Question 13700k on air cooler Cinebench results question

[mjbn1977]

I am probably also going to reseat the cooler and reapply the paste. Want to see if I get similar results with showing the same cores the hottest. Still, mostly for piece of mind. For whatever reason I still wonder if I went with too little paste.....probably not. Just my paranoia.....

 

[mjbn1977]

If ALL cores are running at a steady state load (Requires running a steady state stress utility like Prime95, Heavy load, Intel processor diagnostic tool) with a 100% load on all cores and that core is running hotter than ALL other cores, and is being used as the best core, then I'd say there is something wrong in that equation. Bad CPU, need to update BIOS, need to install latest chipset driver, need to update windows, something.

As far as I know, I have the latest BIOS version and chipset drivers. Windows is up to date.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

Particularly with a new system/arch it's good to keep the bios up to date. This can bring all sorts of bug fixes, compatibility memory, and other issue like in game stuttering amongst many other things.

Just make sure to clear CMOS each time you change the bios. If you don't, this can leave lingering microcode, which can cause all sorts of buggy stuff.

 

[Phaaze88]

Hey, do only certain boards auto clear CMOS after updating bios or something?

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

I am probably also going to reseat the cooler and reapply the paste. Want to see if I get similar results with showing the same cores the hottest. Still, mostly for piece of mind. For whatever reason I still wonder if I went with too little paste.....probably not. Just my paranoia.....

Intel use the larger monolithic CPU design. Which means, in terms of thermal paste, that it's often best to use the 'pea-sized dot' in the middle of the IHS. So, theoretically, when you re-seat the cooler, the paste should spread from the center outwards, and cover everything.

With that said, spreading a thin layer across the whole IHS, should give you best coverage, and application. Just don't spread too much

 

[mjbn1977]

Particularly with a new system/arch it's good to keep the bios up to date. This can bring all sorts of bug fixes, compatibility memory, and other issue like in game stuttering amongst many other things.

Just make sure to clear CMOS each time you change the bios. If you don't, this can leave lingering microcode, which can cause all sorts of buggy stuff.

How do you clear the CMOS?

 

[mjbn1977]

Intel use the larger monolithic CPU design. Which means, in terms of thermal paste, that it's often best to use the 'pea-sized dot' in the middle of the IHS. So, theoretically, when you re-seat the cooler, the paste should spread from the center outwards, and cover everything.

With that said, spreading a thin layer across the whole IHS, should give you best coverage, and application. Just don't spread too much

I used a lentil size dot on the center and one tiny spot on each long end due to the factor the raptor lake cpus are rectangular. I wonder if when I reapply, I should only do a little bit larger "pea" size one in the middle.....

What about kryptonaut liquid metal? I still have some left from my 8700k delidding. Too risky? The paste I am using is Arctic MX-6

 

[Darkbreeze]

I didn't test it in Prime95, only with Cinebench. But the core than runs by far the hottest in the Cinebench Multicore bench is also the one used in the Singlecore bench. That is what is confusing me.

Which Prime95 should I use to identify the hottest core, the version with or without AVX?

In the multicore bench, the max turbo for the strongest core is probably higher than the max turbo for lesser cores, and would then appropriately be a hotter core as well. I think this is a result of Intel turbo boost 3.0. You could test this by disabling Intel turbo boost technology 3.0 in the BIOS and running your bench again. I'm betting you'll see a bit more even thermal results across cores. They will never all be the same though, they never have all been identical on Intel Core processors.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Hey, do only certain boards auto clear CMOS after updating bios or something?

It depends really. All boards SHOULD, but none of them really FULLY do, which is why remnants of microcode can remain without a clear. Some boards even have by design, the SUPPOSED ability to "can withstand updating" for some settings like fan curves, but I've never seen one of those boards ACTUALLY retain the setting after updating, but I've certainly seen plenty of boards that had to have the BIOS reset manually after a BIOS update in order for it to fix whatever was going on.

As far as resetting the BIOS, this is the procedure I like to follow.

BIOS Hard Reset procedure

Power off the unit, switch the PSU off and unplug the PSU cord from either the wall or the power supply.

Remove the motherboard CMOS battery for about three to five minutes. In some cases it may be necessary to remove the graphics card to access the CMOS battery.

During that five minutes while the CMOS battery is out of the motherboard, press the power button on the case, continuously, for 15-30 seconds, in order to deplete any residual charge that might be present in the CMOS circuit. After the five minutes is up, reinstall the CMOS battery making sure to insert it with the correct side up just as it came out.

If you had to remove the graphics card you can now reinstall it, but remember to reconnect your power cables if there were any attached to it as well as your display cable.

Now, plug the power supply cable back in, switch the PSU back on and power up the system. It should display the POST screen and the options to enter CMOS/BIOS setup. Enter the bios setup program and reconfigure the boot settings for either the Windows boot manager or for legacy systems, the drive your OS is installed on if necessary.

Save settings and exit. If the system will POST and boot then you can move forward from there including going back into the bios and configuring any other custom settings you may need to configure such as Memory XMP, A-XMP or D.O.C.P profile settings, custom fan profile settings or other specific settings you may have previously had configured that were wiped out by resetting the CMOS.

In some cases it may be necessary when you go into the BIOS after a reset, to load the Optimal default or Default values and then save settings, to actually get the BIOS to fully reset and force recreation of the hardware tables.

 

[mjbn1977]

In the multicore bench, the max turbo for the strongest core is probably higher than the max turbo for lesser cores, and would then appropriately be a hotter core as well. I think this is a result of Intel turbo boost 3.0. You could test this by disabling Intel turbo boost technology 3.0 in the BIOS and running your bench again. I'm betting you'll see a bit more even thermal results across cores. They will never all be the same though, they never have all been identical on Intel Core processors.

Thanks, I will try that.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

I used a lentil size dot on the center and one tiny spot on each long end due to the factor the raptor lake cpus are rectangular. I wonder if when I reapply, I should only do a little bit larger "pea" size one in the middle.....

What about kryptonaut liquid metal? I still have some left from my 8700k delidding. Too risky? The paste I am using is Arctic MX-6

You can try multiple dots like this: Noctua NT-H1 3.5g Manual EN

There's no hard and fast rule, but general guidelines instead, But you can trick around and try what's best for your set up. Another method is the line down the middle (particularly if CPU is rectangle shape instead of square. But don't be afraid to try out the different ones, and what gives best coverage.

I've never used liquid metal, so can't really attest to that. I have heard stories and not good ones, but I guess research would give me more confidence in it.

II use Noctua NT H2 now for both my laptop and gaming system. Very good performing, ease of use, and a nice viscosity.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

Hey, do only certain boards auto clear CMOS after updating bios or something?

Sorry mate, wasn't sure if you were asking me a question, but @Darkbreeze has covered it pretty well already.

The best example that springs to mind is the AM4 AGESA bug. I think it was introduced in 1.2.0.3 or something. Anywho, the 1.2.0.7 build fixed it. Now, I'm normally very strict when it comes to bios updates (as most AM4 owners will attest), and stupidly I forgot to reset CMOS. Scratching my head for hours. Double and tripple installed GPU drivers again. DOH! Sure enough, the lightbulb switched on, and I remembered. Cleared CMOS. Bug gone.

 

[Phaaze88]

@Roland Of Gilead , it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, but thanks.

 

[mjbn1977]

Little update. I reapplied the thermal paste, using on pea size ball in the middle as suggested by the instruction video of Arctic MX-6. It didn't change anything. Still having core (thread) 3, 5, and 7 the cores that run the hottest. Thermal paste application as anticipated was not the issue....

Still was not able to find in bios which two cores/threads are the 3.0 Boost cores. But by watching Hardwareinfo64 during stress tests and single core benchmarks it really looks like cores 4 and 5. And core 5 is one of the hottest running ones. By the way, I disabled Turboboost 3.0 for some tests, and it didn't change anything. During multicore benchmarks or stress test the CPU is never under the thermal threshold for boost 3.0. I only notice in idle that core 4 and 5 boost ton 5.4 Ghz when the CPU is not running hot.

 

[Darkbreeze]

What power plan is selected in the Windows power options?

 

[Phaaze88]

Still was not able to find in bios which two cores/threads are the 3.0 Boost cores. But by watching Hardwareinfo64 during stress tests and single core benchmarks it really looks like cores 4 and 5. And core 5 is one of the hottest running ones. By the way, I disabled Turboboost 3.0 for some tests, and it didn't change anything. During multicore benchmarks or stress test the CPU is never under the thermal threshold for boost 3.0. I only notice in idle that core 4 and 5 boost ton 5.4 Ghz when the CPU is not running hot.

Yeah, that's exactly how Boost 3.0 works. It's there for that extra edge in light tasks. Not going to see it if more than a few cores are busy.

 

[mjbn1977]

What power plan is selected in the Windows power options?

Right now the MSI default for Air Tower Coolers, which is high. I think its around 280 . I have played around with the Powerlimit a little bit, put the long term power limit to 250 watts (since my cooler DRPro4 is rated 250 watt TDP), but that didn't change anything. What should it try out with the Power limit? If I set it too low, wouldn't that eventually affect boost clocks?

I didn't more benchmarks. Looks like the processor reaches CB R23 singe core scores as expected. Just on multicore, I am not getting over30000. But I think, I need an even more beefy cooler for that.

What about undervoltage? but that would also reduce the multi core scores?

Just to make clear. I could care less if the multi core score in R23 is 29500 or 30000 or 30500, for me this is a nice and fun learning experience to get more familiar with the new CPU. Just if someone was wondering.....

 

[Karadjgne]

I was just wondering about the Cinebench multicore test....seemed about 5% lower than what most reviews show.....

Because you are running default settings, which reviews do not. To be fair to all parties involved, reviews use the same settings and equipment. In all its DDR4 based cpu reviews, HardwareUnboxed use the exact same 3200/C14 ram for instance. So a person running 3600/C18 ram is going to get a slightly different result. Reviewers also change bios settings in order to maintain specific values, like using setting 3 for LLC instead of Auto. All that's done to level the playing field and make any tests the same across multiple cpus.

There's also variences in motherboards, and especially motherboard software, Gigabyte and MSI for instance, run a much higher vcore on average than Asus or ASRock at Auto, it supposedly gives a performance edge when boosting, but can also mean temps run hotter in general, so pushed to extremes with stress tests, it's possible/probable the cpu can be hitting throttle ranges.

In order to get a clear picture, you'd have to copy the particular reviews settings, otherwise your cpu is going to behave differently to the review sample. That may end up in a gain or a loss.

Reviews, YouTube vids, benchmarks, whatever, only show 1 thing, what is Possible. They do not show what is Probable. 5% difference is close enough to be margin of error, or differences in manufacturing, differences in silicon or Tim or all of that combined.

My cpu happens to land at 104% single core and 107% multi core vs the reference Cpu-Z in Cpu-Z Bench.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Right now the MSI default for Air Tower Coolers, which is high. I think its around 280 . I have played around with the Powerlimit a little bit, put the long term power limit to 250 watts (since my cooler DRPro4 is rated 250 watt TDP), but that didn't change anything. What should it try out with the Power limit? If I set it too low, wouldn't that eventually affect boost clocks?

I didn't more benchmarks. Looks like the processor reaches CB R23 singe core scores as expected. Just on multicore, I am not getting over30000. But I think, I need an even more beefy cooler for that.

What about undervoltage? but that would also reduce the multi core scores?

Just to make clear. I could care less if the multi core score in R23 is 29500 or 30000 or 30500, for me this is a nice and fun learning experience to get more familiar with the new CPU. Just if someone was wondering.....

No. You are talking about BIOS power options. I am talking about WINDOWS power options. Performance, balanced, etc.

 

[mjbn1977]

No. You are talking about BIOS power options. I am talking about WINDOWS power options. Performance, balanced, etc.

Oh, my Windows is on Performance....

 

[Darkbreeze]

I thought so. 12th and 13th Gen Intel CPUs don't like that setting when it comes to thermal management. In fact, Intel speed step, Intel speed shift and some of the C states won't even function properly with it on the performance setting. Just went through this.

Change it to balance, then go into the advanced power plan options and make sure the minimum processor power management setting is set to 8% and the maximum is set to 100%. Even if you change those settings, with the Performance power plan, it won't work properly like it used to. They've changed something in the way Windows applies the Performance plan or in the Intel chipset driver framework. Make the change to balanced, change/verify the min/max processor power management settings, and you can change any of the other various settings in there if you want to make the rest of the plan more like the Performance plan. It won't matter so long as it isn't actually ON the performance plan.

Then save all settings and back out, restart the system and then retest to see if you notice any changes in core or package temps. You can also test both with Intel speed shift disabled and with it on, but I'd leave Intel speed step enabled in the BIOS. For me, on every system I've tested on so far since Skylake, Intel speed shift has not worked properly. Intel speed step however (EIST) does work correctly and should be enabled for any system that isn't being used for competitive type overclocking unless you know exactly what it does and why you are disabling it. I wouldn't recommend it being disabled on any Intel Core system.

 

[Phaaze88]

Interesting. Speed Shift is busted, but it was supposed to be the snappier of the 2...
Funny you say that, because when Boost 3.0 first came out(Skylake-X), it too was busted...

 

[Karadjgne]

I don't think it was busted, I think it was changed slightly in how it implemented certain aspects, therefore not being what ppl were used to and had come to expect. Most likely due to TDP now being next to useless, and boost levels now being equitable to what ppl were used to as a max turbo OC.

3rd gen, you had a 3.5GHz cpu, that turbo to 3.9GHz, but turbo OC could generally hit 4.7-5.0GHz. Nowadays you get a 3.5GHz cpu, turbo is 5.0GHz and you gotta do crazy stuff to get 5.1-5.2GHz. So something had to change.

 

[mjbn1977]

Thank you all, I will play around a little bit with the windows power settings. What would you guys do with the BIOS power settings. Any reason to limit the long term and short term power? Or should I just leave it they way it is....high.

Besides that, processor is running very good. Even with MSI default PWM smart fan curves pretty silent and with temps around 70C (in Cyberpunk 2077). So I am pretty content....

 

[Darkbreeze]

I tend to recommend leaving power settings in the BIOS at the default/stock configuration unless you are specifically overclocking, but there is no reason to not play around with them if you are comfortable doing so (I only say this because a lot of people get their short hairs in a knot when they think about doing anything other than the most basic of changes in the BIOS) and if you see any actual resulting benefit from it. If you do not see a tangible benefit after making said changes, it might be good to put it back to the default option for that given setting as changes that don't bring the desired noticeable result often are in fact causing other problems that might not even be apparent to you without really looking for it.

I like to never use the preset fan curves. Most fans on most boards these days can be (Assuming case fan of course. CPU air cooler or radiator fans are a different story) assigned to the motherboard thermal sensor, which they should be, and can be kept pretty low in most cases. I like to set mine at about 30% PWM across the board up to about 50°C and then gradually ramp up to 100% at about 80°C, so that it's quiet almost all the time but will definitely get where it needs to be once actual demanding loads are in play.