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 of the table, 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.

 

[andrefelipe915b402e3]

If it crashed on Mode 10 before, you're probably best off with Mode 12 or so. Some CPUs you have a bit of bad luck and you can't lower the mode drastically. Although, Mode 12 is still decent, your default should've been somewhere between Mode 16-22?



Depends which one you're looking at. The overall speed, sure, because it also includes the E-cores which clock much lower than the P-cores.

If you want to do better, you need to make your cooling perform even better. Remember, i said before, a 360mm AIO, if everything is set up and configured right, should be good for 250W of heat, not just 200W. So even though you improved from your old case with more restricted airflow, it's still not at its peak performance. These things are not that easy to tune without sitting in front of the PC. The airflow has to be considered, the fan curves have to be considered, even the radiator placement.

It'll try more lite load modes, but I'm thinking it's a warzone issue, cause it always crashes at 35% shaders download. But I'll look more into that.

Should I try 253W now? With lite load on auto first, then try to move round lite load modes?

 

[citay]

Power limits and CPU Lite Load are basically two seperate steps, i wouldn't do them simultaneously. The power limits you always set to what your cooling can deal with (keeping the CPU ideally in the 80°C range under full load via Cinebench). So only if you manage to improve your cooling capabilities should you raise the power limits.

The CPU Lite Load mode you always set to what is sufficient for your CPU to be fully stable. If you have crashes with a certain mode, but let's say at Mode 12 those crashes disappear, then that's all the "looking into" you need. Your CPU wants more voltage than what your previous lower mode resulted in.

The Mode that is required for stability also doesn't randomly change around like you may think it does, just because you use different power limits. Sure, if you manage to improve the CPU cooling capabilities so you can raise the power limits, you can stability-test a bit more at those raised limits with different CPU Lite Load modes, but it's not like it suddenly requires a drastically different mode for stability. You find the power limits that fit for your cooling, you find the mode that is stable for your CPU.

To be able to land on different power limits than before, you need to change/improve something about your cooling. If the cooling is the same as before (high 80°C at 200W limits), then simply setting the limits to 253W will have a very predictable outcome - heavy thermal throttling.

 

[FlyingScot]

It can be a reiterative process. You set the power limits to get the temps where you want them for Stress Tests and Gaming. Then you try to improve the cooling of your case by optimizing the placement and fan speeds. Then you lower the voltage, which should improve performance - unless you're using fixed Core Ratios. Then, if you find that you are now undershooting your temperature goals, you can always up the power limits a little. But either way, you keep adjusting things until you have the lowest voltage, highest performance and an acceptable temperature. Piece of cake!

Incidentally, you never told us what new case you purchased. Nor did you tell us how you arranged your AIO or your fans or even what colour you chose for your RGB - very important for cooling performance.

 

[andrefelipe915b402e3]

It can be a reiterative process. You set the power limits to get the temps where you want them for Stress Tests and Gaming. Then you try to improve the cooling of your case by optimizing the placement and fan speeds. Then you lower the voltage, which should improve performance - unless you're using fixed Core Ratios. Then, if you find that you are now undershooting your temperature goals, you can always up the power limits a little. But either way, you keep adjusting things until you have the lowest voltage, highest performance and an acceptable temperature. Piece of cake!

Incidentally, you never told us what new case you purchased. Nor did you tell us how you arranged your AIO or your fans or even what colour you chose for your RGB - very important for cooling performance.

I got a new case from a manufacturer here from Brazil

 

[FlyingScot]

I got a new case from a manufacturer here from Brazil

View attachment 194146

Wow! No more messing around, I see. But that red is going to heat things up. You're much better off with a cool blue!

 

[citay]

Yeah see, for a push-pull 360mm AIO inside a big case, you should get better cooling performance. 200W is quite some heat, but it shouldn't be the end for this AIO. Then again, i don't know your fan curves and everything. Surely there is room for more improvement somehow, unless you want everything to stay quiet under full load. What is your ambient/room temperature by the way?

 

[FlyingScot]

Yeah see, for a push-pull 360mm AIO inside a big case, you should get better cooling performance. 200W is quite some heat, but it shouldn't be the end for this AIO. Then again, i don't know your fan curves and everything. Surely there is room for more improvement somehow, unless you want everything to stay quiet under full load. What is your ambient/room temperature by the way?

Yeah, while were on the topic of cooling, a major concern to look out for is negative pressure caused by too much exhaust vs. intake, especially with all that glass. Negative pressure can be especially problematic when using the AIO in the exhaust configuration. Definitely make sure to ramp up those front intake fans, and try dialing back on the rear exhaust and even the AIO fans until you find an equilibrium, i.e. watch the PCH chipset and DRAM temps. Negative pressure is the enemy of component temps, GPU temps, and even CPU temps. Although, a strong CPU cooler can partially hide the issue (as it relates to CPU temps) via brute force.

 

[andrefelipe915b402e3]

Yeah, while were on the topic of cooling, a major concern to look out for is negative pressure caused by too much exhaust vs. intake, especially with all that glass. Negative pressure can be especially problematic when using the AIO in the exhaust configuration. Definitely make sure to ramp up those front intake fans, and try dialing back on the rear exhaust and even the AIO fans until you find an equilibrium, i.e. watch the PCH chipset and DRAM temps. Negative pressure is the enemy of component temps, GPU temps, and even CPU temps. Although, a strong CPU cooler can partially hide the issue (as it relates to CPU temps) via brute force.

Maybe leaving the exaust fans running at low rpms? There are 4 intake fans

 

[FlyingScot]

Maybe leaving the exaust fans running at low rpms? There are 4 intake fans

Every case is different, so it could take you a little time to get a feel for the best your case can do. But the first thing I would try is to set the rear exhaust fan at a relatively low fixed rpm. This will make the AIO the primary exhaust [EDIT: when CPU temps rise]. Then make sure you are getting a healthy amount of intake air at CPU temps above 60C

 

[citay]

Since the BIOS with the 0x12B microcode came out for my board yesterday, i ran a quick test to see if everything i say here still applies, and predictably, it does. First of all, the new microcode is only used on true Raptor Lake (Refresh) CPUs, mostly meaning, 13th/14th gen models ending in -K. My i5-13500, which is 12th-gen-Alder-Lake-based, is therefore not using any new microcode, nor is it affected by the voltage spike problem in the first place, so it doesn't need it.

BIOS 7D32v1J, Changelog "- Update CPU Microcode 0x129":

BIOS 7D32v1K, Changelog "- Update CPU Microcode 0x12B":

"MCU" (in the middle) doesn't mean Marvel Cinematic Universe, it means MicroCode Update, and as can be seen, it doesn't change for this kind of CPU, it keeps using the same Alder Lake microcode revision.

Of course i also checked if "CPU Lite Load" is still on such a high default mode in this BIOS (it is, same high Mode 18 by default, which leads to excessive power draw), and if the previously found stable settings for CPU Lite Load still achieve the same exact result, and (again, predictably) they do.

This is one advantage of using CPU Lite Load, compared to offset undervolting: Let's say they did change the default mode for CPU Lite Load in this BIOS, then any offset/adaptive undervolt would now work from a different baseline voltage, because a different setting for CPU Lite Load influences the amount of additional voltage from the board, on top of the voltage that the CPU requests.

Compared to that, using CPU Lite Load, we know that the underlying values that it applies don't change. For example, i know that Mode 4 (or Advanced AC 30 / DC 117) is stable for my particular CPU in this particular board. This Mode 4 will always apply the same amount of voltage throughout the various BIOS versions. If they change the default mode for CPU Lite Load between versions, i don't care, i just set Mode 4 again (or the two advanced mode settings) and i get the same result: Stability at much lower power draw under load. Whereas if i used a more complex mode of undervolting, i'd have to take into account the changed default mode and do additional testing.

I updated the BIOS about half an hour ago, i re-entered all my settings that i have written down (taking several reboots and power cycles for everything to be applied), did some quick tests with HWinfo and Cinebench, and i'm already done writing this here. It really doesn't get any easier than using this one simple setting.

 

[Snakethesniper]

Hey! Found this thread recently!
I just upgraded from a i5-12600K to a i5-14600K on an MSI PRO-Z690-A DDR4, running the latest bios.
Cooler is a Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 SE CPU in a Corsaird 4000D Airflow case.
After re-setting the fan profiles and the XMP for the RAM, I kept the default values (PL1-PL2 at 181W) and CPU Lite Mode 18 (!!!) as default.
Tried cinebench and got scared when the temperatures where already at 90°+.

I stopped the test and went back in the bios.
First I did a test only lowering the CPU Lite Mode to 14.
That gave ma a score of 1291 and Max temp 91° C.

Then I went back and disabled IA CEP Support (both , the normal and the 14th gen one) and lowered the CPU lite mode to 12.
This time, 1294 score and max temperature 87° C.
Tried another time, this time CPU Lite Mode 9.
Score 1286, max temperature 82° C.

Can I / Should I try another lower value? Or since there was an impact of 8 points I should avoid?

Also this are my sensors values, I don't know if there's anything that can help in this decision or if there's something to address:

PS: Until CPU Lite Mode 9 I think the "Core Power Limit Exceeded" had a YES.

 

[citay]

Can I / Should I try another lower value? Or since there was an impact of 8 points I should avoid?

Mode 18 is crazy high for most CPUs, they would be stable with much lower voltages (higher mode = higher voltages, as you know).

So I would keep trying lower modes until you encounter instability in a stress test like Prime95 Torture test or OCCT. The voltages will go down, and thus the power draw, and thus the temperatures. There is no downside to this, you only have to find where it becomes unstable. If you find instability, test the next higher mode, until you find a mode where it's stable. And then you add another step as stability headroom. So let's say (random example) Mode 5 is unstable, then you test Mode 6. If Mode 6 is stable, you choose Mode 7 as your final mode, then you're done.

PS: Until CPU Lite Mode 9 I think the "Core Power Limit Exceeded" had a YES.

This means, at Mode 9 and lower modes, it has already reduced the power draw enough for it not to hit the 181W power limits that you set. As you can see in the lower screenshot, "CPU Package Power" is at 155W maximum, this is already a nice improvement. But check how low you can go with the mode.

If you want to post further HWinfo screenshots, click on the <-> arrows on the lower left of the sensor window, two times, to expand them.

 

[Snakethesniper]

Mode 18 is crazy high for most CPUs, they would be stable with much lower voltages (higher mode = higher voltages, as you know).

So I would keep trying lower modes until you encounter instability in a stress test like Prime95 Torture test or OCCT. The voltages will go down, and thus the power draw, and thus the temperatures. There is no downside to this, you only have to find where it becomes unstable. If you find instability, test the next higher mode, until you find a mode where it's stable. And then you add another step as stability headroom. So let's say (random example) Mode 5 is unstable, then you test Mode 6. If Mode 6 is stable, you choose Mode 7 as your final mode, then you're done.



This means, at Mode 9 and lower modes, it has already reduced the power draw enough for it not to hit the 181W power limits that you set. As you can see in the lower screenshot, "CPU Package Power" is at 155W maximum, this is already a nice improvement. But check how low you can go with the mode.

If you want to post further HWinfo screenshots, click on the <-> arrows on the lower left of the sensor window, two times, to expand them.

Thanks.
The stress test with cinebench 2024 aren't sufficient then?
I've read that prime95 is overboard for realistic scenarios and I'm afraid to excessively stress the CPU.

Also I didn't understand, there's no performance degradation lowering further the CPU Lite Mode?
I assumed the change in the score meant that the CPU was performing a little less better than before.

 

[citay]

Cinebench is a benchmark, not a stress test. Well, it stresses the CPU by applying fully multithreaded load, but this is still normal load, like you can have from any normal program with demanding workloads like encoding or rendering.

A stress test applies an unrealistic workload, using "dirty tricks", and is completely irrelevant for performance measurement or for representing normal workloads in daily use. But what stress tests are important for is stressing the hardware to the extreme in order to uncover hidden instabilities or other problems. There is no need to be afraid of it, you are not running it for 24 hours, just 10, 20 minutes are enough to find out if something is quite stable.

They stress-test most hardware at the factory, for example, graphics card makers will run Furmark with the finished card for hours on end before they pack it up for shipping. They also do it to discover any weakness before the buyer will find it. We have to run stress tests to make sure that the changed setting will be stable, no matter what. So whenever we change something that could cause instability, then we have to run a stress-test for that part, be it CPU / GPU undervolting or RAM tuning or whatever else.

Also I didn't understand, there's no performance degradation lowering further the CPU Lite Mode?
I assumed the change in the score meant that the CPU was performing a little less better than before.

CPU Lite Load, if done right, will have the exact same performance, or better performance (if the CPU is hitting the power limits). Never worse. The tiny differences you saw are not even worth mentioning, they are completely within the margin of error, they are normal run-to-run differences. If you calculate those few couple points into a percentage, then at this high number, they mean absolutely nothing. Windows is constantly doing something else in the background, you will not get the identical score twice in a row most of the time, even if you change nothing at all. If you do another few runs, I'm sure you can get higher scores too. So don't worry about this.

 

[Snakethesniper]

Cinebench is a benchmark, not a stress test. Well, it stresses the CPU by applying fully multithreaded load, but this is still normal load, like you can have from any normal program with demanding workloads like encoding or rendering.

A stress test applies an unrealistic workload, using "dirty tricks", and is completely irrelevant for performance measurement or for representing normal workloads in daily use. But what stress tests are important for is stressing the hardware to the extreme in order to uncover hidden instabilities or other problems. There is no need to be afraid of it, you are not running it for 24 hours, just 10, 20 minutes are enough to find out if something is quite stable.

They stress-test most hardware at the factory, for example, graphics card makers will run Furmark with the finished card for hours on end before they pack it up for shipping. They also do it to discover any weakness before the buyer will find it. We have to run stress tests to make sure that the changed setting will be stable, no matter what. So whenever we change something that could cause instability, then we have to run a stress-test for that part, be it CPU / GPU undervolting or RAM tuning or whatever else.



CPU Lite Load, if done right, will have the exact same performance, or better performance (if the CPU is hitting the power limits). Never worse. The tiny differences you saw are not even worth mentioning, they are completely within the margin of error, they are normal run-to-run differences. If you calculate those few couple points into a percentage, then at this high number, they mean absolutely nothing. Windows is constantly doing something else in the background, you will not get the identical score twice in a row most of the time, even if you change nothing at all. If you do another few runs, I'm sure you can get higher scores too. So don't worry about this.

I see, thanks.
Another quick question, in HWInfo I saw this "Performance Limit Reasons" that has some YES inside, it seems it is always in the ICCmax,PL4 etc part, what does it mean?

 

[citay]

There will always be a reason for the CPU to be limited, this is the rule. Same with GPUs. They all run within certain parameters, they are never completely free to do what they want, because they would probably blow themselves up if they were. So you will never not see some limit being triggered.

This IccMax limit is one of the most common ones. The other one common would be "Max Turbo Limit" (hitting the maximum configured turbo multipliers for this CPU model). What is your "CPU Current Limit" in the BIOS set to? Try 307A.

 

[Snakethesniper]

There will always be a reason for the CPU to be limited, this is the rule. Same with GPUs. They all run within certain parameters, they are never completely free to do what they want, because they would probably blow themselves up if they were. So you will never not see some limit being triggered.

This IccMax limit is one of the most common ones. The other one common would be "Max Turbo Limit" (hitting the maximum configured turbo multipliers for this CPU model). What is your "CPU Current Limit" in the BIOS set to? Try 307A.

I'm not confident enough to start lowering/applying direct settings if the behaviour is normal.
For prime95, which kind of test should I run? I tried "Blend". Also, for how much time?
I did almost 10 min with no issues at the moment.

 

[citay]

CPU Current Limit of 307A is safe, it's just to give a bit more breathing room on the Amps side. You already have the 181W power limits set, so they will not allow anything outrageous to begin with. Plus, the 14600K should naturally top out around ~180W anyway. So unlike with a 14700K/14900K, everything is rather civilized to begin with.

You see, the recommendations and more strict enforcement of power and current limits came during the early days of the CPU degradation issue, when nobody - not even Intel - had an idea about the true cause of it (spikes of excessive voltage in certain circuits). They were just clamping down and making sure the board makers wouldn't just allow unlimited power draw and current, as they often did in the past. But it turned out, this was not really connected to the CPU degradation, which would've happened even with the strictest limits in place.

Instead, what we have with the power limits (and to a degree, the current limit) is a good way to make sure that the cooling doesn't get overwhelmed, and to prevent thermal throttling when it approaches 100°C. So the power limits should be dialed in by the end user, to ensure that the cooling can stay on top of the situation even under full load on all cores. This is what i explain in step 1) of my Guide: How to set good power limits in the BIOS and reduce the CPU power draw. The current limit then just can be set so it stays mostly out of the way. For most people, 307A will be fine. On a 13900K, 14700K or 14900K (or -KS), it might have to be set to 400A if the maximum reasonable performance is to be extracted, as well as 250W power limits, and then the cooler has to be very good. But your 14600K luckily isn't that crazy, so the settings are quite safe.

For Prime95, try Small FFTs, it applies the highest stress, then 10 minutes is ok. If you set the CPU Lite Load mode too low for stability, you should discover the instability quite quickly, it won't take an hour or so, just 10-20 minutes of stress testing which is completely fine. Just lower the mode one by one until you see any sign of instability, then go back up by one and re-test, and if it's stable, add another one on top.

These stress tests continuously check their results, unlike Cinebench, which can only crash, but then the instability is already too high. The stress tests should find it sooner.

 

[Snakethesniper]

CPU Current Limit of 307A is safe, it's just to give a bit more breathing room on the Amps side. You already have the 181W power limits set, so they will not allow anything outrageous to begin with. Plus, the 14600K should naturally top out around ~180W anyway. So unlike with a 14700K/14900K, everything is rather civilized to begin with.

You see, the recommendations and more strict enforcement of power and current limits came during the early days of the CPU degradation issue, when nobody - not even Intel - had an idea about the true cause of it (spikes of excessive voltage in certain circuits). They were just clamping down and making sure the board makers wouldn't just allow unlimited power draw and current, as they often did in the past. But it turned out, this was not really connected to the CPU degradation, which would've happened even with the strictest limits in place.

Instead, what we have with the power limits (and to a degree, the current limit) is a good way to make sure that the cooling doesn't get overwhelmed, and to prevent thermal throttling when it approaches 100°C. So the power limits should be dialed in by the end user, to ensure that the cooling can stay on top of the situation even under full load on all cores. This is what i explain in step 1) of my Guide: How to set good power limits in the BIOS and reduce the CPU power draw. The current limit then just can be set so it stays mostly out of the way. For most people, 307A will be fine. On a 13900K, 14700K or 14900K (or -KS), it might have to be set to 400A if the maximum reasonable performance is to be extracted, as well as 250W power limits, and then the cooler has to be very good. But your 14600K luckily isn't that crazy, so the settings are quite safe.

For Prime95, try Small FFTs, it applies the highest stress, then 10 minutes is ok. If you set the CPU Lite Load mode too low for stability, you should discover the instability quite quickly, it won't take an hour or so, just 10-20 minutes of stress testing which is completely fine. Just lower the mode one by one until you see any sign of instability, then go back up by one and re-test, and if it's stable, add another one on top.

These stress tests continuously check their results, unlike Cinebench, which can only crash, but then the instability is already too high. The stress tests should find it sooner.

Thanks for all the help!
Just another question, even if for this one I think I already know the answer.
Should I worry about eventual max temperature spikes that happen? Like sometimes something can happen when the CPU goes from 0 to 100% I guess and HWInfo register a spike, like 80°C for I think 1-2 seconds.
I guess this is inevitable because with this spikes, the cooler can't keep up with this small timeframe?

 

[citay]

Usually there are one or two cores which are always hotter than the others, and can have short temperature spikes, the cooler cannot even react to it properly. Those are nothing to worry about. If your temperatures under full load, for example towards the end of a Cinebench run, don't go past 90°C, then everything is good.