dgianstefaniIt's pretty straightforward to understand that Intel wrote that disclaimer precisely to show the specific way they are deviating from their spec for that specific test. Unless someone is trying to misunderstand.

Understood.

Intel themselves deliberately made these performance claims with out-of-spec settings, and the final product received by the customer only sustain stable working condition with precisely half of the power setting (PL1 253 vs PL1 125) they've demonstrated in product disclosures and advertisements.

ratirtI would not say that especially if you consider that the 14th gen is almost identical with 13th gen and there is no upgrade path for Intel boards.

I guess I was implying an upgrade to a whole new platform (CPU and motherboard). Intel would probably love a large install base for its next gen AI stuff.

dgianstefaniThis chart has been out for a good while.
Saying Intel doesn't have a spec is a bit disingenuous.

This is not Intel Spec, this is a salmon table by Igor.

You want the official intel spec?
edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products/platforms/details/raptor-lake-s/13th-generation-core-processors-datasheet-volume-1-of-2/009/vcccore-dc-specifications/
this is what the mainboardmakers where unable to understand or did plain ignore.

read the notes and remember the "Extreme Config" is for i9 only

64KI'm sure they figured all along that if the issue never made it to the news then it didn't matter. They knew that they could shift the blame onto the mobo manufacturers if anything ever went wrong just like they are doing now.

This. It's basic corporate weaseling that allows Intel to look better and its motherboard partners to move more product if things work well, but if things don't then it's easy for Intel to throw those same partners under the bus. The problem that Intel's MBAs don't seem to understand is that those partners probably don't like being thrown under the bus for something that Intel itself implicitly encouraged. And those partners will be even less happy about the fact that now they have essentially sold customers a product that either performs as advertised, but is unstable; or is slower than advertised, but stable - because either way consumers got a product that isn't what they believed, which is very much class-action lawsuit territory.

I really hope that somebody sues Intel and its partners over this. The case doesn't even have to succeed, it just has to shine enough of a light on these bullshit practices to ensure that Intel stops doing them for good. Just build a CPU that isn't fucking garbage, if AMD can do it why can't you, Intel? Clowns.

BoggledBeagleThis is not Intel Spec, this is a salmon table by Igor.

_FlareYou want the official intel spec?
edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products/platforms/details/raptor-lake-s/13th-generation-core-processors-datasheet-volume-1-of-2/009/vcccore-dc-specifications/
this is what the mainboardmakers where unable to understand or did plain ignore.

read the notes and remember the "Extreme Config" is for i9 only

The Igor table is a concise way to communicate this full spec.

AssimilatorThis. It's basic corporate weaseling that allows Intel to look better and its motherboard partners to move more product if things work well, but if things don't then it's easy for Intel to throw those same partners under the bus. The problem that Intel's MBAs don't seem to understand is that those partners probably don't like being thrown under the bus for something that Intel itself implicitly encouraged. And those partners will be even less happy about the fact that now they have essentially sold customers a product that either performs as advertised, but is unstable; or is slower than advertised, but stable - because either way consumers got a product that isn't what they believed, which is very much class-action lawsuit territory.

I really hope that somebody sues Intel and its partners over this. The case doesn't even have to succeed, it just has to shine enough of a light on these bullshit practices to ensure that Intel stops doing them for good. Just build a CPU that isn't fucking garbage, if AMD can do it why can't you, Intel? Clowns.

The processors are stable if configured as advertised (PL1=PL2), the rest to spec.

Everything else is mobo maker deviation.

The trouble is, that once one MB manufacturer starts overcoming specs, then every other MB manufacturer will need start doing it too, because otherwise their product would appear to have inferior performance and would be hard to sell. That is why the specs should be enforced by Intel to maintain level playing/competition field for each MB manufacturer.

dgianstefaniThe processors are stable if configured as advertised (PL1=PL2), the rest to spec.

What do you mean?
You posted Igor's table and claimed that is the spec with PL1 not = PL2.

Now you are saying they should be configured as advertised PL1 = PL2.

why the contradiction ?

BoggledBeagleThe trouble is, that once one MB manufacturer starts overcoming specs, then every other MB manufacturer will need start doing it too, because otherwise their product would appear to have inferior performance and would be hard to sell. That is why the specs should be enforced by Intel to maintain level playing/competition field for each MB manufacturer.

I agree.

This is what I originally said in my first post two weeks ago. The only blame that can be attributed to Intel is not being firm enough with board partners.

dgianstefaniUnnecessary for stability. Just run the actual Intel stock settings. Not the motherboard "stock" settings.

You can lock your clocks/voltage for consistent performance, but I don't see how underclocking will give better performance than actual stock settings. Especially as the CPU will still have variable clocks unless you do a static tune.

It's the motherboards overvolting chips past limits that cause this issue, not the chipmakers. I'd argue the strongest criticism you can legitimately make is that Intel and AMD need to be stricter at enforcing their stock settings with their board partners.

The AMD melting chips/socket issue a while back was something you could actually blame on AMD, because it was their AGESA/EXPO algorithms that were causing the overvolting.

Having the option to change things is preferable. Having things changed out of the box by default is not.

DavenIn your research who made Intel motherboards if not them? And did they also sell other brands to endusers?

Ever heard of Foxconn?

Intel owes all end users a refund for creating false expectations. After all, Apple has had to fork out for down-clocking iphones already.

I get that Intel is to be blamed usually, and they are probably not right in this case... but i had plenty of issues with my 400 bucks motherboard. Why 400? Cus i wanted the same amount of Sata ports+USB ports as my old 75 bucks motherboard from 2011. Anyways, here is what i got for 400 bucks: 3-4m boot times (my 10-year-old PC boots in 7 seconds!) 13 bios updates (i was updating the darn thing more than i update World of Warcrat), Ram issues cus the board didn't support (and they said they did on the support page) 64GB ram sticks, CPU burning cus of motherboard limits or the lack of them... (7800X3D, yes that's my CPU and yes, i STILL got 4m boot times... like many others on the motherboard forums+Reddit, it's not a super rare problem, i did all the bios settings, i replaced the Ram and all. It's literally the motherboard and they refuse to replace it)

I'm pretty happy with my CPU now, after literally 1 year full of trouble... I'm not problem free, as i have mentioned, but at least it's all performing perfectly during gaming. You can't beat smooth gaming with 40Wats of power, the CPU is magical, the whole platform.... not so much. At least i don't suffer from the famous USB issues with AMD, god knows i have enough problems as it is lol. Not that intel is better in the last few years, its very clear i went with the right CPU this time. My previous CPU was it-2500k, which was better and cheaper than what AMD was offering in my country. Who knows, maybe Intel will do another good one in 2030, just in time for my next upgrade?

Theres a new Hardware Unboxed video on the issue.

Steve gives the most compelling argument, and evidence, as to why Intel is mainly to blame for this power and overvoltage mess.

starfalsI get that Intel is to be blamed usually, and they are probably not right in this case... but i had plenty of issues with my 400 bucks motherboard. Why 400? Cus i wanted the same amount of Sata ports+USB ports as my old 75 bucks motherboard from 2011. Anyways, here is what i got for 400 bucks: 3-4m boot times (my 10-year-old PC boots in 7 seconds!) 13 bios updates (i was updating the darn thing more than i update World of Warcrat), Ram issues cus the board didn't support (and they said they did on the support page) 64GB ram sticks, CPU burning cus of motherboard limits or the lack of them... (7800X3D, yes that's my CPU and yes, i STILL got 4m boot times... like many others on the motherboard forums+Reddit, it's not a super rare problem, i did all the bios settings, i replaced the Ram and all. It's literally the motherboard and they refuse to replace it)

I'm pretty happy with my CPU now, after literally 1 year full of trouble... I'm not problem free, as i have mentioned, but at least it's all performing perfectly during gaming. You can't beat smooth gaming with 40Wats of power, the CPU is magical, the whole platform.... not so much. At least i don't suffer from the famous USB issues with AMD, god knows i have enough problems as it is lol. Not that intel is better in the last few years, its very clear i went with the right CPU this time. My previous CPU was it-2500k, which was better and cheaper than what AMD was offering in my country. Who knows, maybe Intel will do another good one in 2030, just in time for my next upgrade?

There's certain steps you can take to reduce boot times on AM5, mainly related to manually setting subtimings and voltages, I'd post them here but it's OT.

DM me if you want, I boot in about 45 seconds. Once you get to Windows it's very fast, it's the BIOS POST that takes ages.

Yeah, the early AGESA for any AM4/5 platform is generally pretty rough. Agreed with 7800X3D being good, platform being mid.

"And now YOU understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all... your fault, my fault, nobody's fault... it won't matter.....I'm gonna blow your head off. No matter what else happens, no matter who gets killed, I'm gonna blow your head off." - Jacob McCandles.....

'nuff said :D

This nonsense makes me wanna go back to my trusty ole i9-9900k's, of which I still have 1 rig running overclocked from the base 3.6 to 5.2Ghz for over 4 years now (w/360mm AIO cooling & lots of case airflow) notta problemo :)

The CPU Wars are real. I don't care what you tell me a CPU pulling 250+ Watts is insane. The 6 GHz Clock speed is the goal. Obviously they have their CPUs tuned up for review sampling as the reviewer (from what I see) gets a package with everything. This is a battle that Intel lost in the War. Let's see what they can do with the next node. It is exciting though and it keeps CPUs in a certain price range too.

make a "stable" MB BIOS from scratch - NO WAY
make a "patch" BIOS every later then - SURE, GOOD IDEA!:roll:

dgianstefaniThe Igor table is a concise way to communicate this full spec.


The processors are stable if configured as advertised (PL1=PL2), the rest to spec.

Everything else is mobo maker deviation.

Oh wow. Read the room guy. Very few hear believe this is all the MB manufacturer’s fault. And there is a reason for why the vast majority of us easily, easily believes Intel shares a lot of blame here.

Ferrum MasterEver heard of Foxconn?

I have. You can’t buy from them directly as they are pretty much exclusive contract manufacturers that follow the design spec with 0% deviation. If this is who Intel used, its 100% Intel’s product.

Just because Maytag ovens are used to cook food doesn’t mean they are responsible for what’s cooking in them.

That analogy applies here as foxconn would never touch much less change any settings in the shipping default BIOS. That’s all Intel. Same goes for third parties today. None of them would risk shipping a default BIOS without at least checking with Intel. Not for permission mind you but at least approval that it wouldn’t causes issues or void warranties.

DavenOh wow. Read the room guy. Very few hear believe this is all the MB manufacturer’s fault. And there is a reason for why the vast majority of us easily, easily believes Intel shares a lot of blame here.


I have. You can’t buy from them directly as they are pretty much exclusive contract manufacturers that follow the design spec with 0% deviation. If this is who Intel used, its 100% Intel’s product.

Just because Maytag ovens are used to cook food doesn’t mean they are responsible for what’s cooking in them.

That analogy applies here as foxconn would never touch much less change any settings in the shipping default BIOS. That’s all Intel. Same goes for third parties today. None of them would risk shipping a default BIOS without at least checking with Intel. Not for permission mind you but at least approval that it wouldn’t causes issues or void warranties.

What people choose to believe isn't really relevant to me.

There's a spec, it's what the motherboard makers should be using.

They are not (even after their "intel baseline spec" BIOS update).

Pretty clear cut factually.

Intel needs to be firmer with enforcing their spec, and dictating how deviations should be presented. That's the issue.

They at least seem to be taking that stance now.

Intel requests system and motherboard manufacturers to provide end users with a default BIOS profile that matches Intel recommended settings.

Intel strongly recommends customer's default BIOS settings should ensure operation within Intel's recommended settings.

In addition, Intel strongly recommends motherboard manufacturers to implement warnings for end users alerting them to any unlocked or overclocking feature usage.

For the inevitable "but Intel in their own marketing uses off spec numbers" comments.

The only change from spec is PL1=PL2.

Not -

• Disabling Current Excursion Protection (CEP)
• Enabling the IccMax Unlimited bit
• Disabling Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB) and/or Enhanced Thermal Velocity Boost (eTVB)
• Additional settings which may increase the risk of system instability:
• Disabling C-states
• Using Windows Ultimate Performance mode
• Increasing PL1 and PL2 beyond Intel recommended limits

And other "optimized" defaults, often including automatic overclocking of the CPU clock, BCLK, even RAM timings.

Changing the voltage curve is a significant thing. Both going under and over the recommended values.

Setting PL1 to PL2 is not major. The CPU is already validated to that wattage, and protection features put in place will automatically downclock/reduce volts etc, if thermals become an issue. Unless those protection mechanisms are turned off by the motherboard manufacturers, by default.

There's a big difference between allowing the CPU to run at the PL2 all the time (253 W), with PL3/PL4 still topping out around ~300 W, to having non standard voltage curves and PL=4096 W/unlimited.

The other end of the spectrum is these modified clock tables/curves causing vdroop that goes below the Intel recommended spec. This is another cause for crashing that Intel mentioned.

Intel was well aware of what motherboard makers were doing, possibly even incentivize them, they allowed for these deviations on purpose so their CPUs perform better than they would have otherwise did. They're not fooling anyone, the reason they let this happen is obvious.

Vya DomusIntel was well aware of what motherboard makers were doing, possibly even incentivize them, they allowed for these deviations on purpose so their CPUs perform better than they would have otherwise did. They're not fooling anyone, the reason they let his happen is obvious.

Speculation.

This news post comments about facts.

dgianstefaniFor the inevitable "but Intel in their own marketing uses off spec numbers" comments.

The only change from spec is PL1=PL2.

Not -

• Disabling Current Excursion Protection (CEP)
• Enabling the IccMax Unlimited bit
• Disabling Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB) and/or Enhanced Thermal Velocity Boost (eTVB)
• Additional settings which may increase the risk of system instability:
• Disabling C-states
• Using Windows Ultimate Performance mode
• Increasing PL1 and PL2 beyond Intel recommended limits

And other "optimized" defaults, often including automatic overclocking of the CPU clock, BCLK, even RAM timings.

It seems there is a lot of confidence here.

Could you please provide the said 'marketing uses materials' from Intel showing 'They did not tweat any of these settings besides PL1 = PL2' ?

dgianstefaniIntel needs to be firmer with enforcing their spec, and dictating how deviations should be presented. That's the issue.

They at least seem to be taking that stance now.

But would they be doing anything at all if the news hadn't broke? I can't see giving them any credit now for doing what they should have been doing all along anyway. They can't directly control mobo makers but they could have issued some warning about what was going on. Maybe I'm being too cynical on this but I think they did nothing because it was in their best interest to let their customers believe that the i9s performed better than they really did.

dgianstefaniSpeculation.

It absolutely isn't, Intel themselves on numerous occasions claimed all of this is perfectly normal, this was years ago mind you :

www.anandtech.com/show/14582/talking-tdp-turbo-and-overclocking-an-interview-with-intel-fellow-guy-therien



It's factually incorrect to say they weren't not only aware but 100% on board with what was going on and this why I believe they likely even encouraged it.

CrackongIt seems there is a lot of confidence here.

Could you please provide the said 'marketing uses materials' from Intel showing 'They did not tweat any of these settings besides PL1 = PL2' ?

Intel are pretty thorough showing exactly what settings were used. To the point of also running memory at officially supported speeds (5600 MT), not the 8000 MT etc these chips are capable of.

edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/performance/benchmarks/desktop/

Vya DomusIt absolutely isn't, Intel themselves on numerous occasions claimed all of this is perfectly normal, this was years ago mind you :

www.anandtech.com/show/14582/talking-tdp-turbo-and-overclocking-an-interview-with-intel-fellow-guy-therien



It's factually incorrect to say they weren't aware of what was going on and this why I believe they likely even encouraged it.

Vya DomusIntel was well aware of what motherboard makers were doing, possibly even incentivize them, they allowed for these deviations on purpose so their CPUs perform better than they would have otherwise did. They're not fooling anyone, the reason they let this happen is obvious.

What is speculation is this part. Not the comment that Intel is aware of what motherboard makers were doing.

In fact, the vast majority of those benchmarks on that page do not use PL1=PL2. Each time the configuration is a little different and it's very clearly stated. E.g. some have Intel APO enabled.

For example, the second entry in the list.



What is also notable is that these performance claims are in line with TPU testing, which uses Intel spec. So there isn't any reason, in my mind, to imagine for drama's sake, that Intel is running a bunch of other parameters outside of spec, but not stating that.