Explained: How the new BIOS versions are causing higher temperatures

[citay]

Note: This thread mostly contains the investigation and explanation for the higher power draw on the latest BIOS versions.
It doesn't go so much into detail about the solution, which can be found in my Guide: How to set good power limits in the BIOS and reduce the CPU power draw.


A lot of people have reported higher CPU temperatures after updating to the latest BIOS version for their 600-/700-series Intel board. Especially after updating to the version containing the 0x129 microcode revision (hotfix for the voltage spike problem with the true 13th/14th gen CPUs), or newer versions.

Now, right from the start, the logical explanation for a higher power draw (when applying the same workload, and if the power limits don't mask anything) would be a higher voltage. But what exactly is causing the higher voltage, which is leading to higher power draw, leading to more heat, leading to higher temperatures?

The hot candidate is "CPU Lite Load", which influences the the CPU voltage via the so-called AC and DC loadlines. The important one is the AC loadline, a voltage added by the BIOS to make up for electrical properties of the CPU socket and such. The background is not so important to understand, the main thing is, the higher this value is, the more voltage is added. This not only takes into account the electrical properties of the board and the CPU socket, it also can make really bad CPU samples run stable (when set appropriately by default), or it can make CPUs be unstable from factory (if set too low by default). Finally, if set too high by default, it will make the CPUs draw too much power and run too hot.

But by what mechanism is there now more voltage added for the CPU? Does MSI choose a higher default mode for CPU Lite Load, and why? I wanted to find out, and since the stable BIOS with the 0x129 microcode just came out for my board model (at the time of writing this), i put it to the test. Now, i am using an i5-13500, so, not a true "Raptor Lake" CPU like a 13600K or 14600K for example (which are definitely affected by the microcode bugs), but an "Alder Lake" 12th-gen-based one. So, it being a 12th gen in disguise, it actually neither needs (nor uses) the newer microcode, it uses Alder Lake microcode instead. But still, i wanted to see if my CPU's voltage and thus power draw also go up.

So, on the old/previous BIOS version, i had CPU Lite Load optimized to Mode 4 for my specific CPU.
This means, Mode 4 is stable for that CPU, with a bit of stability headroom (Mode 3 was verified stable, then i raised it by one step).

First, taking some baseline numbers. The default for "CPU Lite Load" - with my CPU and my board, on the older BIOS version 7D32v1H - was Mode 12:

Click to enlarge

I did some other optimizations there, like enabling all power-saving mechanisms plus Intel Speed Shift Technology. Most of that only lowers idle power draw though.

Then, updating to 7D32v1J:

After the update, here's the revised cooler selection screen, which is really the power limit selection screen:

I chose the middle option, even though i already knew that - with my cooler and CPU - i would not even reach the middle option's limits. So i also could've chosen the bottom option with the maxed out limits, wouldn't matter in my case. My cooler can easily deal with my CPU's heat, so i could optimize the fan curves for low noise output. But for most people, choosing the middle option "MSI Performance" is a good starting point, from which they can lower the power limits if necessary. Because "MSI Performance" includes the highest power limits that make sense to allow.

Note: The BIOS first has the values for the first option "Intel Default Settings" loaded. So after the middle option is selected, the menu under OC will still show the "Intel Default Settings" values, until you press F10 to save and exit, then the "MSI Performance Settings" are applied. But we know those three options are not that well-fitting for most people anyway, because everyone combines a different CPU with a different cooler. I just chose the middle option because it happens to have the maximum values i would allow for any CPU (even an i9). If there is any thermal throttling with those limits, they have to be optimized to the individual cooling capabilities, which i explain in my guide.

Now, after the update, we're on the new BIOS (the one with the 0x129 microcode). Let's check what the new default settings are. Remember, CPU Lite Load on Auto, in the old BIOS version, resulted in Mode 12. This was still quite high for my CPU, considering it was fully stable at Mode 4. So there's eight steps worth of additional voltage added to VCore, in order to make all CPUs of varying quality work.

Now on the new BIOS:

Blimey! The new default is Mode 18! I wonder what that will do to the voltages, the power draw, the heat and the temperatures? Nothing good, i can already tell you.
Of course, some other settings were also reset. I enabled them all again manually, but kept CPU Lite Load on Mode 18 for testing.

Now, about the testing, for Cinebench R15, i used Cinebench R15 15.0.37 with Extreme Edition mod, just to explain the oddly low scores for that.

For power draw testing, i mostly relied on an energy meter that's plugged in at the wall socket (actually, at the UPS), for the power cable going into the PSU. This energy meter / power draw measurement device is very exact and, unlike the sensors in the system, cannot be wrong. Additionally i took some measurements from the "CPU Package Power" sensor via HWinfo, which is the CPU-only power draw.

Here is the full comparison:

What can we see from this? All the scores stay basically the same, no matter which mode is active for CPU Lite Load. On some boards, for it to be like this, one would have to disable the "IA CEP Support" setting like i describe in my Guide: How to set good power limits in the BIOS and reduce the CPU power draw. On my board however, this setting is not available (as shown on the screenshots), and with my CPU and board combination, IA CEP clearly doesn't intervene, otherwise the scores would be cut in half with CPU Lite Load Mode 4. But they all stay almost identical within the margin of error.

So, the performance stays the same, but what about the power draw? On the old BIOS, using the default Mode 12 is already quite inefficient. Power draw can be a few dozen Watts higher than it would need to be for this CPU, due to higher-than-necessary Vcore that's applied by Mode 12. So optimizing this setting down to what the CPU actually needs for full stability (in my case, eight steps down to Mode 4) pays off nicely. Everything about how the CPU is running improves, and the scores stay the same. If my CPU was actually hitting a power/temperature limit, then the scores would even improve with Mode 4, because compared to Mode 12, the "power/temperature budget" simply lasts longer, and the CPU can clock higher within those limits.

But now look what happens on the new BIOS, MSI have a new default of Mode 18. This is a catastrophy, now my CPU is not just running eight steps above what it would need for full stability, it's running 14 steps above it! We're seeing 30-50W higher power draw (CPU only, for the whole PC it's up to 90W more) than necessary, and that's just on my lowly i5-13500. On an i7 or i9, the difference would be tremendous, because there are more cores and higher frequencies. And of course, the scores stay the same, the stability stays the same (there is no "more stable than stable"), but everything else has worsened considerably!

So this explains how the temperatures can be so much higher on the latest BIOS versions: The mode for CPU Lite Load has been raised considerably by default. Because it looks like what MSI is doing now is, they're adding a huge safety headroom for the default CPU voltage, most likely in an attempt to stabilize certain CPUs that have already degraded and have a bit of instability.

Their rationale might be, now that there's a voltage limit in place to take care of the voltage spikes, they can happily raise the default voltage (via a higher default CPU Lite Load mode) to stabilize shaky/unstable CPUs, basically the victims of the voltage spike bugs in the microcode. And that actually works for those CPUs that suffered degradation. But for everyone else with a stable CPU, this makes everything a lot worse!

So it has become even more important to try and lower the voltage, otherwise a stable CPU will have needlessly high power draw in all load states, effectively lowering the power and temperature budget and ultimately costing performance. This becomes evident due to instantly improved performance as soon as you undervolt (provided the CPU is hitting a power/temperature limit, which most 14th gen i7/i9 will do unless your cooling is out of this world).

Once you go by my guide, then any higher temperatures can be completely taken care of, because in step 1) you set safe power limits for your cooling, and in step 2) the voltage will be lowered to what your CPU sample actually requires (plus a bit of headroom). This is literally all that is required to bring down the temperatures, either to the level of the older BIOS version when those things were already optimized, or to a better level than ever before if they weren't.

Note: If you undervolted with an offset before (instead of lowering CPU Lite Load), or a combination of the two methods, then the offset undervolt will now happen from a higher baseline voltage. So the best thing in that case is to take note of the previous mode for CPU Lite Load, and apply it again on the new BIOS. The default mode in the newest BIOS version is crazy high! I don't know what they're thinking. Well, i have an idea, but i don't think they're doing anything good by this. For the vast majority of users, the CPU will run worse than before. Going by my guide linked at the very top, this can luckily be reversed.

To round this off, let's look at the "calculation efficiency" of the system in Cinebench R23 with different settings (higher is better):
Old default, CPU Lite Load 12: 119 points per Watt.
New default, CPU Lite Load 18: 100 points per Watt.
Optimized CPU Lite Load Mode 4: 145 points per Watt!

Mode 12 wasn't very efficient to begin with, and the new Mode 18 is just horribly inefficient.
Mode 4, which is still fully stable with my CPU and achieves the same performance, has much higher efficiency.


Lastly, on the far right, i did an additional test, checking the benefits of setting CPU Lite Load to Advanced (using the same AC loadline setting that Mode 4 results in), but optimizing the DC loadline setting so the VID matches the Vcore under full load. In CPU Lite Load Advanced, you can select values for AC and DC Loadline seperately, without having some preset combination which can have the wrong DC Loadline value. So now you can set the DC Loadline so it results in the correct power draw numbers. Doing that involves using HWinfo Sensors, creating full CPU load, then looking at the CPU's VID requests (in the "current values" column), which is the voltage the CPU asks for from the board, and comparing it to the current VCore value. If those are near-identical, the correct DC Loadline value has been found.

I have done this, and the result for my CPU on my board was AC loadline 30, DC loadline 117, which can also be read out in HWinfo later:

The concerns about CPU Lite Load "Normal" (that it won't always show the correct CPU Package Power anymore because the DC loadline is usually not properly adjusted to where it would need to be) are somewhat put into perspective. We have a mere 6W difference from the reported CPU power draw to the "actual" CPU power draw, under the highest load any normal program can create (CB 23 is fully multithreaded AVX load, but Prime95 uses dirty tricks, it's only used for stability testing). This is not gonna make or break out power limits, if we have had to set some.

And even with the reported power draw being slightly off like this on CPU Lite Load "Normal", this doesn't affect us much, we can just go by the maximum CPU temperature to inform us if our power limits are properly dialed in, or if we still need to adjust them according to our cooling. Plus, explaining CPU Lite Load "Advanced" makes it more complicated, which means less people will do it. So i think CPU Lite Load "Normal" is a good compromise.

By the way, this is what resistance/impedance in mΩ (milliOhm) the different CPU Lite Load settings correspond to, valid for both old and new BIOS versions:
CPU Lite Load Normal, Mode 4: AC loadline 0.3 mΩ, DC loadline 0.3 mΩ (this is what i lowered the mode to, verifying that it's stable)
CPU Lite Load Normal, Mode 12: AC loadline 1.1 mΩ, DC loadline 1.1 mΩ (this is the default on the older BIOS versions)
CPU Lite Load Normal, Mode 18: AC loadline 1.7 mΩ, DC loadline 1.7 mΩ (this is the way too high default on the latest BIOS version)
CPU Lite Load Advanced, AC 30 / DC 117: AC loadline 0.3 mΩ, DC loadline 1.17 mΩ (so this way you can set them both directly).
Note: It's possible that some other board/CPU combinations have somewhat different values for a certain mode. They can be read out in HWinfo, as shown above.


Conclusion:
The explanation for the higher temperatures is very simple: Needlessly raised default mode for "CPU Lite Load", causing higher voltage.

Never has it been more important to optimize each Intel CPU in each system individually, according to the cooling and according to what voltage it's running stable with. On the default settings of the latest BIOS versions, the voltage / power draw / heat / temperatures (one influences the next) are higher than ever! With any CPU that is running into power/temperature limits (so, either power limits that you have set to protect your cooling, or failing to do that, the thermal throttling that can happen), the performance will decrease as a result of the new BIOS defaults!

Luckily, with the help of my guide, all those parameters can be improved again: Voltage down, power draw down, heat down, temperatures down, performance identical or up!
This has no downsides other than investing some time for finding good values and testing that it stays stable. Your CPU and your cooling will be very thankful for that effort.

 

[FlyingScot]

Yep, forgot to disable CEP.

CEP is like magic! It can make your performance disappear. Actually, I have warmed up to CEP now that I understand (thanks to members like Vassil_V) how you tame that beast.

I can’t speak to your memory profile other than to say I would just start out trying to get the basic XMP profile working with a CPU undervolt via CPU Lite Load. Given what we now know about Raptor Lake, I think it‘s always better to go with whatever strategy helps to lower Vcore. But I don’t see a direct correlation when it comes to memory tuning. Plus, you could drive yourself crazy trying to tune both memory and CPU at the same time.

…I was able to go down to Mode 4 but it is not stable with OCCT Multiple AVX or Cinebench crashing and WHEA reporting CPU cache L0 errors. Should I attempt to fix it further? … Or just back up CPU LL to Mode 5 or 6.

You have a couple of possible approaches. You could increase CPU LL mode one at a time until stability under all conditions is assured…or you could try lowering your PL1/PL2 and your Current. Lower power levels will reduce Vdroop (voltage drop) under all-core workloads and could solve your instability problems with CPU LL4. If I were you, I would opt for the following settings to try and find stability with the lowest voltage:
CPU LL = 4 (+1 until stable)
PL1 = 150W
PL2 = 253W
Current (IccMax) = 307A
Be aware that your benchmark scores may drop a little, but your gaming performance should not be affected. I therefore wouldn’t worry about the performance loss if it meant less chance for CPU degradation.

 

[doruc158f02e0]

I'm now on Mode 5 and stable.
I decided that memory doesn't need any tuning. It behaves nicely under stress load and stays in the OEM parameters as designed with nice performance, good temps, and CAS 32 timing. And you are right, it is not fun tuning overclocked memory by itself let alone combined with CPU.
Performance actually improved while the voltage was lowered from mode 16 to 8, but at 8 it hit a ceiling and did not change going lower. It is running 4 P-cores on 57x multiplier and 4 on 56x. E-cores are all on 44x. While on Mode 5 I'm maxed out perf wise. Switching even one more core to 57 creates instability with WHEA reporting TBL errors.
Cinebench runs Ok, forever, while I do other tasks and the score is 35582, not really affected by my multitasking.
Max temps are not higher than 81C, avg 72C during stress test (in the high 20's low 30's in normal use). Given that in the summer the room temp can get 10C warmer I think I should not go higher than what I have now, and with my tuning skills I do not think that I can get more perf without temps going up.
Unlike @citay guide, I first went for max power for my cooler (360mm AIO) with max 10-20% thermal throttling. Out of the box I could run 125/253W fine without any tuning thanks to the cooler, but at somewhat elevated temps. I first found out the max for my cooler by starting with Intel XTU AI suggested 375W where I was badly overheating but still stable under stress, then lowered the power till I could throttle only 10-20% arriving at PL1=PL2=325W. I then used CPU LL undervolting to get the temps under control. I think with your guys' help, that was achieved.

One thing I'm still wondering is how has @Vassil_V achieved 30k in Cinebench R23 using less cores, less threads, and less clock than me on a i7-13700K?

 

[FlyingScot]

One thing I'm still wondering is how has @Vassil_V achieved 30k in Cinebench R23 using less cores, less threads, and less clock than me on a i7-13700K?

If you see his entry in my survey database (link in signature) he lists all of his settings. It could be his manual undervolt. You should follow my R23 section of my survey guide as closely as possible, and then compare your voltage while R23 is running to his. If your voltage is a lot higher then you may be thermal throttling where he is not. That’s just a quick guess.

 

[citay]

Any explanation for the results? @citay results suggest that perf should remain in the same ballpark.

Yes, as i tried to outline in my guide and as has been mentioned by FlyingScot, this is IA CEP interfering. Once IA CEP is disabled, the performance will be the same or even improve with a lower mode for CPU Lite Load. However, now the CPU can actually become unstable when you lower the mode too much for its voltage requirements. So then you need to raise the mode again until you have full stability everywhere.

If you suspect RAM instability (which shouldn't suddenly appear just because you tuned CPU Lite Load, but hey), you can disable XMP to take out of the picture pretty much. But usually, when you lower CPU Lite Load and see instability at some point, it's an open-and-shut case, just raise the mode again...

Performance actually improved while the voltage was lowered from mode 16 to 8, but at 8 it hit a ceiling and did not change going lower.

Performance will improve as long as you are in some kind of limit, for example a power/current/temperature limit. With a lowered mode, it will use lower voltage and thus have a lower power draw for a given frequency. So within the same power/current/temperature restraints, it now has more of that budget to work with, so it can clock higher than before. Once you managed to lower the voltage (and thus power draw) so much that you are actually not hitting the limit anymore, then the performance will stay the same from that point onwards.

I first found out the max for my cooler by starting with Intel XTU AI suggested 375W where I was badly overheating but still stable under stress,

The XTU optimizer has become completely obsolete, also see here. They need to come up with an "Efficiency Optimizer" function. Right now, the only thing their algorithms can do is to try an overclock a CPU, which is nonsense nowadays for most CPU models. The paradigm shift is only just beginning. People come from an era where the goal was to overclock everything, and now they're slowly changing over to making their CPUs behave less problematic instead, often involving undervolting.

then lowered the power till I could throttle only 10-20% arriving at PL1=PL2=325W. I then used CPU LL undervolting to get the temps under control. I think with your guys' help, that was achieved.

Normally i would always suggest to use 250W as the upper limit for the power limits. Any performance you get above that figure tends to be "junk performance", because the power draw keeps rising considerably, but the additional performance gains remain quite miniscule, so you're only killing the efficiency. Same thing Intel have been doing for years, trying to eke out the last few percent of performance at the cost of much higher power draw than would be good, and turning a blind eye to board makers allowing the CPU to draw as much power as it wants, until problems emerged...

 

[andrefelipe915b402e3]

Guys, I'm having so much trouble with my 13900k

I have a Z790 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 motherboard, and I did update the BIOS for 0x12b.

The problem here is how hot my CPU is running even on "simple" games, like counter-strike or Diablo 4.

The only changes I'm trying is disabling both CEPs, and trying to find the right spot on Lite Load. When I cant reach good temps, games will crash, and when games do not crash, my cpu is running on 90~95C.

I just tried lite load 9, and I was running around 80C on counter strike, but it crashed. Lite Load 10 will make my 13900k burn on its mid 95C.

Can someone help my to find a solution to run it on good temps and not crashing on games?

 

[Vassil_V]

One thing I'm still wondering is how has @Vassil_V achieved 30k in Cinebench R23 using less cores, less threads, and less clock than me on a i7-13700K?

I'm not sure if you aren't comparing my score from a short test vs yours from a 10-minute or longer test. My 10-minute test score is around 27500 because I have PL1=125W, but I like it that way because the CPU temp is sustained at around 65C (with a contact frame and air cooler), and the PC is very quiet.
Shortly after I filled in FlyingScot's poll I increased my offset to -0.125V because I realized that since -0.125V was stable with higher AC LL matched with a droopier LLC, it should also be stable with a lower AC LL and stronger LLC, which turned out to be a correct hypothesis. So, the settings I've been running for the past weeks are AC=DC=0.5mOhms with LLC 5 (perfect match on my board), -0.125V offset, per P-core ratio = 54, per E-core ratio = 44, CEP enabled, PL1=125/PL2=200W, and basically everything else on the auto/defaults from the Intel Default preset.

Here is a screenshot from BenchMate of a short R23 run I did yesterday.

After updating to the stable 0x12B bios a few days, I decided to compare 100% stock settings with the ones above:
100% default settings:

Optimized settings:

 

[FlyingScot]

Guys, I'm having so much trouble with my 13900k

I have a Z790 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 motherboard, and I did update the BIOS for 0x12b.

The problem here is how hot my CPU is running even on "simple" games, like counter-strike or Diablo 4.

The only changes I'm trying is disabling both CEPs, and trying to find the right spot on Lite Load. When I cant reach good temps, games will crash, and when games do not crash, my cpu is running on 90~95C.

I just tried lite load 9, and I was running around 80C on counter strike, but it crashed. Lite Load 10 will make my 13900k burn on its mid 95C.

Can someone help my to find a solution to run it on good temps and not crashing on games?

A quick question for some context. Did your problems start after you upgraded the BIOS or did you have the same issues on the previous BIOS?. Also, if you haven’t done so (I’m using my phone screen) can you list your hardware info including your case, case fans, and CPU cooler. That will give everyone even more context. Also, it’s fair to assuming that you have XMP enabled but have you made any manual changes to memory config? I just want to try and rule out memory instability causing the game crashes. Also, you’ll need to let us know all the BIOS changes you have made over and above the defaults and what CPU Cooler mode you are using. I’m sure people will have more questions, but I think that’s a good first round.

 

[FlyingScot]

Guys, I'm having so much trouble with my 13900k

I have a Z790 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 motherboard, and I did update the BIOS for 0x12b.

The problem here is how hot my CPU is running even on "simple" games, like counter-strike or Diablo 4.

The only changes I'm trying is disabling both CEPs, and trying to find the right spot on Lite Load. When I cant reach good temps, games will crash, and when games do not crash, my cpu is running on 90~95C.

I just tried lite load 9, and I was running around 80C on counter strike, but it crashed. Lite Load 10 will make my 13900k burn on its mid 95C.

Can someone help my to find a solution to run it on good temps and not crashing on games?

I forgot to mention, it might be a good idea if you start your own thread with the above info. There could be a lot of back and forth to get to the root cause of your issues. It will also be easier for people to watch and learn...and contribute.

 

[andrefelipe915b402e3]

A quick question for some context. Did your problems start after you upgraded the BIOS or did you have the same issues on the previous BIOS?. Also, if you haven’t done so (I’m using my phone screen) can you list your hardware info including your case, case fans, and CPU cooler. That will give everyone even more context. Also, it’s fair to assuming that you have XMP enabled but have you made any manual changes to memory config? I just want to try and rule out memory instability causing the game crashes. Also, you’ll need to let us know all the BIOS changes you have made over and above the defaults and what CPU Cooler mode you are using. I’m sure people will have more questions, but I think that’s a good first round.

Problems come from the first BIOS.

I did get to be stable on previous versions, but now I can't reach a point where my CPU stays in a good temp, and won't crash on games.

My case is a Deepcool Matrexx 70, full of LL120 from corsair. I'm using a h150i pro xt with push and pull.

About XMP, I have it enabled on profile 1, and I'm trying to test everything on the BIOS to check the sweet spot. Right now I have only disabled both CEPs and I'm playing with Load Lite modes.

Mode 10 with CEPs disabled just crashed at counter-strike, but If i go higher, it will be burning hot (maybe stable, but hot.)

 

[FlyingScot]

Problems come from the first BIOS.

I did get to be stable on previous versions, but now I can't reach a point where my CPU stays in a good temp, and won't crash on games.

My case is a Deepcool Matrexx 70, full of LL120 from corsair. I'm using a h150i pro xt with push and pull.

About XMP, I have it enabled on profile 1, and I'm trying to test everything on the BIOS to check the sweet spot. Right now I have only disabled both CEPs and I'm playing with Load Lite modes.

Mode 10 with CEPs disabled just crashed at counter-strike, but If i go higher, it will be burning hot (maybe stable, but hot.)

If I had to guess then I would guess that you could have a couple of different issues. For the first issue, let’s consider the possibility that you might not have the most optimized settings. But let’s put that one on the shelf for a moment. My more pressing concern is the issue you are having with game instability.

Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but I believe your case has a solid glass front with two small side vents for front intake air. Am I correct? It could be that you are having issues with games because your components (especially your memory modules) could be overheating. Although, it‘s possible the same could be true for your GPU. BTW, what GPU do you have?

Am I right in guessing that your games run fine for 20mins, 30mins, 40mins and then crash?

 

[citay]

The only changes I'm trying is disabling both CEPs, and trying to find the right spot on Lite Load. When I cant reach good temps, games will crash, and when games do not crash, my cpu is running on 90~95C.

I just tried lite load 9, and I was running around 80C on counter strike, but it crashed. Lite Load 10 will make my 13900k burn on its mid 95C.

Can someone help my to find a solution to run it on good temps and not crashing on games?

Look closely at my Guide: How to set good power limits in the BIOS and reduce the CPU power draw. Do you only see step 2), lowering the CPU Lite Load to where your CPU is still fully stable? No. Before that is step 1), finding good power limits that will protect your cooling. There is a reason for these two steps: Doing one is only half the work done, with one half of the results. Once you have done both steps, your problems will be taken care of.

 

[andrefelipe915b402e3]

If I had to guess then I would guess that you could have a couple of different issues. For the first issue, let’s consider the possibility that you might not have the most optimized settings. But let’s put that one on the shelf for a moment. My more pressing concern is the issue you are having with game instability.

Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but I believe your case has a solid glass front with two small side vents for front intake air. Am I correct? It could be that you are having issues with games because your components (especially your memory modules) could be overheating. Although, it‘s possible the same could be true for your GPU. BTW, what GPU do you have?

Am I right in guessing that your games run fine for 20mins, 30mins, 40mins and then crash?

I don't thinks it's about memory overheat, cause when I leave at intel default's on BIOS, it wont crash, although my cpu stays around 90C on games.

GPU runs so smooth in about 65C (4060ti asus dual).

Right now counter-strike was running around 10mins and then it crashes (CEPs disabled and Lite Load 10).

I'm 100% sure this is about BIOS settings, cause intel default's won't crash, but it's way too much hot.

I'm just trying to find a setting on BIOS that could keep it a bit colder, without crashing.

 

[citay]

See my reply above, from one minute ago. You skipped step 1) from my guide, setting good power limits for your cooling. If you do that, your CPU will stay at manageable temperatures, and then you can calmly test at which lower CPU Lite Load mode your CPU is still fully stable.

 

[andrefelipe915b402e3]

Look closely at my Guide: How to set good power limits in the BIOS and reduce the CPU power draw. Do you only see step 2), lowering the CPU Lite Load to where your CPU is still fully stable? No. Before that is step 1), finding good power limits that will protect your cooling. There is a reason for these two steps: Doing one is only half the work done, with one half of the results. Once you have done both steps, your problems will be taken care of.

So I have to find my power limits? I'm reading it here.

 

[FlyingScot]

I don't thinks it's about memory overheat, cause when I leave at intel default's on BIOS, it wont crash, although my cpu stays around 90C on games.

GPU runs so smooth in about 65C (4060ti asus dual).

Right now counter-strike was running around 10mins and then it crashes (CEPs disabled and Lite Load 10).

I'm 100% sure this is about BIOS settings, cause intel default's won't crash, but it's way too much hot.

I'm just trying to find a setting on BIOS that could keep it a bit colder, without crashing.

See CiTay posts above. I still think that you have suboptimal case cooling combined with high power usage. It’s quite possible that the new BIOS raised voltages and that tipped you over the edge. If you have those kind of CPU temps while gaming (when it has a dedicated cooler) just imagine how hot components that rely on case interior airflow are getting. You may also be having VRM overheating issues. I think your case could be a big part of the problem. These solid front panel case designers should be taken out back and beaten with a rubber hose!

 

[citay]

So I have to find my power limits? I'm reading it here.

Yes. I figured you were going only by this thread here, not by my guide, that's why i edited the first post here to make it clearer that the more complete solution is actually described in my guide. This thread here was more about investigating where the higher power draw in the new BIOS versions actually came from.

 

[andrefelipe915b402e3]

Yes. I figured you were going only by this thread here, not by my guide, that's why i edited the first post here to make it clearer that the more complete solution is actually described in my guide. This thread here was more about investigating where the higher power draw in the new BIOS versions actually came from.

I just tried 200W and it was 100C on cinebench and thermal throttle.

Tried 150W now and it was much better, running around 87C and almost 31k score.

Opened Diabl 4 and running at 90C

 

[citay]

My case is a Deepcool Matrexx 70, full of LL120 from corsair. I'm using a h150i pro xt with push and pull.

I think the Corsair needs this retrofit kit for LGA 1700 (unless they included that):

LGA1700 Retrofit Kit

This retrofit kit of standoffs enables you to use your existing LGA1200/LGA115x Retention brackets and backplates for modern CORSAIR AIO coolers with the new Intel ‘Alder Lake-S’ processors that require socket LGA1700 mounting kits. Please reference the t

www.corsair.com

Otherwise the mounting pressure wouldn't be correct.

This is a 360mm AIO, it should have no problems at all with 200W of heat, even be able to deal with up to 250W (the maximum i would set for any CPU). So you having to set 150W, something isn't properly dialed in about the cooling yet. Maybe the fan curves are not good, maybe the airflow through the case is not that great, or whatever else. Maybe even having to do with not using the LGA 1700 mounting.

Because 150W, for that you don't need a 360mm AIO, you can cool that with this: https://www.arctic.de/en/detail/0557617394e141efb8cdef0bb06d0c92
Yes, it will make some noise at 150W of heat, but it's doable.

 

[citay]

If you have those kind of VPU temps while gaming

Tried to give you your 20 minutes for fixing typos...

These solid front panel case designers should be taken out back and beaten with a rubber hose!

 

[andrefelipe915b402e3]

I think the Corsair needs this retrofit kit for LGA 1700 (unless they included that):

LGA1700 Retrofit Kit

This retrofit kit of standoffs enables you to use your existing LGA1200/LGA115x Retention brackets and backplates for modern CORSAIR AIO coolers with the new Intel ‘Alder Lake-S’ processors that require socket LGA1700 mounting kits. Please reference the t

www.corsair.com

Otherwise the mounting pressure wouldn't be correct.

This is a 360mm AIO, it should have no problems at all with 200W of heat, even be able to deal with up to 250W (the maximum i would set for any CPU). So you having to set 150W, something isn't properly dialed in about the cooling yet. Maybe the fan curves are not good, maybe the airflow through the case is not that great, or whatever else. Maybe even having to do with not using the LGA 1700 mounting.

Because 150W, for that you don't need a 360mm AIO, you can cool that with this: https://www.arctic.de/en/detail/0557617394e141efb8cdef0bb06d0c92
Yes, it will make some noise at 150W of heat, but it's doable.

I think I do have that retrofit kit, and I do not think its about my case itself, cause I did have some good temps on this 13900k, but now its struggling.

Just by dropping to 200W it should be around 85C on cinebench? Or should I try 200W and then Lite Load?