Intel i9-14900K set at 4096W by default!

Anyone running a newer intel CPU should go read this article.

I was seeing instant temperature spikes to 100c on the cpu whenever starting a demanding game. I was actually working on something else when I stumbled across this article. The bios gui shown is the exact same one I have. The power and amperage settings for the CPU were insanely high just as in the article.

After setting them like they reccomended the temp spikes are gone and I'm seeing no reduction in performance.

Is your Intel Core i9-13900K crashing in games?​

MSI should have a preset you can select. If you select the "box cooler" preset, if it's like the MAG Z490 Tomahawk, it should keep it at respectable limits. If you don't need more than 180W for the maximum.

RJARRRPCGP said:

MSI should have a preset you can select. If you select the "box cooler" preset, if it's like the MAG Z490 Tomahawk, it should keep it at respectable limits. If you don't need more than 180W for the maximum.

Click to expand...

I need every drop of performance I can find, I'm a gamer!!

My PC's are both new, weeks old. I've been monitoring stuff in real time to make sure they don't melt under heavy gaming. Especially system 2 which I setup with an unorthodox reverse flow cooling system.

I like to manually set things instead of using presets. MSI also has a big "OC" button, I don't use that either.

Sqrly said:

I need every drop of performance I can find, I'm a gamer!!

I like to manually set things instead of using presets.

Click to expand...

I haven't found where that is on my 10th-gen build yet. If it's like with Ryzen, it should be in the BIOS.
Apparently, by default, not selecting the "box cooler" or similar presets, makes the watt limits insanely high.

I know nothing of modern AMD.

27 years ago I tried one and found it could not reach it's advertised performance without being overclocked whilst Intel performed as advertised right out of the box. I've been using Intel ever since.

Ohh! I still have it. I stuck it to the wall in the garage, an antique decoration.

Sqrly said:

I know nothing of modern AMD.

25 years ago I tried one and found it could not reach it's advertised performance without being overclocked whilst Intel performed as advertised right out of the box. I've been using Intel ever since.

Click to expand...

Well, what I meant was, that there should be user-selectable watt limits in the BIOS.

RJARRRPCGP said:

Well, what I meant was, that there should be user-selectable watt limits in the BIOS.

Click to expand...

I would think the bios looks very similar for both CPU brands. Mine is exactly the one in that story. I went into the OC section and expanded the advanced section.

I've also had to manually set my memory speed. The stuff I bought automatically sets to 7600mhz when using the XMP profile. My mobo can only handle 7200mhz and was crashing until I manully set the speed.

Sqrly said:

I know nothing of modern AMD.

27 years ago I tried one and found it could not reach it's advertised performance without being overclocked whilst Intel performed as advertised right out of the box. I've been using Intel ever since.

Ohh! I still have it. I stuck it to the wall in the garage, an antique decoration.

View attachment 92568

Click to expand...

Admittedly, I also have my preference. I would not go so far as to say that I'm an Intel fan boi but there was once a time when that's all I would buy. Building PCs for other people gradually changed that bias but I've found for the most part Intel delivers. At the risk of opening a can of worms I would venture that the biggest issue with Intel CPUs is Spectre/Meltdown which they seem to have under control now to some extent. I do not know to what extent they have tackled this in mitigation at the hardware level, but hopefully their newer architecture has solved the problem. That said, from what I've been reading and learning recently there is a problem with Intel 13th and 14th Gen CPUs that requires these chips to be uber power hogs that have serious thermal issues and tend to kill system boards. Intel is blaming system board manufacturers for this and of course, the manufacturers are blaming Intel. This video may help.

I have a Intel i7-13700K CPU and limit the power consumption simply by setting a maximum CPU temperature of 85C in the BIOS. The performance hit on CPU benchmarks like Cinebench is only a few percent.

Jays2Cents also covers this,

Steve C said:

I have a Intel i7-13700K CPU and limit the power consumption simply by setting a maximum CPU temperature of 85C in the BIOS. The performance hit on CPU benchmarks like Cinebench is only a few percent.

Click to expand...

I generally get concerned when my temps start to approach 60C even though I know they're made to take temps much higher than this — especially the newer chips. The amount of power these new chips require is hardly worth the cost just to get it to run a few Hz faster and pretty much amounts to overkill at the domestic end user class. Even gamers don't need their CPUs to run @ 6 GHz. As a casual over clocker I can verify that you really don't visibly notice an increase in speed once you start attaining clock speeds of over 4 GHz. It's just all numbers that barely apply in real world use.

It almost seems that a reversal is taking place in the PC world regarding over clocking. More and more often users are deliberately under clocking their chips to extend the life of their CPUs in the knowledge that system board manufacturers are not always providing realistic base lines and the CPUs these days pretty much come over clocked right out of the box. I've slowed down considerably from my former enthusiast days because there really is no practical reason to OC a CPU that is already delivering speeds that more that satisfy the rest of the hardware requirements.

The issue here is real. There is no excuse for risky baselines and there's no good reason for Intel to release faulty silicon. Perhaps Intel should consider going back to making their own system boards if they really think the problem rests with the board manufacturers. Funny how they dropped that one like a hot potato. Makes me wonder how desperate Intel has become.

I had temperature problems with my Intel i9 13900F with the stock fan on my Gigabyte board. It was often getting throttled as it hit 100C. I'm no expert, but found by manually setting the Turbo Power Limits for Package Power Limit 1 - TDP (Watts) and Package Power Limit 2 (Watts) to 120 (or I currently have 125) it doesn't get hotter than around 85C. It effectively throttles a bit sooner. I haven't noticed any performance issues.

Steve C said:

I have a Intel i7-13700K CPU and limit the power consumption simply by setting a maximum CPU temperature of 85C in the BIOS. The performance hit on CPU benchmarks like Cinebench is only a few percent.

Click to expand...

That is what I do too. It basically reduces your Tjmax (the temperature at which the CPU will start reducing frequency to lower the temperature), down from 100c to whatever you want ( 85c in your and my case).

There are many other ways to throttle: ICCMAX (maximum current), PL1 and 2 power limits (maximum power and duration). and others. Motherboard manufacturers will usually set basically no limits on motherboards intended for overclocking, which is the problem because they are too high if left alone for most user's coolers (almost any cooler that is not a custom water loop really) when running high loads. The new Intel recommenced profile is to limit these lower than even their official chip specifications while they investigate these issues. I manually set these all of these limits to more reasonable values (higher than Intel recommendation) for my i9 13900KS.

The i9's are designed to run too hot IMO, and the board/computer makers should not provide such high limits by default because of this. Asus does provide a profile that follows the spec of the chip, and with a BIOS update the new slightly lower profile (with a BIOS update), but I believe it is not the default profile, I believe it is "let the BIOS decide", which is not a good idea but probably what most people use.

4096W sounds high, but is just a high number probably based on the number of bits (12) Intel uses to store the power limit in - it's been this for many generations of processors. It will never get that high, so setting the power limit to 4096 essentially provides no power limitation. The chip and power delivery could not deliver it, though it probably could reach somewhere between 300 and 400W. But the chip would throttle on temperature or current first.

thecaretaker said:

I had temperature problems with my Intel i9 13900F with the stock fan on my Gigabyte board. It was often getting throttled as it hit 100C. I'm no expert, but found by manually setting the Turbo Power Limits for Package Power Limit 1 - TDP (Watts) and Package Power Limit 2 (Watts) to 120 (or I currently have 125) it doesn't get hotter than around 85C. It effectively throttles a bit sooner. I haven't noticed any performance issues.

View attachment 95391View attachment 95392

Click to expand...

You probably would if you ran programs that produce heavy loads or very CPU intensive games. But most people do not.

Fabler2 said:

Jays2Cents also covers this,

Click to expand...

I've experimented with this setting on my i7-13700K CPU on my Asus Z790 board and leaving the setting on Auto gave a lower CPU temperature than Disabled Enforce All Limits when running Cinebench. My preferred settingg after some experimentation on my Asus TUF GAMING Z790-PLUS WIFI board are:

• Maximum CPU Core Temperature of 85C
• SVID Behaviour - Typical Scenario (gives lower temperature than Intel Fail Safe)
• Enable XMP 1 memory
• Fast Boot – Disabled
• OS Type – Windows UEFI Mode
• Long Duration Package Power Limit - Auto
• Short Duration Package Power Limit - Auto
• ASUS Multicore Enhancement - Auto
• Dynamic Memory Boost - Disabled (unstable)

Scannerman said:

I generally get concerned when my temps start to approach 60C even though I know they're made to take temps much higher than this — especially the newer chips. The amount of power these new chips require is hardly worth the cost just to get it to run a few Hz faster and pretty much amounts to overkill at the domestic end user class. Even gamers don't need their CPUs to run @ 6 GHz. As a casual over clocker I can verify that you really don't visibly notice an increase in speed once you start attaining clock speeds of over 4 GHz. It's just all numbers that barely apply in real world use.

It almost seems that a reversal is taking place in the PC world regarding over clocking. More and more often users are deliberately under clocking their chips to extend the life of their CPUs in the knowledge that system board manufacturers are not always providing realistic base lines and the CPUs these days pretty much come over clocked right out of the box. I've slowed down considerably from my former enthusiast days because there really is no practical reason to OC a CPU that is already delivering speeds that more that satisfy the rest of the hardware requirements.

The issue here is real. There is no excuse for risky baselines and there's no good reason for Intel to release faulty silicon. Perhaps Intel should consider going back to making their own system boards if they really think the problem rests with the board manufacturers. Funny how they dropped that one like a hot potato. Makes me wonder how desperate Intel has become.

Click to expand...

@ Scannerman Intel's13 and 14 gen CPU's are on a knifes edge when it comes to performance. The board manufactures have always pushed the limits for previous gen CPU's, and have carried on to this day. It appears that the left hand is not talking to the right when it comes down to Intel vs MB manufacturers, the outcome is a lot of poor quality binned CPU's form Intel and MB manufactures still cranking up the base settings. So you end up with some poor sucker trying to get his/hers 13900 or 14900 to run with 4 sticks of 7000 ddr 5 memory with a crap SP and poor memory controller. Unfortunately there are users out there who think they can do any OC and get away with it, it's not going to happen cos there are to many variables in play. Even the same make and model of motherboards there is always going to be a difference, just like with CPU's. So unfortunately we just have to suck it up and move on. Intel and all MB manufactures are to blame for this s**t show

@no1yak Yup. Agreed. There really is an obvious communication problem going on and it's looking like neglect on both sides the more that I learn about this. Not that this affects me personally as my newest personal build includes an AMD X570 platform. I did notice however that there's not a whole lot in the way of sockets for the Intel line of system boards as far as new builds are concerned. Seems a shame that such a lack of diversity is being generated on the Intel side of things and I suspect Microsoft may well be a factor.

This happens on Z490 and Comet Lake, too, the "4096 watt limit". Just FYI. (10th gen)

For 13th and 14th gen, don't know if 125W is too little or not on the 13900K and 14900K.

The Ryzen 7 5800Xs get very hot at only 140W, (due to everything crammed onto a single CCD) but Intel shouldn't have that issue at only 140W.
(Ryzen 7 5800X is a special case, because of the single CCD) (Thus, Ryzen 7 5800Xs at 140W, are hot like 300W Intel CPUs, LOL)

Recently purchased a new system Asus Z790 motherboard, i9 14900KF & RTX 4090 and all was great for 6 months, never overclocked left everything on Asus defaults (as a normal user would). The about a month ago display drivers would not install, odd errors about no supported devices. I could install the drivers though manually via Device Manager. Then on boot up the pc would continually BSOD, I think I got ever error message Microsoft has ever added to Windows.

Then odd crc errors when unzipping files. Reinstalled 7 zip and this fixed things initially. In a total panic, thought I had a problem with the graphics card initially.

Stripped the pc, reinstalled Windows, bought a new ssd, different graphics card, all to find out i could have a damaged cpu due to Asus default settings.

Issue is i am having difficulty getting my cpu replaced. Maddening you purchase a product, marketed to perform a certain way, is unlocked i.e. overclockable (and assuming it's designed for this as well) to find out its infact none of these.

Managed to get my system relatively stable but tweaking a few settings, but its irritating that now the processor does not reach the advertised speeds. could have gone for a i7 and saved. Still get the odd access violation errors though in Edge.

This is the first brand new pc i have bought in 15 years, my old i7 x990 extreme cpu was overclocked since it was installed, and never had an issue.

Irritated (sorry for rant)

PurSpyk!! said:

Still get the odd access violation errors though in Edge.

Click to expand...

Looks like you still have unstable CPU core(s)!

Especially if you're at a resource-intensive web site and scrolling when the browser shows an access violation page.