LucShep

@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

@RealDCSpilot thanks for the impressions and details. Following your feedback, as well as the current initial reviews on youtube, this does seem like a valid VR headset for PCVR, maybe also for newcomers. Actually, it seems to be the new alternative to the well known (but discontinued) HP Reverb G2. From what I gather for general first impressions across the web: - Similar resolution to HP Reverb G2, but with better FOV and better colors (OLED!) - DisplayPort connection (so no image compression and performance impact from wireless encoding/decoding, and no batteries) - Comfortable enough "out of the box" for most people (doesn't require aftermarket straps, mods or hacks, HALO type design) - Somewhat acceptable price (60€ for PC adapter + 600€ for VR headset --- used ones can be found at half the price) - Wide offer/availability in big marketplaces

NOOOOOOOOO You should have told her to get her own moto. LOL Congratulations for at least having it for a while, that's a friggin unicorn right there. I still dream of owning a 1990s 2-stroke 250cc GP replica like that (RGV, NSR, TZR, KR1S, RS, etc). Unfortunately, near impossible these days, as they're as rare as hen's teeth and worth a lot of money now, if in pristine condition. That and the old 500cc MX'ers, even if obviously impractical, they're the ones doing my mind every time I watch some nostalgia video of 80s and 90s GP and MX heroes. Speaking of which.... here's Eddie "Steady" Lawson in the beautiful Cagiva C591 back in its day:

Oh but there is.... I'm sorry to say that you're misinterpreting those figures. Those are unusually bad temperatures for an RTX2080Ti Strix - it's most likely suffocating in there. IIRC, that RTX2080Ti Strix was/is one of the coolest (literally) models of such a "hot" Nvidia GPU, usually high 60s for max core temps with fans just a bit ramped up. Yours is not even close to that. If you're already hitting 85ºC (?!?) on the core with unlocked framerate (quote,"GPU 85ºC at 99% continuous"), it then means that your memory junction and hotspot may be going over 95ºC (you always want to keep those under 90ºC). It's cooking in there, even with CPU+RAM nowhere near matched to it... You want to keep that temperature reading you're seeing on that GPU always below the mid/low 70s, never above that. 60~70 FPS limit, that seems a better strategy for now, yes. And a more agressive fan curve on the GPU as well. Keep the old Antec case somewhere for nostalgia sake if desired, but please think about the new modern case with big airflow - the lowest hanging fruit for you at this point. You don't want to risk degrading that nice GPU now if you've just invested on it. PS: look at the top of that RTX2080Ti Strix, there is a button switch for two BIOS profiles that it can either be on, "Quiet" (Q MODE) or "Performance" (P MODE). Perhaps it's set on the "Quiet" (Q MODE) profile. Please make sure that is set to the "Performance" (P MODE) profile. (note, turn off the computer before changing that switch) The only change is the fans curve, which goes higher (much cooler temps, but louder) when using that GPU with its "Performance" BIOS enabled.

If it's only for DCS, then 4K 60Hz will be ok. But if it's "multi use", then I'd recommend spending for the higher refresh rate, it makes more difference in racing-sims and regular desktop use than you think (not so much with flight sims). I decided to spend the least possible (went 4K 60Hz again) and I now kind of regret not spending more for the SONY X85J/K 50''. Would probably go 55'' if no other choice, and just sit a little further away from it (one gets used to it anyway). Don't forget, higher refresh rate doesn't mean it always requires high FPS usage in games. You can always lock framerate with software (Riva Tuner, etc) and use VRR (Freesync or Gsync, depending on model), or change refresh-rate if desired. Depending on model and size, ~9Kg for 43'', ~12Kg for 50'', ~16Kg for 55''. I now got a deeper desk, close to the wall with the monitor on top. But before that I was using this stand for the 46'', 50'' and 55''. Does the job really well, solid and plenty vertical adjustment. Recommend something like that if your idea requires it. https://www.amazon.es/dp/B087F8S5C2?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details

I've used TVs for some fifteen years now as monitors for my PC gaming (flight, racing and mil sims, RTS, and all sorts of RPG and Action games). Then 1080P (four), and 4K in the last four or five years (went through four of them as well). I've used Sony, LG, Samsung, Toshiba, Philips. While generally you'll be fine, you need to watch out for some things. For example, that there are many 4K TVs now with BGR subpixel layout, and this will affect text on screen (blurry and/or aliased text). While unimportant if it's just for gaming and movies, this may be annoying if it's to be used like a regular monitor with lots of text as common usage. Try to get one that is RGB subpixel layout. Next, the default color and brightness settings, which will usually be all over the place, with over-brightness and over-saturation. Any and all will need for you to calibrate them, for your own needs. One trick that will work with most, for a starting point, is to use the "movie mode" settings for all things image color/contrast settings related (usually the better image mode), but manually applied on the "game mode", which is the one you'll want to use for PC gaming (for best latency). Check for good reviews of a TV, you'll probably find they list specific calibrated settings (using professional tools) as recommendations, for you to apply (a good option). Then there's the size, which can be personal preference. I've had 32, 37, 43, 46, 50 and 55 inch panels, flat and curved. For me, 50 inch is about the perfect size (or 48 if it's an OLED), and what I currently use. More seems too big, and less feels somewhat small. FWIW, my eyes are about one meter (39.4 inches), give or take, away from the screen. The problem, like you describe, is that the "affordable" ones with 120hz+ VRR panels are hard to find in 50'' size or below. I've only found two options. And both are from SONY, with 50'' size, 120Hz panel. SONY X85J 50'' 120Hz (2021 model) SONY X85K 50'' 120Hz (2022 model) I've only tested the "K" but both are practically the same thing. Pretty darn good, almost went for it. But at last minute decided it's too expensive (yeah, tag price seems to include the posh "SONY tax"....). Other than those, I found only 55'' inch (so, bigger) for affordable(ish) prices, such as: Hisense U7 line in 55''size with high refresh panel: U7H 120Hz (2022 model) U7K 144Hz (2023 model) E7K 144Hz (2023 model) E7N 144Hz (2024 model) TCL C7 and C8 line in 55'' size with high refresh panel: C835K 120hz, (2022 model) C741K 144Hz, (2023 model) There may be other 4K TVs with 120/144Hz VRR panels and affordable prices in Europe that I don't know about, but those seem good options. Of course, there's the 48'' OLEDs but those are considerably more expensive.... Lastly, I'd say a deep desk is recommended, or placing the TV on a support (either on wall or with stand type) in front of your desk if it's a short one. This is, if you're not using a cockpit sim-rig already prepared for it (most these days can be prepared to fit big screens).

Even at idle, there are dozens of very light background tasks being ran. There always are. You'll find that it's impossible to see the processor continuously at 0% usage and all the power locked at minimum. It's always being triggered a little, every second or so. Even the friggin mouse. Try, for instances, just moving around your mouse very frantically, and watch the CPU usage and power increase just a tiny bit in reaction.... Many things happening on background, and that's why that oscilloscope video from Buildzoid is so interesting and important, because it shows the kind of voltages oscillations and spykes that occur, in different situations, that otherwise you may never even see on your regular monitoring software. And also why sync'ing (limiting) all the P-cores to same clock, to stop this 1.5V+ single/dual core boost BS, is very important. All that said, no need to overstress yourself with the issue. Because, at some point, there is nothing more one can do. And it gets down to pure luck that your, his and her processor is more or less degraded (if at all), thanks to Intel. Everybody (those aware of the issue, that is!) with 13th and 14th gen CPUs that are over 65W is waiting for the Intel microcode to be released. All will need to install it, no buts or ifs. Supposedly the degradation will be stopped with it. But, if there are signs of damage already, then no microcode will save it, and it's RMA time for the CPU. And, sadly, that's about it.

+1, Ditto.

Very good, he gets it too! Baron is also another one of the recent afflicted (LOL) and his is the special "SPS" (1996-2000 homologation series, few units produced), the pinnacle of the Desmoquattro, and the most addictive of the 916 series. If you're saving to get one (...and its respective maintenance...) then that SPS is the "unicorn" you should aim at. That's as good as it gets:

Z790 Aorus Master manual https://download.gigabyte.com/FileList/Manual/mb_manual_intel700series-bios_e.pdf?v=aceb9fb3f69cc73ea6b2fddd6a6f34ed I'm mostly used to ASUS and MSI (what I'm used to for OC settings)... I see it's very different with Gigabyte in this aspect here. I'm also not seeing the direct option to sync cores(?) and neither where to place a single value for all at once. LOL (maybe someone else can chime in?) I do see this in your board's manual: So interpreting as I read it......... If you enter BIOS and go to: "Advanced mode" (TWEAKER) ... "Advanced CPU Settings" (scroll down) Turbo Per Core Limit Control ---- AUTO >>>> MANUAL ... Turbo P-Core 0 Ratio Limit ---- Auto >>>>> value of clock per core // for example "56" for 5.6Ghz, as for i9 13900KS all P-core max clock, as said previously Turbo P-Core 1 Ratio Limit ---- ´´ ´´ ´´ Turbo P-Core 2 Ratio Limit ---- ´´ ´´ ´´ Turbo P-Core 3 Ratio Limit ---- ´´ ´´ ´´ Turbo P-Core 4 Ratio Limit ---- ´´ ´´ ´´ Turbo P-Core 5 Ratio Limit ---- ´´ ´´ ´´ Turbo P-Core 6 Ratio Limit ---- ´´ ´´ ´´ Turbo P-Core 7 Ratio Limit ---- ´´ ´´ ´´ Again, this is how I interpret it as I'm diagonally reading the BIOS manual. But I could be wrong(!), it could be other settings... I wish to not make you do something wrong! Again, anyone knowing how the particular motherboard settings are, please chime in. PS: my dislike for Gigabyte boards increased even more! LOL (Go ASUS and MSI !!)

which model?

If you haven't disabled the CPU power savings (Speedstep, Speedshift, and all the C-States), then you're just saying to the motherboard that "I want those P-cores to all be limited to that X ammount of Ghz, when at maximum". It'll still downclock like always, power savings the same, everything the same, when you're not pushing the processor. So no. It won't be forcing to always be there. You're just limiting, placing a ceiling if you will. And that's where the benefit comes from. Because (if you run it stock) the voltages are "tabled" according to clocks (the higher the clocks, the higher the voltage, lower clocks translate to lower voltages and etc). Taking an i9 13900KS as example... It boosts to 6.0Ghz in single-core (the "Max Turbo Frequency"). To get there, it requires more voltage and, even if it's just for one core, all of that power is offered, at once. If instead you sync all the P-cores, and set to 5.6 Ghz (which is its stock "out of the box" all P-cores clock), it won't boost there anymore and will not reach such silly high voltage (plus, you also get lower temperatures). It's how it should have been (IMO), like correcting it (and restricting that). For which you actually don't get lower performance in gaming or most things really. Not saying that this will save your CPU forever, or that it won't degrade ever again (given the latest news, it seems deeper than that). But, no doubt, you're already cutting the worst and biggest offender, and easing things a whole lot. Check Buildzoid's video, and how that single-core boost goes over 1.5v... (insane how it happens, and that's supposedly "normal" for Intel 13th/14th gen!! ).... Picking a part at 12:13 time of video, just keep watching: