I just uncapped framerate to crash on purpose I don't ever get anything in event viewer my issue isn't bad_module_info so I don't really know. That still highlights to me cpu instability issue for people that get it and fix it this method.
edit; i dont even get apex_crash.txt file either...
@kto1b wrote:I just uncapped framerate to crash on purpose I don't ever get anything in event viewer my issue isn't bad_module_info so I don't really know. That still highlights to me cpu instability issue for people that get it and fix it this method.
edit; i dont even get apex_crash.txt file either...
You don't get nothing in event viewer/windows logs/application?
The apex_crash.txt should be under Computer/Documents.
Now answer me few more questions regarding your cpu instability claim:
1. Why are much more demanding stress tests and games not crashing on the old OC, but only Apex if CPU instability is the problem?
2. Why is limiting FPS to 60-80 any different, does this also mean that people who "fixed" the game that way have unstable CPU/GPU overclocks?
3. A lot of people who crash when not limiting FPS run their system on stock settings, if there is no OC does it mean their HW is faulty?
Look, as much as I and I'm sure the community here appreciates the help I think its ridiculous to expect players to mess around in their BIOS to play a game without it crashing randomly. This crash has been happening since the season pass Patch. Asking people to under clock their PC's or change this and that is Bullsh$#. I know you are just trying to help but this kinda crap needs to stop because its not our jobs to fix a game its EA's job. They Suck enough money out of gamers so there's no excuse for this rubbish.
Its like they are expecting us to tweak this and that just to play the game. They are waiting for us to fix it for them at this point. F that.
@RipjawsAU-TTV wrote:Look, as much as I and I'm sure the community here appreciates the help I think its ridiculous to expect players to mess around in their BIOS to play a game without it crashing randomly. This crash has been happening since the season pass Patch. s I know you are just trying to help but this kinda crap needs to stop because its not our jobs to fix a game its EA's job. They Suck enough money out of gamers so there's no excuse for this rubbish.
Its like they are expecting us to tweak this and that just to play the game. They are waiting for us to fix it for them at this point. F that.
Excuse me, where have you read that I'm "expecting" somebody to mess around in their BIOS? Where have you read that I'm asking somebody to underclock their PCs?
I'm just sharing a workaround that fixed the below explained problems.
"This crash has been happening since the season pass Patch." - no, it's been from the launch of the game. After the patch, it got worse for the players experiencing it.
CroLudi's comments in this thread are adequate and logic, you should take an example.
@CroL0co wrote:
@kto1b wrote:I just uncapped framerate to crash on purpose I don't ever get anything in event viewer my issue isn't bad_module_info so I don't really know. That still highlights to me cpu instability issue for people that get it and fix it this method.
edit; i dont even get apex_crash.txt file either...You don't get nothing in event viewer/windows logs/application?
The apex_crash.txt should be under Computer/Documents.
Now answer me few more questions regarding your cpu instability claim:
1. Why are much more demanding stress tests and games not crashing on the old OC, but only Apex if CPU instability is the problem?
2. Why is limiting FPS to 60-80 any different, does this also mean that people who "fixed" the game that way have unstable CPU/GPU overclocks?
3. A lot of people who crash when not limiting FPS run their system on stock settings, if there is no OC does it mean their HW is faulty?
I am well aware of where to check for the text file I'm not the only one that doesn't get one I crashed a bunch of times to triple check I don't get one. I don't get anything in event viewer either never have since the beginning.
I can't answer your questions because we have been arguing about different types of crashes to begin with. I don't suffer bad module info, this is an error that affects many games and is related to Windows game mode and full screen optimizations. I have no idea how using avx offset alleviates this issue for you other than reducing performance of the game to improve the 'game stability'. Also been lots of confusion between game stability and system stability. Full screen optimizations doesn't like being minimized, that is why the 'fix' that people don't minimize their game helps them. Capping the framerates isn't about dodging system stability rather game stability. That is why over many different configurations most people can't go over 80 fps because its more about the game engine having a hiccup not the system.
I was attacking OP regarding overclock stability because he presumed mine unstable with zero information. There was far more chance that you guys are unstable with the information you have given than what I am running. Especially if you are saying that reducing clocks for avx instructions helps you. You both also are wrongly presuming how stability works, I've been p95 stable and crashed in something as seemingly measly as Overwatch. Its just how it goes, so to presume that Apex is less stressful than BF5 is ignorant.
Number 3 I am still not sure which crash we are talking about unfortunately.
Again for what its worth I'll apologize a second time but to be fair you both jumped all over me and insulted my intelligence simply for calling your 'permanent solution' bad.
@kto1b wrote:
I am well aware of where to check for the text file I'm not the only one that doesn't get one I crashed a bunch of times to triple check I don't get one. I don't get anything in event viewer either never have since the beginning.
I can't answer your questions because we have been arguing about different types of crashes to begin with. I don't suffer bad module info, this is an error that affects many games and is related to Windows game mode and full screen optimizations. I have no idea how using avx offset alleviates this issue for you other than reducing performance of the game to improve the 'game stability'. Also been lots of confusion between game stability and system stability. Full screen optimizations doesn't like being minimized, that is why the 'fix' that people don't minimize their game helps them. Capping the framerates isn't about dodging system stability rather game stability. That is why over many different configurations most people can't go over 80 fps because its more about the game engine having a hiccup not the system.
I was attacking OP regarding overclock stability because he presumed mine unstable with zero information. There was far more chance that you guys are unstable with the information you have given than what I am running. Especially if you are saying that reducing clocks for avx instructions helps you. You both also are wrongly presuming how stability works, I've been p95 stable and crashed in something as seemingly measly as Overwatch. Its just how it goes, so to presume that Apex is less stressful than BF5 is ignorant.
Number 3 I am still not sure which crash we are talking about unfortunately.
Again for what its worth I'll apologize a second time but to be fair you both jumped all over me and insulted my intelligence simply for calling your 'permanent solution' bad.
Again you gave me 0 answers, just some assumptions and nothing more.
Can't believe you're still defending low FPS locking over lovering the OC by 200mhz. While the first cripples your game experience (assuming you're playing on a high RR monitor) the other one makes you lose few FPS. Also saying that only the 2nd one is a sign for instability just like not seeing how much load BF5 puts on the cpu is just ignorant. Btw the thing with OW was also on the devs side.
I understand you're frustrated, but not accepting any logic wont get you far.
I am defending it because it works and lowering the OC didn't. Which is what logically indicates instability for you and not for me, don't know how much clearer it can be.
Games put loads on in different ways, as you've noticed with the avx2 instructions. You are still talking about a different type of crash. Same thing happens with GPU's, people say Heaven is intensive but its so loaded with tesselation that it doesn't stress the gpu its just a benchmark. When the game has a hiccup it rapidly changes the cpu utilization which can throw a cpu with c-states way off. It's possible to have an overclock that is fine under load but cannot transition back and forth between heavy load and no load effectively.
@kto1b wrote:I am defending it because it works and lowering the OC didn't. Which is what logically indicates instability for you and not for me, don't know how much clearer it can be.
Games put loads on in different ways, as you've noticed with the avx2 instructions. You are still talking about a different type of crash. Same thing happens with GPU's, people say Heaven is intensive but its so loaded with tesselation that it doesn't stress the gpu its just a benchmark. When the game has a hiccup it rapidly changes the cpu utilization which can throw a cpu with c-states way off. It's possible to have an overclock that is fine under load but cannot transition back and forth between heavy load and no load effectively.
The only thing it logically indicates is that we have different types of crashes.
Maybe you're experiencing some crashes connected to the GPU and lowering FPS is just another workaround that puts off some load of the GPU. According to your logic your GPU is faulty or you have an unstable overclock.
BF5 also uses AVX instructions, yet no problems there or with ANY other game with this 1 year old overclock of mine.
Every game has hiccups and the load is never 100% the whole time, games are well known for their chaotic behavior, so it's obviously a problem in their coding.
Point of the story people can try out this method, if they're experiencing the same crash it's a good workaround, if not they will have to wait for the devs to fix it.
P.S. To the guy who wants this thread to be deleted because overclocking is "unsafe", please educate yourself before writing some disinformation like this.
If you saw OP's post before the edit you would say otherwise it was extremely irresponsible. And yes we are clearly talking about different crashes however you are still misunderstanding and putting words in my mouth. You are also still incorrectly presuming that a heavier workload is a more stressful workload. If you weren't so defensive of your overclock we'd have gotten here much quicker. You are AGAIN still confusing game stability with system stability, I am completly washing my hands of this thread all the cutesy quotes you two have thrown out is completely advice you should be taking yourself.
PS there is no need to quote everything when you are replying to the message directly above you are just making a damn mess
@CroL0co wrote:
@kto1b wrote:I am defending it because it works and lowering the OC didn't. Which is what logically indicates instability for you and not for me, don't know how much clearer it can be.
Games put loads on in different ways, as you've noticed with the avx2 instructions. You are still talking about a different type of crash. Same thing happens with GPU's, people say Heaven is intensive but its so loaded with tesselation that it doesn't stress the gpu its just a benchmark. When the game has a hiccup it rapidly changes the cpu utilization which can throw a cpu with c-states way off. It's possible to have an overclock that is fine under load but cannot transition back and forth between heavy load and no load effectively.The only thing it logically indicates is that we have different types of crashes.
Maybe you're experiencing some crashes connected to the GPU and lowering FPS is just another workaround that puts off some load of the GPU. According to your logic your GPU is faulty or you have an unstable overclock.
BF5 also uses AVX instructions, yet no problems there or with ANY other game with this 1 year old overclock of mine.
Every game has hiccups and the load is never 100% the whole time, games are well known for their chaotic behavior, so it's obviously a problem in their coding.
Point of the story people can try out this method, if they're experiencing the same crash it's a good workaround, if not they will have to wait for the devs to fix it.
P.S. To the guy who wants this thread to be deleted because overclocking is "unsafe", please educate yourself before writing some disinformation like this.
Nah, don't waste your time. This guy has decided to play smart on the forum after he'd read some articles on the internet. I doubt he has seen his Bios ever. :D Not to mention his "arguments" on the "fullscreen optimizations" in the compatibility mode :D Saying this is a "fix" immediately shows he doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't know what this option does exactly. Same goes for the fps cap.
Anyways,@CroL0co, have you had any crashes after avx2? I haven't had any crashes after putting my setup on avx3 and 5100mhz. = 4800Mhz. / 4900Mhz Avg. (i7 9700K)
I've been doing some testing with the AVX Issues in Apex Legends, and I have found that on fully working CPU's, if they ARE overclocked, the fix is to raise CPU Vcore voltage.
Apex Legends, if the vcore is too low (on 8th and 9th gen CPU's like the 9900K), you wind up getting strange WHEA correctable errors like Internal Parity error" or "CPU TLB" errors, errors usually you never see anywhere else. The game doesn't even crash if you are "close" to the stable point, you just see errors logged in HWinfo64 and shown in windows event viewer.
The reason prime95 passes is simple:
1) prime95 with AVX disabled is SSE2 only so is irrelevant.
2) prime95 small FFT with AVX enabled is irrelevant because it's a power virus that pulls so many amps that overclocked CPU's will crash due to voltage droop (higher amps=more voltage drop), making the cpu vcore wind up too low for that workload. Or from the cores getting too high temp and then reaching the unstable point for that cpu frequency. However there is a very big difference that everyone is overlooking, besides the 'power virus' component of prime95 small FFT.
AVX instructions can only access main memory by the # of memory channels, and an i9 9900K only has two memory channels. That means when accessing main memory, only two CPU *threads* will gain full access to memory via AVX instructions. If you wind up using more threads, the threads wind up competing with each other and the power draw actually goes way down.
9900K users can see this, if you have access to the voltage regulator VRM registers that monitor "Amps" draw, like on Gigabyte Z390 boards and some MSI Z390 models, the IR 35201 or the Renesas / Intersil (ISL) VRM's, where you see VR VOUT and Current (IOUT) (Amps) shown in HWinfo64.
Download prime95 29.6 build 7 from the software section of their forum.
Then run an AVX2 and AVX1 DISABLED test with 1344K in place fixed FFT's (SSE2 instructions) and notice the amps power draw and the power POUT from the VRM. If you don't have access to this, you can use CPU Package Power, although this is sometimes inaccurate on some boards (long story). Write that value down.
Then run the same test with AVX enabled (disable FMA3 (AVX2)) and notice that the power draw is **LOWER** ! Yes, it's LOWER For AVX than for non AVX !
That's because the AVX threads are now competing with each other for memory access!
People noticed this same problem when running LinX testing with certain residual sizes. They noticed that when they enabled hyperthreading, certain sizes had a LOWER speed result (rather than faster) than when they had hyperthreading disabled! It's basically the same issue there.
Then, try running AVX with small FFT and smallest FFT. (compare that to AVX disabled small FFT). Remember: prime95 29.6 build 7).
OMG, now it's REALLY pouring on the amps and heat! You're looking now at literally 50% more power draw than AVX disabled!
But why?
Simple. Smallest FFT and small FFT are not touching main memory at all! They're running purely in the CPU's L1/L2/L3 caches! So all 16 AVX threads have full access to the caches.
Thus, any prime95 AVX crashes are going to be completely different than what you would see in Apex (like those bizarre Internal Parity errors or TLB errors) or other internal CPU errors that show up as "Corrected Machine Check". Prime95 errors are far more likely to show up as "Cache Hierarchy Error" due to it hammering the CPU cache intensely, which Apex legends does NOT do.
As far as WHEA errors with CPUs' running completely stock? Could be faulty hardware. There have been reports of 8700K's and 9900K's just completely dying randomly, which no one has been able to track down the reason for. If someone is getting this at PURE stock speeds, if you downclock the CPU and the problems go away, you need to RMA. It means your silicon is defective.
Now, again I'm NOT talking about random CTD's or game crashes due to bad code. I'm talking about pure CPU instability that gets logged in event viewer or in HWinfo64 in the Windows Hardware Errors area.
It is very interesting that Apex Legends is handling AVX instructions differently than Realbench 2.56 (handbrake).
I've already done some testing and found that 5.1 ghz @ 1.330v (loadline calibration=turbo) was 2 hours stable in Apex. 5 ghz @ 1.255v, 1.260v,1.265v and 1.270v were generating random WHEA's, while 1.275v passed 2 hours (again loadline calibration=Turbo; this is a Gigabyte board). I'm going to do some more tests and see if VCCIO has any effect on this. Probably won't, as VCCIO is supposed to affect the L3 cache, and I still do not know if the "Ring/Cache frequency" is the L3 cache or L2 cache. I guess I'll find out.
That being said, Apex Legends is now my go to program for real world AVX gaming stability.
Hehe, @Falkentyne , thank you for the support on this thread, it's always good to have a little chat with someone who actually knows what he's talking about. 🙂
Very detailed explanation, thank you for that.
Btw, I tested with my previous 5ghz settings after the patch, but the game still crashes. They fixed some errors, but the main problem is still there.
Btw, with my new setting AVX x3 and 5100mhz - still no problems. Average is 4.9 Mhz. I highly doubt that the problem lie on the VCCIO. I rarely use this setting, since it's connected to the IMC on the CPU. 9th generation CPUs can handle 4000Mhz RAM speeds with no problem, even on x4 sticks of ram. I'm currently on 32gb ram, 3200mhz xmp x4 sticks and it's rock solid stable. The IMC is pretty good, and there is not need in increasing the VCCIO at this point at least in my case.
This game is the ultimate benchmark for CPU Avx Instructions, I agree! :D
Still can't understand why you dont think what he just explained is called instability. I was already aware of different ways that you can load up the chip that is exactly what I was saying =/ Thank you for clearing it up for them.
@_S7ORM-BRINGR wrote:
@CroL0co wrote:
@kto1b wrote:I am defending it because it works and lowering the OC didn't. Which is what logically indicates instability for you and not for me, don't know how much clearer it can be.
Games put loads on in different ways, as you've noticed with the avx2 instructions. You are still talking about a different type of crash. Same thing happens with GPU's, people say Heaven is intensive but its so loaded with tesselation that it doesn't stress the gpu its just a benchmark. When the game has a hiccup it rapidly changes the cpu utilization which can throw a cpu with c-states way off. It's possible to have an overclock that is fine under load but cannot transition back and forth between heavy load and no load effectively.The only thing it logically indicates is that we have different types of crashes.
Maybe you're experiencing some crashes connected to the GPU and lowering FPS is just another workaround that puts off some load of the GPU. According to your logic your GPU is faulty or you have an unstable overclock.
BF5 also uses AVX instructions, yet no problems there or with ANY other game with this 1 year old overclock of mine.
Every game has hiccups and the load is never 100% the whole time, games are well known for their chaotic behavior, so it's obviously a problem in their coding.
Point of the story people can try out this method, if they're experiencing the same crash it's a good workaround, if not they will have to wait for the devs to fix it.
P.S. To the guy who wants this thread to be deleted because overclocking is "unsafe", please educate yourself before writing some disinformation like this.
Nah, don't waste your time. This guy has decided to play smart on the forum after he'd read some articles on the internet. I doubt he has seen his Bios ever. :D Not to mention his "arguments" on the "fullscreen optimizations" in the compatibility mode :D Saying this is a "fix" immediately shows he doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't know what this option does exactly. Same goes for the fps cap.
Anyways,@CroL0co, have you had any crashes after avx2? I haven't had any crashes after putting my setup on avx3 and 5100mhz. = 4800Mhz. / 4900Mhz Avg. (i7 9700K)
I said it was an alternate fix for people who found positive results by not minimizing the game again another phenomenon that happens in other games that aren't happy after minimizing with this new Windows feature on. You really really need to follow your own advice already and learn.
And you are still talking crap about the fps cap solution that is the only current way for people with stock cpus and amd graphics cards to play the game relatively crash free? I thought you were trying to help?
Yeah and it's also a real world gaming test.
Handbrake uses AVX in a different way.
Prime95's small FFT test just hammers the CPU caches *hard* and doesn't touch main memory
(Note: i am not prime95 small FFT AVX stable---instant BSOD or crash--190 amps= massive cpu voltage vdroop=crash or 110C temps otherwise. Prime95: 1.250v @ 5.1 ghz (After vdroop)=crash. Apex Legends: 1.305v, stable
People who are playing Apex Legends should download HWinfo64 and leave it running in the background.
You can even use Rivatuner's RTSS and have it display graphs with HWinfo64 (load RTSS first) and select which columns each one goes in.
If you get WHEA errors (correctable) and the game doesn't crash, back down on the overclock.
However if you get WHEA errors at pure STOCK SPEEDS and voltage and your RAM is *not* overclocked and the CPU is not overclocked, you have defective hardware.
And from what I've been reading, some 8th and 9th gen CPU's may have issues that only Apex can pick up.
Again I'm not talking about game crashes from bad code. Bad code won't cause WHEA errors.
You gotta hand it to the Apex devs though. Making a game which is a true real world test for AVX instructions that even Battlefield 5 won't pick up.
Big noob here,
Recently bought a brand new i9 9900k cause my old cpu was bottlenecking me, but its currently being a big waste of cash.
This is because I can't overclock it, because then Apex will crash. I've tried using intel turbo boost and manually overclocking following a guide on corespeed/volts/etc, but the only time it doesn't crash is when there is no OC applied at all (which ofc is a huge waste on K processors not to mention a i9 9900k)
Is there any way I can actually OC this cpu atleast a bit and not have it crash Apex, so it's not wasting away?
Cheers
I may have an idea. (edit) turns out I was wrong...it's totally..."random"....unless you increase the voltage far beyond what you usually need...
i've been playing all day today, overclocked, without a single crash or even a WHEA correctable error today.
Usually unless my volts are VERY high, I get a lot of "CPU Internal Parity errors" (HWinfo labels them as "CPU Internal errors" and windows event viewer says "CPU Parity error").
These errors don't usually make the game crash (and the computer itself doesn't crash) although occasionally there's a random CTD or "memory cannot be read" error.
However today I did some changes in my bios and I didn't get a SINGLE WHEA error OR a crash to desktop or anything. Not a single "CPU Parity error, at voltages that generated them before.
This may just be random blind luck, or maybe they did some super small patch or something, but these are the changes I made:
1) I set Vcore/VXAG current protection to +300mv (was at auto)
2) I set VAXG loadline calibration to turbo.
3) I set VAXG Switch rate to 500 khz and VAXG phase control to extreme (Note: i am NOT using the iGPU--the iGPU is disabled. VAXG has to do with the iGPU's VRM's).
4) I set "Ring Down Bin" to Disabled (was auto before).
if i had to take a guess, it would be #1 or #4 that is affecting things. But I'm not about to just set it back and test to see if i get errors again.
I ran into someone on the overclocking reddit who said that he was getting random WHEA errors testing prime95 when he had Ring down bin "disabled", but when he set it to auto, he got no WHEA errors. Now his CPU core clock was 5 ghz and his ring (cache) ratio was 4.5 ghz. Ring down bin is supposed to keep the cache ratio at 300 mhz lower tan the core (or lower) if it's enabled. Disabled allows the ring to be set to any speed. Now he had it set manually to 4.5 ghz, so this setting of "Auto" giving him more stability in prime95 makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Cache/ring was 4.7 ghz in both cases (5 ghz core and 5.1 ghz core).
Needless to say, mine was already set to auto. So I set it to disabled, along with the other three settings and I didnt get any WHEA correctable logged errors at all, playing on a voltage (5 ghz @ 1.275v, loadline calibration=turbo) that usually gave me alot of them. 5.1 ghz @ 1.330v LLC Turbo (with the same 4 settings above) also gave me zero WHEAs in Apex. When I tested these voltages the last few days, I would get them a lot. So unless there was some small patch that came out between yesterday and today, something's definitely up.
*edit* going to set the voltage lower (1.260v) at 5 ghz and check again. I could have just gotten lucky. Or maybe I'm dumb.
*edit* 1.260, 1.265 and 1.270 all generated CPU Internal Parity Errors. Only in Apex, of course. 1.270v got one in 5 minutes then no more for 20 minutes until I exited. Doing more 1.275v tests again now (3/29). The highest voltage I ever got them was 1.285v set in bios (@ 5 ghz, loadline calibration=turbo). Still dont know if these "changes" affect anything or if the motherboard does different voltage regulation every time you reboot.
My board is a Gigabyte Aorus Master Z390 and 9900K.
Again I don't know what's going on and I have no proof of anything except today was the first day I got ZERO errors at this speed. At 4.7 ghz (1.230v, LLC=High), I never got WHEA's in Apex
That's all I can tell you guys. I'm as stumped as anyone else.
@Falkentyne Hmm, my RIng is on disabled. My crashes completely stopped on AVX 2 and 5GHZ, which result in nearly 4.9 Average Mhz. Voltage is 1.322 Avg. For the past days - not a single crash. My LLC is on "Standard" and my dynamic voltage is on -0.050. I don't use flat voltages for my CPU.
Of course, this is only in Apex, I can achieve 5.1 (no avx) Mhz on 1.36V on all other games I play.
I think the problem on your side is the vCore voltage, mainly with combination of other settings. Don't push the mV up, it's not worth it.
Since we have nearly identical boards, below you will find my settings. They most probably won't work for you, since every CPU is different, but it will give you an idea to workaround for your current setup.
@_S7ORM-BRINGR wrote:
@Falkentyne Hmm, my RIng is on disabled. My crashes completely stopped on AVX 2 and 5GHZ, which result in nearly 4.9 Average Mhz. Voltage is 1.322 Avg. For the past days - not a single crash. My LLC is on "Standard" and my dynamic voltage is on -0.050. I don't use flat voltages for my CPU.Of course, this is only in Apex, I can achieve 5.1 (no avx) Mhz on 1.36V on all other games I play.
I think the problem on your side is the vCore voltage, mainly with combination of other settings. Don't push the mV up, it's not worth it.
Since we have nearly identical boards, below you will find my settings. They most probably won't work for you, since every CPU is different, but it will give you an idea to workaround for your current setup.
And another pic >>
This works for me!
@_S7ORM-BRINGR wrote:Anyways,@CroL0co, have you had any crashes after avx2? I haven't had any crashes after putting my setup on avx3 and 5100mhz. = 4800Mhz. / 4900Mhz Avg. (i7 9700K)
I just noticed this post... I put my OC to 4.7ghz without the AVX offset and no crash since then. Tried out 4.8ghz yesterday, played quite some games and then it crashed. I can try putting the offset so I can have my OC for other stuff and see if will be stable in Apex this way.
@SvenskFisk wrote:This works for me!
Nice, happy for you 🙂
@CroL0co wrote:
@_S7ORM-BRINGR wrote:Anyways,@CroL0co, have you had any crashes after avx2? I haven't had any crashes after putting my setup on avx3 and 5100mhz. = 4800Mhz. / 4900Mhz Avg. (i7 9700K)
I just noticed this post... I put my OC to 4.7ghz without the AVX offset and no crash since then. Tried out 4.8ghz yesterday, played quite some games and then it crashed. I can try putting the offset so I can have my OC for other stuff and see if will be stable in Apex this way.
I noticed that after the BS patch, the game became even more unstable, and avx 3 stopped working for me.I then reverted to 5ghz and avx 2 and eliminated all the crashes. LOL devs made some serious avx game with the recent patch.
Hey @_S7ORM-BRINGR
thanks for this thread. It did fix my crashing.
My System:
MSI Z370 Mainboard
I7-9700K @ 5.0 Ghz
AVX Offset -2
Core Voltage 1.3980
16GB Ram @ 3200mhz (XMP Profile 2)
MSI RTX 2070 @ 2.086 Mhz (Full load)
+15% Core Voltage
+113% Powerlimit
Mem. Clock +1000Mhz.
As I went through this thread and it was very technical - can I sum up: Somehow Apex Legends handles AVX instructions in a weird way, making my oc CPU struggle, while other games like BFV (which also uses AVX) make my CPU handle AVX stuff normally?
Greets.
I changed my avx to 3 from auto and still crashing, i do not know how to change all that other stuff :/
Community Manager
