Question My CPU wont boost to stock value

[emptyyetfull]

I have just build a PC. i9-12900
Its not overclocked, not even enabled xmp.
I prefer stock everything, so normal voltages and clock speeds.
However, it wont boost higher than around 4.30 GHz
I ran the intel performance tool, and the CPU passed all its tests.
BIOS is updated
I prefer not to install any 3rd party monitor tools, but I am attaching a zip file with images from my BIOS, would be awesome if someone would take a look:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cPc5mURQ6ikMhqYVcyYLz7gTAwxcmajb/view?usp=drive_link

Intel i9-12900 LGA1700, 65W to 202W
Samsung 990 EVO Plus NVMe M.2 SSD 2TB
be quiet! Pure Base 600 black
ASUS TUF GAMING H670-PRO WIFI D4
CORSAIR RMx Series RM850x
Noctua NH-D12L
be quiet! Pure Wings 3 140 mm
CORSAIR | Vengeance LPX EAN: 840006619208
Asus Prime 5070 Ti, 16GB, 300W
Win 11 Home

 

[punkncat]

You should install something to monitor temperatures and see what is going on. I suspect that alongside that case and a 120MM air cooler (yes, even Noctua) is not going to be enough cooling for an i9.

Edit-

A couple of suggestions for a monitoring program.

HWInfo is very good and comprehensive.

CoreTemps is decent for CPU only monitoring and very light.

MSI Afterburner and RIVA tuner are (IMO) the benchmark for in game monitoring of temps and status.

 

[thestryker]

What are you using to see the clock speed without any third party monitoring tools?

4.3GHz might actually be the all core limit with the power limits or it could be some weird combination of P/E core clocks.

 

[JayGau]

I prefer not to install any 3rd party monitor tools

You are shooting yourself in the foot by excess of cautiousness. You ask for advice to solve your problem but you refuse to install any diagnostic tools?

By the way, if you are monitoring your clock speed with task manager it might be completely wrong. You should Install HWiNFO and look at real numbers.

 

[emptyyetfull]

I used Taskmanager to see clock speed.
I now installed HW monitor.
Got 5 GHz in the max column. So I guess I worried about nothing.
Does it matter that 12V is 11.9?

 

[beyondlogic]

I have just build a PC. i9-12900
Its not overclocked, not even enabled xmp.
I prefer stock everything, so normal voltages and clock speeds.
However, it wont boost higher than around 4.30 GHz
I ran the intel performance tool, and the CPU passed all its tests.
BIOS is updated
I prefer not to install any 3rd party monitor tools, but I am attaching a zip file with images from my BIOS, would be awesome if someone would take a look:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cPc5mURQ6ikMhqYVcyYLz7gTAwxcmajb/view?usp=drive_link

Intel i9-12900 LGA1700, 65W to 202W
Samsung 990 EVO Plus NVMe M.2 SSD 2TB
be quiet! Pure Base 600 black
ASUS TUF GAMING H670-PRO WIFI D4
CORSAIR RMx Series RM850x
Noctua NH-D12L
be quiet! Pure Wings 3 140 mm
CORSAIR | Vengeance LPX EAN: 840006619208
Asus Prime 5070 Ti, 16GB, 300W
Win 11 Home

that cooler is far to low it may handle up to about 100 watts of power but 220w is a big ask.

at least 7-8 heatpipe cooler if air cooled or get a aio 240-360

 

[emptyyetfull]

I tried the 3Dmark fire strike test. Got 40288 score with XMP enabled. XMP is the only OC, CPU and GPU not OC at all.
CPU peaked at 83 deg celcius, GPU around 70.
But I dont know how how it will be if the test had lasted for hours instead of minutes.
I hope you are wrong, I wouldn't fancy having to exchange cooler.
The cooler is listed as NSPR of 148, which according to their charts give good headroom for boost/turbo on that cpu.

 

[TerryLaze]

that cooler is far to low it may handle up to about 100 watts of power but 220w is a big ask.

at least 7-8 heatpipe cooler if air cooled or get a aio 240-360

Based on what?!?!
Even the most basic cooler can cool 200w.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amazon-basics-cpu-cooler-review/2

 

[beyondlogic]

Based on what?!?!
Even the most basic cooler can cool 200w.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amazon-basics-cpu-cooler-review/2

Your basing your argument on a 10 minute benchmark do that over and over for 1-3 hrs and I guarantee it will thermal throttle as heatsink gets overwhelmed .doesn't even tell us if it's a open bench or case both are very big factors.

 

[TerryLaze]

Your basing your argument on a 10 minute benchmark do that over and over for 1-3 hrs and I guarantee it will thermal throttle as heatsink gets overwhelmed .doesn't even tell us if it's a open bench or case both are very big factors.

First off, I'm not tom's.

Secondly.
"The results below are for a 10-minute testing run. But to be sure that was sufficiently long to tax the cooler, we also retested both Thermalright’s Assassin X 120 R SE and DeepCool’s LT720 with a 30-minute Cinebench test. The results didn’t change much at all with the longer test: The average clock speeds maintained dropped by 29 MHz on DeepCool’s LT720 and 31 MHz on Thermalright’s Assassin X 120 R SE. That’s an incredibly small 0.6% difference in clock speeds maintained, a margin of error difference that tells us that the 10-minute tests are indeed long enough to properly test the coolers.

 

[logainofhades]

Also cinebench hits a CPU far harder than any real usage will. That cpu is not going to thermal throttle, with that cooler, unless it was installed incorrectly. I have a 12700k, which isn't far off on the wattage of a 12900 non k, on a be quiet! Pure Rock 2 FX, which is a smaller cooler than the OP's, in an NRP200, and I never thermal throttle.

OP: Do yourself a favor and turn XMP on. You are losing performance running at JEDEC speeds.

 

[LordVile]

First off, I'm not tom's.

Secondly.
"The results below are for a 10-minute testing run. But to be sure that was sufficiently long to tax the cooler, we also retested both Thermalright’s Assassin X 120 R SE and DeepCool’s LT720 with a 30-minute Cinebench test. The results didn’t change much at all with the longer test: The average clock speeds maintained dropped by 29 MHz on DeepCool’s LT720 and 31 MHz on Thermalright’s Assassin X 120 R SE. That’s an incredibly small 0.6% difference in clock speeds maintained, a margin of error difference that tells us that the 10-minute tests are indeed long enough to properly test the coolers.

10 minutes isn’t long enough, especially as they’re using AIOs. They’re also not saying what fan speeds they’re using, being able to cool 200W doesn’t mean much if you’ve got to sound like a jet engine on an open bench to do it. As an additional point just because a cooler can perform well for 10 minutes doesn’t mean it will perform well when heat soaked. You could get some jumping up in the ranking and some tumbling down.

 

[beyondlogic]

10 minutes isn’t long enough, especially as they’re using AIOs. They’re also not saying what fan speeds they’re using, being able to cool 200W doesn’t mean much if you’ve got to sound like a jet engine on an open bench to do it. As an additional point just because a cooler can perform well for 10 minutes doesn’t mean it will perform well when heat soaked. You could get some jumping up in the ranking and some tumbling down.

That's exactly my point 10 minutes even 30 isn't long enough to heat soak a cooler
There's no mention of a case / fans / speed of cooler. A good advantage I find with aio is it moves the heat source further away from GPU with air cooling youve got 2 power hungry heat sources next to each other warming each other.

 

[TerryLaze]

10 minutes isn’t long enough, especially as they’re using AIOs. They’re also not saying what fan speeds they’re using, being able to cool 200W doesn’t mean much if you’ve got to sound like a jet engine on an open bench to do it. As an additional point just because a cooler can perform well for 10 minutes doesn’t mean it will perform well when heat soaked. You could get some jumping up in the ranking and some tumbling down.

Maybe you missed the whole point....
OP has a much better cooler than the amazon basic, all you say may apply to the basic cooler but OP has a much better one than that.
My point was just that you can get by even with the most basic cooler if you strictly stay at or below 200W
Definitely way more than the 100w that started this conversation.

Besides the point:
The test had no appreciative difference in cooling going from 10 to 30 minutes so that argument is void.
Being open bench is the worst case scenario, having a case allows you to have a lot of air flow giving the cooler more access to cooler air, let alone how much less of the noise the user is going to hear.

 

[VizzieTheViz]

Maybe you missed the whole point....
OP has a much better cooler than the amazon basic, all you say may apply to the basic cooler but OP has a much better one than that.
My point was just that you can get by even with the most basic cooler if you strictly stay at or below 200W
Definitely way more than the 100w that started this conversation.

Besides the point:
The test had no appreciative difference in cooling going from 10 to 30 minutes so that argument is void.
Being open bench is the worst case scenario, having a case allows you to have a lot of air flow giving the cooler more access to cooler air, let alone how much less of the noise the user is going to hear.

This! Saved me a lot of typing. Hardly anything is going to change after 30 or 60 or 180 minutes unless you have a case with zero airflow.

 

[thestryker]

I tried the 3Dmark fire strike test. Got 40288 score with XMP enabled. XMP is the only OC, CPU and GPU not OC at all.
CPU peaked at 83 deg celcius, GPU around 70.
But I dont know how how it will be if the test had lasted for hours instead of minutes.
I hope you are wrong, I wouldn't fancy having to exchange cooler.
The cooler is listed as NSPR of 148, which according to their charts give good headroom for boost/turbo on that cpu.

That cooler is perfectly fine for the CPU you're using (if you had a 12900K/KF/KS it would be a different story, but for gaming it would still be fine). You'd only run into potential issues if you were running the CPU at 100% load for long periods of time. I'm not even sure there would be issues then so long as the stock power limits are in place.

 

[LordVile]

Maybe you missed the whole point....
OP has a much better cooler than the amazon basic, all you say may apply to the basic cooler but OP has a much better one than that.
My point was just that you can get by even with the most basic cooler if you strictly stay at or below 200W
Definitely way more than the 100w that started this conversation.

Besides the point:
The test had no appreciative difference in cooling going from 10 to 30 minutes so that argument is void.
Being open bench is the worst case scenario, having a case allows you to have a lot of air flow giving the cooler more access to cooler air, let alone how much less of the noise the user is going to hear.

Aside from you can’t get away with the most basic cooler and a flawed test doesn’t show that. The 12900 at full bore requires max fan speeds from a lot of air coolers. The air cooler they have isn’t even rated for 150W by the manufacturer. On top of that I don’t trust any numbers by toms because they said the basics cooler can “handle a 13900K”. The same chip that throttles near instantly under a NHD15 and under AIOs if you give it long enough.

That depends on the case itself as some will just hotbox it. An open bench is a fair test without external factors affecting it.

 

[logainofhades]

Aside from you can’t get away with the most basic cooler and a flawed test doesn’t show that. The 12900 at full bore requires max fan speeds from a lot of air coolers. The air cooler they have isn’t even rated for 150W by the manufacturer. On top of that I don’t trust any numbers by toms because they said the basics cooler can “handle a 13900K”. The same chip that throttles near instantly under a NHD15 and under AIOs if you give it long enough.

That depends on the case itself as some will just hotbox it. An open bench is a fair test without external factors affecting it.

I think you are confusing 12900 non k vs a 12900k. Two different chips, with different power profiles. Also if that cooler can handle an overclocked 10900k, it is fine for a 12900 non k. Said cooler performs better than what I have on my 12700k, as it is within spitting distance of a bigger Dark Rock Pro 4.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/noctua-nh-d12l-low-height-cpu-air-cooler/7.html

The 12900's max turbo power is 202w, vs 12700k's at 190w, with the 12900k being quite a bit more at 241w.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/compare.html?productIds=134594,134597,134599

 

[LordVile]

I think you are confusing 12900 non k vs a 12900k. Two different chips, with different power profiles. Also if that cooler can handle an overclocked 10900k, it is fine for a 12900 non k. Said cooler performs better than what I have on my 12700k, as it is within spitting distance of a bigger Dark Rock Pro 4.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/noctua-nh-d12l-low-height-cpu-air-cooler/7.html

The 12900's max turbo power is 202w, vs 12700k's at 190w, with the 12900k being quite a bit more at 241w.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/compare.html?productIds=134594,134597,134599

The power profiles aren’t that much different, think the real world difference is about 30W.

I guess you missed the entire thing about motherboards enabling the use of higher power states on 12th gen chips out of the box too. It also draws more than the 10900K anyway I don’t know why you’re liking that and the die layout is different.

 

[logainofhades]

The power profiles aren’t that much different, think the real world difference is about 30W.

I guess you missed the entire thing about motherboards enabling the use of higher power states on 12th gen chips out of the box too. It also draws more than the 10900K anyway I don’t know why you’re liking that and the die layout is different.

Their cooler is superior to mine, on a chip that isn't vastly more power hungry than what I have. The point is, on a non k 12900, that cooler is fine, a 12900k possibly not. My board is also an Asus, so I am aware of the out of the box settings being higher. My board doesn't have the latest Intel fixes either, because 12th gen wasn't affected, so I never bothered to update.

The link was the review for said cooler. If said cooler can come close to a Dark Rock Pro4, it is far superior to my Pure Rock 2 FX.