electrosoft

Ugh, MSI is supposed to be right up there by Asus in regards to BIOS controls. One thing I can say about Asus is they really do give you the kitchen sink and then some. EVGA was up there too. I always considered MSI next but watching BZ flip around in Gigabyte's BIOS, it seems pretty competent these days too. Asrock is missing a lot of fine/granular controls and I find their FIVR controls a bit lacking. So far, it is Asus and Gigabyte with the ultimate cut off valve for vrout max settings. When it comes to games, I have always run a mix of configs allowing me to scale to the games demands and reap the rewards in clock settings. It lets me really wring out every last bit of performance per game from my chips without trying to implode them. 🙂 What I usually do is when I find a game or stressor I want/need to run, I will then adjust around it and create another profile tier to run. For example, WoW, Starfield and FO76, I can even get away with tuned/dialed in auto and run it up to 6ghz all core if I want but 5.9 is the perfect sweet spot. I could actually probably run FO76 6.1ghz all core most likely. CP2077 I can do 5.8 all core. This Wukan benchmark? I had to go back and use my "big boy" profile at 5.6 which means I'll have to adjust up 5.7 and most likely 5.8 won't run but it might. 5.9 is definitely a pipe dream on my lidded AIO setup. With that being said, I absolutely agree that real world stability is the best as it assures everything will run, but the cost is performance left on the table when a game can run more with less. Did you ever find out what made your monitoring text turn color and what it meant when running this benchmark? I'm curious.

Yeah, the power draw is one thing but having to actually use my Y-cruncher/OCCT profile to get it to run for a game benchmark is crazy. Using my other settings, it would just exit out before it even got to the shaders compiler screen. I'll have to go back in and figure out where 5.7 and 5.8 can get it to run too unless the pull/heat gets a little too much for my modest setup. Glad to know I wasn't seeing things as I tried three times to get my adjusted 66 to then show up on the final results screen. Seems like over on the OCN forums, they have all decided on max everything at 4k, Super Resolution setting of 75 and trying to see how many can break 80fps and by how much. I saw a couple 83fps scores. LOL.... I chuckled nicely at that one. 🙂

It's 66. I don't know why it kept showing 65, but when I went back in and manually set it to 66, it would show 65. I actually did the run *3* times trying to get it to show the 66 I selected! 🙂 Thinking about blocking it? Max everything out and set Super Resolution to 66 to see how it stacks up to @tps3443 and my scores at the same settings.

And here is some AMD 7900XTX runs on the 14900KS. I had to actually bump my Vcore up to 1.32 for 5.6/4.5/5.0 (1.2 under load) to get it to run properly not just with shader compiles but normal use too. This thing is hungry. I think there are going to be a lot of systems that are going to crash/won't run this on launch. This is the same profile I have to run for even small OCCT and Y-cruncher testing. I can pass CB23/CB15 at 1.29 on the new bios and 1.28 (1.152v load) on the old bios. But this thing required the same profile as the ultra hungry stuff. Temps were good though! 🙂 This is why I like having multiple profiles. I can load up 5.9 all core auto tuned for WoW and FO76 and 5.6 as above for any heavy hitting. As for AMD, er, well.... let's just say RT really isn't in the future for them with this game in any meaningful way. Using the same settings as my previous run on the 4090 (and same as @tps3443😞 7900XTX stock + 14900KS fixed 56x/45x/50x RT ON: (Note: this run was the first run and includes shader compiles data in the HWInfo) 7900XTX stock + 14900KS fixed 56x/45x/50x RT OFF:

Pure 100% stock CPU and stock GPU, mem at 6000 only but tuned. IF at stock 2000. So 6fps difference? That's it? Hmmm.... And yeah, the shader compiles are brutal. I'm fishing through various setups on my 14900KS on the AIO to find what works best....7950X3D just shrugged it off and said, "and what?" 🤣

And there goes my tea...... thanks for that. 🤣

Agreed, but sometimes synergistic pairings between software and hardware do pay dividends. Apple comes to mind, love 'em or hate 'em. 🙂 The real problem was when Intel and AMD started to deviate from a monolithic type design and started offering these hybrid designs both in core differentials (P vs E) and core functionality (X3D vs non-X3D) so OSes could no longer just work with a generic scheduler. We're expecting M$ and AMD/Intel to work hand in hand to properly have their CPUs know what and how to prioritize tasks. It has gotten somewhat better since Alderlake and 7950X3D/7900X3D introduction but it will always be a work in progress.....

The main issue is upgrading a system from one CPU to another (IE 7600x to a 7900X3D/7950X3D). I've been using and monitoring core usage for several months now with this 7950X3D and I can say disabling CCD1 for an X3D only box versus running full tilt is the same on a clean install with the newest BIOS and drivers on the x670e carbon. Running Fallout 76, WoW, Starfield, Deux Ex, CP2077 and more, as soon as you're in game, CCD1 is put to sleep and all the load shifts to CCD0. I used Ryzen Master to monitor core usage. I also used Project Lasso for awhile to see if there was a difference and there was not resulting in the same basic effective outcome. I'm not sure what magic was worked from December to now, but there is no more drifting like before. One thing I did do is stop using MSI's chipset drivers and went straight to the source and got them from AMD so that may have helped too. Could have been one of the BIOS updates too as Agesa is constantly updated. There is also the prospect of gamebar updates/refinements on M$ end. I just did a clean install along with the newest BIOS update a few days ago and everything is working right as rain with proper core parking during gaming with the 7950X3D on the MSI x670E carbon. In summary: Clean install with new CPU (newest drivers and BIOS update) = no problems Upgrade CPU from single CCD to dual CCD X3D model but want to keep your current Windows install? Uninstall chipset drivers, clean out driver debris with Revo, reinstall chipset drivers Still got a problem? Toggle Driver for CPPC in BIOS. You can usually toggle back to auto after if you want and it keeps the proper settings.

Nice OC on the IF. Yeah, the sheer amount of power it takes for minimal returns isn't worth it outside of benchmarks. We'll have to see some pics of it in action when it's up to your standards.:)

Welcome to the Desktop brigade Meaker! Time to update the sig. 🙂

Yeah I watched Jay's video yesterday. Final conclusion? 240mm->420mm with everything else being equal results in a ~2w differential and slightly tighter variance at 253w limit even after normalizing temps. If you have the case space and with ~$28USD separating the top and bottom models, go big. If you have a smaller case, you will still get great performance even down to a 240mm. I'd like to see a retest at 320w though....

I like that you think a 12900KS on a Z690 Hero is a "simple gaming rig" 🙂 Simple would be a 12400 on a B660 D4 board heh. But iGPU's are pretty even between the two and if I had to choose, I would go 12900KS too especially with that pricing. I'm tempted to pick up a few and bin them at that price lol. When you get the 12900KS, slap it on the encore and see where the IMC tops out. Now that I have the Lightning and 8400+ sticks in action, I'll be retesting the the 2x 12900k's I have along with the 12400 just to see where they can go on DDR5. On DDR4, the cool hand luke topped out at 4133 on DDR4, the 12900K I delidded topped out at 4000. The 12400 topped out at 3333 (yes, 3333). This 14900KS hit 4200+ on it. Good test and more importantly, it uses UE5 engine which many games will be using going forward. 4k even dropping the settings down still brings the 4090 to its knees with 69fps native and renders everything else sub 60fps yikes. That's without RT....

Well, they have 15 of them available at that price so hopefully the one they send you is a good bin. And yeah, for that price? You're not going to go much better elsewhere. ~$268 + tax shipped for a 12900KS is pretty nice. Something to keep in mind if you're contemplating an AMD build is the 7600x which trades blows with the 12900K and can be had for a tad cheaper but only has half the threads but has a good iGPU too: Timestamped at overall average but take into consideration if you're going iGPU as a priority. On the other hand, if you want to max OC a 12900k....lol

Well yeah, then you wouldn't be the @Papusan we all know and love! (minus the Crocs of course 🙂 )

There's zero downside to a bug/defect being fixed even if the benefits aren't realized due to personal use cases. But for myself, I can now start dabbling with 8600-8800 along with tighten up at 8400 without the system crashing due to insufficient SA. I couldn't do that before 0x129. Will I run anything like this D2D in the SFF? No. It will now be a tight 8200 vs 8000 for that to keeps temps in check but always better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. But I get where you're coming from. 🙂 "Hey look, the new model comes with 8 cup holders!" "But there will be, at most, only two of us in the car" "Maybe we'll have 4 drinks each one day and...." "...."

It's the final vs beta one previously but yeah, that 9000 series TDP is gonna rock my world!😅 Everything updated, fresh, meticulous, clean install. All hardware tested and verified.....let's go! With all the issues and problems out there, nowhere did I even imagine the SA Bug would be one of the blessings of 0x129. Everything is looking good! Now that you've had it for a bit, what is your opinion of the DD EK AIO?

@Raiderman I always say, when I want a new BIOS to drop, all I have to do is install the most recent.... 🙂 https://download.msi.com/bos_exe/mb/7D70v1J.zip Luckily, the system recert was still taking place so I updated to this one and back to testing my dialed in timings on mem and other subsystems before a clean install tonight across the board.

You absolutely extracted every ounce of value out of your P870 in every way possible. It had a good life. 🙂 The new SFF is looking good! For my in progress portable SFF buildout, I'm thinking a 4070 Super is the absolute sweet spot (or a heavily discounted 4070).

I figured with the 9600x/9700x results the 9950x wasn't going to bring much to the table. Refinements without performance advancements is this generation. Now we're talking.... 🤣 --- Rumors are of a dual X3D CCD design for the 9950X3D, but I'm just not seeing that happening. If we get a 9950X3D like the 7950X3D, that is a massive pass. This generation is all about refinements and a new node. This is the ultimate tick using Intel methodology. Hopefully the next tock is meaningful on this new fab. Honestly, they could have just named these 8600x, 8700x, 8850x and save the odd numbering for major uplift/changes as there just isn't much of anything there outside of the new fab and a touch of uplift maybe. I'll need to see some locked clock for clock testing to draw a final conclusion. Crap on the 7900xtx all you want, but it is 30-40% faster than the 6950xt overall. But this? Meh. (Back to tuning the 7950X3D and 14900KS for WoW Xpac comparisons with my 7900xtx and 4090 while I wait for Arrow Lake)

You knew deep in your heart you wanted the 4090 from the jump.... how you convinced yourself a 4080 Super was good enough is beyond me! 🤣

Yeah, I watched this last night and just went, "huh?" Here's who I rely on right now.... The massive army of engineers at Intel (for better or worse) BZ for his oscilloscope readings That's it.

Watching BZ's video about disabled 0x129, and he clearly says it is basically Gigabyte's fault and that after accepting the warning of not using Intel's default settings (it actually gives you a warning on their board), all bets are off and you're back to Gigabyte's settings which includes horrendously set LLCs and unrealistic UV which can cause poor silicon to crash right out of the box. Just piss poor settings from Gigabyte by default even with the newest BIOS. This reminds me of Asrock and their 0x125 BIOS which set at proper defaults and enforced limits was still thermal throttling and shooting to the moon at 363w but more importantly pulling a crap ton of vcore. The newest 0x129 update works properly right out of the box with enforced limits and temps and everything were within range and 6.2 boosting went bye bye to 5.9 max. Back to BZ: He literally says "Now maybe some vendors somehow like have a way of keeping it in place but at least on gigabyte it disappears as soon as you turn off Intel default settings..." - This is what I was alluding to previously. He also notes the Silicon lottery and the fact his CPU can't run R15 with the Intel default settings on Gigabyte but if you have good Silicon it can run it. This is mainly due to Gigabyte's aggressive UV/LLC out of box on 0x129. Another thing is even after disabling Intel Enforced Limits and running multiple tests, he fails to spike to 1.6+ which he was doing pre-0x129 and caps out at 1.5792v which is oddly specific and close to 1.55.....

Ditto. On an AIO and stock lid, after a lot of testing, 5.9 / 4.5 / auto is really the sweet spot and correlates nicely to the V/F point and runs great with Intel enforced limits of 253w/400a 5.9 all core. Temps usually stay nice and low. 6ghz all core is doable, but I'm not super keen on the vcore pull sometimes and temps are good but I know this is going to eventually end up on the 240mm EK Nucleus so I need temps to be great now so they can be great/good in the sff. Next step is move the 240mm in the test case and that also opens up room to slot in the 7900xtx and start testing it and the 4090 back and forth against the 7950x3d in single binned X3D CCD mode. Watched your video. Always a fun watch bro. 🙂 Exactly and quite honestly the MC update is working as intended. Anyone who goes with Intel defaults is fully protected along with the SA Bug being fixed. The fact changing BIOS options removes the protection for me shows Intel still giving MB makers control which is exactly what you want. It is up to Gigabyte (and other MB makers if they haven't already) to leave in place the full 1.55v ceiling in all scenarios unless a user explicitly removes it for whatever reasons (LN2, suicide runs, etc...). Other MBs will have to be tested to see how they handle BIOS alterations and the 1.55v limit in different scenarios.

Will have to be confirmed on other motherboards too, but the problem appears to be it is set by default but Intel still left in place controls for MB settings to disable it for LN2 and other hardcore OC'ers which is the right move. It is up to the MB makers to keep it in place in all situations except when explicitly disabled. This may be the fault of Gigabyte and how it handles settings outside of stock Intel defaults on the 0x129 era.

Thanks for giving it a test! I guess the upside is, cost aside, it performs just as well. The downside is the crazy cost per gram comparatively.