*Official Benchmark Thread* - Post it here or it didn't happen :D

[jaybee83]

14 minutes ago, Papusan said:

 

See bolded text above. Then compare with the bolded text from MSI's Press release notes below.... Then you see the same as me. If there is a minority of i9 processors having all this stability problems... They are RMA candidates. They are defective! In short no need for any workarounds. Just RMA the processors back to the retail shop or Intel. No one should pay for defective Cpu's that don't work as intended/expected.

 

MSI Offers BIOS Guide To Improve Gaming Stability With Intel 14th & 13th Gen CPUs

 

[Press Release]: According to some reports, a minority of Intel Core i9-13900K and Core i9-14900K processors may experience instability while gaming or under heavy workloads. If you're encountering this issue, here are some workarounds recommended by Intel.

 

yup, pretty cut n dry 😛 

[Papusan]

 

Buy two and you are probably safe😀

 

[Mr. Fox]

2 hours ago, Papusan said:

 

See bolded text above. Then compare with the bolded text from MSI's Press release notes below.... Then you see the same as me. If there is a minority of i9 processors having all this stability problems... They are RMA candidates. They are defective! In short no need for any workarounds. Just RMA the processors back to the retail shop or Intel. No one should pay for defective Cpu's that don't work as intended/expected.

 

MSI Offers BIOS Guide To Improve Gaming Stability With Intel 14th & 13th Gen CPUs

 

[Press Release]: According to some reports, a minority of Intel Core i9-13900K and Core i9-14900K processors may experience instability while gaming or under heavy workloads. If you're encountering this issue, here are some workarounds recommended by Intel.

 

Source: MSI

Exactly. It's either good and works correctly, or it's junk and goes back for a refund right away. No workarounds. Workarounds to make a defective part usable is not an acceptable solution. If you have to stick to no more than stock Intel power limits or limit boost clocks to find stability you have a part that never should have made it to store shelves. The K/KF/KS SKUs are made for the express purpose of being unlocked and overclockable and if they are unstable at stock boost clocks or have no available headroom left for overclocking they are defective units and a refund or replacement should be expected, no questions asked. It never should have passed QC.

 

They should also put some tight restrictions around the V/F curve on what the maximum acceptable stock turbo max Vcore is for a given SKU. Say something like 1.425V for the advertised turbo max. If it takes 1 mV more than 1.425V for stock turbo max then it is relegated to a lower SKU, capped to a lower boost clock and Vcore max and not sold as an unlocked SKU.

 

They should also standardize the SP rating system and make it a normal component of the UEFI for all brands. So, if you buy an MSI, Gigabyte, ASRock or ASUS motherboard and install the CPU in any of them, they will all assign an accurate and consistent SP rating that will be the same with BIOS defaults on any brand. If you install it in an ASUS motherboard and it has an SP108, then you install it in a MSI or Gigabyte, or ASRock motherboard that same CPU shows an SP108. 

 

This should also be applied to AMD processors in the same manner. End the silicon lottery with a very black and white minimum baseline that is published and readily available to the public, printed on the box or included product documentation, and make the manufacturers accountable for every CPU they sell.  No more bad samples or lottery losers. You'll still have lottery winners that stand out as exceptional samples, but also a guaranteed minimum outcome that should be acceptable to every consumer. And, no argument or debate if you end up with a short straw that slips through the QC process somehow. Automatic replacement or refund.

[Papusan]

55 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

Exactly. It's either good and works correctly, or it's junk and goes back for a refund right away. No workarounds. Workarounds to make a defective part usable is not an acceptable solution. If you have to stick to no more than stock Intel power limits or limit boost clocks to find stability you have a part that never should have made it to store shelves. The K/KF/KS SKUs are made for the express purpose of being unlocked and overclockable and if they are unstable at stock boost clocks or have no available headroom left for overclocking they are defective units and a refund or replacement should be expected, no questions asked. It never should have passed QC.

 

They should also put some tight restrictions around the V/F curve on what the maximum acceptable stock turbo max Vcore is for a given SKU. Say something like 1.425V for the advertised turbo max. If it takes 1 mV more than 1.425V for stock turbo max then it is relegated to a lower SKU, capped to a lower boost clock and Vcore max and not sold as an unlocked SKU.

 

They should also standardize the SP rating system and make it a normal component of the UEFI for all brands. So, if you buy an MSI, Gigabyte, ASRock or ASUS motherboard and install the CPU in any of them, they will all assign an accurate and consistent SP rating that will be the same with BIOS defaults on any brand. If you install it in an ASUS motherboard and it has an SP108, then you install it in a MSI or Gigabyte, or ASRock motherboard that same CPU shows an SP108. 

 

This should also be applied to AMD processors in the same manner. End the silicon lottery with a very black and white minimum baseline that is published and readily available to the public and make the manufacturers accountable for every CPU they sell.  No more bad samples or lottery losers. You'll have lottery winners that stand out as exceptional samples, but also a guaranteed minimum outcome that should be acceptable to every consumer. And, no argument or debate if you end up with a short straw that slips through the QC process somehow. Automatic replacement or refund.

 

Main problem. Intel haven't enough SKUs that should be labeled i9 K/KF or KS. That's the main reason we get a huge variety in the bin quality. From trash to a very few samples with good bin. Intel will never ever offer SP scores. Because they know their binning is only to max out profits from trash chips. Bin chips to reach max boost on two cores (then forget that they use hybrid tech with E-cores) is a failure. All P-cores should be able to reach max advertised boost clocks. Two best cores is an Joke. And they need to come back with xx850K/KF chips. The only solution so they can get rid of the trash. No point offer junk as xx900K/KF or KS flagship chips. That's a failure and the reason Intel now is on deep water (brand damage). 

[jaybee83]

2 hours ago, Papusan said:

 

Buy two and you are probably safe😀

 

very cool video, didnt expect to enjoy it so much, has a lot of ASMR vibes hahaha

[Papusan]

8 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

They should also put some tight restrictions around the V/F curve on what the maximum acceptable stock turbo max Vcore is for a given SKU. Say something like 1.425V for the advertised turbo max. If it takes 1 mV more than 1.425V for stock turbo max then it is relegated to a lower SKU, capped to a lower boost clock and Vcore max and not sold as an unlocked SKU.

 

Yup. The bin quality isn't good enough vs the targeted clock speed. Lower bin quality means you need more voltage and Intel can't fuse in whats needed for the advertised max clock speed. If they did, we would see even higher voltage than the trash bin we already have seen from 14900K/KS. Either they bin their chips properly or they have to lower the boost clock speed out of the box. Now its too late for this gen processors. You can't have it both. Pick your poison. All this is on Intel. A shortage of i9 processors is better than people get chips that can't run as expected. 

 

In short.... Feed more  voltage and it will run more stable but at the cost of higher temps and throttling well below advertised clock speed. 

 

 

What he said.... If you take 20 random  i9 processors then you can see 2 of them can't run Cinebench. Thats 10% failure rate. And the numbers could be even worse. Feed more voltage and it will throttle instead for crashing.

 

I look fowards to what Intel will say... But maybe they swap the problem under the carpet and try bin the remaining chips slightly better so they don't crash out of the box. But no one will know for sure. 

 

8 hours ago, Papusan said:

 

Main problem. Intel haven't enough SKUs that should be labeled i9 K/KF or KS. That's the main reason we get a huge variety in the bin quality. From trash to a very few samples with good bin. Intel will never ever offer SP scores. Because they know their binning is only to max out profits from trash chips. Bin chips to reach max boost on two cores (then forget that they use hybrid tech with E-cores) is a failure. All P-cores should be able to reach max advertised boost clocks. Two best cores is an Joke. And they need to come back with xx850K/KF chips. The only solution so they can get rid of the trash. No point offer junk as xx900K/KF or KS flagship chips. That's a failure and the reason Intel now is on deep water (brand damage). 

 

 

This one is dedicated to the Time Spy jockey bro @ryan🤩 

 

https://hwbot.org/submission/5545057_papusan_3dmark___time_spy_extreme_geforce_gtx_1070_3749_marks?recalculate=true

 

[Raiderman]

12 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

Exactly. It's either good and works correctly, or it's junk and goes back for a refund right away. No workarounds. Workarounds to make a defective part usable is not an acceptable solution. If you have to stick to no more than stock Intel power limits or limit boost clocks to find stability you have a part that never should have made it to store shelves. The K/KF/KS SKUs are made for the express purpose of being unlocked and overclockable and if they are unstable at stock boost clocks or have no available headroom left for overclocking they are defective units and a refund or replacement should be expected, no questions asked. It never should have passed QC.

 

They should also put some tight restrictions around the V/F curve on what the maximum acceptable stock turbo max Vcore is for a given SKU. Say something like 1.425V for the advertised turbo max. If it takes 1 mV more than 1.425V for stock turbo max then it is relegated to a lower SKU, capped to a lower boost clock and Vcore max and not sold as an unlocked SKU.

 

They should also standardize the SP rating system and make it a normal component of the UEFI for all brands. So, if you buy an MSI, Gigabyte, ASRock or ASUS motherboard and install the CPU in any of them, they will all assign an accurate and consistent SP rating that will be the same with BIOS defaults on any brand. If you install it in an ASUS motherboard and it has an SP108, then you install it in a MSI or Gigabyte, or ASRock motherboard that same CPU shows an SP108. 

 

This should also be applied to AMD processors in the same manner. End the silicon lottery with a very black and white minimum baseline that is published and readily available to the public, printed on the box or included product documentation, and make the manufacturers accountable for every CPU they sell.  No more bad samples or lottery losers. You'll still have lottery winners that stand out as exceptional samples, but also a guaranteed minimum outcome that should be acceptable to every consumer. And, no argument or debate if you end up with a short straw that slips through the QC process somehow. Automatic replacement or refund.

Another huge black stain on Intel, and you know as well as I do, they did this on purpose with full knowledge of what they were doing. That trash should have never been released, and they look foolish and desperate for doing so.

[Mr. Fox]

5 hours ago, Raiderman said:

Another huge black stain on Intel, and you know as well as I do, they did this on purpose with full knowledge of what they were doing. That trash should have never been released, and they look foolish and desperate for doing so.

Yup, they're in the same league of dishonest devil-worshippers as NVIDIA and AMD and Micro$lop and crApple and Google and Meta. No surprise. Each of them is cartel of shysters that conspire on ways to screw us all. We have to pick our poisons and decide which cartel(s) are least objectionable. Big Tech, Big Media, Big Pharma and Big Government are all diabolical and will eventually end us all. There is nothing good that can be said of any of them.

 

Big Tech:

LoL = League of Liars

Satan = Father of Lies

[Papusan]

 

17 hours ago, Papusan said:

Yup. The bin quality isn't good enough vs the targeted clock speed. Lower bin quality means you need more voltage and Intel can't fuse in whats needed for the advertised max clock speed. If they did, we would see even higher voltage than the trash bin we already have seen from 14900K/KS. Either they bin their chips properly or they have to lower the boost clock speed out of the box. Now its too late for this gen processors. You can't have it both. Pick your poison. All this is on Intel. A shortage of i9 processors is better than people get chips that can't run as expected. 

 

In short.... Feed more  voltage and it will run more stable but at the cost of higher temps and throttling well below advertised clock speed. 

 

 

What he said.... If you take 20 random  i9 processors then you can see 2 of them can't run Cinebench. Thats 10% failure rate. And the numbers could be even worse. Feed more voltage and it will throttle instead for crashing.

 

I look fowards to what Intel will say... But maybe they swap the problem under the carpet and try bin the remaining chips slightly better so they don't crash out of the box. But no one will know for sure. 

 

 

 

This one is dedicated to the Time Spy jockey bro @ryan🤩 

 

https://hwbot.org/submission/5545057_papusan_3dmark___time_spy_extreme_geforce_gtx_1070_3749_marks?recalculate=true

 

 

7 hours ago, Raiderman said:

Another huge black stain on Intel, and you know as well as I do, they did this on purpose with full knowledge of what they were doing. That trash should have never been released, and they look foolish and desperate for doing so.

 

3 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

Yup, they're in the same league of dishonest devil-worshippers as NVIDIA and AMD and Micro$lop and crApple and Google and Meta. No surprise. Each of them is cartel of shysters that conspire on ways to screw us all. We have to pick our poisons and decide which cartel(s) are least objectionable. Big Tech, Big Media, Big Pharma and Big Government are all diabolical and will eventually end us all. There is nothing good that can be said of any of them.

 

Big Tech:

LoL = League of Liars

Satan = Father of Lies

 

Gigabyte Z790 “Intel Baseline” profile puts Core i9-13900KF (QS) CPU into Core i7 tier

 

Nice. They all cripple the i9 processors now to stop the Cpu crashing due Intel trash binning. This time it's Gigabyte. 

 

April 26th, 2024 –GIGABYTE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd, a leading manufacturer of motherboards, graphics cards, and hardware solutions, released the latest beta BIOS with Intel Baseline feature on Z790, B760 series motherboards for enhanced stability, regarding the feedback from Intel that high power consumption settings may cause system instability with 13/14th generation CPUs.

 

High Power consumption come from all too high voltage fused into the chips to meat targeted max clock speed = Trash binned chips. I expect Intel will be very tight lipped now, as they seeing the MB manufacturers cripple the i9 down to i7 tier performance one after one after they pushed out new guidelines to stop the crashes. A official press release about the problem is a bad idea. It will damage the reputation even more. It's better let the MB manufacturers do the dirty work🤢

 

Superior Stability by GIGABYTE BETA BIOS with Intel Baseline on Z790/B760 Motherboards Gigabyte.com

 

 

2 months ago MSI bragged about their new OC experience with their coming bios. Now the gamers get i7 tier performance instead from their i9 processors. What a downturn. You just can't make proper bios profiles or optimize bios correctly if you only use top binned hardware in the development of the bios. And what with Intel... Did they also test hand picked CPU's then hoped everything was ok? 

 

MSI preparing 6.4 GHz overclocking profile for Intel Core i9... 

[Mr. Fox]

2 hours ago, Papusan said:

 

 

 

 

Gigabyte Z790 “Intel Baseline” profile puts Core i9-13900KF (QS) CPU into Core i7 tier

 

Nice. They all cripple the i9 processors now to stop the Cpu crashing due Intel trash binning. This time it's Gigabyte. 

 

April 26th, 2024 –GIGABYTE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd, a leading manufacturer of motherboards, graphics cards, and hardware solutions, released the latest beta BIOS with Intel Baseline feature on Z790, B760 series motherboards for enhanced stability, regarding the feedback from Intel that high power consumption settings may cause system instability with 13/14th generation CPUs.

 

High Power consumption come from all too high voltage fused into the chips to meat targeted max clock speed = Trash binned chips. I expect Intel will be very tight lipped now, as they seeing the MB manufacturers cripple the i9 down to i7 tier performance one after one after they pushed out new guidelines to stop the crashes. A official press release about the problem is a bad idea. It will damage the reputation even more. It's better let the MB manufacturers do the dirty work🤢

 

Superior Stability by GIGABYTE BETA BIOS with Intel Baseline on Z790/B760 Motherboards Gigabyte.com

 

 

2 months ago MSI bragged about their new OC experience with their coming bios. Now the gamers get i7 tier performance instead from their i9 processors. What a downturn. You just can't make proper bios profiles or optimize bios correctly if you only use top binned hardware in the development of the bios. And what with Intel... Did they also test hand picked CPU's then hoped everything was ok? 

 

MSI preparing 6.4 GHz overclocking profile for Intel Core i9... 

 

Don't send a boy to do a man's job...

 

PC Gamer: plays games on a PC

Overclocker:  employs a combination of knowledge, skill, trial and error to run a processor at elevated frequencies; may also play games on a PC

 

Neither endeavor ends well if you are attempting to perform the task using defective e-waste.

[Reciever]

9 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

 

Don't send a boy to do a man's job...

 

PC Gamer: plays games on a PC

Overclocker:  employs a combination of knowledge, skill, trial and error to run a processor at elevated frequencies; may also play games on a PC

 

Neither endeavor ends well if you are attempting to perform the task using defective e-waste.

Yep, its why I always respect those that have a passion for the subject matter. 

 

Especially on HEDT, especially in the X58 era. SandyBridge made it much easier to jump in but you also lost some of the granularity iirc.

[Mr. Fox]

4 hours ago, Papusan said:

Gigabyte Z790 “Intel Baseline” profile puts Core i9-13900KF (QS) CPU into Core i7 tier

Interesting that they used a QS CPU for testing. Casts even more doubt on what they are trying to do. Clickbait for drama. Never let an opportunity to fabricate a crisis go to waste. Clicky-clicky.

 

[Talon]

18 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

Interesting that they used a QS CPU for testing. Casts even more doubt on what they are trying to do. Clickbait for drama. Never let an opportunity to fabricate a crisis go to waste. Clicky-clicky.

 

 

I'm confused, why did they use 125 or 188w? Did they just pull some random number out of their rears? Intel's spec sheet shows 253w for K and 320 for KS. Isn't 125w for non K or HX. What is 188w from? LOL wtf. 

[Mr. Fox]

Just now, Talon said:

 

I'm confused, why did they use 125 or 188w? Did they just pull some random number out of their rears? Intel's spec sheet shows 253w for K and 320 for KS. Isn't 125w for non K or HX. What is 188w from? LOL wtf. 

Yeah, the whole thing is pretty sketchy. I bet they were hoping nobody noticed. I do think they generated that entire thing just for clickbait. Totally bogus "article" of misinformation.

[Meaker]

@Papusan Just saw your account pop up on the aquacomputer forum, I use the aquaero 5 LT for my loop control.

[Mr. Fox]

No need for Intel baseline profile here.

Works as intended.

[Talon]

1 minute ago, Mr. Fox said:

No need for Intel baseline profile here.

Works as intended.

 

 

Baseline with Intel Failsafe Voltage is a joke. 

 

Just set 253/253 and 320/320w and auto and if that doesn't work then RMA. Crank it up for those with real cooling. 

[Papusan]

On 4/26/2024 at 10:46 PM, Talon said:

 

I'm confused, why did they use 125 or 188w? Did they just pull some random number out of their rears? Intel's spec sheet shows 253w for K and 320 for KS. Isn't 125w for non K or HX. What is 188w from? LOL wtf. 

 

Probably from tuned AC/DC values that match their  test sample. In short random numbers they found appropriate or from their old documents before Intel nailed the specs for 12th gen. But it seems Gigabytes fix for the crashes (still in minority vs sold processors) is the worst from them all. Can't fix stupid. Add PL1 at 125W is just dumb. 

 

The closest I could find the random number 188W is from an older article from Igors lab. 

 

https://www.igorslab.de/en/power-consumption-and-load-peaks-intels-coming-alder-lake-s-and-raptor-lake-s-cpus-in-comparison-exclusively/3/

 

On 4/26/2024 at 10:56 PM, Meaker said:

@Papusan Just saw your account pop up on the aquacomputer forum, I use the aquaero 5 LT for my loop control.

 

The world is very small bro @Meaker🙂 

 

On 4/26/2024 at 11:40 PM, Mr. Fox said:

No need for Intel baseline profile here.

Works as intended.

 

Yes, bro Fox. I won't apply it. You don't grab many boints or trophies with heavly castrated tools. Gigabyte want that you run your overpriced 13900K(KS) worse than any i7-13700K. That's perverse.

 

 

GTX1070 - 3DM Vantage (X-treme).

https://hwbot.org/submission/5545810_papusan_3dmark_vantage___extreme_geforce_gtx_1070_55901_marks?recalculate=true

 

3DM Vantage (Performance).

https://hwbot.org/submission/5545800_papusan_3dmark_vantage___performance_geforce_gtx_1070_107619_marks?recalculate=true

 

3DM Vantage (GPU).

https://hwbot.org/submission/5545802_papusan_3dmark_vantage___performance_(gpu)_geforce_gtx_1070_97878_marks?recalculate=true

 

 

[Meaker]

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/47636486

 

Broke 14k in timespy.

 

Just hard hitting into the 0.9V limit on the mobile 3080.

 

On 4/25/2024 at 2:12 PM, Papusan said:

 

Buy two and you are probably safe😀

 

Jensen did say buy more save more 🤷‍♀️

[Papusan]

The blue rabbit has come out from the hole. But not official. The MB manufacturers and Microsoft is to blame for the Cpu crashes. Do not use etc... Windows Ultimate Performance mode in the OS. Is this meant as a joke? They don't like other power profiles than balanced for Jokebooks?

 

Hmmm, maybe Intel will ask Microsoft kindly to remove any reg keys/or options that allow High performance power plans being enabled in the OS. Wouldn't that be nice?🤮🤢🤮

 

Intel releases “13th and 14th Generation K SKU Processor Instability Issue Update”
https://www.igorslab.de/intel-veroeffentlicht-das-13th-and-14th-generation-k-sku-processor-instability-issue-update/

 

 

[electrosoft]

Still crazy that it seems MSI has basically jettisoned AMD 7000 GPU sales (sans 7600 mech) but I understand lol....

 

At least they're staying strong with AMD motherboards though.

 

 

 

[Mr. Fox]

2080 Ti

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/16287257 | https://hwbot.org/submission/5546591_

https://hwbot.org/submission/5546597

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/110877732 | https://hwbot.org/submission/5546648_

[Mr. Fox]

https://hwbot.org/submission/5546681_ P @ 62x, E @ 48x, Cache @ 52x

 

[Papusan]

GTX 1070 - 3DM FIRE STRIKE

https://hwbot.org/submission/5546761_papusan_3dmark___fire_strike_geforce_gtx_1070_22086_marks/

 

GTX 1070 - 3DM CLOUD GATE

https://hwbot.org/submission/5546784_papusan_3dmark___cloud_gate_geforce_gtx_1070_82921_marks/

 

GTX 1070 - 3DM FIRE STRIKE (GPU)

https://hwbot.org/submission/5546773_papusan_3dmark___fire_strike_(gpu)_geforce_gtx_1070_22622_marks/

 

GTX 1070 - FIRE STRIKE EXTREME

https://hwbot.org/submission/5546771_papusan_3dmark___fire_strike_extreme_geforce_gtx_1070_10521_marks/

 

 

 

[ryan]

STOP!!

 

Your 1070 is breaking the 3060. 22k in firestrike graphics is what I get with a slight overclock. Many people run their 3060s with that level of performance. excellent