You wouldn't be running anything with that setting, other than booting Windows and opening Intel XTU. It's just to see what settings your mobo is using for the Unlimited profile and what are the "optimized" settings decided by Intel's Speed Optimizer. Then just try to run TFD with the optimized OC settings and see what happens.Which setting do you mean by "unlimited"?
I get that Watchdog error too sometimes, especially when I'm trying some crazy memory overclock. But it hasn't resulted in any serious problem.but I think that XTU's Watchdog hard cold boot crash "reset" - that sometimes even triggers BIOS errors/resets - may also trigger it the (likely PCIe) instability.
Hmm..that's good then.@igor_kavinski
After the Clear CMOS I played through the tutorial once with Intel 307 A specs and once with my usual UV + OC (resetting all game data), both worked without a crash.
I ran as low as DDR5-3200 CL17. I think Intel users will manage fine. Them and Nvidia users don't have qualms about reducing their enjoyment as long as they can advertise themselves as being customers of the majority marketshare holder."If 2 DIMMs is the source of the problem, even at like 4400MTs, that's unsettling."
On the techpowerup review the highest overclock they managed was 5.5Ghz all core...so 5.3 all core is pretty up there, and that's the "fix" lets not forget.He was under clocking though. He didn’t set an all core frequency, he lowered the max boost frequency to 5.3 GHz to try and stabilize the processors.
Edit: the boost algorithm is still on, he just limits it from exceeding 5.3 GHz because going past that caused instability on a large percentage of the tested systems.
Our maximum all-core OC is 5.5 GHz on the P-Cores, plus 4.4 GHz on the E-Cores, 100% stable. this still isn't enough to beat the stock configuration in lighter applications and most games, because here the CPU will boost two cores up to 6.0 GHz.
That PCIe error may actually be CPU-related...@igor_kavinski
After the Clear CMOS I played through the tutorial once with Intel 307 A specs and once with my usual UV + OC (resetting all game data), both worked without a crash.
The reason I came up with the Clear CMOS at once is because I saw this kind of BSOD before and it seems to be kind of PCIe connected. I don't fully trust the mainboard anymore and the whole thing may have killed my PCIe Creative X-Fi. When the defect X-Fi was insert I could reproduce problems, but I think that XTU's Watchdog hard cold boot crash "reset" - that sometimes even triggers BIOS errors/resets - may also trigger it the (likely PCIe) instability. So the Clear CMOS may have fixed it for now with no connection to my CPU or memory UV/OC at all.
The 5.3GHz cap is not just about all-core clock speed. It also stops any core from boosting to 6.0GHz and the extra voltage that goes along with it.On the techpowerup review the highest overclock they managed was 5.5Ghz all core...so 5.3 all core is pretty up there
On the techpowerup review the highest overclock they managed was 5.5Ghz all core...so 5.3 all core is pretty up there, and that's the "fix" lets not forget.
Although there is no official turbo table from intel so we are all just guessing anyway.
Intel Core i9-14900K Review - Reaching for the Performance Crown
Core i9-14900K is Intel's new flagship with clock speeds of up to 6 GHz. It's actually clocked even higher than the 13900KS, thanks to an extra 100 MHz when more than two cores are active. Our review confirms that Raptor Lake Refresh is amazing for both applications and gaming, if you can live...www.techpowerup.com
If we're speculating, my crackpot theory is that there was a fundamental error early in the design process (either for raptor lake or for their latest Intel 7 node revision). Leading to numerous physical implementation errors spread across the whole chip.Since we like throwing things at the wall to see if they stick, I'd love to see a breakdown of failures between systems with DDR4 vs. DDR5. We could probably get this for ADL, but with RPL it did not make much sense.
That's a great idea. What if a CPU that fails working in a DDR5 mobo works flawlessly in a DDR4 mobo? That would make pinpointing the cause a lot easier!Since we like throwing things at the wall to see if they stick, I'd love to see a breakdown of failures between systems with DDR4 vs. DDR5.
Well, as DAPUNISHER wondered in a previous post (can't remember which page), MTL-S WAS cancelled. Maybe it's all related...It would explain why it took so long to find, and why so many different settings help to mitigate the crashing, and why Alder Lake and Meteor Lake aren't affected.
No, you never knowingly release a product that has a 50% failure rate. There is no profit in a product that fails that often, that type of product costs you money.@coercitiv
Here's a crazy idea: https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/joao-silva/intel-has-a-core-i9-14900ks-on-the-way/
Remember how everyone thought that company was nuts for pairing the 14900KS with DDR4-3200?
And it LACKS a GPU meaning no PCIe traffic???
That company is Israeli. Raptor Cove is an IDF design.
WHAT IF??????
Intel insiders knew about these issues all along and went ahead anyway because they figured, it's gonna impact only maybe 50% of users??? They decided to take a gamble on that coz by the time the problem was expected to rear its ugly head, they would have shipped enough Raptor Lake SKUs into the worldwide markets to make some tidy profits! And by the time they got around to actually providing a real fix, Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake would be out to save their asses!
YOU HEARD THIS THEORY HERE FIRST!
Not even to keep up appearances? What else could they do? Keep selling Alder Lake? Or promote their workstation CPUs with AVX-512 and only P-cores to lowly Core i9 status and lose thousands per CPU?You might consider releasing a product with a 1-3% failure rate but a product that fails 50% of the time would never see the light of day.
They would have just refreshed Alder Lake. They've done this type of thing in the past (see Meteor Lake being canned in favor of RPL refresh).Not even to keep up appearances? What else could they do? Keep selling Alder Lake? Or promote their workstation CPUs with AVX-512 and only P-cores to lowly Core i9 status and lose thousands per CPU?
I'm not so sure anymore. My house came with a Samsung refrigerator where they purposely put the ice maker in the very top of the fridge section.No, you never knowingly release a product that has a 50% failure rate. There is no profit in a product that fails that often, that type of product costs you money.
You might consider releasing a product with a 1-3% failure rate but a product that fails 50% of the time would never see the light of day.
MTL-S got canned coz they got more performance out of RPL-R. Doubt they could've gotten more out of ADL refresh unless they ported it to Intel 3. They failed miserably with Rocket Lake in their pursuit to win benchmarks. IDF saved them with Alder Lake. Then they tried to coast along on that design by souping it up with more cache and higher clocks. That failed miserably again as we can now see. It seems Intel's desperate attempts at winning benchmarks are consistently blowing up in their faces. My advice to them would be to stop trying so hard and just do what they hired people to do in the first place. Design decent CPUs, instead of cooking up shortcuts to win at any cost.They would have just refreshed Alder Lake. They've done this type of thing in the past (see Meteor Lake being canned in favor of RPL refresh).
Raptor Lake officially ONLY supports DDR5 5600 on 1 SPC boards. 2 SPC boards with 1 DPC populated takes it down to 4400 just like Alder Lake, going down to as much as 3600 with 2 DPC populated. If they're running @ 5600, they're out of spec. And I think all non-ITX W680 boards I remember are 2 SPC, so anything above 4400 is likely to be wrong.On the full nerd podcast Wendell discusses how many of the servers were running 5600MTs often a single stick which he says Intel officially states should work. And that either dropping the multiplier or downclocking to 5200MTs would make the errors go away.
They didn't get any more performance out of Raptor Lake refresh either. They could've easily just done ADL-S -> ADL-R -> RPL-S instead of ADL-S -> RPL-S -> RPL-R.MTL-S got canned coz they got more performance out of RPL-R. Doubt they could've gotten more out of ADL refresh unless they ported it to Intel 3.
Never mind. I misread that.They didn't get any more performance out of Raptor Lake refresh either.