Problem on Intel 13th & 14th Gen CPUs.

[Devrim]

Thanks so much for explaining and reply guys. Thank you LucShep.

I'm not 100% sure where I'll use to adjust the voltage lines correctly in my (MSI) BIOS pages. So, I've just disabled Intel Turbo Boost and Boost Technology rows on BIOS and I guess I locked the CPU, right?

UPDATE: A few minutes (before sent this post) I adjust some "offset" settings to -4 or -5 for ratios. I managed to see the values under 1.4V with Boost Technology.

But, even without Boost Technology, at 3.4GHz, I've seen ~180 FPS in DCS, and volt values are around 1.01 or something.

At least it's safe for me for these days.

Edited August 12, 2024 by Devrim

[LucShep]

7 hours ago, Devrim said:

Thanks so much for explaining and reply guys. Thank you LucShep.

I'm not 100% sure where I'll use to adjust the voltage lines correctly in my (MSI) BIOS pages. So, I've just disabled Intel Turbo Boost and Boost Technology rows on BIOS and I guess I locked the CPU, right?

UPDATE: A few minutes (before sent this post) I adjust some "offset" settings to -4 or -5 for ratios. I managed to see the values under 1.4V with Boost Technology.

But, even without Boost Technology, at 3.4GHz, I've seen ~180 FPS in DCS, and volt values are around 1.01 or something.

At least it's safe for me for these days.

 

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.

Edited August 12, 2024 by LucShep

[Devrim]

Wow. Very nice details mate. Thanks a lot! ❤

My MSI board is PRO B760M-P and unfortunately there's no adjust box for Core Voltage. It's Offset mode only. Here's a screenshot below.

By the way; what is AUX Voltage. It's 1.8V. Should I worry for it? :))

I'll try your suggestions. Thanks so much.

 

Edited August 12, 2024 by Devrim

[LucShep]

35 minutes ago, Devrim said:

Wow. Very nice details mate. Thanks a lot! ❤

My MSI board is PRO B760M-P and unfortunately there's no adjust box for Core Voltage. It's Offset mode only. Here's a screenshot below.

By the way; what is AUX Voltage. It's 1.8V. Should I worry for it? :))

I'll try your suggestions. Thanks so much.

 

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.

Edited August 12, 2024 by LucShep

[Devrim]

14700KF.

Oh my. They say B-serie MOs can't overclock CPUs... but mine does. How does it happen?

[LucShep]

5 minutes ago, Devrim said:

14700KF.

Oh my. They say B-serie MOs can't overclock CPUs... but mine does. How does it happen?

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!

Edited August 12, 2024 by LucShep

[Devrim]

Okay okay. I'll switch to a Z series board, but I should check the size for my PC case, first.

By the way; Apart from disabling Boost Technology, I think now I get a solution. I set these values:

• P-Core Ratio: 43 (for 4.3GHz.)
• CPU Core Voltage Offset Mode: - by PWM
• CPU Core Voltage Offset: 0.100

Now, I see 1.382 CPU voltage maximum. How is that? And in-game FPS is around 190~200.
Should I reduce 100Mhz more?

[LucShep]

18 hours ago, Devrim said:

Okay okay. I'll switch to a Z series board, but I should check the size for my PC case, first.

By the way; Apart from disabling Boost Technology, I think now I get a solution. I set these values:

• P-Core Ratio: 43 (for 4.3GHz.)
• CPU Core Voltage Offset Mode: - by PWM
• CPU Core Voltage Offset: 0.100

Now, I see 1.382 CPU voltage maximum. How is that? And in-game FPS is around 190~200.
Should I reduce 100Mhz more?

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:

20 hours ago, LucShep said:

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.

Or you can 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'll 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".
 

 

Edited August 13, 2024 by LucShep

[Hiob]

12 hours ago, Devrim said:

Okay okay. I'll switch to a Z series board, but I should check the size for my PC case, first.

By the way; Apart from disabling Boost Technology, I think now I get a solution. I set these values:

• P-Core Ratio: 43 (for 4.3GHz.)
• CPU Core Voltage Offset Mode: - by PWM
• CPU Core Voltage Offset: 0.100

Now, I see 1.382 CPU voltage maximum. How is that? And in-game FPS is around 190~200.
Should I reduce 100Mhz more?

Let me ask you something - I didn't follow the conversation closely.

You are worried about degradation of your CPU and want to take precautionious actions, right? Or are you already experiencing issues?

Because, if you are willing to invest in a new MoBo as a precaution, I wouldn't do that. I would rather drive the crappy CPU until it dies and than replace it with a reliable system. Granted, that'll cost more, but it could take some time until the CPU actually degrades to a point where it is useless.

I wouldn't trust intel at the moment at all. Buying a new Intel-MoBo seems not future proof to me.

Just my 2C.

Edited August 13, 2024 by Hiob

[LucShep]

7 hours ago, Hiob said:

Let me ask you something - I didn't follow the conversation closely.

You are worried about degradation of your CPU and want to take precautionious actions, right? Or are you already experiencing issues?

Because, if you are willing to invest in a new MoBo as a precaution, I wouldn't do that. I would rather drive the crappy CPU until it dies and than replace it with a reliable system. Granted, that'll cost more, but it could take some time until the CPU actually degrades to a point where it is useless.

I wouldn't trust intel at the moment at all. Buying a new Intel-MoBo seems not future proof to me.

Just my 2C.

 

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:

1. 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.
    
2. 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?

Edited August 13, 2024 by LucShep
updated with more Z790M options and links

[Hiob]

I see.

As I said - I didn't follow that closely. 

Nevermind. 

[kksnowbear]

3 hours ago, LucShep said:

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 even understand how the person who built that new system let that one go(??). 

This happens a lot, unfortunately.

Problem is, builders/sellers who are untrustworthy and/or lack knowledge ("builders" in this context to include DIYers.).  They either don't know what they're doing outright, or they take advantage of buyers who aren't knowledgeable. Numbers like "14900k" are very common and recognized even by buyers who don't have a clue.  So, unscrupulous sellers match top-end CPUs (because the buyer recognizes the number) with a cheap crappy board (because buyers don't know/don't care/don't try to educate themselves).

BTW: pre-built "PC Vendors" like iBuyPower and Alienware do crap like this often, and yet still charge what might be appropriate to a complete build of all top-end components.  Cheap, feature-stripped (and sometimes BIOS-hobbled) motherboards, power supplies, memory modules, even GPUs (a cheap a$$ low-end 4090 can still be advertised as a "4090").

I've seen tons of >95w CPUs on boards that won't support anything over ~90w.  You can see it all over this forum in sigs, people who (for "bragging rights") bought the most expensive top end CPU on the market, then paired it with a stripped down board that will never fully support the CPU's feature set, because they have money and think they know what they're doing.

I'll keep saying it:  There is a huge difference in a professional computer expert, and forum geniuses with lots of money to buy all the latest top end hardware (or else buy a pre-built), then represent themselves as "experts" simply because "I have a 4090 and a 4k monitor, so I must know what I'm talking about".

Building a few computers over your lifetime doesn't make you an expert, nor does throwing money at expensive hardware you truly don't understand (whether you assemble it yourself or pay someone else to).

Find an experienced, trustworthy builder with verifiable references, who guarantees customer satisfaction. Period.  (It doesn't necessarily have to cost you anything, and working with the right builder can often help save you money, especially over time).

Edited August 13, 2024 by kksnowbear

[Matthew007b]

Not to hijack this thread but long time lurker.. I'm doing mass research about the Intel chip issues and such and reading about the BIOS updates that are coming out for MSI and I think ASUS boards.. and I've built a few PC's in my time but it's been 10 years.  IF someone wanted to get the best board to match a 14900k CPU - is a "Z..." type board?   Like you said kksnowbear I'm not an expert but I don't want to trip and screw up too... just curious what the answer to that is.  Thanks. 

[kksnowbear]

The Z boards are the top-end, performance oriented, "enthusiast" level boards, yes. (Z comes from the chipset, and generally you don't find Z790 chipsets on entry level boards. That said, there are better and worse Z790 boards as well.)

That said, I'd avoid Intel like the plague right now, seriously.  The BIOS updates might mitigate the problems to some degree, but it won't solve them.  In order to effectively reduce the risk, you'll still need steps like @LucShep has outlined. And TBH it's really still mitigation, not resolution.

IMHO and FWIW as always

Edited August 13, 2024 by kksnowbear

[Matthew007b]

Thanks for the information kksnowbear  yeah just doing mass research for the VR build I plan do to... and yes the Intel... is scaring me the more I read about it.    Thank you! 

[kksnowbear]

3 minutes ago, Matthew007b said:

Thanks for the information kksnowbear  yeah just doing mass research for the VR build I plan do to... and yes the Intel... is scaring me the more I read about it.    Thank you! 

No worries, glad if it helps. Please feel free to contact me if you wish.

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, Matthew007b said:

Not to hijack this thread but long time lurker.. I'm doing mass research about the Intel chip issues and such and reading about the BIOS updates that are coming out for MSI and I think ASUS boards.. and I've built a few PC's in my time but it's been 10 years.  IF someone wanted to get the best board to match a 14900k CPU - is a "Z..." type board?   Like you said kksnowbear I'm not an expert but I don't want to trip and screw up too... just curious what the answer to that is.  Thanks. 

@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.

Edited August 13, 2024 by LucShep

[Matthew007b]

I know we all keep hijacking the thread lol - Thanks Lucshep!  So you think there's no point even if you're trying to do VR on a smooth system?  I see youtube channels doing VR reviews on DCS and they all have the heavy 14900k so that's why I was leaning with it with hopes of the BIOS keeping the issues at bay before they spike the voltage and do damage.  

Reason I'm sort of leaning towards an intel is.. I've heard the VR is pretty intense on a CPU..and I've seen people do videos on youtube on testing DCS on intel and AMD and it seems like DCS was more built for intel with it's cores and layout.. but yeah my main goal is.. VR with a nice setup (chair/stick/throttle) since my dad was an instructor pilot in a T-38 he'd get a kick out of it and I've been flight simmin' since the first days of Microsoft flight sim on 486 computers flying into kennedy in a cessna (VGA monitor and all) 

Anyway thanks for the info - I'll research the 12900K   

[kksnowbear]

14 minutes ago, LucShep said:

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 (and now at a great price) that is not affected by any of this crap.

How very interesting.

I have not less than three 12xxx builds in my shop at this very moment.  And for the very reasons cited: Less cost, and no funny business.

FWIW I also agree generally about both low- and super high-end motherboard models.

Yet another reason I will continue to say work with an experienced builder who can show demonstrated success.  There are instances/people where some of the high-end boards' features are appropriate and useful (my very own X670E was chosen specifically for two such features)...but the best way to know is deal with someone experienced and knowledgeable.

[kksnowbear]

26 minutes ago, Matthew007b said:

I see youtube channels doing VR reviews on DCS and they all have the heavy 14900k

I would submit there's a lot more going on there than has anything directly to do with CPU performance.

Just as an example, a guy can be a complete moron and still have a YouTube Channel, and if enough people watch it, he can get sponsored and/or get most if not all his hardware for free.  I know someone who streams and did exactly that, and I'm sure it's not uncommon at all.  This is definitely among the reasons I mention that having all the nice hardware doesn't make you an expert.  Trust me, I've seen plenty right here on this and other flight sim forums to know.

Sad part to me is that a lot of people (by no fault of their own) can't tell the difference...

...long and short: Again, be selective about who you work with and take advice from.  Anyone worth a flip will have no difficulty proving they've done it for others who are satisfied.

Edited August 13, 2024 by kksnowbear

[Devrim]

Hi guys.

No, no need to be sorry. No hijack or something. This is all our's thread, not mine.  

Uuuuum... While reading the post above, I felt that I needed to apologize for buying B series mobo.  Joking of course, but you guys're all right about this. I didn't research mobos in depth, and the seller(s) didn't give detailed info about CPU-mobo relation. But, at least, mobo specs say it's compatible with bla bla CPUs and overclocking is possible etc. etc... and... yes, it's cheaper than Z series. Anyway. @Hiob has right. I have RAMs and RTX; with those, I may gather a new system. Price is not an issue. I wish I was awake when buying my system.

By the way Hiob; actualy I've never seen BSOD or something. Only, at high freqs, DCS has issues about starting the sim. mostly I can't skip the "15 Years..." splash screen. When I reduce the freq by setting ratio or offset voltage, I encounter no black screen problem.

Anyway; Let's skip this chapter.

Obviously, I can't set or enter a specific voltage value for the CPU on my stupido mobo. You know @LucShep, I can only set an offset value, and, your suggestion: "P-Core Ratio to 54 (for 5.4Ghz) and readjust the negative offset voltage for a little lower" - I set minus 0.100 and later 0.150 didn't work. I always see over 1.4V during DCS playing.

So, finally I did this:

• P-Core Ratio: 43 (for 4.3GHz.)
• CPU Core Voltage Offset Mode: - by PWM
• CPU Core Voltage Offset: 0.150

and I see 1.387V max. and I see 180-190 FPS in game.

and after doing this, (as mention a few lines above) I see a stability on DCS launching. When full CPU performance (despite the 1.5V issue), mostly I couldn't pass "15 Years" splash screen. After it I only see a black screen. No loading screen. After some amount of "castrating" the CPU, I have no problem with that.

So...  I'll take it, until we see an effective solution from Intel; or maybe I'll grab a Z mobo... idk...

Thanks a lot guys for your attention and helps.

Edited August 13, 2024 by Devrim

[LucShep]

22 minutes ago, Devrim said:

Anyway; Let's skip this chapter.

Obviously, I can't set or enter a specific voltage value for the CPU on my stupido mobo. You know @LucShep, I can only set an offset value, and, your suggestion: "P-Core Ratio to 54 (for 5.4Ghz) and readjust the negative offset voltage for a little lower" - I set minus 0.100 and later 0.150 didn't work. I always see over 1.4V during DCS playing.

So, finally I did this:

• P-Core Ratio: 43 (for 4.3GHz.)
• CPU Core Voltage Offset Mode: - by PWM
• CPU Core Voltage Offset: 0.150

and I see 1.387V max. and I see 180-190 FPS in game.

and after doing this, (as mention a few lines above) I see a stability on DCS launching. When full CPU performance (despite the 1.5V issue), mostly I couldn't pass "15 Years" splash screen. After it I only see a black screen. No loading screen. After some amount of "castrating" the CPU, I have no problem with that.

So...  I'll take it, until we see an effective solution from Intel; or maybe I'll grab a Z mobo... idk...

Thanks a lot guys for your attention and helps.

 

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) ?

Edited August 13, 2024 by LucShep

[Hiob]

2 hours ago, Matthew007b said:

 

Reason I'm sort of leaning towards an intel is.. I've heard the VR is pretty intense on a CPU..and I've seen people do videos on youtube on testing DCS on intel and AMD and it seems like DCS was more built for intel with it's cores and layout..

Nah, that is a pretty big misconception. The best CPUs by far for DCS are still the 5800X3D and 7800X3D. Especially for VR. The only valid reason I can think of for not going AMD for DCS is, if someone is just an „Intel“ guy. Which is completely valid. My last system was also Intel, and at the times I built it, I wouldn’t have touched AMD if my life depended on it. But times has changed. Ever since Intel introduced those damned useless (from a gaming pov) E-cores everything went sideways.

 

[Matthew007b]

thanks for your guys information I'm... starting to walk away from the Intel idea lol..  anyway thanks. 

[Hiob]

I‘d put it this way: Intel needs to come out with something really new, really convincing to win me over again. As long as they keep polishing 10 year old turds to make them appear shiny again or try to muscle their way through by means of sheer voltage - I stay clear.

That said, my current system (luckily) won‘t be due for an upgrade for at least another two years. Plenty time for Intel to gain pace (or AMD to screw up).