# Asus Motherboard + 11700K = All Core Boost Under Advertised Intel Spec? Bad Chip?



## CyberCT (Feb 8, 2022)

The last PC I built was with a 9700K about 3 years ago. Overclocking with that processor on the ASROCK Z390 board was a piece of cake. 1.28V at 5.0 GHz all core. No issues.
I've been in this hobby for 10 years so I'm somewhat familiar to it but haven't kept up with the recent offerings.

I've been itching to build a powerful mini ITX build for a while and with nearly all the components on sale, I caved . I'm using the Asus ROG STRIX Z590-I GAMING WIFI ITX with the 11700K.

With everything stock in BIOS, running a stress test in AIDA64 the VCORE will jump to up to 1.41V. It will typcially settle in the high 1.3V range.
Running Cinebench, single core test, the VCORE stays in the 1.42V to 1.47V range, but running multi core it falls back down to the low 1.3V range (temp in mid 50s). 
I am running the latest BIOS available from ASUS.

After lots of tinkering, it seems the Asus Multicore Enhancement option is half the equation.
Set to off, everything else stock, with the CPU under load all core AIDA64 stress test, the all core range in frequency is 4.0 - 4.2 GHz. VCORE is 1.2V range.
Set to on, voltage is high 1.3V range (with blips above 1.4V) but cores are now all at 4.6 GHz under load.
One strange thing here is that with Cinebench single core test, the VCORE is always in the 1.4V range, regardless of Asus MCE being on or off. The core frequencies are 50, 50, 49, 49, 47, 47, 46, 46 (they vary dynamically like they should)
Setting Asus MCE to off is supposed to keep things within Intel's limits … but Intel advertises this chip as 4.6GHz all core … which is only possible with Asus MCE set to ON, which bypasses Intel's limits. What gives? Is my chip defective?

With Asus MCE off, CPU temp is mid 50Cs with max core temp low 70Cs.
With Asus MCE on, CPU temp is mid 70Cs with max core temp low 90Cs with just a little bit of throttling.

Case is NZXT H1 which comes with a 140mm AIO. Having the side panels on or off doesn't matter much here.

In the past I'd never let a CPU run above 1.3V (debate on safe daily voltage). These new CPUs have a higher voltage tolerance?

I don't mind downclocking a tad to keep things cool but I at least expected to hit the advertised all core 4.6 GHz within stock voltages.

I haven't tried any of the other typical overclocking stability tests like Prime95, Realbench, etc yet.

Any help on what's going on here with my chip?


----------



## AlwaysHope (Feb 8, 2022)

What app are you using to measure temps & Vcore?


----------



## AusWolf (Feb 8, 2022)

What's going on is the chip's limits.

With MCE on, you're limited by the boost table (4.6-5.0 GHz). Higher frequencies need a higher voltage, that's why you're seeing 1.4 V in a single-core load, but not in multi-core.

With MCE off, you're limited by a 125 W PL2. It is in no way possible to achieve a 4.6 GHz all-core boost within this limit, that's why you're seeing much lower clocks. It's normal.

Advertised boost frequencies and power consumption aren't _both_ guaranteed anymore. It's either/or.

What I'd recommend is leaving MCE on if your cooling can handle it. If it can't, then turn MCE off, and play with your PL values until you find a good balance.

Welcome to the world of 11th gen.


----------



## CyberCT (Feb 8, 2022)

I'm using AIDA64 to measure temps.

Is running in the 1.4V range OK long term with these chips?

AusWolf, I looked at your post. Looks like we have roughly the same goal here. You posted your PL1s ... What are your PL2s?
What guide did you specifically use to tune your CPU to your liking?

With MCE off, I can run Cinebench, AIDA64 stress test, and God of War ... I can run them all and the temps are well within check (I also swapped the 140mm fan for the Noctua 1500RP variant). I made a fan profile with the open source"Fan Control" program and it's pretty darn quiet. The ASUS TUF 3070ti also keeps the GPU cool in the mid 60s max under a Unigine Heaven 30 minute loop, which is impressive. I added the 92mm fan on the rear inside of the H1 case, which probably helped.


----------



## AusWolf (Feb 8, 2022)

CyberCT said:


> I'm using AIDA64 to measure temps.
> 
> Is running in the 1.4V range OK long term with these chips?
> 
> ...


Sorry, I meant PL1 (the long-term one). I always confuse the two. 

Right now, I have a 280 mm AIO, so I'm running my 11700 with MCE enabled.

Before I had the AIO, what I did was set PL1 and 2 to the same value starting with the default 65 W (MCE disabled), ran Prime95 for a couple minutes and looked for stability/temperature issues. When everything went fine, I went back to BIOS, increased the PLs by 5-10 W and repeated the process. When package temp reached about 90 °C, I called it a day. The sweet spot was around 125-130 W with a tiny be quiet! Shadow Rock LP. With a tower cooler or AIO, you'll be able to go well above this. 

Cinebench is a good way to test too, although it uses way less power on 11th gen than Prime95 for some reason.


----------



## CyberCT (Feb 8, 2022)

So in BIOS there's an option to limit the auto CPU Vcore. Regardless of what I put in there (1.32V, 1.38V) the VCore always hits mid 1.4V under the single core Cinebench test. Why? It should stay at the limit I give it.


----------



## AusWolf (Feb 8, 2022)

CyberCT said:


> So in BIOS there's an option to limit the auto CPU Vcore. Regardless of what I put in there (1.32V, 1.38V) the VCore always hits mid 1.4V under the single core Cinebench test. Why? It should stay at the limit I give it.


Hm... I'm guessing that the manual Vcore setting is only valid for multi-core loads and frequencies. I've never played with it myself, so maybe someone else can confirm?

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it as long as the system is stable.


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Feb 8, 2022)

CyberCT said:


> So in BIOS there's an option to limit the auto CPU Vcore. Regardless of what I put in there (1.32V, 1.38V) the VCore always hits mid 1.4V under the single core Cinebench test. Why? It should stay at the limit I give it.


My 5700G and 3700X both act the same on Asus motherboards.


----------



## CyberCT (Feb 8, 2022)

Hmm I'm wondering if I should lower each individual core's maximum clock by 200 MHz or so to get a lower voltage. Impact would be minimal.

Everywhere I read, it's supposed to do 4.6GHz all core .... I can't believe it can't happen within a decent voltage.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Feb 8, 2022)

Do the temps match what HWiNFO can report? I'd be cautious about setting a static Vcore value. 11th gen has Vcore voltage spikes depending on the type of code running. If your were on an MSI board, I'd recommend take advantage of the CPU lite load option & find a value that works with your particular silicon quality of that 11700k chip. Otherwise an adaptive mode with - (negative) value offset can work too. 
Another thing to consider is the bios on that board up to date? sometimes this can fix unusual cpu behaviour.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 8, 2022)

Advertised boost is for single thread.

Advertised all core for your CPU is 3.6GHz at 125W
(This would likely be under worst case AVX load conditions, which is why lighter loads can go higher)







This is the 4.9Ghz clicky: single core




The 5GHz clicky: "Uhhh so most of the cores wont achieve this ever, but one or two will. sometimes."


----------



## R0H1T (Feb 8, 2022)

Doesn't Intel Extreme Tuning have the OC (testing) feature these days, like *OC Scanner* for Nvidia? You could try that if the 11700k supports it, you'll probably get better results with that. *IMO *manual tuning for overclocks is too time consuming these days!


----------



## elghinnarisa (Feb 8, 2022)

CyberCT said:


> Hmm I'm wondering if I should lower each individual core's maximum clock by 200 MHz or so to get a lower voltage. Impact would be minimal.
> 
> Everywhere I read, it's supposed to do 4.6GHz all core .... I can't believe it can't happen within a decent voltage.


The only spec posted is "up to 4.6Ghz" with the obligatory 48 asterisks behind that statement of course. As long as its given enough power, temperature is low enough, jupiter in the correct place relative to the moon, sun in the back, going downhill etc. etc.


----------



## CyberCT (Feb 8, 2022)

Either late tonight or tomorrow when I'm home I'll use HWiNFO to compare the readouts in AIDA64.
I have the latest BIOS available: 1202.

With Asus MCE off (so Intel limits in place), here are my Cinebench R23 scores:
Single: 1,585
Multi: 13,548

With Asus MCE on (so Intel limits off), here are my Cinebench R23 scores:
Single: 1,585 (same)
Multi: 14,707

This 11700K review uses the same version of Cinebench and here are the scores:





						Intel Core i7-11700K CPU Review
					

The Intel Core i7-11700K desktop processor is an attractive option given the latest round of price cuts! Join us as we explore it.




					www.tweaktown.com
				



Single: 1,578 (just 7 points less ... essentially the same)
Multi: 15,276 (569 points more than mine w/ Asus MCE on, @ 4% more than mine)

They're using a 360mm AIO water cooler but my temps never spike to the 90s or throttle with Cinebench.

I'm going to mess with the voltage offset. I won't be doing all core locked frequencies with this processor.

I guess it's ok to hit up to 1.5X VCORE ... seeing how others online are hitting it too (probably spikes).

*EDIT:  TPU did a review of the 11700KF (so just IGPU is inactive) and strangely, for Cinebench R23, their single core is higher but multi core is even lower than mine (power limit on, so I assume Asus MCE off?):








						Intel Core i7-11700KF Review - Almost as Fast as the 11900K
					

The Intel Core i7-11700KF has the same 8-core/16-thread configuration as the much more expensive Core i9-11900K, which it can almost match out of the box, and beat with a little bit of tweaking. Thanks to its very reasonable price point of only $390, the 11700KF could also be a tempting...




					www.techpowerup.com
				



Single: 1,606
Multi: 12,874*


----------



## Assimilator (Feb 8, 2022)

CyberCT said:


> Intel advertises this chip as 4.6GHz all core


No, Intel does not. As @elghinnarisa points out, the very specific language used is "*UP TO *4.6GHz" - what you actually get is going to be entirely dependent on the thermal and voltage budgets available to the CPU. And with a puny 140mm radiator you are ALWAYS going to be thermally limited. This is the kind of tradeoff you need to be prepared for if you intend to go mITX.


----------



## CyberCT (Feb 14, 2022)

So I had time to mess around with BIOS settings and don't know if I should start a new thread or just keep things here, but things get weirder. FYI I'm using AIDA64 as the monitoring metric ...

In BIOS I started messing with VCORE offset (overall, not individual), used the negative number sign from the drop down list, and reduced VCORE in increments (-0.25mv, -0.5mv, -0.75mv, -0.95mv) and ran Cinebench 2.3 and Asus Realbench 2.56 Benchmark. Got scores with no issues and much less VCORE and temps.

Then I ran the ASUS Realbench 2.56's 8 hour stress test w/ up to 8GB RAM (my system has 16GB). Any VCORE negative offsets caused failure results on multiple tests (a few dozen) even though most of the tests passed. Core temps never passed low 80s and there was no throttling). I got rid of the negative offset and changed it to "AUTO" in BIOS, ran an Asus Realbench 8 hour test again. BIOS is now set to "AUTO" for everything btw. The only failure (happened twice) during the 8 hour Asus Realbench run was related to Luxmark, which apparently is GPU related, according to a Google search. I have a brand new 3070 TI stock and temps are high 60s max so IDK why it's failing. All cores run at 4.6GHz during Realbench or Cinebench as tests.

So I now decided to just cap the max frequency for each core from 5.0GHz to 4.8GHz. I never hit 1.4 VCORE ... only max high 1.3VCORE range ... but now every core clocks up to 4.8GHz instead of the typical 4.6GHz all core frequency in the multi core tests. Strange.

I ran the ASUS Realbench 2.56's 8 hour stress test w/ up to 8GB RAM with the capped 4.8GHz (and now all cores under the test were 4.8GHz, not 4.6GHz like before) and there were multiple failed tests (a few dozen) and not only Luxmark. How can this be when all voltages are set to AUTO in BIOS? Shouldn't BIOS give enough voltage to the CPU under AUTO for the capped 4.8GHz?

I just changed the max frequency of each core to 4.6GHz and obviously all cores hit 4.6GHz in all Cinebench benchmarks (single or multi core). Max VCORE is now 1.305mv and temps are low 70s max. I hope if I ran an 8 hour Realbench test that there would be no failures (other than the bizarre Luxmark failed tests) because before, when running the 8 hour stress test in RealBench, only the two Luxmark tests failed.

Again, I have the latest BIOS available from Asus. What gives?


----------



## AusWolf (Feb 14, 2022)

CyberCT said:


> So I had time to mess around with BIOS settings and don't know if I should start a new thread or just keep things here, but things get weirder. FYI I'm using AIDA64 as the monitoring metric ...
> 
> In BIOS I started messing with VCORE offset (overall, not individual), used the negative number sign from the drop down list, and reduced VCORE in increments (-0.25mv, -0.5mv, -0.75mv, -0.95mv) and ran Cinebench 2.3 and Asus Realbench 2.56 Benchmark. Got scores with no issues and much less VCORE and temps.
> 
> ...


Maybe your CPU can't handle 4.8 GHz all-core. There must be a reason why the 11th gen Core i7 is exactly the same chip as the Core i9 just cheaper, and I think it comes down to binning.

Or maybe the Auto voltage setting works only from a set voltage/frequency table, and the value it has for 4.8 GHz isn't enough to maintain 4.8 GHz under all circumstances. I'm just speculating again.

All in all, I don't think overclocking a modern CPU is worth the trouble. They come with pretty much the top frequency they can handle out of the factory. Silicon lottery only gives you +- 100-200 MHz max.


----------



## CyberCT (Feb 14, 2022)

Agreed on the OC. I want the best performance for least heat/voltage possible in my NZXT H1 case. Coming from overclocking past Intel CPUs ... I don't like hitting the 1.3VCORE range. Leaving everything to auto ... the VCORE jumps up to 1.47 volts and I don't like that.

I think I'm just going to leave the max frequency at 4.6GHz with the lower volts (max 1.305V) and temps (max core low 70s C).

I just don't know why my CPU decides to bump the max all core frequency from 4.6GHz to 4.8GHz when I don't tell it to. I only reduced the max frequency for each core from 5.0GHz to 4.8GHz and here's what it does lol.

These CPUs are completely different animals from the 9700K family.


----------



## AusWolf (Feb 14, 2022)

CyberCT said:


> Agreed on the OC. I want the best performance for least heat/voltage possible in my NZXT H1 case. Coming from overclocking past Intel CPUs ... I don't like hitting the 1.3VCORE range. Leaving everything to auto ... the VCORE jumps up to 1.47 volts and I don't like that.
> 
> I think I'm just going to leave the max frequency at 4.6GHz with the lower volts (max 1.305V) and temps (max core low 70s C).
> 
> ...


That they are. 

What I would do is just leave everything on Auto, and play with the PL values until I find a good balance of performance and heat. I usually have a "the CPU knows how much voltage it needs" attitude.

But I like your solution too.


----------



## CyberCT (Feb 14, 2022)

AusWolf, under your PL value modification solution, what are your core frequencies maxing out at under load and single core (CineBench 2.3 is a good example of testing both)? What max VCORE are  you getting for each scenario, and typical voltage range under load?


----------



## RJARRRPCGP (Feb 14, 2022)

Yep, looks like the 10th gen was the last to be able to OC the way you're used to OC'ing. Rocket Lake, was the start of the post-second-gen-Ryzen-like auto stuff.


----------



## plastiscɧ (Feb 14, 2022)

dunno if it helps U :



 



mine runs fine. but a wise @freeagent said to me; if it does not like the overclocking it will tell u. by the way, 5,2GHz was with win 10 in parts impossible. win 11 is rocksolid and doesn't even care 5,3GHz.






ah. and the motherboard tells the following:
the deepest frequency must be two steps beyond the second highest frequency. it tells u the max range u should adjust.
the overclocking is possible as long u can cool it. [Scatter Bencher had it on 5,8GHz until it was uncoolable]




CyberCT said:


> 50, 50, 49, 49, 47, 47, 46, 46



_*50-50*_*-49-49-48-48-47-47 then*

i capped the highest possible voltage for the CPU @ 1,5V AND put the voltage he needs while working to the auto setting.


----------



## CyberCT (Feb 15, 2022)

You have a stellar chip there. Did you run Realbench 2.56's 8 hour stress test w/ half your system RAM to confirm it's stable?

Are you worried about voltage degradation over time, seeing how high that voltage is?

I might try 4.5GHz all core and load to see what the lowest voltage is that I can achieve w/out Realbench tests failing.

I have a Kill-A-Watt meter and tested both my PCs at the outlet.
I ran benchmark tests that test both the CPU and GPU (the Division, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Steep) with this build (4.6GHz max11700K w/ 3070ti stock) against my other build (9700K 4.8GHz max @ 1.19V and 2080ti max overclock) and the 11700K build performs within 5% of benchmark results of the other build but consumes about 60 watts more power. Somewhat disappointing.


----------



## plastiscɧ (Feb 16, 2022)

CyberCT said:


> Are you worried about voltage degradation over time, seeing how high that voltage is?


no! cus he will not get that old anyway. if it is damaged i'll buy a new one. my setup will never get older than 2 years anyway.
it is always degeneration with voltage AND heat [OVER YEARS]. my watercooling doesn't let it go over 50°C. max 80°C under hardcore stress.
i am not that cruel person stressing my CPU to look if it is stable under conditions they "never happen". My CPU is stable under conditions I use 24/7.



CyberCT said:


> Did you run Realbench 2.56's 8 hour stress test w/ half your system RAM to confirm it's stable


i am playing with this GHz on 5,2. if it is under stress it goes beyond 5. and i never had issues since 1yr. i put win11 on my system




CyberCT said:


> 5% of benchmark results of the other build but consumes about 60 watts more power


it is a real heat-head. i regret getting an 11700k. the 10 was better in every manner


----------



## CyberCT (Feb 16, 2022)

I'll bet your chip can do 4.8GHz all core at the same voltage mine does 4.6GHz lol. I need a good chip like yours for my build.

I'll keep tweaking. Maybe I'll figure out the better cores (are they the cores with a * next to them in BIOS?) and give just them the 4.8GHz boost while the rest are 4.5GHz. IDK.


----------



## plastiscɧ (Feb 17, 2022)

CyberCT said:


> I'll bet your chip can do 4.8GHz all core at the same voltage mine does 4.6GHz lol. I need a good chip like yours for my build.
> 
> I'll keep tweaking. Maybe I'll figure out the better cores (are they the cores with a * next to them in BIOS?) and give just them the 4.8GHz boost while the rest are 4.5GHz. IDK.





 



It is doing 50 all cores with slightly less voltage. i knew this but i was greedy. i will observe it and maybe lower all a bit more to comfort him more..






more like 51-51-50-50-49-49-48-48


----------



## CyberCT (Feb 17, 2022)

without running the Realbench 2.56 for 8 hours, we don't know if your OC is 100% stable (even though probably stable for everything else) but you definitely do have a better chip than I do.


----------



## plastiscɧ (Feb 17, 2022)

CyberCT said:


> without running the Realbench 2.56 for 8 hours, we don't know if your OC is 100% stable (even though probably stable for everything else) but you definitely do have a better chip than I do.






okay. so this was just a shot. what u gonna say?


----------



## CyberCT (Feb 17, 2022)

The stress test option to the right ... not the benchmark


----------



## plastiscɧ (Feb 17, 2022)

CyberCT said:


> The stress test option to the right ... not the benchmark






it passed the 15 minutes test. thanks for this suggestion. i don't think i need to run it for 8 hours, i'm too "good-natured" for this after all. 
but i will keep an eye on those programs for the case changing something.


----------



## CyberCT (Feb 18, 2022)

All of my voltage offset attempts passed through the first hour ... the failed tests started at roughtl 2+ hours in. I did these tests overnight so I can't tell the exact time of the first failure (no timestamps in this program).


----------



## CyberCT (Feb 28, 2022)

Tried Realbench v2.43 instead and no errors for 8 hours. Ran 4 hours of Prime 95 small ffts and no errors. So with temps in check the most I can boost to is 4.6GHz each core. Since I won't build another PC for another @4 years, I decided to just buy an 11900K instead since it's just a binned 11700K so to speak. On my 11900K I can do 4.8GHz all core (actually just limiting boost to 4.8GHz per core) with -0.04 f/v offset per core that passes 8 hours Realbench. Highest core temp is 72C. However, there is a MemTest error detected after 200% coverage so I'll have to start tweaking down that f/v offset to find the right error free number. Unfortunately the 11700K is SP55 and the 11900K is SP50 according to the Asus BIOS.

Going to try and find the best Gear1 setting for the DDR4 4000 6-16-16-36 RAM after testing everything stock to make sure the RAM isn't faulty. Just started using MemTest on this build for stability testing.









						CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 4000 (PC4 32000) AMD Optimized Desktop Memory Model CMK16GX4M2Z4000C16 - Newegg.com
					

Buy CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 4000 (PC4 32000) AMD Optimized Desktop Memory Model CMK16GX4M2Z4000C16 with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!




					www.newegg.com


----------



## hymced (Mar 18, 2022)

@CyberCT sorry to spam your post, I have never done OCing, so I am not understanding everything here (yet! )
But I have a similar config to yours I think, so if you could ask me for specific tests/values I could take a look.
Maybe you can also help me and maybe in the last month you have found some things I haven't:


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/th0akd


----------



## ThrashZone (Mar 18, 2022)

Hi,
Throttling is yes silly temperture limits but also silly timing limits too.

Digi power options max these out

```
Maximum CPU Core Temperature [115] this one can be anything you feel good about 100c...
CPU Core/Cache Current Limit Max. [255.75]
Long Duration Package Power Limit [4095]
Package Power Time Window [448]
Short Duration Package Power Limit [4095]
```


----------



## hymced (Mar 18, 2022)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Throttling is yes silly temperture limits but also silly timing limits too.
> 
> Digi power options max these out
> ...



Hello TrashZone, are you talking about my case or @CyberCT's one?
As I mentioned in my post, I am quite a newbie... I don't understand your answer ^^ digi power?
I enabled XMP I timings, it is a bit better but not by much (100 pts), and CPU-Z bench is a bit worse, does it corroborate your timings hypothetis?
My goal is not necesseraly to reach the results I could find on the web, but rather to understand if they should be read as stock results (if they should, I am a bit short, and I'd like to know why), or as possibly OCed results (in this case I am sure there are a lot of ways to reach them easily with OCing techniques you master better than me )


----------



## ThrashZone (Mar 18, 2022)

Hi,
Original poster but really anyone on the platform 

Digi-power settings are asus mother board bios settings but I'm sure other board manufactures has similar options 

Think the time limit is the worst and wouldn't be all that extreme of a change it would just stop the throttling until the chore was actually done.

```
Package Power Time Window [448]
```

I don't have an image of the digi-power bios page but it's listed in extreme tweaker settings on an asus board as an example.


----------



## hymced (Mar 18, 2022)

Ok I also do have an ASUS mobo (Z590-I) and the Package Power Time Windows is set to Auto (56s), so its greater than the time R23 need for Pass 1 (my results are only for Pass 1 which last around 50s). So I am not sure maxing it out would help, don't you think?


----------



## AusWolf (Mar 19, 2022)

I made a little "guide" on PL and TAU values with 11th gen, so that we're all on the same page. 




Edit: Actually, PL2 can be higher than MCE depending on the motherboard. But the point stands.



hymced said:


> Ok I also do have an ASUS mobo (Z590-I) and the Package Power Time Windows is set to Auto (56s), so its greater than the time R23 need for Pass 1 (my results are only for Pass 1 which last around 50s). So I am not sure maxing it out would help, don't you think?


That depends on what your goal is. If you want max. clocks at PL1 at all times, then yes. Though I think setting max. power limit values is a better way, because TAU will never expire then.


----------



## hymced (Mar 20, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> That depends on what your goal is. If you want max. clocks at PL1 at all times, then yes. Though I think setting max. power limit values is a better way, because TAU will never expire then.



I don't want anything really but to understand why my Cinebench R23 stock score is that low compared to online benchmark values 
I did what @ThrashZone suggested, setting Package Power Time Window to 448s instead of default 5-s, it doesn't change a thing, at best I got 14850 pt


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 20, 2022)

Ymmv


----------



## AusWolf (Mar 20, 2022)

hymced said:


> I don't want anything really but to understand why my Cinebench R23 stock score is that low compared to online benchmark values
> I did what @ThrashZone suggested, setting Package Power Time Window to 448s instead of default 5-s, it doesn't change a thing, at best I got 14850 pt


What's wrong with 14850? It's a decent score as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## hymced (Mar 21, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> What's wrong with 14850? It's a decent score as far as I'm concerned.


I have listed all the reference to cinebench R23 benchmark I could find with this cpu, and it seems mine is behind all of them. Somebody told me that all 11700Ks should give around the same STOCK score. All the values I found are in the same 1500+ range, so that corroborates the statement. But I think mine is not quite in that range... Don't you think that the difference is significant? I even saw an R23 scoring 15276 pt (stock I think, overclocking is not mentioned) here: https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/9839/intel-core-i7-11700k-cpu/index.html


----------



## Mussels (Mar 21, 2022)

hymced said:


> I have listed all the reference to cinebench R23 benchmark I could find with this cpu, and it seems mine is behind all of them. Somebody told me that all 11700Ks should give around the same STOCK score. All the values I found are in the same 1500+ range, so that corroborates the statement. But I think mine is not quite in that range... Don't you think that the difference is significant? I even saw an R23 scoring 15276 pt (stock I think, overclocking is not mentioned) here: https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/9839/intel-core-i7-11700k-cpu/index.html


you know that wiggling the mouse, or any kind of software running at the same time like temp monitoring software can introduce changes like that, and while 10% isn't exactly nothing, RAM speed differences, cooling differences, or background software can easily cause that


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 21, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> When package temp reached about 90 °C, I called it a day.


Oh, you're brave. I would call it good at 75C. I'm cautious like that. Don't like that much heat getting into my CPU's...(Yes, I know, that was an old post..)


----------



## ThrashZone (Mar 21, 2022)

hymced said:


> I don't want anything really but to understand why my Cinebench R23 stock score is that low compared to online benchmark values
> I did what @ThrashZone suggested, setting Package Power Time Window to 448s instead of default 5-s, it doesn't change a thing, at best I got 14850 pt


Hi,
This thread is about all core boost clocks under advertised not why are my R23 scores lower than others on the net 

To know that you have to run a cpu benchmark R23/... and watch hwinfo64 current clocks used during the entire benchmark and state what max clock were used and how many cores maintained the max clocks through the benchmark.

Lots of people lie on the net about what they do for the scores they get 

Basic test,
Set all core to 4.6 or what ever your boost clock is higher if you want to ..5.0....
Enable XMP profile
Enable Multicore enhancement "remove all limits"
Leave core and cache voltage at auto.

Leave the timer on auto then change all four settings take notes of both runs.
Make sure to leave hwinfo64 on top so you can see what current clocks are doing through the test.

14850 means little not stating what the other score was.


----------



## hymced (Mar 21, 2022)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> This thread is about all core boost clocks under advertised not why are my R23 scores lower than others on the net
> 
> To know that you have to run a cpu benchmark R23/... and watch hwinfo64 current clocks used during the entire benchmark and state what max clock were used and how many cores maintained the max clocks through the benchmark.
> ...



I have run some more tests and I GET TO REACH A SOLID 15250 pt in R23 (max 15270 pt) on the 1st pass with AIO fan and case exhaust fan manually set to 100%, but WITHOUT XMP!

As soon as I enable XMP, R23 score drops to 14850 pt (max 14870 pt) (fans @ 100% again). R23 seems to be sensitive to temps... Now I don't get why memory affects R23 that much, everyone seems to agree it should not... Is it because of the higher memory voltage, and so greater temps of the memory controller? What do you think?

I think I don't saw it in my really first tests with XMP disabled by default because I wasn't careful enough to background processes eating some cycles.

In any case, all 8 cores are @ 100% 4600Mhz during R23 multicore

Now I am even more lost really...


----------



## AusWolf (Mar 21, 2022)

hymced said:


> I have run some more tests and I GET TO REACH A SOLID 15250 pt in R23 (max 15270 pt) on the 1st pass with AIO fan and case exhaust fan manually set to 100%, but WITHOUT XMP!
> 
> As soon as I enable XMP, R23 score drops to 14850 pt (max 14870 pt) (fans @ 100% again). R23 seems to be sensitive to temps... Now I don't get why memory affects R23 that much, everyone seems to agree it should not... Is it because of the higher memory voltage, and so greater temps of the memory controller? What do you think?
> 
> ...


It's weird that your score drops with XMP enabled. I'm not home this week, but I'll run some tests to see if that happens with my 11700 non-K when I'm back.

Though the real question is... does it matter?


----------



## hymced (Mar 21, 2022)

I would say no it does matter at this point, but still it does no make any sense...


----------



## CyberCT (Mar 22, 2022)

The best multi core I achieved with my 11700K in C23 was 14,786 with all cores limited to 4.6GHz. That was a month ago right  before I swapped it for a 11900K.

Unless you have real good cooling, I'd recommend NOT setting the CPU core to a fixed ratio. Instead, in BIOS limit the max boost to 4.6 for each core (this way, the CPU will still lower clocks and voltage if there's little to no load). Then start messing with voltage offsets in the one BIOS screen. I could do -0.025 without any issues at the 4.6GHz point and the CPU consumed @ 1.2v in C23 in the multi core test. Passed all stress tests for hours. You will have to enable MCE and take out the other limits mentioned around this option in BIOS. Honestly, for gaming, the 11700K is decent enough.

My 11900K can do 4.8GHz at the same voltage as the 11700K's 4.6GHz for $100 more. I'd happily pay an additional $100 for 5.0GHz at @ 1.2v, since that's the max VCORE I'm comfortable with for this combo in the NZXT H1 and its 140mm AIO cooler. Max core temp was 75C. I build a new PC every 4-5 years so this will do for a while.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Mar 22, 2022)

CyberCT said:


> The best multi core I achieved with my 11700K in C23 was 14,786 with all cores limited to 4.6GHz. That was a month ago right  before I swapped it for a 11900K.
> 
> Unless you have real good cooling, I'd recommend NOT setting the CPU core to a fixed ratio. Instead, in BIOS limit the max boost to 4.6 for each core (this way, the CPU will still lower clocks and voltage if there's little to no load). Then start messing with voltage offsets in the one BIOS screen. I could do -0.025 without any issues at the 4.6GHz point and the CPU consumed @ 1.2v in C23 in the multi core test. Passed all stress tests for hours. You will have to enable MCE and take out the other limits mentioned around this option in BIOS. Honestly, for gaming, the 11700K is decent enough.
> 
> My 11900K can do 4.8GHz at the same voltage as the 11700K's 4.6GHz for $100 more. I'd happily pay an additional $100 for 5.0GHz at @ 1.2v, since that's the max VCORE I'm comfortable with for this combo in the NZXT H1 and its 140mm AIO cooler. Max core temp was 75C. I build a new PC every 4-5 years so this will do for a while.


I'm running 5.2Ghz all cores and all the thermal management still works. If I'm on the desktop it's running at like 800Mhz. The 52x multiplier is just the max it will boost too but all cores run in tandem. Meaning it isn't a FIXED Ratio, it is allowed to speedstep, C1 all that thermal stuff. Just all cores clock exactly the same. In game, or intensive application all cores run at 5.2Ghz. Also 1.43V is on the extreme side for 5Ghz.


----------



## ThrashZone (Mar 22, 2022)

hymced said:


> I have run some more tests and I GET TO REACH A SOLID 15250 pt in R23 (max 15270 pt) on the 1st pass with AIO fan and case exhaust fan manually set to 100%, but WITHOUT XMP!
> 
> As soon as I enable XMP, R23 score drops to 14850 pt (max 14870 pt) (fans @ 100% again). R23 seems to be sensitive to temps... Now I don't get why memory affects R23 that much, everyone seems to agree it should not... Is it because of the higher memory voltage, and so greater temps of the memory controller? What do you think?
> 
> ...


Hi,
Enabling xmp profile is likely changing other options like multicore enhancement back to let bios decide which is the kiss of death for performance 
Reseat memory and all mother board and power supply power cables and try again.


----------



## CyberCT (Mar 23, 2022)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> I'm running 5.2Ghz all cores and all the thermal management still works. If I'm on the desktop it's running at like 800Mhz. The 52x multiplier is just the max it will boost too but all cores run in tandem. Meaning it isn't a FIXED Ratio, it is allowed to speedstep, C1 all that thermal stuff. Just all cores clock exactly the same. In game, or intensive application all cores run at 5.2Ghz. Also 1.43V is on the extreme side for 5Ghz.



What VCORE, system agent, etc voltages?
What cooler are you running?
What stability tests have you run and for how long?


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Mar 23, 2022)

I will try and take some bios shots tonight, not at home right now.

I am running a custom waterloop (in my system specs) so I do have pretty good cooling and how I am able to maintain 5.2ghz, but still the Thermal Curve for most 10700k's doesn't ramp up until around 4.9Ghz. I know to get to 5.3 it took substantial voltage that I wasn't comfortable with, though I can bench and run 5.3 the voltage I felt would have impacted the life of the CPU to much, even with my cooling solution. But I didn't need to hardly increase the voltage at all to get to 5Ghz all-cores.

I have been running this system stable for well over 2 years and I am an avid gamer. Prior to that for stability checks I used many different tools. Cinebench R23, Super Pi, y-Cruncher, 3dmark and others I can't remember off the top of my head.


----------



## ThrashZone (Mar 23, 2022)

CyberCT said:


> What VCORE, system agent, etc voltages?
> What cooler are you running?
> What stability tests have you run and for how long?


Hi,
Does it really matter ?

You'd probably be best served starting a rma on your mother board and follow their trouble shooting advice 
Could be memory related seeing this is where your issue appears on xmp activation so maybe try a different kit and rma the original

Or not and keep fishing for a magic voltage/ settings combo plate.
Cheers.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Mar 23, 2022)

A bios shot might help. I know when you load XMP profiles it will change settings that you have manually set and then have to go back and fix those...So it might help. There is an order to setup everything and if you do it out of order then unintended changes will happen. Actually this video is almost exactly the same as my settings. 







 I did increase cache ratios and my voltage is a little lower.


----------



## CyberCT (Mar 23, 2022)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> A bios shot might help. I know when you load XMP profiles it will change settings that you have manually set and then have to go back and fix those...So it might help. There is an order to setup everything and if you do it out of order then unintended changes will happen. Actually this video is almost exactly the same as my settings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh ... you're running the 10700K. We're talking about the 11700K, which runs hotter and needs more voltages. My 9700K does 5.1 GHz all core at just over 1.3V but it was a binned chip.


----------



## chrcoluk (Mar 23, 2022)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> A bios shot might help. I know when you load XMP profiles it will change settings that you have manually set and then have to go back and fix those...So it might help. There is an order to setup everything and if you do it out of order then unintended changes will happen. Actually this video is almost exactly the same as my settings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep, always take a photo of voltage values before enabling XMP.


----------



## CyberCT (Mar 23, 2022)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Does it really matter ?
> 
> You'd probably be best served starting a rma on your mother board and follow their trouble shooting advice
> ...


Sure it matters. If it takes 1.4 volts or more to run a high clock speed, or it runs temps just at throttling / thermal limit temps ... there's a good chance that chip won't last too long.

No need to RMA anything. Everything works fine. I was just asking because I thought ZenZimZaliben was running those clocks on an 11700K (which would be the ultimate golden chip that Intel missed binning a 11900K) ... but he has a different generation CPU.


----------



## ThrashZone (Mar 23, 2022)

Hi,
Water loops can often do better this is no surprise.

Maybe it was another thread 
Your scores don't improve when activating xmp ?


----------



## CyberCT (Mar 23, 2022)

I have XMP activated and am happy with the performance at 4.8GHz at 1.2V, considering it's a mITX system in a 13 liter case lol.

But this is useful info for hymced regardless.


----------



## ThrashZone (Mar 23, 2022)

Hi,
Here's a 5.3 text file

```
[2021/07/25 06:08:17]
Ai Overclock Tuner [XMP II]
XMP [XMP DDR4-3603 16-16-16-36-1.35V]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
PCIE Frequency [100.0000]

ASUS MultiCore Enhancement [Enabled – Remove All limits]
SVID Behavior [Trained]
AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset [0]
CPU Core Ratio [Sync All Cores]
ALL-Core Ratio Limit [53]

BCLK Frequency : DRAM Frequency Ratio [Auto]
DRAM Odd Ratio Mode [Enabled]
DRAM Frequency [DDR4-4000MHz]
Xtreme Tweaking [Enabled]
CPU SVID Support [Auto]
Maximus Tweak [Mode 1]

DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Delay [17]-16
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [36]
DRAM Command Rate [2N]

DRAM RAS# to RAS# Delay L [4]
DRAM RAS# to RAS# Delay S [4]
DRAM REF Cycle Time   [350]-320
DRAM REF Cycle Time 2 [350]-320
DRAM REF Cycle Time 4 [350]-320
DRAM Refresh Interval [65535]-66535

DRAM WRITE Recovery Time [12]-16
DRAM READ to PRE Time [8]-----8
DRAM FOUR ACT WIN Time [24]----16
DRAM WRITE to READ Delay [6]-----4
DRAM WRITE to READ Delay L [6]---6
DRAM WRITE to READ Delay S [6]---4
DRAM CKE Minimum Pulse Width [8]-
DRAM Write Latency [14]----------16

Round Trip Latency-----------Enabled
MRC Fast Boot [Auto]---------disabled
Delay after Train [Disabled]
DRAM CLK Period [Auto]
Memory Scrambler [Enabled]
Channel A DIMM Control [Enable both DIMMs]
Channel B DIMM Control [Enable both DIMMs]
Trace Centering [Disabled]
MCH Full Check [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Training Profile [Auto]
DLLBwEn [Auto]
Legacy Mode [Disabled]
SPD Write Disable [TRUE]
XTU Setting [Auto]

Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 6]
Synch ACDC Loadline with VRM Loadline [Disabled]
CPU Current Capability [140%]

CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]---------------500
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Thermal Control [130]
CPU VRM Thermal Control [Auto]
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]

CPU Core/Cache Boot Voltage [Auto]
DMI Boot Voltage [Auto]
CPU System Agent Boot Voltage [Auto]
CPU VCCIO Boot Voltage [Auto]
PLL Termination Boot voltage [Auto]
CPU Standby Boot Voltage [Auto]

Maximum CPU Core Temperature [115]
CPU Core/Cache Current Limit Max. [255.75]
Long Duration Package Power Limit [4095]
Package Power Time Window [448]
Short Duration Package Power Limit [4095]


Realtime Memory Timing [Enabled]
FCLK Frequency for Early Power On [Auto]
Initial BCLK Frequency [Auto]
BCLK Amplitude [Auto]
BCLK Slew Rate [Auto]
BCLK Spread Spectrum [Auto]
BCLK Frequency Slew Rate [Auto]
PCIE/DMI Amplitude [Auto]
PCIE/DMI Spread Spectrum [Auto]
PCIE/DMI Frequency Slew Rate [Auto]
PCIE/DMI Slew Rate [Auto]
Cold Boot PCIE Frequency [Auto]
DRAM VTT Voltage [Auto]
VPPDDR Voltage [Auto]

DMI Voltage [Auto]
Internal PLL Voltage [Auto]
GT PLL Voltage [Auto]
Ring PLL Voltage [Auto]
System Agent PLL Voltage [Auto]
Memory Controller PLL Voltage [Auto]
CPU Standby Voltage [Auto]
PLL Bandwidth [Auto]
Eventual DRAM Voltage [Auto]

Eventual CPU Standby Voltage [Auto]
Eventual PLL Termination Voltage [Auto]
Eventual CPU VCCIO Voltage [Auto]
Eventual DMI Voltage [Auto]
System Agent Bandgap Workaround [Auto]
Package Temperature Threshold [Auto]
Regulate Frequency by above Threshold [Auto]
Cooler Efficiency Customize [Keep Training]
Cooler Re-evaluation Algorithm [Normal]
Optimism Scale [100]
Ring Down Bin [Auto]

Min. CPU Cache Ratio [50]
Max CPU Cache Ratio [50]
BCLK Aware Adaptive Voltage [Enabled]
CPU Core/Cache Voltage [Manual Mode]
- CPU Core Voltage Override [1.420]
DRAM Voltage [1.45000]

CPU VCCIO Voltage [1.35000]
CPU System Agent Voltage [1.45000]
PLL Termination Voltage [1.05000]
PCH Core Voltage [Auto]


PCI Express Native Power Management [Disabled]
DMI Link ASPM Control [Disabled]
ASPM [Disabled]
L1 Substates [Disabled]
PCI Express Clock Gating [Enabled]
DMI Link ASPM Control [Disabled]
PEG - ASPM [Disabled]
Software Guard Extensions (SGX) [Disabled]
Tcc Offset Time Window [Auto]
Hardware Prefetcher [Enabled]
Adjacent Cache Line Prefetch [Enabled]
Intel (VMX) Virtualization Technology [Disabled]
Active Processor Cores [All]


MonitorMWait [Enabled]
Boot performance mode [Auto]
Intel(R) SpeedStep(tm) [Auto]
Intel(R) Speed Shift Technology [Auto]
Intel(R) Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 [Enabled]
Runtime SMM Polling [8  Sec]
Turbo Mode [Enabled]
CPU C-states [Disabled]
Thermal Monitor [Enabled]
Dual Tau Boost [Disabled]
VT-d [Disabled]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Memory Remap [Enabled]


PTT [Disable]
Discrete Thunderbolt(TM) Support [Disabled]
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]

USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
Connectivity mode (Wi-Fi & Bluetooth) [Disabled]
When system is in working state [Aura Off]
Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
M.2_1 Configuration [Auto]
DIMM2_1 Configuration [Auto]
DIMM2_2 Configuration [Auto]
U32G2_C6 Type C Power Mode [Auto]
USB3.2_5 Type C Power Mode [Auto]
ASMedia Storage Controller [Enabled]
Windows Hot-plug Notification [Disabled]
ASPM Support [Disabled]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Energy Star Ready [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Device [Crucial_CT256MX100SSD1]


WATER PUMP+ Control [Disabled]
AIO PUMP Control [Disabled]
CPU Temperature LED Switch [Enabled]

Launch CSM [Enabled]
Boot Device Control [UEFI and Legacy OPROM]
Boot from Network Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from Storage Devices [Legacy only]
Boot from PCI-E/PCI Expansion Devices [Legacy only]
OS Type [Other OS]
Fast Boot [Disabled]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
POST Delay Time [3 sec]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [EZ Mode]
Boot Sector (MBR/GPT) Recovery Policy [Local User Control]
Next Boot Recovery Action [Skip]
Flexkey [DirectKey]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [4]
Profile Name [53.better]
Save to Profile [4]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Disabled]
```


----------



## CyberCT (Mar 23, 2022)

ThrashZone​How were you able to extract that from your ASUS BIOS? That's very useful to know (it's probably somewhere right in front of my face lol) and I'd like to extract that from my BIOS and save it, just in case I need a factory reset or something else happens and settings go back to default.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Mar 23, 2022)

CyberCT said:


> Sure it matters. If it takes 1.4 volts or more to run a high clock speed, or it runs temps just at throttling / thermal limit temps ... there's a good chance that chip won't last too long.
> 
> No need to RMA anything. Everything works fine. I was just asking because I thought ZenZimZaliben was running those clocks on an 11700K (which would be the ultimate golden chip that Intel missed binning a 11900K) ... but he has a different generation CPU.


Oh man I totally misread that.  But you should still be able to get close to 5Ghz with 1.35v


----------



## CyberCT (Mar 23, 2022)

Not quite, lol. Different architecture.


----------



## ThrashZone (Mar 23, 2022)

CyberCT said:


> ThrashZone​How were you able to extract that from your ASUS BIOS? That's very useful to know (it's probably somewhere right in front of my face lol) and I'd like to extract that from my BIOS and save it, just in case I need a factory reset or something else happens and settings go back to default.


Hi,
Insert fat32 flash drive
Use f12 on any page and a bmp photo will be exported automatically

For a text file of the profile you're using
Go to bios/ tools/ user profiles/ load-save profile and use ctrl+f2


----------



## CyberCT (Mar 24, 2022)

... and just for the fun of it, here's what the stock voltages are at the listed clocks for the 11900K (compare to the 11700K's a few posts above). how about 5.3GHz at over 1.6V lol! Of course it may work with less voltage if anyone has a ridiculous cooling solution and doesn't mind the insanely high voltages.


----------



## davidm71 (Dec 29, 2022)

Hi,

I don't know  if this Intel Adaptive Boost tech is safe or not but on my Asus Z590-A Strix and 11700k the volts shoot up to 1.4+ crazy volts randomly dependent on load.

Not sure if this is safe?

Thanks.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 30, 2022)

davidm71 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I don't know  if this Intel Adaptive Boost tech is safe or not but on my Asus Z590-A Strix and 11700k the volts shoot up to 1.4+ crazy volts randomly dependent on load.
> 
> ...


Stock is safe
welcome to the world of heavily over-volted stupid high wattage hardware


----------

