Intel Statement on Stability Issues: "Motherboard Makers to Blame"

[Crackong]

Intel Spec limits, not motherboard defaults.

I want to ask.
By Intel Spec Limit do you mean PL1 = 253W ?

Since it is the performance Index listed on Intel's own website.

 

[Onasi]

I have been banging this drum for years now. Default should equal factory Intel spec and Intel themselves should absolutely be more hands on with MoBo vendors to enforce this. Any other behavior is unacceptable.
For people saying that this is to make Intel look better in benchmarks - not really, it’s an incidental byproduct, why this was originally and still is done by vendors is to differentiate positively their motherboards from competitors by claiming they are faster, even though it is obviously nonsense to anyone with basic knowledge of hardware and at default spec all MoBos SHOULD, in fact, perform identically.

I want to ask.
By Intel Spec Limit do you mean PL1 = 253W ?

Since it is the performance Index listed on Intel own website.

Yes and no. PL2 (not PL1 - that’s base TDP usually ) in Intels understanding isn’t something that should be sustained indefinitely, or at least it wasn’t originally.

 

[Crackong]

Yes and no. PL2 in Intels understanding isn’t something that should be sustained indefinitely, or at least it wasn’t originally.

So it is a No.
Since Intel's performance Index listed PL1 = 253W , not PL2

 

[stimpy88]

Intel themselves should absolutely be more hands on with MoBo vendors to enforce this. Any other behavior is unacceptable.
For people saying that this is to make Intel look better in benchmarks - not really, it’s an incidental byproduct, why this was originally and still is done by vendors is to differentiate positively their motherboards from competitors by claiming they are faster, even though it is obviously nonsense to anyone with basic knowledge of hardware and at default spec all MoBos SHOULD, in fact, perform identically.

You are so very wrong on this. Intel knew this was going on, and privately encouraged and endorsed it. What we might be seeing is Intel marketing telling the engineers to shut up, ignoring them and not realising that constant over voltage would end up degrading some of the CPU's under certain conditions.

And yes, this is absolutely all about Intel not losing to AMD in benchmarks. It's worth more than 10% in some benchmarks!

 

[Onasi]

So it is a No.
Since Intel's performance Index listed PL1 = 253W , not PL2

Wait, really? Lemme check, is that for the KS model?
Huh, you are right, actually. They did put PL1=PL2 for all K models. That’s just silly and defeats the purpose of having two PLs in the first place. What the actual fuck.

 

[stimpy88]

Wait, really? Lemme check, is that for the KS model?
Huh, you are right, actually. They did put PL1=PL2 for all K models. That’s just silly and defeats the purpose of having two PLs in the first place. What the actual fuck.

And this little jem too, which in the screenshot I posted, Intel recommended against doing...

"Power Plan set to High Performance; Power Mode set to High Performance"

In fairness, this may only apply to Windows 10, as the power plan Intel specifically mentions is the Windows Ultimate Performance Mode.

 

[Vya Domus]

Intel let's motherboard makers ship boards with no limits whatsoever for their CPUs out of the box which is absolutely idiotic then blames them for the inevitable problems that arise. Classic Intel.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

The trouble is, that 253W is not a clearly defined limit:

First they say it is influenced by two other parameters.
Then they say this limit can be exceeded.
Then they say it is configurable by system vendor and can be system specific.

So I do not think Intel has any REAL CLEARLY DEFINED "IN SPEC" POWER LIMIT.

 

[napata]

The trouble is, that 253W is not a clearly defined limit:

View attachment 345555

First they say it is influenced by two other parameters.
Then they say this limit can be exceeded.
Then they say it is configurable by system vendor and can be system specific.

So I do not think Intel has any REAL CLEARLY DEFINED "IN SPEC" POWER LIMIT.

I think PL4 should be the limit for power spikes.

Edit: Yes PL4 is the limit for transients if you enable it.

 

[stimpy88]

The trouble is, that 253W is not a clearly defined limit:

View attachment 345555

First they say it is influenced by two other parameters.
Then they say this limit can be exceeded.
Then they say it is configurable by system vendor and can be system specific.

So I do not think Intel has any REAL CLEARLY DEFINED "IN SPEC" POWER LIMIT.

I think we are about to see official "alterations" and "guidelines" published about this from Intel quite soon.

 

[64K]

Intel let's motherboard makers ship boards with no limits whatsoever for their CPUs out of the box which is absolutely idiotic then blames them for the inevitable problems that arise. Classic Intel.

I'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.

What Intel is guilty of is deceit by omission which is not illegal but it is morally ambiguous.

 

[dgianstefani]

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

 

[napata]

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

View attachment 345556

Intel obviously has specs, but that chart is wrong though as Intel advertises PL1 = PL2.

 

[Vya Domus]

Intel obviously has specs, but that chart is wrong though as Intel advertises PL1 = PL2.

If it's almost impossible to conclusively determine what the spec is then effectively there is no spec.

 

[stimpy88]

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

View attachment 345556

But what about Intels recommendations of BIOS settings like these... Are these settings used in your reviews?

Enable Current Excursion Protection (CEP)
Disable IccMax Unlimited Bit
Enable Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB)
Enable Enhanced Thermal Velocity Boost (eTVB)
Enable C-States

I can only assume that some or all motherboard OEMs are not following the guidelines for these settings as well as the more publicised wattage settings and turbo durations when using default settings.

And we need to remember, the AUTO setting does not always do what you think it does, so manually setting these settings to Intels guidelines is the only way to ensure they are set correctly. I know you and W1zzard know this, but most other people do not, and trust the AUTO setting to do what's best.

 

[Crackong]

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

How to explain Intel's own Performance index listing PL1 = 253W and why is it differ from the picture ?
Looking at the Intel website there is 93 datapoints of 14900k listing PL1=253W, and 99 datapoints listing 13900k with PL1=253W
Even the 12900k received PL1= 241W treatment.

 

[dgianstefani]

How to explain Intel's own Performance index listing PL1 = 253W and why is it differ from the picture ?
Looking at the Intel website there is 93 datapoints of 14900k listing PL1=253W, and 99 datapoints listing 13900k with PL1=253W
Even the 12900k received PL1= 241W treatment.

View attachment 345558

It'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.

However, when Intel reiterates to motherboard manufacturers to use the default spec option that Intel set (the same one that has been around since the launch of these CPUs), and then the motherboard manufacturers still do not comply with this spec, and instead continue to make up numbers...

Remember, it's a lot more than just power limits vendors are changing. Arguably if setting PL1 to PL2 was the only "optimized default" then there wouldn't be an issue. But that is not the case here.

 

[phanbuey]

Without fail intel marketing will undo everything the Intel Engineers tried to do.

Now that it's time to be honest and address an engineering problem, marketing is running aroud pointing fingers while the engineers have probably been warned to stfu.

 

[stimpy88]

Without fail intel marketing will undo everything the Intel Engineers tried to do.

Now that it's time to be honest and address an engineering problem, marketing is running aroud pointing fingers while the engineers have probably been warned to stfu.

The whole concept of the 14th gen was and is a complete failure and serves only as a cash grab.

 

[Daven]

No shock here with the news. The more you push the CPU's to the limit the more possibility these will fail at some point and the CPUs fail number will grow same way degradation will and failed CPUs from the factory will not adhere to the requirements.
Not sure how intel would want to milk that cow but I guess they have just acquired a tipping point with it.
Fix what is there to fix and move on with something new and less power hungry.

Who is the ‘you’ in your comment? It’s one thing for an enduser to push the limits and a completely different thing for manufacturers to do it default out of the box.

One could almost say this was intentional to force upgrades after prolonged but slow degradation not to mention achieving high benchmark scores.

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

What does it matter who’s to blame anyway. Its all ONE platform and Intel doesn’t make its own motherboards anymore. You need a motherboard to operate a CPU and vice versa. If ALL of these companies including Intel can’t get together to make a good end platform then they don’t deserve our money.

 

[Ferrum Master]

Its all one platform and Intel doesn’t make its own motherboards anymore.

And when it has made ones? Do you realize those were still made by those OEM's with a INTEL logo on it.

It is all about PR bullshit and making things cheaper.

 

[napata]

If it's almost impossible to conclusively determine what the spec is then effectively there is no spec.

The way Intel advertises and tests their CPUs is the official spec. The only confusing part is that they also have a "baseline" spec but that's basically the ECO mode from AMD. They list both though in their data sheet so it's not like it's hidden.

It'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.

However, when Intel reiterates to motherboard manufacturers to use the default spec option that Intel set (the same one that has been around since the launch of these CPUs), and then the motherboard manufacturers still do not comply with this spec, and instead continue to make up numbers...

Remember, it's a lot more than just power limits vendors are changing. Arguably if setting PL1 to PL2 was the only "optimized default" then there wouldn't be an issue. But that is not the case here.

I tested a large range of settings with the default of PL1=PL2=241 W, and then PL1=125 W PL2=241 W, which used to be the default settings of previous K-model processors.

Intel Core i9-12900K Alder Lake Tested at Power Limits between 50 W and 241 W - Conclusion | TechPowerUp

PL1=PL2 is absolutely the default, which is also why Intel tests their CPUs like that.

 

[dgianstefani]

The way Intel advertises and tests their CPUs is the official spec. The only confusing part is that they also have a "baseline" spec but that's basically the ECO mode from AMD. They list both though in their data sheet so it's not like it's hidden.



Intel Core i9-12900K Alder Lake Tested at Power Limits between 50 W and 241 W - Conclusion | TechPowerUp

PL1=PL2 is absolutely the default, which is also why Intel tests their CPUs like that.

Precisely.

It's why it is so shocking to see motherboard makers specifically release an update to adhere to baseline spec but the numbers are still made up and not compliant.

 

[Daven]

And when it has made ones? Do you realize those were still made by those OEM's with a INTEL logo on it.

It is all about PR bullshit and making things cheaper.

I’m not so sure about that. This article doesn’t make it sound like Intel is using third parties when they closed down that division.

The End of an Era: Intel's Desktop Motherboard Business to Ramp Down Over Next 3 Years

www.anandtech.com

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

 

[ratirt]

Who is the ‘you’ in your comment? It’s one thing for an enduser to push the limits and a completely different thing for manufacturers to do it default out of the box.

It is a hypothetical person pushing the processor to the limit. In this context is Intel.

One could almost say this was intentional to force upgrades after prolonged but slow degradation not to mention achieving high benchmark scores.

I 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.