With Intel & AMD being companies that engineer semiconductor products, I haven't checked the legal documentation for producing CPU,s or any chip but I'm sure they would hopefully have everything in place from an engineering standpoint, that being - process flow,Control Plan & FMEA, these control the route of the product through manufacturing (process flow) the control plan details how you produce the product containing details of the process flow but with more details and using lessons learned (defined by issues from previous products or issues seen before) but also includes critical features (possible failure points) these documents then include the FMEA probably the most important document (failure modes & affect analysis) this controls what might go wrong and possible ways to mitigate this (trust me there's always something you miss) these issues can take months even years to analyse when an issue is found (so do not expect any information from CPU makers/manufacturers yet) I know from experience (not CPU manufacturing) ... Looking from the outside intel have decided to overlook the FMEA to meet customers (more likely shareholders) requirements, make it as fast as possible at any cost disregarding power limits,. it was never a good option but with struggling options what do you do? Your fabs can't seem to make the latest tech so you eek out the small performance gains you can.
-
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.
Intel has a Pretty Big Problem..
- Thread starter Purgatory
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,874
- Location
- Surrey
It wasn't aimed at you. When you posted the video at a random timestamp that wasn't relevant, I gave up. Although whilst we're here, nothing above is related to the issue. Can you explain why you think the FIVR is related to the discussion also?
This crude statement is more VRM-related, but best to leave it there (once again lol).
Last edited:
I was making a general statement - while it was a good video things are more complicated (and obviously beyond the scope of the video) when you involve electronics like this. Whatever is going on here is well outside of normally intended operation.
(EDIT: It did briefly hit 1.6 in the full 32 thread test but measured externally so probably somewhere in the 1.5s at the core) - though I've seen some CPUs where some cores are sporadically hitting silly voltages under all core loads - though I don't have access to them to run something like Cinebench to see if it is replicated under that level of stress but it would still be close. Unfortunately I don't have ready access to a wider range of 13th/14th gen and those I do aren't exhibiting this behaviour.
EDIT: VCC at 1.6V doesn't mean the CPU is running that internally though.
Last edited:
I'm behind the curve on that so dunno what the latest setup is - just using it as an example as there are areas all over the CPU which involve things like voltage regulation some of it just for power gating, etc. I'm talking in general terms as my knowledge isn't that level and what I do know is beyond the scope of a post and not particularly relevant beyond a general sense anyhow.
I'm pretty sure 1.6 going in won't be precisely what is seen at the core though.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 1,195
- Location
- Cornwall
MSI addresses Intel Core 13/14th Gen Core series instability, confirms new BIOS for mid-August - VideoCardz.com
Intel Raptor Lake instability: MSI confirms another BIOS incoming MSI is the first company to confirm a new BIOS (another one). MSI has acknowledged the instability issues affecting Intel’s 13th and 14th Gen Core series, known as Raptor Lake. These problems have been ongoing for several months...
videocardz.com
I started watching this video, interesting stuff. It's 2 hours long though so will have to go through it in a few sittings.
Interested about the oscilloscope monitoring - is there a vast difference between what is reported with the oscilloscope and the readings coming out of the motherboard, surfaced in software like HWInfo?
I only ask as my ASUS motherboard is on the latest BIOS including the 0x125 microcode changes (not available on the Gigabyte board he was using at the start) and I get nowhere near those kind of voltages. The MAX I see on my 14900k is 1.357V.
My idle voltage in the BIOS is 1.217V as well, where I saw his was sitting at over 1.4V or something?
So I am a little confused, I have done a load of testing and I cannot see excess voltage anywhere. The only time I've seen high voltages were the one time I tested with unrestricted power limits. I ran Diablo 4 in windowed mode with HWInfo open and I saw 1.5V.
I honestly feel pretty confident my CPU isn't effected and will be fine because I have only been running it using the new BIOS, recommended settings and what I am observing in HWInfo logging. If I was seeing high voltages I would be worried.
I'm running a negative voltage offset as well (-0.13500).
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2012
- Posts
- 127
- Location
- Glasgow
I'm on an asus z790 extreme 13900K with the new microcode patch and using Intels performance setting and currently back at 5.3ghz max boost as i'm having a nightmare with stability. In the BIOS it's reporting 1.350vcore but HWmonitor is reporting up to 1.719VID during stress testing. Am I missing something or is that not right? Thats higher than I've ever seen before.
Last edited:
I'm on an asus z790 extreme 13900K with the new microcode patch and using Intels performance setting and currently back at 5.3ghz max boost as i'm having a nightmare with stability. In the BIOS it's reporting 1.350vcore but HWmonitor is reporting up to 1.719VID during stress testing. Am I missing something or is that not right? Thats higher than I've ever seen before.
1.72 is Intel's max VCC but your CPU absolutely shouldn't be running that - it is just an expanded voltage table for compatibility/future reasons (which might have mislead some motherboard partners). Hitting 1.72 is going to degrade that chip fast.
For interest, here is 30 mins of gameplay in the finals (Unreal Engine Game) and a 10 minute CineBench R23 run.
System in signature but its a 14900k with -0.13500 offset.
Interesting thing between synthetic benchmark and real world gaming seems to be that the voltage is a lot more consistent in the game. Average in Cinebench on 1.1V with occasional spikes up to 1.3V. :/
Oh and my idle voltages in BIOS. I don’t see a problem with anything (touch wood).
System in signature but its a 14900k with -0.13500 offset.
Interesting thing between synthetic benchmark and real world gaming seems to be that the voltage is a lot more consistent in the game. Average in Cinebench on 1.1V with occasional spikes up to 1.3V. :/
Oh and my idle voltages in BIOS. I don’t see a problem with anything (touch wood).
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 2,065
- Location
- Nottingham
ive read some reports that if you set intels settings, sometimes in bios; it appears like its set but not actually set. if i were you i would reset the bios to stock default settings 1 time and reboot, then do it again and reboot, then apply the intel power settings, retest and see how you get on.I'm on an asus z790 extreme 13900K with the new microcode patch and using Intels performance setting and currently back at 5.3ghz max boost as i'm having a nightmare with stability. In the BIOS it's reporting 1.350vcore but HWmonitor is reporting up to 1.719VID during stress testing. Am I missing something or is that not right? Thats higher than I've ever seen before.
Last edited:
I'm not sure this applies so much these days... I moved our company away from Intel some 6 years ago when in the server space you couldn't really make a valid argument against EPYC Rome, in recent years that gap has widened and from a financials perspective its criminal not to choose EPYC, even if the swap to AMD from Intel requires a bit of extra work than Intel>Intel or AMD>AMD, when I say a bit more work you cant simply vmotion between the two so some manual work is required. Following that I made the recommendation to do the same and refresh the rest of end user devices with Ryzen. Literally nobody said a word, nobody even understood what I was doing or why. Decision well made tbh - In fact i'm feeling a bit smug right now!
Last edited:
Hah. Though I doubt you'd be using desktop parts for your kind of use.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 2,065
- Location
- Nottingham
actually its not as uncommon as you think in server land to use dekstop parts, for example in game server hosting to use desktop parts, as lots of servers require single thread raw performance, hence why alderon is using desktop chips for hosting game servers. we use desktop parts in some of our non critical server hosting. due to cost and ease to replace. and now ofc with ecc ddr5 it becomes even more no brainer in some scenarios
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2012
- Posts
- 127
- Location
- Glasgow
Did as you said. seems to have changed it but I've dialled it down further with an offset of -0.100 in XTU. Will see if it helps with the stability. Not sure why I should be putting up with this crap. It's still in warranty and after initially being helpful on proceeding to an RMA I'm now on day 3 without a reply.
Last edited:
I'm aware of that - as noted in some of my previous posts, but the kind of stuff Vince does makes a 13th gen or 14th gen desktop part unlikely to be in that application.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 2,065
- Location
- Nottingham
fair enough.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 2,065
- Location
- Nottingham
kind of as i expected to some extent based on reports ive seen, at least its now better than 1.7 but could be down to run variance. if you want to be sure either way, run the test a few more times, without a bios reset. just doing what you did in windows and checking the resultsDid as you said. seems to have changed it but I've dialled it down further with an offset of -0.100 in XTU. Will see if it helps with the stability. Not sure why I should be putting up with this crap. It's still in warranty and after initially being helpful on proceeding to an RMA I'm now on day 3 without a reply.
Last edited: