-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Asus issues BIOS update to solve Intel CPU game crashing.
- Thread starter humbug
- Start date
They should offer compensation for lost game time!
Instead of the error massage saying "out of video memory" it should just say "error, your CPU can't handle this"
New update from Intel. Intel wants all motherboards to use the Intel default settings by May 31
- Intel requests all motherboard vendor customers to implement the Intel Baseline profile settings as the BIOS' default profile by May 31, 2024.
- Suggested profile name: Intel Default Settings.
Last edited:
Last I saw, Gigabyte are using less than what Intel recommend.
Soldato
Maybe Gigabyte might feel obliged to release a BIOS reflecting Intel's request for my Z690 board, albeit I'm fine with my own settings.
Soldato
Intel demanding 188watt profile to gimp their chips to I7 and lower performance is itching for a class action to be honest..
Thing is tho if they are burning up well inside the warranty at 253 watts Intel will have to take back most of the ones they sold anyway, its a no win situation.
Makes no sense, that would be an underclock even according to their own specs.
Going from routinely overclocking and having the CPUs use unlimited power to routinely underclocking is just dumb and going to trigger even more FUD about the stability of these CPUs.
Soldato
I don't think its a power issue as such but an MCE issue - with the likes of Asus ramming loads of volts and unlimited boost clocks with most things set to "AUTO" like MCE is the default AUTO...
I think most chips would be fine with customers setting there CPU's up manually..
Soldato
It has nothing to do with them burning up or longevity, the evidence just isn't there when taking the time to look on a case-by-case basis. It's somewhat the reverse, and I speculate with this as I'm not that close to the situation - but it's not that difficult to tell what's going on. There are several cases now where the users aren't stable with the base profile.
In most cases disabling MCE doesn't actually help.
Last edited:
Intel have posted a clarification that the Intel "baseline" profiles (like Gigabyte have added to their BIOS, which effectively underclocks the CPU) are not needed for these CPUs to run stably and are not recommended except for lower-end motherboards.
The default profile uses their recommended values and for an average motherboard that retains the 253 watts PL2.
Must be enabled:
- Power and current limits for PL1/PL2 (matching Intel's stated values)
- Current Excursion Protection
- Thermal Velocity Boost
- Thermal Velocity Boost Voltage Optimisations (?)
- C-States
Must NOT be enabled:
- TjMAX offsets
www.tomshardware.com
The default profile uses their recommended values and for an average motherboard that retains the 253 watts PL2.
Must be enabled:
- Power and current limits for PL1/PL2 (matching Intel's stated values)
- Current Excursion Protection
- Thermal Velocity Boost
- Thermal Velocity Boost Voltage Optimisations (?)
- C-States
Must NOT be enabled:
- TjMAX offsets
Intel issues official statement on Core K-series crashes: stick to Intel's official power profiles
'Baseline Settings' aren't official Intel settings.
Last edited:
Anyone observing this: So what happened, how bad is it?
Intel: Hey Gigabyte, MSI, Asus do you know what's caused this?
Gigabyte, MSI, Asus: Erm? No, we have no idea....
Intel: yeah sorry we don't what happened, anyway we have this new BIOS setting that has a set base line to be adhered to so the voltages and current doesn't run out of control and cook your CPU.
Last edited:
Soldato
Even though that's not what it says at all. Power, or too much, isn't the issue here. Anyone who understands the platform quickly grasps this when sys integrators and vendors advise setting a more aggressive AC loadline, which more than often helps.
Last edited:
Oh... nothing to see here, you see people you have it all wrong, the real problem is VDroop, the CPU wasn't getting enough voltage as the silicon grew hotter and hotter increasing resistance, so the answer is a more aggressive VRoop profile to ram even more volts down its throat.
It sounds like they are have 0 self-awareness when public facing and are making a sunk cost fallacy argument like an addict while at the same time motherboard vendors are acting like they are being told to stop pumping the CPU's with so much power.
Last edited:
Soldato
Plenty of afflicted users can attest to the CPUs being unstable out of the box straight into the board. I've read enough cases to see this for myself. So again, doesn't quite fit the sensationalist narrative that the chips are degrading quickly. Mine certainly hasn't, either. How about yours lol?
The degrading argument didn't make sense to me either (I mean, not as THE reason), I can see why HUB would have that theory, because of how the reports have emerged, but like you said.., many of these CPUs are unstable "out of the box" and it just takes something to expose it. I wonder if it is partly just because once the reports started happening, users realised there was a wider problem, since I've seen some posts where somebody said e.g. "this game always crashes when it starts so I just played something else" or "Cinebench never worked so I gave up running it".
Last edited:
Soldato
It just takes a lot of time to build a picture, and users won't be reporting their woes all in the same place, or some at all. I've been observing cases being posted regularly where the user simply isn't able to get the system stable out of the box, and more often than not either applying a more aggressive AC LL solves the issue, or it does not. Whilst increased power limits may expose these issues more quickly, likely, they're not the catalyst. We know that more current and heat will result in more resistance, so if an afflicted CPU isn't receiving the voltage it needs under certain load conditions this is only going to get exposed more quickly. Perhaps the question people should be asking is why isn't the CPU getting enough voltage - it's the CPU requesting this from the controller, so are all motherboard vendors guilty of not applying ample loadline?
Last edited: