Question Why do I keep upgrading my PC when I almost always have issues with every build ?

[kevinjmay]

I'm about to go off on a little rant, but I'm curious... are there any older gamers out there that have experienced constant issues/problems (usually minor) with brand new PC builds? I'm 36 and I've invested a lot of time and money into computers and gaming over the years. I'm not the most knowledgeable person about ALL things computers, but I feel like I try my best at doing lots of research, using sites like pcpartpicker to check compatibility, and overthinking all the parts of builds before buying anything. And yet, I always have little issues that pop up with every new build. I've been gaming since I was like 12 and usually do a new PC build every 7ish years. But here's the thing... I feel like the PC builds back then had ZERO issues. Yes, games have evolved over the years and are more demanding on the parts. Which is why I buy the latest/fastest (or at least like top 10 because I don't have that kind of budget) so in theory I should have no issues and be able to run the latest/greatest games, right?

Fast forward to today. Relatively new pc build. Brand new Windows 11 install, everything is up to date, and some games that I used to play on my older PC (without a problem other than crappy fps) are struggling to even launch. What is to blame? Me? Hardware manufacturers? Game developers? A little bit of all those things? I'm just confused/frustrated. And honestly, some days it makes me want to give up on PC gaming altogether. There are consoles out there that run things with no issues. And I'm over here, spending a lot more money and having issues. Am I the only one?

If anyone actually wants to chat about this or has suggestions, I'm more than open to doing so. And the game I was referring to above is Battlefield 2042 (which is a few years old). I'm currently getting crashes without any errors or crashes with errors such as out of memory / directx type of stuff. I've tried to research it, and messed around with stuff like custom paging files, updated bios, but no luck so far. ALSO, sometimes if I just keep trying to launch it over and over, I'll get lucky and can play for hours. Makes total sense. I will note that Starfield runs flawlessly on my PC. So it's not all bad. But I feel like I shouldn't have issues running any games.

Old PC specs for reference:
-Windows 10
-Intel i7-6700K 4GHz Quad-Core
-32GB of DDR4-3200 Ripjaws
-MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB
-Gigabyte GA-Z170X Gaming 7 LGA1151

New PC specs for reference:
-Windows 11
-Intel i9-13900K 3GHz 24-Core
-32GB of DDR5-6000 Ripjaws
-Gigabyte GeForce RTX 3080 Ti 12GB
-Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX LGA1700

 

[Aeacus]

I'd put the blame on Win11. This is easy to test as well, just format your OS drive and install Win10 on it. If many/most of the gaming issues go away, you know whom to blame.

As of your curiosity, i'm same age as you, been gamer ~30 years (at times, hardcore gamer), built several builds with prior in-depth research like you. Currently having 3 builds, full specs with pics in my sig.
I haven't had much issues with games, other than game issue itself. Hardware that i've had over the years have been all sound. Sure, i've had HDDs, ODDs die on me but that's to be expected. CPUs/GPUs/MoBos/RAMs, have all been in use until they got obsolete. None have died on me.
I also have in-depth knowledge on how to keep my system running smooth, without malware/bloatware. This, keeping the OS going good, is actually more important than the beefy hardware one can have in their system. Since what good is fancy GPU that can produce 200+FPS but will stutter all over the place? (Looking at Radeon.)
Oh, keeping drivers the latest isn't always the best option either. I've had trouble with latest GPU drivers, that cause issues for me, where i was forced to roll back a version or two. Now, i don't even bother upgrading GPU drivers, since: "If it ain't broke - don't fix it.".

Win11, despite latest, is poor OS. All sorts of issues with it. So, i suggest that you revert back to Win10.
E.g i'm using Win10 (which GUI i've tuned to look like Win7) and for games i play, i don't have issues. My current build, Skylake, is almost equal to your old build. Sure, it's somewhat old, but it provides me with everything i need, so, i haven't had much reason to replace it. Sure, i did upgrade the GPU few years back but CPU is still going strong, for my needs.

Maybe there are some tweaks you can do with Win11, to make it run better. I don't know. I have no experience with Win11.

 

[Hotrod2go]

An "old" gamer here too. Like what Aeacus has said already in the above post, the OS can be an issue. My gaming platform is all AM5 based for the record, with win 11.
However I would be considered probably more of a retro gamer with open world RPGs being my favourites as new titles within this genre are just recycles of older game plots & storylines with slightly different twists on them. The hype that is generated in marketing these days with video games just turns me off altogether. I've been burnt before with this crap & I'm not going there again.
Starfield is the only game title to come out this year that I actually have an interest in, although I have it ready but not played it yet. Heck, even when you login to win 11 these days, Starfield backdrop is there waiting....

I can run Skyrim SE with mods to give me a super smooth 144FPS these days in windows 11 but the cynics out there will proclaim that's because MS own Bethesda so they may have a point. Before that I was all over Oblivion GOTY edition with a mods, again it ran silky smooth on my 144Hz monitor under win 11.

So in effect it probably stands to reason that it depends on the game engine, its optimization &/or potential for mods interacting with the OS that is the challenge these days imo. But that's a whole other topic in itself.

 

[Aeacus]

However I would be considered probably more of a retro gamer with open world RPGs being my favourites as new titles within this genre are just recycles of older game plots & storylines with slightly different twists on them. The hype that is generated in marketing these days with video games just turns me off altogether. I've been burnt before with this crap & I'm not going there again.

This reminds me that i too, prefer older games. Haven't played AAA titles for a decade or so. I mostly like small, single player indie games. I've found quite a bit of nice gems to play.

I also reminisce about good old games, the ones where you need to put effort in to complete the game (i still remember the hardship of completing campaign of NFS4:High Stakes/Road Challenge). Back then, choice was simple, either: git gud or quit and cry a river.
Nowadays, most games are way too heavy with hand holding, rubber banding and spoon feeding.

FPS wise, above 40 and i'm good. Sure, i have 144Hz monitor and most games i play also sit on 144FPS level but won't hurt me if FPS is below 60.
It's quite amusing to watch those folks who complain not getting 300-500FPS, instead getting ~200FPS, despite their monitor is 60-144Hz and they never see the extra FPS regardless.

 

[Hotrod2go]

This reminds me that i too, prefer older games. Haven't played AAA titles for a decade or so. I mostly like small, single player indie games. I've found quite a bit of nice gems to play.

I also reminisce about good old games, the ones where you need to put effort in to complete the game (i still remember the hardship of completing campaign of NFS4:High Stakes/Road Challenge). Back then, choice was simple, either: git gud or quit and cry a river.
Nowadays, most games are way too heavy with hand holding, rubber banding and spoon feeding.

FPS wise, above 40 and i'm good. Sure, i have 144Hz monitor and most games i play also sit on 144FPS level but won't hurt me if FPS is below 60.
It's quite amusing to watch those folks who complain not getting 300-500FPS, instead getting ~200FPS, despite their monitor is 60-144Hz and they never see the extra FPS regardless.

Haven't ventured into indie titles. Know exactly what you mean about actual role playing & building up one's character, It takes time & strategy to get the best out of it. But you can only play a game only so much despite modding it. It can get the point where the player is so familiar with places & activities in the virtual open world that a comfort zone quickly builds up & stagnation comes in despite mods & more mods.
I think devs make newer games easier to play cause' they don't want the fall back & nearly endless complaints from the market online. Wikis & other sites solve a lot of those kinds of challenging problems though if a player gets stuck somewhere in a quest or on the map.

Honestly, I don't think I'd consciously notice the diff between say a 144Hz or 165Hz or even higher refresh rate for open world RPGs. Higher refresh rates are probably more tuned to frantic FPS or racing type of games & of course esports.

 

[Aeacus]

Know exactly what you mean about actual role playing & building up one's character, It takes time & strategy to get the best out of it. But you can only play a game only so much despite modding it. It can get the point where the player is so familiar with places & activities in the virtual open world that a comfort zone quickly builds up & stagnation comes in despite mods & more mods.

While i do like the RPG gerne, since you can build up your own char, as you see fit, it also takes a lot of time and dedication. Due to that, i keep myself away from RPG titles, since i don't like to spend that amount of time for one game. At least, not anymore. I'd rather spend 100 hours for 10 games than 1000 hours for single game.

Getting bored is another aspect with all games actually. Sure, mods extend the gameplay, giving more and new content to play around, but limit will be reached at some point regardless. And before you know it, you've spent years on single game. And when you realize it, perhaps thinking quitting for good, you'll remember how much time and effort you've put into all that. And that realization, of throwing away all that spent time and effort, is the biggest hurdle in terms of letting it all go.

I know this first hand since ~11 years ago, when i was dedicated hardcore gamer, i went through it. Though, me letting go of the game, which i spent loads of time mastering it, was not on my own accord. Instead, game servers were shut down in 2015 and that was it. No more gaming. The game i was dedicated to (some may say addicted) was Need For Speed: World, an online racing MMO.

think devs make newer games easier to play cause' they don't want the fall back & nearly endless complaints from the market online.

Either that, or the new generation of gamers aren't willing to put in time and effort to get good in a game. Seen it oh so many times. If anything isn't super obvious, uproar follows of how bad the game is. Thanks to this, almost all games now have tutorial and often, you can't skip it either. Heck, some games in their entirety are one big tutorial.

Honestly, I don't think I'd consciously notice the diff between say a 144Hz or 165Hz or even higher refresh rate for open world RPGs. Higher refresh rates are probably more tuned to frantic FPS or racing type of games & of course esports.

For most of my years, i've been using 60Hz monitor. Got my 144Hz monitor ~4 years ago and i couldn't tell much diff between 60Hz and 144Hz. Games seemed a bit smoother but then again, i'm casual player nowadays and aren't trained for faced-paced FPS shooters. That, and average human can see up to 60-90Hz. Trained eye, under right conditions, up to 500Hz.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Fast forward to today. Relatively new pc build. Brand new Windows 11 install, everything is up to date, and some games that I used to play on my older PC (without a problem other than crappy fps) are struggling to even launch. What is to blame? Me? Hardware manufacturers? Game developers? A little bit of all those things? I'm just confused/frustrated. And honestly, some days it makes me want to give up on PC gaming altogether. There are consoles out there that run things with no issues. And I'm over here, spending a lot more money and having issues. Am I the only one?

A lot of computer issues stem from some combination of everything. And that's just the nature of the beast: you're given a lot of freedom to do whatever you want, but with that comes the fact that developers can't predict how the infinite number of combinations of product you're trying to run their software on will affect it.

The only reason why consoles have a better time is because there's only one, maybe two core configurations of hardware and everyone's more or less on the same system software.

If you want to have an even more fun time, try development on Linux.

 

[kevinjmay]

I'd put the blame on Win11. This is easy to test as well, just format your OS drive and install Win10 on it. If many/most of the gaming issues go away, you know whom to blame.

As of your curiosity, i'm same age as you, been gamer ~30 years (at times, hardcore gamer), built several builds with prior in-depth research like you. Currently having 3 builds, full specs with pics in my sig.
I haven't had much issues with games, other than game issue itself. Hardware that i've had over the years have been all sound. Sure, i've had HDDs, ODDs die on me but that's to be expected. CPUs/GPUs/MoBos/RAMs, have all been in use until they got obsolete. None have died on me.
I also have in-depth knowledge on how to keep my system running smooth, without malware/bloatware. This, keeping the OS going good, is actually more important than the beefy hardware one can have in their system. Since what good is fancy GPU that can produce 200+FPS but will stutter all over the place? (Looking at Radeon.)
Oh, keeping drivers the latest isn't always the best option either. I've had trouble with latest GPU drivers, that cause issues for me, where i was forced to roll back a version or two. Now, i don't even bother upgrading GPU drivers, since: "If it ain't broke - don't fix it.".

Win11, despite latest, is poor OS. All sorts of issues with it. So, i suggest that you revert back to Win10.
E.g i'm using Win10 (which GUI i've tuned to look like Win7) and for games i play, i don't have issues. My current build, Skylake, is almost equal to your old build. Sure, it's somewhat old, but it provides me with everything i need, so, i haven't had much reason to replace it. Sure, i did upgrade the GPU few years back but CPU is still going strong, for my needs.

Maybe there are some tweaks you can do with Win11, to make it run better. I don't know. I have no experience with Win11.

You might be on to something. I should definitely do a fresh install of Windows 10 on another drive and see what happens at least. Totally agree with you on the drivers and being smart about keeping your computer running smoothly

 

[kevinjmay]

A lot of computer issues stem from some combination of everything. And that's just the nature of the beast: you're given a lot of freedom to do whatever you want, but with that comes the fact that developers can't predict how the infinite number of combinations of product you're trying to run their software on will affect it.

The only reason why consoles have a better time is because there's only one, maybe two core configurations of hardware and everyone's more or less on the same system software.

If you want to have an even more fun time, try development on Linux.

Haha, I'll have to take your word on that about Linux. That's not for me.

But yeah, I do understand that theres endless combinations of hardware. I guess I was more so saying that even when I look at "whats popular" in terms of hardware, I feel like I expect it to have no issues. Maybe I'm just being misled by youtube videos and "top ranked" lists too much. That wasn't really a thing as much back in the day. But someone pointed out that maybe Windows 11 is to blame. Just gotta test it!

 

[hotaru.hino]

But someone pointed out that maybe Windows 11 is to blame. Just gotta test it!

It's an easy target to blame because there's enough negative PR about it. But I've been using it since it came out and I haven't had any issues with it outside of really old games. But I write off anything that is older than from 2000 or so because even games in the 90s had trouble running on anything newer than 2 years after its release.

 

[Hotrod2go]

While i do like the RPG gerne, since you can build up your own char, as you see fit, it also takes a lot of time and dedication. Due to that, i keep myself away from RPG titles, since i don't like to spend that amount of time for one game. At least, not anymore. I'd rather spend 100 hours for 10 games than 1000 hours for single game.

You just hit on it how gaming can be such a personal thing. It's great how diversity in human interests keeps the world turning.

Getting bored is another aspect with all games actually. Sure, mods extend the gameplay, giving more and new content to play around, but limit will be reached at some point regardless. And before you know it, you've spent years on single game. And when you realize it, perhaps thinking quitting for good, you'll remember how much time and effort you've put into all that. And that realization, of throwing away all that spent time and effort, is the biggest hurdle in terms of letting it all go.

Don't know about that, if all games get boring then how do you explain professional sportsmen (or women) in real physical world games. The principal is the same... still playing a "game", except of course they make a career out of it for decades in the one game like Golf, Cricket, etc... & what about people who play card or board games like Chess, Canasta, or Poker? some do for literally decades as a hobby or interest. Again, there is that diversity in human interests thing again.

I know this first hand since ~11 years ago, when i was dedicated hardcore gamer, i went through it. Though, me letting go of the game, which i spent loads of time mastering it, was not on my own accord. Instead, game servers were shut down in 2015 and that was it. No more gaming. The game i was dedicated to (some may say addicted) was Need For Speed: World, an online racing MMO.

Depends how one defines a "hard core gamer" in the digital world of PC gaming. Does playing every day almost, qualify for that ? & then how many hours are invested in it? Not trying to get into semantics, just saying.

Either that, or the new generation of gamers aren't willing to put in time and effort to get good in a game. Seen it oh so many times. If anything isn't super obvious, uproar follows of how bad the game is. Thanks to this, almost all games now have tutorial and often, you can't skip it either. Heck, some games in their entirety are one big tutorial.

That's evidence of the dumbing down of the population in general, especially in recent years... but that's another topic in itself. I could rant on about that but I won't on here.

For most of my years, i've been using 60Hz monitor. Got my 144Hz monitor ~4 years ago and i couldn't tell much diff between 60Hz and 144Hz. Games seemed a bit smoother but then again, i'm casual player nowadays and aren't trained for faced-paced FPS shooters. That, and average human can see up to 60-90Hz. Trained eye, under right conditions, up to 500Hz.

Bit the same here but when I went from a 60Hz to a 75Hz with freesync monitor, I really noticed the difference. But in some frantic fighting scenes that can & do occur in open world RPG's I do notice the smoothness in visual presentation with 144Hz during those moments so can appreciate the investment in the upgrade. I was reading somewhere some yrs ago that 72Hz is the popular "sweet" spot for smoothness in frames being rendered for comfortable viewing during action scenes. This if for the general population but of course there will always be edge cases for the exception.

 

[Aeacus]

Don't know about that, if all games get boring then how do you explain professional sportsmen (or women) in real physical world games. The principal is the same... still playing a "game", except of course they make a career out of it for decades in the one game like Golf, Cricket, etc... & what about people who play card or board games like Chess, Canasta, or Poker? some do for literally decades as a hobby or interest. Again, there is that diversity in human interests thing again.

Athletics or other forms of "real" sport aren't quite comparable to PC gaming, since for the most part, athletes get payed for their efforts. That, and also the will of being the best in their field of sports. Some even like the exposure/fame with it.
Poker is prime example when it comes to money. Take the money (betting, bluffing) away from the poker and what you have left?

PC gaming has always been for entertainment. Sure, there is e-sports that some game companies try to establish but thus far, it hasn't seen much success in the masses. And while some sports fields are big on the entertainment part (e.g NBA, FIFA, F1, WRC), in their core, these fields have always been who is best (skills wise) in that field, and not who is the most entertaining for the crowd. Though, there are some who focus more on the entertainment part than actual skill in the sports. WWE is one such example.

If you would get payed for playing Skyrim SE, would that be good incentive for you to keep playing?

Depends how one defines a "hard core gamer" in the digital world of PC gaming. Does playing every day almost, qualify for that ? & then how many hours are invested in it? Not trying to get into semantics, just saying.

Well, to me, that means dedicated to playing only one game, up to 16h per day, every day. Minimum 2h per day. And not the casual gameplay, but the one where you put your effort in, to get better. Essentially on the level of addiction.

Wiki has a bit different description about what "hardcore gamer" means,
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamer#Dedication_spectrum

Hardcore gamer, IMO, is essentially professional gamer who doesn't get payed money for their gaming.

I was reading somewhere some yrs ago that 72Hz is the popular "sweet" spot for smoothness in frames being rendered for comfortable viewing during action scenes.

Yeah, i've heard that as well. ~70Hz being good for average person. But if one is gamer, who plays daily, that average is higher.

 

[ARICH5]

reffering to the op

there have been problems with the 22h2 update and win11 not playing well with realtek sound drivers causing low fps, high mem address, and even bsod's on 6-core and higher systems. i dont know the solution yet until a new driver comes out to address it. but when (for some reason) you disable realtek drivers in rightclick>sounds>playback>disable driver it has worked for others.

 

[Hotrod2go]

Athletics or other forms of "real" sport aren't quite comparable to PC gaming, since for the most part, athletes get payed for their efforts. That, and also the will of being the best in their field of sports. Some even like the exposure/fame with it.
Poker is prime example when it comes to money. Take the money (betting, bluffing) away from the poker and what you have left?

PC gaming has always been for entertainment. Sure, there is e-sports that some game companies try to establish but thus far, it hasn't seen much success in the masses. And while some sports fields are big on the entertainment part (e.g NBA, FIFA, F1, WRC), in their core, these fields have always been who is best (skills wise) in that field, and not who is the most entertaining for the crowd. Though, there are some who focus more on the entertainment part than actual skill in the sports. WWE is one such example.

No, disagree on how you define a game. To me, its just an activity one volunteers to participate in that gives them a sense of fun & satisfaction. That's all it is. No need to overthink it. It is what it is. If its done with electronics or not, doesn't matter. that's not the point. Another way of putting it is like this - a game is a game, end of story as far as I'm concerned. Don't really care if anyone agrees with me or not.

If you would get payed for playing Skyrim SE, would that be good incentive for you to keep playing?

No, not really. See my above response.

Well, to me, that means dedicated to playing only one game, up to 16h per day, every day. Minimum 2h per day. And not the casual gameplay, but the one where you put your effort in, to get better. Essentially on the level of addiction.

Wiki has a bit different description about what "hardcore gamer" means,
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamer#Dedication_spectrum

Hardcore gamer, IMO, is essentially professional gamer who doesn't get payed money for their gaming.

That's your opinion on what a hard core gamer is, good for you, you do you & I'll do me.
I don't pay attention to wikipedia for defining human behaviour - its "democratic" knowledge open to anyone who wants to edit it as they see fit.

Yeah, i've heard that as well. ~70Hz being good for average person. But if one is gamer, who plays daily, that average is higher.

I agree with this.

 

[Aeacus]

To me, its just an activity one volunteers to participate in that gives them a sense of fun & satisfaction.

None of the pro athletes do it for fun. They do it as a job.

If one does it as laid back, for fun and giggles, none would ever reach to the world class level. It is extremely hard work to push yourself and train hard, years on end, to get even close to world level in sports.

I don't pay attention to wikipedia for defining human behaviour - its "democratic" knowledge open to anyone who wants to edit it as they see fit.

Is this white paper better?;
link: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/busin...tical-mechanism-for-studying-gamer-dedication

 

[kevinjmay]

Sorry for revitalizing this post ... but just wanted to update that a fresh Windows 10 install did not solve any issues with BF2042. The only way I was able to get BF2042 to run, or at least most of the time, was to use intel extreme tuning utility and lower my performance core ration from 55x to 53x. Why did this fix the issue? I have no idea. Someone suggested it and I was at least able to play without any issues for awhile. Clearly some sort of hardware issue.

Also, Cyberpunk 2077 updated to some new patch and has completely stopped working for me. It either just crashes mid game play with no message, or give me some flatline error for me to submit. Shrug.

But again, building a new computer with updated hardware and having nothing but problems with these newer games has really drained my love for computers. I just don't know what to do at this point.

 

[Aeacus]

was to use intel extreme tuning utility and lower my performance core ration from 55x to 53x. Why did this fix the issue?

XTU is poor program to use. Any CPU OC or OC lowering (latter is which you did), is best done directly from BIOS.

In any chance, do you have your chip OC'd? Since 55x ratio = 5.5 Ghz on P-cores. Sure, P-cores can turbo up to 5.8 Ghz, but running CPU cores at constant frequency isn't that good. (It's like running car engine at 4000 RPM, regardless the speed or gear you're in.) Since you lowered the core ratio, from 55x to 53x, this means you've put your P-cores to run at 5.3 Ghz.

P-core default clock is 3.0 Ghz (30x ratio with BCLK at 100Mhz). So, try putting the ratio at Auto/Default, rather than forcing the cores to operate at certain frequency at all times. This way, CPU itself can decide when to increase or lower the core frequencies.
E.g my 6th gen chip is running Auto ratio values, whereby when system is idle (e.g me typing this), my CPU frequency is from 0.8 Ghz to 1.1 Ghz. Now, if i were to start gaming, CPU will adjust it's frequency according to the needs, from 1.1 Ghz to 3.5 Ghz (base clock) and up to 3.9 Ghz (turbo clock).

As of why lowering core ratio fixed the issue, 2 possible options;
#1 Your 5.5 Ghz OC wasn't stable enough, while 5.3 Ghz is.
#2 Not enough thermal headroom when running P-cores at 5.5 Ghz. But more (enough) thermal headroom when running them at 5.3 Ghz.

 

[kevinjmay]

XTU is poor program to use. Any CPU OC or OC lowering (latter is which you did), is best done directly from BIOS.

In any chance, do you have your chip OC'd? Since 55x ratio = 5.5 Ghz on P-cores. Sure, P-cores can turbo up to 5.8 Ghz, but running CPU cores at constant frequency isn't that good. (It's like running car engine at 4000 RPM, regardless the speed or gear you're in.) Since you lowered the core ratio, from 55x to 53x, this means you've put your P-cores to run at 5.3 Ghz.

P-core default clock is 3.0 Ghz (30x ratio with BCLK at 100Mhz). So, try putting the ratio at Auto/Default, rather than forcing the cores to operate at certain frequency at all times. This way, CPU itself can decide when to increase or lower the core frequencies.
E.g my 6th gen chip is running Auto ratio values, whereby when system is idle (e.g me typing this), my CPU frequency is from 0.8 Ghz to 1.1 Ghz. Now, if i were to start gaming, CPU will adjust it's frequency according to the needs, from 1.1 Ghz to 3.5 Ghz (base clock) and up to 3.9 Ghz (turbo clock).

As of why lowering core ratio fixed the issue, 2 possible options;
#1 Your 5.5 Ghz OC wasn't stable enough, while 5.3 Ghz is.
#2 Not enough thermal headroom when running P-cores at 5.5 Ghz. But more (enough) thermal headroom when running them at 5.3 Ghz.

Honestly... I have zero experience with overclocking or underclocking. As I do with every PC build I've done over the years, I just put all of the parts together, and keep all of the settings as default. And for whatever reason, this specific PC build has not gone smoothly. Which has resulted in me doing things outside of my comfort zone just to get games to run.

I don't know if XTU is great or not, but I watched videos where it showed you how you could adjust things and then run cinebench to make sure everything was stable after. I've never ever done this before. I'm fine with not using XTU and making changes in the bios if it's possible. As long as my system is still stable after.

I can show you screenshots of my bios. Everything is set to default/auto. I think the only thing I might have changed was setting the profile (gigabyte perfdrive) to "optimization" because I read somewhere that you're supposed to pick that for 13th gen cpus. There's some text at the bottom of one of these that says "gaming: disable all e-core for gaming" that I haven't tried.

Main bios screen
System Info
Advanced/tweaker

All I care about is that my PC is running games well and that I'm not getting stupid out of memory errors anymore. I'm here to try anything at this point.

 

[kevinjmay]

Because I was curious about the gigabyte perfdrive, I tried changing these and playing BF2042 without any other changes.

Optimization: Gives me out of memory errors or the game just closes without errors
Instant 6 Ghz: I don't want to overclock, so didn't try this
Spec enhancement: Seems to be working good
E-cores disabled: Game will run without errors, but I noticed my fps dipping randomly really low

Maybe setting it to spec enhancement is the answer? I'll have to test it more.

"The Spec Enhance mode allows processors such as Intel® 13th gen Core™ CPU to balance between high performance and low temperature"

 

[Aeacus]

I don't know if XTU is great or not, but I watched videos where it showed you how you could adjust things and then run cinebench to make sure everything was stable after.

XTU has it's limitations and it can be iffy when showing CPU stats.

Using XTU is like slapping a turbo to an engine and hoping to get the best results, without doing the chip tune and dyno, for optimal performance.


Intel XTU, MSI OC Genie, AsRock OC Tuner, Asus AI Overclocking, Gigabyte EasyTune etc, are all lazy man's OC options.

With essentially 1 click (hence why "lazy man's OC"), they put some level of OC on CPU (or whole system), while going way too high with voltages, among other things. Moreover, while it may give a bit better performance, those "profiles" won't tell what changes they do within BIOS. This can result in all kinds of stability issues. Even hardware failure.

All-in-all, if one wants to OC their CPU, better do it manually from BIOS. Or not do anything at all. This "convenient" 1 button/click OC is bad for hardware. Always has been.

Overclocking from BIOS, on the other hand, offers the most complete access to all available system performance settings. If you’re interested in manually fine-tuning your system settings and managing every aspect of your overclock, you should do it through the BIOS.

Source: Intel - https://www.intel.ca/content/www/ca/en/gaming/resources/bios-overclocking.html

Give it a read, it's a good read.

Main bios screen
System Info
Advanced/tweaker

Google Drive - Access Denied.
Sure, i can "request access" by using my e-mail, but that, due to security reasons, i am not willing to do.

To host images, better use free image hosting sites, like: www.imgur.com

Maybe setting it to spec enhancement is the answer? I'll have to test it more.

I don't have 700-series chipset MoBo and 13th gen CPU at hand, to see which optimization method would be the best. So, you have to test it out by yourself.

 

[kevinjmay]

XTU has it's limitations and it can be iffy when showing CPU stats.

Using XTU is like slapping a turbo to an engine and hoping to get the best results, without doing the chip tune and dyno, for optimal performance.


Intel XTU, MSI OC Genie, AsRock OC Tuner, Asus AI Overclocking, Gigabyte EasyTune etc, are all lazy man's OC options.

With essentially 1 click (hence why "lazy man's OC"), they put some level of OC on CPU (or whole system), while going way too high with voltages, among other things. Moreover, while it may give a bit better performance, those "profiles" won't tell what changes they do within BIOS. This can result in all kinds of stability issues. Even hardware failure (like OP of this topic).

All-in-all, if one wants to OC their CPU, better do it manually from BIOS. Or not do anything at all. This "convenient" 1 button/click OC is bad for hardware. Always has been.


Source: Intel - https://www.intel.ca/content/www/ca/en/gaming/resources/bios-overclocking.html

Give it a read, it's a good read.


Google Drive - Access Denied.
Sure, i can "request access" by using my e-mail, but that, due to security reasons, i am not willing to do.

To host images, better use free image hosting sites, like: www.imgur.com


I don't have 700-series chipset MoBo and 13th gen CPU at hand, to see which optimization method would be the best. So, you have to test it out by yourself.

I will definitely give it a read, thanks for the resource.

Those images should be public now... but in case you wanna look and see if anything jumps out to you, I uploaded them to imgur as well:

https://imgur.com/a/aILaqPi

View: https://imgur.com/a/aILaqPi

 

[Aeacus]

Maybe setting it to spec enhancement is the answer?

Looked around what those options stand for and found this:

I have been using Gigabyte aorus z790 extreme AX with i7 13700k. There are various BIOS profiles named under Gigabyte Perfdrive so my experience is as follows:

Optimization: Runs cpu at 1.397v with max 230w avrg, temps ~90-95 c on cinebench r23
Instant 6 Ghz: overclocks 2 cores up to 6 ghz ( 5890 mhz )
Spec enhancement: Cpu at 1.45v and ~250w power, temps reaching 100c
E-cores disabled: as name suggests ecores are disabled with temps in 85-90c on CB r23

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/11cfkia/gigabyte_perfdrive_explained/

i9-13900K is the most hot running chip ever made and there is little one can do without running into thermal throttle. Then again, Intel has designed the CPU to run at 95-100C at all times.

The Adaptive Boost Technology (ABT) feature allows Core i9 processors to dynamically boost to higher all-core frequencies based upon available thermal headroom and electrical conditions, so the peak frequencies can vary. It also allows the chip to operate at 100C during normal operation — if the chip sees that it is running underneath the 100C threshold, it will increase its performance and power consumption until it reaches the safe 100C limit, thus providing more performance.

Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-13900k-i5-13600k-cpu-review/3

Also looked your BIOS screens and nothing apparent pops up to me. Then again, OC from BIOS isn't my thing and i quite doesn't have the minute know-how how to optimize 13900K from BIOS.
I'll look if i can get someone else to join in, who knows more about 13900K specifically.

 

[Aeacus]

I'll look if i can get someone else to join in, who knows more about 13900K specifically.

So, asked around and got a bit of info, as of what to try.

In your BIOS, there should be option to enable/disable "Legacy Gaming". Look if there is one and toggle it another way, to see if it helps.

Also, there are reports that for i913900K + RTX 4090, "out of memory" errors can happen. At this point, i'm unsure if it is due to that specific CPU-GPU combo or is the CPU alone at fault in this. Nor i have any idea why it would happen.
As of fixing it, well, CPU replacement. And not with another i9-13900K, but instead lesser CPU, like i7-13700K or i5-13600K. Lesser CPU would have better thermals as well, while performance wise, one can't tell a diff in real world usage. Only synthetic benchmarks would show the diff.

 

[kevinjmay]

Looked around what those options stand for and found this:


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/11cfkia/gigabyte_perfdrive_explained/

i9-13900K is the most hot running chip ever made and there is little one can do without running into thermal throttle. Then again, Intel has designed the CPU to run at 95-100C at all times.

Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-13900k-i5-13600k-cpu-review/3

Also looked your BIOS screens and nothing apparent pops up to me. Then again, OC from BIOS isn't my thing and i quite doesn't have the minute know-how how to optimize 13900K from BIOS.
I'll look if i can get someone else to join in, who knows more about 13900K specifically.

I also found that description as well when doing some research. What doesn't make sense to me though is that optimization (which is less volts and power) causes issues with bf2042, but spec enhancement (which increases volts and power) fixes my problem lol. I haven't had any issues with bf2042 since that change. Wild. I'll just keep running it like this for now. My pc will keep me warm during the winter Thanks for trying to help man