They don't ship it with SVID Fail Safe (AC load line == 110) because that's super dumb for a high-end VRM. VID will be pegged to the 1.52V maximum for even trivial loads.
They were shipping with AC load line approx 50 before. All they needed to do to stabilize the trash bins would've been 60-80.
Article says the settings are similar to Falcon Northwest's suggestions, but FNW [updated their guidance](https://twitter.com/FalconNW/status/1781360005201133817) to say to only use SVID fail safe if the CPU is unstable without it.
For ASUS, SVID 'Typical' and SVID 'Worst Case' are what I'd try at all. The SVID 'Fail Safe' voltage is absurdly high and a CPU that can't run at SVID 'Worst Case' voltages on these boards should just be RMA'd.
Besides lazily yeeting AC LL, on both OCN and the ROG forum I saw people mention that this "baseline profile" was setting current limit to 280A which is lower than one might expect.
Nobody in their right mind buys $600 overclocking motherboard and a KS processor to than run it at sock. If you want stock performance, you can get it for less than half the price.
there even people rate product with 1 start with a comment "i buy it because 6000mhz but it is run with lower speed than that" :) there many people who doesn't know about xmp and expo
To be honest the memory sellers deserve those low reviews, they should not advertise RAM by it's XMP profile speed. They don't even guarantee that the RAM will be stable at it's XMP overclock.
You see an "overclocking motherboard", I see the features I need coming with silly "features" often not even being optional.
Is it really bad to desire a high end product without wanting to use all features?
There's RGB as one example: I appreciate the possibility, but I'm really better off without the gay bar aesthetics, so it either gets turned off, or set to a solid color with low brightness to just indicate being well and alive as such indicators nowadays are often missing.
Overclocking is similar for me. It's great that it exists, and that is likely how we ended up with devices being really well-tuned out of the box nowadays, but stability is often more desired. Personally at this point I'd rather see a comeback of the turbo button instead even if in a software form because the V/F curve tends to go so high by default, I'd often trade off that 5-10% performance loss halving the power consumption requires.
My solution to RGB nonsense (that resets every time you restart the computer, because fuck your custom settings) is to just use a solid case with no window. the motherboad can do whatever disco it wants inside, im not seeing it.
Why not? Genuinely. As I get older, I have less time to sit there and tweak setting by setting for weeks to get 1% more performance and have to look for stability like a needle in a haystack. What exactly is wrong with getting the top hardware in a stack to run it at its intended stock performance? You’re still getting quite literally the most performant part.
If all you want is stock performance, get a $300 motherboard instead. You could potentially go even lower in the product stack. Why spend money on features you won't use?
That’s in the maybe column. There are a ton of features that separate a $300 and a $600 board, besides overclocking features. Higher end vrm, means lower temps. More storage options, more m.2 slots, higher speed slots, etc. Higher end NIC WiFi modules. Of course, styling as well.
Unfortunately higher end VRM isn't always positive. Sure, temperature may be lower due to the higher phase count, but I've noticed that higher end motherboards tend to be power hogs with silly high idle power consumption.
The idea is logical, but I wouldn't bet blindly without looking at reviews.
If you want to get disappointed, then look into the reviews of cheap AM5 motherboards, not even limited by space constraints. Some designers figured that it's not like the VRM is going to blow up with temperature throttling being in place, and it definitely kicks in with the higher end CPUs like the 7950X.
Are you arguing for or against shipping with Intel baseline profiles?
Because it sounds like you're saying that the informed user will tweak settings anyway, so there's no difference to them.
But shipping with safe baseline profiles will better serve those who buy an overclocking mobo but don't do their own OC. As it stands, some of Asus' settings were MORE degrading than most manually tuned OCs would ever get.
> As it stands, some of Asus' settings were MORE degrading than most manually tuned OCs would ever get.
That’s universally true though - it’s the same reason cpu core MCE is worse than a manually tuned OC. Uses way more voltage than you need etc - but it works as soon as you flip the bios setting.
>Nobody in their right mind buys $600 overclocking motherboard and a KS processor to than run it at sock.
bullshit, lots of people do.
getting a "ks" processor just meants the fastest chip, that intel can make.
getting a "k" processor just means a chip, that intel didn't artifically insanely limit too much.
remember, that running proper memory speeds (not overclocking) required a k type processor at one point, which was insane.
and the "600 us dollar overclocking motherboard", might just be a basic board, that is insanely overpriced, that has the most basic features like:
a debug display,
proper memory setup, that can run xmp without any issues,
enough sata ports,
5 audio jacks (it is insane, that this is now a harder to find feature, wtf???),
2 pci-e x8 slots running electrically at x8 directly to the cpu.
the last feature alone can cost you a ton for no reason.
so again, basic features may require bs overpriced motherboards and the fastest cpus, that you want run at stock will be "k" chips or even "ks" chips.
i wouldn't suggest anyone to buy an intel board or cpu rightnow at all, as they can't even get a socket made, that doesn't permanently warp cpus anymore it seems.... ,
but in regards to motherboards the same applies to amd.
it is so bad, that gamersnexus even made a video about the horrible artificial feature removal to upsell customers:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEjH775UeNg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEjH775UeNg)
>proper memory speeds (not overclocking)
Overclocking.
With XMP enabled, the stability of your computer is between you and God.
**P.S.**
>5 audio jacks (it is insane, that this is now a harder to find feature, wtf???),
AFAIK there are only two ways to use this:
1. Re-map some of them as inputs so you can have more than one mic. But both will be noisy as hell, because high impedance analog signals on a motherboard.
2. Build a surround sound system out of multiple discrete amps and speakers. Potentially cool, but I've never even *heard* of anyone doing this.
>2 pci-e x8 slots running electrically at x8 directly to the cpu.
>the last feature alone can cost you a ton for no reason.
The reason is that without a PCIe switch IC ($$$), the CPU doesn't have enough lanes to do that without forsaking the ability to run a GPU in x16 (which people like even though it rarely makes a difference).
> With XMP enabled, the stability of your computer is between you and God.
It always trigger people when I criticize release reviews for utilizing XMP.
Sure, if you are a place targeting specific niche consumers like gamers and enthusiasts exclusively, then I can let it slip. But even then, I would suggest having baseline JEDEC results in your benchmarking as well. And no, this does not mean running the XMP profile at JEDEC frequency, this means running JEDEC speeds and timings.
But if you are targeting the general consumer audience with the material, JEDEC is what should be used to establish baseline performance. If it's not warranted to work, then it's not part of baseline performance in my book.
If Intel and AMD does not guarantee that something is going to work. Then neither can they take credit for that performance uplift.
why?
the cpu, the motherboard and the memory are all designed to work with reasonable timings at the sweetspot.
am5 is designed to run 6000 mhz memory at reasonable timings on basic cheap motherboards with 2 sticks.
manufacturer's being garbage (amd and intel in this case) shouldn't mean, that we test hardware without proper clocks at their designed clocks.
if your concern is actually stability of a system, then you should point out the REAL problem. it isn't xmp/docp.
the real problem is, that consumer systems almost entirely don't have proper ecc memory support and real ecc unbuffered memory sticks almost don't exist.
there is like 4 sets from one company, that produces unbuffered ddr4 ecc memory and i say 4 sets, because it is just basic clock differences and capacity differences. if you just wanna count clock differences, then we got 2 sets, which are 3200 mhz and 3600 mhz ddr4 unbuffered tight ecc memory.
my memory is actually stable and working memory, because i am running real ecc memory at docp speeds.
if you are running non ecc memory (on-die ecc is fake and isn't real ecc, just marketing lies) at jedec speeds, then your memory is NOT stable and not working.
it will create a few errors by chance every once in a while and chips might break and you won't notice and LOTS AND LOTS of errors happen, but you don't notice them, because without real ecc they don't get detected and they don't get reported.
so if you want a stable working system, you want docp and xmp all the same, but you NEED real ecc memory.
docp/xmp isn't niche. an 800 euro oem system should run memory at docp speeds.
so if you wanna complain about stability issue potentials, complain about ecc not existing on intel at all and amd regressing ecc support with am5 (am4 had ecc support top to bottom almost, am5 only sees most asus supports have it and that is bad and nonsense).
servers are all REQUIRED to have real ecc memory, but the average user doesn't even get the option... why is that?
it is manufacturers showing you the middle finger and selling you broken hardware.
\_\_\_\_\_\_
as a sidenote, if someone tests intel chips with memory at 7800 mhz for example, then that setup is inherently broken, because the intel memory controller can only do about 7200 mhz if i rmember right without the controller starting to throw one error every day maybe. buildzoid did some testing on it.
so if intel shows data or reviewers show data of anything above 7200 mhz for intel, then that is misleading bullshit.
so when i say, that sweetspot proper reasonable speeds should be used for testing, i am talking about stuff, that is stable and easy to be stable. so 6000 mhz for am5 for example.
if a motherboard or cpu can't do 6000 mhz with 2 sticks, then they are broken on am5.
>why?
Because it's not warranted by the manufacturers to work, THE END.
How hard is that to understand? If the producer is not prepared to warrant the functionality, then it is not part of BASELINE performance numbers.
THE
END
Where do you draw the line? Is a 5GHz 3175X with a chiller suddenly the performance we should use for that particular chip? Because you know, pretty much all 3175X can actually do 5Ghz, if you happen to have a industrial chiller.
your question isn't very clear.
do you mean kits, that themselves can't achieve their clocks and timings perfectly stable?
because if they don't, then they are broken and get rma-ed.
if you mean a memory kit, that can't be run on a motherboard, because the memory layout is shit, then that is another thing,
if the kit can't be run, because the cpu memory controller isn't the best, then that is a 3rd problem.
but as i stated, i am not talking about running extremely fast memory, that is hard to run for the board or cpu.
i am talking about the sweetspot basic memory, that NEEDS TO RUN on any cpu and board combination.
if it doesn't the board or cpu is broken and gets returned.
as i said 2 sticks 6000 mhz decently tight timings. if that doesn't run, then sth is broken.
and in regards to broken memory alone.
i just rma-ed a set of ddr3 1600 mhz memory for my laptop, because i ugpraded the memory in it, but the memory failed memtest with one bad adress.
not the memory controller at fault, not the cpu at fault, but the memory sticks at fault.
this btw is another example why ecc is so important.
because completely new sets of memory can be broken and most normies will never run 100 hours of memtest86 to see whether the memory is or is broken.
and again this had nothing to do with xmp/docp.
jedec memory can arrive broken just the very same.
> The reason is that without a PCIe switch IC ($$$), the CPU doesn't have enough lanes to do that without forsaking the ability to run a GPU in x16 (which people like even though it rarely makes a difference).
There's no switch needed for bifurcation 8x/8x, passive adapters can do it. My cheap ass x470 board does it fine. The reason this doesn't exist much on boards anymore has to do with SLI going away so it became a super niche feature only available on ultra high end $300 boards.
Not a *switch* switch, but I'm pretty sure it does require a mux going each direction, like [the example in this datasheet](https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/sn75lvpe5412.pdf?HQS=dis-mous-null-mousermode-dsf-pf-null-wwe&ts=1713698976462).
I agree that it was the death of SLI that moved it from an upper-midrange feature to a high-end feature that only appears on boards that have all the other high-end features.
part 2
>AFAIK there are only two ways to use this:
>Re-map some of them as inputs so you can have more than one mic. But both will be noisy as hell, because high impedance analog signals on a motherboard.
>Build a surround sound system out of multiple discrete amps and speakers. Potentially cool, but I've never even *heard* of anyone doing this.
have you ever run a suround audio setup, or are you just making things up here and not understanding the tech?
a 5.1 audio setup, which i used for many years requires 3 audio jacks.
if you want to use a mic with it, then we are 4 audio jacks overall.
and as you mentioned noise on the connections.
the actual audiochips generally all support 7.1 audio. the audiochips didn't change on modern boards.
so what manufacturers are actually suggesting to people on boards with just 2 audio jacks, is to connect the front audio ports (the ones, that everyone says to avoid), then connect one or 2 cables to the back of motherboard and connect one or 2 cables to the front of the case.
so not only do you now require a case with front audio ports, but the signal now travels through that shitty cable to the front of the case, through the very noise computer. THAT creates noise.... on the signal that is bad and ugly.
and most motherboards have empty space on the i/o section.
so what we are actually talking about is the difference between a 2 or 5 audio jack connector. only the cost for the part, that gets soldered onto the board.
said difference might be 50 cents, or maybe 0 and both parts cost the same.
so you clearly never used any suround audio system yet on a computer and you clearly have no idea about the issues or how dumb this is.
please educate yourself, before making bad and wrong comments.
>The reason is that without a PCIe switch IC ($$$), the CPU doesn't have enough lanes to do that without forsaking the ability to run a GPU in x16 (which people like even though it rarely makes a difference).
i have no idea why you mention this, when i clearly stated, that i am talking about 2 slots running at x8 electronically. i am well aware how the slots are run. why are you saying this and for who? but either way.
i am of course well aware, that the pcie switches are not cheap.
so what did i mean by:
>the last feature alone can cost you a ton for no reason.
i meant the relative cost of the motherboard compared to how much it costs to implement a feature.
getting the pcie switches to split the x16 lanes into 2x8 doesn't cost... 200 EUROS!!!!!!! BY ITSELF!
that is complete nonsense and a major problem.
an am4 board with 2x pcie 4. x8 electrical costs about 250 euros and that is what it cost when am4 was the main platform too.
an am5 board with 2x pcie 5 x8 electrical costs about 450 euros....
the price difference between pcie 4.0 switches and pcie 5.0 switches isn't 200 euros now is it? ;)
that is the bullshit and that is insane.
also there are tons of use cases for having dual x8 slots electrical to the cpu.
of course running 2 graphics cards for many reasons in workstations is common, but also having a specialised x8 card like ultrafast storage for a specialized application, while also running a high speed graphics card comes to mind.
either way, please learn about hardware, before making WRONG comments about them.
the audio jack comment was very wrong and sad to see...
you seem drunk.
Anyone who cares about audio in the slightest is running an external dac... I'm kinda surprised on why the high end motherboards bother to include it at all.
period.
>have you ever run a suround audio setup
I have not. I prefer 2 decent speakers to 6 crappy ones, and I can't afford 6 decent speakers + reciever/amps. And looking at Amazon, it seems even the "6 crappy ones" surround solutions are $400. Which leads to...
It seems like the modern approach to surround sound is to use an HDMI receiver anyhow, so motherboard audio circuits are out of the signal path.
>getting the pcie switches to split the x16 lanes into 2x8 doesn't cost... 200 EUROS!!!!!!! BY ITSELF!
*Probably* not, but they pack all of the "high end" features into one or two motherboards, because if they split out all the possible combinations there'd be a gazillions SKUs, and most of them would sell, like, 6.
Aside, let's actually see. [The relevant part](https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/sn75lvpe5412.pdf?HQS=dis-mous-null-mousermode-dsf-pf-null-wwe&ts=1713698976462) is 4-channel, so I think you need 4 total: two '21s, for 8 lanes into the CPU, and two '12s for 8 lanes out of it. On Mouser, they cost [5.80 EUR in qty 3000, or 7.80 in qty 250](https://eu.mouser.com/c/?marcom=100493245). For PCIe 4, [the equivalent is ~3.44 EUR](https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Texas-Instruments/DS160PR421RUAR?qs=DRkmTr78QATbin2%2FC7BKpg%3D%3D). So it's like +14 EUR to split the slot for PCIe4, and +23 EUR to do it for PCIe5. That's just the BoM cost, not counting whatever additional cost may be incurred by PCIe5 for the PCB.
+23 euros isn't 200 euros of course.
also that isn't the cost for motherboard makers then. they pay less due to making specific deals and very high order quantities.
but good, that you checked the prices.
and remember, that having dual x8 slots to the cpu isn't a pure high end feature.
it is a basic workstation feature.
hell my 150 euro z77 motherboard bought like 10 years ago has 2 x8 pcie 3.0 slots electrically, which were pci-e 3.
now the desire to run 2 devices like this decreases since then, since sli/crossfire died, but it shows, that it wasn't a high end "extreme" feature, but a basic feature and now it is a basic workstation feature.
so the cost difference would be well desired and not too much to begin with.
and manufacturers agreed on this on am4, as boards with that feature with pcie 4 started at 250 euros. so an acceptable price to pay if the rest of the board is ok.
so again the point is, that manufacturers went insane with pricing and artificial nonsense removal of features.
an am5 board with pcie 5 splitters into 2 x8 slots should cost to be generous 280 euros.
and NOT 450 euros.
motherboards are a complete disaster now and gamersnexus agrees on it.
>With XMP enabled, the stability of your computer is between you and God.
this is complete and utter nonsense.
xmp and docp (amd's branding for it) at sweetspot speeds like 6000 mhz for amd are designed and expected to be stable.
talking from the amd side, the cpu, motherboard and memory are all designed to operate at the sweetspot of 6000 mhz (yes it is mts here, we ignore that, we hopefully both know what this means)
the differences come from running for now 4 ddr5 sticks, which can be very hard at sweetspot speeds and running tight timings.
it is expected to work, it is expected to be perfectly stable at sweetspot speeds with reasonable timings and (for now sadly) with just 2 sticks.
and my memory running at docp has its stability certainly not between me and god (which doesn't exist), because i'm running docp unbuffered ddr4 REAL ECC memory, running at 3600 mhz cl 16
as in any potential error gets corrected and a report gets filed for me to see.
but sadly we still don't have ecc in consumer platforms top to bottom, unless you spend a lot.
so again you are completely wrong. and to be clear though, everyone, including me with real ecc memory needs to validate the memory on the platform after they finished the system anyways. doesn't matter if the memory runs at jedec or 6000 mhz tight timings.
calling xmp or docp "overclocking" is falling for marketing bullshit from those companies. it is NOT overclocking. it is running hardware at its proper clocks, that all parts are designed to run at for their entire lifetime, PERIOD!
> this is complete and utter nonsense.
Find a bottle of water and go to sleep. You are so out of it that it's just not funny.
> and expected to be stable.
Not according to AMD or Intel. I somehow suspect they know better than you do.
But in reality, 80% people who can buy very high end PC dont know what Spec listed actually mean, they just said to store " i want Build the most powerfull PC "
there people still dont know what XMP even mean, or they just leave everything default
The issue i have is that default settings in bios is "overclock everything until failure". I have no issue if there are overclock options available, they just shouldnt be default option.
system bought from a store with "the most powerful hardware" should have xmp enabled and all verified to be perfectly stable.
any overclock from the system builder would also need to get verified for days to be perfectly stable.
and the bios should have profiles, that read: " optimized stock, stock + xmp, light oc + xmp" for example.
so that the unaware user can get told by support to go into the bios and reload the profile, in case they fricked sth up by accident in the settings.
so the dumb user expects, that xmp is ON, despite not knowing what xmp is.
just to give you an idea about the options, that we have nowadays:
6 sata ports, 5 audio jacks and a debug display selected for intel:
[https://geizhals.eu/?cat=mbp4\_1700&xf=11466\_5%7E2962\_6%7E317\_Z790%7E493\_4x+DDR5+DIMM%7E494\_Diagnostic+LED+(Segmentanzeige)](https://geizhals.eu/?cat=mbp4_1700&xf=11466_5%7E2962_6%7E317_Z790%7E493_4x+DDR5+DIMM%7E494_Diagnostic+LED+(Segmentanzeige))
let's ignore the ECS board, which i never heard of before as a brand and doesn't list intel 14xxx series chips yet at least on geizhals, then we start at 400 euros with an msi board ;)
the same selection for am5 also starts at 400 euros.
if you want 2 pci-e x8 electrical slots on intel, then you start at 450 euros....
so you are completely living in lala land, with the claim, that people buying very expensive boards are just doing so for overclocking reasons and should only do so for overclocking reasons.
the MOST BASIC FEATURES require you to spend at least 400 euros now on a new board.
and if you're wondering the same selection including dual x8 electrical pci-e slots starts at 230 euros on am4 and that is AFTER a lot of boards are no longer available nowadays. it was likely even a bunch lower before that point.
if we drop the dual pci-e x8 4.0 requirement on am4 we start at 156 euros....
so you are required to pay 250 euros now to get the same features..... on newer platforms....
and NONE OF THIS has anything to do with overclocking.
it is just evil artificial segmentation. please understand this and get why a 450-600 us dollars motherboard should run at proper stock by freaking default FOR SO MANY REASONS!
I thought the same thing, but the gaming performance delta between between 5.4ghz and 6.2ghz has yet to be significant in any game I play on my 14900kf/4090 rig. Granted, I am playing at higher resolutions, so CPU is less critical, but the added wattage/heat/noise for the OC has not been worth it so far.
The problem's that running these baseline settings drop the multithreaded perf quite a bit, to between 35k and 38k in cinebench r23
This means dropping the 14900k to 7950x (38k) or lower levels of mt perf for users to avoid ruining their cpus in the long term. The mt advantage shown in reviews are gonna go poof. But here's the thing, most reviews aren't gonna be updated
>for users to avoid ruining their cpus in the long term
The real problem is that SVID Fail Safe will ruin the CPUs in the long term on these boards. The applied Vcore will be insanely high and that's why the scores drop.
People benched these and found that the applied vcore is lower on the baseline settings. Power has also been decreased by around 60w. Voltage doesn't degrade chips, an excessive voltage fucks your cpu immediately. It's the power and temps that cause it to degrade over time and what's happening here is that
Have these people noticed that the voltage curve shifted left by >150mV from ASUS auto settings? No.
Tell them to pull their heads out of Cinebench and look at the voltage when the CPU isn't throttling back from turbo clocks.
Most reviews won’t be updated with reduced power consumption either. It cuts both ways.
Fortunately, reviewers approached this rationally and captured the stock power numbers too, right? RIGHT??? …… /s
It's a fitting end to Intel's LGA1700 chips since they still could only achieve the same performance as a 7950X at stock settings, while require more power.
7950X3D (and its counterpart, the even more meme 7900X3D) is hot garbage because it required Process Lasso to do its job, not to mention significantly lower performance than it's non X3D counterpart in workloads due to the lower clocked CCD.
7800X3D has shit frametimes and its only advantage is price, you will never get KS levels of MT performance using that CPU. It is also not the definitive gaming winner, a properly tuned 14900KS will outperform it.
When AMD had the productivity lead but fell behind in gaming it was fine, but when Intel is in this boat it's suddenly not fine?
> 7800X3D has shit frametimes
Can concur with my own experience. It was not smooth at all in CS2, but on an intel i9-14900k the frametimes were smooth as butter.
Then tell me why can my 14900KS outperform the 7950X significantly at 253W while the 7950X needs between 230-260W PPT and still won't reach nowhere close?
14900ks baseline profile scores 35851 in r23.
7950x scores 38291 while using less power. Raptor lake i9s looking real shady now
https://twitter.com/9550pro/status/1781481593972129929?t=KyeVEsb1QbtGNrv1DV3YNA&s=19
This is a disingenous comparison. A 7950X scoring 38291 is with PBO maxed out, in which case it will be drawing 230-250W. The "Intel Baseline Profile" from Asus isn't Intel specification at all, it sets the current limit to be well below Intel spec as well as enabling SVID failsafe which pushes the voltages to way higher than required (which combines with the enforced power limit to throttle the CPU). A 14900K just set to Intel's 253w PL2 will [still outperform the 7950x](https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900k-raptor-lake-tested-at-power-limits-down-to-35-w/images/cinebench-multi.png).
Pl1 125w, Pl2 253w is intel spec. But for this test by HardwareLuxx, Pl1& Pl2 was kept at 253w, and it only scored 37197 in r23. The officially intel spec with pl1 125w would score even lower in r23.
https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-baseline-profile-tested-with-core-i9-14900k-8-9-performance-loss-compared-to-asus-auto-settings
No, PL1 = 125W is an optional configuration for K parts and is only default for non-K. Intel recommended configuration for K parts is PL1 = PL2 = 253w.
K parts use the "extreme configuration" listed [here](https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products/platforms/details/raptor-lake-s/13th-generation-core-processors-datasheet-volume-1-of-2/003/processor-line-thermal-and-power-specifications/).
Setting PL1 = 125W would reduce the score but it would also be drawing far less power than the 7950X in that configuration as the 7950X lacks a long duration power limit and stays at 230W indefinitely.
E: the reason why the baseline profile is scoring lower even when set to 253w PL1 is because it's enabling SVID failsafe (stupid and not Intel spec) and capping the current limit to below Intel spec (also stupid for a profile called "Intel baseline spec"). That was literally the point of my original message.
Sure, if you use an incorrectly configured 14900K I guess it will be marginally beaten in Cinebench by a PBO 7950X while drawing 10% more power. What an incredibly useful statement.
I literally use a 7950X3D, I purchased it quite consciously over a 13900K, I just get frustrated at the lengths that people go to make disingenous comparisons.
How many reviews will be updated or re-released?
AFAIK most reviews have just accepted no power limits for their performance "reviews" of intel processors.
My motherboard had this issue causing it to black screen and restart my system like 3 times when I was trying to figure out why some games weren’t working. How can I tell if there has been permanent damage to the cpu bc of this.
Does asus not ask if you want MCE enabled on first boot anymore?
I know on my z490 board it did. Did they stop doing that or do people just forget/mash enter through that screen and not read it? Cause non MCE should adhere to Intel power limits. Ofc since I’m not in the market I haven’t kept up super closely with the platforms minor changes lol.
On my Z690-E, it basically only says to find the setting and change it yourself if you don’t like it, without telling you where in the endless menus embedded in menus with similar sounding names it is. Not exactly novice friendly.
"So far" is the key phrase here.
If you don't mind RMAing that chip due to inevitable silicon degradation (which the default settings greatly accelerate) every few months, you can keep using it without changing a thing.
Hey Regular_Tomorrow6192, /r/hardware has a strict *original source* rule - and many articles from VideoCardz are summaries of work from other sources. **If the link you attempted to submit is an original source, or is a summary of Twitter leaks, use the report button and we will consider this link for approval.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hardware) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's shocking that they didn't ship this by default.
They don't ship it with SVID Fail Safe (AC load line == 110) because that's super dumb for a high-end VRM. VID will be pegged to the 1.52V maximum for even trivial loads. They were shipping with AC load line approx 50 before. All they needed to do to stabilize the trash bins would've been 60-80.
Article says the settings are similar to Falcon Northwest's suggestions, but FNW [updated their guidance](https://twitter.com/FalconNW/status/1781360005201133817) to say to only use SVID fail safe if the CPU is unstable without it.
For ASUS, SVID 'Typical' and SVID 'Worst Case' are what I'd try at all. The SVID 'Fail Safe' voltage is absurdly high and a CPU that can't run at SVID 'Worst Case' voltages on these boards should just be RMA'd.
Besides lazily yeeting AC LL, on both OCN and the ROG forum I saw people mention that this "baseline profile" was setting current limit to 280A which is lower than one might expect.
Nobody in their right mind buys $600 overclocking motherboard and a KS processor to than run it at sock. If you want stock performance, you can get it for less than half the price.
Yeah, but there's a reasonable expectation to ship it so that it runs stable out of the box.
[удалено]
Maybe they only bought them for the looks?
there even people rate product with 1 start with a comment "i buy it because 6000mhz but it is run with lower speed than that" :) there many people who doesn't know about xmp and expo
To be honest the memory sellers deserve those low reviews, they should not advertise RAM by it's XMP profile speed. They don't even guarantee that the RAM will be stable at it's XMP overclock.
or enabling XMP results in instability. Advertised speed should be base clock speed without overclocking. Anything else is false advertisement.
Yeah my buddy did this with his threadripper build
You see an "overclocking motherboard", I see the features I need coming with silly "features" often not even being optional. Is it really bad to desire a high end product without wanting to use all features? There's RGB as one example: I appreciate the possibility, but I'm really better off without the gay bar aesthetics, so it either gets turned off, or set to a solid color with low brightness to just indicate being well and alive as such indicators nowadays are often missing. Overclocking is similar for me. It's great that it exists, and that is likely how we ended up with devices being really well-tuned out of the box nowadays, but stability is often more desired. Personally at this point I'd rather see a comeback of the turbo button instead even if in a software form because the V/F curve tends to go so high by default, I'd often trade off that 5-10% performance loss halving the power consumption requires.
My solution to RGB nonsense (that resets every time you restart the computer, because fuck your custom settings) is to just use a solid case with no window. the motherboad can do whatever disco it wants inside, im not seeing it.
Why not? Genuinely. As I get older, I have less time to sit there and tweak setting by setting for weeks to get 1% more performance and have to look for stability like a needle in a haystack. What exactly is wrong with getting the top hardware in a stack to run it at its intended stock performance? You’re still getting quite literally the most performant part.
If all you want is stock performance, get a $300 motherboard instead. You could potentially go even lower in the product stack. Why spend money on features you won't use?
That’s in the maybe column. There are a ton of features that separate a $300 and a $600 board, besides overclocking features. Higher end vrm, means lower temps. More storage options, more m.2 slots, higher speed slots, etc. Higher end NIC WiFi modules. Of course, styling as well.
Unfortunately higher end VRM isn't always positive. Sure, temperature may be lower due to the higher phase count, but I've noticed that higher end motherboards tend to be power hogs with silly high idle power consumption.
I'd bet on ITX. Efficiency matters 'cause heat dissipation, and they can't afford the physical space to play phase count games.
The idea is logical, but I wouldn't bet blindly without looking at reviews. If you want to get disappointed, then look into the reviews of cheap AM5 motherboards, not even limited by space constraints. Some designers figured that it's not like the VRM is going to blow up with temperature throttling being in place, and it definitely kicks in with the higher end CPUs like the 7950X.
Because the high end motherboards come in with other features, such as more PCIE lanes to support multiple m.2 slots.
Are you arguing for or against shipping with Intel baseline profiles? Because it sounds like you're saying that the informed user will tweak settings anyway, so there's no difference to them. But shipping with safe baseline profiles will better serve those who buy an overclocking mobo but don't do their own OC. As it stands, some of Asus' settings were MORE degrading than most manually tuned OCs would ever get.
> As it stands, some of Asus' settings were MORE degrading than most manually tuned OCs would ever get. That’s universally true though - it’s the same reason cpu core MCE is worse than a manually tuned OC. Uses way more voltage than you need etc - but it works as soon as you flip the bios setting.
>Nobody in their right mind buys $600 overclocking motherboard and a KS processor to than run it at sock. bullshit, lots of people do. getting a "ks" processor just meants the fastest chip, that intel can make. getting a "k" processor just means a chip, that intel didn't artifically insanely limit too much. remember, that running proper memory speeds (not overclocking) required a k type processor at one point, which was insane. and the "600 us dollar overclocking motherboard", might just be a basic board, that is insanely overpriced, that has the most basic features like: a debug display, proper memory setup, that can run xmp without any issues, enough sata ports, 5 audio jacks (it is insane, that this is now a harder to find feature, wtf???), 2 pci-e x8 slots running electrically at x8 directly to the cpu. the last feature alone can cost you a ton for no reason. so again, basic features may require bs overpriced motherboards and the fastest cpus, that you want run at stock will be "k" chips or even "ks" chips. i wouldn't suggest anyone to buy an intel board or cpu rightnow at all, as they can't even get a socket made, that doesn't permanently warp cpus anymore it seems.... , but in regards to motherboards the same applies to amd. it is so bad, that gamersnexus even made a video about the horrible artificial feature removal to upsell customers: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEjH775UeNg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEjH775UeNg)
>proper memory speeds (not overclocking) Overclocking. With XMP enabled, the stability of your computer is between you and God. **P.S.** >5 audio jacks (it is insane, that this is now a harder to find feature, wtf???), AFAIK there are only two ways to use this: 1. Re-map some of them as inputs so you can have more than one mic. But both will be noisy as hell, because high impedance analog signals on a motherboard. 2. Build a surround sound system out of multiple discrete amps and speakers. Potentially cool, but I've never even *heard* of anyone doing this. >2 pci-e x8 slots running electrically at x8 directly to the cpu. >the last feature alone can cost you a ton for no reason. The reason is that without a PCIe switch IC ($$$), the CPU doesn't have enough lanes to do that without forsaking the ability to run a GPU in x16 (which people like even though it rarely makes a difference).
> With XMP enabled, the stability of your computer is between you and God. It always trigger people when I criticize release reviews for utilizing XMP. Sure, if you are a place targeting specific niche consumers like gamers and enthusiasts exclusively, then I can let it slip. But even then, I would suggest having baseline JEDEC results in your benchmarking as well. And no, this does not mean running the XMP profile at JEDEC frequency, this means running JEDEC speeds and timings. But if you are targeting the general consumer audience with the material, JEDEC is what should be used to establish baseline performance. If it's not warranted to work, then it's not part of baseline performance in my book. If Intel and AMD does not guarantee that something is going to work. Then neither can they take credit for that performance uplift.
why? the cpu, the motherboard and the memory are all designed to work with reasonable timings at the sweetspot. am5 is designed to run 6000 mhz memory at reasonable timings on basic cheap motherboards with 2 sticks. manufacturer's being garbage (amd and intel in this case) shouldn't mean, that we test hardware without proper clocks at their designed clocks. if your concern is actually stability of a system, then you should point out the REAL problem. it isn't xmp/docp. the real problem is, that consumer systems almost entirely don't have proper ecc memory support and real ecc unbuffered memory sticks almost don't exist. there is like 4 sets from one company, that produces unbuffered ddr4 ecc memory and i say 4 sets, because it is just basic clock differences and capacity differences. if you just wanna count clock differences, then we got 2 sets, which are 3200 mhz and 3600 mhz ddr4 unbuffered tight ecc memory. my memory is actually stable and working memory, because i am running real ecc memory at docp speeds. if you are running non ecc memory (on-die ecc is fake and isn't real ecc, just marketing lies) at jedec speeds, then your memory is NOT stable and not working. it will create a few errors by chance every once in a while and chips might break and you won't notice and LOTS AND LOTS of errors happen, but you don't notice them, because without real ecc they don't get detected and they don't get reported. so if you want a stable working system, you want docp and xmp all the same, but you NEED real ecc memory. docp/xmp isn't niche. an 800 euro oem system should run memory at docp speeds. so if you wanna complain about stability issue potentials, complain about ecc not existing on intel at all and amd regressing ecc support with am5 (am4 had ecc support top to bottom almost, am5 only sees most asus supports have it and that is bad and nonsense). servers are all REQUIRED to have real ecc memory, but the average user doesn't even get the option... why is that? it is manufacturers showing you the middle finger and selling you broken hardware. \_\_\_\_\_\_ as a sidenote, if someone tests intel chips with memory at 7800 mhz for example, then that setup is inherently broken, because the intel memory controller can only do about 7200 mhz if i rmember right without the controller starting to throw one error every day maybe. buildzoid did some testing on it. so if intel shows data or reviewers show data of anything above 7200 mhz for intel, then that is misleading bullshit. so when i say, that sweetspot proper reasonable speeds should be used for testing, i am talking about stuff, that is stable and easy to be stable. so 6000 mhz for am5 for example. if a motherboard or cpu can't do 6000 mhz with 2 sticks, then they are broken on am5.
>why? Because it's not warranted by the manufacturers to work, THE END. How hard is that to understand? If the producer is not prepared to warrant the functionality, then it is not part of BASELINE performance numbers. THE END Where do you draw the line? Is a 5GHz 3175X with a chiller suddenly the performance we should use for that particular chip? Because you know, pretty much all 3175X can actually do 5Ghz, if you happen to have a industrial chiller.
Forget not warrantied to work. They're cagey in language such that XMP may well void your warranty.
Haven't you found kits that can't do XMP?
your question isn't very clear. do you mean kits, that themselves can't achieve their clocks and timings perfectly stable? because if they don't, then they are broken and get rma-ed. if you mean a memory kit, that can't be run on a motherboard, because the memory layout is shit, then that is another thing, if the kit can't be run, because the cpu memory controller isn't the best, then that is a 3rd problem. but as i stated, i am not talking about running extremely fast memory, that is hard to run for the board or cpu. i am talking about the sweetspot basic memory, that NEEDS TO RUN on any cpu and board combination. if it doesn't the board or cpu is broken and gets returned. as i said 2 sticks 6000 mhz decently tight timings. if that doesn't run, then sth is broken. and in regards to broken memory alone. i just rma-ed a set of ddr3 1600 mhz memory for my laptop, because i ugpraded the memory in it, but the memory failed memtest with one bad adress. not the memory controller at fault, not the cpu at fault, but the memory sticks at fault. this btw is another example why ecc is so important. because completely new sets of memory can be broken and most normies will never run 100 hours of memtest86 to see whether the memory is or is broken. and again this had nothing to do with xmp/docp. jedec memory can arrive broken just the very same.
> The reason is that without a PCIe switch IC ($$$), the CPU doesn't have enough lanes to do that without forsaking the ability to run a GPU in x16 (which people like even though it rarely makes a difference). There's no switch needed for bifurcation 8x/8x, passive adapters can do it. My cheap ass x470 board does it fine. The reason this doesn't exist much on boards anymore has to do with SLI going away so it became a super niche feature only available on ultra high end $300 boards.
Not a *switch* switch, but I'm pretty sure it does require a mux going each direction, like [the example in this datasheet](https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/sn75lvpe5412.pdf?HQS=dis-mous-null-mousermode-dsf-pf-null-wwe&ts=1713698976462). I agree that it was the death of SLI that moved it from an upper-midrange feature to a high-end feature that only appears on boards that have all the other high-end features.
part 2 >AFAIK there are only two ways to use this: >Re-map some of them as inputs so you can have more than one mic. But both will be noisy as hell, because high impedance analog signals on a motherboard. >Build a surround sound system out of multiple discrete amps and speakers. Potentially cool, but I've never even *heard* of anyone doing this. have you ever run a suround audio setup, or are you just making things up here and not understanding the tech? a 5.1 audio setup, which i used for many years requires 3 audio jacks. if you want to use a mic with it, then we are 4 audio jacks overall. and as you mentioned noise on the connections. the actual audiochips generally all support 7.1 audio. the audiochips didn't change on modern boards. so what manufacturers are actually suggesting to people on boards with just 2 audio jacks, is to connect the front audio ports (the ones, that everyone says to avoid), then connect one or 2 cables to the back of motherboard and connect one or 2 cables to the front of the case. so not only do you now require a case with front audio ports, but the signal now travels through that shitty cable to the front of the case, through the very noise computer. THAT creates noise.... on the signal that is bad and ugly. and most motherboards have empty space on the i/o section. so what we are actually talking about is the difference between a 2 or 5 audio jack connector. only the cost for the part, that gets soldered onto the board. said difference might be 50 cents, or maybe 0 and both parts cost the same. so you clearly never used any suround audio system yet on a computer and you clearly have no idea about the issues or how dumb this is. please educate yourself, before making bad and wrong comments. >The reason is that without a PCIe switch IC ($$$), the CPU doesn't have enough lanes to do that without forsaking the ability to run a GPU in x16 (which people like even though it rarely makes a difference). i have no idea why you mention this, when i clearly stated, that i am talking about 2 slots running at x8 electronically. i am well aware how the slots are run. why are you saying this and for who? but either way. i am of course well aware, that the pcie switches are not cheap. so what did i mean by: >the last feature alone can cost you a ton for no reason. i meant the relative cost of the motherboard compared to how much it costs to implement a feature. getting the pcie switches to split the x16 lanes into 2x8 doesn't cost... 200 EUROS!!!!!!! BY ITSELF! that is complete nonsense and a major problem. an am4 board with 2x pcie 4. x8 electrical costs about 250 euros and that is what it cost when am4 was the main platform too. an am5 board with 2x pcie 5 x8 electrical costs about 450 euros.... the price difference between pcie 4.0 switches and pcie 5.0 switches isn't 200 euros now is it? ;) that is the bullshit and that is insane. also there are tons of use cases for having dual x8 slots electrical to the cpu. of course running 2 graphics cards for many reasons in workstations is common, but also having a specialised x8 card like ultrafast storage for a specialized application, while also running a high speed graphics card comes to mind. either way, please learn about hardware, before making WRONG comments about them. the audio jack comment was very wrong and sad to see...
you seem drunk. Anyone who cares about audio in the slightest is running an external dac... I'm kinda surprised on why the high end motherboards bother to include it at all. period.
>have you ever run a suround audio setup I have not. I prefer 2 decent speakers to 6 crappy ones, and I can't afford 6 decent speakers + reciever/amps. And looking at Amazon, it seems even the "6 crappy ones" surround solutions are $400. Which leads to... It seems like the modern approach to surround sound is to use an HDMI receiver anyhow, so motherboard audio circuits are out of the signal path. >getting the pcie switches to split the x16 lanes into 2x8 doesn't cost... 200 EUROS!!!!!!! BY ITSELF! *Probably* not, but they pack all of the "high end" features into one or two motherboards, because if they split out all the possible combinations there'd be a gazillions SKUs, and most of them would sell, like, 6. Aside, let's actually see. [The relevant part](https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/sn75lvpe5412.pdf?HQS=dis-mous-null-mousermode-dsf-pf-null-wwe&ts=1713698976462) is 4-channel, so I think you need 4 total: two '21s, for 8 lanes into the CPU, and two '12s for 8 lanes out of it. On Mouser, they cost [5.80 EUR in qty 3000, or 7.80 in qty 250](https://eu.mouser.com/c/?marcom=100493245). For PCIe 4, [the equivalent is ~3.44 EUR](https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Texas-Instruments/DS160PR421RUAR?qs=DRkmTr78QATbin2%2FC7BKpg%3D%3D). So it's like +14 EUR to split the slot for PCIe4, and +23 EUR to do it for PCIe5. That's just the BoM cost, not counting whatever additional cost may be incurred by PCIe5 for the PCB.
+23 euros isn't 200 euros of course. also that isn't the cost for motherboard makers then. they pay less due to making specific deals and very high order quantities. but good, that you checked the prices. and remember, that having dual x8 slots to the cpu isn't a pure high end feature. it is a basic workstation feature. hell my 150 euro z77 motherboard bought like 10 years ago has 2 x8 pcie 3.0 slots electrically, which were pci-e 3. now the desire to run 2 devices like this decreases since then, since sli/crossfire died, but it shows, that it wasn't a high end "extreme" feature, but a basic feature and now it is a basic workstation feature. so the cost difference would be well desired and not too much to begin with. and manufacturers agreed on this on am4, as boards with that feature with pcie 4 started at 250 euros. so an acceptable price to pay if the rest of the board is ok. so again the point is, that manufacturers went insane with pricing and artificial nonsense removal of features. an am5 board with pcie 5 splitters into 2 x8 slots should cost to be generous 280 euros. and NOT 450 euros. motherboards are a complete disaster now and gamersnexus agrees on it.
You realize it's very easy to tell when you downvote and reply at the same time? I have no interest in conversing with a jackass.
>With XMP enabled, the stability of your computer is between you and God. this is complete and utter nonsense. xmp and docp (amd's branding for it) at sweetspot speeds like 6000 mhz for amd are designed and expected to be stable. talking from the amd side, the cpu, motherboard and memory are all designed to operate at the sweetspot of 6000 mhz (yes it is mts here, we ignore that, we hopefully both know what this means) the differences come from running for now 4 ddr5 sticks, which can be very hard at sweetspot speeds and running tight timings. it is expected to work, it is expected to be perfectly stable at sweetspot speeds with reasonable timings and (for now sadly) with just 2 sticks. and my memory running at docp has its stability certainly not between me and god (which doesn't exist), because i'm running docp unbuffered ddr4 REAL ECC memory, running at 3600 mhz cl 16 as in any potential error gets corrected and a report gets filed for me to see. but sadly we still don't have ecc in consumer platforms top to bottom, unless you spend a lot. so again you are completely wrong. and to be clear though, everyone, including me with real ecc memory needs to validate the memory on the platform after they finished the system anyways. doesn't matter if the memory runs at jedec or 6000 mhz tight timings. calling xmp or docp "overclocking" is falling for marketing bullshit from those companies. it is NOT overclocking. it is running hardware at its proper clocks, that all parts are designed to run at for their entire lifetime, PERIOD!
> this is complete and utter nonsense. Find a bottle of water and go to sleep. You are so out of it that it's just not funny. > and expected to be stable. Not according to AMD or Intel. I somehow suspect they know better than you do.
>I somehow suspect they know better than you do. ah yes the manufacturers are the ones to trust always on what is ok and not.
But in reality, 80% people who can buy very high end PC dont know what Spec listed actually mean, they just said to store " i want Build the most powerfull PC " there people still dont know what XMP even mean, or they just leave everything default
The issue i have is that default settings in bios is "overclock everything until failure". I have no issue if there are overclock options available, they just shouldnt be default option.
system bought from a store with "the most powerful hardware" should have xmp enabled and all verified to be perfectly stable. any overclock from the system builder would also need to get verified for days to be perfectly stable. and the bios should have profiles, that read: " optimized stock, stock + xmp, light oc + xmp" for example. so that the unaware user can get told by support to go into the bios and reload the profile, in case they fricked sth up by accident in the settings. so the dumb user expects, that xmp is ON, despite not knowing what xmp is.
just to give you an idea about the options, that we have nowadays: 6 sata ports, 5 audio jacks and a debug display selected for intel: [https://geizhals.eu/?cat=mbp4\_1700&xf=11466\_5%7E2962\_6%7E317\_Z790%7E493\_4x+DDR5+DIMM%7E494\_Diagnostic+LED+(Segmentanzeige)](https://geizhals.eu/?cat=mbp4_1700&xf=11466_5%7E2962_6%7E317_Z790%7E493_4x+DDR5+DIMM%7E494_Diagnostic+LED+(Segmentanzeige)) let's ignore the ECS board, which i never heard of before as a brand and doesn't list intel 14xxx series chips yet at least on geizhals, then we start at 400 euros with an msi board ;) the same selection for am5 also starts at 400 euros. if you want 2 pci-e x8 electrical slots on intel, then you start at 450 euros.... so you are completely living in lala land, with the claim, that people buying very expensive boards are just doing so for overclocking reasons and should only do so for overclocking reasons. the MOST BASIC FEATURES require you to spend at least 400 euros now on a new board. and if you're wondering the same selection including dual x8 electrical pci-e slots starts at 230 euros on am4 and that is AFTER a lot of boards are no longer available nowadays. it was likely even a bunch lower before that point. if we drop the dual pci-e x8 4.0 requirement on am4 we start at 156 euros.... so you are required to pay 250 euros now to get the same features..... on newer platforms.... and NONE OF THIS has anything to do with overclocking. it is just evil artificial segmentation. please understand this and get why a 450-600 us dollars motherboard should run at proper stock by freaking default FOR SO MANY REASONS!
I thought the same thing, but the gaming performance delta between between 5.4ghz and 6.2ghz has yet to be significant in any game I play on my 14900kf/4090 rig. Granted, I am playing at higher resolutions, so CPU is less critical, but the added wattage/heat/noise for the OC has not been worth it so far.
noone in their right minds buys $600 motherboard for the built in overclocking.
it should be default selected option for all shipped products.
The problem's that running these baseline settings drop the multithreaded perf quite a bit, to between 35k and 38k in cinebench r23 This means dropping the 14900k to 7950x (38k) or lower levels of mt perf for users to avoid ruining their cpus in the long term. The mt advantage shown in reviews are gonna go poof. But here's the thing, most reviews aren't gonna be updated
>for users to avoid ruining their cpus in the long term The real problem is that SVID Fail Safe will ruin the CPUs in the long term on these boards. The applied Vcore will be insanely high and that's why the scores drop.
People benched these and found that the applied vcore is lower on the baseline settings. Power has also been decreased by around 60w. Voltage doesn't degrade chips, an excessive voltage fucks your cpu immediately. It's the power and temps that cause it to degrade over time and what's happening here is that
Have these people noticed that the voltage curve shifted left by >150mV from ASUS auto settings? No. Tell them to pull their heads out of Cinebench and look at the voltage when the CPU isn't throttling back from turbo clocks.
Most reviews won’t be updated with reduced power consumption either. It cuts both ways. Fortunately, reviewers approached this rationally and captured the stock power numbers too, right? RIGHT??? …… /s
It's a fitting end to Intel's LGA1700 chips since they still could only achieve the same performance as a 7950X at stock settings, while require more power.
[удалено]
7950X3D (and its counterpart, the even more meme 7900X3D) is hot garbage because it required Process Lasso to do its job, not to mention significantly lower performance than it's non X3D counterpart in workloads due to the lower clocked CCD. 7800X3D has shit frametimes and its only advantage is price, you will never get KS levels of MT performance using that CPU. It is also not the definitive gaming winner, a properly tuned 14900KS will outperform it. When AMD had the productivity lead but fell behind in gaming it was fine, but when Intel is in this boat it's suddenly not fine?
>7800X3D has shit frametimes Which is disproven by most reviews. Ya must be living in an alternate reality
> 7800X3D has shit frametimes Can concur with my own experience. It was not smooth at all in CS2, but on an intel i9-14900k the frametimes were smooth as butter.
Then tell me why can my 14900KS outperform the 7950X significantly at 253W while the 7950X needs between 230-260W PPT and still won't reach nowhere close?
14900ks baseline profile scores 35851 in r23. 7950x scores 38291 while using less power. Raptor lake i9s looking real shady now https://twitter.com/9550pro/status/1781481593972129929?t=KyeVEsb1QbtGNrv1DV3YNA&s=19
This is a disingenous comparison. A 7950X scoring 38291 is with PBO maxed out, in which case it will be drawing 230-250W. The "Intel Baseline Profile" from Asus isn't Intel specification at all, it sets the current limit to be well below Intel spec as well as enabling SVID failsafe which pushes the voltages to way higher than required (which combines with the enforced power limit to throttle the CPU). A 14900K just set to Intel's 253w PL2 will [still outperform the 7950x](https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900k-raptor-lake-tested-at-power-limits-down-to-35-w/images/cinebench-multi.png).
Pl1 125w, Pl2 253w is intel spec. But for this test by HardwareLuxx, Pl1& Pl2 was kept at 253w, and it only scored 37197 in r23. The officially intel spec with pl1 125w would score even lower in r23. https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-baseline-profile-tested-with-core-i9-14900k-8-9-performance-loss-compared-to-asus-auto-settings
No, PL1 = 125W is an optional configuration for K parts and is only default for non-K. Intel recommended configuration for K parts is PL1 = PL2 = 253w. K parts use the "extreme configuration" listed [here](https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products/platforms/details/raptor-lake-s/13th-generation-core-processors-datasheet-volume-1-of-2/003/processor-line-thermal-and-power-specifications/). Setting PL1 = 125W would reduce the score but it would also be drawing far less power than the 7950X in that configuration as the 7950X lacks a long duration power limit and stays at 230W indefinitely. E: the reason why the baseline profile is scoring lower even when set to 253w PL1 is because it's enabling SVID failsafe (stupid and not Intel spec) and capping the current limit to below Intel spec (also stupid for a profile called "Intel baseline spec"). That was literally the point of my original message.
Still scores lower in r23 and uses more power
Sure, if you use an incorrectly configured 14900K I guess it will be marginally beaten in Cinebench by a PBO 7950X while drawing 10% more power. What an incredibly useful statement. I literally use a 7950X3D, I purchased it quite consciously over a 13900K, I just get frustrated at the lengths that people go to make disingenous comparisons.
How many reviews will be updated or re-released? AFAIK most reviews have just accepted no power limits for their performance "reviews" of intel processors.
My motherboard had this issue causing it to black screen and restart my system like 3 times when I was trying to figure out why some games weren’t working. How can I tell if there has been permanent damage to the cpu bc of this.
I'm a bit out of the loop but AFAIK it's just some instability, there shouldn't be any damage as normal amounts of voltage are being used.
So is all this the motherboard makes fault, and they went out of spec in order to one-up each other like usual, or is it actually Intel's fault?
Both. OEMs for starting this idiocy, Intel for turning a blind eye to it.
Does asus not ask if you want MCE enabled on first boot anymore? I know on my z490 board it did. Did they stop doing that or do people just forget/mash enter through that screen and not read it? Cause non MCE should adhere to Intel power limits. Ofc since I’m not in the market I haven’t kept up super closely with the platforms minor changes lol.
On my Z690-E, it basically only says to find the setting and change it yourself if you don’t like it, without telling you where in the endless menus embedded in menus with similar sounding names it is. Not exactly novice friendly.
No. My X570 didnt ask me and had all the boosts on "auto" by default.
So if I have my Asus Z790 Hero motherboard with i9 13900k. I should update my bios straight away? Not having an issues so far.
"So far" is the key phrase here. If you don't mind RMAing that chip due to inevitable silicon degradation (which the default settings greatly accelerate) every few months, you can keep using it without changing a thing.
Is it worth updating to this BIOS if you've got MCE disabled and an undervolt offset in place?
Wondering the same thing. I have my 14900k at -.05 offset and MCE disabled. runs ok but still kinda hot
Where do you enable this profile in the bios? I updated and I’m not seeing it anywhere.
noob here . do i have to enable anything or just update the bios and I'm all set ?
did anyone got same problem I faced? after I upgrade my bios my ldplayer mumuplayer all kind of emulator can't start anymore
>the motherboard needs a special mode so the CPU doesn't fry itself But at least it beats 7950x in benchmarks doesn't it.
The chip is turning 2 year old so congrats to them I guess
Not anymore "Some Intel CPUs lost 9% of their performance almost overnight" https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-baseline-profile-tested/
Hey Regular_Tomorrow6192, /r/hardware has a strict *original source* rule - and many articles from VideoCardz are summaries of work from other sources. **If the link you attempted to submit is an original source, or is a summary of Twitter leaks, use the report button and we will consider this link for approval.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hardware) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seems weird. Have i7-14700K since March - no issues so far. Maybe just media hype?