electrosoft

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.

Agreed. I've tried it 3 times actually with two different BGA laptops and it sucks OR I got a bad/fake batch ordered from Amazon here. I had way better results with Nano extreme (the original go to for laptops and poor heatsink pairings). Isn't this the same stuff 4090/7900XTX users are raving over as being the best though (outside of liquid metal)?

After a lot of testing, I'm thinking I might go with the best of both worlds and do an Intel enforced limits auto optimized fixed all core config for D2D. I've been playing WoW, FO76, Fortnite and Starfield on this at 59x all core and even 60x all core with great temps and performance. I went and did some shader compiles in Fortnite and Hogwarts and decompression tests. So in the end, you end up with a variable all core but with auto settings and dialed in LL/VCComp/ACDC all running at 253w/400a. What I like about this config is for most games it will sit at 59x and 60x no problem and game away with load requirements well under 200w (usually 95w-130w). If things get heavy and require more than 253w (which doesn't happen in game yet) it will just downclock to compensate. If I really need the extra clocks (not really in games), I can push to 320w extreme limit or if push comes to shove load up one of my fixed profiles from 56x -> 59x (along with the increased package pull, heat and load vcore). After a lot of game play and futzin' around, while it's cool to see, I see zero reason to boost to 6.2. Like....none. It is fun to see pop up from time to time and flex in CB23/GB6 but in real D2D use? I'm not seeing it as just about every game I play is multithreaded now. On the new 6.02 bios w/ 0x129, I now need 1.30v fixed / 1.184 under load for 56x all core now in CB23 vs 1.28v / 1.152v under load with SA now roaming free and wild..... same adjustment up for the other profiles too. (1.35 for 5.7, 1.40 for 5.8, 1.44 for 5.9) Ugh, that feeling when you think a CPU has died and went to the great Silicon place in the sky.....nothing sinks your heart like 00 or a stuck 15 on MSI boards. Glad everything turned out ok. In those situations, depending on silicon quality, I almost always hope its the MB and not the CPU.

Most excellent! And just like that our "still good deals" SA Bugged chips are now great deals running as intended. Absolutely...... Unfortunately you're correct. I find myself agreeing with him far more often than not......pure torture. 😞

As you said, he's pushing too hard and his problem lies elsewhere. At a certain point, SA/IMC/Memory/MB will give up the ghost. Every piece of a subsystem has its limits fixes or not. Every chip has its limits SA Bug or not. Once you are >=8000, you are fully out of Intel's sanctioned IMC zone and then some anyhow. --- As for Jufus, there is definitely a need for 0x129. Without it, my SA caps at 1.18 or it's crash city everywhere. On a whim, I set my memory to 8600 and booted with SA Auto hitting 1.35 no problem. In every other scenario WITHOUT 0x129, anything greater than 1.18 on SA and memory >=7800 is insta hard lock up SA style requiring a power cycle. 0x129 puts in place 1.55 limit to stop any overshoots or excessive voltage if you fail to cap/tune it yourself or on the off chance a request/transient gets loose and unless explicitly told not to, the buck stops there regardless of everything else as a safety measure. No more; no less. If you were capping your vcore/clocks already, there is usually no problem but 0x129 is that extra layer of protection and it really is no harm in using it. And let's not forget HWInfo and other software routinely misses >1.55v transient spikes (or flat out misreports like OCCT and amps) due to polling speeds as BZ showed repeatedly in his video pre-0x129 that 0x129 is designed to stop at the base level (or you can in theory by using fixed Vcore and/or vrout max capping). I prefer to use both 0x129 and tune the bios for a win:win. Jufus is also stuck in the mentality that 1.40v will kill your CPU which it will not. He is stuck on 1.35v or lower or you're going to degrade your CPU. If that were the case, Intel would have set the cap much lower....unless (tin foil hat on) Intel knows they would have to toss out the bulk of their chips on shelf and RMA them out there all the way back to many 13900k chips with >=1.4v 6ghz/6.2ghz VIDs on top or chop off performance and the CPUs no longer perform as advertised and suffer a massive lawsuit/return landslide. (tin foil hat off) But seriously, that last half of theorizing (and acting like he is the only one to think as such) what Intel is doing including forced idle states which I hate to tell him was talked about days ago on other forums which lends me to believe he is ghost reading. 🙂 I absolutely agree with him capping top end frequency or at least picking a sane voltage:performance ratio --- I grow tired of Jufus patting himself on the back and making it a, "me against them" mentality, acting like his discord is some magical unicorn laden virtual land where all technical matters are discussed and solved and nowhere else (you gotta pay of course) and somehow always pointing to himself as some messiah/savant when it comes to basics while always shilling his bundles and services.....but I do still watch and enjoy his videos. 🙂

How does Kryonaut Extreme stack up against KPx?

Looking forward to your findings. The Lightning is actually a fairly new board released this year, so it had launch BIOS and then when I picked it up the newest BIOS was 0x125. I'm pretty pleased even at Intel's enforced limits. I tested with WoW and FO76 and it sits at 5.9 rock solid everywhere with better temps than fixed (as expected). I might push to 320w extreme limits for testing but as is 253w/400a works more than well enough for D2D especially gaming. I could adjust down to 59x all core (via per core to keep ring boosting in place). I'll check with Starfield and Fortnite later. I'm running this just like I ran my 12900k cool hand luke (which is in my NH55 now). It was the only 12900k I had that could handle lowest LLC / AC/DC settings without crashing on an AIO. When running like that, binning and then cooling (in that order) makes a huge difference. You are really testing your chips auto bottom/bottom voltage range. I'm always reminded that binning does matter. I tried to adjust my bud's SP101 14900ks using the same settings on his Hero as my Z690 Strix and Z790i Lightning and it was crash city. I ended up going with LLC3 / .70 / 320w and 56x all core to stop it from overheating on his Corsair 360mm AIO (I also repasted w/ KPx). He had also picked up a pair of G.Skill 8200 sticks and tried running them at 8200 which did boot and seem to work to him but a quick run of TM5 and they were erroring out left and right so after some adjustments and testing, he's locked in at 7600 solid. With the SA Bug now resolved, this is a perfect chip for my needs. I mean absolutely perfect. Next up is Intel APO testing in WoW, deeper memory testing and 320w limits testing.

Dialed back in auto enforced limits and it is not only running the same as before, but ~5-6c cooler and hitting 6.2ghz again at 8200 SA Auto which is 1.31: 0x125: 0x129:

Installed BIOS update 6.02 on the Asrock Z790i + SP109 14900KS. Initial notes and observations: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now default load optimized settings no longer blows up to 350w+ and overheats but stays at 71c tops for CB23 run while scoring /clocking the same multi (~37k) Unfortunately the settings used are still not optimal as it is pulling 1.184v under load yet still throttling down to ~4.8ghz all core versus my settings pulling 1.152v under load and staying rock solid at 56x all core and running just as cool if not a touch cooler. Auto single core only turbos to 5.9 versus my settings which hit 6.2 at basically the same pull. Exact same settings as 0x125 so I'll have to investigate to see whats going on / load up my saved auto profile as it may be power throttling somewhere with the default settings. 0x125 was blasted from the MC options and replaced directly with 0x129. SA Bug is fixed on Asrock. Initial testing SA Auto 8200, SA was at 1.301 and running TM5 no problem. Before, it was instant "SA Crash" on auto and anything >=1.20v + >=7800mhz .....w00t. I have all my old profiles saved on a USB stick so I'll start restoring them next and see how they perform. After re-validating all my dialed in profiles (Fixed_Voltage(56x-59x, 45x, Auto Ring, 8200)), I plan on testing the memory a bit now that I am not capped by 1.18v SA.

Simple enough to test. Scale by per core in CB23 and measure Vcore under load to get a spread spectrum of required voltages from 1 to 8 P-cores while verifying there is no clock stretching or downclocking. That will give you an idea but the good thing is your cooling really helps cut down on load requests especially in a varied chilled state so I don't expect anything too high. I see no downside to running 0x129 especially in your setup as it will help any errant transients pop out even with Asus controls in place.

14600k wins but I mean I guess the argument could be platform longevity as Socket 1700 is almost at an end (sans Bartlett) so 9600x is more future proof? Maybe? So far, 9000 series is more about refinements than anything....9950X3D/9800X3D needs to bring some zip to this Miracle Whip especially with Intel looming large with 15th gen. Asrock's Z790i lightning BIOS update for 0x129 has dropped, so I'll be giving that a whirl later. @Raiderman, I installed MSI's newest BIOS for the x670e Carbon and boot times are definitely faster (or at least returned to boot times 2x BIOS drops ago 🙂 ). Everything else looks and feels about the same and all old timing profiles work just as well.

That's promising all on its own it has bumped up your SA voltage capability. In unison with the BIOS itself, hopefully it takes care of all of it. I look forward to seeing how a partially helped chip with @Prema's work faires with the full BIOS and also tested in the Encore to give us three test scenarios. A bit higher than I expected actually but it makes sense considering many VIDs on some of these chips are hitting 1.523v which is lower than the 1.5v cap. I think Intel did the best they could do with this and it not only caps out at 1.55v (I was thinking 1.45v), but allows OCers to go back to extremes if needed. This cap limit also makes total sense as it also lets turd chips continue to sell as the 1.523v max VID on some of them still fits comfortably under that limit. No way Intel is tossing 1.523v max vid chips as that seems to be a large swath of 14900KS chips.

I mean.... Uh..... I don't know what to say....

Totally Agree! As I keep testing and using this SP109 on an AIO I am just blown away at the fact I can do 59x/45x/50x on an AIO....Ayyyy Eyeeeee Ohhhhh!!! at 8200. That I can dial it in at full auto on an AIO and have it hitting 6.2 and down and temps are fantastic relatively speaking and vcore under load rocks. My SP115 13900KS couldn't get anywhere near this and realistically topped out at 57x/44x/48x 8000 before heat and voltage took over. 8200 was flaky on it but this could have also been the G.skill sticks. I always wondered if it was maybe the motherboard, but @Mr. Fox hitting 8400 and 8600 on the same board puts that to rest. as for the SP109 14900KS, 8200 is rock solid TM5 90 min run on this one as is 8400 even with the SA Bug but I prefer 8200 with tighter timings with temps being about the same between both. Just like you, I won't pop the tops and keep them stock. I'm going to run 0x129 MC for safety and if, according to @Talon, our OCs aren't really affected, if this wipes out the SA Bug that is icing on the cake. The major icing on top that icing is having a 0.969 V/F point at 4300mhz just completes the near perfection of this chip for potential future NH55. I was actually fishing/looking/asking for V/F curves from sellers with decent silicon to see if they had a good 4300 point. If I'm going to buy binned silicon, why not try to check all the boxes, right? I was really interested in your R batch then ya went and popped the damn top. 😞 It had the mythical 0.969 point I wanted at 4300. For example, I would turn down your chip if offered because of the poor 4300 point. I'm not sure what was your 5600/5900 points. I was contemplating an SP112, but it's 4300 (0.984), 5600 (1.319) and 5900 (1.393) points were all higher than my SP109. Same as when I saw an SP111, poor 4300, slightly better 5600, equal 5900. I previously turned down an SP108 for $800 because the 4300 point was poor and in the end the SP109 I ended up with had superior points across all three. This one? $630 shipped total after all was said and done and it satisfies ALL my criteria both high and low. All I knew was it was an SP109 at a killer price and pulled the trigger. I didn't know I was going to get great V/F points across my main three criteria (especially 43x and 56x which are most important to me) and crazy good under load voltages for AIO use un-delidded. Killer chip. He did say something was wrong with the power reading for the 9700x as it read 88w across everything incorrectly which was strange but that really isn't the point as the 14700k wasn't drawing a metric ton of power either. With that being said, the logical gaming answer was and continues to be the 7800X3D. In their quest to beat Intel , AMD....well they AMD'd themselves with their own CPU. 🫢 I still have this suspicion that 15th gen is going to come out on top again.....hope I'm right. Lots of hype but I still think the key take away here is basically the same power, smaller node, small uplift in IPC at much lower power consumption. The lower power consumption is a big deal going forward on many levels especially APUs and mobile platforms. If you weren't compelled to upgrade from your AM4 platform to 7000 series, so far 9000 isn't doing it either. 😞 I did not know that Gigabyte gave you MSI like levels of control in their BIOS. I might have to add them to my "maybe" list. You are awesome @Prema, thanks! This will make it easy for me to deploy and test on my two 13th gen laptops and Asrock board if I want to test it independently. You rock bro! Another case of 0x129 fixing the SA Bug on Asus Encore....

Promising start! I'll have to wait for Asrock to release an updated BIOS in the next week or so before giving it a whirl. I've logged so much data at 5.6-5.9 profiles on the 14900KS that it will be nice to compare the profiles. Agreed. With my setup and end game goals, the SA Bug is not an issue. I ended up doing a full TM5 run at 8400 but the timings and voltage settings are better at 8200 especially temps atm. This. Would be a nice bonus for my 14900KS, but honestly the chip is firing on all cylinders for my needs which is why I kept it versus returning it (plus the seller was super honest and nice). More proof the MC update has resolved the SA Bug at least on Asus boards:

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.

Intel says Raptor Lake microcode update will not affect overclocking and performance Also Intel:

Or looking at it another way, the lesser silicon is always trickled down to lesser chips/designs and this is no different (see: 7950X3D X3D CCD vs 7800X3D). They revamp the 9700x to give equal or slightly better performance than its predecessor at a much lower power envelope and runs cooler overall. That's a win:win. The trade off is performance is not greatly increased. These new designs are going to ROCK for SFF and laptops. Enthusiasts also have the option to open up the power limits, manually OC if they want even or go with the new curve optimizer software and take it to the limit (one more time.....). But 11th, 13th and 14th has shown us when power draw can get silly. We saw what happen to Intel with 13th and 14th gen when left unchecked power consumption wise. Sanity HAS to kick in at some point and there are limits to too much power draw outside of overclocking. I saw this having no problems pulling 350-390w when merited, but still.... 🙂 Don't you love the competition? 🙂 But yeah, I am REAL curious to see what Intel is bringing to the table with Arrow Lake. Intel could basically wipe the slate clean real quick with the 13th/14th debacle by introducing absolutely killer new chips that retake the lead in sweeping fashion like they did with 12th gen that left AM4 along with the 5800X3D in the rear view mirror (when properly tuned of course).

What is it with Jay, AMD and getting ram to run at 6000? I've used 4 different AM5 boards, probably at least 7 different DDR5 kits and have never failed to stabilize 6000 on a 7950x, 7950x3d, 7600x, 7800x3d. Absolutely. Just finished watching De8auers and overclockers are going to love dropping all the limits and opening up this chip with good cooling and a potential delid. AMD was truthful when they said OC'ers will like it. Waiting to see how much cooling scales with it as unlocked it was bouncing off the 90c limit. Main benefits are a fab shrink so far and some IPC uplift but overall more evolutionary than revolutionary and then some. The downsize is even unlocked, the 7800X3D still trashes it overall with all systems running 6000 memory. 1-4fps increase with OC/limits removed on the 9700x vs 7700x. My final verdict? Same as before, I'll be waiting for the X3D variants even mores so now. This, again, lets me wait to see what Intel brings to the table while I continue to play with this 14900KS and my ~16 months in action AM5 (not counting a down 1.5 month when my MB went bye bye) system still holding it down. Overclocked/unlimited 9700x vs stock 9700x on an Asus board with just a 360mm AIO. De8uaer notes future video to really overclock it with a delid and better cooling to see how it stacks up. I'm also looking forward to see if there are improvements in the IMC/realization at higher frequencies outside of memory benchmarks. Unlike Intel, AMD actually did a small node shrink. 6th->10th, Intel was basically 14nm++++++++ but yeah, overall much ado about nothing at this point for me but I await the X3D variants. 🙂

I expect Intel to still ask questions like before and idiots to answer them in good faith and get shanked. It is the Intel way. I'm curious to see what the MC update brings. Lightning supports multiple revisions to run, so if it is garbage or too locked down I'll just downgrade. Even the idea of locked down desktops on the level of laptops across the board tightens my jaw in the wrong way. I just expect this update to lock down the vrout max to ~1.45v or maybe 1.4v at the max. If Intel does want to return to the days of pricey "Extreme Editions" for OCers and everything else being locked down for "safety" , I would howl and complain yet knowing full well I would also be picking one up I mean a 14900KS AND a 4090? I know that credit card has got to be smokin!! 😁 I was just looking around at the pile of tech I've accumulated (14900KS, 7950X3D, 7800XTX, 4090, etc...) and 4 desktops now in the house along with 5-6 laptops (even after the sell off) and I need to slow down too and offload some of this and take a pause* *does not include 5090 🤣