LGA 1700 Alder Lake "Servers"

Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.

rootshell

Member
Jan 10, 2021
72
31
18
The Asus and Gigabyte boards would meet my needs, I just don't see either available anywhere for purchase. Hopefully given Asus's large presence on the consumer MB side of things, this workstation MB becomes available faster than what we've seen from the other OEMs. And not sure I love the IPMI AIC, but assuming it uses that x1 slot up by the top NVME, should be fine.
 

yeryer

New Member
Sep 24, 2022
23
6
3
Ok this may be preliminary, still testing, but I don’t think the X13SAE has the power delivery to allow the 13900K to reach its full potential. However the 13700K is getting expected R23 numbers.
I have some further data points on this. With an NH-D15 the board could deliver enough wattage but thermal limiting reduced the synthetic benchmark scores. My 13900K scored 2% better at 235 watts than at 275 where the CPU hit 99 degrees quickly and throttled. Throttling also occured at 235 but not as quickly. The R23 score of 31584 at 195 watts was nearly identical to the 275 watt score while drawing 100 watts less from the wall.
 

mrmh

New Member
Oct 3, 2022
20
1
3
Please all of you with X13SAE(-F):
1. check temperatures in BIOS and report BIOS version and also whether degree symbol is displayed correctly (mine shows as ?)
2. report whether you have X13SAE or X13SAE-F
3. report whether you can monitor PCH temperature from Windows (only for ones with X13SAE not X13SAE-F)
In BIOS v2.0 I can see difference ~20 degrees of C between PCH temperature reported in BIOS and in SuperDoctor.
Can you check it also?
 

odditory

Moderator
Dec 23, 2010
384
71
28
I'm going to probably end up around 185-200 watt power limit with E cores disabled for my 13700K.

This is with a NH-D12L so cooling is somewhat limited.
How about something in the middle for performance per temp: leave e-cores enabled but disable hyperthreading? Depending on how much your use case will or won't benefit from HT of course.
 

Weapon

Active Member
Oct 19, 2013
307
112
43
How about something in the middle for performance per temp: leave e-cores enabled but disable hyperthreading? Depending on how much your use case will or won't benefit from HT of course.
My reason for leaving the E cores disabled is my primary OS is going to be Windows 10 LTSC IoT edition which has limited ability to schedule properly from what I understand. I think I read Windows 10 won’t be getting any more scheduler improvements and this is based on a slightly older version of Windows 10 as well. It would probably be fine but my main reason for upgrading this system in the first place is single core performance so I really don’t need the E cores anyway.
 

Weapon

Active Member
Oct 19, 2013
307
112
43
I have some further data points on this. With an NH-D15 the board could deliver enough wattage but thermal limiting reduced the synthetic benchmark scores. My 13900K scored 2% better at 235 watts than at 275 where the CPU hit 99 degrees quickly and throttled. Throttling also occured at 235 but not as quickly. The R23 score of 31584 at 195 watts was nearly identical to the 275 watt score while drawing 100 watts less from the wall.
That’s a pretty terrible score compared to 38000+ on the reviews I saw. Also I managed a 34451 with 999 watt limit set for Pl1/2. Cooler was a NH-D12L with the single included fan but I did have another fan blowing on the VRM area.

My 13700K hits 30000 for comparison.
 

Weapon

Active Member
Oct 19, 2013
307
112
43
depends on the required voltage (silicon lottery, and/or to high)
I haven’t seen a single review under 38000 so a delta that wide (~15%) seems unreasonable to me. And the X13SAE doesn’t have any options for manually adjusting the CPU voltage in BIOS.
 

RolloZ170

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2016
5,653
1,723
113
My reason for leaving the E cores disabled is my primary OS is going to be Windows 10 LTSC IoT edition which has limited ability to schedule properly from what I understand. I think I read Windows 10 won’t be getting any more scheduler improvements and this is based on a slightly older version of Windows 10 as well.
i don't think there is an automatic way. the scheduler wants also not to priorises one single core that then is early worn out.
you have to put your hands on with infinity or process lasso .
 

saf1

Member
Nov 27, 2022
55
10
8
So I'm a bit ignorant of the 137/900X Intel CPU because I didn't know about the e-cores. How are those under Linux or are they just wasted? I am only now reading up on them and wasn't sure if it was a Windows 11 thing only.
 

Weapon

Active Member
Oct 19, 2013
307
112
43
So I'm a bit ignorant of the 137/900X Intel CPU because I didn't know about the e-cores. How are those under Linux or are they just wasted? I am only now reading up on them and wasn't sure if it was a Windows 11 thing only.
I don't know much about linux but if it's like most things I do know about, it depends on the distro. According to this, Ubuntu supports them pretty well and this was from February.

 
  • Like
Reactions: RolloZ170 and saf1

RolloZ170

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2016
5,653
1,723
113
How are those under Linux or are they just wasted?
they are pretty good for background tasks. with alder -lake its the first time processors have two types of cores...
oh no i am wrong. with 3rd gen Xeons you can select a few cores higher frequencies than the remaining ones( Intel® SST – Base Frequency (BF) )
 

saf1

Member
Nov 27, 2022
55
10
8
Thank you Weapon, RolloZ, appreciate it. I did not see that article but I am using Ubuntu so good to hear they are not wasted :)
 

yeryer

New Member
Sep 24, 2022
23
6
3
That’s a pretty terrible score compared to 38000+ on the reviews I saw
This is true--it's in the 0th percentile of results. Perhaps running Server 2022 is part of the problem. Oddly, the single-core r23 benchmarks are slightly better than average and thankfully that's most important for my workloads.

Another oddity is that my non-QVL memory CT2K32G48C40U5 is stuck at 4000MHz. I have another X13SAE-F running the older bios with a 12900K and there that same DIMM runs at 4400MHz. I'm still waiting for the QVL memory to ship.