News New firmware addresses Intel CPU gaming instability — Asus Intel Baseline Profile fixes crashing on Raptor Lake and Raptor Lake Refresh chips

[Admin]

To alleviate the frustration with instability issues on motherboards using 13th—and 14th-generation Intel CPUs, Asus is taking the first step by providing a setting on a new beta BIOS that uses Intel settings instead of its own.

New firmware addresses Intel CPU gaming instability — Asus Intel Baseline Profile fixes crashing on Raptor Lake and Raptor Lake Refresh chips : Read more

 

[hotaru251]

i'll say it: every "default" bios should be the CPU makers default requirement settings.

They make the chip & know it best and if you want to mess with that make it the optional settings.

Stability > performance for 90% of PC users.

 

[atomicWAR]

Glad to see this was addressed quickly. Hopefully this will be the end of instablity issues for intel. I look forward to someone posting some test results on a previoisly unstable cpu (looking at you Jarred...hope this helps you).

 

[endocine]

Just love it when the overpriced, overstylized, RGB blinged out motherboard that doesn't have a debug LED fries my CPU because the manufacture wanted to rice it out for me.

 

[TerryLaze]

While this affects CPUs from both generations, many complaints are from users with Core i9-3900K

Is this some secret CPU sku that only reviewers get?!

Also which "Intel's settings" does it revert to?! Since intel has at least two settings for each CPU, and at least three for the ks models.

 

[mangokr]

Should be "default" not and option!

 

[NinoPino]

Should be "default" not and option!

Good news for Intel's owners, hope to see very soon both stability and performance tests.
It is interesting that with the passing of time we are losing both the utility but also the real meaning of word "de-fault".😀

 

[PCWarrior]

It should be mentioned that this will probably not solve the issue entirely. It will certainly work for new builds and new installations of the operating system. But those who have been running their PCs not 100% stable probably already have corrupted operating systems and need a fresh OS installation, especially if it’s Windows.

 

[TerryLaze]

It should be mentioned that this will probably not solve the issue entirely. It will certainly work for new builds and new installations of the operating system. But those who have been running their PCs not 100% stable probably already have corrupted operating systems and need a fresh OS installation, especially if it’s Windows.

How would shader compiling influence any windows files?

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

While the fix is appreciated, one would ask about the necessity of having such an aggressive setting enabled out of the box without having the function to revert to Intel's settings should a crash occur.

I'll tell you exactly why: Tech sites and social media "influencers", TomsHardware included. So much emphasis is placed on overclocking and even stock performance in reviews that it is to their advantage to do whatever they can to increase performance over the competition, even if it means running it outside of Intel's spec because when something like this happens then it's Intel who is getting the blame from all sides, from game developers, nVidia, and even tech sites, not the motherboard manufacturers.

Tech sites, "influencers", and especially Intel need to call them out for it and even prevent them from shipping systems which default run outside of Intel's spec.

Just pray Intel doesn't turn their system into something like AMD's idiotic system that...doesn't work.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

It should be mentioned that this will probably not solve the issue entirely. It will certainly work for new builds and new installations of the operating system. But those who have been running their PCs not 100% stable probably already have corrupted operating systems and need a fresh OS installation, especially if it’s Windows.

DISM and SFC is your friend.

 

[vMax]

I'll tell you exactly why: Tech sites and social media "influencers", TomsHardware included. So much emphasis is placed on overclocking and even stock performance in reviews that it is to their advantage to do whatever they can to increase performance over the competition, even if it means running it outside of Intel's spec because when something like this happens then it's Intel who is getting the blame from all sides, from game developers, nVidia, and even tech sites, not the motherboard manufacturers.

Tech sites, "influencers", and especially Intel need to call them out for it and even prevent them from shipping systems which default run outside of Intel's spec.

Just pray Intel doesn't turn their system into something like AMD's idiotic system that...doesn't work.

I have the 13700K from launch and the first thing I did was test the baseline settings in bios and I was surprised at how much vcore was being pushed on auto by MSI as this was beyond the pale at 1.4v plus and it isn't just MSI but all motherboard manufacturers. Funny thing, once you undervolt to 1.2 to 1.25v, the CPU still boosts to Intel specs and performs perfectly and most important, rock solid stable with a lower power usuage. Never had an issue as described...All motherboards should default to Intel specs and then if the user wants to overclock or undervolt, great.

 

[Notton]

This is like the good old days when mobo makers would run bclk at >100Mhz. It caused various data corruption and stability issues, but made the mobo look good in benchmarks.

 

[NinoPino]

I'll tell you exactly why: Tech sites and social media "influencers", TomsHardware included. So much emphasis is placed on overclocking and even stock performance in reviews that it is to their advantage to do whatever they can to increase performance over the competition, even if it means running it outside of Intel's spec because when something like this happens then it's Intel who is getting the blame from all sides, from game developers, nVidia, and even tech sites, not the motherboard manufacturers.

Tech sites, "influencers", and especially Intel need to call them out for it and even prevent them from shipping systems which default run outside of Intel's spec.

Just pray Intel doesn't turn their system into something like AMD's idiotic system that...doesn't work.

I agree with you apart the last phrase. In the last years AMD is working better than Intel from a qualitative point of view.

 

[NinoPino]

How would shader compiling influence any windows files?

Probably not but maybe yes.
In case of instabilities caused by overclock not all CPU errors lead to a crash, some errors can go not detected, so it is possible that some files (not relative to the crashing application) are corrupted in the writing phase.

 

[bit_user]

Tech sites, "influencers", and especially Intel need to call them out for it and even prevent them from shipping systems which default run outside of Intel's spec.

Intel doesn't need to "call them out", if it really wants board partners to do something. They can restrict access to certain assets, testing resources, certification, etc. for any who don't adhere to their specifications.

The power dynamic, in this relationship, is very clear. That's why I don't let Intel off the hook for what their board partners do, especially when it's many of them on some blatant things, and not just one or two trying to sneak a little something below Intel's radar.

 

[bit_user]

How would shader compiling influence any windows files?

It's unlikely, but when the CPU is running out-of-spec to an extent that one program gets into a bad state, other programs (including the OS kernel) running at the same time can also potentially be affected.

I wouldn't say people should reinstall their OS preemptively, but it's something to consider if they experience problems consistent with a corrupt filesystem or corrupt application data.

 

[bit_user]

Funny thing, once you undervolt to 1.2 to 1.25v, the CPU still boosts to Intel specs and performs perfectly and most important, rock solid stable with a lower power usuage. Never had an issue as described...All motherboards should default to Intel specs and then if the user wants to overclock or undervolt, great.

I don't understand this. If undervolting is so great and so safe, then why doesn't it do that out of the box?

Personally, I just want something stable. However, I also don't like wasting power. So, I wish the CPU would just undervolt itself if/when it's safe to do that and then the advice would always be: "don't touch it, unless you like playing with fire."

 

[hotaru251]

The power dynamic, in this relationship, is very clear. That's why I don't let Intel off the hook for what their board partners do, especially when it's many of them and not just one or two trying to sneak a little something below Intel's radar.

im gonna be real....this is a bad take.

We've seen what a chip maker who controls what AIB's can do does to market. (nvidia does this).
It kills innovation and restricts a lot of benefits to the consumer.

That is why all nvidia GPU now are so bland and boring becasue AIB are no longer allwoed to do interesting stuff.

I do NOT want MB to also have this happen.
The only thing that "Should" happen is the default bios are stock settings following the CPU makers recommendation for stability.

This has no downside as a user can choose to change that setting if they choose to while also keeping alternative settings for MB makers to do their thing.

If undervolting is so great and so safe, then why doesn't it do that out of the box?

every build is different.
Even 2 of same CPU can have different voltage stability as not every cpu is the same.

you could undervolt 2 CPU (example 14900k) on same MB & they may not both work at same under volt settings.

 

[bit_user]

We've seen what a chip maker who controls what AIB's can do does to market. (nvidia does this).
It kills innovation and restricts a lot of benefits to the consumer.

That is why all nvidia GPU now are so bland and boring becasue AIB are no longer allwoed to do interesting stuff.

When I look at the product lineup of most motherboard makers, they each have so many different models that it seems there's no shortage of ways to differentiate products in this market.

I'm also not against overclocking, but there should be a clear and bright line between that and running safe settings that are guaranteed not to damage your CPU or compromise stability. Once you cross that line, then go ahead and innovate away!

every build is different.
Even 2 of same CPU can have different voltage stability as not every cpu is the same.

Just because all CPUs can't undervolt as effectively doesn't mean you can't still have each one auto-undervolt to the extent that it's safe.

Let me be clear about one thing: I don't want to see/hear people saying "just undervolt your CPU", when someone is unhappy about how much power it's burning. If it's truly safe to do, then Intel should do it out-of-the-box. If it's not safe, then you can't use it to put the blame back onto the user when they complain about power consumption.

 

[hotaru251]

If it's truly safe to do, then Intel should do it out-of-the-box.

its safe in you aren't damaging your parts.
Undervolting DOES have a risk of instability. (thats why shouldnt be a default same as overlocking)

but there should be a clear and bright line between that and running safe settings that are guaranteed not to damage your CPU or compromise stability. Once you cross that line, then go ahead and innovate away!

yes which is why I said CPU makers settings should be default while MBs should be optional.

This makes it so user has choice to change stuff but by default it should be out of the box default according to CPU makers specs.

 

[CmdrShepard]

Intel doesn't need to "call them out", if it really wants board partners to do something. They can restrict access to certain assets, testing resources, certification, etc. for any who don't adhere to their specifications.

The power dynamic, in this relationship, is very clear. That's why I don't let Intel off the hook for what their board partners do, especially when it's many of them on some blatant things, and not just one or two trying to sneak a little something below Intel's radar.

There was a time when Sony VAIO laptops sold with Intel VT didn't have an option in BIOS to enable it. Intel let it slide because they sold the CPUs and didn't care whether customers actually got all the features or not. Some guy then called them out on the forums and when they didn't react he went and made a BIOS patcher for Sony VAIO laptops which enabled Intel VT. Couple of thousands of downloads later Intel did respond and Sony finally released BIOS with a selectable option for Intel VT.

Moral of the story? They can flex their muscles when they are forced to do it. In this case they aren't because those are mostly unlocked CPUs and it's hard for users to pin blame on the CPU.

I do suspect that big part of this issue with instability is with people not using the new ATX 3.0 power supplies with those new power hungry chips and high-end video cards.

ATX 3.0 specifies that the power demand can surge up to 200% for a period of up to 100 micro seconds and the PSU must handle it without engaging OCP or allowing the voltage to drop. Old power supplies are not designed for that kind of load and they could definitely be what is contributing to this problem.

That's not me saying Intel is off the hook, just that the situation isn't so black and white.

 

[CmdrShepard]

Just because all CPUs can't undervolt as effectively doesn't mean you can't still have each one auto-undervolt to the extent that it's safe.

If you leave the power management settings at their defaults in BIOS and Windows and don't overclock, then all CPUs already undervolt themselves to the lowest programmed voltage and frequency they can run at (voltage and frequency stepping is a thing). Just open CPU-Z and you will see them undervolt to 0.8V when idle.

 

[bit_user]

If you leave the power management settings at their defaults in BIOS and Windows and don't overclock, then all CPUs already undervolt themselves to the lowest programmed voltage and frequency they can run at (voltage and frequency stepping is a thing). Just open CPU-Z and you will see them undervolt to 0.8V when idle.

I guess the key question is whether the voltage/frequency curve is the same for all CPUs of a given model, or is there some calibration to exploit better quality chips? My guess is the former: that they determine a V/F curve that works for the lowest-quality CPUs in that "bin" and that's just what they all use.

I remember reading that AMD calibrates certain things to the current quality of the die, at boot time, with the consequence being that you could potentially see a CPU boost less and less, over an extended period of intensive usage.

I only saw this mentioned once, probably in reference to Zen 2 or Zen 3. Unfortunately, I can't cite the source.

 

[LabRat 891]

So, yet again Asus thinks they know better than AMD and Intel; causing mayhem and destruction along they way.

Nice...