z790 + 13900K = default overvolt (question)

I had the same thought and I have come to the UN-scientific and totally unverifiable conclusion that the answer is YES.

I have 13900K, Asrock PG Lightning, NZXT 360mm XT Kracken AIO with Thermal Grisly Kryonaut grease

Basically, I disabled any "extra" voltage from the motherboard by enabling Intel limits on the easy mode BIOS menu.

I then used the advanced menu's CPU/Voltage and FIVR to:

- enable OC mode instead of stable mode for the CPU
-disable under-volt protection
- set a -150 mv under volt while leaving all other voltage settings to auto
- set PL 1 to 230 watts and Pl2 to 253 watts - YES this limits performance but it is not or hardly not noticeable
(I am unsure why but after setting Intel default limitations the PL1 was at 253 and the PL2 was at 265)

There is a new technology on 13th gen CPU's called Intel® Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 which tests the cores and sets certain cores to a higher workload based on how much performance they get with lower voltages..IE the cores that run the fastest with the lowest voltages will get more work - this causes these cores to generate more heat than the others which is why you see (in my case) P-cores 4,5,6,7 at 5.8Ghz and 60 degrees while the others are at 5.5Mhz and 45-55 degrees

There is also another that uses algorithms to determine that during case of heavy work load SOME cores can go as high as 100 degrees Celsius which is tjmax and can be reached but, not surpassed without damaging the CPU - of course the higher the temperature to shorter the core or CPU life so lower temps is STILL better until these CPU's prove they can run for 5-10 years while temporarily hitting 100 degrees - in experience working with a repairing laptops this is not possible although laptops regularly hit high 80s low 90's. Temp limits have been set by the Intel/Motherboard manufacturers recommended 92 degrees Celsius for years, why the sudden change in allowing CPU's to hit 100 degrees came about I am not sure. My last desktop (8700K) ran OC'd for 7 years and never, not once went over 88 degrees Celsius during the most intensive benchmarks so what gives? Try the stress CPU function in CPUZ and watch those temperatures shoot up almost instantly for example. I mean the same CPUz stress CPU never put my old 8700K over 88 degrees Celsius and I had a 240mm (very mid range size) AIO ffs!

This feature can be turned off in the advanced menu of the Z790 boards. You need to turn off two of them and I forget what they are labelled as-but I can reboot later today or sometime this weekend if you reply you'd like their names.

AND LASTLY, for Windows users, you can download the newest version of Intel's Extremely Tuning Utility (Intel XTU) which now has an automatic OC function in it somewhere (I haven't used it yet or heard of anyone who has) and run that - if you like the results you can apply them at boot time and have an "automatic OC" courtesy of Intel :-)

https://www.intel.ca/content/www/ca/en/download/17881/intel-extreme-tuning-utility-intel-xtu.html

For my, I implemented Intel limits, set my XMP profile on the easy mode BIOS and on the advanced mode BIOS I changed CPU settings from stable to OC, disabled under-volt protection and set a -150 mv under-volt, disabled the Intel technologies that opportunistically bring the CPU voltage high enough to reach 100 degrees Celsius (two of them related to voltage regulation the cores) and I believe that's it.

Results as per Cinebench:

CPU speeds before 2 cores @5.7, 14 cores@5.5 and 16 cores @4.3
Before multi processor score was 20100 (20K approx.) with temps hitting 100 degrees on 4 cores, high 90's on the rest of the P-cores and high 80's to low 90's on all the E-cores
After my tweaking multiprocessor score was 30200 (30K) with temps hitting low 90's on 2 cores low to high 80's on the rest of the E-cores

IN real world playing Hogwarts and watching a Netflix movie while having multiple web browsers on
I get average temps of 50-60 degrees now instead of high 70's to low 80's and am better than stock speeds of 4 cores at 5.8Ghz, 12 cores at 5.5Ghz and 16 E-Cores at 4.3Ghz

Before the speeds were 2 cores at 5.8Ghz, 12@5.5Ghz and 16 E-Cores @4.3
I am not shooting for more performance just lower temps so this is really good for me and I'll leave it this way.

DISCLAIMER
- I am not a knowledgeable over clocker of today's CPU's, I try things and check for the outcomes after reading about what other, more knowledgeable people have done and tried to do.
- the last time I was actively over clocking the big thing was increasing bus speeds not CPU clocks.
- double check everything I say with someone who actually knows please

------------------------------------------------
I disabled Intel Thermal Velocity Boost and Intel Thermal Velocity Boost Voltage Optimizations, and finally Intel Turbo-boost Max-tech 3.0.

But honestly, after doing this I realized when playing games I had approx. 10 fps less AND when doing re-encoding of video it was taking twice as long as before I did this.Even though the benchmarks looked better, IRL usage they were not.

I went into the BIOS and reset everything to defaults,reboot, re-enabled XMP and set a -100mv under volt and enabled Intel power defaults then reduced the Short Duration burst to 230 from 265,reboot and now I get 31k in cine-bench instead of the normal 24K when at defaults and 2 CPU' still hit 100 degrees celcius when doing a re-encode - by this I mean I re-encode a video file from 265 to 264 and do not change the audio at all.

A 4GB video file takes about 15 seconds but after I do all the messing around in the BIOS it takes like a minute and a half.

I know this is not big deal but if I was encoding from RAW to 264/265 or something that translates from a few hours to a day and a half.

I believe my BIGGEST issue is I did not research this CPU enough before purchasing (I just wanted to latest and greatest CPU) and had I done that research, I would have a full tower instead of a mid-tower, I'd have 380-400mm AIO kit instead of the 280mm I have now, I'd have a LOT more case fans and maybe even an AIO on the VRM - if I could find one that's suitable,

I am going to install the Debauer CPU contact frame I purchased and apply the Kryotech thermal paste on the CPU when I do that (I assume the builder I purchased from used MX-4 or something along those lines as he is very cheap; I found this out after the purchase)using the contact frame and the Kryotech paste should get me another 10 degrees cooler or so.

Intel is playing little games with this CPU also - AMD CPU's run hot and draw more power than previous GEN Intel CPU's, but AMD CPU's are designed with a higher tjmax(105-110 depending on the CPU) and if I was still in the market I'd be buying one of those instead. Next time I'll get an AMD just for the principal of the thing. I feel like I was ripped off by Intel - even though I know logically, I was not.

With normal everyday usage this PC runs between about 35-75 degrees and only ever goes higher than 75 when I am re-encoding or encoding and playing CPU intensive games like Cyberpunk 2077 AND even when I play Cyberpunk 2077 I get spike to 100 degrees (mostly when starting the game and maybe a once or twice over 3-4 hours of play) that may last about 5-10 seconds, other than that even a game like Cyberpunk runs with the CPU between 60-75 degrees. With this case (NZXT 510i) and this cooler (NZXT 280mm) I really can't expect much more than the way it is right now AND Intel is trying to ensure people that running at 100 degrees is not damaging the CPU and it probably isn't, but we all know that CPU's die faster the closer to tjmax they run so - I do not expect this CPU to last more than 4-5 years before I start having issues with it. My last CPU (8700K) ran for 7 years with no issues whatsoever and never went higher than 85 degrees even on the CPUz stress test which has this one shooting to 100 degrees across all cores ffs.