Gaming Continued
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.
Cyberpunk 2077
In Cyberpunk 2077 the Intel Core i9-14900K in the Extreme Profile loses about 0.6% performance with the Microcode Fix 0x129 BIOS applied. In the Performance Profile, the difference is 0.33%.
Dying Light 2
In Dying Light 2, we are so far seeing the most significant differences in our gaming lineup here. With the Intel Core i9-14900K in the Extreme Profile applying the Microcode Fix 0x129 BIOS update reduces performance by 0.9%. In the Performance Profile, it is reduced by 0.3%.
Starfield
In Starfield though, there is literally no difference in performance with the Microcode Fix 0x129 applied for this game.
Assassin’s Creed Mirage
We also see no noteworthy changes in performance in Assassin’s Creed Mirage with the Microcode Fix 0x129 update applied.
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