Hyderzfrom what i know the asus and gigabyte have different power (but stable) limits in place... the gigabyte ones have quite the substantial performance hit..
the asus one also have a performance hit but not as much as gigabyte... now is the chance for amd to gain more sales in the time being

napataThe Gigabyte one is a scam. For the 13900K & 14900K they need to be stable at 253W PL1 and not 125W.

napata... 13900K & 14900K ... need to be stable at 253W ...

BoggledBeagleThe root problem is at what power draw (and frequencies and voltage) the silicon IS ABLE TO RELIABLY WORK LONG TERM. This is a physical problem.

These limits are tied to the silicon chips, not Intel paperwork. Intel will probably need to rewrite the paperwork and enforce compliance with it.

Hyderznow is the chance for amd to gain more sales in the time being

john_It seems everyone knew about the problems (Intel, motherboard makers, Nvidia, maybe even the press? ) except the consumers.

So, we have 3-4 years of benchmarks online that do not correspond in reality, but instead mislead consumers. And that's before we add that those results are possible with ultra expensive cooling system and top of the line motherboard.

BoggledBeagleThe root problem is at what power draw (and frequencies and voltage) the silicon IS ABLE TO RELIABLY WORK LONG TERM. This is a physical problem.

These limits are tied to the silicon chips, not Intel paperwork. Intel will probably need to rewrite the paperwork and enforce compliance with it.

stimpy88So will Intel do the honourable thing and offer replacement CPU's for the ones that have been degraded and no longer run stable at stock?

• Increasing PL1 and PL2 beyond Intel recommended limits

Ferrum MasterI was actually telling it from the start. OEM parters are the ones at blame for the most of time.

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.

Analysis of affected processors shows some parts experience shifts in minimum operating voltages

closeThis is the oldest trick in the book. Make your product look good at launch, make it work well later. Intel and OEMs held hands while benchmarks were saying "king of the single threaded performance". Turns out that was a less than sustainable setup.

Let's see how many reviewers update their reviews and benchmarks to account for this. A lot of them get some freebies if they just "forget" to do it, or they're just afraid Intel will blacklist them. I still remember that guy who eventually left AnandTech through the backdoor enthusiastically writing about the incredible 5GHz all core Intel chip that turned out to run under a 1kW chiller. Even for AT, it took him forever to come up with an article which was basically excusing Intel. If it happens at once-relevant media outlets, it can happen to others too. Intel is probably "blackmailing" honest reviewers or rewarding the dishonesty. The lesson is if you want to buy an Intel CPU, stay away from the top end, and buy it 1+ years after launch, you may get a slim chance of seeing the real situation by then. (I'm posting from one of AMD's "fake 8-cores" right now but they seem to have cleaned up their act a bit in the past decade).

dgianstefaniYep. Because most Z series motherboards aren't running Intel stock spec. They're doing their own thing. Most users don't know how to tune either, or properly navigate a bios, meaning the problematic "stock" settings as set by the board manufacturers cause issues like this.

Since it's not the board maker who has to deal with returns etc. There's no real consequence if they screw up their "ai boost" or whatever they choose to call their "optimised defaults" etc.

dgianstefaniAnandtech is one of the other review sites that also tests using Intel Spec, not the motherboard defaults.


I wonder if board makers are taking this seriously since again, they're not the ones who have to deal with returns, most of the time, unless people realise it's the motherboard.

dgianstefani Intel Spec limits, not motherboard defaults.