Question Question about BIOS configuration for an i7-13700KF CPU ?

[TechManMax]

Moderator notice:
❗ Please stick to one thread and do not cross-post. Your other thread has been deleted.


I'll start this thread with my specs:

Intel core i7-13700KF
Peerless Assassin 120 SE ARGB
Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX Rev 1.1
Corsair 2x 16GB (32GB) DDR5 6000 CL30
Samsung 980 Pro 2TB PCIe Gen 4 M.2 SSD
Crucial P3 Plus 2TB PCIe Gen 4 M.2 SSD
MSI Ventus 2x OC RTX 4070 Ti SUPER
IONZ KZ-VF Ultra Aether (+4 Fans)
Corsair RMe 1000W 80+ Gold PSU
BIOS Version: FJd (06/06/2024)

Now for my question:

What is the best configuration for stability, performance, and temperatures combined? Prior to the BIOS update listed above I was using all out of the box settings except for enabling Resizable bar and XMP Profile 1. I have since learned that "out of the box" was gigabyte perfdrive optimised with everything set to auto and HWInfo showed a 4095W power limit. However, during synthetic benchmarks I never saw the wattage top much above 240-245W (with the exception of OCCT PSU test which I manually stopped after it dumped 256W into the CPU after only a few minutes but I ran the test long enough to see that the PSU coped under pressure). Cinebench results were decent (topping 30k multiscore and 2.1k single core) and temperatures under Cinebench multiscore (100% synthetic load) topped out at 94 degrees, averaging high 80s to low 90s with idle temps being below 30 degrees and real world gaming temps being far below TJMax).

Since the BIOS update it auto enabled this new "intel default profile" which had a power limit of 253W (by design obviously) but synthetic benchmarks (Cinebench) would consistently draw 250-253W under full load, temperatures were hitting 100 degrees on some cores, averaging high 90s but because some cores were hitting TJMax it was thermal throttling affecting performance. As a result of this scores were lower (around 28k-29k multiscore) all while the temps were higher.

So I manually disabled this profile and switched back to perfdrive optimised but manually enforced a power limit of 253W (everything else is set to auto). Once again temps during synthetic benchmarks didn't exceed 94 degrees (averaging high 80s to low 90s), multicore score was 31,020 (my highest yet) and single core was above 1.2k. idle temps are below 30 degrees and real world gaming temps far below TJMax.

My question to you is why is the Intel default profile seemingly worse (not just performance but temperatures too) than the motherboard "unlimited" profile? When it's supposed to "fix" stability/temps/other issues (although I believe this is mostly for i9 chips).

Am I safe to continue using my perfdrive optimised profile with the manually enforced PL1 and PL2 limit of 253W (instead of default 4095W) and everything else set to auto? Or is there something else I should change too? I don't understand much around voltages, amps, etc and I don't want to change anything when it's performing fine right now. But I also don't want these degrading/stability issues I've been reading about later down the line. I just can't get my head round why the "fixed" intel default profile is so much worse in every possible way including temperatures. I'd understand the performance loss given it's designed to stop abnormal power limits and overclocks beyond supported specs but in my case I'm not going above max clock anyway, or exceeding 253W. Difference is the intel default profile was thermal throttling and losing performance even at stock spec while the perfdrive optimised consistently reaches max clock, doesn't throttle, and has lower temps and higher performance.

Just to be on the safe side I forced a power limit of 253W but left everything else on the perfdrive auto setting. But some posts say I need to also force amp and voltage limits too? It's honestly confusing me a lot. But "auto" seems to be performing fine for me right now. I'm just thinking more about longevity and stability in the future etc and seeking more understanding really into how this all works.

 

[Fix_that_Glitch]

Have you tried using the enforce all limits setting in the bios? Also, you didn't mention if you used xmp settings or not. I am not trying to be rude, but why use such a low end cooler for such a nice build? If you are truly worried about longevity of your cpu I would try using a higher end cooler.

 

[TechManMax]

Have you tried using the enforce all limits setting in the bios? Also, you didn't mention if you used xmp settings or not. I am not trying to be rude, but why use such a low end cooler for such a nice build? If you are truly worried about longevity of your cpu I would try using a higher end cooler.

Peerless Assassin 120 SE is hardly a low end cooler it outperforms a lot of other coolers. It's obviously not a "high end liquid cooler" but it can cool up to 265W according to specs and it's often praised in reviews. Temps when idle are under 30, temps when gaming are under 70 (averaging 50-60), it's only temps under full load (such as Cinebench) that are a little higher than I'd like. Since I am not interested in overclocking the cooler I have is definitely sufficient I just feel like theirs some settings I need to change as just changing settings from intel default to perfdrive optimised with manually enforced power limits of 253W caused temps to drop by over 6 degrees and increased performance. I will look into this enforce all limits setting. All I'm trying to do is lower full load temps a bit more, if possible. I'm having no issues with normal load or even gaming temps. Only benchmarking temps. Funnily enough intel xtu stress test temps are lower than Cinebench.

 

[Fix_that_Glitch]

I am sorry I didn't mean to make you upset. I was just trying to point out that if you are looking for a little more performance out of your cpu, along with under volting a small amount, you could squeeze out a little more with a more aggressive cooling setup. I use the enforce all limits setting with my 14900k, my Cinebench score is 38000 and I do not under volt it, but that is just because I am too lazy to do it. Probably will soon though.

 

[TechManMax]

I am sorry I didn't mean to make you upset. I was just trying to point out that if you are looking for a little more performance out of your cpu, along with under volting a small amount, you could squeeze out a little more with a more aggressive cooling setup. I use the enforce all limits setting with my 14900k, my Cinebench score is 38000 and I do not under volt it, but that is just because I am too lazy to do it. Probably will soon though.

Oh aha I'm not upset don't worry (not overly hyped about the idea of uninstalling and reinstalling a new cooler though, let alone the cost of one, when for my uses I'm having no issues (gaming temps and normal temps are fine it's just benchmark temps that run a little warmer than I'm comfortable with). Installing that cooler was a fiddly process it was like I'd just screwed down one side and the other side would pop back up 😩. Got there in the end though! Also I'm a little cautious with liquid coolers because I've heard horror stories of them failing and leaking causing damage to other components.

I am however confused why the "limited" intel default profile had hotter temperatures than the "unlimited" perfdrive optimised profile though that does seem odd. You'd expect slightly lower performance but also lower temps...in my case I got lower performance and higher temps! Ended up going back to perfdrive optimised but manually forcing a PL1 and PL2 of 253W with ICCMax of 307A as per intel specs. Everything else is on auto.

I was just curious if there was a way of getting it even cooler under full load (settings wise).

I'll be honest I don't even know where to begin with things like undervolting and messing with voltages and stuff can have devastating consequences if you get it wrong. Intel has a really nifty auto overclock tool it's a shame they don't have an auto undervolt tool too.

Also yes I do use XMP Profile 1 (DDR5 6000 CL30). If I don't it runs at 4800 with a much worse CAS latency.