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

[Moonstick2]

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

Forcefully enabling sensible settings that the user is later free to overrule at their own peril is acceptable. But not setting insane profiles as defaults.

The news that started this thread is that the manufacturers have now been releasing 'sensible' settings based on Intel guidance (which presumably the user was still free to overrule), but Intel now want them to change the defaults to higher PL settings.

 

[helper800]

The news that started this thread is that the manufacturers have now been releasing 'sensible' settings based on Intel guidance (which presumably the user was still free to overrule), but Intel now want them to change the defaults to higher PL settings.

Intel can't have their cake and eat it too. They want this issue to go away but not at the cost of performance, which was obviously where they came to this situation in the first place. Motherboard makers are probably punch drunk on the whiplash.

 

[TheHerald]

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.

That can't be further away from the truth. In all major price segments Intel is beating the crap out of amd on performance. i5 13600k vs r5 7600x, i7 13700k vs r7 7700x, r9 7900x vs i9 13900k, those are the price competitors, and Intel wins in both ST and MT performance - quite easily. Pushing these CPUs to 300watts achieves nothing , instead of Intel leading by 25% at sane wattages now they are leading by 28% at insane wattages and all reviewers are using flames and crap on their thumbnails.

Intel doesn't gain anything. Imagine Intel enforcing power limits on 13th gen launch. All reviews would be clearly showing Intel leading in both ST, MT, gaming AND efficiency. All at the same time.

 

[bit_user]

That can't be further away from the truth. In all major price segments Intel is beating the crap out of amd on performance.

Nope. You're comparing across market segments and price points, again.

i5 13600k vs r5 7600x, i7 13700k vs r7 7700x, r9 7900x vs i9 13900k, those are the price competitors, and Intel wins in both ST and MT performance - quite easily.

Looking at PCPartPicker, current street prices are as follows:

Intel Model	Intel Price	AMD Model	AMD Price
		R5 7600X	$206​
i5-13600K	$284​	R7 7700X	$287​
		R7 7800X3D	$339​
i7-13700K	$359​
		R9 7900X	$397​
i9-13900K	$488​
		R9 7950X	$510​

Pushing these CPUs to 300watts achieves nothing , instead of Intel leading by 25% at sane wattages now they are leading by 28% at insane wattages and all reviewers are using flames and crap on their thumbnails.

Again, you're quite wrong. As I've showed you multiple times, Intel requires a lot of power to deliver the best performance, whereas AMD levels off early:

​

 

[TheHerald]

Nope. You're comparing across market segments and price points, again.


Looking at PCPartPicker, current street prices are as follows

​

Current street prices are irrelevant, reviews aren't being done with future prices in mind. Reviews are done on launch dates with the pricing at that point in time. In which case Intel - if enforced power limits - would have the best CPUs across all segments they competed in at both ST performance, MT performance, gaming and efficiency.

Your own graph demonstrates it PERFECTLY. The 13600k slumdunks the 7600x across the whole curve, the 13700k slumdunks the 7700x and the 13900k slumdunks the 7900x. Why are you even contesting this? This is madness.

 

[bit_user]

Current street prices are irrelevant,

No, they're very relevant. They reflect current consumer options and the current state of the competitive landscape.

reviews aren't being done with future prices in mind. Reviews are done on launch dates with the pricing at that point in time.

Reviewers usually compare a few steps up and down the stack, so it really doesn't matter what they have "in mind".

Your own graph demonstrates it PERFECTLY. The 13600k slumdunks the 7600x across the whole curve,

Yes, but as I pointed out, that's not its competitor - the 7700X is, which holds its own until 88 W.

the 13700k slumdunks the 7700x

Again, irrelevant. The i7-13700K is way more expensive than the 7700X. Nobody in the market today would be deciding between these CPUs. Rather, the AMD models they'd be considering would be the R7 7800X3D or maybe step up to the R9 7900X.

and the 13900k slumdunks the 7900x.

Except the R9 7950X is far closer in price to the i9-13900K.

Why are you even contesting this? This is madness.

Because what you're saying is madness. Or fantasy, at the very least. It's sequestering ourselves in a false past that never really existed.

The MSRP is usually fictional, even on launch day, and it's set high because it's usually a lot more acceptable to consumers if you lower prices than raise them. So, they really have to be taken with a grain of salt.

In contrast, current pricing is of utmost importance. That's what establishes the market segments, along with performance and power.

 

[TheHerald]

No, they're very relevant. They reflect current consumer options and the current state of the competitive landscape.

Τhey are irrelevant to the reviews. Reviews are comparing products that were released at the same point in time, with the same price and the same naming scheme. Prices 2 years down the road are unknown and even if they were known wouldn't change anything regarding the review.

Yes, but as I pointed out, that's not its competitor - the 7700X is, which holds its own until 88 W.


Again, irrelevant. The i7-13700K is way more expensive than the 7700X. Nobody in the market today would be deciding between these CPUs. Rather, the AMD models they'd be considering would be the R7 7800X3D or maybe step up to the R9 7900X.


Except the R9 7950X is far closer in price to the i9-13900K.


Because what you're saying is madness. Or fantasy, at the very least. It's sequestering ourselves in a false past that never really existed.

The MSRP is usually fictional, even on launch day, and it's set high because it's usually a lot more acceptable to consumers if you lower prices than raise them. So, they really have to be taken with a grain of salt.

In contrast, current pricing is of utmost importance. That's what establishes the market segments, along with performance and power.

Man are you actually disagreeing with my take, that reviews are done with the pricing at the time of the review? What in the hell??? Im refusing to accept you actually believe what you are saying.

My point is, Intel had no benefit by running fully unlimited at reviews, since if they were actually enforcing power limits they would have the fastest CPUs at every pricepoint in both MT, ST and gaming while being by far the most efficient. Which freaking part of that do you disagree with? Can you be VERY specific about which part you disagree with without missquoting what I said?

And this is the gaming graph from computerbase, the site you are using.

 

[bit_user]

Τhey are irrelevant to the reviews. Reviews are comparing products that were released at the same point in time, with the same price and the same naming scheme.

We are not living in the past. Reviews must be seen as historical documents. A lot has changed since then, including software.

Man are you actually disagreeing with my take,

Yes, and I explained why. Your take is misleading for anyone currently in the market for a CPU, because it's based on a false match-up of the models rather than where they actually align, based on current price, performance, and power.

And this is the gaming graph from computerbase, the site you are using.

Yes, although that's 720p gaming performance. I would just point out that it's lacking a datapoint for the R7 7800X3D.

 

[TheHerald]

We are not living in the past. Reviews must be seen as historical documents. A lot has changed since then, including software.


Yes, and I explained why. Your take is misleading for anyone currently in the market for a CPU, because it's based on a false match-up of the models rather than where they actually align, based on current price, performance, and power.

My take is that Intel didn't benefit from reviews being done with unlimited power. You are completely changing the point and arguing about something I never said.

1 last try, Intel did not benefit from reviews being done with unlimited power because if they were done with enforced power limits Intel would be winning on every price segment they competed at on ST, MT, gaming performance and efficiency. You cannot possibly disagree with that, it's literally just facts.

Yes, although that's 720p gaming performance. I would just point out that it's lacking a datapoint for the R7 7800X3D.

It's a cpu gaming review, of course it's done at 720p. 7800x 3d isn't missing, it didn't exist on zen 4 / 13th gen release.

 

[-Fran-]

This may be relevant?

Extensive workstation and AI test with Intel’s i9-13900K - The power profiles Baseline, Performance, Extreme and Insane from reasonable to pointless in practice | igor´sLAB

After we published Aris’ article about the power consumption of the Core i9-13900K in Cinebench 23 on Monday, I’m following up today with a larger program scope. And yes, I’m deliberately using a Z690…

www.igorslab.de

Regards.

 

[35below0]

Your own graph demonstrates it PERFECTLY. The 13600k slumdunks the 7600x across the whole curve, the 13700k slumdunks the 7700x and the 13900k slumdunks the 7900x. Why are you even contesting this? This is madness.

It does illustrate perfectly that if you want more than the i7 13700K, your options are R9 7900X, and i9 13900K & R9 7950X.

There is overlap between them. AMD and Intel don't match exactly.
Why do you need to insist that Intel is more efficient or better just because the 13700K beats the R7 7700X and R5 7600X?
The 13600K is the main competitor for the R7 7700X, and it does well against both the i7 and i5. Loses to the i7 but it's fine.
The R9 7900X in turn beats the 13700K. It costs more so it ought to.

Prices reflect performance, that's why they matter. What AMD chooses to call R9 or R7 is pure marketing.

 

[35below0]

This may be relevant?

Extensive workstation and AI test with Intel’s i9-13900K - The power profiles Baseline, Performance, Extreme and Insane from reasonable to pointless in practice | igor´sLAB

After we published Aris’ article about the power consumption of the Core i9-13900K in Cinebench 23 on Monday, I’m following up today with a larger program scope. And yes, I’m deliberately using a Z690…

www.igorslab.de

Regards.

Wonderful test. Shame it will probably overlooked.

From the conclusion:

"The former wish list for reviewers has now been rededicated to the Extreme Profile and the energetic freewheeling of the board partners without any speed limiter of the power meter is no longer mentioned at all – and that’s a good thing. There’s no need to make nonsense even worse than it already is. Which raises the question as to why the motherboard manufacturers simply can’t manage to implement it in exactly the same way and not in any other way as a genuine preselection ex works.

In addition, no one seems to be able to slow down the older Z690 boards at the same time, which in my view is completely negligent. If you still love your CPU, you should choose one of the three acceptable profiles. However, the profile with the 4096 watts belongs on the garbage heap of motherboard history. Those who have no respect for the product are welcome to continue to do so, but they should refrain from complaining in the event of its unexpected demise. Why Intel doesn’t tighten the reins more strictly here is simply incomprehensible. I can only hope that at some point Intel’s engineers and common sense will prevail over marketing and that the board partners will no longer allow any energetic bombs to be planted."

 

[NinoPino]

This may be relevant?

Extensive workstation and AI test with Intel’s i9-13900K - The power profiles Baseline, Performance, Extreme and Insane from reasonable to pointless in practice | igor´sLAB

After we published Aris’ article about the power consumption of the Core i9-13900K in Cinebench 23 on Monday, I’m following up today with a larger program scope. And yes, I’m deliberately using a Z690…

www.igorslab.de

Regards.

Very interesting, thank you.

 

[TheHerald]

It does illustrate perfectly that if you want more than the i7 13700K, your options are R9 7900X, and i9 13900K & R9 7950X.

There is overlap between them. AMD and Intel don't match exactly.
Why do you need to insist that Intel is more efficient or better just because the 13700K beats the R7 7700X and R5 7600X?
The 13600K is the main competitor for the R7 7700X, and it does well against both the i7 and i5. Loses to the i7 but it's fine.
The R9 7900X in turn beats the 13700K. It costs more so it ought to.

Prices reflect performance, that's why they matter. What AMD chooses to call R9 or R7 is pure marketing.

I'm talking about reviews, and whether Intel gains anything by having their CPUs at unlimited power. Im saying they don't benefit at all, since with enforced power limits they would be winning on every single metric known to mankind in all product segments they competed at, in both ST, MT , gaming and efficiency.

 

[NinoPino]

I'm talking about reviews, and whether Intel gains anything by having their CPUs at unlimited power. Im saying they don't benefit at all,

no, no, who can gain for it ? Let me think... reviewers, AMD, mobo makers, my baker and the President, but for sure the only to be hurt was Intel.

since with enforced power limits they would be winning on every single metric known to mankind in all product segments they competed at, in both ST, MT , gaming and efficiency.

For sure Intel would have lost on performance.
Are you really trolling or what ?
Reviews and market share show the Intel difficulties in a clear way.
Look at the datacenter situation, if Intel architecture is so good as you say, why it is loosing share to AMD in the datacenters and cannot match the competitor performance, core count and wattage ?

 

[35below0]

I'm talking about reviews, and whether Intel gains anything by having their CPUs at unlimited power. Im saying they don't benefit at all, since with enforced power limits they would be winning on every single metric known to mankind in all product segments they competed at, in both ST, MT , gaming and efficiency.

That is partly true. They waste power for little gain.

Without wasting power they don't beat AMD all along the line at every metric. They win a lot, they lose some, they're outclassed in the X3D fight, and in some fights they run neck and neck.
With the power waste, intels score higher as long as waste is ignored. But as the above linked test concludes, the waste is considerable. And as you yourself agree, it is unneccessary because intels do not need the slight boosts except in the very fiery and headline grabbing i9 K and KS test, but you know...

Look at the datacenter situation, if Intel architecture is so good as you say, why it is loosing share to AMD in the datacenters and cannot match the competitor performance, core count and wattage ?

We were ignoring the datacenters, only looking at consumer CPUs, and for some reason T models.

I'd say those don't really compare to vanilla and K intels because they're not really the bread and butter of PC building.

 

[TheHerald]

Without wasting power they don't beat AMD all along the line at every metric.

Yes, they do, pretty convincingly. Sure the 13600k doesn't beat the 7950x if that's what you mean, I'm comparing equally priced products.

October 20th, Intel 13th gen launch day review, what does Intel gain by having reviews done at unlimited power? Honestly asking. They would be already the fastest on every metric at every price point, enforcing power limits would just make them the most efficient as well. It really makes no sense for Intel to want to run without any power limits.

no, no, who can gain for it ? Let me think... reviewers, AMD, mobo makers, my baker and the President, but for sure the only to be hurt was Intel.

Indeed, the only one that doesn't gain anything by running unlimited power on reviews is Intel. I gave you the data, Intel would win on every possible metric known to mankind while enforcing power limits. If you see every single review of the 13th gen they all conclude the same "faster at everything vs their price competition, draws too much power". Enforcing power limits would still make them the fastest vs their price competition and would fix the "too much power" con.

For sure Intel would have lost on performance.
Are you really trolling or what ?
Reviews and market share show the Intel difficulties in a clear way.

No, they for sure wouldn't lose on performance. Stop being biased.

Reviews show Intel have class leading performance - handily beating their price competitors - but drawing too much power. Enforcing power limits would still have them beating their price competitors, without the power draw.

Just cause we are on this site ill use this site's review data.

This paints a painfully obvious picture.

Are you saying that if you lock the 13600k to 125w it would lose to the 7600x? It's leading by 34%, by limiting it to 125w it would now lead by 30%, big whoop.
Are you saying that if you lock the 13700k to 125w it would lose to the 7700x? It's leading by 35%, by power limiting it to 125w it would lead by 28%, big whoop.

Apply the same to the 13900k. That's the only segment that AMD is excused to be left so far behind since their competitor is 40$ cheaper (the 7900x) but still it's not winning any metrics.

 

[COLGeek]

Time for a reminder about civility, it seems. Time to knock of the off topic banter.

Thank you.

 

[helper800]

Yes, they do, pretty convincingly. Sure the 13600k doesn't beat the 7950x if that's what you mean, I'm comparing equally priced products.

So if we look a little further into the future when X3D launched we have this. My point being that the march of time always comes with price changes and new performance heights. I routinely recommend Intel CPUs depending on the price on any given day. Intel have very good overall performer chips. My comment regarding power profiles being set to extreme's on default to give intel as big of an edge as possible on launch day was not limited to the 13000 series launch but Intel launch's for years and years up until now. I was mainly referring to launches since Ryzens initial launch and subsequent launch's. Here is the Tom's article with a ton of info about CPUs and the source for below.

If you really want to get nitpicky, technically 13th gen Intel did not exist to compete with Ryzen 7000 for almost a month, so their main competitors were 12th gen intel. Intel then released 13th gen and humbled AMDs 7000 series pricing, but that does not mean they were not competitive on a performance perspective. If you look at pricing changes that quickly followed 13th gens release AMD's single/multi thread performance was much more competitive comparatively.

 

[TheHerald]

So if we look a little further into the future when X3D launched we have this. My point being that the march of time always comes with price changes and new performance heights. I routinely recommend Intel CPUs depending on the price on any given day. Intel have very good overall performer chips. My comment regarding power profiles being set to extreme's on default to give intel as big of an edge as possible on launch day was not limited to the 13000 series launch but Intel launch's for years and years up until now. I was mainly referring to launches since Ryzens initial launch and subsequent launch's. Here is the Tom's article with a ton of info about CPUs and the source for below.

If you really want to get nitpicky, technically 13th gen Intel did not exist to compete with Ryzen 7000 for almost a month, so their main competitors were 12th gen intel. Intel then released 13th gen and humbled AMDs 7000 series pricing, but that does not mean they were not competitive on a performance perspective. If you look at pricing changes that quickly followed 13th gens release AMD's single/multi thread performance was much more competitive comparatively.

People are trying to read way too much into what I'm saying.

My point is simple, 13th gen launched literally within 15-20 days of Zen 4. It in no way shape or form benefitted Intel to run without power limits. It really only harmed them. Just check all of the 13th gen reviews, every reviewer basically says the same thing, that Intel dominates in performance but pulls too much power. Enforce power limits - 13th gen still dominates in performance but without the insane power draw.

Yes by running unlimited power they get a bigger edge - but how much bigger? Going from 250w to 400w on a 14900k net's you a whooping 4% in CBR23. Doesn't really change anything. Of course Intel has no reason to power limit their K lineup tbf, since they also offer the non K cpus (usually for cheaper as well) for those who seek efficiency but whatever.

 

[TerryLaze]

My comment regarding power profiles being set to extreme's on default to give intel as big of an edge as possible on launch day was not limited to the 13000 series launch but Intel launch's for years and years up until now. I was mainly referring to launches since Ryzens initial launch and subsequent launch's. Here is the Tom's article with a ton of info about CPUs and the source for below.

So what is the point you are trying to make here?
That all reviewers are paid by intel to show their CPUs with the highest performance?! Then why should we believe any review/benchmark at all if they are all paid?! Why are you using numbers from reviews if they are not trustworthy?!
If a review is paid for by intel why would it make such a big deal out of it needing a lot more expensive mobos and cooling and creating a bigger power bill than it actually does?
Why would intel paid reviews have fire and lava icons everywhere?

Do you see how you don't make any sense?
Reviews use the insane/unlimited presets because that's what creates the most clicks and comments, and that's all there is to it, if a review would use normal settings we wouldn't be here filling up page after page of content for this forum.

 

[helper800]

People are trying to read way too much into what I'm saying.

My point is simple, 13th gen launched literally within 15-20 days of Zen 4. It in no way shape or form benefitted Intel to run without power limits. It really only harmed them. Just check all of the 13th gen reviews, every reviewer basically says the same thing, that Intel dominates in performance but pulls too much power. Enforce power limits - 13th gen still dominates in performance but without the insane power draw.

Yes by running unlimited power they get a bigger edge - but how much bigger? Going from 250w to 400w on a 14900k net's you a whooping 4% in CBR23. Doesn't really change anything.

My point was not that the 13000 series was specifically massively benefiting from such power profiles, but that they had several times in the past and the practice is ingrained into Intel platform releases at this point. AMD added a lot of pressure because of AMD eating into their market share for the first time in many years. I assert that Intel had to push the performance disparity as much as possible so they could point to it for their investors to say, "Look nothing out of the norm here."

 

[helper800]

So what is the point you are trying to make here?
That all reviewers are paid by intel to show their CPUs with the highest performance?! Then why should we believe any review/benchmark at all if they are all paid?! Why are you using numbers from reviews if they are not trustworthy?!
If a review is paid for by intel why would it make such a big deal out of it needing a lot more expensive mobos and cooling and creating a bigger power bill than it actually does?
Why would intel paid reviews have fire and lava icons everywhere?

Do you see how you don't make any sense?
Reviews use the insane/unlimited presets because that's what creates the most clicks and comments, and that's all there is to it, if a review would use normal settings we wouldn't be here filling up page after page of content for this forum.

I never made any assertions for the above conspiratorial claims. I focused my writings on my claim that the default profiles were used to make Intel look as good comparatively as possible at "default" settings. Because Intel has no official default power profile it's very difficult to get anything but essentially OCed CPUs with varying amounts of performance boosting settings based on motherboard selection. With that in mind, the so called 'default' profiles are all there is to compare against AMD, thus giving Intel an optics win in reviews because their 'default' CPUs are winning by X%. If there were an actual Intel prescribed power/behavior profile, you could have much better comparisons with AMD. Winning by a higher percentage is always better optically. Intel prefers this strategy, but it comes at a cost sometimes and it's time to pay. This practice led directly to the issues in the article. Fly too close to the sun and eventually your wax wings will melt.

 

[TheHerald]

My point was not that the 13000 series was specifically massively benefiting from such power profiles, but that they had several times in the past and the practice is ingrained into Intel platform releases at this point. AMD added a lot of pressure because of AMD eating into their market share for the first time in many years. I assert that Intel had to push the performance disparity as much as possible so they could point to it for their investors to say, "Look nothing out of the norm here."

I'd argue it was only with 12th gen that they benefitted from pushing the power, since they basically tried to make the 12900k compete with the 5950x in price, and therefore MT performance, which it has no business doing.

 

[helper800]

I'd argue it was only with 12th gen that they benefitted from pushing the power, since they basically tried to make the 12900k compete with the 5950x in price, and therefore MT performance, which it has no business doing.

Fair enough. Personally, I also believe they benefited from their strategy with 10th and 11th gen, though the power boosting was not as aggressive, I could easily argue they did benefit.