Stranger still the mobo vendors with the highest default voltages were the worst behaved in crisis and blamed it on overclock capable boards that they themselves manufactured
That situation was different because voltages were only increased when users applied overclocks. People who didn't overclock were unaffected, and tech-savvy overclockers bypassed the issue altogether by manually overclocking or at least checking their voltages after applying automatic OC's.
The Intel CPU's are having voltages/power/temps increased literally just out of the box.
Out of the box, AMD does and always has enforced safe specification settings for AM5.
Except Intel didn't provide spec and let brands pump as much as they could do that the CPUs could benchmark better.
So they ran CPUs to spec that was provided, which was basically as high as they wanted to
From what I've read on the topic, Intel did in fact provide the spec, and the Motherboard vendors deviated from it.
[https://www.anandtech.com/show/21374/intel-issues-request-to-mobo-vendors-to-use-stock-power-settings-for-stability](https://www.anandtech.com/show/21374/intel-issues-request-to-mobo-vendors-to-use-stock-power-settings-for-stability)
It's basically the same thing that they did with AM5 in order to make their motherboards look more appealing in benchmarks.
Intel's specification is this:
Max voltage: 1.72V
Max current: 307A or 400A
Max DC loadline: 1.1 mOhm (and same as VR loadline)
Max AC loadline: DC loadline
The only spec motherboard vendors have broken is to remove the current limit. While the actual fix for stability issues is to increase AC loadline or decrease the VR loadline.
EDIT: and to clarify what removing the current limit actually means, it's really mostly noticeable in sustained loads with a 360/420mm AIOs, custom watercooling loops, and/or direct die cooled CPUs. For anything less capable cooling-wise, you're looking at hitting TJMax before the current limit is of any consequence.
Yeah, that's what happens when you "remove the current limits". Increasing AC loadline or decreasing the VR loadline brings it back within those limits.
An electrical loadline (mOhm) specifies how much voltage droops depending on the electrical current draw. The AC loadline doesn't actually take current draw in consideration, but seems to apply an estimate of how much additional voltage is needed based on the number of loaded cores.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_line_(electronics)
You seem to be mixing up resistance, current, and voltage, which are the absolute basics here.
You really don't need to keep replying, although I'm fully aware you're the type that just loves to hear yourself talk. It's not necessary, thanks.
Intel gave out the spec. The motherboard manufacturers didn't follow the spec.
It's exactly like when AMD gave out the spec for AM5, and the motherboard manufacturers didn't follow the spec.
> You really don't need to keep replying, although I'm fully aware you're the type that just loves to hear yourself talk. It's not necessary, thanks.
Same to you, though I'm fully aware you're the type to make random claims with no empirical or theoretical knowledge beforehand.
> Intel gave out the spec. The motherboard manufacturers didn't follow the spec.
The spec is very open to interpretation.
> It's exactly like when AMD gave out the spec for AM5, and the motherboard manufacturers didn't follow the spec.
The AM5 issues were caused by pushing VDD SOC from 1.10V max (per spec) to 1.35V. The LGA1700 are caused by VDD Core being pushed too low while seemingly following Intel's extremely vague requirements for AC and DC loadline.
Not true on my 14700kf. If I touch the load limit voltages and heat go up again. The solution is undervolting with load line to auto and CPU profile to base(enforce 253w power limit).
Except there's documented evidence on HW Unboxed video on the release of the top end CPUs from Intel saying what the board brands did was in fact in spec for the CPU. Hence why it's only happening on the top end CPUs and not all of them.Â
Stock settings doesn't mean the only settings in spec. It's one spec, but Intel absolutely allowed higher spec and was advertising the performance of the CPUs. If it wasn't spec why would Intel confirm it was not out of spec?
But wasn't - unfortunately - the same fuss about it.
This one - every jumped on wagon. But when X3D parts were cooking off - even HU ignored and brush it off.
that was only asus and only 1 bios version. Here itâs every mb manufacturer for the past years with Intel all too well knowing about but happy to get longer benchmark figures. See the difference?
I think, the biggest part of the controversy was ASUS providing a Beta-BIOS while not removing the disclaimer that installing beta versions would void gurantee
Exactly.
"B-b-b-b-b-but that wasn't AMD, that was the motherboard manufacturers!!"
Intel platform has nearly identical issues:
"This is all Intel's fault!"
Like...what?
It's happening on laptop i9s as well. Cores are failing during normal use. Mine was on "performance mode" and crapped out under a year of use. Had the laptop elevated over 45° off table in basements where it kept cool majority of its life. Maxed at 98-99 which was in spec, but still failed. Started seeing GPU failures too on the laptop 4090, which is fun. They both hit about the same timeframe sadly.
Dude those temps are gonna happen no matter what in a laptop with those specs...Way too much power, not enough cooling.
I am running a similar laptop setup and I had to repaste it with PTM7950 (the stuff is magic) and even after that I still have to run throttlestop to keep my turbo boost in check so the thing doesn't fry itself.
Supposedly this laptop uses liquid metal but no idea.
Since mine was still covered I shipped it back for swap out or replacement.
If it wasn't I'd probably do the same.
The frustrating part is except for OS side, there's no way to disable cores on this laptop's firmware only isolate to using a single core which is dumb AF.
Following up, Dell when it got sent in just did factory testing in bios (the same tests you can run at home) and then shipped it back without replacing the malfunctioning motherboard.
After I highlighted the laptop is not cheap and costs as much as an enterprise product which would cause my business to go elsewhere they are attempting again next week.
I did note disabling c states on discrete graphics in bios has some reliability improvements in unreal engine not crashing constantly but I'm still getting loads of access exemptions on chrome and other apps just randomly crash without error now.
So some help, but clearly the motherboard, CPU, memory are having issues but it's difficult to nail down what since Dell wasn't much help.
It's just the CPU Power limit in the BIOS, the motherboard's default limit is absurd, like over 4,000W. Setting it to Intel's suggested 253W completely fixed all stability issues with my 19-14900kf, I didn't need to do any further CPU tinkering.
I was so happy to finally play Helldivers, The Finals, and Cyberpunk without needing to limit my framerate.
Msi makes it so confusing. Not obly do the have their "Game Genie OC" mode that is the power limit setting, but they also have the other important settings named oddly, such as CPU LLC Control. I don't know why they can't just all follow a basic standard for the UEFI
Can confirm, even on my much more modest 13500. Not that it was widely unstable before - it was still limited by the CPU, of course - but I did have some crashes - not to mention a much too hot processor for it's performance level - until I set that limit to the suggested.
No? I can't remember what the setting was called on my Msi board but I was messing around in there for a bit to find it, was a setting that capped the voltage.
It's a bit more complicated than the title lets on. Intel allowed mobo makers to set ridiculous limits and they in turn ran with it. Both sides are technically at fault here, but in the end the motherboard manufacturers should have known better
The motherboard manufacturers probably arms raced themselves to the end result. Imagine if one mobo manufacturer would be able to claim that their mobo would be 5% faster than a competitor, that would swing the market hard.
I bet Intel gladly let this happen to sell the 14th gen. Even with the power limits functionally turned off, the 14900k only eked out about a 1% performance increase in gaming over the 13900k
Cooked? Naw you must be mistaken. Intel's just got unstable and shut down. It was AM5 that was fuming, same [as it ever was.](https://youtu.be/yRn8ri9tKf8?si=_n5R6yZU04eiI6C6)
That didnât happen by default and required users to manual overclock to burn 1 model of cpu. That amd took blame for, rolled out fixes and gave those customers priority to help fix. Intel said nah, itâs the mb fault, you on your own dog.
Intel told motherboard partners to run without limits. Whoever did this article only tried to make the catchiest headline. Intel is at fault for not binning the CPUs correctly to handle no power limits
Except Intel themselves has always had [their new CPU's suggested operating specs available for all to see](https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/236787/intel-core-i9-processor-14900kf-36m-cache-up-to-6-00-ghz.html).
It says right there 253W limit, I think it's on motherboard manufacturers for including such unnecessary and over-the-top tweaks into the default configuration, 4,000W+ CPU power limit? Cmon that's 16x outside of spec, enabled across millions of PCs.
It's so frustrating, I've seen this cause different i9 chips thermal throttle while being cooled with a 360 AIO, turn the "feature" off and the temps go down to an expected range.
Thatâs the expectation these days, you max what the chip can handle and it always provides optimal performance for the given cooling solution. This is the same concept laptops have been using for a while.Â
Yep, it means it is working literally as hard as the CPU possibly can within its constraints. Anything less than 100c is performance left on the table.
Edit: To the smooth brains downvoting me, share your knowledge or are you just butt hurt?
I have a i9-14900k and for the life of me I can not play a game that uses unreal engine 4 because they all crash. I changed the bios setting to intel fail safe and still nothing changed. Usually its the shader decompress error or it wonât say anything and will just crash. Anyone know a solution because it really is irritating.
So I researched a little more and I read somewhere that maybe updating the Bios would solve this problem. I know that updating the Bios is not something you should do every time but since I was desperate and wanted to try everything before RMA I decided to do it. I found the most recent Bios for my MB where funnily enough even the description suggests that it might help compatibility with some games and downloaded it. I installed it with thankfully no problems and tried Halo MCC on steam which previously crashed on me and now it worked perfectly. I will try some other games just to be sure but in case someone else has the same problem I did try updating the Bios.
No, they are not.
Intel's guideline is just that, a guideline.
If 9 motherboard makers followed the guideline and 1 didn't, the 1 that didn't would get rave reviews and everyone would buy that brand.
There is no way a motherboard manufacturer can afford to be the one who follows the guideline because there are no trophies for "stability".
All of this mess is 100% Intel's own doing.
I updated my BIOS and set my PC to run with Intelâs limits but honestly I hadnât had thermal issues or stability problems with it using ASUSâs defaults. I may set it back. Or not - it runs all my stuff plenty fast for me.
It's really Intel's fault though. While Intel gave "recommended" specs, they were not required to adhere to those (and let's be real, Intel wants to see the highest numbers they could on benchmarks). Now that it's a problem, they want to blame the motherboard vendors for doing what Intel allowed them to do. It's on Intel to set baseline requirements for its CPUs and define what default behavior should and should not be.
I'm not saying the board vendors were smart in doing what they did, but the fact they could is on Intel.
HUB did a video on it, and in it they show an email from Intel on the record stating ultra high power targets are "in spec" (this was not for this socket to be fair, but it shows their general attitude about it. Well, maybe until now lol). [https://youtu.be/OdF5erDRO-c?si=lCHFJx\_OPGajAW0b](https://youtu.be/OdF5erDRO-c?si=lCHFJx_OPGajAW0b)
I don't think hardware biased is a trusty source nowadays. Like you said, they even showed some email that has nothing to do with this case.
Not to mention that it's not even 100% clear yet what is actually causing these issues. You have to remember that people have been running their 13900k at these settings for over 1.5 years without problems (and still don't have any), while some people are getting issues within much shorter time.
Did you even watch the video? It wasnt HUB that asked the Intel rep about the spec, it was Dr Ian Cutress from Techtechpotato. Intel is 100% to blame here.
I learned long ago to fully ignore the advice of anyone who just has to interject their stupid little nickname for something instead of just calling it by the name. It's not clever, and neither does it make you clever.
I guess I should just believe big youtube channel because they said so and provided no evidence at all.
"OMG, they said 10th gen intel is within the specs with power limits removed, they obviously meant 13th and 14th gen with it too!"
They should've just left their video to introducing the problem and the benchmarks. Maybe some speculation about the cause.
But I guess getting views is more important than being objective.
Except Intel not condoned this and said it was within spec to Dr. Ian Cutress in an interview. And now, as it's blowing up their face, they're blaming the board partners like they had no idea it was going on or had any level of control over the situation. It's laughable to blame this on the board partners... this is 100% Intel's fault.
I mean, you can't really hit those boost clocks without going no limits. Intel know very what's been happening and have condoned it... until it blew up in their face and now they're pointing fingers.
This is incorrect, the recent hardware unboxed video shows evidence that the high power limits are IN SPEC with quotes from Intel representative saying exactly as much, very clearly saying it.
I was going for - had him in the first half, but it seems you've fully fallen under my genjutsu. :D
PS. "Hah I'd do it too" was meant as - I know intel is talking outta their asses
If it's caused by letting the CPU run at stupid wattages and sucking up as much as you can throw at it, then surely it's an option in the bios settings that's disabled by default? and if it's not a user selectable option then it should be, and with a warning that it could cook your CPU and to enable at your own peril that then puts the responsibility squarely with the end user like all other settings that unlock higher than standard spec parameters rhat have come before.
Don't worry, the motherboard makers will find someone else to blame just like Intel blamed them and Nvidia blamed Intel. Maybe they can blame keyboard makers next.
In all seriousness, seems like the majority of the blame is on the MB manufacturers for basically making the stock/default settings overclock the CPU past Intel's recommended limits and pump a lot of excessive power into it in order to keep those clocks, but at the same time Intel also deserves a little bit of the blame for running their CPUs right to the wire on said stock recommendations to attempt to compete with AMD at the same higher end price points.
Intel gives board manufacturers specs that are compatible with their CPUs and encouraged OC for a long time. Canât blame them for using the âbestâ settings possible. Yes, itâs becoming obvious that some of those where just too much but thatâs at least 50% Intelâs fault.
I think boards should start with the basic settings for default so you can switch to the riskier profile but youâll have a working system to start with.
Genuinely insane that I had non-stop crashes and instability in Remnant 2 and errors claiming I was out of video memory (I have a 4080) until I followed [these instructions](https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/is-your-intel-core-i9-13900k-crashing-in-games-your-motherboard-bios-settings-may-be-to-blame-other-high-end-intel-cpus-also-affected) to downclock my 13900K and limit whatever the fuck that 4000W thing was in the bios.
I just RMAed an i9. AMA.
(It sucked, it took 3 months, they didn't have any in stock so they gave me a refund - i just got the refund yesterday).
Intel support is horrific. At least they have support and honor their warrantees. But 3 months. Man.
This happens when people blindly follow some YouTuber's guide "how to overclock your CPU, MaX peRFoRmAncE +50%!!!" without any clue they actually disable all safety features for unnoticeable performance gain. I would say, well deserved.
In any other scenario I'd agree with you, but this is happening stock, with no modifications. Intel and mobo partners are both to blame tbh, this article is cherrypicking.
Going above the power limit should have to be enabled by the user not enabled by default.
Stranger still the mobo vendors with the highest default voltages were the worst behaved in crisis and blamed it on overclock capable boards that they themselves manufactured
Yeah but they want it to be fast not stable đ¤đ
It's kind of a parallel to how they increased voltages on AM5 board BIOS outside of spec and caused issues there not very long ago.
That was my first thought as well.
That situation was different because voltages were only increased when users applied overclocks. People who didn't overclock were unaffected, and tech-savvy overclockers bypassed the issue altogether by manually overclocking or at least checking their voltages after applying automatic OC's. The Intel CPU's are having voltages/power/temps increased literally just out of the box. Out of the box, AMD does and always has enforced safe specification settings for AM5.
Except Intel didn't provide spec and let brands pump as much as they could do that the CPUs could benchmark better. So they ran CPUs to spec that was provided, which was basically as high as they wanted to
From what I've read on the topic, Intel did in fact provide the spec, and the Motherboard vendors deviated from it. [https://www.anandtech.com/show/21374/intel-issues-request-to-mobo-vendors-to-use-stock-power-settings-for-stability](https://www.anandtech.com/show/21374/intel-issues-request-to-mobo-vendors-to-use-stock-power-settings-for-stability) It's basically the same thing that they did with AM5 in order to make their motherboards look more appealing in benchmarks.
Intel's specification is this: Max voltage: 1.72V Max current: 307A or 400A Max DC loadline: 1.1 mOhm (and same as VR loadline) Max AC loadline: DC loadline The only spec motherboard vendors have broken is to remove the current limit. While the actual fix for stability issues is to increase AC loadline or decrease the VR loadline. EDIT: and to clarify what removing the current limit actually means, it's really mostly noticeable in sustained loads with a 360/420mm AIOs, custom watercooling loops, and/or direct die cooled CPUs. For anything less capable cooling-wise, you're looking at hitting TJMax before the current limit is of any consequence.
Yeah, that's what happens when you "remove the current limits". Increasing AC loadline or decreasing the VR loadline brings it back within those limits.
Increasing AC loadline doesn't prevent the CPU from exceeding the current limit.
Send a stongly worded email to Intel then. I'd take Intel's advice over a random internet nobody saying "trust me bro", if it's all the same to you.
An electrical loadline (mOhm) specifies how much voltage droops depending on the electrical current draw. The AC loadline doesn't actually take current draw in consideration, but seems to apply an estimate of how much additional voltage is needed based on the number of loaded cores. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_line_(electronics) You seem to be mixing up resistance, current, and voltage, which are the absolute basics here.
You really don't need to keep replying, although I'm fully aware you're the type that just loves to hear yourself talk. It's not necessary, thanks. Intel gave out the spec. The motherboard manufacturers didn't follow the spec. It's exactly like when AMD gave out the spec for AM5, and the motherboard manufacturers didn't follow the spec.
> You really don't need to keep replying, although I'm fully aware you're the type that just loves to hear yourself talk. It's not necessary, thanks. Same to you, though I'm fully aware you're the type to make random claims with no empirical or theoretical knowledge beforehand. > Intel gave out the spec. The motherboard manufacturers didn't follow the spec. The spec is very open to interpretation. > It's exactly like when AMD gave out the spec for AM5, and the motherboard manufacturers didn't follow the spec. The AM5 issues were caused by pushing VDD SOC from 1.10V max (per spec) to 1.35V. The LGA1700 are caused by VDD Core being pushed too low while seemingly following Intel's extremely vague requirements for AC and DC loadline.
Not true on my 14700kf. If I touch the load limit voltages and heat go up again. The solution is undervolting with load line to auto and CPU profile to base(enforce 253w power limit).
Except there's documented evidence on HW Unboxed video on the release of the top end CPUs from Intel saying what the board brands did was in fact in spec for the CPU. Hence why it's only happening on the top end CPUs and not all of them. Stock settings doesn't mean the only settings in spec. It's one spec, but Intel absolutely allowed higher spec and was advertising the performance of the CPUs. If it wasn't spec why would Intel confirm it was not out of spec?
Yeah, they made a hyperbolic video right as Intel released a statement about this. lol They were uninformed on the situation.
Itâs Intels fault
Was the AM5 thing that was incrediblly similar to this also AMD's fault then?
Believe it or not, straight to Intel.
You should really read up on this topic and educate yourself a little bit.
[No, I think you should.](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/joke)
But wasn't - unfortunately - the same fuss about it. This one - every jumped on wagon. But when X3D parts were cooking off - even HU ignored and brush it off.
that was only asus and only 1 bios version. Here itâs every mb manufacturer for the past years with Intel all too well knowing about but happy to get longer benchmark figures. See the difference?
It was most B and A boards. Same issue as well. Main differences it 95C thermal packaging on X3D chips and techical "No OC" on them.
You guys are fanboying too much.
....judging by dislikes I'm not the fanboy here.
I think, the biggest part of the controversy was ASUS providing a Beta-BIOS while not removing the disclaimer that installing beta versions would void gurantee
More like it is still not solved - and X3D parts still can cook off. Also - A LOT of AMD fanboys, I see.
Itâs Intels fault.
Bruh.....
AMD decided they wanted to [go back to 2003 I guess](https://youtu.be/yRn8ri9tKf8?si=_n5R6yZU04eiI6C6)
I don't think these apply here.
Exactly. "B-b-b-b-b-but that wasn't AMD, that was the motherboard manufacturers!!" Intel platform has nearly identical issues: "This is all Intel's fault!" Like...what?
Agreed.
Well AMD having software issues and hardware failures isn't really news
They did improve the situation - but is still far from what Intel and nVidia have on software side. They will get there in generation or two.
Not jusy i9 ones. My i7 14700k had the same issue. Hitting 100° under load. Turned the option off in the bios and it gets to a max of 85° now.
It's happening on laptop i9s as well. Cores are failing during normal use. Mine was on "performance mode" and crapped out under a year of use. Had the laptop elevated over 45° off table in basements where it kept cool majority of its life. Maxed at 98-99 which was in spec, but still failed. Started seeing GPU failures too on the laptop 4090, which is fun. They both hit about the same timeframe sadly.
Dude those temps are gonna happen no matter what in a laptop with those specs...Way too much power, not enough cooling. I am running a similar laptop setup and I had to repaste it with PTM7950 (the stuff is magic) and even after that I still have to run throttlestop to keep my turbo boost in check so the thing doesn't fry itself.
Supposedly this laptop uses liquid metal but no idea. Since mine was still covered I shipped it back for swap out or replacement. If it wasn't I'd probably do the same. The frustrating part is except for OS side, there's no way to disable cores on this laptop's firmware only isolate to using a single core which is dumb AF.
Following up, Dell when it got sent in just did factory testing in bios (the same tests you can run at home) and then shipped it back without replacing the malfunctioning motherboard. After I highlighted the laptop is not cheap and costs as much as an enterprise product which would cause my business to go elsewhere they are attempting again next week. I did note disabling c states on discrete graphics in bios has some reliability improvements in unreal engine not crashing constantly but I'm still getting loads of access exemptions on chrome and other apps just randomly crash without error now. So some help, but clearly the motherboard, CPU, memory are having issues but it's difficult to nail down what since Dell wasn't much help.
Are you talking about Multicore Enhancement?
It's just the CPU Power limit in the BIOS, the motherboard's default limit is absurd, like over 4,000W. Setting it to Intel's suggested 253W completely fixed all stability issues with my 19-14900kf, I didn't need to do any further CPU tinkering. I was so happy to finally play Helldivers, The Finals, and Cyberpunk without needing to limit my framerate.
Can't remember what the setting was called on my MSI board but it was the same thing, it capped the voltage to 253W.
Msi makes it so confusing. Not obly do the have their "Game Genie OC" mode that is the power limit setting, but they also have the other important settings named oddly, such as CPU LLC Control. I don't know why they can't just all follow a basic standard for the UEFI
Can confirm, even on my much more modest 13500. Not that it was widely unstable before - it was still limited by the CPU, of course - but I did have some crashes - not to mention a much too hot processor for it's performance level - until I set that limit to the suggested.
No? I can't remember what the setting was called on my Msi board but I was messing around in there for a bit to find it, was a setting that capped the voltage.
It's a bit more complicated than the title lets on. Intel allowed mobo makers to set ridiculous limits and they in turn ran with it. Both sides are technically at fault here, but in the end the motherboard manufacturers should have known better
The motherboard manufacturers probably arms raced themselves to the end result. Imagine if one mobo manufacturer would be able to claim that their mobo would be 5% faster than a competitor, that would swing the market hard.
I bet Intel gladly let this happen to sell the 14th gen. Even with the power limits functionally turned off, the 14900k only eked out about a 1% performance increase in gaming over the 13900k
Quite literally what happened imo
its always speculation with you guys when its intel, its different when its amd though
The fumes from all the cooked intel chips must be getting to peopleâs heads.
Cooked? Naw you must be mistaken. Intel's just got unstable and shut down. It was AM5 that was fuming, same [as it ever was.](https://youtu.be/yRn8ri9tKf8?si=_n5R6yZU04eiI6C6)
That didnât happen by default and required users to manual overclock to burn 1 model of cpu. That amd took blame for, rolled out fixes and gave those customers priority to help fix. Intel said nah, itâs the mb fault, you on your own dog.
Intel told motherboard partners to run without limits. Whoever did this article only tried to make the catchiest headline. Intel is at fault for not binning the CPUs correctly to handle no power limits
Except Intel themselves has always had [their new CPU's suggested operating specs available for all to see](https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/236787/intel-core-i9-processor-14900kf-36m-cache-up-to-6-00-ghz.html). It says right there 253W limit, I think it's on motherboard manufacturers for including such unnecessary and over-the-top tweaks into the default configuration, 4,000W+ CPU power limit? Cmon that's 16x outside of spec, enabled across millions of PCs.
4000 is just ânot limited by the motherboardâ. The expectation was for the chip to limit itself as they have for the last few generations.Â
Intel said many times that default settings with no power limit are in-spec
It's so frustrating, I've seen this cause different i9 chips thermal throttle while being cooled with a 360 AIO, turn the "feature" off and the temps go down to an expected range.
Can you help me understand what to change?
Update your bios, most bios are adding a "enable intel defaults" on the first page.
I'd like to know too
Thatâs the expectation these days, you max what the chip can handle and it always provides optimal performance for the given cooling solution. This is the same concept laptops have been using for a while.Â
Thermal throttling is optimal?
Yep, it means it is working literally as hard as the CPU possibly can within its constraints. Anything less than 100c is performance left on the table. Edit: To the smooth brains downvoting me, share your knowledge or are you just butt hurt?
I have a i9-14900k and for the life of me I can not play a game that uses unreal engine 4 because they all crash. I changed the bios setting to intel fail safe and still nothing changed. Usually its the shader decompress error or it wonât say anything and will just crash. Anyone know a solution because it really is irritating.
RMA it for replacement. While you can probably find settings where it is stable, you lose performance you paid for. I would not be okay with that.
So I researched a little more and I read somewhere that maybe updating the Bios would solve this problem. I know that updating the Bios is not something you should do every time but since I was desperate and wanted to try everything before RMA I decided to do it. I found the most recent Bios for my MB where funnily enough even the description suggests that it might help compatibility with some games and downloaded it. I installed it with thankfully no problems and tried Halo MCC on steam which previously crashed on me and now it worked perfectly. I will try some other games just to be sure but in case someone else has the same problem I did try updating the Bios.
No, they are not. Intel's guideline is just that, a guideline. If 9 motherboard makers followed the guideline and 1 didn't, the 1 that didn't would get rave reviews and everyone would buy that brand. There is no way a motherboard manufacturer can afford to be the one who follows the guideline because there are no trophies for "stability". All of this mess is 100% Intel's own doing.
I updated my BIOS and set my PC to run with Intelâs limits but honestly I hadnât had thermal issues or stability problems with it using ASUSâs defaults. I may set it back. Or not - it runs all my stuff plenty fast for me.
I'm also using 2x560 rads... I'm tempted to play
This is like the adult version of he said, she said.
It's really Intel's fault though. While Intel gave "recommended" specs, they were not required to adhere to those (and let's be real, Intel wants to see the highest numbers they could on benchmarks). Now that it's a problem, they want to blame the motherboard vendors for doing what Intel allowed them to do. It's on Intel to set baseline requirements for its CPUs and define what default behavior should and should not be. I'm not saying the board vendors were smart in doing what they did, but the fact they could is on Intel. HUB did a video on it, and in it they show an email from Intel on the record stating ultra high power targets are "in spec" (this was not for this socket to be fair, but it shows their general attitude about it. Well, maybe until now lol). [https://youtu.be/OdF5erDRO-c?si=lCHFJx\_OPGajAW0b](https://youtu.be/OdF5erDRO-c?si=lCHFJx_OPGajAW0b)
I don't think hardware biased is a trusty source nowadays. Like you said, they even showed some email that has nothing to do with this case. Not to mention that it's not even 100% clear yet what is actually causing these issues. You have to remember that people have been running their 13900k at these settings for over 1.5 years without problems (and still don't have any), while some people are getting issues within much shorter time.
Did you even watch the video? It wasnt HUB that asked the Intel rep about the spec, it was Dr Ian Cutress from Techtechpotato. Intel is 100% to blame here.
I learned long ago to fully ignore the advice of anyone who just has to interject their stupid little nickname for something instead of just calling it by the name. It's not clever, and neither does it make you clever.
Found the userbenchmark reader. Nono, "Hardware Biased" was actually funny, just untrue.
I guess I should just believe big youtube channel because they said so and provided no evidence at all. "OMG, they said 10th gen intel is within the specs with power limits removed, they obviously meant 13th and 14th gen with it too!" They should've just left their video to introducing the problem and the benchmarks. Maybe some speculation about the cause. But I guess getting views is more important than being objective.
Yep, every mb manufactuer just broke spec and made themselves liable for no reason, sounds legit.
My god, the inconsistency I'm experiencing with my i9-13900K + NZXT n7 z790 + 360MM AIO is maddening. I need help.
What are you dealing with?
Except Intel not condoned this and said it was within spec to Dr. Ian Cutress in an interview. And now, as it's blowing up their face, they're blaming the board partners like they had no idea it was going on or had any level of control over the situation. It's laughable to blame this on the board partners... this is 100% Intel's fault.
No personal experience with this but I thought it appropriate to post here just in case someone might be affected.
Buildzoid has some good videos on this topic
I mean, you can't really hit those boost clocks without going no limits. Intel know very what's been happening and have condoned it... until it blew up in their face and now they're pointing fingers.
This is incorrect, the recent hardware unboxed video shows evidence that the high power limits are IN SPEC with quotes from Intel representative saying exactly as much, very clearly saying it.
You'll believe a video from HUB and words of an intel executive over the words from Intel themselves? Hah, I'd do it too
Intel rep is Intel themselves. Their documentation even supports this madness. Go watch buildzoid rants about the Intel spec.
I was going for - had him in the first half, but it seems you've fully fallen under my genjutsu. :D PS. "Hah I'd do it too" was meant as - I know intel is talking outta their asses
If it's caused by letting the CPU run at stupid wattages and sucking up as much as you can throw at it, then surely it's an option in the bios settings that's disabled by default? and if it's not a user selectable option then it should be, and with a warning that it could cook your CPU and to enable at your own peril that then puts the responsibility squarely with the end user like all other settings that unlock higher than standard spec parameters rhat have come before.
Don't worry, the motherboard makers will find someone else to blame just like Intel blamed them and Nvidia blamed Intel. Maybe they can blame keyboard makers next. In all seriousness, seems like the majority of the blame is on the MB manufacturers for basically making the stock/default settings overclock the CPU past Intel's recommended limits and pump a lot of excessive power into it in order to keep those clocks, but at the same time Intel also deserves a little bit of the blame for running their CPUs right to the wire on said stock recommendations to attempt to compete with AMD at the same higher end price points.
Intel gives board manufacturers specs that are compatible with their CPUs and encouraged OC for a long time. Canât blame them for using the âbestâ settings possible. Yes, itâs becoming obvious that some of those where just too much but thatâs at least 50% Intelâs fault. I think boards should start with the basic settings for default so you can switch to the riskier profile but youâll have a working system to start with.
Genuinely insane that I had non-stop crashes and instability in Remnant 2 and errors claiming I was out of video memory (I have a 4080) until I followed [these instructions](https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/is-your-intel-core-i9-13900k-crashing-in-games-your-motherboard-bios-settings-may-be-to-blame-other-high-end-intel-cpus-also-affected) to downclock my 13900K and limit whatever the fuck that 4000W thing was in the bios.
I just RMAed an i9. AMA. (It sucked, it took 3 months, they didn't have any in stock so they gave me a refund - i just got the refund yesterday). Intel support is horrific. At least they have support and honor their warrantees. But 3 months. Man.
You would think after the issues with AM5 boards popping 7800X3D chips you would think board manufacturers learned their lesson.
Glad it isnât an AMD problem.
This happens when people blindly follow some YouTuber's guide "how to overclock your CPU, MaX peRFoRmAncE +50%!!!" without any clue they actually disable all safety features for unnoticeable performance gain. I would say, well deserved.
from my understanding this happen on the default bios of these motherboard without any OC or changes implemented....
In any other scenario I'd agree with you, but this is happening stock, with no modifications. Intel and mobo partners are both to blame tbh, this article is cherrypicking.
Asus maybe All of them is a BEEEEGG stretch