iameatingjamWhich statement? The july statement? They didn't. They said elevated voltages were a cause of stability issues and they were releasing a microcode to address the root cause of said voltages. Thats not quite saying voltage is the root cause of instability. Its just the root cause of one of potentially multiple problems. Though I can see how it could be interpreted that way first glance (because thats how I read it first time too)

Its possible I dont remember properly from the earliest statements, I think I just want to look forward now, as what's important here is how Intel are treating their customers with faulty chips, and if the new changes prevent degradation on chips that are working.

Below is with 121 hours of usage on the hwinfo session.

chrcolukIts possible I dont remember properly from the earliest statements, I think I just want to look forward now, as what's important here is how Intel are treating their customers with faulty chips, and if the new changes prevent degradation on chips that are working.

Below is with 121 hours of usage on the hwinfo session.

Your 24 hour run looks good to me. I had a 13700K before moving to a 14900K and I could run it at 1.298v with an adaptibve plus offset vcore. The 13700K is a fanatstic CPU.

Lowering the boost voltage on 1-2 cores by 50 millivolts doesn't remove the degradation, it just prolongs it, and it doesn't affect Vmin as much as long boost on all cores and that remains unchanged.

chrcolukIts possible I dont remember properly from the earliest statements, I think I just want to look forward now, as what's important here is how Intel are treating their customers with faulty chips, and if the new changes prevent degradation on chips that are working.

Below is with 121 hours of usage on the hwinfo session.

Looks good to me. But I think part of the problem was that it was transient spikes not necessarily picked up by software that was at least part of the problem. Some bioses have an option to limit that. I did set one on mine but who knows if it works, I don't have oscilliscope. I guess thats why I feel better having that intel limit there too ( even though it still seems kinda high to me (1.55v) for an i7, I wonder if it scales down to lesser chips?).

With how I have my cpu setup right now my vcore usually stays at 1.2 under load but sometimes goes up to 1.25. I guess being that I've already had one cpu fail makes me extra paranoid.

Glad they finally let me turn CEP off though :)

iameatingjamLooks good to me. But I think part of the problem was that it was transient spikes not necessarily picked up by software that was at least part of the problem. Some bioses have an option to limit that. I did set one on mine but who knows if it works, I don't have oscilliscope. I guess thats why I feel better having that intel limit there too ( even though it still seems kinda high to me (1.55v) for an i7, I wonder if it scales down to lesser chips?).

With how I have my cpu setup right now my vcore usually stays at 1.2 under load but sometimes goes up to 1.25. I guess being that I've already had one cpu fail makes me extra paranoid.

Glad they finally let me turn CEP off though :)

My vcore is typically around 50mv below the highest VID. I might see around 1.28v on high max clock single core load and lower around 1.25v if I run something like cinebench.

You may be right about potential hidden very brief transients, but there is people who have had 1.6 detected in hwinfo such as jay2cents and buildzoid, so there is chips that have been going that high and can see in software. So I wouldnt worry too much about it with the voltages you are reporting.

john_Even if their competition is in great position, some tech channels and probably tech sites, will convince their audiences/readers that's in fact, the other way around

Hey, look, clickbaity videos with clickbaity titles try to get ad revenue! My god! This never before seen fact must be recorded in history books, quickly.

Vayra86Hey, look, clickbaity videos with clickbaity titles try to get ad revenue! My god! This never before seen fact must be recorded in history books, quickly.

Whats sad is you pretty much have to play that game to make a viable business out of youtube. I do try to understand that, and not necessarily disregard what is said, because the content might be fair and reasonable.... even if the thumbnail and clickbait title aren't. (and I'm not necessarily talking about hardware unboxed - so many channels do it, whether there's quality content or not)

chrcolukMy vcore is typically around 50mv below the highest VID. I might see around 1.28v on high max clock single core load and lower around 1.25v if I run something like cinebench.

Really? I had to do a fair bit of underclocking to get near the same values you're getting -_-. x50 and x35. I figure there will probably be a point where I want to clock back up when I'm in need of some more power and if I'm a little more convinced it wont kill my chip.. then I'll be dealing with higher vcores. Maybe I could do a middle ground like x53. Possibly reduce ac loadline a tiny bit more.... What do you run your all pcore at? 5.3?

Anyway sorry I'm dragging us off topic aren't I?

Well I ran a couple benchmarks with the same settings and I saw no difference between 123 and 129. So there's that.... though I'm probably not the best test case with these settings.

So they don't fix the problem with the over-volting, they just make the thing idle more. They can't have that performance taken away by limiting voltage to 1.35, so they let it still get up to 1.44, but only under load. So degradation still will still happen, but the extended low voltage, low speed idle will help it last longer, and certainly won't help an already degraded CPU.

stimpy88So they don't fix the problem with the over-volting, they just make the thing idle more. They can't have that performance taken away by limiting voltage to 1.35, so they let it still get up to 1.44, but only under load.

I don't know about modern Intel CPUs, but they might fear that if they lower voltage too much, not so good chips might start showing instability problems because of insufficient voltage. There might be chips out there that will be unstable with "only" 1.35V.

john_Click bait titles used only on AMD videos is also something never before seen in tech press.
Intel having a hell of a month and videos about AMD been bad being 5 times more than videos about Intel, is probably also normal.
Anyway, I guess HUB is just one example anyway (with over 1 million subscribers).


In a month where every one talks about Intel, HUB making 5 videos about AMD to prove that AMD is bad for consumers and one video about Intel where we see a calm and skeptical Steve talking about what is already known, does makes someone wonder if the objectivity targets only one company.

I don't try to overanalyze what happens daily on the big bad internet. The whole game is rigged, this has been clear since 1999, come on.

Its to individuals to filter the bullshit and hopefully they end up with something that makes sense. Or, you can just do a whole lot less of internet-based information truth seeking and probably end up wiser. Are you saying HUB's in bed with Intel now, I mean... lol

john_I don't know about modern Intel CPUs, but they might fear that if they lower voltage too much, not so good chips might start showing instability problems because of insufficient voltage. There might be chips out there that will be unstable with "only" 1.35V.

Anything above 1.4V still sounds way too high, core VID is also tied to ring bus voltage. I doubt slightly lower voltage will be a fix, just a band aid until the media isn't reporting on it anymore. The people running OEM systems are really screwed if there is no patch delivered through windows update as only tech enthusiasts and gamers are messing with BIOS flashing.
I'd like to see someone do long term testing for stability, though I doubt it'll happen as you said tech youtubers will all move on to Arrow Lake. The majority of tech youtubers wouldn't want to risk upsetting intel for their free review samples.

stimpy88So they don't fix the problem with the over-volting, they just make the thing idle more. They can't have that performance taken away by limiting voltage to 1.35, so they let it still get up to 1.44, but only under load. So degradation still will still happen, but the extended low voltage, low speed idle will help it last longer.

Well hey intel put themselves into quite a pickle here. They advertised high clock speeds, that on weaker silicon require unsafe voltages. And now chips are becoming unstable because of it.... What do you do? You want to increase voltage to increase stability but you also want to decrease voltage to stop the chips from degrading and becoming unstable in the first place. Its like they're being pushed from both sides. I imagine thats why the change isn't that big. And I imagine thats why they keep repeating the whole rma your chip if there's been any instability thus far thing.

But it does look like they are at least attempting to take steps in the right direction, so I gotta give em some credit. Two years of extra warranty is nice.

I'll leave this here so we can see what this microcode fix really does.

JayZ also made a video and talks about voltages

stimpy88I'll leave this here so we can see what this microcode fix really does.

Interesting that I also have an Apex Encore and KS CPU and I haven't found any meaningful degradation of performance on my end. My KS is the 13th Gen one but it's only 200-300 MHz below the 14th, or effectively about the same as the 14900K... i fail to see how I've been scammed

iameatingjamWhats sad is you pretty much have to play that game to make a viable business out of youtube. I do try to understand that, and not necessarily disregard what is said, because the content might be fair and reasonable.... even if the thumbnail and clickbait title aren't. (and I'm not necessarily talking about hardware unboxed - so many channels do it, whether there's quality content or not)

Really? I had to do a fair bit of underclocking to get near the same values you're getting -_-. x50 and x35. I figure there will probably be a point where I want to clock back up when I'm in need of some more power and if I'm a little more convinced it wont kill my chip.. then I'll be dealing with higher vcores. Maybe I could do a middle ground like x53. Possibly reduce ac loadline a tiny bit more.... What do you run your all pcore at? 5.3?

Anyway sorry I'm dragging us off topic aren't I?

Well I ran a couple benchmarks with the same settings and I saw no difference between 123 and 129. So there's that.... though I'm probably not the best test case with these settings.

I am using stock clocks, not touched them, so 5.4ghz on the two best cores and 5.3 the rest, as I said I think I have a good chip.

The VIDs I pasted here are also using Intel spec'd AC/DC.

Here is pic of my configured undervolt, although actual undervolt seems a bit lower.

I swear I backed these off to 50mv for daily o_O. Guess I didnt.





Your test is not surprising as I think the microcode is not making any adjustment with your current voltages.

Sorry for the deletions, but this is an Intel thread.

It's not about AMD. Leave your AMD baggage at the door, thanks.

Dr. DroInteresting that I also have an Apex Encore and KS CPU and I haven't found any meaningful degradation of performance on my end. My KS is the 13th Gen one but it's only 200-300 MHz below the 14th, or effectively about the same as the 14900K... i fail to see how I've been scammed

Comprehension is king. Watch the video this time, and don't just react to the title, as he explains exactly why he makes that statement.

stimpy88So they don't fix the problem with the over-volting, they just make the thing idle more. They can't have that performance taken away by limiting voltage to 1.35, so they let it still get up to 1.44, but only under load. So degradation still will still happen, but the extended low voltage, low speed idle will help it last longer, and certainly won't help an already degraded CPU.

I doubt it, 1.4v is too rich for me and has always been that way. 1.5v and above being the critcal danger area. The new bios is limiting voltage at load and at idle...Remember under load the voltage always drops, it is the spikes to 1.5 and in some cases 1.6v which are the problem and with motherboard manufacturers doing some crazy voltage and LLC tweaking for some of the auto/enhanced profiles thatyt were more than absurd allowed this situation to happen. Yes, Intel are to blame as well for not enforcing a baseline profile as the stock setting, probably in an effort to keep parity with the X3D cpu's that were doing so well on the gaming side and the fact they wanted to win the GHz war!

I have yet to have a CPU fail on me in some 30 years of using a mix of AMD going back to the Athlon days and the old 386DX series, with some of the CPU's that I have used going well beyond 6 years overclocked, the17-2600K being one and that massivly overclocked. With what has happened now to Intel, I would not be surprised if this was the catallyst for AMD to pull the launch by a few weeks in order to enforce effeciency and keep things in the lower bound. If you use PBO then it is on you and not AMD if things go wrong.

limiting the CPU to 1.350v should be fine for the long run, but ultimatly with the 2 year extended warranty, it is a step forward along with accepting RMA's and not qquibbling with the customer. MSI has also extended warranties on all pre-builts and laptops with 13th and 14th gen so another positive. I would not be surprised if quiet a few do RMA and exchange just before the extended warranty runs out.

If you think your CPU has degraded, then hit Intel with an RMA immidiatly. They are turning things around in 5 to 7 days as I was onto to Intel to clarify this very issue and the responded fast.

Cut and paste from the email recieved from Intel customer support:

The process works in such a way that one of our logistics partner will collect the defective unit from your address and send it to our depot. After a quick verification process in depot, a new unit is sent to you.

You'll receive the replacement unit in 5-7 working days from the time you submit the faulty unit.

Please let me know if its okay for me to proceed with the replacement option. If you wish to proceed with replacement, please help me with your complete shipping address and CPU markings (FPO and ATPO).

I hope to hear back from you soon.

Best regards,

XXXXX (I cut his name out)
Intel Customer Support

stimpy88Comprehension is king. Watch the video this time, and don't just react to the title, as he explains exactly why he makes that statement.

Yes I've looked at the video, his experience does not seem to reflect my own. My power consumption actually went down compared to what he seems to be experiencing. I wonder if it's specific to the i9-14900KS, since mine is the 13900KS

Dr. DroYes I've looked at the video, his experience does not seem to reflect my own. My power consumption actually went down compared to what he seems to be experiencing. I wonder if it's specific to the i9-14900KS, since mine is the 13900KS

Yeah, it's possible. I think they pushed the 14 a few megahertz higher.

Are you monitoring your CPU vids in HWInfo during a few different games to see what the vids are doing? And did you do this before the flash to be able comparison of behaviour?

stimpy88I'll leave this here so we can see what this microcode fix really does.

That was a hard watch, dude goes on about his community having no misinformation, then posts this video.

He doesnt know why the new microcode is preventing his 6ghz clocks, thats because the eTVB fix now will downclock when CPU is over 80C, he had cores over 80C. (0x125 bios before the latest)

Then says 1.4v is going to degrade these CPUs, different to Intel's own statement, my 8600k ran at 1,4v out of the box as an example.

He seems baffled his circa 1.4v didnt change yet quote from the OP of this thread. "The latest 0x129 microcode patch will limit the processor's voltage to no higher than 1.55 V, which should avoid further degradation."

Jay's video is much better, just presenting data with only a small comment at end on what he thought it meant.

stimpy88Yeah, it's possible. I think they pushed the 14 a few megahertz higher.

Are you monitoring your CPU vids in HWInfo during a few different games to see what the vids are doing? And did you do this before the flash to be able comparison of behaviour?

Probably open a can of worms...but isn't VCore the actual voltage your CPU is using, VID is the voltage your CPU is asking for based on a set of internal tables for max voltage...Always been a confusing area....
VID voltage can be said as the maximum that can be tolerated by the CPU system under a given clock speed. Whereas Vcore is the actual reading for the cores. In simple terms, VID is the upper cap on the voltage specifications of the system.

vMax65Probably open a can of worms...but isn't VCore the actual voltage your CPU is using, VID is the voltage your CPU is asking for based on a set of internal tables for max voltage...Always been a confusing area....
VID voltage can be said as the maximum that can be tolerated by the CPU system under a given clock speed. Whereas Vcore is the actual reading for the cores. In simple terms, VID is the upper cap on the voltage specifications of the system.

This is the thing I don't get, I mean people concerned about VID being high. Isn't VID exactly what you say, so voltage CPU asks for, but one it gets being Vcore, so Vcore should be the one to concern? Btw what exact voltages are the ones to be concerned in the matter of this whole instability drama?

#22This is the thing I don't get, I mean people concerned about VID being high. Isn't VID exactly what you say, so voltage CPU asks for, but one it gets being Vcore, so Vcore should be the one to concern? Btw what exact voltages are the ones to be concerned in the matter of this whole instability drama?

For me it has always been Vcore. You can also look at VROUT (which is probably a little more accurate). VID when everything is on auto is what is being requested but gets modified by a few parameters including LLC, Power states like EIST/C1E temps etc which when looking at vcore is the actual voltage being used. As soon as you start changing settings like fixed, adaptive, offsets etc, then VID becomes less relavent. For both Intel and AMD VID is just a value that the CPU pulls from a programmed table of Multiplier/Voltage, and the mobo uses this to determine what Auto voltage it should set.

Can be real confusing and I am not any sort of expert so if there are any CPU engineers on TechPowerUp please jump in to help...