News Intel Alder Lake H670, B660 and H610 Chipset Specs Allegedly Exposed

[Admin]

Repected hardware leaker shares the alleged specifications for Intel's H670, B660 and H310 chipsets.

Intel Alder Lake H670, B660 and H610 Chipset Specs Allegedly Exposed : Read more

 

[-Fran-]

No full OC on B chipset? Also, H670 reads like the next in tier, which is odd... I thought the B chipset was next in line. Things change I suppose.

Looks like Intel won't budge on feature parity. Kind of sad to see. Oh welp.

Regards.

 

[Lafong]

What type of user should be concerned with having 8 DMI 4.0 lanes rather than 4?

Gamers?

Microsoft Office, browsing, Amazon shopper, Joe average home user types?

Heavy duty video work?

Those using integrated graphics only would have zero interest?

Here's hoping there is a good variety of Micro ATX boards under say 200 bucks. Not holding my breath.

 

[Why_Me]

No full OC on B chipset? Also, H670 reads like the next in tier, which is odd... I thought the B chipset was next in line. Things change I suppose.

Looks like Intel won't budge on feature parity. Kind of sad to see. Oh welp.

Regards.

B560 and the upcoming B660 boards allow for memory oc. If you want to oc your cpu for that 3 - 5% gain the move up to a Z series board.

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?productIds=196645,196613

 

[-Fran-]

B560 and the upcoming B660 boards allow for memory oc. If you want to oc your cpu for that 3 - 5% gain the move up to a Z series board.

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?productIds=196645,196613

Ah, I was expecting Intel apologists.

So, why do you support that segmentation? Wouldn't it be better to have unlocked chips* across all the vertical stack of both chipsets and CPUs?

Regards.

 

[Why_Me]

Ah, I was expecting Intel apologists.

So, why do you support that segmentation? Wouldn't it be better to have unlocked chips* across all the vertical stack of both chipsets and CPUs?

Regards.

Apologist? I was merely stating well known facts. AMD left the budget market awhile ago and Intel took advantage of it with locked cpu's and B series boards. btw the B560 boards allow you to run those locked cpu's with the power limits turned off in the bios. It's a round a bout way of oc those cpu's as it keeps them in turbo boost mode longer.

https://www.amazon.com/12-Thread-Unlocked-Desktop-Processor-Stealth/dp/B08ZMFS7R8/
AMD 5 3600 $249.00

https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/p/N82E16819113666
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X $299.00

https://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp
Intel CORE I5-10400F $149.99

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-11400-core-i5-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118241
Intel Core i5-11400 $189.98

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i5-11400f-processor-review,1.html

Intel Core i5-11400F Review - The Best Rocket Lake

The Core i5-11400F is Intel's most affordable Rocket Lake processor. While its multiplier is locked, you can still adjust the power limit. Once we did that, the CPU ran over 15% faster and almost matched the Core i5-11600K. We also made an interesting discovery regarding Gear 1 vs. Gear 2.

www.techpowerup.com

Intel Core i5-10400F Review - Six Cores with HT for Under $200

Intel's new Core i5-10400F offers a large performance jump over the previous generation Core i5-9400F because of its six-core/twelve-thread design. In this Core i5-10400F review we also test the feasibility of overclocking through BCLK, or by relaxing the PL1 and PL2 Turbo Limits.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[-Fran-]

Apologist? I was merely stating well known facts. AMD left the budget market awhile ago and Intel took advantage of it with locked cpu's and B series board. btw the B560 boards allow you to run those locked cpu's with the power limits turned off in the bios. It's a round a bout way of oc those cpu's as it keeps them in turbo boost mode longer.

https://www.amazon.com/12-Thread-Unlocked-Desktop-Processor-Stealth/dp/B08ZMFS7R8/
AMD 5 3600 $249.00

https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/p/N82E16819113666
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X $299.00

https://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp
Intel CORE I5-10400F $149.99

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-11400-core-i5-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118241
Intel Core i5-11400 $189.98

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i5-11400f-processor-review,1.html

Intel Core i5-11400F Review - The Best Rocket Lake

The Core i5-11400F is Intel's most affordable Rocket Lake processor. While its multiplier is locked, you can still adjust the power limit. Once we did that, the CPU ran over 15% faster and almost matched the Core i5-11600K. We also made an interesting discovery regarding Gear 1 vs. Gear 2.

www.techpowerup.com

Intel Core i5-10400F Review - Six Cores with HT for Under $200

Intel's new Core i5-10400F offers a large performance jump over the previous generation Core i5-9400F because of its six-core/twelve-thread design. In this Core i5-10400F review we also test the feasibility of overclocking through BCLK, or by relaxing the PL1 and PL2 Turbo Limits.

www.techpowerup.com

So, why do you support that segmentation? Wouldn't it be better to have unlocked chips* across all the vertical stack of both chipsets and CPUs?

Regards.

 

[Why_Me]

So, why do you support that segmentation? Wouldn't it be better to have unlocked chips* across all the vertical stack of both chipsets and CPUs?

Regards.

Better yet wouldn't it be better if AMD hadn't left the budget market.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5-11400-review

 

[Eximo]

Not really bothered me to have that market segmentation. Majority of people don't overclock, so if a motherboard doesn't support it, not that big a deal. Those that do want it often want better features in general, so you have your Z and X boards.

I feel the segmentation is more growing towards PCIe lanes and bandwidth than anything else. You have the single x16 slot and m.2 slot as budget, chipset offering slower or less lanes. And then you have the high end chipsets offering 3 or more m.2 slots, multiple x16 lanes and faster PCIe. USB4/Thunderbolt 4, things like that.

That Intel hasn't chosen to match AMDs B chipset features isn't surprising, people don't expect it. That they took away XMP from B460 was the real oddity, that was when AMD WAS still in the lower end CPU market. And it isn't that AMD has left it, they just don't have the production to accommodate it in their product stack. 8 core chiplets just don't pump out too many quad core parts.

5600G and 5700G would be great options if not for the GPU shortage, like the 2200G and 3200G used to be.

Traditionally the Hx70 boards have always been Z boards without overclocking for the most part. I think the B board has adopted more features of late in order to compete with AMD, who added functionally. Intel's budget board is always the Hx10 boards, akin to AMDs A series boards.

 

[-Fran-]

Not really bothered me to have that market segmentation. Majority of people don't overclock, so if a motherboard doesn't support it, not that big a deal. Those that do want it often want better features in general, so you have your Z and X boards.

I feel the segmentation is more growing towards PCIe lanes and bandwidth than anything else. You have the single x16 slot and m.2 slot as budget, chipset offering slower or less lanes. And then you have the high end chipsets offering 3 or more m.2 slots, multiple x16 lanes and faster PCIe. USB4/Thunderbolt 4, things like that.

That Intel hasn't chosen to match AMDs B chipset features isn't surprising, people don't expect it. That they took away XMP from B460 was the real oddity, that was when AMD WAS still in the lower end CPU market. And it isn't that AMD has left it, they just don't have the production to accommodate it in their product stack. 8 core chiplets just don't pump out too many quad core parts.

5600G and 5700G would be great options if not for the GPU shortage, like the 2200G and 3200G used to be.

Traditionally the Hx70 boards have always been Z boards without overclocking for the most part. I think the B board has adopted more features of late in order to compete with AMD, who added functionally. Intel's budget board is always the Hx10 boards, akin to AMDs A series boards.

Intel is not offering OC in lower end platforms because they know CPUs can't be too good for people. Otherwise they'll have another Celeron 300A situation.

They experimented with an unlocked i3 a couple times, but not anymore. If you give most people an unlocked i3 and i5 together with an unlocked H or B chipset with a few less features than the Z variant, you can bet it's going to sell like hot cakes, but Intel also knows if they do that, the Z platform will have little reason to exist for gamers or gaming oriented builds. The fact they are now allowing memory OC, is only because they don't want to look too bad compared to AMD. You can say, the memory OC is them throwing a bone to consumers and telling you to like it.

Regards.

 

[Why_Me]

Intel is not offering OC in lower end platforms because they know CPUs can't be too good for people. Otherwise they'll have another Celeron 300A situation.

They experimented with an unlocked i3 a couple times, but not anymore. If you give most people an unlocked i3 and i5 together with an unlocked H or B chipset with a few less features than the Z variant, you can bet it's going to sell like hot cakes, but Intel also knows if they do that, the Z platform will have little reason to exist for gamers or gaming oriented builds. The fact they are now allowing memory OC, is only because they don't want to look too bad compared to AMD. You can say, the memory OC is them throwing a bone to consumers and telling you to like it.

Regards.

You probably should have read the links I posted that included benchmarks. Nobody is being forced to purchase locked Intel cpu's. They have choices. They can always purchase an unlocked cpu, Z board and aftermarket cpu cooler for that whopping 3% gain in games after they overclock. As far as o/c an i3 ... why? Most applications and newer games take advantage of 6 or more cores. Last time I checked the i3 was a quad core. Those cpu's are meant for non gamers who are on a strict budget and the people who purchase the likes of Dell's and HP's.

Now ask yourself why AMD left the budget market when gamers are doing everything they can to cut cost in order to fit an overpriced gpu in their budget.

The upcoming i5 12400F and i7 12700F expected to retail at $200 and $280 . The B660 boards with decent VRM's will probably retail for $140 - $160+ depending on how much goodies you want with your motherboard. btw the new $300 Alder Lake i5 12600K/KF beats both the 5600x and 5800x in gaming.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/core-i5-12400-qs-cpu-24-percent-faster-core-i5-11400-gaming

Intel Core i5-12400 Benchmarks Leak Out: Faster than the Ryzen 5 5600X and $100 Cheaper | Hardware Times

Intel’s Core i5-12400 and the rest of its non-K siblings are yet to hit the market, but going by early benchmarks, it’s going to be a midrange monster. The latest leaks coming out of China indicate that the Core i5-12400 is going to be faster than the Ryzen 5 5600X, all the while being around …

www.hardwaretimes.com

https://www.techpowerup.com/289216/...cessors-arrive-mid-jan-possible-specs-surface

 

[-Fran-]

These boards can't come soon enough for Intel xD

AMD Continues to Gain CPU Market Share as Intel's 12th Gen Alder Lake Sales Remain Flat | Hardware Times

AMD continues to rule the desktop CPU and gaming market despite the launch of Intel’s 12th Gen Alder Lake-S processors. Going by various reports from popular retails and statistics from Steam, AMD gained close to 1% of the CPU market in November, increasing its overall share to nearly 32%. This...

www.hardwaretimes.com

My own anecdotal research around UK stores paints the same exact picture: no sensible buyer is going for Intel's Z platform and remain more of a niche. Looks like people just doesn't notice real differences across the "aging" X570 from AMD and "cutting edge" Z690 from Intel for everyday use and games. What a shocking revelation! LOL.

If AMD just had more capacity to make lower end CPUs that are actually price competitive, I don't think we'd see Intel being sold much, if at all. Then again, I don't think Intel wants to be the budget option and Mr Paul G. has said as much. I'm sure he's pretty happy about this.

Regards.

 

[heickel.ramadhan]

That Intel hasn't chosen to match AMDs B chipset features isn't surprising, people don't expect it. That they took away XMP from B460 was the real oddity, that was when AMD WAS still in the lower end CPU market. And it isn't that AMD has left it, they just don't have the production to accommodate it in their product stack. 8 core chiplets just don't pump out too many quad core parts.

a bit correction for this, the XMP is there on B460, but the XMP won't work if the RAM XMP profile exceeded the maximum supported memory controller speed.

it is possible to run XMP profile if u use 2666 Mhz module RAM (yes they are exist and they have XMP profile) on i5, and higher if use locked i9 2933 on B460 board as follows, this might impact for the ram timing as well

 

[TerryLaze]

So, why do you support that segmentation? Wouldn't it be better to have unlocked chips* across all the vertical stack of both chipsets and CPUs?

Regards.

While ryzen is unlocked on all chipsets there is a huge risk of your mobo croaking within 6 months to a year, that's not really something to brag about.
If you support overclocking you better make sure all the components are high grade, in other words Z boards with full quality control for full o/c instead of just allowing anything willy nilly causing performance degradations in the best case scenario.

There is a very good reason that any amount of overclocking on ryzen immediately voids any warranty.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLMd-5yxTAc

 

[-Fran-]

While ryzen is unlocked on all chipsets there is a huge risk of your mobo croaking within 6 months to a year, that's not really something to brag about.
If you support overclocking you better make sure all the components are high grade, in other words Z boards with full quality control for full o/c instead of just allowing anything willy nilly causing performance degradations in the best case scenario.

There is a very good reason that any amount of overclocking on ryzen immediately voids any warranty.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLMd-5yxTAc

Why is it you all Intel apologists just can't answer the question directly and instead try to move the subject in another direction?

What motherboard manufaturers do with the quality of their motherboards is up to them. It's sad to see AMD still gets the short end of the stick with them, but Intel still has duds, even with more reserved motherboards using H and B series chipsets, so your specific point also applies to Intel and I see zero relevance or importance to bring up as a means to move the topic.

If you're ok with "daddy Intel" protecting you from doing "stupid things", good for you. I don't like that.

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

Why is it you all Intel apologists just can't answer the question directly and instead try to move the subject in another direction?

What motherboard manufaturers do with the quality of their motherboards is up to them. It's sad to see AMD still gets the short end of the stick with them, but Intel still has duds, even with more reserved motherboards using H and B series chipsets, so your specific point also applies to Intel and I see zero relevance or importance to bring up as a means to move the topic.

If you're ok with "daddy Intel" protecting you from doing "stupid things", good for you. I don't like that.

Regards.

It is a direct answer.
You can't overclock an 5950x on a $100 board even if it's unlocked, you can't even O/C a smaller CPU on it, so what's the point? You just prefer being lied to by the company that everything is unlocked but in truth you still have to buy the more expensive boards to do any O/C of any importance.

Why wouldn't you want to be able to save a few bucks if the base performance is more than what you will ever need? Unlocked CPUs have to meet higher standards and so do unlocked mobos so why would you want everybody to pay more for something that doesn't interest many people at all?

Especially now with all CPUs having a PL2 setting you can extract more performance out of your CPU without even having to painfully overclock and without loosing your warranty.
Any moderate overclocking that a normal user would be able to do is already covered by that alone.

 

[spongiemaster]

So, why do you support that segmentation? Wouldn't it be better to have unlocked chips* across all the vertical stack of both chipsets and CPUs?

Regards.

Nope, I don't care. It allows for cheaper options. Compare Intel's 10 series product stack to any of AMD's. There are a lot more options for Intel. 10600k is $262, 10600 is $213, 10500 is $192, 10400 is $182. If all options are unlocked and can be overclocked to the same clock speeds, most of those sku's would go away and you're certainly not going to see a $182 option. Where are AMD's cheap options? With no unlocked options, $300 was as cheap as it got for a year on the AMD side. There is no indication there will ever be a cheaper 6 core 5000 series Ryzen.

 

[-Fran-]

It is a direct answer.
You can't overclock an 5950x on a $100 board even if it's unlocked, you can't even O/C a smaller CPU on it, so what's the point? You just prefer being lied to by the company that everything is unlocked but in truth you still have to buy the more expensive boards to do any O/C of any importance.

Why wouldn't you want to be able to save a few bucks if the base performance is more than what you will ever need? Unlocked CPUs have to meet higher standards and so do unlocked mobos so why would you want everybody to pay more for something that doesn't interest many people at all?

Especially now with all CPUs having a PL2 setting you can extract more performance out of your CPU without even having to painfully overclock and without loosing your warranty.
Any moderate overclocking that a normal user would be able to do is already covered by that alone.

You do realize there's already investigated and reported issues with Intel motherboards not being able to keep the CPUs running with their PL2 all the time, right? And not because of insufficient cooling, but because the motherboard VRMs just were maxed out temp-wise. So, as I said, duds are on both camps. Your argument is irrelevant.

Locked SKU that can't even reach their full potential is bad. Be it unlocked or not. I agree to that. This does not mean Intel should be imposing that restriction on you as you have a choice on wat motherboard to get for whatever purpose you want to give it. But hey, you can't seem to understand that, so I'll stop here.

Nope, I don't care. It allows for cheaper options. Compare Intel's 10 series product stack to any of AMD's. There are a lot more options for Intel. 10600k is $262, 10600 is $213, 10500 is $192, 10400 is $182. If all options are unlocked and can be overclocked to the same clock speeds, most of those sku's would go away and you're certainly not going to see a $182 option. Where are AMD's cheap options? With no unlocked options, $300 was as cheap as it got for a year on the AMD side. There is no indication there will ever be a cheaper 6 core 5000 series Ryzen.

So you don't care to have more options, while you also applaud Intel for having more options... That... Makes perfect sense... Sure...

The logical dissonance is weird.

Rergards.

 

[logainofhades]

No full OC on B chipset? Also, H670 reads like the next in tier, which is odd... I thought the B chipset was next in line. Things change I suppose.

Looks like Intel won't budge on feature parity. Kind of sad to see. Oh welp.

Regards.

The tiers go H610, B660, H670, Z690. Intel has had this similar setup, since I believe Ivy Bridge.

 

[TerryLaze]

You do realize there's already investigated and reported issues with Intel motherboards not being able to keep the CPUs running with their PL2 all the time, right? And not because of insufficient cooling, but because the motherboard VRMs just were maxed out temp-wise. So, as I said, duds are on both camps. Your argument is irrelevant.

Is there an unlocked/overcklocking board that does that?
PL2 is the above-normal-potential (since we can't call it overclocking) so you don't expect all locked boards to be able to max that out.

Yes both camps have cheap boards, but intel cheap boards don't claim to be unlocked.

 

[TJ Hooker]

You can't overclock an 5950x on a $100 board even if it's unlocked, you can't even O/C a smaller CPU on it, so what's the point? You just prefer being lied to by the company that everything is unlocked but in truth you still have to buy the more expensive boards to do any O/C of any importance.

The mobo in that video isn't $100, it's more like $70. It's one of the cheapest B350 boards you could get, and doesn't have any VRM heatsinks. And they put it in a case with no airflow to create a worst case scenario. The video doesn't remotely support the claims you're making, that anything other than a high end mobo will fail if you try to OC. You can definitely find a B series mobo in the low $100s that can safely OC an 8 core Ryzen, or even a 12 core.

Also, there are plenty of Z series mobos with poor VRMs out there that wouldn't handle overclocking well, or at all, depending which CPU you have.

 

[spongiemaster]

So you don't care to have more options, while you also applaud Intel for having more options... That... Makes perfect sense... Sure...

The logical dissonance is weird.

Rergards.

What? I didn't say I don't care to have more options. I said I don't care that Intel segments the market and then I said why. That was your question.

Again, where are the cheap AMD models? If you don't segment the market and you only have a couple SKU's for each core count, you're not getting the cheap option. AMD didn't price the 5600X at $200, it was priced at $300.

 

[logainofhades]

Nope, I don't care. It allows for cheaper options. Compare Intel's 10 series product stack to any of AMD's. There are a lot more options for Intel. 10600k is $262, 10600 is $213, 10500 is $192, 10400 is $182. If all options are unlocked and can be overclocked to the same clock speeds, most of those sku's would go away and you're certainly not going to see a $182 option. Where are AMD's cheap options? With no unlocked options, $300 was as cheap as it got for a year on the AMD side. There is no indication there will ever be a cheaper 6 core 5000 series Ryzen.

AMD didn't have to produce cheaper options. They were on top, and were selling basically everything the made. Why make a cheaper part, when you don't have to? Intel was forced to come in at a lower price, as they were not top dog anymore. Intel was overpriced, vs AMD, when they were on top. This is nothing new. The 5600g was/is under $300. They are not locked either. If you wanted to get the most out of an Intel chip, you typically needed a more expensive board, vs Ryzen. A cheap Gigabyte B550 DS3H can safely handle any Ryzen chip. A B560 DS3H, was pure trash. B560 in general was a train wreck of a launch. Alder Lake currently is in such a state, with regards to price, but hopefully these new chipsets change that. MB makers really didn't put much engineering/R&D support for 10th and 11th gen Intel. 12th gen it seems they care again, as even the cheapest Z690 can handle a 12900k, without thermal throttling the VRM's. They did the same when Ryzen was first launched. 300 series Ryzen boards were pretty bad, and didn't vastly improve till the 400 series. This is what happens when there is competition, in the marketplace. One is forced to sell at a lower price, while the other can charge more, because they are on top.

 

[-Fran-]

The tiers go H610, B660, H670, Z690. Intel has had this similar setup, since I believe Ivy Bridge.

Yep; my memory on Intel boards is bad. There's so many models and SKUs that it's hard to keep track at times of all of them through the gens. Thanks for the clarification.

What? I didn't say I don't care to have more options. I said I don't care that Intel segments the market and then I said why. That was your question.

Again, where are the cheap AMD models? If you don't segment the market and you only have a couple SKU's for each core count, you're not getting the cheap option. AMD didn't price the 5600X at $200, it was priced at $300.

As I said before, I have no friggen clue why the 3300X is more than the 5600X, but that is definitely not AMD's doing. Yes, AMD is not putting lower end chips from the Zen3 series, but without maing excuses for them, I have a good idea as to why: they don't need to and not have the capacity to do so. You have to ask yourself, why is Intel doing it? Because they want people with less money get them out of the kindness of their hearts? No, because their higher end models haven't been moving much and they need to price accordingly. The new 12th gen i3's and i5's (edit: locked dies; not the K/KF) will be based on a differen die configuration, so they're not using the same big die Alder Lake launched with. Or at least, that's what I've gathered; I won't put my hands on fire here, but all points to be the case. AMD can't justify making a chiplet for under 6 cores and their unified die is already being used for mobile (laptops) and OEMs so that they have zero need to put them in DYI channels. Do I like that? No. Can I blame them? Not really. Same questions apply for Intel.

So, in short: AMD is not getting lower end models out because they're making good money on better paying channels. Intel would do the same in AMD's position and don't think otherwise.

How does this links to having unlocked SKUs across the vertical stack? I have no idea, but there you have my thoughts on your tangent. Good for you that you don't care, I guess.

Regards.

 

[spongiemaster]

Yes, AMD is not putting lower end chips from the Zen3 series, but without maing excuses for them, I have a good idea as to why: they don't need to and not have the capacity to do so. You have to ask yourself, why is Intel doing it? Because they want people with less money get them out of the kindness of their hearts? No, because their higher end models haven't been moving much and they need to price accordingly.
Regards.

Why does Intel have lower end models? OEMs. Based on market share numbers, Intel likely sells more desktop CPU's to each of the 2 largest OEM's, Lenovo and HP, individually than AMD sells in total to everyone. Dell isn't that far behind. Dell can't sell warehouses full of $500 office PC's while putting 12700k's in them. They need cheaper CPU's. That's also another reason the lower end are locked. You'd have to be a total tool to be overclocking work computers at your office.

So, in short: AMD is not getting lower end models out because they're making good money on better paying channels. Intel would do the same in AMD's position and don't think otherwise.

You have to be kidding. Have you compared the margins Intel and AMD report in their financial reports? You legitimately believe AMD is pulling in higher profit margins than Intel, who wishes they could be like AMD and sell expensive CPU's? The enterprise market is where the money is for CPU's. Intel is losing ground to AMD here, but still are completely dominating the market with an over 90% x86 server cpu market share. Intel is outselling AMD more than 9 to 1, yet you think Intel is trying to figure out how to be good at making money like AMD? The delusions of grandeur on the AMD side know no bounds. Intel is producing low end CPU's because they can. They're still crushing AMD in the enterprise and mobile markets where the money is and still have leftover capacity to produce cheaper desktop CPU's. Even at bulk discounted prices, Intel is making higher margins on their lowend CPU's than AMD is on their millions of console APU's. So maybe AMD should be copying Intel and ditch the razer thin margins of the console market and produce a wider range of desktop CPU's that will make them more money.