Hi. I'm pondering moving from my 14 years old rig to something up to date. I'm doing my homework and I see quite a mess and underclocking being new overclocking. But I also see reports of latency issues with new Intel CPUs. Here for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YSL2XEA4f4
I'm looking at 14th gen i7... I have a question, if you run your DAW on 13/th/14th gen Intel, do you have any latency/dropout problems? Should I consider AMD instead.
Intel 14th/13th gen, latency issues?
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4656 posts since 1 Aug, 2005 from Warszawa, Poland
-
- KVRist
- 175 posts since 26 Jun, 2021
I run both a 12700K and a 12900 rig. I know you inquired about 13+14, but they share the same socket - I have had no latency issues in Reaper since upgrading from a 4970K.... which also performed like a beast, but was beginning to show its age on very large projects.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4656 posts since 1 Aug, 2005 from Warszawa, Poland
-
- KVRAF
- 2185 posts since 10 Jul, 2006 from Tampa
I've seen reports of issues with games in particular; nothing about audio recording. But yes, people have been underclocking their processors to avoid some issues in games. I believe Intel has finally agreed it's an issue and is working on a "fix", but since it affects a relatively small number of processors and it's almost exclusively an issue in games (and only certain games at that), there was no mention of how long it might take them to fix the issue.
Steve
Steve
Here's some of my stuff: https://soundcloud.com/shadowsoflife. If you hear something you like, I'm looking for collaborators.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4656 posts since 1 Aug, 2005 from Warszawa, Poland
I know about problem with games, which is in short because everything is overclocked by default due to board maker race, you just need to config bios manually.
I'm investigating other issue, some people report lags, audio stutter, mouse pointer stutter while not gaming. So I'm looking to hear from someone who actually runs a DAW on those.
I'm investigating other issue, some people report lags, audio stutter, mouse pointer stutter while not gaming. So I'm looking to hear from someone who actually runs a DAW on those.
-
- KVRian
- 939 posts since 21 Aug, 2017 from Brasil
I do not have nor have proper researched Intel, but from what I see
in the audio forums no lag problem with Intel as long core parking
is disabled, but I would limit the MAX wattage and temperature...
Maybe something like 190W and 90ºC.
Btw, some tweaks you may like at
viewtopic.php?p=7624448#p7624448
in the audio forums no lag problem with Intel as long core parking
is disabled, but I would limit the MAX wattage and temperature...
Maybe something like 190W and 90ºC.
Btw, some tweaks you may like at
viewtopic.php?p=7624448#p7624448
-
- KVRian
- 505 posts since 1 Jul, 2009
I have a 14700K running Bitwig. It's a beast, everything is snappy, but it is true, there are problems with latency. I applied some of the tweaks Pictus linked above, and the latency is better, but not perfect. Unparking the cores probably will fix it... however the idle power draw will be 40W instead of 11W, what I have now.
Also, you need to do some tweaks in the BIOS. Easiest method is changing the PL1 and PL2 power limiters and do a Vcore undervolt offset to keep the temps under control if you are on AIR cooling as I am. (PL1 and PL2 = 200W = some performance loss, I get ~80C on a Noctua NH-D15) and this with a Thermalright CPU Contact Frame, which is also recommended.
Also, you need to do some tweaks in the BIOS. Easiest method is changing the PL1 and PL2 power limiters and do a Vcore undervolt offset to keep the temps under control if you are on AIR cooling as I am. (PL1 and PL2 = 200W = some performance loss, I get ~80C on a Noctua NH-D15) and this with a Thermalright CPU Contact Frame, which is also recommended.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4656 posts since 1 Aug, 2005 from Warszawa, Poland
That's exact setup I'm thinking of.
Key question, do you experience any audio playback glitches, outside of Bitwig? In everyday listening? I'm trying to figure out if it's a virtual problem or a real life annoyance.there are problems with latency
Exactly. But I understand, it's a software switch, so I could unpark for a recording session and then get back to everyday profile. My system is always on and I only record once in a while.Unparking the cores probably will fix it... however the idle power draw will be 40W instead of 11W, what I have now.
I've seen reports that AMD equivalent idles at 50W+, besides being more expensive and less efficient, so that's not an alternative.
Crazy. I'm upgrading from 50C being the workload normal. And 70C being system shutdown threshold. I will need an AIO I guess.I get ~80C on a Noctua NH-D15
Thanks a lot.
-
- KVRian
- 505 posts since 1 Jul, 2009
I did not do the full tweaks yet so in LatencyMon, I still get some high spikes here and there. I don't recall any audio glitches outside the DAW/ASIO (RME Babyface Pro FS, Windows 11). Even in the DAW, the glitches are rare, so I don't feel the need to enable the high performance power plan (~30-40W idle). The CPU ramps up automatically anyway and can handle the projects I throw at it on Balanced (~11W idle with XMP RAM profile enabled, 7-8W with it disabled). But I don't do recordings and only have small to medium sized projects with 30-40 tracks.
PC is running 16 hours a day and idle power is important to me also, that's one of the reasons I went with Intel. While using the DAW, the power consumption is ~60-90W, 55-60c, depending on the project/plugins.
A good AIO would cool it better of course, but I prefer air coolers. The high temps of 80+ are only with Cinebench and other benchmarks, with PL1/PL2 limited at 200W. Unlimited it goes up to 100c Tj. max in under a minute.
PC is running 16 hours a day and idle power is important to me also, that's one of the reasons I went with Intel. While using the DAW, the power consumption is ~60-90W, 55-60c, depending on the project/plugins.
A good AIO would cool it better of course, but I prefer air coolers. The high temps of 80+ are only with Cinebench and other benchmarks, with PL1/PL2 limited at 200W. Unlimited it goes up to 100c Tj. max in under a minute.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4656 posts since 1 Aug, 2005 from Warszawa, Poland
Thanks. That sounds reassuring. May I ask what motherboard are you using?
Intel specs on PL1/PL2 are 120/250 if I recall correctly, any reason to set them both to equal number?
Intel specs on PL1/PL2 are 120/250 if I recall correctly, any reason to set them both to equal number?
-
- KVRian
- 505 posts since 1 Jul, 2009
ASUS PRIME Z790-P
Honestly, I'm not sure why but I read somewhere that the K CPU's have equal PL1 and PL2 numbers by default. I guess Intel or the mobo manufacturers decided that it's alright to have it like that.
I have tried it. I set 125W as PL1, in a heavy benchmark the CPU ramps down to PL1=125W from PL2=253W after some time (which can be adjusted in seconds) but comes with performance loss. This may be a non issue for DAW usage, but for heavy workloads, like video encoding, it can be undesirable. At 125W the temps were ~62c. As I don't reach high workloads anyway, I just decided to leave it at equal numbers at 200W (~80c with still a lot of headroom to 100c) so I don't limit the CPU performance too much in case it needs it.
Honestly, I'm not sure why but I read somewhere that the K CPU's have equal PL1 and PL2 numbers by default. I guess Intel or the mobo manufacturers decided that it's alright to have it like that.
I have tried it. I set 125W as PL1, in a heavy benchmark the CPU ramps down to PL1=125W from PL2=253W after some time (which can be adjusted in seconds) but comes with performance loss. This may be a non issue for DAW usage, but for heavy workloads, like video encoding, it can be undesirable. At 125W the temps were ~62c. As I don't reach high workloads anyway, I just decided to leave it at equal numbers at 200W (~80c with still a lot of headroom to 100c) so I don't limit the CPU performance too much in case it needs it.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4656 posts since 1 Aug, 2005 from Warszawa, Poland
I did remember correctly, official specs are here.
My understanding is that it is the root of current Intel problems, Mobo manufacturers fighting for FPS ended up ignoring power limits and setting them over specs by default, with Intel quietly ignoring it. Which now ends in waves of malfunctioning CPUs. Maybe I'm wrong. On the bright side that should drive the prices down, so possibly it's good for me.
My understanding is that it is the root of current Intel problems, Mobo manufacturers fighting for FPS ended up ignoring power limits and setting them over specs by default, with Intel quietly ignoring it. Which now ends in waves of malfunctioning CPUs. Maybe I'm wrong. On the bright side that should drive the prices down, so possibly it's good for me.
-
- KVRian
- 505 posts since 1 Jul, 2009
Yes. By default the mobo delivers too much voltage into the CPU's. PL2 and even PL1 is set to unlimited. So the CPU, depending on the model, will draw crazy power beyond 253W intel specs. By limiting them to 253W and setting a negative voltage offset, the issue is resolved. But many are unaware and don't limit, and with time get CPU silicon degradation. That's my understanding.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4656 posts since 1 Aug, 2005 from Warszawa, Poland
But isn't P2 supposed to be a turbo mode, so that 253W is just for short bursts and sustained load should not exceed 125?
-
- KVRian
- 505 posts since 1 Jul, 2009
Yes. Why is PL1 = PL2 by default?
Found in this article:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/inte ... n-to-35-w/
"Going beyond the specs lists, the Core i9-14900K is designed to operate at 253 W, with PL1=PL2, so there is no power throttling after a minute or so."
I guess it's the same for 14700K. It's by design.
Found in this article:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/inte ... n-to-35-w/
"Going beyond the specs lists, the Core i9-14900K is designed to operate at 253 W, with PL1=PL2, so there is no power throttling after a minute or so."
I guess it's the same for 14700K. It's by design.
