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

[R0H1T]

You said it's a guideline right? How come they can't enforce it for close to a decade now? When they could screw 5 gen of mobo users, nearly a year after the mobos were released, to block OCing? We've been over this more than a dozen times ~ what you refuse to believe or maybe intentionally ignore is that Intel makes money off this move so it's at least tacitly approved, if not explicitly behind closed doors!

 

[Redwoodz]

All of this issue is directly related to the fact that Intel can only compete with AMD performance wise by brute-forcing their silicon to the absolute max. Think Netburst.

 

[AusWolf]

So pushing shy of 400 W into your CPU has a potential to degrade it. I'm not saying that it's totally unexpected, but interesting.

As for CPU settings I only enable "Multi Core Enhancement".

That does exactly what the article is on about: it unlocks your power limits.

 

[P4-630]

That does exactly what the article is on about: it unlocks your power limits.

The image in the article

 

[AusWolf]

The image in the article
View attachment 335854

Hm... then your board might be different than the ones I've tried. MCE on Asus is basically a "no power limit" button.

 

[P4-630]

Hm... then your board might be different than the ones I've tried. MCE on Asus is basically a "no power limit" button.

It just clocks all my 8 P-Cores to 5Ghz

 

[bug]

You said it's a guideline right? How come they can't enforce it for close to a decade now? When they could screw 5 gen of mobo users, nearly a year after the mobos were released, to block OCing? We've been over this more than a dozen times ~ what you refuse to believe or maybe intentionally ignore is that Intel makes money off this move so it's at least tacitly approved, if not explicitly behind closed doors!

They could enforce that, but then you'd be complaining you've been robbed of your overclocking rights.
I'm not imaging Intel are saints here, but most likely this is more of a cat-and-mouse game, where motherboard manufacturers search or demand features they know they can (ab)use to gain an edge over the competition. You don't like that? No worries, you can always jump ship to AMD.

 

[AusWolf]

They could enforce that, but then you'd be complaining you've been robbed of your overclocking rights.
I'm not imaging Intel are saints here, but most likely this is more of a cat-and-mouse game, where motherboard manufacturers search or demand features they know they can (ab)use to gain an edge over the competition. You don't like that? No worries, you can always jump ship to AMD.

Or you can buy locked Intel, used in a locked motherboard and forget about the fact that your game only runs at 280 FPS instead of 290.

 

[bug]

Or you can buy locked Intel, used in a locked motherboard and forget about the fact that your game only runs at 280 FPS instead of 290.

Something tells me @R0H1T won't touch Intel with a 10ft pole

 

[AusWolf]

Something tells me @R0H1T won't touch Intel with a 10ft pole

I won't, either, as long as they keep up with the e+p cores... not because of the e+p cores themselves, but because they need Windows 11 to run properly... now, that's what I won't touch with a 10 ft pole.

 

[R0H1T]

I definitely won't, not when I had multiple systems softbricked because Intel pushed patches through MS updates blocking the OCing on H9* boards. Now you could say there was always a chance this could happen given the history at Intel but I don't remember something like this happening via Windows updates! You also should not be allowed to remove or modify "features" from a product (which many mobo makers advertised at the time) without explicit user consent. That's effin class action lawsuit territory, too bad I don't live in the US otherwise I'd have at least tried something on a small scale legally.

 

[SAINT ENZO]

I have a 14900k and any games running on the unreal engine crash or refuse to launch unless i underclock the processor. This fixed fortnite and "the Finals" for me.

 

[Ware]

The headline should be "Some people couldn't get their overclock stable" or "People in Steam forum angry after game crashes", but I guess that wouldn't get views...
I think the real story here is that tech writers recycle old stories by using sensation headlines that sound current.
They present everything in the most sensational style possible, often making intentional misrepresentations to drive engagement.
The story at Tom's is based on a tweet from a guy that(despite his position) doesn't know how to get his system stable, and a thread in the Steam forums.
Now it's a fake story here. I've seen too many 13700K doing fine to buy into this.
I think the problem is too many people watch a video and decide to build a PC, but they don't really know what they are doing.

Gamers Nexus explained "Accidental Pre-Overclocking vs. Spec" at the time of 10th gen. That guy laughed painfully as he noted that he has to explain this "every single CPU launch from Intel". Asus boards have been heading this direction for like 20 years(going above specs for better performance), and IMO you're in over your head if your don't already know this.

 

[SAINT ENZO]

The headline should be "Some people couldn't get their overclock stable" or "People in Steam forum angry after game crashes", but I guess that wouldn't get views...
I think the real story here is that tech writers recycle old stories by using sensation headlines that sound current.
They present everything in the most sensational style possible, often making intentional misrepresentations to drive engagement.
The story at Tom's is based on a tweet from a guy that(despite his position) doesn't know how to get his system stable, and a thread in the Steam forums.
Now it's a fake story here. I've seen too many 13700K doing fine to buy into this.
I think the problem is too many people watch a video and decide to build a PC, but they don't really know what they are doing.

Gamers Nexus explained "Accidental Pre-Overclocking vs. Spec" at the time of 10th gen. That guy laughed painfully as he noted that he has to explain this "every single CPU launch from Intel". Asus boards have been heading this direction for like 20 years(going above specs for better performance), and IMO you're in over your head if your don't already know this.

I think you're wrong. Its motherboard makers like ASUS enabling features that shouldnt be enabled by default.

 

[Noyand]

You said it's a guideline right? How come they can't enforce it for close to a decade now? When they could screw 5 gen of mobo users, nearly a year after the mobos were released, to block OCing? We've been over this more than a dozen times ~ what you refuse to believe or maybe intentionally ignore is that Intel makes money off this move so it's at least tacitly approved, if not explicitly behind closed doors!

Asus and Co pushing settings that could potentially kill a CPU on AMD sides tells me that this seems to be a futile exercise unless you're being a control freak on the same level as NVIDIA. But then people will complain that you killed overclocking.
From what I've seen around, Intel is more fun for tinkerers, the whole manually adjusting voltage, power limits seems to scratch the hitch of some people. I know a mad man who put a heavily tweaked 13900k into a 8l box, cooled with a is60evo with only a bottom fan. It's still faster than a stock 13700k. Another went in the opposite direction and push his 13900k to the limits for daily driving and use a Mo-RA 420. I wouldn't do that, but there's a community of people who love that shit and are bored by "plug and play" CPUs.

 

[dgianstefani]

Asus and Co pushing settings that could potentially kill a CPU on AMD sides tells me that this seems to be a futile exercise unless you're being a control freak on the same level as NVIDIA. But then people will complain that you killed overclocking.
From what I've seen around, Intel is more fun for tinkerers, the whole manually adjusting voltage, power limits seems to scratch the hitch of some people. I know a mad man who put a heavily tweaked 13900k into a 8l box, cooled with a is60evo with only a bottom fan. It's still faster than a stock 13700k. Another went in the opposite direction and push his 13900k to the limits for daily driving and use a Mo-RA 420. I wouldn't do that, but there's a community of people who love that shit and are bored by "plug and play" CPUs.

With power comes responsibility... or so some guy called Ben says.

 

[AusWolf]

I think you're wrong. Its motherboard makers like ASUS enabling features that shouldnt be enabled by default.

That's been said many times by many people, but I haven't seen a single motherboard that has unlocked power limits by default, so I have no idea what reviewers are talking about.

I'm not saying that reviewers are wrong, just that there's a gaping contrast between two realities here.

 

[R0H1T]

Asus and Co pushing settings that could potentially kill a CPU on AMD sides tells me that this seems to be a futile exercise unless you're being a control freak on the same level as NVIDIA. But then people will complain that you killed overclocking.
From what I've seen around, Intel is more fun for tinkerers, the whole manually adjusting voltage, power limits seems to scratch the hitch of some people. I know a mad man who put a heavily tweaked 13900k into a 8l box, cooled with a is60evo with only a bottom fan. It's still faster than a stock 13700k. Another went in the opposite direction and push his 13900k to the limits for daily driving and use a Mo-RA 420. I wouldn't do that, but there's a community of people who love that shit and are bored by "plug and play" CPUs.

You ought not & should not be able to mess with something I bought without my explicit approval, this goes for ASUS/Intel/AMD/MS/Nvidia heck anyone! I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, so how about you try again?

 

[InVasMani]

This isn't a Intel/AMD problem it's a motherboard manufacturer issue with them not adhering to default guidance on default motherboard settings. There needs to be more push back against the MB makers for not adhering to safe recommendations with bios defaults. This is basically the same symptoms of why early on AM5 chips were frying as well which was a bigger overall fiasco.

This seems like such jet lag on the problem and concern being raised on this issue for these past generation Intel chip parts though. It's unsurprising that issues like this exist though with the way MB makers aren't setting default bios setting to adhere to recommended safety guidance's of AMD/Intel in the first place.

 

[Tek-Check]

Are modenrn motherboards just overpowered?

 

[R0H1T]

This isn't a Intel/AMD problem it's a motherboard manufacturer issue with them not adhering to default guidance on default motherboard settings.

If you're talking my particular use case then no it's 100% on Intel, they pushed the microcode update through Windows! Tell me when was the last time AMD did that bricking systems? And before you claim if was just an edge case ~ I'd say so what

 

[InVasMani]

I'm saying if MB makers simply followed safe guidance of AMD/Intel with bios defaults there really shouldn't be any reason for these issues happening in the first place. It's when they break guidance while pushing non-stock safe recommended behavior at bios defaults that it turns into a issue. I'm not going to sit and argue the semantics of AMD/Intel in a scenario exacerbated by MB makers.

As far as microcode update pushed through Windows by Intel or AMD likewise that's really a separate topic of discussion. I don't see how the two are directly relatable to discussion.

 

[Luke357]

I definitely won't, not when I had multiple systems softbricked because Intel pushed patches through MS updates blocking the OCing on H9* boards. Now you could say there was always a chance this could happen given the history at Intel but I don't remember something like this happening via Windows updates! You also should not be allowed to remove or modify "features" from a product (which many mobo makers advertised at the time) without explicit user consent. That's effin class action lawsuit territory, too bad I don't live in the US otherwise I'd have at least tried something on a small scale legally.

Do you have a source to back up where they blocked H97 OC? My last machine was an H97 based 4690K (@4.4GHZ 1.25V) and there was never an update to block my OC. Ever.

 

[Noyand]

You ought not & should not be able to mess with something I bought without my explicit approval, this goes for ASUS/Intel/AMD/MS/Nvidia heck anyone! I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, so how about you try again?

I should have been clearer :

You said it yourself, H chipset getting locked was predictable. And yhea...that was directly going against Intel product segmentation. Yes, that was 100% motivated by money, but AiB might have gotten in trouble with Intel if they didn't comply. You bought a product with a feature that wasn't supposed to be allowed. The AiB were in the wrong from the moment that they tried to be "good guys". In the same spirit, Intel also blocked the workaround (BCLK OC) that MSI found for 13th gen non K/B chipset.

The issue is a bit different here, since it doesn't seem that people were aware that this could be a problem until recently, and that's an issue that also concerns the Z chipsets who are supposed to let you do what you want. Gimping the Z chipset without a valid reason would have been an order of magnitude worse in public reception than not allowing the H and B chipset to do things that it wasn't supposed to do at the time.

As long as you are not trying to enable OC on a chipset/CPU that's not supposed to do it, Intel give AiB a fair amount of wiggle room on the unlocked chipset, like how they let them decide if they want to block or allow undervolting protection (which basically makes undervolting useless if enabled).

TLR

· No, undervolting is not blocked on 12th or 13th Gen Intel CPUs

· Latest BIOS update rolled out relevant software updates and recommended BIOS settings, including Undervolt Protection (UVP).

· When UVP is enabled Dynamic/Run-time undervolting is disabled. Undervolting is still available via BIOS.

· Undervolt Protection (UVP) feature can be enabled/disabled in BIOS. Once disabled dynamic/run-time undervolting is enabled.

· Each OEM and/or motherboard vendor can decide whether to include UVP enable/disable as part of their BIOS options for users.

· Any questions about a certain system design or motherboard, we recommend you reach out to that OEM or motherboard partner.

Hope this helps out, and will bring more info to this post once I get it.

- Lex [Intel]

I'm not so black and white about the explicit consent stuff, though. It depends on why said functionality is being removed/modified. Since not every user is capable of making a sound decision about it, especially if it's about system stability. The chipset stuff seems to be justified on a legal pov. Intel sued nvidia for the chipset used in the 2008 unibody macbook, since they were not in fact allowed to make chipsets that could work with their CPU. So there might be something legit about Intel blocking OC on chipsets that were not in fact supposed to allow OC. Does it suck for the customer ? Yes, but that's not their problem.

Look, Asus took their precaution from the start, and said that this feature is not guaranteed to work in the future

 

[Vya Domus]

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?

At such high power draw the control systems for these things probably can't respond fast enough, hence why this instability occurs.

People think CPUs have temperature/clock/power limits for safety reasons but that's not the only thing, they have to regulate the temperature because the properties of the silicon change and these things are designed to operate correctly only within certain parameters. Processors start to spit out incorrect results long before they're actually "damaged" by the heat.

Temperature is also a proxy for power draw, if two pieces of silicon reach the same temperature limit in the same time but one consumes twice as much power that means the control system for the one that consumes more power has to respond faster and is probably more prone to failure.