Question DEGRADING Raptor lake CPUs

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Kocicak

Golden Member
Jan 17, 2019
1,059
1,115
136
I noticed some reports about degrading i9 13900K and KF processors.

I experienced this problem myself, when I ran it at 6 GHz, light load (3 threads of Cinebench), at acceptable temperature and non extreme voltage. After only few minutes it crashed, and then it could not run even at stock setting without bumping the voltage a bit.

I was thinking about the cause for this and I believe the problem is, that people do not appreciate, how high these frequencies are and that the real comfortable frequency limit of these CPUs is probably at something like 5500 or 5600 MHz. These CPUs are made on a same process (possibly improved somehow) on which Alder lake CPUs were made. See the frequencies 12900KS runs at. The frequency improvement of the new process tweak may not be so high as some people presume.

Those 13900K CPUs are probably highly binned to be able to find those which contain some cores which can reliably run at 5800 MHz. Some of the 13900K probably have little/no OC reserve left and pushing them will cause them to degrade/break.

The conclusion for me is that the best you can do to your 13900K or 13900KF is to disable the 5800 MHz peak, which will allow you to offset the voltage lower, and then set all core maximal frequency to some comfortable level, I guess the maximum level could be 5600 MHz. With lowered voltage this frequency should be gentler to the processor than running it at original 5500 MHz at higher voltage. You can also run it at lower frequencies, allowing for even higher voltage drop, but then the CPU is slowly loosing its sense (unless you want some high efficiency CPU intended for heavy multithread loads).

Running it with some power consumption limit dependent on your cooling solution to keep the CPU at sensible temperature will help too for sure.
 
Last edited:

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,451
2,365
136
A 219 Watt, 65 Watt CPU. What a time to be alive

Yeah but AMD didn’t stop that one guy from cracking his 9950x IOD in half trying to de-lid it so…. #bothsides

So is the consensus 14900k is stable-ish at 5.5 GHz with HT disabled? And with the new microcode update. I’ll admit the Zen5 disappointment has me considering Raptor Lake, maybe buying somebody’s CPU or rig at firesale prices and tuning it for stability. Probably smarter to wait for Arrow Lake I guess.
I've been running my 14900K at 5.5 all core, manual voltage set to 1.3, which means under load it's generally 1.2V or less. HT off. Totally stable under all loads and been running this way for nearly a year.

It is my opinion that Raptor silicon will not degrade if voltages are kept below 1.3 volts. The stable frequency you can achieve with that voltage will depend on your cooling, motherboard, and quality of your chip.

Again, that's just my opinion based on my experience with 3 Raptor CPU's and reading hundreds of posts here at Overclockers.net and other forums.
 
Jul 27, 2020
19,595
13,435
146

5.7 GHz and 5.4 GHz still seem too high, post-RPL fiasco.

Can Intel heat their house properly this time without burning it down???

Will shaders finally compile without taking down all your 101 open browser tabs???

Will you be able to say goodnight to your girlfriend on MS Teams without any crashes before you go to bed???

Tune in to AT forums for the fun and laughter and tears as we watch the spectacle together with mixed feelings of joy and sadness!
 

gdansk

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2011
2,829
4,190
136
And there's been someone shipping N5 chips at 5.7GHz at lower voltages for years without failing checksums in Unreal.

It should be even lower voltage on N3B, right? But maybe it is even less durable to high voltages.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,451
2,365
136

5.7 GHz and 5.4 GHz still seem too high, post-RPL fiasco.

Can Intel heat their house properly this time without burning it down???

Will shaders finally compile without taking down all your 101 open browser tabs???

Will you be able to say goodnight to your girlfriend on MS Teams without any crashes before you go to bed???

Tune in to AT forums for the fun and laughter and tears as we watch the spectacle together with mixed feelings of joy and sadness!
Frequencies are comparable to Zen, which is also on a TMSC node. In addition we know Intel designs with high clocks in mind. 5.7/5.4 seem to me as "high but reasonable."

The problem is those darn preferred cores and if they need high voltage.

At the start of this whole 1 or 2 core higher frequency thing it seemed like if a CPU could run all-core at some "safe" voltage there would be one or two cores that could run faster at the same voltage. Okay, fine let's not only bin the CPU's in the wafer, but let's bin the cores in the CPU.

But now in order to get those preferred core frequencies it seems like Intel is just throwing lots of voltage at the problem and causing a new and more dangerous problem.
 
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,451
2,365
136
Frequencies are comparable to Zen, which is also on a TMSC node. In addition we know Intel designs with high clocks in mind. 5.7/5.4 seem to me as "high but reasonable."

The problem is those darn preferred cores and if they need high voltage.

At the start of this whole 1 or 2 core higher frequency thing it seemed like if a CPU could run all-core at some "safe" voltage there would be one or two cores that could run faster at the same voltage. Okay, fine let's not only bin the CPU's in the wafer, but let's bin the cores in the CPU.

But now in order to get those preferred core frequencies it seems like Intel is just throwing lots of voltage at the problem and causing a new and more dangerous problem.
I changed my mind already. 5.4 all core seems okay since I'm running 5.5 with no HT and ARL is no HT out of the box.

But 5.7 seems to be pushing it.

If I buy ARL and I see big voltage boost occurring when max frequency is reached I'll shut that down like I did in my 14900K.
 
Reactions: igor_kavinski

DavidC1

Senior member
Dec 29, 2023
776
1,230
96

This is bad. Intel needs to stand by it’s customers
You know what they did with the Sandy Bridge chipset bug? They recalled it. I got my board replaced.

And maybe it's Sandy Bridge being excellent or the trust they gained by recalling. Their revenue increased by 20% that year.

I know that they probably don't have such a room to do that, considering CPUs are much more pricey and you are talking 2 years worth. But what they are doing is different from the Sandy Bridge era. This is going to cost them.

Some saying many nicks are right. This is potentially the catalyst to the downfall. It couldn't have come at a worse time. Worst condition the company has been in 50 years.

We may get to see leaks of future Intel CPUs sooner than we expected... after the plans are leaked post-collapse.
 
Last edited:

DavidC1

Senior member
Dec 29, 2023
776
1,230
96
Starting to look like some people are wishing for 100K people to lose their jobs.
Nothing to do with your wishes, it's just an opinion.

Let's look at facts:
-Bad finances: True
-Massive debt and the need to invest massively: True
-Uncompetitive architecture: True
-Losing their core strength: True
-Degradation of an entire class of CPUs that sold for 2 years now: True

What should we do with them if Intel fails? Prop them up by "too big to fail" philosophy? So they can continue their problems and have others make up for their mistakes?

They'll look for new jobs and go elsewhere. This is the harsh truth of the free market. You need to do well with your customers then you will do well. Otherwise you can prepare to lose your jobs, your house, cars even your shirt.
 

Kocicak

Golden Member
Jan 17, 2019
1,059
1,115
136
One local retailer sells 20 core 14700K (with 5 year warranty ???) now for less than AMD asks for 8 core 9700X, it is so tempting... If I was building a new PC (and did not have 14900K already), I would have jumped on it.
The same retailer, which goes out of business, offered a brand new 13900KS for the price of 9700X. It was the last one...



The SPECIAL EDITION box is way nicer!

I was wondering if it can be better than my 14900K. I tested CNB R23 4 threads at 5500/4200 MHz. 14900K required 1,320-1,343V, 13900KS 1,278-1,292V, so it is about 50mV better. At 5000/4000 MHz it was only 10mV better.

Anyway, I wonder who will buy my old 14900K now...
 
Last edited:

Kocicak

Golden Member
Jan 17, 2019
1,059
1,115
136
Why, after all the troubles, we still have to guess, what are the real safe frequencies for these CPUs? 5000/4000 MHz limits seem pretty safe to me, but possibly too restrictive for a special CPU, which must have been more carefully selected than the rest of the CPUs???

I hope that 5400/4200 MHz and 160W limits and 5600 MHz RAM should be fine for 13900KS?

I have been playing with Wukong benchmark tool and at these settings the voltage stayed most of the time below 1,28V. Is that fine? Does anybody know? Does even Intel know what is the safe voltage for their CPUs?
 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2020
19,595
13,435
146
I hope that 5400/4200 MHz and 160W limits and 5600 MHz RAM should be fine for 13900KS?
WHAT? You should run 8000+ MT/s RAM on that. It's what the CPU is meant for. Don't buy a Ferrari and run it in first gear, for the love of all that is sacred and holy!

If I had that, due to my mobo limitations, I would still try for DDR5-7000 CL28 or lower, with DDR5-8400 RAM kit.

Read this: https://chipsandcheese.com/2024/08/20/zen-5-variants-and-more-clock-for-clock/

High clocked CPU needs lower latency (faster) RAM to unlock its potential IPC improvements.
 
Last edited:

Kocicak

Golden Member
Jan 17, 2019
1,059
1,115
136
I have an ordinary Gigabyte motherboard (my confidence in this MB or manufacturer decreased somewhat after I was getting hard crashes with the newest BIOS and had to revert back), it is not fit for any record breaking RAM speeds, and my 6000 MHz RAM kit as well. Honestly I do not care if the memory runs at 6000 or 5600. I also have a normal 4070. So nothing in my PC calls for any recordbreaking speeds.

I am not even sure that the 50 mV improvement is wort troubles selling my original 14900K. I also had an idea to test degrading with the newest BIOS, but for that I would need a new MB (preferably not GB) and other components, and at this moment I do not like the idea of buying more stuff that I really do not need.
 
Jul 27, 2020
19,595
13,435
146
I have an ordinary Gigabyte motherboard (my confidence in this MB or manufacturer decreased somewhat after I was getting hard crashes with the newest BIOS and had to revert back), it is not fit for any record breaking RAM speeds, and my 6000 MHz RAM kit as well. Honestly I do not care if the memory runs at 6000 or 5600. I also have a normal 4070. So nothing in my PC calls for any recordbreaking speeds.
Gigabyte is actually supposed to be better than the others at tuning DDR5. You really should try for DDR5-6000 CL28. It should be pretty easy for your mobo to do. Just see how much the fps improves with that speed on your 4070 and if you still don't want that increase, sure, go back to boring 5600 MT/s.
 

Kocicak

Golden Member
Jan 17, 2019
1,059
1,115
136
Why, after all the troubles, we still have to guess, what are the real safe frequencies for these CPUs? 5000/4000 MHz limits seem pretty safe to me...

Are these CPUs made on the same process as normal desktop CPUs are?



Intel seems to think that for reliable workstation operation these CPUs can run only up to 4,8 GHz. That is 1,4 GHz lower than what 14900KS can run at.

Does anybody have experience with these CPUs, does this 4,8 GHz limit have any significance, or the "real limit" is even lower - 4,6 GHz?

The limit 5400 MHz I set on the new CPU suddenly seems way too high again... It is funny that everything seems to indicate that my "gut feeling" I got years ago that this process is good only up to 5 GHz was correct.
 
Last edited:
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |