10 minutes ago, Talon said:

 

Honestly identical to my 11F microcode BIOS in CB23 with same power/current/undervolt. But of course 11F comes with the voltage issues. 

OK. I might test it on the Encore as a crash dummy. The MSI Edge will be last, if ever, since it does not have dual BIOS and if downgrading is not possible it will basically become worthless to me if I do not approve of the firmware changes.

1 minute ago, Talon said:

Flashed the new BIOS to my Asus Apex. Zero performance losses noted and voltages are slightly reduced. So far so good. I never had crashing issues with my 14900KS, but still good to see the fix is out and I can relax about any degradation that might be happening at a faster than expected rate in the background. 

Cinebench scores are the same?

1 hour ago, electrosoft said:

Hmmmm, this will be a fun test for the new MC and if the SA Bug goes away (or is board specific):

 

 

@Mr. Fox Something you could test (as will I) with your known SA Bugged R batch.

My concern is that something undesirable might be permanent with the firmware update. If I do not like it and cannot undo it I will be super ticked off and have to replace the motherboard if downgrade is not possible. I am not worried about the SA bug (does not matter in the grand scheme of things) or the "problem" they are trying to fix. I am curious to see what it does, bit skeptical and cautious. 

Hey Brother @Papusan here is the latest. Hurry, because newer is better. Tell all of your friends on Facepoot. 🤣

https://rog-forum.asus.com/t5/intel-700-600-series/raptorlake-resources/m-p/1034564/highlight/true#M24284

2 hours ago, chew said:

AM5 poor memory clocking..........

 

More like poor memory over clockers.

 

I'll handle this soon 😉

 

 

We have already seen your impressive tuning skills.  I haven't seen many AM5 owners that can do what you do with the memory tuning on that platform.  But, even with your incredible talent in play the results from the platform are generally not equal in terms of read, write, copy and latency at the same clock speed. That's the platform, not your well above-average abilities with it.

2 hours ago, Papusan said:

Will PC makers replace your crashing Intel chip? We asked 14 of them

Nice to see most of them are standing behind what they sell. Many (maybe most) of the customers that buy their PCs would never own it long enough to reach the time limit. But, offering it may bring most of them back when they are ready for an upgrade.

31 minutes ago, jaybee83 said:

 

yes of course. but i seem to remember that any chips (be it cpu or gpu) boosting out of the gate right up to the capability limit and leaving only measly few % points to manual OC didnt earn much happiness around here. soooo....what do we want, then? pushed to the limit out of the box or lots of OC headroom left on the table? 😄 

21 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

I guess that depends on how much headroom, where the road ends and if one is happy with the destination. The path being long and wide is kind of nice, but only if it leads to the place you want to go to. A one-hundred fold increase sounds impressive, but the end result is different starting from 1 than it is starting from 2.

12 minutes ago, jaybee83 said:

 

yes of course. but i seem to remember that any chips (be it cpu or gpu) boosting out of the gate right up to the capability limit and leaving only measly few % points to manual OC didnt earn much happiness around here. soooo....what do we want, then? pushed to the limit out of the box or lots of OC headroom left on the table? 😄 

I guess that depends on how much headroom, where the road ends and if one is happy with the destination. The path being long and wide is kind of nice, but only if it leads to the place you want to go to. A one-hundred fold increase sounds impressive, but the end result is different starting from 1 than it is starting from 2.

1 hour ago, Talon said:

 

The problem is that an overclocked 13600K for $230 on Amazon and drawing similar wattage can score the same or higher. For $230 vs the $359 AMD is asking for this. And the 13600K will have nearly identical gaming performance. Actually HWU had the 14600K 1 fps higher. 

 

And the real problem? Intel is releasing it's next gen 3nm Arrow Lake in October. AMD won't be facing a 2 year old platform, they're going to be facing a new processor with a leading edge node. 

People that prefer Intel won't care about what AMD brings. People that prefer AMD won't care what Intel brings. People that don't know what they don't know will believe those that they choose to believe or be extremely confused. $100 or $200 in price probably isn't going to change anyone's mind one way or the other unless they don't know anything and don't have a preference.

Some people (the smart ones) decide everything based on what their experience was before and they don't forgive and forget bad experiences, or not very swiftly. Nor should they. They learn from their mistakes and are not keen on repeating them. Others have no experience and form a preference based on what someone else tells them they should think.  Then there are those that have only had one experience, it was good, and they don't know what else is out there. And they don't care. They do not want to rock the boat and maintaining status quo is safe and easy.

Most people treat products the same as politics. Everything is generally black versus white, light versus darkness, good versus bad, right versus left, God versus Satan, Conservative versus Liberal, Republican versus Demoncrat, etc. And, that's perfectly OK. At least you know where you stand with them. And, that is certainly better than not knowing. Those that hide in the shades of gray are the dangerous ones that will kill you when you're not paying attention. They don't choose sides and can't make up their mind about anything. They are confused, clueless and careless and easily influenced. 

1 hour ago, Rage Set said:

Here you guys talking about AMD vs Intel but you guys haven't heard that everything we love is pointless....if you take the writer at xda-developers.com word's for it. 

 

https://www.xda-developers.com/overkill-pc-building-trends-not-worth-the-trouble/

 

5 overkill PC building trends that aren't worth the trouble -

 

 

You only have to take a look at the comments to figure out this guy shouldn't be writing for a tech website. What in the heck happened to that website? I remember getting ROMs for my phones from this website and now they are hot take artists.

 

 

Yeah, he shouldn't be writing for a tech website. I agree. He definitely is not a PC enthusiast, that's for sure. If he thinks he is, then he is a poser.

14 minutes ago, Papusan said:

 

Exactly the same as they did with the newly launched re-hashed 5000 series chips. Dubbed XT.

 

 

 

The punchline...

7 minutes ago, Papusan said:

 

Nice. Now you can clearly see why AMD changed the pricing policy for 9000 series Ryzen Zen5. 

 

 

If the Ryzen chips downclock to base clock in heavy load/or thermal throttle it will run slower than their 2 years old Zen4 chips. This even with the IPC improvement. That's an improvement? Newer has to be better bro @ryan

And, it looks like AMD has mirepresented the performance. They essentially accomplished nothing in two years. 

So, long story short, if you prefer AMD and want to move from AM4 to AM5 your best option is to upgrade to a last generation CPU.

Our truth remains unchanged @Papusan. Newer is always better newer.

35 minutes ago, Talon said:

 

Oooofff. Ya I knew when Lisa Su came on stage, barely talked about Zen 5 and had to force a smile that Zen 5 was going to suck, and well..

Must be why the price is lower. 

• Lower base clock
• Only 100 Mhz higher boost clock
• Poor DDR5 overclocking
• Dramatically lower TDP
• Minimal or no performance improvements depending on workload

It is a new CPU downgrade. That's pretty disappointing for my friends and family that like AMD.

It is sad that so many things suck in the computer space right now. Lots of people are all emo about motherboard BIOS settings damaging Intel CPUs but when you zoom out it is pretty sucky by all measurements.

20 minutes ago, Papusan said:

 

LOOL. Fanboys is weird animals😁 And the one down here.... He know the fully truth why AMD withdraw 9000 series processors? How can he be sure bro @Mr. Fox? Because he is an fanboy? And he say... Some companies is very trustworthy... Hmmm. 

 

 

You cannot have an intelligent conversation with people like that. They are beyond help and they like believing what they want to believe. And he is wrong. They are all equally bad, at least among Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, Micro$lop, Crapple, Google, etc. You cannot trust any large company/industry (big tech, big pharma, etc.) or government to do what is best for the people it exists to serve exploit. That is not a conspiracy theory. It's an observation of their behavior.

42 minutes ago, Papusan said:

 

Maybe the gamerboys can spend $50 more on better motherboards now as AMD have lowered the prices for coming Ryzen 9000 chips. Not as cheap as some hoped for but $40-50 USD will help people to buy better motherboards.

 

Rejoice! AMD’s Ryzen 9000 CPUs are cheaper than last generation

AMD confirmed today that prices for its next-gen Ryzen 9000 desktop processors, previously leaked by Best Buy, are accurate. Surprisingly, these prices represent a decrease relative to the prior generation.

 

An official X/Twitter post says that the Ryzen 7 9700X will be priced at $359 (down $40 from its previous Ryzen 7 7700X) and the Ryzen 5 9600X will be priced at $279 (down $20 from its previous Ryzen 5 7600X). They’re hitting the streets August 8.

 

Following a week later on August 15th will be the Ryzen 9 9950X, $649, and the Ryzen 7 9900X, $499. Those are cheaper than their 7000-series models by $50 each. While not as low as the initial Best Buy leak, the discount should be much appreciated by system builders.

 

This is also good news for those of us that will go with next gen Intel chips this fall/winter. 

 

I wonder if AMD know something about next gen Intel that we don't know. This is the only reason AMD will reduce prices from what I know of. They don't do this for goodness. Just see what AMD did with the pricing of their first gen 16 core 5950X ($799) due Intel was late to the party with more cores.

This is the technology space we are talking about, so there is an underlying agenda or self-serving purpose somewhere. No company that operates in this realm ever does anything because it is the right thing to do for the people that purchase products. The price is lower because they can still make a profit and the lower price is forecast to make them more money in another way. At the very least they will profit  on the heels of the calamity the media has crafted and the irrational behavior of consumers that will follow. That is already happening. At least half of what the world believes about everything is untrue, but they believe it because it is on TV and on the internet and at least half of the people are not smart enough to think for themselves.

Lots of new B650 broken gamerboy trash boards hitting store shelves. These motherboard manufacturers should be ashamed for release rubbish like this. They must not care about maintaining a good brand image and reputation.

1 hour ago, electrosoft said:

Intel is not only extended its warranty to 5 years but also to OEM/Tray CPUs:

 

Important part is if you can't get satisfaction with your OEM/Tray seller, reach out to Intel directly now. That's huge for some of us who have purchased tray CPUs.

 

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-to-extend-warranty-for-oem-tray-13-14th-gen-core-raptor-lake-cpus

 

That is the right thing to do, and extending it to OEM/tray CPUs is above and beyond what they are required to do. 

I do wonder if they are going to take the "no questions asked" high road approach or take the low road and ask if the CPU had been overclocked, set for eTVB or XMP applied and still declare the warranty void for the users that dare to answer honestly.

All of the folks hoping for a microcode update really need to pull their heads out of their butts and be careful about what they hope for. Intel blocked voltage control for turdbook CPUs some time ago and things have never been right since then. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. The answer is not microcode updates or setting restrictions, but safe and sane firmware defaults.

37 minutes ago, Papusan said:

 

 

The only reason to not recommend Intel is that most users have no idea how to manually tune their CPU and the mere thought of entering the BIOS is utterly terrifying to many of them. Many of them are buying cheaper CPUs and motherboards that are "good enough for gaming" so the i9 "problem" the media is chirping about may not even apply to many of them.

I think there's a small group of them that buy the best even though they don't have a clue how to use it. In their case, it may be like giving a razor-sharp Samurai sword to a child and expecting them to not get hurt, or not hurt someone else, with it.

5 hours ago, Papusan said:

G.SKILL Trident Z5 Royal DDR5-8000 48GB CL40 Review

All that matters for modern PC users (included gamer kids).... Pretty blingy bling almost as precious stones. Yup... G.Skill know how to offer huge value.

 

 

That's pathetic. Seems like 8000 Royal is about 2 years late to the party. And, the TPU article is 20 pages of worthless information. It is as ugly as it always has been and will overheat with their half-assed approach to thermals. What do you reckon makes this RGB "excellent" compared to others? Maybe the mere fact that is has RGB makes it qualify for being called excellent in the mind of the reviewer? So anything that has RGB is going to be automatically assigned the mantle of being excellent? Nothing to see here, boys and girls... now go clean your room, and don't forget to brush your teeth.

Dufus spent a lot more time on this than necessary, but I agree with his thoughts (as usual).  Seems like the YouNoob influencers are making this bigger than it should be and taking it personal that a huge multi-billion dollar corporation isn't responding in a way that they think is appropriate. I am starting to feel like I am watching the retarded woke lefty broads on The View with some of their videos.

This is one I had not seen before. Kind of a symphonic techno. Different.

1 hour ago, electrosoft said:

I just finished watching this.

 

It appears Wendell and Falcon NW helped with the data and presentation.

 

Watching the entire thing and looking at the fixes in place now, there are still problems:

 

The newest BIOS (along with MC 0X125) set Intel baseline prefs (PL1/PL2=253w, ICC=307A) but still let chips overheat and single cores fly to the moon. It is false comfort. What they also should have done was also auto set very conservative LLC levels to stop any overshoot as auto then steps in and gets slap happy.

 

Personal testing using the "default" settings but adjusting LLC/AC_LL/DC_LL in tandem immediately brought all that overheating nonsense to a a stop and even allowed single core boosting to 6.2 to stay sub 1.4v at all times testing in CB23. I can not monitor the transients properly without an Oscilloscope nor do I want to go to BZ levels of data collection, so for now I'll stick to manual fixed voltage till the next bios update/mc patch and like I said before I have four profiles pretty much dialed in at  56x-59x / 45x / Auto ring (IE 4.5ghz - 5ghz). When the bios update drops, I'll test it versus 125.

 

This was shown on using the newest BIOS releases on the Z690 Strix and Z790i Lightning. Using defaults right out of the box and updated had my 14900KS shooting to 363w which in and unto itself isn't "bad" but what it also had it doing was overheating like crazy and asking (and getting) crazy amounts of voltage.

 

 Like you say, taking control of vcore is king.

 

Taking control of your voltage either via vrout max is the easiest way if your MB supports it (gigabyte and asus). Leave everything at auto and cap overall requested voltage regardless of settings/scenario/programs. This as "set and forget" easy as it gets.

 

Actually get in there and test/explore all types of settings and properly get to know your BIOS to extract maximum performance safely.

I agree. I do not embrace their solutions, but I thought the issue itself was approached intelligently and not tainted by any kind of emotion or fanboy finger-pointing that Intel went too far trying to beat AMD. I do not agree with that. I think the methodology behind the "AI" and eTVB (and PBO on AMD) overclocking is a flawed and problematic approach that has effectively shown itself to be folly for both Intel and AMD. AMD's response was to limit their CPU overclocking abilities to keep the CPUs from being killed, which is a sucky approach that ignores the real problem, and I sure hope Intel doesn't take this lazy way out.

I limit the Vcore max in the BIOS as well, so that any overshoots or spikes are capped. For example, my 13900KS can run 60x all P-core and 48x all E-core synced Cinebench-stable with manual Vcore set at 1.400V. On the CPU power menu I have L7 LLC set with AC and DC LLC set at 0.010 and capped the Vcore at 1.500V. No issues. I find the voltage needed for my other CPUs in the same way and lock it down. No degradation that I can find. 

Those benchmarks I ran yesterday at 6.0GHz and 8600 on memory were run to confirm nothing has changed since I last went on a number-chasing spree. And, no surprise to me, nothing had changed.

While my core and package temperatures end up being a few degrees higher, I think the trade-off is safety and stability. If it gets too hot it will thermal throttle (as has been the case for years) but it won't grenade itself with insane voltage spikes trying to boost off the charts.

The early guidance in the ASUS Z790 overclocking tutorials at oc.net suggest capping the Vcore at 1.700V is safe, but I don't see any reason to set it that high. I am also not convinced that tuning LLC to attempt to match the load VID and load Vcore, allowing high idle voltage and crazy load vdroop is a good idea. Way too much variance and wild swings in the highs and lows for me to think that is a smart idea.

I'm pretty sure the old school way of doing things is usually the best way, and overclocking is no exception. The new and not-so-improved thermal-controlled dynamic clocking and algorithm-based voltage control nonsense is for the birds.

So, I found a factory heatsink and backplate to allow me to convert the Aorus RTX 2080 Ti Xtreme Waterforce GPU to air so I can use it in place of the much weaker Titan in the Rampage IV Gene system. Ordered from AliExpress.

I don't run these memory clocks very often because there is no real-world benefit, but it still works. 8400 CL38 is my daily driver and the performance is almost the same, but requires substantially less VCCSA and VDD and VDDQ. It looks fancy in screenshots though.

11 hours ago, electrosoft said:

If Intel and AMD decide overclocking is no longer a worthy endeavor and the boost you get is the boost you get and recommend/enforce severe non-K like chips, that would be a sad, sad day.

Indeed. It would mark the end of my interest in computers. I would own what I needed for work and spend as little as possible on that. Ultimately, I would no longer contribute anything on YouTube, or in technology-based social media, (which already is the only form of social media I actively participate in,) and probably abandon what little interest I left have in gaming. (The lack of interest has more to do with the repulsive selection of games than the act of gaming.) Literally everything I do for recreational enjoyment is either directly or loosely associated with overclocking in one form or another. It would become a totally pointless endeavor for me.

11 hours ago, electrosoft said:

Yeah I'm going to be held back because of SA limitations (1.18 max solid, 1.19 benching quasi solid, 1.20 insta lock up) and SFF considerations and heat. 1.36 SA is a pipe dream for me. 🙂 Luckily, the chip is firing on all cylinders everywhere else that I need it. 8000 was the goal. 8200 is icing on the cake for this build. 🙂

While it is certainly fun to set memory clock and AIDA64 read benchmark records and gather a few points on HWBOT, once that notch is added to your belt there is virtually no benefit that I can identify moving from 8200 to 8400 to 8600. Above 8000 it is hard to measure a difference in anything other than a memory benchmark. Other than maybe Geekbench, the vast majority of benchmarks and games and productivity workloads show virtually no quantifiable or meaningful change above 8000.

Running Y-cruncher and Prime95 and memory stress tests for hours (or days for some people) is actually more idiotic and harmful than the current stuff everyone is chirping about with Intel degradation. That is not much different than believe being a wife-beater makes your marriage stronger. Super stupid.

1 hour ago, tps3443 said:

5.6Ghz with a 10900K? That has to be an amazing chip. 

If it is the one I sold him it is a phenomenal sample.

3 minutes ago, Clamibot said:

I trust your guys' recommendations a lot more than any other group. I just needed confirmation that someone here thought the cooler was excellent, so thank you guys for that!

Yup, I agree with that. And, if Brother @electrosoft says it is good, you can generally take that to the bank.