Superior Stability by GIGABYTE BETA BIOS with Intel Baseline on Z790/B760 Motherboards

[pressing on]

Intel makes more money than they should at the quality level of their products due to brand awareness alone. In a perfect world, such a company should not exist.

In other words, we should live in a world where IT buying managers pick the best tech irregardless of fear of not buying the ‘top’ brand name.

I see Intel are claiming 5 million plus Meteor Lake sales to date, and expect that to double in the next quarter to 10 million - the 'AI PC effect' I suspect. Sales are apparently being restricted by the lack of wafer assembly capacity. I'm not sure how you define what the best technology is - there's always been really good technology that never sells and not so good tech that sells like hot cakes. The spec of some of the corporate laptops inflicted on users in the past was dire - so for some people if the IT department is handing out Meteor Lake laptops like sweeties they are not complaining.

 

[Daven]

I see Intel are claiming 5 million plus Meteor Lake sales to date, and expect that to double in the next quarter to 10 million - the 'AI PC effect' I suspect. Sales are apparently being restricted by the lack of wafer assembly capacity. I'm not sure how you define what the best technology is - there's always been really good technology that never sells and not so good tech that sells like hot cakes. The spec of some of the corporate laptops inflicted on users in the past was dire - so for some people if the IT department is handing out Meteor Lake laptops like sweeties they are not complaining.

Meteor Lake is slower than Ryzen 8000 series in many, many benchies. It has no advantages over Ryzen APU w/ NPU yet sells 5:1 over AMD.

 

[overclockedamd]

Meteor Lake is slower than Ryzen 8000 series in many, many benchies. It has no advantages over Ryzen APU w/ NPU yet sells 5:1 over AMD.

This is due to years and years of Intel paying off companies to not use AMD products.

"The European Union (EU) has fined Intel $400 million for anti-competitive practices that took place between 2002 and 2006. The fine stems from actions that blocked rivals, such as paying HP, Acer, and Lenovo to delay or stop rival products."

That is just one antitrust lawsuit they have paid for but what's the incentive to stop the practices when you make more than the fine cost.

 

[dgianstefani]

Actually, if people are willing to set aside the conspiracies, the cause seems more like AMD not having anywhere near enough supply to actually put chips inside laptops en masse.

Perks of Intel owning their own fabs is that they can scale up/down as they choose.

AMD has to get TSMC allocation, priority to server chips, then everything else.

AMD laptop CPUs being "launched" and consumers struggling to find laptops using them in stock is a very common scenario, for this reason.

What you guys are talking about may have some impact I can't say for sure, as with most vague allegations, but logistics is firm data.

Quoting 20 year old examples as proof of things happening today isn't exactly compelling IMO.

Meteor Lake is slower than Ryzen 8000 series in many, many benchies. It has no advantages over Ryzen APU w/ NPU yet sells 5:1 over AMD.

The advantage is you can buy them. Intel also provides excellent OEM and software support.

 

[overclockedamd]

Its hard fact. They were caught doing it....

Intel Wins New Boost in EU Court Fight Over €1.06 billion Fine

Intel Corp. won another boost in its ongoing legal fight with European Union regulators over a one-time record antitrust fine of €1.06 billion ($1.15 billion).

www.bloomberg.com

They were lucky enough to win this one.

Lost this one in 2015

Case ID: 5:11-cv-2509
Offense Group: competition-related offenses
Primary Offense: price-fixing or anti-competitive practices
Penalty: $103,750,000

 

[john_]

This is due to years and years of Intel paying off companies to not use AMD products.

It's not only that. Intel having fabs means that big OEMs can be certain they will get chipsets and CPUs for their products. Even worst performing CPUs and chipsets. It doesn't really matter. 90% of consumers know nothing and just believe whatever a salesperson will tell them and whatever a slide with a few bigger numbers on it will advertised them. So, if the sales person tells them that "The Intel CPU is better for having 10 cores than the AMD one for having 6 cores", they will believe it. Of course AMD will have 6 P cores and the Intel 2 P cores and 8 E cores. Oh, E cores. Efficiency cores. AMD doesn't have Efficiency cores, so Intel is also more Efficient.
It's not just bribes, even knowing that Intel is using bribes in any form they can think of for the last 25 years at least.

 

[dgianstefani]

It's not only that. Intel having fabs means that big OEMs can be certain they will get chipsets and CPUs for their products.

Precisely.

All the current gen chips are competitive, people tend to forget that.

The issue is supply, support, and cost. Intel does well on all three, hence they are the most popular for laptops and prebuilts.

 

[john_]

Precisely.

All the current gen chips are competitive, people tend to forget that.

The issue is supply, support, and cost. Intel does well on all three, hence they are the most popular for laptops and prebuilts.

AMD being just "competitive" and Intel being just "competitive" are two totally different things.
AMD being competitive means there is a reason OEMs not preferring AMD. Intel being competitive means OEMs will keep building more products with Intel inside anyway. Also, before the hybrid CPUs from Intel that finally turned the tables on core count and offered an advantage to Intel, OEMs where sabotaging AMD based models by not offering the same subsystems as those offered with Intel products. Worst SSDs, worst battery, worst keyboard, worst screen options, single channel memory, worst something anyway, to limit the success of any AMD based model. Probably not just to avoid having huge demand for AMD based models that AMD wouldn't be able to fulfill, but also to keep their bonds with Intel strong.

After that fine for anticompetitive practices, Intel just changed the way it was bribing OEMs. So instead of paying them directly to stop using AMD CPUs, it gone the route of paying them as a way to... help them design systems with Intel inside. I don't remember exactly the name of that program but I think it's there for at least the last 15 years.

 

[user556]

There's no such thing as MB specs. Intel has changed its specs is all.

 

[Minus Infinity]

woohoo, adhering to Intel specs and lose up to 30% of MT perf / 10% ST perf, basically making i9 perform the same as i7

Intel should just reduce the prices of their CPU by 100usd, making i9 cost the same as current i7

So all benchmarks will now be adjusted and conclusions altered about i9 superiority over 7950X.

 

[john_]

So all benchmarks will now be adjusted and conclusions altered about i9 superiority over 7950X.

I doubt this will happen. Sites will probably keep using max setting available to not "artificially limit the CPU potential" or some excuse anyway.

Even if we see new reviews with baseline settings, all those reviews that are posted by now, will still remain online. Sites are not going to remove them or replace their findings that got with max unlocked settings. Fun part, Intel is changing sockets. So when the new top Intel CPU is tested against a 14900K limited to baseline settings, it will be looking even much faster. Win for Intel marketing.

 

[Broken Processor]

What I don't get it why these power targets are news. Every motherboard I've owned for years has ignored official power targets on intel and AMD and you could easily tell by paying attention to your running machine.

I think the more interesting point is that Intel seems to be releasing products so close to the red line than when you use those motherboard manufacturer power targets it degrades the CPU. Maybe it's time intel started running their own race and stopped releasing products so close to the red line and for the motherboard manufacturers to start selling motherboards with intel official power targets.

 

[stimpy88]

So, are the "reviews" of Intel's CPU's going to be redone to reflect INTEL performance rather than overclocked and unstable performance? I won't hold my breath.

 

[dgianstefani]

So, are the "reviews" of Intel's CPU's going to be redone to reflect INTEL performance rather than overclocked and unstable performance? I won't hold my breath.

TPU performance numbers are based off Intel spec. Not motherboard spec.

All my CPU reviews have been done at Intel stock settings, for the last 15 years or so.

Each Intel review has a second full run "Power Limits Removed", which is probably what you expected the default to be

 

[stimpy88]

What I don't get it why these power targets are news. Every motherboard I've owned for years has ignored official power targets on intel and AMD and you could easily tell by paying attention to your running machine.

I think the more interesting point is that Intel seems to be releasing products so close to the red line than when you use those motherboard manufacturer power targets it degrades the CPU. Maybe it's time intel started running their own race and stopped releasing products so close to the red line and for the motherboard manufacturers to start selling motherboards with intel official power targets.

These CPUs are crashing because Intel has already overclocked the bejesus out of them at the factory, and the extra high "default" BIOS settings increase the power limits even further.

All my CPU reviews have been done at Intel stock settings, for the last 15 years or so.

Each Intel review has a second full run "Power Limits Removed", which is probably what you expected the default to be

To be clear W1zzard, you don't use default/optimized motherboard settings, you manually change the power limits to Intel specs after using default BIOS settings?

 

[W1zzard]

To be clear W1zzard, you don't use default settings, you manually change the power limits to Intel specs?

Correct, I don't use the _motherboard_ default settings, if they differ from the Intel default specs, which are "the default specs"

 

[stimpy88]

Correct, I don't use the _motherboard_ default settings, if they differ from the Intel default specs, which are "the default specs"

Very nice, but I wonder how many other reviewers have taken your honest approach.

 

[dgianstefani]

Very nice, but I wonder how many other reviewers have taken your honest approach.

Anandtech does so too AFAIK.

 

[phanbuey]

Thank you, gigabyte, for addressing this problem that you yourself caused.

 

[chrcoluk]

Clearly something has gone wrong if vendors are having to release a new bios so someone can run at spec.

What's particularly frustrating about this fiasco, is that Intel's main claim over the competition is the 'stability' of its platforms presumably due to the perceived higher quality engineering of its products. I'm still dumb struck that Intel is still in business but market perceptions and emotions have the tendency to keep brands alive that otherwise should be defunct.

The very fact that Intel would risk the operation of its customer's PCs in order to beat the competition in benchmarks is so not the kind of company anyone should be buying from.

Like AMD did on their burnt CPUs with SOC voltages right?

Just clarifying you are consistent here.

If you going to claim, the vendors ran the chips outside of spec based on Intel's instructions, I would like to see a statement from someone affiliated to the board vendors, as Intel turning a blind eye is not the same as directing them to do it.

For me the board vendors are to blame for both of the recent Intel/AMD problems.

All my CPU reviews have been done at Intel stock settings, for the last 15 years or so.

Each Intel review has a second full run "Power Limits Removed", which is probably what you expected the default to be

Didnt you boost tjmax?

 

[Broken Processor]

These CPUs are crashing because Intel has already overclocked the bejesus out of them at the factory, and the extra high "default" BIOS settings increase the power limits even further

I know I said that in the second paragraph.

 

[Upgrayedd]

I doubt this will happen. Sites will probably keep using max setting available to not "artificially limit the CPU potential" or some excuse anyway.

Even if we see new reviews with baseline settings, all those reviews that are posted by now, will still remain online. Sites are not going to remove them or replace their findings that got with max unlocked settings. Fun part, Intel is changing sockets. So when the new top Intel CPU is tested against a 14900K limited to baseline settings, it will be looking even much faster. Win for Intel marketing.

reviewers need start putting faster ram in the Intel systems. Using the same 1:1 optimized for AMD kits in the Intel system and calling it good is rather unbalanced. I've built a i7 on 7600 timings at 8Ghz that was 100% stable. Seeing reviews use the same plain 6000MHz kit is kinda ignorant because they find the right kit for AMD but just ignore Intel's capabilities.

 

[sephiroth117]

if the budget allows it, i would not understand, for gaming, not picking a 7800X3D currently (with the latest chipset drivers and bios it's really stable)

Just don't pick a CPU that needs 100 more watts to stay somewhat relevant.

Intel will come back, they have too much knowledge and money to not to, but right now for gaming, frankly a 7800X3D is the most-efficient and balanced choice

 

[Tek-Check]

So now it''s a feature to adhere to the official specs?

Indeed. You can run boring official spec and end up 2nd behind AMD in more workloads than ever.
Or... you can electrocute yourself with too much voltage, claim victory and return CPU to a shop you bought it at.

So basically the whole instability drama was just because MB manufacturers were overclocking the CPU’s on their own.

And because Intel was complicit in this practice, remaining silent, while being happy with high bars and percentages in review benchmarks.

PL1=PL2=253W is still the advertised Intel spec for a 13900K

Advertised, yes; implemented by default, no.

 

[W1zzard]

Didnt you boost tjmax?

For the testing on the temperature page, yes, so you can get a feel for the actual difference instead of comparing "throttled" and "throttled"