• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

i9-14900K, necessity to overclock question

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s no longer true as of October 2nd, 2024. Setting your BIOS to “Intel default settings” for the 14900k will fry your CPU and CONTINUE to enable premature degradation/oxydation.

See my previous posts for clarity.

I don't know what is not true when I said that the optimal solution is to lower the voltage to maintain lower power usage and heat.
If you update the BIOS to any of the last two microcodes, then it keeps the values at the "new safe" values.

The voltage is not the direct problem but the max current, so it doesn't really matter if they run at 1.3V or 1.5V. This is also why this issue is mainly related to K series CPUs and more often happens on fully unlocked motherboards, while most CPUs have the same voltage range. Look at AMD and their stock of 1.45V on every single Ryzen generation, or even most Intel series that were "soft-locked" at 1.52V but were going up to 1.45V+ at auto for at least 4-5 generations and had no global problems. 1.52V was the "safe" limit given by Intel in their official documents. The current issue also doesn't include all CPUs, and using default settings for Intel doesn't "fry" CPUs. There are many variables that may or may not cause faster degradation.
It's not like it's the first time with Intel, as older generations at higher voltages were degrading like mad. Sandy Bridge could overclock 200-300MHz worse after running at over 1.5V for several hours (most motherboards had no additional power management, only main voltages, but no current limits). After one weekend of benching, I had "world-record" chips that were barely running at the default specs. Some of the early Core i series were dying randomly.

I had multiple 13700K, 13900K, 13900HX, 14600K, 14700K, and 14900K CPUs, and I saw no stability or degradation problems with them. On the other hand, I wasn't overclocking most of them. I had 14700K since the release, and it was fully stable until I sold it last week. It was used only for tests and reviews, but I reviewed at least 50 memory kits on this CPU, and for the overclocking stage, I was pushing SA and MC voltages to the limits. It also ran multiple times at high load for long hours but at default CPU voltages.

I'm not saying there is no issue with them, but similar issues were probably present with older series, too. If not for the noise on the web, we wouldn't even know about any problems right now. The problem is real, but most reports were, however, not true, so eventually (took them a few months to even start it) it was investigated.
The typical life expectancy for CPUs used to be about 10 years. With a typical PC replacement of around 3-5 years, barely anyone noticed any issues in the past. Now, in some scenarios, and probably on some CPU batches, the degradation happens much faster. However, as some sources report, the RMA rate for faulty K CPUs is still no higher than 10%, while the 13/14th gen has been on the market for two years. One of the charts showed a similar RMA rate for 11th-gen and 13/14th-gen CPUs. Still, we haven't heard anything about the problems with the 11th gen. Some people may say that problems will appear in time, but these CPUs have been on the market for two years, and reported issues are with random CPUs, not only with specific old batches.
No one was also having problems with faulty Ryzens 3000/5000 that couldn't run at the standard RAM speed, and they had similar RMA rates to current K series CPUs.

Intel will cover this problem with the new CPU release in a month, and barely anyone will remember it in a year.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what is not true when I said that the optimal solution is to lower the voltage to maintain lower power usage and heat.
If you update the BIOS to any of the last two microcodes, then it keeps the values at the "new safe" values.

The voltage is not the direct problem but the max current, so it doesn't really matter if they run at 1.3V or 1.5V. This is also why this issue is mainly related to K series CPUs and more often happens on fully unlocked motherboards, while most CPUs have the same voltage range. Look at AMD and their stock of 1.45V on every single Ryzen generation, or even most Intel series that were "soft-locked" at 1.52V but were going up to 1.45V+ at auto for at least 4-5 generations and had no global problems. 1.52V was the "safe" limit given by Intel in their official documents. The current issue also doesn't include all CPUs, and using default settings for Intel doesn't "fry" CPUs. There are many variables that may or may not cause faster degradation.
It's not like it's the first time with Intel, as older generations at higher voltages were degrading like mad. Sandy Bridge could overclock 200-300MHz worse after running at over 1.5V for several hours (most motherboards had no additional power management, only main voltages, but no current limits). After one weekend of benching, I had "world-record" chips that were barely running at the default specs. Some of the early Core i series were dying randomly.

I had multiple 13700K, 13900K, 13900HX, 14600K, 14700K, and 14900K CPUs, and I saw no stability or degradation problems with them. On the other hand, I wasn't overclocking most of them. I had 14700K since the release, and it was fully stable until I sold it last week. It was used only for tests and reviews, but I reviewed at least 50 memory kits on this CPU, and for the overclocking stage, I was pushing SA and MC voltages to the limits. It also ran multiple times at high load for long hours but at default CPU voltages.

I'm not saying there is no issue with them, but similar issues were probably present with older series, too. If not for the noise on the web, we wouldn't even know about any problems right now. The problem is real, but most reports were, however, not true, so eventually (took them a few months to even start it) it was investigated.
The typical life expectancy for CPUs used to be about 10 years. With a typical PC replacement of around 3-5 years, barely anyone noticed any issues in the past. Now, in some scenarios, and probably on some CPU batches, the degradation happens much faster. However, as some sources report, the RMA rate for faulty K CPUs is still no higher than 10%, while the 13/14th gen has been on the market for two years. One of the charts showed a similar RMA rate for 11th-gen and 13/14th-gen CPUs. Still, we haven't heard anything about the problems with the 11th gen. Some people may say that problems will appear in time, but these CPUs have been on the market for two years, and reported issues are with random CPUs, not only with specific old batches.
No one was also having problems with faulty Ryzens 3000/5000 that couldn't run at the standard RAM speed, and they had similar RMA rates to current K series CPUs.

Intel will cover this problem with the new CPU release in a month, and barely anyone will remember it in a year.



I’m gonna start this reply with the following: if you own a 14900k and you are running your BIOS on Intel’s default setting, AND, you want it to last for a good 3-4 years, you need to ignore anyone telling you that it’s fine running as high as 1.4-1.5 volts because that’s pushing your chip temps beyond 90c and near 100c which is where it begins to throttle down and cause crashes and BSODs in windows. This isn’t fear mongering, it’s a FACT.
__________________________

You should reference your sources because there is a lot of “Trust me bro, it’s not a problem” gaslighting I see in your reply.

To start, you’re counter arguing 13th and 14th gen so you’re pushing a different narrative. Let’s stay on track.

I’m speaking to my experience as well as the testing and research I’ve done with MY 14900k purchased in Feb 2024 when this problem was not as fully exposed by experts in the field who know more about this stuff than both you and I do.

It is now October 2024 and this issue has not just been exposed but it has been proven by the experts to a volume so loud that Intel finally admitted that their chips have heat and voltage issues causing permanent and premature degradation. This was exposed as early as July 27th 2024. Since then more has been uncovered and if not for the “noise on the web”, Intel would have just stayed quiet and ignored customers claiming (like it did when customers first started complaining) that it was user error or motherboard manufacturers imposing their own factory based overclocking profiles which admittedly played a part in overheating the chips when all along Intel was implying ; “these chips are made to run hot, they can take it.”. It seems they can’t.

Today the overwhelming message to all customers who are currently using a 14900k, is to prevent further premature damage and degradation by undervolting the 14900k. Keeping it under 1.3volts stable is recommended, IF you can get there. Some of these 14900k chips are too far gone and have to run at higher volts to remain stable.

In my testing and because I bought my 14900k at a time when this massive problem was exposed but not yet patched by Intel (Feb 2024), I knew I had to undervolt it so I was doing that as soon as I had finished building my PC (I do my own builds). This gave me a preemptive leg up on the problem so I managed to save my 14900k but even then, the light single-cycle stress tests I had to do degraded my chip to the pint where a 40,000+ score in Cinebench is no longer possible with 1.3-1.4 volts. It was when I first bought this thing ;). Now if I want a score that comes anywhere near 40,000+ I’d need to increase my voltage. Not worth it.

In conclusion, it IS an ongoing issue and Intel has made it clear that they will RMA when they really should be recalling the chips. But it’s Intel and they are already going through a few other issues not to mention nearing a point of negative cash flow. Intel is NOT doing well so they are opting to RMA to keep them out of filing for bankruptcy PROTECTION which is where they will be if they eventually have to issue an international recall for 14900k users since it’s the 14900k users that were mostly affected.

DON’T FOOL YOURSELF. These chips need to be undervolted if you are a regular enthusiast like me and bought ONE 14900k to build your awesome gaming desktop computer. Protect your investment.


Sources:
 
I’m gonna start this reply with the following: if you own a 14900k and you are running your BIOS on Intel’s default setting, AND, you want it to last for a good 3-4 years, you need to ignore anyone telling you that it’s fine running as high as 1.4-1.5 volts because that’s pushing your chip temps beyond 90c and near 100c which is where it begins to throttle down and cause crashes and BSODs in windows. This isn’t fear mongering, it’s a FACT.
__________________________

You should reference your sources because there is a lot of “Trust me bro, it’s not a problem” gaslighting I see in your reply.

To start, you’re counter arguing 13th and 14th gen so you’re pushing a different narrative. Let’s stay on track.

I’m speaking to my experience as well as the testing and research I’ve done with MY 14900k purchased in Feb 2024 when this problem was not as fully exposed by experts in the field who know more about this stuff than both you and I do.

It is now October 2024 and this issue has not just been exposed but it has been proven by the experts to a volume so loud that Intel finally admitted that their chips have heat and voltage issues causing permanent and premature degradation. This was exposed as early as July 27th 2024. Since then more has been uncovered and if not for the “noise on the web”, Intel would have just stayed quiet and ignored customers claiming (like it did when customers first started complaining) that it was user error or motherboard manufacturers imposing their own factory based overclocking profiles which admittedly played a part in overheating the chips when all along Intel was implying ; “these chips are made to run hot, they can take it.”. It seems they can’t.

Today the overwhelming message to all customers who are currently using a 14900k, is to prevent further premature damage and degradation by undervolting the 14900k. Keeping it under 1.3volts stable is recommended, IF you can get there. Some of these 14900k chips are too far gone and have to run at higher volts to remain stable.

In my testing and because I bought my 14900k at a time when this massive problem was exposed but not yet patched by Intel (Feb 2024), I knew I had to undervolt it so I was doing that as soon as I had finished building my PC (I do my own builds). This gave me a preemptive leg up on the problem so I managed to save my 14900k but even then, the light single-cycle stress tests I had to do degraded my chip to the pint where a 40,000+ score in Cinebench is no longer possible with 1.3-1.4 volts. It was when I first bought this thing ;). Now if I want a score that comes anywhere near 40,000+ I’d need to increase my voltage. Not worth it.

In conclusion, it IS an ongoing issue and Intel has made it clear that they will RMA when they really should be recalling the chips. But it’s Intel and they are already going through a few other issues not to mention nearing a point of negative cash flow. Intel is NOT doing well so they are opting to RMA to keep them out of filing for bankruptcy PROTECTION which is where they will be if they eventually have to issue an international recall for 14900k users since it’s the 14900k users that were mostly affected.

DON’T FOOL YOURSELF. These chips need to be undervolted if you are a regular enthusiast like me and bought ONE 14900k to build your awesome gaming desktop computer. Protect your investment.


Sources:

You don't know me, my resources, or my experience. I also see you don't understand what I said, so replying to anything more is a waste of time.
 
I thought the 14900K was good to 5.8GHz (tvb)? Did you raise other cores up? Maybe I'm just tired, lol.

Maybe it's only me, but, I'm not worried about the life of my chip if it's peaking below 1.5V. I know you can get it down lower, and that's awesome, but they can live long lives if they aren't sitting that high (besides, even a custom loop can't handle more than 1.4V or so out of these an keep them from under 100C).

Anyhow, not doubting what you're doing, just trying to confirm (and wanting to understand how you came to that conclusion) what you said earlier about enabling Intel defaults after the 0x12b (or 0x129) raises voltages again. Wonder why the option is there still...

Attribute this to the silicone lottery if you want but when I first bought the 14900k I was under the same impression that they can safely run high clock speeds, hot and at high voltages. That was back in Feb 2024 when none of us really knew just how bad the problems with that 14900k were. I came from an i9-9900k so a lot has changed in terms of overclocking jargon and settings. I had to basically re-learn how to not just overclock safely, but also undervolt.

In learning all that I eventually realized that these chips really can’t run higher than 5.6-5.7Ghz without suffering permanent and premature degradation/oxidizarion. Anyone telling you that they can is not being honest. Don’t take my word for it though because when I first started looking into this I wanted to see what the majority opinion was and in my research, the majority opinion or as some would call it “noise on the web” was that these chips need to be undervolted if you want them to last more than one or 2 years and you want them to perform stable and consistently over time. Running it a voltages in the range of 1.3+ - 1.5 will kill your chip pretty fast and will most likely lead to crashes and BSODs as time goes on. You’ll be wondering why it’s happening but by then the permanent damage has been caused and you’ll be left with a CPU that you will have to severely underclock to see any form of stability.

The point I’m trying to make as briefly as possible is that for all the people saying that running at or constantly spiking voltages over 1.3 volts is OK, there’s an overwhelming amount of proof that this is not true. Intel even admitted it’s not good to run the 14900k “high and hot”. So in October of 2024 are you really just going to ignore all the evidence to the fact that the 14900k wasn’t made under the best QC conditions and pretend your chip will run just be fine running at 1.5volts consistently hitting temps in excess of 90c under load? You can if you want, it’s your CPU and your money but I’ll err on the side of caution. Currently I’m running 5.7Ghz in the range of 1.2 to 1.3 volts with no voltage spikes which is great, the more consistently you can maintain your temps while working in windows the longer your chip will last. Let’s not forget that these things aren’t cheap. Protect your investment.
 
Last edited:
You should reference your sources because there is a lot of “Trust me bro, it’s not a problem” gaslighting I see in your reply.
Your sources tell us...

1. 14900Ks release date (???)
2. Intel admits it's an issue and that the fix is a preventative, not a cure. (That's a given/known...)
3. Intel's Financial woes (RMAs wont be there??? What's your point here?)

...when, correct me if I'm wrong, you're trying to tell us that we MUST undervolt the CPU or it WILL die prematurely even after the BIOS mitigations and enabling the stock intel settings. None of those articles specifically state that....

1. Enabling intel stock settings borks the BIOS mitigations
2. On top of the BIOS mitigations, we NEED to lower voltage more or they will die.

...which is what is in question here. :)

Now, lower voltage = cooler temps = longer life, regardless of this 'errata'. So, you're not wrong, but, the soap boxing about the dire need for it feels overdramatic...at least until you can provide more than your anecdote of 'saving' your chip (which how would you even know that??).

Today the overwhelming message to all customers who are currently using a 14900k, is to prevent further premature damage and degradation by undervolting the 14900k. Keeping it under 1.3volts stable is recommended,
Who is trumpeting that overwhelming message? I don't believe I've seen that expressly stated anywhere. Can you link a source for THAT?


I guess what I'm after, instead of watching you heave rocks from a glass house so far, is to get a link where someone relevant says that, after 0x12b and enabling the Intel stock profile, you need to lower voltage further to prevent premature death.

As I understand it...

The stock Intel default option was a workaround to...0x129.

0x129 topped off the voltage at 1.55V and addressed the issue of incorrect voltage requests made by the processor, which caused it to ask for elevated voltage.

0x12b is for the Vmin Shift Instability...
The problem stems from a clock tree circuit in the IA core that is prone to failure under high voltage and temperature, causing a shift in the clock duty cycle and leading to system instability. Intel has pinpointed four key operating conditions that trigger this issue and implemented mitigations through various microcode updates.

  • First, motherboard power settings exceed Intel's recommended guidelines, causing Vmin shift. Intel advises users to follow its default power settings to avoid this problem.
  • Second, the eTVB microcode allowed certain 13th and 14th Generation Core i9 processors to maintain high performance even at elevated temperatures, which was corrected with the 0x125 microcode update released in June 2024.
  • Third, the SVID microcode sometimes requests higher voltages over an extended period, increasing the risk of instability. Intel resolved this with the 0x129 microcode update, distributed in August 2024.
  • Lastly, both microcode and BIOS were requesting elevated voltages during idle or light activity, which is mitigated by the 0x12B microcode update, combining previous fixes.

So, while the damage is already done to any processors in the wild (how few/many, nobody knows), the current state of voltages/etc looks like things are how Intel wants them to be (saying it's the last update for the issue. So, if you want to take the extra step to lower voltage/temps to stave off potential instability, that's cool. I don't blame you. But, so far, the world isn't falling in around the 22 effected SKUs either.




EDIT: I looked around and wrote all of that only to come to this..............................

I think this article covers things really well and answers/clarifies quite a number of things raised in the past several posts...

Intel Default Settings still recommended after patch is applied, but power limits can be raised

However, Intel says that even though using Intel’s default power profile is still recommended even after applying patches, users are free to increase the PL1 and PL2 power limits beyond the 'recommended values' and still remain in warranty (you can raise them to 4096W). However, users should still follow the safety settings, such as the IccMax and other settings listed at the top of this table, to remain within warranty

1727968896445.png


As such, Intel says that its warranty will still cover processors that use higher power delivery profiles that remain within the IccMax threshold of the particular processor. So, users can still adjust the PL1/PL2 settings of their Intel Core CPUs without losing warranty coverage. However, the company also says, “Users who desire to overclock or utilize higher power delivery settings than recommended can still do so at their own risk as overclocking may void warranty or affect system health.”




So, Intel isn't saying to lower voltage, in fact they don't care if you raise the power limits, just keep ICCmax and such limited.
 
Last edited:
You don't know me, my resources, or my experience. I also see you don't understand what I said, so replying to anything more is a waste of time.

You’re right,

I don’t know you but what I do know is that you’re claiming running a 14900k at 1.5 volts constantly or that even letting it spike that high is OK when it has been proven that it’s not.

That’s what you said. That’s not true.
Post magically merged:

Your sources tell us...

1. 14900Ks release date (???)
2. Intel admits it's an issue and that the fix is a preventative, not a cure. (That's a given/known...)
3. Intel's Financial woes (RMAs wont be there??? What's your point here?)

...when, correct me if I'm wrong, you're trying to tell us that we MUST undervolt the CPU or it WILL die prematurely even after the BIOS mitigations and enabling the stock intel settings. None of those articles specifically state that....

1. Enabling intel stock settings borks the BIOS mitigations
2. On top of the BIOS mitigations, we NEED to lower voltage more or they will die.

...which is what is in question here. :)

Now, lower voltage = cooler temps = longer life, regardless of this 'errata'. So, you're not wrong, but, the soap boxing about the dire need for it feels overdramatic...at least until you can provide more than your anecdote of 'saving' your chip (which how would you even know that??).


Who is trumpeting that overwhelming message? I don't believe I've seen that expressly stated anywhere. Can you link a source for THAT?


I guess what I'm after, instead of watching you heave rocks from a glass house so far, is to get a link where someone relevant says that, after 0x12b and enabling the Intel stock profile, you need to lower voltage further to prevent premature death.

As I understand it...

The stock Intel default option was a workaround to...0x129.

0x129 topped off the voltage at 1.55V and addressed the issue of incorrect voltage requests made by the processor, which caused it to ask for elevated voltage.

0x12b is for the Vmin Shift Instability...


So, while the damage is already done to any processors in the wild (how few/many, nobody knows), the current state of voltages/etc looks like things are how Intel wants them to be (saying it's the last update for the issue. So, if you want to take the extra step to lower voltage/temps to stave off potential instability, that's cool. I don't blame you. But, so far, the world isn't falling in around the 22 effected SKUs either.




EDIT: I looked around and wrote all of that only to come to this..............................

I think this article covers things really well and answers/clarifies quite a number of things raised in the past several posts...

Intel Default Settings still recommended after patch is applied, but power limits can be raised



View attachment 368688







So, Intel isn't saying to lower voltage, in fact they don't care if you raise the power limits, just keep ICCmax and such limited.


Over dramatic? OK, let me ask you this.

1. I’m wrapping my argument around my experience and what I’ve read and seen in videos. Do you actually own and operate your 14900k at 1.5 volts? Just answer that and let’s go from there.
 
Last edited:
Over dramatic? OK, let me ask you this.

1. I’m wrapping my argument around my experience and what I’ve read and seen in videos. Do you actually own and operate your 14909k at 1.5 volts? Just answer that and let’s go from there.
Pablo, this isn't about me or what I do to my 14900K or 13900K. This is about facts and not anecdotes. Was the youtube video you watched buildzoid (someone reputable is my point)? Then you have might have something. :)

If you must know, my daily driver 13900K was my review chip. It was installed in over 40 different motherboards (from sub-$100 to over $1000) stress tested and run through my benchmarking suite at least that many times. Since the 14900K came out, it was promoted to my daily driver where, for around a year now, it ran for 8-12 hours a day doing normal desktop stuff with light photo editing and gaming several hours a week. I put the 0x129 patch on and will put the 0x12b when I have some time to set all the fan curves up again. The 14900K has been through around 20+ mobos so far, stress tests and the benchmarking suite on each.

Last night, when you posted, I let Hwinfo run while I worked and gamed... peaked at 1.45V which was on idle. 0x12b should lower that to whatever Intel wants.

At this point, instead of asking what my anecdotes/experiences are (which, as you can see are across more CPUs, more time and more motherboards vs your singular experience and unsourced supporting videos and unrelated links), I'd like you to read everything in my EDIT from post #25. That should explains things (for everyone) really well. I really don't want to get int he weeds/pissing contest, but a mutual understading for the good of those reading these posts.
 
Pablo, this isn't about me or what I do to my 14900K or 13900K. This is about facts and not anecdotes. Was the youtube video you watched buildzoid (someone reputable is my point)? Then you have might have something. :)

If you must know, my daily driver 13900K was my review chip. It was installed in over 40 different motherboards (from sub-$100 to over $1000) stress tested and run through my benchmarking suite at least that many times. Since the 14900K came out, it was promoted to my daily driver where, for around a year now, it ran for 8-12 hours a day doing normal desktop stuff with light photo editing and gaming several hours a week. I put the 0x129 patch on and will put the 0x12b when I have some time to set all the fan curves up again. The 14900K has been through around 20+ mobos so far, stress tests and the benchmarking suite on each.

Last night, when you posted, I let Hwinfo run while I worked and gamed... peaked at 1.45V which was on idle. 0x12b should lower that to whatever Intel wants.

At this point, instead of asking what my anecdotes/experiences are (which, as you can see are across more CPUs, more time and more motherboards vs your singular experience and unsourced supporting videos and unrelated links), I'd like you to read everything in my EDIT from post #25. That should explains things (for everyone) really well. I really don't want to get int he weeds/pissing contest, but a mutual understading for the good of those reading these posts.


I get it man and you’re right, it’s not about you or me. Since I built this rig in Feb 2024 the overwhelming message and pulse in the community has been - “undervolt your 14900k if you’re going to overclock and even if you’re not, undervolt it anyway to keep it running nice and cool to extend its longevity.”

I did suffer through a few Buildzoid videos and subscribed to Gamersnexxus just to stay up to date on this issue. I’d consider these guys to be top tier content creators and reviewers since they are more than happy to show their work to prove their point. Additionally they are completely independent of Intel so as the layman here I have two choices…..

Do I choose to believe the big multi billion dollar corporation saying, “we looked into it and it’s really not a thing but here are three microcode revision since July 2024 because *maybe* it’s a thing? Lol

Or

Do I choose to believe the transparency by which the two content creators mentioned above showed us in their testing and conclusions?

I’ll choose the latter and respectively, you can choose to believe what you want.

Your chip, your money, your choice. - All I can tell you is that I am running my 14900k based on the advice of independent sources and it has worked out far better for me than when I was running it at higher voltages and hotter than it needs to be.
 
Your sources tell us...

1. 14900Ks release date (???)
2. Intel admits it's an issue and that the fix is a preventative, not a cure. (That's a given/known...)
3. Intel's Financial woes (RMAs wont be there??? What's your point here?)

...when, correct me if I'm wrong, you're trying to tell us that we MUST undervolt the CPU or it WILL die prematurely even after the BIOS mitigations and enabling the stock intel settings. None of those articles specifically state that....

1. Enabling intel stock settings borks the BIOS mitigations
2. On top of the BIOS mitigations, we NEED to lower voltage more or they will die.

...which is what is in question here. :)

Now, lower voltage = cooler temps = longer life, regardless of this 'errata'. So, you're not wrong, but, the soap boxing about the dire need for it feels overdramatic...at least until you can provide more than your anecdote of 'saving' your chip (which how would you even know that??).


Who is trumpeting that overwhelming message? I don't believe I've seen that expressly stated anywhere. Can you link a source for THAT?


I guess what I'm after, instead of watching you heave rocks from a glass house so far, is to get a link where someone relevant says that, after 0x12b and enabling the Intel stock profile, you need to lower voltage further to prevent premature death.

As I understand it...

The stock Intel default option was a workaround to...0x129.

0x129 topped off the voltage at 1.55V and addressed the issue of incorrect voltage requests made by the processor, which caused it to ask for elevated voltage.

0x12b is for the Vmin Shift Instability...


So, while the damage is already done to any processors in the wild (how few/many, nobody knows), the current state of voltages/etc looks like things are how Intel wants them to be (saying it's the last update for the issue. So, if you want to take the extra step to lower voltage/temps to stave off potential instability, that's cool. I don't blame you. But, so far, the world isn't falling in around the 22 effected SKUs either.




EDIT: I looked around and wrote all of that only to come to this..............................

I think this article covers things really well and answers/clarifies quite a number of things raised in the past several posts...

Intel Default Settings still recommended after patch is applied, but power limits can be raised



View attachment 368688







So, Intel isn't saying to lower voltage, in fact they don't care if you raise the power limits, just keep ICCmax and such limited.
Doesn’t it sound to you like intel is trying to cover their butts by saying “you can run at higher voltages and you’ll be fine” (not really telling you for how long you’ll be fine)

And at the same time they’re saying; - “yeah maybe it would be better if you undervolted and underclocked to extend its life.

Kinda makes me wonder how long Intel expects and wants these chips to last. Lower life span means more money for them. Biased? You tell me lol.
 
Your chip, your money, your choice. - All I can tell you is that I am running my 14900k based on the advice of independent sources and it has worked out far better for me than when I was running it at higher voltages and hotter than it needs to be.
Nobody is denying that you can get more out of some of these chips with an undervolt...but that's not the point we're discussing, either (you moved the goal posts here). The only point I wanted clarity over/contending was this...
"Setting your BIOS to “Intel default settings” for the 14900k will fry your CPU and CONTINUE to enable premature degradation/oxydation."
As it stands, from Intel, that is false (see last article above). I want to see buildzoid or even GN (who doesn't staff EEs or chip engineers - so what is that really worth?) say that passage (especially since you literally put it in quotes). Like, drop the vid/article in here and have it start where he says that, please. No disrespect, but I don't know you from a hole in the wall, so yeah, some supporting links would be awesome. :)


Doesn’t it sound to you like intel is trying to cover their butts by saying “you can run at higher voltages and you’ll be fine” (not really telling you for how long you’ll be fine)
No. They couldn't tell you how long it would be fine at stock without these issue, man, lol...watch the first two mins of this buildzoid vid...nobody knows... 1.4V is what BZ would set it to IF he didn't trust Intel. None of this 1.3V stuff. But my logic and BZ's is the same in that vid. They shoot themselves in the foot if this isn't an actual solution/acceptable voltages. But, feel to lower voltage. It's not a bad thing at all... but under the guise of fear that after mitigations this prevents it, doesn't jive.

And at the same time they’re saying; - “yeah maybe it would be better if you undervolted and underclocked to extend its life.
Where did Intel say that, exactly? Link plz.

That is true, but it's true with silicon, period, not jus these that are having trouble. This is true for 12th-gen, for AMD, for ARM chips. But again, the point of contention is the NEED to do it to prevent further premature damage. For now, it's something you are suggesting...

Kinda makes me wonder how long Intel expects and wants these chips to last. Lower life span means more money for them. Biased? You tell me lol.
You must be old like me... they don't build them like they used to... *shakes fist in the air, LOL.
 
Last edited:
You’re right,

I don’t know you but what I do know is that you’re claiming running a 14900k at 1.5 volts constantly or that even letting it spike that high is OK when it has been proven that it’s not.

Your replies suggest you have problems with reading comprehension. I thought it was somewhere at the grade school level. Don't mean me wrong; I don't try to offend you right now, but you are twisting my words in every reply.
There is a difference between the voltage and the current. Clearly, you don't know that difference, as in most of your posts, you push the voltage reason, and the official statement says not to exceed iccMAX, which is the current. EarthDog already pointed that out - Intel never said that running a CPU at the default voltages (which can be even 1.5V for single cores at 5.8GHz+) may damage the CPU. I never said that running these CPUs at high voltages is fine. I said in my older post that you undervoltage them for the best results, but you later replied it's "no longer true", and in the next posts, you said pretty much what I said about running at lower voltages, but in your words.

I also pointed out I had multiple 13/14th gen K series CPUs and I still have a 14900K running in the 3D review rig since the beginning of this year. I can count +/- 20 different 13/14th gen CPUs that I tested, not only one as you do. So, as I said, I've never had any problems with all my CPUs running at auto settings or overclocking for review needs. However, anyone with brains keeps voltages lower at manual settings and overclocking because these CPUs overheat at even 1.3V if you run full load on all cores. This is why high voltages are enabled at default settings only when 2-4 cores are in use and most others are idle. In this scenario, even though the CPU runs at 1.5V, the current is lower than the safe limit. 0.8-1.52V is the same voltage range for the last 10+ years in every Intel generation (as I said earlier). So the issue, in short, is that the power management of the CPU is letting for a too high current when it should be limited. Mainly for that is the microcode fix.
 
Your replies suggest you have problems with reading comprehension. I thought it was somewhere at the grade school level. Don't mean me wrong; I don't try to offend you right now, but you are twisting my words in every reply.
There is a difference between the voltage and the current. Clearly, you don't know that difference, as in most of your posts, you push the voltage reason, and the official statement says not to exceed iccMAX, which is the current. EarthDog already pointed that out - Intel never said that running a CPU at the default voltages (which can be even 1.5V for single cores at 5.8GHz+) may damage the CPU. I never said that running these CPUs at high voltages is fine. I said in my older post that you undervoltage them for the best results, but you later replied it's "no longer true", and in the next posts, you said pretty much what I said about running at lower voltages, but in your words.

I also pointed out I had multiple 13/14th gen K series CPUs and I still have a 14900K running in the 3D review rig since the beginning of this year. I can count +/- 20 different 13/14th gen CPUs that I tested, not only one as you do. So, as I said, I've never had any problems with all my CPUs running at auto settings or overclocking for review needs. However, anyone with brains keeps voltages lower at manual settings and overclocking because these CPUs overheat at even 1.3V if you run full load on all cores. This is why high voltages are enabled at default settings only when 2-4 cores are in use and most others are idle. In this scenario, even though the CPU runs at 1.5V, the current is lower than the safe limit. 0.8-1.52V is the same voltage range for the last 10+ years in every Intel generation (as I said earlier). So the issue, in short, is that the power management of the CPU is letting for a too high current when it should be limited. Mainly for that is the microcode fix.
Your replies give the impression that your nothing more than a braggart who got all pissed off because someone called you out and disagreed with you, lol talk about having your head up your *** 😂.

And yet here you are continuing to tell others who most likely come here looking for advice on how to get the most out of their only 13th or 14th gen chips to let them sit at 1.5volts and hit high voltage spikes all because you think it’s not an issue - without a single shred of evidence.

If you think you’re right then prove it. Publish a video and show your work (if you can). Otherwise don’t waste anyone’s time with your intel sycophantic drivel. The fact that you actually think that running a 14900k at 1.5volts makes me question anything you have to say when weighed against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary presented by people who know so much more about this than you do.

As for your condescending behaviour. You’ve obviously mistaken me for someone who values your opinion.
 
Nobody is denying that you can get more out of some of these chips with an undervolt...but that's not the point we're discussing, either (you moved the goal posts here). The only point I wanted clarity over/contending was this...

As it stands, from Intel, that is false (see last article above). I want to see buildzoid or even GN (who doesn't staff EEs or chip engineers - so what is that really worth?) say that passage (especially since you literally put it in quotes). Like, drop the vid/article in here and have it start where he says that, please. No disrespect, but I don't know you from a hole in the wall, so yeah, some supporting links would be awesome. :)



No. They couldn't tell you how long it would be fine at stock without these issue, man, lol...watch the first two mins of this buildzoid vid...nobody knows... 1.4V is what BZ would set it to IF he didn't trust Intel. None of this 1.3V stuff. But my logic and BZ's is the same in that vid. They shoot themselves in the foot if this isn't an actual solution/acceptable voltages. But, feel to lower voltage. It's not a bad thing at all... but under the guise of fear that after mitigations this prevents it, doesn't jive.


Where did Intel say that, exactly? Link plz.

That is true, but it's true with silicon, period, not jus these that are having trouble. This is true for 12th-gen, for AMD, for ARM chips. But again, the point of contention is the NEED to do it to prevent further premature damage. For now, it's something you are suggesting...


You must be old like me... they don't build them like they used to... *shakes fist in the air, LOL.

You bring up a lot of good points but you know more about this than I do. I won’t dispute that.

One thing I think you should keep in mind is that most people who come to these sites looking for advice are novices and beginners who know little to nothing about overclocking and just want to know how to get their chips running stable and as cool as possible.

I’m the layman who is a gaming enthusiast and like many gaming enthusiasts who get drawn into buying these hyped up PC components, I experienced the crashes, the BSODs and windows refusing to boot when I bought this chip in February. So, like many who experienced the same thing with their 14900k I started googling and found that others were having the same issues with their 14900k. The overwhelming message from overclockers and people in the know was downclock and undervolt. Stay under “X” heat and power draw and you’ll be fine. Definitely not to ignore the temps and the voltage spikes and let Intel’s microcode handle it. I’ll definitely watch BZ’s video when I have an hour or two to kill. I don’t care if I’m right or wrong. I just want my investment to last. That said, above all I’d like to know what the truth is. So far, most of that truth is coming from YouTubers who are actually showing their work in real time. An actual video showing real time test results as they happen is more factual and compelling than any company with a vested interest in lying to protect their bottom line posting a chart and a statement.

Right now, it seems to me that the truth is; the lower your volts, amps and watts the better for the longevity of your chip so I learned how to do it.
 
Right now, it seems to me that the truth is; the lower your volts, amps and watts the better for the longevity of your chip so I learned how to do it.
That's a longstanding fact and stands true with all silicon. You lower the volts and heat, chances are it lasts longer...Indeed.

I don’t care if I’m right or wrong
It's not about that. I was intrigued by your initial statement (about enabling intel defaults borks mitigations) and asked for info... but in the end, we found that's not true.
The mitigations are still there when that's enabled (you're just not comfortable with their limits). Ironically BZ has a video out that says DISABLING it on the 0x129 disabled the VID/vcore limit (Gigabyte board, a month ago... may change with 0x12b who knows).

Considering the microcode just came out, up until that time, you didn't have anything except forum knowledge that said to lower your voltage and that, anecdotally, mitigated things. Then comes the mitigations and, you don't have to do that anymore. You can. Its beneficial, but you dont have to. It's just that simple. :)
 
Last edited:
That's a longstanding fact and stands true with all silicon. You lower the volts, limit amps, chances are it lasts longer...Indeed. I'd pick your brain for sure if I wanted to do that! :)


It's not about that. I was intrigued by your initial statement (about enabling intel defaults borks mitigations) and asked for info... but in the end, we found that's not true.
The mitigations are still there when that's enabled (you're just not comfortable with their limits).

Ironically BZ has a video out that says DISABLING it on the 0x129 disabled the VID/vcore limit (Gigabyte board, a month ago... may change with 0x12b who knows)...

On MY MSI board, the BIOS remained on the Intel default settings profile until I set all Pcores to 57. That alone flipped it to MSI unlimited which just unlocked the power limits so I had to go back and lock 253w and 307A. Once I did that and dialed in the LLC and lite load, the performance and stability was amazing. If you want I’ll post a video to show my work.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back