Was Intel Core i9-13900K/KF/KS & i9-14900K/KF/KS PL1 = PL2 an issue all along?

Bz seems to think the issue is the single core boosts voltages frying the cache.

It was 100% 253W PL1=PL2 on the Document. I can also confirm having seen this myself about a month ago when I was investigating my own 14900k's instability.

Running at PL1=60, PL2=80, but only to keep from getting a heatstroke from my PC.

I can confirm it was 253W for PL1 and PL2 on that Document. Does this means we have to set PL1 to 150W? Im on my 3rd 14900KF, the other 2's broke at a 1 month usage, for this one I applied Falcon North settings since day 1 and was stable for 2 months. Couple days ago I started to experience some issues on closing apps and out of video memory, upgraded bios (missed the most recent one) and problems/crashes stopped, but im kinda worried because the vCore and VID values went significantly high. Question is, should I try lowering PL1 or just stick to what's seeming to work right now? I'm worried that even with stability achieved there's still margin to electromigration from what you say. Edit: I also reduced core ratio to x54 when I set the new bios version. JUST IN CASE

i'm very.... piss to the point that I think I might want to yell at my own CEO atm

Do you have an archived copy of the document?

U can get the older datasheet PDFs using the Wayback Machine.

WHY did you think that the single core boosts voltages, re not the issues, its been since almost 2 decades that the AUTO boost behaviour on some MBs let crazy voltages happen, ...without manual OC, dis clusterfuck is a 2decade overdue bomb

I have the pdf :)

No. The issue is a design fault in the memory controller or i/o or cache systems.

I'm not sure you understand what going on at 7minutes or I'm not understanding your wording. At 5.8Ghz you point to the VID Voltage. Vid voltage is reqested voltage ONLY, it is not measured voltage. All the cores get the voltage from 1 source so they can't have different voltages, and that I get the impression from watching the video. The cores does not have their own voltage controller, they all share the same regulator. But they have their own VID tables, and its the highest number from any of the VID's that gets used at any given time. The VID table for those 2 cores boosting to 5.8Ghz must be low since the dont increase the Vcore voltage that is actually measured voltage. In my bios I can set individual speed for each core, and when my two best cores will increase Vcore in regards to the VID table for those 2 cores. And I will se that speed and voltage increase. If you already know this please disregard this comment. I'm now testing a 2. 14900k for better frame pacing. If you turn on ultra low latency in the nVidia driver you remove all buffered images, stock you all are lagging 2 frames behind whats going on and this has a smoothing effect. With Ultra low latency you remove the smoothing effect and you can easier see hitching/micro stutters. You'll see mouse cursor micro stuttering, bad frame pacing and such easier. Changing HT on/off , cache ring speed from 4.5Ghz and up to 5Ghz all affect the hitching in high fps games like Pubg wich uses Avx. You will quicly see more/less stuttering with different combinations. If the 14900k was a flawless design you wouln't see hitching, but just varying fps with good frame pacing. I've tested this with 6000Mhz all the way up 7800Mhz ram speed (with Karhu tests to make sure its not instability) and the variance in the amount of hitching/stuttering is wild to observe. If you use Per core hyperthreading i.e only use 4 HT on the system becomes so laggy its crashing. I've tested this both on Msi Edge z790i and Asrock z790 Lightning. They both more or less behave the same and atleast for me seeing features completely broken doesnt give me confidence of the core design.

No. its the AC/DC LL values being messed up

PL1 and PL2 never were the same. Any claims of PL1 being 253W are simply lies. But Intel also - one of the things i criticised them for years by now - never made that a hard rule and didnt even demand that to be followed for the default settings of the boards and a such Motherboards often applied 253W or higher with unlimited turbo-duration. Even that would not have been such a problem if not also for the boards to increase the voltage way beyond save limits. For an i9 14900K that was 1.42 V in TVB (so at under 70°C) for short single-core bursts. Most boards applied 1.5V and more while at above 90°C for unlimited time. Go figure that this will damage the hardware. And therein lies the biggest fault of Intel: They knew that this was happening and ignored it.