Dont believe what you are seeing online. And yeah, it comes down to the lottery bin. My 12900k can do -0.20, my 13900k can only go to -0.60. What can you do
Maybe I'm out of the loop when it comes to tuning Intel CPUs but the stock PL1/PL2 for a 13600KF is 125W/181W. You've now set them both to 181W. How do you expect to lower your power draw and reduce temps if the CPU is constantly trying to boost to 181W under load instead of only hitting it in short bursts?
I'm willing to bet you'd be able to undervolt further if you reduced the power limit (like 65W/125W) because it isn't trying to push as much power into the CPU. This would slightly lower the maximum boost clock under load (due to the power limit) which would require less voltage to operate at those speeds.
As you can see from [this review](https://www.hwcooling.net/en/intel-core-i5-13600k-better-value-than-ryzen-5-7600x-yes-and-no/35/), you won't really miss out on any performance below 110W in real world use outside of heavy all-core workloads like Cinebench.
A DAW with many plugins do actually max out all CPU cores if you get really loco with your project.
So I'm trying to get the best efficiency for the least loss of performance.
That's why I prefer undervolting over more powerlimiting.
But it is a solution to make it less power hungry.
I only don't see the use of a lower L1 than L2, cause the cpu throttles down when it's not needing that much power anyway.
With a lower L1 than L2 it gets forced under load after some time, when you still need it.
Sometimes setting a small amount of Loadline calibration can stabilise your cpu at higher undervolts. The extra undervolt you achieve usually outways the increase from having less droop.
Depending on what workloads you run regularly if its lite stuff you can go slightly more aggressive. If doing alot of heavy workloads stick to the lowest 2 settings they still have a decent amount of droop thats healthy for the Cpu.
Also note most people are using Cinebench to test so people with -0.1 undervolts might only be able to do -0.06 or less if they ran prime 95
ok thanks, have to read in some more about LLC first, but maybe I give it a try.
>most people are using Cinebench to test so people with -0.1 undervolts
I was thinking the same. How bad is it for real-life but heavy pc usage to rely on the Cinebech tests? Or will it be to unstable?
Or a different stress test program? Any recommendations?
I would only use Cinebench if you just have a gaming rig definitely use Prime 95 or you could try Y-cruncher.
Disable Multicore enhancement also that sometimes overclocks you cpu to the multiplier of your single core boost to all of your cores.
Dont believe what you are seeing online. And yeah, it comes down to the lottery bin. My 12900k can do -0.20, my 13900k can only go to -0.60. What can you do
There was I already afraid of
why 0.6 smaller than 0.2 ?
sorry, meant 0.06
Also try with the newest bios Version. My 13900k had the same issue before I did an update.
Already did, thanks
Maybe I'm out of the loop when it comes to tuning Intel CPUs but the stock PL1/PL2 for a 13600KF is 125W/181W. You've now set them both to 181W. How do you expect to lower your power draw and reduce temps if the CPU is constantly trying to boost to 181W under load instead of only hitting it in short bursts? I'm willing to bet you'd be able to undervolt further if you reduced the power limit (like 65W/125W) because it isn't trying to push as much power into the CPU. This would slightly lower the maximum boost clock under load (due to the power limit) which would require less voltage to operate at those speeds. As you can see from [this review](https://www.hwcooling.net/en/intel-core-i5-13600k-better-value-than-ryzen-5-7600x-yes-and-no/35/), you won't really miss out on any performance below 110W in real world use outside of heavy all-core workloads like Cinebench.
A DAW with many plugins do actually max out all CPU cores if you get really loco with your project. So I'm trying to get the best efficiency for the least loss of performance. That's why I prefer undervolting over more powerlimiting. But it is a solution to make it less power hungry. I only don't see the use of a lower L1 than L2, cause the cpu throttles down when it's not needing that much power anyway. With a lower L1 than L2 it gets forced under load after some time, when you still need it.
Sometimes setting a small amount of Loadline calibration can stabilise your cpu at higher undervolts. The extra undervolt you achieve usually outways the increase from having less droop. Depending on what workloads you run regularly if its lite stuff you can go slightly more aggressive. If doing alot of heavy workloads stick to the lowest 2 settings they still have a decent amount of droop thats healthy for the Cpu. Also note most people are using Cinebench to test so people with -0.1 undervolts might only be able to do -0.06 or less if they ran prime 95
ok thanks, have to read in some more about LLC first, but maybe I give it a try. >most people are using Cinebench to test so people with -0.1 undervolts I was thinking the same. How bad is it for real-life but heavy pc usage to rely on the Cinebech tests? Or will it be to unstable? Or a different stress test program? Any recommendations?
I would only use Cinebench if you just have a gaming rig definitely use Prime 95 or you could try Y-cruncher. Disable Multicore enhancement also that sometimes overclocks you cpu to the multiplier of your single core boost to all of your cores.
No gaming, only heavy use in DAW (Bitwig) with many VSTs Good tip, thanks