Intel Core i9-13900K

[Readlight]

Can it warm up bedroom?

 

[Solid State Brain]

This definitely makes sense as MSI have been caught cheating this sort of thing several times now - Hell, HWinfo had a metric added just to catch them out for dishonest power reporting

They may blame intel XTU, but if that's the case it's even worse as any reviews using that software might also be reporting dishonest values

I don't know if that's a case of the motherboard cheating with power reporting. To me, HardwareUnboxed's result seemed consistent with the CPU running in fixed voltage mode, called "Override mode" on MSI motherboards. When that happens, CPU voltage only decreases due to the VRM impedance (i.e. vdroop), and not also with frequency as in the default voltage mode ("Adaptive Voltage").

As a result, performance under power-limited scenarios will be significantly lower that expected, since the CPU will use higher voltages and consume more power at lower frequencies than it normally would, and performance will decrease more or less linearly with the power limit all the way down to low levels, which is what looked like from HardwareUnboxed's power scaling graph.

I'm not sure if Intel XTU can do this on its own; I haven't used it much but the power limits seemed to work correctly when I did. On the other hand, if for a reason or another the reviewer set a fixed CPU voltage in BIOS, that could explain the results.

 

[AusWolf]

I don't know if that's a case of the motherboard cheating with power reporting. To me, HardwareUnboxed's result seemed consistent with the CPU running in fixed voltage mode, called "Override mode" on MSI motherboards. When that happens, CPU voltage only decreases due to the VRM impedance (i.e. vdroop), and not also with frequency as in the default voltage mode ("Adaptive Voltage").

As a result, performance under power-limited scenarios will be significantly lower that expected, since the CPU will use higher voltages and consume more power at lower frequencies than it normally would, and performance will decrease more or less linearly with the power limit all the way down to low levels, which is what looked like from HardwareUnboxed's power scaling graph.

I'm not sure if Intel XTU can do this on its own; I haven't used it much but the power limits seemed to work correctly when I did. On the other hand, if for a reason or another the reviewer set a fixed CPU voltage in BIOS, that could explain the results.

I'm always puzzled my MSI's weird BIOS settings. I remember building a PC for someone with an MSI board where I could choose "cooler setup". The options were basic air, tower and AIO, I think. I had no clue what it was about until I read the manual and saw that it's a simple power limit toggle. I don't know why MSI has to do this and why they can't keep things simple and easy to understand.

 

[Solid State Brain]

@AusWolf
The "Cooler Setup" dialog on recent MSI motherboards shows up during the first boot or after the CMOS is cleared. It is just for selecting fixed presets for PL1, PL2 and IccMax (CPU current limit) in accordance with your cooler performance, which you can otherwise manually configure in Advanced CPU options.

The idea is interesting, but not very well executed. The lowest preset on my motherboard-CPU combination already used limits above Intel recommendations/specifications (PL1=PL2=241W when it should have been PL1=125W, PL2=190W); other presets seemed to use too high limits and so they are almost useless and possibly even damaging on the long term (since they use a very high current limit of 512A).

I agree that MSI often uses strange confusing wording. AC/DC Loadline for example are under "CPU Lite Load" settings.

 

[AusWolf]

@AusWolf
The "Cooler Setup" dialog on recent MSI motherboards shows up during the first boot or after the CMOS is cleared. It is just for selecting fixed presets for PL1, PL2 and IccMax (CPU current limit) in accordance with your cooler performance, which you can otherwise manually configure in Advanced CPU options.

The idea is interesting, but not very well executed. The lowest preset on my motherboard-CPU combination already used limits above Intel recommendations/specifications (PL1=PL2=241W when it should have been PL1=125W, PL2=190W); other presets seemed to use too high limits and so they are almost useless and possibly even damaging on the long term (since they use a very high current limit of 512A).

I agree that MSI often uses strange confusing wording. AC/DC Loadline for example are under "CPU Lite Load" settings.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the feeling that they name their BIOS settings with stupid and/or non-IT oriented people in mind. I mean, even if you have no clue what PL1 and PL2 mean, you can still select what kind of cooler you have (which I still think is stupid because not two AIOs, and not two tower coolers are the same).

Edit: Imo, instead of stupid naming, they could use a "simple mode" / "advanced mode" toggle like Asus does.

 

[Dirt Chip]

It is important in more ways than one, chances are if your mobo dies for some reason you'll be able to buy a cheap second hand or even brand new x570 board 2-3 years down the line. Good luck finding a z97 board(used or new) though at reasonable prices. If you want to upgrade you could go from zen to zen3 as well with the chipset limitations, the last time Intel allowed this was when Youtube was barely a thing. Intel's artificial limitations wrt sockets are well documented & really there's no excuse for changing them 5 times on the same uarch, with Skylake!

This is even more relevant now because PCIe 5.0 will easily last you a decade or more, we have no dGPU's which can make use of it & barely any SSD's in the consumer space which can properly use it. This wasn't the case a decade back, because while the progress from PCIe 2.0-> 3.0-> 4.0 was painfully slow the jump from 4.0->5.0-> 6.0 will take less than half the time. So in essence these boards will last you for a long while!

I don`t see how Z97 availability (launched at 2014, 8 years ago) comper to the x570 availability- a 3 years old (lunched 2019)..?
if anything, Intel's strategy of changing socket every 2 gen makes a larger second hand market because mobo is replaced more often.

You are right and I very much agree about Intel's very much one-sided, intensely and profit oriented way of terminating socket compatibility. But that`s on itself, imo, it is not a reason not to choose them unless you know you will need to upgrade CPU every 2 years without changing mobo and to be left out with any new features that shows up.

Also, I advise not to too much counting on the ability to drop a new CPU to a 2-4 years old mobo. AMD is not your friend and can, in a flip sec, to not support for some weird reason. You cannot know if the CPU in 2-4 yers time will be of any good for you (thermally, financial, performance wise, new features that you need ect). So my device- choose the platform that`s suite you now, not the one that you hope will suite you in 2-4 years from now.

Other than that, the ability to keep using the same mobo is a wonderful thing for th consumer and I hope Intel will fallow (ye, right..). It is also Important from the environment point of view to lower e-waste even in a small amount (cus you still buy a new CPU).

 

[AusWolf]

I don`t see how Z97 availability (launched at 2014, 8 years ago) comper to the x570 availability- a 3 years old (lunched 2019)..?
if anything, Intel's strategy of changing socket every 2 gen makes a larger second hand market because mobo is replaced more often.

You are right and I very much agree about Intel's very much one-sided,intensely and profit oriented way of terminating socket compatibility. But that`s on itself, imo, not a reason not to choose them, unless you know you will need to upgrade CPU every 2 years without changing mobo and to be left out with any new features that shows up).

Also, I advise not to too much counting on the ability to drop a new CPU to a 2-4 years old mobo. AMD is not your friend and can, in a flip sec, to not support for some weird reason. You cannot know if the CPU in 2-4 yers time will be of any good for you (thermally, financial, performance wise ect). So my device- choose the platform that`s suite you now, not the one that you hope will suite you in 2-4 years from now.

Other than that, the ability to keep using the same mobo is a wonderful thing for th consumer and I hope Intel will fallow (ye, right..). It is also Important from the environment point of view to lower e-waste even in a small amount (cus you still buy a new CPU).

I agree. Future platform compatibility is overrated, imo. Even if you buy the newest AMD platform, by the time you really need an upgrade, the next one will be out - if not socket, then chipset compatibility-wise.

 

[R0H1T]

I don`t see how Z97 availability (launched at 2014, 8 years ago) comper to the x570 availability- a 3 years old (lunched 2019)..?

Well that was just an example of what (extended) socket compatibility does & that I had Z97 prior to the x570, you can also see other examples in this thread after that. FYI you could put any chip between zen1-zen3 with any mobo between x3xx & x5xx (with BIOS updates in some cases) & Intel simply doesn't allow that! With such compatibility you also have a more robust second hand market with much reasonable prices overall, for such components. Again this shouldn't be that hard to understand, try getting a z170 board for instance & check what it costs now?

And try getting a similar

Future platform compatibility is overrated, imo.

That may have been true 10 years back but it's virtually the opposite today! What will you really need a new chipset for 3 years down the line PCIe 6.0?

 

[AusWolf]

That may have been true 10 years back but it's virtually the opposite today! What will you really need a new chipset for 3 years down the line PCIe 6.0?

Exactly my point. And what do you need a new CPU for in your existing mobo? A 4% IPC uplift?

 

[Dirt Chip]

I've done that, and it's a valid strategy. Don't forget that you can sell your previous CPU. I bought a 1700X and X370 Taichi in 2017 only a couple of months after release. I swapped the CPU for a 3600X that ended up costing me only $75 and came with a free game as well. Now I have a 5700X and my 3600X should be in someone else's hands soon. The total outlay is slightly more than buying an 1800X in 2017, but a 5700X is much faster. Alternatively, you can upgrade at the end and you only spend on the CPU rather than CPU and motherboard.

Your strategy is very much valid but not spacial in any way to AMD only.
You can also sell any intel mobo and CPU- nothing new here. Again, if you are on a budget almost any change will be at loss, financially wise. Intel second hand market is as booming just as AMD`s, I guress.

 

[JustBenching]

I don't know if that's a case of the motherboard cheating with power reporting. To me, HardwareUnboxed's result seemed consistent with the CPU running in fixed voltage mode, called "Override mode" on MSI motherboards. When that happens, CPU voltage only decreases due to the VRM impedance (i.e. vdroop), and not also with frequency as in the default voltage mode ("Adaptive Voltage").

As a result, performance under power-limited scenarios will be significantly lower that expected, since the CPU will use higher voltages and consume more power at lower frequencies than it normally would, and performance will decrease more or less linearly with the power limit all the way down to low levels, which is what looked like from HardwareUnboxed's power scaling graph.

I'm not sure if Intel XTU can do this on its own; I haven't used it much but the power limits seemed to work correctly when I did. On the other hand, if for a reason or another the reviewer set a fixed CPU voltage in BIOS, that could explain the results.

The last 2 releases of Intel - we had the same "tactics" from many of the big reviewers. Post fake numbers with the Intel CPUs drawing 999 watts and some absurd fake efficiency graphs, and later retract them. In the meanwhile Billy the AMD fanboy keeps advertising around the web those original fake graphs. And then claim that Intel is paying reviewers on top of everything else. Welcome to the internet in 2022, facts just don't matter.

 

[R0H1T]

Intel second hand market is as booming just as AMD`s, I guress.

Booming for who though? With AM4 you had 2^4 combination of boards/chips, a typical Intel release guarantees at most 2^2 so you're 4x as likely to get a compatible AM4 board/zen chip as Intel. I'm counting zen+ as well. You also didn't answer why they had to change socket compatibility so many times on a single uarch?

 

[Dirt Chip]

Well that was just an example of what (extended) socket compatibility does & that I had Z97 prior to the x570, you can also see other examples in this thread after that. FYI you could put any chip between zen1-zen3 with any mobo between x3xx & x5xx (with BIOS updates in some cases) & Intel simply doesn't allow that! With such compatibility you also have a more robust second hand market with much reasonable prices overall, for such components. Again this shouldn't be that hard to understand, try getting a z170 board for instance & check what it costs now?

And try getting a similar

That may have been true 10 years back but it's virtually the opposite today! What will you really need a new chipset for 3 years down the line PCIe 6.0?

"Intel simply doesn't allow that! " you are right, but than agin- so what unless you know you will surly upgrade to a new AMD CPU only?

PCIe is just one the changes a mobo can have and I agree, It is not a reson to change mobo. But you have all sorts of other fetures that can change, get upgraded, and new one you don't even know of. As a user who want`s to stay updated on the performance, It is nou unlikely to think that you also will want the new updated goodis.

About second hand market, I think both partys have one. Maybe AMD is better in that front but I dont think its a deciding factor when you choose a platform. maybe just a bonus.

All in all, what i`m saying is that it is better to choose what is right for you in the day of purchasing rather than choosing a lesser option in the hope years from now it will be worth it. But thats just my opinion and way of purchasing things, surly others will do different and be just as fine

 

[JustBenching]

Booming for who though? With AM4 you had 2^4 combination of boards/chips, a typical Intel release guarantees at most 2^2 so you're 4x as likely to get a compatible AM4 board/zen chip as Intel. I'm counting zen+ as well. You also didn't answer why they had to change socket compatibility so many times on a single uarch?

Compatibility is great if it saves you money. AMD's compatibility usually doesn't save you money, cause their CPUs are uber expensive compared to the competition. So what's the point? I gave you an example before, it was cheaper for me to buy a 12700f + a brand new b660 motherboard than upgrading my R5 1600 into a 5800x 3d and keeping the same old outdated out of warranty motherboard. Plus, the 12700f is way faster in the vast majority of workloads. So...?

 

[R0H1T]

"Intel simply doesn't allow that! " you are right, but than agin- so what unless you know you will surly upgrade to a new AMD CPU only?

Did you miss the part where I said the board dies? That is an important consideration for anyone not upgrading their system every 2 years. And a really major one at that.

 

[AusWolf]

The last 2 releases of Intel - we had the same "tactics" from many of the big reviewers. Post fake numbers with the Intel CPUs drawing 999 watts and some absurd fake efficiency graphs, and later retract them. In the meanwhile Billy the AMD fanboy keeps advertising around the web those original fake graphs. And then claim that Intel is paying reviewers on top of everything else. Welcome to the internet in 2022, facts just don't matter.

That's just the sign of living in a world where everything has to be 1% faster than the competition, and every job (including reviews) has to be done yesterday. Reviewers don't have time to test things at settings that make sense before the review deadline - some don't have time at all. As a result, both AMD and Intel are specced way out of their efficiency curves by default, both run at their temperature limits out of the box, but both can be tamed with a little care if that's what you prefer. Lower power and temperature limits can be set, and I think that is the way to go with these CPUs nowadays.

 

[JustBenching]

That's just the sign of living in a world where everything has to be 1% faster than the competition, and every job (including reviews) has to be done yesterday. Reviewers don't have time to test things at settings that make sense before the review deadline - some don't have time at all. As a result, both AMD and Intel are specced way out of their efficiency curves by default, both run at their temperature limits out of the box, but both can be tamed with a little care if that's what you prefer. Lower power and temperature limits can be set, and I think that is the way to go with these CPUs nowadays.

I agree but I think reviewers are the main problem, not Intel or AMD. They are the ones rushing numbers, they are the ones using stupid settings, and there are smaller channels out there that call them out for it. A very popular reviewer (won't name him, but is one of the biggest ones), is still defending his decision of manually going INTO the bios and choosing unlimited power limits for his review. I mean what the actual hell? When you manually go out of your way to make the CPU inefficient, why are you wondering why it is inefficient?

If every reviewer decided to test the CPUs at - lets say - 150w limit, then Intel and AMD wouldn't be pushing 600 watts out of the box, cause noone would test them like that - they would have nothing to gain.

 

[R0H1T]

Compatibility is great if it saves you money. AMD's compatibility usually doesn't save you money, cause their CPUs are uber expensive compared to the competition. So what's the point? I gave you an example before, it was cheaper for me to buy a 12700f + a brand new b660 motherboard than upgrading my R5 1600 into a 5800x 3d and keeping the same old outdated out of warranty motherboard. Plus, the 12700f is way faster in the vast majority of workloads. So...?

Oh that's BS, you have two examples in this very thread for it.

And it's cheaper for me to slot in a 5950x in my x570 board, much cheaper for a lot of AM4 users in fact.

As compared to what? A 5950x for instance?

I'm not asking anyone to buy the 7xxx chips right now, in fact if you need it you should still wait for BF deals IMO but socket longevity is such a simple yet "underrated" plus point that overlooking it is almost criminal these days.

 

[Dirt Chip]

You also didn't answer why they had to change socket compatibility so many times on a single uarch?

They don`t. They choose to from a financial point to get more mony out of the consumer and to satisfy the shere holderd (just as any other global company btw), and to a much lesser reson to force an update features that maybe benefits them in some way.
To make it very much clear becuse I allready said it in this thres a few times: I`m aginst this socket changes practice from intel but I don`t count it as a deal breaker if their platform is the right one for me in a giveng time point.
If I know that CPU upgrade is a something that is importent for me in 2-3 years time, than AMD will be the preferred choice.

 

[JustBenching]

Oh that's BS, you have two examples in this very thread for it.

And it's cheaper for me to slot in a 5950x in my x570 board, much cheaper for a lot of AM4 users in fact.

As compared to what? A 5950x for instance?

I'm not asking anyone to buy the 7xxx chips right now, in fact if you need it you should still wait for BF deals IMO but socket longevity is such a simple yet "underrated" plus point that overlooking it is almost criminal these days.

What example do I have? Sorry, I might have missed something.

Your x570 isn't an old board, it's the latest AM4, what exactly are you talking about?

Socket longevity is great in theory, but with AMD charging exorbitant prices for their CPU's, you are already paying for a motherboard included in the price of an AMD CPU. That's just the sad reality.

It's funny to talk about longevity but completely forget that it took AMD 2 freaking years to support Zen 3 on older motherboards. By the time x370 / b350 got zen 3 support, those cpus were freaking outdated. Is that the kind of support you want? I don't

 

[Dirt Chip]

Did you miss the part where I said the board dies? That is an important consideration for anyone not upgrading their system every 2 years. And a really major one at that.

Choosing platform according to sec market avilabilty because the mobo might die is not a major point to me. Also, I don't know how will the sec hand market will be like in 2,4,6 or 10 years from now. If the mobo will die in 4,6,10 years from now and I can`t find any replacement than I'm OK with buying a new platform. btw, That`s why I will choose DDR5 for a new build and not DDR4- Memory is probably the most expensive part that you can take across many years and platforms (Although I'm on DDR3 now...).
But if it`s an importent factor to you than OK- I can understand it but I wouldn't factor it as more than a bonus.
I prefere to use UPS to lower the risk from grid spikes, among other bonuses that come with it.

 

[AusWolf]

I agree but I think reviewers are the main problem, not Intel or AMD. They are the ones rushing numbers, they are the ones using stupid settings, and there are smaller channels out there that call them out for it. A very popular reviewer (won't name him, but is one of the biggest ones), is still defending his decision of manually going INTO the bios and choosing unlimited power limits for his review. I mean what the actual hell? When you manually go out of your way to make the CPU inefficient, why are you wondering why it is inefficient?

If every reviewer decided to test the CPUs at - lets say - 150w limit, then Intel and AMD wouldn't be pushing 600 watts out of the box, cause noone would test them like that - they would have nothing to gain.

I would say, time is the big problem, as reviewers tend to get the parts only a couple of days before the deadline which makes reviews rushed... but if they're defending the choice with unlimited power limits, that's another story. As far as I'm concerned, changing factory (Intel/AMD) default and recommended power/thermal/any limits is overclocking, and should not be done for a review.

Motherboard makers are also a problem, if you look at the above example with MSI.

A third problem may be what I call "the reviewer's paradox", when they specifically look at that extra 1% performance to shit on the product or its competition (shitting on stuff brings them views). They throw a lot of hardware around, so they have the keen eye for that miniscule difference that the home user will never ever notice. I'm sure if you built two systems with any two modern, but vastly different CPUs, and just played games on both without an FPS counter on, you wouldn't notice any difference.

 

[R0H1T]

X570 was released over 2 years back, it is old by Intel standards in fact it'd be obsolete last year.

It's funny to talk about longevity but completely forget that it took AMD 2 freaking years to support Zen 3 on older motherboards.

They did deliver eventually, even if was driven by the community outrage. Intel on other hand can't even guarantee 2 gens of chip compatibility on a single chipset ~ here's a trivia for you which chipset supported basically just one gen of chips?

 

[AusWolf]

They did deliver eventually, even if was driven by the community outrage. Intel on other hand can't even guarantee 2 gens of chip compatibility on a single chipset ~ here's a trivia for you which chipset supported basically just one gen of chips?

That's true, but realistically speaking, is it a problem? I mean, my Rocket Lake i7 is still the same Rocket Lake i7 and it still runs my programs and games as it was/did two years ago.

 

[JustBenching]

X570 was released over 2 years back, it is old by Intel standards in fact it'd be obsolete last year.

And so is the by AMD's standards, the last cpu you can put on them is zen 3. What are you talking about? LOL

They did deliver eventually, even if was driven by the community outrage. Intel on other hand can't even guarantee 2 gens of chip compatibility on a single chipset ~ here's a trivia for you which chipset supported basically just one gen of chips?

But I don't care about mobo upgradability if it doesn't actually save me money, that's the point you keep on missing. AMD can support 50 gens of CPU's and I still wouldn't care if their CPU pricing includes the cost of buying a new motherboard compared to competitors products. Again - when the 3d was released, my options were to buy a 3d for my old outdated, out of warranty b350 for 450€, or buy a 12700f + a brand new b660 for 460€. So how the heck does mobo upgradability benefitted me?

To answer your question, b550 supported basically just one gen of chips. That's AMD's chipset btw