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

[TerryLaze]

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.

No, it doesn't.
The ECO mode for AMD doesn't make all the other modes be overclocking, that's not how that works. Baseline can be baseline with turbo/performance (253W ) still being 100% allowed and warranted.
And all CPUs will be 100% stable at 253W , they are only unstable at the 4000W setting.

 

[bit_user]

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

WCCFTech dropped something of a bombshell, in their coverage of this story:

Intel's own review guide had the chips set at "Extreme" configuration and showed vastly better performance ...

Source: https://wccftech.com/intel-requests...le-bios-defaults-14th-13th-gen-cpu-stability/
​

So, Intel is trying to have it both ways, throwing motherboard makers under the bus, while it turns out they basically just defaulted to how Intel told reviewers to evaluate their CPUs!!

 

[YSCCC]

WCCFTech dropped something of a bombshell, in their coverage of this story:

​

Intel's own review guide had the chips set at "Extreme" configuration and showed vastly better performance ...​

​

Source: https://wccftech.com/intel-requests...le-bios-defaults-14th-13th-gen-cpu-stability/​

​

So, Intel is trying to have it both ways, throwing motherboard makers under the bus, while it turns out they basically just defaulted to how Intel told reviewers to evaluate their CPUs!!

This is exactly what I call false marketing, if they ask the reviewers to use the baseline, or performance profile and recommend those as the default setting of MB, then suggest the reviewers can do the "factory OC" extreme profile as kind of "what you can unlock in the K SKUs, I will be fine for that. But now you try market it using the extreme profile but can't guarantee every CPU can handle it long term, and recommending the baseline profile to be enforced, this is cheating to say at least, somehow looks like a potential class action lawsuit

 

[TerryLaze]

WCCFTech dropped something of a bombshell, in their coverage of this story:

​

Intel's own review guide had the chips set at "Extreme" configuration and showed vastly better performance ...​

​

Source: https://wccftech.com/intel-requests...le-bios-defaults-14th-13th-gen-cpu-stability/​

​

So, Intel is trying to have it both ways, throwing motherboard makers under the bus, while it turns out they basically just defaulted to how Intel told reviewers to evaluate their CPUs!!

BS, extreme profile only exists for the KS.

Intel=use 253W or at max go to 320W if you feel crazy.
Youtuber/reviewer=hold my beer! OMG! FIRE! 400W under full load!

No review ever showed 320W as maximum, they all had close to 400W because nobody used even the extreme setting that intel asked for, they all use unlimited, except for reviews that measure power at many points.

 

[YSCCC]

BS, extreme profile only exists for the KS.

Intel=use 253W or at max go to 320W if you feel crazy.
Youtuber/reviewer=hold my beer! OMG! FIRE! 400W under full load!

No review ever showed 320W as maximum, they all had close to 400W because nobody used even the extreme setting that intel asked for, they all use unlimited, except for reviews that measure power at many points.

well, but from https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...ation-processors-datasheet-volume-1-of-2.html

p.98 the 8P, 16E spec are "normal" PL1=125W, PL2=253W, while "Extreme" is PL1=PL2=253W, which we will need to see if the default limit becomes either of these or just never goes to 253W as the gigabyte "baseline" is.

 

[phitinh81]

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.

Then why didn't Intel do it at launch ? Clearly the intention was to remain competitive. The baseline is about 20-30% less in MT performance & 5-10% less in gaming. Thats a generation behind in performance. Now owners of 13/14th gen dont get what they paid for. If there's a way to spin it, yours is not that.

 

[35below0]

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.

No, they sold them as unlocked for overclocking. Never said they'd be overclocked to the point of instability by the motherboard manufacturer.

If you push your unlocked CPU to instability that's on you. When it's done for you, it's not your fault. And Intel did not wreck your CPU so they are not to blame either.

WCCFTech dropped something of a bombshell, in their coverage of this story:

​

Intel's own review guide had the chips set at "Extreme" configuration and showed vastly better performance ...​

​

Source: https://wccftech.com/intel-requests...le-bios-defaults-14th-13th-gen-cpu-stability/​

​

So, Intel is trying to have it both ways, throwing motherboard makers under the bus, while it turns out they basically just defaulted to how Intel told reviewers to evaluate their CPUs!!

Well no. Motherboard vendors had an interest in making their own products look good. I've read reviews of motherboards where "lower performance" was listed as a con. Lower performance? What performance?? It isn't supposed to perform, it's a stage for performing components.

But if they could push the CPUs...

 

[CmdrShepard]

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.

We disagree on the bolded part.

As I said multiple times if the CPU is unlocked then there's no such thing as "out of specs".

Intel can't pull the "out of specs" card while selling CPUs which accept numerical values written into its MSR registers which are out of those specs.

The first rule of specs is -- you either enforce the specs or you don't whine about "out of specs" when it happens.

Properly designed CPU would have rejected out of specs values instead of trying to run with them and as a matter of fact Intel could've patched this in a microcode update if they wanted, but apparently they don't want to do that because then they would be blamed for the performance hit while this way mainboard vendors soak up the blame.

 

[CmdrShepard]

No, they sold them as unlocked for overclocking.

And also made specific performance claims for those unlocked CPUs.

You are focusing on the wrong thing in my posts. I don't care who did the overclock -- it's who ALLOWED it.

 

[rluker5]

WCCFTech dropped something of a bombshell, in their coverage of this story:

​

Intel's own review guide had the chips set at "Extreme" configuration and showed vastly better performance ...​

​

Source: https://wccftech.com/intel-requests...le-bios-defaults-14th-13th-gen-cpu-stability/​

​

So, Intel is trying to have it both ways, throwing motherboard makers under the bus, while it turns out they basically just defaulted to how Intel told reviewers to evaluate their CPUs!!

I question your statement that motherboard makers set their default profiles to how Intel told reviewers to evaluate their CPUs.
Wouldn't the motherboards be made and the bios be set prior to reviewers receiving them?
Also that statement implies a conspiracy level of control by Intel over both motherboard manufacturers and reviewers when we know many reviewers favor AMD over Intel.

 

[NinoPino]

That's not how degradation works, it doesn't reduce stability, it increases the voltage needed for stability, ...

Degradation may happen in different part of the CPU and with variable severity and increasing the voltage too much can also lead to instabilities and overheating problems at high frequencies.

... and since the default setting is to let the CPU draw as much V as it wants, ...

Voltage for sure cannot go up indefinitely.
Intel's default voltage is higher than the AUTO setting of motherboard but if the degradation is important that cannot be enough to prevent instability.
Add that when voltage go beyond optimal work point, the power increase exponentially.
Imho the degradation if severe can persist also with Intel's defaults.

 

[TerryLaze]

As I said multiple times if the CPU is unlocked then there's no such thing as "out of specs".

So the settings that caused ryzen to explode were not out of spec since all ryzen CPUs are unlocked...

 

[peachpuff]

Intel

 

[NinoPino]

And also made specific performance claims for those unlocked CPUs.

You are focusing on the wrong thing in my posts. I don't care who did the overclock -- it's who ALLOWED it.

Overclock does not guarantee anything, you can have a sample that have zero overclock margin and ot is in line with performance claims.
Allowing overclock does not means anything from a performance point of view.

 

[NinoPino]

WCCFTech dropped something of a bombshell, in their coverage of this story:

​

Intel's own review guide had the chips set at "Extreme" configuration and showed vastly better performance ...​

​

Source: https://wccftech.com/intel-requests...le-bios-defaults-14th-13th-gen-cpu-stability/​

​

So, Intel is trying to have it both ways, throwing motherboard makers under the bus, while it turns out they basically just defaulted to how Intel told reviewers to evaluate their CPUs!!

OMG, if all true Intel may risk at minimum a class action.
Better than a TV show.😀

 

[35below0]

And also made specific performance claims for those unlocked CPUs.

You are focusing on the wrong thing in my posts. I don't care who did the overclock -- it's who ALLOWED it.

I don't care what you care about.

Intel sold CPUs unlocked for overclocking. They did not oveclock them into instability.
The fact they allowed overclocking is the only obvious thing in the whole of today.

Intel could hardly sell unlocked CPUs that don't allow overclocking? Or only allow half overclocking?
People who bought those CPUs may have overclocked them, but even those who didn't suffered instability.

Is that because of something Intel did?
(please answer "yes, intel allowed overclocking on unlocked K CPUs unlocked for overclocking")

Intel: (pics edited out)

Intel defined a limit to Extreme power.
Motherboard manufacturers exceeded it some 20x
Intel i7s and i9s will perform well in benchmarks regardless. There are very few scenarios that gimp those CPUs.
Motherboard manufacturers compete against each other in benchmarks too. They one upped each other by pumping tons of power into CPUs, esp. the top i9 because motherboards are usually tested with that CPU
Even a garbage H610 motherbaord with 3 and a half 55A FETs will be tested with a 14900K.

This overboosting is done without informing the user or asking the user to confirm they want their system pushed over a cliff in order to fly faster.

Intel can only be blamed for tolerating this situation for so long. But in their defence, they don't want to antagonize motherboard vendors. And CPUs weren't crashing until very recently so...

 

[NinoPino]

I don't care what you care about.

Intel sold CPUs unlocked for overclocking. They did not oveclock them into instability.
The fact they allowed overclocking is the only obvious thing in the whole of today.

Intel could hardly sell unlocked CPUs that don't allow overclocking? Or only allow half overclocking?
People who bought those CPUs may have overclocked them, but even those who didn't suffered instability.

Is that because of something Intel did?
(please answer "yes, intel allowed overclocking on unlocked K CPUs unlocked for overclocking")

Intel defined a limit to Extreme power.
Motherboard manufacturers exceeded it some 20x
Intel i7s and i9s will perform well in benchmarks regardless. There are very few scenarios that gimp those CPUs.
Motherboard manufacturers compete against each other in benchmarks too. They one upped each other by pumping tons of power into CPUs, esp. the top i9 because motherboards are usually tested with that CPU
Even a garbage H610 motherbaord with 3 and a half 55A FETs will be tested with a 14900K.

This overboosting is done without informing the user or asking the user to confirm they want their system pushed over a cliff in order to fly faster.

Intel can only be blamed for tolerating this situation for so long. But in their defence, they don't want to antagonize motherboard vendors. And CPUs weren't crashing until very recently so...

Imho is totally Intel's responsability for this situation. It is only Intel advantage to have the extreme power profile as default. Motherboard manufacturers set the BIOS defaults following Intel restrictions, if Intel do not give any restriction is only Intel responsibility.
From a performance point of view, there is typically little variance from a motherboard to another, because all makers use the same settings as indicated by the CPU maker. So what is the advantage for modo makers to use extreme profiles ?

 

[35below0]

Imho is totally Intel's responsability for this situation. It is only Intel advantage to have the extreme power profile as default. Motherboard manufacturers set the BIOS defaults following Intel restrictions, if Intel do not give any restriction is only Intel responsibility.

See quoe below. K Intels are unrestricted. For users, if they make their system unstable, it's their own fault. For motherboard manufacturers... If they default to something way outside of Intel's Extreme config, and do it without asking users to confirm the choice, it is not the users nor Intel who did anything to cause instability. Intel allows it, but no K intel comes out of the box set to exceed the Extreme config. Allowing users and vendors the freedom to go to the limit is not the same as forcing it as default behavior or recommendation.

From a performance point of view, there is typically little variance from a motherboard to another, because all makers use the same settings as indicated by the CPU maker. So what is the advantage for modo makers to use extreme profiles ?

Read motherboard reviews. Motherboards are tested with unlocked i9s (not always but often enough). If one motherboard isn't overdriving the i9, it will be knocked for underperforming. Buyers read this and assume the board is underperforming, so they buy something else.


Quoting from page 1:

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%)

Both Intel Extreme profiles are already quite punchy, but (in this case) Gigabyte's automatic profile goes far, far, far beyond even the extreme.

Blame Intel for allowing this? Why? They didn't enforce it. Gigabyte, did.

 

[NinoPino]

See quoe below. K Intels are unrestricted. For users, if they make their system unstable, it's their own fault.

Not if it happens with the default profile.

For motherboard manufacturers... If they default to something way outside of Intel's Extreme config, and do it without asking users to confirm the choice, it is not the users nor Intel who did anything to cause instability.

For sure is not user's fault but surely it is Intel that leaved mb manufacturers to do so, Intel that not restricted power, current, voltages and do not imposed safe defaults. All to cheat users using reviewers.

Intel allows it, but no K intel comes out of the box set to exceed the Extreme config.

Lets see if, with new BIOSes, the Extreme profile will be the default profile.
Imho what must be reviewed should be the default profile, without changing before the review.

Allowing users and vendors the freedom to go to the limit is not the same as forcing it as default behavior or recommendation.

It is Intel that allow this.

Quoting from page 1:

Both Intel Extreme profiles are already quite punchy, but (in this case) Gigabyte's automatic profile goes far, far, far beyond even the extreme.

Blame Intel for allowing this? Why? They didn't enforce it. Gigabyte, did.

Intel give mobo makers the permission to do this or explicitly (suggesting) or implicitly (not prohibiting)

 

[Lucky_SLS]

I dont see how this is any different to AMD's 7000X3D chips frying with over voltage cuz of mobo enhancement profiles.

I would say, give us a 7800X3D vs 14700k revisit review with the new under control mobo settings and call it a day.

 

[dalek1234]

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

I've read few days ago that people who applied the fix are reporting a 9% performance hit (including in games)

 

[Eximo]

They still used the 14900k, but close enough. Same truth. If you are only gaming, 7800X3D, if you also want some workstation performance 14700k and 14900k are still pretty good choices. Difference in power draw is still pretty high though.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHILyzooR58

 

[SyCoREAPER]

HWUnboxed (ironically different video of theirs above mine) tested two boards (ASRock(?) and Gigabytle) and Gigabyte still screwed up or possibly intentionally lowererd the limits of baseline below the correct limits.

Prior to baseline they showed boards were playing wild west feeding unlimited power which is wrong.

So Intel in all respects shipped a benchmarking CPU that probably can't reach they advertised numbers safley by most and the board partners aren't following spec.

Both are to blame here. Sorry for the i9 users here but boy am I glad I went with the i7.

 

[rluker5]

Something interesting to note related to this:

The first diy PC I built had a 4770k and a Z87 Deluxe, which had 16 phase power delivery.
My current 13900kf is on an Asus Prime Z690P that has 14+1 phase power delivery, yet uses like 4x the power under heavy loads and Asus "default" settings.

I think that it is the motherboards that are failing to deliver the voltage under heavy load due to their relatively weaker power delivery. So it could help to push those undersized power delivery systems harder with an LLC that allows less vdroop.

A common denominator is low default LLC settings combined with the highest power draw i9 chips. Coincidence? Maybe it wouldn't be an issue if power delivery were scaled with power consumption.

 

[YSCCC]

See quoe below. K Intels are unrestricted. For users, if they make their system unstable, it's their own fault. For motherboard manufacturers... If they default to something way outside of Intel's Extreme config, and do it without asking users to confirm the choice, it is not the users nor Intel who did anything to cause instability. Intel allows it, but no K intel comes out of the box set to exceed the Extreme config. Allowing users and vendors the freedom to go to the limit is not the same as forcing it as default behavior or recommendation.

Read motherboard reviews. Motherboards are tested with unlocked i9s (not always but often enough). If one motherboard isn't overdriving the i9, it will be knocked for underperforming. Buyers read this and assume the board is underperforming, so they buy something else.


Quoting from page 1:

Both Intel Extreme profiles are already quite punchy, but (in this case) Gigabyte's automatic profile goes far, far, far beyond even the extreme.

Blame Intel for allowing this? Why? They didn't enforce it. Gigabyte, did.

well, letting the default going (way) higher than intel extreme profile is surely a mishap from Motherboard vendors, BUT ! Now in order to fix the madness, Intel didn't ask vendors to run at the norminal "performance" or "extreme" profile which are both in spec, but ask them to go for a "baseline" / "fail safe" profile which actually stops the CPU from going full advertised frequencies for a lot of case, is Intel's fault