4 ms·

I recently built a new system with a i9 149kf and a Ausus Formula motherboard. For a VFIO system so I could run windows and play some games. It was a nightmare

I recently built a new system with a i9 149kf and a Ausus Formula motherboard. For a VFIO system so I could run windows and play some games. It was a nightmare to get running stable. None is the default settings the motherboard used worked. Games crashed, kernel and emacs compiles failed. End result I had to cap turbo to 5.4ghz on a 6ghz chip, and enable settings that capped max watts and temperature for throttling to 90c. System seems stable now. Can get sustained 5.4ghz without throttling and enjoying games at 120fps with 4k resolution. Even though it is working I do feel a way about not being able to run the system at any of the advertised numbers I paid for.

doubled112 3y ago
What I'm not happy about is the marketing around turbo boost. You know how ISPs used to sell "up to X Mbps"? Same idea. Your chip will turbo boost "up to 6.00 GHz". It's basically automated overclocking, and as you learned, sometimes it can't even do it in a stable fashion. Some of those chips will never clock "up to 6.00 GHz" but they didn't lie. "up to"
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wtallis 3y ago
  It's particularly bad when they stop telling you what clock speeds are achievable with more than one core active. At best these days you get a "base clock" spec that's very slow that doesn't correspond to any operating mode that occurs in real life. You used to get a table of x GHz for y active cores, but then the core counts got too large and the limits got fuzzier. And laptops have another layer of bullshit, because the theoretical boost clocks the chip is capable of will in practice be limited by the power delivery and cooling provided by that specific machine, and the OEMs never tell you what those limits are. So they'll happily take an extra $200 for another 100MHz that you'll never see for more than a few milliseconds while a different model with a slower-on-paper CPU with better cooling can easily be more than 20% faster.
  - kilolima 3y ago
    Yes, this is the situation for my dell laptop's i7-1165G7. Alleged turbo boost to 4.7ghz! In reality, it will hit that for a sec and then throttle to ~1ghz. I had to disable the turbo boost AND two cores in bios to let it even achieve ~2.0ghz speeds consistently. It's a total scam. Turns out my 8th-Gen i5 laptop is almost the same speed on benchmarks, just because it's a few mm thicker with better cooling.
CooCooCaCha 3y ago
Do you think that happened because you had insufficient cooling? Its hard to cool these new chips. AMD included.
- Hikikomori 3y ago
  For different reasons though. AMD's chiplets produce heat in a small area which makes it hard to transfer heat quickly. Intel just use a shitload more power and thus more heat.
  - CooCooCaCha 3y ago
    That’s not entirely it though. Modern AMD and Intel chips are built to run at their thermal/frequency limits and will jump to those limits at a moments notice in order to maximize performance. So unless you have powerful cooling you will hit the thermal limit.
    - Hikikomori 3y ago
      I didnt say that it was everything that matters, just commenting on the difference between them.
- kijin 3y ago
  Even if GP's cooling setup was less than ideal, the chip should have throttled itself to a stable frequency instead of crashing left and right.
  - cesarb 3y ago
    It might not have throttled fast enough. Without sufficient thermal mass (or with insufficient heat transfer to that thermal mass, for instance if the thermal paste is misapplied), it might heat up too fast for the sensors to keep up.
JohnBooty 3y ago
enable settings that capped max watts and temperature for throttling to 90c. You were going above 90C before??? My first thought is that seems insane, but is apparently normal for that chip, according to Intel: "your processor supports up to 100°C and any temperatures below it are normal and expected" https://community.intel.com/t5/Processors/i9-14900K-temperatures/td-p/1540728 https://community.intel.com/t5/Processors/i9-14900K-temperat... That is just wild though. On one hand you should obviously get the performance that was advertised and that you paid for. On the other hand IMO operating a CPU at 90-100C is just insane. It really feels like utter desperation on Intel's part. I would be curious what kind of cooling setup you have.
- legosexmagic 3y ago
  the amount of cooling you get is proportional to the difference of component temperature to ambient temperature. thats why modern chips are engineered to run much hotter.
  - jnxx 3y ago
    Until Dust Puppy kills 'em
- dist-epoch 3y ago
  For both Intel/AMD 100C is now a target, not a limit.
  - hulitu 3y ago
    And for the consumer, changing the computer every 2 years, because the processor died, is a limit, not a target. /s
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Hey, is there a cooling solution that sprays water on some sort of heat spreader and lets it evaporate? Kidding. Kinda. But actually, is that possible?
BobbyTables2 3y ago
Seems scary that 10% difference in clock frequency is makes/breaks stability. How much margin is really there?
- rygorous 3y ago
  Dynamic switching power (i.e. the fraction of the chip's power consumption from actually switching transistors, as opposed to just "being on") scales with V^2 * f, where V=voltage and f=frequency, and V in turn depends on f, where higher frequencies need higher voltage. Not really linearly (It's Complicated(tm)), but it's not a terrible first-order approximation, which makes the dynamic switching power have a roughly cubic dependency on frequency. Therefore, 1.1x the frequency at the high end (where switching power dominates) is 1.33x the power draw. Those final few hundred MHz really hurt. Conversely, that's also why you see "Eco" power profiles with a major reduction in power draw that cost you maybe 5-10% of your peak performance.
callalex 3y ago
Did you try cleaning everything and re-mounting the cooler with new paste? I’ve seen similar behavior when people mess up and get bubbles in their paste. Do you see wildly different temperature readouts for different cores?
phantomwhiskers 3y ago
I also recently built a system with the 14900KF on an ASUS TUF motherboard and NZXT Kraken 360 cooler, and so far I haven't experienced any issues running everything at default BIOS settings (defaulted to 5.7GHz). I haven't seen temps above 70C yet, although granted I also haven't seen CPU load go above 40%, and haven't tried running any benchmarking software. I'm curious about what you are using for cooling, as 90C at 5.4ghz seems way off compared to what I am seeing on my processor, but it could just be that I'm not pushing my processor quite as hard even with the higher clock rate.

doubled112 3y ago

What I'm not happy about is the marketing around turbo boost. You know how ISPs used to sell "up to X Mbps"? Same idea. Your chip will turbo boost "up to 6.00 GHz". It's basically automated overclocking, and as you learned, sometimes it can't even do it in a stable fashion. Some of those chips will never clock "up to 6.00 GHz" but they didn't lie. "up to"

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wtallis 3y ago
It's particularly bad when they stop telling you what clock speeds are achievable with more than one core active. At best these days you get a "base clock" spec that's very slow that doesn't correspond to any operating mode that occurs in real life. You used to get a table of x GHz for y active cores, but then the core counts got too large and the limits got fuzzier. And laptops have another layer of bullshit, because the theoretical boost clocks the chip is capable of will in practice be limited by the power delivery and cooling provided by that specific machine, and the OEMs never tell you what those limits are. So they'll happily take an extra $200 for another 100MHz that you'll never see for more than a few milliseconds while a different model with a slower-on-paper CPU with better cooling can easily be more than 20% faster.
- kilolima 3y ago
  Yes, this is the situation for my dell laptop's i7-1165G7. Alleged turbo boost to 4.7ghz! In reality, it will hit that for a sec and then throttle to ~1ghz. I had to disable the turbo boost AND two cores in bios to let it even achieve ~2.0ghz speeds consistently. It's a total scam. Turns out my 8th-Gen i5 laptop is almost the same speed on benchmarks, just because it's a few mm thicker with better cooling.

CooCooCaCha 3y ago

Do you think that happened because you had insufficient cooling? Its hard to cool these new chips. AMD included.

Hikikomori 3y ago
For different reasons though. AMD's chiplets produce heat in a small area which makes it hard to transfer heat quickly. Intel just use a shitload more power and thus more heat.
- CooCooCaCha 3y ago
  That’s not entirely it though. Modern AMD and Intel chips are built to run at their thermal/frequency limits and will jump to those limits at a moments notice in order to maximize performance. So unless you have powerful cooling you will hit the thermal limit.
  - Hikikomori 3y ago
    I didnt say that it was everything that matters, just commenting on the difference between them.
kijin 3y ago
Even if GP's cooling setup was less than ideal, the chip should have throttled itself to a stable frequency instead of crashing left and right.
- cesarb 3y ago
  It might not have throttled fast enough. Without sufficient thermal mass (or with insufficient heat transfer to that thermal mass, for instance if the thermal paste is misapplied), it might heat up too fast for the sensors to keep up.

JohnBooty 3y ago

enable settings that capped max watts and temperature for throttling to 90c. You were going above 90C before??? My first thought is that seems insane, but is apparently normal for that chip, according to Intel: "your processor supports up to 100°C and any temperatures below it are normal and expected" https://community.intel.com/t5/Processors/i9-14900K-temperatures/td-p/1540728 https://community.intel.com/t5/Processors/i9-14900K-temperat... That is just wild though. On one hand you should obviously get the performance that was advertised and that you paid for. On the other hand IMO operating a CPU at 90-100C is just insane. It really feels like utter desperation on Intel's part. I would be curious what kind of cooling setup you have.

legosexmagic 3y ago
the amount of cooling you get is proportional to the difference of component temperature to ambient temperature. thats why modern chips are engineered to run much hotter.
- jnxx 3y ago
  Until Dust Puppy kills 'em
dist-epoch 3y ago
For both Intel/AMD 100C is now a target, not a limit.
- hulitu 3y ago
  And for the consumer, changing the computer every 2 years, because the processor died, is a limit, not a target. /s
bee_rider 3y ago
Hey, is there a cooling solution that sprays water on some sort of heat spreader and lets it evaporate? Kidding. Kinda. But actually, is that possible?

BobbyTables2 3y ago

Seems scary that 10% difference in clock frequency is makes/breaks stability. How much margin is really there?

rygorous 3y ago
Dynamic switching power (i.e. the fraction of the chip's power consumption from actually switching transistors, as opposed to just "being on") scales with V^2 * f, where V=voltage and f=frequency, and V in turn depends on f, where higher frequencies need higher voltage. Not really linearly (It's Complicated(tm)), but it's not a terrible first-order approximation, which makes the dynamic switching power have a roughly cubic dependency on frequency. Therefore, 1.1x the frequency at the high end (where switching power dominates) is 1.33x the power draw. Those final few hundred MHz really hurt. Conversely, that's also why you see "Eco" power profiles with a major reduction in power draw that cost you maybe 5-10% of your peak performance.

callalex 3y ago

Did you try cleaning everything and re-mounting the cooler with new paste? I’ve seen similar behavior when people mess up and get bubbles in their paste. Do you see wildly different temperature readouts for different cores?

phantomwhiskers 3y ago

I also recently built a system with the 14900KF on an ASUS TUF motherboard and NZXT Kraken 360 cooler, and so far I haven't experienced any issues running everything at default BIOS settings (defaulted to 5.7GHz). I haven't seen temps above 70C yet, although granted I also haven't seen CPU load go above 40%, and haven't tried running any benchmarking software. I'm curious about what you are using for cooling, as 90C at 5.4ghz seems way off compared to what I am seeing on my processor, but it could just be that I'm not pushing my processor quite as hard even with the higher clock rate.