• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Developers of Outpost Infinity Siege Recommend Underclocking i9-13900K and i9-14900K for Stability on Machines with RTX 4090

_Under2World_ said:
I never done any undervolting in my life but I can’t see in which world it would increase the stability of the system. If anything it should worsen it?
Click to expand...
Less heat, less boost is generally better stability. Lowering the voltage curve isnt going to impact stability as long as there is enough for a given frequency. Too much voltage is not adding stability either: its either stable or its not.

Bwaze said:
In older system, yes, of course. In newer "auto overclocking" ones this often means auto downclocking, not a system that tries to maintain same clocks no matter what.
Click to expand...
Or the undervolt provides needed temp headroom to boost better/higher. Thats when you know a part was pushed too much at stock settings.
 
Undervolting a CPU limited by power or thermal limit will increase the frequency the CPU runs at. It is good for overclockers ONLY. It does not decrease the strain and it decreases voltage safety margin for stability.
 
azrael said:
Actually, both Intel and motherboard manufacturers are at fault here, in my opinion
Click to expand...

Yes, but then don't bill us 500-1000$ for a product that doesn't deliver what it actually advertises, it is against the consumer law. Yet they segregate, make multiple rubbish products, limit us and basically blackmail us into spending more if we would like more logic(less pain in the arse) pcie or power header, IO layout. Release like ~3 boards and concentrate on delivering quality... but naah... last years economy class was all about flooding the market and we took the bait.

I don't blame Intel nor AMD, GPUs are totally fine consuming more, so it can work for a consumer device with no issues if you design it properly. It's all about quality control, proper testing and cheaping out.
 
Vayra86 said:
its either stable or its not.
Click to expand...
Actually no, it can be stable & unstable at the same time ~ or so says something something quantum o_O

Also technically you can't test the number of possible combinations of software &/or hardware on any system to test all plausible causes of instability ~ the possibilities are literally endless. Most "stable" PC's are functionally/practically stable though not theoretically.
 
I'll bet underclocking is not even needed.
Limiting the CPU to intel defaults of 253w and maybe even setting iccmax to 307 amps (also default) would likely solve the issues.

Motherboards defaulting to such insane power settings these days is totally insane to me.
 
Reports are it's actually only individual CPUs having a problem, and a replacement CPU solves it. Which suggests that any tweaking of BIOS settings is really just hiding the problem.
 
Hi,
Pushing these chips so they can get back the gaming crown from x3d f-stability hehe :pimp:
 
BoggledBeagle said:
Undervolting a CPU limited by power or thermal limit will increase the frequency the CPU runs at. It is good for overclockers ONLY. It does not decrease the strain and it decreases voltage safety margin for stability.
Click to expand...
You limit the power draw, that's how it's done.
 
user556 said:
Reports are it's actually only individual CPUs having a problem, and a replacement CPU solves it. Which suggests that any tweaking of BIOS settings is really just hiding the problem.
Click to expand...
If the issue is motherboards running CPUs at settings above stock, then it's normal that some would work better than others.
 
KaitouX said:
If the issue is motherboards running CPUs at settings above stock, then it's normal that some would work better than others.
Click to expand...
Default settings are always conservative as per Intel's detailed settings. If Intel misjudged how sensitive some CPUs are then it's on them to resolve and pass on to the board partners. Or provide replacement CPUs free of charge.
 
user556 said:
Default settings are always conservative as per Intel's detailed settings. If Intel misjudged how sensitive some CPUs are then it's on them to resolve and pass on to the board partners. Or provide replacement CPUs free of charge.
Click to expand...
Hi,
RMA already does that if used although shipping to Intel costs the buyer.

Issue is later batch chips usually from Taiwan sp65+- are always worse than early release chips usually from China sp90+-
So all these poor performing chips you may get a worse batch hehe
 
That pairing of hardware is asking for problem. You're pairing two pieces of hardware that are both known to be hot and power hungry teetering on the edge of instability. Mix in poor quality and/or underfed PSU or anemic MB and you've got a power keg situation. Plus you've got MB makers doing really idiotic things with stock bios settings.
 
JohH said:
It uses Unreal Engine 5 and the developers of Unreal Engine 5 themselves (the RAD/Epic Games Tools) noted problems with recent Intel CPUs:

Intel Processor Instability Causing Oodle Decompression Failures

RAD Game Tools' web page. RAD makes Bink Video, the Telemetry Performance Visualization System, and Oodle Data Compression - all popular video game middleware.
www.radgametools.com www.radgametools.com

Blaming it on the devs is funny. Intel responded and advised Intel owners to avoid the problem by changing some BIOS settings.
Click to expand...
Translation, its a UE5 problem and the game devs are parroting what the engine devs said.

In a more serious mode one could argue when you have a power rail type issue, whether its bad VRM, and PSU or whatever, then underclocking a CPU (or GPU) can fix issues, but is this what is really about and if it is, its a bit misrepresentative as its presented as a problem that would be generic or a flaw with the platform rather than a workaround for specific hardware combinations.
 
chrcoluk said:
Translation, its a UE5 problem and the game devs are parroting what the engine devs said.

In a more serious mode one could argue when you have a power rail type issue, whether its bad VRM, and PSU or whatever, then underclocking a CPU (or GPU) can fix issues, but is this what is really about and if it is, its a bit misrepresentative as its presented as a problem that would be generic or a flaw with the platform rather than a workaround for specific hardware combinations.
Click to expand...
You're free to think that but why would Intel's CPU begin returning different results at different clock rates?
And why would Intel respond with settings to change to avoid the problem and also replace CPUs if you show them this issue?
Is it just because RAD Game Tools has such an impeccable reputation going back 30 years as a middle-ware vendor that Intel is playing nice?

Really makes one think.
 
azrael said:
Actually, both Intel and motherboard manufacturers are at fault here, in my opinion. Intel for making it possible to remove the power limits completely (yet warning against it), and motherboard manufacturers for disregarding that warning. Have to make your product look as good as possible ...even if only for a brief time before it's failing. Then the blame game begins and the customer ends between a rock and a very hard place. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
True, ASRock for my board have a bios for download available listed as a stable build, I install it and it defaults to 20C higher than the specified safety temperature on the CPU (120C tjmax, should be 100C).
On another board if I enable XMP, it significantly over volts the IMC.

We know the ASUS debacle of blowing up AMD 7000 series chips. Then changing their web site to make it look as if the problem was never there, removing liability etc.

Making MCE a standard default bios mode.

For sure is arguments to lock down the bios, as motherboards manufacturers are failing to show restraint, they all want that extra few % on motherboard reviews.

It wouldnt surprise me if my 120C tjmax bios is an ex review bios, where they forgot to flip the default back for public consumption. (reviewer shows in video, look I am using auto for tjmax).

I think a solution I would like to see is, where Intel/AMD have to approve each bios before release, the Board vendors have a bad boy points system, different mistakes give different points, if they get X amount of points within a period of time, they go through a ban of being allowed any K or X features in their bios at all, full lockdown, to comply and not be labelled as a bad boy, all non spec features "have" to be off by default.

The industry is in a bit of a mess.

JohH said:
You're free to think that but why would Intel's CPU begin returning different results at different clock rates?
And why would Intel respond with settings to change to avoid the problem and also replace CPUs if you show them this issue?
Is it just because RAD Game Tools has such an impeccable reputation going back 30 years as a middle-ware vendor that Intel is playing nice?

Really makes one think.
Click to expand...
What are these settings Intel advised to change? I didnt comment on them as they wasnt disclosed. I assumed in my head though Intel are likely telling people to configure spec power limit's.
 
user556 said:
Default settings are always conservative as per Intel's detailed settings. If Intel misjudged how sensitive some CPUs are then it's on them to resolve and pass on to the board partners. Or provide replacement CPUs free of charge.
Click to expand...

Intel has been pushing things to the brink for many generations ever since Ryzen became really competitive, anything goes to get that performance crown in reviews. It's how things like the 14900KS came to be.

chrcoluk said:
For sure is arguments to lock down the bios, as motherboards manufacturers are failing to show restraint, they all want that extra few % on motherboard reviews.
Click to expand...

Competition is great and all but I'd love to see a "founders edition" reference motherboard design. They surely exist in a lab and probably have much better and saner layouts than what AIBs are doing now. But at least making a template bios with mandatory settings - both in terms of default values and configuration visibility - would be great, having to look for a specific board version from a specific vendor to get a specific feature available in the bios (i.e. default gpu boot, pcie power modes, exotic bifurcation options for external adaptors, etc.) is complete bullshit
 
Dr_b_ said:
don't AMD GPUs this generation use more power than equivalent nvidia 4000 GPUs?
Click to expand...
Those GPUs do use a bit more power, but they don't crash the game because of this. GPUs are not an issue here. Overpowered, unlocked i9 CPUs are, regardless which GPU is used.

wNotyarD said:
"We're sorry, but your PC is too fast to run this game."
Click to expand...
"We are sorry, but your PC has a motherboard tuned towards bigger-number-better and pushing unlocked CPU into instability territorry"

Toothless said:
Poor coding being dumped on players.
Click to expand...
And poor batch of CPUs running unstable in overprovisioned motherboard.
 
No option for controller support is my biggest gripe.
 
chrcoluk said:
Translation, its a UE5 problem and the game devs are parroting what the engine devs said.
Click to expand...
Doubtful, as vast majority of CPUs simply work with game, including i9. They clearly say it's a small number of i9, so it could be a batch or specific motherboards that overprovision those CPUs.
 
This is just a case of rumor and FUD being blown out of proportion. I suspect developers are either trying to defend their game's quality or outsource a problem they have into something else.

Any Raptor Lake system that is crashing at stock is due to user error, such as unlocking the power without suitable cooling or an insufficient power supply. A lot of the time, people just enable XMP too, which is not a wise thing to do, unless you have a kit with a very conservative XMP profile, especially if you're running in a closed case with low fan speeds aka hotbox. I have never experienced any instability in any game or software with my i9-13900KS.

azrael said:
Actually, both Intel and motherboard manufacturers are at fault here, in my opinion. Intel for making it possible to remove the power limits completely (yet warning against it), and motherboard manufacturers for disregarding that warning. Have to make your product look as good as possible ...even if only for a brief time before it's failing. Then the blame game begins and the customer ends between a rock and a very hard place. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

I mean this is an enthusiast product. Removing the power limit is an awesome ability to have. But it's unwise to do so on a conventional machine. With 360-420 mm AIO's or large tower heatsinks such as the NH-D15, you won't want to run a Raptor chip above 300 W.
 
Tek-Check said:
And poor batch of CPUs running unstable in overprovisioned motherboard.
Click to expand...
Not really, no. Three models causing issue is not a "poor batch." It's simply game devs being lazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top