New (beta) 1662 BIOS with microcode 0x129 gives huge performance loss at default setting

[Gaupe]

I Have tried to address this in comments in the big thread but it does not give any answer

With the new 1662 bios with the 0x129 microcode, when set to default settings,  i see a over 35% performance loss in Cinebench multicore benchmark.  this is with a i7-14700F

This is because the default is now    ASUS Performance Enhancement 3.0   to disabled

When i set this back to enabled. with a max of 90 degrees C, the performance is kind of  equal to what is was before.

Is this really  the new "safe" setting ? and do users have to put up with a 35% performance loss, in order to not break their cpu?

Or is the microcode taking care of that and is Enabling this ASUS Performance Enhancement  generally safe as in  (when they still where default) it wont break the cpu ? )

It seems to me almost that the voltages are lower with the setting enabled, only the power limits are set higher so the turbos can do their work.

[Huigie]

Do you trust Intel? Do you think they have really fixed the issue? What is safe? We all thought we were safe...

Any overclock is considered not safe but if you keep voltage and temps in check you should be ok.

[Gaupe]

That is exactly why i ask this question.  (This is a non K version so there is no overclocking of the CPU btw ) And i think this has to be answered by Either Intel or ASUS after having confirmed this with Intel. I think if this is not addressed , the user has in fact paid for a product it did not get. There was always the Intel default settings but the user has been told years and years, also by intel, that The processor would be protecting itself if not taking of all breaks (in case of K versions which i do not have) . and using , even by intel provided XMP profiles. If this now all is to be set to Intel default then what , for example did people pay for extra when they bought a K version?  expectations have been set and it cant just not be that from now on we have to put all on these very conservative defaults (even XMP is off the table)  in order to have any chance of not killing the CPU .  I do not think Intel can get away with that.  neither can ASUS as it sold the MOBO with these same  expectations it would give these performances without the fear of bricking the CPU. Yes instability can be sometimes not be fully guaranteed with these settings which where even default on ASUS boards, But there is been made the expectation that it would not degrade the CPU in the way it does now.

[weaselciuy]

They messed up the coding from the start, since this CPU generation started. Bad bios code, bad design probably at the foundry or w/e; my suspicion now since SVID settings to Mobo/Intel defaults now, from Old Auto + seeing some research that Auto had some kind of bad coding avoiding protections + together with some major current droop on default settings for the VRM, intel 1st fixed the burnout issue by using the Mobo/Intel settings that worked as default, fix the AUTO in the meantime (maybe) and find a way to improve the droop or OC the VRMs (if possible) to compensate.

Anyone that did not use SVID Auto got away from the danger of slow burning CPU probably, but the droop is omnipresent, so I expect a pump to how VRMs are used in next bios if not already (Performance or Extreme setting)

Basically the issue is to deep to fix without handicapping the CPU, if even is fully fixed.

Also, my 2c, I may be totally wrong.

[Gaupe]

Ill put some cents more in then. I think we have not seen the end of this. To me the whole microcode from Intel and now ASUS setting you to conservative settings is to stall and trying to shift the responsibility to the user. But i think the ghost is out of the bottle now . Asus has to come with clear statements what can be done safely in order for not to damage the processor as well as Intel because i have the feeling the microcode is not completely covering the problem. Otherwise we would have gotten all clear from Asus for what goes on with the Asus Performance Enhancements. This setting would not be able to damage the processor anymore.  And if the answer is that these conservative settings are the only settings that can guarantee that. then i see claims coming up.