News Nvidia blames Intel for GPU VRAM errors, tells GeForce gamers experiencing 13th or 14th Gen CPU instability to contact Intel support

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
SO I have found a fix for games crashing for this error. download and install intel extreme tuning utility. BTW this works for 13th and 14th gen cpus. underclock the p cores. for me i went from x57 to x56 and it started working properly.
This isn't a legit solution for a lot of users. They paid for a certain level of performance, and if they have to downgrade that performance, just to keep the CPU stable, I would imagine that many will be demanding refunds, since the CPU's do not work as advertised.
 
"Specifically, Nvidia's patch notes state that if 13th/14th Gen CPU owners are experiencing "...stability issues/out of video memory error messages/crash to desktop while the game is compiling shaders..." to consult two sites consisting of an Intel community page and a tutorial from Rad Game Tools on how to reduce CPU power limits to Intel's default specifications."

It sounds like Nvidia is NOT blaming Intel. They are instructing people to change whatever their motherboard manufacturer has set BACK to Intel's default specifications.

They are kind of saying that overclocking, either by the consumer or motherboard manufacturer isn't guaranteed stable.

If I overclock my CPU and it crashes then it isn't stable and I dial it back. What has changed now is that motherboard manufacturers are overclocking the CPU as their stock bios settings and this is starting to be a problem for some. It is still the same principal, just somebody else has done it to your CPU so you may not be aware.

I also undervolt my 13900kf while raising the clocks. I also run 2nd or 3rd from the lowest vdroop LLC. With an undervolt the power consumption isn't terrible even with a high power LLC.

I haven't had these issues, but I imagine that is mostly because I am one of the lucky majority. Something about these chips is that the higher the temps, the more volts they need to stay stable at a given clock. If that given clock only has enough volts to be stable at 80c, and it needs more volts per temp increase than the temp volt curve gives it then it will crash at 100c. Also if the LLC is set too low and a very high power draw causes the volts to dip below stability then the system will crash when the volts supplied to the CPU drop below what is stable for the clocks and the temp the CPU is at. The answer for both problems is unfortunately more volts, better cooling, or lower clocks. You could also use a thermal velocity boost overclock that also reduces the clocks at high temps, but does so automatically. These are compromises that have to be made if you are overclocking these chips.

It's a shame that many motherboard manufacturers are tossing people into the tuning is required boat when they buy an i9 by pre overclocking their systems and not telling them.
For example my lowly Asus Prime Z690 P increased my P-core clocks by 100 mhz as stock. Where I get 5.5 all core and 5.8 for 2 cores at any temperature and thermal velocity boost gives me 200mhz more below 70c at stock, if enabled. They also have multicore enhancement enabled by default and I have to select the enforce Intel's limits option manually. The MCE dumps a lot of extra power into my CPU and makes it unmanageable for my D15 cooler under all core heavy loads. It also runs my memory controller at over 1.5v at stock per HWinfo. An ordinary person might think that everything the motherboard does is guaranteed stable by Intel so they should just be able to reset their bios and have their i9 be stable. But it is overclocked by default. And overclocks are not guaranteed stable.
And the i7s and i5s get a different treatment. They don't have the volt curves run as high into the exponential area and the users have to set the higher volts themselves or they just get a crash from not enough volts when they are overclocking. But they are stable under full load because they get a more traditional treatment.

For 12th-14th gen, it seems i9s are commonly pre overclocked by the motherboards and lower SKUs are OC'd less if at all. I don't think that Intel's standard settings for i9s are unstable, just the motherboard standards sometimes are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KyaraM
They paid for a certain level of performance, and if they have to downgrade that performance, just to keep the CPU stable, I would imagine that many will be demanding refunds, since the CPU's do not work as advertised.
IF the end user bought a Z-series board, it's likely the cpu is being ran beyond AS ADVERTISED.
So if they manually return the cpu to the advertised spec, is it really downgrading? No.
[FYI, Z-boards' optimized defaults or 'stock' tend to be overclocks. That's why the need for manual input.]

Z-boards are a waste of cash for those who just want to set it and forget it; most of the folks who bought one and aren't looking to experiment would've been served just fine with a good B or H series board, instead of paying and being a part of the board vendors' e-peen contests.
The K cpus yield sporadically worse power management for that 100mhz(or more) per core they have over the non-Ks; the Ks are the failed non-Ks.
 
IF the end user bought a Z-series board, it's likely the cpu is being ran beyond AS ADVERTISED.
So if they manually return the cpu to the advertised spec, is it really downgrading? No.
[FYI, Z-boards' optimized defaults or 'stock' tend to be overclocks. That's why the need for manual input.]

Z-boards are a waste of cash for those who just want to set it and forget it; most of the folks who bought one and aren't looking to experiment would've been served just fine with a good B or H series board, instead of paying and being a part of the board vendors' e-peen contests.
The K cpus yield sporadically worse power management for that 100mhz(or more) per core they have over the non-Ks; the Ks are the failed non-Ks.
B boards (not all) will also overvolt and push all cores to maintain max clocks as long as possible, they won't force even higher clocks because they are locked but they will do everything else still.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KyaraM
"Specifically, Nvidia's patch notes state that if 13th/14th Gen CPU owners are experiencing "...stability issues/out of video memory error messages/crash to desktop while the game is compiling shaders..." to consult two sites consisting of an Intel community page and a tutorial from Rad Game Tools on how to reduce CPU power limits to Intel's default specifications."

It sounds like Nvidia is NOT blaming Intel. They are instructing people to change whatever their motherboard manufacturer has set BACK to Intel's default specifications.

They are kind of saying that overclocking, either by the consumer or motherboard manufacturer isn't guaranteed stable.

If I overclock my CPU and it crashes then it isn't stable and I dial it back. What has changed now is that motherboard manufacturers are overclocking the CPU as their stock bios settings and this is starting to be a problem for some. It is still the same principal, just somebody else has done it to your CPU so you may not be aware.

I also undervolt my 13900kf while raising the clocks. I also run 2nd or 3rd from the lowest vdroop LLC. With an undervolt the power consumption isn't terrible even with a high power LLC.

I haven't had these issues, but I imagine that is mostly because I am one of the lucky majority. Something about these chips is that the higher the temps, the more volts they need to stay stable at a given clock. If that given clock only has enough volts to be stable at 80c, and it needs more volts per temp increase than the temp volt curve gives it then it will crash at 100c. Also if the LLC is set too low and a very high power draw causes the volts to dip below stability then the system will crash when the volts supplied to the CPU drop below what is stable for the clocks and the temp the CPU is at. The answer for both problems is unfortunately more volts, better cooling, or lower clocks. You could also use a thermal velocity boost overclock that also reduces the clocks at high temps, but does so automatically. These are compromises that have to be made if you are overclocking these chips.

It's a shame that many motherboard manufacturers are tossing people into the tuning is required boat when they buy an i9 by pre overclocking their systems and not telling them.
For example my lowly Asus Prime Z690 P increased my P-core clocks by 100 mhz as stock. Where I get 5.5 all core and 5.8 for 2 cores at any temperature and thermal velocity boost gives me 200mhz more below 70c at stock, if enabled. They also have multicore enhancement enabled by default and I have to select the enforce Intel's limits option manually. The MCE dumps a lot of extra power into my CPU and makes it unmanageable for my D15 cooler under all core heavy loads. It also runs my memory controller at over 1.5v at stock per HWinfo. An ordinary person might think that everything the motherboard does is guaranteed stable by Intel so they should just be able to reset their bios and have their i9 be stable. But it is overclocked by default. And overclocks are not guaranteed stable.
And the i7s and i5s get a different treatment. They don't have the volt curves run as high into the exponential area and the users have to set the higher volts themselves or they just get a crash from not enough volts when they are overclocking. But they are stable under full load because they get a more traditional treatment.

For 12th-14th gen, it seems i9s are commonly pre overclocked by the motherboards and lower SKUs are OC'd less if at all. I don't think that Intel's standard settings for i9s are unstable, just the motherboard standards sometimes are.
I'm pretty sure my MSI Pro Z690-A auto-enabled the board OC for my 12700K, too. It definitely set the power profile to PL1=PL2= unlimited at the least... I tweaked it manually afterwards, but I think that was the default.

B boards (not all) will also overvolt and push all cores to maintain max clocks as long as possible, they won't force even higher clocks because they are locked but they will do everything else still.
I confirm, and they do that even with the 12100F in my other PC... I mean, with that chip it makes no difference because it doesn't get very hot (in fact, the Intel stock cooler handles it very well...) and never goes beyond 65W anyways, but with higher-end chips, that definitely does make a difference...
 
  • Like
Reactions: rluker5
Cause they know what a bios is
Honestly, not even because of that, most people just don't run server workloads 24/7 and the amount of multithreading that they do do is so small that they don't have to care.
Especially when the idle and low thread count power efficiency is better on intel, even when they are running unlimited so it balances out.

And the few crazies that run a 14900k fully overclocked to game with an 4090...well, they know that what they do is stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rluker5 and KyaraM
My experience (with unaffected) 13700 is that the motherboard was what made it unstable. Once I manually set everything I was even able to overclock to 5.6Ghz two core (stablish) or 5.5Ghz all P-Cores and another 200mhz on the E-Cores.

So my point is that I think motherboards aren't autoconfiging correctly and potentially people dont have proper cooling for the inferno 12+13 i9.

And if you want to overclock, well you can't complain if it doesn't work. If the product works within spec then it's as advertised. Overclocking has somehow become synonymous with entitled features.

Anyway, check your MB settings, don't OC unless you're prepared to deal with potential issues (or use XTU).
 
  • Like
Reactions: KyaraM
Honestly, not even because of that, most people just don't run server workloads 24/7 and the amount of multithreading that they do do is so small that they don't have to care.
Especially when the idle and low thread count power efficiency is better on intel, even when they are running unlimited so it balances out.

And the few crazies that run a 14900k fully overclocked to game with an 4090...well, they know that what they do is stupid.
Even if you do run a lot of heavy workloads, AMD CPUs around the same price bracket are both slower and less efficient. A friend of mine bought a 14700 for 390€, he locked it to 125w and it runs circles around anything AMD offers at that price (7900x, 7900, 7800x 3d) at MT workloads.

And yes, also at idle and light usage like browsing, excel sheets etc.