• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

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

Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,666 (0.78/day)
System Name Personal Gaming Rig
Processor Ryzen 7800X3D
Motherboard MSI X670E Carbon
Cooling MO-RA 3 420
Memory 32GB 6000MHz
Video Card(s) RTX 4090 ICHILL FROSTBITE ULTRA
Storage 4x 2TB Nvme
Display(s) Samsung G8 OLED
Case Silverstone FT04
No CPUs have been blown up that we know of, this isn't the "Meltdown" fiasco, there has been some instability in certain workloads.
If CPUs were blown up people gets RMA and case would move a lot quicker.
What leaves everyone's mouth bitter is the CPUs aren't blowing up, no RMA, but confirmed decreased performance, and no clear solution is provided, yet.

I still think there is a lot of jumping on this topic to attack Intel, and not enough people criticising the fact that board partners who should know better are possibly comically incompetent to the point of not being able to copy and paste several numbers from a datasheet, or potentially still trying to gain competitive advantage by using the wrong values.
It is Intel's CPU, it is their job to make sure the motherboard vendors having a correct 'Default' profile so it works 100% of the time.
This lack of communication alone is a big issue and is one of the Intel biggest fault.

And, if your CPUs are this fragile, measurements should be taken to 'prevent' the partners further messing it up.
Like AMD, with their X3D voltage issue, they forced new voltage setting very quickly and RMA every affected case.
Like Nvidia, Nvidia does a great job make sure the AIB cannot mess up their GPUs and, if something's up like the 12vhpwr issue, Nvida took the responsibility and took care every affected case.

Please noted in the above mentioned cases,
Although customers do blame the AIB partners,
But AMD/Nvidia themselves didn't actively placed the blame on their partners.
They just went in, solved the problem, and get out ASAP.

if they can do it, why not Intel ?
 
Joined
May 24, 2023
Messages
948 (1.63/day)
BTW the fact itself that Intel acknowledged the problem and is preparing something is a proof, that they are getting a lot of degraded / unstable chips back. They would happily ignore the problem if it was not biting them badly.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
3,823 (1.33/day)
Processor Ryzen 7800X3D
Motherboard ROG STRIX B650E-F GAMING WIFI
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill Flare X5 DDR5-6000 CL36 (F5-6000J3636F16GX2-FX5)
Video Card(s) INNO3D GeForce RTX™ 4070 Ti SUPER TWIN X2
Storage 2TB Samsung 980 PRO, 4TB WD Black SN850X
Display(s) 42" LG C2 OLED, 27" ASUS PG279Q
Case Thermaltake Core P5
Power Supply Fractal Design Ion+ Platinum 760W
Mouse Corsair Dark Core RGB Pro SE
Keyboard Corsair K100 RGB
VR HMD HTC Vive Cosmos
Are you sure?

Since 14900KS had a PL1/PL2 = 150/320, which is differ from regular 14900K's 125/253
If they had the same baseline profile, it will render them basically the same SKU.
This is a bit of spec bullshit from Intel. ARK page for CPUs has Processor Base Power which is not PL1. Maximum Turbo Power is reasonably enough PL2.
The spec values for PL1/PL2 are in the Datasheet.
14900K Extreme profile and 14900K non-Extreme are the same. Extreme profile is not and should not be applicable for Base Profile.

The fact that Intel's CPU power delivery specification is so convoluted, with so many knobs and dials, would reasonably suggest a pressing need for Intel to carefully validate any firmware that board partners release, in order to prevent blown up CPUs.
Oh sweet summer child. What makes you think only Intel's power delivery has many knobs and dials? :D
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2020
Messages
7,021 (4.81/day)
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
System Name "Icy Resurrection"
Processor 13th Gen Intel Core i9-13900KS Special Edition
Motherboard ASUS ROG Maximus Z790 Apex Encore
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S upgraded with 2x NF-F12 iPPC-3000 fans and Honeywell PTM7950 TIM
Memory 32 GB G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB F5-6800J3445G16GX2-TZ5RK @ 7600 MT/s 36-44-44-52-96 1.4V
Video Card(s) ASUS ROG Strix GeForce RTX™ 4080 16GB GDDR6X White OC Edition
Storage 500 GB WD Black SN750 SE NVMe SSD + 4 TB WD Red Plus WD40EFPX HDD
Display(s) 55-inch LG G3 OLED
Case Pichau Mancer CV500 White Edition
Audio Device(s) Apple USB-C + Sony MDR-V7 headphones
Power Supply EVGA 1300 G2 1.3kW 80+ Gold
Mouse Microsoft Classic Intellimouse
Keyboard IBM Model M type 1391405 (distribución española)
Software Windows 11 IoT Enterprise LTSC 24H2
Benchmark Scores I pulled a Qiqi~
BTW the fact itself that Intel acknowledged the problem and is preparing something is a proof, that they are getting a lot of degraded / unstable chips back. They would happily ignore the problem if it was not biting them badly.

The 13900K itself is barely over a year old. I have owned my 13900KS for a little over 370 days myself, I find it rather unlikely that these chips would degrade so fast, unless subjected to 110+C and 350+W constantly and even then. Sensationalist "news" articles tend to cause panic and exacerbate situations, which tend to reflect on general consumer mood and propensity to return "faulty" systems.

I have good reason to believe that I was affected by said stability problems (at least with the last 1F BIOS, and there's some likelihood it was my fault as well), since updating to the 1G BIOS I made sure I triple checked every single one of my settings and memory subtimings, and I have not experienced any BSOD's since. Something funny though, whenever my computer was about to crash, the scrambled graphics bug on the Nvidia drivers that affected Chromium would trigger something fierce.

It is Intel's CPU, it is their job to make sure the motherboard vendors having a correct 'Default' profile so it works 100% of the time.
This lack of communication alone is a big issue and is one of the Intel biggest fault.

And, if your CPUs are this fragile, measurements should be taken to 'prevent' the partners further messing it up.
Like AMD, with their X3D voltage issue, they forced new voltage setting very quickly and RMA every affected case.
Like Nvidia, Nvidia does a great job make sure the AIB cannot mess up their GPUs and, if something's up like the 12vhpwr issue, Nvida took the responsibility and took care every affected case.

Please noted in the above mentioned cases,
Although customers do blame the AIB partners,
But AMD/Nvidia themselves didn't actively placed the blame on their partners.
They just went in, solved the problem, and get out ASAP.

if they can do it, why not Intel ?

Ultimately this is my sole problem with Intel's response. They should be far more proactive and shield themselves less from any potential blame. But then again, if you look at who's running Intel's PR at the moment, you're going to understand this stance. It's the same one AMD took until very, very recently ;)
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
108 (0.07/day)
Compare current statement with Intel interview with Anandtech in 2019:

Ian Cutress: One of the things we’ve seen with the parts that we review is that we’re taking consumer or workstation level motherboards from the likes of ASUS, ASRock, and such, and they are implementing their own values for that PL2 limit and also the turbo window – they might be pushing these values up until the maximum they can go, such as a (maximum) limit of 999 W for 4096 seconds. From your opinion, does this distort how we do reviews because it necessarily means that they are running out of Intel defined spec?


Guy Therien:
Even with those values, you're not running out of spec, I want to make very clear – you’re running in spec, but you are getting higher turbo duration.
We’re going to be very crisp in our definition of what the difference between in-spec and out-of-spec is. There is an overclocking 'bit'/flag on our processors. Any change that requires you to set that overclocking bit to enable overclocking is considered out-of-spec operation. So if the motherboard manufacturer leaves a processor with its regular turbo values, but states that the power limit is 999W, that does not require a change in the overclocking bit, so it is in-spec.

Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1458...ng-an-interview-with-intel-fellow-guy-therien
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
3,823 (1.33/day)
Processor Ryzen 7800X3D
Motherboard ROG STRIX B650E-F GAMING WIFI
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill Flare X5 DDR5-6000 CL36 (F5-6000J3636F16GX2-FX5)
Video Card(s) INNO3D GeForce RTX™ 4070 Ti SUPER TWIN X2
Storage 2TB Samsung 980 PRO, 4TB WD Black SN850X
Display(s) 42" LG C2 OLED, 27" ASUS PG279Q
Case Thermaltake Core P5
Power Supply Fractal Design Ion+ Platinum 760W
Mouse Corsair Dark Core RGB Pro SE
Keyboard Corsair K100 RGB
VR HMD HTC Vive Cosmos
The 13900K itself is barely over a year old. I have owned my 13900KS for a little over 370 days myself, I find it rather unlikely that these chips would degrade so fast, unless subjected to 110+C and 350+W constantly and even then. Sensationalist "news" articles tend to cause panic and exacerbate situations, which tend to reflect on general consumer mood and propensity to return "faulty" systems.
I do not think the chips degrade. There is a (relatively) new use case that is very picky about CPU stability. I got the same errors - like running out of VRAM in Unreal Engine games when there was clearly enough VRAM - but on a 7800X3D. Took a moment and the news about these being caused by CPUs before I went and changed the Curve Optimizer to a bit less than -30 on all cores. Nothing else before this had been failing or even given any indications of failing.
 

dgianstefani

TPU Proofreader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
5,095 (2.00/day)
Location
Swansea, Wales
System Name Silent
Processor Ryzen 7800X3D @ 5.15ghz BCLK OC, TG AM5 High Performance Heatspreader
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix X670E-I, chipset fans replaced with Noctua A14x25 G2
Cooling Optimus Block, HWLabs Copper 240/40 + 240/30, D5/Res, 4x Noctua A12x25, 1x A14G2, Mayhems Ultra Pure
Memory 32 GB Dominator Platinum 6150 MT 26-36-36-48, 56.6ns AIDA, 2050 FCLK, 160 ns tRFC, active cooled
Video Card(s) RTX 3080 Ti Founders Edition, Conductonaut Extreme, 18 W/mK MinusPad Extreme, Corsair XG7 Waterblock
Storage Intel Optane DC P1600X 118 GB, Samsung 990 Pro 2 TB
Display(s) 32" 240 Hz 1440p Samsung G7, 31.5" 165 Hz 1440p LG NanoIPS Ultragear, MX900 dual gas VESA mount
Case Sliger SM570 CNC Aluminium 13-Litre, 3D printed feet, custom front, LINKUP Ultra PCIe 4.0 x16 white
Audio Device(s) Audeze Maxwell Ultraviolet w/upgrade pads & LCD headband, Galaxy Buds 3 Pro, Razer Nommo Pro
Power Supply SF750 Plat, full transparent custom cables, Sentinel Pro 1500 Online Double Conversion UPS w/Noctua
Mouse Razer Viper V3 Pro 8 KHz Mercury White w/Tiger Ice Skates & Pulsar Supergrip tape, Razer Atlas
Keyboard Wooting 60HE+ module, TOFU-R CNC Alu/Brass, SS Prismcaps W+Jellykey, LekkerV2 mod, TLabs Leath/Suede
Software Windows 11 IoT Enterprise LTSC 24H2
Benchmark Scores Legendary
Compare current statement with Intel interview with Anandtech in 2019:

Ian Cutress: One of the things we’ve seen with the parts that we review is that we’re taking consumer or workstation level motherboards from the likes of ASUS, ASRock, and such, and they are implementing their own values for that PL2 limit and also the turbo window – they might be pushing these values up until the maximum they can go, such as a (maximum) limit of 999 W for 4096 seconds. From your opinion, does this distort how we do reviews because it necessarily means that they are running out of Intel defined spec?


Guy Therien:
Even with those values, you're not running out of spec, I want to make very clear – you’re running in spec, but you are getting higher turbo duration.
We’re going to be very crisp in our definition of what the difference between in-spec and out-of-spec is. There is an overclocking 'bit'/flag on our processors. Any change that requires you to set that overclocking bit to enable overclocking is considered out-of-spec operation. So if the motherboard manufacturer leaves a processor with its regular turbo values, but states that the power limit is 999W, that does not require a change in the overclocking bit, so it is in-spec.

Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1458...ng-an-interview-with-intel-fellow-guy-therien
If all mobo makers did was change PL values, the CPU would still have all of the safeguards and algorithms to ensure stability.

The issue is that the board partners also disable many of the Intel boost algorithms, C states etc.

Intel has observed 600/700 Series chipset boards often set BIOS defaults to disable thermal and power delivery safeguards designed to limit processor exposure to sustained periods of high voltage and frequency, for example:
  • 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
This one change doesn't change the voltage curve much, i've tested it on many builds I have done, hence falling under the "additional settings that may increase the risk" category.
These settings are quite significant -
  • Disabling Current Excursion Protection (CEP)
  • Enabling the IccMax Unlimited bit
  • Disabling Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB) and/or Enhanced Thermal Velocity Boost (eTVB)

The crashes are from voltage going too high or too low. This can also be exacerbated by VRMs failing to keep up with boost clock changes, and over/undershooting voltage targets.

Modifying the target frequency (MCE all core boost etc and other names for this), voltage LLC, and other settings will adjust the voltage curve outside of spec.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
108 (0.07/day)
If all mobo makers did was change PL values, the CPU would still have all of the safeguards and algorithms to ensure stability.

The issue is that the board partners also disable many of the Intel boost algorithms, C states etc.


This one change doesn't change the voltage curve much, i've tested it on many builds I have done, hence falling under the "additional settings that may increase the risk" category.
These settings are quite significant -
  • Disabling Current Excursion Protection (CEP)
  • Enabling the IccMax Unlimited bit
  • Disabling Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB) and/or Enhanced Thermal Velocity Boost (eTVB)

The crashes are from voltage going too high or too low. This can also be exacerbated by VRMs failing to keep up with boost clock changes, and over/undershooting voltage targets.
Well, Intel certainly knew about and encouraged this MB vendor behaviour for at least last 6 years. It gave him competitive and marketing advantage, after all. Now, the company is shifting all the blame on said MB vendors.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
3,667 (1.70/day)
Location
UK, Midlands
System Name Main PC
Processor 13700k
Motherboard Asrock Z690 Steel Legend D4 - Bios 13.02
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S
Memory 32 Gig 3200CL14
Video Card(s) 4080 RTX SUPER FE 16G
Storage 1TB 980 PRO, 2TB SN850X, 2TB DC P4600, 1TB 860 EVO, 2x 3TB WD Red, 2x 4TB WD Red
Display(s) LG 27GL850
Case Fractal Define R4
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster AE-9
Power Supply Antec HCG 750 Gold
Software Windows 10 21H2 LTSC
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,666 (0.78/day)
System Name Personal Gaming Rig
Processor Ryzen 7800X3D
Motherboard MSI X670E Carbon
Cooling MO-RA 3 420
Memory 32GB 6000MHz
Video Card(s) RTX 4090 ICHILL FROSTBITE ULTRA
Storage 4x 2TB Nvme
Display(s) Samsung G8 OLED
Case Silverstone FT04
Part 2 of the debacle, Asus baseline.

Thanks, watching right now.

2 minutes in and Buildzoid already shown something interesting, the optimized default of ASUS APEX board BIOS 1202 was PL1/PL2 = 253/4095
That's is like..insane and it consumes 360W in R15 and crash R15

The baseline default on the APEX seems a lot resonable than Gigabyte, Buildzoid's 14900k runs 10% faster than the Gigabyte's baseline default.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
3,667 (1.70/day)
Location
UK, Midlands
System Name Main PC
Processor 13700k
Motherboard Asrock Z690 Steel Legend D4 - Bios 13.02
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S
Memory 32 Gig 3200CL14
Video Card(s) 4080 RTX SUPER FE 16G
Storage 1TB 980 PRO, 2TB SN850X, 2TB DC P4600, 1TB 860 EVO, 2x 3TB WD Red, 2x 4TB WD Red
Display(s) LG 27GL850
Case Fractal Define R4
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster AE-9
Power Supply Antec HCG 750 Gold
Software Windows 10 21H2 LTSC
So summary of my thoughts based on both documents.

i9 CPUs listed as baseline power of 150w (which seems to be the KS models), have 253/253 as perf spec. Extreme config of 320/320.
8+8 and 8+16 models which have 125w listed as base power have 253/125 as perf spec. But also have an extreme config as 253/253.
Baseline spec seems to be 188/125.

Document here, originally posted by @dgianstefani

 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
270 (0.18/day)
They do just say it.

Have a look at the datasheet.

What other companies do with Intel products is up to them.

If I buy a car and tune the engine until it explodes, is this the fault of the car manufacturer?

No, but if the car manufacturer says this car tuned to 500BHP with a stage one turbo kit is "within spec" and later dies slowly it's absolutely on the manufacturer. That's exactly what happened here, as evident by the response they provided to Ian Cuttress when talking about consumer and professional boards (not just workstation mind you, please read it carefully or see the clip).

Good on Hardware Unboxed to lay it down on intel and they absolutely deserve it. It's a fact that they knew exactly what the board makers were doing, and did nothing about it but rather encouraged the behaviour. I remember some of the senior reviewers a few years back were pretty confused about the whole power limits thing, the ambiguity and lack of action on intel's part. I know for a fact Ian was, and there were some podcasts where they spoke about it in more detail and people even reached out to intel but they had absolutely zero issues with board partners and everything was 'within spec'.

You can't really defend intel here and just say "oh they should have enforced the board manufacturers more that's their only fault". That's really not the only fault there is it. When people started commenting on other issues, you admitted that the PL1=PL2 was not defined properly earlier and recently resurfaced. There are many more cracks in Intel's spec, and lots of ambiguity and looseness in their 'guide' which is an abhorrent mess. Most of it is covered by HWU.

Just FYI, there's no speculation on Steve's part and I 100% agree with him.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
3,667 (1.70/day)
Location
UK, Midlands
System Name Main PC
Processor 13700k
Motherboard Asrock Z690 Steel Legend D4 - Bios 13.02
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S
Memory 32 Gig 3200CL14
Video Card(s) 4080 RTX SUPER FE 16G
Storage 1TB 980 PRO, 2TB SN850X, 2TB DC P4600, 1TB 860 EVO, 2x 3TB WD Red, 2x 4TB WD Red
Display(s) LG 27GL850
Case Fractal Define R4
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster AE-9
Power Supply Antec HCG 750 Gold
Software Windows 10 21H2 LTSC
Thanks, watching right now.

2 minutes in and Buildzoid already shown something interesting, the optimized default of ASUS APEX board BIOS 1202 was PL1/PL2 = 253/4095
That's is like..insane and it consumes 360W in R15 and crash R15

The baseline default on the APEX seems a lot resonable than Gigabyte, Buildzoid's 14900k runs 10% faster than the Gigabyte's baseline default.
Yep its a mess.

He also raises a point which is bad news, previously if you had a lottery loser chip that wasnt stable out of the box you would probably get a new one with RMA, now they might refuse swap if its stable on baseline.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
2,161 (0.76/day)
Location
Tanagra
System Name Budget Box
Processor Xeon E5-2667v2
Motherboard ASUS P9X79 Pro
Cooling Some cheap tower cooler, I dunno
Memory 32GB 1866-DDR3 ECC
Video Card(s) XFX RX 5600XT
Storage WD NVME 1GB
Display(s) ASUS Pro Art 27"
Case Antec P7 Neo
I see it rather simply. Intel should have a safe baseline as the platform default, and board partners should be held to that as the first boot default, or no license. If board partners want to run wild on power specs, fine, but issue the appropriate warning before it gets enabled. It’s what any system builder should expect, honestly.

I simply don’t believe that Intel didn’t know this wasn’t happening all along. They sure seem to have opened the door for this and just left themselves an out for when this finally came home to roost. They got a few generations of better-looking benchmarks out of the deal.

Intel just needs to take ownership of not enforcing proper defaults, but that will only cost them in the long run if they continue down their current design path of allowing for insane power limits. I remember when this all started, where Intel CPUs lacked in performance at default settings, but took off once you unlocked the power limits. It seems it only took one generation for those defaults to start getting ignored.
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,666 (0.78/day)
System Name Personal Gaming Rig
Processor Ryzen 7800X3D
Motherboard MSI X670E Carbon
Cooling MO-RA 3 420
Memory 32GB 6000MHz
Video Card(s) RTX 4090 ICHILL FROSTBITE ULTRA
Storage 4x 2TB Nvme
Display(s) Samsung G8 OLED
Case Silverstone FT04
now they might refuse swap if its stable on baseline.
Adding insult to injury, even if a user find it unstable with baseline, it could be on the difference between vendor's baseline profiles.
RMA the CPU and the tester test it on a Gigabyte.....
Now that user get stuck with a 'No problem' CPU which doesn't work on his/her MB on hand...
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
144 (0.05/day)
Location
hong kong
1. intel document does state there are two profiles for 13900k/13900kf/14900k/14900kf which is rated at tdp 125w.
2. the profiles in the doc are,
2a. pl1=125w & pl2=253w & iccmax=307a & ac_ll=1.1omhm
2b. pl1=253w=pl2 & iccmax=400a & ac_ll=1.1omhm (this is called extreme profile)
so both files are spec by intel, both are OK to be used.
3. actually the same intel doc got lots of rev, and in the rev002 which was released in late 2022, for the same tdp=125w cpu like 13900k, the pl1 was 125w and the pl2 was 188w.
so, three profiles created by intel, but 125 188 one seemed to be cancelled.
4. what igor leaked in 2021 about raptor lake s 125w cpu, that spec turns out to be almost the same as what gigabyte now has implemented (pl1=125w & pl2=188w & iccmax=249a & ac_ll=1.7)
5. what igor leaked in 2021 about raptor lake s 125w cpu, that spec was called "baseline"
6. if you search "baseline" in the latest intel doc, there is no such result that is related to power/voltages/current.
7. why gigabyte set things like that in the baseline profile, maybe the engineer was told to make a intle baseline profile but he didn't know what the fuck was that, so he looked up intel latest doc but found nothing about BASELINE, then he had to look up even earlier, at last he did find out intel baseline, which was the same as what igor leaked back in 2021, so gigabyte copied that and tested that and found out 200a iccmax was way too low, then gigabyte eventually decided to increase the iccmax by themself.

 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
7,563 (1.77/day)
Ultimately this is my sole problem with Intel's response. They should be far more proactive and shield themselves less from any potential blame. But then again, if you look at who's running Intel's PR at the moment, you're going to understand this stance. It's the same one AMD took until very, very recently ;)
I mean I can't stress this enough ~ Intel has pushed BIOS updates & ucode updates blocking free OCing over at least 5 gen of motherboards, going as far as a year(?) down the line after the products were sold to block them off! Anyone defending Intel over this is either totally ignorant of this fact or just (short of) a paid shill :rolleyes:

Let me repeat in case it's not clear ~ Intel can force their "board partners" to adhere to their specs in a second, if they wanted to! No pipsqueak would try going against that after Intel's forced their hand.

And we all know the reason they didn't till now :shadedshu:
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
1,183 (0.97/day)
The processors are stable if configured as advertised (PL1=PL2), the rest to spec.
Everything else is mobo maker deviation.
It's way more messy. Massive power unlocking is within the spec, according to what Intel officially said in interview with Dr Cutress and according to additiona information on their website, one click away under 253W.

They consider OC to be changes in the multiplier. So, if motherboard vendors keep the multiplier intact, technically a CPU operates within the spec, no matter how much power they throw at it. This utter mess is a sole responsibility of Intel not willing to define clear power boundaries.

Intel clearly reads on their website that 253W is not set in stone as Maximum Turbo Power can be configurable by OEM.
"The maximum sustained (>1s) power dissipation of the processor as limited by current and/or temperature controls. Instantaneous power may exceed Maximum Turbo Power for short durations (<=10ms). Note: Maximum Turbo Power is configurable by system vendor and can be system specific."


 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
302 (0.07/day)
Processor Intel i7-12700K
Motherboard MSI PRO Z690-A WIFI
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S
Memory Corsair Vengeance 4x16 GB (64GB) DDR4-3600 C18
Video Card(s) MSI GeForce RTX 3090 GAMING X TRIO 24G
Storage Samsung 980 Pro 1TB, SK hynix Platinum P41 2TB
Case Fractal Define C
Power Supply Corsair RM850x
Mouse Logitech G203
Software openSUSE Tumbleweed
They consider OC to be changes in the multiplier. So, if motherboard vendors keep the multiplier intact, technically a CPU operates within the spec, no matter how much power they throw at it. This utter mess is a sole responsibiluty of Intel not willing to define clear power boundaries.

The specs are more or less clear.
- Sustained TCase (IHS temperature) must be < TCaseMax, which for 13/14-gen 125W processors is 61.9 °C.
- TJunction must be always < TJmax (100 °C)
- TCase has a certain thermal inertia. The processor is allowed to exceed base power as long as TCase remains below the spec value. PL2 is intended to take advantage of that thermal inertia to provide a short-term performance boost.
- If the cooling is good enough that Tcase is always below TCaseMax, then PL1 can be increased, or even made equal to PL2.
- The official specs are validated for Intel's own standardized "thermal solution". The minimum spec is that CPUs must be able to sustain base power (e.g. 125W) indefinitely without exceeding TCaseMax.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2020
Messages
7,021 (4.81/day)
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
System Name "Icy Resurrection"
Processor 13th Gen Intel Core i9-13900KS Special Edition
Motherboard ASUS ROG Maximus Z790 Apex Encore
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S upgraded with 2x NF-F12 iPPC-3000 fans and Honeywell PTM7950 TIM
Memory 32 GB G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB F5-6800J3445G16GX2-TZ5RK @ 7600 MT/s 36-44-44-52-96 1.4V
Video Card(s) ASUS ROG Strix GeForce RTX™ 4080 16GB GDDR6X White OC Edition
Storage 500 GB WD Black SN750 SE NVMe SSD + 4 TB WD Red Plus WD40EFPX HDD
Display(s) 55-inch LG G3 OLED
Case Pichau Mancer CV500 White Edition
Audio Device(s) Apple USB-C + Sony MDR-V7 headphones
Power Supply EVGA 1300 G2 1.3kW 80+ Gold
Mouse Microsoft Classic Intellimouse
Keyboard IBM Model M type 1391405 (distribución española)
Software Windows 11 IoT Enterprise LTSC 24H2
Benchmark Scores I pulled a Qiqi~
Intel clearly reads on their website that 253W is not set in stone as Maximum Turbo Power can be configurable by OEM.
"The maximum sustained (>1s) power dissipation of the processor as limited by current and/or temperature controls. Instantaneous power may exceed Maximum Turbo Power for short durations (<=10ms). Note: Maximum Turbo Power is configurable by system vendor and can be system specific."



That just means it's unlocked. And there goes with the "sensationalism" i was going on about. Guess even Hardware Unboxed needs their views every now and then.
 
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
6,082 (1.14/day)
System Name RemixedBeast-NX
Processor Intel Xeon E5-2690 @ 2.9Ghz (8C/16T)
Motherboard Dell Inc. 08HPGT (CPU 1)
Cooling Dell Standard
Memory 24GB ECC
Video Card(s) Gigabyte Nvidia RTX2060 6GB
Storage 2TB Samsung 860 EVO SSD//2TB WD Black HDD
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster P2350 23in @ 1920x1080 + Dell E2013H 20 in @1600x900
Case Dell Precision T3600 Chassis
Audio Device(s) Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro 80 // Fiio E7 Amp/DAC
Power Supply 630w Dell T3600 PSU
Mouse Logitech G700s/G502
Keyboard Logitech K740
Software Linux Mint 20
Benchmark Scores Network: APs: Cisco Meraki MR32, Ubiquiti Unifi AP-AC-LR and Lite Router/Sw:Meraki MX64 MS220-8P
I mean I can't stress this enough ~ Intel has pushed BIOS updates & ucode updates blocking free OCing over at least 5 gen of motherboards, going as far as a year(?) down the line after the products were sold to block them off! Anyone defending Intel over this is either totally ignorant of this fact or just (short of) a paid shill :rolleyes:

Let me repeat in case it's not clear ~ Intel can force their "board partners" to adhere to their specs in a second, if they wanted to! No pipsqueak would try going against that after Intel's forced their hand.

And we all know the reason they didn't till now :shadedshu:
didn't they also block under/overvolting on core ultra?? It seems they are, indeed getting more restrictive. You need that for the thin n light laptops.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
12,015 (1.72/day)
System Name Compy 386
Processor 7800X3D
Motherboard Asus
Cooling Air for now.....
Memory 64 GB DDR5 6400Mhz
Video Card(s) 7900XTX 310 Merc
Storage Samsung 990 2TB, 2 SP 2TB SSDs, 24TB Enterprise drives
Display(s) 55" Samsung 4K HDR
Audio Device(s) ATI HDMI
Mouse Logitech MX518
Keyboard Razer
Software A lot.
Benchmark Scores Its fast. Enough.
So, all that sweet sweet 1-3% on some games for 3X the wattage was out of spec? How very sus of Intel, imagine how much heat AMD would get for BIOS issues.....


I wonder if every review will need updated to reflect actual chips that thousands of consumers got that wouldn't run out of the box.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
1,183 (0.97/day)
That just means it's unlocked. And there goes with the "sensationalism" i was going on about. Guess even Hardware Unboxed needs their views every now and then.
It's interesting, isn't it. Intel allows OEMs to run unlocked profiles, everything is good when benchmarks are high and then blames them in an official preliminary statement when CPUs degrade over time and cause instability.

Being complicit in OEM practices during good times and then slapping them when push gets to shove sounds like washing hands, no?
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
1,237 (0.22/day)
Location
CO
System Name 4k
Processor AMD 5800x3D
Motherboard MSI MAG b550m Mortar Wifi
Cooling ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 240
Memory 4x8Gb Crucial Ballistix 3600 CL16 bl8g36c16u4b.m8fe1
Video Card(s) Nvidia Reference 3080Ti
Storage ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro 1TB
Display(s) LG 48" C1
Case CORSAIR Carbide AIR 240 Micro-ATX
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar STX
Power Supply EVGA SuperNOVA 650W
Software Microsoft Windows10 Pro x64
Clearly there is a problem if there is 6 pages of knowledgeable people bickering about what is the "Baseline". All we can do is wait for Intel's "Official" document regarding this in May. It is fun to try to figure this out ourselves though.
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
364 (0.07/day)
System Name Matar Extreme PC.
Processor Intel Core i9-12900KS 5.2GHZ All P-Cores ,4.2GHZ All E-Cores & Ring 4.2GhZ bus speed 100.27
Motherboard NZXT N5 Z690 Wi-Fi 6E
Cooling CoolerMaster ML240L V2 AIO with MX6
Memory 4x16 64GB DDR4 3600MHZ CL15-19-19-36-55 G.SKILL Trident Z NEO
Video Card(s) Nvidia ZOTAC RTX 3080 Ti Trinity + overclocked 100 core 1000 mem. Re-pasted MX6
Storage WD black 1GB Nvme OS + 1TB 970 Nvme Samsung & 4TB WD Blk 256MB cache 7200RPM
Display(s) Lenovo 34" Ultra Wide 3440x1440 144hz 1ms G-Snyc
Case NZXT H510 Black with Cooler Master RGB Fans
Audio Device(s) Internal , EIFER speakers & EasySMX Wireless Gaming Headset
Power Supply Aurora R9 850Watts 80+ Gold, I Modded cables for it.
Mouse Onn RGB Gaming Mouse & Logitech G923 & shifter & E-Break Sim setup.
Keyboard GOFREETECH RGB Gaming Keyboard, & Xbox 1 X Controller & T-Flight Hotas Joystick
VR HMD Oculus Rift S
Software Windows 10 Home 22H2
Benchmark Scores https://www.youtube.com/user/matttttar/videos
I am glad I did not go this route and just a month ago i was playing to buy a z790 with a 13900kf for a great deal but i said no i will pass because of the heating issues and then i will need a better AIO and a better case so wasn't worth it so i am waiting on the new 15gen and maybe till 16gen will see i am very happy with my i9-10900KF 24/7 @5.1GHZ all core and Ring @4.6ghz @1.28v
 
Top