chrcolukSo if I understand this right, motherboard vendors saying all these misconfigured bios is not their fault, its intel telling them to do it.

Now intel wants them to put it as default, they have a problem with it as it makes their premium boards perform like the cheap boards out of the box, umm wasnt I trying to say this for the past couple of weeks, the board vendors want their products to outshine each other hence all of the tinkering and things like pre tuned optimised defaults.

chrcolukSo if I understand this right, motherboard vendors saying all these misconfigured bios is not their fault, its intel telling them to do it.

Now intel wants them to put it as default, they have a problem with it as it makes their premium boards perform like the cheap boards out of the box, umm wasnt I trying to say this for the past couple of weeks, the board vendors want their products to outshine each other hence all of the tinkering and things like pre tuned optimised defaults.

btk2k2They stick to AMDs spec and AMD are still a smaller company so you would have thought Intel has more leverage over their motherboard partners.

This does feel like people trying to pin Intel's slack oversight of motherboard defaults onto the mobo makers rather than Intel's laissez-faire attitude.

AnonymousGuy767The board vendors want to be able to outshine themselves. There's no point in buying a higher end Z790 board (where they make profit) if your 14900K is going to only be a 14900K for 3 seconds before getting slammed down to i7 levels. I can guarantee you that the board vendors are really pissed about this whole situation, because Intel's the ones not delivering them a competitive product to run with and now throwing them under the bus like it's their fault that they tried to make these things not thermal throttle while hitting the advertised clock speeds. And board vendors already hated Intel for being years behind schedule on product releases.

hey tried to make these things not thermal throttle while hitting the advertised clock speeds.

chrcolukMaybe so, but the chips are designed to thermal throttle like that, and turbo clocks have never been a guaranteed speed, thats on them for trying to make the chips into something they not.

Dr. DroThe baseline is already documented in the whitepaper. The Intel-recommended values are stated in section 4.4, page 98 of the data sheet.

www.intel.com.br/content/www/br/pt/content-details/743844/13th-generation-intel-core-and-intel-core-14th-generation-processors-datasheet-volume-1-of-2.html

For example, the i9 KS chips:

S-Processor 8+16 150 W: PL1 253 W, PL2 253 W
S-Processor 8+16 150 W, Extreme Config: PL1 320 W, PL2 320 W

Or the i5 chips:

S-Processor 6+8 125 W: PL1 125 W, PL2 181 W

The data sheet is concise and complete regarding Tau length, recommended current and wattage for all models and specifications, you just need to know how to correlate the subtype with the marketed name. S-Processor 150 W means i9 KS, S-Processor 125 W means i9 K, etc.

Again, it must be stressed that 13th and 14th Generation Core as well as the Xeon E-2400 series CPUs have the exact same denomination and stepping: "Raptor Lake-S", and they do not have any differences whatsoever between them. They have the exact same stepping and hardware revision, if you compare a i9-13900K and a i9-14900KS the sole difference between them is their clock table and silicon quality, functionally and at a technical level, they are the exact same processor unchanged.



There will be no further "generations" to the Core i processor line. The next will be Core Ultra series 2, and it should be radically different compared to the existing Raptor Lake chips.

dir_dThis was like 6 pages back replying to me about waiting to here from Intel about Baselines. It seems you were wrong, and we needed to wait. Now that Intel has said what is baseline, no one but Gigabyte got it right.

chrcolukPrevious testing has shown they dont stick to AMD spec, I even see it on my b450 pro 4.

AnonymousGuy767The turbo frequencies are part of the specs though, and thus should be guaranteed. It's obviously not guaranteed under all conditions but the general idea is: if you have power and thermal headroom the chip should run at these speed.

We need to be very clear what the problem is: we're not talking about thermal throttling or inefficiencies or motherboard vendors goosing limits (these were all talked about last year): we're talking about these chips *point blank* not being capable of operating at their advertised speeds without degrading very quickly. And what Intel is doing is trying to say "well we never really advertise those speeds lasting for more than 3 seconds". Intel isn't entitled to silently redefining the last 10 years of how turbo limits have actually been implemented.

And don't let that distract you from the fact they're only saying any of this because they know that the chip is incapable of sustaining the advertised clock speeds without degrading. They're trying to dance a line and invent excuses so they don't get a class action lawsuit over their marketing running past their engineering.

we're talking about these chips *point blank* not being capable of operating at their advertised speeds without degrading very quickly.

motherboard vendors goosing limits

btk2k2Last time they (ASUS) didn't stick to spec AMD released a new AGESA to force them too. I didn't see the motherboard vendors kick up a fuss about that when AMD forced their hand so why would they when Intel does? Would be interested in what spec your board is not sticking to.

As long as they are all on the same playing field so one vendor does not gain an advantage over the others they won't care all that much.

BoggledBeaglePower limits, maximal currents and LLC settings have been discussed, but what about THE EXTREME FREQUENCIES ? Not only are the CPUs running at those high frequencies power hungry and inefficient, but are not these extreme frequencies a big part of the problem? ....

BoggledBeagleBTW has anyone heard about an unstable 14600K? If not, why is that? Is it because it runs at sane frequencies (5300/4000 MHz)? Is it because thanks to its lower core count and the limited frequencies is has limited power draw and it does not overheat? With lower current density and lower temperature leading to slower degradation?

londistePretty sure it is the frequencies.

AusWolfSo basically, changing any setting from default results in instability and is not recommended. What a load of ****.

Why doesn't Intel enforce stricter current and voltage curves so that even changing the aforementioned settings wouldn't cause any problems? :shadedshu:

chrcolukI am seeing the bigger picture, sadly there is so much hatred for Intel, and for some reason some kind of unexplained loyalty to ASUS and co that people are not seeing things straight.

All of the motherboard vendors like to get a one-up, which is why we see features like Multi-Core Turbo (which we reported on in 2012) sometimes defaulting to 'on'. Motherboard manufacturers prefer the 'Unlimited PL2' route, because it puts their results at the top of benchmark lists.

:D:DNo hate from me, I just gave my opinion, someone should ask Intel why they allow such a setting of 115C for Tjmax ;)

Most CPU's are set for around 100C and Tjmax itself cannot be changed, just a negative offset that can be used. My own Xeon v3 is set at 78C by Intel depending on which microcode patch is being used.

Had a quick look for that Gigabyte link but this one for 9th Gen and default 115C should do I think.

Some reasoning from www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-processors-draw-more-power-than-expected-tdp-turbo

chrcolukDo Intel code the bios limits then?

:D:DNo, they code the feature limits. Example, if I use an i7-6800K CPU in my X99 then Tjmax can be set up to 120C. Using a Xeon instead with same BIOS and board I cannot set Tjmax only have a negative offset settable from it to activate TCC. The manufacturers cannot adust because Intel don't allow it, only Intel can make changes which is done in this case via microcode patch.

Sometimes there are exceptions such as Skylake Non-K BCLK overclocking which was a loophole used by board manufacturers but unfortunately broke power management. This meant no DTS valid reading and no temperature throttling but IIRC still had catastrophic temperature shutdown at around 125C to 130C.

Intel can force 100C but they don't instead they allow a higher setting. One could also argue users should check BIOS settings themselves or if not competent to do that then buy a system from someone who is and will also provide warranty for that system. No passing the buck that way either if something goes wrong.