News Intel reportedly demands all board partners implement Intel Default (Baseline) Profile by May 31 — company hopes to fix issues with some Core i9 chips

[Admin]

Intel is putting an end to 13th and 14th-gen instability by demanding board partners implement an Intel default profile by May 31st for all LGA 1700 boards.

Intel reportedly demands all board partners implement Intel Default (Baseline) Profile by May 31 — company hopes to fix issues with some Core i9 chips : Read more

 

[TerryLaze]

Intel is putting an end to 13th and 14th-gen instability

Out-of-the-box instability...the instability is still going to be there because forcing baseline as default doesn't mean that they forbid other profiles and mobo makers will have the old profiles as "mobo maker" "optimized" "gaming" "Xtreme" whatever profile.
The only difference is that the user will have to make a choice making it clear to them that they are running overclock with possible instability being expected.

All this assuming that the report is correct in the first place.

 

[phitinh81]

"This new change is excellent news for 13th and 14th Gen processor owners" remarkable journalism. Inevitable performance hit from such mitigation is great news nowadays. If this happens in server CPU market, lawsuits will lineup.

 

[hotaru251]

should of always been that way.

"technically" even using a MB's default bios (their version) is overclocked and can void a warrenty if u admit to using it.

The only difference is that the user will have to make a choice

which is not intels fault then.

Stability (even if slower) is most users concern.
Issue isn't that you can't OC but it should never be default.

and even now its better to manually tune your OC than use a vendors options. Not used an intel cpu in a while but i know PBO/ryzen master makes this simple even for people who wouldnt know hwo to do so in bios.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

It's not a performance hit if the performance was obtained through what is technically overclocking. Requiring baseline out of the box should also help standardize reviews as it should nullify each board's overclocking settings.

 

[TerryLaze]

which is not intels fault then.

Stability (even if slower) is most users concern.
Issue isn't that you can't OC but it should never be default.

and even now its better to manually tune your OC than use a vendors options. Not used an intel cpu in a while but i know PBO/ryzen master makes this simple even for people who wouldnt know hwo to do so in bios.

I was only commenting on the "eradication" of stability, it's not going to be gone, it just wont be automatically applied.

 

[ohio_buckeye]

Should have always been this way. Baseline config out the box, and then the other options with an explanation, here's what x, y and z do. Use at your own risk.

On the other hand, you wonder if intel was happy to let them essentially overclock the cpus to try to keep pace with AMD until they realized there were potential issues.

 

[thisisaname]

I wonder how much slower they will be once the default is implemented.

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

I wonder how much slower they will be once the default is implemented.

The perf drop is there.

In testing conducted by Uniko's Hardware, it looks like Gigabyte takes a very aggressive approach when following Intel's official baseline spec for the Core i9 series.

The power limits are reduced to 125W (Long Duration), 188W (Short Duration), 249A (1.7m Ohm ADDC Load-Line). So the difference is (Long/Short/IccMax):

• Gigabyte AUTO Profile: 4096W/4096W/Unlimited
• Intel Extreme Config (150W): 320W320W/400A
• Intel Extreme Config (125W): 253W/253W/400A
• Intel Standard Config (150W): 253W/253W/307A
• Intel Standard Config (125W): 125W/253W/307A
• Gigabyte BaseLine Profile: 125W/188W/249A

So what was the performance impact like when running the "Intel BaseLine" default BIOS settings?

In multi-threaded workloads, the Intel Core i9-13900KF was tested and it saw a drop of almost -30% from the "Auto" settings to the "BaseLine" settings:

• Core i9-13900KF (Gigabyte Auto): 40,021 (100%) CB R23
• Core i9-13900KF (Gigabyte Base): 28811 (71.9%)

 

[rluker5]

should of always been that way.

"technically" even using a MB's default bios (their version) is overclocked and can void a warrenty if u admit to using it.


which is not intels fault then.

Stability (even if slower) is most users concern.
Issue isn't that you can't OC but it should never be default.

and even now its better to manually tune your OC than use a vendors options. Not used an intel cpu in a while but i know PBO/ryzen master makes this simple even for people who wouldnt know hwo to do so in bios.

Intel CPU tuning has a LOT of dials to turn and can be more complicated and confusing.

Here's how I see the stability problem that some are facing, and it isn't anything new that you haven't seen with other CPUs from the past:

I didn't need to for stability, but I undervolted with load line calibration set to minimize vdroop and it does a better job of keeping undervolted high clocks stable during benches. (I use LLC 6 on Asus which is second from minimum vdroop)
Otherwise my chip would thermal throttle. And if you undervolt, you have to keep the volts still high enough to keep the chip from crashing. The most likely place for this is when vdroop can drop it 10s to 100s mv under loads in the 300w+ range. Motherboards weren't ready for that much power consumption. Also my chip needs increasingly more volts, relative to the volt/frequency curve set by Intel/Asus, the higher the p-cores get over 5.4 ghz. This efficient limit frequency number likely changes from chip to chip. Personally I have a ramp of added millivolts on my per point voltage offset for frequencies above 5.4GHz.

If you combine the two characteristics: 1. Motherboard's power delivery allowing too much vdroop at "default" settings at the (until 13th gen) extreme power draw of 300w+, and 2. CPUs that are designed to run past their efficiency limits and need more volts vs their volt/frequency curve the higher their clocks are past their efficiency limits, you have a compounding scenario pushing affected CPUs into a situation that the cores are not getting enough volts for the clocks they are running and crash.

But by addressing these issues one may find their CPU getting light single core volts over 1.5v which I think is too much for daily use. The volts can be capped at 1.5v if your chip needs that much for your desired top clocks, and if your chip needs more then maybe you should weigh potential issues vs the rewards of keeping the single clocks that high.

If you look at the common fixes noted so far they seem to be different ways of addressing this. Power limiting limits vdroop. The Intel failsafe SVID behavior FLOODS the CPU with volts. Jufes has a recommended fix of limiting your few core boost to all core boost if you have problems which avoids the out of efficiency range clocks as much as possible.

The problem doesn't seem that bad, Just balancing that CPUs need enough volts for their clocks and they run cooler and have less vdroop at lower voltages. But the bios gives you a ton of options and having heterogeneous cores doesn't help the confusion.

extra note:

Spoiler

Also having a profile for gaming that turns off HT and maybe some e-cores isn't a crime. You can always reboot to get all of those threads and heat back whenever you want. My CPU gets really efficient with HT and 8 E-cores off and at or under 5.4ghz all P-core. And gaming performance at least matches stock with the same memory settings. Best case scenario SVID with -135mv on cores, cache at LLC 6 efficient. I totally recommend anybody with RPL try HT off and see what it gives you. You don't need to have it off all of the time, it is your CPU after all, run it how you want. I also can add 300MHz to the P-cores with HT off vs what I can do with it on if you want to try that route to see what is possible with yours.

 

[CmdrShepard]

It's not a performance hit if the performance was obtained through what is technically overclocking.

And if this was just about stock CPUs I would agree.

However, Intel MARKETED and SOLD the K SKUs for OVERCLOCKING.

So in that case, it is a quite legitimate performance hit, just like every microcode security patch has been eating into performance claims you based your buying decision on and paid for.

That said, I wonder what effect will this have? 90% of users don't update BIOS anyway, and even if they do they'd have to enter it to select new baseline profile.

 

[Amdlova]

Bring down that scores... Now my 13600T is the ultimate cpu lol
with 50w this cpu is 23% slower than a 14600k stock

 

[hotaru251]

However, Intel MARKETED and SOLD the K SKUs for OVERCLOCKING.

yes, but doesn't cover issues relating to it.

intels K sku are "you can but its on you if anythign goes wrong"

I can sell you a car that goes 500 mph doesnt mean you will choose to do that.

The specs you can hit are based on intel's default specifications.

If you want to go beyond you enter no longer intels fault.

and again issue isnt OCing the cpu its the bios settings that vendors give that is issue.

you can manually tune one and likely do just as good if not better w/o the issues.

 

[CmdrShepard]

yes, but doesn't cover issues relating to it.

That's irrelevant to what I was replying to -- he claimed there's no performance hit because it was overclocking. I just said that people bought those CPUs to eke more performance out of them only for said performance now to be reduced.

I do agree that manual tuning is better, but not everyone knows how to do it.

 

[YSCCC]

should of always been that way.

"technically" even using a MB's default bios (their version) is overclocked and can void a warrenty if u admit to using it.


which is not intels fault then.

Stability (even if slower) is most users concern.
Issue isn't that you can't OC but it should never be default.

and even now its better to manually tune your OC than use a vendors options. Not used an intel cpu in a while but i know PBO/ryzen master makes this simple even for people who wouldnt know hwo to do so in bios.

Can't agree on this, when intel charge us for $500 for "the fastest CPU", their spec was what is now considered "Extreme" or overclocked, for 90% of users where performance loss isn't an issue as long as it is rock solid, but those 90% won't spend remotely near what the i7 and i9 CPUs cost. Now you charged a premium and keep throwing various issues to users, and at mid life cycle of the product you go "O, we have to run it at 75% power as what we promised you back when you pay isn't stable on our design"

 

[Li Ken-un]

So what I read from all of this is that Intel hasn’t been deserving of any of its performance claims/glowing reviews, and that AMD has been king the whole time and still hasn’t been dethroned?

What’s the score between AMD and Intel after all of this has settled?

 

[hotaru251]

I just said that people bought those CPUs to eke more performance out of them only for said performance now to be reduced.

they still have option to use what they were using.

If they werent having stability issues they have no reason to use the new default.
however between a bit mroe performance (which will be a small fps drop to most) and risk of crashing...ppl rather likely not crash and they can use new one.

when intel charge us for $500 for "the fastest CPU", their spec was what is now considered "Extreme" or overclocked, for 90% of users where performance loss isn't an issue as long as it is rock solid, but those 90% won't spend remotely near what the i7 and i9 CPUs cost.

...you realize the "fastest cpu" is their specs right? if you look at the cpu claims they are at their recommended specs..and those specs are faster than their competition's spec on box.

their claim is still the truth.

and assuming ppl wont spend that money on cpu and not OC it is wrong...I know many people who just buy em as they are fast out the box and they have no desire to overclock em. (mainly power users who need that performance for cpu heavy multi tasking)


now is that worth it? probably not but to those people they dont care since its out of the box fast enough.

and keep throwing various issues to users

except Intel never did this.

They gave the specs to MB vendors. The MB vendors are oens who ignored that and made their own settings defualt & that is what is causing issues for some people not intel's.

at mid life cycle of the product you go "O, we have to run it at 75% power as what we promised you back when you pay isn't stable on our design"

...how long have you used PC's?
Intel LITERALLY got lawsuit due to this way back during meltdown time when they sold cpu that claimed were faster than what you got after applying the fixes.

losing performance over time is nothing new and at this point expected due to the vulnerabilities that always pop up and then get performance impacting fixes. (also affects AMD its not intel only issue)

and you are ignoring fact that nobody is FORCED to use the new bios...you can use the old one if you want or you can just do better and manually do an OC and ignore both sides entirely.

 

[ingtar33]

"This new change is excellent news for 13th and 14th Gen processor owners"

hardly. A well known system maker in Germany tested 1000 intel 14th gen chips, with "intel's" power settings and found only 20% of the i9s were actually stable at default settings, the i7s were about 40% stable out of the box

there are major problems with the 14th gen that all the tech reviewers missed badly. I don't really blame them though, i mean who stability tests a brand new cpu out of the box? unfortunately it sounds like this will have to start to happen with cpu releases until we know they can be trusted.

I think they were testing them with a prime stability test.

I think he said the 13th gen were better, but not 100% stable either.





and no hotaru251, the 14th gen aren't the fastest gaming cpus on the market. the x3d chips from amd are significantly faster in gaming applications (even the 8 core x3d chips from the 5000 series are faster then the intel 14th gen chips in gaming)

 

[hotaru251]

Intel hasn’t been deserving of any of its performance claims/glowing reviews

depends on if those claims/reviews bothered to check bios settings. (some manually set em others dont bother)

all the "fastest/world record/etc" are all done manually oc'd so those claims dont matter in this instance as this is default settings related.

AMD has been king the whole time and still hasn’t been dethroned?

again depends.
mainly depends on your use case and the application.

No single team has the best chip entirely. some stuff performs better on 1 or other.

A well known system maker in Germany tested 1000 intel 14th gen chips, with "intel's" power settings and found only 20% of the i9s were actually stable at default settings, the i7s were about 40% stable out of the box

could be MB related as even 2 of same MB can behave differently. (due to imperceptible variances in the mb's components. (to point 2 MB's made on same batch could have different voltage output even if settings say they are same)

& I highly doubt Intel would release a cpu with that poor QC given thats an insanely high risk of return units. (and they test their stuff w/ their settings not MB's settings)

Not entirely ruling it out ofc (as it could be true) just unlikely as the cost of the fallout would outweigh the profit. (as it could steer ppl to team red)

 

[watzupken]

And if this was just about stock CPUs I would agree.

However, Intel MARKETED and SOLD the K SKUs for OVERCLOCKING.

So in that case, it is a quite legitimate performance hit, just like every microcode security patch has been eating into performance claims you based your buying decision on and paid for.

That said, I wonder what effect will this have? 90% of users don't update BIOS anyway, and even if they do they'd have to enter it to select new baseline profile.

I think you rightfully pointed out that these are marketed for overclocking. However, the difference here is that the motherboard makers are trying to "overclock" the CPU for us by providing the conditions that are out of specs, so as to allow the CPU to clock as high for as long as possible. This is not the overclocking that I recall where we need to go and tinker with the settings and try to push the voltage up ourselves.

Having said that, this change is going to cause Raptor Lakes to lose quite a fair bit of performance under heavy multi-threaded processes. The top end Raptor Lake has always been built upon stupid amounts of power to allow all the cores to run at very high clockspeed. Once you cap the power, you are going to cap the performance. The good news is that I think these chips can run more efficiently, without losing significant performance. Just that it will cost Intel their performance crown.

 

[rluker5]

"This new change is excellent news for 13th and 14th Gen processor owners"

hardly. A well known system maker in Germany tested 1000 intel 14th gen chips, with "intel's" power settings and found only 20% of the i9s were actually stable at default settings, the i7s were about 40% stable out of the box

there are major problems with the 14th gen that all the tech reviewers missed badly. I don't really blame them though, i mean who stability tests a brand new cpu out of the box? unfortunately it sounds like this will have to start to happen with cpu releases until we know they can be trusted.

I think they were testing them with a prime stability test.

I think he said the 13th gen were better, but not 100% stable either.





and no hotaru251, the 14th gen aren't the fastest gaming cpus on the market. the x3d chips from amd are significantly faster in gaming applications (even the 8 core x3d chips from the 5000 series are faster then the intel 14th gen chips in gaming)

Do you mean this Chinese poster?

Tester Reveals Only 5 out of 10 Core i9-13900K & 2 out of 10 Core i9-14900K CPUs Stable In Auto Profile, Intel & Board Partners Yet To Determine Cause of Stability Issues

Intel's Core i9-14900K & Core i9-13900K CPUs are largedly affected by instability issues as one tester has revealed by testings 100s of chips.

wccftech.com

Who still prefers them over AMD?

 

[watzupken]

"This new change is excellent news for 13th and 14th Gen processor owners"

hardly. A well known system maker in Germany tested 1000 intel 14th gen chips, with "intel's" power settings and found only 20% of the i9s were actually stable at default settings, the i7s were about 40% stable out of the box

there are major problems with the 14th gen that all the tech reviewers missed badly. I don't really blame them though, i mean who stability tests a brand new cpu out of the box? unfortunately it sounds like this will have to start to happen with cpu releases until we know they can be trusted.

I think they were testing them with a prime stability test.

I think he said the 13th gen were better, but not 100% stable either.





and no hotaru251, the 14th gen aren't the fastest gaming cpus on the market. the x3d chips from amd are significantly faster in gaming applications (even the 8 core x3d chips from the 5000 series are faster then the intel 14th gen chips in gaming)

You can't blame the reviewers to be honest. Just as you pointed out about the test that's done, the issue does not surface until using the chips for some time, i.e. it is not apparent with a brand new chip. So it is likely that the chip degraded due to the immense heat and current flowing through as they are working out of spec. A reviewer tend not to retest the chip, unless it is part of their test system.

As to whether Intel or AMD chips are faster in game, I don't believe there is a clear winner. For games that favors the 3D cache, AMD will have the advantage. Ultimately what makes AMD X3D chip so popular is because it is generally fast in games, draws significantly less power, produces less heat, and don't need some beefy hardware to allow it to run at its full potential. Price wise, I think it is slightly cheaper than a Raptor Lake i7, and also less complications due to the P&E core config.

In any case, the result of the testing shows that the issue is very serious because if these chips indeed degraded, the only way is to RMA them if they are unstable even at the Intel default settings.

 

[YSCCC]

they still have option to use what they were using.

If they werent having stability issues they have no reason to use the new default.
however between a bit mroe performance (which will be a small fps drop to most) and risk of crashing...ppl rather likely not crash and they can use new one.


...you realize the "fastest cpu" is their specs right? if you look at the cpu claims they are at their recommended specs..and those specs are faster than their competition's spec on box.

their claim is still the truth.

and assuming ppl wont spend that money on cpu and not OC it is wrong...I know many people who just buy em as they are fast out the box and they have no desire to overclock em. (mainly power users who need that performance for cpu heavy multi tasking)


now is that worth it? probably not but to those people they dont care since its out of the box fast enough.


except Intel never did this.

They gave the specs to MB vendors. The MB vendors are oens who ignored that and made their own settings defualt & that is what is causing issues for some people not intel's.

...how long have you used PC's?
Intel LITERALLY got lawsuit due to this way back during meltdown time when they sold cpu that claimed were faster than what you got after applying the fixes.

losing performance over time is nothing new and at this point expected due to the vulnerabilities that always pop up and then get performance impacting fixes. (also affects AMD its not intel only issue)

and you are ignoring fact that nobody is FORCED to use the new bios...you can use the old one if you want or you can just do better and manually do an OC and ignore both sides entirely.

Nope, even now checking the official intel spec for 14900K it says the PL2 max turbo power is 253 W and PL1 is 125W, and now their baseline PL2 is 188W, so this at least is false marketing on their side, when you put on the spec of 253W PL2, that should be your baseline profile with stability, not the now 75% PL2 limit of the baseline profile

 

[TerryLaze]

In any case, the result of the testing shows that the issue is very serious because if these chips indeed degraded, the only way is to RMA them if they are unstable even at the Intel default settings.

That's not how degradation works, it doesn't reduce stability, it increases the voltage needed for stability, and since the default setting is to let the CPU draw as much V as it wants, and the power draw is low, exactly 0% of CPUs will be unstable even if they have degraded.

Nope, even now checking the official intel spec for 14900K it says the PL2 max turbo power is 253 W and PL1 is 125W, and now their baseline PL2 is 188W, so this at least is false marketing on their side, when you put on the spec of 253W PL2, that should be your baseline profile with stability, not the now 75% PL2 limit of the baseline profile

We don't know yet if that was the official baseline from intel or if the mobo makers just took a random setting, we will have to wait for the official statement from intel.
But even if it is, the default setting doesn't take away any performance, you just have to manually select a different setting.
If they have baseline at 188W then they will also have performance setting at 253W and extreme setting at 320W (and Xtreme/mobo default at unlimited)

 

[YSCCC]

We don't know yet if that was the official baseline from intel or if the mobo makers just took a random setting, we will have to wait for the official statement from intel.
But even if it is, the default setting doesn't take away any performance, you just have to manually select a different setting.
If they have baseline at 188W then they will also have performance setting at 253W and extreme setting at 320W (and Xtreme/mobo default at unlimited)

Now if that 188W is true for baseline, it is now pushing what is max sustained boost power (253W) from guaranteed to "at your own risk" overclocking profile, which intel no longer guarantee the CPU to run at boost time, and officially denying RMA of chips not being stable at the power draw, which, in my understanding, is moving the goal post and dishonest marketing.

Allowing 4096W is M/B or owner fault, but when you have a 14900k chip rated for 253W, you better guarantee it to run stable at that, if that isn't done, it is intel's fault and false marketing