LucShep

Buildzoid! He may sound like a nerd rambling but his videos often show very interesting facts with his experiments (f.ex, latest oscilloscope videos on Intel K chips). Once you sort those issues, and if not done already, consider stopping the single/dual core boost from happening, because of its 1.5v+ voltage spikes (one of the main culprits for the current 13th/14th Gen degradation issues). Easiest way to do this is by sync'ing (locking) your P-Cores all at same max possible clock (close to what the "All P-Cores max clocks" is out-of-the-box). Even better if with the Cpu Core Voltage (Vcore) limited to lower values, at around 1.35v (or below). You can set a limit of voltage, in the BIOS setting "IA VR Voltage Limit" with a value between 1350 and 1400 mv. Or you can manually adjust the Cpu Core Voltage (Vcore), either making it by "fixed" or by "offset" voltage adjustment (whichever way you prefer). One way to look at this is like the undervolt that so many also do on high-end GPUs. It prolongs its life, by lowering the voltage and temps. In this particular case with Intel 13th/14th gen, it's (IMO) a very good procedure to drastically mitigate the possible degradation, and doesn't really affect general performance.

The CPU degradation can appear in somewhat different ways from one machine to another. It can manifest by Windows closing applications in the background by itself, or BSOD (blue screen crashes), or system lock up (freezes), black screens, general instability, etc. "Black Screen, Fans 100 percent, hard-reset or power-cycle is the only option to restart" is one of the reported symptoms. Though it could be so many unrelated things (corrupted Windows and/or applications files or drivers, faulty PSU, or motherboard, or GPU, or Drive, etc). That's why troubleshooting with stress-testing is important, to try determining what's causing it. I maintain my previous suggestion.

I was reading the OT and thinking the same, that it could be early signs of the now well known 13th/14th CPU degradation.... @nephilimborn have you updated your motherboard BIOS to latest version, for the new Intel microcode? (if you haven't, you should) Not sure if you're willing to try something with CPU settings in your motherboard BIOS, just for a test.... If you are, then try to sync (i.e, lock) all your P-Cores, and use a manual clock value that is same for all P-Cores (5.3 GHz is the stock "all P-Core" maximum clock for i7 13700K) Repeat testing, if it still does the same thing, go back to BIOS and reduce 100 MHz in that "all P-Core" clock (so, now to 5.2 GHz) and try again. ...repeat and so on.... If at some point the problem stops happening (by lowering the P-Cores clock), then you may have a CPU that has started to degrade, not being able to reach the stock ultra high "boost" clocks with stock voltages. (note: do not increase the CPU Core Voltage to reach the stock boost clocks, as it just makes things worse!) Also, you mentioned not having yet disabled C-States, which is good because you should never disable those. What you may do, if intended, is reduce the limit of C-States (for example, to "C3" instead of "Auto" - which can go to "C10" deepest savings limit) - Intel C-States explained.

Performance is not a problem with the new microcode. Nor temperatures. It's the voltages. The frigging 1.5v+ voltage spikes b!tch slapping the poor processor so hard, to the point of slow unpredictable degradation. They're still there. That's the price to pay for overambitious boosts on 13th/14th gen => stupic stock high voltages and spikes that slowly eat away your processor's life. Even the reliable 12th gen i9 and i7, which aren't affected at all by these degradation issues, will also slowly degrade if you also force them stupid high voltages. People with 13th and 14th Gen 65W+ CPUs, even after installing the new microcode, have two choices: Keep things stock on clocks, boosts and voltages, and enjoy it as it is. The new microcode at least ensures a slower degradation than before. But it will very likely still occur, sooner or later. (in six months? five years? ...who knows?) If it indeed goes "kaput", well... let's hope it's within the RMA time period and a new replacement is accepted. or Lock the P-Cores (i.e, limiting them all to same max possible clock), so that there is no single/dual-core boost. Reduce the CPU core voltage to about 1.35v (or lower). Worst scenario, you might have to lower the "all P-Core clock" a hundred MHz less than stock. Which won't make any difference to whatever use (unless it's competitive benchmarking?) and the degradation is drastically mitigated. ....as should've been done imediately when this problem appeared (IMO).

The issues with single/dual core voltage spikes and ~1.55v Vcore can't be addressed, unless it's done by the user. They can't bring down the voltages to "normal" levels, because that wouldn't allow boosts to go high as marketed (as in spec sheets). Just like they can't disable the single/dual core boost (which would imediately resolve most of the problem!). Because that would represent changing a product "after the fact", when it was already presented, marketed, and sold as that. The single/dual core boost and high "guaranteed" clocks are features, that they marketed and spec'ed for the product. It would be admiting a grave mistake, almost like "it's a scam product", and taking defeat (law suits and indemnifications would imediately go through the roof! ). Unfortunately, the possible solutions/mitigations are something that you'll have to do on your own, for your own. "Dew it!!"

That's a tough one to know for sure. It'll depend on how the motherboard sensors are being read by each different monitoring software. IMO, HWINFO is usually more accurate than HWMonitor but, again, it'll also depend on the motherboard sensors, not just the software. For some reason that I haven't understood, one that usually shows a fairly accurate reading of the Vcore is CPU-Z (even though it's not really a monitoring software). You might have noticed (as said before in this thread, videos showing it and all) that the single/dual core voltage spikes (always going 1.5v+) have not been resolved by the new Intel microcode. The main problem still exhists. So, if it's fully back to stock BIOS values, then it'll be reaching ~1.55v when it boosts, regardless of what you see in any monitoring software. And that will still continue provoking degradation, albeit at a slower pace than with previous microcode.

Nice one. Yeah, so long as you don't mind the 60Hz limitation, the LG UR and UT 7000/8000 are among the affordable and decent 4K TVs that can be used for such purpose (flight sims). I'm pretty sure you imediately understood why the picture size (both vertical and horizontal) provided by a 16:9 big screen makes all the sense, for flight-simming purposes. It's just the way everything becomes much more "real" scale wise. There's no way one goes back to a smaller screen after the experience (the very old 22'' I had around really looked like a tablet in comparison!). At the right (somewhat close) distance and with some headtracking, it's a great alternative to VR (if that's not an option) and far, far easier to run.

Ok, I see now. It was about the backwards philosophy, or take on the aproach, and not really particularly focused in the gen architectures innovations per se. My apologies to @Hiob then, as I didn't "get the joke". I agree with all of that. As I said, that's where l give all the credit to AMD for the 3D V-Cache on the X3D chips. It was, IMO, the biggest innovation I've seen in a long, long time. It makes sense and it absolutely works for the purpose (gaming). But then, as always, it's AMD with missed opportunities. And why I think they never were, aren't, probably will never be, as proficient as Intel (or Nvidia, for that matter). By not imediately extending their X3D line up to their lower end products (sub 220$) in AM5, after its success previously in AM4's 5800X3D, they missed a huge oportunity. For example, for the 6-cores Ryzen (so, like 7500X3D and 7600X3D, 9500X3D and 9600X3D etc), as that's the segment where the bulk of gamming communities focus on (so, much bigger sales numbers). This is where the X3D aproach would make all the sense to be, too. You don't "have to". But you should to get the most out of them. I'll agree that needing extra software, like Process Lasso (or others like it, so specialized that it really works) isn't ideal. Maybe Intel should provide a very basic version of it, with some very simple guidelines for most regular users. My take on this is, perhaps, a bit different than most, as I personally don't mind messing with this stuff for myself (and it's just done once, after all). But yeah.... I'm not seeing a computer illiterate person going around this, the way I do. If I only used my PC for gaming, perhaps I'd have got an AMD X3D processor. But since I require more than a mere gaming platform from my computer, a processor with the E-Cores actually became usefull, almost like a "second processor" assisting the "main processor" (the P-Cores). I can do all my stuff (work or hobby) in any other non-gaming apps, by having the added power and core-count of the E-Cores to the P-Cores (so using them all for it). Or.... I can also use the E-Cores for all the extra background apps stuff (and exclude all that from P-Cores), so that it never interferes with the games (which I set on the P-Cores only). So, the best of both worlds, all depending on situation. And all a matter of setting such rules once, from them on automatized. It's separating tasks or not (in the P-Cores/E-Cores environment) depending on the purpose and, effectively, getting the most out of the system almost ideally, in my opinion. But that's not something that the system can really guess or decide for myself, and why I like it this way (or don't mind having it this way). Anyways, sorry all for the off-topic, but this subject is interesting to me and can easily get carried away.

That's because you haven't direct experience with Intel for ages (4790K? ...that launched in Q2 2014, over a decade ago!). Maybe if you'd built and tested systems recently with both Intel and AMD, side by side, you'd see more clear differences, and where you're talking nonsense. Their (Intel's) IPC didn't improve? The jump in IPC was friggin monstrous when Alder Lake got out in late 2021 (not 10, not 7 or 8 years ago), imediately rendering everything (including AMD AM4) obsolete. The 5800X3D chip was really the saving grace of AMD. After messing with both Intel and AMD and, if it wasn't this degradation BS, I'd honestly consider Intel "K" chips from 12th, 13th and 14th gen to be the better chips today. Better than even the very latest AMD equivalents (yes, including the just released and, it seems, underwhelmingly so, 9000 series). Far better memory compatibility (don't even get me with the mem speed with 4 sticks of RAM on AM5), far better behaviour between different motherboard manufacturers models (much easier to predict when building a new system), far less fuss, headaches (AM4's USB issues) or "fafo" once you've dealt with the outrageous (yes they all are) stock BIOS settings. All the E-Cores that are ignorantly critized, which are easily dealt with Process Lasso, and then become a benefit for gaming (as I described above). The list goes on once you start handling both old and newer apps and games. Power hogs (yes, latest ones are), space heaters (yes, latest ones are), call it whatever you want... they've been, performance and stability wise, the better "total package", IMHO. Until this degradation crap started. Yes, the AM4 5800X3D and AM5 7800X3D are better gaming chips (though not always the best chip there), but they're a one-trick pony that is nothing special for anything other than gaming. And, sure, I expect the 9800X3D to be the next success. But the rest of this 9000 series? Honestly, doesn't really look all that good to me.... AMD is "winning" huge market share this very day, not because they're really better, but because their competitor did a ridiculous own goal... (nice one Intel!!).

I'll give credit to AMD for placing effort on something that has "gaming usage win" plastered all over it, which is the 3D V-Cache of the AM4 5X00X3D and AM5 7XX0X3D chips. A really phenomenal idea to do it on chips with single CCD. (the only really good ones for gaming, as the latency issues between CCDs are inherent by design). I've had inumerous Intel and AMD processors during the last 25 years (overclocked most of them, I think) and, can surely tell, there were times when Intel was really dragging their feet (again, credit to AMD for spicing things up and make them work). And Intel surely deserves the current public backlash with this degradation crap. But then to call modern Intel processors "10 year old turds" is right on the verge of blatant ignorance. I had a 10700K before the current 12700K I own. That older one was no slouch, but the jump in performance with Alder Lake was huge. Depending on application, ~60% in MT and ~40% in ST. Even more once tuned and with a mild overclock (another extra ~7% performance, for free). That was launched in late 2021 and, in fact, an all-new design. People can trash talk all they want about E-Cores being useless for gaming but, for me, they're godsend. I can put every little extra app running in the background on the E-Cores (Discord, HWINFO, peripherals software, etc, etc, even the AV!) while I'm gaming with all the 8 P-Cores unaffected by those programs and games set on them (Process Lasso FTW!). Smooth as butter, stutter free, ZERO (AM)Dip in all my games.

Dude, sometimes I read these threads with such issues, I just feel like jumping to that other side of the screen and "LET ME MESS WITH THAT COMPUTER!" LOL It pains me to watch people paying for a new system, and then having it far slower than it should be. I know it's your PC and your call but... an i7 14700KF at 4.3Ghz is not "ok" at all, IMO. I'm pretty certain at this point that you can not adjust the CPU Core Ratio (B760 mobo....). But, IIRC, you've disabled the Intel Turbo Boost and Boost Technology rows on the BIOS, right? (as a way around to lock the cores - which it did, but then castrated it). The black screen and freezes are due to the inability of the motherboard to feed the CPU (when boosting) - the B760 can't handle that i7 14700K when going full tilt. That's why it now works "ok" with boosts disabled (less effort for the motherboard VRM), at the cost of a very(!) sedated 14700KF. How about getting those enabled again, and play around with the voltage offset (to bring the CPU Core Voltage down) ?

@kksnowbear already said the important general information. My honest two cents (and sorry Devrim for the thread hijack!).... About the i9 14900K CPU... from experience, and if it's for gaming, there was never a real valid reason to get an i9 14900K /KF /KS for whatever intensive gaming. Having "the best", and the bragging rights, made it more important and common than it should have ever been. The i7 14700K and KF (same thing, latter just lacks onboard VGA) and the i7 13700K/KF, will do 99,9% of the same work (can't notice differences with whatever game, 2D or VR). For far less money, far less heat, less power consumption, basically less "fafo" and worries. Far better investment. The problem is these 13th/14th gen CPUs degradation issues.... hmmmmm The motherboard choice is undoubtedly a Z790 (as already explained above). The best sensible choices, in my opinion, are actually the good mid-range models (the ASUS TUF Z790 PLUS and the MSI MAG Z790 TOMAHAWK are great examples). The lower priced models are limited and weak, can't overclock an i7 14700K or even sustain an i9 14900K at stock settings pushing at the very limit. The higher priced models are overkill in many aspects and riddled with useless gimmicks, making them unworthy of the super high prices. My personal opinion? If it really has to be INTEL, I'd honestly go with the i9 12900K (yes, 12th gen, as odd as it may sound). With one of the mentioned good mid-range Z790 models. Simply because that is still a really good processor (now at a great price) that is not affected by any of this crap. And that you can also overclock if desired (but not needed). These issues with 13th/14th gen CPUs degradation (and the possible RMA procedure hell), even if mitigating the problem as described, makes them very hard to recommend.

Yep, agree there ^^ pretty much this. I'd also re-evalute the real need for an AMD 7950X3D. The AMD 7800X3D is just as fast for gaming, less problematic, runs cooler, and far more affordable (etc). While obviously not as capable for photo editing/post-processing, it's not exactly slow.

It's not as easy of a conclusion as you make it look. The problem we have here is using an inappropriate motherboard for the processor. Not just a problem with Intel's 13th/14th CPUs degradation. Honestly, I don't understand how the person who built that new system let that one go(??). The problem with cheap B760/M motherboards with unlocked higher-end Intel 13th/14th gen "K" CPU (like the i7 14700KF) is that they lack important things, namely these two: A strong and appropriate voltage regulator module (also assisted by heatsinks). Not having this means that CPU will be constantly throttled, because the weak B760 motherboard can't keep up with the i7 14700KF demands, when it pushes to the limit. A more complete BIOS with a plethora of options, to assist with fine tuning for different situations (like one we're dealing here), not just for overclocking purposes. From what I gather, all B760/M motherboards are very limited, seems to not even allow adjustment of the P-Core Ratio, because they're made for locked (non-K) CPUs. Which means then that you can't micro adjust things that would actually help with the known 13th/14th gen degradation, as previously discussed. ------------------------------------------------------------- The OP seems to require a MicroATX (mATX) format motherboard (using a small PC case, from what I understood). So, for his i7 14700KF that means a Z790M motherboard - which is what should have been used in the first place! The affordable options (if price is a problem) for this chipset and format are not suited for OC'ing or for the i9 14900K, but they'll do the job for a stock i7 14700KF. Prices go from 160,00 to 240,00 Euros, depending on model and location, such as the following ones.... ASUS has one model in two varieties, one for DDR5 memory and another for DDR4 memory: ASUS PRIME Z790M-PLUS (DDR5 RAM version): https://www.asus.com/us/motherboards-components/motherboards/prime/prime-z790m-plus/ ASUS PRIME Z790M-PLUS D4 (DDR4 RAM version): https://www.asus.com/us/motherboards-components/motherboards/prime/prime-z790m-plus-d4/ ASROCK has two models, one for DDR5 memory and another for DDR4 memory: ASROCK Z690M PG Riptide D5 (DDR5 version): https://pg.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z690M PG RiptideD5/index.asp (requires BIOS update for 14th gen) ASROCK Z790M PG Lightning D4 (DDR4 version): https://pg.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z790M PG LightningD4/index.asp GIGABYTE has one model for DDR5 memory: Z790M Aorus Elite AX (rev.1.2): https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/Z790M-AORUS-ELITE-AX-rev-12#kf ------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, the OP can keep using the system as it currently is (basically "semi-crippled"), and if and when the CPU degrades, activate RMA to try getting a processor replacement. Or spend another 650,00+ Euros for equivalent AMD AM5 CPU+Motherboard. Personally, I would prefer to spend on the Z790M motherboard, update the BIOS to latest version, do the system transplant of current parts to it, then getting the system properly tuned and capable, with the expectation of keeping it long term. Perhaps speaking with who built this system, to trade in the B760M for the Z790M is not a bad idea?

Oh no, now you're castrating that CPU. If yours is at 4.3Ghz, you're leaving a lot (~22%!) on the table then! That's reducing a LOT of performance, no need for that man. IIRC, the stock all P-Core maximum for the 14700K/KF is 5.5Ghz. Meaning, you should be aiming at 5.5Ghz, or whatever maximum "all P-Core" clock you can get with 1.35v (or lower) CPU Core Voltage (Vcore). A 100MHz clock loss (so 5.4Ghz in 14700K/KF) is perfectly fine when locking all the cores for a 1.35v (or lower) CPU Core Voltage. No real difference in performance, and it's easier to achieve at lower voltage/wattage and temps (and finally safe). Try to increase the P-Core Ratio to 54 (for 5.4Ghz) and readjust the negative offset voltage for a little lower Vcore (as close as possible to 1.35v, or lower). Lastly, I'll say again that I don't know how is this all with a B760 motherboard, I can only speak from experience with Z690 and Z790. With these boards, for the procedure we're talking about, if it crashes when stress-testing, then like I said in a previous post and quoting:

14700KF on a B760 motherboard, crazy! That board does work with that CPU, but it's not really all that prepared for that monster of CPU - don't even think about overclocking that in there!

MSI PRO B760M-P..... that's a B760 motherboard (which of course misses a lot of settings and adjustments). You're using it with the souped-up hot 14700K ?? ...or is it a 14700 "non-K" ? If there's no way to manually insert a CPU Core Voltage, then yes you'll have to resort to a negative offset for the CPU Core Voltage (to reduce it), and accordingly to what appears for the VCore value, also in something like CPU-Z or HWINFO (again, at 1.35v or lower is best). CPU AUX Voltage is the voltage input for the internal voltage regular for a bunch of the CPU's internal voltages. Stock is 1.8v, so leave it as is. All that matters is that the CPU AUX voltage is higher than all the internal voltages derived from it, and does tend to prefer being within a certain range above the different values. Again, stock for that is 1.8v and yours seems correct, leave that as is.

Hmmm, I don't recall disabling those in the BIOS, if all I want is to lock cores and adjust Vcore (it's actually very simple). I only know how to do it in ASUS and MSI, because I usually only build systems with boards from these brands (ocasionally ASRock as well). With MSI Z690 and Z790 motherboards, I'd do it like this: "OC" on the left side of BIOS, to access the advanced settings. Then the following settings placed like this: P-Core Ratio Apply Mode ---- All Core P-Core Ratio ------------------ the max clock value applied for all P-Cores (f.ex, "55" for 5.5Ghz), as close as possible to the "Stock All Core" clock (depends on CPU). CPU Core Voltage Mode ------ Override (this changes the Vcore in use, from Auto to Manual mode) CPU Core Voltage ------------ 1.350 (the Vcore manually inserted value, my recommendation is that or lower, but up to you - that 1.350 corresponds to 1.35v) After any changes, save and reboot (F10 key in MSI as well, if I recall correctly). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Also, another thing that should always be looked in there just to be sure, in those Advanced settings of the BIOS: CPU SA Voltage ---- see what value is "greyed" there (i.e, what is currently used) At stock it's usually at 1.05v, and I never seen it over 1.30v with XMP loaded for whatever RAM. That should never, ever(!), be over 1.35v (the CPU degrades very quickly!). If for whatever reason you see that "CPU SA Voltage" at over 1.35v, imediately change the "CPU SA Voltage Mode" from Auto to Manual, and manually insert a lower voltage for it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Then it's time to test and push your CPU to the limit and test stability. There are some that are good enough and don't take too much time.... - You have Cinebench R20 and R23 (continuous "CPU" runs are good to check voltages, temps, power, and have a final score to compare with each test). - You also have LinpackXtreme v1.15 (x64 executable, then select "stress test", 2GB, usually 10 or up to 15 runs for number of times, on all cores). Especially this last one is great to test stability - it's very demanding, if it passes and doesn't crash then (IMO) it won't crash with anything else. Whatever you do, always monitor your temperatures, voltages, package power (etc), pay attention to the CPU VCore with any changes you do (ideally under 1.35v). See if there's any single core boost (i.e, if any P-Core goes noticeably higher than the value you placed), or any spike on Vcore with it going over what you manually placed. CPU-Z is always reliable to show correctly the current real time VCore value, but it does not show any power (Watts) or temperatures, it's very limited for that. I'd strongly recommend latest HWINFO to monitor all those values (and so many more) when benchmarking and stress-testing (not really for gaming), it's an invaluable tool. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If you're stress-testing with these new settings, with whatever aplication, and your system crashes, you can do different things (as you see best). You can decrease the P-Core Ratio (so, lower the max clock for all P-Cores) in 100Mhz steps (f.ex, if you used "55" for 5.5Ghz and that is not stable, decrease it to "54"). Try again, and so on. But you can also try different Load Line Calibration (aka LLC), to add V-droop. This keeps the CPU voltage from dropping (it won't affect power savings such as C-States). If going the latter route, then it's done this way in MSI Z690/Z790 boards: DigiALL Power (open this section) CPU Loadline Calibration Control - should be on Auto by default. Then change that to: Mode 5 ------------- this adds ~0.05v V-droop to the CPU voltage. or Mode 6 ------------- this adds ~0.09v V-droop to the CPU voltage. I wouldn't go neither lower or over those two for this exercise, but it's up to you. With the added V-droop you somewhat "stabilize" the voltage on the CPU. But it may run a little bit hotter (readjust the Vcore to a slightly lower value if necessary). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Another thing often used to help with stability for AVX applications (f.ex, console emulators, few odd games, some benchmark apps) is to use an AVX offset of minus one (-1). In MSI boards this is under CPU AVX Control, with the setting "CPU Ratio Offset When Running AVX". Anyway, if this all looks too complicated(?), then simply leave it as is, and ask for assistance somewhere else, friend, technician, etc.

"There is no such thing as a stupid question." On any processor it's the combination of high voltage, high amps and heat (they're usually correlated). But the big problem with 13th/14th gen has been (still is) the high voltage spikes. It's like quick intense "punches" of high voltage and heat, that hurts, then kills, these CPUs. The spikes happen mostly due to the single/dual core boost AND the high stock voltages. It goes over 1.5v all of a sudden when it boosts, some reports of it even going up to 1.6v ....when 1.4v+ was already bad. It happens instantly, so quickly and so many times. And your regular monitoring software usually won't detect it. You need an oscilloscope to see it, and that's exactly what Buildzoid already done on his videos to prove a point (see below his latest video, posted some hours ago). There is an ongoing theory, that the degradation happens because the Ring Bus shares the same rail with the P-Cores and E-Cores, then affected by the high stock voltages. The Ring Bus design of Intel is really not happy with high voltages (over 1.4v) and perhaps this could explain the processor slow suicide, cooking itself from there. But, again, just theory at this point (still to be proven). One thing is certain: to reach these high clocks and go against competitors, the stock voltages on Intel 13th, and again on 14th gen, had been (still are) raised to insane values. Now add the single/dual core boost 1.5v+ spikes to the equation. And transient spikes from loads changing. And VRMs response that can also cause spiking. And the thermal velocity boost limit that has been raised to 100ºC instead of 90ºC. It can not be good, the likelihood of something going wrong is definitely much higher. And that's why many locked the cores and undervolted their CPU from day one, or simply avoided them and went with either Intel 12th gen or AMD AM5. If you go to tech communities, there are plenty with undervolted 13th and 14th gen since these products launched, and no degradation problem. A pattern? Maybe, I don't know. I also don't know of any recent PC consumer grade processor that doesn't slowly degrade at 1.4v+.... and these go well beyond that, instantly, at stock settings. You can not let your processor hit that kind of voltage (1.50v or 1.55v !?! ), that's insanely high, even if temperatures seem ok. Even if with the new microcode, it can and will slowly degrade, and eventually it can and will fail ("kaput"). And why you should stop the single/dual core boost, easiest way being by sync'ing (locking) your P-Cores all at same max possible clock. And better if with the cpu core voltage (Vcore) manually adjusted to lower values, best if at 1.35v or below. One way to look at it is like some sort of undervolt that many also do on high-end GPUs (generally considered the best thing you can do to them). It prolongs its life, by lowering the voltage and temps. In this particular case however, and as described, it's (IMO) a necessity. Exactly. It is a problem if you're someone who knows very little about computers, and even worse if you don't know a thing about BIOS settings. People are not expected to buy a car and necessarily be mechanics. Countless people affected. I understand that Intel and motherboard manufacturers can not release BIOS with all-core "locked" clocks (no single/dual core boost), and adjusted cpu core voltages, because that would represent fundamental changes to a whole line of products that they marketed and sold to the public (a whole can of worms). But just like cars and motorcycles have had bad parts requiring "ad hoc" modifications (which no warranty solves), this is one of those rare cases when one should put hands to work and take care of his/herself (I know I would, and why I advocate it here). But then again, we go back to the initial point.... a problem if knowing very little about computers, and even worse if not knowing a thing about BIOS settings. *sigh*

HEH... basically, it's damage control. They're facing a big lawsuit by their own shareholders, the worst ammount of RMA returns in record, and huge losses in the servers business as well. This will at least diminish the problem (and calm enraged tempers) while not being the perfect solution. Not sure if you watched the video in my previous post. With the new microcode, Intel seems to have forced the affected CPUs to downclock further and more frequently, while maintaining what was done already in previous microcodes (in recent BIOS updates prior to these new ones). And it does it even if using the very highest power plans on Windows. So, the insane boosts and voltages still occur but, at least, it downclocks and undervolts the CPU if not really required (in low activity), effectively improving temps and voltages. The problem is, the stock boosts and voltages are still peaking outrageously high, like before, so it will not stop CPUs degrading (i.e, the main issue remains). What it does is just prolong that degradation process further, an atempt to extend the CPU life (which is kind of positive and the intention with this, I guess?). I still maintain what most people well into this stuff have said already to be a solution: By all means, get your BIOS update with the new Intel microcode for 13th/14th gen, but don't just use the "Stock" settings of your BIOS (that was never good). Sync all your P-Cores to same clock, and as close to what the "All P-Cores max clocks" is out-of-the-box, for your own CPU model, effectively locking them to that as a maximum possible, so that none of the stupid single/dual core boosts ever happens (the worst offender, at times spiking over 1.5v!). Also, making sure the CPU voltage (aka Vcore) does not go over a certain value is a good idea as well (i.e, setting a fixed max voltage for it). Setting it up to 1.35v is considered "safe" for 13th and 14th gen i9 and i7 (not sure but I suppose for i5 "K" as well?). Anything above 1.35v is already way too much, IMO. Something like that (or if below, even better) is what most concerned with degradation, by voltage spikes and temps, should be aiming at maximum. So, setting the highest stable clock as possible for all P-Cores (all sync'ed, locked) for that lower cpu core voltage is, IMO, a better solution to go over this 13th/14th gen issue. Of course, it requires changing a few BIOS settings, stress-testing and monitoring (as no system is the same) but it's a way to finally enjoy the system with peace of mind. Not all motherboard models got the new BIOS with latest Intel microcode for 13th and 14th gen. Some will only have it available for now as "Beta versions", or awaiting release sometime very soon.

It seems the new microcode doesn't solve the high voltage spike issues after all. It does slightly improves things, but the problem still exhists. Resuming, all 13th and 14th gen 65W+ CPUs (i5 "K", i7 and i9) will still continue to degrade if you don't lock the cores and/or adjust voltage limits........ PS: some testing with 14900KS: Fully agree with his recommendation there, at 21:08 in the video.

Besides, I'm not so sure the motion clarity would be that great with HDR (some blur when moving your head around, like we do in DCS) if implemented in the PSVR2 for PC.

I agree with the others here. Avoid Intel for now. In another time, I'd have said Intel i7 14700K, but no longer with all the ongoing catastrophic Intel problems. And yes, the AMD Ryzen 7800X3D is really the gaming CPU to get today (best gaming chip over all), perfect for what you want. Especially for the price, the 7800X3D is an absolute no brainer. It's not worth going for the 7950X.

First BIOS fixes for crashing Intel CPUs are finally rolling out MSI and Asus are the first motherboard makers to implement Intel's official microcode patch to prevent crashing on Raptor Lake CPUs. https://www.pcworld.com/article/2422028/first-bios-fixes-for-crashing-intel-processors-rolling-out.html ...and in other news: Intel hit with lawsuit over $32 billion loss, shareholders complain company hid problems Intel shareholders are suing the company in the wake of its share price rapidly plummeting. The legal action comes days after Intel announced the suspension of dividends and the planned layoff of over 15,000 employees. At its worst, this share price drop wiped over $32 billion off Intel's market value in a single day, and stock price back to 2008 levels. https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/intel-hit-with-lawsuit-over-dollar32-billion-loss-shareholders-complain-company-hid-problems

Not sure if it's even a Three Hundred, but looking at a previous pick the OT posted, it sure looks way too tight for an RTX2080Ti Strix, too populated around the GPU (and that's before the new GPU was fitted). I don't think the peripherals and PSU sucking same air below are helping either (the main reason why modern cases with PSUs at bottom have them inverted, sucking air from the bottom). For something like 60 pounds/dollars/euros, a Montech AIR 903 MAX (4x 140mm fans included) is a no brainer really, IMO. null