Synthetic System Benchmarks
On this page, we will show synthetic benchmarks, some that test a variety of system use-case scenarios, and others that test specific multi-core and single-core/thread workloads to hone in on performance differences. Note that the graphs are arranged from fastest to slowest, and the bars highlighted in blue are with Microcode 0x129 in place, while the grey bars are the previous BIOS version without the Microcode fix.
Geekbench 6
We are using Geekbench version 6.3.0 for our testing. We will show Multi-Core (nT) and Single-Core (1T) performance in separate graphs.
According to Geekbench Multi-Core testing, installing the BIOS with the Intel Microde Fix 0x129 reduces performance by just 0.3% in the Extreme Profile mode. In the Performance Profile mode, the new Microcode Fix 0x129 decreases performance by just 0.18%. Therefore, there is no significant downgrade or change in performance in this Multi-Core test in Geekbench 6.
In Geekbench 6’s Single-Core performance testing, the Intel Core i9-14900K in the Extreme Profile with the Microcode Fix 0x129 decreases performance only by 0.15%. In the Performance Profile, the Microcode Fix 0x129 decreases performance only by 0.15% as well. Therefore, at least according to Geekbench, there is no significant change in single-core performance.
3DMark CPU Profile
We are testing 3DMark’s CPU Profile which tests Max Thread performance and Single Thread performance, we are reporting both on separate graphs.
In 3DMark’s CPU Profile test, the Intel Core i9-14900K with the Microcode Fix 0x129 applied reduces performance by a small 0.36% in the Extreme Profile. In the Performance Profile, there is a slightly higher benchmarkable, difference of 0.39% by applying the Microcode Fix 0x129. Overall, these numbers are rather insignificant in performance differences.
In 3DMark’s 1-Thread testing, we find that the Microcode Fix 0x129 has the exact same performance as before the update, in the Extreme Profile. In the Performance Profile, there’s just a 1-point difference with the Microcode Fix 0x129 update, so no change really.
PerformanceTest 11
In PassMark PerformanceTest 11 CPU Mark test, the Intel Core i9-14900K in the Extreme Profile actually gains performance with the Microcode Fix 0x129 applied by 1.1%. In the Performance Profile, the difference is only 0.06%, so it’s the same performance overall.
Discussion (18 replies)
Join Discussion →Great writeup as usual. This is "a time will tell" scenario if this was a placebo or if it indeed worked.
I can't help but wonder if this is akin to putting lipstick on a pig and declaring it is fixed. Slight changes all of a sudden will prevent degradation (if a chip has not been degraded yet)? I don't know. I get the impression that Intel has no idea what is causing this in their 13/14 series, so they put out this microcode to appease the angry mobs with pitchforks banging on their door. Right now, I do not trust anything they say or do.
good article, let's hope it works long term
The uCode update did not change the power draw, nor are the boost clocks much lower. The max voltage was lower however (1.495 V in HWinfo). A few questions:
1) What was the VCore before the update? (In HWinfo) ? Did you see the 1.55V?
2) Does this new limit on VCore have a built in margin for already degraded processors?
3) Does tracking VCore across loads tell us anything about whether a processor has degraded or not? (accounting for the effects of Silicon lottery?)
Thanks for this article. I didn't see any noticeable difference in my 14700K after the latest bios update other than my voltages going from 1.5XX down into the 1.4XX range.
I installed the update for my 13600K system and I'm sure I'll never notice a difference in performance.
I think the real comparison is between the new microcode and the initial version that was used for the day 1 13XXX and 14XXX reviews.
Just from what i seen, before the update my cpu voltage was in the 1.35 to 1.39volts range. After the update it was in the 1.45-1.49. I wasn't having any stability issues since my cpu wasn't running on that 4000watt profile for very long before i turned it off cause all issues.
Currently i have turned off unvolt protection so i can undervolt -0.1volts to be back where it was and gonna go lower to see help like did on my rtx4070s
From watching Buildzoid's video on the update, he had easily captured 1.58V+ on the VCore prior to the update, and not able to trigger the scope after the update.
Wow! That is crazy. However, it is important to ensure that such transients are not due to instrument/environment errors. Perhaps I ought to watch that video.
[embedded media]
Video form of this article is also up -
[embedded media]
Very informative. My findings were the same with both my Intel rigs.
Certainly not the terrible impact we had all feared, but I am still not convinced this was the only root cause and that it fixes the problem.
Time will tell.
Time hasn't been kind to Raptor Lake: https://www.overclock.net/posts/29521182/
I hate it when I'm right :(
I’ve found the older I get the more that I pray that I’m wrong