect


----------



## Kocicak

tps3443 said:


> I’m certain that a 13900KS will be better on average then an average 13900K of course. But, the question we all want to know is will the top 1% or top 2% or even top 10% 13900K processors be better than an average run of the mill 13900KS?


Top in *what characteristic*?

13900K and 13900KS are the same chip, binning must have been running from the beginning of the production - it is necessary to sort the chips.

Why do you think that Intel would release material *meeting ALL CRITERIA* for 13900KS as 13900K, when they make more money on the KS variant?

There are three obvious criteria I can think of now: attainable frequency, leakage and power consumption stemming from that, temperature connected not only to the quality of the silicone but also to how they managed to package the chip with how thick layer of TIM.

BTW they have been doing exactly the same thing with 12900K and KS, made on a similar process and they surely ran a lot of tests on the improved process to know what to expect, their binning strategy was almost surely in place from the beginning of the production.


----------



## VULC

I


Kocicak said:


> Top in *what characteristic*?
> 
> 13900K and 13900KS are the same chip, binning must have been running from the beginning of the production - it is necessary to sort the chips.
> 
> Why do you think that Intel would release material *meeting ALL CRITERIA* for 13900KS as 13900K, when they make more money on the KS variant?
> 
> There are three obvious criteria I can think of now: attainable frequency, leakage and power consumption stemming from that, temperature connected not only to the quality of the silicone but also to how they managed to package the chip with how thick layer of TIM.
> 
> BTW they have been doing exactly the same thing with 12900K and KS, made on a similar process and they surely ran a lot of tests on the improved process to know what to expect, their binning strategy was almost surely in place from the beginning of the production.


I don't think they binned for KS in August and September but they did bin them starting November.


----------



## Betroz

RichKnecht said:


> The instruction set is indeed the culprit. Some use AVX and some do not. Not to change the subject of your post, but if you are pulling 300W in R23 with 55/43 you need to tweak some voltages. As an example, my 13900K at 55/43 will run R23 at 232W. That aside, I have some photo editing programs that, if vcore is just a little bit too low, it will throw errors drawing only 100W or so but that same vcore will zip through R23 using 230W without a glitch.


Too low vcore for that singel core load in your photo editing software probably.


----------



## munternet

I have a Z690 Apex and it seems to have a glitch with the SP ratings. Is there a list somewhere I can check?
Hey @Betroz


----------



## bscool

munternet said:


> I have a Z690 Apex and it seems to have a glitch with the SP ratings. Is there a list somewhere I can check?
> Hey @Betroz
> View attachment 2590837


Need to update Intel ME Firmware to get accurate SP. 2020 should be the latest. If you already did that then no idea.

ROG MAXIMUS Z690 APEX BIOS 2204

Version 2204
10.92 MB
"- Improved DRAM compatibility

Improved system compatibility and stability
Update Intel ME firmware
*“Before BIOS update, please download Intel ME update tool from ASUS support site, and update ME firmware to Version 16.1.25.2020 to ensure optimized system settings.”*



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/03CHIPSET/MEUpdateTool_16.1.25.2020_T.zip




I have seen some say if you update ME Firmware after bios you need to remove and replace CPU to get accurate SP. My SP has been same for me on multiple z690 and z790 MB so I have no idea about that but see people say that.


----------



## munternet

I'm not draining and stripping down the hard pipe loop again just to do that 
But yeah, that's what I did. Bios then ME when the M.2 drives didn't show


----------



## Betroz

munternet said:


> Hey @Betroz


Yo man  
I see you have upgraded to 13900K. I am still rockin the old Z490 Apex and 10900K setup. Looking for something new to feed my 4090 card though (and my hardware OCD)


----------



## bscool

munternet said:


> I'm not draining and stripping down the hard pipe loop again just to do that
> But yeah, that's what I did. Bios then ME when the M.2 drives didn't show


I wonder what happens if you flash bios again now that ME is flashed? If SP would be the same? Probably already been tried but I dont know.


----------



## munternet

bscool said:


> I wonder what happens if you flash bios again now that ME is flashed? If SP would be the same? Probably already been tried but I dont know.


No go. Just re-flashed the bios and checked the ME version and it's still the same. Oh well, I'll just pretend I have a golden chip 

@Betroz that's still a good chip. 10/20 is good for the OCD. Nice round core numbers


----------



## Nizzen

munternet said:


> No go. Just re-flashed the bios and checked the ME version and it's still the same. Oh well, I'll just pretend I have a golden chip


Try to take out the bios battery, if it's not to much of a hassle


----------



## munternet

Nizzen said:


> Try to take out the bios battery, if it's not to much of a hassle


Thanks for the suggestion. I might give it a go when I have some time. It's under the GPU and M.2 heatsink I think. I might leave it actually. I think the heatsink is stuck on the M.2 with some type of adhesive. I'll post back if I end up trying it 
Here's a screenshot of my CPU-Z bench with one-click AI overclock and 6600MHz 32GB with no other primary changes which should give some idea of the actual...


----------



## fat4l

Guys, all core, an average 13900K .... what can it do ? 5.8K?
and then golden 120+ p core, 6G all core?

Anyone is doing 6.1G all core delid + direct die ?



Looking at my 12900KS golden, 107P core KS chip, can do max 5.6G all core really. 400MHz for (5.6G->6G) seems like a good deal


----------



## Madness11

Got 13900kf , overall SP 109 , P118 e 88, mc 81 . It's a good chip ?? Or I should find better?


----------



## imrevoau

Madness11 said:


> Got 13900kf , overall SP 109 , P118 e 88, mc 81 . It's a good chip ?? Or I should find better?


Very good. Keep it


----------



## Nizzen

munternet said:


> Thanks for the suggestion. I might give it a go when I have some time. It's under the GPU and M.2 heatsink I think. I might leave it actually. I think the heatsink is stuck on the M.2 with some type of adhesive. I'll post back if I end up trying it
> Here's a screenshot of my CPU-Z bench with one-click AI overclock and 6600MHz 32GB with no other primary changes which should give some idea of the actual...
> View attachment 2590838


Looks golden to me. What are the voltage under load when running cpu-z benchmark?


----------



## RichKnecht

fat4l said:


> Guys, all core, an average 13900K .... what can it do ? 5.8K?
> and then golden 120+ p core, 6G all core?
> 
> Anyone is doing 6.1G all core delid + direct die ?
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at my 12900KS golden, 107P core KS chip, can do max 5.6G all core really. 400MHz for (5.6G->6G) seems like a good deal


At this point, if you want those clocks, wait for the KS


----------



## bhav

Good god, is this the worst stock VID yet?










My advice now, contact Intel and get an RMA for these junks.


----------



## Nizzen

bhav said:


> Good god, is this the worst stock VID yet?
> 
> View attachment 2590843
> 
> 
> My advice now, contact Intel and get an RMA for these junks.


Worst "screenshot" I ever seen  👏


----------



## Kocicak

VULC said:


> I don't think they binned for KS in August and September but they did bin them starting November.


They want their top of the line CPU to be clearly distinguishable from the normal model, why would they willingly muddy the waters and let the good stuff slip in advance? So that people can complain that the KS model is almost the same as K model?


----------



## Kocicak

bhav said:


> Good god, is this the worst stock VID yet?
> ...
> My advice now, contact Intel and get an RMA for these junks.


What is the problem, maximal value is useless. What is relevant is actual voltage under load.


----------



## bhav

Kocicak said:


> What is the problem, maximal value is useless. What is relevant is actual voltage under load.


Yea and believe me that maximal is sustained under load if you remove power limits for the stock frequencies.

Which is exactly what is happening with everyone.


----------



## Kocicak

I do not believe that you would see this voltage (1,473V) under sustained load at the highest frequency (e.g. at 5800 MHz with 1 thread of intensive load). These are just no load meaningless spikes.


----------



## Betroz

So the most easy way out is to set an allcore OC with manual vcore, and then adjust it to fit your CPU sample and cooling?


----------



## Kocicak

Betroz said:


> So the most easy way out is to set an allcore OC with manual vcore, and then adjust it to fit your CPU sample and cooling?


Why would you force the CPU to run at high voltage and frequency, even when there is no need for that. It can adjust the voltage and frequency by itself according to what it needs to do.


----------



## storm-chaser

Ichirou said:


> Most of the issue boils down to luck, cooling and voltages.


I think this is ultimately the best way to look at this 13th gen situation. Numbers will only take you so far, and are definitely not the end all or the be all of how your chip will perform. Admittedly, I don't have a 13th gen, but in my opinion you can't trust the numbers to reveal exactly how your CPU will perform in the real world under your overclock considerations and scenarios.


----------



## bhav

Kocicak said:


> I do not believe that you would see this voltage (1,473V) under sustained load at the highest frequency (e.g. at 5800 MHz with 1 thread of intensive load). These are just no load meaningless spikes.


Still what is put in during sustained load is too much:










So 1.473 max is putting in what during sustained load? 1.43v??


----------



## Kocicak

I played with 5 Raptors of the 3 available configurations already and 1.35V is a normal stock voltage for them. 

BTW one 13900K was noticeably hotter than the rest of them, it probably had some extra thick TIM layer in it. Or it was junk overall, it was the one which degraded.


----------



## storm-chaser

Brads3cents said:


> so i absolutely see a correlation and fully believe MC rating to be meaningful


Don't you think this is only relevant in certain extreme overclock scenarios? I mean if you keep the MC at stock or moderately overclocked speeds, won't you have no problem running 8000+ MHz memory, just as easy as a higher rated MC from a K? I also think the deviation between a weak MC and a higher rated MC is in theory, is not very significant. Again, I don't have the complete picture here, but this is the way it seems to me.


----------



## RichKnecht

Betroz said:


> Too low vcore for that singel core load in your photo editing software probably.


I do not believe so as all my editing software uses all cores. No program I own is single threaded any more. Even PS went to all core not too long ago (it's about time). The problem was idle-load transients. If you only test with R23, and find it "stable", try something with a transient load to see if you are still good. I knew I could alleviate the problem by setting an override voltage, but I like the chip to "clock down" during idle periods. It's all fine now as I have learned a lot about how the 13900K operates.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Still what is put in during sustained load is too much:
> 
> View attachment 2590847
> 
> 
> So 1.473 max is putting in what during sustained load? 1.43v??


What are your LLC, DC LL, and AC LL settings?


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> What are your LLC, DC LL, and AC LL settings?


As I've already mentioned before, that was my stock read before changing those settings.

Also just made the mistake of sending that screenshot on my Intel support ticket, now my warranty is void because of the SA voltage whoopsie. Though I bought it from Amazon so it should be fine.


----------



## storm-chaser

bhav said:


> Yes because faulty iGPU chips have to become 13900KF no matter how golden. 13700KF / 13600KF are binned so you won't get any luck.


Granted, I don't know any better, but how definitive is this statement? With the manufacturing process improving with each new CPU platform, one would think faulty iGPU chips would be pretty rare now a-days. Do we know for a fact that Intel is actually doing this or simply not including the iGPU in the initial manufacturing process? 

Could we also draw conclusions based on heat? i.e perhaps the iGPU is generating more heat inside the chip when active (on a K chip), thereby reducing the SP rating slightly when compared with the KF?


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> As I've already mentioned before, that was my stock read before changing those settings.
> 
> Also just made the mistake of sending that screenshot on my Intel support ticket, now my warranty is void because of the SA voltage whoopsie. Though I bought it from Amazon so it should be fine.


That is some crazy voltage though.My 13900 stock is ~1.355 max VID. Under load it drops to 1.15-1.16. I don't think that is too terrible.


----------



## bhav

storm-chaser said:


> Granted, I don't know any better, but how definitive is this statement? With the manufacturing process improving with each new CPU platform, one would think faulty iGPU chips would be pretty rare now a-days. Do we know for a fact that Intel is actually doing this or simply not including the iGPU in the initial manufacturing process?
> 
> Could we also draw conclusions based on heat? i.e perhaps the iGPU is generating more heat inside the chip when active (on a K chip), thereby reducing the SP rating slightly when compared with the KF?


Why would intel disable a functional igpu on a 13900K that can run 6.0 all core <1.3v and sell it for less?

'Faulty' iGPU doesn't just mean 'iGPU doesn't work', it simply might not be able to run at the rated stock speed so it gets disabled, same as disabled P and E cores.


----------



## storm-chaser

Kocicak said:


> I do not believe that the only difference between 13900K and 13900KS will be just speed, but that the KS versions will be more robust and resilient (at least on average).


As far as I know, there are no other differences other than boost clocks. 5.8GHz for the K and 6GHz for the KS.


----------



## RichKnecht

storm-chaser said:


> Granted, I don't know any better, but how definitive is this statement? With the manufacturing process improving with each new CPU platform, one would think faulty iGPU chips would be pretty rare now a-days. Do we know for a fact that Intel is actually doing this or simply not including the iGPU in the initial manufacturing process?
> 
> *Could we also draw conclusions based on heat? i.e perhaps the iGPU is generating more heat inside the chip when active (on a K chip), thereby reducing the SP rating slightly when compared with the KF?*


This is an interesting statement. So, I wonder, if one could disable (is this even possible?) the iGPU in a 13900K, will that reduce the heat that is produced and afford a more stable OC? I think the answer is "No" as I think many of you serious OC'ers would have tried it. On another note, do any of you set the E cores voltage to Override? I saw a video and he mentioned setting it to Override with a value of 1.26.1.3v.


----------



## DSHG87

Hello! It is me again. Every year I am here to ask for voltages @stock / standard ootb.

My 13900K (no OC on MSI B660 Chipset) takes up to max. 1.52V (VID) and 1.48V Vcore (measured in HWiNFO, polling rate 500ms, after some Minutes of usage in IDLE, Gaming and rendering). Up to 1.45V for single core benchmark R23 (5.8GHz) and between 1.28V and 1.42V while gaming.

Ist that ok / safe? Is it a good or bad 13900K in relation to other?


----------



## storm-chaser

bhav said:


> Why would intel disable a functional igpu on a 13900K that can run 6.0 all core <1.3v and sell it for less?


There is a high probability that Intel is disabling faulty GPUs to make them KFs, as you said in your previous post, however, I highly doubt they have enough faulty iGPUs on the K to make a reasonable production run on the KF, so I do believe there is more going on here with the production of the KF rather than simply a disabled iGPU.


----------



## storm-chaser

DSHG87 said:


> Hello! It is me again. Every year I am here to ask for voltages @stock / standard ootb.
> 
> My 13900K (no OC on MSI B660 Chipset) takes up to max. 1.52V (VID) and 1.48V Vcore (measured in HWiNFO, polling rate 500ms, after some Minutes of usage in IDLE, Gaming and rendering). Up to 1.45V for single core benchmark R23 (5.8GHz) and between 1.28V and 1.42V while gaming.
> 
> Ist that ok / safe? Is it a good or bad 13900K in relation to other?


"Oh the humanity!" Get that voltage down RIGHT NOW or she's going to degrade on you tomorrow!









😁


----------



## bhav

DSHG87 said:


> Hello! It is me again. Every year I am here to ask for voltages @stock / standard ootb.
> 
> My 13900K (no OC on MSI B660 Chipset) takes up to max. 1.52V (VID) and 1.48V Vcore (measured in HWiNFO, polling rate 500ms, after some Minutes of usage in IDLE, Gaming and rendering). Up to 1.45V for single core benchmark R23 (5.8GHz) and between 1.28V and 1.42V while gaming.
> 
> Ist that ok / safe? Is it a good or bad 13900K in relation to other?


FFS if this is real because it sounds like everyone is just mocking me right now, open a ticket with Intel support and get the chip replaced.


----------



## storm-chaser

bhav said:


> FFS if this is real because it sounds like everyone is just mocking me right now,


Not at all! at least not from me. I didn't even see your response until after I posted the Hindenburg disaster pic. I for one value your advice and technical skill.


----------



## bhav

storm-chaser said:


> Not at all! at least not from me. I didn't even see your response until after I posted the Hindenburg disaster pic. I for one value your advice and technical skill.


So why won't anyone other than me send Intel a support request regarding these overvolting chips?

The stock specification for a 13900K is 5.4 all core at 253w. If it doesn't do that without undervolting, and it isn't a golden chip, RMA that trash.

If everyone did that as they should be doing, Intel would not be selling them with these junk VID tables.


----------



## imanoobie

neteng101 said:


> Got more out of my 13700k OC - now running 5.5-5.8GHz P turbo ratio (2x5.8, 4x5.7, 6x5.6, 8x5.5), 4.4GHz E all-core, 4.9GHz ring, [email protected] (MSI, at load Vcore drops to around ~1.3V)... passes Y-cruncher 2.5b test. Mostly in the 80s during bench runs to test the CPU, y-cruncher spikes into the 90s but never hits thermal throttle. About all the heat I can manage on my 360 AIO.
> 
> View attachment 2588890


I can't find a 13700kf overclock guide I'm on a msi board any help or bios pics so I know where to start as the scatterbench video shows on the vf points method and I just wanted to do a normal overclock or am I thinking about this wrong ?


----------



## storm-chaser

bhav said:


> So why won't anyone other than me send Intel a support request regarding these overvolting chips?
> 
> The stock specification for a 13900K is 5.4 all core at 253w. If it doesn't do that without undervolting, and it isn't a golden chip, RMA that trash.
> 
> If everyone did that as they should be doing, Intel would not be selling them with these junk VID tables.


You make a very good point. Sounds like a really good solution to that problem. 
So... Intel will honor a request like this, and RMA it?


----------



## bhav

storm-chaser said:


> You make a very good point. Sounds like a really good solution to that problem.
> So... Intel will honor a request like this, and RMA it?


The advertised specification for 13900K is 253w for 5.4 all core.

If it doesn't ruin at that without altering bios settings then it is falsely advertised, but whether that is covered depends on trading laws where you live.

However for Intel to possibly do anything about it, they would need to be bombarded with support requests for this issue, which if everyone with the issue actually had done by now you would definitely see something happening.

I have also sent the necessary information to MSI as well as Intel initially say 'take it up with the AIB'.

Intel also then told me '5.1 is the single core boost for 13600KF' and had the nerve to link the ark page to it for me to check which clearly says both 5.1 tubroboost and 5.1 P core turbo, which I had a bit of a field day replying to 3 times.

I officially know more about Intel CPUs than Intel customer support does! I should add that to my resume if I ever try wasting more effort applying for any 'IT' jobs.


----------



## Brads3cents

storm-chaser said:


> Don't you think this is only relevant in certain extreme overclock scenarios?


i do not. if 8000 M/T is your bar and you dont care to go higher then M/C wont matter too much. Unless your cpu has a terrible imc you should be able to get a great overclock with binned A die ram and a top of the line mobo like the Apex

but this is overclock.net. we discuss p scores and 100mhz higher on our clock speeds is a big deal just scroll through this thread for evidence
as such, memory oc is an important equation to cpu performance

if memory is meta for the 13900k, and you can get a better memory overclock with tighter timings with a better imc, then of course we look at MC ratings

in games there is much more performance to be gained from memory overclocking.

Heres a thought experiment
Take a 20 game average of cpu performance/fps

scenario 1:
leave cpu completely stock and overclock memory to 8400 cl34 tight subs

scenario 2:
overclock cpu to 6Ghz all core and leave memory at stock

i can assure you right now that scenario 1 will outperform scenario 2. we want every bit of performance we can get from memory

if you take a look at p scores, almost every single person with a p118 and higher has reported at least an 80 mc score.... this isnt a coincidence that the best silicone happens to show higher MC...
MC rating absolutely means something


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> So why won't anyone other than me send Intel a support request regarding these overvolting chips?
> 
> The stock specification for a 13900K is 5.4 all core at 253w. If it doesn't do that without undervolting, and it isn't a golden chip, RMA that trash.
> 
> If everyone did that as they should be doing, Intel would not be selling them with these *junk VID tables*.


I don't know if you ever used a Skylake chip, but if you want to talk about VID tables...I came from X58, GREAT platform. Not fast at all by today's standards, but those chips were SOLID. No crazy VID table, no stupid heat (within reason) and you could take out your "cosumer chip" and pop in a Xeon which is what I did. Then I moved to HEDT with the 10 core 20 thread 7900X. You want to talk about heat? That chip could heat my room in an hour. First I delidded, then went direct die. What a PITA. Sure it ran cooler, but I had to jump through hoops to get there. Then came the Skylake "refresh" (read same chip, cheaper price). So I swapped out my 7900X for a 10980XE. GREAT CPU, still hot. You coulldn't run adaptive voltage to tame the heat as the VID tables were programmed so high it was impossible. You had to use a static override voltage. At least with the 13th gen, adaptive works just fine,.However, as we all know, the VID tables are still out of whack. Heat output is crazy, the dies are too small (IMO) for the amount of cores Intel crams into them. Now imagine the same amount of cores on a die the size of a 7980XE with a proper mounting mechaism that didn't bend the chip or warp the motherboard. I think we would have a winner. Again, just my opinion.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> I don't know if you ever used a Skylake chip, but if you want to talk about VID tables...I came from X58, GREAT platform. Not fast at all by today's standards, but those chips were SOLID. No crazy VID table, no stupid heat (within reason) and you could take out your "cosumer chip" and pop in a Xeon which is what I did. Then I moved to HEDT with the 10 core 20 thread 7900X. You want to talk about heat? That chip could heat my room in an hour. First I delidded, then went direct die. What a PITA. Sure it ran cooler, but I had to jump through hoops to get there. Then came the Skylake "refresh" (read same chip, cheaper price). So I swapped out my 7900X for a 10980XE. GREAT CPU, still hot. You coulldn't run adaptive voltage to tame the heat as the VID tables were programmed so high it was impossible. You had to use a static override voltage. At least with the 13th gen, adaptive works just fine,.However, as we all know, the VID tables are still out of whack. Heat output is crazy, the dies are too small (IMO) for the amount of cores Intel crams into them. Now imagine the same amount of cores on a die the size of a 7980XE with a proper mounting mechaism that didn't bend the chip or warp the motherboard. I think we would have a winner. Again, just my opinion.


You should run direct die with your 13900K. It’s so easy. None of the hassle like X299. You mount it once and enjoy! You will shave 30c in temps. You don’t need a massive die to do it either. You’ll max out your chip far before your temps, and use a whole lot less power than a 10980XE any day.


----------



## DSHG87

Well, my 12900KS had worse VIDs and Vcore than my 13900K now.


----------



## neteng101

imanoobie said:


> I can't find a 13700kf overclock guide I'm on a msi board any help or bios pics so I know where to start as the scatterbench video shows on the vf points method and I just wanted to do a normal overclock or am I thinking about this wrong ?


Just use @Ichirou guide here...









Quick & Easy MSI Z690/Z790 CPU Overclocking Guide -...


This is a very simple guide to overclocking your 12th or 13th Gen CPU on an MSI Z690 or Z790 motherboard. It is not complex, and is designed to optimize your CPU for maximum performance at your desired voltage. Memory overclocking is not covered here...




www.overclock.net


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> You should run direct die with your 13900K. It’s so easy. None of the hassle like X299. You mount it once and enjoy! You will shave 30c in temps. You don’t need a massive die to do it either. You’ll max out your chip far before your temps, and use a whole lot less power than a 10980XE any day.


T'm kinda paranoid about delidding a soldered chip. Don't you have to heat it up in an oven or something to soften the solder? Then you have to clean off the solder (no idea how that's done) and find a direct die cooler for it. I just remember all the contact nightmares on X299. Memory issues, some things that worked and some things that didn't.....Maybe I'll search for a delidding guide and get brave. If I do delid it, I'll have to wait until my wife is away for work or something because I am sure there will be a lot of cursing involved  I don't know, the gains for me would be very minimal as I do not game at all. That's why I ditched the 2 boost cores and use all the p/e cores synced.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> T'm kinda paranoid about delidding a soldered chip. Don't you have to heat it up in an oven or something to soften the solder? Then you have to clean off the solder (no idea how that's done) and find a direct die cooler for it. I just remember all the contact nightmares on X299. Memory issues, some things that worked and some things that didn't.....Maybe I'll search for a delidding guide and get brave. If I do delid it, I'll have to wait until my wife is away for work or something because I am sure there will be a lot of cursing involved  I don't know, the gains for me would be very minimal as I do not game at all. That's why I ditched the 2 boost cores and use all the p/e cores synced.


Delidded two chips so far.
The delid kit is designed so that the IHS never touches the SMDs on the front of the chip. The kit pushes the block _away_ from them. So there is no safety concern.

You don't necessarily _need_ to heat up the CPU beforehand, but it certainly does add peace of mind.
When I delid, I always have a hair dryer on hand to periodically heat up the CPU and keep the silicone and solder warm.

You use a razor blade to scrape off the old silicone and solder, and then use some liquid metal to reactivate the remaining soldier to wipe off after 10-15 minutes.
And then you apply your own liquid metal on the die as well as the IHS or direct die block.

It's really not that bad. Just seems scary at first. But once you're aware that the IHS is pushed _away_ from the SMDs, you aren't afraid anymore.


----------



## pipes

i found out from a message in the thread that the 13900k works with all cores at 5.4 GHz, why do i read 5.5 GHz in all cores on hwinfo?


----------



## Ichirou

pipes said:


> i found out from a message in the thread that the 13900k works with all cores at 5.4 GHz, why do i read 5.5 GHz in all cores on hwinfo?


Intel changed their base overclock from 55x to 54x last minute, which most motherboard makers chose to simply ignore as they had already designed their BIOSes for their 55x engineering samples (and would rather not lose to the competition that are all doing the same thing).


----------



## Brads3cents

if you use a heat gun to delid the ihs will come off much easier with less chance of damaging anything but if you heat it up too high for too long the black bonding agent will be a hassle to remove as it will literally melt and bond stronger once cooled off

either hair dryer or heat gun at a distance on the low setting


----------



## VULC

acoustic said:


> Just means you're on the edge of stability, especially consistent training stability. You can try increasing CPU VDD2 or CPU VDDQ TX slightly and see if that helps.
> 
> I've experienced this in cases where the board is beyond it's functional limit. It'll achieve stability for a little bit, but eventually it'll have issues. If that's the case, not much you can do.


Well after a long gaming session suddenly started getting memory errors. Trefi at 65534 and the 100 degrees Fahrenheit weather here threw off the OC on memory. All I did was back it up to 65434 and I also had to raise VDDQ to 1.395v from 1.39v and DRAM from 1.525v to 1.54375 and started playing again and errors were gone.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Well after a long gaming session suddenly started getting memory errors. Trefi at 65534 and the 100 degrees Fahrenheit weather here threw off the OC on memory. All I did was back it up to 65434 and I also had to raise VDDQ to 1.395v from 1.39v and DRAM from 1.525v to 1.54375 and started playing again and errors were gone.


Uhh... If your RAM is overheating from ambient environmental and GPU temperatures, you don't proceed to _add_ more voltage...
Chances are, it just got lucky the second time around and didn't throw errors like the first time.
Be sure to run SFC /scannow to check for any OS corruption.


----------



## RichKnecht

Has anyone messed with E-Core L2 voltage? I watched a video and the guy changed it to override with a setting of 1.26. At first I was like "Hmmm". But, after thinking about that, when I am using my 57/46/Auto OC, the voltage is above 1.26 as it is. So I was wondering what the point in raising the E-core L2 voltage was?


----------



## satinghostrider

munternet said:


> I have a Z690 Apex and it seems to have a glitch with the SP ratings. Is there a list somewhere I can check?
> Hey @Betroz
> View attachment 2590837


What bios did you flash?


----------



## RichKnecht

storm-chaser said:


> You make a very good point. Sounds like a really good solution to that problem.
> So... Intel will honor a request like this, and RMA it?


I’d be afraid of getting an even worse chip. However with a horrible sample, I guess it’s worth a shot.


----------



## DSHG87

After 3 hours of mixed usage (Gaming, IDLE etc.)


----------



## pipes

Ichirou said:


> Intel changed their base overclock from 55x to 54x last minute, which most motherboard makers chose to simply ignore as they had already designed their BIOSes for their 55x engineering samples (and would rather not lose to the competition that are all doing the same thing).


so you're saying the frequency you read on hwinfo isn't real?


----------



## HemuV2

Madness11 said:


> Got 13900kf , overall SP 109 , P118 e 88, mc 81 . It's a good chip ?? Or I should find better?


man this thread gonn kill me one of these days


----------



## kunit13

The deliding was super easy. The hardest part for me was cleaning the black bonding agent. I used a razorblade and wood tooth pic to scrap as much of as possible. 

looking back on it has anyone tried using acetone? I used a little rubbing alcohol after I was done with a qtip to clean as much of the residue as I could. 





Brads3cents said:


> if you use a heat gun to delid the ihs will come off much easier with less chance of damaging anything but if you heat it up too high for too long the black bonding agent will be a hassle to remove as it will literally melt and bond stronger once cooled off
> 
> either hair dryer or heat gun at a distance on the low setting


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Has anyone messed with E-Core L2 voltage? I watched a video and the guy changed it to override with a setting of 1.26. At first I was like "Hmmm". But, after thinking about that, when I am using my 57/46/Auto OC, the voltage is above 1.26 as it is. So I was wondering what the point in raising the E-core L2 voltage was?


It's important. As you start raising your core and ring multipliers higher and higher with a significant enough memory overclock in place, the L2 cache will demand more and more voltage.
If it isn't enough, it'll throw WHEA errors or even BSOD in extreme cases.

It's usually only noticeable with significant loads though, not insignificant ones like Cinebench or games.
Stress tests like y-cruncher and TM5 react pretty strongly to a lack of L2 cache voltage.

In my experience, as I started to push the CPU multipliers higher, I went from 1.18V to 1.38V necessary. And less and it would just WHEA or crash.
But it wasn't as demanding with my memory at a lesser overclock like XMP, though.


kunit13 said:


> The deliding was super easy. The hardest part for me was cleaning the black bonding agent. I used a razorblade and wood tooth pic to scrap as much of as possible.
> 
> looking back on it has anyone tried using acetone? I used a little rubbing alcohol after I was done with a qtip to clean as much of the residue as I could.


I just used a razor blade. The key is having a sharp one, not a dull, used one.


----------



## munternet

Nizzen said:


> Looks golden to me. What are the voltage under load when running cpu-z benchmark?


This is live half way through the benchmark. So vcore 1.252v


----------



## RichKnecht

munternet said:


> This is live half way through the benchmark. So vcore 1.252v
> 
> View attachment 2590901


90C for 1.252V and 265W seems a little warm to me.


----------



## tps3443

Be very very careful using a razor blade to clean the black adhesive off of the green substrate. If you scratch that substrate even just a tiny amount in the right place, you can cut right through one of the many tiny traces That are inside the CPU substrate just below the surface. I would only use the wood stick. It is the absolute safest! Yes it takes longer. But, you don’t want to accidentally fillet your substrate with a super sharp razor blade. It only takes 1 scratch in the right spot.

Take your time, and do it properly!!! I’ve seen scratches and small holes taken out of a CPU and people don’t even know it’s happening.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Be very very careful using a razor blade to clean the black adhesive off of the green substrate. If you scratch that substrate even just a tiny amount in the right place, you can cut right through one of the many tiny traces That are inside the CPU substrate just below the surface. I would only use the wood stick. It is the absolute safest! Yes it takes longer. But, you don’t want to accidentally fillet your substrate with a super sharp razor blade. It only takes 1 scratch in the right spot.
> 
> Take your time, and do it properly!!! I’ve seen scratches and small holes taken out of a CPU and people don’t even know it’s happening.


I used a credit card to scrape off the adhesive on my 7900X. Worked great. Now I can’t believe it, but I am going to ask which tool you used to delid it. I used the Rockit Cool tool for my 7900X.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Be very very careful using a razor blade to clean the black adhesive off of the green substrate. If you scratch that substrate even just a tiny amount in the right place, you can cut right through one of the many tiny traces That are inside the CPU substrate just below the surface. I would only use the wood stick. It is the absolute safest! Yes it takes longer. But, you don’t want to accidentally fillet your substrate with a super sharp razor blade. It only takes 1 scratch in the right spot.
> 
> Take your time, and do it properly!!! I’ve seen scratches and small holes taken out of a CPU and people don’t even know it’s happening.


It's all about technique. You shouldn't really be "shaving" it off, but more like "nudging" it off, flattened, from the side. You never cut into the PCB.


RichKnecht said:


> I used a credit card to scrape off the adhesive on my 7900X. Worked great. Now I can’t believe it, but I am going to ask which tool you used to delid it. I used the Rockit Cool tool for my 7900X.


Everyone still uses the RockItCool delid kit. Although there are probably some alternatives now that can do the same thing.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Uhh... If your RAM is overheating from ambient environmental and GPU temperatures, you don't proceed to _add_ more voltage...
> Chances are, it just got lucky the second time around and didn't throw errors like the first time.
> Be sure to run SFC /scannow to check for any OS corruption.


I run a scannow everytime I get a memory error. I tested it very thoroughly every combination of the above changes. 1.525/1.5475v, 1.39/1.395, and 65534/65434. If any one of them isn't changed I got errors on TM5.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Yeah, everytime I get errors I do a scan. I You might be right it's not the temp maybe because it happens after the sun went down but ambient was booking
> 
> I run an snannow everytime I get a memory error. I tested it very thoroughly every combination of the above changes. 1.525/1.5475v, 1.39/1.395, and 65534/65434. If any one of them isn't changed I got errors on TM5.


That just sounds like you're on the edge of stability in terms of thermals...

You should consider dialing back tREFI and checking AIDA to see the difference.
You can usually pull it back a bit without losing much performance, if any at all.


----------



## munternet

RichKnecht said:


> 90C for 1.252V and 265W seems a little warm to me.


Wouldn't it depend on the frequency? What multi thread score would most people get at that temp/wattage?


----------



## RichKnecht

munternet said:


> Wouldn't it depend on the frequency? What multi thread score would most people get at that temp/wattage?


Temperature is related to wattage (power draw) and Vcore/VIDs not frequency. For example, some chips will reach 5.6 with 1.252, some can hit 5.7 with the same voltage. The voltage, or power draw causes the heat. There are many ways to try and reduce the heat and there are many people here, myself included, that are happy to help. Try running Cinebench R23 and post up a screen shot of HWInfo after a couple runs. The stress test in CPUID isn't very demanding.


----------



## Krzych04650

RichKnecht said:


> Has anyone messed with E-Core L2 voltage? I watched a video and the guy changed it to override with a setting of 1.26. At first I was like "Hmmm". But, after thinking about that, when I am using my 57/46/Auto OC, the voltage is above 1.26 as it is. So I was wondering what the point in raising the E-core L2 voltage was?


Very important, especially with E-cores enabled. I can only do 4.9 ring with E-cores enabled without touching it, setting it to 1.35V enabled 5.2-5.3 ring.


----------



## GioCTRL

Ichirou said:


> It's important. As you start raising your core and ring multipliers higher and higher with a significant enough memory overclock in place, the L2 cache will demand more and more voltage.
> If it isn't enough, it'll throw WHEA errors or even BSOD in extreme cases.
> 
> It's usually only noticeable with significant loads though, not insignificant ones like Cinebench or games.
> Stress tests like y-cruncher and TM5 react pretty strongly to a lack of L2 cache voltage.
> 
> In my experience, as I started to push the CPU multipliers higher, I went from 1.18V to 1.38V necessary. And less and it would just WHEA or crash.
> But it wasn't as demanding with my memory at a lesser overclock like XMP, though.
> 
> I just used a razor blade. The key is having a sharp one, not a dull, used one.


Is L2 voltage of relevance when running ecores disabled? Cause I left it a Auto all along thinking it's of 0 relevance with disabled e-cores🤔


----------



## RichKnecht

Krzych04650 said:


> Very important, especially with E-cores enabled. I can only do 4.9 ring reliability without touching it, setting it to 1.35V enabled 5.2-5.3 ring.


Right now I am running the ring @ auto as I really didn't see a performance increase., I just have my RAM running at XMP speeds (manually entered). I didn't check to see if setting the ring to 49 or 50 affected RAM speeds or latency in AIDA64 though. Perhaps I should try it again and see if it makes a difference.

EDIT; I raised the ring to 49 and my speeds and latency basically stayed the same.. I didn't touch the L2 Cache voltage as it turned red when I entered 1.26.


----------



## Ichirou

GioCTRL said:


> Is L2 voltage of relevance when running ecores disabled? Cause I left it a Auto all along thinking it's of 0 relevance with disabled e-cores🤔


Pretty sure it does nothing when the E-cores are disabled.


----------



## chentj1988

Ichirou said:


> It's all about technique. You shouldn't really be "shaving" it off, but more like "nudging" it off, flattened, from the side. You never cut into the PCB.
> 
> Everyone still uses the RockItCool delid kit. Although there are probably some alternatives now that can do the same thing.


Come on guys my 12900KS had gone through the worst part of it’s life and trust me the CPU isn’t as brittle as you think. Even if:
1.the green layer scrub off, you are fine.
2.the aceton overflowed/you accidentally put the whole chip into aceton, you still fine.
3.You accidentally peel off the little SMD, you still be fine, just get another cheap same model 13th gen and go to phone shop and solder it back.
Of course, poor workmanship like me is really a mess, but my CPU is still rocking on now serving me as usual (Although I feel guilty to it ) If you are impatient person like me, ask someone else do for you. Cleaning the black adhesive needs patient and time. And any leftover of dirt that causes uneven surface when you relid will give you temp issue to certain cores. Have fun 🤩


----------



## munternet

RichKnecht said:


> Temperature is related to wattage (power draw) and Vcore/VIDs not frequency. For example, some chips will reach 5.6 with 1.252, some can hit 5.7 with the same voltage. The voltage, or power draw causes the heat. There are many ways to try and reduce the heat and there are many people here, myself included, that are happy to help. Try running Cinebench R23 and post up a screen shot of HWInfo after a couple runs. The stress test in CPUID isn't very demanding.


I understand that but if the frequency is high it's a win. Tuning can come later but I was more looking at the score on auto AI settings as a measurement of the chips bin


----------



## RichKnecht

munternet said:


> I understand that but if the frequency is high it's a win. Tuning can come later but I was more looking at the score on auto AI settings as a measurement of the chips bin


What were your clock settings when running that benchmark? I have my 13900 at 55/44/auto and the score is 300 points higher at much lower VIDs and temps.


----------



## VULC

GioCTRL said:


> Is L2 voltage of relevance when running ecores disabled? Cause I left it a Auto all along thinking it's of 0 relevance with disabled e-cores🤔


L2 Cache vid disappears on Asus when you disable E Cores.


----------



## munternet

RichKnecht said:


> What were your clock settings when running that benchmark? I have my 13900 at 55/44/auto and the score is 300 points higher at much lower VIDs and temps.


I haven't done any tuning yet, got the CPU a few days back. just hit the AI button in the bios on the p cores and e cores. I was under the impression tuning any further isn't that advantageous for real world performance?
Do you have a screen shot half way through the CPU-Z bench with temps and voltage showing, same as mine?
If I start overclocking I know I won't stop  and I have work to do around the house while I'm on holiday 
Is your chip a good SP?
56/43 seems to be where mine goes. Might drop more on a longer cycle


----------



## RichKnecht

munternet said:


> I haven't done any tuning yet, got the CPU a few days back. just hit the AI button in the bios on the p cores and e cores. I was under the impression tuning any further isn't that advantageous for real world performance?
> Do you have a screen shot half way through the CPU-Z bench with temps and voltage showing, same as mine?
> If I start overclocking I know I won't stop  and I have work to do around the house while I'm on holiday


No screenshots, but I can try later tonight. You are correct about overclocking. I have 4 profiles stored in bios and every couple of days I’ll switch profiles to see if I notice a difference in performance during every day workloads. So far I can’t tell a difference between my 55/43/auto and my 57/46/49. There are a couple profiles in between that I can’t see any difference with either. I’m not a gamer so maybe if I was I’d see some type of performance differences between the 4.


----------



## munternet

RichKnecht said:


> No screenshots, but I can try later tonight. You are correct about overclocking. I have 4 profiles stored in bios and every couple of days I’ll switch profiles to see if I notice a difference in performance during every day workloads. So far I can’t tell a difference between my 55/43/auto and my 57/46/49. There are a couple profiles in between that I can’t see any difference with either. I’m not a gamer so maybe if I was I’d see some type of performance differences between the 4.


When I tuned my 5950x someone had made a good little program or batch file for P95 testing to tune the cores and voltages individually and that was great. What's the best tutorial for tuning these beasts? I know @Falkentyne has done some pretty great ones in the past


----------



## RichKnecht

munternet said:


> When I tuned my 5950x someone had made a good little program or batch file for P95 testing to tune the cores and voltages individually and that was great. What's the best tutorial for tuning these beasts? I know @Falkentyne has done some pretty great ones in the past


There are a few guides in the “Intel Motherboard” section of these forums both for MSI and Asus boards. If you are on an Asus board, @RobertoSampaio wrote a very in depth guide which goes into pretty good detail. Alternatively, @Ichirou posted a guide for MSI boards. Both are very helpful. The one thing I found very helpful was how to tune the AC and DC loadlines to the particular LLC level you are using. Along with those guides, there are people in this thread who are generous when it comes to helping out and providing some guidance.


----------



## munternet

RichKnecht said:


> There are a few guides in the “Intel Motherboard” section of these forums both for MSI and Asus boards. If you are on an Asus board, @RobertoSampaio wrote a very in depth guide which goes into pretty good detail. Alternatively, @Ichirou posted a guide for MSI boards. Both are very helpful. The one thing I found very helpful was how to tune the AC and DC loadlines to the particular LLC level you are using. Along with those guides, there are people in this thread who are generous when it comes to helping out and providing some guidance.


OK thanks  I recognize those names 
I have an Apex Z690 but haven't upgraded my sig for a while


----------



## Falkentyne

affxct said:


> The stock VID curve of most chips is incredibly high and if one needed maybe 1.25V to pass P95 SFFT at stock, I think 90% of people would end up seeing degradation. I can’t say off the top of my head what the current load of SFFT is because I’ve frankly never been a fan of P95, but I don’t know if it’s a good idea. I personally would rather never even attempt to run it. I managed to pass LinX with the newest binary with a batch of settings a few weeks ago so I have a rough idea of how my chip does under proper heavy loads, but P95 no way.


Prime95 small FFT AVX1 pulls about 256 amps at 1.137v die sense (5.5g / 4.3e / 4.5c), and close to 300W, temps can get to 93C and this is bare minimum vcore needed to pass an entire loop (200K-240K) area and that's if I get lucky. This is actually about very close to the same voltage needed to pass Y-cruncher SFT test.

small FFT FMA3? Don't even get me started on that, not doable on 5.5 ghz without at least 30mv higher vcore and that's 100C in almost no time flat. I think it was pulling 290 amps too.
Note that at 5.4 ghz, FMA3 can be done at 1.112v die sense load. small FFT FMA3 thus needs way more voltage than required to pass y-cruncher SFT.
You have no business whatsoever even needing to stabilize FMA3. Unless people want to keep bragging about their ultra golden CPU's.


----------



## munternet

Falkentyne said:


> Prime95 small FFT AVX1 pulls about 256 amps at 1.137v die sense (5.5g / 4.3e / 4.5c), and close to 300W, temps can get to 93C and this is bare minimum vcore needed to pass an entire loop (200K-240K) area and that's if I get lucky. This is actually about very close to the same voltage needed to pass Y-cruncher SFT test.
> 
> small FFT FMA3? Don't even get me started on that, not doable on 5.5 ghz without at least 30mv higher vcore and that's 100C in almost no time flat. I think it was pulling 290 amps too.
> Note that at 5.4 ghz, FMA3 can be done at 1.112v die sense load. small FFT FMA3 thus needs way more voltage than required to pass y-cruncher SFT.
> You have no business whatsoever even needing to stabilize FMA3. Unless people want to keep bragging about their ultra golden CPU's.
> 
> View attachment 2590941


Hey mate. Haven't been on for a while. What do you recommend for overclocking and testing the 13900k without degradation for everyday loads? BF2042 etc
I remember the tutorial you did a while back with the help of Shamino? I think it was. I liked that one because it didn't cook my CPU 
Apex Z690 and 13900k


----------



## wtf_apples

all this sp talk is making me super curious about my chip. need to find someone local to check it for me


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> It's all about technique. You shouldn't really be "shaving" it off, but more like "nudging" it off, flattened, from the side. You never cut into the PCB.
> 
> Everyone still uses the RockItCool delid kit. Although there are probably some alternatives now that can do the same thing.


You’re right, it’s all about technique. But we can’t always practice technique on a working 13900K, especially if it’s golden sample going on bare die etc. Which is why I say better just use the wood stick to be safe. 😁 

Direct die on these chips is absolutely awesome though. I cannot praise it enough. Imagine if this Supercool guy had some marketing like EKWB and a sales dept with mass production lol. He would be killing it. EKWB always takes those pretty pictures kind of like Kimber 1911’s. They have great marketing!


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> You’re right, it’s all about technique. But we can’t always practice technique on a working 13900K, especially if it’s golden sample going on bare die etc. Which is why I say better just use the wood stick to be safe. 😁
> 
> Direct die on these chips is absolutely awesome though. I cannot praise it enough. Imagine if this Supercool guy had some marketing like EKWB and a sales dept with mass production lol. He would be killing it. EKWB always takes those pretty pictures kind of like Kimber 1911’s. They have great marketing!


When you lapped your IHS, did you notice any difference in temps or temp spread between the cores? I am really surprised at how well the old Evo is cooling this chip. I was also going to flip the block sideways to see what happens. I have a couple spare cold plates and was thinking of lapping the IHS and the Evo just to see what happens. Heck, if I decide to pop the top off this thing the warranty will be void anyway.


----------



## tubs2x4

bhav said:


> Good god, is this the worst stock VID yet?
> 
> View attachment 2590843
> 
> 
> My advice now, contact Intel and get an RMA for these junks.


Should have waited till KS. get what you pay for most times ha


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> When you lapped your IHS, did you notice any difference in temps or temp spread between the cores? I am really surprised at how well the old Evo is cooling this chip. I was also going to flip the block sideways to see what happens. I have a couple spare cold plates and was thinking of lapping the IHS and the Evo just to see what happens. Heck, if I decide to pop the top off this thing the warranty will be void anyway.


Yeah it helped. But my Optimus cold plate is still bowed for direct die usage. So instead of putting a basket ball against a basket ball. It was like putting a basket ball against the wall lol. 🤣

Better to put a wall against the wall. So it’s flat.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Yeah it helped. But my *Optimus cold plate is still bowed* for direct die usage. So instead of putting a basket ball against a basket ball. It was like putting a basket ball against the wall lol. 🤣
> 
> Better to put a wall against the wall. So it’s flat.


LOL...you should have put that o-ring back in if you wanted to see a bowed cold plate. I think I am going to lap the block and IHS tomorrow, Shouldn't take all that long since I have everything I need "in stock"


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

Made some good progress today on my existing 5.8 o/c and lowered the vcore down by .07 odd and tested with some p95 blend 🙄

Previous effort


----------



## DSHG87

Please guys, set your BIOS to defaults, disable all auto-OC features and tell me what VIDs and Vcore you get with your Raptor Lake after ~30 minutes of using your PC "normal" (some gaming, IDLE and some workloads)

Where is the proof, my 13900K is the only one with over 1.5V @"stock"?

Ryzen 7000 takes up to 1.55V, one of my old 12900KS even up to 1.53V


----------



## VULC

DSHG87 said:


> Please guys, set your BIOS to defaults, disable all auto-OC features and tell me what VIDs and Vcore you get with your Raptor Lake after ~30 minutes of using your PC "normal" (some gaming, IDLE and some workloads)
> 
> Where is the proof, my 13900K is the only one with over 1.5V @"stock"?
> 
> Ryzen 7000 takes up to 1.55V, one of my old 12900KS even up to 1.53V


Board manufacturers over volt for worse case chip quality that's why you have to find what your chip needs and adjust it lower.


----------



## bhav

DSHG87 said:


> Please guys, set your BIOS to defaults, disable all auto-OC features and tell me what VIDs and Vcore you get with your Raptor Lake after ~30 minutes of using your PC "normal" (some gaming, IDLE and some workloads)
> 
> Where is the proof, my 13900K is the only one with over 1.5V @"stock"?
> 
> Ryzen 7000 takes up to 1.55V, one of my old 12900KS even up to 1.53V


Everyone here already knows this and we manually override the auro voltage from the start because of it.

But yes I thought the 1.47v or such chip I found on reddit was the worst stock voltage so far, it looks like you have that beat.

Also no one is gping to run 1.5v for 30 mins, if we see 100c, we undervolt, Imagine 30 mins of 100c stress testing and possibly degrading our chips just because you ask?

It would be interested to find out if the stock vid voltage has any impact on chip quality, as usually if it needs more voltage at stock its a worse chip, but 13th gens seem to be overvolted so much at stock its looking like a meaningless metric.

Also I'm curious is a stock 1.5v and clocks 13900K can even survive Y cruncher or Prime.


----------



## DSHG87

Well, those 1.5V are only for less than a second and without load.

Under load like Cinebench R23 MC mine has ~1.15V and SC ~1.4V


----------



## bhav

DSHG87 said:


> Well, those 1.5V are only for less than a second and without load.
> 
> Under load like Cinebench R23 MC mine has ~1.15V and SC ~1.4V


Which is the sustained load voltage?

For me 1.409 max = 1.37v sustained under cinebench which still gave 100c in under 2 minutes of cinebench.


----------



## RichKnecht

DSHG87 said:


> Please guys, set your BIOS to defaults, disable all auto-OC features and tell me what VIDs and Vcore you get with your Raptor Lake after ~30 minutes of using your PC "normal" (some gaming, IDLE and some workloads)
> 
> Where is the proof, my 13900K is the only one with over 1.5V @"stock"?
> 
> Ryzen 7000 takes up to 1.55V, one of my old 12900KS even up to 1.53V


1.448


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Everyone here already knows this and we manually override the auro voltage from the start because of it.
> 
> But yes I thought the 1.47v or such chip I found on reddit was the worst stock voltage so far, it looks like you have that beat.
> 
> Also no one is gping to run 1.5v for 30 mins, if we see 100c, we undervolt, Imagine 30 mins of 100c stress testing and possibly degrading our chips just because you ask?
> 
> It would be interested to find out if the stock vid voltage has any impact on chip quality, as usually if it needs more voltage at stock its a worse chip, but 13th gens seem to be overvolted so much at stock its looking like a meaningless metric.
> 
> Also I'm curious is a stock 1.5v and clocks 13900K can even survive Y cruncher or Prime.


I use Adaptive + Advanced VF Curve. All on Auto. I do not enter any voltage values or override anything. With 56/45/Auto my voltage shows 1.390 and under load it goes to 1.252. I have LLC set to 7, DC LL set to 69 (tuned to LLC value), and AC LL set to 5. It will down clock and drop voltage to .772 when idle. I know nobody wants to read this, but if you want to keep voltage under control, you need to balance the load lines. If you are using an Asus board, @RobertoSampaio has a guide which goes into great detail on how to do this. For MSI, you need to figure out the DC LL value which matches the LLC value you set. Then adjust the AC LL until you are unstable and then bump it up a notch or 2. This works and it works well. Using this method, I can run my chip at all defaults, with a all core load voltage of 1.158 which starts at the aforementioned 1.39V. It will use more voltage, 1.33 or so, with light loads, but power draw and temps remain low when doing so.

I know this doesn’t “fix” the voltage heat issue, but it helps a lot and makes it manageable. I am going to try and bump up an OC and give TVB a try. I’ll post my results if anyone is interested. I’ll be following Skatterbencher’s guide on how he does it. Will post a link to the tutorial later today. Is this a crazy way to circumvent Intel’s ridiculous VIDs? Yep, but obviously they aren’t going to fix it. I can’t wait to see what happens with the KS.

EDIT I forgot to mention that it seems MSI may use different LLC impedances for different boards. It all depends on the VRMs that particular board is using.


----------



## DSHG87

I think I solved it.

In BIOS (I have ASRock B660) there is an option "CPU Vcore Compensation". It was on AUTO. I set to Level 1. Now, highest VID ist 1.46V and max. Vcore is 1.41V.

While Cinebench R23 MC (253W) sustained voltages is 1.175V and max. 89°. SC 5.75GHz 1.38V.

LLC is on Auto (Level 4).


----------



## bhav

DSHG87 said:


> I think I solved it.
> 
> In BIOS (I have ASRock B660) there is an option "CPU Vcore Compensation". It was on AUTO. I set to Level 1. Now, highest VID ist 1.46V and max. Vcore is 1.41V.
> 
> While Cinebench R23 MC (253W) sustained voltages is 1.175V and max. 89°. SC 5.75GHz 1.38V.
> 
> LLC is on Auto (Level 4).
> 
> View attachment 2591026


Wrong setting, look for AC_LL / DC_LL to fix this.

I'm curious how many normal people running a stock 1.4v up to 1.5v+ chip that never check temps are going to end up with dead chips.


----------



## ju-rek

DSHG87 said:


> I think I solved it.
> 
> In BIOS (I have ASRock B660) there is an option "CPU Vcore Compensation". It was on AUTO. I set to Level 1. Now, highest VID ist 1.46V and max. Vcore is 1.41V.
> 
> While Cinebench R23 MC (253W) sustained voltages is 1.175V and max. 89°. SC 5.75GHz 1.38V.
> 
> LLC is on Auto (Level 4).
> 
> View attachment 2591026


Look at these values, is something wrong here? relative to yours.


----------



## DSHG87

What do u mean?


----------



## ju-rek

DSHG87 said:


> What do u mean?


Can't you see that your cpu clocks in the CB R23 multi test are lower than my stock 13600kf?


----------



## DSHG87

Depends on power limit. 230W is max of my mainboard. Not enough (253W<?) for 13900K.


----------



## ju-rek

DSHG87 said:


> Depends on power limit. 230W is max of my mainboard. Not enough (253W<?) for 13900K.


Then what's the point of keeping 13900K on a B660 board if it has less performance than 13600k stock? And still OC him


----------



## bhav

DSHG87 said:


> Depends on power limit. 230W is max of my mainboard. Not enough (253W<?) for 13900K.


I only just noticed what ju-rek did and you've done it completely wrong.

Compare the actual cinebench score and keep an eye on the core clocks!

You've applied too little voltage so they are not getting enough power to boost.

From the experience of everyone that has tried this, UNDERVOLTING 13TH GEN DOES NOT WORK! REDUCING LITE LOAD / AC_LL / DC_LL DOES!

13600K needs to maintain 5.1 all core, 5.3 for 13700K, technically 5.4 for 13900K but they were originally shipped with 5.5 all core boost.

If you aren't even maintaining the stock clocks, then what's even the point in buying them?

Also yes 230w power is not enough for a 13700K or 13900K, thats how much my 13600K HT on OC uses, actuall 225w, and thats with only 1 core at 5.7. Why would you even put a 13900K on a B660?


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> I only just noticed what ju-rek did and you've done it completely wrong.
> 
> Compare the actual cinebench score and keep an eye on the core clocks!
> 
> You've applied too little voltage so they are not getting enough power to boost.
> 
> From the experience of everyone that has tried this, *UNDERVOLTING 13TH GEN DOES NOT WORK! REDUCING LITE LOAD / AC_LL / DC_LL DOES!*
> 
> 13600K needs to maintain 5.1 all core, 5.3 for 13700K, technically 5.4 for 13900K but they were originally shipped with 5.5 all core boost.
> 
> If you aren't even maintaining the stock clocks, then what's even the point in buying them?
> 
> Also yes 230w power is not enough for a 13700K or 13900K, thats how much my 13600K HT on OC uses, actuall 225w, and thats with only 1 core at 5.7. Why would you even put a 13900K on a B660?


Correct. All voltage adjustments are made via AC and DC LL values. Ideally, one would want DC LL to match LLC impedance, then adjust AC LL up or down to fine tune the voltage needed to be stable, AC LL at 20 is a good place to start regardless of what the DC LL is set to.


----------



## DSHG87

ju-rek said:


> Then what's the point of keeping 13900K on a B660 board if it has less performance than 13600k stock? And still OC him


I need the 13000K for its single core performance (and gaming). In this moment, the 13900K is the fastet CPU u can get.

There are still people using older, 1-threaded software. If 30k or 40k in Cinebench R23 MC is not inportant.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> Correct. All voltage adjustments are made via AC and DC LL values. Ideally, one would want DC LL to match LLC impedance, then adjust AC LL up or down to fine tune the voltage needed to be stable, AC LL at 20 is a good place to start regardless of what the DC LL is set to.


My guess is also its an Asrock B660 so it wont lave LL options, only MSI B660 board do.

So the super high stock voltage might simply also be a B660 issue, as the long thread we already have about the 12400 vs 13600K on an Asus B660.

13th gen K series on a B660 - People need to stop even trying this but ofc they won't.

I'm going to be looking forward to whats going to happen with the 13th gen non Ks on B660 / H670 as I wanted one for my H670 board.


----------



## bhav

DSHG87 said:


> I need single core performance. In this moment, the 13900K is the fastet CPU u can get.
> 
> There are still people using older, 1-threaded software. If 30k or 40k in Cinebench R23 MC is not inportant.


What part of 'Its no longer boosting' don't you understand?

13900K hits 5.8 Ghz single core boost which is what you want? Your undervolt is now capping it to 4.5 Ghz, its no longer boosting and is even weaker than a 12600 non K!


----------



## DSHG87

No.

I have 2270 in CB R23 and 925 in CPU-Z singlecore benchmarks. It boosts up to 5.8GHz.


----------



## ju-rek

DSHG87 said:


> I need the 13000K for its single core performance (and gaming). In this moment, the 13900K is the fastet CPU u can get.
> 
> There are still people using older, 1-threaded software. If 30k or 40k in Cinebench R23 MC is not inportant.


Your choice, I don't care. Good luck.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> LOL...you should have put that o-ring back in if you wanted to see a bowed cold plate. I think I am going to lap the block and IHS tomorrow, Shouldn't take all that long since I have everything I need "in stock"


It is worth it to lap both cpu and block. I have a spare brand new 13900K on my desk, and the Optimus block. Only a dime size amount of metal actually touches in the very center if that much. It is really crazy. I can see light all around between the two. The Optimus easily leans side to side. If you are going to lap the cpu, you must do the block as well. I lapped my golden 13900K before going to direct die, and I saw a 5C cooler core temps and that was still using the bowed Optimus waterblock that was not lapped.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> It is worth it to lap both cpu and block. I have a spare brand new 13900K on my desk, and the Optimus block. Only a dime size amount of metal actually touches in the very center if that much. It is really crazy. I can see light all around between the two. The Optimus easily leans side to side. If you are going to lap the cpu, you must do the block as well. I lapped my golden 13900K before going to direct die, and I saw a 5C cooler core temps and that was still using the bowed Optimus waterblock that was not lapped.


That;s just the thing. I can lap the IHS and the Sig V2 block. The Sig V2 block is copper as I ordered a nickel/copper block. I also have a Plexi/Nickel Foundation. I am going to leave the Evo alone in case I need to pop it back on. The cool thing I now have a flow meter in the loop. So I can see just how much flow I am getting with the V2. Righ now, with the Evo, I am getting 233l/min at 70% pump speed (dual D5s). If I set the pumps to 100%, I get ~405 l/min. So I should have plenty of flow for the V2 you think?


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> That;s just the thing. I can lap the IHS and the Sig V2 block. The Sig V2 block is copper as I ordered a nickel/copper block. I also have a Plexi/Nickel Foundation. I am going to leave the Evo alone in case I need to pop it back on. The cool thing I now have a flow meter in the loop. So I can see just how much flow I am getting with the V2. Righ now, with the Evo, I am getting 233l/min at 70% pump speed (dual D5s). If I set the pumps to 100%, I get ~405 l/min. So I should have plenty of flow for the V2 you think?


In that case I would lap the Optimus block. Make flat.


----------



## Pro4TLZZ

What tests is everyone using in y-cruncher stability testing?


----------



## Ichirou

Pro4TLZZ said:


> What tests is everyone using in y-cruncher stability testing?


If you just want to be mostly stable, do a main test (with as much memory populated as possible), and N64+HNT+VST among the component stress tests. Only need to pass once for all of those.
If you want to be thorough, you'd just run the full CST instead.


----------



## energie80

Any idea of the result using Ek magnitude with flat plate on a stock 13900k with contact frame?


----------



## kunit13

My mag and flat plate will be in this week. 
I can post results vs a v2 (lapped) also lapped + Liquid Metal.


----------



## energie80

kunit13 said:


> My mag and flat plate will be in this week.
> I can post results vs a v2 (lapped) also lapped + Liquid Metal.


Got it on my desk waiting 😅 I don’t want to lap my cpu cause I’m going to sell it
Bought the flat plate anyway


----------



## Ichirou

It blows my mind how all of you people are trying to figure out how to best optimize non-delid cooling when the real answer is to delid or direct die, lol.
The difference between every fathomable kind of non-delid cooling (assuming the radiator space is the same) is never gonna be more than 3C at best.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> It blows my mind how all of you people are trying to figure out how to best optimize non-delid cooling when the real answer is to delid or direct die, lol.
> The difference between every fathomable kind of non-delid cooling (assuming the radiator space is the same) is never gonna be more than 3C at best.


I dunno, maybe I like warranties and resale value more than hacking my IHS off with a saw.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> I dunno, maybe I like warranties and resale value more than hacking my IHS off with a saw.


Lapping won't do you any good either, and trying to optimize the waterblock alone isn't gonna net you more than 2-3C.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Lapping won't do you any good either, and trying to optimize the waterblock alone isn't gonna net you more than 2-3C.


Well yes, it seems the problem with these chips is the IHS cannot transfer the heat to the cooler, hence all of the 100c at stock on any cooling posts.

My chip has no more headroom after its 1.33v OCs, so neither lapping or delid would be worth it.


----------



## munternet

Won't lapping the IHS void the warranty just the same as delidding?


----------



## bhav

munternet said:


> Won't lapping the IHS void the warranty just the same as delidding?


It does, but the contact frame pretty much does the same temp reduction as lapping so no need at all.


----------



## GioCTRL

munternet said:


> Won't lapping the IHS void the warranty just the same as delidding?


Exactly. All my parts to go direct die arrived today (first custom waterloop ever) only waiting on the delid die mate from der8auer to release these weeks to have a trustworthy delid tool to do the job.


----------



## Kocicak

The problem with these chips is that they are small and the IHS is small as well and as long you* run them with sane power limits*, there is no problem with overheating at all. Run them with 160-180W power limit and you will not have anything to complain about.

200-300W is adequate for IHS with the size of the server CPUs.


----------



## bhav

Kocicak said:


> The problem with these chips is that they are small and the IHS is small as well and as long you* run them with sane power limits*, there is no problem with overheating at all. Run them with 160-180W power limit and you will not have anything to complain about.


Thats really only possible on the 13600K, 13700K / 13900K are specified for 253w anyway, 180w would destroy the boost clocks.


----------



## RichKnecht

I decided I am going to pop the top off and go direct die. Now to find a block...has anyone used the NCore block?


----------



## Kocicak

Ichirou said:


> ... the real answer is to delid or direct die


Not everybody wants to destroy their processors or void warranty, especially when there are rumors about degrading of the chips. 

Deliding or lapping is the dumbest thing you can do.


----------



## Kocicak

bhav said:


> Thats really only possible on the 13600K, 13700K / 13900K are specified for 253w anyway, 180w would destroy the boost clocks.


I experimented a lot with these CPUs at different load thread counts and with 8 threads of the Cinebench at 5500 MHz the CPU (13900K) consumes just around 180W.

EDIT: I just consulted my records and limiting the CPU to 160W decreases frequency of P cores to 5300 MHz and R23 score from 16700 to 16300 (8 thread scores).


----------



## Ichirou

GioCTRL said:


> Exactly. All my parts to go direct die arrived today (first custom waterloop ever) only waiting on the delid die mate from der8auer to release these weeks to have a trustworthy delid tool to do the job.


Just get the kit from RockItCool, lol... You're gonna end up waiting forever.


RichKnecht said:


> I decided I am going to pop the top off and go direct die. Now to find a block...has anyone used the NCore block?


The... what?


Kocicak said:


> Not everybody wants to destroy their processors or void warranty, especially when there are rumors about degrading of the chips.
> 
> Deliding or lapping is the dumbest thing you can do.


Funny. I'm basically the main person who has experienced chip degradation with these two generations so far. But that's because I'm constantly pushing 300W+ to test limits 

It's only "dumb" if you don't want to void your warranty. Otherwise, if you don't care, I don't see why not, unless you're doing some stock multiplier undervolt and don't need it to begin with.


----------



## tps3443

I am ordering quick disconnects for my Supercool waterblock. I’ll be able to use these forever!

Is this setup correct?

I went with males that are G1/4 which will screw in to the block, and females that are 10/16 compression style that attach to my tubing which is 3/8x5/8.

When I think of an Impact air gun and an air hose. The impact gun has the male fitting, and the hose has the female fitting with the coupler. So that’s how I decided to do this.

Any thoughts before I order? $100 bucks for (4) fittings lol. I may just grab (8) and do my GPU too. Maybe even (12) and add in my chiller lol. Ughh money spent never ends with computers.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I am ordering quick disconnects for my Supercool waterblock. I’ll be able to use these forever!
> 
> Is this setup correct?
> 
> I went with males that are G1/4 which will screw in to the block, and females that are 10/16 compression style that attach to my tubing which is 3/8x5/8.
> 
> When I think of an Impact air gun and an air hose. The impact gun has the male fitting, and the hose has the female fitting with the coupler. So that’s how I decided to do this.
> 
> Any thoughts before I order? $100 bucks for (4) fittings lol. I may just grab (8) and do my GPU too. Maybe even (12) and add in my chiller lol. Ughh money spent never ends with computers.
> 
> View attachment 2591076


Just get the cheap Bykski QDCs from AliExpress. I have four of them. They work great.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Just get the cheap Bykski QDCs from AliExpress. I have four of them. They work great.


Did you get that supercool block yet?


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

bhav said:


> Thats really only possible on the 13600K, 13700K / 13900K are specified for 253w anyway, 180w would destroy the boost clocks.


Just turn your computers off guys problem solved, no more heat lol. Seriously though these people saying just set it to 120watts cap have got to be trolling.

My four radiators handle the heat just fine at 440 watts 5.8 all core 4.6 e core 5.1 ring 1.28v full load. Hell I've pushed 490 watts and posted screen shots here of it and it was fine as well. Beef up your cooling.


----------



## Kocicak

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> My four radiators handle the heat just fine at 440 watts 5.8 all core 4.6 e core 5.1 ring 1.28v full load.


Yeah, how long can the silicone handle such power draw, that is the question.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Kocicak said:


> Yeah, how long can the silicone handle such power draw, that is the question.



I'd guess 6 - 7 years probably more honestly but, that's just my experience over the last 27 years talking so.. Take that with a grain of salt.

Burn in is normal and has been since I've been overlocking which is 27 years now. After that you're fine, things are locked at that point if kept under control temperature wise.

These CPU's do ghost throttle and by ghost, I mean the software we usually use won't tell you it is throttling in some instances when you're just starting to push it a little too much. I did notice that intels XTU overlocking software tells you.
At a certain point you just need to watch your performance go down and back away a little to where it plateaus again and stay there. That's your temp / power limit for your cooling setup.

Side note so no one gets mad at me that doesn't know yet I know a lot of people do but some might not know. Intel's software will override your settings in the BIOS when installed so be careful with that program if playing with it.


----------



## Luggage

tps3443 said:


> I am ordering quick disconnects for my Supercool waterblock. I’ll be able to use these forever!
> 
> Is this setup correct?
> 
> I went with males that are G1/4 which will screw in to the block, and females that are 10/16 compression style that attach to my tubing which is 3/8x5/8.
> 
> When I think of an Impact air gun and an air hose. The impact gun has the male fitting, and the hose has the female fitting with the coupler. So that’s how I decided to do this.
> 
> Any thoughts before I order? $100 bucks for (4) fittings lol. I may just grab (8) and do my GPU too. Maybe even (12) and add in my chiller lol. Ughh money spent never ends with computers.
> 
> View attachment 2591076


I always do from female to male, that way I can’t mess up flow direction and I can always connect the hose together to bypass any part that is quick-connected.


----------



## chibi

tps3443 said:


> Ughh money spent never ends with computers.


For all the new folk, the quicker you learn this, the easier it gets over time haha.


----------



## Telstar

bhav said:


> Thats really only possible on the 13600K, 13700K / 13900K are specified for 253w anyway, 180w would destroy the boost clocks.


only with all cores. 1,2 and 4 cores usage like in gaming is not affected, as a 13900k will only draw about 120w


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Did you get that supercool block yet?


Within the last hour. But I gotta deal with the memory overclocking issues first.


----------



## munternet

13900K
Asus Apex Z690
Flashed BIOS then updated ME which caused the glitch. Wrong order
Managed to fix the BIOS glitch that showed the SP as 128 with P [email protected] and E [email protected]
The BIOS needs to be changed to a different BIOS so the Database gets erased and partitions 1,2,3 and maybe 4 get re-established then switch back to the desired BIOS
I liked the score better before


----------



## RichKnecht

Been watching videos to try and figure out if I really want to go direct die. Not so sure now. Is a 7C temp drop with ambient air really worth it? I may just lap the block and IHS and see what happens. If I get 2-3C temp drop, it will put me below 80C which is my target. Damn you guys and the peer pressure🙃


----------



## kunit13

I was thinking about going direct die. Kitguri has a video up (6 months old) where EK was working on a direct die plate for the V2. 

The V2 for my setup is kinda of pain in the ass, so when I found out from this thread that the plate was con caved and they didn’t sell a flat plate (I lapped my IHS) i ordered the mag with flat plate (plus the mag mounting screws are to front). Made it easy.
The DD kit from supercool is quite a bit cheaper then ek stuff.


----------



## RichKnecht

kunit13 said:


> I was thinking about going direct die. Kitguri has a video up (6 months old) where EK was working on a direct die plate for the V2.
> 
> The V2 for my setup is kinda of pain in the ass, so when I found out from this thread that the plate was con caved and they didn’t sell a flat plate (I lapped my IHS) i ordered the mag with flat plate (plus the mag mounting screws are to front). Made it easy.
> The DD kit from supercool is quite a bit cheaper then ek stuff.


What were the results with the Mag?


----------



## tps3443

@RichKnecht

Direct die is worth it!! I saw 15-17C on the P-Cores, and 14-15C drop on the E-Cores. And, I’m overclocked higher. It is a huge difference. Voltages dropped, VID’s dropped, peak power under load dropped, ease of stability went through the roof.

The supercool direct die block is just amazing! I like it so much. I’m gonna need one for literally every cpu in the future Lol.

I delidded a 13900K before and re-sealed its IHS back on, and saw hardly any difference at all. So I was leery about trying this at all. Well, it freaking works very very well!!


----------



## bhav

Well after wasting so much time regarding the 100c at stock issues, I got all the replies from Intel and MSI, basically it sucks to be a normal persons who never changes bios settings.

Intel - motherboards AIBs might set too high settings, contact them for the correct settings.

MIS - default lite load is for worst case scenario. If your CPU supports lower voltage then reduce it, if you use water cooling you can increase it for higher boost clocks.

So there we have it, 13th gen chips are intended for users to undervolt them using the lite load / AC_LL / DC_LL settings.

Neither Intel or MSI are concerned for users that don't set the voltage settings manually.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> @RichKnecht
> 
> Direct die is worth it!! I saw 15-17C on the P-Cores, and 14-15C drop on the E-Cores. And, I’m overclocked higher. It is a huge difference. Voltages dropped, VID’s dropped, peak power under load dropped, ease of stability went through the roof.
> 
> The supercool direct die block is just amazing! I like it so much. I’m gonna need one for literally every cpu in the future Lol.
> 
> I delidded a 13900K before and re-sealed its IHS back on, and saw hardly any difference at all. So I was leery about trying this at all. Well, it freaking works very very well!!
> 
> View attachment 2591100


Is that on ambient? If so, what is the ambient temp? Water temp?


----------



## kunit13

RichKnecht said:


> What were the results with the Mag?


Waiting on it… should be in today. For some reason the local
Storm delayed shipments.


----------



## Oleksii1977

13700k 5.6 (2x 6.1Ghz) P-Core / 4.6Ghz E-Core / 5.0Ghz Cache + Asus Z790 Apex + GSkill [email protected]


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Is that on ambient? If so, what is the ambient temp? Water temp?


Water temp doesn’t really matter. It’s always the same in my case. The 14-17C reduction in core temp is still there. Some people claim 20-30C, so you may very well see a larger improvement than me.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Well after wasting so much time regarding the 100c at stock issues, I got all the replies from Intel and MSI, basically it sucks to be a normal persons who never changes bios settings.
> 
> Intel - motherboards AIBs might set too high settings, contact them for the correct settings.
> 
> MIS - default lite load is for worst case scenario. If your CPU supports lower voltage then reduce it, if you use water cooling you can increase it for higher boost clocks.
> 
> So there we have it, 13th gen chips are intended for users to undervolt them using the lite load / AC_LL / DC_LL settings.
> 
> Neither Intel or MSI are concerned for users that don't set the voltage settings manually.


If you tune DCLL to the LLC impedance then adjust AC LL to adjust the voltage, it works just fine. For this method to work properly though, you need to leave voltage on Auto so that the CPU follows the programmed VTD table. I’ve been using my chip this way, using Adaptive + VF Curve set to all auto values, with all types of OCs and undervolts. Vcore matches VID under load within .003V. Now if you use an Asus board, you are ahead of the game because Asus automatically sets DC LL impedance to match LLC impedance. Then you set AC LL to around 20 and go up/down from there. If MSI would disclose their LLC impedances, it would make it easy for us MSI owners to fine tune the voltages. I have done hours of searching for ways to calculate a particular LLC’s impedance and found a brilliant LLC calculator than does just that. If anyone is interested, just message me and I’ll share the link and help you use it. Even though it’s great info to share here, going back and forth within the thread could get to be a PITA. A dedicated conversation would be much easier for the parties involved.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Water temp doesn’t really matter. It’s always the same in my case. The 14-17C reduction in core temp is still there. Some people claim 20-30C, so you may very well see a larger improvement than me.


Ugh..you are killing me🙃


----------



## tps3443

I ordered the Koolance quick release fittings. Looking forward to getting these. I received an Amazon Gift card over the holidays from work anyways.


----------



## VULC

Was playing God of War crashes on game start up had to back up trefi another 100 points from 65435 to 65335 and it stopped crashing. I'm not going give away any extra points that I don't need to 🙃. So far all my games are covered.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> I ordered the Koolance quick release fittings. Looking forward to getting these. I received an Amazon Gift card over the holidays from work anyways.
> 
> View attachment 2591112
> 
> View attachment 2591113


I should get them as well. Would make playing around with the blocks mush easier.


----------



## kunit13

Yah I almost ordered some today. Been doing a little research. Do these ones restrict much?


----------



## tps3443

kunit13 said:


> Yah I almost ordered some today. Been doing a little research. Do these ones restrict much?


Not sure about restriction. I moved from an Optimus Sig V2 which is like pushing a golf ball through a straw. To a Supercool block which has no restriction at all I could probably circulate a chicken wing through my water loop now. Long story short, I have tons of water pressure now. I imagine the Koolance quick release will take some pressure away though.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> I should get them as well. Would make playing around with the blocks mush easier.


Yeah, I’m gonna grab some more for my GPU, and probably radiator as well.

They are awesome.


----------



## CptSpig

tps3443 said:


> Not sure about restriction. I moved from an Optimus Sig V2 which is like pushing a golf ball through a straw. To a Supercool block which has no restriction at all I could probably circulate a chicken wing through my water loop now. Long story short, I have tons of water pressure now. I imagine the Koolance quick release will take some pressure away though.


No, I have six QDC's, CPU, GPU and Supetcool ram block I still get twenty three LM.


----------



## kunit13

Well looks like I need to step up my QDC game. 
Never used them? I saw the ones tps posted. I assume you can just do both males (g1/4) right into the cpu block? Your seems to have 1 fitting on the block and is the other fitting on rad?


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> I am ordering quick disconnects for my Supercool waterblock. I’ll be able to use these forever!
> 
> Is this setup correct?
> 
> I went with males that are G1/4 which will screw in to the block, and females that are 10/16 compression style that attach to my tubing which is 3/8x5/8.
> 
> When I think of an Impact air gun and an air hose. The impact gun has the male fitting, and the hose has the female fitting with the coupler. So that’s how I decided to do this.
> 
> Any thoughts before I order? $100 bucks for (4) fittings lol. I may just grab (8) and do my GPU too. Maybe even (12) and add in my chiller lol. Ughh money spent never ends with computers.
> 
> View attachment 2591076


I started using coolance QD in 2013, still using them. Now I have QD on 4 systems at home. Makes the change of cpu and gpu's very easy, without drain a drop of water.
Impossible for me to build a watercooled system without QD on atleast cpu, gpu and dimms


----------



## tps3443

@RichKnecht

Looking at some of my results.

The supercool direct die setup with 27.7C ambient water still ran 4C cooler during R23 CPU temps, than post direct die with 14.4C water (Water chiller running). 🤯

I am able to essentially do slightly better than what I was before going direct die, only now with the chiller off. Yes, the results are even more extreme with the chiller on lol. I usually always keep my water locked at 15C daily.


Anyways, I hope that helps.


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> @RichKnecht
> 
> Direct die is worth it!! I saw 15-17C on the P-Cores, and 14-15C drop on the E-Cores. And, I’m overclocked higher. It is a huge difference. Voltages dropped, VID’s dropped, peak power under load dropped, ease of stability went through the roof.
> 
> The supercool direct die block is just amazing! I like it so much. I’m gonna need one for literally every cpu in the future Lol.
> 
> I delidded a 13900K before and re-sealed its IHS back on, and saw hardly any difference at all. So I was leery about trying this at all. Well, it freaking works very very well!!
> 
> View attachment 2591100


It's a reason I started using supercool direct die with 10900k. Made SP 63 109900k to almost godlike chip 😅

Edit: 10900k LOL


----------



## fat4l

Nizzen said:


> It's a reason I started using supercool direct die with 10900k. Made SP 63 109900k to almost godlike chip 😅


You are already generations ahead with that 109900K anyway 😅😅😅


----------



## DSHG87

What did I wrong now with CPU Vcore Compensation? Isnt it the same like SVID Behaviour?


----------



## Betroz

RichKnecht said:


> Now if you use an Asus board, you are ahead of the game because Asus automatically sets DC LL impedance to match LLC impedance. Then you set AC LL to around 20 and go up/down from there.


Will "SVID Behavior" need to be set to Auto on Asus boards aswell for this to work? I still have a Z490 Apex and would like to test this out before I upgrade to 13900K or whatever it will be.


----------



## kunit13

I've been tuning my DC_LL to get my Vid to match my Vcore under load. I want make sure I'm headed in the right direction?
This fixed Vcore 1.335 (bios) 1.332 (hwinfo). 
Cores are locked @ 5.7/4.5/5ring LLC#6 

I also included some data I collected (Its kind of messy, trying to figure out what knob to turn). 

How are most of you guys that game tune your CPU (fixed, variable)?






Cin 20 I was gaming for a few hours so had the window open (this 4090 is space heater).










Below is the data I collected. My office was pretty warm 75f.


----------



## VULC

I need to watercool ram to run max trefi but 200 points aren't dropping the perf my trusty ram fan doing it's job.


----------



## Madness11

kunit13 said:


> I've been tuning my DC_LL to get my Vid to match my Vcore under load. I want make sure I'm headed in the right direction?
> This fixed Vcore 1.335 (bios) 1.332 (hwinfo).
> Cores are locked @ 5.7/4.5/5ring LLC#6
> 
> I also included some data I collected (Its kind of messy, trying to figure out what knob to turn).
> 
> How are most of you guys that game tune your CPU (fixed, variable)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cin 20 I was gaming for a few hours so had the window open (this 4090 is space heater).
> 
> View attachment 2591130
> 
> 
> Below is the data I collected. My office was pretty warm 75f.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2591131


What cooling are you using ??))


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> @RichKnecht
> 
> Looking at some of my results.
> 
> The supercool direct die setup with 27.7C ambient water still ran 4C cooler during R23 CPU temps, than post direct die with 14.4C water (Water chiller running). 🤯
> 
> I am able to essentially do slightly better than what I was before going direct die, only now with the chiller off. Yes, the results are even more extreme with the chiller on lol. I usually always keep my water locked at 15C daily.
> 
> 
> Anyways, I hope that helps.


This makes sense. Radiators become much more efficient when water temp rises 10 degrees, or more, above the ambient temperature. Still on the fence as my water temp rarely rises more than 5C over ambient. At idle and low loads, water temp is about 22C. It can be a couple degrees higher in the summer, but that is a given as room temperature is also higher.


----------



## RichKnecht

kunit13 said:


> I've been tuning my DC_LL to get my Vid to match my Vcore under load. I want make sure I'm headed in the right direction?
> This fixed Vcore 1.335 (bios) 1.332 (hwinfo).
> Cores are locked @ 5.7/4.5/5ring LLC#6
> 
> I also included some data I collected (Its kind of messy, trying to figure out what knob to turn).
> 
> How are most of you guys that game tune your CPU (fixed, variable)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cin 20 I was gaming for a few hours so had the window open (this 4090 is space heater).
> 
> View attachment 2591130
> 
> 
> Below is the data I collected. My office was pretty warm 75f.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2591131


Just look at the guide @RobertoSampaio posted in the forum He posted all the DC LL values for Asus boards. If you are running a. Z790 board, when you set LLC, the DC LL is set to the correct value automatically. However, when using a static voltage that is entered manually, AC and DC LL do not work as they are intended to. You need to run Adaptive


----------



## RichKnecht

Betroz said:


> Will "SVID Behavior" need to be set to Auto on Asus boards aswell for this to work? I still have a Z490 Apex and would like to test this out before I upgrade to 13900K or whatever it will be.


With the Z790 boards, I believe that the SVIDBehavior is disabled when setting the AC and DC LL values manually. I would ask @RobertoSampaio as he is more familiar with the Asus boards.


----------



## RichKnecht

kunit13 said:


> Waiting on it… should be in today. For some reason the local
> Storm delayed shipments.


I'm really interested in your findings.


----------



## acoustic

Nizzen said:


> I started using coolance QD in 2013, still using them. Now I have QD on 4 systems at home. Makes the change of cpu and gpu's very easy, without drain a drop of water.
> Impossible for me to build a watercooled system without QD on atleast cpu, gpu and dimms


Two D5s handle the restriction well? With 3 blocks?


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> This makes sense. Radiators become much more efficient when water temp rises 10 degrees, or more, above the ambient temperature. Still on the fence as my water temp rarely rises more than 5C over ambient. At idle and low loads, water temp is about 22C. It can be a couple degrees higher in the summer, but that is a given as room temperature is also higher.


10 degrees? I don’t think I have ever seen
my water go 1.5-3C over ambient. But this still isn’t in control of the better heat transfer. We’re are referring to heat transfer from die to block.

I guess what I’m saying is, regardless of ambient temp or water temp. The difference is still there, you can still slice that huge reduction off from using direct die. I’m confused by what you are saying, you mean because you water is 22c and never goes far above ambient, you won’t see as much of an improvement?

If I set my water to 15C or 10C, that reduction is just as good as ever regardless of the water temp. Maybe I misread what you are saying.


----------



## Nizzen

acoustic said:


> Two D5s handle the restriction well? With 3 blocks?


No problem! I use dual d5.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> 10 degrees? I don’t think I have ever seen
> my water go 1.5-3C over ambient. But this still isn’t in control of the better heat transfer.* We’re are referring to heat transfer from die to block*.
> 
> I guess what I’m saying is, regardless of ambient temp or water temp. The difference is still there, you can still slice that huge reduction off from using direct die. I’m confused by what you are saying, you mean because you water is 22c and never goes far above ambient, you won’t see as much of an improvement?
> 
> If I set my water to 15C or 10C, that reduction is just as good as ever regardless of the water temp. Maybe I misread what you are saying.


That makes sense as you are eliminating a few "layers" from the cooling engine. I noticed a huge improvement with my old 7900X using direct die. I just had issues due to poor contact between the chip and socket which is something that you say I should not worry about with 13th gen.


----------



## acoustic

Nizzen said:


> No problem! I use dual d5.


interesting. I might grab some too. I added a 3rd rad and a RAM block and my flow is horrible with single D5. Second D5 will be here today.. might order some of these QDs too


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> interesting. I might grab some too. I added a 3rd rad and a RAM block and my flow is horrible with single D5. Second D5 will be here today.. might order some of these QDs too


Yay! More plumbing. And I bet those hands were just starting to feel better.


----------



## Nizzen

acoustic said:


> interesting. I might grab some too. I added a 3rd rad and a RAM block and my flow is horrible with single D5. Second D5 will be here today.. might order some of these QDs too


I'm using one MoRa radiator with 4x 200mm fans. Don't need more. When I want colder than ambient air, I put the radiator outside the window or open window.
More radiators just add more restriction. So if the watertemp don't rise too much over ambent, you have enough radiator.


----------



## Brads3cents

tps3443 said:


> I am ordering quick disconnects for my Supercool waterblock. I’ll be able to use these forever!
> 
> Is this setup correct?
> 
> I went with males that are G1/4 which will screw in to the block, and females that are 10/16 compression style that attach to my tubing which is 3/8x5/8.
> 
> When I think of an Impact air gun and an air hose. The impact gun has the male fitting, and the hose has the female fitting with the coupler. So that’s how I decided to do this.
> 
> Any thoughts before I order? $100 bucks for (4) fittings lol. I may just grab (8) and do my GPU too. Maybe even (12) and add in my chiller lol. Ughh money spent never ends with computers.


I like the concept of quick disconnects but hate the idea of flow restriction. Its a trade off ultimately. More convenience and quality of life but you add restriction to your loop


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> I'm using one MoRa radiator with 4x 200mm fans. Don't need more. When I want colder than ambient air, I put the radiator outside the window or open window.
> More radiators just add more restriction. So if the watertemp don't rise too much over ambent, you have enough radiator.


I quickly tested (2) 1,080x45mm Pora3’s at once. And I saw no noticeable improvement with performance just lower pressure in water. I only run (1) Pora3 for the time being and it works well.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> Yay! More plumbing. And I bet those hands were just starting to feel better.


my thumb is fearing for its life, I’m sure 😂



Nizzen said:


> I'm using one MoRa radiator with 4x 200mm fans. Don't need more. When I want colder than ambient air, I put the radiator outside the window or open window.
> More radiators just add more restriction. So if the watertemp don't rise too much over ambent, you have enough radiator.


With two 360 rads, my waterT would get into the mid-high 30s. I wanted to bring it down to 28-31c region. Right now, even with the horrendous flow of 28 G/H, my WaterT isn’t going above 33c in MW2. I used to see 35ish.

The lack of flow is hurting the cooling potential of the rads a ton. I’m hoping with the second pump, I’ll see my flow back to that 60 G/H mark.


----------



## Brads3cents

Oleksii1977 said:


> 13700k 5.6 (2x 6.1Ghz) P-Core / 4.6Ghz E-Core / 5.0Ghz Cache + Asus Z790 Apex + GSkill [email protected]
> View attachment 2591105


do you mind sharing your timings please? i would love to see how you achieve 46.8ns


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> I like the concept of quick disconnects but hate the idea of flow restriction. Its a trade off ultimately. More convenience and quality of life but you add restriction to your loop


People say it doesn’t, but others say it does? I have no idea. I’m installing quick disconnects on my super cool only. I really need them anyways. if there was a leak or any kind of drip around there it’s going to be a nightmare. And I literally have to drain my whole loop just to pull a cpu. My loop has LOTS of water, so I’d rather not.


----------



## Brads3cents

acoustic said:


> my thumb is fearing for its life, I’m sure 😂
> 
> 
> 
> With two 360 rads, my waterT would get into the mid-high 30s. I wanted to bring it down to 28-31c region. Right now, even with the horrendous flow of 28 G/H, my WaterT isn’t going above 33c in MW2. I used to see 35ish.
> 
> The lack of flow is hurting the cooling potential of the rads a ton. I’m hoping with the second pump, I’ll see my flow back to that 60 G/H mark.


I noticed a lot of you guys struggle with flow. I also understand case restrictions for many of the smaller cases that are popular on this board.
with that said, do you guys ever consider incorporating another pump into your loop

personally, i have 3 full size pump/res combos. one for a cpu only loop and 2 for my gpu loop. I get it that 3 full blown large reservoirs would be impossible for majority here, but i never wanted to be in this predicament so i purchased the core p7 case


----------



## Nizzen

Brads3cents said:


> do you mind sharing your timings please? i would love to see how you achieve 46.8ns


13700k has a bit lower latency than 13900k.
Run 6.2ghz singlecore and 53 ring.
Run stripped windows with few background tasks and servces. Disable unused sound/usb/ sata in bios. Run aida when in safemode or close "explorer".
This is how sub 47ns is possible.


----------



## acoustic

Brads3cents said:


> I noticed a lot of you guys struggle with flow. I also understand case restrictions for many of the smaller cases that are popular on this board.
> with that said, do you guys ever consider incorporating another pump into your loop
> 
> personally, i have 3 full size pump/res combos. one for a cpu only loop and 2 for my gpu loop. I get it that 3 full blown large reservoirs would be impossible for majority here, but i never wanted to be in this predicament so i purchased the core p7 case


I used to run my single D5 @ 4000rpm and would still easily hit the golden 60 G/H number. Never had flow issues at all with GPU/CPU and 2x rads. I added a 480mm rad and the RAM block, and my flow was cut more than half with the pump at max speed.

my second D5 gets here today, and then I’ll install it at some point over the next couple days.
I also ordered another 480mm rad to replace one of the 360. It’ll be 2 Heatkiller 480-S and 1 Heatkiller 360-L, with 2 D5 pumps, GPU/CPU blocks and the IceManCooler DRAM block.

I believe most of the restriction is coming from the RAM block. Such a small piece would add a lot of restriction, I’d imagine.


----------



## Oleksii1977

Brads3cents said:


> do you mind sharing your timings please? i would love to see how you achieve 46.8ns


yes, I attached it below



Nizzen said:


> This is how sub 47ns is possible.


you right, I use 5.6Ghz for all P-Core loading and to 6.2Ghz for P-Core when 2x (TVB)
Ring 5.0Ghz
All tasks, explorer, sata, usb and etc are working
AIDA is Normal Mode and VT-D on in bios


----------



## Tadaschi

I use those on every rig that i build, make sure to buy from koolance seller on amazon is much cheaper... from $24 from them is like $17



tps3443 said:


> I ordered the Koolance quick release fittings. Looking forward to getting these. I received an Amazon Gift card over the holidays from work anyways.
> 
> View attachment 2591112
> 
> View attachment 2591113


----------



## Tadaschi

CptSpig said:


> No, I have six QDC's, CPU, GPU and Supetcool ram block I still get twenty three LM.
> View attachment 2591123
> View attachment 2591123


Using 12 of them, still get 145l/h with 2 pumps at 75% with 2 blocks and mora3 420


----------



## CptSpig

kunit13 said:


> Well looks like I need to step up my QDC game.
> Never used them? I saw the ones tps posted. I assume you can just do both males (g1/4) right into the cpu block? Your seems to have 1 fitting on the block and is the other fitting on rad?


I have one on the CPU, GPU, both pumps, one in and out of the rad. Koolance black QDC-3. You need to use 1/4 thead for the blocks and compression for the hoses. They come in 3/8" ID and 1/2" or 5/8" OD.


----------



## tps3443

CptSpig said:


> I have one on the CPU, GPU, both pumps, one in and out of the rad. Koolance black QDC-3. You need to use 1/4 thead for the blocks and compression for the hoses. They come in 3/8" ID and 1/2" or 5/8" OD.


I bought the G/4 threaded Males, and I ordered the 3/8x5/8 female models for my tubing which is 10mm/16mm. 




Tadaschi said:


> Using 12 of them, still get 145l/h with 2 pumps at 75% with 2 blocks and mora3 420
> View attachment 2591174


That’s awesome. I am going to incorporate them absolutely everywhere. I just wanted to see how I like them I suppose. Just to hook up the CPU, you’ve gotta buy (4) fittings.


----------



## warbucks

Brads3cents said:


> I like the concept of quick disconnects but hate the idea of flow restriction. Its a trade off ultimately. More convenience and quality of life but you add restriction to your loop


Restriction only matters if you have a weak pump. If you're using a D5, it's perfectly fine.


----------



## acoustic

warbucks said:


> Restriction only matters if you have a weak pump. If you're using a D5, it's perfectly fine.


To an extent. I found this out the hard way with a single D5.


----------



## SesioN

xpulse said:


> Hi All,
> Have a temp problem on my i9-13900k, default settings No overclocking heat cpu to 100c on cinebench23, and result is very low 37900-38300.
> 
> I tested with and without cpu plate, and my aio is arctic freeze II 420.
> 
> Case is Lian li odyssey in performance mode.
> Mb aorus z790 master.
> 
> And yes thermal throttle kick off of course on 100C and drop cpu clock to 4.2-4.4ghz.
> 
> Thank you for any suggestions of help.


13900k delidded + copper IHS + liquid metal + contact frame with arctic freeze II 420 = stock prime95 small ffts around 68C
Some OC results (not pushed to max)
P cores 8x 5.8,4x5.9, 2x 6.0, 1x 6.1
E cores 16x 4.6, 8x 4.7, 16x 4.8
LLC5, 0.78, 0.20 prime95 small ffts round 80-86C (310-325 Watt limit)

I tested a load of 370 Watts, was barely hitting 90+C, fine enough for AiO


----------



## yzonker

acoustic said:


> To an extent. I found this out the hard way with a single D5.


Probably true for the CPU block as they don't seem to require as much flow to maintain optimal performance. 

OTOH, this is definitely not true for GPU blocks where adding a 2nd D5 even to a loop with only moderate restriction will result in a 2-3C drop in block delta.


----------



## kunit13

.


RichKnecht said:


> Just look at the guide @RobertoSampaio posted in the forum He posted all the DC LL values for Asus boards. If you are running a. Z790 board, when you set LLC, the DC LL is set to the correct value automatically. However, when using a static voltage that is entered manually, AC and DC LL do not work as they are intended to. You need to run Adaptive


I will end up trying to tune the Adaptive route. I asked Robert what one to tune before I started the DCLL tuning and stated "Tune DCLL" AC prob wouldn't do anything. 

I asked this question on another thread. 

"I've been getting a lot of feedback on go "Adaptive". I guess my main question is what's the advantage over fixed, if the games I play are HIGH FPS games the require the Cores to be at the highest all the time? And any fluctuation in cores could cause lag or inconsistent frame times?"



Madness11 said:


> What cooling are you using ??))


560rad Velocity 2 waterblock (Lapped and Liquid metal on die (not on waterblock).


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> 13700k has a bit lower latency than 13900k.
> Run 6.2ghz singlecore and 53 ring.
> Run stripped windows with few background tasks and servces. Disable unused sound/usb/ sata in bios. Run aida when in safemode or close "explorer".
> This is how sub 47ns is possible.


I don’t think that many 13900K’s can do 5.3 ring 😂


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> I don’t think that many 13900K’s can do 5.3 ring 😂


For Aida64 gaming, no problem 🤣


----------



## Brads3cents

while some games scale with M/T. latency is still the elephant in the room. there are some people who are able to run 8400 cl34 and this requires phenomenal memory controller and elite motherboard but excluding these extreme outliers, ddr5 hasnt been able to stretch its legs out against well-tuned ddr4 yet

I am still waiting for extreme low latency ddr5 kits
when they finally release 8000cl30 kits into the market, it will be then that ddr5 will flex and ddr4 will finally begin to die

when you can match (or even better) the latency of ddr4 but have the extreme M/T rate you will truly see these 13th gen cpus stretch their legs.
unfortunately, it will be a while before we get something that good
not even sure if we will see it this generation at all or whether we have to wait for 14th gen


----------



## Betroz

Brads3cents said:


> I am still waiting for extreme low latency ddr5 kits
> when they finally release 8000cl30 kits into the market, it will be then that ddr5 will flex and ddr4 will finally begin to die


What good is that if few people have a IMC capable of that? We will probably need the IMC inside the upcoming 14900K for that.


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> while some games scale with M/T. latency is still the elephant in the room. there are some people who are able to run 8400 cl34 and this requires phenomenal memory controller and elite motherboard but excluding these extreme outliers, ddr5 hasnt been able to stretch its legs out against well-tuned ddr4 yet
> 
> I am still waiting for extreme low latency ddr5 kits
> when they finally release 8000cl30 kits into the market, it will be then that ddr5 will flex and ddr4 will finally begin to die
> 
> when you can match (or even better) the latency of ddr4 but have the extreme M/T rate you will truly see these 13th gen cpus stretch their legs.
> unfortunately, it will be a while before we get something that good
> not even sure if we will see it this generation at all or whether we have to wait for 14th gen


It looks like 7000+ is when DDR5 started to walk past DDR4 in higher FPS range. We’re well on past that now.


----------



## Brads3cents

Betroz said:


> What good is that if few people have a IMC capable of that? We will probably need the IMC inside the upcoming 14900K for that.


well for them to release a kit like this they would have to validate it first on the apex mobo. its not a manual overclock it would be an xmp setting

so we are talking super ultra-binned memory with enhancements that would allow it to run on majority of memory controllers 

you know, not to long ago they best memory kit was 7200 cl36. but they just released a 7800 cl36 kit. so, a 600 M/T increase while maintaining same cas latency
this is the flipside of it. now that they have reached 8000 M/T kits, instead of focusing on higher transfer rate they focus on low latency while maintaining 8000. it happens for every generation of ram

also, whos to say that A die is the end game here for ddr5. always something better around the corner


----------



## Brads3cents

tps3443 said:


> It looks like 7000+ is when DDR5 started to walk past DDR4 in higher FPS range. We’re well on past that now.


correct in some games, but ddr5 has a latency disadvantage. and people on this board have tuned ddr4 up to 4400 with super tight timings to where there is no performance difference between it and ddr5

for most people though if you just enable xmp then ddr5 has surpassed ddr4 but if you looked at tuned vs tuned there isnt much difference unfortunately. some games DO scale with M/T rate but many favor latency

except for those who have achieved something like 8400 cl34 with tight subs but only a couple in this thread have reached that level. TBF im talking about extreme scenarios but this is overlock.net baby. i want to min max and reach highest possible performance level

just let me have my dream. I want to see 8000 cl30


anyways take a look at this
DDR4 4400 C16 1T Gear1 vs DDR5 8000 C36 performance with 13900K and RTX 4090 | Overclock.net 

although there are plenty of people who have done 8200 c34 i would say 8000cl36 isnt maxing out ddr5 the way he maxed out ddr4


----------



## VULC

Nizzen said:


> 13700k has a bit lower latency than 13900k.
> Run 6.2ghz singlecore and 53 ring.
> Run stripped windows with few background tasks and servces. Disable unused sound/usb/ sata in bios. Run aida when in safemode or close "explorer".
> This is how sub 47ns is possible.


We need to turn off explorer when we play games 😄😄😅


----------



## l.kristensen.1981

PoizenJam said:


> I appreciate your concern, but I was just using an example. I'm tunning LLC and AC/DC LL using Roberto's z790 Extreme guide, and I can do R23 at about ~260-265W. Unfortunately, that seems to be the best I can do. If I enforce power limits (MCE DISABLED with default PL1/2 and ICCMAX), it usually is only capable of 52-54 P and 41 - 42 E. My 13900K is SP 102 (112P/83E). I can reliably pass 30min R23 stability tests with V_LATCH MIN of 1.14V and a CORE_VID/VCORES of ~1.18V, which pulls ~256W according to the VCORE Power. But that doesn't reliably pass Y-Cruncher. I need to bump it a little (V_LATCH MIN of 1.15V and CORE_VID/VCORES of ~1.2V in R23) to reliably pass Y-Cruncher. That corresponds to the 260-265W power draw I mentioned above. So I can only _just barely_ undervolt relative to ASUS 'TRAINED' SVID profile.
> 
> Edit: I should mention I'm _also _populating just about every available PCI-E Gen4 lane on this build, using almost all the USB ports, and running 2x32GB DDR5 5600 CL30 RAM on a Z690... So if any of those things compromise undervolt & OC headroom that may explain why.


A great manual setting that worked for me was:

Default CPU settings but set all core by usage to x55. Then there will be no up and down x58 2 cores which is useless and take further power.

Set LLC to 4.

Manual vcore set 1.42.

With that setting my CPU can run at 240w full power no throttle.. And default settings was like 100c 270w haha...

The voltage under load will go down to 1.19/1.20v ....... This could be a great starting point. Then you can modify from there. I only run manual OC with great results. Its harder, warmer and requires more power with all this "auto" up and down and per core oc etc. Try a basic stable great OC that unlock at least full potential of your CPU with no throttle.

I did manage to get x49 cache in there at exactly 252w haha... I can set it to 5.6/4.9 at 266w .. With manual I have much much better results and lower overall power consumption. I also have my power setting Windows to Ultimate .. EVERYTHING reacts with a blink of an eye.. max performance all the time every time. I can notice when entire system is 100% ready to eat a command rather than balanced and up and down cores and voltages... Ultimate performance is instant all the time. Also if you plan to try cache oc it can be incredible difficult to mange on auto with high ratio like 49-50x. I always use manual also to see what the limits are .. 

Right now im running 5.7/5.0/4.3 @ LLC5 1.45v .. just experimenting! hehe .. but its rock stable which I did not expect haha! I then just set ENFORCE ALL LIMITS so in CB R23 it throttles to stay 253w but I dont have ANY requirements of all core with e core... SO its kind of a gamer OC.. works in everything than benchmark and extreme workloads. But for gaming for now.. rock solid. I also used like 8 hours trimming timings on my RAM. It resulted in latency @ 54.6ns and 108gb/sec and 97gb/sec write... massive gain compared to stock and Windows security etc. They are 6000 OC to 6600 with tight timings.. I gotta say this combo... insane ram, 13900K tuned like a nuclear powerplant and the 4090 OC all on water cooling is quite an experience haha!  I just wanted to dial everything in on my new system.. and im there I think.. Runs absoluty amazing! Coming from a 10900K and 2080 Ti which I loved and 60hz.. .hehe... now new system and LG C2 120hz OLED HDR.... Its the most crazy ever haha.. Anyway try out my example and see if you can get it under control at least manual like that! Mine is a SP96 (P105 E78) So yours should definatly be able to do at least the same... 240w with that power settings and default cache.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> I don’t think that many 13900K’s can do 5.3 ring 😂


I got to 5.180Ghz with a little BCLK OC got me to 46 to 47ns. I had to do it this way because my 4x 8gb SR Sami b die can't post 4200 so it's now on 4144mhz cl16. 5.3 is going to be hard on an AIO cause you can't cool past 250w and you need more voltage for 5.3Ghz.


----------



## DSHG87

Guys pls. Whats the different between CPU VCore Compensation, SVID Behaviour and LLC?

I testet a 13600K on my Mainboard. Max. VID 1.5V! For an 13600K! So it really seems that CPU Vcore Compensation "Auto" is the problem here.


----------



## VULC

DSHG87 said:


> Guys pls. Whats the different between CPU VCore Compensation, SVID Behaviour and LLC?
> 
> I testet a 13600K on my Mainboard. Max. VID 1.5V! For an 13600K! So it really seems that CPU Vcore Compensation "Auto" is the problem here.


Leave everything stock and put vcore adaptive 1.4v


----------



## DSHG87

I will try tomorrow. 

Here is what ASRock manual says about Vcore Compensation:

This option will make CPU to run at higher vcore as default. Please try to adjust
this option when your CPU is not stable at default setting. Higher level will provide
higher vcore.


----------



## RichKnecht

VULC said:


> Leave everything stock and put vcore adaptive 1.4v


Instead of just plugging in 1.4V, just set voltage to Adaptive+VF Curve with all settings at auto. Then set your LLC to a mid level setting and tweak DC LL to match the LLC impedance so Vcore and VIDs match under full load. Then set AC LL to 20 and adjust it up/down until you lose stability and then bump it up a couple notches. Sounds hard, but you’ll spend more time adjusting voltages up and down than doing this. And another thing. if you try a higher clock, since you are Adaptive, the voltage will scale with frequency. You may need to adjust ACLL a little if you lose stability with the higher clock, but not voltage. Once your stable, you could go back in and add offsets on the higher clock speeds, but I haven’t found that necessary.


----------



## digitalfrost

DSHG87 said:


> I will try tomorrow.
> 
> Here is what ASRock manual says about Vcore Compensation:
> 
> This option will make CPU to run at higher vcore as default. Please try to adjust
> this option when your CPU is not stable at default setting. Higher level will provide
> higher vcore.


Would be interesting to see what it does. Can you check if it affects AC_LL?


----------



## bhav

Brads3cents said:


> I am still waiting for extreme low latency ddr5 kits
> when they finally release 8000cl30 kits into the market, it will be then that ddr5 will flex and ddr4 will finally begin to die


DDR4 is already dead for new builds and for anyone who overclocks their ram, even Hynix M die will match / beat tuned DDR4.

However, the difference is like <5 FPS over tuned DDR4, people who are keeping DDR4 on this forum are running 4200+ G1 with tight latencies because they already own such ram.

Now the problem is the average user that only uses XMP that is mislead into thinking 'DDR4 is better / cheaper' for a new build then they go and buy 3200CL16 or 3600CL18 trash ram. Samsung B die and Micron Rev E both cost more than Hynix M die and aren't worth wasting money on compared to Hynix DDR5 for a new build.


----------



## VULC

bhav said:


> DDR4 is already dead for new builds and for anyone who overclocks their ram, even Hynix M die will match / beat tuned DDR4.
> 
> However, the difference is like <5 FPS over tuned DDR4, people who are keeping DDR4 on this forum are running 4200+ G1 with tight latencies because they already own such ram.
> 
> Now the problem is the average user that only uses XMP that is mislead into thinking 'DDR4 is better / cheaper' for a new build then they go and buy 3200CL16 or 3600CL18 trash ram. Samsung B die and Micron Rev E both cost more than Hynix M die and aren't worth wasting money on compared to Hynix DDR5 for a new build.


You need higher then 7500mhz ddr5 gear 2 to beat tuned DDR4 gear 1 4133mhz plus that means you need a board that will support it plus the ram still way more expensive then ddr4. Even 8000mhz is still within 5 to 10 fps in game on averages and lows.


----------



## PoizenJam

l.kristensen.1981 said:


> A great manual setting that worked for me was:
> 
> Default CPU settings but set all core by usage to x55. Then there will be no up and down x58 2 cores which is useless and take further power.
> 
> Set LLC to 4.
> 
> Manual vcore set 1.42.
> 
> With that setting my CPU can run at 240w full power no throttle.. And default settings was like 100c 270w haha...


I have done a lot more probing. This time with the latest BIOS + Fast Boot turned off so memory retrains every time I boot. This combination of settings allowed me to find a pretty consistent VCORE minimum for 55x all core of 1.175-1.18V, or about 256-258W VCORE POWER (~266W Package) at full load in R23 with ICCMAX at 425A. Any lower and I start getting WHEA errors and eventually crashes and BSODs and such. Still trying to determine whether I should opt for lower or higher impedence/LLC, holding that VCORE requirement equal. I think I can inch a bit closer to that minimum by opting for higher impedence LLC setting, since the V_LATCH min spikes are less severe. But I'm still trying to learn about that interaction between LLC# and undervolting.

In any case, I determined my 360mm AIO can disperse ~275W steady load, even for hours on end and with the GPU running. So I've set my PL1 there, set my PL2 = 330W, IICMAX = 425A and Turbo window to 96/128 in accordance with Intel XTU's recommendations. The CPU will still clock down to 54x/42x in some extreme workloads in the Y-Cruncher test, but in general I'm able to keep it cool even in a worst case scenario now. With these settings I was able to push a P-Core 58x2/57x4/56x6/58x8 and E-Core 46x4/45x8/44x12/43x16 clocks with the adaptive voltage. I'm pretty happy with that, considering I spent months crashing from AIOC's automatic settings because of insane voltage and power draw spikes.

I do genuinely think it was misleading of Intel and MOBO manufacturers to imply 55x/43x is attainable on an average chip at stock 253W limits. I am starting to think the poster who suggested RMA'ing the CPU on those grounds alone. And as far as I can tell, my SP is pretty average (102), so there are plenty worse off than me.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> I got to 5.180Ghz with a little BCLK OC got me to 46 to 47ns. I had to do it this way because my 4x 8gb SR Sami b die can't post 4200 so it's now on 4144mhz cl16. 5.3 is going to be hard on an AIO cause you can't cool past 250w and you need more voltage for 5.3Ghz.


You’ve also got a great sample CPU. Imagine most samples. 5.3 probably ain’t happening lol.

I thought it was a miracle seeing my chip run 5.3 ring through R23, and some games though etc.

Never had an Intel chip in my life with a ring that high!!! And pretty much any of them can run that 5+ ring


----------



## bhav

VULC said:


> You need higher then 7500mhz ddr5 gear 2 to beat tuned DDR4 gear 1 4133mhz plus that means you need a board that will support it plus the ram still way more expensive then ddr4. Even 8000mhz is still within 5 to 10 fps in game on averages and lows.


No, DDR4 that can reach those specs costs more than M die, same price as A die!


----------



## tps3443

This feels just like the AGP vs. PCI-e olden days. Life support is hooked up to DDR4 right now.

It’s kind of funny because, we spend more on a CPU that’s replaced in 1 yr no questions asked. But, we be keeping that $200-600 dollar DDR4 memory for as long as humanly possible. 🤣


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> This feels just like the AGP vs. PCI-e olden days. Life support is hooked up to DDR4 right now.
> 
> It’s kind of funny because, we spend more on a CPU that’s replaced in 1 yr no questions asked. But, we be keeping that $200-600 dollar DDR4 memory for as long as humanly possible. 🤣


I bought mine on sale


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> This feels just like the AGP vs. PCI-e olden days. Life support is hooked up to DDR4 right now.
> 
> It’s kind of funny because, we spend more on a CPU that’s replaced in 1 yr no questions asked. But, we be keeping that $200-600 dollar DDR4 memory for as long as humanly possible. 🤣


I have no issues with my DDR4. It surely doesn’t need life support. When i moved from X299, I wanted to spend less than $1000 and since I just bought 64 GB of b-die for my 10980, I dint see the point in buying new RAM. I don’t game, I don’f OC RAM, I just want my **** to work. I don‘t really have the time needed to tweak RAM for hours to get 0 performance gains in what I do. I’d rather spend the money on a new lens or camera. Something I’ll actually use. Like I said, I’m old. 🙃


----------



## yzonker

RichKnecht said:


> I have no issues with my DDR4. It surely doesn’t need life support. When i moved from X299, I wanted to spend less than $1000 and since I just bought 64 GB of b-die for my 10980, I dint see the point in buying new RAM. I don’t game, I don’f OC RAM, I just want my **** to work. I don‘t really have the time needed to tweak RAM for hours to get 0 performance gains in what I do. I’d rather spend the money on a new lens or camera. Something I’ll actually use. Like I said, I’m old. 🙃


I agree except it can be days, not hours. LOL. Ask me how I know... 

Oh and I'm probably even older than you though. Doh...


----------



## l.kristensen.1981

PoizenJam said:


> I have done a lot more probing. This time with the latest BIOS + Fast Boot turned off so memory retrains every time I boot. This combination of settings allowed me to find a pretty consistent VCORE minimum for 55x all core of 1.175-1.18V, or about 256-258W VCORE POWER (~266W Package) at full load in R23 with ICCMAX at 425A. Any lower and I start getting WHEA errors and eventually crashes and BSODs and such. Still trying to determine whether I should opt for lower or higher impedence/LLC, holding that VCORE requirement equal. I think I can inch a bit closer to that minimum by opting for higher impedence LLC setting, since the V_LATCH min spikes are less severe. But I'm still trying to learn about that interaction between LLC# and undervolting.
> 
> In any case, I determined my 360mm AIO can disperse ~275W steady load, even for hours on end and with the GPU running. So I've set my PL1 there, set my PL2 = 330W, IICMAX = 425A and Turbo window to 96/128 in accordance with Intel XTU's recommendations. The CPU will still clock down to 54x/42x in some extreme workloads in the Y-Cruncher test, but in general I'm able to keep it cool even in a worst case scenario now. With these settings I was able to push a P-Core 58x2/57x4/56x6/58x8 and E-Core 46x4/45x8/44x12/43x16 clocks with the adaptive voltage. I'm pretty happy with that, considering I spent months crashing from AIOC's automatic settings because of insane voltage and power draw spikes.
> 
> I do genuinely think it was misleading of Intel and MOBO manufacturers to imply 55x/43x is attainable on an average chip at stock 253W limits. I am starting to think the poster who suggested RMA'ing the CPU on those grounds alone. And as far as I can tell, my SP is pretty average (102), so there are plenty worse off than me.


I think mine need 1.199v-1.208v for 55x at least thats with auto and offset I can see when it drops under load.

I think you should try the manual easy example or do an offset voltage -.0090v everything else default .. .both examples should 100% get you under 253w… yours is a better SP than mine. Just remember to set x55 all core so it don’t try 2 cores at 5.8 and set cache ring to 45x max. It should 100% work and you can work from there. Make sure the MB don’t use for some reason a high LLC , set manual to 4.if nothing works reset bios and try over … sometimes bios get into a “lock” with wrong settings .. either instability or too much voltage ….. tried it many times when one are messing around in many settings. Best way is a full reset… let it boot into windows default setting also ram. Do a CB23 reboot go to bios and then make your settings … in my experience some times a reset needs to be nursed in steps just to be safe.

LLC 4 MANUAL 
EITHER 1.42V CORE OR -OFFSET 0.095v 
CACHE MAX X45
ALL CORE 55 NO 58 BOOSTS

Then you would be within power limit 253w

im experimenting with LLC6 1.40v. 5.6/4.9 cache … this is of corse beyond 253w but works great and rock stable.


----------



## HemuV2

Nizzen said:


> 13700k has a bit lower latency than 13900k.
> Run 6.2ghz singlecore and 53 ring.
> Run stripped windows with few background tasks and servces. Disable unused sound/usb/ sata in bios. Run aida when in safemode or close "explorer".
> This is how sub 47ns is possible.












didnt do any of that


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

tps3443 said:


> I am ordering quick disconnects for my Supercool waterblock. I’ll be able to use these forever!
> 
> Is this setup correct?
> 
> I went with males that are G1/4 which will screw in to the block, and females that are 10/16 compression style that attach to my tubing which is 3/8x5/8.
> 
> When I think of an Impact air gun and an air hose. The impact gun has the male fitting, and the hose has the female fitting with the coupler. So that’s how I decided to do this.
> 
> Any thoughts before I order? $100 bucks for (4) fittings lol. I may just grab (8) and do my GPU too. Maybe even (12) and add in my chiller lol. Ughh money spent never ends with computers.
> 
> View attachment 2591076


I use them for everything lol . 








A really good investment that will last you many years . I had to import nearly all of mine but life is gud when you live stateside , easy gets


----------



## Nizzen

HemuV2 said:


> View attachment 2591256
> 
> 
> didnt do any of that


I had 29ns on z490 and ddr4.... same off context when we talked about DDR5. 
Nice try 😆


----------



## Nizzen

RichKnecht said:


> I have no issues with my DDR4. It surely doesn’t need life support. When i moved from X299, I wanted to spend less than $1000 and since I just bought 64 GB of b-die for my 10980, I dint see the point in buying new RAM. I don’t game, I don’f OC RAM, I just want my **** to work. I don‘t really have the time needed to tweak RAM for hours to get 0 performance gains in what I do. I’d rather spend the money on a new lens or camera. Something I’ll actually use. Like I said, I’m old. 🙃


Looks like you ran into the wrong forums, because this isn't stock-clock.net


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> Looks like you ran into the wrong forums, because this isn't stock-clock.net


Lurking in a forum with people who know more about hardware and tweaking than Reddit or whatever, is not a sin you know. Even if people run stock, they could need advice all the same. Sharing is caring as they say.


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> View attachment 2591256
> 
> 
> didnt do any of that


What voltages can you post timings?


----------



## RichKnecht

Nizzen said:


> Looks like you ran into the wrong forums, because this isn't stock-clock.net


Seriously? This isnt the memory OC thread either . That’s why I post in THIS thread and NOT the memory OC thread.


----------



## RichKnecht

Betroz said:


> Lurking in a forum with people who know more about hardware and tweaking than Reddit or whatever, is not a sin you know. Even if people run stock, they could need advice all the same. Sharing is caring as they say.


I don’t lurk. I just rather tweak the CPU not the memory. That’s why there are threads for both. Maybe we should just jam all the threads together. I participate in this thread when the subject matter is pertinent to the thread title. Weeding through pages of memory OCing posts in a CPU overclocking thread gets old.


----------



## Nizzen

RichKnecht said:


> Seriously? This isnt the memory OC thread either . That’s why I post in THIS thread and NOT the memory OC thread.


Just kidding 😘😊


----------



## Betroz

RichKnecht said:


> Weeding through pages of memory OCing posts in a CPU overclocking thread gets old.


Off topic discussion in forums follow normal human behavior. Sure moderators could enforce strick rules on this, but that takes time and energy.


----------



## kunit13

I think I got it figured out.....

Used Roberts guide to find my DC_LL and AC_LL settings.
Ended up getting vid and vcore to match....
60x2 58x2 57x4 
4.5 all E cores
5 on the ring. 

Below I'm just looping C20. My new block should be in tomorrow. So I'll have some more data for comparison. 










Ended up LLC4 DC_LL 1.06 and AC_LL .12 
To run 5.8 all core it was quite a bit more vcore and 65+ watts.


----------



## RichKnecht

Betroz said:


> Off topic discussion in forums follow normal human behavior. Sure moderators could enforce strick rules on this, but that takes time and energy.


Honestly, that’s why I don’t get involved in many forums any more. Threads get side tracked into off topic subjects. I like this one because when you have a question, you get an answer that helps. I’ve “met’ a lot of people and learned a lot here and I am more than willing to share what I have learned with others and newcomers. I was an admin once. Never again. What a PITA.


----------



## RichKnecht

kunit13 said:


> I think I got it figured out.....
> 
> Used Roberts guide to find my DC_LL and AC_LL settings.
> Ended up getting vid and vcore to match....
> 60x2 58x2 57x4
> 4.5 all E cores
> 5 on the ring.
> 
> Below I'm just looping C20. My new block should be in tomorrow. So I'll have some more data for comparison.
> 
> View attachment 2591279
> 
> 
> Ended up LLC4 DC_LL 1.06 and AC_LL .12
> To run 5.8 all core it was quite a bit more vcore and 65+ watts.
> 
> View attachment 2591278


Yes, if you have an Asus board, his guide is very helpful. If you own a board other than Asus it can still wotk for you but you have to work a little harder to translate his info to the board you own.


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

Okay made some improvements , lowered the vcore tightened up the ram timing's and hit it with some small fft blend and now my all [email protected] a tad under 180w at '100%'


----------



## sugi0lover

Overclocker Doojin got his 13th Gen Super Cool Direct Die and he shared quick result.

Before 13th direct die : P60 E48 R52 Mem 8800 vcore 1.36v / Coolant Temp 22C / Cine 10min
After : P60 / E49 /R53 Mem 8800 Vcore 1.34v / Coolant Temp 22C / Cine 10min
He also mentioned that he now can do 6.4Ghz for 3DMark from 6.3Ghz.

Happy New Year to all!😊

[update] bios setup current reporting 150% made the power consumption way higher than it actually is, so no actual 500W~


























쿨엔조이,쿨앤조이 coolenjoy, cooln, 쿨엔, 검은동네


안녕하세요디렉트다이 13세대용 주문한게 금일 도착해서 장착 및 간단 테스트 해보았습니다.기존 P60 E48 R52 Mem 8800 셋팅 Vcore 1.36v 수온22도 씨네 10분



coolenjoy.net


----------



## RichKnecht

Hmmm. almost 500W! going through the chip. Holy crap.


----------



## sugi0lover

RichKnecht said:


> Hmmm. almost 500W! going through the chip. Holy crap.


I guess his bios setting of power report is 150%.


----------



## Trys0meM0re

Sorry for the enormous crappy phone pics. Came out much worse than i thought.
























Sadly didn't had time to properly tune it. Christmas and all.......


----------



## X909

Hm... compared to my K, 100 Mhz on top by binning, 100 Mhz on top by higher VID. Okaay... Can you maybe ad a pic of the stock v/F curve?


----------



## Trys0meM0re

X909 said:


> Hm... compared to my K, 100 Mhz on top by binning, 100 Mhz on top by higher VID. Okaay... Can you maybe ad a pic of the stock v/F curve?


Gone now from home, Will make some for you after the weekend.


----------



## Dinnzy

Can anyone with a z690 dark 13900k with a higher SP give me come bios voltages to play R23 with what to see where this chip is at


----------



## HemuV2

Nizzen said:


> I had 29ns on z490 and ddr4.... same off context when we talked about DDR5.
> Nice try 😆


My bad u thought ddr4 also I lose like 1ns with all ecores off


----------



## HemuV2

Trys0meM0re said:


> Sorry for the enormous crappy phone pics. Came out much worse than i thought.
> 
> View attachment 2591321
> View attachment 2591323
> View attachment 2591324
> 
> 
> Sadly didn't had time to properly tune it. Christmas and all.......


Wait it's supposed to show for 5.8 why's VID table showing 6.0 VIDs smh
Edit: my bad it's ks


----------



## HemuV2

X909 said:


> Hm... compared to my K, 100 Mhz on top by binning, 100 Mhz on top by higher VID. Okaay... Can you maybe ad a pic of the stock v/F curve?


How do we check VF curve tho?


----------



## OC2000

Trys0meM0re said:


> Sorry for the enormous crappy phone pics. Came out much worse than i thought.
> 
> Sadly didn't had time to properly tune it. Christmas and all.......


That looks nothing more than an above average 13900k chip. Hope the SP rating is +10 like the 12900k was.


----------



## HemuV2

sugi0lover said:


> Overclocker Doojin got his 13th Gen Super Cool Direct Die and he shared quick result.
> 
> Before 13th direct die : P60 E48 R52 Mem 8800 vcore 1.36v / Coolant Temp 22C / Cine 10min
> After : P60 / E49 /R53 Mem 8800 Vcore 1.34v / Coolant Temp 22C / Cine 10min
> He also mentioned that he now can do 6.4Ghz for 3DMark from 6.3Ghz.
> 
> Happy New Year to all!😊
> View attachment 2591303
> 
> 
> View attachment 2591304
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 쿨엔조이,쿨앤조이 coolenjoy, cooln, 쿨엔, 검은동네
> 
> 
> 안녕하세요디렉트다이 13세대용 주문한게 금일 도착해서 장착 및 간단 테스트 해보았습니다.기존 P60 E48 R52 Mem 8800 셋팅 Vcore 1.36v 수온22도 씨네 10분
> 
> 
> 
> coolenjoy.net


What SP is this sample tho


----------



## OC2000

HemuV2 said:


> How do we check VF curve tho?


VF/Curve near Tweaker paradise in Bios settings


----------



## OC2000

HemuV2 said:


> What SP is this sample tho


He is drawing nearly 500w on that CPU!


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Dinnzy said:


> Can anyone with a z690 dark 13900k with a higher SP give me come bios voltages to play R23 with what to see where this chip is at



I'm sitting pretty at the following voltages memory settings etc. on the new 2.06 BIOS. Everything is stable. I have a pretty good 13900k it would seem. I haven't tweaked anything yet vccsa wise or voltage core wise I just set it to a decent number to start with and it's stable. I probably only need 1.25 vccsa or lower but, just starting out with a new profile since I just updated the bios and lost them all. Under full load 5.8ghz I'm only pushing 1.267v. Using the lower droops gets things to hot with raptor lake so I keep mine at 25% less. Disable vguard etc. like I did below.



Spoiler: BIOS Settings etc.













BIOS Settings in detail.

































































That should cover everything setting wise. You might need a little more voltage or less etc..


----------



## Trys0meM0re

HemuV2 said:


> Wait it's supposed to show for 5.8 why's VID table showing 6.0 VIDs smh
> Edit: my bad it's ks


It's a 13900KS


----------



## bhav

SP 105 for a KS and over 1.6v prediction????

Great thing I didn't waste money on one like I was going to thinking it would be higher binned!

@Ichirou 13900KS aren't binned it seems, just any 13900K that passes 6.0 turbo at any voltage!


----------



## energie80

lol cmon


----------



## sugi0lover

HemuV2 said:


> What SP is this sample tho













OC2000 said:


> He is drawing nearly 500w on that CPU!


When you set the below option to 150%, it shows 50% higher power than it actually is.
His vcore voltage under load is 1.279v, which will never hit 500W, so I guess it's 150% setup like below.
I will ask him to confirm this.
[update] He confirmed his setup is 150%.


----------



## HemuV2

bhav said:


> SP 105 for a KS and over 1.6v prediction????
> 
> Great thing I didn't waste money on one like I was going to thinking it would be higher binned!
> 
> @Ichirou 13900KS aren't binned it seems, just any 13900K that passes 6.0 turbo at any voltage!


Wait who said they aren't binned? Requested 6.0 VID seems really good, it's probably comparable to a pcore sp118+ K sample no? Because pretty much any K will do 6ghz and aorus guarantees it with their mobos so what's the point of KS


----------



## HemuV2

sugi0lover said:


> View attachment 2591374
> 
> 
> When you set the below option to 150%, it shows 50% higher power than it actually is.
> His vcore voltage under load is 1.279v, which will never hit 500W, so I guess it's 150% setup like below.
> I will ask him to confirm this.
> View attachment 2591375


Best 13900K so far?


----------



## Brads3cents

bhav said:


> SP 105 for a KS and over 1.6v prediction????
> 
> Great thing I didn't waste money on one like I was going to thinking it would be higher binned!
> 
> @Ichirou 13900KS aren't binned it seems, just any 13900K that passes 6.0 turbo at any voltage!


the prediction is based on a higher clock so its not apples to apples
6.0 vs 5.8

we also dont know if sp prediction on the ks is the same as on the K
it wasnt for 12th gen
a p115 for a ks could be the same as a p120 for a k for all we know

also its a terrible sample size. lets wait for some more KSs in the wild shall we?


----------



## sugi0lover

HemuV2 said:


> Best 13900K so far?


This one has the highest general SP I have seen.


----------



## Brads3cents

he sugi do you have MC score data associated with those chips?


----------



## Thunderclap

So it seems like the 13900KS is indeed 5.6GHz all-core for the P-cores vs the 5.5GHz all-core on the 13900K (Intel's 13900K page for whatever reason still says 5.4GHz instead of 5.5GHz) while the E-cores remain unchanged at 4.3GHz all-core. Ring on the 13900KS seems faster as well, up to 5.2GHz instead of 5.0GHz. Am I missing something else?


----------



## RichKnecht

Thunderclap said:


> So it seems like the 13900KS is indeed 5.6GHz all-core for the P-cores vs the 5.5GHz all-core on the 13900K (Intel's 13900K page for whatever reason still *says 5.4GHz instead of 5.5GHz*) while the E-cores remain unchanged at 4.3GHz all-core. Ring on the 13900KS seems faster as well, up to 5.2GHz instead of 5.0GHz. Am I missing something else?


Intel changed i the 13900K to 5.4 just before they launched for sale probably to make the KS look better than it really is. However, motherboard manufacturers already had 5.5 "baked" into their bios'


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> What SP is this sample tho


1.42sa is is insane bro. Is you chip direct die?


----------



## Pro4TLZZ

Decided to go through the y-cruncher component test. I enabled all of them. BBP and SFT run really hot, do people actually test this? I was getting near 300w on SFT.


----------



## Ichirou

Pro4TLZZ said:


> Decided to go through the y-cruncher component test. I enabled all of them. BBP and SFT run really hot, do people actually test this? I was getting near 300w on SFT.


That's normal.
SFT is not recommended unless you want full stability with the CPU (not IMC).


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> SP 105 for a KS and over 1.6v prediction????
> 
> Great thing I didn't waste money on one like I was going to thinking it would be higher binned!
> 
> @Ichirou 13900KS aren't binned it seems, just any 13900K that passes 6.0 turbo at any voltage!


I thought I vocalized this prediction pretty adamantly time and time again. 

It's just a K that's at least P-SP 115, maybe even 110. But with a slightly higher boost clock.

But Intel's gonna charge hundreds more, and suckers are gonna buy it thinking it's better binned.


----------



## VULC

Pro4TLZZ said:


> Decided to go through the y-cruncher component test. I enabled all of them. BBP and SFT run really hot, do people actually test this? I was getting near 300w on SFT.


This is a power virus 😅😅


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> I thought I vocalized this prediction pretty adamantly time and time again.
> 
> It's just a K that's at least P-SP 115, maybe even 110. But with a slightly higher boost clock.
> 
> But Intel's gonna charge hundreds more, and suckers are gonna buy it thinking it's better binned.


That’s what it looks like. I’lll be keeping my SP121 P-Core 13900K. It’s a freaking beast anyways, I love my chip.

You on direct die yet?


----------



## VULC

Get intel CEO to sign the 127/101 SP chip and put it up for auction 🤣🤣


----------



## HemuV2

VULC said:


> 1.42sa is is insane bro. Is you chip direct die?


Nah why would SA need DD? Does it overheat? 4133 can run 1.35SA/vdd but 4200 needs more


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> That’s what it looks like. I’lll be keeping my SP121 P-Core 13900K. It’s a freaking beast anyways, I love my chip.
> 
> You on direct die yet?


No. Still waiting on more motherboards to come by and bin as I gotta deal with this likely-to-be memory slot degradation issue.
Welcome to my hardware life. Nothing really ever goes out well for me.

If you haven't really been keeping up, essentially, my Z790 Edge metaphorically deteriorated from an Apex 2022 to a 2021 revision, and destabilized my previously rock stable memory overclock. And now I gotta keep binning fresh boards until I get another that can run it stable again.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> No. Still waiting on more motherboards to come by and bin as I gotta deal with this likely-to-be memory slot degradation issue.
> Welcome to my hardware life. Nothing really ever goes out well for me.
> 
> If you haven't really been keeping up, essentially, my Z790 Edge metaphorically deteriorated from an Apex 2022 to a 2021 revision, and destabilized my previously rock stable memory overclock. And now I gotta keep binning fresh boards until I get another that can run it stable again.


Not sure I did my slots but I def did my ram in. PSU started random shut offs then I got solid orange dram post led. I had direct fans on the ram and never exceeded 1.55v. Lucky it's from Amazon I'm covered under warranty.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> No. Still waiting on more motherboards to come by and bin as I gotta deal with this likely-to-be memory slot degradation issue.
> Welcome to my hardware life. Nothing really ever goes out well for me.
> 
> If you haven't really been keeping up, essentially, my Z790 Edge metaphorically deteriorated from an Apex 2022 to a 2021 revision, and destabilized my previously rock stable memory overclock. And now I gotta keep binning fresh boards until I get another that can run it stable again.


That's what kind of happened to my X299 system, $850 Asus Rampage VI Omega stopped recognizing and DIMMs on the A&B channels. Tried everything, swapped back to my old POS Strix 299 board and all DIMMs were fine. So the Asus board found a new home in the trash. It's the reason I will not buy another $700+ board.


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> Nah why would SA need DD? Does it overheat? 4133 can run 1.35SA/vdd but 4200 needs more


General consensus across the interwebs is max safe daily is 1.35v SA. Some have said there have been reports of degradation above that 🤷


----------



## HemuV2

VULC said:


> General consensus across the interwebs is max safe daily is 1.35v SA. Some have said there have been reports of degradation above that 🤷


well its 1.393 so lets see im only gaming


----------



## RichKnecht

VULC said:


> General consensus across the interwebs is max safe daily is 1.35v SA. Some have said there have been reports of degradation above that 🤷


I have both SA and VDDQ on auto since I really don't mess with RAM OC other than XMP settings and my board sets SA to 1.352 and VDDQ to 1.2


----------



## tps3443

@HemuV2 

You grabbing a 13900KS?


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> @HemuV2
> 
> You grabbing a 13900KS?


xD


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> @HemuV2
> 
> You grabbing a 13900KS?


no ill wait on rpl refresh


----------



## bhav

HemuV2 said:


> no ill wait on rpl refresh


I think thats the best option for everyone now, get whichever K chip you want for now, then wait for the refresh, hopefully it will be compatible with Z690 / Z790 so an easy upgrade, though I would still need a new mobo as my Asrock Z690 can't handle this 13600K.

I'll only be interested if its still DDR4 though, so Raptor refresh for main build, current 13600K & MAG Tomahawk replace desk PC, sell 12600K & Asrock Z690.

I was planning to upgrade the Asrock board when Z790 goes on EOL sale anyway, maybe even simply another tomahawk or the Pro A depending on sale prices, don't need anything better than the current board for DDR4 anyway.


----------



## dumassnoob

seeing several benchmarks on passmark with pcore 6 at 8ghz


----------



## tubs2x4

HemuV2 said:


> no ill wait on rpl refresh


So what does a “refresh” going to consist of?


----------



## Hresna

My 13900k hits the EDP/current limit running cinebench at basically stock with MCE disabled.

I’ve been searching this thread and forums for some indication as to why. I’ve been trying to undervolt with AC/DC loadline method but I can’t even get a clean run without throttling and it’s the current/EDP that seems to trigger first every time (read-out in XTU) dropping my clocks to 5.3GHz.

My asus strix z690-e board has the max current set to 360A by default, also called IccMax in XTU. If I increase it to like 450W, I can get better scores with thermal/power throttling but I shouldn’t have to do that with stock or undervolt settings? There’s no readout for this metric in hwinfo64 or anywhere so it’s hard to say what’s going on.


----------



## sugi0lover

Brads3cents said:


> he sugi do you have MC score data associated with those chips?


General SP118's MC SP is 88~89.
General SP119's MC SP is 86 (Check the link below)


sugi0lover said:


> Wow this is the highest 13900K SP I have ever seen, by safedisk
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 13900K SP (P, E)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2587478
> 
> View attachment 2587476
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 13900K MC SP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2587477


----------



## acoustic

Hresna said:


> My 13900k hits the EDP/current limit running cinebench at basically stock with MCE disabled.
> 
> I’ve been searching this thread and forums for some indication as to why. I’ve been trying to undervolt with AC/DC loadline method but I can’t even get a clean run without throttling and it’s the current/EDP that seems to trigger first every time (read-out in XTU) dropping my clocks to 5.3GHz.
> 
> My asus strix z690-e board has the max current set to 360A by default, also called IccMax in XTU. If I increase it to like 450W, I can get better scores with thermal/power throttling but I shouldn’t have to do that with stock or undervolt settings? There’s no readout for this metric in hwinfo64 or anywhere so it’s hard to say what’s going on.


it seems that the current limit is bugged on Raptor Lake; I suspect it’s an Intel issue, not mobo manufacturer. I have to set my current to max (5xxA) in order for no throttling.

I used to be able to set 250-300A limit on my 12700K with no issue.


----------



## dumassnoob

Hresna said:


> My 13900k hits the EDP/current limit running cinebench at basically stock with MCE disabled.
> 
> I’ve been searching this thread and forums for some indication as to why. I’ve been trying to undervolt with AC/DC loadline method but I can’t even get a clean run without throttling and it’s the current/EDP that seems to trigger first every time (read-out in XTU) dropping my clocks to 5.3GHz.
> 
> My asus strix z690-e board has the max current set to 360A by default, also called IccMax in XTU. If I increase it to like 450W, I can get better scores with thermal/power throttling but I shouldn’t have to do that with stock or undervolt settings? There’s no readout for this metric in hwinfo64 or anywhere so it’s hard to say what’s going on.


the latest xtu has a new profile that limits to 355 watts and -1 offset for p-core under load. better than the stock unlimited insta throttle. slightly improved bench scores and thermals.


----------



## digitalfrost

HemuV2 said:


> Wait it's supposed to show for 5.8 why's VID table showing 6.0 VIDs smh
> Edit: my bad it's ks


Waitaminute. KS has stock VIDs above 1520mv? Holy ****.

e: That is predicted vid for 8x60 right?


----------



## RichKnecht

Hresna said:


> My 13900k hits the EDP/current limit running cinebench at basically stock with MCE disabled.
> 
> I’ve been searching this thread and forums for some indication as to why. I’ve been trying to undervolt with AC/DC loadline method but I can’t even get a clean run without throttling and it’s the current/EDP that seems to trigger first every time (read-out in XTU) dropping my clocks to 5.3GHz.
> 
> My asus strix z690-e board has the max current set to 360A by default, also called IccMax in XTU. If I increase it to like 450W, I can get better scores with thermal/power throttling but I shouldn’t have to do that with stock or undervolt settings? There’s no readout for this metric in hwinfo64 or anywhere so it’s hard to say what’s going on.


Did you read the guide @RobertoSampaio wrote? It’s in the Intel Motherboard thread.


----------



## Hresna

RichKnecht said:


> Did you read the guide @RobertoSampaio wrote? It’s in the Intel Motherboard thread.


If you mean the multi page guide to undervolting with AC/DC loadline on Maximus boards, then yes, I have, a few times. It’s great, but… 

The answer to why my chip is current-limited at stock settings is not contained in that tome… (nor the z690 version from 12th gen).

I would understand hitting power limit, or being temperature throttled (both of which are easy to monitor)… but hitting current limit at stock doesn’t make much or any sense.
I have spent at least 12 hours searching before posting question.


----------



## digitalfrost

Hresna said:


> If you mean the multi page guide to undervolting with AC/DC loadline on Maximus boards, then yes, I have, a few times. It’s great, but…
> 
> The answer to why my chip is current-limited at stock settings is not contained in that tome… (nor the z690 version from 12th gen).
> 
> I would understand hitting power limit, or being temperature throttled (both of which are easy to monitor)… but hitting current limit at stock doesn’t make much or any sense.
> I have spent at least 12 hours searching before posting question.


I also noticed this but I don't have an answer.









MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4/WIFI Owners Thread


@Ichirou Looked and no newer bioses for MSI on discord. I did see one guy say the newest bios 192 needs higher vvdq than previous. He is on 13th gen though so not sure if it applies to 12th gen. just passing along info.




www.overclock.net













Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...


You will get WHEA errors on behalf of the P-Cores too. I would think it very unlikely your ring is tapping out at 44x at 1.28v I didn't get any WHEA errors with the E-cores and Ring at 40x, while the P-cores were at 57x. I am pretty confident the E-cores just suck. 45x ring is default. I...




www.overclock.net


----------



## bhav

Hresna said:


> If you mean the multi page guide to undervolting with AC/DC loadline on Maximus boards, then yes, I have, a few times. It’s great, but…
> 
> The answer to why my chip is current-limited at stock settings is not contained in that tome… (nor the z690 version from 12th gen).
> 
> I would understand hitting power limit, or being temperature throttled (both of which are easy to monitor)… but hitting current limit at stock doesn’t make much or any sense.
> I have spent at least 12 hours searching before posting question.











Why don't any of the 100-1000's of people with...


I tried and they literally replied with a snide remark along the lines of 'oh so you think you're an advocate now do ya?' I'm done with helping regarding this issue. Intel have 'overheating' as a ticket option for support. Take it up with them or its never getting fixed ... 'Nobody else has...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Hresna

digitalfrost said:


> I also noticed this but I don't have an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4/WIFI Owners Thread
> 
> 
> @Ichirou Looked and no newer bioses for MSI on discord. I did see one guy say the newest bios 192 needs higher vvdq than previous. He is on 13th gen though so not sure if it applies to 12th gen. just passing along info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...
> 
> 
> You will get WHEA errors on behalf of the P-Cores too. I would think it very unlikely your ring is tapping out at 44x at 1.28v I didn't get any WHEA errors with the E-cores and Ring at 40x, while the P-cores were at 57x. I am pretty confident the E-cores just suck. 45x ring is default. I...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


thanks, I’d stumbled on that first one just now too; I think the droop-related trigger is worth looking into. I will see if changing llc value impacts whether I hit current limit.


----------



## bhav

Hresna said:


> thanks, I’d stumbled on that first one just now too; I think the droop-related trigger is worth looking into. I will see if changing llc value impacts whether I hit current limit.


You realize that at 'stock' settings, all mobos are overvolting 13th gen chips? When enforcing stock PL limits they all throttle.

4.8 Ghz at stock PL in cinebench on my 13600KF. Everyone has to reduce LL values to maintain stock boost clocks under load.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> You realize that at 'stock' settings, all mobos are overvolting 13th gen chips? When enforcing stock PL limits they all throttle.
> 
> 4.8 Ghz at stock PL in cinebench on my 13600KF. Everyone has to reduce LL values to maintain stock boost clocks under load.


I think the issue is the Intel VID curves. The motherboards are simply supplying the voltage the chip requests from the VRM. If you leave the chip at stock, the VID curve is based on the highest frequency the chip will clock to. In the case of the 13900K, thar’s 5.8. So whether the chip goes to that value or not, the voltage required for that frequency is sent to the VRM and it supplies that voltage regardless of whether the chip can even clock that high. Try manually setting all the p cores max frequency to 55, or the “normal” boost clock and see what happens to the requested voltage. It drops. The quality of the chip will determine how much of a drop you will see. I‘ll use my chip as an example. If I leave the 2 core boost at 58, my VID goes to 1.43 no load. If I change those 2 cores to 55 in the bios, VID goes to 1.34. Hmmmm. Is it right? Who knows. I think a lot of it has to do with the fierce competition from AMD, but I’m no expert on that matter.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> I think the issue is the Intel VID curves. The motherboards are simply supplying the voltage the chip requests from the VRM. If you leave the chip at stock, the VID curve is based on the highest frequency the chip will clock to. In the case of the 13900K, thar’s 5.8. So whether the chip goes to that value or not, the voltage required for that frequency is sent to the VRM and it supplies that voltage regardless of whether the chip can even clock that high. Try manually setting all the p cores max frequency to 55, or the “normal” boost clock and see what happens to the requested voltage. It drops. The quality of the chip will determine how much of a drop you will see. I‘ll use my chip as an example. If I leave the 2 core boost at 58, my VID goes to 1.43 no load. If I change those 2 cores to 55 in the bios, VID goes to 1.34. Hmmmm. Is it right? Who knows. I think a lot of it has to do with the fierce competition from AMD, but I’m no expert on that matter.


It does the same for a 13600K at stock only going up to 5.1, hence it makes no sense.

If these chips were auto overclocking to any speed like AMD ones, then it would make sense, but they don't do that.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> It does the same for a 13600K at stock only going up to 5.1, hence it makes no sense.
> 
> If these chips were auto overclocking to any speed like AMD ones, then it would make sense, but they don't do that.


You do realize that these chips are meant to hit 100C, which is just friggin ridiculous. I almost didn’t buy it just for that. But, I needed something so I can work, so here we are. Maybe if they didn’t cram 24 cores on a die 1/2” wide we wouldn’t have this problem. I wonder why they did’t use a big die like the 7989XE has. It’ s not like the 7980 is a bigger chip, because it isn’t. The IHS on the 13th gen is bigger than Skylake so what gives?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> No. Still waiting on more motherboards to come by and bin as I gotta deal with this likely-to-be memory slot degradation issue.
> Welcome to my hardware life. Nothing really ever goes out well for me.
> 
> If you haven't really been keeping up, essentially, my Z790 Edge metaphorically deteriorated from an Apex 2022 to a 2021 revision, and destabilized my previously rock stable memory overclock. And now I gotta keep binning fresh boards until I get another that can run it stable again.


This sounds like a disaster. Hopefully it gets better for you!


digitalfrost said:


> Waitaminute. KS has stock VIDs above 1520mv? Holy ****.
> 
> e: That is predicted vid for 8x60 right?


It looks kinda bad compared to my 13900K VID’s at 6Ghz. But, if it does it! It does it. Who cares about SP. I don’t think they will be that inefficient either.


----------



## Hresna

RichKnecht said:


> You do realize that these chips are meant to hit 100C, which is just friggin ridiculous. I almost didn’t buy it just for that. But, I needed something so I can work, so here we are. Maybe if they didn’t cram 24 cores on a die 1/2” wide we wouldn’t have this problem. I wonder why they did’t use a big die like the 7989XE has. It’ s not like the 7980 is a bigger chip, because it isn’t. The IHS on the 13th gen is bigger than Skylake so what gives?





bhav said:


> You realize that at 'stock' settings, all mobos are overvolting 13th gen chips? When enforcing stock PL limits they all throttle.
> 
> 4.8 Ghz at stock PL in cinebench on my 13600KF. Everyone has to reduce LL values to maintain stock boost clocks under load.


I appreciate all the engagement, but I think I may have been not overt or precise enough in my original question. I totally get that these chips will throttle out of the box because they are tuned very high. I’m just on air so I don’t have lofty goals for the chip, but I need a clean set of baseline values to work with for my undervolt. 

My issue wasn’t thermal throttling or power throttling. There’s also a current limiter there, which for all pragmatic sense, should not trigger if the chip is being operated within its PL limits. I will have to dive into the intel white papers or something in how the EDP/Current Limit aka IccMax gets triggered. It is set to 360A on my board and at any settings or llc value, it trips almost instantly at 5.5GHz all core in cb23, even without hitting the 253W power limit or the thermal limit.

my current theory is it could be related to PSU under supply, though not sure I can test this without help, or a new psu.


----------



## RichKnecht

If you set a power limit, such as 253 when you choose “air cooler”’, the chip will clock down at levels much lower than 253W. I tried a 300W power limit on my 13900K in the beginning and it was clocking down at power levels much lower than that.

Edit When I set power limit to 300W, it started to clock down at around 225W


----------



## RichKnecht

Hresna said:


> I appreciate all the engagement, but I think I may have been not overt or precise enough in my original question. I totally get that these chips will throttle out of the box because they are tuned very high. I’m just on air so I don’t have lofty goals for the chip, but I need a clean set of baseline values to work with for my undervolt.
> 
> My issue wasn’t thermal throttling or power throttling. There’s also a current limiter there, which for all pragmatic sense, should not trigger if the chip is being operated within its PL limits. I will have to dive into the intel white papers or something in how the EDP/Current Limit aka IccMax gets triggered. It is set to 360A on my board and at any settings or llc value, it trips almost instantly at 5.5GHz all core in cb23, even without hitting the 253W power limit or the thermal limit.
> 
> my current theory is it could be related to PSU under supply, though not sure I can test this without help, or a new psu.


Just a thought. Did you disable CEP in bios?


----------



## Hresna

RichKnecht said:


> If you set a power limit, such as 253 when you choose “air cooler”’, the chip will clock down at levels much lower than 253W. I tried a 300W power limit on my 13900K in the beginning and it was clocking down at power levels much lower than that.
> 
> Edit When I set power limit to 300W, it started to clock down at around 225W


Aha! You! You sound like you may have been hitting a current limit like me…

Do you use XTU? It has easy to see flagging of the throttle conditions, including EDP/Current. Can I ask what your PSU condig is?


----------



## RichKnecht

I removed all current limits since then, but I am using an EVGA 1300 G2 power supply. Why not try, for just a quick test, setting the cooler on water cooler just to see what happens? No XTU. It was a nightmare on X299 so I didn’t install it on this system.


----------



## jmb99

Hresna said:


> I appreciate all the engagement, but I think I may have been not overt or precise enough in my original question. I totally get that these chips will throttle out of the box because they are tuned very high. I’m just on air so I don’t have lofty goals for the chip, but I need a clean set of baseline values to work with for my undervolt.
> 
> My issue wasn’t thermal throttling or power throttling. There’s also a current limiter there, which for all pragmatic sense, should not trigger if the chip is being operated within its PL limits. I will have to dive into the intel white papers or something in how the EDP/Current Limit aka IccMax gets triggered. It is set to 360A on my board and at any settings or llc value, it trips almost instantly at 5.5GHz all core in cb23, even without hitting the 253W power limit or the thermal limit.
> 
> my current theory is it could be related to PSU under supply, though not sure I can test this without help, or a new psu.


I've been noticing this issue as well. It seems most Z690/Z790 motherboards (at least the 4 I've been through - from Gigabyte, Asus, and MSI) leave the current limit as unlimited, which is why most people don't see this problem. From what I've read through Intel's power specs and various forum posts, I _believe_ (aka am guessing) that the current limit is significantly more sensitive than the power limit, and shorter transients (on the microsecond scale) will trigger the current limit long before the power limit would be able to have any effect. So, when monitoring software that updates 1-10 times per second checks the power consumption, it will always be below the limit, since the current transients triggered the current limit. I'm also guessing that XTU reports whether or not the chip has throttled since the last update, rather than if it's actively throttling when it polls. That means, if the current limit is being hit transiently, but the power limit is never hit (since the current limit kicks in faster), XTU will report current limiting but not power limiting.

Again, this is only slightly beyond guesswork, I can't say for sure whether it's accurate. But it seems to be consistent with the behaviour that I'm seeing.

e: It's not helpful to this investigation that core current isn't reported anywhere, from what I can tell, so it's pretty much impossible to watch its behaviour beyond "is it hitting the limit: yes/no" in XTU.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> You do realize that these chips are meant to hit 100C, which is just friggin ridiculous. I almost didn’t buy it just for that. But, I needed something so I can work, so here we are. Maybe if they didn’t cram 24 cores on a die 1/2” wide we wouldn’t have this problem. I wonder why they did’t use a big die like the 7989XE has. It’ s not like the 7980 is a bigger chip, because it isn’t. The IHS on the 13th gen is bigger than Skylake so what gives?


I don't think they're 'meant to hit' 100c, tjmaxx is the maximum safe temperature they are rated for.

This value has already 100 for several generations, obviously as always people choose to run them a low lower than that.


----------



## acoustic

Hresna said:


> I appreciate all the engagement, but I think I may have been not overt or precise enough in my original question. I totally get that these chips will throttle out of the box because they are tuned very high. I’m just on air so I don’t have lofty goals for the chip, but I need a clean set of baseline values to work with for my undervolt.
> 
> My issue wasn’t thermal throttling or power throttling. There’s also a current limiter there, which for all pragmatic sense, should not trigger if the chip is being operated within its PL limits. I will have to dive into the intel white papers or something in how the EDP/Current Limit aka IccMax gets triggered. It is set to 360A on my board and at any settings or llc value, it trips almost instantly at 5.5GHz all core in cb23, even without hitting the 253W power limit or the thermal limit.
> 
> my current theory is it could be related to PSU under supply, though not sure I can test this without help, or a new psu.


I guess you ignored my reply.

It’s bugged. Current limits worked perfectly on Alder Lake and now don’t work at all on Raptor Lake. Setting any values make it pretty useless and guarantee throttling. Set it to unlimited and control thru voltage.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> *I don't think they're 'meant to hit' 100c*, tjmaxx is the maximum safe temperature they are rated for.
> 
> *This value has already 100 for several generations*, obviously as always people choose to run them a low lower than that.


That may be true, but they aren't meant to run benchmarks either. I bet the vast majority of users will just game on them. I am not a gamer, but I take it that games don't draw all that much power from a CPU. If I wan an "average Joe" , never messing with benchmarks, sitting here editing pictures all day this PC would never see 253W. Heck, I wouldn't even have monitoring software to see how hot it's getting. We are the minority here. And, from the reply I saw that you got from Intel, we are not their target audience. 

You are right. But those chips didn't come out of the box already maxxed out. There was more overclocking headroom. If Intel didn't hype up the chip so much to compete with the AMD chips and released it with realistic clocks, we wouldn't be where we are at now. But, then Intel probably wouldn't sell any of them. We need to blame Intel instead of the motherboard companies.


----------



## Hresna

acoustic said:


> I guess you ignored my reply.
> 
> It’s bugged. Current limits worked perfectly on Alder Lake and now don’t work at all on Raptor Lake. Setting any values make it pretty useless and guarantee throttling. Set it to unlimited and control thru voltage.


Did not ignore, missed it. Not used to the forums after a few years of Reddit. 
bug is definite possibility, or @jmb99 may also be on to something. Still early days I guess


----------



## ViTosS

Pro4TLZZ said:


> Decided to go through the y-cruncher component test. I enabled all of them. BBP and SFT run really hot, do people actually test this? I was getting near 300w on SFT.


It's normal, I run with 253W limit in BIOS, but that test reaches 253W instantly and then my frequency drops to 4.2Ghz, I can barely cool that below 85c with my AIO. For general stability that is impossible to check/cool, for that I use CR23 or Realbench 2.56.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> This sounds like a disaster. Hopefully it gets better for you!


I mean, I suppose I could just leave the memory at 4,200 MHz for now (which is stable) and work on my CPU overclock in the meanwhile, readjusting it later once a better board arrives. I just don't feel particularly up to it right now. Kind of burnt out.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> I mean, I suppose I could just leave the memory at 4,200 MHz for now (which is stable) and work on my CPU overclock in the meanwhile, readjusting it later once a better board arrives. I just don't feel particularly up to it right now. Kind of burnt out.


After all that binning I'm not taking my PC apart for a year. I'm just going to enjoy and play games. So over messing around.


----------



## Pro4TLZZ

Just finished validation of stock clocks with a custom voltage on my 13700k. I needed a lot more voltage than I expected, I really need my delid as soon as possible. Unfortunately I learnt that my CPU isn't going to be great for overclocking the pcores atleast.

Edit: just realised I never tweaked ecore voltage.
I used the latest version of linpack extended for my test.


Spoiler: Images






































































Note I ended up with 1.335vcore and llc mode 5


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> I mean, I suppose I could just leave the memory at 4,200 MHz for now (which is stable) and work on my CPU overclock in the meanwhile, readjusting it later once a better board arrives. I just don't feel particularly up to it right now. Kind of burnt out.


Intel gimped the IMCs on these 1.35sa gets you 4133 max. They could easily get 4300 working but now you need 1.42SA.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Intel gimped the IMCs on these 1.35sa gets you 4133 max. They could easily get 4300 working but now you need 1.42SA.


I only need 1.26V VCCSA for 4,300 MHz CL14. I could drive 4,400+ MHz, but I'm board limited.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> I only need 1.26V VCCSA for 4,300 MHz CL14. I could drive 4,400+ MHz, but I'm board limited.


Might just be for Sami b die those figures, or Strix z690a.


----------



## Ichirou

Tried to do some CPU overclocking, but to no avail. Can't stabilize at 4,200 MHz again even with stock multipliers.
This board's mega screwed, I tell you. Don't wanna waste hours retraining it until it works again.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> I only need 1.26V VCCSA for 4,300 MHz CL14. I could drive 4,400+ MHz, but I'm board limited.


Ya. it’s micron and other timings don’t get as tight so it goes like 100mhz more…the only really* other kits I’ve seen go higher are the 4000cl14…or for some reason z690 strix boards 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

VULC said:


> Intel gimped the IMCs on these 1.35sa gets you 4133 max. They could easily get 4300 working but now you need 1.42SA.


Ya this is basically Exactly where I’m maxed


----------



## VULC

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Ya this is basically Exactly where I’m maxed


I can get 4133mhz cl16 on 1.35sa with 4 X 8gb but my dram voltage of 1.55v seemed to have cooked a stick. So waiting on 16gbx2 dual rank hopefully I can get 4200mhz with them.


----------



## ju-rek

4x8 is very difficult to cool down, even direct airflow does little


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Take a look at these VGA card.... LOL
Do you remember these models?


----------



## kunit13

Got the Mag and flat plate on.. (lapped stock IHS and Delided Liquid metal)
EK's mounting instructions say to screw the mount screws flush. That did not work for me, it lowered my MC number. After messing around with that I found what works in my system.

Looks the the real benefit is under high load (c20 340w). The C20 5.8oc was ran last on both runs to make sure my loop was normalized.





















I just used the bottom of the screw as a reference.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RobertoSampaio said:


> Take a look at these VGA card.... LOL
> Do you remember these models?


My first vid card was a monster 3d than a riva tnt/2 😂💪


----------



## Astral85

Where do I find the "total SP" for my 13900K?


----------



## Ichirou

Astral85 said:


> Where do I find the "total SP" for my 13900K?


On the bottom right of the advanced interface in the BIOS


----------



## satinghostrider

kunit13 said:


> Got the Mag and flat plate on.. (lapped stock IHS and Delided Liquid metal)
> EK's mounting instructions say to screw the mount screws flush. That did not work for me, it lowered my MC number. After messing around with that I found what works in my system.
> 
> Looks the the real benefit is under high load (c20 340w). The C20 5.8oc was ran last on both runs to make sure my loop was normalized.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2591496
> 
> 
> View attachment 2591494
> 
> 
> I just used the bottom of the screw as a reference.
> 
> View attachment 2591495


Wonder if you're running stock CPU without delid, would you need to screw it until it's flush with the frame or screw it all the way down? Curious how it affects the CPU MC SP based on stock config. Thanks in advance!


----------



## kunit13

Im using the thermal grizzly contact frame. 
My IHS is back on so its similar height wise to stock (I just have liquid metal between the die and IHS). Kryonut between the IHS and waterblock. I guess LG1700 sockets are really picky when it comes to pressure holding them down. 


satinghostrider said:


> Wonder if you're running stock CPU without delid, would you need to screw it until it's flush with the frame or screw it all the way down? Curious how it affects the CPU MC SP based on stock config. Thanks in advance!


----------



## satinghostrider

kunit13 said:


> Im using the thermal grizzly contact frame.
> My IHS is back on so its similar height wise to stock (I just have liquid metal between the die and IHS). Kryonut between the IHS and waterblock. I guess LG1700 sockets are really picky when it comes to pressure holding them down.


Doesn't the contact frame affect your memory overclock? I intend to use the stock Intel ILM for my Magnitude 1700 that's why I'm asking if I should try flushing the screws first with the frame or tightening it all the way down.


----------



## Astral85

Ichirou said:


> On the bottom right of the advanced interface in the BIOS


Is that a different page to the prediction on Extreme Tweaker page?


----------



## Ichirou

@satinghostrider Really mixed results. I'd say test both and see which is better.


----------



## satinghostrider

Ichirou said:


> @satinghostrider Really mixed results. I'd say test both and see which is better.


Yeah I think I'll just set em flush first. Anyone else with the Magnitude 1700 will be happy to hear your feedback? I have the Velocity 2 which works very well with my contact frame but memory overclocking past a certain frequency suffers. But on stock ILM I seem to have issues having proper contact with the Intel ILM so I want to try the Magnitude 1700 and see how that works out.


----------



## energie80

Got the magnitude and the flat plate sitting in my desk.
Not sure what to do 😅 could try flat plate with contact frame.
I’m not going to lap the cpu


----------



## kunit13

satinghostrider said:


> Yeah I think I'll just set em flush first. Anyone else with the Magnitude 1700 will be happy to hear your feedback? I have the Velocity 2 which works very well with my contact frame but memory overclocking past a certain frequency suffers. But on stock ILM I seem to have issues having proper contact with the Intel ILM so I want to try the Magnitude 1700 and see how that works out.


I haven't tried the stock contact frame? Even with the velocity 2 I had problems (had to go thumb tight). I ordered the ek torque wrench, way to much torque.


----------



## kunit13

energie80 said:


> Got the magnitude and the flat plate sitting in my desk.
> Not sure what to do 😅 could try flat plate with contact frame.
> I’m not going to lap the cpu


Yah just got mine today and installed!!


----------



## energie80

Flat plate with stock ihs?


----------



## kunit13

Flat Plate and Lapped IHS


----------



## energie80

kunit13 said:


> Flat Plate and Lapped IHS


i dont want to lap the ihs since im going to resell this cpu soon 
shall i use the provided plate then?


----------



## HemuV2

bhav said:


> You realize that at 'stock' settings, all mobos are overvolting 13th gen chips? When enforcing stock PL limits they all throttle.
> 
> 4.8 Ghz at stock PL in cinebench on my 13600KF. Everyone has to reduce LL values to maintain stock boost clocks under load.


What's the point of doing LLs when you can simply run an offset or even better just do manual voltage?


----------



## imanoobie

please help me I've been having extreme temps with 13700k and ek aio I took off the aio pump today please tell me if everything looks normal trying to narrow down the cause ....I hit 86c on 190w power r23 and vrout of 1.144....can go lower to vr vout of 1.130 stable undervolt and still 80c + ....is the contact stain correct / the pressure ? its an ek 360mm aio and I have a contact frame I'm holding it in my hand until I find out just I'm case I should maybe try oem cpu frame with it


----------



## Hresna

RichKnecht said:


> Just a thought. Did you disable CEP in bios?


Quality comment. Gave it a try, and the behaviour is the same with and without IA and SA Current Excursion Protection enabled. With the 360A limit, cinebench throttles instantly even though it's well below the power and thermal limit. If I let it out to 400A, I can maintain 5.5GHz with a light undervolt before I hit my thermal limit. 

Not sure I want to run it this way, even though apparently a lot of boards are configured with no current limit at stock. I think I'll shift focus to finding a lower all-core clock for my undervolt that keeps it under thermal limits for sustained loads and doesn't trigger this current limit until we know better why it happens.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

As much as I hate to admit it, I've jumped back to Asus at this point. I get to look at my CPU scores now though and picked this one up with the new Motherboard.


----------



## acoustic

Hresna said:


> Quality comment. Gave it a try, and the behaviour is the same with and without IA and SA Current Excursion Protection enabled. With the 360A limit, cinebench throttles instantly even though it's well below the power and thermal limit. If I let it out to 400A, I can maintain 5.5GHz with a light undervolt before I hit my thermal limit.
> 
> Not sure I want to run it this way, even though apparently a lot of boards are configured with no current limit at stock. I think I'll shift focus to finding a lower all-core clock for my undervolt that keeps it under thermal limits for sustained loads and doesn't trigger this current limit until we know better why it happens.


You can essentially control the current limit through undervolting. As you've seen, the current limit control is bugged on Raptor Lake. This was a feature that worked on Alder Lake, that for some reason is not responding correctly with the new(er) architecture. I've seen it on all motherboard manufacturers, so it leads me to believe that it's an issue with the CPU microcode and can only be fixed by an Intel microcode update, not through a new BIOS.

Using a more droopy LLC, combined with tuning your undervolt, will keep you well below 260A. For example, with my 24/7 OC of

P-Core 55x8 / 58x2 (stock)
E-Core 45x
Ring 50x

I'm only hitting 216A in CB23. In gaming, pulling around 70-75w in COD MW2, and temps are nice and cool. I raised my power usage slightly in order to set 50x Ring, but if I bring it down to Auto (so Ring @ 45x in all-core loads), I can get my amperage to hover around ~195-205A in stress-tests.


----------



## affxct

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> As much as I hate to admit it, I've jumped back to Asus at this point. I get to look at my CPU scores now though and picked this one up with the new Motherboard.
> 
> View attachment 2591557


Z790 Apex?


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

affxct said:


> Z790 Apex?



Extreme. No Apex and or all over priced. I had an extreme before and liked it. It lasted me awhile. Now I just need to manage to get windows reactivated lol.


----------



## Hresna

acoustic said:


> I'm only hitting 216A in CB23. In gaming, pulling around 70-75w in COD MW2, and temps are nice and cool. I raised my power usage slightly in order to set 50x Ring, but if I bring it down to Auto (so Ring @ 45x in all-core loads), I can get my amperage to hover around ~195-205A in stress-tests.


What board do you have with a current readout? I have STRIX z690-e, the only current measured is vrm but it stays around 200A. Unless that’s it. I assumed no because I assumed something was going over 360
I can’t seem to undervolt mine with LL method. At LLC3 and at 1.12v under load it still doing 205W at 52x8. That’s with DC LL at 1.1 to match the llc impedance and AC LL cranked all the way down to 0.03 which seems ridiculous considering auto would be 0.5 and I started with 0.2.


----------



## acoustic

Hresna said:


> What board do you have with a current readout? I have STRIX z690-e, the only current measured is vrm but it stays around 200A. Unless that’s it. I assumed no because I assumed something was going over 360
> I can’t seem to undervolt mine with LL method. At LLC3 and at 1.12v under load it still doing 205W at 52x8. That’s with DC LL at 1.1 to match the llc impedance and AC LL cranked all the way down to 0.03 which seems ridiculous considering auto would be 0.5 and I started with 0.2.


I'm running an Z690 MSI Unify-X. I use the board VRM reading "Current (IOUT)" to see current use. My DC_LL is tuned to my LLC so that my power measurements are accurate.

To start, I'd set your current and wattage limits to max (4095 watt long/short duration, and 512A for current limit), and then adjust your voltages so that you never go anywhere near those numbers. 205W at 52x seems like a lot, especially at 1.12v. What load are you using to come to that number?

I've done a lot of testing with AC_LL, and while it's a good tool to have in your bag for precise tweaking, going too low on AC_LL will cause issues during transient loads and/or at idle. I've gone down to 0.10 AC_LL and ended up with weird crashes or instability, despite the set load/idle voltages being technically stable. I've found that AC_LL in the range of 0.20 to 0.30 (I use 0.20mOhm, personally), is the best spot to be. Tweak the voltage down further via the Voltage/Frequency curve, using negative offsets to get the chip where you want.

What do you have your vCore mode set to? Are you using a manually entered value? Are you just running Auto vCore and simply adjusting AC_LL?

What sensor are you using to read vCore? Could you post a screenshot of your chip under load (CB23 is typically what most people use) so that we can see?


----------



## Hresna

acoustic said:


> What do you have your vCore mode set to? Are you using a manually entered value? Are you just running Auto vCore and simply adjusting AC_LL?
> What sensor are you using to read vCore? Could you post a screenshot of your chip under load (CB23 is typically what most people use) so that we can see?


I have vcore on auto and just using LL so far (was following the Roberto Sampaio guide). For my older 9900k I used a manual vcore and then adaptive with offset. I have been using cb23 for levels, sometimes p95. Sensor readouts I watch XTU and have hwinfo64 running also. I gave the XTU number, which seems to correspond more to vid requests. I’ve noticed that with offsets I can get much lower power usage than with the LL method alone. Much appreciate your insight on that.
I’m away from my machine for a few days but will do some more testing and come back with screenshots if still interested end of next week.


----------



## acoustic

Hresna said:


> I have vcore on auto and just using LL so far (was following the Roberto Sampaio guide). For my older 9900k I used a manual vcore and then adaptive with offset. I have been using cb23 for levels, sometimes p95. Sensor readouts I watch XTU and have hwinfo64 running also. I gave the XTU number, which seems to correspond more to vid requests. I’ve noticed that with offsets I can get much lower power usage than with the LL method alone. Much appreciate your insight on that.
> I’m away from my machine for a few days but will do some more testing and come back with screenshots if still interested end of next week.


No problem.

My biggest suggestion, is set XTU to defaults, and uninstall it. Don't use it. Software tweaking just causes a myriad of other issues, and BIOS control is really all you need.

I'd stick to CB23 or Realbench 2.56 for stress-testing. Y-Cruncher is good once you have an idea if something is ready to be set as a 24/7 OC, and run that to really hammer it a few times. I wouldn't run it long-term.

You can adjust the V/F Curve (I believe Roberto's guide covers this) to get those offsets in. I have no idea what XTU reads, but I'd assume VID.

Download hwinfo if you don't have it Free Download HWiNFO Sofware | Installer & Portable for Windows, DOS 

Your Z690 STRIX may have Die Sense readings? I can't remember if it's only the Z790 that has Die Sense or if both do. Regardless, HWINFO sensor readings will help you see what's actually happening, and what current the VRM is sending.


----------



## VULC

acoustic said:


> I'm running an Z690 MSI Unify-X. I use the board VRM reading "Current (IOUT)" to see current use. My DC_LL is tuned to my LLC so that my power measurements are accurate.
> 
> To start, I'd set your current and wattage limits to max (4095 watt long/short duration, and 512A for current limit), and then adjust your voltages so that you never go anywhere near those numbers. 205W at 52x seems like a lot, especially at 1.12v. What load are you using to come to that number?
> 
> I've done a lot of testing with AC_LL, and while it's a good tool to have in your bag for precise tweaking, going too low on AC_LL will cause issues during transient loads and/or at idle. I've gone down to 0.10 AC_LL and ended up with weird crashes or instability, despite the set load/idle voltages being technically stable. I've found that AC_LL in the range of 0.20 to 0.30 (I use 0.20mOhm, personally), is the best spot to be. Tweak the voltage down further via the Voltage/Frequency curve, using negative offsets to get the chip where you want.
> 
> What do you have your vCore mode set to? Are you using a manually entered value? Are you just running Auto vCore and simply adjusting AC_LL?
> 
> What sensor are you using to read vCore? Could you post a screenshot of your chip under load (CB23 is typically what most people use) so that we can see?


0.16 AC_LL seems to work good for me 0.14 and lower get me clock watchdog BSOD.


----------



## acoustic

VULC said:


> 0.16 AC_LL seems to work good for me 0.14 and lower get me clock watchdog BSOD.


Don't you have an extremely well-binned chip? It's all going to vary based on silicon quality. My chip isn't amazing, lucky to get away with 0.20mOhm AC_LL while running nice chunky offsets.


----------



## VULC

acoustic said:


> Don't you have an extremely well-binned chip? It's all going to vary based on silicon quality. My chip isn't amazing, lucky to get away with 0.20mOhm AC_LL while running nice chunky offsets.


I'm running E cores off.


----------



## energie80

Why don’t you try HT off and Ecores on? It perform as better to me


----------



## acoustic

VULC said:


> I'm running E cores off.


Well.. not really comparable in the context I was talking about, lol. Dunno why you’d run E-Cores off either, but hey lol


----------



## RichKnecht

HemuV2 said:


> What's the point of doing LLs when you can simply run an offset or even better just do manual voltage?


The whole point of adjusting AC and DC LL is to fine tune the voltage supplied to the chip. You can also use offsets, but they go by increments of .005. I use both.


----------



## VULC

energie80 said:


> Why don’t you try HT off and Ecores on? It perform as better to me


I noticed for MW2 HT off with E Cores if the game hits the E cores fps drops big time. E cores are atom cores that are only made for background tasks. They also use up L3 cache and makes it harder to run higher ring clock. All E cores were made for is when Linus hits start on R23 they get 40,000 points to compete in marketing against AMD.


----------



## kunit13

VULC said:


> I noticed for MW2 HT off with E Cores if the game hits the E cores fps drops big time. E cores are atom cores that are only made for background tasks. They also use up L3 cache and makes it harder to run higher ring clock. All E cores were made for is when Linus hits start on R23 they get 40,000 points to compete in marketing against AMD.


In game testing its fairly similar. It weird because tracking core usage in wz2 the ecores get used every once in while. The game didn't feel as smooth with HT off for me?\
I have a ton of in game data logging with capx. HT on vs HT off, e cores on vs ecores off. Render count has a factor also when you change core counts. 

The in game benchmark is good to see some changes but I've hit the limit on that. What GPU are you running? Ive maxed out my 4090 at 1440p.

I having a lot of fun tuning this chip and ram. I need to move my res to 1080p to see any improvements.


----------



## kunit13

Any suggestions on a ram heatsinks and water blocks? The little fan that came with the Apex was good for about 2c drop. This contraption I fabbed up was good for about 5c....


----------



## acoustic

kunit13 said:


> Any suggestions on a ram heatsinks and water blocks? The little fan that came with the Apex was good for about 2c drop. This contraption I fabbed up was good for about 5c....
> 
> 
> View attachment 2591643


I’m running the IceManCooler heatsinks+block. Using Thermalright Odyssey II pads on the sticks and the block. WaterT at 27c, max temp of 31c running Karhu.

The supercool ones are great, but good luck ordering anything. The Bartx set also look great, but another that was constantly out of stock when I was looking to order.


----------



## kunit13

Thanks! I will look into those!


----------



## acoustic

kunit13 said:


> Thanks! I will look into those!


Icemancooler Ram Memory Heat Sink Disspation Vest,full Copper,serve Ddr5,ddr4,ddr3,bright Silver,thermal Pad Included - Fluid Diy Cooling & Accessories - AliExpress 

Icemancooler Two Dual Channels Memory Full Copper Nickel Plated Water Block For Pc Water Cooling Ram Cooler,included Thermal Pad - Fluid Diy Cooling & Accessories - AliExpress


----------



## VULC

kunit13 said:


> In game testing its fairly similar. It weird because tracking core usage in wz2 the ecores get used every once in while. The game didn't feel as smooth with HT off for me?\
> I have a ton of in game data logging with capx. HT on vs HT off, e cores on vs ecores off. Render count has a factor also when you change core counts.
> 
> The in game benchmark is good to see some changes but I've hit the limit on that. What GPU are you running? Ive maxed out my 4090 at 1440p.
> 
> I having a lot of fun tuning this chip and ram. I need to move my res to 1080p to see any improvements.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2591641


I have a 4090 but from what I've seen the game dropped to 256fps at 1080p with HT off and E cores on, on Windows 10 22H2. That's some nice numbers I tested once on the MW2 bench with Balanced graphics and I got 326 average with 1440 render res 133% since I play on a 1080p, 360hz monitor.


----------



## kunit13

I


VULC said:


> I have a 4090 but from what I've seen the game dropped to 256fps at 1080p with HT off and E cores on, on Windows 10 22H2. That's some nice numbers I tested once on the MW2 bench with Balanced graphics and I got 326 average with 1440 render res 133% since I play on a 1080p, 360hz monitor.


For me my numbers are within margin of error. ecores off, HT off, e cores on. Maybe a few extra FPS with Ecores on. 

That's good. 
There are some optimizing things you can do to bump that. I've spent a lot of time testing since Wz1 (some of my fam streams wz twitch partners) so I have to keep there systems tip top.


----------



## sugi0lover

acoustic said:


> I’m running the IceManCooler heatsinks+block. Using Thermalright Odyssey II pads on the sticks and the block. WaterT at 27c, max temp of 31c running Karhu.
> 
> The supercool ones are great, but good luck ordering anything. The Bartx set also look great, but another that was constantly out of stock when I was looking to order.


For Bartx, my firend had to order first even when it was out of stock, then they started manufacturing it and sent to him.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> The whole point of adjusting AC and DC LL is to fine tune the voltage supplied to the chip. You can also use offsets, but they go by increments of .005. I use both.


Actually for overclockers it really doesn't matter, setting an override voltage sets LL values to 1.

The whole issue is for all the people running at stock bios settings.


----------



## VULC

kunit13 said:


> I
> 
> 
> For me my numbers are within margin of error. ecores off, HT off, e cores on. Maybe a few extra FPS with Ecores on.
> 
> That's good.
> There are some optimizing things you can do to bump that. I've spent a lot of time testing since Wz1 (some of my fam streams wz twitch partners) so I have to keep there systems tip top.


If you don't mind sending me some tips on how to optimise fps would be much appreciated.


----------



## kunit13

For sure.. shoot me a message. when Im back at my PC Ill help you out. There are a bunch of little things to do.


----------



## bhav

Regarding FPS, as I mentioned in the 13600K thread I tried out Witcher 3 with the RT update.

Fully maxed out with everything overclocked, I only get 17-22 FPS on my 3080 Ti.

With just using quality DLSS, it went up to 32+ FPS in forest / grass heavy areas.

I'll try tuning the settings further later after I'm done with a new years event in an idle game.


----------



## tps3443

After running a chiller daily for nearly 2 years now, I realized I wanted to remove my radiators and fans and be done with it, so I setup my workstation on the 1/2HP chiller only, this chiller has proven so reliable for daily use I trust it 100%. It’s actually much better this way. The water is not losing efficiency from the radiator touching ambient air, my flow rate has increased even further, and the water gets colder a lot easier while staying colder for a whole lot longer.

This AACH50 chiller is actually not that loud either. It kind of sounds like a mini fridge, and it only runs for about a minute every 30 minutes if you’re using your PC as normal. One thing nice to see, is how how long the water stays cold now. I was losing so much efficiency before, because all of my cold water was bleeding off temps due to that MASSIVE radiator being exposed to ambient air. I usually lock in a 15C water temp daily, and this is easily managed 24/7/365 days per year, while never even considering condensation as a worry. 


NO FANS AT ALL!! 🤣 NO MORE DUST!!!


----------



## kunit13

I like that IDEA!!! Might go that route. Btw I just noticed are the videocardzrule guy on YT??


----------



## tps3443

kunit13 said:


> I like that IDEA!!! Might go that route. Btw I just noticed are the videocardzrule guy on YT??


Yes. That’s me.


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

tps3443 said:


> After running a chiller daily for nearly 2 years now, I realized I wanted to remove my radiators and fans and be done with it, so I setup my workstation on the 1/2HP chiller only, this chiller has proven so reliable for daily use I trust it 100%. It’s actually much better this way. The water is not losing efficiency from the radiator touching ambient air, my flow rate has increased even further, and the water gets colder a lot easier while staying colder for a whole lot longer.
> 
> This AACH50 chiller is actually not that loud either. It kind of sounds like a mini fridge, and it only runs for about a minute every 30 minutes if you’re using your PC as normal. One thing nice to see, is how how long the water stays cold now. I was losing so much efficiency before, because all of my cold water was bleeding off temps due to that MASSIVE radiator being exposed to ambient air. I usually lock in a 15C water temp daily, and this is easily managed 24/7/365 days per year, while never even considering condensation as a worry.
> 
> 
> NO FANS AT ALL!! 🤣 NO MORE DUST!!!
> 
> 
> View attachment 2591651
> 
> View attachment 2591652
> 
> View attachment 2591654
> 
> View attachment 2591655
> 
> View attachment 2591653
> 
> View attachment 2591650


You read my mind !!
And happy new year all !!
I just ditched dual loops pulled out two rads i had inline for the 380 , the chiller that cooled the cpu and 3 pumps down to 2 D5's and the 1hp chiller . 
Its got a 4 litre reservoir . Summertime here so sweatiness can be a issue for me


----------



## tps3443

HOMECINEMA-PC said:


> You read my mind !!
> And happy new year all !!
> I just ditched dual loops pulled out two rads i had inline for the 380 , the chiller that cooled the cpu and 3 pumps down to 2 D5's and the 1hp chiller .
> Its got a 4 litre reservoir . Summertime here so sweatiness can be a issue for me
> View attachment 2591658


I do not run mine that cold. But, now that my massive 1,080mm radiator is gone, I may give it a shot. I may even insulate my motherboard and CPU socket etc. That’s why I stick to 15c liquid though. No condensation.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> After running a chiller daily for nearly 2 years now, I realized I wanted to remove my radiators and fans and be done with it, so I setup my workstation on the 1/2HP chiller only, this chiller has proven so reliable for daily use I trust it 100%. It’s actually much better this way. The water is not losing efficiency from the radiator touching ambient air, my flow rate has increased even further, and the water gets colder a lot easier while staying colder for a whole lot longer.
> 
> This AACH50 chiller is actually not that loud either. It kind of sounds like a mini fridge, and it only runs for about a minute every 30 minutes if you’re using your PC as normal. One thing nice to see, is how how long the water stays cold now. I was losing so much efficiency before, because all of my cold water was bleeding off temps due to that MASSIVE radiator being exposed to ambient air. I usually lock in a 15C water temp daily, and this is easily managed 24/7/365 days per year, while never even considering condensation as a worry.
> 
> 
> NO FANS AT ALL!! 🤣 NO MORE DUST!!!
> 
> 
> View attachment 2591651
> 
> View attachment 2591652
> 
> View attachment 2591654
> 
> View attachment 2591655
> 
> View attachment 2591653
> 
> View attachment 2591650


That's a clean and well thought out setup man.


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

Man, I never thought that when i built this set up that i would be benching 6 gigs and and hitting it with a p95 fft blend


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> That's a clean and well thought out setup man.


It’s really a daily work PC even though it is Direct die, with a chiller and all.



HOMECINEMA-PC said:


> Man, I never thought that when i built this set up that i would be benching 6 gigs and and hitting it with a p95 fft blend
> View attachment 2591672


That’s really cool. I’ve got my chip at 6Ghz. It is extremely fast. I’m contemplating if I want to give the 13900KS a whirl, or just stick with what I’ve got.


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

tps3443 said:


> It’s really a daily work PC even though it is Direct die, with a chiller and all.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s really cool. I’ve got my chip at 6Ghz. It is extremely fast. I’m contemplating if I want to give the 13900KS a whirl, or just stick with what I’ve got.


Im certain that this one has another 200mhz in it . But i dropped the dram back to 5600 to give the imc a rest 

Ive been thinking about the KS as well . If i score one before the refresh that would be sweet


----------



## energie80

kunit13 said:


> In game testing its fairly similar. It weird because tracking core usage in wz2 the ecores get used every once in while. The game didn't feel as smooth with HT off for me?\
> I have a ton of in game data logging with capx. HT on vs HT off, e cores on vs ecores off. Render count has a factor also when you change core counts.
> 
> The in game benchmark is good to see some changes but I've hit the limit on that. What GPU are you running? Ive maxed out my 4090 at 1440p.
> 
> I having a lot of fun tuning this chip and ram. I need to move my res to 1080p to see any improvements.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2591641


Not in my case, è cores on or off same results.
Render core count 8


----------



## kunit13

energie80 said:


> Not in my case, è cores on or off same results.
> Render core count 8


Yah for me also. Its pretty much the same for me no mater if my e cores are on our hyper threading ect. Your cpu scores are high. What you running? (p core freq and ram speed).


----------



## kunit13

kunit13 said:


> Yah for me also. Its pretty much the same for me no mater if my e cores are on our hyper threading ect. Your cpu scores are high. What you running? (p core freq and ram speed).


oh wait that's a old benchmark. yah they are much different now. The old benchmark rounded up to 500 so the scores are skewed.


----------



## energie80

Pcores 6ghz 8 ecores 4.6 ring 51 ram 7600 c34


----------



## energie80

kunit13 said:


> oh wait that's a old benchmark. yah they are much different now. The old benchmark rounded up to 500 so the scores are skewed.


Will try a new one when I’m home


----------



## Phatboy69

If anyone is having trouble with 13900k or other CPUs on a ASUS ROG Z790 Maximus Extreme with T-Force 7200CL34 try loosening off your CPU cooler and re-tensioning slightly less.

I was having all sorts of stability issues but now rock solid.

I also had to remove some Asus bloatware, the Gamefirst was causing netio.sys BSOD and removing that POS fixed that as well.

I was just about ready to take the board and CPU back and swap it for something else.. seems they are sensitive to proper pressure mounting of the CPU cooler.

Using EK Velocity2 Block with 2 x Black Ice GTX360 Rads for reference. Yes they are old Rads.. Just upgraded from 10yr old X58 based 4960x.. 

Using just the AIOC i've got 6.1Ghz on light load, and 5.7Ghz multi core and E-Cores @ 4.6Ghz...
Best I can do for now as this platform is way more complicated than my old X58!! 


13900K / RTX 4090 by Hilton, on Flickr

AIOC-6.1ghz by Hilton, on Flickr

Aida64-cache-bench by Hilton, on Flickr


----------



## kunit13

energie80 said:


> Pcores 6ghz 8 ecores 4.6 ring 51 ram 7600 c34


nice! Thats pretty much top! Do you play it much?


----------



## energie80

kunit13 said:


> nice! Thats pretty much top! Do you play it much?


A lot 🙈


----------



## DSHG87

I set "CPU Vcore Compensation" back to "auto". More Voltage but same points in benchmarks. I only have 36.000 in Cinebench R23. But there is package power limit by my Mainboard. 240W. More does not work.

Btw, seems to be a good 13900K by temperatures. Only have a small Freezer i35. In Cinebench (240W, 36.000 Points) it reaches only 87°. I read some people get 100 with custom loop and 250W.


----------



## VULC

Phatboy69 said:


> If anyone is having trouble with 13900k or other CPUs on a ASUS ROG Z790 Maximus Extreme with T-Force 7200CL34 try loosening off your CPU cooler and re-tensioning slightly less.
> 
> I was having all sorts of stability issues but now rock solid.
> 
> I also had to remove some Asus bloatware, the Gamefirst was causing netio.sys BSOD and removing that POS fixed that as well.
> 
> I was just about ready to take the board and CPU back and swap it for something else.. seems they are sensitive to proper pressure mounting of the CPU cooler.
> 
> Using EK Velocity2 Block with 2 x Black Ice GTX360 Rads for reference. Yes they are old Rads.. Just upgraded from 10yr old X58 based 4960x..
> 
> Using just the AIOC i've got 6.1Ghz on light load, and 5.7Ghz multi core and E-Cores @ 4.6Ghz...
> Best I can do for now as this platform is way more complicated than my old X58!!
> 
> 
> 13900K / RTX 4090 by Hilton, on Flickr
> 
> AIOC-6.1ghz by Hilton, on Flickr
> 
> Aida64-cache-bench by Hilton, on Flickr


LGA 1700 is really sensitive to extra mounting pressure. I had to back of my contact frame on each corner a 1/4 turn as it was causing issues. I think I have to back of my cold plate also.


----------



## Betroz

VULC said:


> LGA 1700 is really sensitive to extra mounting pressure. I had to back of my contact frame on each corner a 1/4 turn as it was causing issues. I think I have to back of my cold plate also.


When GamersNexus tested this, his conclusion on whether it's worth it buying a contact frame, was that it makes more sense for overclockers. He said that if the contact frame is either too tight or too loose, people could have issues like not being able to hit higher RAM speeds and such. 

Such "problems" makes me want to consider Ryzen 7000 3D, but then again AMD has their issues too


----------



## yzonker

VULC said:


> LGA 1700 is really sensitive to extra mounting pressure. I had to back of my contact frame on each corner a 1/4 turn as it was causing issues. I think I have to back of my cold plate also.


Which contact frame? The TG one seems a lot more sensitive to this.


----------



## energie80

Cause is the most used


----------



## yzonker

energie80 said:


> Cause is the most used


No, I think it's because it does not have a hard stop like the Thermalright frame.


----------



## energie80

I confused tg with thermal right 😅


----------



## tps3443

energie80 said:


> Cause is the most used


Hey, what benchmark is that you’re running in a couple post back? Is that COD MWF2?

What settings should I use?


----------



## energie80

Yes mw2 benchmark, I use competitive settings. All low


----------



## Ichirou

For what it's worth. Also, YMMV.
I have an extremely hardcore DDR4 overclock on this chip, so any issues are quite pronounced, making it easier for me to make these findings.
Be sure to reflash the BIOS from time to time to correct any BIOS corruption as well.


----------



## energie80

Bsod anyway 😂


----------



## bhav

Also after installing my contact frame, I can't get into windows without bsod with either 4400 G1 or 5400 G2 anymore yay.

4300G1 still working so don't care. Just looks like my promised G1 vs G2 comparisons cannot be done now sorry.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Also after installing my contact frame, I can't get into windows with bsod with either 4400 G1 or 5400 G2 anymore yay.
> 
> 4300G1 still working so don't care. Just looks like my promised G1 vs G2 comparisons cannot be done now sorry.


Not that anyone cared about DDR4 Gear 2 in the first place


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Not that anyone cared about DDR4 Gear 2 in the first place


Are you saying I am not a person 

But its not even worth it from looking at 3600 vs 6000 XMP results anyway.


----------



## kunit13

Just put everything on low. Energie60 benchmark was done when the mw2 bm had bug where it wasn't collecting data right.

Below is a old benchmark using my 5950x.The low 5th was the bug. 











tps3443 said:


> Hey, what benchmark is that you’re running in a couple post back? Is that COD MWF2?
> 
> What settings should I use?


----------



## kunit13

I've had the same issues with my Tgrizzly frame. Having to remount. I would check my memory sp after mount and if it scored lower I would try going a little looser on my WB. 
Had this happen with my V2 and my MAG. On my contact frame I followed Debauer instructions except just went slightly under the 1/4 turn at the end.

I wonder if the 12900k Is slightly thinner on the IHS wings?

Ive never tried with the stock bracket. 





Ichirou said:


> For what it's worth. Also, YMMV.
> I have an extremely hardcore DDR4 overclock on this chip, so any issues are quite pronounced, making it easier for me to make these findings.
> Be sure to reflash the BIOS from time to time to correct any BIOS corruption as well.


----------



## energie80

kunit13 said:


> Just put everything on low. Energie60 benchmark was done when the mw2 bm had bug where it wasn't collecting data right.
> 
> Below is a old benchmark using my 5950x.The low 5th was the bug.
> 
> View attachment 2591763


Not a big difference


----------



## kunit13

looking at your cpu numbers that a pretty big difference. The total avg not so much. 

There's gotta be something not right? your at 6.0ghz. Your CPU numbers should be thru the roof.

Mine at 5.8 do around 440ish. I just got my ram stable at 8000. So Ill see if that does any improvements.


Edit: my cpu numbers are 447avg, 377, 337. I have not tried 6ghz. I dont think my system will do it.. 

been on a memory tuning binge, prob go back and re visit CPU OC.


----------



## energie80

Will try some settings, my ram are at 7600


----------



## kunit13

With my ram at 7200, 7600, 7800 and now 8000.
7200 53.5ns
7600 53ns
7800 52.8ns
8000 51.5ns

There was zero difference in avg fps (its the 4090 causing the bottleneck).
Ive been looking at cpu scores and 7200-8000 is maybe 10fps.


----------



## Prozillah

Hey all, got a question regarding memory oc on 13900k



Using ddr 4 bdie on msi edge z690 at the following spec

Core 5.6ghz @ 1.31v 

Ring 4.9

2x 16gb 4200mhz cl16 @ 1.55v

SA 1.35, vddq 1.35



Dialed that in. Passed tm5 extreme no issues. Y cruncher. R23 and occt a few months back. Latency sat around 48ns give or take.



And for ****s and gigs I did a Aida the other day and it was up over 50.6ns. And when I run an occt it errors out constantly throwing cpu physical (virtual core) errors at some random point. 



Sometimes it would trip around 2m, other times could be 7 or 15 or 37. I even got as far as 55m occt before it errored out.



I hadn't changed a single thing in bios since my last stable benching runs and now it constantly ****s the bed on occt every run.



Does anyone know why this would just start happening??


----------



## Merkor

Anyone tried the new Intel ME firmware? Did it do anything good or bad to stability and/or performance?


----------



## VULC

Prozillah said:


> Hey all, got a question regarding memory oc on 13900k
> 
> 
> 
> Using ddr 4 bdie on msi edge z690 at the following spec
> 
> Core 5.6ghz @ 1.31v
> 
> Ring 4.9
> 
> 2x 16gb 4200mhz cl16 @ 1.55v
> 
> SA 1.35, vddq 1.35
> 
> 
> 
> Dialed that in. Passed tm5 extreme no issues. Y cruncher. R23 and occt a few months back. Latency sat around 48ns give or take.
> 
> 
> 
> And for ****s and gigs I did a Aida the other day and it was up over 50.6ns. And when I run an occt it errors out constantly throwing cpu physical (virtual core) errors at some random point.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it would trip around 2m, other times could be 7 or 15 or 37. I even got as far as 55m occt before it errored out.
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't changed a single thing in bios since my last stable benching runs and now it constantly ****s the bed on occt every run.
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know why this would just start happening??


Exact same issues I was having. At the beginning my latency was 46.3ns then it would jump over 51ns. Ram OC would be stable 1usmusv3 6 cycles on TM5 next day my ram would error out. My ram ended up going solid orange led on boot. I was also getting PSU shutdowns before that. I had to re seat my thermalright contact frame that helped and I'm going to back off my cold plate a 1/4 turn. It might be your ram is dying and 1.55v which I was running is cooking it or you need to reseat your cold plate or contact frame. Sent the 4x8gb vipers under warranty back to Amazon and got 2x16gb HPs on the way.


----------



## energie80

kunit13 said:


> With my ram at 7200, 7600, 7800 and now 8000.
> 7200 53.5ns
> 7600 53ns
> 7800 52.8ns
> 8000 51.5ns
> 
> There was zero difference in avg fps (its the 4090 causing the bottleneck).
> Ive been looking at cpu scores and 7200-8000 is maybe 10fps.


Got around 50.5 51 ns but no fps increase


----------



## joneffingvo

Merkor said:


> Anyone tried the new Intel ME firmware? Did it do anything good or bad to stability and/or performance?


Loaded it yesterday and currently running 6.0 on 2 cores and 5.8 on 2 cores, and the rest at 5.6 with undervolt at -0.040 and 8000 mhz and it's rock solid


----------



## jmb99

kunit13 said:


> I've had the same issues with my Tgrizzly frame. Having to remount. I would check my memory sp after mount and if it scored lower I would try going a little looser on my WB.
> Had this happen with my V2 and my MAG. On my contact frame I followed Debauer instructions except just went slightly under the 1/4 turn at the end.
> 
> I wonder if the 12900k Is slightly thinner on the IHS wings?
> 
> Ive never tried with the stock bracket.


Which motherboards report memory SP? I can’t find it anywhere with my strix z690-a


----------



## HemuV2

jmb99 said:


> Which motherboards report memory SP? I can’t find it anywhere with my strix z690-a


All ROG motherboards show it in bios, bottom right. Go to ai tweaker > ai features and it'll show p/e SP


----------



## Ichirou

Prozillah said:


> Hey all, got a question regarding memory oc on 13900k
> 
> 
> 
> Using ddr 4 bdie on msi edge z690 at the following spec
> 
> Core 5.6ghz @ 1.31v
> 
> Ring 4.9
> 
> 2x 16gb 4200mhz cl16 @ 1.55v
> 
> SA 1.35, vddq 1.35
> 
> 
> 
> Dialed that in. Passed tm5 extreme no issues. Y cruncher. R23 and occt a few months back. Latency sat around 48ns give or take.
> 
> 
> 
> And for ****s and gigs I did a Aida the other day and it was up over 50.6ns. And when I run an occt it errors out constantly throwing cpu physical (virtual core) errors at some random point.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it would trip around 2m, other times could be 7 or 15 or 37. I even got as far as 55m occt before it errored out.
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't changed a single thing in bios since my last stable benching runs and now it constantly ****s the bed on occt every run.
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know why this would just start happening??





VULC said:


> Exact same issues I was having. At the beginning my latency was 46.3ns then it would jump over 51ns. Ram OC would be stable 1usmusv3 6 cycles on TM5 next day my ram would error out. My ram ended up going solid orange led on boot. I was also getting PSU shutdowns before that. I had to re seat my thermalright contact frame that helped and I'm going to back off my cold plate a 1/4 turn. It might be your ram is dying and 1.55v which I was running is cooking it or you need to reseat your cold plate or contact frame. Sent the 4x8gb vipers under warranty back to Amazon and got 2x16gb HPs on the way.


Honestly, it just sounds like my current motherboard problems. Board degradation.
For all we know, everything's probably stable except for the motherboard.

After I fiddled around with the contact of the frame and waterblock earlier, I keep getting BSODs now no matter what kind of contact I do or how many times I reflash.
****'s wack.


jmb99 said:


> Which motherboards report memory SP? I can’t find it anywhere with my strix z690-a


It's only for the highest end ASUS boards.


----------



## jmb99

HemuV2 said:


> All ROG motherboards show it in bios, bottom right. Go to ai tweaker > ai features and it'll show p/e SP


In the bottom right “Prediction” pane, I see the following:

SP
Cooler
P-Core V for _5800MHz_
E-Core V for _4300MHz_
Cache V req for _5000MHz_
P-Core Light/Heavy
E-Core Light/Heavy
Heavy
And in the AI Features menu I see the individual SP scores for P and E cores. Based on the way people have been talking about “memory SP” I thought it was something different from the p/e SP scores. I guess I was mistaken. I’m not sure how those SP scores for P/E cores could change by remounting though, since I thought they were based off the VIDs burned into the chip and should remain constant, unless the score calculation changes with a UEFI update.


----------



## Ichirou

jmb99 said:


> In the bottom right “Prediction” pane, I see the following:
> 
> SP
> Cooler
> P-Core V for _5800MHz_
> E-Core V for _4300MHz_
> Cache V req for _5000MHz_
> P-Core Light/Heavy
> E-Core Light/Heavy
> Heavy
> And in the AI Features menu I see the individual SP scores for P and E cores. Based on the way people have been talking about “memory SP” I thought it was something different from the p/e SP scores. I guess I was mistaken. I’m not sure how those SP scores for P/E cores could change by remounting though, since I thought they were based off the VIDs burned into the chip and should remain constant, unless the score calculation changes with a UEFI update.


MC SP is only for the highest end ASUS boards.


----------



## jmb99

Ichirou said:


> MC SP is only for the highest end ASUS boards.


Hence my original question, which ones?


----------



## Ichirou

jmb99 said:


> Hence my original question, which ones?


The ones you pay an arm and a leg for


----------



## Nizzen

jmb99 said:


> Hence my original question, which ones?


Maximus series


----------



## kunit13

jmb99 said:


> Hence my original question, which ones?


I have z790 apex (it has mem SP). Maybe its the Maximus series?


----------



## jmb99

Ichirou said:


> The ones you pay an arm and a leg for





Nizzen said:


> Maximus series





kunit13 said:


> I have z790 apex (it has mem SP). Maybe its the Maximus series?


Damn, does seem to be that way. I at least personally can’t justify $700+ for a motherboard just to know if I’ve slightly overtightened the cooler haha.


----------



## tps3443

My latency is piss poor compared to you guys. lol. My CPU OC is extremely stable and dialed in very well. But, my ram OC is crap. I’ve been busy and need to dial it in. I have literally been running a slightly optimized XMP. I need to get on that.


----------



## Nizzen

tps3443 said:


> My latency is piss poor compared to you guys. lol. My CPU OC is extremely stable and dialed in very well. But, my ram OC is crap. I’ve been busy and need to dial it in. I have literally been running a slightly optimized XMP. I need to get on that.


Mem OC > Cpu OC

I typical play "stock" cpu, and "max oc" on the memory.

For me atleast


----------



## bhav

So mregarding contact frame / cooler tightness, if I installed the contact frame with light tightness, but installed the cooler normally with full tightness, could just loosening the cooler bring back 4400 G1 bootable / 5400 G2 stable?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> So mregarding contact frame / cooler tightness, if I installed the contact frame with light tightness, but installed the cooler normally with full tightness, could just loosening the cooler bring back 4400 G1 bootable / 5400 G2 stable?


YMMV.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> My latency is piss poor compared to you guys. lol. My CPU OC is extremely stable and dialed in very well. But, my ram OC is crap. I’ve been busy and need to dial it in. I have literally been running a slightly optimized XMP. I need to get on that.


Just note that once you start to delve into memory overclocking, chances are, your lofty CPU overclock's gonna be massively unstable.
Memory overclocking heavily raises the voltage requirements across the board. Going over 51x ring will be a dream. Not sure if you want to deal with that.


----------



## bhav

Ring clock is the first thing that will make ram OCs unstable, next the e cores, and finally even the P cores as was the case with trying to run 4000G1 on my 12600K.


----------



## kunit13

tps3443 said:


> My latency is piss poor compared to you guys. lol. My CPU OC is extremely stable and dialed in very well. But, my ram OC is crap. I’ve been busy and need to dial it in. I have literally been running a slightly optimized XMP. I need to get on that.


Im still super green with this ddr5 and intel. But between the you guys and Bzoid videos its starting make sense...


----------



## energie80

tps3443 said:


> My latency is piss poor compared to you guys. lol. My CPU OC is extremely stable and dialed in very well. But, my ram OC is crap. I’ve been busy and need to dial it in. I have literally been running a slightly optimized XMP. I need to get on that.


Could be bad optimised os


----------



## VULC

Double checked everything thermal paste pattern all spread even and socket pins are good. Contact frame seated again stop at first resistance with an extra touch up after that. Arctic LFII cold plate when screwing down just stops can't over tighten so left it at that. I believe my ram failed from being 1.52v to 1.55v after 9 months and the original contact frame over tightening was a seperate issue. Going to run a 140mm fan on the new sticks.


----------



## tps3443

energie80 said:


> Could be bad optimised os


Could be a combination of both.


----------



## Betroz

Ichirou said:


> Just note that once you start to delve into memory overclocking, chances are, your lofty CPU overclock's gonna be massively unstable.
> Memory overclocking heavily raises the voltage requirements across the board. Going over 51x ring will be a dream. Not sure if you want to deal with that.


Hense why I think most "Techtubers" only run at DDR5 6400. They probably realized long ago that most people simply won't take the time and effort to tune the RAM. Free performance is allways nice, but maybe we should aim for a sweetspot? For my Z490 setup, this sweetspot is DDR4 4133 15-17-17 (and the rest tweaked).

The more you guys talk about problems with the Contact frame, the more convinced I become of not buying one


----------



## acoustic

The Thermalright frame is pretty fool proof. Tighten down until it takes a lot of force to grab the last 1/8 of a turn. Don’t hit it with the German torque.

I’ve reinstalled my frame 3 times now (not due to issues with the frame; went from 12700k to 13900k, changed mobo when my ASUS board died, and last was after de-lid/re-lid of the 13900k)

I have had the exact same results every time. As with anything else, just take your time, be thorough, and don’t rush.


----------



## gecko991

The Thermalright frame rocks, just put one on my Apex board with a 13900k and have wonderful temps with no hot spots.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> The Thermalright frame is pretty fool proof. Tighten down until it takes a lot of force to grab the last 1/8 of a turn. Don’t hit it with the German torque.
> 
> I’ve reinstalled my frame 3 times now (not due to issues with the frame; went from 12700k to 13900k, changed mobo when my ASUS board died, and last was after de-lid/re-lid of the 13900k)
> 
> I have had the exact same results every time. As with anything else, just take your time, be thorough, and don’t rush.


This is why I think my current instability is due to the motherboard, not the chip.

You don’t degrade by massive amounts in literal minutes. Or get errors by simply restarting and then needing several dozens of retraining attempts to get rid of them again.


----------



## bhav

acoustic said:


> The Thermalright frame is pretty fool proof. Tighten down until it takes a lot of force to grab the last 1/8 of a turn. Don’t hit it with the German torque.
> 
> I’ve reinstalled my frame 3 times now (not due to issues with the frame; went from 12700k to 13900k, changed mobo when my ASUS board died, and last was after de-lid/re-lid of the 13900k)
> 
> I have had the exact same results every time. As with anything else, just take your time, be thorough, and don’t rush.


So its meant to be tight? Or is it meant to be just a bit past loose?


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> This is why I think my current instability is due to the motherboard, not the chip.
> 
> You don’t degrade by massive amounts in literal minutes. Or get errors by simply restarting and then needing several dozens of retraining attempts to get rid of them again.


The whole "reboot and now it's unstable" thing can be a sign of instability. I've seen it many times where you reboot, system becomes unstable, and then you usually have a terrible time trying to find stability again. Typically ends up being motherboard or IMC limitation. In your case, could just be the IMC is not completely happy; maybe a 0.005v boost to VDDQ TX. I had this issue with my 12700K w/ DDR4 - could not stabilize 3900 or higher as it would be stable one day, unstable the next, and then retraining until it was stable again would take forever. I was at the limits of the IMC, in that case.



bhav said:


> So its meant to be tight? Or is it meant to be just a bit past loose?


The Thermalright frame is meant to be tight, but not extremely cranked down to the point of almost shearing the screw-heads. I can't speak for the Thermal Grizzly frame as it was designed different. With the Thermalright frame, I tighten down equally in a pattern until they're "snug", and then I give them a 1/8th of a turn more after that. I could still tighten further if I really put some elbow into it, but that would be what I'd classify as "too tight."


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> The whole "reboot and now it's unstable" thing can be a sign of instability. I've seen it many times where you reboot, system becomes unstable, and then you usually have a terrible time trying to find stability again. Typically ends up being motherboard or IMC limitation. In your case, could just be the IMC is not completely happy; maybe a 0.005v boost to VDDQ TX. I had this issue with my 12700K w/ DDR4 - could not stabilize 3900 or higher as it would be stable one day, unstable the next, and then retraining until it was stable again would take forever. I was at the limits of the IMC, in that case.
> 
> 
> 
> The Thermalright frame is meant to be tight, but not extremely cranked down to the point of almost shearing the screw-heads. I can't speak for the Thermal Grizzly frame as it was designed different. With the Thermalright frame, I tighten down equally in a pattern until they're "snug", and then I give them a 1/8th of a turn more after that. I could still tighten further if I really put some elbow into it, but that would be what I'd classify as "too tight."


I needed a new BIOS and a jump from 1.52V VDDQ to 1.60V after a single restart (and a million attempts to reflash and retrain) just to finally get it to pass once without error. (And it was no longer stable after that.)

And now after playing around with the contact frame and waterblock tightness to try to correct it, the system keeps screaming for more Vcore with constant BSODs. Didn’t even run any stress tests because it would constantly error instantly before anything winded-up. Haven’t managed to correct it yet. 

Degradation doesn’t work like this. My board’s clearly screwed.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> I needed a new BIOS and a jump from 1.52V VDDQ to 1.60V after a single restart (and a million attempts to reflash and retrain) just to finally get it to pass once without error.
> 
> And now after playing around with the contact frame and waterblock tightness, the system keeps screaming for more Vcore with constant BSODs. Didn’t even run any stress tests because it would constantly error instantly before anything winded-up.
> 
> Degradation doesn’t work like this.


Easy way to test your theory is to put the stock ILM back on and see what happens.

I think your IMC just isn't stable. 1.60v VDDQ TX doesn't really make any sense. As far as I understand from Shamino, the FIVR TX rail doesn't go above 1.60v, so I don't think anything from 1.550v to 1.600v set does anything, as Shamino stated the stock loadline on the FIVR rail runs 0.050v higher than set.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Easy way to test your theory is to put the stock ILM back on and see what happens.
> 
> I think your IMC just isn't stable. 1.60v VDDQ TX doesn't really make any sense. As far as I understand from Shamino, the FIVR TX rail doesn't go above 1.60v, so I don't think anything from 1.550v to 1.600v set does anything, as Shamino stated the stock loadline on the FIVR rail runs 0.050v higher than set.


Already did. No change.

ASUS is different from MSI. ASUS boards don’t even let you boot above 1.50V VDDQ most of the time. And I think that was deliberately manufacturer limitation.

I’ve definitely noticed differences going up from 1.52V to 1.62V even. Just gradually increasing amounts of stability.

VDDQ is very likely to be the voltage used to power the memory slots, so it may degrade them. And ASUS’s second channel is hot garbage, so no amount of VDDQ can help compensate for four DIMM configurations.

When I tested out a second Z790 Edge, I couldn’t even boot 4,300 MHz. So there are definitely board-to-board differences. And I can stabilize 4,200 MHz on both Z790 boards with varying success, but not at all on my Z690 Edge, which does 4,200 MHz stable on my previous chips.


----------



## acoustic

Pushing the FIVR rail to the absolute max does seem like a scenario that could/would cause degradation. I'm not sure how it works with ASUS vs MSI, just relaying information Shamino gave me when Z690 first came out and many of us were trying to push DDR4 clocks. I should have bookmarked his reply so I could link to it. As far as I understand, VDDQ TX is the primary voltage feeding the IMC.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Pushing the FIVR rail to the absolute max does seem like a scenario that could/would cause degradation. I'm not sure how it works with ASUS vs MSI, just relaying information Shamino gave me when Z690 first came out and many of us were trying to push DDR4 clocks. I should have bookmarked his reply so I could link to it. As far as I understand, VDDQ TX is the primary voltage feeding the IMC.


That’s what is described on many motherboard BIOSes, but it seems to be different in practice. I’ve had different boards require different amounts for the exact same configuration and chip. Based on past experience.

Hence, I think it powers the slots or perhaps the traces leading to the IMC. And those can degrade if VDDQ is too high.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> That’s what is described on many motherboard BIOSes, but it seems to be different in practice. I’ve had different boards require different amounts for the exact same configuration and chip. Based on past experience.
> 
> Hence, I think it powers the slots or perhaps the traces leading to the IMC. And those can degrade if VDDQ is too high.


The IMC could require more/less voltage based on the signal integrity the motherboard/traces are capable of. More voltage from the IMC may be needed if it's not receiving as "clean" of a signal on an ASUS STRIX vs an MSI Edge, for example.

I think it's definitely powering the IMC, but as with anything else, other components can affect how much/how little voltage you need.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> The IMC could require more/less voltage based on the signal integrity the motherboard/traces are capable of. More voltage from the IMC may be needed if it's not receiving as "clean" of a signal on an ASUS STRIX vs an MSI Edge, for example.
> 
> I think it's definitely powering the IMC, but as with anything else, other components can affect how much/how little voltage you need.


Yes, that's may be it.

Just to share an example, my 13900K from BestBuy required around 1.59-1.60V VDDQ to run 4,200 MHz on my Z690 Edge, but as soon as I swapped to the Z790 Edge, all else held equal, I could drop it to around 1.57V VDDQ. That's not a significant drop, but it is one nonetheless.

But, I have also experienced cases where different chips on the same 4,200 MHz configuration required different amounts of VDDQ as well. Such as my first 13900KF, which gradually went from needing 1.59V to 1.62V.

So, if your theory is correct, it's possible that over time, these traces wear out and can no longer provide enough VDDQ for the IMC on the chip.

The only way for me to know for sure would be to bin more motherboards and/or CPUs in order to rule out variables. For now, I'm testing motherboards, since I already proved that board-to-board variance exists. I didn't mention about it here (only in the IMC thread), but this was what happened so far (exact same settings and voltages):



> Z790 Edge #1: 4,200 MHz stable. 4,300 MHz no longer stable (but used to be).
> Z690 Edge: 4,200 MHz not stable (but used to be, so no reason why it shouldn't be).
> Z790 Edge #2: 4,200 MHz stable (mostly). 4,300 MHz doesn't even boot.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> Yes, that's may be it.
> 
> Just to share an example, my 13900K from BestBuy required around 1.59-1.60V VDDQ to run 4,200 MHz on my Z690 Edge, but as soon as I swapped to the Z790 Edge, all else held equal, I could drop it to around 1.57V VDDQ. That's not a significant drop, but it is one nonetheless.
> 
> But, I have also experienced cases where different chips on the same 4,200 MHz configuration required different amounts of VDDQ as well. Such as my first 13900KF, which gradually went from needing 1.59V to 1.62V.
> 
> So, if your theory is correct, it's possible that over time, these traces wear out and can no longer provide enough VDDQ for the IMC on the chip.
> 
> The only way for me to know for sure would be to bin more motherboards and/or CPUs in order to rule out variables. For now, I'm testing motherboards, since I already proved that board-to-board variance exists. I didn't mention about it here (only in the IMC thread), but this was what happened so far (exact same settings and voltages):


I think it's possible you are inducing CPU IMC degradation, but I think it's more likely you were never *completely* stable in the first place. I'm not sure how long you used these settings for before they began showing errors, but when the IMC is struggling, it can be somewhat of a loose cannon in my experience. My 12700K was all over. You'd think you had found stability .. Karhu 20k pass, TM5 1usmus 30cycle, ABSOLUT 10cycle .. and then I'd get hit with a random CTD after a day or two, and suddenly no stress-test passes. Fresh retrain (though it would typically take multiple attempts) and it would work again. Reboot, even without a retrain event, and it would suddenly fail Karhu @ 30%.

It's very possible you're on the edge of IMC stability and the IMC is acting erratic. Again, this is behavior I seen from a 12700K with DDR4. The 12700K with DDR5 behaved the same way at 6800+, but that is leaning towards motherboard limitations now. Stronger IMC made it easier on the motherboard, since I assume signal integrity did not need to be "as clean" for stability. The same mobo that capped at 6600 with the 12700K with M-Die, now does 7000 stable with a 13900K and the same exact M-Die sticks.

IMC quality can help alleviate poor signal integrity, but it can only do so much, as far as I've seen.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> I think it's possible you are inducing CPU IMC degradation, but I think it's more likely you were never *completely* stable in the first place. I'm not sure how long you used these settings for before they began showing errors, but when the IMC is struggling, it can be somewhat of a loose cannon in my experience. My 12700K was all over. You'd think you had found stability .. Karhu 20k pass, TM5 1usmus 30cycle, ABSOLUT 10cycle .. and then I'd get hit with a random CTD after a day or two, and suddenly no stress-test passes. Fresh retrain (though it would typically take multiple attempts) and it would work again. Reboot, even without a retrain event, and it would suddenly fail Karhu @ 30%.
> 
> It's very possible you're on the edge of IMC stability and the IMC is acting erratic. Again, this is behavior I seen from a 12700K with DDR4. The 12700K with DDR5 behaved the same way at 6800+, but that is leaning towards motherboard limitations now. Stronger IMC made it easier on the motherboard, since I assume signal integrity did not need to be "as clean" for stability. The same mobo that capped at 6600 with the 12700K with M-Die, now does 7000 stable with a 13900K and the same exact M-Die sticks.
> 
> IMC quality can help alleviate poor signal integrity, but it can only do so much, as far as I've seen.


I ran 4,300 MHz at 1.26V VCCSA and 1.52V VDDQ for a good couple of hours in y-cruncher (as I was tweaking some other things). Those voltages as well as Vcore were all low, so no real risk of degradation. Always passed like a charm, no matter how many times I restarted (and I didn't enable Memory Fast Boot either). I ran my previous chips at 1.58V+ VDDQ for much longer periods of time, and they barely degraded, if at all. (TM5 always passes just fine though, so the RAM is not the issue.)

What triggered the current "destruction" was trying to reduce Vcore on this chip by -0.01V just to see if it could go lower. And since then nothing was ever the same. Could never retrain it anymore, regardless of how many times I reflashed or fiddled with Fast Boot. Did not physically touch the board at all during this time, and I've powered the PSU off several times to flush the RAM cleanly as well as giving the PC lengthy breaks.

Believe me, after personally going through so many chips myself, I know something is off when I see it. It just didn't help that the second Z790 Edge I got was some garbage B-stock (it couldn't even boot 4,300 MHz, let around test it). Swap to my first Z790 Edge or Z690 Edge, and it boots just fine.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> I ran 4,300 MHz at 1.26V VCCSA and 1.52V VDDQ for a good couple of hours non-stop in y-cruncher (as I was tweaking some other things). Those voltages as well as Vcore were all low, so no real risk of degradation. Always passed like a charm, no matter how many times I restarted (and I didn't enable Memory Fast Boot either). I ran my previous chips at 1.58V+ VDDQ for much longer periods of time, and they barely degraded, if at all.
> 
> What triggered its "destruction" was trying to reduce Vcore by -0.01V. And since then nothing was ever the same. TM5 always passes just fine though, so the RAM isn't the issue.
> 
> Believe me, after personally going through so many chips myself, I know something is off when I see it. It just didn't help that the second Z790 Edge I got was some garbage B-stock (it couldn't even boot 4,300 MHz, let around test it). Swap to my first Z790 Edge or Z690 Edge, and it boots just fine.


Have you tried messing with the training profile? Enable DIMM DFE Training, maybe try Optimized training mode rather than Auto..

Sounds like you snagged a lucky training on that first run. With MSI, it won't constantly re-train if you don't change any settings. I use "Slow Training" (even though some say it doesn't do anything special), and after the first training event, unless I alter a setting, it knows to not re-train despite it still being set to Slow Training.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Have you tried messing with the training profile? Enable DIMM DFE Training, maybe try Optimized training mode rather than Auto..
> 
> Sounds like you snagged a lucky training on that first run. With MSI, it won't constantly re-train if you don't change any settings. I use "Slow Training" (even though some say it doesn't do anything special), and after the first training event, unless I alter a setting, it knows to not re-train despite it still being set to Slow Training.


I did indeed try playing around with the training options in the memory training page. Didn't really gain any sort of ground with the vast majority of them. I'll give your particular options a try again later, once I get my third Z790 Edge tomorrow.

I've tested between all of the Memory Fast Boot options. There are indeed differences. From what I can tell, Auto defaults to Slow Training and then Enabled. Disabled is what forces the board to retrain each time. No Training just does JEDEC spec.


----------



## yzonker

acoustic said:


> Easy way to test your theory is to put the stock ILM back on and see what happens.
> 
> I think your IMC just isn't stable. 1.60v VDDQ TX doesn't really make any sense. As far as I understand from Shamino, the FIVR TX rail doesn't go above 1.60v, so I don't think anything from 1.550v to 1.600v set does anything, as Shamino stated the stock loadline on the FIVR rail runs 0.050v higher than set.


This is not true. For my 4200 tune, I have to run at least 1.56v VDDQ for stability. 1.55v is unstable. I've been running 1.58v just to give a little extra margin. 

So far still stable after 2-3 months. I did have that odd episode where I had been benchmarking at 4266, but when I switched back to 4200 it wasn't stable (even though no issues at 4266). Loading defaults and power cycling fixed it though. I've forced it to retrain a few more times since then with no issue. So not sure what happened there.


----------



## Ichirou

yzonker said:


> This is not true. For my 4200 tune, I have to run at least 1.56v VDDQ for stability. 1.55v is unstable. I've been running 1.58v just to give a little extra margin.
> 
> So far still stable after 2-3 months. I did have that odd episode where I had been benchmarking at 4266, but when I switched back to 4200 it wasn't stable (even though no issues at 4266). Loading defaults and power cycling fixed it though. I've forced it to retrain a few more times since then with no issue. So not sure what happened there.


Stability holes and training.
With my particular set of RAM, 4,266 MHz is never stable, but 4,200 MHz and 4,300 MHz is. And 4,400 MHz does not boot, while 4,533 MHz does.
And I've had to retrain certain configs multiple times for them to work properly.


----------



## yzonker

Ichirou said:


> Stability holes and training.
> With my particular set of RAM, 4,266 MHz is never stable, but 4,200 MHz and 4,300 MHz is. And 4,400 MHz does not boot, while 4,533 MHz does.
> And I've had to retrain certain configs multiple times for them to work properly.


No I don't have that. 4200 is 100% stable. 4266 will eventually error on Karhu even with looser timings and SA in the 1.35-1.4v range. It's just stable enough for benchmarking. So I daily 4200 and bench 4266. 4300 is wildly unstable even with suicide voltages.


----------



## Nizzen

Ichirou said:


> Already did. No change.
> 
> ASUS is different from MSI. ASUS boards don’t even let you boot above 1.50V VDDQ most of the time. And I think that was deliberately manufacturer limitation.
> 
> I’ve definitely noticed differences going up from 1.52V to 1.62V even. Just gradually increasing amounts of stability.
> 
> VDDQ is very likely to be the voltage used to power the memory slots, so it may degrade them. And ASUS’s second channel is hot garbage, so no amount of VDDQ can help compensate for four DIMM configurations.
> 
> When I tested out a second Z790 Edge, I couldn’t even boot 4,300 MHz. So there are definitely board-to-board differences. And I can stabilize 4,200 MHz on both Z790 boards with varying success, but not at all on my Z690 Edge, which does 4,200 MHz stable on my previous chips.


What? I've used 1.55-1.7 vddq on both apex z690 and apex z790. Mean something else than vdd/vddq?


----------



## Latchback

Nizzen said:


> What? I've used 1.55-1.7 vddq on both apex z690 and apex z790. Mean something else than vdd/vddq?


I think they are talking about memory controller voltages. One being VDDQ TX.


----------



## tps3443

Someone PMed me with another Supercool DD block if anyone is interested. I’ll happily pass along the information.


----------



## acoustic

yzonker said:


> This is not true. For my 4200 tune, I have to run at least 1.56v VDDQ for stability. 1.55v is unstable. I've been running 1.58v just to give a little extra margin.
> 
> So far still stable after 2-3 months. I did have that odd episode where I had been benchmarking at 4266, but when I switched back to 4200 it wasn't stable (even though no issues at 4266). Loading defaults and power cycling fixed it though. I've forced it to retrain a few more times since then with no issue. So not sure what happened there.


I dunno. Maybe @shamino1978 can provide more insight and I'm misremembering. Could also be the loadline was altered or can be altered by settings we input, so you're actually able to use higher set voltages since the loadline is lower, so you're not pushing beyond the (supposed) 1.60v max of the FIVR rail. I don't about running above 1.60v since Shamino said the FIVR rail is not capable of going above 1.60v

Things may have changed since release of Z690 - I am going off of memory from information given at Z690/12th gen release. Could be misremembering, or the info could have been superseded.


----------



## yzonker

acoustic said:


> I dunno. Maybe @shamino1978 can provide more insight and I'm mis-remembering. Could also be the loadline was altered or can be altered by settings we input, so you're actually able to use higher set voltages since the loadline is lower, so you're not pushing beyond the (supposed) 1.60v max of the FIVR rail. I don't about running above 1.60v since Shamino said the FIVR rail is not capable of going above 1.60v
> 
> Things may have changed since release of Z690 - I am going off of memory from information given at Z690/12th gen release. Could be misremembering, or the info could have been superseded.


I can't go above 1.6v. It's a very narrow range of stability.


----------



## yzonker

Latchback said:


> I think they are talking about memory controller voltages. One being VDDQ TX.


Yes VDDQ TX.


----------



## tps3443

Betroz said:


> Hense why I think most "Techtubers" only run at DDR5 6400. They probably realized long ago that most people simply won't take the time and effort to tune the RAM. Free performance is allways nice, but maybe we should aim for a sweetspot? For my Z490 setup, this sweetspot is DDR4 4133 15-17-17 (and the rest tweaked).
> 
> The more you guys talk about problems with the Contact frame, the more convinced I become of not buying one


You don’t need the contact frame, I’m using the stock ILM for my motherboard. Working very well.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> I dunno. Maybe @shamino1978 can provide more insight and I'm mis-remembering. Could also be the loadline was altered or can be altered by settings we input, so you're actually able to use higher set voltages since the loadline is lower, so you're not pushing beyond the (supposed) 1.60v max of the FIVR rail. I don't about running above 1.60v since Shamino said the FIVR rail is not capable of going above 1.60v
> 
> Things may have changed since release of Z690 - I am going off of memory from information given at Z690/12th gen release. Could be misremembering, or the info could have been superseded.


There are likely board-to-board differences, as the three boards I've tested so far "trip" and fail to boot at different VDDQ voltages at/above 1.60V.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> You don’t need the contact frame, I’m using the stock ILM for my motherboard. Working very well.


There are differences in achievable CPU and memory overclocks between the frame and ILM.
But you'll never really notice them since you use golden chips and don't overclock the memory, lol.

The playing field is _vastly different_ once you get into memory overclocking. But memory that doesn't really push the CPU to the max won't really be noticeable.


----------



## yzonker

I just did a quick test for VDDQ TX as I was wanting to verify it hadn't degraded any,

1.55v: Blue screen before getting to the desktop
1.56v: Passed yCruncher stress tests (FFT, N64, HNT, VST) And actually when VDDQ is too low FFT will always fail within a few seconds, assuming I make it to the desktop.
1.605v: Trains and passed FFT. Didn't run anything else.
1.61v: Does not train.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> There are differences in achievable CPU and memory overclocks between the frame and ILM.
> But you'll never really notice them since you use golden chips and don't overclock the memory, lol.
> 
> The playing field is _vastly different_ once you get into memory overclocking. But memory that doesn't really push the CPU to the max won't really be noticeable.


This was intended as a joke. I’m running supercool direct die, you kinda have no other option.


----------



## kunit13

tps3443 said:


> You don’t need the contact frame, I’m using the stock ILM for my motherboard. Working very well.



For TPS your direct die, so I assume that your application is little different that ours? When the stock fixture attaches yours there isn't any bend or warping of the direct die block. 

I have the TG frame. Its a pain, I think its because it just "floats" on the IHS with no hard stop on mobo. Looking at Acoustics method it seems like the Thermalright actual might have some contact with the mobo (foam). 

I might order a thermalright just to test the difference. 

With the Tgrizzly frame just floating on top of the IHS I think that's why Waterblock/cooler pressure is so critical (at least on my setup).


----------



## kunit13

Ichirou said:


> There are differences in achievable CPU and memory overclocks between the frame and ILM.
> But you'll never really notice them since you use golden chips and don't overclock the memory, lol.
> 
> The playing field is _vastly different_ once you get into memory overclocking. But memory that doesn't really push the CPU to the max won't really be noticeable.


What frame do you use?

I want repeatability in mounting. Currently for me its BRO science.


----------



## Ichirou

kunit13 said:


> What frame do you use?


Thermalright. Why pay $$$ for some frame that likely copied Thermalright's?

And yes, the Thermalright frame does have some foam on the bottom, so you can't bottom out with them.


----------



## kunit13

Ichirou said:


> Thermalright. Why pay $$$ for some frame that likely copied Thermalright's?
> 
> And yes, the Thermalright frame does have some foam on the bottom, so you can't bottom out with them.


I paid more because I thought he Debaur invented it. I hate cheap knockoffs of original inventors so I don't mind paying the extra money. BUT if thermalrights is functional better, I will buy it.


----------



## acoustic

I think the Thermalright frame is better designed since it has a physical "stop" to it, as in it's not floating and actually makes contact. I never tried the Grizzly frame. Thermalright had their frame out to market first and I think it works very well, plus they're a reputable company who have been around a long time. I still remember running the TRUE120 for years and years.

Also wasn't a huge fan of Grizzly's pricing. It's not exactly an expensive product to make, despite what Derbauer tried to make it sound like with the "precision CNC'ing".. Thermalright is like $10 or something off Aliexpress.


----------



## Nizzen

acoustic said:


> I think the Thermalright frame is better designed since it has a physical "stop" to it, as in it's not floating and actually makes contact. I never tried the Grizzly frame. Thermalright had their frame out to market first and I think it works very well, plus they're a reputable company who have been around a long time. I still remember running the TRUE120 for years and years.


I'm using the Grizzly frame and used on 12900k and 13900k with great result. Was the only I could find in Europe. I bought it a few weeks after release.


----------



## kunit13

acoustic said:


> I think the Thermalright frame is better designed since it has a physical "stop" to it, as in it's not floating and actually makes contact. I never tried the Grizzly frame. Thermalright had their frame out to market first and I think it works very well, plus they're a reputable company who have been around a long time. I still remember running the TRUE120 for years and years.


I was reading your last response about the frame. Got me thinking (LOL). I like the idea of the hardstop. Might be more repeatable in mounts.


----------



## acoustic

Nizzen said:


> I'm using the Grizzly frame and used on 12900k and 13900k with great result. Was the only I could find in Europe. I bought it a few weeks after release.


Yeah I’d imagine it was more quickly available in EU since Grizzly/Derbauer are based in Germany.

I’m not knocking the TG frame at all; just sharing that the Thermalright frame is a really good product and I’ve had repeated remounts with no issue.


----------



## tps3443

kunit13 said:


> For TPS your direct die, so I assume that your application is little different that ours? When the stock fixture attaches yours there isn't any bend or warping of the direct die block.
> 
> I have the TG frame. Its a pain, I think its because it just "floats" on the IHS with no hard stop on mobo. Looking at Acoustics method it seems like the Thermalright actual might have some contact with the mobo (foam).
> 
> I might order a thermalright just to test the difference.
> 
> With the Tgrizzly frame just floating on top of the IHS I think that's why Waterblock/cooler pressure is so critical (at least on my setup).


Yes, I was just kidding. I’m running super cool direct die. But, I do know of the weird inconsistencies with a contact frame. I have tested (5) 13900K’s on my Unify-X all using the same contact frame. And I saw some weird stuff a long the way with numerous re-mounts between all of the 13900K’s. So far the direct die has been reliable by using the stock ILM though. I had reliability with the contact frame as well, but I think I was snuggling it too much at times because I would see the weird anomalies.


----------



## kunit13

Btw did you ever get those Bench numbers? Id love to see if a superchip makes a difference. I can send you some info on windows and config optimizations if that's your current bottleneck.


----------



## Rena Ryugu

13900KF P Core 5.86GHz, E Core 4.75GHz, LLC L6 1.49V


----------



## tps3443

kunit13 said:


> Btw did you ever get those Bench numbers? Id love to see if a superchip makes a difference. I can send you some info on windows and config optimizations if that's your current bottleneck.


No, I never ran the COD benchmark. I’ve been gaming like crazy through these whole 4 days off I have had, and trying to enjoy this CPU as much as I can.


Rena Ryugu said:


> 13900KF P Core 5.86GHz, E Core 4.75GHz, LLC L6 1.49V
> View attachment 2591904


Thats a lot of extra juice for just 5.85Ghz. I’d say definitely not worth it at all. Unless of course maybe you’re tuning out high single threaded boost as well.

Which motherboard are you running?


----------



## Rena Ryugu

tps3443 said:


> No, I never ran the COD benchmark. I’ve been gaming like crazy through these whole 4 days off I have had, and trying to enjoy this CPU as much as I can.
> 
> 
> Thats a lot of extra juice for just 5.85Ghz. I’d say definitely not worth it at all. Unless of course maybe you’re tuning out high single threaded boost as well.
> 
> Which motherboard are you running?


Z790 Apex. The CPU Vcore drops to ~1.35V when it's heavily loaded, so it's fine.


----------



## gecko991

A quick run at 5700P 4500E ram at 6800.


----------



## tps3443

Rena Ryugu said:


> Z790 Apex. The CPU Vcore drops to ~1.35V when it's heavily loaded, so it's fine.


Right, so if that’s the case. You can send some single cores to higher speeds I imagine. May as well use that 1.450V to its fullest.

This would be the main benefit to sending lots of voltage with lots of vdroop under heavy loads. Or at least obtaining the maximum of the chip.


----------



## Ichirou

kunit13 said:


> I paid more because I thought he Debaur invented it. I hate cheap knockoffs of original inventors so I don't mind paying the extra money. BUT if thermalrights is functional better, I will buy it.


The Thermalright frame actually came first. der8auer and Thermal Grizzly's just making bank off of theirs because it's an easy way to abuse branding for marketing.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> The Thermalright frame actually came first. der8auer and Thermal Grizzly's just making bank off of theirs because it's an easy way to abuse branding for marketing.


I think motherboard manufacturers should include a torque key for the ILM/socket hex screws. And this tool clicks once proper torque has been reached. It could be a super simple spring function click. Now that people are commonly removing and replacing latching mechanisms from their motherboards. If the motherboard companies don’t make this, then maybe at least one of these other companies that produces the frames could make one and sell it.

I have never had much of an issue my self with reinstalling the motherboard ILM, or contact frames. But I do know that motherboard ILM screws from the factory are super loose. So it makes me 2nd guess my self when I reinstall one, and I make the screws snug.


----------



## Madness11

Thermalright frame really can get 20c difference?? Or it's not true


----------



## Dinnzy

energie80 said:


> Pcores 6ghz 8 ecores 4.6 ring 51 ram 7600 c34


What’s your voltage at load when you boot MW2? I’ve had 5 13900ks and I can’t get one 2 boot 6.0 all core, I’ve gotten 5.9 to load with like 1.4 v core but it’s not stable, maybe the trick is turning off some of the e cores (less heat)


----------



## satinghostrider

tps3443 said:


> I think motherboard manufacturers should include a torque key for the ILM/socket hex screws. And this tool clicks once proper torque has been reached. It could be a super simple spring function click. Now that people are commonly removing and replacing latching mechanisms from their motherboards. If the motherboard companies don’t make this, then maybe at least one of these other companies that produces the frames could make one and sell it.
> 
> I have never had much of an issue my self with reinstalling the motherboard ILM, or contact frames. But I do know that motherboard ILM screws from the factory are super loose. So it makes me 2nd guess my self when I reinstall one, and I make the screws snug.


Just curious how tight do you torque the stock ILM screws if they are loose? Just afraid of going tight is a problem. TIA!


----------



## tps3443

Dinnzy said:


> What’s your voltage at load when you boot MW2? I’ve had 5 13900ks and I can’t get one 2 boot 6.0 all core, I’ve gotten 5.9 to load with like 1.4 v core but it’s not stable, maybe the trick is turning off some of the e cores (less heat)


All you can do is try disabling those items and see if it helps you. I never bothered with it my self though. If a chip can’t do it, then just run it at what it can. Or better yet run it stock with less voltage. 

In the end It’s all about the quality of the CPU. I have a 13900K that won’t boot 6.0Ghz all cores either, and it boots just 5.8Ghz with some through the roof auto voltage. But, my current 13900K boots and runs 6.0Ghz just fine with a respectable auto voltage of 1.344


----------



## Nizzen

Madness11 said:


> Thermalright frame really can get 20c difference?? Or it's not true


2-3c maybe


----------



## matique

matique`s y-cruncher - Pi-1b score: 16sec 196ms with a Core i9 13900KF


The Core i9 13900KF @ 5800MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the y-cruncher - Pi-1b benchmark. matiqueranks #12 worldwide and #4 in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




hwbot.org












matique`s y-cruncher - Pi-2.5b score: 46sec 123ms with a Core i9 13900KF


The Core i9 13900KF @ 5800MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the y-cruncher - Pi-2.5b benchmark. matiqueranks #7 worldwide and #2 in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




hwbot.org





Nothing too wild. Fibreglass ILM, stock ihs, optimus sig v2, cooled with a Mora 420.


----------



## HemuV2

tps3443 said:


> All you can do is try disabling those items and see if it helps you. I never bothered with it my self though. If a chip can’t do it, then just run it at what it can. Or better yet run it stock with less voltage.
> 
> In the end It’s all about the quality of the CPU. I have a 13900K that won’t boot 6.0Ghz all cores either, and it boots just 5.8Ghz with some through the roof auto voltage. But, my current 13900K boots and runs 6.0Ghz just fine with a respectable auto voltage of 1.344


Wait I thought they all boot 6ghz, how much voltage does that worse sample need to run 5.7-5.8?


----------



## energie80

Dinnzy said:


> What’s your voltage at load when you boot MW2? I’ve had 5 13900ks and I can’t get one 2 boot 6.0 all core, I’ve gotten 5.9 to load with like 1.4 v core but it’s not stable, maybe the trick is turning off some of the e cores (less heat)


Using 1.46 vcore llc6 for 6ghz.


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> Wait I thought they all boot 6ghz, how much voltage does that worse sample need to run 5.7-5.8?


No, 13900K/KF can all run single core boost at 6Ghz. Meaning (2) cores at 6Ghz. But with all E-Cores enabled, and HT enabled, while all cores running reliably at 6Ghz is a whole other ball game. 

The worse sample is like 1.340V for 5.7Ghz in bios. 5.8 was never really stable on that chip. (not the best)


----------



## Madness11

Guys ,for P cores (118) what a good voltage for 5.7?? And LLC


----------



## RichKnecht

Madness11 said:


> Thermalright frame really can get 20c difference?? Or it's not true


Not true.


----------



## HemuV2

Madness11 said:


> Guys ,for P cores (118) what a good voltage for 5.7?? And LLC





Madness11 said:


> Guys ,for P cores (118) what a good voltage for 5.7?? And LLC


itll prolly need 1.34V llc3


----------



## Madness11

HemuV2 said:


> itll prolly need 1.34V llc3


For Asus board llc3?


----------



## RichKnecht

Madness11 said:


> For Asus board llc3?


For Asus, I'd use LLC4


----------



## Madness11

RichKnecht said:


> For Asus, I'd use LLC4


1.34 llc4 and all cores 5.7?? What custom you got ?)


----------



## bhav

Intel processor binning explained.

Interesting part - 'usually no less than 10% of all parts in a time period become an I9 K'.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Intel processor binning explained.
> 
> Interesting part - 'usually no less than 10% of all parts in a time period become an I9 K'.


the man said it him self, you can have 13900K SKU’s that can outperform the 13900KS SKU’s.


----------



## tubs2x4

bhav said:


> So its meant to be tight? Or is it meant to





tps3443 said:


> the man said it him self, you can have 13900K SKU’s that can outperform the 13900KS SKU’s.


but you are guaranteed a certain quality/spec with KS.
Edit: this appeal to many people just want the current best out of box without having to overclock manually and test stability.


----------



## Ichirou

tubs2x4 said:


> but you are guaranteed a certain quality/spec with KS.
> Edit: this appeal to many people just want the current best out of box without having to overclock manually and test stability.


Yeah… A P-SP of 110+, lol


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> the man said it him self, you can have 13900K SKU’s that can outperform the 13900KS SKU’s.


13700K even, when filling orders for 13700K / 13600K, they have to often gimp a fully working 13900K as people here already told me. Which I get, but for the most part 13600K / 13700K are non 10% chips that couldn't do 13900K spec.

So with chips below 13900K, there is a much larger variance in what you will get. With 13900K / 13900KS, you are guaranteed that spec as a minimum.


----------



## tubs2x4

Ichirou said:


> Yeah… A P-SP of 110+, lol


But last model ks sp didn’t correlate with k/kf sp. seemed better quality but I guess have to wait and see rumored jan12 to pick one up.


----------



## Betroz

@Nizzen with your 13900K/4090 setup, what is your CPU usage during BF2042 gameplay? Is the 13900K fast enough to feed the 4090, or do CPU usage drop down often?
Done some more experimentation of memory sweetspot for this game? Like 7200 super tight timings vs 8400 looser timings?


----------



## Ichirou

tubs2x4 said:


> But last model ks sp didn’t correlate with k/kf sp. seemed better quality but I guess have to wait and see rumored jan12 to pick one up.


That's just what Intel wants you to do, lol. Buy an even more expensive 13900K that's really just a slightly above average chip set to a higher boost with more Vcore pumped into the chip. 

Practically any P-SP 110+ can do 60x on a single core. Just up the Vcore.


----------



## Betroz

bhav said:


> So with chips below 13900K, there is a much larger variance in what you will get. With 13900K / 13900KS, you are guaranteed that spec as a minimum.


And we pay a lot more money for that extra 200 Mhz core speed. Actually about 1 dollar per Mhz more or not far off.


----------



## tubs2x4

Ichirou said:


> That's just what Intel wants you to do, lol. Buy an even more expensive 13900K that's really just a slightly above average chip set to a higher boost with more Vcore pumped into the chip.
> 
> Practically any P-SP 110+ can do 60x on a single core. Just up the Vcore.


How much did you pay for your binned chip?


----------



## tps3443

Betroz said:


> And we pay a lot more money for that extra 200 Mhz core speed. Actually about 1 dollar per Mhz more or not far off.


Its only 100Mhz extra core speed. 13900KS is a 5.6Ghz CPU and that’s it.


----------



## Ichirou

tubs2x4 said:


> How much did you pay for your binned chip?


The P-SP 121? Around $1,100 USD. And the previous P-SP 123 I got scammed with before I returned it was about the same price. 

Street prices may or may not come down once the KS is introduced. But considering how these KSes are cheaply binned, I anticipate the value of golden bins remaining decently high. 

This post will probably affect street prices now, though.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> The P-SP 121? Around $1,100 USD. And the previous P-SP 123 I got scammed with before I returned it was about the same price.
> 
> Street prices may or may not come down once the KS is introduced. But considering how these KSes are cheaply binned, I anticipate the value of golden bins remaining decently high.
> 
> This post will probably affect street prices now, though.


And how much money wasted on top for any CPUs you had to resale, or say you lived in the US and had to resell each one yourself and couldn't use free returns to bin?

Getting 1 13900KS is still cheaper for normal people than all the money you spend on binning,


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> And how much money wasted on top for any CPUs you had to resale, or say you lived in the US and had to resell each one yourself and couldn't use free returns to bin?
> 
> Getting 1 13900KS is still cheaper for normal people than all the money you spend on binning,


If they end up with a generic above average chip, it's still going to warrant binning for anything better. 

My goal wasn't a single core at 60x. It's apples and oranges. Otherwise I would've just stuck with my BestBuy 13900K.


----------



## tubs2x4

Ichirou said:


> The P-SP 121? Around $1,100 USD.
> 
> Street prices may or may not come down once the KS is introduced. But considering how these KSes are cheaply binned, I anticipate the value of golden bins remaining decently high.
> 
> This post will probably affect street prices now, though.


$1500 cad… that’s a pricy chip. So what is your current p/e/cache speeds at what vcore full load voltage?


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> If they end up with a generic above average chip, it's still going to warrant binning for anything better.
> 
> My goal wasn't a single core at 60x. It's different.


Again, the point is for 'normal' people, they buy one chip and keep it, good or bad. If they want the guaranteed speeds, they will buy 13900KS. If they don't they will buy less.

The only thing you can't guarantee is the IMC, I got lucky with first chip 4300G1, thats all I care about.

Only one core on my chip will do 5.7 HT on / 5.8 HT off, so thats my max single core perf for now.

Now if I definitely wanted single core 5.8, or single core 6.0 for whatever reason, to get that guaranteed on the first chip, I would need to spec a 13900K or 13900KS.

When 13900K first announced, what I wanted was 5.8-6.0 all core. As it turns out thats near impossible to get and equally impossible to cool with an AIO, so I'm not bothered with it now.


----------



## RichKnecht

tubs2x4 said:


> but you are guaranteed a certain quality/spec with KS.
> Edit: this appeal to many people just want the current best out of box without having to overclock manually and test stability.


It's still going to be a toasty chip.


----------



## Ichirou

tubs2x4 said:


> $1500 cad… that’s a pricy chip. So what is your current p/e/cache speeds at what vcore full load voltage?


Can't tell you right now as I'm having motherboard difficulties. Things went unstable even at stock multipliers after a restart one day and never stabilized since. 

Also, that question depends on what workload you're referring to. R23? Or what?


----------



## tubs2x4

RichKnecht said:


> It's still going to be a toasty chip.


Yea likely. I have an af420 so hope it works ok haha.


----------



## tubs2x4

Ichirou said:


> Can't tell you right now as I'm having motherboard difficulties. Things went unstable even at stock multipliers after a restart one day and never stabilized since.
> 
> Also, that question depends on what workload you're referring to. R23? Or what?


Ok. cb23 or maybe a quick ycruncher 2.5b bench. I assume your running at least 6.0 all core full load with p-sp121?


----------



## digitalfrost

New Intel ME Firmware: [FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)


----------



## Ichirou

tubs2x4 said:


> Ok. cb23 or maybe a quick ycruncher 2.5b bench. I assume your running at least 6.0 all core full load with p-sp121?


I haven't even bothered with 56x all-core yet because of my motherboard being too dead to run anything stable.


----------



## tubs2x4

Ichirou said:


> I haven't even bothered with 56x all-core yet because of my motherboard being too dead to run anything stable.


oh that sucks.


----------



## Ichirou

tubs2x4 said:


> oh that sucks.


Been forced to bin motherboards, and so far with varying (but largely negative) results.

The second Z790 Edge I bought couldn't even boot with 4,300 MHz Gear 1, let alone test it. At least this broken board can boot it just fine.
The Z690 Edge boots it just fine too. But it can't even run 4,200 MHz stable (even though it used to be able to).

There's a lot of board-to-board variance, and there seems to be some sort of memory slot/trace degradation involved, most likely related to VDDQ.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Been forced to bin motherboards, and so far with varying (but largely negative) results.
> 
> The second Z790 Edge I bought couldn't even boot with 4,300 MHz Gear 1, let alone test it. At least this broken board can boot it just fine.
> The Z690 Edge boots it just fine too. But it can't even run 4,200 MHz stable (even though it used to be able to).
> 
> There's a lot of board-to-board variance, and there seems to be some sort of memory slot/trace degradation involved, most likely related to VDDQ.


You really need to test 2 sticks at a time, you know that!

The variance is likely on the second channel not the first, as you know the second channel is crap on all boards.

Even if you find another board that will do 4 sticks 4300CL14, my guess again it won't last long!


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> You really need to test 2 sticks at a time, you know that!
> 
> The variance is likely on the second channel not the first, as you know the second channel is crap on all boards.
> 
> Even if you find another board that will do 4 sticks 4300CL14, my guess again it won't last long!


Yeah, once I can get 4,300 MHz running again, I'm pulling back to 4,200 MHz for the long-term. Don't want to take my chances with the Devil anymore.


----------



## Wolverine2349

There was some mention that BestBuy seems to have betetr binned chips. Is that for the P cores overall or e-cores. Cause I only care about the P-cores.

The currnet 13900K I got had an SP of 104, but the e-core SP jumped to 85 and P core jumped from 107 to 108. Ouch. The binning was hardly any better for the cores I actually care about.


----------



## RichKnecht

digitalfrost said:


> New Intel ME Firmware: [FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)


Do you think there are any improvements? Is this for Asus or MSI, or either one?


----------



## bhav

Wolverine2349 said:


> There was some mention that BestBuy seems to have betetr binned chips. Is that for the P cores overall or e-cores. Cause I only care about the P-cores.
> 
> The currnet 13900K I got had an SP of 104, but the e-core SP jumped to 85 and P core jumped from 107 to 108. Ouch. The binning was hardly any better for the cores I actually care about.


Unless you are using a custom loop, the SP doesn't really matter at all. 

Also you use a noctua cooler right? Even if you got an SP 9000 chip, you wouldn't be able to do anything with it on air cooler.


----------



## Wolverine2349

bhav said:


> Unless you are using a custom loop, the SP doesn't really matter at all.
> 
> Also you use a noctua cooler right? Even if you got an SP 9000 chip, you wouldn't be able to do anything with it on air cooler.



So SP score does not matter unless your cooling is super excellent? I can successfully do all 8 cores at 5.6GHz, 5GHz ring with e-cores disabled with 1.325VORE LLC6 on NH-D15S with 2 140mm fans on it at 1080 RPM. Load temps low 90s Cinebench R23. Mid 80s CPU-Z stress test.

Would I be able to improve thermals much at same speed on NH-D15S with a better P core SP score? Or possibly go up to to 5.7 or 5.8GHz all P core with same thermals?


----------



## bhav

Wolverine2349 said:


> Would I be able to improve thermals much at same speed on NH-D15S with a better P core SP score? Or possibly go up to to 5.7 or 5.8GHz all P core with same thermals?


No.

Upgrade cooling / case instead. Even a 420mm Arctic AIO can barely OC these chips.


----------



## RackarN

Dumb question, this ME firmware, what does it even do? mine says error 20: Cannot locate ME device


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> Unless you are using a custom loop, the SP doesn't really matter at all.
> 
> Also you use a noctua cooler right? Even if you got an SP 9000 chip, you wouldn't be able to do anything with it on air cooler.


This is completely wrong.
P-Score SP matters HEAVILY, and with just a 360mm AIO, Quazarzone tested this on livestream.
A SP 109 chip was able to loop cinebench R23 at 5.7 ghz at 1.17v load, 3 times before it failed.
A SP 94 chip CRASHED AT 1.28v load (die sense, not even making it past one run),
They had to use 1.30v _load voltage_ and it "passed and throttled" as it was 100C during the run.

That's over *_100mv_ of voltage lost on this.
Keep in mind they did NOT show the individual P and E core SP's unfortunately but it's highly likely their SP 109 chip had a higher P core SP than 113.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> No.
> 
> Upgrade cooling / case instead. Even a 420mm Arctic AIO can barely OC these chips.


Good chip on lesser cooling is very nice. You can drastically reduce the power/voltage and bend the chip to do what you want it to do.

I’d rather have a high bin chip cooled by a smooth rock, VS a crap chip under good cooling.

Or a high bin with high end cooling lol.


----------



## Merkor

RackarN said:


> Dumb question, this ME firmware, what does it even do? mine says error 20: Cannot locate ME device


You have to install the Intel ME driver first:

[DRIVERS] Intel Chipset/MEI/SATA/VMD (1xx/2xx/3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx/7xx) | Windows 11 Forum (elevenforum.com)


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> This is completely wrong.
> P-Score SP matters HEAVILY, and with just a 360mm AIO, Quazarzone tested this on livestream.
> A SP 109 chip was able to loop cinebench R23 at 5.7 ghz at 1.17v load, 3 times before it failed.
> A SP 94 chip CRASHED AT 1.28v load (die sense, not even making it past one run),
> They had to use 1.30v _load voltage_ and it "passed and throttled" as it was 100C during the run.
> 
> That's over *_100mv_ of voltage lost on this.
> Keep in mind they did NOT show the individual P and E core SP's unfortunately but it's highly likely their SP 109 chip had a higher P core SP than 113.


Well both those settings were unstable.

No one is getting 5.8 all core stable on a noctua or any other air cooler.

You can't even run 1.35v on these chips on an Arctic 420mm AIO without hitting TJmax, so whats the point binning them without a custom loop?


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> Good chip on lesser cooling is very nice. You can drastically reduce the power/voltage and bend the chip to do what you want it to do.
> 
> I’d rather have a high bin chip cooled by a smooth rock, VS a crap chip under good cooling.
> 
> Or a high bin with high end cooling lol.


For air cooling / AIO, I'd rather say get a 13900KS rather than wasting time and money binning 13900Ks for one that might do 100-200 Mhz higher.


----------



## Betroz

bhav said:


> For air cooling / AIO, I'd rather say get a 13900KS rather than wasting time and money binning 13900Ks for one that might do 100-200 Mhz higher.


Wouldn't a 13700K be a better choice since it got only 8 E-Cores and therefore does not make as much heat?


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> Wouldn't a 13700K be a better choice since it got only 8 E-Cores and therefore does not make as much heat?


Well maybe, but I specifically meant for the guy thats asking about getting a higher bin 13900K, at that point just get the KS if you want better.


----------



## RackarN

Merkor said:


> You have to install the Intel ME driver first:
> 
> [DRIVERS] Intel Chipset/MEI/SATA/VMD (1xx/2xx/3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx/7xx) | Windows 11 Forum (elevenforum.com)


Thanks mate!


----------



## RackarN

My 3rd delid of a 13700k, same issue as i had (2nd one looked the same). The solder is so thick on one side, it makes contact and leaves pressure marks on the CPU's PCB. "Within specs" "working as intended" "we didn't get reports of this" Intel have said about all 3 processors 🤷🏼‍♂️

Been sanding copper so... Sorry about the dirty hands for u fetish people lol


----------



## HemuV2

Madness11 said:


> 1.34 llc4 and all cores 5.7?? What custom you got ?)


custom? i meant any llc thats like 3 steps away from 0 droop


----------



## Wolverine2349

Betroz said:


> Wouldn't a 13700K be a better choice since it got only 8 E-Cores and therefore does not make as much heat?



All the same cores are still on the die, the 13700K just has them disabled as well as 4MB of its L3 cache shut off.

13900K disable e-cores and you get that extra L3 cache.


----------



## RichKnecht

RackarN said:


> View attachment 2592021
> 
> 
> My 3rd delid of a 13700k, same issue as i had (2nd one looked the same). The solder is so thick on one side, it makes contact and leaves pressure marks on the CPU's PCB. "Within specs" "working as intended" "we didn't get reports of this" Intel have said about all 3 processors 🤷🏼‍♂️
> 
> Been sanding copper so... Sorry about the dirty hands for u fetish people lol


Maybe a silly question, but wouldn’t the solder “self level” during CPU heating with the block tightened down during normal usage? Every time I see a delidded chip, it has a “ ridge” of solder along one side. This would seem to be caused by the delidding process itself. If not, I wonder if one could mount a chip in the clamp that holds the IHS down and then heat it in an oven then apply a little more force on the clamp to flatten the solder under the IHS. Does this make any sense at all?


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Ichirou said:


> That's just what Intel wants you to do, lol. Buy an even more expensive 13900K that's really just a slightly above average chip set to a higher boost with more Vcore pumped into the chip.
> 
> Practically any P-SP 110+ can do 60x on a single core. Just up the Vcore.


My P SP 117 when I tell the asus AI to overlock it for me, does 6.2GHz.


digitalfrost said:


> New Intel ME Firmware: [FIRMWARE] Intel ME (H610/B660/H670/Z690/B760/H770/Z790)


Any improvement notes?


----------



## RichKnecht

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> My P SP 117 when I tell the asus AI to overlock it for me, does 6.2GHz.
> 
> 
> Any improvement notes?


I updated both and haven’t seen any obvious differences.


----------



## Edge0fsanity

SP97/P104/E85 chip, should I exchange this and hope for a better one? Chip throws WHEA pcie bus errors randomly and always after waking from sleep at stock settings. Eliminated this with by putting a stable OC on it so I feel justified in returning it as defective. Still within the return window from amazon. Downside is my loop is an absolute pain to drain and pull the cpu from and is an entire weekend of work.


----------



## bhav

Edge0fsanity said:


> SP97/P104/E85 chip, should I exchange this and hope for a better one? Chip throws WHEA pcie bus errors randomly and always after waking from sleep at stock settings. Eliminated this with by putting a stable OC on it so I feel justified in returning it as defective. Still within the return window from amazon. Downside is my loop is an absolute pain to drain and pull the cpu from and is an entire weekend of work.


If it has errors at stock it is exchangeable for the whole warranty period, not just the initial return window, but given that its a low SP and the replacement would be free then why not?


----------



## Edge0fsanity

bhav said:


> If it has errors at stock it is exchangeable for the whole warranty period, not just the initial return window, but given that its a low SP and the replacement would be free then why not?


My concern is potentially getting an even lower bin, my luck with silicon lottery over the years has not been great. Probably should just go through with it, the IMC is trash on this chip too.


----------



## Wilco183

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> My P SP 117 when I tell the asus AI to overlock it for me, does 6.2GHz.
> 
> 
> Any improvement notes?


Asus has a voice command mode in the bios now?


----------



## RichKnecht

Wilco183 said:


> Asus has a voice command mode in the bios now?


Yep. It’s compatible with Google assistant and Amazon Alexa. 🙃


----------



## munk33

preliminary results:

13900KF
arctic freezer 240mm
thermalright contact frame
MSI Z790 Tomahawk DDR4
e-cores off
HT off
5.9GHz all p-cores
5.1GHz ring
1.34 vcore
1.425 VDDQ
1.375 SA
4300mhz G1 15-20-20-19-36 ballistix max 4000, 2*16GB

rock solid in various gaming loads, geekbench, and AIDA stress test. not sure about cinebench and ycruncher etc but those are not relevant to my personal use case.

6.0GHz was not achievable even at 1.425 vcore.

pretty happy overall! might be able to push ring and/or memory a little farther.


----------



## Wilco183

RichKnecht said:


> Yep. It’s compatible with Google assistant and Amazon Alexa. 🙃


Does it say "Rog that" before complying?


----------



## affxct

Uhm ok @Ichirou @acoustic @yzonker

I don’t want to jump into this like a know it all, but from what I understand, the DDR rail with D4 is what hits the CPU PHY pins in the socket, and VDD2 for D5 is what carries that same signal across the PCB while memory VDD/VDDQ are totally separate voltages that the CPU never actually interacts with. SA powers the uncore portion of ADL/RPL and TX VDDQ is effectively the IMC voltage of the CPU. ASRock labels VDD2 ‘VDD_CPU’ and labels TX ‘VDD_IMC’ as in the VDD rail that hits the CPU and the VDD rail that encompasses the IMC.

Basically there’s no way the DIMM slots would ever degrade for any reason because of 1.6V (hypothetically) because 1.6V DDR4 setups have been a thing for a while and many Dark owners daily 1.5-1.6V VDD2. I have for months and haven’t noticed any sort of issues (not that there should be). Unfortunately, if you run TX past 1.45 in stuff like y-cruncher you’re probably going to degrade it.

In my early days with ASUS Z690, I owned Samsung D5 that never required TX higher than say 1.45 simply because I couldn’t stabilise any Samsung OC that’d require memory VDD 1.5 (rail matching bug in early BIOSs), and by the time I got an Apex they had patched the bug and more than 1.45 TX didn’t really seem to help, but again I couldn’t stabilise anything that’d need high TX. The highest I ran TX was 1.5 for maybe a month of ownership with the Strix Z690-F for the second time I owned it.

I ran quite a decent bit of Linpack so I’m not sure if that IMC degraded slightly. Thankfully it didn’t seem to be the case as I took that chip with me when I moved to the Dark, and the IMC seemed strong enough to daily 7000C34 at 1.4 TX. Which is where I learnt that above 1.4 should never really be a thing because it’s already plenty. I’m currently at 1.3 for 7600, and I’m pretty sure many people are at 1.3 for 8000+. Raptor Lake seems to require less TX overall for higher data rates, but that boils down to the fact that most Alder Lake chips weren’t amazing samples when it comes to IMC (also reflected in some data taken from MC SP for 12th Gen chips on the ROG Z690 thread).

This rail was a bit of a nightmare because early Strix Z690 behaviour would’ve had you believing you required high values, but it turns out you should keep the rail below 1.5 and even 1.5 is sus if you don’t have resilient (I guess) silicon.

To put in perspective, at 1.55 VDD/VDDQ/VDD2 I’m at 1.3 TX with 1.02 MC PLL and stability only worsens with more TX and more MC PLL. The rail should theoretically have no linkages to the memory voltages or the slots themselves (I guess). It didn’t seem that way from early ASUS Z690, but the Dark paints a pretty clear picture. Seemingly the Z790 Apex as well because I saw someone doing 7400 with like 1.2 TX.

If raising TX above 1.5 is actually helping then I really don’t know. My 12900K could handle no more than 1.4 on my Dark, and my 13700K trains worse with more than 1.3. This could all be board dependent because my Z690-F did fine with the 12900K at 1.5 TX, but my best guess is that your IMC is degrading during y-cruncher at 1.6. You run an insane D4 config so it might be that you need an unsafe amount of TX to stabilise it? If that makes sense I guess. It’s similar to why we don’t daily more than 1.35 SA, but TX does seem to be a bit more resilient because I guess it just doesn’t draw a lot of current.

QXE mentioned something about that as well after some other tech journalist issued a warning regarding the Z790i Edge’s auto 1.6 TX on Twitter.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

affxct said:


> Uhm ok @Ichirou @acoustic @yzonker
> 
> I don’t want to jump into this like a know it all, but from what I understand, the DDR rail with D4 is what hits the CPU PHY pins in the socket, and VDD2 for D5 is what carries that same signal across the PCB while memory VDD/VDDQ are totally separate voltages that the CPU never actually interacts with. SA powers the uncore portion of ADL/RPL and TX VDDQ is effectively the IMC voltage of the CPU. ASRock labels VDD2 ‘VDD_CPU’ and labels TX ‘VDD_IMC’ as in the VDD rail that hits the CPU and the VDD rail that encompasses the IMC.
> 
> Basically there’s no way the DIMM slots would ever degrade for any reason because of 1.6V (hypothetically) because 1.6V DDR4 setups have been a thing for a while and many Dark owners daily 1.5-1.6V VDD2. I have for months and haven’t noticed any sort of issues (not that there should be). Unfortunately, if you run TX past 1.45 in stuff like y-cruncher you’re probably going to degrade it.
> 
> In my early days with ASUS Z690, I owned Samsung D5 that never required TX higher than say 1.45 simply because I couldn’t stabilise any Samsung OC that’d require memory VDD 1.5 (rail matching bug in early BIOSs), and by the time I got an Apex they had patched the bug and more than 1.45 TX didn’t really seem to help, but again I couldn’t stabilise anything that’d need high TX. The highest I ran TX was 1.5 for maybe a month of ownership with the Strix Z690-F for the second time I owned it.
> 
> I ran quite a decent bit of Linpack so I’m not sure if that IMC degraded slightly. Thankfully it didn’t seem to be the case as I took that chip with me when I moved to the Dark, and the IMC seemed strong enough to daily 7000C34 at 1.4 TX. Which is where I learnt that above 1.4 should never really be a thing because it’s already plenty. I’m currently at 1.3 for 7600, and I’m pretty sure many people are at 1.3 for 8000+. Raptor Lake seems to require less TX overall for higher data rates, but that boils down to the fact that most Alder Lake chips weren’t amazing samples when it comes to IMC (also reflected in some data taken from MC SP for 12th Gen chips on the ROG Z690 thread).
> 
> This rail was a bit of a nightmare because early Strix Z690 behaviour would’ve had you believing you required high values, but it turns out you should keep the rail below 1.5 and even 1.5 is sus if you don’t have resilient (I guess) silicon.
> 
> To put in perspective, at 1.55 VDD/VDDQ/VDD2 I’m at 1.3 TX with 1.02 MC PLL and stability only worsens with more TX and more MC PLL. The rail should theoretically have no linkages to the memory voltages or the slots themselves (I guess). It didn’t seem that way from early ASUS Z690, but the Dark paints a pretty clear picture. Seemingly the Z790 Apex as well because I saw someone doing 7400 with like 1.2 TX.
> 
> If raising TX above 1.5 is actually helping then I really don’t know. My 12900K could handle no more than 1.4 on my Dark, and my 13700K trains worse with more than 1.3. This could all be board dependent because my Z690-F did fine with the 12900K at 1.5 TX, but my best guess is that your IMC is degrading during y-cruncher at 1.6. You run an insane D4 config so it might be that you need an unsafe amount of TX to stabilise it? If that makes sense I guess. It’s similar to why we don’t daily more than 1.35 SA, but TX does seem to be a bit more resilient because I guess it just doesn’t draw a lot of current.
> 
> QXE mentioned something about that as well after some other tech journalist issued a warning regarding the Z790i Edge’s auto 1.6 TX on Twitter.


 That's interesting. My extreme defaults to 1.45 vddq tx when my vdd is set to 1.45. Not saying your wrong mind you just interesting. I've noticed on my kingpin it did not like to much vddq tx with a die like over 1.39 tops but, with m die it didn't give a f and cranked it up to 1.625v auto with my memory voltage of about the same.


----------



## affxct

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> That's interesting. My extreme defaults to 1.45 vddq tx when my vdd is set to 1.45. Not saying your wrong mind you just interesting. I've noticed on my kingpin it did not like to much vddq tx with a die like over 1.39 tops but, with m die it didn't give a f and cranked it up to 1.625v auto with my memory voltage of about the same.


I think 1.45 is a reasonable value for max daily, but I believe they were supposed to stop the matching thing. Even with M-die, TX above 1.4 wasn’t a thing for me on the Dark. Honestly I can’t say for sure, but if you ask QXE and BZ they’re probably going to give you a similar answer. I don’t like throwing around the d-word and I know Ichirou has been through enough as it is. Just need to be honest.


----------



## VULC

Like @tps3443 said. Even if you're on an AIO a high SP chip will do 5.7ghz all core at a way lower voltage then a lower bin chip that will cause you issues. I've seen 1.46v on a low SP and the best SP voltages 1.346 that's over 100mv.


----------



## chibi

Edge0fsanity said:


> SP97/P104/E85 chip, should I exchange this and hope for a better one? Chip throws WHEA pcie bus errors randomly and always after waking from sleep at stock settings. Eliminated this with by putting a stable OC on it so I feel justified in returning it as defective. Still within the return window from amazon. Downside is my loop is an absolute pain to drain and pull the cpu from and is an entire weekend of work.


That's definitely one of the lowest bin 13900k's I've seen posted. This late in the game, I'd say return it and buy a 13900KS next week.


----------



## imrevoau

bhav said:


> Well both those settings were unstable.
> 
> No one is getting 5.8 all core stable on a noctua or any other air cooler.
> 
> You can't even run 1.35v on these chips on an Arctic 420mm AIO without hitting TJmax, so whats the point binning them without a custom loop?


My 13700KF with its warped IHS has 2 cores barely touching 100c while the others are high 80s if I run 1.35v.

Maybe I should DD lol


----------



## VULC

chibi said:


> That's definitely one of the lowest bin 13900k's I've seen posted. This late in the game, I'd say return it and buy a 13900KS next week.


1000 USD plus tax confirmed.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> 1000 USD plus tax confirmed.


13900KS is $1,000 USD? I’d love to test one my self just to see where it stands with my current 13900K. This is a itch I am gonna have to scratch or I’ll never know Lol.

@chibi 

How did your 13900K turn out? Decent?


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> 13900KS is $1,000 USD? I’d love to test one my self just to see where it stands with my current 13900K. This is a itch I am gonna have to scratch or I’ll never know Lol.
> 
> @chibi
> 
> How did your 13900K turn out? Decent?


Please report back 🤣🤣🤣


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

affxct said:


> I think 1.45 is a reasonable value for max daily, but I believe they were supposed to stop the matching thing. Even with M-die, TX above 1.4 wasn’t a thing for me on the Dark. Honestly I can’t say for sure, but if you ask QXE and BZ they’re probably going to give you a similar answer. I don’t like throwing around the d-word and I know Ichirou has been through enough as it is. Just need to be honest.



I don't want to jinx myself but, I'm going to anyway. I just updated the Intel ME driver then the Intel ME firmware then the BIOS to 0810 and look at what's running at auto right now in the background while typing this. It's making it further then it ever has so far at 7800 and at a mem vddq voltage of 1.45 like vdd for the first time ever.. I've always had to lower it to make anything stable but, now it's working synced up to vdd.

This is auto overclock on the cpu and xmp I.










It's at 37 minutes right now no errors.


----------



## Hresna

chibi said:


> That's definitely one of the lowest bin 13900k's I've seen posted. This late in the game, I'd say return it and buy a 13900KS next week.


Ouch, really? Is it the overall sp97 that’s lowest or the p-core 104 that’s especially low? I got mine a few weeks ago and it’s an sp97. I’m afk so don’t have the breakdown. I’m on air so I can’t push it too hard anyway. Not sure what returns are like in Canada if I could just exchange for lottery reasons… have not used it much other than trying to underfoot it. Only bsod so far have been in that context.


----------



## Talon2016

For our European brothers and sisters. 13900KS in stock.









Intel Core i9-13900KS (3.2 GHz / 6.0 GHz) - Processeur Intel sur LDLC


Achat Processeur Intel Core i9-13900KS (3.2 GHz / 6.0 GHz) (BX8071513900KS) sur LDLC, n°1 du high-tech. Processeur 24-Core (8 Performance-Cores + 16 Efficient-Cores) 32-Threads Socket 1700 Cache L3 36 Mo Intel UHD Graphics 770 0.010 micron (version boîte sans ventilateur - garantie Intel 3 ans).




www.ldlc.com


----------



## Dziarson

Hello, I don't know what to do. I want to change the processor and motherboard for 13600K but I don't know if it's worth changing the memory for DDR5.I have B-die 2x16Gb 3800CL14???


----------



## chibi

Hresna said:


> Ouch, really? Is it the overall sp97 that’s lowest or the p-core 104 that’s especially low? I got mine a few weeks ago and it’s an sp97. I’m afk so don’t have the breakdown. I’m on air so I can’t push it too hard anyway. Not sure what returns are like in Canada if I could just exchange for lottery reasons… have not used it much other than trying to underfoot it. Only bsod so far have been in that context.


That's the thing about OCN. The best chips get posted frequently, the mediocre ones pipe up every now and then, and the absolute doggy doo ones never get spoken of. It's just a matter of perspective imo.

I didn't mean it literally as the worst, but how often do you see people post low sp's. It was more towards sanity's comment that he's having issues stock and mentioned a terrible mc sp. Given his post history for usually having top of the line components, I made an assumption that getting a 13900k or 13900ks would not be a deal breaker if he wanted anything more than stock.

Returns are vendor specific. Go look up the return policy where you bought the chip from.




tps3443 said:


> @chibi
> 
> How did your 13900K turn out? Decent?


Unfortunately don't know yet, waiting on GPU and block to come in before I can test it. Just prepping the mora at the moment. Maybe another 2 weeks I can get it up and running.


----------



## yzonker

affxct said:


> Uhm ok @Ichirou @acoustic @yzonker
> 
> I don’t want to jump into this like a know it all, but from what I understand, the DDR rail with D4 is what hits the CPU PHY pins in the socket, and VDD2 for D5 is what carries that same signal across the PCB while memory VDD/VDDQ are totally separate voltages that the CPU never actually interacts with. SA powers the uncore portion of ADL/RPL and TX VDDQ is effectively the IMC voltage of the CPU. ASRock labels VDD2 ‘VDD_CPU’ and labels TX ‘VDD_IMC’ as in the VDD rail that hits the CPU and the VDD rail that encompasses the IMC.
> 
> Basically there’s no way the DIMM slots would ever degrade for any reason because of 1.6V (hypothetically) because 1.6V DDR4 setups have been a thing for a while and many Dark owners daily 1.5-1.6V VDD2. I have for months and haven’t noticed any sort of issues (not that there should be). Unfortunately, if you run TX past 1.45 in stuff like y-cruncher you’re probably going to degrade it.
> 
> In my early days with ASUS Z690, I owned Samsung D5 that never required TX higher than say 1.45 simply because I couldn’t stabilise any Samsung OC that’d require memory VDD 1.5 (rail matching bug in early BIOSs), and by the time I got an Apex they had patched the bug and more than 1.45 TX didn’t really seem to help, but again I couldn’t stabilise anything that’d need high TX. The highest I ran TX was 1.5 for maybe a month of ownership with the Strix Z690-F for the second time I owned it.
> 
> I ran quite a decent bit of Linpack so I’m not sure if that IMC degraded slightly. Thankfully it didn’t seem to be the case as I took that chip with me when I moved to the Dark, and the IMC seemed strong enough to daily 7000C34 at 1.4 TX. Which is where I learnt that above 1.4 should never really be a thing because it’s already plenty. I’m currently at 1.3 for 7600, and I’m pretty sure many people are at 1.3 for 8000+. Raptor Lake seems to require less TX overall for higher data rates, but that boils down to the fact that most Alder Lake chips weren’t amazing samples when it comes to IMC (also reflected in some data taken from MC SP for 12th Gen chips on the ROG Z690 thread).
> 
> This rail was a bit of a nightmare because early Strix Z690 behaviour would’ve had you believing you required high values, but it turns out you should keep the rail below 1.5 and even 1.5 is sus if you don’t have resilient (I guess) silicon.
> 
> To put in perspective, at 1.55 VDD/VDDQ/VDD2 I’m at 1.3 TX with 1.02 MC PLL and stability only worsens with more TX and more MC PLL. The rail should theoretically have no linkages to the memory voltages or the slots themselves (I guess). It didn’t seem that way from early ASUS Z690, but the Dark paints a pretty clear picture. Seemingly the Z790 Apex as well because I saw someone doing 7400 with like 1.2 TX.
> 
> If raising TX above 1.5 is actually helping then I really don’t know. My 12900K could handle no more than 1.4 on my Dark, and my 13700K trains worse with more than 1.3. This could all be board dependent because my Z690-F did fine with the 12900K at 1.5 TX, but my best guess is that your IMC is degrading during y-cruncher at 1.6. You run an insane D4 config so it might be that you need an unsafe amount of TX to stabilise it? If that makes sense I guess. It’s similar to why we don’t daily more than 1.35 SA, but TX does seem to be a bit more resilient because I guess it just doesn’t draw a lot of current.
> 
> QXE mentioned something about that as well after some other tech journalist issued a warning regarding the Z790i Edge’s auto 1.6 TX on Twitter.


The very high VDDQ TX is an issue with MSI DDR4 boards mainly I think. When I first got the board I couldn't even post above 3600 without going to 1.5v VDDQ TX. So I can't fall back to say 4000 and drastically lower it which is why I've just pushed it as far as I could to 4200.

I'll test it occasionally to see if there is any degradation. So far doesn't seem to be. But I don't run yCruncher, Cinebench, etc... other than just enough for testing. My machine is almost 100% for gaming and occasional benchmarking (mostly GPU with a little TS CPU, etc... thrown in).

And DDR5 is definitely different. I had a KP board as you may recall. IIRC, for 7000CL32 I just ran auto on VDDQ TX and VDD2. 0.95 SA. Completely different behavior. 

Don't miss that board though. I honestly like this cheap MSI better. Less buggy and more features and probably just as fast in most stuff. But I honestly bought this board as a hold me over until DDR5 becomes less of a dumpster fire. At this point though I may not bother going back.


----------



## bhav

Dziarson said:


> Hello, I don't know what to do. I want to change the processor and motherboard for 13600K but I don't know if it's worth changing the memory for DDR5.I have B-die 2x16Gb 3800CL14???


If you already have B die, its not worth it, and you should be able to go higher than 3800CL14.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Nailed 7800 after updating the intel me driver and intel me firmware and then the BIOS.

I'm just geeked to be at 7800 stable lol don't even care about the timings right now.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Nice congrats 👏 😊


----------



## affxct

yzonker said:


> The very high VDDQ TX is an issue with MSI DDR4 boards mainly I think. When I first got the board I couldn't even post above 3600 without going to 1.5v VDDQ TX. So I can't fall back to say 4000 and drastically lower it which is why I've just pushed it as far as I could to 4200.
> 
> I'll test it occasionally to see if there is any degradation. So far doesn't seem to be. But I don't run yCruncher, Cinebench, etc... other than just enough for testing. My machine is almost 100% for gaming and occasional benchmarking (mostly GPU with a little TS CPU, etc... thrown in).
> 
> And DDR5 is definitely different. I had a KP board as you may recall. IIRC, for 7000CL32 I just ran auto on VDDQ TX and VDD2. 0.95 SA. Completely different behavior.
> 
> Don't miss that board though. I honestly like this cheap MSI better. Less buggy and more features and probably just as fast in most stuff. But I honestly bought this board as a hold me over until DDR5 becomes less of a dumpster fire. At this point though I may not bother going back.


Wait, was it your board that had the bent pins?


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Nice congrats 👏 😊



Check it out. So after updating to the newest beta BIOS I can see my MC SP now and it's a 80! I hope that's good lol. This thing is acting completely different now.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> Nailed 7800 after updating the intel me driver and intel me firmware and then the BIOS.
> 
> I'm just geeked to be at 7800 stable lol don't even care about the timings right now.
> 
> View attachment 2592045


Is it a must to upgrade the driver, firmware and re-flash in every case or can’t you just do the driver / firmware…I have an msi board. I tried looking on intels downloads site last night, what a hot mess that thing is…..like ***.


----------



## tps3443

This is my 13900KS Extreme Edition.

lol kidding!


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Is it a must to upgrade the driver, firmware and re-flash in every case or can’t you just do the driver / firmware…I have an msi board. I tried looking on intels downloads site last night, what a hot mess that thing is…..like ***.



Yes it is. I'm going further now if I can and noticed some behavior with the vddq tx as stated earlier. It's synced up on auto with my mem vdd.

Here's 8000 now but I'll have to stable it out looks like from ycruncher failing. I set 1.48 vdd it goes to 1.48 vddq tx.


----------



## ajolly

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> Check it out. So after updating to the newest beta BIOS I can see my MC SP now and it's a 80! I hope that's good lol. This thing is acting completely different now.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2592047
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2592048


What's with that p-core sort ranking? Is it ignoring the preferred cores, or are your cores really in that order?


----------



## yzonker

affxct said:


> Wait, was it your board that had the bent pins?


Yup.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> Yes it is. I'm going further now if I can and noticed some behavior with the vddq tx as stated earlier. It's synced up on auto with my mem vdd.
> 
> Here's 8000 now but I'll have to stable it out looks like from ycruncher failing. I set 1.48 vdd it goes to 1.48 vddq tx.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2592050


Hmm maybe I’ll do it tomorrow and see if I can push anything else on my ddr4 but i doubt it. I only updated the firmware…the current driver version looks to be from September so I already have that. Just need to reflash I guess and hopefully my profile will still load or I’ll be all day lol


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

ajolly said:


> What's with that p-core sort ranking? Is it ignoring the preferred cores, or are your cores really in that order?



It's stayed the same score through BIOS updates and remounts and now another BIOS update but with the firmware and driver updates this time as well which is the first time, I've done that because it's a mess to even look up on Intel's site.. It's odd I know. Everything seems Koscher though so.. The P Cores hit 1.181v at 6.1 so they seem strong, and I can push the ring up to 5.3 and have it stable. I didn't even try to push the ring further.


----------



## acoustic

COD MW2 is apparently an excellent test for ring stability. I can pass every stress test I throw at this thing, but I’ve spent the last couple days chasing down a really annoying random crash in MW2.

Turns out it was too low vcore for 50x ring. Instead of lowering the ring, just gonna raise vcore up, so now I’m doing a +2 turbo offset, so 60x2/57x8, 45x E, 50x Ring.

1.255v VRVOUT load required. Not as power efficient as my stock setup where I only pull 215w in Cinebench, but I like the 50x ring locked in..


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> COD MW2 is apparently an excellent test for ring stability. I can pass every stress test I throw at this thing, but I’ve spent the last couple days chasing down a really annoying random crash in MW2.
> 
> Turns out it was too low vcore for 50x ring. Instead of lowering the ring, just gonna raise vcore up, so now I’m doing a +2 turbo offset, so 60x2/57x8, 45x E, 50x Ring.
> 
> 1.255v VRVOUT load required. Not as power efficient as my stock setup where I only pull 215w in Cinebench, but I like the 50x ring locked in..


I had a similar issue. My system was very stable, but it would crash in COD MWF2. I added + 0.040 DDR5 memory voltage and it fixed the problem for me all together.


----------



## Hresna

chibi said:


> That's the thing about OCN. The best chips get posted frequently, the mediocre ones pipe up every now and then, and the absolute doggy doo ones never get spoken of. It's just a matter of perspective imo.
> 
> I didn't mean it literally as the worst, but how often do you see people post low sp's.


I appreciate that and yes I did wonder at the skewed statistical relevance of self-reported sp numbers. It stands to reason in these circles the higher ones would get bragged about more. Perhaps we would normalize commiserating or celebrating the lower ones too, and what we manage to eke out of them. “Look what I managed to get out of my sp97” sorta thing, like Brad Pitt taking the A’s to the World Series.

We’ve all spent a lot of money to play the game, we may as well enjoy and be proud of what we get.


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Hmm maybe I’ll do it tomorrow and see if I can push anything else on my ddr4 but i doubt it. I only *updated the firmware*…t*he current driver version looks to be from September *so I already have that. Just need to reflash I guess and hopefully my profile will still load or I’ll be all day lol


I updated the driver and then the firmware. I got the link from a post from @digitalfrost a couple pages ago.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> I updated the driver and then the firmware. I got the link from a post from @digitalfrost a couple pages ago.


yep. I have heard it’s a good idea to re-flash the BIOS, but I haven’t done that yet. Seems to be working just fine for me


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

ajolly said:


> What's with that p-core sort ranking? Is it ignoring the preferred cores, or are your cores really in that order?



I wonder if I just need to update the other bios now too.... I'll try tomorrow when I get home from work.


----------



## bhav

My SP is probably like 12. But I can't post it as I don't have an asus board.


----------



## VULC

These 2x16gb HP B die 3200mhz kits off Amazon are awesome just doing a 1umusv3 6 cycle. My IMC boots 4200mhz cl16, 1.35sa, 1.30v vddq and 1.545v dram. Tried 4266 looks like I'd have to go above 1.35sa to get higher got an IRQL EQUAL OR LESS THEN BSOD.


----------



## matique

Hresna said:


> Ouch, really? Is it the overall sp97 that’s lowest or the p-core 104 that’s especially low? I got mine a few weeks ago and it’s an sp97. I’m afk so don’t have the breakdown. I’m on air so I can’t push it too hard anyway. Not sure what returns are like in Canada if I could just exchange for lottery reasons… have not used it much other than trying to underfoot it. Only bsod so far have been in that context.


don't worry, i got one of the worst 13900K









It still scales clocks relatively well, just needed a lot of voltage. 5.7ghz all core needed 1.35v vrout, or around 1.37v vcore socket sense. Sold it the next day.


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> yep. I have heard it’s a good idea to re-flash the BIOS, but I haven’t done that yet. Seems to be working just fine for me


I didn't reflash the bios. I'm not sure what the new ME/Firmware does. Everything seems the same here, but I am not OC'ing memory. Maybe I should try that again.


----------



## kunit13

I haven't updated the ME/Firmware either? Im still on 0810 and seems to be fine.

Also do we need to update both bios? I only updated from 0703 to 0810. I was going to wait until its out of beta to do another update. Finally got my PC tuned, would love to actually play warzone2 instead of hanging out in bios or benchmarking


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> Uhm ok @Ichirou @acoustic @yzonker
> 
> I don’t want to jump into this like a know it all, but from what I understand, the DDR rail with D4 is what hits the CPU PHY pins in the socket, and VDD2 for D5 is what carries that same signal across the PCB while memory VDD/VDDQ are totally separate voltages that the CPU never actually interacts with. SA powers the uncore portion of ADL/RPL and TX VDDQ is effectively the IMC voltage of the CPU. ASRock labels VDD2 ‘VDD_CPU’ and labels TX ‘VDD_IMC’ as in the VDD rail that hits the CPU and the VDD rail that encompasses the IMC.
> 
> Basically there’s no way the DIMM slots would ever degrade for any reason because of 1.6V (hypothetically) because 1.6V DDR4 setups have been a thing for a while and many Dark owners daily 1.5-1.6V VDD2. I have for months and haven’t noticed any sort of issues (not that there should be). Unfortunately, if you run TX past 1.45 in stuff like y-cruncher you’re probably going to degrade it.
> 
> In my early days with ASUS Z690, I owned Samsung D5 that never required TX higher than say 1.45 simply because I couldn’t stabilise any Samsung OC that’d require memory VDD 1.5 (rail matching bug in early BIOSs), and by the time I got an Apex they had patched the bug and more than 1.45 TX didn’t really seem to help, but again I couldn’t stabilise anything that’d need high TX. The highest I ran TX was 1.5 for maybe a month of ownership with the Strix Z690-F for the second time I owned it.
> 
> I ran quite a decent bit of Linpack so I’m not sure if that IMC degraded slightly. Thankfully it didn’t seem to be the case as I took that chip with me when I moved to the Dark, and the IMC seemed strong enough to daily 7000C34 at 1.4 TX. Which is where I learnt that above 1.4 should never really be a thing because it’s already plenty. I’m currently at 1.3 for 7600, and I’m pretty sure many people are at 1.3 for 8000+. Raptor Lake seems to require less TX overall for higher data rates, but that boils down to the fact that most Alder Lake chips weren’t amazing samples when it comes to IMC (also reflected in some data taken from MC SP for 12th Gen chips on the ROG Z690 thread).
> 
> This rail was a bit of a nightmare because early Strix Z690 behaviour would’ve had you believing you required high values, but it turns out you should keep the rail below 1.5 and even 1.5 is sus if you don’t have resilient (I guess) silicon.
> 
> To put in perspective, at 1.55 VDD/VDDQ/VDD2 I’m at 1.3 TX with 1.02 MC PLL and stability only worsens with more TX and more MC PLL. The rail should theoretically have no linkages to the memory voltages or the slots themselves (I guess). It didn’t seem that way from early ASUS Z690, but the Dark paints a pretty clear picture. Seemingly the Z790 Apex as well because I saw someone doing 7400 with like 1.2 TX.
> 
> If raising TX above 1.5 is actually helping then I really don’t know. My 12900K could handle no more than 1.4 on my Dark, and my 13700K trains worse with more than 1.3. This could all be board dependent because my Z690-F did fine with the 12900K at 1.5 TX, but my best guess is that your IMC is degrading during y-cruncher at 1.6. You run an insane D4 config so it might be that you need an unsafe amount of TX to stabilise it? If that makes sense I guess. It’s similar to why we don’t daily more than 1.35 SA, but TX does seem to be a bit more resilient because I guess it just doesn’t draw a lot of current.
> 
> QXE mentioned something about that as well after some other tech journalist issued a warning regarding the Z790i Edge’s auto 1.6 TX on Twitter.


DDR4 and DDR5 are vastly different; DDR4 just needs a lot more of everything in general.

I still don't fully understand the nature of VDDQ, but I do know that each board/BIOS/CPU requires different amounts.
And this scales depending on the RAM's die type, DIMM count, and capacity.

It's almost as if there's no discernable pattern. But we'll see after I receive my new board (again) and test it out.


----------



## kunit13

ajolly said:


> What's with that p-core sort ranking? Is it ignoring the preferred cores, or are your cores really in that order?


Mine is the same? I thought that was weird.


----------



## imrevoau

Ichirou said:


> DDR4 and DDR5 are vastly different; DDR4 just needs a lot more of everything in general.
> 
> I still don't fully understand the nature of VDDQ, but I do know that each board/BIOS/CPU requires different amounts.
> And this scales depending on the RAM's die type, DIMM count, and capacity.
> 
> It's almost as if there's no discernable pattern. But we'll see after I receive my new board (again) and test it out.


Unless Z790 boards in general are just more lenient with low VDDQ, I've realised setting it really high doesn't really do anything for me. It stops scaling past 1.35V on my current setup. Obviously everyone gets different results, this is just what I've noticed.


----------



## Ichirou

imrevoau said:


> Unless Z790 boards in general are just more lenient with low VDDQ, I've realised setting it really high doesn't really do anything for me. It stops scaling past 1.35V on my current setup. Obviously everyone gets different results, this is just what I've noticed.


Nothing really adds up in my experience. Just the six variables I listed alone influence results way too heavily.
I'd say that the biggest factor would be the motherboard and its BIOS, though.


----------



## VULC

RichKnecht said:


> I didn't reflash the bios. I'm not sure what the new ME/Firmware does. Everything seems the same here, but I am not OC'ing memory. Maybe I should try that again.


I flashed the new ME on latest bios for Strix z690a and my vrout went up with AC_LL on 0.16 and DC_LL on 1.02. Was 1.296 now 1.33. I dropped AC to 0.14 and vrout went up to 1.37v full load.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

Quick question, is CPU L2 voltage related to the E-Cores? im on a z790 hero and increasing this seems to also increase IVR Atom L2 Cluster 1 voltage aswell (bios labels both these voltages under a single setting CPU L2 voltage)


----------



## bhav

So I'd like to know if its just me that thinks any of these 13th gen chips should not be running at a sustained constant 100c under load?

Any why do so many people think this? 8700K had the same TJmax as 13900K and even back then when they even hit over 90c at stock people would immediately look to delidding.

Why has this seemingly changed so drastically with 13th gen to 'These chips are designed to run at 100c'?

Isn't the TJmax simply the safe max temperature the chip should reach, not what temperature it should constantly sustain under load?


----------



## sugi0lover

Doojin did some amazing 3DMark jobs with his 13900KF

13900KF : SP119, P127, E101, MC88~89
OC : P Cores 6300~6400Mhz, Ram 8800~8868MT
4090 Strix oc @ Galax Hof Bios / Mora420 out on balcony + liquid thermal / coolant temp 7C



Spoiler: 13900KF SP

















Spoiler: FIRE STRIKEl




















I scored 74 970 in Fire Strike


Intel Core i9-13900KF Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com

















Spoiler: FIRE STRIKE GS 100K



P 8 Cores, HT & E cores off
















I scored 61 755 in Fire Strike


Intel Core i9-13900KF Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com










Spoiler: FIRE STRIKE EXTREME




















I scored 50 202 in Fire Strike Extreme


Intel Core i9-13900KF Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com










Spoiler: FIRE STRIKE ULTRA




















I scored 29 361 in Fire Strike Ultra


Intel Core i9-13900KF Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com










Spoiler: TIME SPY




















I scored 40 457 in Time Spy


Intel Core i9-13900KF Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com










Spoiler: TIME SPY EXTREME




















I scored 21 227 in Time Spy Extreme


Intel Core i9-13900KF Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com










Spoiler: Original post












쿨엔조이,쿨앤조이 coolenjoy, cooln, 쿨엔, 검은동네


안녕하세요~RTX4090 3DMark 벤치 돌리면서 좋은결과가 나왔습니다. 물론 아주 잠시일 테지만 파스 1위를 찍어보게 되었네요^^;;4090 Strix oc @ Galax Ho



coolenjoy.net


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> So I'd like to know if its just me that thinks any of these 13th gen chips should not be running at a sustained constant 100c under load?
> 
> Any why do so many people think this? 8700K had the same TJmax as 13900K and even back then when they even hit over 90c at stock people would immediately look to delidding.
> 
> Why has this seemingly changed so drastically with 13th gen to 'These chips are designed to run at 100c'?
> 
> Isn't the TJmax simply the safe max temperature the chip should reach, not what temperature it should constantly sustain under load?


It's YOUR chip that's hitting 100C at stock. Not everyone else's.
Plenty of us are doing just fine. Sorry for your problems but this is getting very annoying.
Since you apparently know more about these chips than Intel does, why don't you apply for a job there? Maybe you can help them make more money or something.
Make sure you have your EE degree and credentials and references ready. And I don't mean ranting forum posts either...


----------



## HemuV2

Edge0fsanity said:


> SP97/P104/E85 chip, should I exchange this and hope for a better one? Chip throws WHEA pcie bus errors randomly and always after waking from sleep at stock settings. Eliminated this with by putting a stable OC on it so I feel justified in returning it as defective. Still within the return window from amazon. Downside is my loop is an absolute pain to drain and pull the cpu from and is an entire weekend of work.


Yeah you should 104 is trash I'm sure you can get a better sample.


----------



## VULC

C states was causing random PSU shutdowns on my adaptive OC. On Asus you have "Package C State limit" Leaving it on "Auto" allows the CPU to use the maximum C state available. Changing it to "CPU Defaults" applies the max factory CPU C state which stopped the issue for me. Was not the contact frame 🤦.

@RobertoSampaio maybe update the tutorial.


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> It's YOUR chip that's hitting 100C at stock. Not everyone else's.
> Plenty of us are doing just fine. Sorry for your problems but this is getting very annoying.
> Since you apparently know more about these chips than Intel does, why don't you apply for a job there? Maybe you can help them make more money or something.
> Make sure you have your EE degree and credentials and references ready. And I don't mean ranting forum posts either...


I'm just trying to get a solution to the issue, sorry if I somehow offended you.

Its not just my chip, there are countless reports daily mostly on reddit of the same issue, 1.45v+ at stock on 13700K and 13900K. There have been several other cases of this posted on this forum as well. I also initially dismissed them until I managed to replicate the same problem myself!

Since you know a lot, maybe you could help with whether that much voltage at stock is supposed is supposed to be correct?

Some people have already started returning prebuilds over this, there is a complete difference between engineering a chip and running them through quality control.


----------



## HemuV2

bhav said:


> I'm just trying to get a solution to the issue, sorry if I somehow offended you.
> 
> Its not just my chip, there are countless reports daily mostly on reddit of the same issue, 1.45v+ at stock on 13700K and 13900K. There have been several other cases of this posted on this forum as well. I also initially dismissed them until I managed to replicate the same problem myself!
> 
> Since you know a lot, maybe you could help with whether that much voltage at stock is supposed is supposed to be correct?
> 
> Some people have already started returning prebuilds over this, there is a complete difference between engineering a chip and running them through quality control.


Mine hits 100C instantly even at stock, turning off ht removes like 10C. 330W was a lot for stock cbr23 least I required was 275W but good samples do it at less than 250W for me it's the ecores that need a lot of current. But I run 8p8e ht off so no issues running 5.7-5.8 on AIO 5.9 is asking too much as it needs 1.55llc5 which is pretty high! But yeah I am disappointed in my sample and if I was in a different country I'd have gone for a replacement as Intel should really not be putting sp73 ecores in an i9, it's so frustrating how it'll run stable at stock and once you push the pcores to 5.6-5.7 they become unstable due to the ****ty ecores eating voltage off vcore.


----------



## VULC

If you're on Asus Strix z690a do not update to ME_Intel_v16.1.25.2091 I put AC_LL to 0.01 and DC_LL to 0.50 and my lowest vrout won't go below 1.332v on LLC4. Previously AC and DC LL would drop vrout accordingly. Even tried 0.01 on both AC and DC no dice.


----------



## bhav

HemuV2 said:


> Mine hits 100C instantly even at stock, turning off ht removes like 10C. 330W was a lot for stock cbr23 least I required was 275W but good samples do it at less than 250W for me it's the ecores that need a lot of current. But I run 8p8e ht off so no issues running 5.7-5.8 on AIO 5.9 is asking too much as it needs 1.55llc5 which is pretty high! But yeah I am disappointed in my sample and if I was in a different country I'd have gone for a replacement as Intel should really not be putting sp73 ecores in an i9, it's so frustrating how it'll run stable at stock and once you push the pcores to 5.6-5.7 they become unstable due to the ****ty ecores eating voltage off vcore.


From what I see people from the start in this thread have already been manually tuning the loadlines to circumvent these issues, thats fine, everyone here knows how to do it.

That doesn't answer the question as to whether people who have a chip that runs 100c at stock is safe to leave at stock. Apparently it just is because Intel know more than the rest of us and thats how they've designed the chip, which I call BS on because designing a chip is one thing, actually testing it and running QC is another which is what seems to have been completely skipped on any chip hitting 100c at stock on a 420mm AIO.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

Edge0fsanity said:


> SP97/P104/E85 chip, should I exchange this and hope for a better one? Chip throws WHEA pcie bus errors randomly and always after waking from sleep at stock settings. Eliminated this with by putting a stable OC on it so I feel justified in returning it as defective. Still within the return window from amazon. Downside is my loop is an absolute pain to drain and pull the cpu from and is an entire weekend of work.


i was getting whea pcie errors but reseating the gpu fixed them (z790 Hero) but i occasionally get whea event id 3 errors after booting into windows. updated to ME 16.1.25.2091 which seems to have fixed those (for now)

EDIT: the whea pci errors are already known by intel (see attached screenshots) more info can be found on github under
















"microcode-20221108 release"


----------



## HemuV2

bhav said:


> From what I see people from the start in this thread have already been manually tuning the loadlines to circumvent these issues, thats fine, everyone here knows how to do it.
> 
> That doesn't answer the question as to whether people who have a chip that runs 100c at stock is safe to leave at stock.


I mean you could "enforce all limits" and it won't ever break the 251W barrier keeping it at 85C or so on AIO, only fully unlocked PL is insta throttle zone.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

bhav said:


> From what I see people from the start in this thread have already been manually tuning the loadlines to circumvent these issues, thats fine, everyone here knows how to do it.
> 
> That doesn't answer the question as to whether people who have a chip that runs 100c at stock is safe to leave at stock.


my 13900k is sp 98, 106P, 85E, stock all auto vcore in r23 is 1.28-1.3v 322w 101c with a contact frame and 360 aio, i assume its safe if intel is shipping them at these voltages.. it doesnt seem to be board related as my z690 Aorus pro reports similar voltage


----------



## bhav

AlphaGaming17 said:


> my 13900k is sp 98, 106P, 85E, stock all auto vcore in r23 is 1.28-1.3v 322w 101c with a contact frame and 360 aio, i assume its safe if intel is shipping them at these voltages.. it doesnt seem to be board related as my z690 Aorus pro reports similar voltage


Going back to the 8700K, it also had a tjmax of 100c right?

Why did people consider their stock temps of 90c+ to be unsafe then? Intel refunded mine that hit 95c at stock.

Intel support claimed AIBs might be running the CPUs out of spec, and that they have actually not released thermal specifications for 13th gen yet.

If they would simply tell me what loadline settings are intended to be used for these chips, that would be fine and I could send that information to MSI and ask that they update their bioses, but Intel support won't even answer such a simple request claiming that they do not yet have that data.

So AIBs are in the dark as are users as to what the actual motherboard settings should be for running these chips at stock. The settings on motherboards are not determined or specified by Intel, they are set by the AIB.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

bhav said:


> Going back to the 8700K, it also had a tjmax of 100c right?
> 
> Why did people consider their stock temps of 90c+ to be unsafe then? Intel refunded mine that hit 95c at stock.
> 
> Intel support claimed AIBs might be running the CPUs out of spec, and that they have actually not released thermal specifications for 13th gen yet.
> 
> If they would simply tell me what loadline settings are intended to be used for these chips, that would be fine and I could send that information to MSI and ask that they update their bioses, but Intel support won't even answer such a simple request claiming that they do not yet have that data.
> 
> So AIBs are in the dark as are users as to what the actual motherboard settings should be for running these chips at stock. The settings on motherboards are not determined or specified by Intel, they are set by the AIB.


i just run a -100 offset which brings the load voltage down to 1.199-1.208v, stable vmin for 5.5 is around 1.18v for my chip. this brings package power down to around 260w 85c. my previous CPU was a 10900k at 5.1 1.355v and that topped out at 80c with the same aio


----------



## bhav

Also the whole 'Intel designed these CPUs, they know what they are doing, where is your electrical engineering degree?'.

Remember when Gigabyte knew what they were doing when designing power supplies? Yep, they surely know everything all the time and never make any mistakes don't they?

Also Windows 11 is completely perfect without any problems because Microsoft know what they are doing when making an OS, people who complain, where's your software engineering degree? /s.


----------



## junneh

I recently went from 12700 no k to 13600K at no cost. The 13600kf is performing like a champ on 5.5 all core.

A mate offered to buy some parts of me, so my next question:
Should I swap out my Gigabyte z690 gaming x DDR4+3200mhz cl16 (C-die so cant go faster) for a z690 ddr5 (z690a prime) board and hynix m die?

The total cost would be about 140. I dont think this is worth it right? Ofcourse I can take the ddr5 to the next upgrade, and buying it then will be probably just as expensive as my old parts arent worth as much, however, Im not sure the early ddr5 kits will still be good in a few years? guess not?


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> Also the whole 'Intel designed these CPUs, they know what they are doing, where is your electrical engineering degree?'.
> 
> Remember when Gigabyte knew what they were doing when designing power supplies? Yep, they surely know everything all the time and never make any mistakes don't they?
> 
> Also Windows 11 is completely perfect without any problems because Microsoft know what they are doing when making an OS, people who complain, where's your software engineering degree? /s.


Gigabyte doesn't make (FAB) their own PSU's. They use OEM's like every other company.


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> Gigabyte doesn't make (FAB) their own PSU's. They use OEM's like every other company.


And Intel doesnt make the motherboards that are setting lite load valeus to high, nor will they release a specification for what those values should be, at least according to Intels own technical support team.

You have like an SP 117+ chip right? So ofc thats going to work because its not going to request as much voltage at stock. Now what about the other 90% of 13900Ks that are below SP 110? Then all the 13700K / 13600Ks that are even lower bin?

Care to explain why all the electrical engineers at Intel can't even put out a specification for the lite load settings and reach out to AIBs to make sure they are setting it correctly?

They can make a CPU sure, but it looks like they completely messed up the stock settings for them, this is an easy fix though, update motherboard bioses to the right settings, thats all it takes, so why wont they do that?


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> And Intel doesnt make the motherboards that are setting lite load valeus to high, nor will they release a specification for what those values should be, at least according to Intels own technical support team.
> 
> You have like an SP 117+ chip right? So ofc thats going to work because its not going to request as much voltage at stock. Now what about the other 90% of 13900Ks that are below SP 110? Then all the 13700K / 13600Ks that are even lower bin?
> 
> Care to explain why all the electrical engineers at Intel can't even put out a specification for the lite load settings and reach out to AIBs to make sure they are setting it correctly?
> 
> They can make a CPU sure, but it looks like they completely messed up the stock settings for them, this is an easy fix though, update motherboard bioses to the right settings, thats all it takes, so why wont they do that?


Dude you've been at it all day.
it's 2 am, go to sleep...


----------



## adolf512

I tried undervolting.

-0.04 crashed in cinebench
-0.02 might be stable (havn't found any issue yet).









200W power limit (due to having weak cooler).


----------



## VULC

It looks like Intel only wants users to use adaptive offset to lower vrout no more using AC and DC_LL going off of the latest ME firmware update. I had to put AC and DC on Auto and use an offset to get back to where I was.


----------



## Betroz

VULC said:


> It looks like Intel only wants users to use adaptive offset to lower vrout no more using AC and DC_LL going off of the latest ME firmware update. I had to put AC and DC on Auto and use an offset to get back to where I was.


What is wrong with using a negative offset to lower voltage?


----------



## AlphaGaming17

VULC said:


> It looks like Intel only wants users to use adaptive offset to lower vrout no more using AC and DC_LL going off of the latest ME firmware update. I had to put AC and DC on Auto and use an offset to get back to where I was.


ac/dc seems to work as normal with me 2091, z790 hero


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

AlphaGaming17 said:


> ac/dc seems to work as normal with me 2091, z790 hero


Mine was working last night to. Sounds like a flash of the bios might be needed on his side. I'll be flashing my backup bios tonight myself.


----------



## Edge0fsanity

chibi said:


> That's the thing about OCN. The best chips get posted frequently, the mediocre ones pipe up every now and then, and the absolute doggy doo ones never get spoken of. It's just a matter of perspective imo.
> 
> I didn't mean it literally as the worst, but how often do you see people post low sp's. It was more towards sanity's comment that he's having issues stock and mentioned a terrible mc sp. Given his post history for usually having top of the line components, I made an assumption that getting a 13900k or 13900ks would not be a deal breaker if he wanted anything more than stock.
> 
> Returns are vendor specific. Go look up the return policy where you bought the chip from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately don't know yet, waiting on GPU and block to come in before I can test it. Just prepping the mora at the moment. Maybe another 2 weeks I can get it up and running.


Yes its very frustrating to do high end builds and keep getting screwed on silicon lottery. My 5950x in my last build was absolute trash, like bottom 10% chip that needed positive CO on a lot of cores with PBO. Even my 3090 KPE was bottom tier bin for that card. 

Anyways, I'll grab a 13900ks if I can and return this. Is there an official launch date for it yet?


----------



## RichKnecht

VULC said:


> It looks like Intel only wants users to use adaptive offset to lower vrout no more using AC and DC_LL going off of the latest ME firmware update. I had to put AC and DC on Auto and use an offset to get back to where I was.


Are you on an Asus or MSI (or other) board? I updated the ME driver and firmware and no changes to my voltages were made. Everything seems the same.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

I wonder if the high cpu temps are a sensor misreading caused by microcode, my board has a option to switch between old and new microcode.

new code has a max temp of 85c in r23 while old microcode has a max of 77c but misreports idle temps (as low as 16c in a 21c room whereas new code has a min of 27c) but if there is such a large temp difference between version, could that mean the newer version misreports higher temps?

this is just my finding and could be completely invalid but it's worth testing for someone with proper testing equipment or a thermal camera


----------



## RichKnecht

AlphaGaming17 said:


> I wonder if the high cpu* temps are a sensor misreading caused by microcode,* my board has a option to switch between old and new microcode.
> 
> new code has a max temp of 85c in r23 while old microcode has a max of 77c but misreports idle temps (as low as 16c in a 21c room whereas new code has a min of 27c) but if there is such a large temp difference between version, could that mean the newer version misreports higher temps?
> 
> this is just my finding and could be completely invalid but it's worth testing for someone with proper testing equipment or a thermal camera


I know with my old X299 system, there was a bios update which included newer microcode and my reported temps went up by 7C. Nothing else changed. Who knows what's going on. I just tuned my chip to where I liked the max temps to be.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

RichKnecht said:


> I know with my old X299 system, there was a bios update which included newer microcode and my reported temps went up by 7C. Nothing else changed. Who knows what's going on. I just tuned my chip to where I liked the max temps to be.


just a waiting game now, hopefully they will fix the pcie whea errors with the next code update


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> Dude you've been at it all day.
> it's 2 am, go to sleep...


Instead of shilling for any problem that Intel chips might have, why don't you answer the question then so I don't have to keep asking?

Is it safe to leave a 13th gen running at a constant 100c under load at stock settings?

If you would give your opinion which I would respect, then I wouldn't have to keep asking would I?


----------



## Talon2016

AlphaGaming17 said:


> I wonder if the high cpu temps are a sensor misreading caused by microcode, my board has a option to switch between old and new microcode.
> 
> new code has a max temp of 85c in r23 while old microcode has a max of 77c but misreports idle temps (as low as 16c in a 21c room whereas new code has a min of 27c) but if there is such a large temp difference between version, could that mean the newer version misreports higher temps?
> 
> this is just my finding and could be completely invalid but it's worth testing for someone with proper testing equipment or a thermal camera


I have been pulling my hair out trying to figure out why my Z690 Dark was producing temps on average about 10c colder than my Z790 Apex with a WORSE 13900K sample. I swapped board and my same chip, same voltage, same power draw and same cooler/case/etc were running on average 10c warmer than the Dark. Then I put my worse sample in the Dark and it ran cooler than my better chip on the Apex while drawing more power and using a smaller cooler. I have been trying to figure this out for a couple of weeks and then I saw this post. I just swapped the microcode and sure enough my temps dropped down to what they were and didn't lose any perf or change power draw. So now the question is, which one is accurate? Either way, happy to find I don't have a mounting pressure issue or something.


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> What is wrong with using a negative offset to lower voltage?


Theres that whole 13600K vs 12400 mega thread that evidently shows undervolting 13th gen chips doesn't work. I dont know why, but say you use offset, you can maybe only drop about 50mv before performance and boosts drop.

With lite load you can drop around 150-200mv with no performance loss and over 30c temperature reduction.

So peoples results I see using offset - they drop like what from 1.45 stock to 1.4 - 1.42? Using lite load it drops to 1.25 - 1.3v.


----------



## tps3443

Talon2016 said:


> I have been pulling my hair out trying to figure out why my Z690 Dark was producing temps on average about 10c colder than my Z790 Apex with a WORSE 13900K sample. I swapped board and my same chip, same voltage, same power draw and same cooler/case/etc were running on average 10c warmer than the Dark. Then I put my worse sample in the Dark and it ran cooler than my better chip on the Apex while drawing more power and using a smaller cooler. I have been trying to figure this out for a couple of weeks and then I saw this post. I just swapped the microcode and sure enough my temps dropped down to what they were and didn't lose any perf or change power draw. So now the question is, which one is accurate? Either way, happy to find I don't have a mounting pressure issue or something.


Wow, that’s seriously interesting. I had a similar situation recently. I think I need to check my microcode.

Are you snatching up a 13900KS? 😁


----------



## bscool

Posting here as this thread gets a lot of traffic.

Faris put some ddr4 memory OC benches up comparing 3600XMP to tightened 4000c15-15-15 and 4300c16-16-16.

He was going to do a comparison against ddr5 but had issues with the DDR5 board. I think the ddr4 results are still instesting and helpful for many to see how increasing speed and timings helps.

*PCBuilding*
KingFaris10's Site







kingfaris.co.uk


----------



## Talon2016

tps3443 said:


> Are you snatching up a 13900KS? 😁


Likely lol.


----------



## Falkentyne

AlphaGaming17 said:


> I wonder if the high cpu temps are a sensor misreading caused by microcode, my board has a option to switch between old and new microcode.
> 
> new code has a max temp of 85c in r23 while old microcode has a max of 77c but misreports idle temps (as low as 16c in a 21c room whereas new code has a min of 27c) but if there is such a large temp difference between version, could that mean the newer version misreports higher temps?
> 
> this is just my finding and could be completely invalid but it's worth testing for someone with proper testing equipment or a thermal camera


If you use the old microcode, CPU PLL Voltage Trim 0.945v will BSOD on load and PLL 1.005v will report 80C in the BIOS.
Old ucode had bugs with CPU PLL OC Voltage (this voltage was depreciated after Comet Lake (Z490) and was removed from the BIOS, but seems to be improperly set now, almost as if Intel were trying to experiment with something. This was during pre-release.


----------



## tps3443

Talon2016 said:


> Likely lol.


Same. I’m really torn my self. I feel like because they are screened by Intel, they will be very good chips. Because Intel is binning them to a specific criteria and hand selecting chips based on amperage, wattage, voltage, etc. This was the reason why the 12900KS was so freaking good! And it’s the same reason why lower SP 12900KS was better than a higher SP 12900K. However, I’m also thinking maybe they won’t be that good either. But, I’m hard headed. And I want to compare one directly to my really really good 13900K.

If I do buy one, I’m not binning for a good one. I am going one and done, delidding and slapping it on direct die. And it either flies or dies. 😁


----------



## chibi

Edge0fsanity said:


> Yes its very frustrating to do high end builds and keep getting screwed on silicon lottery. My 5950x in my last build was absolute trash, like bottom 10% chip that needed positive CO on a lot of cores with PBO. Even my 3090 KPE was bottom tier bin for that card.
> 
> Anyways, I'll grab a 13900ks if I can and return this. Is there an official launch date for it yet?


Rumors of Jan 12th launch date. However, some retailers are already selling the KS unofficially. I spotted two in EU/FR so far.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Theres that whole 13600K vs 12400 mega thread that evidently shows undervolting 13th gen chips doesn't work. I dont know why, but say you use offset, you can maybe only drop about 50mv before performance and boosts drop.
> 
> With lite load you can drop around 150-200mv with no performance loss and over 30c temperature reduction.
> 
> So peoples results I see using offset - they drop like what from 1.45 stock to 1.4 - 1.42? Using lite load it drops to 1.25 - 1.3v.


I use Adaptive + VF Curve Offset mode and on the higher clocks I apply a negative offset (.01-.02) to get roughly where I want to be, . Then I tweak AC LL down until it's unstable and raise it a notch or 2. Been working just fine for me and temps are fine,


----------



## RackarN

bhav said:


> Theres that whole 13600K vs 12400 mega thread that evidently shows undervolting 13th gen chips doesn't work. I dont know why, but say you use offset, you can maybe only drop about 50mv before performance and boosts drop.
> 
> With lite load you can drop around 150-200mv with no performance loss and over 30c temperature reduction.
> 
> So peoples results I see using offset - they drop like what from 1.45 stock to 1.4 - 1.42? Using lite load it drops to 1.25 - 1.3v.


My MSI bord gives the CPU 1.45v stock. I adjusted LL and used a negative offset of 0.100 to bring it down to 1.35 under heavy load @ 5.7ghz  i went as far as -0.14 but i got BSOD instead.


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav @acoustic
*There is indeed board-to-board variance, and motherboard degradation is a real thing.*

Testing out this *third *Z790 Edge, with BIOS V1.30 (instead of the beta V1.34 BIOS, since I don't want to influence results).
Trains and boots 4,300 MHz just fine. So already better than the second Z790 Edge.

I had to raise VDDQ to *~1.59V* so far, but it does indeed pass y-cruncher Main 10B + N/H/V. I tried up to ~1.57V, but it wouldn't run y-cruncher.
This was with Memory Fast Boot and VDDQ Training set to *Auto*. VDIMM and VCCSA slightly boosted over my previous config, but shouldn't be a factor. Vcore is still the same.

Will keep testing to see if I can lower VDDQ and restore my other voltages back to their previous stable.

*Update: *Tried to reduce VDDQ to 1.58V, but failed. I think this is all that the board can handle. Gonna pull back to 4,200 MHz and tighten that instead for a daily.


----------



## Prozillah

Prozillah said:


> Hey all, got a question regarding memory oc on 13900k
> 
> 
> 
> Using ddr 4 bdie on msi edge z690 at the following spec
> 
> Core 5.6ghz @ 1.31v
> 
> Ring 4.9
> 
> 2x 16gb 4200mhz cl16 @ 1.55v
> 
> SA 1.35, vddq 1.35
> 
> 
> 
> Dialed that in. Passed tm5 extreme no issues. Y cruncher. R23 and occt a few months back. Latency sat around 48ns give or take.
> 
> 
> 
> And for ****s and gigs I did a Aida the other day and it was up over 50.6ns. And when I run an occt it errors out constantly throwing cpu physical (virtual core) errors at some random point.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it would trip around 2m, other times could be 7 or 15 or 37. I even got as far as 55m occt before it errored out.
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't changed a single thing in bios since my last stable benching runs and now it constantly ****s the bed on occt every run.
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know why this would just start happening??



does anyone actually use OCCT for stress testing? I can pass TM5, r23, game wz2 for hours just fine but virtual errors on occt after a random amount of time.


----------



## Ichirou

Prozillah said:


> does anyone actually use OCCT for stress testing? I can pass TM5, r23, game wz2 for hours just fine but virtual errors on occt after a random amount of time.


Different instruction sets test differently. It seems that OCCT has better power stress testing. Not sure how useful that is in the big picture, though.


----------



## bhav

RackarN said:


> My MSI bord gives the CPU 1.45v stock. I adjusted LL and used a negative offset of 0.100 to bring it down to 1.35 under heavy load @ 5.7ghz  i went as far as -0.14 but i got BSOD instead.


Did you check if you can go lower by not using the offset, and using lower LL values instead.

Also these highly knowledgeable Intel Electrical Engineers that know everything? They still can't tell me what AC_LL / DC_LL actually are or how they should be set, and they now claim these are non Intel features set by the AIBs.

I call BS still and don't believe them, and have asked for an escalation on my ticket, I will get to the bottom of finding the correct values for these settings even if it takes the next 5 years.

Also going to have to find out if MSI have a phone number, all of this is taking way to long to get a simple answer for what I am supposed to set the LL values to.


----------



## VULC

RichKnecht said:


> Are you on an Asus or MSI (or other) board? I updated the ME driver and firmware and no changes to my voltages were made. Everything seems the same.


ME 2091 didn't come with an updated bios on the Strix z690a. I flashed bios 2203 and then the latest 2204 and still the same behaviour. Anyone else with this board have the same issue?


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Did you check if you can go lower by not using the offset, and using lower LL values instead.
> 
> Also these highly knowledgeable Intel Electrical Engineers that know everything? They still can't tell me what AC_LL / DC_LL actually are or how they should be set, and they now claim these are non Intel features set by the AIBs.
> 
> I call BS still and don't believe them, and have asked for an escalation on my ticket, I will get to the bottom of finding the correct values for these settings even if it takes the next 5 years.
> 
> Also going to have to find out if MSI have a phone number, all of this is taking way to long to get a simple answer for what I am supposed to set the LL values to.


There is a reason why Intel only states voltage, current, and wattage on their spec sheets. Everything else is board-specific due to the variance between each board's VRMs.
Bug the motherboard manufacturer, not Intel.

You can get into contact with MSI by opening up a service ticket, and then communicating via e-mail after that.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> There is a reason why Intel only states voltage, current, and wattage on their spec sheets. Everything else is board-specific due to the variance between each board's VRMs.
> Bug the motherboard manufacturer, not Intel.
> 
> You can get into contact with MSI by opening up a service ticket, and then communicating via e-mail after that.


I already have a ticket with MSI and am also trying to get their explanation, but they respond around 2-3 days for everything, but I found their UK phone number and will try phoning them when open tomorrow.

I thought Intel and AIB's do some level of co operation to test their products, its still a puzzle to me, why do chips that work at even 1.19v with an overclock (5.2 all ocre on someone elses 13600K working at 1.19v) request over 1.4v at 'stock'?

'Because Intel Engineers know more than you' is a pure BS response!


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> I already have a ticket with MSI and am also trying to get their explanation, but they respond around 2-3 days for everything, but I found their UK phone number and will try phoning them when open tomorrow.
> 
> I thought Intel and AIB's do some level of co operation to test their products, its still a puzzle to me, why do chips that work at even 1.19v with an overclock (5.2 all ocre on someone elses 13600K working at 1.19v) request over 1.4v at 'stock'?
> 
> 'Because Intel Engineers know more than you' is a pure BS response!


Because Intel's only concerned about stability, not degradation. Their RMA/warranties cover that.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Because Intel's only concerned about stability, not degradation. Their RMA/warranties cover that.


Yes but they are going to end up with a lot of chips being sent back because of this now?

Some opinions are thinking that this stock voltage is somehow to prevent returns due to instability? Its going to lead to more returns from simply unhappy customers or degraded chips.

The other question I'm trying to find out is if the 100c @ 1.409v is safe to run 24/7, not that I would but just how many people are? And loads of people saying 'OFC its safe because thats tjmax and Intel say so', yet how many people here are degrading their chips at such voltages and temperatures?

Then theres also 'No one should be reducing LL settings, this is dangerous and running the CPUs out of Intel Spec, they are supposed to run at 100c'.

No one even knows the right answer, its just opinion vs opinion.

Someone in this thread recently reported whea errors at full stock settings, could this perhaps have been causes by these too high stock voltages causing early chip degradation? There is nothing I like about these stock settings nor any advice saying they are safe to run because Intel say so.


----------



## acoustic

bhav said:


> I already have a ticket with MSI and am also trying to get their explanation, but they respond around 2-3 days for everything, but I found their UK phone number and will try phoning them when open tomorrow.
> 
> I thought Intel and AIB's do some level of co operation to test their products, its still a puzzle to me, why do chips that work at even 1.19v with an overclock (5.2 all ocre on someone elses 13600K working at 1.19v) request over 1.4v at 'stock'?
> 
> 'Because Intel Engineers know more than you' is a pure BS response!


Intel has to make sure that even the lowest common denominator of silicon will still be 100% stable through ALL workloads, not just gaming or things like CB23


----------



## bhav

acoustic said:


> Intel has to make sure that even the lowest common denominator of silicon will still be 100% stable through ALL workloads, not just gaming or things like CB23


While that does make sense, 100c in cinebench = what happens in linpack tests / Y cruncher / stockfish etc? What happens with cooling less than a 420mm Arctic AIO?

Normally node size reductions lead to less voltage needed and lower temperatures not more. This in my experience has been the first time its reversed, and the first time I've had 100c out of the box at stock settings.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Yes but they are going to end up with a lot of chips being sent back because of this now?
> 
> Some opinions are thinking that this stock voltage is somehow to prevent returns due to instability? Its going to lead to more returns from simply unhappy customers or degraded chips.
> 
> The other question I'm trying to find out is if the 100c @ 1.409v is safe to run 24/7, not that I would but just how many people are? And loads of people saying 'OFC its safe because thats tjmax and Intel say so', yet how many people here are degrading their chips at such voltages and temperatures?
> 
> Then theres also 'No one should be reducing LL settings, this is dangerous and running the CPUs out of Intel Spec, they are supposed to run at 100c'.
> 
> No one even knows the right answer, its just opinion vs opinion.
> 
> Someone in this thread recently reported whea errors at full stock settings, could this perhaps have been causes by these too high stock voltages causing early chip degradation? There is nothing I like about these stock settings nor any advice saying they are safe to run because Intel say so.


Their people crunch numbers better than you do. They've weighed the scales already and balanced out their profit-loss.


bhav said:


> While that does make sense, 100c in cinebench = what happens in linpack tests / Y cruncher / stockfish etc?


It throttles as intended. Unless you kill off those protection mechanisms in the BIOS.


----------



## acoustic

bhav said:


> While that does make sense, 100c in cinebench = what happens in linpack tests / Y cruncher / stockfish etc? What happens with cooling less than a 420mm Arctic AIO?


The chip throttles and continues operating.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> It throttles as intended. Unless you kill off those protection mechanisms in the BIOS.





acoustic said:


> The chip throttles and continues operating.


Yes this seems to simply be what the issue is then, all AIBs seem to be removing power limits with the stock bios settings rather than enforcing them, this was already a suggestion I made to MSI - 'Stock bios should abide to Intel spec and enforce 181w PL on my chip, not remove it, please consider removing the pop up options for selecting PL limits separately and force boxed cooler preset when reverting to bios defaults'.

With 181w enforced on 13600K / KF, they simply underclock to 4.8 in cinebench but run under 80c, they should still maintain 5.1 in gaming, this is the setting that should be present for everyone running at stock, but it isnt and the stock bios does unlimited PL.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> @bhav @acoustic
> *There is indeed board-to-board variance, and motherboard degradation is a real thing.*
> 
> Testing out this *third *Z790 Edge, with BIOS V1.30 (instead of the beta V1.34 BIOS, since I don't want to influence results).
> Trains and boots 4,300 MHz just fine. So already better than the second Z790 Edge.
> 
> I had to raise VDDQ to *~1.59V* so far, but it does indeed pass y-cruncher Main 10B + N/H/V. I tried up to ~1.57V, but it wouldn't run y-cruncher.
> This was with Memory Fast Boot and VDDQ Training set to *Auto*. VDIMM and VCCSA slightly boosted over my previous config, but shouldn't be a factor. Vcore is still the same.
> 
> Will keep testing to see if I can lower VDDQ and restore my other voltages back to their previous stable.
> 
> *Update: *Tried to reduce VDDQ to 1.58V, but failed. I think this is all that the board can handle. Gonna pull back to 4,200 MHz and tighten that instead for a daily.


I got 4200mhz stable 1.329v SA, 1.325v VDDQ, and 1.5125v DRAM. 4300mhz seems very rare unless you use insane voltages.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> I got 4200mhz stable 1.329v SA, 1.325v VDDQ, and 1.5125v DRAM. 4300mhz seems very rare unless you use insane voltages.


MSI boards use more VDDQ than ASUS boards do. Even at 4,200 MHz, I seem to struggle below 1.54V VDDQ on this board.
It may or may not be due to the die type being different (Micron vs Samsung), and four DIMMs instead of two.

In any case, this is why I'm dialing back with my overclock and running 4,200 MHz daily instead.
I've noticed that at the 1.58V+ VDDQ mark, it can sometimes just plain overheat and throw errors because of that.

It kind of sucks, because this chip has a diamond tier IMC (1.26V VCCSA is enough for 4,300 MHz), but I can't fully capitalize on it due to VDDQ limitations.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

Falkentyne said:


> If you use the old microcode, CPU PLL Voltage Trim 0.945v will BSOD on load and PLL 1.005v will report 80C in the BIOS.
> Old ucode had bugs with CPU PLL OC Voltage (this voltage was depreciated after Comet Lake (Z490) and was removed from the BIOS, but seems to be improperly set now, almost as if Intel were trying to experiment with something. This was during pre-release.


Thanks for the reply, would it be worth tuning trim voltage or leave it on auto?


----------



## Ichirou

@bhav @acoustic @VULC
Strange phenomenon.
I try to lower VDDQ with 4,200 MHz. Bottoms out at 1.54V. Okay.
1.53V fails, so I retest 1.54V to be sure, but it still fails, so I reflash BIOS to clear BIOS corruption.
1.54V no longer passes even then, but 1.55V does.
i reflash and try out 1.55V. Even that fails, but 1.56V passes.
What gives? Is there some sort of motherboard burn-in period? I'm baffled right now.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> @bhav @acoustic @VULC
> Strange phenomenon.
> I try to lower VDDQ with 4,200 MHz. Bottoms out at 1.54V. Okay.
> 1.53V fails, so I retest 1.54V to be sure, but it still fails, so I reflash BIOS to clear BIOS corruption.
> 1.54V no longer passes even then, but 1.55V does.
> i reflash and try out 1.55V. Even that fails, but 1.56V passes.
> What gives? Is there some sort of motherboard burn-in period? I'm baffled right now.


Could have been one-off training events that were borderline stable. Just had similar happen while testing the new BIOS for the Unify-X.


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Could have been one-off training events that were borderline stable. Just had similar happen while testing the new BIOS for the Unify-X.


So should I treat 1.56V as being the minimum required VDDQ, then?

On a side note, I played around with the "Training Mode" a little, as suggested.
"Optimized Mode" instantly throws low memory voltage BSODs, but "Extreme Mode" seems to run just fine. Haven't tested "Intel MRC Mode" yet.


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> So should I treat 1.56V as being the minimum required VDDQ, then?
> 
> On a side note, I played around with the "Training Mode" a little, as suggested.
> "Optimized Mode" instantly throws low memory voltage BSODs, but "Extreme Mode" seems to run just fine. Haven't tested "Intel MRC Mode" yet.


Check your RTLs with Extreme Mode. I found it would train them a bit looser than Optimized mode.

I would save the 1.56v setup to a profile. Shut down, clear CMOS, load the profile. If it trains first shot, good; go into Windows and hit it with Karhu or MemTestPro. If it passes, I'd say you're likely good to go.


----------



## Falkentyne

AlphaGaming17 said:


> Thanks for the reply, would it be worth tuning trim voltage or leave it on auto?


Don't touch the trim on old microcode.
Your CPU won't like you if you touch the trim on old microcode.

On current ucode, Core PLL 1.02v-1.0375v-1.05v tends to give slightly higher stability than stock (0.900v), just like how a few people found MC PLL 1.02v helped them slightly for memory controller.
You will have to test this for yourself because too much trim can cause negative scaling. You will need to be at, or just BARELY BELOW your absolute bare minimum vcore floor (at stock PLL) in order to actually test this.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> @bhav @acoustic @VULC
> Strange phenomenon.
> I try to lower VDDQ with 4,200 MHz. Bottoms out at 1.54V. Okay.
> 1.53V fails, so I retest 1.54V to be sure, but it still fails, so I reflash BIOS to clear BIOS corruption.
> 1.54V no longer passes even then, but 1.55V does.
> i reflash and try out 1.55V. Even that fails, but 1.56V passes.
> What gives? Is there some sort of motherboard burn-in period? I'm baffled right now.


4 X 16gb puts allot of strain on the cpu requires high VDDQ. Perhaps your ram is giving out? Going from 4 X 8 to 2 x16 my vddq dropped from 1.4 to 1.325v. It's most likely variations in training on boot though.


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> While that does make sense, 100c in cinebench = what happens in linpack tests / Y cruncher / stockfish etc? What happens with cooling less than a 420mm Arctic AIO?
> 
> Normally node size reductions lead to less voltage needed and lower temperatures not more. This in my experience has been the first time its reversed, and the first time I've had 100c out of the box at stock settings.


I get 86C at stock in Stockfish (P cores manually set to 5.5 ghz to avoid the 5.8 two core boost, which gives slightly lower auto vcore, all other voltages, LLC=auto, vcore=auto, AC/DCLL=auto etc).
This is on a 360mm AIO, not a 420mm.





























As I said earlier, not all chips overheat at stock.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

Falkentyne said:


> Don't touch the trim on old microcode.
> Your CPU won't like you if you touch the trim on old microcode.
> 
> On current ucode, Core PLL 1.02v-1.0375v-1.05v tends to give slightly higher stability than stock (0.900v), just like how a few people found MC PLL 1.02v helped them slightly for memory controller.
> You will have to test this for yourself because too much trim can cause negative scaling. You will need to be at, or just BARELY BELOW your absolute bare minimum vcore floor (at stock PLL) in order to actually test this.


thanks for the info, will do some testing on this today


----------



## Ichirou

acoustic said:


> Check your RTLs with Extreme Mode. I found it would train them a bit looser than Optimized mode.
> 
> I would save the 1.56v setup to a profile. Shut down, clear CMOS, load the profile. If it trains first shot, good; go into Windows and hit it with Karhu or MemTestPro. If it passes, I'd say you're likely good to go.


Not even 1.56V works anymore... This VDDQ **** is whack. Training inconsistencies everywhere.
Will let you know if I manage to restabilize. Zzz.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> 4 X 16gb puts allot of strain on the cpu requires high VDDQ. Perhaps your ram is giving out? Going from 4 X 8 to 2 x16 my vddq dropped from 1.4 to 1.325v


Different kits of RAM require different amounts; it's apples and oranges.
But yes, the primary suspicion is the second channel just being overall weaker and requiring more VDDQ to stabilize.


----------



## Falkentyne

and this is 7 minutes of Prime95 small FFT AVX1 at stock
STILL not 100C.
HWinfo run time is wrong because I accidentally closed it during the test.


----------



## tps3443

Falkentyne said:


> and this is 7 minutes of Prime95 small FFT AVX1 at stock
> STILL not 100C.
> HWinfo run time is wrong because I accidentally closed it during the test.
> 
> View attachment 2592186


Auto voltage? Or you are manually entering a lower V-Core?


----------



## JRomeo

Good evening guys,

I'm trying to make OC in my memory but idk how to start, could you have some guide for me start and learning?

My configs:
I7 13700KF - 5.5 - 1.31V
Z790-P MSI PRO
RTX 3070 TI
Memory Asgard 3600Mhz CL14-15 - (SAMSUNG BDIE)
MM OC -- 4000Mhz CL16 16 - 1.49V <-- I asked for a tweaker make OC for me, but I want make better and learn =)









MMOC


Image MMOC hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co


----------



## Prozillah

Ichirou said:


> @bhav @acoustic @VULC
> Strange phenomenon.
> I try to lower VDDQ with 4,200 MHz. Bottoms out at 1.54V. Okay.
> 1.53V fails, so I retest 1.54V to be sure, but it still fails, so I reflash BIOS to clear BIOS corruption.
> 1.54V no longer passes even then, but 1.55V does.
> i reflash and try out 1.55V. Even that fails, but 1.56V passes.
> What gives? Is there some sort of motherboard burn-in period? I'm baffled right now.


What test suite are you using that ID's failures?


----------



## Ichirou

Prozillah said:


> What test suite are you using that ID's failures?


y-cruncher. The main test plus N64/HNT/VST.


----------



## tps3443

Off topic: Man, I love these QD3 Koolance fittings!! I’m getting more for sure. My flow seems as good as ever. I do not have much restriction in my loop since I don’t have any radiators. These fittings are super HEAVY, very BIG, and very high quality! I feel like I’m hooking up some really crazy high pressure and very important line to a commercial machine or something 🤣lol.

When you release them and the fittings are not installed on tubing yet, they actually fire out of the fitting with extreme force. (Just so you know to be careful and not take your eye out)

These fittings are so freaking GOOD!!!


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> DDR4 and DDR5 are vastly different; DDR4 just needs a lot more of everything in general.
> 
> I still don't fully understand the nature of VDDQ, but I do know that each board/BIOS/CPU requires different amounts.
> And this scales depending on the RAM's die type, DIMM count, and capacity.
> 
> It's almost as if there's no discernable pattern. But we'll see after I receive my new board (again) and test it out.


I don’t know what would be better. I really hope this was just normal reboot instability. I sincerely hope neither component _actually_ degraded.


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> I don’t know what would be better. I really hope this was just normal reboot instability. I sincerely hope neither component _actually_ degraded.


You're a bit late. I've already proven that motherboards do indeed degrade.
But unless you're pushing VDDQ to high amounts, you'll probably be fine. DDR5 is overall safer than DDR4 in terms of voltages.


----------



## yzonker

tps3443 said:


> Off topic: Man, I love these QD3 Koolance fittings!! I’m getting more for sure. My flow seems as good as ever. I do not have much restriction in my loop since I don’t have any radiators. These fittings are super HEAVY, very BIG, and very high quality! I feel like I’m hooking up some really crazy high pressure and very important line to a commercial machine or something 🤣lol.
> 
> When you release them and the fittings are not installed on tubing yet, they actually fire out of the fitting with extreme force. (Just so you know to be careful and not take your eye out)
> 
> These fittings are so freaking GOOD!!!
> 
> View attachment 2592194
> 
> View attachment 2592196
> 
> View attachment 2592195


Yup I love those too. I just use them on my external rads and chiller, but super handy and reliable. Mine have a lot of plug/unplug cycles with no issues.


----------



## Ichirou

@acoustic Couldn't gain any semblance of stability without raising VDDQ even higher to 1.57V now.
Any idea what's going on? Tried reflashing/clearing CMOS/etc. Is it motherboard burn-in?
Don't think training's the issue here. Usually if it is, I can just reflash and it'll work properly again after loading up the same profile.


----------



## yzonker

Falkentyne said:


> I get 86C at stock in Stockfish (P cores manually set to 5.5 ghz to avoid the 5.8 two core boost, which gives slightly lower auto vcore, all other voltages, LLC=auto, vcore=auto, AC/DCLL=auto etc).
> This is on a 360mm AIO, not a 420mm.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2592183
> 
> 
> View attachment 2592184
> 
> 
> View attachment 2592185
> 
> 
> As I said earlier, not all chips overheat at stock.


I think most need a lot more voltage than yours though (mine does for sure) . I get similar temps, but only because I have a custom loop and 3x480 rads.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

yzonker said:


> I think most need a lot more voltage than yours though (mine does for sure) . I get similar temps, but only because I have a custom loop and 3x480 rads.


His chip has a pretty good sp, looks like his stock load voltage is around 1.18, my SP98 stock load volts is 1.29v

Stock IA AC/DC for my board is 0.500/1.100


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> I get 86C at stock in Stockfish (P cores manually set to 5.5 ghz to avoid the 5.8 two core boost, which gives slightly lower auto vcore, all other voltages, LLC=auto, vcore=auto, AC/DCLL=auto etc).
> This is on a 360mm AIO, not a 420mm.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2592183
> 
> 
> View attachment 2592184
> 
> 
> View attachment 2592185
> 
> 
> As I said earlier, not all chips overheat at stock.


You see, you got a chip that only takes 1.36v maximum at stock. There are many such as mine taking 1.4+, highest posted so far was needing 1.5v+ for stock, The sustained seems to be 50mv lower than the maximum, so I get 1.36v sustained, this is uncoolable on AIOs, and many people posting stock voltages higher than this. So if your 1.36v max leads to 1.31 sustained, your temperatures with a 360mm AIO are in line with what I get at manual settings around 1.32-1.33v.

My take on this is that chips requiring high voltages like mine for stock, for people unwilling / unknowledgeable on changing bios settings, these can be considered defective, and people are already starting to return them.

1.35v+ sustained seems to be uncoolable on any AIO setup.


----------



## VULC

Prozillah said:


> What test suite are you using that ID's failures?


TM5 1usmus_v3


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> @acoustic Couldn't gain any semblance of stability without raising VDDQ even higher to 1.57V now.
> Any idea what's going on? Tried reflashing/clearing CMOS/etc. Is it motherboard burn-in?
> Don't think training's the issue here. Usually if it is, I can just reflash and it'll work properly again after loading up the same profile.


No other explanation but new board being broken in? Try latest bios?


----------



## munk33

VULC said:


> I got 4200mhz stable 1.329v SA, 1.325v VDDQ, and 1.5125v DRAM. 4300mhz seems very rare unless you use insane voltages.


my 13900KF is doing 4300MHz on an MSI Z790 Tomahawk @ 1.6 VDIMM + 1.375 SA + 1.425 VDDQ


----------



## acoustic

Ichirou said:


> @acoustic Couldn't gain any semblance of stability without raising VDDQ even higher to 1.57V now.
> Any idea what's going on? Tried reflashing/clearing CMOS/etc. Is it motherboard burn-in?
> Don't think training's the issue here. Usually if it is, I can just reflash and it'll work properly again after loading up the same profile.


I'd guess it's burn-in. Board was brand new, so wouldn't be crazy to experience considering CPUs under-go the same behavior.

Try the new BETA BIOS and see if there's any improvements.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> @bhav @acoustic @VULC
> Strange phenomenon.
> I try to lower VDDQ with 4,200 MHz. Bottoms out at 1.54V. Okay.
> 1.53V fails, so I retest 1.54V to be sure, but it still fails, so I reflash BIOS to clear BIOS corruption.
> 1.54V no longer passes even then, but 1.55V does.
> i reflash and try out 1.55V. Even that fails, but 1.56V passes.
> What gives? Is there some sort of motherboard burn-in period? I'm baffled right now.


I think maybe your board that initially ran 4 sticks 4300CL14 was the equivalent of a diamond bin board, at least concerning the second channel slots.

The degradation seems to be hitting the second channel hard, the same way Asus Z690 DDR5 boards had their second channel fail.

As for why there aren't other reports of this on DDR4 boards? You're the only person with a 4x16 kit that can push 4300G1, this isn't being tested by anyone else.

Overclocking ram to its limit on the second channel, its just looking like a no go for anyone.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

*Falkentyne*
would you be able to post a screenshot of this section in hwinfo summery at stock pls


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> DDR4 and DDR5 are vastly different; DDR4 just needs a lot more of everything in general.


Regarding voltages, its the same every gen. If you take what DDR4 can do compared to DDR3 on lower voltage and so on, its always the same.

The main focus of new DDR gens is higher clocks, less volts, but always with JEDEC standard settings, latency seems to go up a bit each gen, to maintain the same results as DDR1 up to DDR4, you have to generally maintain the same Freq : Cas ratio, generally freq / CL = 300. Any higher than 300 on that is very very good, so like 4300 / 13 is 307.


----------



## bhav

HemuV2 said:


> I mean you could "enforce all limits" and it won't ever break the 251W barrier keeping it at 85C or so on AIO, only fully unlocked PL is insta throttle zone.


Yes I already tried this, for general users that don't OC its fine.

In my case enforcing 181 PL which is 13600KF spec reduces the all core clock to 4.8, this probably makes it slower than my stock 12600K.

You can't do stock settings and maintain stock turbo on such chips with a high VID, in the case of 13600KF it should be 5.1 all core.

Now with manual voltage, my 12600K took 1.29v for 5.0 all core, the 13600KF which is a crap bin for 13th gen still does 5.4 all core at 1.25v.

The stock voltage on a lot of these chips is a huge disappointment, up until now each new gen you get higher clocks at less voltage, which is still true with manual volts but not true for stock.


----------



## Falkentyne

tps3443 said:


> Auto voltage? Or you are manually entering a lower V-Core?


Auto. (P cores x55, E cores x43, ring x45, manually set).
I Just limited the P cores to x55, otherwise vcore would be around 30mv higher (to allow for x58 boosting on v/f curve).


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> You see, you got a chip that only takes 1.36v maximum at stock. There are many such as mine taking 1.4+, highest posted so far was needing 1.5v+ for stock, The sustained seems to be 50mv lower than the maximum, so I get 1.36v sustained, this is uncoolable on AIOs, and many people posting stock voltages higher than this. So if your 1.36v max leads to 1.31 sustained, your temperatures with a 360mm AIO are in line with what I get at manual settings around 1.32-1.33v.
> 
> My take on this is that chips requiring high voltages like mine for stock, for people unwilling / unknowledgeable on changing bios settings, these can be considered defective, and people are already starting to return them.
> 
> 1.35v+ sustained seems to be uncoolable on any AIO setup.


Ok that's a logical criticism, but isn't that simply "Low silicon lottery problems?"
aka "low P-core SP" = higher VID, higher temps.

Also you're overlooking one thing.
Stock All P-core ratio is supposed to be x54, not x55.
Try setting your P-cores to x54 and see if you overheat.
The x55 value was leaked around July and used for QS chips, which are required to be tested for retail validation. But Intel set a x54 P-core ratio in August.
I'm not sure if x55 was supposed to be some sort of "TVB" <70C threshold, like what we saw on 10900K, but ADL didn't have anything like this, so either Intel found that x55 was uncoolable and scrapped it, or it was planned and discarded. But everyone went with x55 all cores since that's what was set for QS validation, but officially it's supposed to be x54.

I can run Prime95 FMA3 small FFT at x54 without reaching 100C barely (I think vmin is 1.110v die sense). But x55? Forget it.


----------



## Falkentyne

AlphaGaming17 said:


> *Falkentyne*
> would you be able to post a screenshot of this section in hwinfo summery at stock pls
> View attachment 2592209


P cores capped at x55:


----------



## Prozillah

Ichirou said:


> y-cruncher. The main test plus N64/HNT/VST.


When you say the main test - which number are you referring to? Sorry noob question I tried 11, 16, 17 & 18 - 12 & 13 absolute rape it and my AIO cant handle - even tho it didnt crash, i just dont like seeing my cpu go to 99c


----------



## AlphaGaming17

Falkentyne said:


> Ok that's a logical criticism, but isn't that simply "Low silicon lottery problems?"
> aka "low P-core SP" = higher VID, higher temps.
> 
> Also you're overlooking one thing.
> Stock All P-core ratio is supposed to be x54, not x55.
> Try setting your P-cores to x54 and see if you overheat.
> The x55 value was leaked around July and used for QS chips, which are required to be tested for retail validation. But Intel set a x54 P-core ratio in August.
> I'm not sure if x55 was supposed to be some sort of "TVB" <70C threshold, like what we saw on 10900K, but ADL didn't have anything like this, so either Intel found that x55 was uncoolable and scrapped it, or it was planned and discarded. But everyone went with x55 all cores since that's what was set for QS validation, but officially it's supposed to be x54.
> 
> I can run Prime95 FMA3 small FFT at x54 without reaching 100C barely (I think vmin is 1.110v die sense). But x55? Forget it.





Falkentyne said:


> P cores capped at x55:
> 
> View attachment 2592212


Thank you


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> Ok that's a logical criticism, but isn't that simply "Low silicon lottery problems?"
> aka "low P-core SP" = higher VID, higher temps.
> 
> Also you're overlooking one thing.
> Stock All P-core ratio is supposed to be x54, not x55.
> Try setting your P-cores to x54 and see if you overheat.
> The x55 value was leaked around July and used for QS chips, which are required to be tested for retail validation. But Intel set a x54 P-core ratio in August.
> I'm not sure if x55 was supposed to be some sort of "TVB" <70C threshold, like what we saw on 10900K, but ADL didn't have anything like this, so either Intel found that x55 was uncoolable and scrapped it, or it was planned and discarded. But everyone went with x55 all cores since that's what was set for QS validation, but officially it's supposed to be x54.
> 
> I can run Prime95 FMA3 small FFT at x54 without reaching 100C barely (I think vmin is 1.110v die sense). But x55? Forget it.


Sorry I'm using 13600KF not 13900K.

It runs at just 5.1 Ghz. It still takes 1.409v max, 1.359v sustained.

This seems to be the norm, regarding silicon lottery chips like yours seem to be just 10% of 13th gen chips, 90% seem to be requesting 1.35v+ maintained at stock, even for just 5.1 Ghz on the 13600K / KF.

Even on such a 'low bin', my chip runs 5.4 all core HT on with 1.25v, so to me the stock voltage is completely inexcusable.


----------



## Falkentyne

AlphaGaming17 said:


> Thank you


Here is what it says when I set P-core ratio from "Sync all cores" (with P-cores themselves set to "Auto", it seems to lock them to x55 anyway with sync all cores set to on), to pure "Auto").











It shows a lower VID because c-states are enabled.
When P-core ratio is set to "Auto", it enables c-states.
But when P-core ratio is set to "Sync all cores"--even with the all core ratio=Auto, it disables c-states.

So there you go.
Load vcore in Stockfish and prime95 is 30mv higher than with "Sync all cores" set.


----------



## yzonker

This is what I get. All auto, p-cores limited to 55 (let me know if that looks right, seems to match @Falkentyne 's screenshot).


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> No other explanation but new board being broken in? Try latest bios?





acoustic said:


> I'd guess it's burn-in. Board was brand new, so wouldn't be crazy to experience considering CPUs under-go the same behavior.
> 
> Try the new BETA BIOS and see if there's any improvements.


Will test BIOS V1.34 and report back.


bhav said:


> I think maybe your board that initially ran 4 sticks 4300CL14 was the equivalent of a diamond bin board, at least concerning the second channel slots.
> 
> The degradation seems to be hitting the second channel hard, the same way Asus Z690 DDR5 boards had their second channel fail.
> 
> As for why there aren't other reports of this on DDR4 boards? You're the only person with a 4x16 kit that can push 4300G1, this isn't being tested by anyone else.
> 
> Overclocking ram to its limit on the second channel, its just looking like a no go for anyone.


Yeah, I do get the feeling that I struck the lottery with my first Z790 Edge. Up until it degraded, that is.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

Falkentyne said:


> Here is what it says when I set P-core ratio from "Sync all cores" (with P-cores themselves set to "Auto", it seems to lock them to x55 anyway with sync all cores set to on), to pure "Auto").
> 
> View attachment 2592227
> 
> 
> 
> It shows a lower VID because c-states are enabled.
> When P-core ratio is set to "Auto", it enables c-states.
> But when P-core ratio is set to "Sync all cores"--even with the all core ratio=Auto, it disables c-states.
> 
> So there you go.
> Load vcore in Stockfish and prime95 is 30mv higher than with "Sync all cores" set.


The voltage in the CPU current section must be a target voltage

Here's what mine reports using your settings locked 55/43/45 everything else stock with tvb volt optimization enabled:









Full Auto:


----------



## Ichirou

@VULC @acoustic
Flashed BIOS V1.34, and loaded up my 4,200 MHz config with nothing changed except VDDQ set to ~1.53V (tentative). Passes y-cruncher first try.
Definitely some VDDQ optimizations made with this new BIOS. No reason to go back.

I had the same experience on my first board when I initially tested this beta BIOS post-degradation:
I could stabilize with 1.60V VDDQ on BIOS V1.34, even though BIOS V1.30 couldn't stabilize with _any _amount of VDDQ.

Going to keep experimenting with this BIOS. Let's see how low I can go with VDDQ. Hopefully under 1.50V for a safe-enough daily.
I wonder why this beta BIOS hasn't been pushed out to the public yet. It's actually pretty old, created at late November.

*Update: *1.53V VDDQ is the lowest I can go for my 4,200 MHz config. Going to embark in some CPU overclocking now.


----------



## AlphaGaming17

Falkentyne said:


> Here is what it says when I set P-core ratio from "Sync all cores" (with P-cores themselves set to "Auto", it seems to lock them to x55 anyway with sync all cores set to on), to pure "Auto").
> 
> View attachment 2592227
> 
> 
> 
> It shows a lower VID because c-states are enabled.
> When P-core ratio is set to "Auto", it enables c-states.
> But when P-core ratio is set to "Sync all cores"--even with the all core ratio=Auto, it disables c-states.
> 
> So there you go.
> Load vcore in Stockfish and prime95 is 30mv higher than with "Sync all cores" set.


Limiting the cpu to 55 seems to change the AC/DC load line and vrm load line from level 3 to level 4.

auto sets this to 0.50/1.10, only limiting p cores to 55 sets it to 0.30/0.980, this reduced load voltage by 45mv and would explain the change in load voltage


----------



## RichKnecht

acoustic said:


> I'd guess it's burn-in. Board was brand new, so wouldn't be crazy to experience considering CPUs under-go the same behavior.
> 
> Try the new BETA BIOS and see if there's any improvements.


Where do you guys find these beta bioses?


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> You're a bit late. I've already proven that motherboards do indeed degrade.
> But unless you're pushing VDDQ to high amounts, you'll probably be fine. DDR5 is overall safer than DDR4 in terms of voltages.


How so? Also how would the TX rail degrade board if the DDR rail has been pushed to 1.6+ for many years and that generally is what has - so to speak - powered the DIMM slots. Like the concept of degrading a motherboard doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in all honesty. What exactly are we degrading and how?


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> How so? Also how would the TX rail degrade board if the DDR rail has been pushed to 1.6+ for many years and that generally is what has - so to speak - powered the DIMM slots. Like the concept of degrading a motherboard doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in all honesty. What exactly are we degrading and how?


Z690 Edge: Needed 1.59V before, now needs 1.62V at the least.
First Z790 Edge: Needed 1.53V before, now needs 1.60V at the least.
Second Z790 Edge: Can't even boot my memory overclock.
Third Z790 Edge: 1.53V is stable.

Vcore, VCCSA, VDIMM, L2 Cache all remain the same.

I speak from empirical evidence, not theory. These boards degrade. And the culprit is VDDQ for some reason.


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> Z690 Edge: Needed 1.59V before, now needs 1.62V at the least.
> First Z790 Edge: Needed 1.53V before, now needs 1.60V at the least.
> Second Z790 Edge: Can't even boot my memory overclock.
> Third Z790 Edge: 1.53V is stable.
> 
> Vcore, VCCSA, VDIMM, L2 Cache all remain the same.
> 
> I speak from empirical evidence, not theory. These boards degrade. And the culprit is VDDQ for some reason.


VDD and VDDQ are FIVR'd.
The motherboard doesn't supply these voltages.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> Z690 Edge: Needed 1.59V before, now needs 1.62V at the least.
> First Z790 Edge: Needed 1.53V before, now needs 1.60V at the least.
> Second Z790 Edge: Can't even boot my memory overclock.
> Third Z790 Edge: 1.53V is stable.
> 
> Vcore, VCCSA, VDIMM, L2 Cache all remain the same.
> 
> I speak from empirical evidence, not theory. These boards degrade. And the culprit is VDDQ for some reason.


So my 2 sticks micron only need 1.3v VDDQ, the amount needed if I had bought another kit on ebay would go up a lot, and not really much chance of getting 4300CL14 with 4 sticks based on your findings.

So at first I was going to try to do that as you know, I was trying to get the same ram setup as yours when it worked at 4300CL14, but thanks to your testing it would be a waste of money and effort.

For 64 Gb, or any capacity in general, best to stick to 1DPC, and ideally get a board with 2 ram slots.

2x32 on anything other than micron B die is so crap though, and micron went and stopped making that for their junk DDR5, and now they lost all their market share value lol.


----------



## Ichirou

Falkentyne said:


> VDD and VDDQ are FIVR'd.
> The motherboard doesn't supply these voltages.


Wouldn't explain the motherboard being the only odd one out when testing the exact same hardware and config for everything else. 

Remember: Four tested motherboards, not one.


bhav said:


> So my 2 sticks micron only need 1.3v VDDQ, the amount needed if I had bought another kit on ebay would go up a lot, and not really much chance of getting 4300CL14 with 4 sticks based on your findings.
> 
> So at first I was going to try to do that as you know, I was trying to get the same ram setup as yours when it worked at 4300CL14, but thanks to your testing it would be a waste of money and effort.
> 
> For 64 Gb, or any capacity in general, best to stick to 1DPC, and ideally get a board with 2 ram slots.


Really just depends on what you want. If it's only 4,200 MHz or lower, it doesn't really matter.


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> Z690 Edge: Needed 1.59V before, now needs 1.62V at the least.
> First Z790 Edge: Needed 1.53V before, now needs 1.60V at the least.
> Second Z790 Edge: Can't even boot my memory overclock.
> Third Z790 Edge: 1.53V is stable.
> 
> Vcore, VCCSA, VDIMM, L2 Cache all remain the same.
> 
> I speak from empirical evidence, not theory. These boards degrade. And the culprit is VDDQ for some reason.


Wait this is the same chip?


----------



## bhav

affxct said:


> How so? Also how would the TX rail degrade board if the DDR rail has been pushed to 1.6+ for many years and that generally is what has - so to speak - powered the DIMM slots. Like the concept of degrading a motherboard doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in all honesty. What exactly are we degrading and how?


Well when you bought up the PSY thing or W/E its called, that is what a lot of people have told me running 1.72v vdimm will somehow degrade. From what I previously thought the vdimm goes to the ram only and shouldn't affect anything else, as for the dimm slots, previous gen DDR used a lot higher than even 1.8v, so I'm not sure how the slots themselves would be negatively affected.

What does seem to be the case, from looking at Ichirou's results and the problems that Asus Z690 boards had when running 4 x DDR5 modues, is the daisy chain trace to the second channel is what seems to be failing at these high vdimm and vddq settings.


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> Wait this is the same chip?


Yes. Everything is literally the same except the motherboard. I made sure to rule out any variables except for the motherboard.
Hell, if you want, you could even include the Z790 Strix into the mix. But that board couldn't even boot above 3,900 MHz with 4x16 GB for me, so...


----------



## affxct

bhav said:


> Well when you bought up the PSY thing or W/E its called, that is what a lot of people have told me running 1.72v vdimm will somehow degrade. From what I previously though the vdimm goes to the ram only and shouldn't affect anything else, as for the dimm slots, previous gen DDR used a lot higher than even 1.8v, so I'm not sure how the slots themselves would be negatively affected.
> 
> What does seem to be the case, from looking at Ichirou's results and the problems that Asus Z690 boards had when running 4 x DDR5 modues, is the daisy chain trace to the second channel is what seems to be failing at these high vdimm and vddq settings.


I feel bad for questioning. I genuinely don’t mean it with malice. I’m an argumentative person so maybe I can’t help it 🤣. Ok but look.

As far as I understand It with my limited time getting into technical computing. DDR5’s voltage setup is a trio of VDD, VDDQ and VDD2. VDD2 is board-generated which is why on ASUS it never goes red. It does have an absolute value of 1.65 IIRC on ASUS. On my Dark it goes red oddly early. The VDD2 rail is what drives the signal/info to the CPU PHY pins. The CPU PHY is the same idea as with a 4080 for example my 4080 has 8X PHYs which yield its 256-bit bus. Each PHY correlates to a solder point under the substrate where a group of traces run to a corresponding memory bank. The kind of thing you get familiarised with if you watch a lot of KrisFix/Tech Cemetry.

I’m not 100% sure how the tracing for the PHYs on CPUs works when correlated to different memory banks on DRAM, but I don’t know that it matters in all honesty. But basically with DDR all the way till now, there have never been power stages on the sticks. The PMIC is essentially just a smart power stage that provides our D5 cleaner voltage to enable super duper data rates. The VDD2 rail still needs to get the data to the CPU. So where do SA and TX come in? Well SA has pretty much always been the uncore, and TX is the transmitter. It’s essentially what issues commands to and from the DRAM (I may or may not have just stumbled upon that way of phrasing it while typing this out). But yeah it’s the main command point for our RAM. TX is the IMC and it’s the rail that responds to MC_PLL adjustments.

It should also be the rail that corresponds to training voltage adjustments on ASUS. If it isn’t and that setting refers to VDD2, then I’m done. Please ASUS devs fix the BIOS naming, it’s objectively stupid and there’s no shame because Gigabyte fixed theirs on Z790. But yeah. TX shouldn’t ever touch the DRAM. Like there’s just no possible explanation for what TX could be doing all the way on the PCB trace and then god forbid on your memory stick. Like how’d it get there? 🤔😂

As QXE mentioned a few days back, the fact that VDD2 is separate and can generally be set lower than your DRAM rails means that daily’ing 1.8V VDD/VDDQ might no longer be an issue (please don’t attempt this unless you LITERALLY have a comparable cooling setup to someone like sugi0lover or that one person with two MO-RAs), but having 1.65+ VDD2 daily is sus. Maybe 1.65, but 1.7+ no way. You might actually degrade the PHY by that point, but it would be so weird. To be honest I don’t know what the IMC looks like but from die shots it seems as though the PHYs are separate from the actual Transmitter/TX part of the IMC. Correct me if I’m wrong.

As with SA and TX, just like any other internal rail in the actual CPU, the silicon will degrade if there’s oxide breakdown or electromigration. So like 1.7-1.8 SA/TX should straight up kill the uncore/IMC quickly unless you’re on LN2, but even then idk how it’d react, and perhaps 1.45 SA/1.6 TX are where both rails become vulnerable to ‘high’ current workloads. Of course by that point you could argue that running y-cruncher with your chip in the 60s would likely make 1.45 SA/1.6+ TX more doable.

If you’re about to ask, no I would absolutely not suggest daily’ing more than 1.65V with D4. I mean I had the Ballistix Max sticks at a time and I was daily’ing 1.6V for 5000C18-2T/3800C13-1T and it was fine, but even then it seemed crazy. The only other people daily’ing 1.6-1.65 at the time were some OCN members and FrameChasers was at like 1.65 for 4533C17 2x16 S8B. TheOverclocker journalist from South Africa daily’d 1.65 with B-die for like 2-3 years. I don’t know if it was 2 or 3 but it was one of them.


----------



## YoungChris

I have every intention of throwing above 1.6vsa into the 13900k that's on the way if that's what it takes to bench with a dud. SP 94, P 104, E 73, MC unknown.

I also have will run any stick of memory in my possession at above 1.8vdimm so long as scaling continues. Generally rollover or negative scaling will tell you if you're going too far long before something bites the dust.

I put 1.63 core, 1.675 io aux, 1.725 sa, and 2.15 dimm through an 11900k for hours on ambient and that sucker refused to degrade. By ambient I mean a Scythe Fuma 2 and no fan on the memory.

This hardware is really not a fragile as y'all think. So many of y'all upgrade basically every launch, y'all don't even have time to worry about degradation. Go ahead and get your money's worth, have some fun while you're at it.


----------



## affxct

@bhav @Ichirou
Along with the previous post I think I have a theory. Each board sample had variance in PCB impedance. Some are simply better than others. The TX requirement for your RAM config varied between samples. The reason why you’re observing necessary increases in two of your samples is because the IMC may have degraded and thus required more with respect to what that sample was capable of doing to begin with.
The reason the one board can’t train at all is likely because the sample is far poorer than the other three and thus your IMC can’t support your DRAM config in its current operating capacity. Your current third Z790 Edge is by far and large the best sample and hopefully at your current safer values it will never see a necessary increase.

VDD2 causes PAGE_FILE_IN_NON_PAGED_AREA and KMODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED. It’s effectively the same thing as the D4 DDR rail. But if the PHYs receive DDR/VDD2, how could TX be sent down the same data line? That’s kinda the thing.


----------



## affxct

YoungChris said:


> I have every intention of throwing above 1.6vsa into the 13900k that's on the way if that's what it takes to bench with a dud.
> 
> I also have every intention of running any stick of memory in my possession at above 1.8vdimm so long as scaling continues.
> 
> I put 1.63 core, 1.675 io aux, 1.725 sa, and 2.15 dimm through an 11900k for hours on ambient and that sucker refused to degrade. By ambient I mean a Scythe Fuma 2 and no fan on the memory.
> 
> I paid money for XOC hardware and I will use it for that purpose.


You’re either trolling or you’re the true OC gangster. I respect your game regardless of which it is.


----------



## YoungChris

affxct said:


> You’re either trolling or you’re the true OC gangster. I respect your game regardless of which it is.


Check my post history and decide for yourself. Where's the line between the two?


----------



## bhav

affxct said:


> You’re either trolling or you’re the true OC gangster. I respect your game regardless of which it is.


I don't want to think about what I'd be running my micron kit at if it had scaled up to 1.8v.

Scaling sees a hard stop at 1.72v. All the results in my sig except the first were with 1.72v.

The only two that won't stabilize are 4000CL13 and 4800CL16.

I had 1.72v running for just under a year for daily use on my 10900K, initially it did 4600CL15 but threw a couple of bsods in a month so it needed to be backed down to 4533CL15, lookinmg at it now 4600 probably just needed a fan. I tested for 4800 1.8v with no luck on the 1:1 IMC, on my Z790 I tested up to 1.75v with no additional scaling.

.... I want to try 1.8v and 1.45v SA soooo much but no, 1.72v vdimm is already looking risky, and me and Ichirou are the only people trying this for daily.

It does seem to work well for 2 sticks, it doesn't work for 4 sticks. I'm keeping it going on my 2 sticks and will see how long it lasts.

I have a full backup system with the 12600K build and e die kit so doesn't matter if something fails.


----------



## affxct

bhav said:


> I don't want to think about what I'd be running my micron kit at if it had scaled up to 1.8v.
> 
> Scaling sees a hard stop at 1.72v. All the results in my sig except the first were with 1.72v.
> 
> The only two that won't stabilize are 4000CL13 and 4800CL16.
> 
> I had 1.72v running for just under a year for daily use on my 10900K, initially it did 4600CL15 but threw a couple of bsods in a month so it needd to be backed down to 4533CL15. I tested for 4800 1.8v with no luck on the 1:1 IMC, on my Z790 I tested up to 1.75v with no additional scaling.
> 
> .... I want to try 1.8v and 1.45v SA soooo much but no, 1.72v vdimm is already looking risky, and me and Ichirou are the only people trying this for daily.
> 
> It does seem to work well for 2 sticks, it doesn't work for 4 sticks. I'm keeping it going on my 2 sticks and will see how long it lasts.


Dead honest, I don’t think it’s the kit that stopped scaling. I think 1.72 is your PHY limit. You know how some people say their VDD2 ‘sweet spots’? Basically there comes a point where the CPU and I guess your board PCB, no longer scale with more VDIMM (DDR) voltage. I mean logically with LN2 you could push for 2V. With LN2 on your CPU and much higher uncore and IMC, the CPU should scale as well. I almost wanna say that TX powers the PHYs. I think it does. I’m not saying the PHYs send TX back down the data line though.


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> @bhav @Ichirou
> Along with the previous post I think I have a theory. Each board sample had variance in PCB impedance. Some are simply better than others. The TX requirement for your RAM config varied between samples. The reason why you’re observing necessary increases in two of your samples is because the IMC may have degraded and thus required more with respect to what that sample was capable of doing to begin with.
> The reason the one board can’t train at all is likely because the sample is far poorer than the other three and thus your IMC can’t support your DRAM config in its current operating capacity. Your current third Z790 Edge is by far and large the best sample and hopefully at your current safer values it will never see a necessary increase.
> 
> VDD2 causes PAGE_FILE_IN_NON_PAGED_AREA and KMODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED. It’s effectively the same thing as the D4 DDR rail. But if the PHYs receive DDR/VDD2, how could TX be sent down the same data line? That’s kinda the


My first Z90 Edge board is stronger than my current third. It's just that it degraded and can no longer perform as well.
You can't possibly mark that 1.53V > 1.60V difference as just "IMC degradation," when it gets fixed with just a board change.
Remember, the VDDQ requirement jumped up after a _single restart. _That's all.

PAGE_FILE and KMODE BSODs are both too low Vcore. The only reason why it would be RAM related is if your RAM overclock pushes the CPU a bit too hard and forces it to demand more Vcore as a whole.

@bhav I'm gonna run this setup at 60/47/51 P/E/Ring with 4,200 MHz CL14 1T Gear 1. Stable with y-cruncher NHV and TM5 1usmus only. Good enough for me.
Voltages aren't amazing but they aren't awful either. 1.42V Vcore, 1.36V VCCSA, 1.37V L2 Cache, 1.53V VDDQ, 1.68V VDIMM. Will be fine for daily non-heavy workloads.
If ever necessary, I'll pull down the multipliers/raise Vcore to cope.


----------



## bhav

affxct said:


> Dead honest, I don’t think it’s the kit that stopped scaling. I think 1.72 is your PHY limit. You know how some people say their VDD2 ‘sweet spots’? Basically there comes a point where the CPU and I guess your board PCB, no longer scale with more VDIMM (DDR) voltage. I mean logically with LN2 you could push for 2V. With LN2 on your CPU and much higher uncore and IMC, the CPU should scale as well. I almost wanna say that TX powers the PHYs. I think it does. I’m not saying the PHYs send TX back down the data line though.


The thing is though I hit the exact same perfect scaling at 1.72v on two boards now, Asus Z490 and MSI Z790.

The stopgap Asrock Z690 in between was a dud and only came with 1.6v max support, and the custom bios Asrock sent me for 1.75v did nothing, but thats to be expected as its a budget board. I'll have the 12600K and 3733CL14 e die setup soon, waiting to receive the mounting kit for my corsair cooler.

Also maybe offtopic, but I have a 12100 coming tomorrow to update my test bench.

So 12100F was £95, 13100F was £119, 13100 £149. 12400F and 13400F too expensive for back up build.

Shopped around for 12100 deals, Amazon had 1 left in stock for £116 ... Yoink, mine soon!

Also Pentium G7400 still £93, so looks like a great deal for the 12100.

Always buy right when new stuff drops 

Ahahahaha, 12100 back up to £140 after I got the last £116 one.


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> My first Z90 Edge board is stronger than my current third. It's just that it degraded and can no longer perform as well.
> You can't possibly mark that 1.53V > 1.60V difference as just "IMC degradation," when it gets fixed with just a board change.
> Remember, the VDDQ requirement jumped up after a _single restart. _That's all.
> 
> PAGE_FILE and KMODE BSODs are both too low Vcore. The only reason why it would be RAM related is if your RAM overclock pushes the CPU a bit too hard and forces it to demand more Vcore as a whole.
> 
> @bhav I'm gonna run this setup at 60/47/51 P/E/Ring with 4,200 MHz CL14 1T Gear 1. Stable with y-cruncher NHV and TM5 1usmus only. Good enough for me.
> Voltages aren't amazing but they aren't awful either. 1.42V Vcore, 1.36V VCCSA, 1.37V L2 Cache, 1.53V VDDQ, 1.68V VDIMM. Will be fine for daily non-heavy workloads.
> If ever necessary, I'll pull down the multipliers/raise Vcore to cope.


I’m going to have to disagree with you on the BSOD codes. You can observe those even at completely stock and while running a light CPU load like HCI or TM5. Those are definitely not CPU Vcore BSOD codes. That I can say with absolute certainty. Those two codes flat out mean not enough DRAM signal for whatever reason. The other one that pops up is SYSTEM_SERVICE_EXCEPTION or IRQL but those are both IMC errors. SA and presumably TX.

With regards to the single restart thing, have you considered that perhaps it wasn’t a reboot-stable config? Maybe we’re all just jumping to conclusions and nothing degraded. That was actually my initial guess when I first read your posts regarding board degradation. I think the reboot stability theory makes far more sense. Just think about it logically. TX powers the PHYs and doesn’t enter the DDR rail. I think all of your board samples are fine and perhaps your CPU as well 😅.


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> I’m going to have to disagree with you on the BSOD codes. You can observe those even at completely stock and while running a light CPU load like HCI or TM5. Those are definitely not CPU Vcore BSOD codes. That I can say with absolute certainty. Those two codes flat out mean not enough DRAM signal for whatever reason. The other one that pops up is SYSTEM_SERVICE_EXCEPTION or IRQL but those are both IMC errors. SA and presumably TX.
> 
> With regards to the single restart thing, have you considered that perhaps it wasn’t a reboot-stable config? Maybe we’re all just jumping to conclusions and nothing degraded. That was actually my initial guess when I first read your posts regarding board degradation. I think the reboot stability theory makes far more sense. Just think about it logically. TX powers the PHYs and doesn’t enter the DDR rail. I think all of your board samples are fine and perhaps your CPU as well 😅.


Both SYSTEM_SERVICE and IRQL are too low Vcore BSODs as well. You just had a garbage sample CPU. That's all. Check that excellent resource for further BSOD diagnosis.

I've been in this scene for ages, and have diagnosed BSODs for a very long time. Long patron of the Sysnative forums as well, which has Microsoft engineers working there.
Hell, I was even shown how to forcefully modify system32 files even though Windows designed it to be foolproof. Engineers are given a tool to circumvent that.

Trust me, if you were in my shoes, you'd blame the motherboard as well. But it's hard to do so over the Internet.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

New Asus bios released...









[OFFICIAL] Asus Strix/Maximus Z790 Owners Thread


Well ~ Farnsworth voice ~ good news everyone! Beta 0810 fixed all issues for me. Running the 7200MT/s kit with XMP_Tweaked profile, enabled all Asus/AI/Turbo/Jet-eigine functionality and I'm scoring the highest benchmarks now. YEAH! Rig specs: Part List - Intel Core i9-13900K, GeForce RTX...




www.overclock.net


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> Both SYSTEM_SERVICE and IRQL are too low Vcore BSODs as well. You just had a garbage sample CPU. That's all. Check that excellent resource for further BSOD diagnosis.
> 
> I've been in this scene for ages, and have diagnosed BSODs for a very long time. Long patron of the Sysnative forums as well, which has Microsoft engineers working there.
> Hell, I was even shown how to forcefully modify system32 files even though Windows designed it to be foolproof. Engineers are given a tool to circumvent that.
> 
> Trust me, if you were in my shoes, you'd blame the motherboard as well. But it's hard to do so over the Internet.


The CPU sample I had was stable at non-stock settings as was pretty much every chip I’ve owned. I don’t believe it’s very likely at all to purchase an Intel chip that has 0 headroom vs stock. I think in and of itself that would be negligent and risky behaviour that Intel typically don’t do. I can respect your credentials but unequivocally tell you that KMODE and PAGE FILE are DDR5 voltage/signal BSODs. The only thing that ever triggers them is DRAM instability.

You can pass an IMC and a CPU stress test whilst still hitting either one. Besides, Vcore is pretty much always CLOCK WATCHDOG or SYSTEM SERVICE (cache on same rail). I believe E-cores can trigger KMODE from what I’ve heard, but otherwise yeah. If you step back it just doesn’t add up. RAM has always triggered PAGE FILE and KMODE is something I’d never observed until Alder Lake.

SYSTEM SERVICE typically means uncore/cache instability or Vcore leading to cache instability and thus compromising the uncore. IRQL is almost exclusively the main IMC however the design for the architecture looks. In this case it would mean TX is not able to sustain whatever you were attempting, whether it be 1T, data rate, or excessively low memory timings.

Obviously low Vcore can cascade into stuff like uncore instability and thus compromise IMC stability, but I’ve legit never seen Vcore affect IMC stability. I know it’s theoretically possible but I’ve literally just never seen it man. I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve passed numerous memory stress tests with questionable CPU OCs as well - on more than 5 occasions I’m sure.

Do I believe that XMP vs a tuned DRAM config can initiate Vcore issues? Absolutely. If your CPU runs any heavy math crunching workload and your output goes up by a significant margin like GFLOPS in Linpack or IBT, it will inherently draw more current, run warmer, and _potentially_ require higher set Vcore. The process by which that kind of a scenario would occur is incredibly clear.


----------



## VULC

RobertoSampaio said:


> New Asus bios released...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [OFFICIAL] Asus Strix/Maximus Z790 Owners Thread
> 
> 
> Well ~ Farnsworth voice ~ good news everyone! Beta 0810 fixed all issues for me. Running the 7200MT/s kit with XMP_Tweaked profile, enabled all Asus/AI/Turbo/Jet-eigine functionality and I'm scoring the highest benchmarks now. YEAH! Rig specs: Part List - Intel Core i9-13900K, GeForce RTX...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Any z690?


----------



## VULC

So pissed still getting this memory instability issues 6 cycles 1 usmus v3 stable then error on start the next day. I don't know *** it is. Random PSU shutdowns were C states on adaptive OC (Which I limited to max C3). Changed the ram no dice. TR contact frame is seated comfortably no over tightening. Is it the mobo? Happening across different CPUs as well.


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> The CPU sample I had was stable at non-stock settings as was pretty much every chip I’ve owned. I don’t believe it’s very likely at all to purchase an Intel chip that has 0 headroom vs stock. I think in and of itself that would be negligent and risky behaviour that Intel typically don’t do. I can respect your credentials but unequivocally tell you that KMODE and PAGE FILE are DDR5 voltage/signal BSODs. The only thing that ever triggers them is DRAM instability.
> 
> You can pass an IMC and a CPU stress test whilst still hitting either one. Besides, Vcore is pretty much always CLOCK WATCHDOG or SYSTEM SERVICE (cache on same rail). I believe E-cores can trigger KMODE from what I’ve heard, but otherwise yeah. If you step back it just doesn’t add up. RAM has always triggered PAGE FILE and KMODE is something I’d never observed until Alder Lake.
> 
> SYSTEM SERVICE typically means uncore/cache instability or Vcore leading to cache instability and thus compromising the uncore. IRQL is almost exclusively the main IMC however the design for the architecture looks. In this case it would mean TX is not able to sustain whatever you were attempting, whether it be 1T, data rate, or excessively low memory timings.
> 
> Obviously low Vcore can cascade into stuff like uncore instability and thus compromise IMC stability, but I’ve legit never seen Vcore affect IMC stability. I know it’s theoretically possible but I’ve literally just never seen it man. I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve passed numerous memory stress tests with questionable CPU OCs as well - on more than 5 occasions I’m sure.
> 
> Do I believe that XMP vs a tuned DRAM config can initiate Vcore issues? Absolutely. If your CPU runs any heavy math crunching workload and your output goes up by a significant margin like GFLOPS in Linpack or IBT, it will inherently draw more current, run warmer, and _potentially_ require higher set Vcore. The process by which that kind of a scenario would occur is incredibly clear.


We will just have to agree to disagree.
Every single one of those BSODs you've listed can be solved by raising Vcore, and the causes of said BSODs do not alter the means to solving them.


VULC said:


> So pissed still getting this memory instability issues 6 cycles 1 usmus v3 stable then error on start the next day. I don't know *** it is. Random PSU shutdowns were C states on adaptive OC (Which I limited to max C3). Changed the ram no dice. TR contact frame is seated comfortably no over tightening. Is it the mobo? Happening across different CPUs as well.


Have you tried reflashing the BIOS yet? Sounds like BIOS corruption to me.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> We will just have to agree to disagree.
> Every single one of those BSODs you've listed can be solved by raising Vcore, and the causes of said BSODs do not alter the means to solving them.
> 
> Have you tried reflashing the BIOS yet? Sounds like BIOS corruption to me.


Yes, many times. I think it might be a bios setting *** knows lol


----------



## tps3443

Squeezing full potential from my E-Cores.


----------



## satinghostrider

VULC said:


> So pissed still getting this memory instability issues 6 cycles 1 usmus v3 stable then error on start the next day. I don't know *** it is. Random PSU shutdowns were C states on adaptive OC (Which I limited to max C3). Changed the ram no dice. TR contact frame is seated comfortably no over tightening. Is it the mobo? Happening across different CPUs as well.


Why not try stock ILM first to isolate your memory errors? Then take it from there.


----------



## WhiteOne

Any hope for this 13700kf 
The MB default voltage was 1.4v...!!!
It didn't pass CB on default even at 1.35v
It wasn't stable at XMP I or II
How df Intel put something like this in a retail box?!


----------



## RackarN

acoustic said:


> I'd guess it's burn-in. Board was brand new, so wouldn't be crazy to experience considering CPUs under-go the same behavior.
> 
> Try the new BETA BIOS and see if there's any improvements.


My vddq is 1.42 and SA 1.35 now @ 4200 my board is also new. MSI pro z690-p (****ty board imo)


----------



## Arni90

affxct said:


> Dead honest, I don’t think it’s the kit that stopped scaling. I think 1.72 is your PHY limit. You know how some people say their VDD2 ‘sweet spots’? Basically there comes a point where the CPU and I guess your board PCB, no longer scale with more VDIMM (DDR) voltage. I mean logically with LN2 you could push for 2V. With LN2 on your CPU and much higher uncore and IMC, the CPU should scale as well. I almost wanna say that TX powers the PHYs. I think it does. I’m not saying the PHYs send TX back down the data line though.


Just some data from me as well: maximum bootable voltage I could do single rank B-die at with a 12900K was 1.75V, anything higher would simply not boot. I could still raise the DRAM voltage after booting, so that I could lower tRCD and tRFC in OS, but it was pretty obvious at that point that the IMC was not happy.

In comparison, my 11900K would happily boot the same kit of RAM at 2.20V DRAM voltage.


----------



## Timur Born

AC/DC LLC settings are different in my Gigabyte BIOS, but essentially I am using lowest AC/DC LLC ("Power Saving", default is 2nd lowest) combined with 3rd lowest CPU LLC load-line ("Medium", default is lowest) and an adaptive offset of -0.084v. As a result my CPU's voltage stays between 1.2v (P95 SFFT AVX2 at 55x after droop) to 1.3v (BIOS Vcore reading) with spikes up to 1.32v (bin) for single/low-core load.

40k+ scores in Cinebench uses about 240 W (1.25v) below 80°C instead of 290 W edging on the 100°C limit at stock. This was my primary goal, hence the flattening of the voltage/droop curve via medium CPU LLC.

One important part of my undervoltage is that at -0.084v (effective -0.12v to -0.15v in combination with AC/DC LLC) I use a power limit of 253 W (PL1 and PL2) to keep P95 SFFT AVX2 load stable. Realworld load never (!) hits the power limit, only power-virus stress tests like P95 and Y-cruncher does. My AIO=case fans run at 400 rpm most of the time and max out at 1600 rpm.

Last but not least I use a per-core (non all-core) overclock within my undervoltage limits. This was just the icing on the cake to use the headroom, because voltages were already determined anyway. These settings currently seem stable on my 13900K (AVX load is hardlocked to 58x max per core even with 0 AVX offset):

Turbo Ratio Limits - AVX2, Resolved: 60x (1c), 59x (2-3c), 58x (4c), 57x (5c), 56x (6c), 55x (7-8c)
Maximum Per-core Ratio Limits (Current): 57, 56, 58, 59, 55, 55, 61, 60, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> *Will test BIOS V1.34 and report back.*
> 
> Yeah, I do get the feeling that I struck the lottery with my first Z790 Edge. Up until it degraded, that is.


Does this bios offer any other improvements/changes? Where do you find these beta bios?


----------



## dumassnoob

Timur Born said:


> AC/DC LLC settings are different in my Gigabyte BIOS, but essentially I am using lowest AC/DC LLC ("Power Saving", default is 2nd lowest) combined with 3rd lowest CPU LLC load-line ("Medium", default is lowest) and an adaptive offset of -0.84v. As a result my CPU's voltage stays between 1.2v (P95 SFFT AVX2 at 55x after droop) to 1.3v (BIOS Vcore reading) with spikes up to 1.32v (bin) for single/low-core load.
> 
> 40k+ scores in Cinebench uses about 240 W (1.25v) below 80°C instead of 290 W edging on the 100°C limit at stock. This was my primary goal, hence the flattening of the voltage/droop curve via medium CPU LLC.
> 
> One important part of my undervoltage is that at -0.84v (effective -0.12v to -0.15v in combination with AC/DC LLC) I use a power limit of 253 W (PL1 and PL2) to keep P95 SFFT AVX2 load stable. Realworld load never (!) hits the power limit, only power-virus stress tests like P95 and Y-cruncher does. My AIO=case fans run at 400 rpm most of the time and max out at 1600 rpm.
> 
> Last but not least I use a per-core (non all-core) overclock within my undervoltage limits. This was just the icing on the cake to use the headroom, because voltages were already determined anyway. These settings currently seem stable on my 13900K (AVX load is hardlocked to 58x max per core even with 0 AVX offset):
> 
> Turbo Ratio Limits - AVX2, Resolved: 60x (1c), 59x (2-3c), 58x (4c), 57x (5c), 56x (6c), 55x (7-8c)
> Maximum Per-core Ratio Limits (Current): 57, 56, 58, 59, 55, 55, 61, 60, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43


Would you be willing to post as a guide for gigabyte users how to replicate your setting?


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> We will just have to agree to disagree.
> Every single one of those BSODs you've listed can be solved by raising Vcore, and the causes of said BSODs do not alter the means to solving them.
> 
> Have you tried reflashing the BIOS yet? Sounds like BIOS corruption to me.


As I said, I’m with you on SYSTEM SERVICE and IRQL. There is a mode of action whereby Vcore will cause the uncore and by extension even the IMC to error out. I do think this occurred more commonly on older platforms though. PAGE FILE though, that’s kinda the tell.


----------



## Brads3cents

tps3443 said:


> Off topic: Man, I love these QD3 Koolance fittings!! I’m getting more for sure. My flow seems as good as ever. I do not have much restriction in my loop since I don’t have any radiators. These fittings are super HEAVY, very BIG, and very high quality! I feel like I’m hooking up some really crazy high pressure and very important line to a commercial machine or something 🤣lol.
> 
> When you release them and the fittings are not installed on tubing yet, they actually fire out of the fitting with extreme force. (Just so you know to be careful and not take your eye out)
> 
> These fittings are so freaking GOOD!!!
> 
> View attachment 2592194
> 
> View attachment 2592196
> 
> View attachment 2592195


those are very awesome but unfortunately i watched a video thats claims the QD3s introduce a lot of restriction and that the QD4s are only half as restrictive. Unfortunately, the 4s are too fat and wont work on a cpu waterblock so im just gona get some 4s for the radiators instead


----------



## Timur Born

dumassnoob said:


> Would you be willing to post as a guide for gigabyte users how to replicate your setting?


Under advanced voltage settings you set the CPU AC/DC LLC to "Power Saving" and the CPU LLC to "Medium". Under Vcore you set "Adaptive" and then the voltage to "Normal" (auto would ignore the offset), then set an offset of about -0.080v. This combination will result in an overall offset of about -0.12v to -0.15v, or 1.3v Vcore in BIOS and down to 1.2v under full Prime 95 droop. Single/low core load peaks at around 1.32v sometimes (voltage bins are coarse).

In advanced CPU options set the power limit to "Intel <somethingIforgot>" or to "Manual" and then set PL1 and PL2 to 253 W. Set the AVX offset to 0 to run AVX at full frequency up to 58x (which is its hardcoded limit). Run Cinebench 23 to measure Watt/temperature and check if your cooler can handle the temps. One run of CB23 should be no problem, multiple runs will get hotter and thus also consume more and more power. I am using an offset of -0.084v for about 240 - 245 W power usage under CB23 at 40-41k score. I can lower voltage further for less power usage and CB23 will still run stable, but then Prime 95 Small FFTs AVX load becomes unstable at 253 W.

By increasing the voltage you can increase the power limit, my CPU needs about 1.2v after droop to keep P95 SFFT stable. For example, at -0.080v offset I can increase the power limit to 260 W, at -0.75v to about 270 W. BUT that does not really increase performance, but rather just pushes real-world load to use more power and create more heat. At my -0.084v and 253 W setting I have not found any *real*world application hitting the power limit, including things like CB23, 7-Zip, WinRar, Topaz Gigapixel AI and especially not the few games I play/tested. Using higher voltages may allow for higher per core overclocks, though, and you may also be able to overclock single E core clusters (my E core cluster 2 is a lot cooler than the other three and can easily run 45x at my voltage, but only if the P cores are unloaded, which isn't realistic).

If you try to do per core overclocking then start with those two cores that already run faster than the rest (like the two 58x cores on a 13900K). To find other suitable cores run something hot like Prime95 Small FFTs and watch which cores stay cooler than the rest. Watching VIDs could theoretically help, but mine are all the same for all cores. You likely want the hottest core(s) and its opposite (see below) to use 55 and thus be prioritized by Windows last (see below).

If you intend to run more than two cores at higher frequency than 55x then you need to use _non_ adjacent/neighboring cores. That is because even at medium load/frequencies adjacent cores push their temperatures up very considerably. On a 13900K the following P cores are neighbors: 0/2/4/6 and 1/3/5/7. Furthermore these cores should be opposite to each other (sitting on each side of the Ring): 0+1, 2+3, 4+5, 6+7. In my case I run cores 6+7 the highest (60/59) and then cores 2+3 (58/59). Cores 6 and 3 are among the coolest cores of my CPU, except for core 0 which is coolest but still less stable. As you can see cores 2/3 and 6/7 are physically apart from each other, which leads to _very_ considerably lower temperature increases when all of them run. As soon as an adjacent core is used (cores 0/1 are next) temps increase and thus frequency should decrease.

At my undervoltage settings my CPU can run 4 SSE threads of P95 at 59x or 4 AVX threads at 58x, but it cannot run 2 SSE 59x + 2 AVX 58x threads stable. It also can only run a single SSE thread stable at 60x. 7 (or 8) threads of AVX load at 57x are not stable anymore, but 6 threads are. As a consequence my Turbo Ratio Limits - AVX2, Resolved (are): 60x (1c), 59x (2-3c), 58x (4c), 57x (5c), 56x (6c), 55x (7-8c). The numbers in parenthesis means the number of concurrently running cores.

You may have noticed that my core 6 is still set to max out at 61, even though it _never_ will do so because of the above listed Turbo Ratio Limits. Here is what the per core maximum is set to on my CPU (P cores): 57, 56, 58, 59, 55, 55, 61, 60. Combined with the Turbo Ratio limits _and_ Windows' thread scheduler prioritizing cores by those maximum limits I get the following core order and clocks:

1 thread: 6 at 60x (shifts to core 7 at 60x if temps increase too much on core 6)
2 threads: 6 + 7 at 59x (shifts to core 3 at 59x if temps increase too much on core 6 or 7)
3 threads: 6 +7 + 3 at 59x
4 threads: 6 + 7 + 3 + 2 at 58x
5 threads: 6 + 7+ 3 + 2 + 1 at 57x
6 threads: 6 + 7+ 3 + 2 + 1 + 0 at 56x
7+8 threads: all cores at 55x

Last but not least, I am not running a crazy memory overclock, because it only produces heat without bringing meaningful improvements in real-world applications (and even fps lows don't benefit as much, especially in real gaming scenarios with all those other bottlenecks). This may contribute to my CPUs stability at my specific settings. Both my memory VDD and VDDQ and CPU IMC VDD2 and VDDQ only run at 1.15v using these tight timings (unfortunately my tRP/tRCD cannot run at 12 ns below 1.35v).


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> those are very awesome but unfortunately i watched a video thats claims the QD3s introduce a lot of restriction and that the QD4s are only half as restrictive. Unfortunately, the 4s are too fat and wont work on a cpu waterblock so im just gona get some 4s for the radiators instead


Well, I do not see an issue at all, or a difference in flow rate. If you are all about flow rate though, then maybe you want to consider some of the larger KOOLANCE PMP 500/600 pumps. However, I have (2) D5’s at 4,800 RPM. And my flow rate is extreme. I have a vortex going on inside of my reservoir at all times. I don’t need anymore flow, and I can even give it up if needed.

Koolance QD3’s seem to be the most common and easiest option to run for quick release. If you don’t need any, then I would just stick with normal fittings.


----------



## acoustic

What’s your actual flow rate?


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Does this bios offer any other improvements/changes? Where do you find these beta bios?


Yes. Improved VDDQ stability and less VDDQ necessary.



@Uncle Dubbs referred me to them.



tps3443 said:


> Well, I do not see an issue at all, or a difference in flow rate. If you are all about flow rate though, then maybe you want to consider some of the larger KOOLANCE PMP 500/600 pumps. However, I have (2) D5’s at 4,800 RPM. And my flow rate is extreme. I have a vortex going on inside of my reservoir at all times. I don’t need anymore flow, and I can even give it up if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> Koolance QD3’s seem to be the most common and easiest option to run for quick release. If you don’t need any, then I would just stick with normal fittings.


Just use the Bykski QDCs. They don't affect flow rate at all from what I can tell. And they're cheap and look awesome too.


----------



## fr4nc3sco

potresti consigliarmi? dovrei fare una nuova configurazione ho 4090 e vorrei aspettare 13900ks per non giocare alla lotteria dei wafer
Vorrei optare per DDR 5 quale moteboard e ram mi consiglieresti? o meglio per un po' di overclock della DDR 4? come raffreddamento ho un loop personalizzato con 2x 480 è sufficiente? consigli sul miglior waterblock? grazie a chi vorrà rispondermi anche in pm va bene grazie ancora


----------



## Nizzen

Ichirou said:


> Yes. Improved VDDQ stability and less VDDQ necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> @Uncle Dubbs referred me to them.
> 
> 
> 
> Just use the Bykski QDCs. They don't affect flow rate at all from what I can tell. And they're cheap and look awesome too.


Allways use KOOLANCE allways. They just work.


----------



## Ichirou

Nizzen said:


> Allways use KOOLANCE allways. They just work.
















I didn't have much of a choice du.e to lack of availability here and absurd shipping costs.







And the black Koolance QDCs have problems with stripping.


----------



## kunit13

Brads3cents said:


> those are very awesome but unfortunately i watched a video thats claims the QD3s introduce a lot of restriction and that the QD4s are only half as restrictive. Unfortunately, the 4s are too fat and wont work on a cpu waterblock so im just gona get some 4s for the radiators instead


Brad,

I also watched a similar video before I ended up just ordering a set of qd3. I looked at ordering some qd4's but the hose size (13x19mm) and threads being gp3/8 would been more fittings to make it work. As soon as my ram block gets in Ill install them and see if I loose much flow (running 1 d5 pump).


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Well, I do not see an issue at all, or a difference in flow rate. If you are all about flow rate though, then maybe you want to consider some of the larger KOOLANCE PMP 500/600 pumps. However, I have (2) D5’s at 4,800 RPM. And my flow rate is extreme. I have a vortex going on inside of my reservoir at all times. I don’t need anymore flow, and I can even give it up if needed.
> 
> Koolance QD3’s seem to be the most common and easiest option to run for quick release. If you don’t need any, then I would just stick with normal fittings.


Do you need to use a male-male fitting between the QD and CPU block? Also, are fittings needed to attach 10/16 soft tube to the QDs?


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Do you need to use a male-male fitting between the QD and CPU block? Also, are fittings needed to attach 10/16 soft tube to the QDs?


This explains it. No adapters needed. No extra fittings needed.


----------



## Timur Born

dumassnoob said:


> Would you be willing to post as a guide for gigabyte users how to replicate your setting?


Watch out that I originally wrote -0.8v instead of -0.08v (one more zero). ;-)


----------



## CptSpig

Ichirou said:


> And the black Koolance QDCs have problems with stripping.


Not True! I have seven black Koolance QDC-3's eight years old and they still work like new.


----------



## Nizzen

CptSpig said:


> Not True! I have seven black Koolance QDC-3's eight years old and they still work like new.


I red about a few flaws YEARS ago with the black, but must be a bad batch. I have the silver one, and many I use daily is about 10 years old


----------



## YoungChris

Ichirou said:


> Just use the Bykski QDCs. They don't affect flow rate at all from what I can tell. And they're cheap and look awesome too.


Noted! Was considering building a loop for myself, glad to know theirs are good.


tps3443 said:


> This explains it. No adapters needed. No extra fittings needed.


Dang, didn't even think of that. That solution looks great!


----------



## Ichirou

CptSpig said:


> Not True! I have seven black Koolance QDC-3's eight years old and they still work like new.


YMMV. The reports are on the net for you to look up. Not my own experience; just quoting theirs.


----------



## bhav

Something I've now noticed, many people with the 100c problem that have left their 13th gens running at stock volts for a few days then seem unable to get them stable with an undervolt.

Those that undervolt from the start or after just 2 mins in cinebench like I did, no problem.

I found this out because I'm flooded with DMs from people trying to fix this issue, and comparing a few similar cases across here and reddit where after people have ran chips needing 1.4v+ stock for some time, when they undervolt their cinebench scores are vastly reduced. When anyone like me undervolts from the start and refused to run the stock voltage, they can run like 1.25-1.3v with an overclock on top without any issue.

Also my chip only does 1 core 5.7, 3 cores only 5.5, its not at all a magical chip and more like a bottom bin, it still does 5.4 all core at 1.25v with no performance degradation because I only ran stock volts for <2mins and stopped cinebench as soon as I got my first 100c read.


----------



## Timur Born

Not much of a surprise I'd say. Even heavily undervolted 210 A are pushed through my 13900K when P95 SFFT AVX runs at the 253 W power limit using 1.2v (no VR Vout sensor on my GB mainboard). CB23 uses about 1.24-1.25v at 240 W (increases with temps), which gets close to 200 A. At stock the same CB23 score of 40-41k uses 290 W and creates over 20°C more heat, so the current likely is higher (never looked at the voltage then).


----------



## bhav

Timur Born said:


> Not much of a surprise I'd say. Even heavily undervolted 210 A are pushed through my 13900K when P95 SFFT AVX runs at the 253 W power limit using 1.2v (no VR Vout sensor on my GB mainboard). CB23 uses about 1.24-1.25v at 240 W (increases with temps), which gets close to 200 A. At stock the same CB23 score of 40-41k uses 290 W and creates over 20°C more heat, so the current likely is higher (never looked at the voltage then).


The screenshots I saw from people defending the stock voltages were running over 330w in cinebench. They claimed thats because its a 13900K, I have no idea whats right as I only use a 13600KF.

Then 'I already tried undervolt, it doesn't work for 13900K, you know nothing'.

Ok, have fun with your now degraded and wrecked chip.

Intel Engineers are clueless >swear words<, they don't know anything about how these chips are running and they haven't tested them, there you go, hate my opinion all you like.

'Running at 100c is most likely safe' is what Intel support said to me. They didn't say 'it is safe, period', they said 'it should be'. It isn't, and everyone that can no longer undervolt after running stock for too long is evidence of that.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> The screenshots I saw from people defending the stock voltages were running over 330w in cinebench. They claimed thats because its a 13900K, I have no idea whats right as I only use a 13600KF.
> 
> Then 'I already tried undervolt, it doesn't work for 13900K, you know nothing'.
> 
> Ok, have fun with your now degraded and wrecked chip.
> 
> Intel Engineers are clueless >swear words<, they don't know anything about how these chips are running and they haven't tested them, there you go, hate my opinion all you like.
> 
> 'Running at 100c is most likely safe' is what Intel support said to me. They didn't say 'it is safe, period', they said 'it should be'. It isn't, and everyone that can no longer undervolt after running stock for too long is evidence of that.


what is it that you’re having a problem with with on your CPU or the 13900K?


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> what is it that you’re having a problem with with on your CPU or the 13900K?


Its not a problem you will notice here, as everyone here correctly tunes their chips from the start.

Its irrelevant anyway, I've done what the 5% of people do which is manually adjust the voltages like everyone here.

95% of people, and of those the ones that actually check the temps are either worried or think 'this is fine, its running how Intel say it should'.

Leave it as it is, RMA rates within the first year are going to be very high on 13th gen.

Anymore people that ask me what to do, I just say RMA the chip now.


----------



## dumassnoob

bhav said:


> The screenshots I saw from people defending the stock voltages were running over 330w in cinebench. They claimed thats because its a 13900K, I have no idea whats right as I only use a 13600KF.
> 
> Then 'I already tried undervolt, it doesn't work for 13900K, you know nothing'.
> 
> Ok, have fun with your now degraded and wrecked chip.
> 
> Intel Engineers are clueless >swear words<, they don't know anything about how these chips are running and they haven't tested them, there you go, hate my opinion all you like.
> 
> 'Running at 100c is most likely safe' is what Intel support said to me. They didn't say 'it is safe, period', they said 'it should be'. It isn't, and everyone that can no longer undervolt after running stock for too long is evidence of that.


to compensate they only half baked the chips at the factory, it finishes baking once installed


----------



## dumassnoob

F3j bios revision out for gigabyte boards which had trouble with F3g version.


----------



## RichKnecht

If it wasn’t twice as fast as the 10980XE it replaced, I would have returned everything. I came SO close to buying a new X299 board, but spending upwards of $800 on a 3+ year old platform seemed silly. I do miss the high bandwidth and low latency this RAM had on my X299 system though. Going to have to see what I can do about that if I get brave.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> If it wasn’t twice as fast as the 10980XE it replaced, I would have returned everything. I came SO close to buying a new X299 board, but spending upwards of $800 on a 3+ year old platform seemed silly. I do miss the high bandwidth and low latency this RAM had on my X299 system though. Going to have to see what I can do about that if I get brave.


DDR4 on X299 was quad channel. DDR5 on Z690/Z790 is the same situation. That's why the bandwidth and latency numbers are similar.
DDR4 on Z690/Z790 just runs in dual channel, so the bandwidth is significantly lower.

We may or may not get an XE variant that'll allow us to run quad channel DDR4, but I highly doubt it. DDR4 is EOL, so no real justification to continue on with it.


----------



## Timur Born

bhav said:


> The screenshots I saw from people defending the stock voltages were running over 330w in cinebench. They claimed thats because its a 13900K, I have no idea whats right as I only use a 13600KF.


My 13900K reaches 40k+ in CB23 at 290 W stock. This is the maximum possible score at 55x all-core ratios and borders on the temperature limit of 100°C with my Arctiv LF2 (temp throttling just starts to happen, but the score is not affected yet). So I don't see how people would reach 330 W instead unless my memory serves me very wrong on the stock power usage (unlikely). Undervolting the CPU using the same stock 55x all-core ratios gets the same scores at 240-245 W (lower is possible, but that jeopardizes Prime 95 Small FFTs AVX stability at the 253 W power limit).


> Then 'I already tried undervolt, it doesn't work for 13900K, you know nothing'.


Some people don't read their BIOS tooltips. My Gigabyte BIOS states that you have to set Vcore to "Normal" for the adaptive offset to work, it will not work on "Auto" Vcore even if you chose "Adaptive".
















Temps and power are for 10 minutes of running CB23 (power usage increases as temps increase). My single core score is 2360 now, because I use 60x on one core.


> Intel Engineers are clueless >swear words<, they don't know anything about how these chips are running and they haven't tested them, there you go, hate my opinion all you like.
> I am disappointed with Intel making me spend time and effort on undervolting my CPU (and doing per clock OC) after having paid 750 EUR for it (630 EUR now). There should _not_ be a 20% (twenty!) power difference between my end-result and stock settings, it should have come out of the factory with much tighter settings for the price.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Its not a problem you will notice here, as everyone here correctly tunes their chips from the start.
> 
> Its irrelevant anyway, I've done what the 5% of people do which is manually adjust the voltages like everyone here.
> 
> 95% of people, and of those the ones that actually check the temps are either worried or think 'this is fine, its running how Intel say it should'.
> 
> Leave it as it is, RMA rates within the first year are going to be very high on 13th gen.
> 
> Anymore people that ask me what to do, I just say RMA the chip now.


These chips will be fine! They can sustain such high amperage it’s just crazy how tough they are. Any 13900K on an AIO in some gamer boys rig with auto voltage will be totally fine! Even if it’s hitting 100C. 1.400+ VID’s is not the actual/real Voltage anyways. VROut would be the true voltage, and that is always drastically lower than the VID’s of the CPU was left on auto. Most people with a 13600K-13900K are working or gaming and these chips run perfectly cool with reasonable voltages under load. If these CPU’s can survive my abuse, they will survive stock and very hot no problem!

I just can’t see a 13900K failing in stock conditions with 90-100C temps. They are tested for max stability by Intel. Honestly, most people are just gaming. And a 13900K is not gonna use but so much power running games or apps. These chips run HOT! And they use a lot of power. So, people need to understand that and adjust their expectations accordingly.

Intel has made an amazing cpu right here. It’s gonna run regardless of the situation. Hot as hell, or super cold lol.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> DDR4 on X299 was quad channel. DDR5 on Z690/Z790 is the same situation. That's why the bandwidth and latency numbers are similar.
> DDR4 on Z690/Z790 just runs in dual channel, so the bandwidth is significantly lower.
> 
> We may or may not get an XE variant that'll allow us to run quad channel DDR4, but I highly doubt it. DDR4 is EOL, so no real justification to continue on with it.


I know. I may sell the board, chip, and memory and start over with a DDR5 board and new memory when/if a Raptot Lake refresh emerges. I still need 64GB, but there are plenty of 2 stick 64GB kits available. This memory is b-die so I hope it’s worth something.


----------



## tps3443

Timur Born said:


> My 13900K reaches 40k+ in CB23 at 290 W stock. This is the maximum possible score at 55x all-core ratios and borders on the temperature limit of 100°C with my Arctiv LF2 (temp throttling just starts to happen, but the score is not affected yet). So I don't see how people would reach 330 W instead unless my memory serves me very wrong on the stock power usage (unlikely). Undervolting the CPU using the same stock 55x all-core ratios gets the same scores at 240-245 W (lower is possible, but that jeopardizes Prime 95 Small FFTs AVX stability at the 253 W power limit).
> 
> Some people don't read their BIOS tooltips. My Gigabyte BIOS states that you have to set Vcore to "Normal" for the adaptive offset to work, it will not work on "Auto" Vcore even if you chose "Adaptive".
> View attachment 2592411
> 
> View attachment 2592412
> 
> Temps and power are for 10 minutes of running CB23 (power usage increases as temps increase). My single core score is 2360 now, because I use 60x on one core.


Looks like your cpu is running as expected with the cooling you have.


----------



## affxct

bhav said:


> The screenshots I saw from people defending the stock voltages were running over 330w in cinebench. They claimed thats because its a 13900K, I have no idea whats right as I only use a 13600KF.
> 
> Then 'I already tried undervolt, it doesn't work for 13900K, you know nothing'.
> 
> Ok, have fun with your now degraded and wrecked chip.
> 
> Intel Engineers are clueless >swear words<, they don't know anything about how these chips are running and they haven't tested them, there you go, hate my opinion all you like.
> 
> 'Running at 100c is most likely safe' is what Intel support said to me. They didn't say 'it is safe, period', they said 'it should be'. It isn't, and everyone that can no longer undervolt after running stock for too long is evidence of that.


Ok real talk, I guess I'm a bit jaded, but under no circumstance should anyone let this happen to their own chip. My stock VID is egregious on both my Dark and on a Hero I owned a few weeks back. Even on a Strix Z690-A D4. I never let my chip run heavy AVX with that dogshit VID profile. I would always tweak it based on the workload. So if the goal is to run an IMC stress test like IBT or y-VST, you run like 1.1-1.2V VR Vout at absolute max and you have little to worry about in the way of degrado land. Yeah idk what to tell you, these chips are definitely bound to degrade at stock, but the user should kinda not allow themselves to fall into the trap. If you know your board isn't limiting PL (my Dark doesn't even have a BIOS entry for power limit), then you need to manage your chip on your own. It do be like that with enthusiast hardware. But hey, Intel says stock VID which is basically 1.3V on every chip is safe at 100c? That's a W in my book hehe.

On another note - screw P95. That app needs to die in a hole.


----------



## CptSpig

Ichirou said:


> YMMV. The reports are on the net for you to look up. Not my own experience; just quoting theirs.


That's my point you are quoting some one else. My experience is real world for seven years with multiple black Koolance QDC's.


----------



## bhav

affxct said:


> Ok real talk, I guess I'm a bit jaded, but under no circumstance should anyone let this happen to their own chip. My stock VID is egregious on both my Dark and on a Hero I owned a few weeks back. Even on a Strix Z690-A D4. I never let my chip run heavy AVX with that dogshit VID profile. I would always tweak it based on the workload. So if the goal is to run an IMC stress test like IBT or y-VST, you run like 1.1-1.2V VR Vout at absolute max and you have little to worry about in the way of degrado land. Yeah idk what to tell you, these chips are definitely bound to degrade at stock, but the user should kinda not allow themselves to fall into the trap. If you know your board isn't limiting PL (my Dark doesn't even have a BIOS entry for power limit), then you need to manage your chip on your own. It do be like that with enthusiast hardware. But hey, Intel says stock VID which is basically 1.3V on every chip is safe at 100c? That's a W in my book hehe.
> 
> On another note - screw P95. That app needs to die in a hole.


If only the stock VID on most chips actually was 1.3v!

For too many people its running in excess of 1.4v. I've seen one result with over 1.5v stock on the 13900K, 13700K I've seen with 1.45v, my own 13600KF wants 1.409v at these stock settings.

Some people are willingly choosing to just leave it believing its safe because Intel wouldn't allow dangerous voltages right? Then they go further saying 'Undervolting is bad, these chips are designed to run at 100c'.

They just leave theirs running at 100c on 1.4+ stock volts and shut down anyone trying to advise not to run these stock settings.


----------



## Ichirou

We're in an overclocking forum. Why are we talking about running stock voltages? Just plug and play with those and leave any issues to RMA.
It's not your problem, it's Intel's and/or the motherboard manufacturers'.


----------



## tps3443

affxct said:


> Ok real talk, I guess I'm a bit jaded, but under no circumstance should anyone let this happen to their own chip. My stock VID is egregious on both my Dark and on a Hero I owned a few weeks back. Even on a Strix Z690-A D4. I never let my chip run heavy AVX with that dogshit VID profile. I would always tweak it based on the workload. So if the goal is to run an IMC stress test like IBT or y-VST, you run like 1.1-1.2V VR Vout at absolute max and you have little to worry about in the way of degrado land. Yeah idk what to tell you, these chips are definitely bound to degrade at stock, but the user should kinda not allow themselves to fall into the trap. If you know your board isn't limiting PL (my Dark doesn't even have a BIOS entry for power limit), then you need to manage your chip on your own. It do be like that with enthusiast hardware. But hey, Intel says stock VID which is basically 1.3V on every chip is safe at 100c? That's a W in my book hehe.
> 
> On another note - screw P95. That app needs to die in a hole.


I have been pushing my chip pretty good. The only thing I have done is kept it cool. It runs 6Ghz day in and day out. VROut is always over 1.300+ It has to be. Or how else could I possibly stabilize 6Ghz lol. Anyways, It has been holding up very well. I actually wanted to check the VID's for degradation against the original Asus VID's so I did that last night. My chip is a SP121 P-Core, and SP88 E-Core with an Asus 5.8Ghz VID prediction of 1.364V for any of the P-cores.

So, I went in the bios and disabled the E-Cores, I set my ring to x8, I set my LLC to LLC 8, then I set my AC load lines to advanced and ran 1/1 for both. Then I set an adaptive voltage with all P-Cores set to x58. I rebooted, and voila! my in-bios auto voltage was at 1.363-1.364V. ^^ I learned this from another member. But you can see the VID prediction for each frequency. And it provides the same VID's that an Asus board would provide on the SP prediction page. I did this with several 13900K's just to see where they stand. Anyways, from the looks of this my chip has held up to what it was originally.

There was a 13900KS on here about a week ago. And that chips VID's for 6.0Ghz were 1.450V on the SP bios prediction page. For comparison my chip displayed needing 1.410V at 6.0Ghz all cores in the bios. Which would make sense because, that 13900KS only had SP115 P-Cores.

Anyways, no degradation thus far. Fingers crossed it stays this way and continues to run 6Ghz.


----------



## RichKnecht

Just crank up the clocks and use TVB if you are worried about temps and voltage. I tried it briefly and it works pretty good. It’s there, may as well use it if you need it.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I have been pushing my chip pretty good. The only thing I have done is kept it cool. It runs 6Ghz day in and day out. VROut is always over 1.300+ It has to be. Or how else could I possibly stabilize 6Ghz lol. Anyways, It has been holding up very well. I actually wanted to check the VID's for degradation against the original Asus VID's so I did that last night. My chip is a SP121 P-Core, and SP88 E-Core with an Asus 5.8Ghz VID prediction of 1.364V for any of the P-cores.
> 
> So, I went in the bios and disabled the E-Cores, I set my ring to x8, I set my LLC to LLC 8, then I set my AC load lines to advanced and ran 1/1 for both. Then I set an adaptive voltage with all P-Cores set to x58. I rebooted, and voila! my in-bios auto voltage was at 1.363-1.364V. ^^ I learned this from another member. But you can see the VID prediction for each frequency. And it provides the same VID's that an Asus board would provide on the SP prediction page. I did this with several 13900K's just to see where they stand. Anyways, from the looks of this my chip has held up to what it was originally.
> 
> There was a 13900KS on here about a week ago. And that chips VID's for 6.0Ghz were 1.450V on the SP bios prediction page. For comparison my chip displayed needing 1.410V at 6.0Ghz all cores in the bios. Which would make sense because, that 13900KS only had SP115 P-Cores.
> 
> Anyways, no degradation thus far. Fingers crossed it stays this way and continues to run 6Ghz.


That's not how you test degradation, lol. You test it by just doing what you usually do until you suddenly BSOD one day down the road even though no settings have changed.
You can forcefully test it by referring to baselines already found via stress tests, but that's a terrible method that only serves to further the degradation.

In other words, it's going to be a slow process, but I'm going to prepare to set up my loop sometime soonish. I've already finalized my overclock.
60/47/51 with 4,200 MHz CL14 1T Gear 1. Definitely not stable in any high loads, but should be fine for low-medium. That's good enough for me.
Haven't optimized each core individually yet. I'll do it later once the loop's set up, since direct die will offer better overclocking headroom.

This is without Intel TVB. Just got lazy with it. If I end up encountering hefty AVX loads, I'll slap on an AVX offset and call it a day. Whatever.
I needed to raise all of the voltages across the board quite heavily when I implemented my 4,200 MHz config compared to XMP.
So I might deliberately pull those down during daily use until I encounter actual instability.


----------



## Timur Born

tps3443 said:


> Looks like your cpu is running as expected with the cooling you have.


Yep, especially considering that I am running a no/low noise system with AIO=case fans running at only 400 rpm most of the time and maxing out at 1600 rpm. But we really shouldn't have to undervolt our CPUs by as much as 20% less power compared to stock, that is much too high of a tolerance/headroom for these expensive things.


----------



## dumassnoob

f3j gigabyte bios z790 disabled resizable bar and removed it from bios. cant find it anywhere


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> We're in an overclocking forum. Why are we talking about running stock voltages? Just plug and play with those and leave any issues to RMA.
> It's not your problem, it's Intel's and/or the motherboard manufacturers'.


The idea of degradation makes me sad. Poor CPU.


----------



## Ichirou

Timur Born said:


> Yep, especially considering that I am running a no/low noise system with AIO=case fans running at only 400 rpm most of the time and maxing out at 1600 rpm. But we really shouldn't have to undervolt our CPUs by as much as 20% less power compared to stock, that is much too high of a tolerance/headroom for these expensive things.


Probably should've gone AMD if you wanted power efficiency xD


affxct said:


> The idea of degradation makes me sad. Poor CPU.


Technically, you don't lose anything besides time and inconvenience as you wait for RMAs to be filled.
The actual monetary loss is on the manufacturer(s).


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> Probably should've gone AMD if you wanted power efficiency xD
> 
> Technically, you don't lose anything besides time and inconvenience as you wait for RMAs to be filled.
> The actual monetary loss is on the manufacturer(s).


Where I live I'm not really sure. I don't trust retailers and distributors to properly test the chip for degradation - and they will test it. They might just ship it back to you and tell you to kick rocks. That's kinda how it is here. They don't give us the benefit of the doubt. It's essentially a matter of how easy it is to test for the defect. Sometimes if it's an item with a sporadic defect that needs to be replicated, they'll simply fail to idenitfy the issue and tell you no.


----------



## bhav

affxct said:


> Where I live I'm not really sure. I don't trust retailers and distributors to properly test the chip for degradation - and they will test it. They might just ship it back to you and tell you to kick rocks. That's kinda how it is here. They don't give us the benefit of the doubt. It's essentially a matter of how easy it is to test for the defect. Sometimes if it's an item with a sporadic defect that needs to be replicated, they'll simply fail to idenitfy the issue and tell you no.


I've already done the Intel RMA for overheating chips as I've mentioned a few times, you would be surprised that they will give you an RMA if you run the diagnostics they ask you to at stock.

But that involves maybe an hour or so of stress tests, I'm not doing that for them just to prove a point and risk degrading my gold IMC chip.


----------



## affxct

I’ve been pondering. How does VID even work? On ASRock, the VID for my 12900K seemed higher than on my ASUS board, and with ASUS there are all these cool VID modes that mess with AC/DC. Then with EVGA my BIOS flat out says default VCore is 1.3V 🤔???

But then when I head to Windows, purely as an experiment, it’s sitting at 1.4V and droops to 1.3V under load even in heavy AVX (I shut that **** off wifh the quickness). On MSI I don’t know what the behaviour is like.

I just don’t really understand how VIDs are derived by this point. It almost seems like every RPL chip is validated at a certain clock goal and then each VID is uniformly slapped onto each SKU. My friend’s 13700K has pretty much the exact same stock VID as mine.

By this point I kinda wish Intel would optimise their silicon to be more resilient, and just follow the AMD method of having some arbitrary temp target and then the chip auto regulates up to its own max clock.


----------



## tps3443

Timur Born said:


> Yep, especially considering that I am running a no/low noise system with AIO=case fans running at only 400 rpm most of the time and maxing out at 1600 rpm. But we really shouldn't have to undervolt our CPUs by as much as 20% less power compared to stock, that is much too high of a tolerance/headroom for these expensive things.


Well, your cpu is probably better than average. Especially seeing only 290 watts stock auto voltage. Not all 13900K’s are like that. Plenty out there that will push 330-340 watts stock. So, you’re having an easy going experience because your chip is decent.


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> I’ve been pondering. How does VID even work? On ASRock, the VID for my 12900K seemed higher than on my ASUS board, and with ASUS there are all these cool VID modes that mess with AC/DC. Then with EVGA my BIOS flat out says default VCore is 1.3V 🤔???
> 
> But then when I head to Windows, purely as an experiment, it’s sitting at 1.4V and droops to 1.3V under load even in heavy AVX (I shut that **** off wifh the quickness). On MSI I don’t know what the behaviour is like.
> 
> I just don’t really understand how VIDs are derived by this point. It almost seems like every RPL chip is validated at a certain clock goal and then each VID is uniformly slapped onto each SKU. My friend’s 13700K has pretty much the exact same stock VID as mine.
> 
> By this point I kinda wish Intel would optimise their silicon to be more resilient, and just follow the AMD method of having some arbitrary temp target and then the chip auto regulates up to its own max clock.


Pretty sure it's just Intel's internal manufacturing binning procedures. The VIDs are meant to tell the motherboard what voltages are required to run each multiplier stably. However, they're always overallocated, for obvious reasons. These same VIDs are also what Intel uses to bin their chips for the KSes and whatnot. That's why they can just take a serial number and look it up in their databases to find the VIDs and silicon quality.

I imagine what happens is: the K's are manufactured and stocked onto shelves, vanilla without any labels. Afterwards, when they need more stock for the KS, they check their database for the batches that have the _most_ P-SP 115+ chips in them (why waste time on overall bad batches?), and then they roll those batches through a sorting machine that scans the chips, looks up their serials in their database, and determines whether the silicon quality is good enough to be used for a KS. Those get pulled onto a separate conveyor belt. Afterwards, the final labels are printed onto both the good (KS) and bad (K) chips, with the internal chip information written into the chips.


----------



## gecko991

Interesting.


----------



## Timur Born

tps3443 said:


> Well, your cpu is probably better than average. Especially seeing only 290 watts stock auto voltage. Not all 13900K’s are like that. Plenty out there that will push 330-340 watts stock. So, you’re having an easy going experience because your chip is decent.


I can check the auto voltages again, but my Gigabyte Z790 Aero G defaults to lowest CPU LLC load-line on Auto and 2nd lowest CPU AC/DC load-line. This likely contributes to my stock power usage being lower than what other users with more aggressive Auto BIOS settings might report.


----------



## dumassnoob

Timur Born said:


> I can check the auto voltages again, but my Gigabyte Z790 Aero G defaults to lowest CPU LLC load-line on Auto and 2nd lowest CPU AC/DC load-line. This likely contributes to my stock power usage being lower than what other users with more aggressive Auto BIOS settings might report.


what is your biscuits score? mine is 91.110 or something on new undervolted profile. on gaming profile is 99.43 something. prior to f3j bios was on f3g default with 94.9 biscuit


----------



## bhav

Timur Born said:


> I can check the auto voltages again, but my Gigabyte Z790 Aero G defaults to lowest CPU LLC load-line on Auto and 2nd lowest CPU AC/DC load-line. This likely contributes to my stock power usage being lower than what other users with more aggressive Auto BIOS settings might report.


Does gigabyte seriously take a win for stock CPU settings while MSI and Asus take a big fat L with 13th gen?

Wow.


----------



## VULC

Timur Born said:


> I can check the auto voltages again, but my Gigabyte Z790 Aero G defaults to lowest CPU LLC load-line on Auto and 2nd lowest CPU AC/DC load-line. This likely contributes to my stock power usage being lower than what other users with more aggressive Auto BIOS settings might report.


I found this on Asus as well with my adaptive OC instead of setting LLC to 4 setting it to auto dropped my full load temps by 5 degrees. I'm on the latest ME with 2204 bios on z690 Strix a. AC DC LL auto. Core vid 1.44 adaptive with auto negative off set. Cache vid 1.43 adaptive with auto negative off set.


----------



## dumassnoob

interesting. many here say their cpu default to 1.3 vcore. mine is only 1.2. i can see in hwinfo it doesnt hold it either, is more like bouncing between 1.18 and 1.186. im scared


----------



## Timur Born

dumassnoob said:


> what is your biscuits score? mine is 91.110 or something on new undervolted profile. on gaming profile is 99.43 something. prior to f3j bios was on f3g default with 94.9 biscuit


I am using F4f as the BIOS refuses to load the F4g file. At stock my Biscuits score is around 90 (varies slightly with every run), with my undervolted settings it just reads "Out of range".


----------



## dumassnoob

Timur Born said:


> I am using F4f as the BIOS refuses to load the F4g file. At stock my Biscuits score is around 90 (varies slightly with every run), with my undervolted settings it just reads "Out of range".


i bet if you disable ecores it will be 99+. the ecores is dragging this cpu down. anti efficiency cores. intel cheapskate cores


----------



## Timur Born

VULC said:


> I found this on Asus as well with my adaptive OC instead of setting LLC to 4 setting it to auto dropped my full load temps by 5 degrees. I'm on the latest ME with 2204 bios on z690 Strix a. AC DC LL auto. Core vid 1.44 adaptive with auto negative off set. Cache vid 1.43 adaptive with auto negative off set.


My undervoltage uses a combination of lowest CPU AC/DC LLC (auto is 2nd lowest) + 3rd lowest CPU LLC (auto is lowest) + -0.084v adaptive offset + 253 W power limit. The latter is needed to keep throttled all-core P95 SFFT AVX2 load stable. Since _no_ realworld load ever hits that power limit (tested CB23, 7-Zip, WinRar, Topaz Gigapixel AI) all I care about is P95 stability, not P95 clocks. My CB23 power draw dropped from 290 W to 240 W and temps from 100°C to below 80°C at full 1600 rpm fan+pump speed. But my daily uses 400 rpm fans that only ramp up very late. A single CB23 at 40k+ doesn't make my fans ramp up to 100% at all.


----------



## VULC

Timur Born said:


> My undervoltage uses a combination of lowest CPU AC/DC LLC (auto is 2nd lowest) + 3rd lowest CPU LLC (auto is lowest) + -0.084v adaptive offset + 253 W power limit. The latter is needed to keep throttled all-core P95 SFFT AVX2 load stable. Since _no_ realworld load ever hits that power limit (tested CB23, 7-Zip, WinRar, Topaz Gigapixel AI) all I care about is P95 stability, not P95 clocks. My CB23 power draw dropped from 290 W to 240 W and temps from 100°C to below 80°C at full 1600 rpm fan+pump speed. But my daily uses 400 rpm fans that only ramp up very late. A single CB23 at 40k+ doesn't make my fans ramp up to 100% at all.


I had to run auto off set on adaptive because I have E cores off with 59, 59, 58, 58, 57, 57, 57, 57 so my all core is 5.7ghz at 1.296v and my single core boost with TVB is 6.1Ghz. Max temp is 81 degrees R23 ambient 20 degrees Celsius hot day can get to 83.


----------



## Timur Born

dumassnoob said:


> i bet if you disable ecores it will be 99+. the ecores is dragging this cpu down. anti efficiency cores. intel cheapskate cores


Why would I do that? E cores are only used when non HT P cores are maxed out, except for the occasional low background load. P cores at 40x result in the exact same power and performance as E cores at 43, but once P cores run at 55 their efficiency drops significantly. So for sustained load that does not have to finish quickly or for 16 additional cores that can be utilized E cores are very welcome.

The default "Balanced" power MODE (enabled by using the default "Balanced" power PLAN") shifts background load from P cores to E cores if a maximized window of another process is put in focus. But that can be disabled by switching to the "Best Performance" power MODE.

And if you absolutely want to make sure that they are utilized as little as possible without having to entirely disable them then you can use Core Parking to use them even less. But the Windows thread scheduler/CPU already prioritizes higher clocking P cores over lower clocking P cores over E cores over hyperthreading P cores. So usually there is no need to mess with E cores unless you are completely limited to gaming (using games that only use up to 8 cores).


----------



## Timur Born

VULC said:


> I had to run auto off set on adaptive because I have E cores off with 59, 59, 58, 58, 57, 57, 57, 57 so my all core is 5.7ghz at 1.296v and my single core boost with TVB is 6.1Ghz. Max temp is 81 degrees R23 ambient 20 degrees Celsius hot day can get to 83.


The trick is to use non adjacent cores for the per core overclocks. Running load on cores 0+2 (adjacent) is considerably hotter than running the same load on cores 0+1 (opposites on the ring) or 0+anything above 2. My highest clocking cores are 2+3+6+7, all of which are not neighbors. My hottest core 5 is only used once 7/8 cores are needed.


----------



## Timur Born

Unfortunately no one could answer yet, why core-to-core latencies are concentrated around one specific core in a star-like manner instead of looking more "ring" or at least "mesh" like. Anandtech's reviews of the 13900K and 12900K show the same pattern, but curiously their results are around different cores than mine (Anandtech 13900K around core 2, mine around core 6/7).


----------



## affxct

Timur Born said:


> Unfortunately no one could answer yet, why core-to-core latencies are concentrated around one specific core in a star-like manner instead of looking more "ring" or at least "mesh" like. Anandtech's reviews of the 13900K and 12900K show the same pattern, but curiously their results are around different cores than mine (Anandtech 13900K around core 2, mine around core 6/7).
> View attachment 2592436


Eerie


----------



## bhav

Timur Born said:


> The trick is to use non adjacent cores for the per core overclocks. Running load on cores 0+2 (adjacent) is considerably hotter than running the same load on cores 0+1 (opposites on the ring) or 0+anything above 2. My highest clocking cores are 2+3+6+7, all of which are not neighbors. My hottest core 5 is only used once 7/8 cores are needed.


How can you tell which core is which though?

Especially on a gimpy 13600K, any 2 cores can be disabled.

For me it doesn't matter, only 1 core can do 5.7, and 2 5.6 with HT on.


----------



## VULC

Doesn't bios select your best 2 cores anyway?


Timur Born said:


> The trick is to use non adjacent cores for the per core overclocks. Running load on cores 0+2 (adjacent) is considerably hotter than running the same load on cores 0+1 (opposites on the ring) or 0+anything above 2. My highest clocking cores are 2+3+6+7, all of which are not neighbors. My hottest core 5 is only used once 7/8 cores are needed.


----------



## Timur Born

My cores 2+3 are predefined for 58x (HWinfo Beta can now tell you which cores these are if your BIOS does not), but my cores 6+7 measure faster core-to-core latencies. I ordered thread scheduling priority and max clocks to: 6->7->3->2->1->0->4/5

I reset my BIOS to defaults. Vcore is set to 1.4v in BIOS then (reads 1.2v on Auto, but 1.4v on Adaptive Normal), I thought that it was 1.45v from memory. Hwinfo reads peaks of 1.38v and constant 1.35v "idle" when I disable _all_ idle (C) states via Windows power profile (also disabled C1 non E). Running 290 W CB23 droops to about 1.31v on both my Vcore sensors (2nd sensor is slightly lower most of the time). My 240 W result undervoltage has CB23 droop to about 1.25v instead.

PS: Curiously the BIOS measures high resolution Vcore down to a 0.001v difference while HWinfo always displays coarse bins/steps instead as if the sensor wouldn't provide higher resolution data.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> Does gigabyte seriously take a win for stock CPU settings while MSI and Asus take a big fat L with 13th gen?
> 
> Wow.


Not sure what you mean. My chip does very low power with stock auto voltages at 5.5.

It’s all about the CPU. I have had other 13900K’s that do low power stock/auto too.

I had a previous 13900K that could run 5.5Ghz at 1.087V through R23. That chip was crazy at 5.5. It didn’t scale as well.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> Not sure what you mean. My chip does very low power with stock auto voltages at 5.5.
> 
> It’s all about the CPU. I have had other 13900K’s that do low power stock/auto too.
> 
> I had a previous 13900K that could run 5.5Ghz at 1.087V through R23. That chip was crazy at 5.5. It didn’t scale as well.


It might be because you're using a Z690, Z790s could be the culprit behind the overvolting.


----------



## HemuV2

bhav said:


> The screenshots I saw from people defending the stock voltages were running over 330w in cinebench. They claimed thats because its a 13900K, I have no idea whats right as I only use a 13600KF.
> 
> Then 'I already tried undervolt, it doesn't work for 13900K, you know nothing'.
> 
> Ok, have fun with your now degraded and wrecked chip.
> 
> Intel Engineers are clueless >swear words<, they don't know anything about how these chips are running and they haven't tested them, there you go, hate my opinion all you like.
> 
> 'Running at 100c is most likely safe' is what Intel support said to me. They didn't say 'it is safe, period', they said 'it should be'. It isn't, and everyone that can no longer undervolt after running stock for too long is evidence of that.


From what I've seen, it's ****ty ecores that increase stock vcore requirements and current draw, even my chip does 330W at stock without modification, my ecores can't go past 4.4 because they're sp73, I suspect there's many 13900Ks out there with low ecores SP, because pcores on these chips are phenomenal and evn pcore sp101 won't ask much voltage for 5.5, Intel should really get their QC in check before putting absolute low quality ecores on their highest end chip


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> How can you tell which core is which though?
> 
> Especially on a gimpy 13600K, any 2 cores can be disabled.
> 
> For me it doesn't matter, only 1 core can do 5.7, and 2 5.6 with HT on.


You gotta bin each core manually. It's what I've done and written guides on. Just takes time.


VULC said:


> Doesn't bios select your best 2 cores anyway?


Depends on the board and BIOS. Even the VIDs might not be accurate since they're estimations at best. So manual binning is still the best approach.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> You gotta bin each core manually. It's what I've done and written guides on. Just takes time.
> 
> Depends on the board and BIOS. Even the VIDs might not be accurate since they're estimations at best. So manual binning is still the best approach.


I mean how to you tell which core corresponds to its location on the die.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> I mean how to you tell which core corresponds to its location on the die.


That shouldn't matter if you're individually binning each core.
In my experience, the two cores that MSI assumes is the strongest typically isn't. Tested this theory across several boards and chips so far.
And each board seems to allocate a different order for the cores, even though it's the same CPU.
You gotta bin the cores yourself.


----------



## acoustic

MSI always seems to pick core 4+5. My 12700K and my 13900K both have those as the favored cores on my Z690 Unisex.


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> MSI always seems to pick core 4+5. My 12700K and my 13900K both have those as the favored cores on my Z690 Unisex.


I’m starting to wonder my self. All (5) 13900K’s had core 4-5 favored and labeled as best on my Unify-X. Makes no sense.


----------



## bhav

acoustic said:


> MSI always seems to pick core 4+5. My 12700K and my 13900K both have those as the favored cores on my Z690 Unisex.


One of those is my strongest core, the other a weak one.

Every other core is a stronger one with 5.7 / 5.6 / 5.6, the ones in between are the 5.5 ones.


----------



## dumassnoob

all of the 13900k/kf records in benchmarking are on p-core 6


----------



## dumassnoob

Ichirou said:


> That shouldn't matter if you're individually binning each core.
> In my experience, the two cores that MSI assumes is the strongest typically isn't. Tested this theory across several boards and chips so far.
> And each board seems to allocate a different order for the cores, even though it's the same CPU.
> You gotta bin the cores yourself.


fwiw, gigabyte bios gives the option "random" or "manual" . wonder if other bios do the same thing?


----------



## VULC

Increased core clocks on adaptive OC now adjust and stabilise SA and VDDQ again 🤦


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> View attachment 2592469
> 
> 
> Increased core clocks on adaptive OC now adjust and stabilise SA and VDDQ again 🤦


Be sure to run y-cruncher NHV as well. That'll also test the VCCSA/VDDQ/L2 Cache voltages.

I had to raise them across the board when I went from 55/43/45 to 60/47/51. Quite a hefty boost.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Be sure to run y-cruncher NHV as well. That'll also test the VCCSA/VDDQ/L2 Cache voltages.
> 
> I had to raise them across the board when I went from 55/43/45 to 60/47/51. Quite a hefty boost.


@Ichirou

What bios voltages do you run? And what LLC? Also what type of voltage auto/adaptive/fixed?

PS: I found bclk overclocking works pretty darn well on the MSI boards. I am running a 101.70 or something like that with a x59 multiplier. Running 1.375V with LLC3 and it’s stable as a rock!

P-Cores are at 60, E-Cores at 4,780, ring at 5180 or so.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> @Ichirou
> 
> What bios voltages do you run? And what LLC? Also what type of voltage auto/adaptive/fixed?


1.42V Vcore (BIOS) with LLC Mode 5 and Lite Load Mode 1. Override voltage.
If I just run XMP, I can drop it down to like, 1.39V. Only uses like, 280-300W or something that way.

Memory overclock just pushes it to the max. I had to raise the L2 Cache voltage and VCCSA from ~1.20V and 1.26V to 1.37V and 1.36V. Insane.
And that's just for 4,200 MHz. Not even 4,300 MHz. The E-cores demand the absolute most.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> 1.42V Vcore (BIOS) with LLC Mode 5 and Lite Load Mode 1. Override voltage.
> If I just run XMP, I can drop it down to like, 1.39V. Only uses like, 280-300W or something that way.
> 
> Memory overclock just pushes it to the max. I had to raise the L2 Cache voltage and VCCSA from ~1.20V and 1.26V to 1.37V and 1.36V. Insane.
> And that's just for 4,200 MHz. Not even 4,300 MHz. The E-cores demand the absolute most.


6.0/4.7/5.1 takes some tinkering to get it right that’s for sure. It’s really a very very heavy overclock if you think about it though.

For some reason I found x59 multi with 101+ BCLK for the full 6.0Ghz is far easier to stabilize for some weird reason (I discovered this last night). Even my E-Cores are at 4780 and I feel like I could go a little further. Not sure what that’s about. Maybe give it a whirl. It’s really strange.


----------



## tps3443

Anyways, I have pretty much come to the conclusion that this is realistically as good as it gets with a 13900K. I’m happy with the CPU, I had some frustrations like anyone in the beginning. But once I set it up on direct die, it made the experience so much better. Primarily because this chip ran as hot as a dog before the delid.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Be sure to run y-cruncher NHV as well. That'll also test the VCCSA/VDDQ/L2 Cache voltages.
> 
> I had to raise them across the board when I went from 55/43/45 to 60/47/51. Quite a hefty boost.


Y cruncher is bull dust I was at 1.35 sa, 1.55v dram and 1.39v vddq and it barely ran over minute. It's AVX work load no app or games use 100% AVX.


----------



## splmann

Replaced my 12900KS with this 13900KF


----------



## Timur Born

Ichirou said:


> That shouldn't matter if you're individually binning each core.
> In my experience, the two cores that MSI assumes is the strongest typically isn't. Tested this theory across several boards and chips so far.
> And each board seems to allocate a different order for the cores, even though it's the same CPU.
> You gotta bin the cores yourself.


HWinfo calls the default bin "Fused", which I assumed was CPU based, not BIOS based. On my CPU cores 2+3 were chosen and this is a good choice. I only superseeded it with the equally good cores 6+7 because of their lower core-to-core latencies.


----------



## Timur Born

VULC said:


> Y cruncher is bull dust I was at 1.35 sa, 1.55v dram and 1.39v vddq and it barely ran over minute. It's AVX work load no app or games use 100% AVX.


Instead of _not_ running it you should lower your power limit instead to have it throttle and still be stable. For me only a CPU that is stable with _anything_ you throw at it is really stable, but using a lower power limit for unrealistic load only is viable. My CPU's current undervoltage is prolonged Prime95 Small FFTs AVX stable at 253W, but not above 253W.


----------



## WhiteOne

When you put for example 1.35v on actual vrm voltage is it for all P and E cores? or just P cores?


----------



## Timur Born

Vcore follows the highest VID of any P core, E core or Ring and then is used for the whole CPU.


----------



## VULC

Timur Born said:


> Instead of _not_ running it you should lower your power limit instead to have it throttle and still be stable. For me only a CPU that is stable with _anything_ you throw at it is really stable, but using a lower power limit for unrealistic load only is viable. My CPU's current undervoltage is prolonged Prime95 Small FFTs AVX stable at 253W, but not above 253W.


It's an error on y cruncher only when running half memory and half CPU. If I run a CPU stress test it's fine if I run memory stress test it's fine. If I run TM5, R23 and Realbench it's fine. Y cruncher CPU I only hit 88 degrees. I might need to back down the memory tune but I'm not getting any error on TM5. I'm not going to put suicide SA, dram and VDDQ just to pass y cruncher. I'm doing 1.296v vcore 5.7ghz all core with any work load 210w. The Arctic LF II 420mm can only cool 240w max and that's probably 95 degrees. I applied liquid metal to the IHS and cold plate which dropped me 4 degrees.


----------



## Timur Born

My CPU runs fine at 4x P95 SSE 59x and 4x P95 AVX 58x, but it crashes at 2x P95 SSE 59x + 2x P95 AVX 58x. It's still an instability then, which in turn made me dial down my former 4x 59x ratios to only 3x 59x.


----------



## VULC

Timur Born said:


> My CPU runs fine at 4x P95 SSE 59x and 4x P95 AVX 58x, but it crashes at 2x P95 SSE 59x + 2x P95 AVX 58x. It's still an instability then, which in turn made me dial down my former 4x 59x ratios to only 3x 59x.


Yeah but you won't ever encounter that in any other work load unless you do something extreme in daily work tasks. I'm on 2 X 60, 4x 59, 5 X 58 and 8 x 57 only it's not stable on y cruncher CPU memory 50/50 tests. Y cruncher CPU is stable y crunch memory is stable.. R23, Realbench, TM5 Extreme, TM5 1 usmus, gaming all stable.


----------



## Timur Born

VULC said:


> Yeah but you won't ever encounter that in any other work load unless you do something extreme in daily work tasks. I'm on 2 X 60, 4x 59, 5 X 58 and 8 x 57 only not y cruncher stable.


Yes, but in that case you should lower your power limit to make sure it never happens. If your realworld load never hits the power limit anyway then this makes more sense than just living with the thought "it will never happen" while still allowing it to happen.

I am currently contemplating lowering my power limit further from its current 253W, hoping to use even less voltage for realworld load up to Cinebench 23.


----------



## VULC

Timur Born said:


> Yes, but in that case you should lower your power limit to make sure it never happens. If your realworld load never hits the power limit anyway then this makes more sense than just living with the thought "it will never happen" while still allowing it to happen.
> 
> I am currently contemplating lowering my power limit further from its current 253W, hoping to use even less voltage for realworld load up to Cinebench 23.


I got E cores off I don't go over 220w. Why do I need 16 cores that are only good at adding heat in game but no performance gains.


----------



## Ky0sHiR0

Hi guys,
Just want to ask if I'm 90% into gaming should I focus on just old overclocking way like 5,5 GHz all cores with adaptive vcore or using Intel Boost Techonology and looking for best cores running them @ 6 GHz if needed and the rest lower? Do You have by any chance some examples or benchmarks and it really matters?


----------



## VULC

Ky0sHiR0 said:


> Hi guys,
> Just want to ask if I'm 90% into gaming should I focus on just old overclocking way like 5,5 GHz all cores with adaptive vcore or using Intel Boost Techonology and looking for best cores running them @ 6 GHz if needed and the rest lower? Do You have by any chance some examples or benchmarks and it really matters?


It's better for single core performance and games and apps that use them. If you play one game that uses 8 cores at once I guess no need if you don't want to hassle with it.


----------



## Ky0sHiR0

VULC said:


> It's better for single core performance and games and apps that use them. If you play one game that uses 8 cores at once I guess no need if you don't want to hassle with it.


So I did some review on SkatterBencher OC guides and I can say at first It seems little overwhelming  
Some people are using V/F points some don't 
How to test specific cores in P95 like if I want to test if my 2 best cores are okay @ 6.1 GHz?


----------



## VULC

Ky0sHiR0 said:


> So I did some review on SkatterBencher OC guides and I can say at first It seems little overwhelming
> Some people are using V/F points some don't
> How to test specific cores in P95 like if I want to test if my 2 best cores are okay @ 6.1 GHz?











Asus Maximus Z790 Extreme and Intel i9-13900k - A tuning...


A tuning guide for beginners. Disclaimer ! These settings and methods are outside Intel's specifications, just like any other overclocking method. ---------------------------------------------------- Asus Maximus Z790 extreme & Intel i9-13900k. Introduction: Once again Asus and intel surprise...




www.overclock.net


----------



## RichKnecht

Ky0sHiR0 said:


> So I did some review on SkatterBencher OC guides and I can say at first It seems little overwhelming
> Some people are using V/F points some don't
> How to test specific cores in P95 like if I want to test if my 2 best cores are okay @ 6.1 GHz?


I watched those videos too and he whips through the settings so fast. I actually searched his articles out on the internet and he has the videos but with text as well. So much easier to follow.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> 1.42V Vcore (BIOS) with LLC Mode 5 and Lite Load Mode 1. *Override voltage*.
> If I just run XMP, I can drop it down to like, 1.39V. Only uses like, 280-300W or something that way.
> 
> Memory overclock just pushes it to the max. I had to raise the L2 Cache voltage and VCCSA from ~1.20V and 1.26V to 1.37V and 1.36V. Insane.
> And that's just for 4,200 MHz. Not even 4,300 MHz. The E-cores demand the absolute most.


I'm actually surprised that so many people are still using Override voltage. I'm running Adaptive + VF Curve (Auto voltage) with -.01V offsets on 54,57, and 58X multipliers. That gets me close, then I do my final tweaking using AC LL. My Vids show 1.375 at idle and go to 1.22V at full load with temps just touching 82C @ 278W. Every day normal use it only draws ~150W at most and temps stay well below 70C. However, I am not OCing memory which is running at manually entered XMP values.


----------



## genix

For those who wants to limit CPU to some power limit (to prevent stability issues with power viruses):
*Do not* use Package Power Limit, use Current Limit, it is much more effective, in my case (13900K + Win10):

Current Limit 250 Amps: CB23 Score - *35000*, VRM Core Power *~120W*, P.Freq - 4.6, E.Freq - 3.8, Ring - 4.1
Pkg Power Limit 140W: CB23 Score - *27000*, VRM Core Power *~127W*, P.Freq - 5.1, E.Freq - 1.4, Ring - 4.5

It seems like CPU current balancing works much better than "traditional" power limits


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Y cruncher is bull dust I was at 1.35 sa, 1.55v dram and 1.39v vddq and it barely ran over minute. It's AVX work load no app or games use 100% AVX





VULC said:


> It's an error on y cruncher only when running half memory and half CPU. If I run a CPU stress test it's fine if I run memory stress test it's fine. If I run TM5, R23 and Realbench it's fine. Y cruncher CPU I only hit 88 degrees. I might need to back down the memory tune but I'm not getting any error on TM5. I'm not going to put suicide SA, dram and VDDQ just to pass y cruncher. I'm doing 1.296v vcore 5.7ghz all core with any work load 210w. The Arctic LF II 420mm can only cool 240w max and that's probably 95 degrees. I applied liquid metal to the IHS and cold plate which dropped me 4 degrees.





VULC said:


> Yeah but you won't ever encounter that in any other work load unless you do something extreme in daily work tasks. I'm on 2 X 60, 4x 59, 5 X 58 and 8 x 57 only it's not stable on y cruncher CPU memory 50/50 tests. Y cruncher CPU is stable y crunch memory is stable.. R23, Realbench, TM5 Extreme, TM5 1 usmus, gaming all stable.





VULC said:


> I got E cores off I don't go over 220w. Why doy-cruncher I need 16 cores that are only good at adding heat in game but no performance gains.


Those tests are actually some of the easiest y-cruncher tests to run. Barely eats any wattage. Your IMC isn’t stable, and that is the main focus of those tests.

If you can’t pass those, you shouldn’t be able to pass the others as well especially with the CPU only tests (which are much heavierAVX), so you might have been testing prior to the memory overclocking. Also, it should be super easy to pass with the E-cores disabled.

I mean, if you want to cheat yourself, so be it, but there’s no need to try to argue it as being a poor test, when it isn’t.


----------



## Ichirou

genix said:


> For those who wants to limit CPU to some power limit (to prevent stability issues with power viruses):
> *Do not* use Package Power Limit, use Current Limit, it is much more effective, in my case (13900K + Win10):
> 
> Current Limit 250 Amps: CB23 Score - *35000*, VRM Core Power *~120W*, P.Freq - 5.1, E.Freq - 1.4, Ring - 4.5
> Pkg Power Limit 140W: CB23 Score - *27000*, VRM Core Power *~127W*, P.Freq - 4.6, E.Freq - 3.8, Ring - 4.1
> 
> It seems like CPU current balancing works much better than "traditional" power limits


Great tip; noticed this in my own testing as well. Intel has awful algorithms for scaling down based on power limits. Yuck. 

Is 250A your best recommendation?


----------



## genix

Ichirou said:


> Great tip; noticed this in my own testing as well. Intel has awful algorithms for scaling down based on power limits. Yuck.
> 
> Is 250A your best recommendation?


I actually swapped frequencies in original post, see updated 

250A on 13900K results in ~135W Package Power (VRM Power + others) during CB23, for 5.5GHz CB23 without slowdown you need ~370-380A but in y-cruncher it will decrease frequency (just a bit) - which is what I want


----------



## Ichirou

genix said:


> I actually swapped frequencies in original post, see updated
> 
> 250A on 13900K results in ~135W Package Power (VRM Power + others) during CB23, for 5.5GHz CB23 without slowdown you need ~370-380A but in y-cruncher it will decrease frequency (just a bit) - which is what I want


What current limit should I use if I want to kill off R23/y-cruncher entirely? For example, I just want to max off at around 300W for those two.


----------



## dumassnoob

not liking this new gigabyte "optimization" profile. it is clearly gimping the cpu. lost ~2k in cinebench. lost 6k in passmark cpu benchmark too. woof


----------



## Wolverine2349

dumassnoob said:


> i bet if you disable ecores it will be 99+. the ecores is dragging this cpu down. anti efficiency cores. intel cheapskate cores


Exactly the e-cores are a gimmick and hold back the p cores.

Intel needs to make chips like that with better binned important cores and


HemuV2 said:


> From what I've seen, it's ****ty ecores that increase stock vcore requirements and current draw, even my chip does 330W at stock without modification, my ecores can't go past 4.4 because they're sp73, I suspect there's many 13900Ks out there with low ecores SP, because pcores on these chips are phenomenal and evn pcore sp101 won't ask much voltage for 5.5, Intel should really get their QC in check before putting absolute low quality ecores on their highest end chip





HemuV2 said:


> From what I've seen, it's ****ty ecores that increase stock vcore requirements and current draw, even my chip does 330W at stock without modification, my ecores can't go past 4.4 because they're sp73, I suspect there's many 13900Ks out there with low ecores SP, because pcores on these chips are phenomenal and evn pcore sp101 won't ask much voltage for 5.5, Intel should really get their QC in check before putting absolute low quality ecores on their highest end chip


Its good a thing and we wants many chips like yours as possible and Intel should continue to bin P cores better and not worry about the e-core binning. E-cores can run a lower clock speeds. Its the P cores that you want fast clocks for. The e-cores are just to assist the P cores in heavily threaded tasks and do not carry near the importance overall and especially the importance for overclocking ability in them.

After all there is a reason why you are able to disable all e-cores and leave P cores on, but you cannot do opposite. You need at least one P core enabled in BIOs to boot unlike any e-cores. The P cores are what needs to be focused on especially binning for better clock speeds since they do heavy lifting once again and e-cores are meant for the little things and secondary chips for infinite threaded workloads.

Better yet Intel bin them all with excellence, but P cores should always come first.


----------



## tps3443

Wolverine2349 said:


> Exactly the e-cores are a gimmick and hold back the p cores.
> 
> Intel needs to make chips like that with better binned important cores and
> 
> 
> 
> Its good a thing and we wants many chips like yours as possible and Intel should continue to bin P cores better and not worry about the e-core binning. E-cores can run a lower clock speeds. Its the P cores that you want fast clocks for. The e-cores are just to assist the P cores in heavily threaded tasks and do not carry near the importance overall and especially the importance for overclocking ability in them.
> 
> After all there is a reason why you are able to disable all e-cores and leave P cores on, but you cannot do opposite. You need at least one P core enabled in BIOs to boot unlike any e-cores. The P cores are what needs to be focused on especially binning for better clock speeds since they do heavy lifting once again and e-cores are meant for the little things and secondary chips for infinite threaded workloads.
> 
> Better yet Intel bin them all with excellence, but P cores should always come first.


I personally like the E-Cores. I didn’t like Z690/Z790 until I got a 13900K. It is the best CPU I have ever owned. The 13900K is a multithreaded beast, with really fast P-Cores for gaming. I suppose it’s the best of both worlds. Imagine a Xeon with lots of cores for heavy lifting, it would be clocked slower for efficiency. However, imagine a raging bull on crack 6Ghz 8/16 processor for gaming. We essentially have both in one CPU. It’s only the 2nd generation of this, but it’s realistically the way to go if you want MT and ST performance, while also being able to kinda keep the cpu remotely cool. I don’t disable my E-Cores primarily because my chip is a daily work horse. Intel will only get better and improve the E-Cores. but regardless, people will always find a flaw with something.


----------



## Wolverine2349

tps3443 said:


> I personally like the E-Cores. I didn’t like Z690/Z790 until I got a 13900K. It is the best CPU I have ever owned. The 13900K is a multithreaded beast, with really fast P-Cores for gaming. I suppose it’s the best of both worlds. Imagine a Xeon with lots of cores for heavy lifting, it would be clocked slower for efficiency. However, imagine a raging bull on crack 6Ghz 8/16 processor for gaming. We essentially have both in one CPU. It’s only the 2nd generation of this, but it’s realistically the way to go if you want MT and ST performance, while also being able to kinda keep the cpu remotely cool. I don’t disable my E-Cores primarily because my chip is a daily work horse. Intel will only get better and improve the E-Cores. but regardless, people will always find a flaw with something.



I myself do not like the e-cores very much, but even for those that do, wouldn't you rather have better binned P cores because e-cores can run slower and still serve their purpose for extreme threaded apps or the theory of them helping with background tasks (Well maybe in WIN11 if it works right though I never saw that) and there are so many e-cores that clock speed is far less important while the P cores thats where the overclocking potential and needs come from more as they do the heavy lifting where the higher quantity e-cores assist beyond those 8 cores and there are so many of them for workloads that scale to unlimited threads that overclock ability of them seems far less important even for those that like the e-cores


----------



## tps3443

Wolverine2349 said:


> I myself do not like the e-cores very much, but even for those that do, wouldn't you rather have better binned P cores because e-cores can run slower and still serve their purpose for extreme threaded apps or the theory of them helping with background tasks (Well maybe in WIN11 if it works right though I never saw that) and there are so many e-cores that clock speed is far less important while the P cores thats where the overclocking potential and needs come from more as they do the heavy lifting where the higher quantity e-cores assist beyond those 8 cores and there are so many of them for workloads that scale to unlimited threads.


Well, the P-Cores are fast enough on my chip. I can run a 6.0Ghz on (8)P-Cores and 6.3Ghz on (4)P-Cores. So this is definitely fast enough for me I can’t really argue with that. It is 6Ghz or 6.3Ghz which is pure blistering. it’s gonna vary with chips though. I’d recommend a 13900KS if you want better P-Cores. Those chips are gonna be screened right just like the 12900KS, and I do not doubt they won’t be good.


----------



## bhav

Wolverine2349 said:


> I myself do not like the e-cores very much, but even for those that do, wouldn't you rather have better binned P cores because e-cores can run slower and still serve their purpose for extreme threaded apps or the theory of them helping with background tasks (Well maybe in WIN11 if it works right though I never saw that) and there are so many e-cores that clock speed is far less important while the P cores thats where the overclocking potential and needs come from more as they do the heavy lifting where the higher quantity e-cores assist beyond those 8 cores and there are so many of them for workloads that scale to unlimited threads that overclock ability of them seems far less important even for those that like the e-cores


Not having e cores does not magically give higher binned p cores. Only 10% of all raptor lake chips reach 13900K spec. Out of those less than 1% will do 6.0 all core at reasonable voltage.

Taking the e cores off does nothing to give higher P core performance!

Also no I would rather not only have 6-8 P cores! And they cannot add more P cores without gimping the current 8 on the die.

You've already been correctly told before, if you don't like this then buy an AMD CPU.

13600K is still more powerful than every single chip before it minus the 12900K, if that or the 13900K are not enough for you then buy an AMD chip.


----------



## Wolverine2349

bhav said:


> Not having e cores does not magically give higher binned p cores. Only 10% of all raptor lake chips reach 13900K spec. Out of those less than 1% will do 6.0 all core at reasonable voltage.
> 
> Taking the e cores off does nothing to give higher P core performance!
> 
> Also no I would rather not only have 6-8 P cores! And they cannot add more P cores without gimping the current 8 on the die.
> 
> You've already been correctly told before, if you don't like this then buy an AMD CPU.
> 
> 13600K is still more powerful than every single chip before it minus the 12900K, if that or the 13900K are not enough for you then buy an AMD chip.



Of course it does not. What I am saying is Intel should focus on better binning of P cores than e-cores when it comes to overclocking potential. I mean e-cores by name are meant to be efficient not really overclocked like P cores so focus better binning on P cores of course even if you focus on other parts of e-cores such as adding more.


----------



## bhav

Wolverine2349 said:


> Of course it does not. What I am saying is Intel should focus on better binning of P cores than e-cores when it comes to overclocking potential. I mean e-cores by name are meant to be efficient not really overclocked like P cores so focus better binning on P cores of course even if you focus on other parts of e-cores such as adding more.


They are doing that. Again 13900K spec is only 10% of all raptorlake silicon. They cant really bin much higher and still have enough yield to meet demand, also they still have to cut 13900Ks to lower tier SKUs because there is higher demand for the cheaper chips.


----------



## Wolverine2349

bhav said:


> They are doing that. Again 13900K spec is only 10% of all raptorlake silicon. They cant really bin much higher and still have enough yield to meet demand, also they still have to cut 13900Ks to lower tier SKUs because there is higher demand for the cheaper chips.



Ok yeah makes sense now. Are all 13th Gen CPUs same exact die just certain parts disabled and the binning is really luck of draw and only done to differentiate a 13900K from a 13700K and such. But 10% being 13900Ks whether e-cores or P cores better binned luck of the draw though P cores probably since Intel says they can boost 5.8Ghz on one core guaranteed in right thermal conditions?


----------



## bhav

Wolverine2349 said:


> Ok yeah makes sense now. Are all 13th Gen CPUs same exact die just certain parts disabled and the binning is really luck of draw and only done to differentiate a 13900K from a 13700K and such. But 10% being 13900Ks whether e-cores or P cores better binned luck of the draw though P cores probably since Intel says they can boost 5.8Ghz on one core guaranteed in right thermal conditions?


The things that are easy to google you can't ever check?

Read any review showing the die layout on the silicon for whichever CPU, this is like in every review.

Judging from my 13600K, not hard to imagine that 5.8 P cores are only 10% of raptor lake, and then ones that are even weaker than 13600K now become 13500 / 13600.


----------



## Timur Born

VULC said:


> I got E cores off I don't go over 220w. Why do I need 16 cores that are only good at adding heat in game but no performance gains.


Not everyone uses their CPU just for gaming. But even then you could just either trust thread scheduling or use core parking instead of disabling what you paid for. I am not saying that you are doing it wrong, but I don't how E cores would add much heat in games when they are not used anyway.


----------



## bhav

Timur Born said:


> Not everyone uses their CPU just for gaming. But even then you could just either trust thread scheduling or use core parking instead of disabling what you paid for. I am not saying that you are doing it wrong, but I don't how E cores would add much heat in games when they are not used anyway.


E cores don't even negatively impact gaming, disabling HT for higher P clocks is much better anyway.

Also lol, regarding 'HEAT', its already proven over and over that E CORES OFF = MORE HEAT!!! BECUASE THE P CORES HAVE TO BE LOADED HIGHER!!!!


----------



## VULC

bhav said:


> E cores don't even negatively impact gaming, disabling HT for higher P clocks is much better anyway.
> 
> Also lol, regarding 'HEAT', its already proven over and over that E CORES OFF = MORE HEAT!!! BECUASE THE P CORES HAVE TO BE LOADED HIGHER!!!!





Timur Born said:


> Not everyone uses their CPU just for gaming. But even then you could just either trust thread scheduling or use core parking instead of disabling what you paid for. I am not saying that you are doing it wrong, but I don't how E cores would add much heat in games when they are not used anyway.


This is nonsense running 16 E Cores needs higher voltage plus if the game hits E cores because of scheduler you lose perf. I'm running Win 10 anyway Win 11 is rubbish for games. The only background tasks I'm running for atom cores to use is windows desktop. HT off with E cores is even worse, cause you're still hitting E cores but now with HT off. If you hit a HT you're still on a P core. Windows 10 also runs higher fps then Win 11 which you need if you run E cores. I paid for performance not atom cores.
I'm running 60, 59, 59, 59, 58, 57, 57, 57 now with TVB +2.


----------



## Timur Born

Logical HT cores are prioritized last by Windows/CPU scheduler, even after E cores. And by using 75% core parking on a 13900K you can enforce that even further. So generally I wouldn't disable HT in BIOS, because one all P and E cores are loaded you can still make use of it for all-core applications/processing (there is more than just gaming).


----------



## Timur Born

VULC said:


> This is nonsense running 16 E Cores needs higher voltage plus if the game hits E cores because of scheduler you lose perf. The only background tasks I'm running for atom cores to use is windows desktop. Windows 10 also runs higher fps then Win 11 which you need if you run E cores. I paid for performance not atom cores.


When your E cores are loaded then your Windows 10 isn't capable of using them correctly (the only real reason to disable them). Else E cores are prioritized _after_ P cores. So any load running on E cores runs there, because P cores are already in use. If you want Windows to prioritize P cores even more then use Core Parking instead. This leaves E cores available for load that can make use of them.


----------



## Timur Born

dumassnoob said:


> fwiw, gigabyte bios gives the option "random" or "manual" . wonder if other bios do the same thing?


This is not about randomly choosing higher clocking cores. It's just about randomly choosing any core when you set up a lower number of active cores than physical cores being present.


----------



## VULC

Timur Born said:


> When your E cores are loaded then your Windows 10 isn't capable of using them correctly (the only real reason to disable them). Else E cores are prioritized _after_ P cores. So any load running on E cores runs there, because P cores are already in use. If you want Windows to prioritize P cores even more then use Core Parking instead. This leaves E cores available for load that can make use of them.
> View attachment 2592611


Regardless my temps and power limit would be hit and I wouldn't be able to run my P core adaptive OC at the levels I am now.


----------



## Timur Born

genix said:


> For those who wants to limit CPU to some power limit (to prevent stability issues with power viruses):
> *Do not* use Package Power Limit, use Current Limit, it is much more effective, in my case (13900K + Win10):
> 
> Current Limit 250 Amps: CB23 Score - *35000*, VRM Core Power *~120W*, P.Freq - 4.6, E.Freq - 3.8, Ring - 4.1
> Pkg Power Limit 140W: CB23 Score - *27000*, VRM Core Power *~127W*, P.Freq - 5.1, E.Freq - 1.4, Ring - 4.5
> 
> It seems like CPU current balancing works much better than "traditional" power limits


The Current limit in my Gigabyte BIOS is _not_ Ampere despite being labelled as such. The maximum value is 512, which corresponds to about 150-159 A only. The limit is achieved by clock-stretching my E cores. Cinebench 23 uses about 240 W (VA) / 1.25v = 192 A for a 40k+ score, so using this Current limit results in much lower scores.

I am stupid and also enabled current protection, which seems to kick in at low current already. So I will retest this now. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## HemuV2

Where's the guy with 13900KS, what was the result of testing it?


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Those tests are actually some of the easiest y-cruncher tests to run. Barely eats any wattage. Your IMC isn’t stable, and that is the main focus of those tests.
> 
> If you can’t pass those, you shouldn’t be able to pass the others as well especially with the CPU only tests (which are much heavierAVX), so you might have been testing prior to the memory overclocking. Also, it should be super easy to pass with the E-cores disabled.
> 
> I mean, if you want to cheat yourself, so be it, but there’s no need to try to argue it as being a poor test, when it isn’t.


I changed my ring to 52 without realising cause I have BCLK OC at 101.7 😅


----------



## VULC

HemuV2 said:


> Where's the guy with 13900KS, what was the result of testing it?


Try and ping him.


----------



## Timur Born

I cannot make sense of the Current Limit. It limits Cinebench kind of load more than it limits P95 SFFT AVX kind of load and its values don't make sense. As such it does the opposite of what I need, so I better keep using the power limits instead.


----------



## VULC

View attachment 2592616


----------



## VULC

Timur Born said:


> I cannot make sense of the Current Limit. It limits Cinebench kind of load more than it limits P95 SFFT AVX kind of load and its values don't make sense. As such it does the opposite of what I need, so I better keep using the power limits instead.


I would just put a 300A cap on current in general but don't use it to keep temps and watts under control.


----------



## VULC




----------



## Timur Born

VULC said:


> I would just put a 300A cap on current in general but don't use it to keep temps and watts under control.


Using a value of 300 seriously throttles my Cinebench runs, despite them using less than 200 A (240 W at 1.25v, likely more in reality, but not 300).


----------



## acoustic

Timur Born said:


> Using a value of 300 seriously throttles my Cinebench runs, despite them using less than 200 A (240 W at 1.25v, likely more in reality, but not 300).


Current limit is broken on Raptor Lake. Worked fine on ADL, but for some reason with RPL, it's causing major drops despite the current being far lower than what your limit is set to. I think it's an Intel microcode bug, not a mobo issue.


----------



## deidian

Timur Born said:


> Using a value of 300 seriously throttles my Cinebench runs, despite them using less than 200 A (240 W at 1.25v, likely more in reality, but not 300).


This might be because ICCMax is a preemptive limiter: CPU makes an Amperage estimation against ICCMax to regulate frequency.
PL1 and PL2 are average power draw figures, so they can only be used as a limit after the CPU overstepped power draw for a small fraction of time and downclocks to try to adjust.


----------



## bhav

Peak reddit moment ... 'I turned off HT and e cores for better games performance, but my 12700K only shows 8c 8t, how to make it run its advertised 12c 20t with e cores / HT off?'.

Dear lord.


----------



## tps3443

HemuV2 said:


> Where's the guy with 13900KS, what was the result of testing it?


Not sure. I’m curious too. Based on its Asus predicted VID’s for 6.0Ghz it looks just like a SP115 P-Core 13900K would be. Its VID’s are substantially worse than my chip for 6Ghz. (Which makes sense)

I’m gonna say the 13900KS is just a good sample 13900K with a guaranteed SP113+ P-Cores.

I wouldn’t mind testing one my self. I may try and grab one though. We’ll see how it goes.

If I do test one, I’m gonna delid the chip immediately throw it on direct die, and it either flies or dies! I do not care about a SP rating, I care about how the chip runs.


----------



## genix

Ichirou said:


> What current limit should I use if I want to kill off R23/y-cruncher entirely? For example, I just want to max off at around 300W for those two.


It depends what R23/YourApp Score you willing to keep/have and frequency base, for example: at 5.5/4.3/4.9 fully-unlimited I have ~40800 so I started decreasing (you can do it at runtime in XTU) Current Limit until CB23 score starts decreasing too - it mean I reached minimal current needed to maintain some base performance level, in my case for CB + 5.5/4.3/4.9 it is 360Amps.
In your case: set 58-60-all-core, unlimited current, tune ll/ac/dc/voltages etc., then run CB23 in loop, decrease current step by step until you reach your floor.

It also works a way better than classic AVX Offset because it can smoothly decrease frequency of E-Cores too 
Moreover: if AVX instruction stream detected and you do not reached current limit - it will keep running at max.ratio while classic AVX Offset will drop frequency down


----------



## genix

Timur Born said:


> The Current limit in my Gigabyte BIOS is _not_ Ampere despite being labelled as such. The maximum value is 512, which corresponds to about 150-159 A only. The limit is achieved by clock-stretching my E cores. Cinebench 23 uses about 240 W (VA) / 1.25v = 192 A for a 40k+ score, so using this Current limit results in much lower scores.
> 
> I am stupid and also enabled current protection, which seems to kick in at low current already. So I will retest this now. Sorry for the confusion.


You're looking on *VRM Current* which is not the same as IA Core Current Limit or *IccMax* in BIOS I'm talking about.
VRM Current is analogue integral/smoothed value, IccMax is somewhat discrete "impulse" value, IccMax is usually ~1.5 times greater than observed VRM Current


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> Not sure. I’m curious too. Based on its Asus predicted VID’s for 6.0Ghz it looks just like a SP115 P-Core 13900K would be. Its VID’s are substantially worse than my chip for 6Ghz. (Which makes sense)
> 
> I’m gonna say the 13900KS is just a good sample 13900K with a guaranteed SP113+ P-Cores.
> 
> I wouldn’t mind testing one my self. I may try and grab one though. We’ll see how it goes.
> 
> If I do test one, I’m gonna delid the chip immediately throw it on direct die, and it either flies or dies! I do not care about a SP rating, I care about how the chip runs.


500 chips and 1 was SP 119. I think Intel want to sell many more 13900KS then that.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> 500 chips and 1 was SP 119. I think Intel want to sell many more 13900KS then that.
> View attachment 2592631


You're right lol!

Hey I got my KS.  This thing is a monster.


----------



## Timur Born

deidian said:


> This might be because ICCMax is a preemptive limiter: CPU makes an Amperage estimation against ICCMax to regulate frequency.
> PL1 and PL2 are average power draw figures, so they can only be used as a limit after the CPU overstepped power draw for a small fraction of time and downclocks to try to adjust.


But my Cinebench load does not overstep any of the set limits and still is considerably throttled by the Current limit. So for the time being this seems mostly unusable in practice.


----------



## Timur Born

genix said:


> You're looking on *VRM Current* which is not the same as IA Core Current Limit or *IccMax* in BIOS I'm talking about.
> VRM Current is analogue integral/smoothed value, IccMax is somewhat discrete "impulse" value, IccMax is usually ~1.5 times greater than observed VRM Current


Maybe, but when I set a Core Current Limit of 300 and still get seriously throttled for load that runs at 200 A VRM current then it doesn't work as expected. And at the same time Prime 95 SFFT AVX is shooting through the roof well over what I would limit via power limiter. So it doesn't seem to work for my needs.


----------



## RichKnecht

So let’s say a KS will do 60/47/50. You still need to cool it. Using @tps3443 ’s chip as an example, you’re looking at ~325W power draw at 1.32V. Good luck cooling it without a chiller or multi rad setup. An AIO isn’t going to cut it. Can’t wait to see this cluster **** when they go on sale.


----------



## VULC

RichKnecht said:


> So let’s say a KS will do 60/47/50. You still need to cool it. Using @tps3443 ’s chip as an example, you’re looking at ~325W power draw at 1.32V. Good luck cooling it without a chiller or multi rad setup. An AIO isn’t going to cut it. Can’t wait to see this cluster **** when they go on sale.


With the 12900KS many were worse then regular K and buyers sent them back. I mean you could get a nice sample but still no guarantees.


----------



## genix

Timur Born said:


> Maybe, but when I set a Core Current Limit of 300 and still get seriously throttled for load that runs at 200 A VRM current then it doesn't work as expected. And at the same time Prime 95 SFFT AVX is shooting through the roof well over what I would limit via power limiter. So it doesn't seem to work for my needs.


It depends from workload:
300A is too low for CB 5.5/4.3, for me it reduces score from 40000+ to 37500, you need at least 360Amps
CPU-Z for example, score reduced from ~16700 to ~16500 when changing from 360Amps to 300Amps

Anyway you should inspect *HWInfo -> CPU [#0]: Intel Core i9-13900K: Performance Limit Reasons*


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> So let’s say a KS will do 60/47/50. You still need to cool it. Using @tps3443 ’s chip as an example, you’re looking at ~325W power draw at 1.32V. Good luck cooling it without a chiller or multi rad setup. An AIO isn’t going to cut it. Can’t wait to see this cluster **** when they go on sale.


Just because someone can’t run R23 at 6.0/4.8/5.1 doesn’t mean they can’t cool it. This chip is super efficient under realistic scenarios. Not to mention, all that extra power is coming from (16) E-Cores at 4.8Ghz. We can leave them at 4.3 and drastically reduce our voltage demand, and power usage.

My water temp is 18.3C during that last 45K+ R23 run. I do not use radiators anymore.

The 13900KS is for an Enthusiast. Let the battle with heat begin I say! Overclock as much as you can.

If I was a gamer with lesser cooling, I’d probably run a realistic daily OC of 5.7-6.0Ghz especially if I had an AIO and a 13900KS. That’s pretty darn good in my book.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Just because someone can’t run R23 at 6.0/4.8/5.1 doesn’t mean they can’t cool it. This chip is super efficient under realistic scenarios. Not to mention, all that extra power is coming from (16) E-Cores at 4.8Ghz. We can leave them at 4.3 and drastically reduce our voltage demand, and power usage.
> 
> My water temp is 18.3C during that last 45K+ R23 run. I do not use radiators anymore.
> 
> The 13900KS is for an Enthusiast. Let the battle with heat begin I say! Overclock as much as you can.
> 
> If I was a gamer with lesser cooling, I’d probably run a realistic daily OC of 5.7-6.0Ghz especially if I had an AIO and a 13900KS. That’s pretty darn good in my book.


Tell that to the people who will buying them and throwing them under an AIO. Do you think Intel is going to put an excessive heat warning on the packaging? They are touting 6GHz everywhere. Your everyday Joe isn’t even thinking that their $1000 KS is a binned K. Like I said, I can’t wait to see this **** storm.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Tell that to the people who will buying them and throwing them under an AIO. Do you think Intel is going to put an excessive heat warning on the packaging? They are touting 6GHz everywhere. Your everyday Joe isn’t even thinking that their $1000 KS is a binned K. Like I said, I can’t wait to see this **** storm.


The 13900KS is only 5.5Ghz all cores with a 6Ghz turbo on (2) cores.

Everyone with a 13900K knows they run 5.8Ghz, but they also all know they have no chance of doing that on all cores hehe.

But yeah some people are dumb. Lol


----------



## deidian

There's already quite a few gens that Intel CPUs don't run single core frequency in all-core loads unless said load is extremely light. Even running Intel guaranteed all core frequency at a serious load will punch around 300W thru the CPU and voltage scaling over that frequency is mad.


----------



## VULC

I'm running 205W max e cores off nothing else to worry about 183A from vrm. My cores hitting 6.2Ghz on idle. My full load 8 cores is 1.34v 5.7Ghz to get 6.2 on one core under load.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 Setting up this new PC has been a nightmare so far. Everything from clone failures to corrupted SSDs to screws being unscrewable due to use, you name it.

Just frustrations upon frustrations.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> I'm running 205W max e cores off nothing else to worry about 183A from vrm. My cores hitting 6.2Ghz on idle. My full load 8 cores is 1.34v 5.7Ghz to get 6.2 on one core under load.
> 
> View attachment 2592642
> 
> View attachment 2592643


Your single thread is not quite performing like 6.2Ghz. I can get higher with 6.0Ghz. Not being A jerk I promise Lol. Just letting you know something is up. 

6.2Ghz should be 1,012-1,016+ in CPU-Z.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> Your single thread is not quite performing like 6.2Ghz. I can get higher with 6.0Ghz. Not being A jerk I promise Lol. Just letting you know something is up.
> 
> 6.2Ghz should be 1,012-1,016+ in CPU-Z.


Just checked looking at the 8 cores it was 5900 mhz max on single core CPUz. 6.2 is TVB.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Your single thread is not quite performing like 6.2Ghz. I can get higher with 6.0Ghz. Not being A jerk I promise Lol. Just letting you know something is up.
> 
> 6.2Ghz should be 1,012-1,016+ in CPU-Z.


Agreed. My 13900K is running P cores locked at 55 (no 58 single core) and my single threaded score in CPU-Z is 954.


----------



## Timur Born

genix said:


> It depends from workload:
> 300A is too low for CB 5.5/4.3, for me it reduces score from 40000+ to 37500, you need at least 360Amps
> CPU-Z for example, score reduced from ~16700 to ~16500 when changing from 360Amps to 300Amps
> 
> Anyway you should inspect *HWInfo -> CPU [#0]: Intel Core i9-13900K: Performance Limit Reasons*


A stock 13900K draws 290W package power to reach 40k+ CB23 scores at 55/43. My undervolted one uses 240-243W to reach the same score while using about 365-370W at the wall (down to 50W idle, 20W of which are the GPU). At 240W and 360A you would only use 0,66V Vcore, at 240W and 300A you would only use 0,8v Vcore. So either I don't understand something here or this obviously doesn't fit.


----------



## kunit13

RichKnecht said:


> Agreed. My 13900K is running P cores locked at 55 (no 58 single core) and my single threaded score in CPU-Z is 954.


Thats really good for 5.5. At least in my testing. At 5.7 mine is around that same score. 



VULC said:


> Just checked looking at the 8 cores it was 5900 mhz max on single core CPUz. 6.2 is TVB.


I tried using the TVB to possibly boost to 6.0 during wz2 since the temps are low enough. For some reason TVB didn't take advantage of the lower temps (I'm guessing because the game uses 6 or more cores). 
Right now its currently disabled. So far using my tuned auto Voltage VID/Vore vs. override voltage has netted almost the exact same temps/watts at similar clock settings. 

I'm back doing more testing comparing
58/45/50 vs. 58/4x40e/50 vs. 5.8/50 (ecoresoff).


----------



## Timur Born

RichKnecht said:


> Agreed. My 13900K is running P cores locked at 55 (no 58 single core) and my single threaded score in CPU-Z is 954.


CPU-Z benchmark's single-core affinity behaves odd. It uses two cores for its single-core run, cores 6 and 2 on my system, but core 2 only maxes out at 58x, while cores 6, 7 and 3 can run 59x concurrently. I only get 954 if I manually fix CPU-Z to use those cores instead of core 2, else I get 945. And since 2 cores are used it never even measures my single-core maximum of 60x.

Compare that to CB23 Single, which happily runs a single (1) thread on my core 6 or 7 at 60x (both of these can max out at 60x, so Windows shifts load between them to keep temps down). My CB23 Single core score is around 2360.


----------



## Thunderclap

tps3443 said:


> Just because someone can’t run R23 at 6.0/4.8/5.1 doesn’t mean they can’t cool it. This chip is super efficient under realistic scenarios. Not to mention, all that extra power is coming from (16) E-Cores at 4.8Ghz. We can leave them at 4.3 and drastically reduce our voltage demand, and power usage.


This is a good point. Speaking of which, has anyone tested lower clocks on the E-cores in games?

When it comes to games I see a lot of people try different configurations, from running just P-cores, P-cores with HT on/E-cores off, P-cores with HT off/E-cores on, etc. But has anyone tried running with everything turned on as it comes from the factory, just running the E-cores lower to see if it makes any difference at all in games? For an example, running the E-cores at 4.5GHz vs. running them at 3.5GHz. This should bring the power/heat down considerably in the heavy all-core workloads, but does it actually make any difference in games? I feel like a lot of games might prefer having all those E-cores at their disposal as quantity, rather than having them clocked as high as possible.

Would be great if someone tested this, running max OC P-cores and max OC E-cores vs. max OC P-cores and having E-cores running much lower at something like 3.5GHz, and see if there is any difference at all in games. Food for thought.


----------



## kunit13

Thunderclap said:


> This is a good point. Speaking of which, has anyone tested lower clocks on the E-cores in games?
> 
> When it comes to games I see a lot of people try different configurations, from running just P-cores, P-cores with HT on/E-cores off, P-cores with HT off/E-cores on, etc. But has anyone tried running with everything turned on as it comes from the factory, just running the E-cores lower to see if it makes any difference at all in games? For an example, running the E-cores at 4.5GHz vs. running them at 3.5GHz. This should bring the power/heat down considerably in the heavy all-core workloads, but does it actually make any difference in games? I feel like a lot of games might prefer having all those E-cores at their disposal as quantity, rather than having them clocked as high as possible.
> 
> Would be great if someone tested this, running max OC P-cores and max OC E-cores vs. max OC P-cores and having E-cores running much lower at something like 3.5GHz, and see if there is any difference at all in games. Food for thought.


Ive done extensive testing LOL. Right now Im retesting a few things (wz2). Im going to drop my ecores to 4.0 for testing. I'm doing benchmark and in game (Capframex).
Below are conditions Im testing.


OC57/45/5058/4x40/5058/0/5059/4x40/5059/0/50


----------



## VULC

RichKnecht said:


> Agreed. My 13900K is running P cores locked at 55 (no 58 single core) and my single threaded score in CPU-Z is 954.


Not sure if the cores cpuz was hitting were 5.9 was just looking at the 8 cores on hwinfo. It might have been another core but max u saw was 5.9. it must be 5.9. 5.7 I got 925. So 5.8 is 950 and 5.9 is 975. Going off @tps3443 6.0 is 1000 etc.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> Agreed. My 13900K is running P cores locked at 55 (no 58 single core) and my single threaded score in CPU-Z is 954.


Thats going to be even slower than my 13600KF.


----------



## Timur Born

At less than 100% per core load maximum frequencies for E cores hardly matter, because they spent all idle time in deep sleep/C states anyway. This is my undervolted 13900K running the Total War: Warhammer 3 "Battle Benchmark" looks like running at about 100-125 fps (2k on a 2070S):


----------



## Timur Born

Let me show you something: 1x P95 Smallest SSE on P core at 60x + 16x P95 Smallest SSE on E cores at 43x. Without the E cores that one P core thread would only be running at 55x instead.








PS: I had to move my 60x cores from 6/7 to 2/3 for this to be stable long enough, because P cores 6/7 are direct neighbors to the fully loaded E cores and thus create hotspots. Seems like I have to revisit my voltages/ratios, because this one can easily crash.


----------



## tps3443

Timur Born said:


> Let me show you something: 1x P95 Smallest SSE on P core at 60x + 16x P95 Smallest SSE on E cores at 43x. Without the E cores that one P core thread would only be running at 55x instead.
> View attachment 2592654
> 
> PS: I had to move my 60x cores from 6/7 to 2/3 for this to be stable, because P cores 6/7 are direct neighbors to the fully loaded E cores and thus create hotspots.


If I’m after a higher single threaded frequency, then my all-core frequency. Then I let them ALL run up to that frequency. Then there is no confusion with that 6.3Ghz, any core can be grabbed and it will run at that speed up to a (4) core load and that core will be at 6.3Ghz. This is the best way to run it.

See here. A video I made.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 Had to resort to reinstalling Windows. Also, this dual top D5 is a lot larger than expected and won’t fit inside my case. Will need to improvise. EKWB lied about its dimensions HARD.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 Had to resort to reinstalling Windows. Also, this dual top D5 is a lot larger than expected and won’t fit inside my case. Will need to improvise. EKWB lied about its dimensions HARD.


Can I see your setup? I’d like to see how it looks.

Also that ek dual D5 top is very nice. I have always wanted one of those.


----------



## Brads3cents

😩🫣🤨

so I thought I damaged my old apex motherboard

I bought another (long wait)
Turns out my other motherboard is completely fine

now I have 2 apex mobos and no cpu to use!

my p116 13900k which was perfectly fine, I shaved down a single SMD ( the tallest one on the die side. You can see it next to the ihs) which I found out from another forum member is essential after the damage was done

now I’m stuck with a 55 error code.
the cpu is delided with Liquid Metal and copper ihs but I have to replace this SMD. I was running direct die but without a proper frame I began to get worried with inconsistent contact so I wanted to tallest SMD to match the shorter ones next to it in the row. I’m very upset I waited a long time for this mobo to get back in stock and paid a great expense

part of me wants to trash this thing and buy a KS next week
Part of me just wants to sell it as is
It’s a very strong cpu.

what do I do, order the cheapest 13th gen cpu and take that SMD off and put it on mine? Maybe I can find this resistor/capacitor online for super cheap? In the past I used to buy shunts from these websites for less than a dollar LoL
i dunno
Just sucks

2 amazing mobos and a very strong cpu that I can’t currently use


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> View attachment 2592662
> 
> 
> 😩🫣🤨
> 
> so I thought I damaged my old apex motherboard
> 
> I bought another (long wait)
> Turns out my other motherboard is completely fine
> 
> now I have 2 apex mobos and no cpu to use!
> 
> my p116 13900k which was perfectly fine, I shaved down a single SMD ( the tallest one on the die side. You can see it next to the ihs) which I found out from another forum member is essential after the damage was done
> 
> now I’m stuck with a 55 error code.
> the cpu is delided with Liquid Metal and copper ihs but I have to replace this SMD. I was running direct die but without a proper frame I began to get worried with inconsistent contact so I wanted to tallest SMD to match the shorter ones next to it in the row. I’m very upset I waited a long time for this mobo to get back in stock and paid a great expense
> 
> part of me wants to trash this thing and buy a KS next week
> Part of me just wants to sell it as is
> It’s a very strong cpu.
> 
> what do I do, order the cheapest 13th gen cpu and take that SMD off and put it on mine? Maybe I can find this resistor/capacitor online for super cheap? In the past I used to buy shunts from these websites for less than a dollar LoL
> i dunno
> Just sucks
> 
> 2 amazing mobos and a very strong cpu that I can’t currently use


Send the CPU off for electronic repair. Plenty of companies that can fix that for DIRT cheap, and they will have the parts to do so. Then, you need to buy a Supercool direct die water block, so you can run the CPU direct die the proper way. I run Super cool direct die and it's so super reliable! You cannot use a direct die frame with the 13900K as far as I know. You should have notched your cold plate so the SMD will clear, instead of shaving the SMD down.


----------



## tps3443

I have successfully stabilized my P-Cores at 6.0Ghz, and my E-Core at 4.8Ghz. I can see how my P cores are SP121, but I am wondering about my E-Cores they'd have to be better than just SP88 ...I guess not. They are really darn good though! SOLID AS A ROCK!


----------



## VULC

Brads3cents said:


> View attachment 2592662
> 
> 
> 😩🫣🤨
> 
> so I thought I damaged my old apex motherboard
> 
> I bought another (long wait)
> Turns out my other motherboard is completely fine
> 
> now I have 2 apex mobos and no cpu to use!
> 
> my p116 13900k which was perfectly fine, I shaved down a single SMD ( the tallest one on the die side. You can see it next to the ihs) which I found out from another forum member is essential after the damage was done
> 
> now I’m stuck with a 55 error code.
> the cpu is delided with Liquid Metal and copper ihs but I have to replace this SMD. I was running direct die but without a proper frame I began to get worried with inconsistent contact so I wanted to tallest SMD to match the shorter ones next to it in the row. I’m very upset I waited a long time for this mobo to get back in stock and paid a great expense
> 
> part of me wants to trash this thing and buy a KS next week
> Part of me just wants to sell it as is
> It’s a very strong cpu.
> 
> what do I do, order the cheapest 13th gen cpu and take that SMD off and put it on mine? Maybe I can find this resistor/capacitor online for super cheap? In the past I used to buy shunts from these websites for less than a dollar LoL
> i dunno
> Just sucks
> 
> 2 amazing mobos and a very strong cpu that I can’t currently use


Frame Chasers did the same thing. He just got a 12100 and used the smd off that.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> I have successfully stabilized my P-Cores at 6.0Ghz, and my E-Core at 4.8Ghz. I can see how my P cores are SP121, but I am wondering about my E-Cores they'd have to be better than just SP88 ...I guess not. They are really darn good though! SOLID AS A ROCK!


85 and up on good cooling is good enough. Roberto on 100+ SP E Cores getting 4.8ghz with his AIO cooling. Who knows on something like that maybe you can get 5ghz.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> 85 and up on good cooling is good enough. Roberto on 100+ SP E Cores getting 4.8ghz with his AIO cooling.


I could always run 4.8 on the E-Cores game stable or daily even before delid with that crap Optimus and poor mount etc. But not heavy loads. Pretty sure Roberto is not pushing 4.8 E-Cores through heavy loads.

As far as I remember I believe Roberto runs a 4.4-4.8 per core OC on his E-Cores for light loads.


----------



## VULC

15 degree water will do that.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> 15 degree water will do that.


The row of previous SP80+ E-Core 13900K’s didn’t think so 🤣


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Can I see your setup? I’d like to see how it looks.
> 
> Also that ek dual D5 top is very nice. I have always wanted one of those.


Not much to show. Haven't even gotten to the actual watercooling part yet. Been mostly focused on backing up my old system and getting it running on a table to resume work.
The actual water cooling will progress slowly as I iron out these quirks (still haven't figured out what to do about the D5 dual top).


Brads3cents said:


> View attachment 2592662
> 
> 
> 😩🫣🤨
> 
> so I thought I damaged my old apex motherboard
> 
> I bought another (long wait)
> Turns out my other motherboard is completely fine
> 
> now I have 2 apex mobos and no cpu to use!
> 
> my p116 13900k which was perfectly fine, I shaved down a single SMD ( the tallest one on the die side. You can see it next to the ihs) which I found out from another forum member is essential after the damage was done
> 
> now I’m stuck with a 55 error code.
> the cpu is delided with Liquid Metal and copper ihs but I have to replace this SMD. I was running direct die but without a proper frame I began to get worried with inconsistent contact so I wanted to tallest SMD to match the shorter ones next to it in the row. I’m very upset I waited a long time for this mobo to get back in stock and paid a great expense
> 
> part of me wants to trash this thing and buy a KS next week
> Part of me just wants to sell it as is
> It’s a very strong cpu.
> 
> what do I do, order the cheapest 13th gen cpu and take that SMD off and put it on mine? Maybe I can find this resistor/capacitor online for super cheap? In the past I used to buy shunts from these websites for less than a dollar LoL
> i dunno
> Just sucks
> 
> 2 amazing mobos and a very strong cpu that I can’t currently use


Don't say I didn't warn you. Now you might have to potentially fork out more money and effort just to fix it.


----------



## tps3443

@Brads3cents There are places that will fix that SMD for like $25 bucks. It’s a quick and easy job.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> The row of previous SP80+ E-Core 13900K’s didn’t think so 🤣


What was the max on them, and what voltages are needed?


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 Had to resort to reinstalling Windows. Also, this *dual top D5 is a lot larger than expected* and won’t fit inside my case. Will need to improvise. EKWB lied about its dimensions HARD.


Yeah, that thing is huge. I bought one and sent it back. I bought a Radikult customs dual D5 front reservoir for my 011 XL. Fits like a champ, loos great, and keeps both D5s out of the way.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Yeah, that thing is huge. I bought one and sent it back. I bought a Radikult customs dual D5 front reservoir for my 011 XL. Fits like a champ, loos great, and keeps both D5s out of the way.


Unfortunately, I ordered it online from EK direct, so a return is out of the question (if we assume that I'm still within the return period). Just going to have to deal with it.


----------



## Brads3cents

tps3443 said:


> @Brads3cents There are places that will fix that SMD for like $25 bucks. It’s a quick and easy job.


I’m in Illinois I’m a suburb of Chicago. I’ll begin looking for some companies near me, otherwise I’ll buy the cheapest cpu with same SMD and try to repair myself
Thanks for cheering me up tho 🙌🏻


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Unfortunately, I ordered it online from EK direct, so a return is out of the question (if we assume that I'm still within the return period). Just going to have to deal with it.


That’s why I roll with a test bench. Especially if you’re tinkering a lot. It’s so convenient. I will probably never go back to a case. It’s so nice to just lean over your desk, and you can do or see anything right there. No worrying with air flow, just set your water temp by pressing a button 😁 my motherboard does actually get really toasty because only ambient air goes over it.

I do really want one of those dual D5 tops though. I can mount that right in the basement of my test bench. They look so awesome to me. With how big my EKWB D5 seemed when I first got it, I imagine it is huge. I run (2) separate D5’s but I wouldn’t mind swapping that to a single dual solution. Do they pump just as well as (2) separate D5’s?


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> I’m in Illinois I’m a suburb of Chicago. I’ll begin looking for some companies near me, otherwise I’ll buy the cheapest cpu with same SMD and try to repair myself
> Thanks for cheering me up tho 🙌🏻


I wonder what would happen if you shorted that area and bypassed that SMD all together, maybe that would allow the chip to work again. Maybe you could do some research and see.


See about contacting (Northwestrepair) that guy is amazing. He can micro solder and repair practically anything for super cheap.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> That’s why I roll with a test bench. Especially if you’re tinkering a lot. It’s so convenient. I will probably never go back to a case. It’s so nice to just lean over your desk, and you can do or see anything right there. No worrying with air flow, just set your water temp by pressing a button 😁 my motherboard does actually get really toasty because only ambient air goes over it.
> 
> I do really want one of those dual D5 tops though. I can mount that right in the basement of my test bench. They look so awesome to me. With how big my EKWB D5 seemed when I first got it, I imagine it is huge. I run (2) separate D5’s but I wouldn’t mind swapping that to a single dual solution. Do they pump just as well as (2) separate D5’s?


You can cool the VRMs, MOSFETs, and/or even the PCH chipset by ordering specialized waterblocks for them off of eBay.
I bought one for my VRMs and MOSFETs since they massively heat up over any extended period of use, which leads to the board itself heating up as well.
It isn't really expensive at all. Same concept behind its use as a RAM waterblock. Just stick it on top of the original heatsink and let the water pull the heat away.

With my test bench loop, two D5's at max RPM gives about 210+ L/h. That's just under 1 GPM, which is a where you want to be at the least.
Keep in mind, this is with a MO-RA 420 (so 1260mm) and an extra 1080mm radiator.

I'll figure something out with the dual top. If all else fails, I'll just install it outside of the case and near the MO-RA instead.
Ideally, you'd want to buy some super compact dual top or some pump-reservoir combo to save space.

I'm still in the "putting the LEGO pieces together" phase right now. No tubing done yet. Taking this slow in between work and breaks.


----------



## kunit13

Quick Update: For the ecore vs. no ecore comparison.

So at least for my system it doesn't matter if you have ecores on or not. Im going to run some games tonight with 5.8/4x40/50 just to see if its as smooth as my normal setup. (first one). 

Notes: I drop in the same spot every time and ran the same direction for 30 sec. So not the best sample for ingame. Just a spot check for myself.
Riva also records CPU V (I'm pretty sure its VID not actual vcore). 

All testing 1440p 100%r resolution.


----------



## Ichirou

kunit13 said:


> Quick Update: For the ecore vs. no ecore comparison.
> 
> So at least for my system it doesn't matter if you have ecores on or not. Im going to run some games tonight with 5.8/4x40/50 just to see if its as smooth as my normal setup. (first one).
> 
> Notes: I drop in the same spot every time and ran the same direction for 30 sec. So not the best sample for ingame. Just a spot check for myself.
> Riva also records CPU V (I'm pretty sure its VID not actual vcore).
> 
> All testing 1440p 100%r resolution.
> 
> View attachment 2592680


Not many games are designed to use a boatload of cores and threads. And even if they are, there's Windows P/E-core scheduling to have to contend with.
Running with the E-cores enabled is primarily for if you need them during non-gaming workloads.


----------



## kunit13

Ichirou said:


> Not many games are designed to use a boatload of cores and threads. And even if they are, there's Windows P/E-core scheduling to have to contend with.
> Running with the E-cores enabled is primarily for if you need them during non-gaming workloads.


Yep. I knew that. Just verifying what would be the MOST FRAMES with safe voltages and temps . My gaming machine (well now my benching machine) is only used for gaming. So I don't have to use the ecores for anything (except when I stream --OBS to project--) So with the ecores off I should be able to run higher clocks with less heat. At least that was my theory.


----------



## Ichirou

kunit13 said:


> Yep. I knew that. Just verifying what would be the MOST FRAMES with safe voltages and temps . My gaming machine (well now my benching machine) is only used for gaming. So I don't have to use the ecores for anything (except when I stream --OBS to project--) So with the ecores off I should be able to run higher clocks with less heat. At least that was my theory.


In my experience, disabling the E-cores simply lessens the load on the L2 cache and ring, which is what allows the P-cores to run stable at higher clocks.
Otherwise, they're effectively separate.

I have a high E-core SP (91 IIRC), but that doesn't really matter when running even at 47x all-core already demands too much L2 cache voltage and Vcore for the ring.
In practice, I'm going to pull down all of my voltages until I get BSODs during everyday use. And I'll be setting a current limit so that I don't get destroyed during heavy AVX loads.

@tps3443 Good news, I've figured out a working "don't try this at home kids" solution for fitting my dual top D5 into the case. Will need me to plan out the tubing paths again, but it shouldn't be too difficult.


----------



## genix

Timur Born said:


> A stock 13900K draws 290W package power to reach 40k+ CB23 scores at 55/43. My undervolted one uses 240-243W to reach the same score while using about 365-370W at the wall (down to 50W idle, 20W of which are the GPU). *At 240W and 360A you would only use 0,66V Vcore*, at 240W and 300A you would only use 0,8v Vcore. So either I don't understand something here or this obviously doesn't fit.


You talking about Power and VRM Current - it is an averaged value over time.
I'm talking about *IccMax* - it is an internal peak current CPU (Core/Cache domains) should not exceed, Intel describes it as "IccMax current *10 ms max*" in technical documentation.

This is different entities, you can't compare them directly


----------



## Timur Born

genix said:


> You talking about Power and VRM Current - it is an averaged value over time.
> I'm talking about *IccMax* - it is an internal peak current CPU (Core/Cache domains) should not exceed, Intel describes it as "IccMax current *10 ms max*" in technical documentation.
> 
> This is different entities, you can't compare them directly


My motherboard offers no sensor for that and the entered values lead to impractical results. I get less CB23 performance, but higher P95 load, I need the other way around. So unfortunately it is not usable for me.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Ichirou said:


> You can cool the VRMs, MOSFETs, and/or even the PCH chipset by ordering specialized waterblocks for them off of eBay.
> I bought one for my VRMs and MOSFETs since they massively heat up over any extended period of use, which leads to the board itself heating up as well.
> It isn't really expensive at all. Same concept behind its use as a RAM waterblock. Just stick it on top of the original heatsink and let the water pull the heat away.
> 
> With my test bench loop, two D5's at max RPM gives about 210+ L/h. That's just under 1 GPM, which is a where you want to be at the least.
> Keep in mind, this is with a MO-RA 420 (so 1260mm) and an extra 1080mm radiator.
> 
> I'll figure something out with the dual top. If all else fails, I'll just install it outside of the case and near the MO-RA instead.
> Ideally, you'd want to buy some super compact dual top or some pump-reservoir combo to save space.
> 
> I'm still in the "putting the LEGO pieces together" phase right now. No tubing done yet. Taking this slow in between work and breaks.


The DDC 3.2PWM are much stronger as the D5, 2xDDC with EK Dual Turbotop arround 3000U/min do over 200L/h in quit.
Both max. can do up to 400L with 2xMora, CPU, Ram and Ek GFX 3090 Block.The DDC is better in pressure ...more pressure more flow.
But the D5 is also a very good pump and more as enough....


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> That’s why I roll with a test bench. Especially if you’re tinkering a lot. It’s so convenient. I will probably never go back to a case. It’s so nice to just lean over your desk, and you can do or see anything right there. No worrying with air flow, just set your water temp by pressing a button 😁 my motherboard does actually get really toasty because only ambient air goes over it.
> 
> I do really want one of those dual D5 tops though. I can mount that right in the basement of my test bench. They look so awesome to me. With how big my EKWB D5 seemed when I first got it, I imagine it is huge. I run (2) separate D5’s but I wouldn’t mind swapping that to a single dual solution. Do they pump just as well as (2) separate D5’s?


I found that using 2 D5s in series vs separately in the loop really didn’t make a huge difference. My setup is D5/res1>PE360>D5/res2>CPU>PE360>XE360>High Flow Next>D5/res 1. The front panel/res combo saves a lot of space. Total system water capacity is about 3/4 gallon. Flow is 233 ltr/m with both pumps synched to 70%.


----------



## bhav

VULC said:


> This is nonsense running 16 E Cores needs higher voltage plus if the game hits E cores because of scheduler you lose perf. I'm running Win 10 anyway Win 11 is rubbish for games. The only background tasks I'm running for atom cores to use is windows desktop. HT off with E cores is even worse, cause you're still hitting E cores but now with HT off. If you hit a HT you're still on a P core. Windows 10 also runs higher fps then Win 11 which you need if you run E cores. I paid for performance not atom cores.
> I'm running 60, 59, 59, 59, 58, 57, 57, 57 now with TVB +2.


Its not rubbish. Theres like what hundreds of e cores on / off comparisons you can check on youtube. In gaming with e cores off, the P cores run at higher temps.

Also running the e cores doesn't require more voltage, that only happens when +100 on the e cores needs more woltage. If you leave them at stock voltage requirement doesn't go up, you find the minimum voltage OC needed for the P cores then see what the e cores can run at with that voltage.

HT off is much better, you get like 15c less and can get +100-200c on the P cores, also hitting the e cores is much better than needing to use the useless extra threads.


----------



## Betroz

@Nizzen have you done some BF2042 testing with 8P + 16E cores and HT off?


----------



## Latchback

Betroz said:


> @Nizzen have you done some BF2042 testing with 8P + 16E cores and HT off?


Yeah I would like to see what the penalty is (if any) in gaming...
And
What the expected overclock gain in disabling HT

Because if I could gain +100-200 with HT off and it ends up just performing better then I will prob do that.


----------



## Telstar

RichKnecht said:


> I watched those videos too and he whips through the settings so fast. I actually searched his articles out on the internet and he has the videos but with text as well. So much easier to follow.


Yes and he is out of sync with the bios settings 
I always link the blog which is much easier to follow.


----------



## genix

Timur Born said:


> My motherboard offers no sensor for that and the entered values lead to impractical results. I get less CB23 performance, but higher P95 load, I need the other way around. So unfortunately it is not usable for me.


For me it does exact opposite: I tuned it (via multiple iterations) to not throttle in CB23 but P95/y-cruncher slows down, it works as expected on every platform I tested (8th gen - Intel board, 11tg gen - Gigabyte board, 13th gen - ASUS board), it is almost ideal to limit high-impulse current loads like AVX ones.

Motherboards has no sensor for it since it is a MSR (Model Specific Register) that just sets IccMax internally and then CPU decides how to operate, it has nothing with measured VRM Current / Voltage, you should check *HWInfo -> CPU [#0]: Intel Core XXXXXX: Performance Limit Reasons* for exact reason of throttling on your side.

Direct analogue: AC current in your house where you have absolute voltage amplitute and RMS - which is somewhat equal to IccMax and averaged VRM Current, i.e. you should not treat IccMax as ~ observed VRM Current - this is strictly incorrect, try to use values I suggested (360Amps+ for 13900K at 5.5/4.3 for 40K CB23 points)


----------



## RichKnecht

OK MSI folks, do uou maually set your E Core L2 voltage or leave it on auto? I have it on Auto, but there is no way of telling what that sets the voltage to.


----------



## acoustic

RichKnecht said:


> OK MSI folks, do uou maually set your E Core L2 voltage or leave it on auto? I have it on Auto, but there is no way of telling what that sets the voltage to.


Auto. Only need to mess with L2 voltage if you're really trying to ramp the E-Cores up.

Can't read what it's setting it to, but I know a lot of users end up manually entering around ~1.3x volt, so I'd imagine it's less than that


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> OK MSI folks, do uou maually set your E Core L2 voltage or leave it on auto? I have it on Auto, but there is no way of telling what that sets the voltage to.


Auto is 1.05v is cpu ecore l2 voltage…can see in dragon power


----------



## Ichirou

genix said:


> For me it does exact opposite: I tuned it (via multiple iterations) to not throttle in CB23 but P95/y-cruncher slows down, it works as expected on every platform I tested (8th gen - Intel board, 11tg gen - Gigabyte board, 13th gen - ASUS board), it is almost ideal to limit high-impulse current loads like AVX ones.
> 
> Motherboards has no sensor for it since it is a MSR (Model Specific Register) that just sets IccMax internally and then CPU decides how to operate, it has nothing with measured VRM Current / Voltage, you should check *HWInfo -> CPU [#0]: Intel Core XXXXXX: Performance Limit Reasons* for exact reason of throttling on your side.
> 
> Direct analogue: AC current in your house where you have absolute voltage amplitute and RMS - which is somewhat equal to IccMax and averaged VRM Current, i.e. you should not treat IccMax as ~ observed VRM Current - this is strictly incorrect, try to use values I suggested (360Amps+ for 13900K at 5.5/4.3 for 40K CB23 points)


What exactly is the setting labelled as in the BIOS for changing ICCMax?


RichKnecht said:


> OK MSI folks, do uou maually set your E Core L2 voltage or leave it on auto? I have it on Auto, but there is no way of telling what that sets the voltage to.


Just set it to 1.20-1.25V yourself if you don’t have a heavy overclock. It’s enough.


acoustic said:


> Auto. Only need to mess with L2 voltage if you're really trying to ramp the E-Cores up.
> 
> Can't read what it's setting it to, but I know a lot of users end up manually entering around ~1.3x volt, so I'd imagine it's less than that


Auto is around 1.20V. Intel XTU tells you what it is, ironically.


Uncle Dubbs said:


> Auto is 1.05v is cpu ecore l2 voltage…can see in dragon power


Dragon Power is like 20 years old and has never been updated. It’s not accurate.


----------



## bhav

Well, intel tried to send me a 'screenshot' with the correct loadline values finally ....










Except the screenshot doesn't work.

I was told many times to 'stop bothering Intel support, their engineers know more than you', except they actually only finally checked into this because I wouldn't leave them alone.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> Well, intel tried to send me a 'screenshot' with the correct loadline values finally ....
> 
> View attachment 2592740
> 
> 
> Except the screenshot doesn't work.
> 
> I was told many times to 'stop bothering Intel support, their engineers know more than you', except they actually only finally checked into this because I wouldn't leave them alone.


TL;DR: Contact MSI lol. As I predicted.


----------



## RichKnecht

As neat as it seems to be, I am afraid to install XTU. It was a nightmare with X299 and even though I uninstalled it, it felt like it was still “there” in the background. Just like Armory Crate. That program is a nightmare.


----------



## bhav

Ichirou said:


> TL;DR: Contact MSI lol. As I predicted.


Yes but I need those damn default loadline values ffs. And they send a broken screenshot.

I need the correct vales to send to MSI because they obviously don't have them :x


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> As neat as it seems to be, I am afraid to install XTU. It was a nightmare with X299 and even though I uninstalled it, it felt like it was still “there” in the background. Just like Armory Crate. That program is a nightmare.


Works great for me. It’s evolved significantly compared to the past. But I understand your woes though. 

Ironically, it’s now even better than Roberto’s method of overclocking, IMO.


----------



## Telstar

genix said:


> Current Limit 250 Amps: CB23 Score - *35000*, VRM Core Power *~120W*, P.Freq - 4.6, E.Freq - 3.8, Ring - 4.1
> Pkg Power Limit 140W: CB23 Score - *27000*, VRM Core Power *~127W*, P.Freq - 5.1, E.Freq - 1.4, Ring - 4.5
> 
> It seems like CPU current balancing works much better than "traditional" power limits


Not in gaming. Also, you are not using w11.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Well, intel tried to send me a 'screenshot' with the correct loadline values finally ....
> 
> View attachment 2592740
> 
> 
> Except the screenshot doesn't work.
> 
> I was told many times to 'stop bothering Intel support, their engineers know more than you', except they actually only finally checked into this because I wouldn't leave them alone.


As I have said this before, it would help IMMENSELY if MSI would link DC LL to each LLC setting like Asus does. That would make it SO MUCH easier for those wanting to fine tune their chips for reasonable power draw and voltage. Right now, if I wanted to try a different LLC setting, I’d have to go through the entire process of figuring out the DC LL for the new LLC setting. For that matter, if MSI can’t find the time to link those 2 settings, just provide us with the LLC impedances for each board.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Works great for me. It’s evolved significantly compared to the past. But I understand your woes though.
> 
> Ironically, it’s now even better than Roberto’s method of overclocking, IMO.


Interesting. Do you tweak everything in XTU and then transfer those settings in bios? Or, do you just create a profile in XTU and it loads every time you turn on the PC?


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> As I have said this before, it would help IMMENSELY if MSI would link DC LL to each LLC setting like Asus does. That would make it SO MUCH easier for those wanting to fine tune their chips for reasonable power draw and voltage. Right now, if I wanted to try a different LLC setting, I’d have to go through the entire process of figuring out the DC LL for the new LLC setting. For that matter, if MSI can’t find the time to link those 2 settings, just provide us with the LLC impedances for each board.


I've already told them that but I don't get it, even people with Asus boards are posting this same issue.

See Intel does have default loadline spec? Except they send a broken screenshot and haven't listed that spec anywhere or to the AIBs.

'Contact MSI' only goes so far if MSI also don't know what the default values should be.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Yes but I need those damn default loadline values ffs. And they send a broken screenshot.
> 
> I need the correct vales to send to MSI because they obviously don't have them :x


My guess is that they are between 1.02-1.10 for both AC and DC LL. I know that doesn’t help without an exact value.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> 'Contact MSI' only goes so far if MSI also don't know what the default values should be.


Even if MSI knew the defaults, that would only be for LLC 8, their ”droopiest” setting. Once you change that to say LLC 7,6, or 5, everything changes. That’s why it would be helpful to know those LLC impedances. Again, I know how to figure those out, but I’d basically have to start from scratch for each LLC setting. Having Vcore match VID really helps IMO.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> My guess is that they are between 1.02-1.10 for both AC and DC LL. I know that doesn’t help without an exact value.


Cant be as the default lite load 12 is 110 on each, and thats the 1.4v+ territory.


----------



## Telstar

Thunderclap said:


> This is a good point. Speaking of which, has anyone tested lower clocks on the E-cores in games?


I wanted to, but i'm not able to do my build for other 1-2 months.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Cant be as the default lite load 12 is 110 on each, and thats the 1.4v+ territory.


1.4 under load? I read somewhere that the values are 1.10 for 6 p core chips. And, that 1.4V is based on the highest boost frequency (58) for a 13900K. If you “eliminate” that 2 core boost frequency and lock the cores at 55, you will find that 1.4 V drops quite a bit. In my case, ~1.375.

Edit: If you use the “new” boost frequency of 54, the voltage will drop even lower. Again, this is for the 13900K.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Timur Born said:


> Not everyone uses their CPU just for gaming. But even then you could just either trust thread scheduling or use core parking instead of disabling what you paid for. I am not saying that you are doing it wrong, but I don't how E cores would add much heat in games when they are not used anyway.



Makes total sense to disable them for gaming. Not everyone wants to deal with the gimmick hybrid arch crap.

If Intel sold a CPU with only 8 P cores we would buy that instead. But they do not. We do not want the e-cores but want the Intel P cores. So have to buy it and its not like the costs is beyond insanely high to get 8 Intel P cores even with the e-cores.

For those who say oh there is AMD for that, well we do not want AMD. We want Intel Raptor Cove cores as they are like 7% better in IPC at same clock speed and even more so in latency compared to 7700X Zen 4 cores. Plus easier to overclock them farther all core speed all the time and much better performance than Zen 4 8 P core for 8 P cores.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> 1.4 under load? I read somewhere that the values are 1.10 for 6 p core chips. And, that 1.4V is based on the highest boost frequency (58) for a 13900K. If you “eliminate” that 2 core boost frequency and lock the cores at 55, you will find that 1.4 V drops quite a bit. In my case, ~1.375.
> 
> Edit: If you use the “new” boost frequency of 54, the voltage will drop even lower. Again, this is for the 13900K.


1.36 under load, still 100c.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> What exactly is the setting labelled as in the BIOS for changing ICCMax?
> 
> Just set it to 1.20-1.25V yourself if you don’t have a heavy overclock. It’s enough.
> 
> Auto is around 1.20V. Intel XTU tells you what it is, ironically.
> 
> Dragon Power is like 20 years old and has never been updated. It’s not accurate.


Uh no, I have a pretty
New version and reads a lot of those voltages. I wouldn’t install xtu , that crap just takes over everything.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Telstar said:


> I wanted to, but i'm not able to do my build for other 1-2 months.



Lower clocks on e-cores in games would have no impact as almost no games touch any e-core.


----------



## Lownage

I´m stuck at 50x cache with 1.375V adaptive (LLC4 AC LL 0.3). At 51x BF2042 crashes.
Is there a way to increase cache ratio?
E-Cores off btw.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Lownage said:


> I´m stuck at 50x cache with 1.375V adaptive (LLC4 AC LL 0.3). At 51x BF2042 crashes.
> Is there a way to increase cache ratio?
> E-Cores off btw.


Nothing wrong with x50 cache that’s where most top out, the default is 45?


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> 1.36 under load, still 100c.


What LLC, AC, DC? .04V is basically no droop. After the load is removed from the chip, I am sure you are getting crazy voltage spikes that HWInfo, or any other program, will not show. Only way to “see” them is with an oscilloscope.


----------



## Telstar

Wolverine2349 said:


> Lower clocks on e-cores in games would have no impact as almost no games touch any e-core.


True, but it would possibly allow for higher ring and p-core frequency


----------



## Falkentyne

RichKnecht said:


> Even if MSI knew the defaults, that would only be for LLC 8, their ”droopiest” setting. Once you change that to say LLC 7,6, or 5, everything changes. That’s why it would be helpful to know those LLC impedances. Again, I know how to figure those out, but I’d basically have to start from scratch for each LLC setting. Having Vcore match VID really helps IMO.


Default DCLL is always 1.1 mohms for 8 core SKU. This may be 1.4 to 1.7 mohms for 4 or 6 core SKU.
Default ACLL is based on socket impedance and other factors. This is usually somewhere around 0.25 to 0.5 mOhms. It is NEVER 1.1 mOhms. 0.4 mOhms is the most common setting for this.
I posted this a long time ago but it seems most people here seem to just want to ignore me and keep wanting MSI /Asus/whatever to give them values I already posted.

If you set AC Loadline to 1.1 mohms with a x55 multiplier active, your CPU is getting 1.65v _IDLE_ vcore.
Stock ACLL values of 1.1, 1.6 or 2.1 mohms _ONLY_ applied to Z390 and older chipsets. Despite CML still using Skylake cores, ACLL's functionality was changed drastically in Z490, so that it was no longer the inverse of loadline calibration (because in Z390 and older, it was the inverse of LLC, but inrush current would cause instability if you pushed the CPU).


----------



## deidian

Wolverine2349 said:


> Lower clocks on e-cores in games would have no impact as almost no games touch any e-core.


May impact performance indirectly the same way having more cores in general than the game needs. Games have a few threads which are latency sensitive(if CPU or GPU are late to frame delivery it's when things perform badly, no matter that there's <100% use): having more cores will reduce the need for context switching reducing the likelihood of a latency sensitive thread loosing scheduling against something else. In the end though it's an incredibly complex scenario (and reasonable behavior would be no top of the line hardware): V-SYNC and VRR try to minimize the perception of this, higher refresh rates make every variance harder to notice and Windows scheduler also tries to guess correctly the best it can and/or give software developers ways to hint specific needs for each thread.

But this would be the same as using 32Gb of RAM for gaming and normal use: it's generally overkill and unreasonable. 16Gb will cut it with a "healthy" amount of swapping to page file. 32Gb RAM just enable 100% top tier performance(at a price) since the OS can run most things directly from RAM only swapping really rarely accesed data.


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> What LLC, AC, DC? .04V is basically no droop. After the load is removed from the chip, I am sure you are getting crazy voltage spikes that HWInfo, or any other program, will not show. Only way to “see” them is with an oscilloscope.


110 AC / DC at stock, didn't check the LLC, 1.409 max, 1.359 sustained.


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> Default DCLL is always 1.1 mohms for 8 core SKU. This may be 1.4 to 1.7 mohms for 4 or 6 core SKU.
> Default ACLL is based on socket impedance and other factors. This is usually somewhere around 0.25 to 0.5 mOhms. It is NEVER 1.1 mOhms. 0.4 mOhms is the most common setting for this.
> I posted this a long time ago but it seems most people here seem to just want to ignore me and keep wanting MSI /Asus/whatever to give them values I already posted.
> 
> If you set AC Loadline to 1.1 mohms with a x55 multiplier active, your CPU is getting 1.65v _IDLE_ vcore.
> Stock ACLL values of 1.1, 1.6 or 2.1 mohms _ONLY_ applied to Z390 and older chipsets. Despite CML still using Skylake cores, ACLL's functionality was changed drastically in Z490, so that it was no longer the inverse of loadline calibration (because in Z390 and older, it was the inverse of LLC, but inrush current would cause instability if you pushed the CPU).


Well that would be it, both the AC_LL and DC_LL are set to 110 at the stock load line setting of 12.

Now how do I explain any of this to MSI?


----------



## RichKnecht

Falkentyne said:


> Default DCLL is always 1.1 mohms for 8 core SKU. This may be 1.4 to 1.7 mohms for 4 or 6 core SKU.
> Default ACLL is based on socket impedance and other factors. This is usually somewhere around 0.25 to 0.5 mOhms. It is NEVER 1.1 mOhms. 0.4 mOhms is the most common setting for this.
> I posted this a long time ago but it seems most people here seem to just want to ignore me and keep wanting MSI /Asus/whatever to give them values I already posted.
> 
> If you set AC Loadline to 1.1 mohms with a x55 multiplier active, your CPU is getting 1.65v _IDLE_ vcore.
> Stock ACLL values of 1.1, 1.6 or 2.1 mohms _ONLY_ applied to Z390 and older chipsets. Despite CML still using Skylake cores, ACLL's functionality was changed drastically in Z490, so that it was no longer the inverse of loadline calibration (because in Z390 and older, it was the inverse of LLC, but inrush current would cause instability if you pushed the CPU).


Your older posts, found by searching about info on AC and DC LL, are what taught me a lot about how to successfully tune this chip. I have tried many times to share what I have learned, but it seems that people know a better way, so I gave up as I am sure you did as well. I think it was you that shared an LLC calculator that Elmor? created a while back and I used that, along with your info, to tune this chip. Thank you.


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> Well that would be it, both the AC_LL and DC_LL are set to 110 at the stock load line setting of 12.
> 
> Now how do I explain any of this to MSI?


MSI is clueless.
They're still using the old Z390 and older forumulas where ACLL and DCLL should be set to the same value, as they used to be complete inverses of each other (ACLL boosting VID by mohms * amps, on CPU's power supply, DCLL dropping VID by 'predicted' VRM vdroop, which, at least on laptops, was always set to the highest value for that SKU's core #).


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> Your older posts, found by searching about info on AC and DC LL, are what taught me a lot about how to successfully tune this chip. I have tried many times to share what I have learned, but it seems that people know a better way, so I gave up as I am sure you did as well. I think it was you that shared an LLC calculator that Elmor? created a while back and I used that, along with your info, to tune this chip. Thank you.


Same bro, I’ve book marked everything and labelled as llc


----------



## Falkentyne

RichKnecht said:


> Your older posts, found by searching about info on AC and DC LL, are what taught me a lot about how to successfully tune this chip. I have tried many times to share what I have learned, but it seems that people know a better way, so I gave up as I am sure you did as well. I think it was you that shared an LLC calculator that Elmor? created a while back and I used that, along with your info, to tune this chip. Thank you.


The Elmor calculator was based on Z390 and older.
About a month ago, or maybe two months ago, I posted how ACLL Affects CPU native VID on RKL.
It was something like every 0.1 mohms = 30mv native VID increased at idle, and a slight increase above this at full load, with the increase at load scaling (a little) depending on ACLL value and type of load, but the increase wasn't that much.
At something like 1.0 mohms, running Prime95 FMA3 would raise the VID by like 56mv above the idle value (and then +300mv already starting off).

Someone else, I forgot who, posted a more exact table, and showed the value is also influenced by E core frequency or even if the E-cores are enabled or not.


----------



## Brads3cents

Ive decided i will both repair my 13900k and buy a ks next week. i have solder tools already. once i receive the ks i will take a magnifying glass to match the same piece and buy it off Digi key. It will be a cheap and easy repair

since i have 2 apex mobos i could possibly make a second pc
I have extra cases, fans, an extra 420mm rad, water cooled 3090 extra as well. I will basically have everything i need to build out another pc. I could use it in my office i suppose although i doubt i would game in there so it would be a waste


maybe bundle the second mobo and cpu and sell for half price to a forum member
lots of options. a pre delided p116 13900k with liquid metal and copper ihs packaged with a z790 apex for $800? what more could they want? that would be a steal of the century


----------



## genix

Ichirou said:


> What exactly is the setting labelled as in the BIOS for changing ICCMax?


In ASUS BIOSes it is called "CPU Core/Cache Current Limit Max.", located on the same page as PL1, PL2, AC/DC loadlines
In GB BIOSes it is called "Core Current Limit (Amps)", should be located on the same page as PL1, PL2
In XTU - "Processor Core IccMax" in "Core" Tab


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Falkentyne said:


> Someone else, I forgot who, posted a more exact table, and showed the value is also influenced by E core frequency or even if the E-cores are enabled or not.


Pretty sure it’s @digitalfrost…


digitalfrost said:


> View attachment 2582587
> 
> 
> I would stay below the dark blue line at the bottom. In other words, depends in the amps. But most likely yes this will degrade. This is with the MSI LLC values (for PRO Z690-A).
> 
> 
> Output CurrentSet Voltage1,1 mΩ0,7 mΩ0,6 mΩ0,4 mΩ0,3 mΩ0,0 mΩ1,1 mΩ0,7 mΩ0,6 mΩ0,4 mΩ0,3 mΩ0,0 mΩ0 A1,520,000 V0,000 V0,000 V0,000 V0,000 V0,000 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V1,520 V30 A1,520 V0,033 V0,021 V0,017 V0,012 V0,008 V0,000 V1,487 V1,499 V1,503 V1,508 V1,512 V1,520 V60 A1,520 V0,066 V0,041 V0,034 V0,024 V0,017 V0,000 V1,454 V1,479 V1,486 V1,496 V1,503 V1,520 V170 A1,520 V0,187 V0,117 V0,095 V0,068 V0,048 V0,000 V1,333 V1,403 V1,425 V1,452 V1,472 V1,520 V200 A1,520 V0,220 V0,138 V0,112 V0,080 V0,056 V0,000 V1,300 V1,382 V1,408 V1,440 V1,464 V1,520 V245 A1,520 V0,270 V0,169 V0,137 V0,098 V0,069 V0,000 V1,251 V1,351 V1,383 V1,422 V1,451 V1,520 V254 A1,520 V0,279 V0,175 V0,142 V0,102 V0,071 V0,000 V1,241 V1,345 V1,378 V1,418 V1,449 V1,520 V280 A1,520 V0,308 V0,193 V0,157 V0,112 V0,078 V0,000 V1,212 V1,327 V1,363 V1,408 V1,442 V1,520 V307 A1,520 V0,338 V0,212 V0,172 V0,123 V0,086 V0,000 V1,182 V1,308 V1,348 V1,397 V1,434 V1,520 V
> 
> 
> Choose Max Output current. Example for your 13700K 307A.
> Find in the 1,1mOhm column the Vcore after vdroop. For 307A this is 1,182v.
> 
> If you use another LLC adjust the max VID in a way that Vcore after drop will not exceed this value. Examples for MSI:
> 
> LLC7 DC_LL 69 1394mv
> LLC6 DC_LL 56 1354mv
> LLC5 DC_LL 40 1305mv
> 
> You can calculate this by:
> 
> New max VID in mv = DroopVcore in mv + (LLC in mohms * A)
> 
> This is adapted from this table: Load-line calculation
> 
> You can make your own copy and experiment with the values.


He had several other posts too and there may have been someone else post some more recently.


----------



## bhav

On another note, I only just bothered to unscrew my corsair rad in second PC to take a photo of the serial.

So LGA1700 mount coming soon, then I can 12600K into lian li case and 12100 into the case the 12600K is in now.

But then what to even do with the leftover Pentium G4560 build? Somehow turn it into wall decorations?

Wait sorry wheres the 12th gen thread even at?


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Interesting. Do you tweak everything in XTU and then transfer those settings in bios? Or, do you just create a profile in XTU and it loads every time you turn on the PC?


I tweak stuff in XTU and manually load. Don’t want XTU automatically loading overclocks. That’s dangerous. I have auto load disabled in the settings. 


Uncle Dubbs said:


> Uh no, I have a pretty
> New version and reads a lot of those voltages. I wouldn’t install xtu , that crap just takes over everything.


Screenshot and link? I’m pretty sure MSI EOL’d it last time I checked.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> I tweak stuff in XTU and manually load. Don’t want XTU automatically loading overclocks. That’s dangerous. I have auto load disabled in the settings.
> 
> Screenshot and link? I’m pretty sure MSI EOL’d it last time I checked.


Screenshot what…I have some in my memory post history…using version .18 …I mean they don’t make that program or dragon ball available to download on their site because people probably just screw themselves changing things real-time…but you can get usually by asking here or the msi forum


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Screenshot what…I have some in my memory post history…using version .18 …I mean they don’t make that program or dragon ball available to download on their site because people probably just screw themselves changing things real-time…but you can get usually by asking here or the msi forum


Ah, I see it now. Still, could you upload and provide them here for the sake of convenience, please?


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> Auto. Only need to mess with L2 voltage if you're really trying to ramp the E-Cores up.
> 
> Can't read what it's setting it to, but I know a lot of users end up manually entering around ~1.3x volt, so I'd imagine it's less than that


I am running auto L2 voltages with 4.8Ghz on my E-Cores. Its stable as a rock. I have finally broke that 45,200 in R23. I have never tried increasing that L2 voltage. I am assuming it probably goes up automatically though.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I am running auto L2 voltages with 4.8Ghz on my E-Cores. Its stable as a rock. I have finally broke that 45,200 in R23. I have never tried increasing that L2 voltage. I am assuming it probably goes up automatically though.


Don’t really need L2 for anything but y-cruncher in my experience. So it’s probably safe to drop that + VCCSA like a rock for a daily, until issues actually occur. Then you’d just raise them until stability is reached.

I was metaphorically biting my nails as I went through all of those light y-cruncher runs and seeing the voltage requirements shoot up. I haven’t even tested R23 yet because I figure it’ll instantly crash with how low I set my Vcore to to avoid degradation from high wattage.

What is your standard for stability anyway? COD?


----------



## genix

Telstar said:


> Not in gaming. Also, you are not using w11.


I'm pretty sure that gaming is nowhere close even to CB23 in terms of peak currents (and thus - power draws), OS shouldn't matter too, AVX workloads operates with dense data (a lot of packed vectors), typical game engine has from very little to nothing AVX usage, especially in all-core scenarios


----------



## Ichirou

genix said:


> I'm pretty sure that gaming is nowhere close even to CB23 in terms of peak currents (and thus - power draws), OS shouldn't matter too, AVX workloads operates with dense data (a lot of packed vectors), typical game engine has from very little to nothing AVX usage, especially in all-core scenarios


I’m definitely going to be playing around with the current limit to make sure I don’t throw 300W+ at the chip.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

This is my new saved profile now. Just wanted to post to see if anyone sees anything that can be tweaked more really. I'm using air cooling on the memory right now. This is gskill 7800 ram so they're running pretty good IMO.


----------



## RichKnecht

Falkentyne said:


> The Elmor calculator was based on Z390 and older.
> About a month ago, or maybe two months ago, I posted how ACLL Affects CPU native VID on RKL.
> It was something like every 0.1 mohms = 30mv native VID increased at idle, and a slight increase above this at full load, with the increase at load scaling (a little) depending on ACLL value and type of load, but the increase wasn't that much.
> At something like 1.0 mohms, running Prime95 FMA3 would raise the VID by like 56mv above the idle value (and then +300mv already starting off).
> 
> Someone else, I forgot who, posted a more exact table, and showed the value is also influenced by E core frequency or even if the E-cores are enabled or not.


It got me VERY close. I just had to adjust the DC LL a little to where vcore and VID matched. I then adjusted AC LL , starting at 20, until it was unstable (2) and bumped it up to 5. Been running just fine ever since. I have a few profiles saved in bios and switch between them every few days to see what “feels” the best for what I do. Right now it’s at 56/45/48 @ 1.22V under full load. VID at idle shows 1.375 using adaptive+ VF curve.


----------



## Ichirou

I think I might go back to my previous testing procedure of strictly TM5 for low load, and R23 with a current limit for high load.
I definitely feel like I'm in a performance "odd spot" by testing with y-cruncher.

How much wattage does your chip eat when you run your config in R23? Is it set to 61/48/51?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

genix said:


> I'm pretty sure that gaming is nowhere close even to CB23 in terms of peak currents (and thus - power draws), OS shouldn't matter too, AVX workloads operates with dense data (a lot of packed vectors), typical game engine has from very little to nothing AVX usage, especially in all-core scenarios


It’s not even close for gaming no


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Don’t really need L2 for anything but y-cruncher in my experience. So it’s probably safe to drop that + VCCSA like a rock for a daily, until issues actually occur. Then you’d just raise them until stability is reached.
> 
> I was metaphorically biting my nails as I went through all of those light y-cruncher runs and seeing the voltage requirements shoot up. I haven’t even tested R23 yet because I figure it’ll instantly crash with how low I set my Vcore to to avoid degradation from high wattage.
> 
> What is your standard for stability anyway? COD?


Yeah I have a SUB 20C water temp so that definitely helps maintain a constant stability. Something being just COD MW2 stable, would be pretty *unstable* lol. R23 testing is fun but it means nothing in terms of real world stability, and when I say real-world, I mean running games, or working on the system using it for what it is intended for. I run numerous VM’s on my system during the day so it needs to be very stable.

I’m gonna list a few games in terms of difficultly for stability first. If your 13900K is not stable you’ll have trouble in these titles. Doom will freeze on the loading screen, GTA 5 will freeze after 15-40 minutes of game play, COD MWF2 won’t launch or it will crash, BF2042 wont launch or it will crash.

GTA 5
Doom Eternal
COD MWF2
BF 2042

These titles all use different instructions, but if you can run all of those titles for any amount of time. (Chances are you are stable) I know it sounds silly, but they will crash a seemingly stable computer.


----------



## Ichirou

Uncle Dubbs said:


> It’s not even close for gaming no





tps3443 said:


> Yeah I have a SUB 20C water temp so that definitely helps maintain a constant stability. Something being just COD MW2 stable, would be pretty *unstable* lol. R23 testing is fun but it means nothing in terms of real world stability, and when I say real-world, I mean running games, or working on the system. I run numerous VM’s on my system during the day so it needs to be very stable.
> 
> I’m gonna list a few games in terms of difficultly for stability first. If your 13900K is not stable you’ll have trouble in these titles. Doom will freeze on the loading screen, GTA 5 will freeze after 15-40 minutes of game play, COD MWF2 won’t launch or it will crash, BF2042 wont launch or it will crash.
> 
> GTA 5
> Doom Eternal
> COD MWF2
> BF 2042
> 
> These titles all use different instructions, but if you can run all of those titles for any amount of time. (Chances are you are stable) I know it sounds silly, but they will crash a seemingly stable computer.


This is what makes overclocking the 13th Gen so ambiguous.
Nobody really knows what a good "standard" for testing is that doesn't involve pumping wattage for no reason besides numbers and degradation.

Cinebench eats Vcore for breakfast, but barely needs anything else. Somebody stabilizes their chip there, then tries to run something like Handbrake and BSODs.
Or someone else stabilizes it for one or two games, but their PC crashes after a new one is released. Where does one draw the line?

I think the best method is to lock in a low load overclock with a high load current limit downclock, and then use the PC and raise the Vcore whenever you encounter instability.

Freezing is usually a consequence of unstable ring and/or memory. Gotta boost Vcore and/or VDIMM for that.
What is your final overclock? IIRC, you just slapped on Adaptive + VF Offset Mode with auto voltages, right?
How does the chip perform as you change between low loads (games) and high loads (R23)?


----------



## Lownage

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Nothing wrong with x50 cache that’s where most top out, the default is 45?


The more, the better


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> I think I might go back to my previous testing procedure of strictly TM5 for low load, and R23 with a current limit for high load.
> I definitely feel like I'm in a performance "odd spot" by testing with y-cruncher.
> 
> How much wattage does your chip eat when you run your config in R23? Is it set to 61/48/51?


Y cruncher is a power virus I had to drop my ram from 4200 to 4070 with BCLK to pass it but everything else I throw at it passes at 4200 with my ring and clock OC.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Y cruncher is a power virus I had to drop my ram from 4200 to 4070 with BCLK to pass it but everything else I throw at it passes at 4200.


Yeah, anything high load is a power virus. Which is what makes testing ambiguous. There's no way to test for every scenario now without pumping wattage, unlike the past. Ideally, you would run y-cruncher's component stress test with all tests enabled, but that hammers everything just way too hard at ridiculous current and wattage.

One person might be running 61/47/51 for their workloads, but another person might run that config and be unstable, despite using the exact same voltages. This implies that nobody can compare their overclocks to anyone else as everyone is running with a different degree of stability.

So, I believe the next best approach is to do a low load overclock with whatever it is you use the chip for, set a current limit for any high load spikes, and then boost voltages as necessary. That should be a good enough baseline to work with.


----------



## VULC

Lownage said:


> I´m stuck at 50x cache with 1.375V adaptive (LLC4 AC LL 0.3). At 51x BF2042 crashes.
> Is there a way to increase cache ratio?
> E-Cores off btw.


Max on a aggressive ram OC of 5.1. You need 1.44v adaptive core and 1.43v adaptive SVID cache voltage.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Max on a aggressive ram OC of 5.1. You need 1.44v adaptive core and 1.43v adaptive SVID cache voltage.


Yeah, gotta raise the Vcore to push the ring/cache higher. It shares voltage with the P/E-cores.
In some cases you'll need to boost the L2 cache voltage as well.


----------



## Lownage

VULC said:


> Max on a aggressive ram OC of 5.1. You need 1.44v adaptive core and 1.43v adaptive SVID cache voltage.


RAM is 8000c36, so I guess I´m leaving cache at 50. Thanks


----------



## Betroz

tps3443 said:


> R23 testing is fun but it means nothing in terms of real world stability, and when I say real-world, I mean running games, or working on the system using it for what it is intended for. I run numerous VM’s on my system during the day so it needs to be very stable.


Maybe it's time to dust off the good old Asus Realbench stresstest. That is a more real world test, but it has not been updated as far as I know. Blender works too


----------



## Ichirou

Betroz said:


> Maybe it's time to dust off the good old Asus Realbench stresstest. That is a more real world test, but it has not been updated as far as I know. Blender works too


I think the issue is that high multipliers and high wattage don't mix, lol. Like drinking and driving. It might be acceptable with stock multipliers in y-cruncher, but as soon as you overclock instead, you gotta sacrifice stability for performance. So you'll never be 100% stable across all workloads.


----------



## WhiteOne

Do you think it's eligible for RMA? I mean it's probably the worst 13700K in here!


----------



## Ichirou

WhiteOne said:


> Do you think it's eligible for RMA? I mean it's probably the worst 13700K in here!
> 
> View attachment 2592804
> View attachment 2592805


Just say that it keeps hitting 100C and crashing. They'll let you RMA it.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> This is what makes overclocking the 13th Gen so ambiguous.
> Nobody really knows what a good "standard" for testing is that doesn't involve pumping wattage for no reason besides numbers and degradation.
> 
> Cinebench eats Vcore for breakfast, but barely needs anything else. Somebody stabilizes their chip there, then tries to run something like Handbrake and BSODs.
> Or someone else stabilizes it for one or two games, but their PC crashes after a new one is released. Where does one draw the line?
> 
> I think the best method is to lock in a low load overclock with a high load current limit downclock, and then use the PC and raise the Vcore whenever you encounter instability.
> 
> Freezing is usually a consequence of unstable ring and/or memory. Gotta boost Vcore and/or VDIMM for that.
> What is your final overclock? IIRC, you just slapped on Adaptive + VF Offset Mode with auto voltages, right?
> How does the chip perform as you change between low loads (games) and high loads (R23)?


Running 60/48/51 no BCLK 1.415V with adaptive and LLC 3, [email protected] This has never crashed. it gets through extended R23 runs, and any games I have tested. Most of the stability issues I have had in the past with 6Ghz was with using a “Fixed voltage” because I could stabilize R23 with a lower fixed voltage, but a game would maybe close out to desktop. Ever since switching to adaptive voltages I have never had any issues. This is a very heavy overclock, but it’s also very reliable too. If I run 4.7 E-Cores, I can drop off the voltage a lot more. But yes, 60/48/51 is rock solid. This chip overclocks well, and still manages its original [email protected] in bios LLC3 baseline.


----------



## Betroz

Ichirou said:


> I think the issue is that high multipliers and high wattage don't mix, lol. It might be acceptable with stock multipliers in y-cruncher, but as soon as you overclock instead, you gotta sacrifice stability for performance. So you'll never be 100% stable across all workloads.


Yeah. I plan to run my 13900K at stock when I get mine in about ~2 weeks time, and set a custom AC_LL of course. PL1 at 253W and PL2 at 300W. Something like that. I got only an AIO so.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Running 60/48/51 no BCLK 1.415V with adaptive and LLC 3, [email protected] This has never crashed. it gets through extended R23 runs, and any games I have tested. Most of the stability issues I have had in the past with 6Ghz was with using a “Fixed voltage” because I could stabilize R23 with a lower fixed voltage, but a game would maybe close out to desktop. Ever since switching to adaptive voltages I have never had any issues. This is a very heavy overclock, but it’s also very reliable too. If I run 4.7 E-Cores, I can drop off the voltage a lot more. But yes, 60/48/51 is rock solid. This chip overclocks well, and still manages its original [email protected] in bios LLC3 baseline.


What does it downclock to during R23? Or does the Vcore just ramp up for it?

Or, is that just what you need for R23, and you let the voltage reduce for everything else?


----------



## Ky0sHiR0

Hi guys,
Gonna ask couple of questions here. Since my 13700KF is first new CPU after 8700K I can see that overlocking is much more dedicated to balance between undervolting and boosting instead of simple run all cores @ designed target all the time 
I'm running Z690 Aorus Master + 13700kf.

First, I found stable OC on all cores - 5,5 GHz around 1,26V with bumps to 1,28 (LLC Turbo IA & DC LL 1)
Next I change Turbo limits
59 1-2 cores
58 3-4 cores
57 5-6 cores
56 7 cores
55 8 cores

Identify best cores set them for highest turbos
Running Adaptive Voltage with offset - giving me around max 1,32 V
Questions:

How to run P95 on specific cores? Just set number of threads and Intel Turbo will choose best cores? Shifting between best cores are normal?
Running this type of OC - Isnt better to have a larger vdroop during all core workload so run LLC like on Medium option?
What about V/F curves like skatter bencher running his overclocks - I went through his video and post about 13900k + aorus master z790 but suggested v/f curve didn't work for me
Maintaining high voltage for single core high frequency requires me to have more power draw and more heat during all core workload so I'm trying to find best solution here
What if I set that 59 can run at three cores at once but its not happening at all?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> What does it downclock to during R23? Or does the Vcore just ramp up for it?


 It doesn’t down clock. I don’t have any power limits in place. I have TVB voltage optimization enabled, so the VROut for such a heavy overclock goes up under load to around 1.320-1.340V, but I have lower idle voltages and things like that. The chip runs reasonably cool. Plus, that’s just for R23. Under realistic loads 60P/48E/51R runs nice and cool especially for gaming working etc. This chip is maintaining these overclocks very well.


----------



## bhav

WhiteOne said:


> Do you think it's eligible for RMA? I mean it's probably the worst 13700K in here!
> 
> View attachment 2592804
> View attachment 2592805


1.4v at minimum ACDC???? WOW.


----------



## RichKnecht

bhav said:


> Well that would be it, both the AC_LL and DC_LL are set to 110 at the stock load line setting of 12.
> 
> Now how do I explain any of this to MSI?


You don’t. It’s probably a dead end and will frustrate you even more. You need to establish a baseline for your chip on defaults, Adaptive+VF curve voltage on auto. Setting arbitrary override voltages will get you nowhere. You set an LLC level, adjust DC LL until vcore and VID match, then fine tune AC LL. You can try LLC on 7, DCLL at 69, and AC LL at 20-25 to start. It all depends on the board and the VRMs it uses. If the Vcore and VIDs match at 69, start tweaking the AC LL. If the vcore and VID don’t match, adjust DC LL up (lowers voltage) or down (raises voltage). If you need help, just message me. Its much easier doing that rather than replies getting lost in the thread. Once you get it straightened out, you can stop being frustrated and actually enjoy using your PC.

NOTE: The above pertains to MSI only


----------



## RichKnecht

Betroz said:


> Maybe it's time to dust off the good old Asus Realbench stresstest. That is a more real world test, but it has not been updated as far as I know. Blender works too


I use Realbench all the time. Works great. It will find errors when R23 will be fine.


----------



## VULC

RichKnecht said:


> You don’t. It’s probably a dead end and will frustrate you even more. You need to establish a baseline for your chip on defaults, Adaptive+VF curve voltage on auto. Setting arbitrary override voltages will get you nowhere. You set an LLC level, adjust DC LL until vcore and VID match, then fine tune AC LL. You can try LLC on 7, DCLL at 69, and AC LL at 20-25 to start. It all depends on the board and the VRMs it uses. If the Vcore and VIDs match at 69, start tweaking the AC LL. If the vcore and VID don’t match, adjust DC LL up (lowers voltage) or down (raises voltage). If you need help, just message me. Its much easier doing that rather than replies getting lost in the thread. Once you get it straightened out, you can stop being frustrated and actually enjoy using your PC.
> 
> NOTE: The above pertains to MSI only


On Asus you leave DC_LL auto and just adjust AC_LL correct?


----------



## RichKnecht

VULC said:


> On Asus you leave DC_LL auto and just adjust AC_LL correct?


Yes. DC LL is set to match LLC automatically. At least on Z790.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> It doesn’t down clock. I don’t have any power limits in place. I have TVB voltage optimization enabled, so the VROut for such a heavy overclock goes up under load to around 1.320-1.340V, but I have lower idle voltages and things like that. The chip runs reasonably cool. Plus, that’s just for R23. Under realistic loads 60P/48E/51R runs nice and cool especially for gaming working etc. This chip is maintaining these overclocks very well.


Just standard Adaptive Mode or Adaptive + VF Offset?

Also, I fetched myself three bargain brand 2 TB M.2 SSDs a moment ago during my shopping trip. Gonna fill up my M.2 slots for futureproofing, as the system's going under hardline water for the foreseeable future. Wouldn't want to have to deal with detaching everything just to add storage. Only $104 USD a stick, plus tax.


----------



## kunit13

I had to slightly adjust my DC_LL (from 1.02) to 1.06 to get my vid = vcore.


----------



## affxct

WhiteOne said:


> Do you think it's eligible for RMA? I mean it's probably the worst 13700K in here!
> 
> View attachment 2592804
> View attachment 2592805


A bit worse than mine. Out of curiosity, what's your MC SP?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Just standard Adaptive Mode or Adaptive + VF Offset?
> 
> Also, I fetched myself three bargain brand 2 TB M.2 SSDs a moment ago during my shopping trip. Gonna fill up my M.2 slots for futureproofing, as the system's going under hardline water for the foreseeable future. Wouldn't want to have to deal with detaching everything just to add storage. Only $104 USD a stick, plus tax.


Just standard adaptive mode, with a 1.415V voltage typed in manually right below it. Also running with LLC LVL 3. I also run a VRM LLC LVL 3, and CPU Switching frequency of 900Hz.

^ I run the above for 6.0P-Cores, and 4.8 E-Cores, 5.1 Ring.

I need to work on testing E-Cores in groups so I can maximize this overclock. I imagine some of them can maybe run past 4.8 with this voltage for lower loads.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Just standard adaptive mode, with a 1.415V voltage typed in manually right below it. Also running with LLC LVL 3. I also run a VRM LLC LVL 3, and CPU Switching frequency of 900Hz.
> 
> ^ I run the above for 6.0P-Cores, and 4.8 E-Cores, 5.1 Ring.
> 
> I need to work on testing E-Cores in groups so I can maximize this overclock. I imagine some of them can maybe run past 4.8 with this voltage for lower loads.


I thought you were using the Adaptive+VF Offset mode before. Changed your mind about it? And how are you testing, exactly? Just R23 + gaming?
Does adjusting those other settings help with CPU stability? I just left them on auto for the most part. Sometimes CPU Switching Frequency set to 500 Hz.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> Just standard adaptive mode, with a 1.415V voltage typed in manually right below it. Also running with LLC LVL 3. I also run a VRM LLC LVL 3, and CPU Switching frequency of 900Hz.
> 
> ^ I run the above for 6.0P-Cores, and 4.8 E-Cores, 5.1 Ring.
> 
> I need to work on testing E-Cores in groups so I can maximize this overclock. I imagine some of them can maybe run past 4.8 with this voltage for lower loads.


VRMs get too hot at 900hz? I just dropped my adaptive, 1.44v is way too high I got load down to 1.296v now with 5.1 ring.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> I thought you were using the Adaptive+VF Offset mode before. Changed your mind about it? And how are you testing, exactly? Just R23 + gaming?
> Does adjusting those other settings help with CPU stability? I just left them on auto for the most part. Sometimes CPU Switching Frequency set to 500 Hz.


No I’m just using normal adaptive. I have seen the other items improve stability before, so I always use them now and run them like that. I use CB23 as more or less a baseline test, and the games I’ve mentioned before will find stability issues easily, as well as my work applications. But I can run through things like Intel Burn test with high ram usage or even Asus Realbench 2.56 just fine too. We can usually see really quickly if something is unstable. I avoid running some heavy power apps for extended amounts of time though. If it’s stable on what I’m doing without crashing or issues, then it’s stable. My kids also use my PC to play VR on, or do school projects. So, I won’t allow my pc to be vulnerable to crashing Lol.

I find stability my self through testing in real world situations, and with trial and error.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> No I’m just using normal adaptive. I have seen the other items improve stability before, so I always use them now and run them like that. I use CB23 as more or less a baseline test, and the games I’ve mentioned before will find stability issues easily, as well as my work applications. But I can run through things like Intel Burn test with high ram usage or even Asus Realbench 2.56 just fine too. We can usually see really quickly if something is unstable. I avoid running some heavy power apps for extended amounts of time though. If it’s stable on what I’m doing without crashing or issues, then it’s stable. My kids also use my PC to play VR on, or do school projects. So, I won’t allow my pc to be vulnerable to crashing Lol.
> 
> I find stability my self through testing in real world situations, and with trial and error.


Switching frequency should only affect transient response. Y cruncher got me to 245w at 88 degrees things a power virus no need for it. Like you said Realbench, R23 and daily game use are the best.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> Switching frequency should only affect transient response. Y cruncher got me to 245w at 88 degrees things a power virus no need for it. Like you said Realbench, R23 and daily game use are the best.


Exactly right. I haven’t come across anything I can’t run my 6.0P/4.8E in. But, I’m sure I could force it to crash with some app out there 😂. I could also unplug my chiller (My only cooling solution) which would force a crash once the water got too hot, or unplug my pumps, All things are going out of my way to make an overclock crash. If I burry my PC in the desert this would cause crashing too. 😎

Funny thing is, stock 13900K’s can crash too given the same circumstances as above^


----------



## gecko991

Do you run a res tank with that CH50?


----------



## tps3443

gecko991 said:


> Do you run a res tank with that CH50?


No, I just use the reservoir that’s built in to the AACH50 chiller. It is a 1 gallon capacity I believe. It is inside of the unit, and insulated with a foam wrap.

Reservoir is not needed. You can run one, and your system will keep the water cooler longer, but when the water temp rises the chiller will just have to run all that much longer to cool all of that water down.

Plus, the chiller can sustain a nice low water temp even under a full load.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> VRMs get too hot at 900hz? I just dropped my adaptive, 1.44v is way too high I got load down to 1.296v now with 5.1 ring.


My motherboard gets warm. Never checked the VRM temps. I may look in to that.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> My motherboard gets warm. Never checked the VRM temps. I may look in to that.


Just touch the heatsink on the VRMs/MOSFETs xD. Damn thing gets bloody hot.
That's the main reason why I bought myself a waterblock for that conjoined heatsink to cool it. Was cheap on eBay.

I'm going to take your experience into account and run R23 + field test only.
At the moment, I run a similar setup to yours, albeit with the memory overclock in place. Voltage is similar as well, but our boards' VRMs read differently.
i'm going to have to revisit R23 again after I've gotten my loop set up, just to see where it stands.

How did you manage to get 48x on the E-cores running? You said you needed to use a BCLK overclock instead?


----------



## Arni90

RichKnecht said:


> You don’t. It’s probably a dead end and will frustrate you even more. You need to establish a baseline for your chip on defaults, Adaptive+VF curve voltage on auto. Setting arbitrary override voltages will get you nowhere. You set an LLC level, adjust DC LL until vcore and VID match, then fine tune AC LL. You can try LLC on 7, DCLL at 69, and AC LL at 20-25 to start. It all depends on the board and the VRMs it uses. If the Vcore and VIDs match at 69, start tweaking the AC LL. If the vcore and VID don’t match, adjust DC LL up (lowers voltage) or down (raises voltage). If you need help, just message me. Its much easier doing that rather than replies getting lost in the thread. Once you get it straightened out, you can stop being frustrated and actually enjoy using your PC.
> 
> NOTE: The above pertains to MSI only


DC loadline doesn't affect voltages in any way on my Z690 Unify-X, does your board operate differently? I can set DC loadline to 9999 if I want to, and the only thing it will affect is power readouts, stability is maintained.



tps3443 said:


> Just standard adaptive mode, with a 1.415V voltage typed in manually right below it. Also running with LLC LVL 3. I also run a VRM LLC LVL 3, and CPU Switching frequency of 900Hz.
> 
> ^ I run the above for 6.0P-Cores, and 4.8 E-Cores, 5.1 Ring.
> 
> I need to work on testing E-Cores in groups so I can maximize this overclock. I imagine some of them can maybe run past 4.8 with this voltage for lower loads.


I've found that adjusting switching frequency away from stock 500 kHz results in a huge overvoltage on VCore, is that different for you? If so, did it change with a new BIOS version, or has it always been that way for you?
How to test: Set override voltage to a set voltage, and adjust switching frequency, then check reported VCore.


----------



## Rena Ryugu

tps3443 said:


> You're right lol!
> 
> Hey I got my KS.  This thing is a monster.
> 
> View attachment 2592632


Holy **** that's insane, what kind of cooling are you using though?


----------



## gecko991

Noice results.


----------



## Ichirou

Arni90 said:


> I've found that adjusting switching frequency away from stock 500 kHz results in a huge overvoltage on VCore, is that different for you? If so, did it change with a new BIOS version, or has it always been that way for you?
> How to test: Set override voltage to a set voltage, and adjust switching frequency, then check reported VCore.


How is it intended to function? By not overvolting?
I've only used Auto or 500 Hz so far. Seems to be fine, but I mostly tweak the Vcore to suit.


----------



## tps3443

Rena Ryugu said:


> Holy **** that's insane, what kind of cooling are you using though?


That run was actually with 18.3C water. I run just a chiller only with a fixed daily water temp.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> That run was actually with 18.3C water. I run just a chiller only with a fixed daily water temp.


And here I originally was wanting 6.0 all core on an AIO lawl.


----------



## tps3443

Look at this chip! I am checking my baseline of my CPU after some weeks of 6Ghz abuse daily. And boy does it look GOOD, I see no degradation!

5.8Ghz P-Cores
4.5Ghz E-Cores
5.1Ghz Ring

1.235V in bios with LLC-3.

memory voltage is in the 1.450's so CPU power would be in the low 250's if I did not have my memory overclocked too. Load VROut is 1.212

@FreeSpeechIsKnowledge


----------



## gecko991

Dam you should insulate and do some low temp runs.


----------



## Ichirou

If I install five M.2 SSDs onto my board, and four run on the Z790 chipset while one runs on the CPU, would that affect the bandwidth of the GPU which runs in PCI-E x16 on the CPU?

@tps3443 How much power does R23 consume when you run your 60/48/51 config?


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> And here I originally was wanting 6.0 all core on an AIO lawl.


You absolutely can run 6.0Ghz all core on a AIO with my chip. Not in R23 though


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> If I install five M.2 SSDs onto my board, and four run on the Z790 chipset while one runs on the CPU, would that affect the bandwidth of the GPU which runs in PCI-E x16 on the CPU?
> 
> @tps3443 How much power does R23 consume when you run your 60/48/51 config?



340+ watts for R23. 60P/48E/51R


----------



## gecko991

A quick manual tune at 5700/4500 on liquid. Temps where fine at about 248-252 watts.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> 340+ watts for R23. 60P/48E/51R


Got it. Will check where my chip and board stand after the loop's set up. The VRMs are different, so I'm not sure how it'll turn out.


----------



## tps3443

SUB 250 watts 
[email protected]
1.235V in bios llc3 MSI
(Ring is auto) 
[email protected]34


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

tps3443 said:


> SUB 250 watts
> [email protected]
> 1.235V in bios llc3 MSI
> (Ring is auto)
> [email protected]34
> 
> View attachment 2592855


Why's your ring at 4500? Looks good though.


----------



## tps3443

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> Why's your ring at 4500? Looks good though.


There is a run with the ring at 5.1 directly above. No reason. Just trying to achieve lowest power possible.


----------



## RichKnecht

Arni90 said:


> *DC loadline doesn't affect voltages in any way on my Z690 Unify-X, does your board operate differently? I can set DC loadline to 9999 if I want to, and the only thing it will affect is power readouts, stability is maintained.*
> 
> 
> 
> I've found that adjusting switching frequency away from stock 500 kHz results in a huge overvoltage on VCore, is that different for you? If so, did it change with a new BIOS version, or has it always been that way for you?
> How to test: Set override voltage to a set voltage, and adjust switching frequency, then check reported VCore.


Maybe I wasn't clear about how DC LL works. Let's use my setup as an example. First I set LLC to 7. At idle (p core @ 56 locked), my VIDs are at 1.366. To get the vcore and VID to match, I need a DC LL of 69. That means that the impedance of LLC7 is 69mohm and both the vcore and VID are now 1.366 at idle. Now I set AC LL to 20, run an all core load to see how much the voltage drops. I keep lowering AC LL until the chip becomes unstable and then raise it a couple notches. For example, I started at AC LL 20 and was able to lower it to AC LL 4 which, under an all core load, gives me 1.223V for both vcore and VID. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

tps3443 said:


> There is a run with the ring at 5.1 directly above.


That's a beasty cpu.


----------



## gecko991

No doubt a solid chip.


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> You absolutely can run 6.0Ghz all core on a AIO with my chip. Not in R23 though


0.1% chip though.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> 0.1% chip though.


Nah, more like 3~5%. But the rest are all in the hands of random everyday joes who don't visit overclocking forums.
But honestly, the difference between P-SP 110 and 120 is like +200 MHz. And P-SP 115 is like +100 MHz.
It's really not worth the effort to bin the cores. If you must, just bump up the Vcore and RMA the chip once it dies.
But binning the IMC, I can understand. That takes effort.


----------



## VULC

Just doing some testing on MW2 benchmark adaptive vs fixed bios config on 1080p. All graphics tabs are set to default except unlimited fps and balanced graphics preset 337 on fixed and 338 adaptive. All 8 cores with HT on plus 8 render count running for the bench. Adaptive doesn't affect this game but it's good for high single-core use.

If anyone wants to test with e cores please do. I'm not going to dial them in at this point but as @kunit13 said it makes no difference.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Nah, more like 3~5%. But the rest are all in the hands of random everyday joes who don't visit overclocking forums.
> But honestly, the difference between P-SP 110 and 120 is like +200 MHz. And P-SP 115 is like +100 MHz.
> It's really not worth the effort to bin the cores. If you must, just bump up the Vcore and RMA the chip once it dies.
> But binning the IMC, I can understand. That takes effort.


My daily OC is 12% faster in multithreaded vs a stock 13900K. So, yeah it’s not huge. But it’s the overall experience with overclocking the really good chips that makes it worth it, not to mention some most chips physically cannot run at certain frequencies. Lets not forget E-Cores and Ring as well.

It’s just fun. If you pay money, and go to the circus and watch the elephants what do you get after you get home? Absolutely Nothing lol! You paid money for fun nothing more, nothing less..

And this SP121 P-core is exactly that. ITS a whole lot of FUN! But, what do I have? it’s still a 13900K just like the next guy lol. Only this one will overclock much much easier with a lot less power consumption, and so much less effort and voltage. I’ll take it! 😁


----------



## kunit13

VULC said:


> Just doing some testing on MW2 benchmark adaptive vs fixed bios config on 1080p. All graphics tabs are set to default except unlimited fps and balanced graphics preset 337 on fixed and 338 adaptive. All 8 cores with HT on plus 8 render count running for the bench. Adaptive doesn't affect this game but it's good for high single-core use.
> 
> If anyone wants to test with e cores please do. I'm not going to dial them in at this point but as @kunit13 said it makes no difference.


I agree. This game is strange. Our bottleneck is our 4090's lol.
I ran some more testing today just for the hell of it. I compared HT off to HT on (AGAIN). But this time its all 24 cores.
I have not tested the new video driver yet (Ill prob wait, I usually ride video drivers out until I start seeing issues).

In game using Capframx. 30sec run same spot.

Ill be doing a youtube video soon. Sharing ALL MY SECRETS on wz fps. For FREE ...


58/45/50294/199/172 (avg/1%/.1%)58/45/50htoff292/193/166 (avg/1%/.1%)


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> My daily OC is 12% faster in multithreaded vs a stock 13900K. So, yeah it’s not huge. But it’s the overall experience with overclocking the really good chips that makes it worth it, not to mention some most chips physically cannot run at certain frequencies. Lets not forget E-Cores and Ring as well.
> 
> It’s just fun. If you pay money, and go to the circus and watch the elephants what do you get after you get home? Absolutely Nothing lol! You paid money for fun nothing more, nothing less..
> 
> And this SP121 P-core is exactly that. ITS a whole lot of FUN! But, what do I have? it’s still a 13900K just like the next guy lol. Only this one will overclock much much easier with a lot less power consumption, and so much less effort and voltage. I’ll take it! 😁


Yep, that's precisely it. You pay for the overclocking experience. Not for practicality or return on investment xD


----------



## kunit13

tps3443 said:


> My daily OC is 12% faster in multithreaded vs a stock 13900K. So, yeah it’s not huge. But it’s the overall experience with overclocking the really good chips that makes it worth it, not to mention some most chips physically cannot run at certain frequencies. Lets not forget E-Cores and Ring as well.
> 
> It’s just fun. If you pay money, and go to the circus and watch the elephants what do you get after you get home? Absolutely Nothing lol! You paid money for fun nothing more, nothing less..
> 
> And this SP121 P-core is exactly that. ITS a whole lot of FUN! But, what do I have? it’s still a 13900K just like the next guy lol. Only this one will overclock much much easier with a lot less power consumption, and so much less effort and voltage. I’ll take it! 😁


Exactly! I'm excited to start messing with the 13900ks. For me I will run it similar gaming settings as run my current KF. Hopefully it runs a little lower voltage. And maybe push the memory a little harder.


----------



## kunit13

@VULC I just ran a 1080p run... (did turn down the visuals to get max fps).
All my testing is always done at 1440p. I guess at 1080p it balances it out a little.










Looks like I forgot to turn off FID cas. Loses a few frames with it enabled


----------



## HOMECINEMA-PC

Flashed the bios to f22 and forgot to save previous settings i had spent the better part of 3 weeks messing with . Okay [email protected]@[email protected]@1.3vc p95 blend for 60 mins


----------



## Arni90

Ichirou said:


> How is it intended to function? By not overvolting?
> I've only used Auto or 500 Hz so far. Seems to be fine, but I mostly tweak the Vcore to suit.


It's intended to not overvolt, yes. I can remember setting 1.30V, and getting 1.45V at 1000 kHz back in june


----------



## Arni90

RichKnecht said:


> Maybe I wasn't clear about how DC LL works. Let's use my setup as an example. First I set LLC to 7. At idle (p core @ 56 locked), my VIDs are at 1.366. To get the vcore and VID to match, I need a DC LL of 69. That means that the impedance of LLC7 is 69mohm and both the vcore and VID are now 1.366 at idle. Now I set AC LL to 20, run an all core load to see how much the voltage drops. I keep lowering AC LL until the chip becomes unstable and then raise it a couple notches. For example, I started at AC LL 20 and was able to lower it to AC LL 4 which, under an all core load, gives me 1.223V for both vcore and VID. I hope that makes sense.


The only reason that makes sense to me is because I already know DC loadline only affects power measurements, while AC loadline affect actual voltage.


----------



## Imprezzion

What's the minimum DDR5 board tier I would need to OC a 13700K under custom water? It's not like I can't afford a proper board it's just that spending €700 on a board specifically to OC a CPU is no longer worth it. At that point I'd rather buy a 13900 non K and a cheap B660 board and be done with it. The price doesn't justify the small performance gain anymore.. 

Like, can a Gigabyte Z790 Gaming X AX do it without exploding the VRM or the MSI Pro Z790-A or ASUS Prime Z790-P? Even if I upgrade to 13900K later on? 

If not, i'd probably have to go with a MSI Edge. That's the first choice when sorting for price but it still well over €400 which is ridiculous..


----------



## Betroz

Imprezzion said:


> If not, i'd probably have to go with a MSI Edge. That's the first choice when sorting for price but it still well over €400 which is ridiculous..


Everything is expensive these days. The motherboards that was considered mid-range in the old world (before the C19 bug), now have high-end prices. I paid about the same for my Z790 Strix-E Gaming as I did for my Z490 Apex only ~3 years ago...


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> Everything is expensive these days. The motherboards that was considered mid-range in the old world (before the C19 bug), now have high-end prices. I paid about the same for my Z790 Strix-E Gaming as I did for my Z490 Apex only ~3 years ago...


My wife's car costs 65 times a z790 Apex. Apex is cheap


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> My wife's car costs 65 times a z790 Apex. Apex is cheap


Yeah but now you are comparing Apples to Oranges. Not everyone here have the income to afford this lifestyle you know. The only reason I can buy all this hardware, is because of the heritage after my father died. If not for that, I would probably be using my old 9900K CPU for some time


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> @Nizzen have you done some BF2042 testing with 8P + 16E cores and HT off?


Testing now:
270-272 fps with HT=on
270-272 fps with HT=off
In the same spot in 2042. 
Only difference is less watt used. 3 watt difference


----------



## Ichirou

Imprezzion said:


> What's the minimum DDR5 board tier I would need to OC a 13700K under custom water? It's not like I can't afford a proper board it's just that spending €700 on a board specifically to OC a CPU is no longer worth it. At that point I'd rather buy a 13900 non K and a cheap B660 board and be done with it. The price doesn't justify the small performance gain anymore..
> 
> 
> 
> Like, can a Gigabyte Z790 Gaming X AX do it without exploding the VRM or the MSI Pro Z790-A or ASUS Prime Z790-P? Even if I upgrade to 13900K later on?
> 
> 
> 
> If not, i'd probably have to go with a MSI Edge. That's the first choice when sorting for price but it still well over €400 which is ridiculous..


Pretty much any board is fine except for Gigabyte.


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> 270-272 fps with HT=on
> 270-272 fps with HT=off


GPU limited maybe. BF2042 or any multiplayer game is hard to benchmark, as you know. I try to look for minimum fps during a heavy battle with lots of stuff going on. On the same map and spot.


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> GPU limited maybe. BF2042 or any multiplayer game is hard to benchmark, as you know. I try to look for minimum fps during a heavy battle with lots of stuff going on. On the same map and spot.


Testing e-cores off now in the new "rush" 128 player. There is no doubt that I have lower min fps with e-cores off.

All cores on and ht=on looks to be the best.


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> Testing e-cores off now in the new "rush" 128 player. There is no doubt that I have lower min fps with e-cores off.
> 
> All cores on and ht=on looks to be the best.


That proves that "games don't use more than 8 cores" wrong. (as we knew)  
It also means that overclocking the e-cores can help, but how much...


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> That proves that "games don't use more than 8 cores" wrong. (as we knew)
> It also means that overclocking the e-cores can help, but how much...


I already guessed this was likely the case but people didn't want to believe it. E cores are obviously much better than HT, leaving them on doesn't degrade performance, turning the off can.


----------



## bhav

Nizzen said:


> Testing e-cores off now in the new "rush" 128 player. There is no doubt that I have lower min fps with e-cores off.
> 
> All cores on and ht=on looks to be the best.


Is it possible you could check P core temps in that game with e cores on and off?


----------



## RichKnecht

Arni90 said:


> The only reason that makes sense to me is because I already know DC loadline only affects power measurements, while AC loadline affect actual voltage.


Which is why I use it to match Vcore/VIDs when using a particular LLC level. The Asus folks get a head start with this adjustment.


----------



## splmann

Here my first Test with my Pcore 119 Ecore 91 Chip .


----------



## yzonker

Nizzen said:


> Testing e-cores off now in the new "rush" 128 player. There is no doubt that I have lower min fps with e-cores off.
> 
> All cores on and ht=on looks to be the best.


I found the same thing when I was testing SotTR in 1080p low. Even the average framerate was slightly better with e-cores on. (like 3-4 fps)

I wonder if there's a sweet spot though in some games with a somewhat random # of e-cores active? It's an old benchmark, but if you look at the Firstrike top benchmarks, everyone is disabling either 3 or 7 e-cores to get the best scores (less e-cores boosts the graphics score, so there is a point where the loss in CPU bench matters more). Might matter for older games anyway.


----------



## tps3443

Nizzen said:


> My wife's car costs 65 times a z790 Apex. Apex is cheap


My wife’s car was 5 times as much as a Z790 Apex. 😂and that was years ago when we bought it.


----------



## RichKnecht

For those using conventional CPU blocks, have you ever tried mounting the block with the ports vertical instead of horizontal? After looking at pictures of core placement within the die, it would seem that mounting the block with the cooling fins vertical instead of horizontal would allow for longer contact time between the fluid and IHS.


----------



## WhiteOne

affxct said:


> A bit worse than mine. Out of curiosity, what's your MC SP?


Unfortunately don't have an APEX at the moment!


----------



## tps3443

splmann said:


> Here my first Test with my Pcore 119 Ecore 91 Chip .
> 
> View attachment 2592954


Looks like a solid CPU, definitely worth going supercool DD waterblock.


----------



## affxct

WhiteOne said:


> Unfortunately don't have an APEX at the moment!


You can check it on any ROG board AFAIK.


----------



## genix

Okay, updated Hero BIOS from 0810 to 0811 - now I have Galaxy-wide best MC


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> For those using conventional CPU blocks, have you ever tried mounting the block with the ports vertical instead of horizontal? After looking at pictures of core placement within the die, it would seem that mounting the block with the cooling fins vertical instead of horizontal would allow for longer contact time between the fluid and IHS.


I had mine mounted that way the entire time with the Velocity block due to case design. 

Doesn't really matter. Can't tell any meaningful difference. Delid it if you want cooler temps.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> For those using conventional CPU blocks, have you ever tried mounting the block with the ports vertical instead of horizontal? After looking at pictures of core placement within the die, it would seem that mounting the block with the cooling fins vertical instead of horizontal would allow for longer contact time between the fluid and IHS.


You would love super cool direct die. If you look at my core to core temps at 5.8Ghz my P-Cores run at 57-59C with one odd ball cold core at 48C lol. I may try a re-mount to improve that. But, temps are great either way. E-Cores run 45-50C, with a max package temp of 59C.

My temp at 6.025Ghz P-Cores, 4.8Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz ring after delid run 73-78C with that single cold odd ball core at 64C.

I glued my supercool IHS to my CPU substrate, so I feel like it could have potential created a larger gap between the die and IHS. I am tempted to go back in and re-delid again, and carefully re-mount with no sealant between the substrate and supercool IHS. I may try and see if there is an improvement.

Anyways, supercool DD is the best! I wish that guy had supply to meet the demand. Great product.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> You would love super cool direct die. If you look at my core to core temps at 5.8Ghz my P-Cores run at 57-59C with one odd ball cold core at 48C lol. I may try a re-mount to improve that. But, temps are great either way. E-Cores run 45-50C, with a max package temp of 59C.
> 
> My temp at 6.025Ghz P-Cores, 4.8Ghz E-Cores, 5.1Ghz ring after delid run 73-78C with that single cold odd ball core at 64C.
> 
> I glued my supercool IHS to my CPU substrate, so I feel like it could have potential created a larger gap between the die and IHS. I am tempted to go back in and re-delid again, and carefully re-mount with no sealant between the substrate and supercool IHS. I may try and see if there is an improvement.
> 
> Anyways, supercool DD is the best! I wish that guy had supply to meet the demand. Great product.


Don't allow air gaps. The liquid metal might dry up over time, like mine has several times already.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> I had mine mounted that way the entire time with the Velocity block due to case design.
> 
> Doesn't really matter. Can't tell any meaningful difference. Delid it if you want cooler temps.


Yeah, just trying to avoid the inevitable.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Yeah, just trying to avoid the inevitable.


Or just undervolt with stock multipliers xD


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Yeah, just trying to avoid the inevitable.


Your X299 was direct die I believe. Which I will say, X299 and LGA 2011/2066 was a pure pain to get right. However, that’s because the direct die design for LGA 2066 was stupid to begin with. You would mount a die frame with (4) screws in cross pattern to the motherboard, but then bolt the cooler/waterblock to the die frame. Too many variables for things to go wrong like a warped or uneven motherboard, unevenly mounted die frame, or unevenly mounted waterblock. I remember one day I probably spent 10 hours mounting and remounting my direct die on my 7980XE. If you actually got it right, do not dare mess with it again. 🤣


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Don't allow air gaps. The liquid metal might dry up over time, like mine has several times already.


Mine has held up consistent. I did apply several coats of LM to both die and supercool IHS though. I just don’t understand this one super cold core. I wish they could all be like that. Fortunately I have quick releases now, so I may mess with it today.


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> Mine has held up consistent. I did apply several coats of LM to both die and supercool IHS though. I just don’t understand this one super cold core. I wish they could all be like that. Fortunately I have quick releases now, so I may mess with it today.


By several coats, do you mean as in you deliberately allowed it to dry up, and then added more on top, without cleaning off the old?


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> By several coats, do you mean as in you deliberately allowed it to dry up, and then added more on top, without cleaning off the old?


In the video was my 11900K that could run 5.5Ghz all cores, and 4000+ Gear (1).


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> In the video was my 11900K that could run 5.5Ghz all cores, and 4000+ Gear (1).


I do indeed agitate it for a good couple of minutes. Never bothered to apply multiple layers though.
How do you know how many layers to add? It seems like the end goal is to let it be wet.
Is that the purpose of the "dab test"? Where you dab it to see if it'll puddle?


----------



## Nizzen

Ichirou said:


> Don't allow air gaps. The liquid metal might dry up over time, like mine has several times already.


My 7980xe was delidded almost 6 years ago. Cooling performance with liqud metal is as good as day 1. Haven't relidded it. Looks like it's not drying up here. Same with my 10900k. My son is using it almost every day, still very good cooling.
Maybe there is no air pockets


----------



## Ichirou

Nizzen said:


> My 7980xe was delidded almost 6 years ago. Cooling performance with liqud metal is as good as day 1. Haven't relidded it. Looks like it's not drying up here. Same with my 10900k. My son is using it almost every day, still very good cooling.
> Maybe there is no air pockets


Yeah, I had a good experience with my 8086K as well. It's still rocking the exact same LM as I had applied it Day 1; haven't changed or taken off its lid since it works fine.

My 13900K experience has been vastly different though. I'm not sure why it keeps drying up _and_ causing certain cores to hit 100C.
There's definitely some issue with the LM drying into the IHS/die and becoming inactive.

It seems that @tps3443's video guide tries to teach people to do several layers and make sure it's wet? As a sort of allowance made towards any potential drying in the future.
I really don't want to have to deal with detaching my loop every single time it dries up and needs the LM to be redone.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> Your X299 was direct die I believe. Which I will say, X299 and LGA 2011/2066 was a pure pain to get right. However, that’s because the direct die design for LGA 2066 was stupid to begin with. You would mount a die frame with (4) screws in cross pattern to the motherboard, but then bolt the cooler/waterblock to the die frame. Too many variables for things to go wrong like a warped or uneven motherboard, unevenly mounted die frame, or unevenly mounted waterblock. I remember one day I probably spent 10 hours mounting and remounting my direct die on my 7980XE. If you actually got it right, do not dare mess with it again. 🤣


My first X299 chip was. What a pain. But, when contact was good, it kicked butt. If I decide on direct die with 13th gen, it will be with a KS. That makes more sense.


----------



## Jimbodiah

Betroz said:


> That proves that "games don't use more than 8 cores" wrong. (as we knew)


Witcher3 uses every single thread/core you have, to the point of being a bottleneck. Lots of games do. That "most games are single-core" argument is false, has been for years.

BTW: Wasn't the 13900KS to be announced along with the 13400F etc?


----------



## Imprezzion

Is Z690 properly reliable with 13th gen now overall? Just in case I find a cheap used Z690 board a d decide to go 13700K..


----------



## digitalfrost

Imprezzion said:


> Is Z690 properly reliable with 13th gen now overall? Just in case I find a cheap used Z690 board a d decide to go 13700K..


Very happy with my MSI PRO Z690-A. For the money it's the best board out there IMHO.


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> Is Z690 properly reliable with 13th gen now overall? Just in case I find a cheap used Z690 board a d decide to go 13700K..


Still rocking a Z690 Unify-X


----------



## Ichirou

Imprezzion said:


> Is Z690 properly reliable with 13th gen now overall? Just in case I find a cheap used Z690 board a d decide to go 13700K..


I'm selling my MSI Z690 Edge DDR4 below MSRP if you're interested


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Z690 dark solid too.


----------



## VULC

Anyone on Strix z690a update to 2301 with ME 2091. I'm running an adaptive OC. I dropped my core adaptive voltage from 1.415v to 1.387v and dropped my cache Adaptive from 1.413v to 1.385v. That's with 5.1ghz ring and tuned ram.Temps are way better as well. My 4200mhz cl16 OC is good with 1.34sa and 1.34v vddq ram only needs 1.5125v to pass TM5. By core 59, 59, 58, 58, 57, 57, 57, 57 +2 TVB. Atom cores off.


----------



## Brads3cents

Any KS news?
Intel didn’t do anything for CES? I don’t see an official announcement date which is weird since many retailers have the chips


----------



## Ichirou

Brads3cents said:


> Any KS news?
> Intel didn’t do anything for CES? I don’t see an official announcement date which is weird since many retailers have the chips


Probably nothing special to announce xD


----------



## Thunderclap

AFAIK the 13900KS is launching on the 12th (couldn't find any official announcement either) so that's most likely when it'll go on sale. I'm kinda surprised Intel didn't say anything at all about it at CES. With AMD announcing their Zen 4 X3D chips I would've expected Intel to at least try and steal a little bit of the show.


----------



## GioCTRL

VULC said:


> Anyone on Strix z690a update to 2301 with ME 2091. I'm running an adaptive OC. I dropped my core adaptive voltage from 1.415v to 1.387v and dropped my cache Adaptive from 1.413v to 1.385v. That's with 5.1ghz ring and tuned ram.Temps are way better as well. My 4200mhz cl16 OC is good with 1.34sa and 1.34v vddq ram only needs 1.5125v to pass TM5. By core 59, 59, 58, 58, 57, 57, 57, 57 +2 TVB. Atom cores off.


Newbie question here: What's "ME" exactly stand for and how much of relevance can it be to me if I'm just learning about the ME (firmware? If I can call it that).

Edit: informed myself a little, found on MSI's z690 edge driver downloads a fresh Intel me driver version 2215.16.0.2791 released on the 30th last month.

Any suggestions if I should install it or anyone made any bad experiences already?


----------



## VULC

GioCTRL said:


> Newbie question here: What's "ME" exactly stand for and how much of relevance can it be to me if I'm just learning about the ME (firmware? If I can call it that).
> 
> Edit: informed myself a little, found on MSI's z690 edge driver downloads a fresh Intel me driver version 2215.16.0.2791 released on the 30th last month.
> 
> Any suggestions if I should install it or anyone made any bad experiences already?


Yes you need to update it. It's Intels micro code for the LGA 1700 platform. It has security updates and performance improvements.


----------



## tps3443

Imprezzion said:


> Is Z690 properly reliable with 13th gen now overall? Just in case I find a cheap used Z690 board a d decide to go 13700K..


Been using a MSI Unify-X Z690 since 13900K launch, it is super reliable as always. While I want to spend money and buy a Z790 Apex, it would be a waste of money, because I wouldn’t gain anything meaningful.

You won’t have any of the issues like 11th gen with Z490, or 10th gen on Z590 had.


----------



## kunit13

Done tuning till I get the KS!
Top is 1080p bottom is 1440p. I think I maxed out my cpu (the numbers are the same for both). 

Ended up using 60x2 59x4 58x6 57x8/45/50 HT on. If your having heat problems HT off is within 5-10fps for this game (my buddy has similar system using a LF 420aio).


I have tried most of the tuning techniques. Fixed V vs. Variable. 
Even tried leveraging OCVTB.

Fixed and locking all the cores was the easiest to do. After hanging out in this forum and everyone basically telling me to 
try tuning my LLC/DCAC_LL I ended up just using that. They both ended up within margin of error (the main diff is my vid/vore match). 

Ram tuning (I started at 7200, 7400,7600 and now 8000). Its only worth a few FPS as you move up. Ill try 8200, 8400 ect when my ram blocks come in. 
I'm not comfortable going above 1.45 on air. 

So far switching to intel has been fun. It was a little easier for me to grasp. I didn't have to deal with curve optimizing and infinity fabric like I did with ryzen.


----------



## VULC

kunit13 said:


> Done tuning till I get the KS!
> Top is 1080p bottom is 1440p. I think I maxed out my cpu (the numbers are the same for both).
> 
> Ended up using 60x2 59x4 58x6 57x8/45/50 this HT on. If your having heat problems HT off is within 5-10fps for this game (my buddy has similar system using a LF 420aio).
> 
> 
> I have tried most of the tuning techniques. Fixed V vs. Variable.
> Even tried leveraging OCVTB.
> 
> Fixed and locking all the cores was the easiest to do. After hanging out in this forum and everyone basically telling me to
> try tuning my LLC/DCAC_LL I ended up just using that. They both ended up within margin of error (the main diff is my vid/vore match).
> 
> Ram tuning (I started at 7200, 7400,7600 and now 8000). Its only worth a few FPS as you move up. Ill try 8200, 8400 ect when my ram blocks come in.
> I'm not comfortable going above 1.45 on air.
> 
> So far switching to intel has been fun. It was a little easier for me to grasp. I didn't have to deal with curve optimizing and infinity fabric like I did with ryzen.
> 
> View attachment 2593060
> 
> View attachment 2593061


This includes TVB? 60x2 59x4 58x6 57x8/45/50. I'm going to try with lowest graphics settings soon. What adaptive voltages?


----------



## GioCTRL

Updated ME drivers on my z690 edge from last years v2130 to the latest v2210, only did a quick test in r23 allcore load and was able to drop vcore by 10mv running 1.29vcore in bios LLC5 so 1.27vcore under load. (cant read out sp since on Msi but from what I've seen my 13900k pcores are slightly above average, sp110 if I'd have to guess)

All this for ht off, 5.8ghz allcore, 16x 4.5ghz e-cores and 50 ring (place holder until I delid and go all in direct die). Performance was in margin of error so basically unchanged, will test mem controller tomorrow.


----------



## kunit13

@VULC 

No I did not use TVB. I have it disabled. I tried it and honestly for wz2 I did NOT see any benefits.
I just use per core usage. 60x2 (only when 2 cores are active..ect.....).
I don't use any adaptive offset voltage. That's left on auto. I just use LLC4 with tuned DC and AC_ll.

In this game I feel that having your cores stay consistent is the best. Our group are pretty much all sweats so we just want the MOST FRAMES with most consistent 1% and .1%.

So most likely when I'm back playing consistently. Ill do something like this 60x2 58x6. This will lock the cores at 5.8 during the game. In FPS games I dont think you want your freq drastically ramping up and down. I learned this from the curve optimizing bull **** from ryzen. I got great benchmark scores but the game was ass, so I locked the cores on my ryzen system and focused on tuning ram.


----------



## Ichirou

@tps3443 Can you provide clarification on your liquid metal process as I asked about previously? I think you missed my replies.


----------



## VULC

kunit13 said:


> @VULC
> 
> No I did not use TVB. I have it disabled. I tried it and honestly for wz2 I did NOT see any benefits.
> I just use per core usage. 60x2 (only when 2 cores are active..ect.....).
> I don't use any adaptive offset voltage. That's left on auto. I just use LLC4 with tuned DC and AC_ll.
> 
> In this game I feel that having your cores stay consistent is the best. Our group are pretty much all sweats so we just want the MOST FRAMES with most consistent 1% and .1%.
> 
> So most likely when I'm back playing consistently. Ill do something like this 60x2 58x6. This will lock the cores at 5.8 during the game. In FPS games I dont think you want your freq drastically ramping up and down. I learned this from the curve optimizing bull **** from ryzen. I got great benchmark scores but the game was ass, so I locked the cores on my ryzen system and focused on tuning ram.


How about E cores any diff on average fps / lows?


----------



## kunit13

VULC said:


> How about E cores any diff on average fps / lows?


Below is some data I pulled for you from yesterdays testing. Look at last column. Its in game 30 sec sample same spot. 
Playing settings (not full benchmark settings). Ill send you my playing settings in discord. 

The last test was weird because I was only pulling 140w in game vs 170w (Same spot). I had all the ecores on??


----------



## VULC

kunit13 said:


> Below is some data I pulled for you from yesterdays testing. Look at last column. Its in game 30 sec sample same spot.
> Playing settings (not full benchmark settings). Ill send you my playing settings in discord.
> 
> The last test was weird because I was only pulling 140w in game vs 170w (Same spot). I had all the ecores on??
> 
> View attachment 2593062


You're running E Cores with Win 10? They updated the scheduler for Win 10 now? Previously when I tested when hit E cores with Win 10 fps would drop. So it seems HT OFF with 5.8ghz all core and E cores on is the trick 😍


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Your running E Cores with Win 10? They updated the scheduler for Win 10 now?


Just hack the power plan to disable core parking. Works just fine.
Microsoft deliberately screwed over W10 users to force 12/13 Gen users to move to W11.
It's all a conspiracy.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Just hack the power plan to disable core parking. Works just fine.
> Microsoft deliberately screwed over W10 users to force 12/13 Gen users to move to W11.
> It's all a conspiracy.


How do you do that? What option in Advanced power plan?


----------



## kunit13

Yah I'm running win 10 21h2. Haven't seen any issues myself. 
Using High performance powerplan.
TBH I haven't tried ultimate yet. On ryzen power plan made a difference. Don't know with our chip?


----------



## VULC

Here we go Asus saved Win 10 🤣🤣.

Just keep scroll lock off 👍


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> View attachment 2593076
> 
> 
> Here we go Asus saved Win 10 🤣🤣.
> 
> Just keep scroll lock off 👍


I see that on my MSI Unify-X. I use Windows 11, should I leave it off?


----------



## affxct

I managed to get 55P/44E/48R OCCT SSE (Small/Extreme/Variable) stable with 1.375V (1.25Vmin) and +100mV Atom L2 on the trash 13700K P 89 E 59 chip. From the testing I conducted this morning, it seems that there is no discernable degradation from the first week of testing this chip (knock on wood). I recorded a video in which I looked at behavior in R23 and played around with BIOS AVX offsets. It appears that once an AVX load hits, RPL will elect to downclock to its rated max P-core all-core (5.3 in the case of the i7). This was irrespective of setting 0 or -1 to AVX2 in BIOS.

In R23 however, there appeared to be no identifiable response to an AVX offset, thereby I have to deduce that RPL doesn't deem R23 an AVX load, or perhaps it isn't one at all. I'm leaving this as my daily because it's definitely SSE stable, and it seems that it takes care of itself under an AVX load anyway seeing as I can't run over 5.3GHz in heavy AVX no matter what settings I use in my Dark BIOS. I think this is native to certain boards. IIRC on ASUS whatever you set is whatever you get, but at least with the Dark, my initial hypothesis appears to be correct and testing your OC in heavy AVX doesn't seem to make sense being that it will merely default to 5.3GHz - for my 13700K - anyway (*5.5GHz for the 13900K; 5.6GHz for the 13900KS).


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> I see that on my MSI Unify-X. I use Windows 11, should I leave it off?


It's only for legacy games and win 10


----------



## fr4nc3sco

Vi ho seguito per le ultime 50 pagine circa sto aspettando che esca il 13900ks Sapreste darmi un consiglio su mainboard e ram adatte per giocare un po' con un liquido overclock personalizzato? spero che tu abbia allcore 5.9/6ghz grazie mille a chi mi darà consigli


----------



## Imprezzion

Ichirou said:


> I'm selling my MSI Z690 Edge DDR4 below MSRP if you're interested


Thanks but nah. I wanna go DDR5 with my next upgrade. I'll wait for 7000 X3D benchmarks. If they fail to impress I'll grab a 13th gen. The 5800X3D I run does fine but it is quite clock speed and core count limited and falls flat when multitasking. It does not like playing another game with Black Desert AFK minimized and Chrome + Discord streaming for example. Just not enough cores and clockspeed.


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> @tps3443 Can you provide clarification on your liquid metal process as I asked about previously? I think you missed my replies.


You just want to apply several coats of LM on the inner IHS, and on the die, with a few sessions of running that LM in to the surfaces to ensure it’s properly coated is all. Dab the areas with small dots so you can see they are equally saturated with LM. Using a little too much LM is not really a problem. It will hold up for a long long long time.


----------



## Telstar

Jimbodiah said:


> Witcher3 uses every single thread/core you have, to the point of being a bottleneck.


can you try it with HT off?


----------



## Arni90

Imprezzion said:


> Is Z690 properly reliable with 13th gen now overall? Just in case I find a cheap used Z690 board a d decide to go 13700K..


No reliability problems with a Z690 Unify-X, the only issue I have is that it can't stabilize higher memory frequencies due to missing layer counts.


----------



## GioCTRL

Genuine question: Anyone here has made any experience with ddr4 direct die on the 13900k or even 12th gen cpus, does the memory controller improve with the drastically lowered Temps or doesn't it do f*ck all for the mem controller 🤔


----------



## Arni90

GioCTRL said:


> Genuine question: Anyone here has made any experience with ddr4 direct die on the 13900k or even 12th gen cpus, does the memory controller improve with the drastically lowered Temps or doesn't it do f*ck all for the mem controller 🤔


It did nothing for DDR4 memory frequencies on my 12900K


----------



## Imprezzion

Arni90 said:


> No reliability problems with a Z690 Unify-X, the only issue I have is that it can't stabilize higher memory frequencies due to missing layer counts.


What kinda frequencies are we talking? I was eyeballing a 6200/6400C36 kit as those have the best price performance here being around €200 for 32GB which is less then I paid for my 3600C16 B-Die's...


----------



## energie80

I’m running tweaked 7800 on unify x, still trying to stabilize 8000


----------



## VULC

HAGS off in Windows got me an extra 14fps. Microsoft need to rework everything is all old and doesn't work. Need to find where the last 5 to 10 fps are.

58/45/51


----------



## energie80

Turn it back on? 😅


----------



## VULC

energie80 said:


> Turn it back on? 😅


Why it got 14fps extra lol


----------



## energie80

It’s a know bug on Warzone


----------



## affxct

VULC said:


> View attachment 2593108
> 
> 
> HAGS off in Windows got me an extra 14fps. Microsoft need to rework everything is all old and doesn't work. Need to find where the last 5 to 10 fps are.
> 
> 58/45/51


Yep found similar results, 356 ish up to 370 for me as well. Unfortunately without HAGS you can’t use DLSS3. It becomes a question of do you want the COD FPS or just convenience. I dunno if those 14 frames really warrant the effort tbh.


----------



## tps3443

Imprezzion said:


> What kinda frequencies are we talking? I was eyeballing a 6200/6400C36 kit as those have the best price performance here being around €200 for 32GB which is less then I paid for my 3600C16 B-Die's...


I’ll say that DDR5 7600XMP is just a matter of setting the XMP and booting on the Unify-X. Easy, done, and go! 

Anymore memory speed than that like 7800 or 7800+ and you will have to do some tinkering to get stability.

If you are good at tuning memory, and really determined you shouldn’t have any problems getting 7800 or maybe even slightly higher.

You still need to tune your DDR5 timings up some for optimal performance, they come with some super low tREFI, and everything else that robs away performance. Just like DDR4 XMP profiles are all really crappy..


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> I’ll say that DDR5 7600XMP is just a matter of setting the XMP and booting on the Unify-X. Easy, done, and go!
> 
> Anymore memory speed than that like 7800 or 7800+ and you will have to do some tinkering to get stability.
> 
> If you are good at tuning memory, and really determined you shouldn’t have any problems getting 7800 or maybe even slightly higher.
> 
> You still need to tune your DDR5 timings up some for optimal performance, they come with some super low tREFI, and everything else that robs away performance. Just like DDR4 XMP profiles are all really crappy..


depends on the quality of your unify-x


----------



## Imprezzion

I will probably try to grab a Hynix M-die kit of whichever XMP bin is the cheapest. Preferably Trident-Z5 RGB or Dominators for the looks.


----------



## imrevoau

So my CPU just died, cool. No idea why


----------



## tps3443

Imprezzion said:


> I will probably try to grab a Hynix M-die kit of whichever XMP bin is the cheapest. Preferably Trident-Z5 RGB or Dominators for the looks.


You’ll be fine with M-Die. These board don’t hit limits until beyond 7600. And that’s on practically any 13900K. They really are hands down the absolute best budget LGA 1700 Z690/Z790 DDR5 motherboard, before stepping up to spending over double/triple on a scalper edition Z790 Apex.

I bought mine used, and it has been super reliable.

If I could make a recommendation. And that would be buying some Green sticks Hynix M-Die 4800 used. If I could go back in time, I would have skipped this Hynix A-Die 7200 XMP kit I have, and just bought green sticks A-Die.

The problem is, these manufacturers are heavily binning the same dies that are on green sticks, and selling it as whatever it can do with little wiggle room for overclocking. Where as the green sticks are untouched, they are not binned and chances are they will soar past any gamer boy XMP sticks on the market.

You would have to key in your own timings, and frequencies. But once you got them dialed in you would be good to go. I have seen plenty of Hynix M-Die green sticks running faster Than these G.Skill/Corsair/ etc XMP Hynix A-Die sticks.


----------



## tps3443

imrevoau said:


> So my CPU just died, cool. No idea why


What kind of overclocks? CPU quality?


----------



## imrevoau

tps3443 said:


> What kind of overclocks? CPU quality?


I was running very low voltages. 1.3 LLC5. Not sure on P SP but it’s a very strong i7, I think it’s around 105


----------



## Falkentyne

imrevoau said:


> So my CPU just died, cool. No idea why


A little more information would help...like...details, please? Specifics? Exact sequence of events?


----------



## imrevoau

Falkentyne said:


> A little more information would help...like...details, please? Specifics? Exact sequence of events?


There’s not much to say, I got home and sat down for about 10 seconds, pc turned off and won’t boot now.
I’ve tried everything, cmos, bios flash, different ram, different channels. The only thing I didn’t test was a different CPU, I sold my 12700K last week. Of course issues happen now.


----------



## Brads3cents

what type of mobo do you have.
does it list an error code?
this is one of the many many reasons i only buy asus boards


----------



## imrevoau

Brads3cents said:


> what type of mobo do you have.
> does it list an error code?
> this is one of the many many reasons i only buy asus boards


I was able to narrow it down pretty quickly. Instant red light and no display. If it was RAM I’d at least get a display. It’s not board because everything powers on still.

sorry I forgot to say, it’s a Z790 tomahawk


----------



## Ichirou

GioCTRL said:


> Genuine question: Anyone here has made any experience with ddr4 direct die on the 13900k or even 12th gen cpus, does the memory controller improve with the drastically lowered Temps or doesn't it do f*ck all for the mem controller 🤔


Irrelevant for DDR4. People are already pushing 4,400 MHz CL15 with 2x16 GB Samsung B-Die DR without it. Just depends on your IMC. DDR4 is 90% IMC.


VULC said:


> View attachment 2593108
> 
> 
> HAGS off in Windows got me an extra 14fps. Microsoft need to rework everything is all old and doesn't work. Need to find where the last 5 to 10 fps are.
> 
> 58/45/51


What's HAGS?


----------



## energie80

Ichirou said:


> Irrelevant for DDR4. People are already pushing 4,400 MHz CL15 with 2x16 GB Samsung B-Die DR without it. Just depends on your IMC. DDR4 is 90% IMC.
> 
> What's HAGS?


gpu scheduling


----------



## Brads3cents

i actually use dlss 3 and find it to be pretty awesome. no issues at all with it in plague tale. fps would sometimes exceed 200fps at 4k max everything
and i found it invaluable for witcher 3 update

if hags is required for dlss 3 then im keeping it active


----------



## fr4nc3sco

I followed you for the last 50 pages or so I'm waiting for the 13900ks to come out Could you give me advice on a mainboard and ram suitable for playing a bit with a custom liquid overclock? hopefully you have 5.9/6ghz allcore thanks a lot to whoever will give me advice


----------



## Nizzen

imrevoau said:


> So my CPU just died, cool. No idea why


00 code?

Try 1 day without battery and power on. Just in case


----------



## imrevoau

Nizzen said:


> 00 code?
> 
> Try 1 day without battery and power on. Just in case


Gonna try that. I bought a 13900KF, if by some miracle it’s not CPU I’ll return it


----------



## Ichirou

imrevoau said:


> There’s not much to say, I got home and sat down for about 10 seconds, pc turned off and won’t boot now.
> I’ve tried everything, cmos, bios flash, different ram, different channels. The only thing I didn’t test was a different CPU, I sold my 12700K last week. Of course issues happen now.





imrevoau said:


> Gonna try that. I bought a 13900KF, if by some miracle it’s not CPU I’ll return it


Yeah, if you've tried everything, that only leaves you with the CPU.


----------



## affxct

What do you guys think about the AVX downclocking thing? I think MSI and Asus have a workaround, but I think it’s a similar issue to what happened with the 12900K and not being able to do above 5.1 in AVX for a time.

This almost feels like artificial segmentation in the microcode that Intel hardcoded. It makes sense because the i7 is supposed to be a 5.3GHz part and the i9 is supposed to be a 5.5GHz part. In the same vein I’m confident that the 13900KS will be capable of 5.6GHz under AVX loads on my board.


----------



## Ichirou

affxct said:


> What do you guys think about the AVX downclocking thing? I think MSI and Asus have a workaround, but I think it’s a similar issue to what happened with the 12900K and not being able to do above 5.1 in AVX for a time.


Haven’t experienced it with my 13900s.


----------



## Brads3cents

does anyone have information on this SMD?
I'm assuming it's a transistor? looking for the part number so i can replace mine


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Irrelevant for DDR4. People are already pushing 4,400 MHz CL15 with 2x16 GB Samsung B-Die DR without it. Just depends on your IMC. DDR4 is 90% IMC.
> 
> What's HAGS?


Hardware Accelerated GPU Scheduling.


----------



## affxct

Ichirou said:


> Haven’t experienced it with my 13900s.


Yeah, on MSI and ASUS it has a workaround.


----------



## techenth

VULC said:


> View attachment 2593108
> 
> 
> HAGS off in Windows got me an extra 14fps. Microsoft need to rework everything is all old and doesn't work. Need to find where the last 5 to 10 fps are.
> 
> 58/45/51


rebar


----------



## Falkentyne

imrevoau said:


> I was able to narrow it down pretty quickly. Instant red light and no display. If it was RAM I’d at least get a display. It’s not board because everything powers on still.
> 
> sorry I forgot to say, it’s a Z790 tomahawk


It would have been easier if you had told us this information in your first post.
We didn't even know what motherboard you had.
Different boards, as well as their tier category, come with different debugging features that can make problem solving easier.
Post code "00" is always CPU, although failing motherboards have been known to cause this.
"00" can also happen because of bad mounting (the motherboard's own socket backplate falling off because you failed to secure it when installing a Thermalright contact frame can cause this).
"00" has also been known to occur when changing PLL Termination/CPU Standby voltages around (often from a higher value back to the original value), but this is always fixed with a complete AC power cycle (PSU off).
A board simply shutting off mid-use, is usually a board component failure somewhere. It's very rare for CPU's to die like that unless they are subject to very excessive voltages. That being said, there have been a few (rare) reports of CPU's dying on Asus motherboards, when CPU Voltage was being changed in windows, at the same time HWinfo64 was monitoring the Asus EC (sometimes known as a "race condition"), causing a very bad thing to happen. I have EC monitoring disabled in HWinfo64 so I never ran into this.


----------



## kunit13

Brads3cents said:


> does anyone have information on this SMD?
> I'm assuming it's a transistor? looking for the part number so i can replace mine


I think that would be capacitor. The surface mount resistors are usually a little smaller.
It might be a long shot, but maybe send der8auer a message. Out of all the tech tubers he would probably know the value.
There is not much info board layout on that chip.


----------



## Brads3cents

digi key sells this for 6 cents lol

anyways i dont have the values so unfortunately i cant just buy this blindly

normally i would just take a magnifying glass to it but i already destroyed mine so i cant get the numbers. maybe have to wait for 13900ks to come in before i can repair my k


----------



## Ichirou

Brads3cents said:


> View attachment 2593142
> 
> 
> digi key sells this for 6 cents lol
> 
> anyways i dont have the values so unfortunately i cant just buy this blindly
> 
> normally i would just take a magnifying glass to it but i already destroyed mine so i cant get the numbers. maybe have to wait for 13900ks to come in before i can repair my k


Does Digikey even allow you to buy a single one? Or you just eat the shipping costs?


----------



## Brads3cents

i think they allow it. I remember before i purchased 10 shunts they were of similar value. The shipping was more than the product.


----------



## GioCTRL

Ichirou said:


> Irrelevant for DDR4. People are already pushing 4,400 MHz CL15 with 2x16 GB Samsung B-Die DR without it. Just depends on your IMC. DDR4 is 90% IMC.
> 
> What's HAGS?


Look, I'm asking cause I'm on a z690 edge d4 with 2x16 4000c16 1.4v trident z royals and will be going direct die but I'm STILL experiencing training inconsistency even tho I left fast boot enabled now. I'm also forced to enable round trip latency training otherwise they'll be 8 apart at 75/75 83/83, maybe that's the root of the cause?

Just super frustrated about this that 4200c15 will be rock solid one day and corrupt my os the next. Doesn't add up to me. Just running xmp for now, cba to corrupt my os every 2nd day. Been testing back and forth for over a month now! Also cannot set my VDDQ above 1.2 once im pumping 1.5vdimm or more, reflashed my bios and didn't change it, this normal?


----------



## yzonker

Brads3cents said:


> i think they allow it. I remember before i purchased 10 shunts they were of similar value. The shipping was more than the product.


I wonder if the 12900k and 13900k are the same in regards to that component. I have a 12900k in a box at home I could take a Pic of. 

Although I can't believe one of the CPU mongers around here don't have a loose 13900k laying around. Lol.


----------



## Brads3cents

ive looked up hd shots. I can "almost" make out the numbers but as i continue to enlarge it just gets too blurry. If someone was able to read it for me it would save me from having to buy an expensive KS
oh well 

its not just the 13900 either. I believe the entire family uses the same ones. Frame chasers ruined a 12900k on a delid and he took the component he needed off a 12600. I also read someone else did something similar with the 12100


----------



## Ichirou

GioCTRL said:


> Look, I'm asking cause I'm on a z690 edge d4 with 2x16 4000c16 1.4v trident z royals and will be going direct die but I'm STILL experiencing training inconsistency even tho I left fast boot enabled now. I'm also forced to enable round trip latency training otherwise they'll be 8 apart at 75/75 83/83, maybe that's the root of the cause?
> 
> Just super frustrated about this that 4200c15 will be rock solid one day and corrupt my os the next. Doesn't add up to me. Just running xmp for now, cba to corrupt my os every 2nd day. Been testing back and forth for over a month now! Also cannot set my VDDQ above 1.2 once im pumping 1.5vdimm or more, reflashed my bios and didn't change it, this normal?


Did you actually bother to properly stress test your overclock? It sounds like you never gave it enough VDIMM to begin with.
I ran both 2x8 GB and 2x16 GB Samsung B-die on my Z690 Edge DDR4 before, and it was perfectly fine as 4,000-4,200 CL14, with enough voltage.


----------



## kunit13

Id look on mine for you but I used Thermal Grizzlies Red conformal coat on them.


----------



## GioCTRL

Ichirou said:


> Did you actually bother to properly stress test your overclock? It sounds like you never gave it enough VDIMM to begin with.
> I ran both 2x8 GB and 2x16 GB Samsung B-die on my Z690 Edge DDR4 before, and it was perfectly fine as 4,000-4,200 CL14, with enough voltage.


I went as far stress testing 4133c16 with 1.55vdimm being rock solid one day and unstable another. 1.34 vccsa 1.2vddq since I can't change it or the system will straight spit out mem oc failed.


----------



## VULC

GioCTRL said:


> I went as far stress testing 4133c16 with 1.55vdimm being rock solid one day and unstable another. 1.34 vccsa 1.2vddq since I can't change it or the system will straight spit out mem oc failed.


4200 cl15 is very tight cl16 maxes out nano seconds on 13th gen im on 47.1 ns. The lowest I've seen on water-cooled dimms at 1.58v is 45.8ns. it's not worth it for 1 or 2ns.


----------



## GioCTRL

VULC said:


> 4200 cl15 is very tight cl16 maxes out nano second on 13th gen im on 47.1 ns. The lowest I've seen on water-cooled dimma at 1.58v is 45.8ns. it's not worth it for 1 or 2ns.


That's a good point, matter of fact is as I just retested at xmp settings just bumped dram voltage up, left everything else unchanged, up until 1.52vdimm the ram is perfectly stable, 1.53vdimm then spat out an error and approaching 1.55vdimm almost didn't want to boot at 1.56 the bootloader almost corrupted so basically the dimms themselves don't even support above 1.52vdimm, so ill be sticking to that as max dimm voltage.

This being the ram:








F4-4000C16D-32GTRSA - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


Trident Z Royal DDR4-4000 CL16-16-16-36 1.40V 32GB (2x16GB) Trident Z Royal is the latest addition to the Trident Z flagship family and features a crown jewel design. Meticulously crafted to display just the right amount of light refraction, the patented crystalline light bar scatters the RGB...




www.gskill.com





(also heard from plenty of other sources that these dimms seem to cr*p the bed once above 1.52/1.53vdimm)


----------



## Ichirou

GioCTRL said:


> I went as far stress testing 4133c16 with 1.55vdimm being rock solid one day and unstable another. 1.34 vccsa 1.2vddq since I can't change it or the system will straight spit out mem oc failed.





VULC said:


> 4200 cl15 is very tight cl16 maxes out nano second on 13th gen im on 47.1 ns. The lowest I've seen on water-cooled dimma at 1.58v is 45.8ns. it's not worth it for 1 or 2ns.


Well, you're increasing the frequency _and_ lowering the CAS latency, so naturally, that's gonna demand a significant amount of extra VDIMM.
It wouldn't make sense that 4,200 CL15 would work at the same kind of voltage as 4,133 CL16. You'd need like 1.58V+ from the looks of it.
Run 4,200 MHz with looser primaries if you want to stay under 1.52V.
Also, consider reflashing the BIOS from time to time. MSI boards are extremely sensitive to BIOS corruption.


----------



## VULC

GioCTRL said:


> That's a good point, matter of fact is as I just retested at xmp settings just bumped dram voltage up, left everything else unchanged, up until 1.52vdimm the ram is perfectly stable, 1.53vdimm then spat out an error and approaching 1.55vdimm almost didn't want to boot at 1.56 the bootloader almost corrupted so basically the dimms themselves don't even support above 1.52vdimm, so ill be sticking to that as max dimm voltage.
> 
> This being the ram:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F4-4000C16D-32GTRSA - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
> 
> 
> Trident Z Royal DDR4-4000 CL16-16-16-36 1.40V 32GB (2x16GB) Trident Z Royal is the latest addition to the Trident Z flagship family and features a crown jewel design. Meticulously crafted to display just the right amount of light refraction, the patented crystalline light bar scatters the RGB...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gskill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (also heard from plenty of other sources that these dimms seem to cr*p the bed once above 1.52/1.53vdimm)


I'm exactly the same. Higher then 1.53vdimm isn't good and on hot days you will get errors also. I'm on 5.1 ring, 4200mhz cl16, 1.34sa, 1.34vddq and 1.5125v If you keep pumping higher vdimm the sticks will die.


----------



## GioCTRL

VULC said:


> I'm exactly the same. Higher then 1.53vdimm isn't good and on hot days you will get errors also. I'm on 5.1 ring, 4200mhz cl16, 1.34sa, 1.34vddq and 1.5125v If you keep pumping higher vdimm the sticks will die.


Sounds like I might have to try and get rid of these then, they've got the looks but that's it. Also just tested 4133c16 again at 1.52vdimm and 5 minutes into anta my system just bsod'ed and rebooted so fast I couldn't even read the error message. I feel like not trying anything 4000 anymore and just tightening down the timings at 4000.


----------



## GioCTRL

Ichirou said:


> Well, you're increasing the frequency _and_ lowering the CAS latency, so naturally, that's gonna demand a significant amount of extra VDIMM.
> It wouldn't make sense that 4,200 CL15 would work at the same kind of voltage as 4,133 CL16. You'd need like 1.58V+ from the looks of it.
> Run 4,200 MHz with looser primaries if you want to stay under 1.52V.
> Also, consider reflashing the BIOS from time to time. MSI boards are extremely sensitive to BIOS corruption.


Well so much so to people doing 4400 easily, can't even get 4133 to run stable. What a dud I've got here.


----------



## Ichirou

GioCTRL said:


> Well so much so to people doing 4400 easily, can't even get 4133 to run stable. What a dud I've got here.


Diamond bin IMCs. Can’t compare. It’s not really a lot of chips; they’re just the most written about. It’s more like 3-5% of all chips on the market.

My current chip can do it; the VCCSA requirement is insanely low. Maybe even more than 4,400 MHz. But I’m limited due to four DIMMs. The chip boots 4,533 MHz Gear 1 and only needs 1.26V VCCSA for 4,300 MHz CL14 at 64 GB. But I paid $$$ for this binned chip.


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> View attachment 2593142
> 
> 
> digi key sells this for 6 cents lol
> 
> anyways i dont have the values so unfortunately i cant just buy this blindly
> 
> normally i would just take a magnifying glass to it but i already destroyed mine so i cant get the numbers. maybe have to wait for 13900ks to come in before i can repair my k


I have a perfectly good and like new retail boxed 13900K and an MSI Unify-X I can send you as a free gift so you can repair your chip. But, please mail one of those Apex’s in return


----------



## VULC

GioCTRL said:


> Well so much so to people doing 4400 easily, can't even get 4133 to run stable. What a dud I've got here.


I'ts hard to bin everything but I got an average IMC. Most can do 4200mhz with 2 X 16g Bdie. 65k Mb/s is all the bandwidth you need if you game. No game needs more then this as we aren't bandwidth limited so best thing is get the timings as tight as possible and you will have the same performance. Someone posted a crazy bin IMC for DDR4 4400 CL 17. I don't see many like this even 4300 is pretty rare.


----------



## affxct

VULC said:


> I'ts hard to bin everything but I got an average IMC. Most can do 4200mhz with 2 X 16g Bdie. 65k Mb/s is all the bandwidth you need if you game. No game needs more then this as we aren't bandwidth limited so best thing is get the timings as tight as possible and you will have the same performance. Someone posted a crazy bin IMC for DDR4 4400 CL 17. I don't see many like this even 4300 is pretty rare.
> View attachment 2593181


I’ve tested two 13700Ks and neither could do over 4000 G1. I didn’t attempt anything whacky like 1.55 TX or 1.45 SA, but I’m pretty certain 4000 was it. Now that the Z790 Elite exists and A-die is 180-200, I don’t think there’s much of a point to D4 anymore. That may be a controversial opinion but it is what it is.


----------



## Arni90

Imprezzion said:


> What kinda frequencies are we talking? I was eyeballing a 6200/6400C36 kit as those have the best price performance here being around €200 for 32GB which is less then I paid for my 3600C16 B-Die's...


I struggle going past 7400 in benchmarking situations


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

Ichirou said:


> Does Digikey even allow you to buy a single one? Or you just eat the shipping costs?


Maybe like buy a couple in case you have anymore “shaving” accidents 😂


----------



## GioCTRL

VULC said:


> I'ts hard to bin everything but I got an average IMC. Most can do 4200mhz with 2 X 16g Bdie. 65k Mb/s is all the bandwidth you need if you game. No game needs more then this as we aren't bandwidth limited so best thing is get the timings as tight as possible and you will have the same performance. Someone posted a crazy bin IMC for DDR4 4400 CL 17. I don't see many like this even 4300 is pretty rare.
> View attachment 2593181


Yeah I saw it, man's a goat. Meanwhilst I've settled at 4000c15 with 1.52vdimm and tested how far down I could go in terms of SA. 1.1vsa errors out after 5 mins of anta, 1.15vsa until now doesn't seem to spit out any errors. 1.15vsa for 4000c15 sounds really good though or what do you guys think, shouldnt this imc be capable of more with 1.34/1.35sa?


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

GioCTRL said:


> Yeah I saw it, man's a goat. Meanwhilst I've settled at 4000c15 with 1.52vdimm and tested how far down I could go in terms of SA. 1.1vsa errors out after 5 mins of anta, 1.15vsa until now doesn't seem to spit out any errors. 1.15vsa for 4000c15 sounds really good though or what do you guys think, shouldnt this imc be capable of more with 1.34/1.35sa?


We gotta post/ move these to the right thread so people Can see this…


----------



## tps3443

I finally know my flow rate of my loop, it says 387-394 L/M is that an acceptable amount for (2) D5’s maxed out and no radiators? I have minimal restriction in my loop.


----------



## Imprezzion

Arni90 said:


> I struggle going past 7400 in benchmarking situations


I probably won't go that high at first anyway. I just need to find out what the cheapest M-Die kit is that isn't green PCB as I like my rainbowbarf.

I mean, I own a set of DR B-Die Trident-Z Neo's that will do 4200 15-17-17-28-280-2T at 1.61v or 4400 17-17-17-36-340 at 1.52v (tested on a golden 10900KF and a really bad 11900K) with super tight subtimings but I really think, according to benchmarks at least, that DDR4, even this fast, will still underperform compared to say, 6400C32 DDR5. Or am I completely wrong here.


----------



## acoustic

tps3443 said:


> I finally know my flow rate of my loop, it says 387-394 L/M is that an acceptable amount for (2) D5’s maxed out and no radiators? I have minimal restriction in my loop.


That number doesn't make any sense. Far, far too high, even for a system with no rads. What flow sensor?


----------



## Jimbodiah

Telstar said:


> can you try it with HT off?


Tried it, no difference that I can spot. Same fps rang like 95-115fps at same spot in game.

I've been reading up on this as it seems to be a common issue with Witcher3.It has to do with the way they made it DX12, they just ported it through DX11 somehow (don't ask me, I no nussing) which just makes it totally cpu bound and perform like sh!t. 

Before the NextGen update I was getting 225fps with ease on max settings, I do about half that with DLSS performance now. So it's a witcher thing, not a hardware thing I'm afraid.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> I finally know my flow rate of my loop, it says 387-394 L/M is that an acceptable amount for (2) D5’s maxed out and no radiators? I have minimal restriction in my loop.


You mean per hour as a D5 max flow is 1500l/h with no head pressure. I have mine at ~233l/h which, from what I read, is ideal. That is with both pumps at 70%.


----------



## yzonker

Ichirou said:


> Well, you're increasing the frequency _and_ lowering the CAS latency, so naturally, that's gonna demand a significant amount of extra VDIMM.
> It wouldn't make sense that 4,200 CL15 would work at the same kind of voltage as 4,133 CL16. You'd need like 1.58V+ from the looks of it.
> Run 4,200 MHz with looser primaries if you want to stay under 1.52V.
> Also, consider reflashing the BIOS from time to time. MSI boards are extremely sensitive to BIOS corruption.


Sorry for one more mem post. Just as a data point, I run 1.62v for my 4200CL15 tune. Even 1.6v is unstable IIRC. 1.58v definitely is.


----------



## imrevoau

Update: I left the PC overnight and it’s powering on now? Lol. If this i9 isn’t any good I’m going to return it.


----------



## Netarangi

Jimbodiah said:


> Tried it, no difference that I can spot. Same fps rang like 95-115fps at same spot in game.
> 
> I've been reading up on this as it seems to be a common issue with Witcher3.It has to do with the way they made it DX12, they just ported it through DX11 somehow (don't ask me, I no nussing) which just makes it totally cpu bound and perform like sh!t.
> 
> Before the NextGen update I was getting 225fps with ease on max settings, I do about half that with DLSS performance now. So it's a witcher thing, not a hardware thing I'm afraid.


My Witcher 3 stutters and lags whenever I'm moving the camera around. Does this happen to you too? I'll stand still and move camera and it stutters.. Same when running around. It's asif its lagging when loading any materials into view..

Have tried everything default on bios. Bios update, new ME, different gpu drivers..

I have 13900kf and gigabyte eagle 4080


----------



## Netarangi

imrevoau said:


> Update: I left the PC overnight and it’s powering on now? Lol. If this i9 isn’t any good I’m going to return it.


Atleast you have temporary relief!


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I finally know my flow rate of my loop, it says 387-394 L/M is that an acceptable amount for (2) D5’s maxed out and no radiators? I have minimal restriction in my loop.





acoustic said:


> That number doesn't make any sense. Far, far too high, even for a system with no rads. What flow sensor?


Yeah, it doesn't make sense. Two D5's should be more like 200 LPM.


----------



## yzonker

Brads3cents said:


> View attachment 2593134
> 
> 
> does anyone have information on this SMD?
> I'm assuming it's a transistor? looking for the part number so i can replace mine


Doesn't appear to be any markings on them (12900k). Sorry for the lack of paste cleanup.


----------



## Ichirou

imrevoau said:


> Update: I left the PC overnight and it’s powering on now? Lol. If this i9 isn’t any good I’m going to return it.


Sounds like wake timers or scheduled updates.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Yeah, it doesn't make sense. Two D5's should be more like 200 LPM.


200 is still not right. Two D5s, should be max 3000l/h. That is with 0 head pressure. So absolute MAX flow would be 50 l/m


----------



## yzonker

Netarangi said:


> My Witcher 3 stutters and lags whenever I'm moving the camera around. Does this happen to you too? I'll stand still and move camera and it stutters.. Same when running around. It's asif its lagging when loading any materials into view..
> 
> Have tried everything default on bios. Bios update, new ME, different gpu drivers..
> 
> I have 13900kf and gigabyte eagle 4080


Are you using Frame Gen? That's the only way it runs smoothly for me. Even though I get 70 fps without Frame Gen in 4k, it still is very stuttery. That only goes away when I turn on Frame Gen.


----------



## bhav

yzonker said:


> Doesn't appear to be any markings on them (12900k). Sorry for the lack of paste cleanup.
> 
> View attachment 2593232


Stop using aquafresh as thermalpaste!


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> 200 is still not right. Two D5s, should be max 3000l/h. That is with 0 head pressure. So absolute MAX flow would be 50 l/m


Typo. I meant 200 L/h or so.


----------



## Falkentyne

imrevoau said:


> Update: I left the PC overnight and it’s powering on now? Lol. If this i9 isn’t any good I’m going to return it.


As I said earlier, failures like this are almost always motherboard related, unless it's some wonky PSU issue.


----------



## imrevoau

Falkentyne said:


> As I said earlier, failures like this are almost always motherboard related, unless it's some wonky PSU issue.


I’ll keep monitoring and if the issue repeats itself again I’ll start doing some proper diagnosing and swapping parts.


----------



## Netarangi

imrevoau said:


> I’ll keep monitoring and if the issue repeats itself again I’ll start doing some proper diagnosing and swapping parts.


I've got a ****ty z690 gigabyte d4 board I'm not using that I can send over? Would send it next Tuesday though as I'm out of town at the moment.


----------



## imrevoau

Netarangi said:


> I've got a ****ty z690 gigabyte d4 board I'm not using that I can send over? Would send it next Tuesday though as I'm out of town at the moment.


Thanks a lot for the offer man, I think I’ve figured it though. Pretty sure the bios is corrupt so it’s a pretty easy fix


----------



## Netarangi

imrevoau said:


> Thanks a lot for the offer man, I think I’ve figured it though. Pretty sure the bios is corrupt so it’s a pretty easy fix


Allgood! Not doing anything with this board so better to just send it to one of you chaps than throw in bin.

Feel free to PM if problem persists after bios update.


----------



## Brads3cents

yzonker said:


> Doesn't appear to be any markings on them (12900k). Sorry for the lack of paste cleanup.
> 
> View attachment 2593232


Interesting 
Thank you


----------



## Brads3cents

There appears to be writing for the 13900k but it may need a magnifying glass


----------



## Jimbodiah

Netarangi said:


> My Witcher 3 stutters and lags whenever I'm moving the camera around.


No stutter her, really smooth. 13700k/4090 1440p UW


----------



## Jimbodiah

I noticed today that core parking was turned on again in windows 10. Pretty sure it was the 22H2 update as I know 100% it was never a thing until recently.


----------



## VULC

Jimbodiah said:


> I noticed today that core parking was turned on again in windows 10. Pretty sure it was the 22H2 update as I know 100% it was never a thing until recently.


Go to bios and turn legacy gaming mode to enabled.


----------



## matique

Got my temp based per core OC finally tuned right. All the cores boosting to 6ghz most of the time as long as cpu is under 65C. 1.4v adaptive + 0.07v offset, LLC5 on MSI Z790i edge. Under heavy load it'll bin down to 58x all core at 1.31v. 

3030mhz 4090 FE w/ alphacool fe block 
6000mhz 13900k w/ Optimus Sig V2 
8000C34 DDR5 greenstick w/ icemancooler ram block
Cooled by a single mora 420

Pretty happy with the setup 😊


----------



## Ichirou

matique said:


> Got my temp based per core OC finally tuned right. All the cores boosting to 6ghz most of the time as long as cpu is under 65C. 1.4v adaptive + 0.07v offset, LLC5 on MSI Z790i edge. Under heavy load it'll bin down to 58x all core at 1.31v.
> 
> 3030mhz 4090 FE w/ alphacool fe block
> 6000mhz 13900k w/ Optimus Sig V2
> 8000C34 DDR5 greenstick w/ icemancooler ram block
> Cooled by a single mora 420
> 
> Pretty happy with the setup 😊


Intel XTU, or Adaptive + VF Offset, or?
I still can't seem to figure out the BIOS Adaptive + VF Offset mode; it's a confusing mess that only serves to overvolt high loads.
Can you describe your method for clocking down based on temp?


----------



## VULC

Imprezzion said:


> I probably won't go that high at first anyway. I just need to find out what the cheapest M-Die kit is that isn't green PCB as I like my rainbowbarf.
> 
> I mean, I own a set of DR B-Die Trident-Z Neo's that will do 4200 15-17-17-28-280-2T at 1.61v or 4400 17-17-17-36-340 at 1.52v (tested on a golden 10900KF and a really bad 11900K) with super tight subtimings but I really think, according to benchmarks at least, that DDR4, even this fast, will still underperform compared to say, 6400C32 DDR5. Or am I completely wrong here.


Yes you're wrong. You need at least 7500mhz ddr5 gear 2 to start to beat 4200 gear 1. 8000mhz ddr5 beats it in the lows in gaming within 10 fps averages are mostly the same. Some games even like DDR4 such as Cyberpunk.


----------



## matique

I scored 38 751 in Time Spy


Intel Core i9-13900KF Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com





And a TS run with 6ghz static all core 😁


----------



## matique

Ichirou said:


> Intel XTU, or Adaptive + VF Offset, or?
> I still can't seem to figure out the BIOS Adaptive + VF Offset mode; it's a confusing mess that only serves to overvolt high loads.
> Can you describe your method for clocking down based on temp?


I did it all in bios. Set 60x pcore. Head to cpu advanced and go to the tvb clipping. Then I set for x amount of cores to downclock if it hits x temp. Do for 1x to 8x cores. 

CPU voltage control I just set to adaptive, and then add an offset to it. Without offset it seems to default to vid table values, which is a bit too high for me.


----------



## Ichirou

matique said:


> I did it all in bios. Set 60x pcore. Head to cpu advanced and go to the tvb clipping. Then I set for x amount of cores to downclock if it hits x temp. Do for 1x to 8x cores.
> 
> CPU voltage control I just set to adaptive, and then add an offset to it. Without offset it seems to default to vid table values, which is a bit too high for me.


If you don't mind, could you share some screenshots? Been stuck on this for a long while because of how confusing the downclocking is.
I too am getting the issue of Intel VIDs taking over, which is overvolting the high load clocks.


----------



## matique

Ichirou said:


> If you don't mind, could you share some screenshots? Been stuck on this for a long while because of how confusing the downclocking is.
> I too am getting the issue of Intel VIDs taking over, which is overvolting the high load clocks.


I'll do so later in the evening after work 😁 though mine is on msi though. Not sure if applicable to other boards.


----------



## Ichirou

matique said:


> I'll do so later in the evening after work 😁 though mine is on msi though. Not sure if applicable to other boards.


I'm on a Z790 Edge DDR4 

Also, what wattage do you pull when you run Cinebench R23?


----------



## bhav

Seconday builds update, LGA1700 mounting kit dispatched for free from Corair support, need to wait until it arrives before I can finish the 12600K and 12100 dual bench setup and finally sell the Z490 parts.

Going to try for £350-400 for the 10900K gold bin & Asus board together, super good DDR4 OCs on them.


----------



## matique

Ichirou said:


> I'm on a Z790 Edge DDR4
> 
> Also, what wattage do you pull when you run Cinebench R23?


On max stable voltage it's 380w. This is around 1.318 vcore on load, 31.5c coolant temp.


----------



## Ichirou

matique said:


> On max stable voltage it's 380w. This is around 1.318 vcore on load, 31.5c coolant temp.


Okay, so from what I can tell, you have it set to 60x all-core for low loads, and 58x all-core for high loads above 65C?


----------



## matique

Ichirou said:


> Okay, so from what I can tell, you have it set to 60x all-core for low loads, and 58x all-core for high loads above 65C?


It's temperature based. Heavy loads will push temps to be higher right? Once it crosses that temperature threshold it'll downbin. But light loads like during gaming would be under a certain temp, so it'll hold the boost at 60x.


----------



## Ichirou

matique said:


> It's temperature based. Heavy loads will push temps to be higher right? Once it crosses that temperature threshold it'll downbin. But light loads like during gaming would be under a certain temp, so it'll hold the boost at 60x.


Yes, that seems to be from setting the thermal threshold, as you previously stated, and as I've tested out.
Some people here have found that it's more accurate to use a current threshold instead, though. Due to some logic errors with thermal-based downclocking.

I'll wait until you provide your screenshots of the BIOS. I'm intrigued to see how you set up the voltages to have better optimization during high loads.
Really hate the Intel VIDs taking over and terribly overvolting low clocks.


----------



## Imprezzion

VULC said:


> Yes you're wrong. You need at least 7500mhz ddr5 gear 2 to start to beat 4200 gear 1. 8000mhz ddr5 beats it in the lows in gaming within 10 fps averages are mostly the same. Some games even like DDR4 such as Cyberpunk.





https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_13600k_and_13900k_ddr4_vs_ddr5_showdown/



This review for example compared DDR4-4000C14 (not sure if gear 1 was used, they don't mention it) vs DDR5-6000C36 and DDR5 clearly beats DDR4, sometimes by quite a lot in minimums, in every single game except maybe Cyberpunk. 






This comparison video also shows 6 different frequency / timing configurations with DDR4 and DDR5 and shows DDR5 also winning in just about every situation.

I just don't wanna upgrade my system to a new platform only to gimp myself with older RAM. DDR5 and the boards for it are cheap enough to not matter really price wise.


----------



## Blejd

Oc 13900k :
P. Core : 6.0/6.0/5.9/5.9/5.8/5.8/5.8/5.8Ghz
E. Core : 4.6Ghz


----------



## supersym

Hi !
Waiting for 13900 ks, but didn't see anything yet...
@bledj : cpu voltage ? I can't read the screen...


----------



## Blejd

supersym said:


> Hi !
> Waiting for 13900 ks, but didn't see anything yet...
> @bledj : cpu voltage ? I can't read the screen...


I have 2 profile saved on Bios :
1. P. Core : 6.0/6.0/5.9/5.9/5.8/5.8/5.8/5.8Ghz + E. Core : 4.6Ghz > 1.33v
2. P. Core : 6.0/6.0/5.9/5.9/5.8/5.8/5.7/5.7Ghz + E. Core : 4.6Ghz > 1.30v


----------



## supersym

Blejd said:


> I have 2 profile saved on Bios :
> 1. P. Core : 6.0/6.0/5.9/5.9/5.8/5.8/5.8/5.8Ghz + E. Core : 4.6Ghz > 1.33v
> 2. P. Core : 6.0/6.0/5.9/5.9/5.8/5.8/5.7/5.7Ghz + E. Core : 4.6Ghz > 1.30v


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> Intel XTU, or Adaptive + VF Offset, or?
> I still can't seem to figure out the BIOS Adaptive + VF Offset mode; it's a confusing mess that only serves to overvolt high loads.
> Can you describe your method for clocking down based on temp?


I’m curious as well. I’m using Adaptive +VF curve and have -.025 offsets on all of the multipliers above 43. Even with LLC 7 and AC LL set to 1, I’m still using more voltage than needed, but the heat is manageable. I did play around with TVB, but didn’t spend too much time with it. Perhaps another dive into TVB is needed.


----------



## RichKnecht

matique said:


> On max stable voltage it's 380w. This is around 1.318 vcore on load, 31.5c coolant temp.


What are the VID temps at 380W?


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I’m curious as well. I’m using Adaptive +VF curve and have -.025 offsets on all of the multipliers above 43. Even with LLC 7 and AC LL set to 1, I’m still using more voltage than needed, but the heat is manageable. I did play around with TVB, but didn’t spend too much time with it. Perhaps another dive into TVB is needed.


I guess the logic is that the main Vcore is the high load, and the offset is the low low? Then you’d set LLC to adjust it a bit, and use a temp limit to denote when to downclock. That’s what I imagine is his setup.


----------



## ju-rek

Imprezzion said:


> This comparison video also shows 6 different frequency / timing configurations with DDR4 and DDR5 and shows DDR5 also winning in just about every situation.


Do you believe in information from such channels? Please.


----------



## matique

Ichirou said:


> Yes, that seems to be from setting the thermal threshold, as you previously stated, and as I've tested out.
> Some people here have found that it's more accurate to use a current threshold instead, though. Due to some logic errors with thermal-based downclocking.
> 
> I'll wait until you provide your screenshots of the BIOS. I'm intrigued to see how you set up the voltages to have better optimization during high loads.
> Really hate the Intel VIDs taking over and terribly overvolting low clocks.












1. I set my pcore to my max boost, since MSI doesn't have TVB in the same sense as asus, where you can add to the bins.










2. Head over to TVB Points Configuration.










3. Set your downclocks per given core loading.
1-2c -x60 <75, x59 <80, x58 >80
3-6c -x60 <70, x59 <75, x58 >75
7-8c -x60 <60, x59 <70, x58 >70










4. I have my voltage mode set to Adaptive + Offset. Voltage varies according to your bin.










I then set my LLC to Mode 5 to have some droop for heavy loads, and this is activated if >60a is fed to the CPU. This is done via loadline saturation level, enabled. You can read more about it here: 









MSI Intros 'Loadline Saturation' On Z790 Motherboards, Maxing Out Single & Multi-Core Performance on Intel 13th Gen CPUs


MSI has a new feature added to its Z790 motherboards known as 'Loadline Saturation' that delivers higher performance on Intel 13th Gen CPUs.




wccftech.com





It's also fine without the saturation control, I just use it to have a more stable single core voltage and a slightly lower all core voltage. This is the setup that works for me, *THIS IS NOT A GUIDE!!*

_I'm a caveman when it comes to OCing, I don't even think i set up my ac/dc ll correctly so I just left it as auto._


----------



## Imprezzion

ju-rek said:


> Do you believe in information from such channels? Please.


Not directly no. But when OC3D reports the same on 13th gen as do local Dutch review websites like Tweakers.net and on 12th gen even TechPowerUp and Guru3D (to a lesser extent) reviews clearly shows DDR5 has a sizable lead with some exceptions like Hitman. 

However, I don't believe any of the actual review websites either as some results seem quite exaggerated. 22% FPS difference between 2 CPU's would mean one with a 3070 would outperform the other with a 3090 but when the exact same CPU is used in a GPU review the difference isn't there.. it's fishy.. 

I'm just looking for real world people who used both D4 and D5 in a 1080p gaming scenario and either notice a clear difference, or not.


----------



## matique

RichKnecht said:


> What are the VID temps at 380W?


Not sure what you mean by this? Here are my temps anyway with 23c coolant.


----------



## RichKnecht

@matique thank you for that info. You MAY be able to tweak AC and DC LL a little to get the vcore/VIDs closer, but I'd leave it alone  After watching countless videos about LLC (once again) I have changed my LLC (MSI) from 7 to 6. I was so worried about high transient spikes, that I never realized that setting an LLC level too high (more droop) would introduce too much of a NEGATIVE spike. Testing now, but it appears that going from LLC 7 to 6 shaved off about 20W as I can now run a lower Vcore (1.20 vs 1.22). I also switched from the Advanced + VF Curve to Adaptive Auto voltage) + Offset (-.03). Not to get off topic, but what did you use mounting-wise for your V2? I tried everything and was never able to get temps right. The temp spread between cores was terrible (over 12C). I mounted my old *** EK Supremacy Evo and temp spread between cores is ~7C and overall temps are about the same as they were with the V2. I have since lapped the V2 but haven't tried remounting it as I am waiting on some QD fittings to make swapping blocks easier.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> @matique thank you for that info. You MAY be able to tweak AC and DC LL a little to get the vcore/VIDs closer, but I'd leave it alone  After watching countless videos about LLC (once again) I have changed my LLC (MSI) from 7 to 6. I was so worried about high transient spikes, that I never realized that setting an LLC level too high (more droop) would introduce too much of a NEGATIVE spike. Testing now, but it appears that going from LLC 7 to 6 shaved off about 20W as I can now run a lower Vcore (1.20 vs 1.22). I also switched from the Advanced + VF Curve to Adaptive Auto voltage) + Offset (-.03). Not to get off topic, but what did you use mounting-wise for your V2? I tried everything and was never able to get temps right. The temp spread between cores was terrible (over 12C). I mounted my old *** EK Supremacy Evo and temp spread between cores is ~7C and overall temps are about the same as they were with the V2. I have since lapped the V2 but haven't tried remounting it as I am waiting on some QD fittings to make swapping blocks easier.


If I remember correctly he has a very good chip.

When dropping down to llc 6 did you adjust ac/dc? Your running like 69/5?


----------



## matique

RichKnecht said:


> @matique thank you for that info. You MAY be able to tweak AC and DC LL a little to get the vcore/VIDs closer, but I'd leave it alone  After watching countless videos about LLC (once again) I have changed my LLC (MSI) from 7 to 6. I was so worried about high transient spikes, that I never realized that setting an LLC level too high (more droop) would introduce too much of a NEGATIVE spike. Testing now, but it appears that going from LLC 7 to 6 shaved off about 20W as I can now run a lower Vcore (1.20 vs 1.22). I also switched from the Advanced + VF Curve to Adaptive Auto voltage) + Offset (-.03). Not to get off topic, but what did you use mounting-wise for your V2? I tried everything and was never able to get temps right. The temp spread between cores was terrible (over 12C). I mounted my old *** EK Supremacy Evo and temp spread between cores is ~7C and overall temps are about the same as they were with the V2. I have since lapped the V2 but haven't tried remounting it as I am waiting on some QD fittings to make swapping blocks easier.


I used an ek aio LGA1700 backplate with the ek aio lga1700 thumbnuts + posts. Their aio thumbnuts has screwdriver holes so it's easier for me to torque it down. I hand tighten each to being hand tight, then a 180 degree turn using the screwdriver.


----------



## matique

Uncle Dubbs said:


> If I remember correctly he has a very good chip


it's good but not exceptional. I can't check the SP but it's slightly worse to someone's SP107. So i guess it's a SP105-106.


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> If I remember correctly he has a very good chip.
> 
> When dropping down to llc 6 did you adjust ac/dc? Your running like 69/5?


I was running LLC7 with AC LL 4 and DC LL 69. Now it’s at LLC 6 with AC LL 4 and DC LL 40. Going to try LLC 5 next, but so far it seems to be doing great. My chip seems pretty good as well, I just think the negative spikes were going too low with LLC7.


----------



## RichKnecht

matique said:


> I used an ek aio LGA1700 backplate with the ek aio lga1700 thumbnuts + posts. Their aio thumbnuts has screwdriver holes so it's easier for me to torque it down. I hand tighten each to being hand tight, then a 180 degree turn using the screwdriver.


Does the EK aio mount use springs?


----------



## GioCTRL

Imprezzion said:


> https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_13600k_and_13900k_ddr4_vs_ddr5_showdown/
> 
> 
> 
> This review for example compared DDR4-4000C14 (not sure if gear 1 was used, they don't mention it) vs DDR5-6000C36 and DDR5 clearly beats DDR4, sometimes by quite a lot in minimums, in every single game except maybe Cyberpunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This comparison video also shows 6 different frequency / timing configurations with DDR4 and DDR5 and shows DDR5 also winning in just about every situation.
> 
> I just don't wanna upgrade my system to a new platform only to gimp myself with older RAM. DDR5 and the boards for it are cheap enough to not matter really price wise.


These sorts of benchmarks are fake, sorry to bring it to you. Why else would they not show any proof of owning the hardware. Better later than never though.


----------



## matique

RichKnecht said:


> Does the EK aio mount use springs?


It's supposed to, but I just hard mount it.


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> I was running LLC7 with AC LL 4 and DC LL 69. Now it’s at LLC 6 with AC LL 4 and DC LL 40. Going to try LLC 5 next, but so far it seems to be doing great. My chip seems pretty good as well, I just think the negative spikes were going too low with LLC7.


Ya, that was why I was always reluctant to use higher llc…I may replay with mine…did you recalculate your averages for new dc?


----------



## RichKnecht

Uncle Dubbs said:


> Ya, that was why I was always reluctant to use higher llc…I may replay with mine…*did you recalculate your averages for new dc*?


Yes, I started all over again. However, when I try LLC 5, I am just going to lower the DC LL until vcore/VIDs match and go from there. After I found the value for LLC6, I loaded my previous settings and changed the DC LL from 69 to 40. It's doing just fine. In the end, it's drawing less power which means less heat. Only time will tell though. I am going to work with these settings and see how it goes, It's CB23 and Realbench ( 1 hour) stable.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Anyone know or who sell apex z790? Cant find it in stock anywhere in the US.


----------



## Ichirou

matique said:


> 1. I set my pcore to my max boost, since MSI doesn't have TVB in the same sense as asus, where you can add to the bins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Head over to TVB Points Configuration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Set your downclocks per given core loading.
> 1-2c -x60 <75, x59 <80, x58 >80
> 3-6c -x60 <70, x59 <75, x58 >75
> 7-8c -x60 <60, x59 <70, x58 >70
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. I have my voltage mode set to Adaptive + Offset. Voltage varies according to your bin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I then set my LLC to Mode 5 to have some droop for heavy loads, and this is activated if >60a is fed to the CPU. This is done via loadline saturation level, enabled. You can read more about it here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI Intros 'Loadline Saturation' On Z790 Motherboards, Maxing Out Single & Multi-Core Performance on Intel 13th Gen CPUs
> 
> 
> MSI has a new feature added to its Z790 motherboards known as 'Loadline Saturation' that delivers higher performance on Intel 13th Gen CPUs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wccftech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also fine without the saturation control, I just use it to have a more stable single core voltage and a slightly lower all core voltage. This is the setup that works for me, *THIS IS NOT A GUIDE!!*
> 
> _I'm a caveman when it comes to OCing, I don't even think i set up my ac/dc ll correctly so I just left it as auto._


Thanks; I’ll give this a test drive later once the loop is set up. I reread the LL Saturation article again, and it seems like they’ve updated it for clarity at some point. Makes more sense now.

It’s basically intended to benefit people who run two different overclocks between low/high loads, as I previously estimated. It corrects an issue where if a low load overclock is too strong, TVB downclocking via temps is “too slow” to react, causing crashing due to high clocks being thrown at low voltages during that loading period for high loads.

I see that you used 60A though, while the article uses 50A. What exactly is a good value? Or is that just something that’ll need to be field tested, where you should increase it if your low loads are drooping down and crashing?

On the other hand, can you explain the nature behind your Adaptive Voltage and its Offset? Is the CPU set to use 1.40V (without Vdroop) for low loads, and 1.32V with Vdroop) during high loads?

Using TVB in the BIOS does does not allow youdetermine the order of the cores that are downclocked, meaning you won’t be able to optimize each core. And from past experience, MSI orders them randomly; the two cores it predicts is the strongest isn’t always the case.

If Adaptive + Offset works as intended, I may be able to do optimized low/high load overclocking though Intel XTU again, with proper voltage reduction for high loads. I’ll have to test it out.

I’ve still yet to determine what is a good low and high load test. So many mixed results.


----------



## Latchback

matique said:


> it's good but not exceptional. I can't check the SP but it's slightly worse to someone's SP107. So i guess it's a SP105-106.


Well your p-cores are definitely above average 

Mine are pretty average and I would only be able to get all core 58x with your voltages.

EDIT:

Also noticed your getting 8000MHz on a 4 slot board pretty easily. I wish for my extreme to one day get to that level, but tight 7600 or loose 7800 seems all my board can handle, I believe the IMC and sticks would allow higher. But it's nice to see 4 slot boards go 8000MHz+ and I bet we will see this happening more and more.


----------



## Latchback

Why am I seeing some people putting 1.9V into CPU AUX (or vpp)? What does that help with?


----------



## matique

Ichirou said:


> Thanks; I’ll give this a test drive later once the loop is set up. I reread the LL Saturation article again, and it seems like they’ve updated it for clarity at some point. Makes more sense now.
> 
> It’s basically intended to benefit people who run two different overclocks between low/high loads, as I previously estimated. It corrects an issue where if a low load overclock is too strong, TVB downclocking via temps is “too slow” to react, causing crashing due to high clocks being thrown at low voltages during that loading period for high loads.
> 
> I see that you used 60A though, while the article uses 50A. What exactly is a good value? Or is that just something that’ll need to be field tested, where you should increase it if your low loads are drooping down and crashing?
> 
> On the other hand, can you explain the nature behind your Adaptive Voltage and its Offset? Is the CPU set to use 1.40V (without Vdroop) for low loads, and 1.32V with Vdroop) during high loads?
> 
> Using TVB in the BIOS does does not allow youdetermine the order of the cores that are downclocked, meaning you won’t be able to optimize each core. And from past experience, MSI orders them randomly; the two cores it predicts is the strongest isn’t always the case.
> 
> If Adaptive + Offset works as intended, I may be able to do optimized low/high load overclocking though Intel XTU again, with proper voltage reduction for high loads. I’ll have to test it out.
> 
> I’ve still yet to determine what is a good low and high load test. So many mixed results.


Yeah mainly idea is for 1.4v for light load / ST and 1.32v for MT. However it doesn't exactly work out that way, at least in hwinfo. I'm around 1.38v for ST and 1.327v for MT. But it's performing well enough for me 😁

I forgot why I put it as 60A. Probably have more leeway I guess. Everyone's CPU is different, so tweak around to whatever is stable for you. 



Latchback said:


> Well your p-cores are definitely above average
> 
> Mine are pretty average and I would only be able to get all core 58x with your voltages.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Also noticed your getting 8000MHz on a 4 slot board pretty easily. I wish for my extreme to one day get to that level, but tight 7600 or loose 7800 seems all my board can handle, I believe the IMC and sticks would allow higher. But it's nice to see 4 slot boards go 8000MHz+ and I bet we will see this happening more and more.


I'm on the msi z790i edge, which is a 2 slot board. Sorry to burst your bubble 😂



Latchback said:


> Why am I seeing some people putting 1.9V into CPU AUX (or vpp)? What does that help with?


It kinda helps to stabilise the voltages in a sense. I've no idea the technical reasoning behind it, but it's some advice I got from someone who's pretty well versed with MSI bios. It worked well enough for me. Auto 1.8v was stable ish (passed basic ycruncher 2.5b) but having it at 1.9v helped me pass n32/64 + vst for yc. It may or may not help you, but it's just another variable to tweak to see if it can stabilise your system.


----------



## Ichirou

matique said:


> Yeah mainly idea is for 1.4v for light load / ST and 1.32v for MT. However it doesn't exactly work out that way, at least in hwinfo. I'm around 1.38v for ST and 1.327v for MT. But it's performing well enough for me 😁
> 
> I forgot why I put it as 60A. Probably have more leeway I guess. Everyone's CPU is different, so tweak around to whatever is stable for you.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on the msi z790i edge, which is a 2 slot board. Sorry to burst your bubble 😂
> 
> 
> 
> It kinda helps to stabilise the voltages in a sense. I've no idea the technical reasoning behind it, but it's some advice I got from someone who's pretty well versed with MSI bios. It worked well enough for me. Auto 1.8v was stable ish (passed basic ycruncher 2.5b) but having it at 1.9v helped me pass n32/64 + vst for yc. It may or may not help you, but it's just another variable to tweak to see if it can stabilise your system.


Increasing CPU AUX alone helps stabilize the IMC tests? That’s interesting. I’ll have to give that a try. 

Any other side voltages worth considering?


----------



## Jimbodiah

VULC said:


> Go to bios and turn legacy gaming mode to enabled.


 i just turned it off in regedit. What does legacy gaming mode do?


----------



## Latchback

matique said:


> I'm on the msi z790i edge, which is a 2 slot board. Sorry to burst your bubble 😂


Oh wow, I even looked up your board and somehow partitioned the 2 slots into 4....I mean just kidding, seeing if anyone caught my joke!

So. I'm thinking if I just rip out 2 of the slots that I don't use it will be fine right?
Or better yet, just retrace the board so that the two best slots are A2,B2...I got one of thoes conductive silver trace pens...I'm sure it'll work great. Also thicker = better....right?


/salty_non-apex_owner


----------



## Ichirou

Latchback said:


> Oh wow, I even looked up your board and somehow partitioned the 2 slots into 4....I mean just kidding, seeing if anyone caught my joke!
> 
> So. I'm thinking if I just rip out 2 of the slots that I don't use it will be fine right?
> Or better yet, just retrace the board so that the two best slots are A2,B2...I got one of thoes conductive silver trace pens...I'm sure it'll work great. Also thicker = better....right?
> 
> 
> /salty_non-apex_owner


Just swap the motherboard?
Also, there are cheaper alternatives to an Apex for 8,000 MHz.


----------



## Arni90

Latchback said:


> Why am I seeing some people putting 1.9V into CPU AUX (or vpp)? What does that help with?


It's the FIVR voltage, and the FIVR needs a voltage delta of about 0.4V to whatever rails you set.

If you want to set 1.5V VCCSA, CPU VDDQ, or E-core L2 Cache, you need to set AUX voltage to 1.90V


----------



## Ichirou

Arni90 said:


> It's the FIVR voltage, and the FIVR needs a voltage delta of about 0.4V to whatever rails you set.
> 
> If you want to set 1.5V VCCSA, CPU VDDQ, or E-core L2 Cache, you need to set AUX voltage to 1.90V


Ah, so it's intended to help stabilize higher alternate voltages?
Can't believe I never knew about this or gave this a try before. It might've helped when my CPU/board suddenly became unstable no matter what I reverted to.


----------



## Betroz

Arni90 said:


> If you want to set 1.5V VCCSA, CPU VDDQ, or E-core L2 Cache, you need to set AUX voltage to 1.90V


So the BIOS does not handle this correctly by itself on auto?


----------



## Ichirou

Betroz said:


> So the BIOS does not handle this correctly by itself on auto?


CPU AUX is always 1.80V on auto. That's just universal spec amongst all manufacturers.
Any voltage overclocks are up to the user, not the manufacturers.

It's just that the lack of documentation regarding what each voltage does is not particularly helpful to the overclocker.


----------



## Betroz

Ichirou said:


> It's just that the lack of documentation regarding what each voltage does is not particularly helpful to the overclocker.


I agree and I am just starting to learn this platform myself (before the hardware have arrived). I may end up running my 13900K with Sync all cores...and only DDR5 7000 speed. I don't want to degrade my chip.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> CPU AUX is always 1.80V on auto. That's just universal spec amongst all manufacturers.
> Any voltage overclocks are up to the user, not the manufacturers.
> 
> It's just that the lack of documentation regarding what each voltage does is not particularly helpful to the overclocker.


The one thing that annoys me is that there is TONS of info out there for Asus boards, which I am used to. Now that I have a MSI board, I find that the amount of information is lacking. Right now, I am thinking about selling this board and the RAM and just buying a pinball machine ASUS board and 64GB DDR5. Also I have found that the "tips" that pop up when scrolling through each setting is very vague on MSI boards. I really have no one to blame but myself as I really didn't have the time to research this platform.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> The one thing that annoys me is that there is TONS of info out there for Asus boards, which I am used to. Now that I have a MSI board, I find that the amount of information is lacking. Right now, I am thinking about selling this board and the RAM and just buying a pinball machine ASUS board and 64GB DDR5. Also I have found that the "tips" that pop up when scrolling through each setting is very vague on MSI boards. I really have no one to blame but myself as I really didn't have the time to research this platform.


Eh, ASUS doesn't really give much helpful documentation either. Still mostly relies on your own knowledge.
If anything, I'd argue that it's even more confusing to use the ASUS BIOS. MSI is a lot more simplified and barebones.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> CPU AUX is always 1.80V on auto. That's just universal spec amongst all manufacturers.
> Any voltage overclocks are up to the user, not the manufacturers.
> 
> It's just that the lack of documentation regarding what each voltage does is not particularly helpful to the overclocker.


No on Asus stock reading in bios is 1.79v after OC 1.849v


----------



## VULC

Jimbodiah said:


> i just turned it off in regedit. What does legacy gaming mode do?


Unparks E Cores in Win 10.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> No on Asus stock reading in bios is 1.79v after OC 1.849v


Yeah... _After _overclocking. But it is 1.80V on Auto.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Yeah... _After _overclocking. But it is 1.80V on Auto.


I mean it's on Auto but the reading in bios increases after you punch in an OC.


----------



## VULC

EK and Kitguru said they would bring out a direct die contact frame / plate. No sign of it yet I messaged Kitguru they are still doing tests.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> EK and Kitguru said they would bring out a direct die contact frame / plate. No sign of it yet I messaged Kitguru they are still doing tests.


It's becoming more and more vaporware. I wouldn't put any faith into them at this point in time.
If you want to direct die, go Supercool. Or just delid the chip and lap as much as you can.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> It's becoming more and more vaporware. I wouldn't put any faith into them at this point in time.
> If you want to direct die, go Supercool. Or just delid the chip and lap as much as you can.


Yeah but supercool involves setting up a whole loop where that plate can be used on any setup. Supercool is still running their own IHS how can it technically be direct die?

So it seems Asus is adding the Intel standard of 0.4v above vcore for CPU Input voltage / aux. Intel recommend 0.4 - 0.6 not above 0.6v

Less than 0.4V – not recommended. Instability is almost guaranteed
0.4V – ideal value
0.4-0.6V – general ‘OK’ range
Above 0.6V – not recommend as long-term damage can occur
Generally speaking, higher VCCIN can cause a higher CPU temperature


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> Yeah but supercool involves setting up a whole loop where that plate can be used on any setup.
> 
> So it seems Asus is adding the Intel standard of 0.4v above vcore for CPU Input voltage / aux. Intel recommend 0.4 - 0.6 not above 0.6v
> 
> Less than 0.4V – not recommended. Instability is almost guaranteed
> 0.4V – ideal value
> 0.4-0.6V – general ‘OK’ range
> Above 0.6V – not recommend as long-term damage can occur
> Generally speaking, higher VCCIN can cause a higher CPU temperature


Wait... You're hoping to use a direct die frame... without a water loop? What would even be the point?


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> Wait... You're hoping to use a direct die frame... without a water loop? What would even be the point?


With my 420mm AIO.


----------



## Betroz

VULC said:


> So it seems Asus is adding the Intel standard of 0.4v above vcore for CPU Input voltage / aux.


Does the BIOS set it correctly on auto?


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> With my 420mm AIO.


Ah. I see. Well, you'll probably have to wait for quite a while, then. In the meanwhile, delid + lap for instant results.


----------



## Latchback

Ichirou said:


> Just swap the motherboard?
> Also, there are cheaper alternatives to an Apex for 8,000 MHz.


Price is not an issue.

And I love my motherboard (extreme), just wish it was a 2 slot so I could have more fun o.c. ram, but I still have more things to oc than time so I shouldn't complain.


----------



## Latchback

Arni90 said:


> It's the FIVR voltage, and the FIVR needs a voltage delta of about 0.4V to whatever rails you set.
> 
> If you want to set 1.5V VCCSA, CPU VDDQ, or E-core L2 Cache, you need to set AUX voltage to 1.90V


Thanks for the info, that is probably why when I try to up my CPU VDDQ from 1.4V --> 1.5V I am getting stability issues.

I'll raise my aux to 1.9V to see if that helps.

EDIT:

Does this also apply to dimm VPP? I see people setting that to 1.9V as well.


----------



## VULC

Betroz said:


> Does the BIOS set it correctly on auto?


Yes it does, It always sets it above 0.4v of your vcore.


----------



## Latchback

VULC said:


> Yes it does, It always sets it above 0.4v of your vcore.


Are you saying it adjusts it as you vcore changes? So if your vcore spikes to 1.6V then your aux will hit 2.0V?


----------



## Ichirou

Latchback said:


> Are you saying it adjusts it as you vcore changes? So if your vcore spikes to 1.6V then your aux will hit 2.0V?


You'd have more issues if your Vcore spikes to 1.60V than the AUX voltage, lol.


----------



## VULC

Latchback said:


> Are you saying it adjusts it as you vcore changes? So if your vcore spikes to 1.6V then your aux will hit 2.0V?


Not adaptive only 1.45v spec or if you set manual vcore as a limit.


----------



## Thunderclap

13900KS sneak peek:






6.0GHz on two cores
5.6GHz all-core


----------



## Latchback

while i agree, technically on intel data sheet, max operating voltage is 1.72V

I think it's def possible to see 1.6V spikes (non-load) and not have issues. Though the heat would be something else and also why.


----------



## Ichirou

Thunderclap said:


> 13900KS sneak peek:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6.0GHz on two cores
> 5.6GHz all-core


Interesting, they revised the base clocks from 5.4 to 5.6 GHz? That's definitely more promising compared to before.
This implies that the KSes are at least P-SP 115+ chips.


----------



## RichKnecht

So, it appears that MSI LLC impedances are whacked, at least on this Z790 Tomahawk. When I tune DC LL to LLC7, it’s 69. When tuning to LLC6, it’s 40. When going to LLC5, it’s 10. These calculated values will yield even values between vcore and VID at idle and full load. So I assume these values are correct. I am guessing that LLC4 is “flat” or very close to it. I don’t want to know what LLC3,2,or 1 is. I’m not going to try those. Just putting it out there.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> So, it appears that MSI LLC impedances are whacked, at least on this Z790 Tomahawk. When I tune DC LL to LLC7, it’s 69. When tuning to LLC6, it’s 40. When going to LLC5, it’s 10. These calculated values will yield even values between vcore and VID at idle and full load. So I assume these values are correct. I am guessing that LLC4 is “flat” or very close to it. I don’t want to know what LLC3,2,or 1 is. I’m not going to try those. Just putting it out there.


LLC Mode 3 is flat. 1-2 has overshoot, and 4+ has Vdroop.


----------



## Latchback

Ichirou said:


> Interesting, they revised the base clocks from 5.4 to 5.6 GHz? That's definitely more promising compared to before.
> This implies that the KSes are at least P-SP 115+ chips.


I bet the KS will likely have an easier time (though not guaranteed) hitting All Core 6.0GHz (gaming loads) with sane voltages much easier than the average 13900K.

I was really hoping to get mine to that point but it's not possible without too much voltage to get stable.

Maybe I'll try a KS.


----------



## Arni90

Betroz said:


> So the BIOS does not handle this correctly by itself on auto?


ASUS might do it, but MSI certainly doesn't


----------



## RichKnecht

Thunderclap said:


> 13900KS sneak peek:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6.0GHz on two cores
> 5.6GHz all-core


Pause the video and look at voltages. LOL. C’mon…1.346/1.523!? *** are you going to do with that besides add a chiller. Save your money. They will get so hot you’ll be able to run molten lava through your loop to cool it.


----------



## Betroz

Arni90 said:


> ASUS might do it, but MSI certainly doesn't


I went for the Z790 Strix-E Gaming.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> LLC Mode 3 is flat. 1-2 has overshoot, and 4+ has Vdroop.


4 must have VERY little droop as my LLC5 is equal to DC LL 10.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Pause the video and look at voltages. LOL. C’mon…1.346/1.523!? *** are you going to do with that besides add a chiller. Save your money. They will get so hot you’ll be able to run molten lava through your loop to cool it.


Heh xD


RichKnecht said:


> 4 must have VERY little droop as my LLC5 is equal to DC LL 10.


Yeah, it's not particularly pronounced. But it's there.


----------



## RichKnecht

Seriously, if Intel is going to cram all these cores into a chip, clock them to 6+ GHz, use a bigger f’n die/IHS. It’s pretty obvious that they crammed as much as physically possible onto the present size die.


----------



## Latchback

RichKnecht said:


> Pause the video and look at voltages. LOL. C’mon…1.346/1.523!? *** are you going to do with that besides add a chiller. Save your money. They will get so hot you’ll be able to run molten lava through your loop to cool it.


VID are always super over kill, like mortal combat....fatality...voltages

But its def not promising


----------



## Uncle Dubbs

RichKnecht said:


> The one thing that annoys me is that there is TONS of info out there for Asus boards, which I am used to. Now that I have a MSI board, I find that the amount of information is lacking. Right now, I am thinking about selling this board and the RAM and just buying a pinball machine ASUS board and 64GB DDR5. Also I have found that the "tips" that pop up when scrolling through each setting is very vague on MSI boards. I really have no one to blame but myself as I really didn't have the time to research this platform.


My personal favs are the tips that are the same as the item verbatim 😂


----------



## Arni90

Ichirou said:


> LLC Mode 3 is flat. 1-2 has overshoot, and 4+ has Vdroop.


That's wrong on my Z690 Unify-X at least judging by VR VOUT.

Mode 1 is flat
Any mode higher droops slightly.


----------



## RichKnecht

Arni90 said:


> That's wrong on my Z690 Unify-X at least judging by VR VOUT.
> 
> Mode 1 is flat
> Any mode higher droops slightly.


It all depends on the board and VRMs it uses.


----------



## affxct

Thunderclap said:


> 13900KS sneak peek:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6.0GHz on two cores
> 5.6GHz all-core


Wow I guessed it (not hard)


----------



## Wolverine2349

Do you think the upcoming Core i9 13900KS will have superior binning to the point where it will be as easy to run all cores at 6GHz as it is to run 5.6GHz on regular 13900K?? Meaning with similar thermals all core workload on same cooling like NH-D15S with e-cores off on both of course.

Or is the KS really just guaranteed to have only one core better binned to hit 6GHz where others are still luck of the draw for all P core clock?


----------



## Nizzen

Wolverine2349 said:


> Do you think the upcoming Core i9 13900KS will have superior binning to the point where it will be as easy to run all cores at 6GHz as it is to run 5.6GHz on regular 13900K?? Meaning with similar thermals all core workload on same cooling like NH-D15S with e-cores off on both of course.


No, next question


----------



## RichKnecht

Wolverine2349 said:


> Do you think the upcoming Core i9 13900KS will have superior binning to the point where it will be as easy to run all cores at 6GHz as it is to run 5.6GHz on regular 13900K?? Meaning with similar thermals all core workload on same cooling like NH-D15S with e-cores off on both of course.


I don’t think so. The KS will be a glorified K Like the K, I am sure some will be better than others. That being said, I am sure some people will line up to pay a premium for a 5% increase in performance.


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> Do you think the upcoming Core i9 13900KS will have superior binning to the point where it will be as easy to run all cores at 6GHz as it is to run 5.6GHz on regular 13900K?? Meaning with similar thermals all core workload on same cooling like NH-D15S with e-cores off on both of course.
> 
> Or is the KS really just guaranteed to have only one core better binned to hit 6GHz where others are still luck of the draw for all P core clock?


They're rebranded P-SP 115+ 13900K chips. Case closed. Sell the Noctua and get an Arctic 420mm AIO.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I don’t think so. The KS will be a glorified K Like the K, I am sure some will be better than others. That being said, I am sure some people will line up to pay a premium for a 5% increase in performance.


The main reasoning behind pushing 1.50V+ is that Intel needs the 6.0 GHz to be stable in R23 and many other workloads as well, most likely.
It's pretty stupid. Trying to force golden chip overclocks on a weaker chip with Vcore.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> The main reasoning behind pushing 1.50V+ is that Intel needs the 6.0 GHz to be stable in R23 and many other workloads as well, most likely.
> It's pretty stupid. Trying to force golden chip overclocks on a weaker chip with Vcore.


I really wonder why they haven’t moved on to a larger die/IHS. It’s not like they never change sockets😊


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I really wonder why they haven’t moved on to a larger die/IHS. It’s not like they never change sockets😊


Better to spend the money on R&D elsewhere. Pointless now. We may see an improvement with the RPL Refresh though.


----------



## Nizzen

RichKnecht said:


> I really wonder why they haven’t moved on to a larger die/IHS. It’s not like they never change sockets😊


price on "waffers"
Double die size = double prize 

Still want a big die like my 6 years old 7980xe. VERY easy too cool 500w+


----------



## RichKnecht

Nizzen said:


> price on "waffers"
> Double die size = double prize
> 
> Still want a big die like my 6 years old 7980xe. VERY easy too cool 500w+


I miss my 10980XE every day. Never needed to turn the heat on in my office while I was running that chip. Quad channel memory, sub 50ns latency on 4 16GB sticks….


----------



## Jimbodiah

What's this raptorlake refresh everyone keeps talking about? You mean 14th gen?


----------



## Latchback

Jimbodiah said:


> What's this raptorlake refresh everyone keeps talking about? You mean 14th gen?


When a 13 gen mommy raptor and a 13th gen daddy raptor love eachother, intel makes improved raptor babies.

14th gen? 13950k? Maybe? 

They have not named baby raptor yet.


----------



## Ichirou

Jimbodiah said:


> What's this raptorlake refresh everyone keeps talking about? You mean 14th gen?


There is a planned "Raptor Lake Refresh" slated for Q3 2023.
Tentative name is 13950K. Will probably have more cores, and/or improved clocks across the board. And probably IMC improvements.
Will likely remain compatible with LGA1700 boards.


----------



## Jimbodiah

Have they done something similar recently?


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> There is a planned "Raptor Lake Refresh" slated for Q3 2023.
> Tentative name is 13950K. Will probably have more cores, and/or improved clocks across the board. And probably IMC improvements.
> Will likely remain compatible with LGA1700 boards.



More e-cores P cores or both?


----------



## Jimbodiah

Not more please. 16 P cores, no E, more cache, better IMC


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> More e-cores P cores or both?


Even if I was hypothetically working as an Intel engineer, I wouldn't bother sharing the details with someone who only uses a tower cooler xD
I'd just be like, "Yeah, go buy a 13700K instead."


----------



## Thunderclap

Wolverine2349 said:


> More e-cores P cores or both?


The rumors so far suggest slightly higher frequencies and larger cache. We've yet to hear anything about core increase.

Something like a P-core only 13th gen K CPU is a pipe dream at this point.


----------



## Jimbodiah

"I had a dream"


----------



## Falkentyne

Ichirou said:


> LLC Mode 3 is flat. 1-2 has overshoot, and 4+ has Vdroop.


A negative loadline is impossible.
No board ever has overshoot like this (I'm not talking about transient spikes here).
Socket sense will always show vrise at close to a 0 mohm impedance (0 mohm LLC=flat) because there is resistance across the plane from the VRM to the socket, which will cause the super I/O reading to rise as a result. And MSI's LLC values are just completely messed up. Changing depending on VCC_Sense or Socket Sense set in BIOS, and apparently different on different boards too.


----------



## Imprezzion

What's the idle power consumption with the E-cores enabled and all power saving features enabled on a 13700/13900K? Are the E cores at least useful for that?


----------



## tps3443

This is HWINFO with 13900KS that Intel shared.

Look at the max VID’s. (Needs tuning)

All core is 5.6Ghz
(2) core is 6.0Ghz


----------



## matique

Imprezzion said:


> What's the idle power consumption with the E-cores enabled and all power saving features enabled on a 13700/13900K? Are the E cores at least useful for that?












C states on, adaptive voltage. Sips power at idle.


----------



## digitalfrost

tps3443 said:


> This is HWINFO with 13900KS that Intel shared.
> 
> Look at the max VID’s. (Needs tuning)
> 
> All core is 5.6Ghz
> (2) core is 6.0Ghz
> 
> View attachment 2593389


Well I've kind of lost all fear of high vcore. If they sell it like this...


----------



## RichKnecht

Falkentyne said:


> A negative loadline is impossible.
> No board ever has overshoot like this (I'm not talking about transient spikes here).
> Socket sense will always show vrise at close to a 0 mohm impedance (0 mohm LLC=flat) because there is resistance across the plane from the VRM to the socket, which will cause the super I/O reading to rise as a result. And MSI's LLC values are just completely messed up. Changing depending on VCC_Sense or Socket Sense set in BIOS, and apparently different on different boards too.


No doubt MSI LLC is very odd. The values I came up with today do not make any sense unless matching voltage with VID is useless. I hate dwelling on stuff, but I also dislike when I can’t figure something out as I did diagnostics in my previous job.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> This is HWINFO with 13900KS that Intel shared.
> 
> Look at the max VID’s. (Needs tuning)
> 
> All core is 5.6Ghz
> (2) core is 6.0Ghz
> 
> View attachment 2593389


And you know they cherrypicked that chip. They just didn’t grab one out of a tray. Not impressed.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> And you know they cherrypicked that chip. They just didn’t grab one out of a tray. Not impressed.


I'm more curious about what exactly the engineer tested the 6.0 GHz in. What is their standard?
I see in their HWiNFO screen that 6.0 GHz is running, but I have no idea in what. Is it their XTU stress test?


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> I'm more curious about what exactly the engineer tested the 6.0 GHz in. What is their standard?
> I see in their HWiNFO screen that 6.0 GHz is running, but I have no idea in what. Is it their XTU stress test?


I’m guessing XTU. I guess we have to wait until the release and the reviewers can post videos. Curious minds want to know.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I’m guessing XTU. I guess we have to wait until the release and the reviewers can post videos. Curious minds want to know.


I have a feeling that the engineer was using a worst-case scenario chip (P-SP 115, or maybe even less), and was required to test it across many different workloads (remember, these chips aren't being sold only to gamers, but to workstation users of various industries like film and construction, etc.), so the Vcore was boosted up to what he felt would work for everyone.

You can infer this from the fact that he's using modern GPUs instead of generic fillers. (Which begs the question, why didn't he use any ARC GPUs? Lol, do they suck that much?)

Pretty much everyone running over 58x right now are doing so with voltages suitable for gaming, but not hardcore compute like y-cruncher. If I was to try to run 60x through y-cruncher's full CST, I'd probably need 1.45V+ as well even with my golden chip. So if we assume that he's only using a P-SP 115, that could easily rise to 1.50V+ just for that one core.


----------



## oxijex

So i haven’t had an intel or an asus board for a while this internal binning seems quite interesting. I built two 13900k’s i use one for workstation/family server hosting and the other one for workstation/gaming.

So for example this is how Nizzen has written Shkiz0’s bin
Shkiz0 SP 105 P115/E85










Above is a bios screenshot from my Z790 maximus hero. Looks like i have an SP 100, where do i see my P/E ?

Also why aren’t we listing the production with it.. ie mine is X233/K597. Ideally we would combine the binning info with the production info.









Cheers,
Oxi


----------



## Ichirou

oxijex said:


> So i haven’t had an intel or an asus board for a while this internal binning seems quite interesting. I built two 13900k’s i use one for workstation/family server hosting and the other one for workstation/gaming.
> 
> So for example this is how Nizzen has written Shkiz0’s bin
> Shkiz0 SP 105 P115/E85
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above is a bios screenshot from my Z790 maximus hero. Looks like i have an SP 100, where do i see my P/E ?
> 
> Also why aren’t we listing the production with it.. ie mine is X233/K597. Ideally we would combine the binning info with the production info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Oxi


It's in AI Features.


----------



## VULC

1.50v plus on idle is fine it's obviously not under load. Def not comfortable with their generic high volt to cover all chips but mines set to 1.435v.


----------



## Ichirou

VULC said:


> 1.50v plus on idle is fine it's obviously not under load. Def not comfortable with their generic high volt to cover all chips but mines set to 1.435v.


If you look at the video carefully, you'll notice that the engineer is indeed running some sort of stress test. Just not sure what it is.
So it is under load. Sorry to burst your bubble. These chips are planned obsolescence. I wouldn't be surprised if the warranty period is reduced at launch.


----------



## VULC

Ichirou said:


> If you look at the video carefully, you'll notice that the engineer is indeed running some sort of stress test. Just not sure what it is.
> So it is under load. Sorry to burst your bubble. These chips are planned obsolescence. I wouldn't be surprised if the warranty period is reduced at launch.


The 1.523v is maximum it could have happened at idle.


----------



## oxijex

Ichirou said:


> It's in AI Features.


Thanks mate, ill check it out when i get home. I'm going to put my other 13900k in and see how asus rates that too, use the better one in my pc


----------



## Wolverine2349

Thunderclap said:


> The rumors so far suggest slightly higher frequencies and larger cache. We've yet to hear anything about core increase.
> 
> Something like a P-core only 13th gen K CPU is a pipe dream at this point.



Maybe lots of L3 cache for a gaming monster. An 8 P core only chip with 72MB L3 cache. That would demolish anything AMD has for gaming.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

RichKnecht said:


> And you know they cherrypicked that chip. They just didn’t grab one out of a tray. Not impressed.


It's almost like they're all in on lying about everything possible and smudging every actual detail possible just to make more 🤑. WTH? I and a big hand full of people here totally did not point this out z690 era! Seriously I'm done with the lies and manipulation. It's obvious morons " morons being the people lying to us " !



Improve your quality control **** and stop using teenagers for slave labor in China omg. We see what your doing!!! You people running these corporations are so filthy rich already! Just f off to a mountain cave and leave us to prosper please. You're ruining civilization not us!


FreeSpeachIsKnowledge.


----------



## deidian

Ichirou said:


> If you look at the video carefully, you'll notice that the engineer is indeed running some sort of stress test. Just not sure what it is.
> So it is under load. Sorry to burst your bubble. These chips are planned obsolescence. I wouldn't be surprised if the warranty period is reduced at launch.


By what he says in the video they're running a 7-zip benchmark so it's a general purpose compression workload: either LZMA or Deflate most likely.
In a truly hard workload Vcore would probably drop more than running compression.


----------



## Brads3cents

So let me get this straight

this supposed 13900KS is speculated to release in a day and a half from now
Yet
No website has placeholders of any kind or even mention of the KS
Intel displayed laptops at ces but completely ignored the KS existence 
What gives?
I see no reason why they couldn’t make a release date even if low key
If it doesn’t come out this week I’m gona wait for reviews on AMDs x3d


----------



## Thunderclap

deidian said:


> By what he says in the video they're running a 7-zip benchmark so it's a general purpose compression workload: either LZMA or Deflate most likely.
> In a truly hard workload Vcore would probably drop more than running compression.


He's using 7-zip just to showcase the 6GHz boost. If I had to take a guess, when it comes to proper stress testing, Intel 100% has in-house software tools to thoroughly test these chips but the engineer is most likely not allowed to show them to the public.


----------



## deidian

Yes, sure for both: otherwise they couldn't claim their chips calibrated and QA tested. Single core frequency is not really too much of a doubt: I wonder about multi-core though, that's really tricky at those speeds for release standards.

EDIT: 5.5Ghz is what I would expect. If it's 5.6Ghz more power to them but I doubt it.


----------



## Thunderclap

deidian said:


> Yes, sure for both: otherwise they couldn't claim their chips calibrated and QA tested. Single core frequency is not really too much of a doubt: I wonder about multi-core though, that's really tricky at those speeds for release standards.
> 
> EDIT: 5.5Ghz is what I would expect. If it's 5.6Ghz more power to them but I doubt it.


Well... Going by this from the video:










6.0GHz on two P cores
5.6GHz all-core on the P-cores
4.3GHz all-core on the E-cores
5.0GHz Ring

Everything is grayed out, as the engineer himself says, which implies it's running at stock (factory) settings.


----------



## Brads3cents

And WHY can’t they announce the name of this chip
It’s getting more and more pathetic 
Who started the Jan 12th rumor anyways
This thing is supposedly coming out in 36hrs? LOL


----------



## tps3443

Check this 5.8Ghz run out. I remounted my super cool. installed it with no adhesive this time. Core temps are all over the place. I feel like I need to lap the bottom of it. But they are still insanely good temps either way. I feel like the nickel plating may even be uneven. I guess it's good enough. 

5.8P
4.5E
5.1R
1.235V in bios LLC3

R23 run with LOW Priority so HWinfo read correctly. Not benching for numbers.


----------



## bhav

Such a colossal waste of time, Intel claim to also specify 1.1 mohm for both AC_LL and DC_LL


----------



## fat4l

Are we really expecting these KS chips to be golden only? Was not the case with 12900KS chips sadly


----------



## Brads3cents

well someone is speculating that it will be p115 +
That would imply a top 10% chip and better

personally I don’t know but it does increase your odds substantially as most of the p120+ were probably already binned for KS

I miss silicon lottery that was as an amazing service I wish they were still in business


----------



## gecko991

Yes it was.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Brads3cents said:


> well someone is speculating that it will be p115 +
> That would imply a top 10% chip and better
> 
> personally I don’t know but it does increase your odds substantially as most of the p120+ were probably already binned for KS
> 
> I miss silicon lottery that was as an amazing service I wish they were still in business



I do too. Why oh why did they close their doors.

Its not like all chips are equal from Intel even the KS series.

If Intel made all KS golden bin. then yeah Silicon lottery shop pointless. But they do not so it still needs to be up.

Better yet we need a GPU lottery for coil whine free GPUs tested on top tier power supplies with clean power delivery as well.


----------



## tubs2x4

Ichirou said:


> They're rebranded P-SP 115+ 13900K chips. Case closed. Sell the Noctua and get an Arctic 420mm AIO.


At least you know what your getting ha or wait and see on the raptor refresh whatever that will mean.


----------



## Jimbodiah

Brads3cents said:


> If it doesn’t come out this week I’m gona wait for reviews on AMDs x3d


AMD is pretty much lying through their teeth because they know there are no longer any repercussions for false advertising.

They claim 5.7Ghz, but only one core on the non-3d ccd hits that. The 3d ccd only hits 5.0ghz.

They claim 120W tdp but that is because of the 3d ccd.

They claim 3D vcache but only one of the two ccds has that.

IMC from 2010

Good luck managing cores when half are 3d and half are not.

7900/7950 3d variants are stillborn and just a marketing gimmick to F people over.


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> well someone is speculating that it will be p115 +
> That would imply a top 10% chip and better
> 
> personally I don’t know but it does increase your odds substantially as most of the p120+ were probably already binned for KS
> 
> I miss silicon lottery that was as an amazing service I wish they were still in business


I have seen (2) 13900KS VID’s so far, in bios, or in HWinfo. I do not see anything that spectacular. I think Intel may just be testing the cores to see that they are stable at 6Ghz with whatever voltage needed.

I feel like I could seriously put down a good whoopin on either one of them with my standard 13900K.


----------



## RichKnecht

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> It's almost like they're all in on lying about everything possible and smudging every actual detail possible just to make more 🤑. WTH? I and a big hand full of people here totally did not point this out z690 era! Seriously I'm done with the lies and manipulation. It's obvious morons " morons being the people lying to us " !
> 
> 
> 
> Improve your quality control **** and stop using teenagers for slave labor in China omg. We see what your doing!!! You people running these corporations are so filthy rich already! Just f off to a mountain cave and leave us to prosper please. You're ruining civilization not us!
> 
> 
> FreeSpeachIsKnowledge.


It's all really about AMD. AMD is pushing Intel hard and are not messing around. I bet if AMD's processors were still WAY behind Intel's like in the past, the 13900K would have a modest rating of 53/40/43. Which in reality, wouldn't be a bad chip at all.

EDIT: The real issue here is the Intel released a chip that is already maxed out. And, as overclockers, we want more. That , in turn, is great publicity for Intel when all these crazy numbers hit YouTube


----------



## Ichirou

tps3443 said:


> I have seen (2) 13900KS VID’s so far, in bios, or in HWinfo. I do not see anything that spectacular. I think Intel may just be testing the cores to see that they are stable at 6Ghz with whatever voltage needed.
> 
> I feel like I could seriously put down a good whoopin on either one of them with my standard 13900K.


To some degree, people who had golden bin 12900K/KF's could do the same against the 12900KS. And first run chips had AVX-512 support too.
Sure, the 12th Gen now pales in comparison to the 13th Gen due to the lesser and weaker E-cores, but it was still significant for the months it lasted.
It'll still be a reasonable budget pick for some people if they can nab it for cheap and don't need all of the E-cores.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> To some degree, people who had golden bin 12900K/KF's could do the same against the 12900KS. And first run chips had AVX-512 support too.
> Sure, the 12th Gen now pales in comparison to the 13th Gen due to the lesser and weaker E-cores, but it was still significant for the months it lasted.
> It'll still be a reasonable budget pick for some people if they can nab it for cheap and don't need all of the E-cores.


Microcenter can't give 12900KS away. They have them priced at $479 and the 13900K is at $579. I feel bad for the folks that paid a premium for the 12900KS. Just like the 3090Ti. Those were over 2K and I got mine at MC for $1149. It's a vicious cycle folks.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Microcenter can't give 12900KS away. They have them priced at $479 and the 13900K is at $579. I feel bad for the folks that paid a premium for the 12900KS. Just like the 3090Ti. Those were over 2K and I got mine at MC for $1149. It's a vicious cycle folks.


12900KS is a G still. I went directly from 11th to 13th gen Intel. But, the 12900KS is still a great CPU. Pretty sure a golden sample 12900KS just sold on the forums for $945 just a few days ago. It’s no 13900K, but they are both still extremely fast!


$480 bucks is not bad for a brand new 12900KS.


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> Microcenter can't give 12900KS away. They have them priced at $479 and the 13900K is at $579. I feel bad for the folks that paid a premium for the 12900KS. Just like the 3090Ti. Those were over 2K and I got mine at MC for $1149. It's a vicious cycle folks.





tps3443 said:


> 12900KS is a G still. I went directly from 11th to 13th gen Intel. But, the 12900KS is still a great CPU. Pretty sure a golden sample 12900KS just sold on the forums for $945 just a few days ago. It’s no 13900K, but they are both still extremely fast!
> 
> 
> $480 bucks is not bad for a brand new 12900KS.


It's just how the cycle goes for any kind of cyclical electronic, not necessarily strictly hardware.
We've got televisions and phones and laptops and cars rapidly depreciating in price since new ones come out every year or two.

This is why it's always most cost-effective to buy products low to mid tier.
The high tier is always going to bite you in the ass unless you can cope with holding onto it for more than a generation or two.


----------



## Wolverine2349

RichKnecht said:


> It's all really about AMD. AMD is pushing Intel hard and are not messing around. I bet if AMD's processors were still WAY behind Intel's like in the past, the 13900K would have a modest rating of 53/40/43. Which in reality, wouldn't be a bad chip at all.
> 
> EDIT: The real issue here is the Intel released a chip that is already maxed out. And, as overclockers, we want more. That , in turn, is great publicity for Intel when all these crazy numbers hit YouTube



If AMD CPUs were way behind Intel's as in the past, there would be nothing even close to the 12900K let alone a 13900K.

The best chip Intel would have would probably be the 12600K capability with 0 e-cores and only 6 probably weaker P cores and a premium $600 price tag. and $380 for a locked 6 core 12400F if AMD was in the Bulldozer or even Zen 1 days.

Though AMD is also maxed out very hard too despite pushing Intel so hard and only barely behind and sometimes trade blows in the CPU wars on desktop.

Competition is good but each company is struggling a lot to get power and thermals under control despite inane competition.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> 12900KS is a G still. I went directly from 11th to 13th gen Intel. But, the 12900KS is still a great CPU. Pretty sure a golden sample 12900KS just sold on the forums for $945 just a few days ago. It’s no 13900K, but they are both still extremely fast!
> 
> 
> $480 bucks is not bad for a brand new 12900KS.


Yeah, having a MC 10 minutes from me is good and bad. Heck, they have 10980XEs for $699! It's an old platform, but that's one hell of a chip for $699. They have cheaper prices than anyone and that's including the tax. And, of course you KNOW I have a MC credit card which gives you interest free financing or 5% discount. That's a no brainer.


----------



## RichKnecht

Ichirou said:


> It's just how the cycle goes for any kind of cyclical electronic, not necessarily strictly hardware.
> We've got televisions and phones and laptops and cars rapidly depreciating in price since new ones come out every year or two.
> 
> This is why it's always most cost-effective to buy products low to mid tier.
> The high tier is always going to bite you in the ass unless you can cope with holding onto it for more than a generation or two.


I know all about it. I bought a 55" Fujitsu plasma TV for 7K back in the day. I can get a better TV for $699 at Costco now


----------



## Ichirou

RichKnecht said:


> I know all about it. I bought a 55" Fujitsu plasma TV for 7K back in the day. I can get a better TV for $699 at Costco now


Haha, I remember when my parents bought their first TV when they moved into the home. Some 23-25" 720p TV that costed like $2,000-3,000.
It was top of the line back then. Now it's worth what, $100 at best?

Times change. Just gotta know when to be content what you have and live with it.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Yeah, having a MC 10 minutes from me is good and bad. Heck, they have 10980XEs for $699! It's an old platform, but that's one hell of a chip for $699. They have cheaper prices than anyone and that's including the tax. And, of course you KNOW I have a MC credit card which gives you interest free financing or 5% discount. That's a no brainer.


I would rather have that 12900KS than a 10980XE. And this is coming from someone who loves X299.

The KS is special edition, so they are cool either way! Last gen or not. Great chips.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> I would rather have that 12900KS than a 10980XE. And this is coming from someone who loves X299.
> 
> The KS is special edition, so they are cool either way! Last gen or not. Great chips.


Yeah, as hot as these chips are, they are fast as ****. Makes the 10980 look like a toy.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> Haha, I remember when my parents bought their first TV when they moved into the home. Some 23-25" 720p TV that costed like $2,000-3,000.
> It was top of the line back then. Now it's worth what, $100 at best?
> 
> Times change. Just gotta know when to be content what you have and live with it.



Is it even worth that now? There are old 720 monitors in my office that were recycled as no one wanted them.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Yeah, as hot as these chips are, they are fast as ****. Makes the 10980 look like a toy.


X299 needs really expensive DDR4 too, and lots of tuning to perform properly in games. Whereas that 12900KS is run stock, XMP and go and it’s blazing fast.


----------



## Wolverine2349

RichKnecht said:


> Yeah, as hot as these chips are, they are fast as ****. Makes the 10980 look like a toy.



Yes and the 12900K P cores are light years faster than the 10980XE cores. The 10980XE had Skylake X cores with terrible mesh topology and horrible latency. Even Zen 2 was as good or better in gaming.


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> Is it even worth that now? There are old 720 monitors in my office that were recycled as no one wanted them.


I was being optimistic.

@RichKnecht @tps3443
Considering how cyclical computer hardware is, I'm perfectly content with my 2080 Super as it is.
And I bought it at AIB MSRP pricing, back when everyone thought it was overpriced like the 4080 is now.

But as luck will have it, the GPU inflation happened during the peak of COVID and GPU mining, causing my card to retain MSRP for over two generations.
I got my money out of it, and it's still a good card that's more than enough for my needs at the moment. So I'm gonna sit on it a bit longer.

I'll see what the RTX 5000 or 6000 series brings. Perhaps 4090 tier speeds for only $800 or less, hah.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Ichirou said:


> I was being optimistic.
> 
> @RichKnecht @tps3443
> Considering how cyclical computer hardware is, I'm perfectly content with my 2080 Super as it is.
> And I bought it at AIB MSRP pricing, back when everyone thought it was overpriced like the 4080 is now.
> 
> But as luck will have it, the GPU inflation happened during the peak of COVID and GPU mining, causing my card to retain MSRP for over two generations.
> I got my money out of it, and it's still a good card that's more than enough for my needs at the moment. So I'm gonna sit on it a bit longer.
> 
> I'll see what the RTX 5000 or 6000 series brings. Perhaps 4090 tier speeds for only $800 or less, hah.



GPUs have inflated a lot in price and remain that way though not as bad as 2 years ago or even 1 year ago.

Motherboards have also inflated in price. You used to be able to get a mid range nice board for under $200. NMow they go for almost $300. High end boards used to be $350 to $450. Now many go for near $500 or even more.

Other computer parts including displays not much change in price I have seen.

CPUs and RAM also not much change in price and in fact RAM has gotten a little cheaper.


----------



## Ichirou

Wolverine2349 said:


> GPUs have inflated a lot in price and remain that way though not as bad as 2 years ago or even 1 year ago.
> 
> Motherboards have also inflated in price. You used to be able to get a mid range nice board for under $200. NMow they go for almost $300. High end boards used to be $350 to $450. Now many go for near $500 or even more.
> 
> Other computer parts including displays not much change in price I have seen.
> 
> CPUs and RAM also not much change in price and in fact RAM has gotten a little cheaper.


Motherboards practically doubled in price for what they offer.GPUs are still overpriced; we don't get high end for $1,000 anymore.
CPUs and PSUs rose a bit as well. RAM is cheaper, yes. Storage is cheaper too.

Cases will be cases... You have offerings everywhere from budget to premium.
There has been a shift by manufacturers to pander to the ATX/EATX crowd, though. ITX is suffering a bit.


----------



## Brads3cents

RichKnecht said:


> It's all really about AMD. AMD is pushing Intel hard and are not messing around. I bet if AMD's processors were still WAY behind Intel's like in the past, the 13900K would have a modest rating of 53/40/43. Which in reality, wouldn't be a bad chip at all.
> 
> EDIT: The real issue here is the Intel released a chip that is already maxed out. And, as overclockers, we want more. That , in turn, is great publicity for Intel when all these crazy numbers hit YouTube


Intels own manufacturering is what is pushing them hard. Not AMD

amd was only able to compete when they fully ditched global foundries and embraced tsmc

let’s not pretend even for a minute that anyone would consider an Amd processor if they both used the same node
The same exact Intel processor could be at 6.5Ghz all core with lower tdp than todays stock and much lower temperatures
Now imagine that
But it would most likely be better than that even
The ipc advantage that Intel has over amd is even greater than the one nvidia has over amd
amd can only compete when they have node advantage
Even on the gpu side nvidia somehow still edged them out on the much inferior Samsung node
This gen they switched back to tmsc and the 4090 laps the xtx

unfortunately for Intel for the past 6 years their fab has let them down over and over and over again
It’s a shame since we could have something MUCH stronger on todays best nodes but oh well

honestly people give AMD way too much credit


----------



## tps3443

Ichirou said:


> Motherboards practically doubled in price for what they offer.GPUs are still overpriced; we don't get high end for $1,000 anymore.
> CPUs and PSUs rose a bit as well. RAM is cheaper, yes. Storage is cheaper too.
> 
> Cases will be cases... You have offerings everywhere from budget to premium.
> There has been a shift by manufacturers to pander to the ATX/EATX crowd, though. ITX is suffering a bit.


My temps have improved a lot since re-mounting with no adhesive on my supercool IHS. I also, lightly lapped the lips of it (The portion that touches the substrate of the CPU) I did not get all of the nickel off the edges, but a small amount. After seeing this improvement. I want to lap it all again to bare copper on the edges only. It looks like it is very POSSIBLE for all cores to be 57-61C easily.


----------



## Wolverine2349

Brads3cents said:


> Intels own manufacturering is what is pushing them hard. Not AMD
> 
> amd was only able to compete when they fully ditched global foundries and embraced tsmc
> 
> let’s not pretend even for a minute that anyone would consider an Amd processor if they both used the same node
> The same exact Intel processor could be at 6.5Ghz all core with lower tdp than todays stock and much lower temperatures
> Now imagine that
> But it would most likely be better than that even
> The ipc advantage that Intel has over amd is even greater than the one nvidia has over amd
> amd can only compete when they have node advantage
> Even on the gpu side nvidia somehow still edged them out on the much inferior Samsung node
> This gen they switched back to tmsc and the 4090 laps the xtx
> 
> unfortunately for Intel for the past 6 years their fab has let them down over and over and over again
> It’s a shame since we could have something MUCH stronger on todays best nodes but oh well
> 
> honestly people give AMD way too much credit



Why has Intel been so stubborn and not just used TSMC if they have struggled a bit with their own nodes??

Is being internal really that important to them even if they could do so much belter using TSMC?


----------



## bhav

RichKnecht said:


> Microcenter can't give 12900KS away. They have them priced at $479 and the 13900K is at $579. I feel bad for the folks that paid a premium for the 12900KS. Just like the 3090Ti. Those were over 2K and I got mine at MC for $1149. It's a vicious cycle folks.


I would love to see gaming wise at 4K, any significant benefit going over a 13600K.

Some people keep mentioning that FPS game that always runs at 100% CPU load, but I still can't find 4K CPU comparisons for it with the latest content and game version.


----------



## VULC

I'd say the KS are SP 110 and over from some of the November batches 100% nothing was over 110. Was 108, 107 and 104.


----------



## tps3443

bhav said:


> I would love to see gaming wise at 4K, any significant benefit going over a 13600K.
> 
> Some people keep mentioning that FPS game that always runs at 100% CPU load, but I still can't find 4K CPU comparisons for it with the latest content and game version.


From what I have seen the 12900KS is still substantially faster than the 13600K. Probably not huge in 4K unless you’re running DLSS, and a heavy OCed 4090 though.


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> Such a colossal waste of time, Intel claim to also specify 1.1 mohm for both AC_LL and DC_LL
> 
> View attachment 2593422


Sorry but this is wrong.
Intel default vdroop is 1.1 mohms, which is the default for DC Loadline.
ACLL is based on motherboard impedance. It is NEVER set to 1.1 mohms unless you enjoy seeing 1.65v idle vcore.


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> Sorry but this is wrong.
> Intel default vdroop is 1.1 mohms, which is the default for DC Loadline.
> ACLL is based on motherboard impedance. It is NEVER set to 1.1 mohms unless you enjoy seeing 1.65v idle vcore.


I know its wrong, but even Intel insist its right, so tell me, do their engineers still know everything?


----------



## bhav

tps3443 said:


> From what I have seen the 12900KS is still substantially faster than the 13600K. Probably not huge in 4K unless you’re running DLSS, and a heavy OCed 4090 though.


Well yes, all the initial 13900K / 13600K reviews still show the 12900K is better than the 13600K, but it was only an all game average of 6%. Also the 13600K beats the 12700K across the board, so 4 more e cores is more important than 2 more P cores?


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> I know its wrong, but even Intel insist its right, so tell me, do their engineers still know everything?


You're not reading the chart right.
Maximum AC Loadline is the same as default DC Loadline.
Default ACLL is not 1.1.
If you read the fine print under the main chart, it even tells you that ACLL should be set to motherboard impedance.


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> You're not reading the chart right.
> Maximum AC Loadline is the same as default DC Loadline.
> Default ACLL is not 1.1.
> If you read the fine print under the main chart, it even tells you that ACLL should be set to motherboard impedance.


The only value that was specified was 1.1 maximum for DC_LL, then AC_LL should be the same. So indeed I've followed up to ask for what the typical values should be as those are clearly too high.

Based on that information, AIBs are not doing anything wrong setting both to 1.1 as that is in line with the maximum spec, and no lower specs are provided.


----------



## Falkentyne

bhav said:


> The only value that was specified was 1.1 maximum for DC_LL, then AC_LL should be the same. So indeed I've followed up to ask for what the typical values should be as those are clearly too high.


I'm fully aware of what is shown. I talked to Elmor about this already.
Intel keeps removing information from their charts and shortcutting everything.
Asus sets this correctly.
Default ACLL is "somewhere between" 0.3 to 0.4 mohms, which changes slightly depending on LLC value used.
The droopier the LLC, the higher the ACLL.

At intel default LLC (which is 1.1 mohms), ACLL is between 0.3 to 0.4 mohms.
You don't have an Asus board so you don't have this information.
Remember--I tested this under NDA during pre-release.

if you think ACLL is supposed to be 1.1 mohms, I challenge you to set it manually on your CPU and watch it fry.
Of course you won't do that now will you? But you really think I'm lying about everything, right?


----------



## bhav

Falkentyne said:


> I'm fully aware of what is shown. I talked to Elmor about this already.
> Intel keeps removing information from their charts and shortcutting everything.
> Asus sets this correctly.
> Default ACLL is "somewhere between" 0.3 to 0.4 mohms, which changes slightly depending on LLC value used.
> The droopier the LLC, the higher the ACLL.
> 
> At intel default LLC (which is 1.1 mohms), ACLL is between 0.3 to 0.4 mohms.
> You don't have an Asus board so you don't have this information.
> Remember--I tested this under NDA during pre-release.
> 
> if you think ACLL is supposed to be 1.1 mohms, I challenge you to set it manually on your CPU and watch it fry.
> Of course you won't do that now will you? But you really think I'm lying about everything, right?


I didn't claim you are lying, as already stated 'default bios sets both AC_LL and DC_LL to 1.1 which is too high, I'm trying to get the correct values from Intel support'.

But so far Intel support are also implying 1.1 each is their specification too.

What my conclusion is is that you know more than Intel Engineers do.


----------



## Nizzen

Wolverine2349 said:


> Yes and the 12900K P cores are light years faster than the 10980XE cores. The 10980XE had Skylake X cores with terrible mesh topology and horrible latency. Even Zen 2 was as good or better in gaming.


My 6 years old 7980xe with 4000c15 tuned 49ns memory is way faster than any zen 2 in gaming


----------



## Wolverine2349

Nizzen said:


> My 6 years old 7980xe with 4000c15 tuned 49ns memory is way faster than any zen 2 in gaming



Is it really? I remember seeing benchmarks 3 years ago and that the 3950X was tied or winning against the 10980XE in gaming with close to equal core count and thinking wow Zen 2 faster. Then seeing how Coffee Lake was beating Zen 2 in gaming and that topology makes a big difference.

I guess tuning really makes a huge difference.

I have heard even well tuned Comet Lake especially 10900K and 10850K due to extra L3 cache can tie or even tie or beat Zen 9 in gaming. Though extra cores really do not help much as games do not go beyond 8 cores much if at all and even ones that do it helps very itty bitty only in extreme high FPS situations for a bit more and thats it. though fewer faster 6-8 cores is always better for gaming than 10 or more even slightly slower cores unless you are running CPU intensive apps on background.


----------



## Voodoo Hoodoo

bhav said:


> I didn't claim you are lying, as already stated 'default bios sets both AC_LL and DC_LL to 1.1 which is too high, I'm trying to get the correct values from Intel support'.
> 
> But so far Intel support are also implying 1.1 each is their specification too.
> 
> What my conclusion is is that you know more than Intel Engineers do.


My default bios doesn't set AC_LL to 1.1 at default settings. Does yours?

If so, what brand and model? I'll know to avoid it.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Loadline is not a CPU characteristic. It is a feature of VRM.
Intel doesn't know which MB you are using...

So Intel says the maximum impedance for the power line is 1.1 mohm...
And manufacturers must make their designs respecting this limit.

The manufacturer (that one who sell the off-the-shelf PC) must measure the impedance and inform the CPU using the DC_LL parameter.

The AC_LL is not necessarily the same number. It depends on the quality of the VRM and the number of stages.
So the poor VRM will need a higher AC_LL number. High end VRM will need less AC_LL compensation.
The AC_LL is a active parameter that will interact with the CPU and VRM. It will change the voltage. The DC_LL is a passive parameter.

When you buy an off-the-shelf PC, all of this is supposed to be calibrated.
When you buy a MB and a CPU and you assemble the PC yourself, you must program it.
The MB manufacturer is not expected to make this default setting, as the MB manufacturer does not know which CPU you are going to use with the MB.

If you decide to build your own PC, it is assumed that you know what to do... LOL

here is a good reading:


https://elmorlabs.com/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/


----------



## Brads3cents

How annoying 

give me a date I’m without a cpu here


----------



## Voodoo Hoodoo

RobertoSampaio said:


> Loadline is not a CPU characteristic. It is a feature of VRM.
> Intel doesn't know which MB you are using...
> 
> So Intel says the maximum impedance for the power line is 1.1 mohm...
> And manufacturers must make their designs respecting this limit.
> 
> The manufacturer (that one who sell the off-the-shelf PC) must measure the impedance and inform the CPU using the DC_LL parameter.
> 
> The AC_LL is not necessarily the same number. It depends on the quality of the VRM and the number of stages.
> So the poor VRM will need a higher AC_LL number. High end VRM will need less AC_LL compensation.
> 
> When you buy an off-the-shelf PC, all of this is supposed to be calibrated.
> When you buy a MB and a CPU and you assemble the PC yourself, you must program it.
> The MB manufacturer is not expected to make this default setting, as the MB manufacturer does not know which CPU you are going to use with the MB.
> 
> If you decide to build your own PC, it is assumed that you know what to do... LOL
> 
> here is a good reading:
> 
> 
> https://elmorlabs.com/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/


Thanks for the info Roberto.

To be honest I was just trying to get Bhav to read a wall of posts that were similarly asinine to his.

I'm bored at work.


----------



## tps3443

Re-mounting the super cool direct die without adhesive. I am going to remove it again and lap the bottom lips of the IHS that make contact with the CPU itself. This promotes CPU die contact drastically. I feel like the nickel is slightly too thick. I still have just a couple hot cores. Preferably I would like to see 57-63C.


----------



## asuka1993x

Deleted


----------



## tps3443

asuka1993x said:


> View attachment 2593458
> 
> 
> E-core....


That’s a 13900KS?!!! 😎

@Ichirou


----------



## Brads3cents

Every Ks I’ve seen so far is worse than my K 

I think I will pull the trigger and buy some capacitors tmrw it’s worth repairing

I’m really hopeful we will soon see some great samples of the KS soon
And p115 is nothing to scoff at that a great chip

too bad someone can’t just sell me their


> >= p120 chip


Preferably with 86+ MC score
What’s wrong you guys don’t love MONEY $$??


----------



## acoustic

The SP scores could be off.

56x VID table is going to throw off SP calculations. E cores I’m not sure..


----------



## tps3443

acoustic said:


> The SP scores could be off.
> 
> 56x VID table is going to throw off SP calculations. E cores I’m not sure..


Yes but you can configure your unify-X properly in the bios, where it will spit out VID’s for any given frequency set. And these VID’s will match what Asus VID’s would say on the SP bios rating page. And those 6Ghz VID‘s are very high for everyone I have seen.


----------



## Brads3cents

We’ve seen a handful of KS so far in this thread

have any been below p115 ?? From what I have seen they have all hit the mark but sample size is tiny


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> We’ve seen a handful of KS so far in this thread
> 
> have any been below p115 ?? From what I have seen they have all hit the mark but sample size is tiny


I bet they are all P-Core SP115 or better at least. I’m sure there are some really good ones out there. But you’ve gotta bin as usual.

You’d probably want to buy two and keep the best. (2) from two different places/states/etc.


----------



## Arni90

tps3443 said:


> Yes but you can configure your unify-X properly in the bios, where it will spit out VID’s for any given frequency set. And these VID’s will match what Asus VID’s would say on the SP bios rating page. And those 6Ghz VID‘s are very high for everyone I have seen.


The 6 GHz VIDs aren't comparable, as the 13900K's VID table only goes up to 58x


----------



## acoustic

Arni90 said:


> The 6 GHz VIDs aren't comparable, as the 13900K's VID table only goes up to 58x


yep. The VID you’re reading at 60x on a 13900K is simply the board making decisions, not something built into the table for the CPU.


----------



## tps3443

Looks like he removed the photo.

Here it is.

*13900KS*


----------



## GioCTRL

VULC said:


> With my 420mm AIO.


Am going from the lf2 420mm aio to direct die as soon as I get my hands on a proper delidding tool, it's a high first investment to go custom waterloop sure, but if you chose the right components the loop can last over 10 years.

The supercool's direct die removes a layer (the stock IHS) between the coolant and the die since supercools own IHS sits on the die and has integrated cooling fin'a allowing the water to flow directly on and through the IHS instead of sitting on top if another IHS like its with out 420 lf2 right now. This being the reason you sell temp drops of up to 30c.

Will report back once I finished the step over to the direct die custom loop, might give you a different perspective at things.


----------



## tps3443

GioCTRL said:


> Am going from the lf2 420mm aio to direct die as soon as I get my hands on a proper delidding tool, it's a high first investment to go custom waterloop sure, but if you chose the right components the loop can last over 10 years.
> 
> The supercool's direct die removes a layer (the stock IHS) between the coolant and the die since supercools own IHS sits on the die and has integrated cooling fin'a allowing the water to flow directly on and through the IHS instead of sitting on top if another IHS like its with out 420 lf2 right now. This being the reason you sell temp drops of up to 30c.
> 
> Will report back once I finished the step over to the direct die custom loop, might give you a different perspective at things.


I’m running this setup with 6Ghz P-Cores, and 4.8Ghz E-Cores. Temps are just crazy crazy good, I actually remounted it and didn’t use adhesive on the 2nd mount of my SuperCool direct die IHS, and the temps are absolutely ridiculous good!


----------



## bhav

Voodoo Hoodoo said:


> My default bios doesn't set AC_LL to 1.1 at default settings. Does yours?
> 
> If so, what brand and model? I'll know to avoid it.


Yes it does and it seems to be on most MSI boards.

Default 'lite load' is set to 12, and when expanding the manual settings that corresponds to 110 on both AC_LL and DC_LL.


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> I’m running this setup with 6Ghz P-Cores, and 4.8Ghz E-Cores. Temps are just crazy crazy good, I actually remounted it and didn’t use adhesive on the 2nd mount of my SuperCool direct die IHS, and the temps are absolutely ridiculous good!


Where's your video on applying LM during delid?


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> I’m running this setup with 6Ghz P-Cores, and 4.8Ghz E-Cores. Temps are just crazy crazy good, I actually remounted it and didn’t use adhesive on the 2nd mount of my SuperCool direct die IHS, and the temps are absolutely ridiculous good!


You're running it floating?


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> You're running it floating?


It’s not even floating yet. I just remounted it with new fresh LM, and lightly cleaned/sanded off the residue I used to re-seal the supercool IHS the first time. But, seeing the improvement after lightly sanding the edges of the IHS, I can’t believe it. I am gonna make it just barely float though. The nickel coating is quite thick. I’m gonna sand down the edges to where it’s all bare copper on a flat piece of glass with 1,000 grit tomorrow.

Quick disconnects makes this task super easy!


----------



## Wolverine2349

tps3443 said:


> Looks like he removed the photo.
> 
> Here it is.
> 
> *13900KS*
> 
> View attachment 2593463



That chip only has 6 points higher P core score than mine. I have P core SP 109 which is average or a little above. Disappointing to say the least. I would like to think all KS chips would have P core scores at least in the 120s or higher. I guess not. Not worth it it appears. Will still have to bin KS chips to get a golden one with top tier P cores..

And its e-cores are awful. Though I do not care about that as I disable them anyways, but for those that do, they are a dud on that chip.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Default ACLL is "somewhere between" 0.3 to 0.4 mohms, which changes slightly depending on LLC value used.
> The droopier the LLC, the higher the ACLL.





RobertoSampaio said:


> The AC_LL is not necessarily the same number. It depends on the quality of the VRM and the number of stages.
> So the poor VRM will need a higher AC_LL number. High end VRM will need less AC_LL compensation.


So if I understand this correctly :
With an Asus Z790 Strix-E board and 13900K at stock 55x allcore and 58X 2-core I can just set : LLC4, DC_LL = Auto, AC_LL = somewhere from 0.20 to 0.50 range or where my CPU will be stable then? I know the Strix hasn't got as good a VRM as the Apex or Extreme, but I may just need to set the AC_LL a bit higher?


----------



## VULC

tps3443 said:


> It’s not even floating yet. I just remounted it with new fresh LM, and lightly cleaned/sanded off the residue I used to re-seal the supercool IHS the first time. But, seeing the improvement after lightly sanding the edges of the IHS, I can’t believe it. I am gonna make it just barely float though. The nickel coating is quite thick. I’m gonna sand down the edges to where it’s all bare copper on a flat piece of glass with 1,000 grit tomorrow.
> 
> Quick disconnects makes this task super easy!


Is that the same as your video on the 11900K? Just sand the inside edges?


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> So if I understand this correctly :
> With an Asus Z790 Strix-E board and 13900K at stock 55x allcore and 58X 2-core I can just set : LLC4, DC_LL = Auto, AC_LL = somewhere from 0.20 to 0.50 range or where my CPU will be stable then? I know the Strix hasn't got as good a VRM as the Apex or Extreme, but I may just need to set the AC_LL a bit higher?


On my MSI board, leaving lite load on auto and applying any manual CPU voltage sets the lite load to 1.

I'm not sure if the VRM spec matters as most are already overspecced anyway.

In my case, lite load does nothing once manual voltages are applied.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Betroz said:


> So if I understand this correctly :
> With an Asus Z790 Strix-E board and 13900K at stock 55x allcore and 58X 2-core I can just set : LLC4, DC_LL = Auto, AC_LL = somewhere from 0.20 to 0.50 range or where my CPU will be stable then? I know the Strix hasn't got as good a VRM as the Apex or Extreme, but I may just need to set the AC_LL a bit higher?


Yes...
Start with AC_LL= 0.3 and decrease as much as you can...


----------



## Betroz

bhav said:


> In my case, lite load does nothing once manual voltages are applied.


So if I were to run Sync all cores at 56X, manual/fixed voltage is still the way to go? With DC and AC at auto for this specific purpose?


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> So if I were to run Sync all cores at 56X, manual/fixed voltage is still the way to go? With DC and AC at auto for this specific purpose?


Each chip is different, minimum LL values might not work for every chip.


----------



## xarot

Not sure what to do with my 13900K SP97, the thing is only meaningful to run bone stock and with some power limitations in place but with tuned memory. So it's been bit of a disappointmet regarding any kind of overclocking on custom water. 13900KS will likely be at least better, but there's already AMD X3D chips around the corner that might beat 13900KS especially in gaming.


----------



## deidian

bhav said:


> I would love to see gaming wise at 4K, any significant benefit going over a 13600K.
> 
> Some people keep mentioning that FPS game that always runs at 100% CPU load, but I still can't find 4K CPU comparisons for it with the latest content and game version.


You can't take % CPU load as performance metric for a videogame: they aren't compute intensive because they access RAM and disk much more than what any CPU would wish from a pure compute perspective. Hyperthreading and SMT were born to try to oportunistically optimize this scenario since the vast majority of apps have way more need to fecth from RAM/disk than to do CPU compute, so you allow a CPU core to switch from 2 threads whenever some would stall the CPU core in a RAM/disk access. Unfortunately this oportunistic behavior is of no good for a videogame, because even if it's very minimal it imposes greater latency: at best is no gain or a very minimal loss(<5%).

That's why 3D-cache trick and more CPU cache can help with games performance: CPU caches are for storing RAM data closer to the CPU, the more they can fit better perf for games, but that becomes a useless desing/material expense if you are running pure number crunching since those are actually workloads in which optimizing for maximum compute and minimizing RAM hits is possible. Until you can no longer do: y-cruncher eventually needs to use RAM and will eventually use the disk to store results while keeping the CPU busy in partial result calculations.

This bring how to game perf? Simple, the objetive of a game(in CPU) is to simulate a frame in very narrow timespan(60 fps-> 16.66ms, 120->8.33ms,...) so you can only test and measure at a given CPU frequency. CPU use % is generally useless since it attempts to approximate how busy the CPU or a core is from it's total compute capability, except videogames can't simply reach CPUs total compute capabilities, but you still "need" the frame simulated in the corresponding timespan.


----------



## Nizzen

xarot said:


> Not sure what to do with my 13900K SP97, the thing is only meaningful to run bone stock and with some power limitations in place but with tuned memory. So it's been bit of a disappointmet regarding any kind of overclocking on custom water. 13900KS will likely be at least better, but there's already AMD X3D chips around the corner that might beat 13900KS especially in gaming.


Memory oc is meta for gaming. Run stock cpu and oc memory to the max


----------



## affxct

Thunderclap said:


> Well... Going by this from the video:
> 
> View attachment 2593418
> 
> 
> 6.0GHz on two P cores
> 5.6GHz all-core on the P-cores
> 4.3GHz all-core on the E-cores
> 5.0GHz Ring
> 
> Everything is grayed out, as the engineer himself says, which implies it's running at stock (factory) settings.


5G ring!?


----------



## affxct

Nizzen said:


> Memory oc is meta for gaming. Run stock cpu and oc memory to the max


In my testing, going from 53/42/45 -> 55/44/48 (i7) was almost as big a jump as going from 7200CL34 -> 7600CL34. Granted some important subs had to increase, but it seems that a decent OC on P, E, and R will be worthwhile if you can. It also doesn’t take too long to do a OCCT SSE test, and a -1 AVX offset basically works by default.


----------



## tps3443

VULC said:


> Is that the same as your video on the 11900K? Just sand the inside edges?


Yes just lay The IHS bottom down on glass and sand paper and slowly sand it until copper exposed and it floats on the die. Apply several LM coats in 1 sitting while rubbing them in and making sure plenty of LM is in the contact surfaces.


----------



## tps3443

affxct said:


> 5G ring!?


The 13900K at default will auto clock up to 5Ghz ring too.


----------



## Trys0meM0re

affxct said:


> 5G ring!?


6.0GHz on two P cores
5.6GHz all-core on the P-cores
4.3GHz all-core on the E-cores 

This is correct.


----------



## CENS

Do we know if 13900K and KS's SP values are even comparable?

I remember 12900K and KS's SP values were not. For instance 105 pcore on KS would have been like a 115 K.


----------



## RichKnecht

Falkentyne said:


> You're not reading the chart right.
> Maximum AC Loadline is the same as default DC Loadline.
> Default ACLL is not 1.1.
> If you read the fine print under the main chart, it even tells you that ACLL should be set to motherboard impedance.


So, what you are saying is to set DC LL to 1.1 and then set AC LL to the impedance that matches yout LLC impedance? I thought I understood all of this and now I’m confused again.


----------



## affxct

tps3443 said:


> The 13900K at default will auto clock up to 5Ghz ring too.


Is that only on the 13900K?


----------



## Nizzen

CENS said:


> Do we know if 13900K and KS's SP values are even comparable?
> 
> I remember 12900K and KS's SP values were not. For instance 105 pcore on KS would have been like a 115 K.


Binning team knows, but NDA. We have to wait until next week or so


----------



## energie80

I will understand nda some day


----------



## tps3443

affxct said:


> Is that only on the 13900K?


13900K/KF

or 

13900KS.

All have 4.5-5.0Ghz ring by default right out of the box.


----------



## tps3443

CENS said:


> Do we know if 13900K and KS's SP values are even comparable?
> 
> I remember 12900K and KS's SP values were not. For instance 105 pcore on KS would have been like a 115 K.


The 12900KS also had a +300Mhz all core advantage over the 12900K. (clearly a superior chip over the 12900K) 

The 13900KS has a very minimal +100Mhz advantage all core over the 13900K. What is that even gonna do?

The prior special edition 12900KS was really good. But, maybe not this time? Only 5.6Ghz all cores?

I can run 5.8P/4.5E/5.1R at 245 watts through R23 so easily it’s laughable, so 5.6Ghz for a 13900KS seems really weak to me.. Maybe they‘re sandbagging it for RaptorLake refresh to look even better? I don’t understand it though.. I feel like they could easily tune out a solid and nice 5.7Ghz all core OC. Unless their samples aren’t all that amazing.

Why couldn’t Intel tune out an easy 5.7Ghz all-core?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

CENS said:


> Do we know if 13900K and KS's SP values are even comparable?
> 
> I remember 12900K and KS's SP values were not. For instance 105 pcore on KS would have been like a 115 K.


We know only that the ecore sp is the same if i Look on voltage/frequency.


----------



## RichKnecht

tps3443 said:


> The 12900KS also had a +300Mhz all core advantage over the 12900K. (clearly a superior chip over the 12900K)
> 
> The 13900KS has a very minimal +100Mhz advantage all core over the 13900K. What is that even gonna do?
> 
> The prior special edition 12900KS was really good. But, maybe not this time? Only 5.6Ghz all cores?
> 
> *I can run 5.8P/4.5E/5.1R at 245 watts through R23 so easily it’s laughable,* so 5.6Ghz for a 13900KS seems really weak to me.. Maybe they‘re sandbagging it for RaptorLake refresh to look even better? I don’t understand it though.. I feel like they could easily tune out a solid and nice 5.7Ghz all core OC. Unless their samples aren’t all that amazing.
> 
> *Why couldn’t Intel tune out an easy 5.7Ghz all-core?*


Running a chiller with direct die will do that. You don't count. Comparing your temps to everyone else's temps is completely irrelevant.

They can't tune out a 5.7 all core because the heat would be ridiculous. The KS is just a marketing play to get people to spend more money on a binned chip. The most important part of the equation, heat, will still be an issue for 95% (or better) of the people out there running decent cooling.


----------



## acoustic

we get you have a golden bin chip that you paid double the price of the MSRP for. It’s not comparable when talking about the average chip that consumers received. It would be stupid to think the average binned 13900KS would compete with a P SP 119+ chip .. not even average 12900KS beat out golden binned 12900K’s.

not for nothing but isn’t it getting tiring constantly reminding us all about your binned chip lol. It’s great that you’re happy and having fun, but you keep comparing it to the majority of chips as if yours is anything but an exception to the rule..


----------



## affxct

tps3443 said:


> 13900K/KF
> 
> or
> 
> 13900KS.
> 
> All have 4.5-5.0Ghz ring by default right out of the box.


Ah interesting


----------



## Falkentyne

RichKnecht said:


> So, what you are saying is to set DC LL to 1.1 and then set AC LL to the impedance that matches yout LLC impedance? I thought I understood all of this and now I’m confused again.


No.
you need tools you don't own to measure board impedance.
Asus usually sets this pretty well for their boards.
But 0.3 mohms is a pretty good value to use.


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> we get you have a golden bin chip that you paid double the price of the MSRP for. It’s not comparable when talking about the average chip that consumers received. It would be stupid to think the average binned 13900KS would compete with a P SP 119+ chip .. not even average 12900KS beat out golden binned 12900K’s.
> 
> not for nothing but isn’t it getting tiring constantly reminding us all about your binned chip lol. It’s great that you’re happy and having fun, but you keep comparing it to the majority of chips as if yours is anything but an exception to the rule..


He has a point. I even stopped reading this thread much now because it's almost nonstop people bragging about how rich/lucky they are, or people whining. And it's depressing.


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Running a chiller with direct die will do that. You don't count. Comparing your temps to everyone else's temps is completely irrelevant.
> 
> They can't tune out a 5.7 all core because the heat would be ridiculous. The KS is just a marketing play to get people to spend more money on a binned chip. The most important part of the equation, heat, will still be an issue for 95% (or better) of the people out there running decent cooling.


I have another 13900K that can’t quite do 5.7Ghz fully stable. So no…Chiller not helping to save that one. It’s just a 10c CPU temp reduction off the max temp going from 25C liquid temp to 15C liquid temp. That’s all it does. I just assume most 13900KS P-SP115+ could probably all do 5.7Ghz.. So, if your CPU was 95C with 25C liquid, it would now run 85C with 15C liquid lol,



acoustic said:


> we get you have a golden bin chip that you paid double the price of the MSRP for. It’s not comparable when talking about the average chip that consumers received. It would be stupid to think the average binned 13900KS would compete with a P SP 119+ chip .. not even average 12900KS beat out golden binned 12900K’s.
> 
> not for nothing but isn’t it getting tiring constantly reminding us all about your binned chip lol. It’s great that you’re happy and having fun, but you keep comparing it to the majority of chips as if yours is anything but an exception to the rule..



But this is the exact question we all have been mentioning, this is not stupid to compare at all.

The question is:
*Is a 13900KS (P-SP115+) better than or equivalent to a 13900K (P-SP120+)?*


----------



## tps3443

Falkentyne said:


> He has a point. I even stopped reading this thread much now because it's almost nonstop people bragging about how rich/lucky they are, or people whining. And it's depressing.


The only bragging I have seen was, someone said their wife’s car was like 55 times more than an Apex Z790. And they said the Apex Z790 was cheap.

But, I merely document my experience and share my results if I change something on here. It is a thread about the 13th gen overclocking after all. This chip will come and go just like the rest.


----------



## RichKnecht

Falkentyne said:


> No.
> you need tools you don't own to measure board impedance.
> Asus usually sets this pretty well for their boards.
> But 0.3 mohms is a pretty good value to use.


I don't mean to be a PITA, just trying to figure out if there is any merit in matching the VIDs to the Vcore using DC LL given a particular LLC setting. Then adjusting AC LL for stability. Is this way of tuning voltage meaningful?


----------



## Avacado

tps3443 said:


> The only bragging I have seen was, someone said their wife’s car was like 55 times more than an Apex Z790. And they said the Apex Z790 was cheap.
> 
> But, I merely document my experience and share my results if I change something on here. It is a thread about the 13th gen overclocking after all. This chip will come and go just like the rest.


----------



## Brads3cents

What do you guys think of 9000 M/T xmp ??

stick a fork in ddr4 and kill it for good


----------



## tps3443

Brads3cents said:


> View attachment 2593507
> 
> View attachment 2593506
> 
> 
> What do you guys think of 9000 M/T xmp ??
> 
> stick a fork in ddr4 and kill it for good


I think my Unify-X just pissed it’s self, and dropped a memory channel just reading that 9,000..


----------



## Betroz

RichKnecht said:


> I don't mean to be a PITA, just trying to figure out if there is any merit in matching the VIDs to the Vcore using DC LL given a particular LLC setting


Asus boards do this automatically. We only need to tweak DC LL - with 0.3 mohms as a starting point.


----------



## RichKnecht

Betroz said:


> Asus boards do this automatically. We only need to tweak DC LL - with 0.3 mohms as a starting point.


Yes I know and it's one of the reasons I am kicking myself for buying an MSI board. I don't like the bios at all.


----------



## Spicedaddy

I received a 13900K from Canada Computers last week (ordered online). It's SP 106 (P-Core SP 113 and E-Core SP 92). P-Core VIDs are all 1.398V.

Not sure the SP compares directly, but I'm glad I didn't wait for 13900KS.


----------



## RichKnecht

Looking at HWInfo, are these voltages what are required, or programmed into the VID table,








for a given frequency?


----------



## Betroz

RichKnecht said:


> Yes I know and it's one of the reasons I am kicking myself for buying an MSI board. I don't like the bios at all.


My bad. I thought you had an Asus board.


----------



## RichKnecht

Betroz said:


> My bad. I thought you had an Asus board.


No worries. After owning Asus boards for the last 20+ years, this MSI board/bios takes a bit to get used to.


----------



## Betroz

RichKnecht said:


> After owning Asus boards for the last 20+ years


My first Asus motherboard was the P2B with Intel 440BX chipset


----------



## tps3443

RichKnecht said:


> Looking at HWInfo, are these voltages what are required, or programmed into the VID table,
> View attachment 2593512
> 
> for a given frequency?


Looks like it displays whats applied in the bios, or what the motherboard is sending. I do not believe that is the actual VID’s

You can find out though.











Disable all E-Cores, set ring to x8, set lite load to advanced and enter 1/1, set LLC to lvl 8, and set your voltage mode to adaptive, then set a P-Core frequency of x58. Then reload in to bios and see what your voltage is.


----------



## Arni90

RichKnecht said:


> I don't mean to be a PITA, just trying to figure out if there is any merit in matching the VIDs to the Vcore using DC LL given a particular LLC setting. Then adjusting AC LL for stability. Is this way of tuning voltage meaningful?


Adjusting DC loadline doesn't make any impact on stability or temperatures


----------



## Dinnzy

So if you can do r23 stable at 1.33 min v droop (-25 % less z690 dark) what SP does that roughly equal to?


----------



## Telstar

tps3443 said:


> $480 bucks is not bad for a brand new 12900KS.


It is. 13700k > 12900ks and cheaper.


----------



## Telstar

Falkentyne said:


> you need tools you don't own to measure board impedance.


I have some good meters: are there measurements that can be taken rather easily on the mainboard BEFORE mounting it?


----------

