best ram to buy for my usage and system specs?

[Carsomyr]

I am one of the users that shall disagree today.

Here's my in depth guide for you!!

Asus board.
Step1 - Turn off MCE. F10 save, post windows. Done.

Yes but I hear that the new "intel baseline" pretty much means 20% less performance than the benchmarks commonly used online to compare the i9 14900k to other cpus...

"With MCE disabled, the 14900K can’t sustain maximum clocks across all cores due to the 253W cap. After the turbo duration, clocks drop to maintain PL1 (125W), reducing performance. Reviews and user data suggest a 5-10% performance hit in multi-threaded workloads when enforcing stock power limits... "
"Single-threaded performance is largely unaffected by MCE, as it depends on the max boost clock of a single core (6.0 GHz), which can still be achieved within the 253W limit for short bursts"
"With MCE disabled, power draw is capped at 253W during turbo, then drops to 125W after the turbo duration"

Intel CPUs Are Crashing and It's Intel's Fault: Intel Baseline Profile Benchmark

For years, we have highlighted Intel's loosely defined CPU power specs and the problems they pose for customers. The issue now is that some 13th and 14th-gen...

www.techspot.com

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Yes but I hear that the new "intel baseline" pretty much means 20% less performance than the benchmarks commonly used online to compare the i9 14900k to other cpus...

"With MCE disabled, the 14900K can’t sustain maximum clocks across all cores due to the 253W cap. After the turbo duration, clocks drop to maintain PL1 (125W), reducing performance. Reviews and user data suggest a 5-10% performance hit in multi-threaded workloads when enforcing stock power limits... "

"Single-threaded performance is largely unaffected by MCE, as it depends on the max boost clock of a single core (6.0 GHz), which can still be achieved within the 253W limit for short bursts"

"With MCE disabled, power draw is capped at 253W during turbo, then drops to 125W after the turbo duration"

Intel CPUs Are Crashing and It's Intel's Fault: Intel Baseline Profile Benchmark

For years, we have highlighted Intel's loosely defined CPU power specs and the problems they pose for customers. The issue now is that some 13th and 14th-gen...

www.techspot.com

The less performance from CPU reviews is expected when those reviews may leave MCE enabled or auto. Which allows the cpu to utilize ICC max at 500a and short + long term power limits set to unlimited. Which allows the internal effective clock rate to boost as high as 5.9ghz while utilizing TVB, even if the reading is never shown by cpu-z or the like. That is called Management Engine magic.

So realistically, with a 253w restriction effective all core on my 14900K are 5.2ghz to 5.5ghz respectively and right at 40k Cinebench R23 score.

Even after saying all that, my original point was its actually easy to run them cool at the expected performance level of what Intel designed the cpu to do in the first place. Only 253w, while reviews will show anywhere from 280w to 320w respectively.

The other easy way is to simply use lower cpu multipliers and let ME control the v-core.

Another easy way is just to lower the LLC, while leaving MCE enabled.

And to OC an Intel chip, say you want to do it manually at the multiplier, you only increase LLC.

Then there's using a negative v-core offset, but the VID readout will still be high.

Manually set short and long term power.

I'm running bios 1604, which is really early before performance nerfing. I utilize the above in examples quite frequently. There is no longer process to running a 14900K cool/er, or at its intended wattage rather.

 

[Carsomyr]

The less performance from CPU reviews is expected when those reviews may leave MCE enabled or auto. Which allows the cpu to utilize ICC max at 500a and short + long term power limits set to unlimited. Which allows the internal effective clock rate to boost as high as 5.9ghz while utilizing TVB, even if the reading is never shown by cpu-z or the like. That is called Management Engine magic.

So realistically, with a 253w restriction effective all core on my 14900K are 5.2ghz to 5.5ghz respectively and right at 40k Cinebench R23 score.

Even after saying all that, my original point was its actually easy to run them cool at the expected performance level of what Intel designed the cpu to do in the first place. Only 253w, while reviews will show anywhere from 280w to 320w respectively.

The other easy way is to simply use lower cpu multipliers and let ME control the v-core.

Another easy way is just to lower the LLC, while leaving MCE enabled.

And to OC an Intel chip, say you want to do it manually at the multiplier, you only increase LLC.

Then there's using a negative v-core offset, but the VID readout will still be high.

Manually set short and long term power.

I'm running bios 1604, which is really early before performance nerfing. I utilize the above in examples quite frequently. There is no longer process to running a 14900K cool/er, or at its intended wattage rather.

Ok so then if my understanding is correct:

It is not possible to the avg user to achieve the intel ADVERTISED 6ghz boost of that cpu (as intended by intel) if that user follows either the intel baseline or your recommendations correct?

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Ok so then if my understanding is correct:

It is not possible to the avg user to achieve the intel ADVERTISED 6ghz boost of that cpu (as intended by intel) if that user follows either the intel baseline or your recommendations correct?

Yes at 253w, 2 cores run 6ghz. Which is well within power envelope 253w and at Intel spec. This is not an all core feature. Only 2.

The user does nothing. CPU does all this for him. Yes even with MCE disabled, power limits enforced, the cpu will boost 6ghz at 253w. No problem. But that is low/light loads. 2 cores.

 

[Carsomyr]

The less performance from CPU reviews is expected when those reviews may leave MCE enabled or auto. Which allows the cpu to utilize ICC max at 500a and short + long term power limits set to unlimited. Which allows the internal effective clock rate to boost as high as 5.9ghz while utilizing TVB, even if the reading is never shown by cpu-z or the like. That is called Management Engine magic.

So realistically, with a 253w restriction effective all core on my 14900K are 5.2ghz to 5.5ghz respectively and right at 40k Cinebench R23 score.

Even after saying all that, my original point was its actually easy to run them cool at the expected performance level of what Intel designed the cpu to do in the first place. Only 253w, while reviews will show anywhere from 280w to 320w respectively.

The other easy way is to simply use lower cpu multipliers and let ME control the v-core.

Another easy way is just to lower the LLC, while leaving MCE enabled.

And to OC an Intel chip, say you want to do it manually at the multiplier, you only increase LLC.

Then there's using a negative v-core offset, but the VID readout will still be high.

Manually set short and long term power.

I'm running bios 1604, which is really early before performance nerfing. I utilize the above in examples quite frequently. There is no longer process to running a 14900K cool/er, or at its intended wattage rather.

wouldn't it be just possible to leave MCE on but impose voltage limits in the bios anyways?
that way you could limit the cpu to something like max 1.4v and still allow the cores to attain their max turbo as often as they'd like.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

wouldn't it be just possible to leave MCE on but impose voltage limits in the bios anyways?
that way you could limit the cpu to something like max 1.4v and still allow the cores to attain their max turbo as often as they'd like.

Not really no. You can limit power, which draws less amps at any given voltage.
Most people don't realize it's Not the v-core, it's the current (amp draw) that makes all the heat at any given voltage.
So you can adjust the ICC max amps instead of using the short and long term power limits.
That means it will use say 350a at any given v-core instead of say up to 410a with a 280w power limit (as an example, not direct figures, but close enough)

If you want full on 14900K limits lifted with overclock, you want to do de-lid with direct die cooling, full copper waterblock, custom loop on ambient.

14700K is just as beastly. I have one of those too...

 

[Carsomyr]

Not really no. You can limit power, which draws less amps at any given voltage.
Most people don't realize it's Not the v-core, it's the current (amp draw) that makes all the heat at any given voltage.
So you can adjust the ICC max amps instead of using the short and long term power limits.
That means it will use say 350a at any given v-core instead of say up to 410a with a 280w power limit (as an example, not direct figures, but close enough)

If you want full on 14900K limits lifted with overclock, you want to do de-lid with direct die cooling, full copper waterblock, custom loop on ambient.

14700K is just as beastly. I have one of those too...

yeah I just need to update myself to the latest bios/overclocking settings/scenarios. My last dabble into overclocking in depth was when I originally purchased my i7 9700k. Ever since then, cpus have changed quite a bit. Basically, given that I'm not perfectly fluent in the new lingo, when I read your past 3 replies, I really feel like I were to set the pl1 and pl2 to intel's "default power limits" sure, I'd get stability, but I really feel like I would basically be getting a i7 14700k, but with 4 more e-cores and threads

I checked out jayz2cents video where he disables MCE as per your recommendation and you can automatically see that his frequencies are in the 5.1-5.5ghz, I didn't see his cpu go 6ghz during the cinebench test. That being said, the score he got at the end was 37.8k instead of 40k
so yeah not a significant drop in the test score obviously but you've got to admit it feels kinda counter-intuitive and counter-nature to go out and buy a "K" processor and then proceed to "lower everything" in the bios (broadly speaking). In my mind "K" since 15 years ago has always meant: "overclocking room"

I suppose in this instance, like you said, that overclocking headroom is only achievable through delidding/contact frame/direct die cooling.
Anyhow thanks for your input, made me reconsider some things.

Edit: I just realized Jay was actually running an i9 13900k not an i9 14900k. That explains the missing 200mhz.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

yeah I just need to update myself to the latest bios/overclocking settings/scenarios. My last dabble into overclocking in depth was when I originally purchased my i7 9700k. Ever since then, cpus have changed quite a bit. Basically, given that I'm not perfectly fluent in the new lingo, when I read your past 3 replies, I really feel like I were to set the pl1 and pl2 to intel's "default power limits" sure, I'd get stability, but I really feel like I would basically be getting a i7 14700k, but with 4 more e-cores and threads

I checked out jayz2cents video where he disables MCE as per your recommendation and you can automatically see that his frequencies are in the 5.1-5.5ghz, I didn't see his cpu go 6ghz during the cinebench test. That being said, the score he got at the end was 37.8k instead of 40k
so yeah not a significant drop in the test score obviously but you've got to admit it feels kinda counter-intuitive and counter-nature to go out and buy a "K" processor and then proceed to "lower everything" in the bios (broadly speaking). In my mind "K" since 15 years ago has always meant: "overclocking room"

I suppose in this instance, like you said, that overclocking headroom is only achievable through delidding/contact frame/direct die cooling.
Anyhow thanks for your input, made me reconsider some things.

Yes, I am not mainstream, just on old clocker that enjoys performance just as much as the next guy.

Jay's cpu boosted 6ghz on 2 cores and yes, effective clocks droop a little bit during the benchmark, all core load. No different than what I had already told you. But I'm glad you are researching my replies to see if I'm bullshitting or not. Now his score might had gone up if he utilized LLC adjustments. If I'm not mistaken, lowering it, the score would had been 40k, or perhaps some other discrepancy.

It is confusing. The motherboard manufacturers exploited the OC headroom and boost the processors to thermal limits for 5% performance increases.

Anyways glad to help. Good luck on your decisions!!

 

[leonavis]

Well. For the time being, if (!) you can shoot it used (or on sale) rather cheap, for your usecase the 5950X actually seems ideal.

 

[AleXXX666]

There are different things you can do. Using a KVM switch is one. Or you can use separate display and usb switches which can also be handy if you have multiple monitors and have the need to see both systems at once. Or you can remote into one machine from the other (using remote desktop for example) assuming you have both on at the same time. Anyway to each their own and good luck.

that KVM is so mess up... remote? lol
esp at the same place. It's like "calling" a homemate who is in separate room, unless, well, you live in a BIG hotel lol
is it too COSTLY to get some cheapo kbd+mouse for work and having "gaming" stuff for other PC? Also, for gaming there are one model monitors, for work anothers. I've tried to game at flat 27" 4K 60 Hz, was happy, then played at CURVED 27" 2K 144 Hz - lol, it was day and night. I won't type in office for 9-to-5 on a MECH KBD, it's pain in... well, fingers. But, I also won't game on some crappy membrane stuff anymore. I don't need "pricy" "gaming" mouse for just moving cursor in Excel, but it's stupid to play FPS game with some cheapo mouse these days when "gaming" are so dirt-cheap... Don't mix work and play...
Example: it's cool to have a Chalenger, or a Mustang. But Tahoe/Explorer/Cherokee would do 0-day driving more PRACTICAL.

 

[Carsomyr]

Well the story ends on a happy note:

Core ultra 7 265k brand new sealed for 325$CAD (approx 200$ usd) plus taxes and
Asus maximus hero z890 brand new sealed for 350$CAD (approx 215$ usd) plus taxes

good scores

Now I just need to find the best 8000mhz plus ram for my cpu/mobo

 

[A Computer Guy]

that KVM is so mess up... remote? lol
esp at the same place. It's like "calling" a homemate who is in separate room, unless, well, you live in a BIG hotel lol
is it too COSTLY to get some cheapo kbd+mouse for work and having "gaming" stuff for other PC?

For me the setup it's more about space management. At my desk I've basically got a 2 monitor setup where I can switch 2 monitors independently with two PC's and a USB switch. Depending on which monitor I want to use for gaming I can relax more and recline a bit facing one monitor and for games using a remote I can free up the keyboard and mouse for browsing on the other computer without interrupting the game with display switching. Probably not the OP's cup of tea.

Normal KVM's usually switch both monitor and keyboard + mouse at the same time which is fine when switching both at the same time is desired but with separate switches for monitor and keyboard a 1 Keyboard and Mouse + 2 monitor + 2 PC management can be a bit more flexible.

Remote desktop is fine when you don't want to do any actual switching and connect to multiple computers (not for gaming).