Intel Core i9-13900K and i7-13700K Gaming Stability Issues Linked to Power Limit Unlocks

[btarunr]

Users of Intel's 13th Gen unlocked K-series processors such as Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K, are reporting stability issues when gaming even at stock clock-speeds. Hassan Mujtaba of Wccftech and Tom's Hardware have isolated the issues to power limit unlocks. Most Z690 and Z790 chipset motherboards include BIOS-level unlocks for the power limits, particularly the Maximum Turbo Power (interchangeable with PL2). By default, the i9-13900K and i7-13700K come with a PL2 value of 253 W, but you can get the motherboard to unlock this to unlimited, which basically tells the processor that it has 4096 W of power on tap, so not technically a "stock" configuration anymore.

Of course, neither your PSU nor your CPU VRM are capable of delivering 4096 W, and so the processor tends to draw as much power as it needs, to maintain the best possible P-core boost frequencies, before running into thermal limits. At stock frequencies with stock boost bins, unlocked power limits can drive the power draw of i9-13900K as far high as 373 W under a multithreaded load, in our testing, when compared to 283 W with the power limits in place. It turns out, that unlocking the power limits can come with long-term costs, besides the literal cost of electricity—the processor's stability with gaming workloads can degrade with certain hardware combos and settings.



Wccftech's Hassan Mujtaba has a novel fix for this—to undervolt the processor. In his experience, undervolting the processor and restoring the stock power limits in the motherboard BIOS settings restored gaming stability. Meanwhile, Tom's Hardware suggests a slightly different approach besides restoring power limits—to reduce the P-core boost multiplier by 2.0x (i.e. reducing the maximum boost frequency by 200 MHz). Both these approaches are claimed to restore gaming performance stability for the i9-13900K and i7-13700K. Although there are no confirmed sightings of the issue in the wild for the newer 14th Gen chips, it stands to reason that even the 14th Gen i9-14900K and i7-14700K could be affected by this issue. We still don't know why it doesn't affect the 12th Gen chips, since they feature fundamentally the same power design as the 13th- and 14th Gen chips.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[loracle706]

Why bying those cpus if you gonna undervolt them, really a dumb idea, and stop bying expensive and those high end cpus, today the last generation of i 3s and i 5th are strong enough to handle all heavy games ( i don't speak about some special works like devs or else that needs special cpus), we must stop this joke, and don't listen to those idiots influencers !!

 

[low]

It is largely normal not to really question the energy consumption of the hardware.
And there is a shortage of guides about saving energy without loosing performance. Most ppl set windows to energy saving and think they save energy.

 

[bug]

TL;DR Intel's guidelines for power delivery are there for a reason.

 

[Denver]

It seems that the sky isn't always blue when you push the limits.

 

[P4-630]

As for CPU settings I only enable "Enhanced Multi Core Performance".

 

[bug]

I only enable "Multi Core Enhancement".

Read carefully, it's not about what you enable, it's about what the motherboard enables out-of-the-box.

 

[P4-630]

it's about what the motherboard enables out-of-the-box.

Well I have a GB Z690 Aorus Master, I didn't check these settings actually, ok I got an i7 12700K which don't seem to have these issues.

 

[RimbowFish]

I think Intel is really desperate to the point of going towards such high consumption limits, it no longer makes any sense

 

[aktpu]

I think Intel is really desperate to the point of going towards such high consumption limits, it no longer makes any sense

These limits in question are set by mobo manufacturers, not Intel

 

[imentoyt]

Not only 13900K or 13700K, even the 14900K has stability issues even with STOCK settings.

Post from Reddit 1
Post 2
Post 3

 

[bug]

Well I have a GB Z690 Aorus Master, I didn't check these settings actually, ok I got an i7 12700K which don't seem to have these issues.

The article seems to single out 13700k and 13900k

I think Intel is really desperate to the point of going towards such high consumption limits, it no longer makes any sense

Yes, because it's Intel that runs CPUs unconstrained. Did you read the actual article?

 

[MaMoo]

Are there any known incidents involving the 12700K? I'm curious if this is limited to Raptors only.

 

[Vya Domus]

I'll never not be amazed how much power these draw, it's actually hard to believe it's even possible to make a CPU with not even that many cores that isn't too far away from the 400W mark.

 

[bug]

I'll never not be amazed how much power these draw, it's actually hard to believe it's even possible to make a CPU with not even that many cores that isn't too far away from the 400W mark.

There are two things here:
#1 the silicon is really good and can handle huge amounts of punishment - that's good
#2 motherboards tend to ship using unreasonable defaults just to get a better score in reviews - that's not good (but can be easily corrected, since max power is actually configurable)

 

[dgianstefani]

There are two things here:
#1 the silicon is really good and can handle huge amounts of punishment - that's good
#2 motherboards tend to ship using unreasonable defaults just to get a better score in reviews - that's not good (but can be easily corrected, since max power is actually configurable)

Precisely.

Intel tests their chips to achieve a 20 year typical lifespan at stock settings. There isn't any debate in my mind that the actual architecture and implementation is rock solid. Motherboard manufacturers on the other hand... Auto settings can be so bad it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Not only do they cause chips to run with worse efficiency, but often worse performance than a manual tune or Intel stock settings.

 

[R0H1T]

Or you know we can ignore the reason why Intel/mobo makers do this? It's like there's a collective amensia over their past behavior, yes especially including killing non Z OCing, or any number of times they would’ve forced mobo makers to include a patch or something else?

This has been happening for what more than half a decade now? Gee I wonder why

 

[marios15]

There are two things here:
#1 the silicon is really good and can handle huge amounts of punishment - that's good

Bad silicon can work with higher voltages and produces more heat than good quality silicon.

Being able to handle a lot of heat is very easy, you don't even need logic circuits to do it.

 

[nguyen]

Been running my 13700K with PL of 150W since day 1, so no problem here.

 

[Denver]

The article seems to single out 13700k and 13900k


Yes, because it's Intel that runs CPUs unconstrained. Did you read the actual article?

Intel launching four rebrands/refreshes of the same chip does not inspire confidence in people. 13900k - 13900ks - 14900k - 14900ks.

Also don't tell me that it wasn't Intel that decided to offer the option to run "without limits"

 

[Kodehawa]

Kind of expected honestly. I wonder why motherboard manufacturers gamble this lol -- well, probably for better benchmark scores, but at horrible efficiency losses.

I imagine Intel will pressure them to push a UEFI update to make the auto power limits the ones recommended by them. Could be a huge PR blunder if they don't (users won't usually blame the motherboard anyway)

 

[OxSteve]

I faced the issue with my 13900K stock( minus the negative 50mV offset to VRAM 1.45V=>1.40V), I figured it out (using afterburner and seeing a huge power consumption in game), so i set PL1 and PL2 to 330W, it fixes the crashes.
For instance, it happened to me in Tekken8 starting screens and some decompressions software.

I also noticed while running OCCT, Cinebench, Prime95 stress tests that the CPU Power was +370W on a regular basis.

 

[HD64G]

Trying to win or even lose by a few % on performance without limiting the power draw can end in producing a new Fermi. Intel should know better than that, although desperation almost always leads to stupid decisions.

 

[MaMoo]

I am starting to conjecture that the CPUs are monitored for temperature and feedbacks are made on clocks faster than (any) current-based monitoring system. Otherwise how can a modern CPU that thermal throttles itself be damaged due to power?

 

[bug]

Or you know we can ignore the reason why Intel/mobo makers do this? It's like there's a collective amensia over their past behavior, yes especially including killing non Z OCing, or any number of times they would’ve forced mobo makers to include a patch or something else?

This has been happening for what more than half a decade now? Gee I wonder why

So essentially you're saying it's Intel's fault for defining power constraints. Motherboards makers only go above the defined limits because Intel is locking the CPUs and doesn't allow manufacturers to run them outside their predefined specs. Is that right?

Intel launching four rebrands/refreshes of the same chip does not inspire confidence in people. 13900k - 13900ks - 14900k - 14900ks.

That has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Also don't tell me that it wasn't Intel that decided to offer the option to run "without limits"

You don know the difference between official recommendations and "option", don't you?