Soldato
Well I put the latest bios on my apex z790 and no matter how many time I've tryed the arura stays on when the pc is off so whent back to the previous one, not had any problems with my 13900ks in games.
-
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
So far as I know, your graphics card is not the reason for the instability issues since they're primarily about the settings applied by the motherboard, but it could change how often you encounter it if:
1. It makes stuff run hotter.
2. It makes the CPU run faster.
So is it an nvidia problem, who have thrown Intel under the bus, like the OP implies? It is literally the opening statement of this thread. Should we all therefore be buying AMD GPUs?
It's a rhetorical question btw, I already know what humbug wants people to think.
Last edited:
No you should be buying whatever GPU you feel is right for your needs, this is not an Nvidia problem, at all, Nvidia were right to throw Intel under the bus.
It was just a joke, having had criticism for not offering enough VRam on past GPU's, rightly or wrongly here not being the argument, i just thought the error message, that being "out of video memory" was amusing, imagine Nvidia's reaction... upon seeing it.
I have a childish situational sense of humour, no ill will toward Nvidia at all...
Last edited:
Soldato
Or if you're not running any high current all-core workloads
True, but the crashing that has been reported when compiling shaders suggests they can still find a way to crash even if you only game
Asus out of the box BIOS: 320 watts, Score 39,951 @89c
Intel defaults: 253 watts, score 37,866 @76c
Not too bad, about a 6% drop, the trouble though with that for Intel is the Ryzen 9 7950X scores 38,657 @ 186 watts, according to Toms Hardware. Not crashing in games and slowly cocking its self.
youtu.be
Intel defaults: 253 watts, score 37,866 @76c
Not too bad, about a 6% drop, the trouble though with that for Intel is the Ryzen 9 7950X scores 38,657 @ 186 watts, according to Toms Hardware. Not crashing in games and slowly cocking its self.
Intel has a problem... More crashing and stability issues for new CPUs
Intels i9 13th and 14th gen CPU are crashing more and more... but it may be the motherboard manufacturers fault! Watch to find out more! Falcon Northwest has...
youtu.be
Last edited:
I remember a time when motherboard manufacturers got dragged over coals for this kind of behaviour.
Intels performance now being “opportunistic*” muddies the water.
One of these new profiles pushing 1.7v+ 
www.youtube.com
I wouldn't be updating to one of these, better to make any changes manually.
Gigabyte's Intel baseline profile runs some ABSOLUTELY INSANE core voltages.
My Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/buildzoidTeespring: https://teespring.com/stores/actually-hardcore-overclockingBandcamp: https://machineforscreams.bandca...
www.youtube.com
I wouldn't be updating to one of these, better to make any changes manually.
One of these new profiles pushing 1.7v+
Gigabyte's Intel baseline profile runs some ABSOLUTELY INSANE core voltages.
My Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/buildzoidTeespring: https://teespring.com/stores/actually-hardcore-overclockingBandcamp: https://machineforscreams.bandca...
I wouldn't be updating to one of these, better to make any changes manually.
Just on the normal profile:
"Oh it crashed, this CPU can't run R15, it does that, never mind"
What? Are we being trained to normalise the CPU not being stable when it comes to Intel? I know he's being a little pedantic about it but at the same time he also seems to have accepted it as something perfectly normal, i do wonder sometimes, its like when Yes Tech City made a video about his 13900K just being really crap in heavy multitasking workloads, hanging, grindy, unresponsive, other people looking at that: "oh yeah mine does that, its just normal isn't it?"
No... No its not normal.
Last edited:
I've been running my CPU for 4 years and it has never put a toe wrong, it has never failed to do anything i have asked of it in a way that is anything less than perfect.
This is not amazing, this is as you should expect it from such a high tech expensive product.
This is not amazing, this is as you should expect it from such a high tech expensive product.
He said in the earlier video that it is pretty common that if you buy a decent sized sample of these (e.g. 30, 50) that a large number will fail to run Cinebench on "out of the box" settings, according to other sources he has. He did admit that this particular CPU is an unusually bad one, but even so.
Right... how is this a thing now?
Soldato
True, but the crashing that has been reported when compiling shaders suggests they can still find a way to crash even if you only game
That is a high current workload lol. I've had CPUs that do this, but changing the VID behaviour setting is sufficient to resolve the instability short of disabling core enhancement settings. At least in this case, the overclocking can be circumvented. You'd have to be pushing an agenda to argue it's any worse than not knowing your own CPU's tolerances to the point where it blows a hole in the substrate. People make mistakes and learn from them.
Last edited:
Am I the only one who is kind of nervous for Intel? At least when AMD was in the dark ages there, they had GPU sales, even if they were a distant second to nVidia.
But this whole situation reeks of desperation on Intel's part. Pumping stupid amounts of juice through these monstrosities to edge some benchmarks at the cost of stability and longevity, is a terrible look. Without running these things so haggard that they literally throttle with 360 radiators attaches, they'd lose all the benchmarks while still sipping back double the power. How did they fall so far behind? They had a full decade of owning the market. This makes no sense
I remember people going intel because AMD boards were too expensive a year ago. Imagine buying into a dead end socket built up on lies and insane power requirements just to save 40 bucks on a mobo that will last for generations. Shortsighted, to put it mildly
I say that as someone who went AMD this gen for the first time ever. If I have loyalty to anyone, it's Intel. But this hasn't even been a choice this era, to be frank
But this whole situation reeks of desperation on Intel's part. Pumping stupid amounts of juice through these monstrosities to edge some benchmarks at the cost of stability and longevity, is a terrible look. Without running these things so haggard that they literally throttle with 360 radiators attaches, they'd lose all the benchmarks while still sipping back double the power. How did they fall so far behind? They had a full decade of owning the market. This makes no sense
I remember people going intel because AMD boards were too expensive a year ago. Imagine buying into a dead end socket built up on lies and insane power requirements just to save 40 bucks on a mobo that will last for generations. Shortsighted, to put it mildly
I say that as someone who went AMD this gen for the first time ever. If I have loyalty to anyone, it's Intel. But this hasn't even been a choice this era, to be frank
Yeah, I know, but these "out of the box" overclocks appear to have been either assumed that for the average user it won't be encountered (oops, UE5), or they've been configured for CPUs that are better bins than they actually are.
While to a certain extent I'd say: "you got a 14900K, changing the BIOS shouldn't be beyond you" (& is actually the first thing I do with a new Intel CPU, to disable stuff like MCE), it seems pretty clear that even enabling XMP taxes the noggin' of some 14900KS buyers.
Buildzoid did say that it is easy enough to fix, that like you say, you could just change the VID behaviour, but none of this stuff should be needed "out of the box" and right now, for a minority of these CPUs, it is.
Last edited:
He's showing that the motherboard manufacturers are undervolting which is why it's crashing at 'stock' when it should be stable. He deliberately chose a CPU that lost the silicon lottery to illustrate the point.
Of course I agree though that it shouldn't be considered normal and that Intel and the motherboard manufacturers are to blame, but I think he was trying to say that the low silicon quality CPU normally crashes with out of the box settings not that it's normal or expected behaviour.
Soldato
Before releasing the base profile, GTSD approved the knowledge base article that instructed the user to
1. Set "SVID Behavior" in BIOS to "Intel's Fail Safe."
2. Disable MCE in the BIOS
3. Decrease CPU Ratio
If the system is unstable without SVID Intel Fail Safe behaviour, it's because the default AC Loadline value is factoring in too much vdroop when the CPU is sending the VID request based on the factory fused V/F curve to the voltage controller (for which only the CPU can request, it's the CPU that requests what voltage it needs). For whatever reason, the voltage received isn't sufficient for stability under certain load. Different loads produce different swings in current and, for whatever reason, UE5 seems to be quite good at exposing it.
Last edited: