Intel Core i9-14900K Microcode 0x129 BIOS Fix: Before vs After Performance Benchmarks

The FPS Review may receive a commission if you purchase something after clicking a link in this article.

Gaming Performance

We are going to focus on the 1080p gaming performance, to look at any differences in CPU performance while gaming. We are using an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Founders Edition video card with driver version 560.70. All games are being run in their “Ultra” game settings, at native resolution, and with no ray tracing. The results with the Microcode Fix 0x129 BIOS applied are highlighted in blue, while the grey bars are using the BIOS previous to this new one, without the Microcode fix. We will test both the Extreme and Performance Profiles.

Horizon Forbidden West

Intel Core i9-14900K Microcode 0x129 BIOS Fix Horizon Forbidden West

In Horizon Forbidden West the Intel Core i9-14900K in the Extreme Profile loses about 0.57% of performance applying the new Microcode Fix 0x129, or just 1 FPS. In the Performance Profile, the difference is even less at 0.34% difference.

Alan Wake 2

Intel Core i9-14900K Microcode 0x129 BIOS Fix Alan Wake 2

In Alan Wake 2 you’ll see there is a significant difference between the Extreme and Performance Profiles, to begin with. However, with the Microcode Fix 0x129 applied we are actually seeing a slight increase in performance. With the Microcode Fix 0x129 applied in the Extreme Profile performance goes up by 0.5%. In the Performance Profile performance goes up by 0.4%.

Returnal

Intel Core i9-14900K Microcode 0x129 BIOS Fix Returnal

In Returnal the Intel Core i9-14900K performs exactly the same with the Microcode Fix 0x129 fix applied in the Extreme Profile and is actually 0.47% faster in the Performance Profile

Avatar Frontiers of Pandora

Intel Core i9-14900K Microcode 0x129 BIOS Fix Avatar Frontiers of Pandora

In Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora, the Intel Core i9-14900K in the Extreme Profile loses about 0.57% performance applying the Microcode Fix 0x129 update. In the Performance Profile, it loses 0.58% performance.

Join the discussion in The FPS Review Forums...

Discussion (18 replies)

Join Discussion →
S
Slag-King 👍 2

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.

B
Burticus 👍 1

good article, let's hope it works long term

I

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?)

Niner51
Niner51 👍 1

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.

h

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.

a
arbiter9605 👍 1

"Iron Bars, post: 88787, member: 8397" wrote:

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?)


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

Space_Ranger
Space_Ranger

"Iron Bars, post: 88787, member: 8397" wrote:

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?)


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.

I

"Space_Ranger, post: 89029, member: 52" wrote:

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.

Space_Ranger
Space_Ranger 👍 1

"Iron Bars, post: 89030, member: 8397" wrote:

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]

D
David_Schroth 👍 2

Video form of this article is also up -

[embedded media]

Niner51

"David_Schroth, post: 89212, member: 1" wrote:

Video form of this article is also up -



[embedded media]


Very informative. My findings were the same with both my Intel rigs.

Zarathustra
Zarathustra 👍 1

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.

i
igor_kavinski

"Zarathustra, post: 89258, member: 203" wrote:

Time will tell.


Time hasn't been kind to Raptor Lake: https://www.overclock.net/posts/29521182/

Zarathustra
Zarathustra 👍 1

"igor_kavinski, post: 98746, member: 10805" wrote:

Time hasn't been kind to Raptor Lake: https://www.overclock.net/posts/29521182/

I hate it when I'm right :(

Brian_B

"Zarathustra, post: 98756, member: 203" wrote:

I hate it when I'm right :(


I’ve found the older I get the more that I pray that I’m wrong

Brent Justicehttps://www.thefpsreview.com
Former managing editor of GPUs at HardOCP for 18 years, Brent Justice has been reviewing computer components since the late 90s, educated in the art and method of the computer hardware review, he brings experience, knowledge, and hands-on testing with a gamer-oriented and hardware enthusiast perspective. You can follow him on Twitter - @Brent_Justice You can sub to his YouTube channel - Justice Gaming https://www.youtube.com/c/JusticeGamingChannel You can check out his computer builds on KIT - @BrentJustice https://kit.co/BrentJustice

Recent News