Does anyone else have an ASUS Prime Z890-P WIFI motherboard or similar?  I have a very trivial issue with automatically booting from the USB. I am running the latest BIOS version, 1601.

 

I have configured the boot priority to be the USB drive. However with a cold boot, it will not boot off the USB. However, if I press F4 to enter UEFI boot. It boots fine and the get the Unraid boot menu.

 

I have tried, every BIOS boot setting including disabling the boot priority and reenabling it. 

 

Any thoughts? It seems like a bug with the BIOS.

7 minutes ago, AngloKarelian said:

Does anyone else have an ASUS Prime Z890-P WIFI motherboard or similar?  I have a very trivial issue with automatically booting from the USB. I am running the latest BIOS version, 1601.

 

I have configured the boot priority to be the USB drive. However with a cold boot, it will not boot off the USB. However, if I press F4 to enter UEFI boot. It boots fine and the get the Unraid boot menu.

 

I have tried, every BIOS boot setting including disabling the boot priority and reenabling it. 

 

Any thoughts? It seems like a bug with the BIOS.

Turn off fast boot 😊

26 minutes ago, Honsolosolo05 said:

Turn off fast boot 😊

Thanks that did the trick. Are they any other setting for power saving or virtualisation that I should check?

yep i have the same motherboard, everytime i update bios I always forget to turn off fast boot , pain in the ass as i already have the keyboard, mouse and monitor disconnected and packed away by that point lol

On 3/18/2025 at 8:39 PM, Tetsuo said:

To whom it may concern:
With the just released beta 7.1 (which runs on Kernel 6.12.19) the iGPU now works flawlessly for Arrow Lake CPUs (in my case a 245K)
HW Transcoding via Plex as i write this.

I look forward to testing my 245k igpu against my arc a310 in handbrake when this rolls out, if the igpu holds it own then i can remove my a310 from the sytem to save power

7 hours ago, scottm8124 said:

I look forward to testing my 245k igpu against my arc a310 in handbrake when this rolls out, if the igpu holds it own then i can remove my a310 from the sytem to save power

Which is exactly what i just did sans the Handbrake testing though.
It´s definitely capable enough for my needs anyway.

Has anyone tried to pass through an onboard thunderbolt port to a virtual machine. i.e. to connect an eGPU? Thought it would be a bit more power efficient than having the GPU in the Unraid box as I can switch off the eGPU. 

 

I am just starting to configure my new raid box.

I just realized after changing the case my asus z890m wifi plus MB + intel core ultra 5 245K was in, that my dash doesnt show my fan speeds. I am using the Dynamix System Temperature plugin, and the temps are shown but the array fan speed is not. (it was showing on my previous MB+cpu)

Is there a Bios setting to turn on, or a driver that is needed to make the fan speeds visible (and managed with Dynamix AutoFan Control ?)

 

On 3/20/2025 at 2:11 AM, Tetsuo said:

Which is exactly what i just did sans the Handbrake testing though.
It´s definitely capable enough for my needs anyway.

Can those buying into arrow lake post power consumption numbers to get a baseline of what is possible?  I can't break through 16W at the wall.

 

 

OT:

For Americans who do not have a microcenter nearby, newegg has 265k+asus z890m combo for $100 off ($436.57) right now.  Also other 265k combos as well.

I could get my hands on a X14SAE-F for a decent price, and I'm wondering now, which Core Ultra to buy?
The first decision to be made would be if Core Ultra 5 or 7, and I'm currently uncertain how much Unraid profits from more cores. 
The second question would be if it would make sense to go for a non-K or even a T version if available or just the more available K version.
Is there some kind of sweet spot with the best balance of performance and low power consumption?

I've seen some test results, where the Core Ultra 5 245 vs. 7 265K had a quite similar idle consumption:

https://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/intel-core-ultra-200s-285k-265k-245k-test.90019/seite-4

https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/prozessoren/65794-intel-core-ultra-5-235-225f-im-test.html?start=9

But I can't find a test with a non-K and T version.

Does anyone with the Core Ultra 7 265k / 9 285k also have the problem that with Plex (Docker) the hw-transcoding is about 4 times slower than when the CPU without igpu does the transcoding? With Unraid 7.1-beta-3. It even leads to jerks during demanding transcoding when hw-transcoding is switched on.

Edited April 5, 20251 yr by virtubit

On 4/4/2025 at 12:59 AM, gilladur said:

I could get my hands on a X14SAE-F for a decent price, and I'm wondering now, which Core Ultra to buy?
The first decision to be made would be if Core Ultra 5 or 7, and I'm currently uncertain how much Unraid profits from more cores. 
The second question would be if it would make sense to go for a non-K or even a T version if available or just the more available K version.
Is there some kind of sweet spot with the best balance of performance and low power consumption?

I've seen some test results, where the Core Ultra 5 245 vs. 7 265K had a quite similar idle consumption:

https://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/intel-core-ultra-200s-285k-265k-245k-test.90019/seite-4

https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/prozessoren/65794-intel-core-ultra-5-235-225f-im-test.html?start=9

But I can't find a test with a non-K and T version.

It's normally best to get a K version. The T and non-K CPUs are "artificially" limited, but the same limits can be created with the regular K chips. (bios limit pl1 pl2 options)

The power consumption during idle is pretty much the same for 245k, 265k and 285k. this is because the "idle power" is normally determined by the generation technology/efficiency. The idle power difference is so minimal between the 3, that it is a "margin of tolerance" between the products.

Personally, I bought the 265k because it was $299 at micro center. -->> a no-brain decision vs the price of the 245k.
And when the budget permits, I'll grab a X14SAE-F as well. but my initial upgrade budget could not fit the Supermicro motherboard. I'm happy to hear that it fit's yours!

Thanks for your answer. I'm currently waiting for the board to be shipped from supermicro to my supplier. CPU (265k) and the DDR5 ECC UDIMMS are already here. But I think it will take a while till I hold the board in my hands.

I'll give an update as soon as I receive it.

On 3/23/2025 at 12:08 AM, Maximo101 said:

I just realized after changing the case my asus z890m wifi plus MB + intel core ultra 5 245K was in, that my dash doesnt show my fan speeds. I am using the Dynamix System Temperature plugin, and the temps are shown but the array fan speed is not. (it was showing on my previous MB+cpu)

Is there a Bios setting to turn on, or a driver that is needed to make the fan speeds visible (and managed with Dynamix AutoFan Control ?)

 

you may need nct6687 plugin I need for msi z890

2 hours ago, nasforthemass said:

It's normally best to get a K version. The T and non-K CPUs are "artificially" limited, but the same limits can be created with the regular K chips. (bios limit pl1 pl2 options)

Forgive my ignorance, but this means I could achieve the same TDP as the T, by down clocking the K?

 

looking to build a lower power server shortly, so was leaning towards the T.

3 hours ago, nasforthemass said:

And when the budget permits, I'll grab a X14SAE-F as well. but my initial upgrade budget could not fit the Supermicro motherboard.

So what board did you end up going with as an alternative? I’m in the process of weighing up options myself.

12 hours ago, te5s3rakt said:

Forgive my ignorance, but this means I could achieve the same TDP as the T, by down clocking the K?

As far as I know, you would reduce the maximum allowed power limit to the PL1 and PL2 values of the non-K or T - or something in-between:
PL1 = Processor Base Power and PL2 = Maximum Turbo Power
K       = 125W (Processor Base Power), 250W (Maximum Turbo Power)

non-K = 65W (Processor Base Power), 182W (Maximum Turbo Power)

T       = 35W (Processor Base Power), 112W (Maximum Turbo Power)

 

And please correct me if I'm wrong, but this should bring down the clock speeds to the value that your CPU could achieve with the given power according to the intel standard curve for power/frequency. This should not impact stability but will reduce maximum performance but on the other hand also the used power and generated heat - but only for the higher CPU workloads. It is like putting a brick under your gas paddle in your car so that you can't push it as far down as without the brick

Another approach would be to undervolt the CPU (which is not available on most boards without overclocking settings - and afaik not on workstation or server boards like the X14SAE-F). This would give the CPU less voltage per MHZ. You would herewith shift or alter the curve for power/frequency down for the voltage per frequency. So the overall power consumption drops, but depending on the given undervolt it will affect stability. You would need to find the sweet spot - which is dependent on your silicone quality - where your CPU could keep the frequencies stable with less juice. I would say as we need max stability for servers, this is more an approach for a normal Desktop PC, where you could run benchmarks of different types and see at which reduced voltage the system is not crashing anymore - but still then it could happen at special workloads, also like lighter once.

4 hours ago, gilladur said:

this should bring down the clock speeds to the value that your CPU could achieve with the given power according to the intel standard curve for power/frequency. This should not impact stability but will reduce maximum performance but on the other hand also the used power and generated heat - but only for the higher CPU workloads

Interesting. Learn something new everyday.

 

That’ll definitely change my build a little.

6 hours ago, gilladur said:

As far as I know, you would reduce the maximum allowed power limit to the PL1 and PL2 values of the non-K or T - or something in-between:
PL1 = Processor Base Power and PL2 = Maximum Turbo Power
K       = 125W (Processor Base Power), 250W (Maximum Turbo Power)

non-K = 65W (Processor Base Power), 182W (Maximum Turbo Power)

T       = 35W (Processor Base Power), 112W (Maximum Turbo Power)

 

And please correct me if I'm wrong, but this should bring down the clock speeds to the value that your CPU could achieve with the given power according to the intel standard curve for power/frequency. This should not impact stability but will reduce maximum performance but on the other hand also the used power and generated heat - but only for the higher CPU workloads. It is like putting a brick under your gas paddle in your car so that you can't push it as far down as without the brick

Another approach would be to undervolt the CPU (which is not available on most boards without overclocking settings - and afaik not on workstation or server boards like the X14SAE-F). This would give the CPU less voltage per MHZ. You would herewith shift or alter the curve for power/frequency down for the voltage per frequency. So the overall power consumption drops, but depending on the given undervolt it will affect stability. You would need to find the sweet spot - which is dependent on your silicone quality - where your CPU could keep the frequencies stable with less juice. I would say as we need max stability for servers, this is more an approach for a normal Desktop PC, where you could run benchmarks of different types and see at which reduced voltage the system is not crashing anymore - but still then it could happen at special workloads, also like lighter once.

 

18 hours ago, te5s3rakt said:

Forgive my ignorance, but this means I could achieve the same TDP as the T, by down clocking the K?

 

looking to build a lower power server shortly, so was leaning towards the T.

Yes and YES. The K-CPU is normally easier to buy, nearly the same price as the regular and T variant, holds more resale value later on, can be unleashed to full power if you need that for a day, week or month, or very simply limited in the bios. ALSO, the K-CPUs are generally considered high quality since they are "certified" to be unlocked.
AND YES, power and HEAT are reduced! the idle power ends up being within 1-2% of each other, depending on the core count.
The "Brick under the gas pedal" is a great analogy of the "artificial limit".
The most important thing to reach ULTRA LOW idle consumption is C-state and ASPM combination. this is achieved though specific parts, OS and motherboard slots. (ex: an HBA in a secondary pcie vs the primary-cpu pcie slot)

Here is a quick summary from someone regarding low power goals on K CPUs:

"... can idle as low as other Intel CPUs from that product line. Problem with this CPU is the middle/top power consumption when CPU boosts really high to finish its tasks.

To keep K-SKU CPU under control so it could serve in low power (kinda) servers, then you must have a motherboard that supports overclocking options, but do everything backwards So set up lower PL1/PL2 limits, lower the multiplier for base frequency, do some undervolting (be careful with it, sometimes it's better to leave it alone). You will basically make your CPU into lower tier CPU that could still turbo pretty high on 1-2 cores inside the lowered power limits. To further lower the power consumption you can turn off hyperthreading and turbo above basic frequency

Of course you need all of the other power saving features like active C-states, ASPM L1 support, SATA ALPM support etc. Your OS must be able to work in power saving mode and BIOS on the motherboard must be bug-free to be able to negotiate power saving mode with connected devices (and those devices must support ASPM L1)."

 

11 minutes ago, nasforthemass said:

To keep K-SKU CPU under control so it could serve in low power (kinda) servers, then you must have a motherboard that supports overclocking options, but do everything backwards So set up lower PL1/PL2 limits, lower the multiplier for base frequency, do some undervolting (be careful with it, sometimes it's better to leave it alone). You will basically make your CPU into lower tier CPU that could still turbo pretty high on 1-2 cores inside the lowered power limits. To further lower the power consumption you can turn off hyperthreading and turbo above basic frequency

Of course you need all of the other power saving features like active C-states, ASPM L1 support, SATA ALPM support etc. Your OS must be able to work in power saving mode and BIOS on the motherboard must be bug-free to be able to negotiate power saving mode with connected devices (and those devices must support ASPM L1)."

Is there a good tutorial on exactly what settings to tweak/set to effectively make a K a T power wise, but with the capacity to turbo to a K on single cores where demanded, and within the T envelop?

1 hour ago, nasforthemass said:

you can turn off hyperthreading

Just one remark - the Cure Ultra CPUs don't have any Hyper-Threating anymore

10 hours ago, nasforthemass said:

you must have a motherboard that supports overclocking options, but do everything backwards

looking at motherboards, this means something like an ASUS Pro WS W880-ACE SE would not allow this, as the W880 chipset doesn't all overclocking.

while the ASUS Pro WS Z890-ACE SE would allow this?

 

I was specifically leaning W880 to get ECC support.

But looks like I might have to choose between low power or ECC?

 

Unless I put a T variant in the W880 with ECC, to get both. But in my initial search, the 265T seems to be a nightmare to find. The 265K I've found a a dozen local stores with them already, and that was with not even looking that hard lol

Lowering the PL1 and PL2 state should be possible (the Bios of the X14SAE-F does have this option according to the manual).
I could not find the manual of the ASUS Pro WS W880-ACE SE - but I assume it will allow this too.
For me, having full ECC is more important than having the option to undervolt or lower the multiplier.

Unfortunately, ECC UDIMMS are really expensive currently.

The idle power consumption when the server is just doing nothing should be fine even with the K version. Nevertheless, it would be nice to see a review of the T and if the lower base clocks improve idle power usage.
In Germany there are today 4 sellers offering the T but nearly 50€ more expensive than the K.
And to be honest, one reason to upgrade the server is to have more cores but also more CPU power and the T will be slower.

 

 

Just use the T-series specs and match them on K- CPUs.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/241065/intel-core-ultra-7-processor-265t-30m-cache-up-to-5-30-ghz/specifications.html

 

The "sweet spot" for arrow lake efficiency (30-65W) is even below T-series TDP.  IIRC in how the clusters are laid out, the 245k can actually be faster for certain applications.  I only bought the 245k because of a cheap bundle.

 

At idle, you won't notice any appreciable difference between any of these chips.

 

On 4/9/2025 at 10:50 PM, nasforthemass said:

The most important thing to reach ULTRA LOW idle consumption is C-state and ASPM combination. this is achieved though specific parts, OS and motherboard slots. (ex: an HBA in a secondary pcie vs the primary-cpu pcie slot)

True, but the #1 issue you will have is no one owns this platform.  Good luck finding anyone to discuss anything related to arrow lake beyond overclocking/gaming.  I can't find anyone else on the internet to even discuss chasing ultra low idle power consumption on this platform.

 

 

On 4/4/2025 at 3:59 AM, gilladur said:

I could get my hands on a X14SAE-F for a decent price

Would you mind sharing where were you able to purchase this board? I've been looking all over for it. It's always out of stock or not carried at all because it's so new. I'm thinking of just placing a backorder with Tech America.