Question i7 10700 what LLC and SVID? (I have examples)

[rstolpe]

Hi,
I'm wondering what setting that I should use? I have not overclocked the CPU over the basic.
What I want is to get as much out of this CPU (stock) and I also want it as cold as possible.

My system setup:
CPU: Intel i7 10700 (just the regaler none K model)
Motherboard: Asus Prime z490m Plus

The settings that I have in BIOS is the following:
XMP: XMP1
Asus MultiCore Enhancement: Disabled - Enforce All limits
CPU Core Ratio: Sync all cores
Multipel with 46
Power-saving & Performance Mode: Performance Mode

All numbers are taking after that I have run the OCCT small data set for 1min.
I did put the VID in screenshot as it's much easier to overview.

SVID Behavior: Best-Case Scenario
LLC level 6
vcore: Current: 1.199 Min: 1.172 Max: 1.208 Avrage: 1.197
(Can't go down to lvl4 then i got BSOD and lvl5 gives me WHEA errors)

SVID Behavior: Typical Scenario
LLC level 3
vcore: Current: 1.217 Min: 1.217 Max: 1.225 Avrage: 1.222

LLC level 4
vcore: Current: 1.234 Min: 1.225 Max: 1.243 Avrage: 1.234

 

[UsandThem]

What I want is to get as much out of this CPU (stock) and I also want it as cold as possible.

If you want it "cold as possible", leave it at stock.

If you want more performance, look at this review to see what to change (and what to expect with power usage and heat): https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-10700/

 

[rstolpe]

If you want it "cold as possible", leave it at stock.

If you want more performance, look at this review to see what to change (and what to expect with power usage and heat): https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-10700/

stock is crazy hot! It’s 96c with the noctua NH-U12S and 93c with the Noctua NH-D15.

that’s why I did start to look at some tweet options

 

[UsandThem]

stock is crazy hot! It’s 96c with the noctua NH-U12S and 93c with the Noctua NH-D15.

that’s why I did start to look at some tweet options

Something is not right if your temps are that high at stock. I imagine that the motherboard is not set to the Intel spec (PL1).

Things are different once you start unlocking the power limit. Intel intended for the Core i7-10700 to operate at 65 W, which is simply way too low for this 8-core/16-thread processor. In order to achieve their 65 W TDP promise, Intel has set the PL1 power limit to 65 W. For short, in bursty workloads the PL2 power limit will override PL1 for a few seconds as it is set at a generous 224 W.

In the review, they use a Noctua NH-U14S and run Blender. With the 65w limit enforced, they were only at 43c. However, enable PL2 and it hit 76c:

 

[rstolpe]

Something is not right if your temps are that high at stock. I imagine that the motherboard is not set to the Intel spec (PL1).


In the review, they use a Noctua NH-U14S and run Blender. With the 65w limit enforced, they were only at 43c. However, enable PL2 and it hit 76c:

When I have the motherboard on auto that’s default it gives the CPU vcore at 1.3 that’s why I guess.

how do I activate the p2?
Is it changing it to performance mode as I have in bios?

 

[UsandThem]

When I have the motherboard on auto that’s default it gives the CPU vcore at 1.3 that’s why I guess.

how do I activate the p2?
Is it changing it to performance mode as I have in bios?

Most of the time when anything is set to "auto" in the performance area (with both AMD and Intel motherboards), the motherboard manufacturers "cheat" to increase the CPU performance. For the most part, Intel and AMD have looked the other way, and it can give a particular motherboard a "win" in a product review.

If you want the CPU to run at Intel specs, you need to manually change some settings and not let the motherboard handle it with "auto" settings. Your CPU is multiplier locked, so you will need to decide if you want the CPU to run at Intel spec, or to be able to boost the PL2 state for longer periods by removing the power limit. You will gain some extra performance, but at the expense of high power usage and higher temperatures.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/...erboards-with-default-settings-for-your-build

 

[rstolpe]

Most of the time when anything is set to "auto" in the performance area (with both AMD and Intel motherboards), the motherboard manufacturers "cheat" to increase the CPU performance. For the most part, Intel and AMD have looked the other way, and it can give a particular motherboard a "win" in a product review.

If you want the CPU to run at Intel specs, you need to manually change some settings and not let the motherboard handle it with "auto" settings. Your CPU is multiplier locked, so you will need to decide if you want the CPU to run at Intel spec, or to be able to boost the PL2 state for longer periods by removing the power limit. You will gain some extra performance, but at the expense of high power usage and higher temperatures.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/...erboards-with-default-settings-for-your-build

I see, is it possible to somehow see how to set all BIOS setting to "Intel-Defualt"? I just want my CPU to work as Intel intended.

 

[UsandThem]

I see, is it possible to somehow see how to set all BIOS setting to "Intel-Defualt"? I just want my CPU to work as Intel intended.

You'll have to take a look at your BIOS manual (or Google your motherboard model number for forum posts) to see what you need to change to run it at Intel defaults. Off hand I know you need to disable MCE (multi core enhancement). I haven't played around with any Z490 motherboards, so I'm not up to date on the various settings.

 

[DrMrLordX]

You could hand-edit the PL1 and PL2 values. You can also fiddle with tau if you prefer, or just disable MCE and see what happens. Bear in mind you will lose some performance in MT workloads.

edit: here is the user manual

https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/LGA1200/PRIME_Z490M-PLUS/E16187_PRIME_Z490M-PLUS_UM_WEB.PDF

Unfortunately the manual does not document the UEFI menu at all.

Here is a walkthrough from a different Asus Z490 UEFI:

I'm thinking you need to go to Advanced mode, and then go to ASUS Multicore Enhancement, and select Disabled - Enforce All Limits at the 0:14 mark in the video.

 

[coercitiv]

If you want it "cold as possible", leave it at stock.

lol, the OP system probably has no power limits at "stock". I'm starting to think that not even enthusiasts on this forum have a complete grasp of what Intel did in terms of messing up power and thermal limits on their platform. All their CPUs have power limits removed, not just the K SKUs.

The OP needs to start by manually enforcing PL1 and PL2 limits, along with PL1 Tau. Given the types of coolers involved, I would recommend PL1 set at 90-100W and PL2 set at 120W with PL1 Tau around 30-60 seconds. The other (cooler) option would be PL1 @ 65W and PL2 around 90W, but that will bring down performance quite a bit.

The best LLC setting is the least aggressive one that still keeps the system stable under heavy AVX loads, but I would rather leave it on AUto and begin by setting proper power limits and then attempting a 40-50mV voltage offset on the CPU vCORE. A 40-50mV undervolt is usually completely stable from the first try and requires no other tweaks. If the undervolt is perfectly stable, maybe then attempt to gradually lower LLC aggressiveness, but I really doubt it will be needed at this point.

 

[DrMrLordX]

lol, the OP system probably has no power limits at "stock". I'm starting to think that not even enthusiasts on this forum have a complete grasp of what Intel did in terms of messing up power and thermal limits on their platform. All their CPUs have power limits removed, not just the K SKUs.

It depends on the motherboard as well, but yes, it can be a real problem for people who do not want the chips being thermally-limited.

 

[UsandThem]

lol, the OP system probably has no power limits at "stock". I'm starting to think that not even enthusiasts on this forum have a complete grasp of what Intel did in terms of messing up power and thermal limits on their platform.

Look at my later posts, and I addressed that. I was trying to get a feel for what the OP was doing/not doing. I even linked to a review on what settings they changed to get the CPU to run within Intel spec, and what they did to get it to run out of official spec.

I also have not owned any Intel CPUs since Sky Lake, so I don't have any hands on experience with their last several CPU releases.

If you know the answer and want to help, do so. Sorry to not meet your expectations, but there's no need to come in and act like a know-it-all, confrontational "that guy".

 

[coercitiv]

If you know the answer and want to help, do so. Sorry to not meet your expectations, but there's no need to come in and act like a know-it-all, confrontational "that guy".

I wasn't trying to get confrontational, and sorry if the message came across so twisted. I also assumed you'd remember the short discussion in your 10700 thread.

So let me start over: in terms of stock power management every platform since Coffee Lake is a mess. I was amazed to discover even a B chipset board that comes with removed power limits at stock, andat this point I'm sure that everything that caters to the gaming community will behave the same. They don't care, both Intel and OEM marketing. I don't think engineers bother with power limits anymore, they just enforce some current limits and likely rely on modern power stages with with different protections to keep everything in check. No fire, no problem.

The "lol" in my post was a bitter sweet reaction to the realization that what I feared years ago while debating 9900K power settings in this community has become reality: people buying Intel CPUs with modest power consumption specs are forced to jump through hoops in order to reign in their thermal behavior. And it's not the products, it's the marketing. I'm also guilty of not fully getting it: I never imagined Intel would let this continue unchecked, especially on budget boards where customers are that more likely to use budget coolers.

Back to the OP - the only solution is to manually enforce proper power limits before anything else. No amount of LLC and voltage tuning will help in a situation where a huge cooler such as the D15 is overwhelmed (I assume is being used with low noise in mind, but still).

 

[UsandThem]

I wasn't trying to get confrontational, and sorry if the message came across so twisted. I also assumed you'd remember the short discussion in your 10700 thread.

I'm simply a fan of tech. You'll never see me arguing/debating CPU architectures, and I'm not the person who buys new hardware every year anymore (and who gets to play with all the new toys). My last Intel desktop didn't default to settings outside of Intel's official spec, and it appears that has changed over Intel's last several releases.

In fact, my X470 Asus Ryzen motherboard was similar in out-of-the-box settings where energy usage was sky-high due to motherboard defaults until I disabled a few settings.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your response, I just felt like it was an attack for whatever reason.

 

[DrMrLordX]

One thing I want to know: what does undervolting do on an Intel system that is governed by power limits rated in watts? On a modern AMD system, I know exactly what it does: it permits the CPU to continue to run in its power envelope (in my case, 142W) no matter how much you undervolt. It might affect boost limits a bit but power consumption is not affected. Does it do the same thing on Intel systems?

 

[coercitiv]

One thing I want to know: what does undervolting do on an Intel system that is governed by power limits rated in watts? On a modern AMD system, I know exactly what it does: it permits the CPU to continue to run in its power envelope (in my case, 142W) no matter how much you undervolt. It might affect boost limits a bit but power consumption is not affected. Does it do the same thing on Intel systems?

The same thing happens on the Intel system, as long as the CPU operates bellow max turbo clocks it will increase current speed to match the power limit.

However:

• If power limits are removed by stock settings (or they're too high to matter), undervolting directly lowers power usage.
• If CPU is already operating near max turbo clocks, undervolting may lead to lower power usage.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Ah okay. Technically the AMD chips don't have a fixed clockspeed limit, but they stay far below the single-core turbo limit anyway so it's academic. So if you have a 10900k (for example) on a board that has a tau of infinity for PL2, undervolting might actually help you in that circumstance.