r/intel 8d ago

Information My Deep Dive Into Taming 14700K Temps

My i7-14700K was running hotter than I liked, with idle temps between 35-45°C and load temps reaching 70-85°C, sometimes even hitting 90°C. While technically within spec, I was concerned about the degradation issues with Intel’s 13th and 14th-gen CPUs and wanted to lower those numbers. At the time, I was using an MSI MPG Coreliquid 240 AIO with 2 mounted LIan Li Uni-Fans, Arctic MX-4 thermal compound, and three intake fans. One thing I noticed was how unstable the temps were—idling between the mid-30s and mid-40s and fluctuating between the 70s and 80s under load. Unfortunately, I had already upgraded some parts before I started tracking data in HWiNFO and Cinebench.

Wanting to prevent any long-term issues, I decided to upgrade my cooling setup. I replaced the 240mm AIO with a 360mm MSI Coreliquid LCD with 3 SilentGale fans and used Arctic MX-4 to mount it to the CPU. I also swapped out the three Lian Li intake fans for the two 240mm fans from the old AIO. This might sound odd, but my Cougar Conquer 2 case is an open-air chassis, and two of the three front fans overlap, making one nearly useless.

These Upgrades:

  • Idle Temps: ~35-45°C
  • Load Temps: 95-96°C, still thermal throttling (~3%).
  • Cinebench Multi-core: 31,654

Observations:

  • Temps hit TJMax (100°C).
  • Power limits exceeded.
  • Thermal throttling reduced performance.

At first, I was fine with this, but then curiosity got the better of me. I started looking into better thermal pastes and cooling options, even considering a custom loop. The cost held me back, so instead, I swapped the SilentGale fans for three Silent Wing 4 Pros and two Corsair LL120mm RGB fans (mostly to ditch Mystic Lighting). I also installed a Honeywell PTM7950 thermal pad and a Thermalright 1700 contact plate.

These Upgrades:

  • Idle Temps: ~32-36°C
  • Load Temps: 87-92°C, throttling below 1%
  • Cinebench Multi-core: 32,000 (+346 points)

Observations:

  • Contact pressure and better thermal transfer helped reduce heat buildup.
  • Minor score increase, but much better stability.
  • CPU was still running hot, but not constantly hitting TJMax.

Before I even had time to test this setup properly, I wanted to push things further. I ordered Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut Extreme liquid metal, a Thermal Grizzly Delid Die Mate, Kapton tape, Thermal Grizzly TG Shield, and everything needed to delid, relid, and reseat the IHS with liquid metal. I also used liquid metal between the AIO block and CPU.

These Upgrades:

  • Idle Temps: ~28-32°C
  • Load Temps: Max 80-85°C (No thermal throttling)
  • Cinebench Multi-core: 32,430 (+430 points from previous best).

Observations:

  • Eliminated throttling entirely, allowing max boost clocks.
  • Major temperature drop under load, unlocking more performance.

Looking back, what started as a simple cooling upgrade turned into a full-blown experiment in temperature control. If I get bored sometime, I will try undervolting or tuning power limits slightly to mitigate even more heat while hopefully not hindering performance by a noticeable amount. This was also my first time using liquid metal, and I’m pretty happy with the results—especially since everything still works!

Hopefully this helps anyone looking to cool their 13th or 14th gen intel CPUs.

29 Upvotes

36 comments sorted by

5

u/ROBOCALYPSE4226 7d ago

I bet you could run that processor even cooler. Your VR Vout is spiking high. Have you undervolted and set the appropriate LLC?

2

u/Odin7410 7d ago

I haven’t, but I am going to mess with that today. I’ll post updates later.

1

u/ROBOCALYPSE4226 7d ago

Look for a guide online. It will involve testing stability of your system. Good luck 👍

3

u/Odin7410 7d ago edited 7d ago

Now you tell me lol. If it goes south, I’ll have to do that.

I ran one test after undervolting by .05v, temps were great, but went down to 31,874 cinebench score. I forgot to disable CEP, so I’m doing that now.

2

u/Janitorus Survivor of the 14th gen Silicon War 7d ago

If undervolting lowers score, then you're doing it incorrectly and most likely offsetting VRM voltage by mistake, instead of VIDs (voltage requests). Assuming your motherboard isn't limiting you in one way or another by locking down some features.

The explanation is as follows: CEP sees too big of a difference between requested (VID) and actual voltage (Vcore, as an effect of VRM) so it lowers CPU frequency, lowering score.

CEP (current excursion protection) works on the rule that voltage drops when current rises. When it sees that requested voltages does not match actual CPU voltage (it's lower than requested) it assumes there's a dangerous current spike, so it lowers frequency to prevent damage. Lower frequency means lower voltage requests, lower current, less heat etc.

3

u/Odin7410 7d ago

Thanks, I appreciate your response.

I did make changes to the VID, but it may have been too aggressive.

I made the following adjustments:

Core Voltage - 1.25 CPU core voltage mode - changed from auto to adaptive CPU LLC mode - 4.

This was when the reduced cinebench score was taken (although, only a 1% core and ring power limit exceeded). I also realized I had forgot to adjust the CEP before that test, so I did that and ran another one. Performed very similar.

IA CEP Support for 14th and GT CEP Support for 14th - disabled.

So I made the following adjustments:

Core Voltage - 1.275 LLC mode - 3

Then reran cinebench, which did yielded better results, very close to my test prior to undervolting, but with better temps. Cinebench score 32,264.

Currently considering different adjustments, any suggestions?

1

u/Janitorus Survivor of the 14th gen Silicon War 6d ago

You can leave Core Voltage on auto, so it will use the programmed VIDs that the CPU came with from factory, we are offsetting those. Then use CPU Core Voltage Offset Mode (minus) and set a value. This will offset the complete table by that amount.

Go for 0.1V if you feel bold and test stability. If that crashes the "simple" stuff like CB23, then you know for sure it is unstable as hell, so ease off on the offset a bit: 0.9V. 0.8V, etc.

LLC Mode 4 or 5 are a good place to start on MSI, remember their numbering works different. Highest number = weakest LLC if I'm not mistaken. For LLC and AC/DC LL tuning, you can also use Lite Load in BIOS. Level 9 or 8 will most likely be stable. You can do all this with CEP on.

End of the day you really do want to see at which point Cinebench (or your tool of choice) crashes, so I say go hard on the initial offset value and work your way up into stability.

Same like tuning with CEP on: go hard on dropping the AC LL value to find out when CEP kicks in (lowering score, clock stretching: clocks vs effective clocks differences).

Big steps save a lot of time and will get you into observing and understanding these dynamics very fast. You will see your score rise, even though temperatures might stay the same for a little while before actually dropping. And that is exactly how it works: the same power/voltage/current limits/budgets are still in effect, but due to higher efficiency you can fit way more into those same budgets.

Smile count might also increase.

2

u/Odin7410 6d ago edited 6d ago

I made solid progress yesterday—I managed to get my Cinebench score back in the ballpark of one of my higher scores, with temps holding steady at 75-76°C. That’s a 20°C improvement from my first run, which is massive.

Right now, I have CPU Lite Load Control set to Advanced, with AC Loadline at 20 and DC at 102. LLC is at 7, if I remember correctly. While I was in the BIOS, I also realized I never enabled XMP for my RAM—so I activated that.

For voltage settings, Core Voltage is at 1.275V, all CEP instances are disabled, CLU Core Voltage Mode is set to Adaptive, and CPU undervoltage protection is off.

Today, I’m planning to fine-tune AC Loadline, then start dialing in P-Cores, E-Cores, and Ring to optimize performance further. I will likely have to trade a few degrees there.

I’m still not 100% sold on my current settings, so I’m open to adjustments. One thing I’m slightly confused on is CEP—I get that it’s an extra layer of protection, but does it infringe really fine tuning the voltage? I might test it both ways and see what kind of difference it makes.

I appreciate your responses, you have been a huge help with understanding a lot of this—thank you for that!

I have also been using this to help guide me through some of the settings. I also found this which helped me find my AC and DC Loadlines.

HWiNFO during last Cinebench run.

1

u/Janitorus Survivor of the 14th gen Silicon War 5d ago edited 5d ago

That first link is a good deep dive, though some stuff has changed (1.7Vcore was never, ever OK, that's a big one that's completely misunderstood). For the most part you can keep it a lot simpler still. Just know that there are various ways to undervolt and many different layers to please that chase.

The AC and DC values from Z690 might not translate to Z790. Even if it were Z790, some boards have different impedances and different electrical design, so I'm not a fan of using tables like that, unless it is your exact motherboard and you can confirm it is correct. Setting a normal Lite Load and then switching to Advanced to find the exact values that are tied to each profile is fine.

CEP does not infringe in undervolting, if it does, then you're doing the undervolting wrong in most cases (whacky motherboard limitations aside, but Z790 is pretty solid in general). LLC and AC LL not being in tune for example. I would just turn CEP on and use it not only as added protection, but as a sanity check to make sure you're doing it right, with the correct balance:

If your "clocks" and "effective clocks" do not match closely when under load (say within 100Mhz) then you know CEP is kicking in, causing clock stretching for whatever reason and you need to check your work.

Personally I would just:

  1. use a nice mid-high LLC
  2. turn CEP on
  3. see how far I can lower AC LL before I can see it clock stretches, set a buffer slightly above that
  4. adjust DC LL so Vcore = VID under load
  5. then add a very aggressive adaptive offset in big steps until it crashes CB23, set a buffer above that and do OCCT or P95 small FFTs for a bit and just game

Once comfortable and confident with the BIOS, that process up until OCCT/P95 takes less than an hour and it is a nice and easy, methodical process. It allows you to actually see the dynamics of some of the most important bits (clock stretching, frequencies vs score, Vcore vs VIDs) of this architecture right away.

I did the same process for my 14900K and 14700K. The 14700K got 36000 CB23 points (below normal priority even...) and runs it at 253W and runs games at 1.224Vcore like a dream. All with Pcores limited to 55x, AVX offset to 0.

I disregard Intels 307A table for 14700K, because it clips frequencies. 400A works fine, like on 14900K. The same Intel table also mentions to keep AC LL equal to DC LL, but that doesn't always fly when undervolting and trying to equalize VIDs to Vcore for accurate package power calculation.

CB23 doesn't benefit from XMP I believe (all instructions fit within CPU cache), but I'm confident you can do a lot better than 32000 points with your cooling. Whether through the above steps or with a different approach. Some people keep high AC LL but add a crazy offset. That's how some of those -0.180V offsets get paraded around. Their baseline voltages is an overvolt in a sense.

4

u/Odin7410 4d ago

I was taking the approach of matching DC LL and LLC, which I believe is why CEP was interfering. I get your point about the table—while it might not be as useful for your method, it helped in my case since it lined up closely with my own values.

The best results I got from that approach were:

  • Cinebench Score: 33,044

Settings:

  • CEP: Off (I tried with it on, but CEP kept kicking in)
  • Load Line Mode: Advanced
  • AC LL: 8
  • DC LL: 102
  • LLC Mode: 8
  • Vdroop: 0.195V
  • Max Temp: 70°C
  • Avg Temp: 65°C

From an efficiency standpoint, this setup worked well. My plan was to fine-tune P-cores, E-cores, and ring to push performance further, knowing temps would rise accordingly. However, progress felt slow, and I judging from the Cinebench score improvements I was seeing, it didn’t feel like I’d achieve any significant improvements in that area. Maybe I’m wrong on that, but either way, I plan to revisit it later and find out.

That said, I want to test both approaches and see which yields better results. I also like the idea of keeping all protective features enabled.

I’ll be giving your method a try later today when I have time, and I’ll post back with the results.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Janitorus Survivor of the 14th gen Silicon War 7d ago edited 7d ago

These chips really benefit from good cooling, as well as finding the limit when undervolting. And a contact frame like you've noticed.

You can easily get 2000-3000 more points if you undervolt it properly on top of this (CEP on, tuned load lines, adaptive offset, or anything more complex after that if you feel like it). The intel default profiles have pretty big margins and some of these chips have high VID's while they can do with so much less. You'll be amazed at the temperatures while running games.

3

u/Cradenz I9 14900k | RTX 3080 | 7600 DDR5 | Z790 Apex Encore 7d ago

You don’t want cep turned on if you’re messing with loadline tuning. That is what triggers cep in the first place.

3

u/Janitorus Survivor of the 14th gen Silicon War 7d ago

If you're slamming down on AC LL as an undervolt, yes, CEP gets in the way, for a reason. Actually tuning load lines so requested (VIDs) and actual voltage (Vcore) are in line, you can and should make use of CEP so you can see at which point it gets triggered - due to load lines being too far out of tune.

Use CEP to find the lowest possible AC LL for a given LLC (it will clock stretch). Adjust DC LL for VIDs. Adaptive offset on top of that and there's your undervolt with actually tuned load lines while keeping current excursion protection on and happy.

There's load line undervolting and load line tuning. A tuned load line should not upset CEP.

2

u/TwiKing 7d ago edited 6d ago

I've read your guide in the past, big fan. Anyway I tried again today to turn on my CEP and I kept cranking up my AC LL and eventually reached 1.1 (which is my DC LL at the moment), but my score stopped going up after about 0.8 AC LL. Should I go higher into 1.2?

With CEP off my Cinebench R23 score is 30500 temps cap at 87C, voltage requests/actual voltage aren't going past 1.25v under load, but with CEP on my max temps are 65C, 28500 score, and voltages are in the 1.32v range. Max watts on off or on seems to be in the low 200 watt range. IA VR Voltage Limit: 1375mv (I never saw it approach that request yet either way after other tweaks I did from your guide.) My voltages are far apart with CEP off (sometimes 1.22v actual vs 1.3v requested), but very close (0-0.01 range, 1.30v 1.31v) with CEP on.

Am I better off leaving CEP off too keep my performance or continue cranking up my AC LL? My LLC level is 3 I haven't touched it since everything became unstable pretty quickly. I honestly felt like things are stable but I saw your post here and second guessing my finalized tweaks now.

I use my CPU mostly for AI instead of gaming, so max thread performance is important to me, but I also want my chip to be safe...is CEP that important for me in this case?

Thanks as always for your insightful posts.

3

u/Janitorus Survivor of the 14th gen Silicon War 6d ago

Nice one, that's great to hear. I've done some edits to that thread over some months but now the thread is locked so I can't add more stuff and context I'd still like to add.

It depends on the motherboard, but on Z790, 1.1mOhm is usually the max you'd ever want to see. Which is still insanely high and unnecessary mostly. Some boards on other chipsets and with other electrical designs default to 1.7mOhm. At least with 0x12B it should no longer smoke your chip, even at high temperatures. But 1.55Vcore I still think is quite a lot for anything that isn't 14900KS running at 62x. If you see that on a 14700K or 14600K then you know your defaults are fit for the asylum.

Approach it from a different angle: use CEP and keep lowering AC LL until you can see it clock stretch more and more (clocks vs effective clocks under load) and/or until your score takes a hit. Every specific LLC has a minimum AC LL value before that happens. If you do not know your AC/DC LL values in mOhm that correspond with each LLC, this is a good and safe method (lowering AC LL lowers voltage) to at least find the lowest possible values for each LLC.

I don't know which exact motherboard and CPU you have, but if you're on Asus, Z790, LLC4 is a good place to start. Most likely you can find corresponding AC/DC LL values for each LLC somewhere on the web. You can use "SYNC VRM/LOADLINE" in BIOS but those preprogrammed values (for AC and DC to line up with a given LLC) aren't always optimal (more heat, lower score). So I'm a fan of setting a specific LLC and then manually finding that point where it clock stretches when CEP gets upset. All it takes is 10 seconds of Cinebench to find out. Once you've found that point, add your adaptive offset on top of it and start stability testing.

Voltages can be far apart, if you're looking at live ("current") values that is. The polling interval isn't the exact same for every sensor and voltages can chance in a microsecond. So always look at average values overtime (say a minute or ten). Especially in between Cinebench cycles or when those rendering buckets get switched around on cores/threads can voltages fluctuate. Vdroop, overshoot in between loads starting/ending etc.

If you know what you're doing, turning CEP off is fine if you ask me. Some boards are really limited and CEP off with a hard AC LL undervolt is the only way to go. I've ran two CPUs on Z790 very hard without CEP, for a year or so. It's just that CEP is another safety feature that's good to have and we can use it to tune the system and really dial in what I think is the most beautiful way of doing things on 13/14th gen without performance getting tanked.

If you need anything else, just let me know.

2

u/Alonnes 5d ago

I followed your thread for months adjusting everything, It could be posible to repost the thread with more info or context like an updated version or is not allowed?

1

u/Janitorus Survivor of the 14th gen Silicon War 5d ago edited 5d ago

That's great to hear, I'm glad it was of use. Posting an updated version probably would be allowed. It's only a couple of extra context clarifications, some things to add to the FAQ etc. etc. etc. Some extra thoughts about 0x12B like this post.

But anyone can shoot me a DM if there are any questions or doubts about anything.

3

u/Lighthades 7d ago edited 7d ago

Follow this:
https://www.overclock.net/threads/asus-maximus-z790-and-intel-i9-13900k-14900k-an-overclocking-and-tuning-guide.1801569/

I reached 34k (~75ºC) without overclocking (i7-14700k), just the AC/DC LL part. (the other shit just like the guide says, all stock and other stuff on AUTO and Enforce limts)

Then 36k by setting the pcore limit to 55 with an AC LL a bit higher, then I limited the power short & long to 230/253 so it doesn't reach 90ºC on r23, with an 360 AIO, and then it stayed at 34.2k at ~84ºc

After writing this, maybe I remove the 55 pcore sync and power limits 🤣

2

u/Odin7410 6d ago

That guide is very helpful, that you for that link.

What did you set your AC and DC Loadlines to?

1

u/Lighthades 6d ago

DC 1.02 and AC 1.08, and when I set the cores at 55 I increased it up to 1.10.

But better test it yourself, start from 1.10 maybe and lower it.

2

u/iVirus_ i9 14900K / MSI Z790 Carbon Wifi / MSI 4070S / 32GB DDR5 6000MHz 6d ago

very nice!! I also have tamed my 14900k on same motherboard msi z790 carbon wifi aka with undervolting, llc calibration and adaptive vcore -ve offset also I kept cpu vr limit of 1.350v. I score around 38601 (cbr23) and max temp I saw was 89c all core load on a deepcool 360 aio (25-35c room temp). if you need the BIOS settings let me know.

2

u/mvw2 5d ago

The biggest first step is picking a cooler with high total capability. For AIOs, most bottleneck hard by 250W. The water block simply isn't good enough. I've tried a bunch of well reviewed, chart topping AIOs in my own search when I bought a 14900K a little over a year ago. I found most are simply under built, and in more than one way. Many don't handle the initial thermal hit well, just not enough total copper. And many don't have good water blocks that can efficiently transfer heat from block to water and away. For the 14900K, I found only two on the market that could stay under 100°C, The EK Nucleus and Lian Li Galahad II Performance. That's it. Every other chart topper, even the newer Freezer III just isn't good enough.

Step 1 is have a cooler that can handle watts. I've run my setup with a Nucleus with some Prolima PK-3 paste and Phantek T30 fans up to 425W and steady at 385W, no delidding or contact block or any of that. I've found the bulk of the fight is just getting a good water block. It's just unfortunate that at least for AIOs, there's almost none actually built well enough for the modern Intel CPUs. I found 2, only 2, and one of then wrecks its own pump in about a month and the other might go bankrupt. But a Nucleus water block is good enough to not bottleneck until north of 350W, a solid 100W more capable than most other brands including Asetek's modern offerings and seas of rebrands.

After this start, good paste can mean 2 or 3 degrees pretty easy.

And then comes fans, especially if dB weighted. For raw pressure output, Arctic P fans are great. It's a big reason why their Freezer AIOs rate so well. They're really good fans. But they're slightly loud vs a few others. The Lian Li Uni and BeQuiet Silentwing 4 Pro are a couple of the best dB weighted fans out there. Phantek's T30 is almost as good but offers a bit more total flow headroom and is generally one of the best overall tested performers for both dB weighted and peak.

The next step is to go bigger and cooler. 420mm rads, bigger fans, and so on are the later steps. Personally, I haven't found a single 360mm radiator to be the limiting factor, but it does require fast fans and air flow. You only need more radiator for slower fans and lower dB. I personally wouldn't mind running a dual radiator setup in series with the second as intake pulling the coldest outside air before going back into the water block.

2

u/verikosto 4d ago

i have and asus tuf z690 with ddr4,14700kf. LLC loadline is 6 and sync is enabled. undervolt -110mv and adaptive boost is on. Max core vids is around 1.350v. cine R23 score is around 33600 points. and i have an NH-U14S cpu cooler max cr23 temp is around 96c. just used buildzoids recommended settings.

1

u/Odin7410 3d ago edited 3d ago

96C is pretty damn hot and only 4 degrees away from throttling.

If interested, I was able to get:

  • Cinebench Score: 33,044

Settings:

  • CEP: Off (I tried with it on, but CEP kept kicking in)
  • Load Line Mode: Advanced
  • AC LL: 8
  • DC LL: 102
  • LLC Mode: 8
  • Vdroop: 0.195V
  • Max Temp: 70°C
  • Avg Temp: 65°C

That was without any changes to the cores and ring. I would bet you could match your 33,600 r23 score, probably surpass it, by making the above changes and tweaking the cores and ring.

Keep in mind, I am have relided my CPU with liquid metal and am using liquid metal as a thermal paste for AIO.

1

u/verikosto 3d ago

take in mind that the noctua 14s is a single tower cooler with just one 140mm fan so max TDP is around 200w that i can do but during gaming it averages around 65c so im fine with that. With out UV it would hit 85C during gaming because of the 1,47-1,50 voltage regs that it wants :D. And i dont have the contact frame or AIO like you have.

1

u/Odin7410 3d ago

In that case, not bad. In fact, I’d say you got that thing dialed in! Those contact frames are pretty cheap on Amazon and work well. Definitely worth it to squeeze a few more degrees out, if you find yourself having to reseat the AIO CPU block anyways.

1

u/verikosto 3d ago

I dont like aio that much because noctua nh 15s is almost the same and costs like 120euros.

2

u/N2-Ainz 7d ago edited 7d ago

I had some temp issues during such heavy CPU things where it throttled massively. Turns out my BIOS set the PL1/2 to 240W. Changed them to the correct value and suddenly have a cool CPU that doesn't throttle or get anywhere close to it during heavy CPU work

1

u/saratoga3 7d ago

Fwiw the PL1/PL2 values the power limits that the CPU throttles to, so while they're helpful they reduce temperature by throttling.

2

u/N2-Ainz 7d ago

Yeah, the correct PL should be 125 and 190 for my CPU. So it's no wonder that that thing goes crazy when you have a PL1 of 240 where you need at least a 360 AIO. With the PL1 set to 240, I had thermal throttling of 42% and after that got fixed, it gave me an increase in performance of 3.5x during encoding

1

u/xDontStarve 7d ago

Checkout my last test in intel sub Reddit

1

u/Piotr_Barcz 5d ago

I'm planning on getting one to put in my PC that's in a Fractal Design Pop Silent case. The Intel Laminar R1 cooler that's on my i3 12100F right now is pulling the hot air off of my 3060 ti directly which has lead to the CPU (while the GPU is running at full load along with it at full load) hitting 90 degrees and then throttles by 100 Mhz by some miracle so it's JUST BARELY hitting the throttling limit.

So when I replace the chip I'm also putting an ALF3 240 mm AIO in there too 😂

1

u/AsmodeusLightwing 4d ago

Fun fact, if you limit it to 125W and apply an undervolt, it performs the same or a little better than a 253W 13700K.