News Intel issues official statement on Core K-series crashes: stick to Intel's official power profiles

[35below0]

Some are unstable. Not mine, not all, not most, some. Intel said to follow this IF you had stability issues.

All of these guidelines are consistent with lowering and dealing vdroop under heavy load.

Apparently the motherboards power delivery at default settings is no match for i9s power consumption capabilities.

Unstable. Unreliable. May be. They're guilty until proven innocent because of months of mysterious crashes that all came to a head when a recent game developer had to tell 13 and 14 gen intel i7 and i9 owners to reduce voltages in order to make them more stable.

So some people will have chips that can withstand all the craziness, and some are affected and suffer instability.
And because you don't know for sure, you cannot say your CPU is one of the lucky ones. In a way, it's a good one until it crashes, so you wont know.

I hope it stays trouble free for you.

Someone tell me if I'm getting this right, please.

K Sku processors, that you pay a premium to overclock on a premium motherboard, doesn't run correctly when overclocked ?

No. K CPUs were over-overclocked out of the box becuase motherboard firmware removed limits. This was done without informing the user their CPU was going to run unlimited and that it may cause weird problems.

Every overclock is a risk. It's one thing if you do it, but when it's done for you, called auto-optimization or Gaming Xtrem Performance or wahetever, and you don't have a clue your i9 being molested to eke out 3-4% extra juice, then it's a problem.

It's not a problem just because of instability, but because you did not sign up for this.

Simply put, because of this drama I stayed with the 12th Gen I7 when assembling my new desktop last month. Well, and that the cooler would need to dissipate roughly twice as much heat at base load. And I read (here?) the performance increase 13 and 14 gen over the 12 gen for the price was of questionable value.

Then you have been misled. 13th gen is a fine increase over the 12th. All along the line, the 13th gen is superior, except at the lowest end where the 5 foot nothing i3 12100 will knock you out if you make fun of it.
For a cheap CPU with no e cores at all, that little thing is punching well above it's class. Mind, it's still an entry level CPU so don't expect miracles.

If you're not going to play anything more demanding than Factorio or NBA or a similar sports game, and if you're not rendering or doing AI training, you probably don't need anything more than the i3 12100.

The 14th gen over the 13th, that is a minor improvement. 14th still outperforms 12th in every category. But it's improvement over the 13th is very minor. The only exception is the i7 13700K (which is rubbish) gets a proper update in the 14700K.
The 14700K may be the king of the 14th generation.

You dodged a bullet though, that is true. But you're mistaken about performance and about cooling. the 13s adn 14s are more efficient. It's the 12700K that runs hottest OR AT LEAST IT WOULD BE if we weren't in this mess with intels being "intelligently" overclocked *sigh*

 

[thestryker]

I keep seeing people spouting this nonsense and eating it up because it's the narrative, but that doesn't make it accurate. In the review guide for the 14900KS Intel listed using the Performance and Extreme profiles for the reviews and pretty much nobody did so. The problems really are on Intel for allowing motherboard manufacturers to do whatever they want, the manufacturers doing so, and reviewers not following the guides or even just mentioning what Intel's recommendations are in their reviews.

 

[thestryker]

How do you know you won't have trouble in the future? This sounds like a story of accelerated silicon aging, of some form or another.

It sounded to me like most people plagued by these problems weren't, at first. They only started to experience these problems over time.


No... they want all motherboards to default to Intel's official settings, to prevent people's chips from prematurely degrading.

If motherboard manufacturers played too close to the voltage edge with their own default settings this is exactly what would happen. Forcing extremely high clocks while not providing enough voltage means even natural degradation will cause stability problems. It seems far more likely this is actually the case given the absurd voltages being run on the Gigabyte beta BIOS (this alone may be why Intel put out this statement) and higher voltages on Asus' version of baseline as well. If they're running higher voltages while being power limited this points far more towards the CPUs weren't getting enough power for the clockspeeds they are running in the first place than anything else.

Unstable. Unreliable. May be. They're guilty until proven innocent because of months of mysterious crashes that all came to a head when a recent game developer had to tell 13 and 14 gen intel i7 and i9 owners to reduce voltages in order to make them more stable.

Nobody should be recommending voltage reduction as the solution as the most likely cause is not enough voltage to sustain the clocks with unlimited power.

 

[ingtar33]

I've had to read this article several times to try and make sense of it in light of the comments in this thread, and here's how I understand it, so correct me if I'm wrong:

1) Significant numbers of 13th/14th K-series have been crashing. Nobody actually knows why.

2) Motherboard power delivery is thought to be the issue, so a load of the motherboard suppliers are now issuing "Baseline" settings to try and improve stability at the expense of performance.

3) Intel are trying to say that the manufacturers are over-reacting and only low-end boards need settings this cautious. As boards become progressively higher-end they can run more aggressive power profiles, so Intel want the manufacturers to do this.

Is this right? I'm largely refraining from dishing out an opinion here.

sorta?

it's not the motherboard's quality issue at question here. the problem is these boards are running with settings that basically give the intel chips as much power as they want. this is in accordance with intel's encouragement over the past 15 years or so (there are interviews where they back this behavior up as a feature and safe)

The problem is it seems when you run 400W through an i9-14900ks you burn the chip out in weeks if not months. worst now intel is claiming those chips are running out of spec and are pointing fingers at the motherboard companies claiming they're at fault, not intel, oh no, factory overclocking their i9s to try to compete with the r7 7800x3d has nothing to do with these chips burning out.

Meanwhile some Chinese testers and a boutique pc manufacturer have done extensive testing with these chips out of the box and found about 80% of the i9-14900ks is unstable at pretty much any default setting the motherboard is giving it. Meaning they whole batch is probably overclocked too far.

Intel is claiming manufacturers should cap the their chips to 180something watts... when some techtubers tried those chips at that power limit, they found an almost 30% reduction in cinebench scores, bringing the 19-14900ks down to i7-11700k performance range in cinebench all core results.

When intel was confronted with that result they quickly did an about face and said "oh no no no, we never said they have to cap the i9 to 180~ish watts... the i9 can take 270ish watts... and now every publication is confused as heck (including the board partners because of intel's conflicting messages)

 

[Lucky_SLS]

Other way around, they do not run correctly if you leave it up to the motherboard.

Intel K series ship with "base, performance and extreme" power profile settings. The default profile should be "base" but what we've discovered is that motherboard manufacturers were substituting their own power profiles that ran the CPU's wildly out of spec in an attempt to auto-overclock the K series CPUs. The resolution is to manually set the power profile to either "performance" or "extreme" which will use the values from Intel instead of the motherboard manufacturers own crazy values.

People are trying to twist it to hate on intel, but the root cause is motherboard manufacturers ignoring the CPU's base power profile settings by default.

The same scenario that happened with X3D overvoltage incident. Mobo OEMs need to have a more rigorous QA process!

Not copy pasting features for marketing and not checking them for stability.

 

[Moonstick2]

So, allegedly (all?) motherboard manufacturers were not following Intel guidelines and using aggressive power profiles, causing the instability.

The Intel table lists two valid profiles: "Performance" and "Extreme". "Baseline is listed as N/A, with *not recommended for 13th and 14th Gen K SKU Processors although their statement says the manufacturer Baselines "appear to be based on power delivery guidance previously provided by Intel to manufacturers describing the various power delivery options for 13th and 14th Generation K SKU processors." So they recommended it, and now they don't recommend it.

So the motherboard manufacturers are now using tamer profiles based on Intel guidance to fix the instability, but Intel want them to use new recommendations that push more power in those boards they say are capable of delivering it.

The serious questions appear to be:

• Will "Performance" and "Extreme" profiles stop the instability?
• How much performance difference between the two?
• How will the benchmarks under these profiles compare to alternative processors?

 

[Lucky_SLS]

So, allegedly (all?) motherboard manufacturers were not following Intel guidelines and using aggressive power profiles, causing the instability.

The Intel table lists two valid profiles: "Performance" and "Extreme". "Baseline is listed as N/A, with *not recommended for 13th and 14th Gen K SKU Processors although their statement says the manufacturer Baselines "appear to be based on power delivery guidance previously provided by Intel to manufacturers describing the various power delivery options for 13th and 14th Generation K SKU processors." So they recommended it, and now they don't recommend it.

So the motherboard manufacturers are now using tamer profiles based on Intel guidance to fix the instability, but Intel want them to use new recommendations that push more power in those boards they say are capable of delivering it.

The serious questions appear to be:

• Will "Performance" and "Extreme" profiles stop the instability?
• How much performance difference between the two?
• How will the benchmarks under these profiles compare to alternative processors?

^ i think should be more like this:

Have the default power profile included in all Z790 mobos.

Included Performance and Extreme profile after validating if the mobo can sustain them

Have hard locks on ICCmax to 400A

Users can tinker with PL limits at their own risks...

 

[TerryLaze]

The Intel table lists two valid profiles: "Performance" and "Extreme". "Baseline is listed as N/A, with *not recommended for 13th and 14th Gen K SKU Processors although their statement says the manufacturer Baselines "appear to be based on power delivery guidance previously provided by Intel to manufacturers describing the various power delivery options for 13th and 14th Generation K SKU processors." So they recommended it, and now they don't recommend it.

The baseline is not a limit that's why it's not in the table of limits, the baseline is the absolute minimum that intel has advertised and is capable of being run on the cheapest boards and with passive cooling, it doesn't even count as a limit.

They only list limits and those limits are performance, for more performance than baseline, and extreme for extreme performance.

 

[Moonstick2]

They only list limits and those limits are performance, for more performance than baseline, and extreme for extreme performance.

You still need limits for Baseline. Without limits, Baseline can't be used because nobody can tell if e.g. 300 A ICCMAX would be okay or not. Effectively, they're turning "Performance" into the Baseline.

The BIOS Baseline profiles "appear to be based on power delivery guidance previously provided by Intel" but "are not the same as the 'Intel Default Settings' recommendations that Intel has recently shared"

It very much reads as the Intel table originally had values under the Baseline column (because it's pointless otherwise). The manufacturers have made introduced Baseline profiles to those, but now Intel have a more recent table where they've changed the whole Baseline column to N/A to stop them doing that.

 

[TerryLaze]

You still need limits for Baseline. Without limits, Baseline can't be used because nobody can tell if e.g. 300 A ICCMAX would be okay or not. Effectively, they're turning "Performance" into the Baseline.

Wut?!
Baseline are the limits DOWNWARDS, it's 125W for the 14900k ,that's baseline, the absolute minimum to support the CPU at all.

It's not a limit to make the CPU stable under overclock...

 

[Moonstick2]

Wut?!
Baseline are the limits DOWNWARDS, it's 125W for the 14900k ,that's baseline, the absolute minimum to support the CPU at all.

It's not a limit to make the CPU stable under overclock...

Almost. The point is that there are no Baseline limits downwards, upwards or sideways. They doesn't exist anymore. Intel have removed those values, are telling motherboard manufacturers not to provide a Baseline profile and to use higher limits.

Here's the original table:

All those Baseline values, now gone. N/A.

If a manufacturer creates a profile that provides your 125 W, Intel point to their new table and say no, that's not our recommendation, that's not one of our official power profiles. Presumably because the Baseline profile was killing the benchmarks.

Intel's statement is literally saying that these new profiles issued by the motherboard manufacturers are too low, they're not Intel official profiles even though they're based on previous guidance, and they have to use higher values.

Oddly, despite one of Intel's accusations being that motherboard manufacturers were "increasing PL1 and PL2 beyond Intel's recommended limits", Intel's new table can be seen to remove Baseline, pull the higher PL1 from Extreme into Performance, and massively increase PL1, PL2 and PL4 in Extreme.

 

[Moonstick2]

Following on, this is an interesting article in that at least the website can honestly say they commented on Intel's power recommendations being all over the place five months ago before all this started happening.

From everything I've read so far:

• Significant numbers of 13th/14th gen K CPUs are crashing, but nobody knows why.
• Intel have said they don't know why and are investigating, but meanwhile all the motherboard manufacturers have been being bad and ignoring specs.
• The motherboard manufacturers have introduced more cautious power profiles, where sticking to the Intel Baseline profile drops performance by around 11%.
• Intel have removed that Baseline profile and are saying manufacturers need to use Performance or Extreme, and at the same time are upping PL powers for both those profiles.

 

[helper800]

Following on, this is an interesting article in that at least the website can honestly say they commented on Intel's power recommendations being all over the place five months ago before all this started happening.

From everything I've read so far:

• Significant numbers of 13th/14th gen K CPUs are crashing, but nobody knows why.
• Intel have said they don't know why and are investigating, but meanwhile all the motherboard manufacturers have been being bad and ignoring specs.
• The motherboard manufacturers have introduced more cautious power profiles, where sticking to the Intel Baseline profile drops performance by around 11%.
• Intel have removed that Baseline profile and are saying manufacturers need to use Performance or Extreme, and at the same time are upping PL powers for both those profiles.

This issue, to me at least, is plainly a fault of Intel allowing their board partners to push their CPUs ever closer to the sun for their benefit for years. The consequences of that policy are coming to a head right now. Intel has to reel in these motherboard manufacturers and their rampant "defaulting" power profiles. The problem for intel is that because they have allowed this policy, they cannot pinpoint exactly what the issue is. That being said, I hope Intel can find the issue soon to alleviate their customers stability concerns while preserving as much performance as they reasonably can. Afterall, we don't want Intel to go out of business leaving AMD to Intel us for a decade+.

 

[TerryLaze]

Almost. The point is that there are no Baseline limits downwards, upwards or sideways. They doesn't exist anymore. Intel have removed those values, are telling motherboard manufacturers not to provide a Baseline profile and to use higher limits.

Here's the original table:

All those Baseline values, now gone. N/A.

188W has never been any number in any intel manual concerning power, this alone tells us that these numbers are random numbers that gigabyte, or whoever, came up with.
It also has the extreme as 253W maximum which is also wrong and has been known well earlier to be 320W.

 

[TerryLaze]

This issue, to me at least, is plainly a fault of Intel allowing their board partners to push their CPUs ever closer to the sun for their benefit for years. The consequences of that policy is coming to a head right now. Intel has to reel in these motherboard manufacturers and their rampant "defaulting" power profiles. The problem for intel is that because they have allowed this policy, they cannot pinpoint exactly what the issue is. That being said, I hope Intel can find the issue soon to alleviate their customers stability concerns while preserving as much performance as they reasonable can.

Sure intel WANTED thumbnails with flames and explosions everywhere for 1-2% differences in performance...it's their brilliant marketing campaign.

 

[helper800]

Sure intel WANTED thumbnails with flames and explosions everywhere for 1-2% differences in performance...it's their brilliant marketing campaign.

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but Intel clearly, as a policy, found much benefit since at least the sandy bridge days by allowing motherboard partners to create overclocking profiles that go way beyond Intel base specs. This simultaneously allowed motherboard partners the freedom to differentiate their boards from each other, and push expected Intel performance in benchmarks allowing them to have a veneer of even better performance than the internal Intel slides. In modern times, facing steep competition with AMD, they ended up relying on these default OC profiles from motherboard manufacturers to stand a chance in benchmarks. Now we have some serious stability issues clearly related to the performance pushing default OC profiles such that the issue cannot be pinpointed for a fix. Intel has to eat a performance loss to restore their customers stability.

 

[TerryLaze]

In modern times, facing steep competition with AMD, they ended up relying on these default OC profiles from motherboard manufacturers to stand a chance in benchmarks.

Intel would need 200W TDP (141W average) to win over ryzen in a properly conducted benchmark, at least for apps, gaming on a x3d is still the most energy efficient, they definitely didn't need reviews with fire everywhere claiming 400w+ to win.
link

 

[35below0]

Intel clearly, as a policy, found much benefit since at least the sandy bridge days by allowing motherboard partners to create overclocking profiles that go way beyond Intel base specs. This simultaneously allowed motherboard partners the freedom to differentiate their boards from each other, and push expected Intel performance in benchmarks allowing them to have a veneer of even better performance than the internal Intel slides.

This is correct. I just don't see why you're pinning it on intel.

-The motherboards were differentiated from one another, and Asus, Gigabytes, MSi, etc. were the ones chasing performance, or to put it another way, trying to avoid looking bad.
-The profiles were set by the motherboard, and the user had no clue this was courting instability. Intel was passive in this. For years it was just part of business as usual. Once it went too far, i see it as the ones who pushed it too far as the ones to blame. Not intel directly for allowing the practise.
-This intel policy didn't make the CPUs look better except when running with no power limits. So for those willing or looking to overclock, there was interest in how much CPUs could be pushed, and this benefitted intel but only AFTER they already had a solid base CPU to score well in reviews.

There's a difference between defending intel, and blaming them for what they deserve to be blamed.

Why is allowing overclocking or out of spec presets something to blame intel for?
They offered 4 spec presets, the motherboard vendors were free to use or ignore.
They knew their CPUs were thermally limited so anyone who wanted to could run them as hard as possible, trying to max out performance before hitting TJmax.

The crashes and user troubles were caused by the CPUs running waaaay overclocked as part of the "Safe, sensible and sane" profile. That's the problem. And that is what Intel did not do. They condoned it implicitly as long as it did not cause trouble.

It's fashionable to throw rocks at any evil corp. of the day.

 

[helper800]

This is correct. I just don't see why you're pinning it on intel.

-The motherboards were differentiated from one another, and Asus, Gigabytes, MSi, etc. were the ones chasing performance, or to put it another way, trying to avoid looking bad.
-The profiles were set by the motherboard, and the user had no clue this was courting instability. Intel was passive in this. For years it was just part of business as usual. Once it went too far, i see it as the ones who pushed it too far as the ones to blame. Not intel directly for allowing the practise.
-This intel policy didn't make the CPUs look better except when running with no power limits. So for those willing or looking to overclock, there was interest in how much CPUs could be pushed, and this benefitted intel but only AFTER they already had a solid base CPU to score well in reviews.

There's a difference between defending intel, and blaming them for what they deserve to be blamed.

Why is allowing overclocking or out of spec presets something to blame intel for?
They offered 4 spec presets, the motherboard vendors were free to use or ignore.
They knew their CPUs were thermally limited so anyone who wanted to could run them as hard as possible, trying to max out performance before hitting TJmax.

The crashes and user troubles were caused by the CPUs running waaaay overclocked as part of the "Safe, sensible and sane" profile. That's the problem. And that is what Intel did not do. They condoned it implicitly as long as it did not cause trouble.

It's fashionable to throw rocks at any evil corp. of the day.

I am not throwing rocks, but facts. Joking aside, this is just how I see it, just my opinion. Just as intel has forced motherboard partners to adopt these new default power profiles, Intel allowed, when they could have stopped them, the same partners to go at least a step too far. Intel has all the power when it comes to regulating the partners in their usage of Intel's chips. If intel cared, they could have foreseen this issue and stopped it before it became a problem by means of many different types of policies, yet they allowed it to happen anyway. I assert that they continue to allow their motherboard partners to recklessly push the line every generation of intel CPU for at least 10 gens setting themselves up for something like this to happen sooner or later.

 

[TerryLaze]

Just as intel has forced motherboard partners to adopt these new default power profiles

They didn't , don't.
At least this article only says that intel issued a statement that says that intel baseline is not the same as intel default.

That's not forcing anything, it's just a statement to clear up a technical term.

Then they say this : "Intel recommends customers to implement the highest power delivery profile compatible with each individual motherboard design as noted in the table below."
Customers is you and I as well as OEMs. A recommendation is not force, it's a do whateverTF you want but know that the list has the numbers that are guaranteed to be stable, anything above that is on you.

Intel's statement reads as follows:


Several motherboard manufacturers have released BIOS profiles labeled ‘Intel Baseline Profile’. However, these BIOS profiles are not the same as the 'Intel Default Settings' recommendations that Intel has recently shared with its partners regarding the instability issues reported on 13th and 14th gen K SKU processors. These 'Intel Baseline Profile' BIOS settings appear to be based on power delivery guidance previously provided by Intel to manufacturers describing the various power delivery options for 13th and 14th Generation K SKU processors based on motherboard capabilities. Intel is not recommending motherboard manufacturers to use ‘baseline’ power delivery settings on boards capable of higher values. Intel’s recommended 'Intel Default Settings' are a combination of thermal and power delivery features along with a selection of possible power delivery profiles based on motherboard capabilities. Intel recommends customers to implement the highest power delivery profile compatible with each individual motherboard design as noted in the table below.

 

[helper800]

They didn't , don't.
At least this article only says that intel issued a statement that says that intel baseline is not the same as intel default.

That's not forcing anything, it's just a statement to clear up a technical term.

Then they say this : "Intel recommends customers to implement the highest power delivery profile compatible with each individual motherboard design as noted in the table below."
Customers is you and I as well as OEMs. A recommendation is not force, it's a do whateverTF you want but know that the list has the numbers that are guaranteed to be stable, anything above that is on you.

I am saying Intel can enforce any power policy it pleases with its chips, just like Nvidia can with its GPU's. If the Motherboard manufacturers don't want to play ball with Intel, Intel can cut them off just as Nvidia can to its board partners.

Customers are not board partners...

 

[thestryker]

It also has the extreme as 253W maximum which is also wrong and has been known well earlier to be 320W.

The 320W Extreme profile is only for the 150W parts the Extreme profile for the 125W parts is 253W.

188W has never been any number in any intel manual concerning power, this alone tells us that these numbers are random numbers that gigabyte, or whoever, came up with.

It was in something, and perhaps that was original documentation for motherboard manufacturers before release. You're right in that it's never been in any published documentation as they don't have "baseline" specs period and it certainly doesn't make sense to have one below the CPU rated specs in the first place.

 

[TerryLaze]

The 320W Extreme profile is only for the 150W parts the Extreme profile for the 125W parts is 253W.

You are right on this, but that also means that they had no new settings for the ks.

I am saying Intel can enforce any power policy it pleases with its chips, just like Nvidia can with its GPU's. If the Motherboard manufacturers don't want to play ball with Intel, Intel can cut them off just as Nvidia can to its board partners.

But why would they?! They are selling free unlocked CPUs ,the whole point is that you pay a decent amount of more money to have no restrictions on what you can do with your CPU.
You want to go to 9Ghz?! Go ahead!
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...ked-to-91-ghz-breaking-numerous-world-records

 

[35below0]

ntel allowed, when they could have stopped them, the same partners to go at least a step too far. Intel has all the power when it comes to regulating the partners and their usage of Intel's chips. If intel cared, they could have foreseen this issue and stopped it before it became a problem by means of many different types of policies, yet they allowed it to happen anyway.

I agree this is correct, but there's two problems i see.

One, Intel does not tie a noose around the necks of thier partners, mostly because intel needs them to manufacture the stuff. But it would not be a good thing if Intel moved towards creating an Intel ecosystem.

Two, they allowed it to happen because there were no consequences. No problems. Problems appeared only very recently, although in retrospect, they have been going on for months.

I would also question whther Intel has all the power to regulate their partners. Intel has the power to lay down the spec. And related to this problem, Intel did lay down 4 profiles motherboard makers could have used without creating their own.
Do you want Intel to force partners to choose one of the four? Intel doesn't. I don't see it as an improvement in general. What i see is that "partners" went a little too far and caused a problem for i7/i9 owners, intel, and themselves.

The ideal endgame is a transparent response from all involved that brings the CPUs back to stability. Also, intel will have some egg on their face because the leading benchmarks will be some 11-13% off.


Your assertion is correct. Other than this cock-up, it has worked out well.
What i assert is that the problem is motherboard manufacturers enabling insane power profiles without informing the users or asking for consent! You have yet to blame Intel for allowing this. If there is any smoking gun it's that.
Intel will respond that they designed 13th and 14th gen CPUs to run as hot as possible for performance reasons and that overclocking is largely up to the users. Except it doesn't square with users ending up with overclocked hardware they did not themselves set up, and could not know how to set up (because these profiles were not very well documented).

If the Motherboard manufacturers don't want to play ball with Intel, Intel can cut them off just as Nvidia can to its board partners.

They can also flip the middle finger to Intel.

 

[TerryLaze]

Also, intel will have some egg on their face because the leading benchmarks will be some 11-13% off.

You mean intel will have some bragging rights of having a good 10-15% overclocking headroom while the competition has zero.

Only half kidding here because people will see how much cooler the CPUs will run and how much less power they will draw and will go "hmmmm I can push that some more" .
I mean 20% less power and 12°C lower temps for 8% less performance, is not a small difference either.
https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-b...rformance-loss-compared-to-asus-auto-settings