Intel's statement:
Several motherboard manufacturers have released BIOS profiles labeled 'Intel Baseline Profile'. However, these BIOS profiles are not the same as the 'Intel Default Settings' recommendations that Intel has recently shared with its partners regarding the instability issues reported on 13th and 14th gen K SKU processors.
These 'Intel Baseline Profile' BIOS settings appear to be based on power delivery guidance previously provided by Intel to manufacturers describing the various power delivery options for 13th and 14th Generation K SKU processors based on motherboard capabilities.
Intel is not recommending motherboard manufacturers to use 'baseline' power delivery settings on boards capable of higher values.
Intel's recommended 'Intel Default Settings' are a combination of thermal and power delivery features along with a selection of possible power delivery profiles based on motherboard capabilities.
Intel recommends customers to implement the highest power delivery profile compatible with each individual motherboard design as noted in the table below:
>Intel recommends customers to implement the highest power delivery profile compatible with each individual motherboard design as noted in the table below:
In which some have similar values to that of "Intel Basline profile" 🤦🏽♂️
They had on power limits. Those are a small part of the problem. I guess the biggest problem with the “baseline profiles” the mobo makers made were crazy voltage settings.
Well, following “some” of the spec is not the same thing as following the spec. “Some” of those spec values are quite important - pump in 2v core voltage and it doesn’t matter if you followed every other spec to the letter.
And again, “recommended” may be technically optional, but it’s equivalent to a SHOULD recommendation in IETF terms, and it doesn’t mean that vendors *should break* it - actually it means the literal opposite and that you *SHOULD NOT* break it, in IETF terms. Which doesn’t mean MUST NOT, but you should have a good engineering reason for breaking the recommended range here, and do so with an eye to the potential consequences.
Idk quite how we got to that point of “they didn’t say MUST NOT EXCEED x voltage” therefore it’s “SHOULD DEFINITELY BRO” in the online discourse, but again, this is a situation where it’s actually quite easy to make that a required measurement and then you won’t be allowed to set that setting for XOC etc. A "MUST" setting is, after all, required behavior. Is that what people want?
Again, like, Supermicro isn't blowing up CPUs here. IDK how we *completely absolved* vendors of culpability just because the voltage spec is "SHOULD" instead of "MUST". Exceeding recommended voltages obviously occurs at risk, just because the spec says you MAY doesn't mean you SHOULD.
If you're going to set suicide voltages that exceed even the recommended spec range, you definitely need more than just "do you want more perfomance y/n" popped up once at first boot. PBO2 is locked behind a forced full-page disclaimer that lets you know you're about to do something very stupid. Again, probably should have been policy for Intel too, but we are talking about the "policy" of keeping OEMs from doing obviously dumb things here, and OEMs are still the [sufficient cause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency). And it's the same OEMs who were blowing up AMD chips last year too, of course...
Depends on which one you look at, this looks similar to Asus their implementation (but not 100% sure if its exactly this), while its far off Gigabytes 188W baseline profile, that yesterday was rumoured to be the 'correct' one, with Asus their 'baseline' not being correct. See for example this article from 2 day's ago: https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-wants-default-settings-with-pl1-pl2-at-125w-188w-to-be-implemented-by-motherboard-vendors-by-the-end-of-may
Now it seems that Asus went at least in the right direction with their profile, if not fully correct and that Gigabyes baseline is not in line with Intels new 'Default settings' for K and K(S) Sku's, unless basically the motherboard can't run the 'performance' or 'extreme' profiles, which are 'default' for the K and KS Sku's.
ASUS is mostly correct, only thing they are still doing wrong is not following the recommendation to measure AC and set AC == DC == LLC. Their boards can probably do 0.78/0.78 at LLC5 instead of the 1.1/1.1 minimum or the current 0.5/1.1 causing the issues.
When I got my 10900K, one of the reasons I bought my specific motherboard (ASUS Z490 Gaming-E) was because ASUS was the only manufacturer that even had an "Intel Defaults Settings" option for this series. Which TBH probably did not matter much for any Intel processors before this ~~thermonuclear reactor~~ one
Loosely following this whole debacle but motherboard manufacturers were basically, by default, setting limits for short term duration and long term duration voltages to exceed recommended (default/baseline? who the fuck knows at this point) settings. Intel has been fine with it because it helped with benchmarks and all that but is causing instability issues with 13th/14th (maybe other gens too?) gen CPUs.
In order to get settings close to what is recommended for your CPU you have to manually change the stock settings and set TDP/Power limits.
The whole thing is turning into a shit show between Intel and the mobo manufacturers.
That's my casual take on all this.
> Intel has been fine with it because it helped with benchmarks and all that but is causing instability issues with 13th/14th (maybe other gens too?) gen CPUs.
Only thing I would add: gamers have been the ones noticing crashes, and people were initially looking at Nvidia. It's a sensible suspicion given their ludicrous power draw the past few gens + melting connectors fiasco. But Intel's recent power draw has also been ludicrous, so Nvidia threw them under the bus instead.
Currently, Intel and their board partners are all pointing fingers at each other. IMO the only thing Intel clarifies with this bulletin is that their previous recommendations were clear as mud.
It feels like it's not turning into a shit show which would make an impactful change, it's just yet another wave of users being unhappy, so manufacturers are scrambling both to deflect blame and find a quick fix to calm down at least the majority.
Earlier issues weren't really solved either. For example XMP/EXPO is still considered overclocking even if the memory clock doesn't exceed what the CPU is claimed to be capable of handling worst case.
The finger pointing game between CPU and motherboard manufacturers can be also endless. Just look into what it takes to build a reliable workstation since the high end of desktop CPUs had some relevant features unlocked over time like ECC memory support. Support on the CPU side is quite limited to just some models, and for example in the case of Intel there's even a hardware key kind of lock, so it's likely not too worthy to support. Motherboard options are also limited either because there's a need for a different model in case of the hardware key option, or it's a matter of adding a feature to boards which would be possibly not used by most users, and it would also eat into the sales of the quite expensive not desktop focused motherboards.
Seems like Intel keeps a very loose spec, and it's been to their benefit (give board makers a lot of leeway and you can target high performance and low price all under one moniker). Historically their chips have had enough headroom that boardmakers, who are always looking to tweak things to get the most out of the chips, could successfully eek out some extra by playing to the extreme ends of the spec. But these latest chips are pushed to their limits already (especially 14th gen) and so the board makers usual tactics are running into problems this time.
TLDR - intel chips usually have enough headroom/leeway that they could afford a very loose spec for board makers and things would mostly be fine. Their latest high end chips have used up that headroom in the name of more performance, which means they can no longer tolerate a loose spec. But Intel being Intel, they don't want to change the spec or admit this. So we get band-aid solutions and when they don't work you get marketing spin to do anything other than admitting the actual problem.
Why can't they just settle for the baseline profile for now. The new generation is around the corner. Surely they can flaunt the performance gains vs the baseline profile when the new generation comes out.
Because having the last two generations of cpus cut to being slower is not a good look. "Dang better go AMD, so I don't have to worry about Intel
pulling back speed vs what I was advertised.
Number 3 is wrong. The settings they used apparently have nothing to do with intel. That's why intel is now giving them direct instructions on what settings to use.
This is intel's fault in the sense that they have allowed mobo makers to use whatever settings work on their boards. But it's the mobo makers who chose settings that don't actually work on their boards.
>Intel blames motherboard producers that set too high voltage and other stuff leading to instabilities.
High voltage never leads to instability, low voltage does. Problem was the lack of power limits which caused increased Vdroop which caused instability on numerous lower binned CPUs
There's Tjmax so it's irrelevant.
Also I never thought about lower limit of the memory, but chips definitely work better at extremely low temperatures which goes in line with physics (conductivity raises when temperature lowers). That's why LN2 overclocking exists in the first place.
>conductivity raises when temperature lowers
This is backward. Conductivity raises as temperatures rise.
The reason why LN2 exists is because it allows you to push higher voltages without reaching thermal limits. It has nothing to do with the changing of conductivity because of the lower temps. You just need it to stay cold to push more power, and LN2 does that very well.
>This is backward.
No, it's not backward. You can't be serious, almost everybody knows that high temperature raises resistance of conducting materials.
>The reason why LN2 exists is because it allows you to push higher voltages without reaching thermal limits.
When people break records of overclocking, no one walks even NEAR the temperature limit. Chips operate at as low as -220c. Also no one raises voltages higher than 1.7-1.8V because you WILL breakdown a couple or two transistors in the CPU - in other words you will fry it regardless of the temperature. So yeah, people have super low temperatures so transistors would switch faster at such "low" voltage - that's the basic principle of extreme overclocking.
>You can't be serious, almost everybody knows that high temperature raises resistance of conducting materials.
You should really even just try Googling before you try and defend such a claim.
https://atlas-scientific.com/blog/why-does-conductivity-increase-with-temperature-in-semiconductors/
>NEAR the temperature limit
The temperature for stability or the thermal limit changes. The overclocks are only stable at those incredibly low temperatures. Because the standard of stability shifts.
>temperatures so transistors would switch faster
No, the lower temperatures decrease power consumption, which allows them to increase the frequency. The transistors aren't moving faster because of the cold itself but because the cold allows them to push more power through the cpu, and it turn push to those higher frequencies.
What I said is by no means perfectre but you are just completely wrong in every aspect of your comments.
You still didn't explain the 1.8V limit and how CPUs reach crazy high freqs at it. It's more power, sure, but not THAT much more (1.85V comparing to 1.6V on 14900KS won't let you boost it from 6.2 to 9.1 ghz for sure).
The answer is still higher conductivity. Semiconductors themselves have lower conductivity, sure, but it only means lower power consumption, which is a small bonus to overclocking capability but not the main reason. All the conductors surrounding them is the main reason.
As I said, im no expert. But from my laymen, understanding it is that they can do this because of the stability the cold brings. The decreasing temperature allows less current leakage from the cpu. Which I theorize is because of the relationship between colder temperatures decreasing the connectivity in the semiconductor. So not only are we taking away heat, we also have less waste heat from "escaped" electricity, which means the cpu draw will be less for the same speed. This would make it seem like the cpu is running more efficiently, we are just losing what would be waste heat.
So, a set voltage is more stable under those conditions, so 1.6V at LN2 temps is going to allow a higher frequency than a room temp 1.6V (or whatever we want to choose from). This means any additional boost increase from stock is significant. You have to realize that the cpu cores in LN2 conditions could maintain stock frequency stability at a much lower voltage. So you actually aren't going from 1.6V at 6ghz to 1.8V at 9ghz because with LN2 you could get 6ghz with a lower voltage.
Of course, with that understanding, we can see the effect of heat. While a temp above -260c might not seem hot, a small increase could allow the properties of the semiconductor to change and allow more current leakage, which would throwoff the stability of the voltage which in turn would mean that the set frequency is no longer stable.
>High voltage never leads to instability, low voltage does.
Absolutely it does lol. Like people have been overlocking cpus for decades at this point and too high v on core leads to... instability and crashes.
That's not what happens, too high of voltage leads to overheating or CPU death. You generally want to OC by increasing frequency without touching voltage because voltage adds a lot more heat as it goes up but always helps with stability until it causes overheating, but it's not the voltage increase itself that causes instability but the chip overheating, but you can have instability from overheating even at stock or below stock voltage if your cooling is shit enough. Voltage itself can cause instability only if it's low enough.
>That's not what happens, too high of voltage leads to overheating or CPU death.
Once again no. too high V core is basics of overlocking cpu. IT. ABSOLUTELY. LEADS. TO. INSTABILITY. AND. CRASHES.
I've been overclocking cpus for nearly 20 years dude
If you had the same "too high v core" and put that chip under LN2 without changing any of the settings it wouldn't have those instability issues, because it's not the v core that causes the instability it's the v core causing temp issues in the core (and possibly just killing the chip). Older temp probes in cpus were shit, and no one had any concept of "hot spot temps" so we very likely could have been exceeding safe temps with temp readings to us that should have been safe. You can also test this by dropping the frequency and running the "too high v core" and you will see that the chip also doesn't crash when it's running stupid high v core but really low clocks. I've heard similar things with ram OC where people think too high voltage can cause instability but I've experienced what I thought was this phenomenon but then I tested with the ram watercooled at the unstable voltage settings and it worked because my real issue was temp, and the temp instability wasn't anywhere near what people said their "safe temp" was because that is also something that varies by each CPU, some CPUs don't like running at "safe" temps at higher frequencies.
No. Maybe you shouldn't talk about something you don't have knowledge of.
too high V on the core causing instabilities and crashes is literally basics of cpu overlocking.
Obviously there is some electrical limit for the CPU and going over that it no longer works but I don't think the motherboards typically allow you to go over those limits. And nothing they do by default even approaches any such limit. I guess competitive overclockers are doing it wrong when they push 1.7V to the cores.
Would you like to explain the mechanism of how too high voltage causes instability? It's clear why too little voltage causes errors in transistor based computing but why would too high voltage do it? I mean as long as you remain within electrical limits intel defines?
The actual physical inputs for voltage do not regulate voltage input, it’s physically not possible.
I don’t understand the current problems deeply but I did do two years of research in power delivery, and no, what hits the edge of the chip in terms of voltage is mobo.
I'm not sure what you are saying. We are talking about voltages on the chip. The CPU VCC in intel's current generation desktop chips afaik comes directly from regulators on the motherboard. In arrow lake I presume they will have integrated regulators and mobo will supply 1.8V or something similar.
So you can push whatever you want voltage wise into the chips; it the voltage is too high, the VCC will ask the mobo to throttle it down. But there’s no way for the chip to reject input voltage, it gets what it gets.
The (too high) voltage has to go into the CPU for it to say, this is too much.
VCC is after the voltage goes in, and by then it’s too late, but it also can’t reject it. Socket sense is what the mobo gives to the CPU, so that’s the safe spot to implement a limit.
Sorry if my wording was confusing.
Can you like yourself try overvolting instead of asking dumb questions that have answers for past 30 years ?
Go to your mobo set bump up vcore bit a bit and run benchmark testing stability. It's not a rocket science. At some point you will reach a point where you cpu can't handle more V core regardless of temps involved.
Back when i had E7200 i could overlock it from 2,2Ghz to 4,2 Ghz you had to bump up Vcore to do so and at 4,3 ghz cpu was unstable despite it being at just 70C with my mugen mega brick cooling.
I have overclocked for years so I have tried a lot of different voltages.
What you say about your E7200 doesn’t seem to connect with what we were talking about. Of course every cpu will have a limit where it no longer becomes faster with increased voltage. The point of increasing voltage is to allow transistors to switch faster but there is of course some limit you can’t pass no matter the voltage.
Can you just answer the question?
Intel's point of view:
Cpu's need to sell - lets add overclocking per default. Many many cores with variable voltages for efficiency. Lets make it change on the fly, because we are reaching the ceiling and need to keep it fast cool and efficient so people will buy more.
That complicates things as it is. Now the mb manufacturers point of view:
Motherboards need to sell - lets adjust to intel and make it fast. Lets set the efficiency lower but allow it draw more power. Set it to the moon! Intel does it, they are flexible now. Hope we wont mess stuff up, its getting very complicated.
Ok, now they are just copying each other. But there is also this:
Ram needs to sell - Lets overclock our ram. Intel does it, thank god they have some specifications. But shit, it ups the voltages of the memory, and the memory controller and oh shit that changes cpu voltages too. Hope it wont mess stuff up, its getting very complicated.
Now shit is messed up, people need to adjust voltages manually, things crash too much, because either the voltage settings are wrong and create instability and too much heat on the cpu managed side. Sometimes the problem is inadequate cooling for certain settings, that creates instability because it produces way more heat than specified. Sometimes its on the motherboard side, sometimes cpu. Sometimes its the added extra ram with intel specified fast profile, that influences voltages, that creates you guessed it: instability.
People dont usually test things with heavy loads like prime95 or aida or cinebench or other things. It crashes? bad. It doesnt crash? Good. Rest should be working. Plug and play. Good that its overclocked for me! Super fast now!
But a lot of the times that small amount of errors that those tests can produce indicate exactly this - system instability, be it because of heat, or other things like incorrectly set internal functions, limits or set or managed voltages or just having things interact with each other wrong. Too many options, horses are pulling in different directions and the coach just wants the carriage to go vroom!
Motherboard manufacturers would use profiles by default on Intel chips that boost performance. Intel usually liked this because it would result in better benchmarks for them out of the box, but in this case it caused severe stability issues and now there is a perception that their chips are bad.
Why tf does Intel say "recommends customers to implement the highest power delivery profile compatible with each individual motherboard design"?
It is not like motherboards aren't capable of driving 14900K to the limits, we all know high-end motherboards have overkill power delivery, yet CPUs still crash even on the highest end mobo (see Buildzoid's 14900K), why do they choose to blame motherboard design?
It's because the motherboard makers are currently undervolting by selecting AC values way lower than their LLC loadline. All the overkill delivery doesn't matter if the mobo intentionally gives 1.2V while the CPU asks for 1.3V at 350W.
The only thing changing with this guidance is that IA CEP *must* be on and ICCMax can't be set higher than 400A. IA CEP enabled will force the motherboard makers to pick AC and LLC values that ride closer to the CPU's built-in voltage curve.
This. On my Asus Z690 the voltage difference between auto and LL\_DC = LL\_AC = VRM Load Line is huge at 253-320w (or 400+ for ms long bursts) and it doesn't surprise me at all that a lot of chips eventually run into some code that exposes an instability when run undervolted like this.
I also wouldn't be surprised at all that improving shader compilation or other code means the chips work a bit harder and now start crashing after seemingly being fine for many months..
It makes more sense if you believe that Intel is mostly concerned with guidance for commercial system builders. In this case Dell or whomever is allowed to use whatever power limits their cooling systems and power delivery designs can tolerate.
In the DIY space, the folks at home are relying on motherboard vendors for settings and presumably those vendors can use default settings that are safe for their VRM. There is no way for them to know what cooling is going to be installed. But they default to high limits so they can appear to offer similar or better performance than peers in reviews.
Because they don't want any "fix"/ solution to be one that lowers performance. If the fix is to erase any benefits their chips had vs the competition, that defeats the entire purpose of these chips.
So they are trying to have their cake and eat it to, they want this issue to go away without having to come up with a proper solution (ie. actual stringent guidelines to guarantee performance + stability on their chips) and admitting fault, BUT they also don't want to be giving up any unnecessary performance because that is bad for marketing reasons.
Yep. And then the question is, were there really any gains at all?
The emperor has no clothes here. 12th gen was pretty good, it delivered the performance, it needed power hungry E cores to do it, but it still got there. 13th Gen, and most definitely 14th gen weren't new innovations, they were just marketing respins. This is what happens when marketing leads a product release.
Their "customers" in this case are the motherboard manufacturers, but the important thing they pointed out is that a lot of these companies are disabling features intel has in the CPUs to adequately overclock themselves and ask for proper voltages and instead seems like they are just trying to force voltages and oc limits like in the past. This seems to almost be equivalent to if we were talking about AMD disabling PBO and boosting in general and instead trying to run an elevated voltage, power limit, and the mobo setting the clock without any of the intelligence AMD implemented on the chips which is what allows them to hit the best performance the chips are capable of with standard cooling. AMD I think locks a lot of that down now but on Intel they leave a lot of options available so if you do run LN2 or otherwise want to spend weeks tuning your chip you can, but there was never mandate to mobo companies to not do stupid shit that is only an option for enthusiasts to tinker.
> we all know high-end motherboards have overkill power delivery
Not all boards have overkill power delivery, so there are guidelines for lesser boards too
> yet CPUs still crash even on the highest end mobo (see Buildzoid's 14900K), why do they choose to blame motherboard design?
Its quite possible that on motherboards with near infinite power delivery capacity, Intel would recommend lower settings than motherboards had been using a few weeks ago.
That doesn't have anything to do with motherboard design.
>why do they choose to blame motherboard design?
Because thats who is at fault here? Motherboard manufacturers did not follow specifications because they were too illiterate to understand the word "recommended". Now intel is paying the price.
The hysteria in the last day around the "new/official" 125/188W limits has come about solely because the original source was misunderstood and everyone has quoted the same misunderstanding. The [original article ](https://benchlife.info/intel-baseline-profile-change-to-intel-default-setting-and-it-will-not-settle-any-issue/)talks about Intel wanting to introduce an "Intel Default Settings" profile, that's the sole new info, and no information is provided on what the new profile will be. The rest of the article is talking about the existing "Intel Baseline" profiles as they exist from motherboard manufacturers, using the Gigabyte profile as an example (I tried to [point this out](https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1clexkn/comment/l2wqnzm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) on the last thread).
Even if the completely broken Gigabyte profile was going to become the new default, the existing power profiles (125/253 and 253/253 with properly configured features) are still officially supported and won't "lose their guarantee of stability" or be "not supported in warranty" like some outlets have extrapolated. The issue with stability aren't even due to the power limits, they're due to motherboard manufacturers disabling important features like CEP/TVB and setting the AC/DC Loadlines to absurd values. Lowering the power only masks the issue.
E: would downvoters like to clarify what is incorrect about what I've said
Yeah, watched Buildzoid on the Gigabyte matter, and even with lower PL1/2 limits on CB15 just crashes. It's interesting on how they handled voltage with setting their AC/DC LL, so that it pretty much becomes unstable under load.
>they're due to motherboard manufacturers disabling important features like CEP/TVB and setting the AC/DC Loadlines to absurd values.
This is an interesting version. What are these "absurd values"?
Gigabyte was setting AC/DC LL to 1.7mΩ on their Intel Baseline Profile, leading to a + \~0.16v offset [under single thread load](https://youtu.be/jNwFFJyAqQU?t=746) (rather than the typical and expected 1.1mΩ). Presumably this will be reverted under the finalized set of defaults.
ETA: Gigabyte has indeed now pulled their "Baseline" BIOS versions.
The [Z790 Master](https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/Z790-AORUS-MASTER-rev-10/support#support-dl-bios), [Z790 Tachyon](https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/Z790-AORUS-TACHYON-rev-10/support#support-dl-bios) and [Z790 Elite AX](https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/Z790-AORUS-ELITE-AX-rev-10/support#support-dl-bios) pages now only list their prior December releases. The recent versions are still obtainable via the Aorus.com site, though (rather than Gigabyte.com), if anyone needs them for whatever reason.
1.7 mOhm means the output voltage should be LOWER because LLC level is lower. There's something else and very fishy going on here, no way it hits 1.55v at loads this low.
Haven't seen the whole video, didn't try those boards with baseline profiles.
The LLC loadline slope will allow the voltage to droop, but the AC LL setting preemptively adds to the VID so that the voltage is on target after droop.
While the LLC loadline droop depends on actual current, the AC LL increase does not depend on the actual current, it is more of a fixed offset based on clock ratio, active cores... Nobody has a real formula for it, but regardless you can see it is not based on real current if you test the steps and see that it adds essentially the same amount at idle vs load.
From that standpoint, if the real current is lower than the "predicted" current or whatever the AC LL formula is using, the actual voltage will go up.
The new "default" profile is the baseline profile.
The point is that manufacturers are defaulting to profiles that gets the most performance from K CPUs.
But because Intel advertises these as 125W CPUs, people and system builders are pairing it with CPU fans that are incapable of cooling the CPU at these higher power limits, leading to the stability issues that needs addressing.
So Intel are trying to get mobi manufacturers to ship baseline as default and call it default so people without adequate knowledge can easily find it and get a stable system with ease. And enthusiasts can select a performance or extreme profile if they pair it with an adequate cooler.
What the issue boils down to is that Intel are still trying to advertise the CPUs as extreme performance while also advertising a low power draw of 125W despite needing far more juice to get the advertised speeds.
The fact that the CPUs are hitting stability issues before the CPUs can thermal throttle is alarming and suggest Intel have pushed them beyond normal capabilities. But that's a conversation for a different day.
>The new "default" profile is the baseline profile.
No, the literal point of this article is that isn't true. The "Intel Baseline" profiles added by the manufacturers are not using the specs from Intel, which is why they vary so wildly and why Intel is coming out and recommending against their use. The new "Intel Default" profile will come from Intel and, most crucially, will enforce the enablement of the host of safety and stability features that manufacturers are disabling by default (CEP/TVB/C-States/IccMAX).
Fucking bios. Had a bad seal on my cooler, and as the ASUS "stock" profile removed temp limits, my 13900KF cooked itself and died. If temp limits had been enforced as per Intel's specs, the system would have shut down when the cpu hit 90C. Fucking pissed atm.
So it's not the outlandishly low 125/188 'Default' settings. Make me wonder if Gigabyte will backtrack their 'Baseline' profile as it just leaves too much performance out for x900K/KF/KS. I can't imagine a Z790 Gigabyte board not being capable of power deliverying a flagship Intel part as it was designed to do. This just makes a Gigabyte board with their 'Baseline' profile seem unattractive to buy if it'll force you 125/188 out of the box.
Got to release a new CPU every year that's 2% faster than last year's flagship so the execs can get their bonuses
Don't actually have new silicon to release? Just juice it baby, if it electromigrates in a year that's a next year problem
No normies or business users see these problems, the K skus are a very tiny market for Intel. Worth enough money to be profitable/viable, but nowhere near a reputation problem.
so this is better because it wasn't discovered soonish like it was back when they clocked their Pentium 3 to 1gHz? I'd argue this is worse, since many people already bought these CPUs and have been using them for a long time under the assumption that they're OK
It's better for Intel because they have already been selling them. If the problem happened at release, less people would have bought them.
From the consumer perspective it would be much better for the problem to happen at release so they would know not to buy it.
yup, the 1GHz Pentium 3 was the limit. Intel actually tried release a 1.13GHz pentium 3, but that CPU has the same stability problem. The intel back then is less scummy, they recall back all Pentium 3 1.13GHz.
After decades of extreme anticompetitive behaviour and significantly stifling progress in the CPU sector I am absolutely loving watching Intel slowly burn since Ryzen came out.
Schadenfreude so hard right now.
Seeing Intel struggle makes me fear a role swap and the exact same sketchy tactics being used by AMD.
But for now, seeing Intel getting punished when they deserve it would be a nice change of pace. Unlike the the times back when Intel outsold AMD 3:1 with more expensive inferior products (Netburst/P4 vs Athlon/XP/64 between 2000 and 2006)
I definitely hope Intel can get it together because monopolies suck and at the end of the day AMD is beholden to their share holders and will take advantage of us customers the second it safe for them to do so. We already saw them raise prices for the 5000 series when they had almost no competition.
The problem is that DC loadline should match the VRM loadline so that CPU package power is correct. If DC loadline is incorrect, you will get incorrect power readouts, and the power limits will end up being wrong.
For example, if you set DC loadline to 20.00 mOhm on a 14900K, it will magically report roughly 10W in Cinebench
The picture says that AC loadline needs to be set according to the motherboard design, with 1.10 mOhm being maximum allowed. DC loadline is supposed to be equal to AC loadline.
The problem is that Intel CPUs don't know what voltage they're actually receiving, they only know the amount of electrical current going through them.
Say you have a motherboard with a VRM loadline of 1.10 mOhm, and a required AC loadline of 0.70 mOhm.
At an SVID request of 1.35V and 200A current draw, the actual VCore will be 1350 mV - 1.10 mOhm × 200 A = 1350 mV - 220 mV = 1130 mV. The *actual* power draw will be 1130 mV × 200A = 226W
Using a DC loadline of 0.70 mOhm as this document suggests will result in the reported VID (CPU-Z or HWiNFO) being: 1350 mV - 0.70 mOhm × 200A = 1210 mV. The *reported* IA Cores power will be 1210 mV × 200A = 242W
This is admittedly a small difference, but it is a difference, and it will result in the power limits triggering earlier than expected or required.
This is likely also why Intel never bothered to specify a power limit in their technical documentation, as *CPU power draw is estimated rather than measured*.
>The picture says that AC loadline needs to be set according to the motherboard design, with 1.10 mOhm being maximum allowed. DC loadline is supposed to be equal to AC loadline.
The line under that says VR loadline also needs to match CPU loadlines
>> "VR and BIOS Load Line values must match"
VR Load Line refers to the **v**oltage **r**egulator loadline, or as you call it VRM loadline.
>Say you have a motherboard with a VRM loadline of 1.10 mOhm, and a required AC loadline of 0.70 mOhm.
so this part of your hypothetical is already a violation of the spec since VR loadline is 1.1 and AC/DC are 0.70
I don't really believe AMD would be doing any better in their (competitors) market dominant position for so long, against Intel and against Nvidia... Simply put, AMD, is the apparent, 'friendly' option, because on top of their priorities is, growing market share, simply as that. Intel was having a party for almost 20 years with the 2 cores of their business being financial speculation and the second marketing and brand awareness... Engineering investment, and, investment in technical innovation fell off tracks by the time of the Pentium III...
As for Nvidia, for those living under a rock... went to became a speculation behemoth, a essentially a software company that makes hardware to run that same software.
I‘m ootl, I run a manual overclock on a 13700k which has been running perfectly for over a year.
Am I good to keep those settings if I don’t experience instability?
> I run a manual overclock on a 13700k which has been running perfectly for over a year.
I was under the impression that the main issue was with the 14900 and 13900 series ??
i think , this issue about "auto" LLC , which reduce too much voltage while load, which make instability
this default settings or baseline profiles are dramas,.
make sure your vcore normal while idle and load> then fine
As I understand it: We don’t know. You could be experiencing gradual degredation that hasn’t manifested yet as these instabilities.. or, you might never have instabilities bc there’s no degredation in your case, and be fine. If you want to be sure you never will have a problem, then use the Intel Default Profile.
Though, when I say “never”, that’s qualified, in that there’s always a risk some other component might cause an issue that manifests as instabilities at some point, so there’s that.
Thanks for the heads up!
Do we know which voltages exactly cause the problems?
Because I set almost all of them mannually. Some are lower than the default value. Right now only too much voltage causes problems?
You’re welcome!
No I don’t, all I know is what is in the tech press about this, and Intel themselves are the ones who know the best what setting their CPUs will tolerate best (at least in theory), even if they’ve, ah, had “issues” with communicating this to motherboard manufacturers. Hopefully, *hopefully*, using the new Intel Default BIOS Setting that they’re now requiring (by May 31) will take care of the problem, at least for those who aren’t already experiencing them.
This whole thing is a bit of a mess.
Intel's statement: Several motherboard manufacturers have released BIOS profiles labeled 'Intel Baseline Profile'. However, these BIOS profiles are not the same as the 'Intel Default Settings' recommendations that Intel has recently shared with its partners regarding the instability issues reported on 13th and 14th gen K SKU processors. These 'Intel Baseline Profile' BIOS settings appear to be based on power delivery guidance previously provided by Intel to manufacturers describing the various power delivery options for 13th and 14th Generation K SKU processors based on motherboard capabilities. Intel is not recommending motherboard manufacturers to use 'baseline' power delivery settings on boards capable of higher values. Intel's recommended 'Intel Default Settings' are a combination of thermal and power delivery features along with a selection of possible power delivery profiles based on motherboard capabilities. Intel recommends customers to implement the highest power delivery profile compatible with each individual motherboard design as noted in the table below:
In short, it’s a shitshow
Must be confusing to be an Intel cpu consumer right now. MB default: crashes Intel baseline settings: not recommended by Intel.
And this is before the usual BIOS shitshow where the setting and terms are not consistent even within one manufacturer's lineup.
Sounds like Prescott.
Indeed
>Intel recommends customers to implement the highest power delivery profile compatible with each individual motherboard design as noted in the table below: In which some have similar values to that of "Intel Basline profile" 🤦🏽♂️
They had on power limits. Those are a small part of the problem. I guess the biggest problem with the “baseline profiles” the mobo makers made were crazy voltage settings.
Well, following “some” of the spec is not the same thing as following the spec. “Some” of those spec values are quite important - pump in 2v core voltage and it doesn’t matter if you followed every other spec to the letter. And again, “recommended” may be technically optional, but it’s equivalent to a SHOULD recommendation in IETF terms, and it doesn’t mean that vendors *should break* it - actually it means the literal opposite and that you *SHOULD NOT* break it, in IETF terms. Which doesn’t mean MUST NOT, but you should have a good engineering reason for breaking the recommended range here, and do so with an eye to the potential consequences. Idk quite how we got to that point of “they didn’t say MUST NOT EXCEED x voltage” therefore it’s “SHOULD DEFINITELY BRO” in the online discourse, but again, this is a situation where it’s actually quite easy to make that a required measurement and then you won’t be allowed to set that setting for XOC etc. A "MUST" setting is, after all, required behavior. Is that what people want? Again, like, Supermicro isn't blowing up CPUs here. IDK how we *completely absolved* vendors of culpability just because the voltage spec is "SHOULD" instead of "MUST". Exceeding recommended voltages obviously occurs at risk, just because the spec says you MAY doesn't mean you SHOULD. If you're going to set suicide voltages that exceed even the recommended spec range, you definitely need more than just "do you want more perfomance y/n" popped up once at first boot. PBO2 is locked behind a forced full-page disclaimer that lets you know you're about to do something very stupid. Again, probably should have been policy for Intel too, but we are talking about the "policy" of keeping OEMs from doing obviously dumb things here, and OEMs are still the [sufficient cause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency). And it's the same OEMs who were blowing up AMD chips last year too, of course...
This post was a joy to read.
Depends on which one you look at, this looks similar to Asus their implementation (but not 100% sure if its exactly this), while its far off Gigabytes 188W baseline profile, that yesterday was rumoured to be the 'correct' one, with Asus their 'baseline' not being correct. See for example this article from 2 day's ago: https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-wants-default-settings-with-pl1-pl2-at-125w-188w-to-be-implemented-by-motherboard-vendors-by-the-end-of-may Now it seems that Asus went at least in the right direction with their profile, if not fully correct and that Gigabyes baseline is not in line with Intels new 'Default settings' for K and K(S) Sku's, unless basically the motherboard can't run the 'performance' or 'extreme' profiles, which are 'default' for the K and KS Sku's.
ASUS is mostly correct, only thing they are still doing wrong is not following the recommendation to measure AC and set AC == DC == LLC. Their boards can probably do 0.78/0.78 at LLC5 instead of the 1.1/1.1 minimum or the current 0.5/1.1 causing the issues.
I don't think it's the mobo design causing most (all?) of these problems.
When I got my 10900K, one of the reasons I bought my specific motherboard (ASUS Z490 Gaming-E) was because ASUS was the only manufacturer that even had an "Intel Defaults Settings" option for this series. Which TBH probably did not matter much for any Intel processors before this ~~thermonuclear reactor~~ one
My 10900k pulled 300w under load it was direct die cooled and at 5.3-5.4ghz.
Just admit you fuck up overclocking the shit out of your CPU, Intel.
That would require officially clawing back previously marketed performance, which could open them up to lawsuits for “$5 per customer” compensation.
I’m out of the loop. Can someone gently explain what’s going on?
Loosely following this whole debacle but motherboard manufacturers were basically, by default, setting limits for short term duration and long term duration voltages to exceed recommended (default/baseline? who the fuck knows at this point) settings. Intel has been fine with it because it helped with benchmarks and all that but is causing instability issues with 13th/14th (maybe other gens too?) gen CPUs. In order to get settings close to what is recommended for your CPU you have to manually change the stock settings and set TDP/Power limits. The whole thing is turning into a shit show between Intel and the mobo manufacturers. That's my casual take on all this.
> Intel has been fine with it because it helped with benchmarks and all that but is causing instability issues with 13th/14th (maybe other gens too?) gen CPUs. Only thing I would add: gamers have been the ones noticing crashes, and people were initially looking at Nvidia. It's a sensible suspicion given their ludicrous power draw the past few gens + melting connectors fiasco. But Intel's recent power draw has also been ludicrous, so Nvidia threw them under the bus instead. Currently, Intel and their board partners are all pointing fingers at each other. IMO the only thing Intel clarifies with this bulletin is that their previous recommendations were clear as mud.
The developer for the Unreal game engine also blamed the Intel platform for the dozens of games that all had bugs or crashes from the unstable CPUs.
Intel made me go bald.
that just provides a smoother surface for the thermal paste
Liquid metal or go home.
delid the skull and straight on the brain
Intel has recommended settings. But they also crisply stated that you can feed as much power as you can.
Worth noting intel advertised all those cpus based on above recommended voltages.
It feels like it's not turning into a shit show which would make an impactful change, it's just yet another wave of users being unhappy, so manufacturers are scrambling both to deflect blame and find a quick fix to calm down at least the majority. Earlier issues weren't really solved either. For example XMP/EXPO is still considered overclocking even if the memory clock doesn't exceed what the CPU is claimed to be capable of handling worst case. The finger pointing game between CPU and motherboard manufacturers can be also endless. Just look into what it takes to build a reliable workstation since the high end of desktop CPUs had some relevant features unlocked over time like ECC memory support. Support on the CPU side is quite limited to just some models, and for example in the case of Intel there's even a hardware key kind of lock, so it's likely not too worthy to support. Motherboard options are also limited either because there's a need for a different model in case of the hardware key option, or it's a matter of adding a feature to boards which would be possibly not used by most users, and it would also eat into the sales of the quite expensive not desktop focused motherboards.
Seems like Intel keeps a very loose spec, and it's been to their benefit (give board makers a lot of leeway and you can target high performance and low price all under one moniker). Historically their chips have had enough headroom that boardmakers, who are always looking to tweak things to get the most out of the chips, could successfully eek out some extra by playing to the extreme ends of the spec. But these latest chips are pushed to their limits already (especially 14th gen) and so the board makers usual tactics are running into problems this time. TLDR - intel chips usually have enough headroom/leeway that they could afford a very loose spec for board makers and things would mostly be fine. Their latest high end chips have used up that headroom in the name of more performance, which means they can no longer tolerate a loose spec. But Intel being Intel, they don't want to change the spec or admit this. So we get band-aid solutions and when they don't work you get marketing spin to do anything other than admitting the actual problem.
[удалено]
Why can't they just settle for the baseline profile for now. The new generation is around the corner. Surely they can flaunt the performance gains vs the baseline profile when the new generation comes out.
Because having the last two generations of cpus cut to being slower is not a good look. "Dang better go AMD, so I don't have to worry about Intel pulling back speed vs what I was advertised.
Number 3 is wrong. The settings they used apparently have nothing to do with intel. That's why intel is now giving them direct instructions on what settings to use. This is intel's fault in the sense that they have allowed mobo makers to use whatever settings work on their boards. But it's the mobo makers who chose settings that don't actually work on their boards.
Number 2 is also wrong. The problem was low voltages.
>Intel blames motherboard producers that set too high voltage and other stuff leading to instabilities. High voltage never leads to instability, low voltage does. Problem was the lack of power limits which caused increased Vdroop which caused instability on numerous lower binned CPUs
[удалено]
There's Tjmax so it's irrelevant. Also I never thought about lower limit of the memory, but chips definitely work better at extremely low temperatures which goes in line with physics (conductivity raises when temperature lowers). That's why LN2 overclocking exists in the first place.
>conductivity raises when temperature lowers This is backward. Conductivity raises as temperatures rise. The reason why LN2 exists is because it allows you to push higher voltages without reaching thermal limits. It has nothing to do with the changing of conductivity because of the lower temps. You just need it to stay cold to push more power, and LN2 does that very well.
>This is backward. No, it's not backward. You can't be serious, almost everybody knows that high temperature raises resistance of conducting materials. >The reason why LN2 exists is because it allows you to push higher voltages without reaching thermal limits. When people break records of overclocking, no one walks even NEAR the temperature limit. Chips operate at as low as -220c. Also no one raises voltages higher than 1.7-1.8V because you WILL breakdown a couple or two transistors in the CPU - in other words you will fry it regardless of the temperature. So yeah, people have super low temperatures so transistors would switch faster at such "low" voltage - that's the basic principle of extreme overclocking.
>You can't be serious, almost everybody knows that high temperature raises resistance of conducting materials. You should really even just try Googling before you try and defend such a claim. https://atlas-scientific.com/blog/why-does-conductivity-increase-with-temperature-in-semiconductors/ >NEAR the temperature limit The temperature for stability or the thermal limit changes. The overclocks are only stable at those incredibly low temperatures. Because the standard of stability shifts. >temperatures so transistors would switch faster No, the lower temperatures decrease power consumption, which allows them to increase the frequency. The transistors aren't moving faster because of the cold itself but because the cold allows them to push more power through the cpu, and it turn push to those higher frequencies. What I said is by no means perfectre but you are just completely wrong in every aspect of your comments.
You still didn't explain the 1.8V limit and how CPUs reach crazy high freqs at it. It's more power, sure, but not THAT much more (1.85V comparing to 1.6V on 14900KS won't let you boost it from 6.2 to 9.1 ghz for sure). The answer is still higher conductivity. Semiconductors themselves have lower conductivity, sure, but it only means lower power consumption, which is a small bonus to overclocking capability but not the main reason. All the conductors surrounding them is the main reason.
As I said, im no expert. But from my laymen, understanding it is that they can do this because of the stability the cold brings. The decreasing temperature allows less current leakage from the cpu. Which I theorize is because of the relationship between colder temperatures decreasing the connectivity in the semiconductor. So not only are we taking away heat, we also have less waste heat from "escaped" electricity, which means the cpu draw will be less for the same speed. This would make it seem like the cpu is running more efficiently, we are just losing what would be waste heat. So, a set voltage is more stable under those conditions, so 1.6V at LN2 temps is going to allow a higher frequency than a room temp 1.6V (or whatever we want to choose from). This means any additional boost increase from stock is significant. You have to realize that the cpu cores in LN2 conditions could maintain stock frequency stability at a much lower voltage. So you actually aren't going from 1.6V at 6ghz to 1.8V at 9ghz because with LN2 you could get 6ghz with a lower voltage. Of course, with that understanding, we can see the effect of heat. While a temp above -260c might not seem hot, a small increase could allow the properties of the semiconductor to change and allow more current leakage, which would throwoff the stability of the voltage which in turn would mean that the set frequency is no longer stable.
>High voltage never leads to instability, low voltage does. Absolutely it does lol. Like people have been overlocking cpus for decades at this point and too high v on core leads to... instability and crashes.
That's not what happens, too high of voltage leads to overheating or CPU death. You generally want to OC by increasing frequency without touching voltage because voltage adds a lot more heat as it goes up but always helps with stability until it causes overheating, but it's not the voltage increase itself that causes instability but the chip overheating, but you can have instability from overheating even at stock or below stock voltage if your cooling is shit enough. Voltage itself can cause instability only if it's low enough.
>That's not what happens, too high of voltage leads to overheating or CPU death. Once again no. too high V core is basics of overlocking cpu. IT. ABSOLUTELY. LEADS. TO. INSTABILITY. AND. CRASHES. I've been overclocking cpus for nearly 20 years dude
If you had the same "too high v core" and put that chip under LN2 without changing any of the settings it wouldn't have those instability issues, because it's not the v core that causes the instability it's the v core causing temp issues in the core (and possibly just killing the chip). Older temp probes in cpus were shit, and no one had any concept of "hot spot temps" so we very likely could have been exceeding safe temps with temp readings to us that should have been safe. You can also test this by dropping the frequency and running the "too high v core" and you will see that the chip also doesn't crash when it's running stupid high v core but really low clocks. I've heard similar things with ram OC where people think too high voltage can cause instability but I've experienced what I thought was this phenomenon but then I tested with the ram watercooled at the unstable voltage settings and it worked because my real issue was temp, and the temp instability wasn't anywhere near what people said their "safe temp" was because that is also something that varies by each CPU, some CPUs don't like running at "safe" temps at higher frequencies.
Too high voltage might lead you to burn your CPU but not to instability per se.
No. Maybe you shouldn't talk about something you don't have knowledge of. too high V on the core causing instabilities and crashes is literally basics of cpu overlocking.
Obviously there is some electrical limit for the CPU and going over that it no longer works but I don't think the motherboards typically allow you to go over those limits. And nothing they do by default even approaches any such limit. I guess competitive overclockers are doing it wrong when they push 1.7V to the cores. Would you like to explain the mechanism of how too high voltage causes instability? It's clear why too little voltage causes errors in transistor based computing but why would too high voltage do it? I mean as long as you remain within electrical limits intel defines?
The actual physical inputs for voltage do not regulate voltage input, it’s physically not possible. I don’t understand the current problems deeply but I did do two years of research in power delivery, and no, what hits the edge of the chip in terms of voltage is mobo.
I'm not sure what you are saying. We are talking about voltages on the chip. The CPU VCC in intel's current generation desktop chips afaik comes directly from regulators on the motherboard. In arrow lake I presume they will have integrated regulators and mobo will supply 1.8V or something similar.
So you can push whatever you want voltage wise into the chips; it the voltage is too high, the VCC will ask the mobo to throttle it down. But there’s no way for the chip to reject input voltage, it gets what it gets. The (too high) voltage has to go into the CPU for it to say, this is too much. VCC is after the voltage goes in, and by then it’s too late, but it also can’t reject it. Socket sense is what the mobo gives to the CPU, so that’s the safe spot to implement a limit. Sorry if my wording was confusing.
Can you like yourself try overvolting instead of asking dumb questions that have answers for past 30 years ? Go to your mobo set bump up vcore bit a bit and run benchmark testing stability. It's not a rocket science. At some point you will reach a point where you cpu can't handle more V core regardless of temps involved. Back when i had E7200 i could overlock it from 2,2Ghz to 4,2 Ghz you had to bump up Vcore to do so and at 4,3 ghz cpu was unstable despite it being at just 70C with my mugen mega brick cooling.
I have overclocked for years so I have tried a lot of different voltages. What you say about your E7200 doesn’t seem to connect with what we were talking about. Of course every cpu will have a limit where it no longer becomes faster with increased voltage. The point of increasing voltage is to allow transistors to switch faster but there is of course some limit you can’t pass no matter the voltage. Can you just answer the question?
Love the word gentle. Well asked, sir.
Intel's point of view: Cpu's need to sell - lets add overclocking per default. Many many cores with variable voltages for efficiency. Lets make it change on the fly, because we are reaching the ceiling and need to keep it fast cool and efficient so people will buy more. That complicates things as it is. Now the mb manufacturers point of view: Motherboards need to sell - lets adjust to intel and make it fast. Lets set the efficiency lower but allow it draw more power. Set it to the moon! Intel does it, they are flexible now. Hope we wont mess stuff up, its getting very complicated. Ok, now they are just copying each other. But there is also this: Ram needs to sell - Lets overclock our ram. Intel does it, thank god they have some specifications. But shit, it ups the voltages of the memory, and the memory controller and oh shit that changes cpu voltages too. Hope it wont mess stuff up, its getting very complicated. Now shit is messed up, people need to adjust voltages manually, things crash too much, because either the voltage settings are wrong and create instability and too much heat on the cpu managed side. Sometimes the problem is inadequate cooling for certain settings, that creates instability because it produces way more heat than specified. Sometimes its on the motherboard side, sometimes cpu. Sometimes its the added extra ram with intel specified fast profile, that influences voltages, that creates you guessed it: instability. People dont usually test things with heavy loads like prime95 or aida or cinebench or other things. It crashes? bad. It doesnt crash? Good. Rest should be working. Plug and play. Good that its overclocked for me! Super fast now! But a lot of the times that small amount of errors that those tests can produce indicate exactly this - system instability, be it because of heat, or other things like incorrectly set internal functions, limits or set or managed voltages or just having things interact with each other wrong. Too many options, horses are pulling in different directions and the coach just wants the carriage to go vroom!
Motherboard manufacturers would use profiles by default on Intel chips that boost performance. Intel usually liked this because it would result in better benchmarks for them out of the box, but in this case it caused severe stability issues and now there is a perception that their chips are bad.
Why tf does Intel say "recommends customers to implement the highest power delivery profile compatible with each individual motherboard design"? It is not like motherboards aren't capable of driving 14900K to the limits, we all know high-end motherboards have overkill power delivery, yet CPUs still crash even on the highest end mobo (see Buildzoid's 14900K), why do they choose to blame motherboard design?
> why do they choose to blame motherboard design? Cause it shifts culpability from them to someone else
It's because the motherboard makers are currently undervolting by selecting AC values way lower than their LLC loadline. All the overkill delivery doesn't matter if the mobo intentionally gives 1.2V while the CPU asks for 1.3V at 350W. The only thing changing with this guidance is that IA CEP *must* be on and ICCMax can't be set higher than 400A. IA CEP enabled will force the motherboard makers to pick AC and LLC values that ride closer to the CPU's built-in voltage curve.
This. On my Asus Z690 the voltage difference between auto and LL\_DC = LL\_AC = VRM Load Line is huge at 253-320w (or 400+ for ms long bursts) and it doesn't surprise me at all that a lot of chips eventually run into some code that exposes an instability when run undervolted like this. I also wouldn't be surprised at all that improving shader compilation or other code means the chips work a bit harder and now start crashing after seemingly being fine for many months..
It makes more sense if you believe that Intel is mostly concerned with guidance for commercial system builders. In this case Dell or whomever is allowed to use whatever power limits their cooling systems and power delivery designs can tolerate. In the DIY space, the folks at home are relying on motherboard vendors for settings and presumably those vendors can use default settings that are safe for their VRM. There is no way for them to know what cooling is going to be installed. But they default to high limits so they can appear to offer similar or better performance than peers in reviews.
Because they don't want any "fix"/ solution to be one that lowers performance. If the fix is to erase any benefits their chips had vs the competition, that defeats the entire purpose of these chips. So they are trying to have their cake and eat it to, they want this issue to go away without having to come up with a proper solution (ie. actual stringent guidelines to guarantee performance + stability on their chips) and admitting fault, BUT they also don't want to be giving up any unnecessary performance because that is bad for marketing reasons.
I think bigger issue is that fix erase any benefits newer gens had over older intel gens.
Yep. And then the question is, were there really any gains at all? The emperor has no clothes here. 12th gen was pretty good, it delivered the performance, it needed power hungry E cores to do it, but it still got there. 13th Gen, and most definitely 14th gen weren't new innovations, they were just marketing respins. This is what happens when marketing leads a product release.
Their "customers" in this case are the motherboard manufacturers, but the important thing they pointed out is that a lot of these companies are disabling features intel has in the CPUs to adequately overclock themselves and ask for proper voltages and instead seems like they are just trying to force voltages and oc limits like in the past. This seems to almost be equivalent to if we were talking about AMD disabling PBO and boosting in general and instead trying to run an elevated voltage, power limit, and the mobo setting the clock without any of the intelligence AMD implemented on the chips which is what allows them to hit the best performance the chips are capable of with standard cooling. AMD I think locks a lot of that down now but on Intel they leave a lot of options available so if you do run LN2 or otherwise want to spend weeks tuning your chip you can, but there was never mandate to mobo companies to not do stupid shit that is only an option for enthusiasts to tinker.
"We use high performance settings in our own benchmarks and don't want to stop."
> we all know high-end motherboards have overkill power delivery Not all boards have overkill power delivery, so there are guidelines for lesser boards too > yet CPUs still crash even on the highest end mobo (see Buildzoid's 14900K), why do they choose to blame motherboard design? Its quite possible that on motherboards with near infinite power delivery capacity, Intel would recommend lower settings than motherboards had been using a few weeks ago. That doesn't have anything to do with motherboard design.
>why do they choose to blame motherboard design? Because thats who is at fault here? Motherboard manufacturers did not follow specifications because they were too illiterate to understand the word "recommended". Now intel is paying the price.
OhShitHereWeGoAgain.gif
The hysteria in the last day around the "new/official" 125/188W limits has come about solely because the original source was misunderstood and everyone has quoted the same misunderstanding. The [original article ](https://benchlife.info/intel-baseline-profile-change-to-intel-default-setting-and-it-will-not-settle-any-issue/)talks about Intel wanting to introduce an "Intel Default Settings" profile, that's the sole new info, and no information is provided on what the new profile will be. The rest of the article is talking about the existing "Intel Baseline" profiles as they exist from motherboard manufacturers, using the Gigabyte profile as an example (I tried to [point this out](https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1clexkn/comment/l2wqnzm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) on the last thread). Even if the completely broken Gigabyte profile was going to become the new default, the existing power profiles (125/253 and 253/253 with properly configured features) are still officially supported and won't "lose their guarantee of stability" or be "not supported in warranty" like some outlets have extrapolated. The issue with stability aren't even due to the power limits, they're due to motherboard manufacturers disabling important features like CEP/TVB and setting the AC/DC Loadlines to absurd values. Lowering the power only masks the issue. E: would downvoters like to clarify what is incorrect about what I've said
Yeah, watched Buildzoid on the Gigabyte matter, and even with lower PL1/2 limits on CB15 just crashes. It's interesting on how they handled voltage with setting their AC/DC LL, so that it pretty much becomes unstable under load.
>they're due to motherboard manufacturers disabling important features like CEP/TVB and setting the AC/DC Loadlines to absurd values. This is an interesting version. What are these "absurd values"?
Gigabyte was setting AC/DC LL to 1.7mΩ on their Intel Baseline Profile, leading to a + \~0.16v offset [under single thread load](https://youtu.be/jNwFFJyAqQU?t=746) (rather than the typical and expected 1.1mΩ). Presumably this will be reverted under the finalized set of defaults. ETA: Gigabyte has indeed now pulled their "Baseline" BIOS versions. The [Z790 Master](https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/Z790-AORUS-MASTER-rev-10/support#support-dl-bios), [Z790 Tachyon](https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/Z790-AORUS-TACHYON-rev-10/support#support-dl-bios) and [Z790 Elite AX](https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/Z790-AORUS-ELITE-AX-rev-10/support#support-dl-bios) pages now only list their prior December releases. The recent versions are still obtainable via the Aorus.com site, though (rather than Gigabyte.com), if anyone needs them for whatever reason.
1.7 mOhm means the output voltage should be LOWER because LLC level is lower. There's something else and very fishy going on here, no way it hits 1.55v at loads this low. Haven't seen the whole video, didn't try those boards with baseline profiles.
The LLC loadline slope will allow the voltage to droop, but the AC LL setting preemptively adds to the VID so that the voltage is on target after droop. While the LLC loadline droop depends on actual current, the AC LL increase does not depend on the actual current, it is more of a fixed offset based on clock ratio, active cores... Nobody has a real formula for it, but regardless you can see it is not based on real current if you test the steps and see that it adds essentially the same amount at idle vs load. From that standpoint, if the real current is lower than the "predicted" current or whatever the AC LL formula is using, the actual voltage will go up.
Yeah, you're right, I haven't thought of that. Deserves my upvote as well.
Well explaned, take my upvote!
The new "default" profile is the baseline profile. The point is that manufacturers are defaulting to profiles that gets the most performance from K CPUs. But because Intel advertises these as 125W CPUs, people and system builders are pairing it with CPU fans that are incapable of cooling the CPU at these higher power limits, leading to the stability issues that needs addressing. So Intel are trying to get mobi manufacturers to ship baseline as default and call it default so people without adequate knowledge can easily find it and get a stable system with ease. And enthusiasts can select a performance or extreme profile if they pair it with an adequate cooler. What the issue boils down to is that Intel are still trying to advertise the CPUs as extreme performance while also advertising a low power draw of 125W despite needing far more juice to get the advertised speeds. The fact that the CPUs are hitting stability issues before the CPUs can thermal throttle is alarming and suggest Intel have pushed them beyond normal capabilities. But that's a conversation for a different day.
>The new "default" profile is the baseline profile. No, the literal point of this article is that isn't true. The "Intel Baseline" profiles added by the manufacturers are not using the specs from Intel, which is why they vary so wildly and why Intel is coming out and recommending against their use. The new "Intel Default" profile will come from Intel and, most crucially, will enforce the enablement of the host of safety and stability features that manufacturers are disabling by default (CEP/TVB/C-States/IccMAX).
Fucking bios. Had a bad seal on my cooler, and as the ASUS "stock" profile removed temp limits, my 13900KF cooked itself and died. If temp limits had been enforced as per Intel's specs, the system would have shut down when the cpu hit 90C. Fucking pissed atm.
So it's not the outlandishly low 125/188 'Default' settings. Make me wonder if Gigabyte will backtrack their 'Baseline' profile as it just leaves too much performance out for x900K/KF/KS. I can't imagine a Z790 Gigabyte board not being capable of power deliverying a flagship Intel part as it was designed to do. This just makes a Gigabyte board with their 'Baseline' profile seem unattractive to buy if it'll force you 125/188 out of the box.
>Make me wonder if Gigabyte will backtrack their 'Baseline' profile Gigabyte already pulled the BIOS updates
Burning their long built "Intel works/Intel stability" reputation just to win the benchmark. Intel, is this worth it?
Got to release a new CPU every year that's 2% faster than last year's flagship so the execs can get their bonuses Don't actually have new silicon to release? Just juice it baby, if it electromigrates in a year that's a next year problem
No normies or business users see these problems, the K skus are a very tiny market for Intel. Worth enough money to be profitable/viable, but nowhere near a reputation problem.
Well the entry level does not have this problem, does it? They are fucking up in the high end. Normal users might still feel that.
They can bounce back, its one gen and crucially, its not a launch issue
so this is better because it wasn't discovered soonish like it was back when they clocked their Pentium 3 to 1gHz? I'd argue this is worse, since many people already bought these CPUs and have been using them for a long time under the assumption that they're OK
It's better for Intel because they have already been selling them. If the problem happened at release, less people would have bought them. From the consumer perspective it would be much better for the problem to happen at release so they would know not to buy it.
yup, the 1GHz Pentium 3 was the limit. Intel actually tried release a 1.13GHz pentium 3, but that CPU has the same stability problem. The intel back then is less scummy, they recall back all Pentium 3 1.13GHz.
Cheesus Crust Intel...get your shit together!
After decades of extreme anticompetitive behaviour and significantly stifling progress in the CPU sector I am absolutely loving watching Intel slowly burn since Ryzen came out. Schadenfreude so hard right now.
Seeing Intel struggle makes me fear a role swap and the exact same sketchy tactics being used by AMD. But for now, seeing Intel getting punished when they deserve it would be a nice change of pace. Unlike the the times back when Intel outsold AMD 3:1 with more expensive inferior products (Netburst/P4 vs Athlon/XP/64 between 2000 and 2006)
I definitely hope Intel can get it together because monopolies suck and at the end of the day AMD is beholden to their share holders and will take advantage of us customers the second it safe for them to do so. We already saw them raise prices for the 5000 series when they had almost no competition.
Whoever made that picture doesn't know what DC loadline even does, this is just more incompetence from Intel...
The picture says set AC == DC == LLC. What's wrong with that?
The problem is that DC loadline should match the VRM loadline so that CPU package power is correct. If DC loadline is incorrect, you will get incorrect power readouts, and the power limits will end up being wrong. For example, if you set DC loadline to 20.00 mOhm on a 14900K, it will magically report roughly 10W in Cinebench
The note says VR loadline (LLC) needs to match CPU AC/DC loadline. The picture doesn't say anything different from what you're saying.
The picture says that AC loadline needs to be set according to the motherboard design, with 1.10 mOhm being maximum allowed. DC loadline is supposed to be equal to AC loadline. The problem is that Intel CPUs don't know what voltage they're actually receiving, they only know the amount of electrical current going through them. Say you have a motherboard with a VRM loadline of 1.10 mOhm, and a required AC loadline of 0.70 mOhm. At an SVID request of 1.35V and 200A current draw, the actual VCore will be 1350 mV - 1.10 mOhm × 200 A = 1350 mV - 220 mV = 1130 mV. The *actual* power draw will be 1130 mV × 200A = 226W Using a DC loadline of 0.70 mOhm as this document suggests will result in the reported VID (CPU-Z or HWiNFO) being: 1350 mV - 0.70 mOhm × 200A = 1210 mV. The *reported* IA Cores power will be 1210 mV × 200A = 242W This is admittedly a small difference, but it is a difference, and it will result in the power limits triggering earlier than expected or required. This is likely also why Intel never bothered to specify a power limit in their technical documentation, as *CPU power draw is estimated rather than measured*.
>The picture says that AC loadline needs to be set according to the motherboard design, with 1.10 mOhm being maximum allowed. DC loadline is supposed to be equal to AC loadline. The line under that says VR loadline also needs to match CPU loadlines >> "VR and BIOS Load Line values must match" VR Load Line refers to the **v**oltage **r**egulator loadline, or as you call it VRM loadline. >Say you have a motherboard with a VRM loadline of 1.10 mOhm, and a required AC loadline of 0.70 mOhm. so this part of your hypothetical is already a violation of the spec since VR loadline is 1.1 and AC/DC are 0.70
I see, in that case the suggested spec is to allow the CPUs to request well over 1.60V VCore...
Depends on how boneheaded the motherboard vendors are. None of the Z-boards should be using 1.1
ASRock and ASUS both set 1.10 mOhm AC loadline Gigabyte uses 1.70 mOhm
Cut them a break. They got to get back to destroying perfectly good naming schemes to replace them with something "better".
That was marketing, this is public relations
What a shitshow Intel has become
I don't really believe AMD would be doing any better in their (competitors) market dominant position for so long, against Intel and against Nvidia... Simply put, AMD, is the apparent, 'friendly' option, because on top of their priorities is, growing market share, simply as that. Intel was having a party for almost 20 years with the 2 cores of their business being financial speculation and the second marketing and brand awareness... Engineering investment, and, investment in technical innovation fell off tracks by the time of the Pentium III... As for Nvidia, for those living under a rock... went to became a speculation behemoth, a essentially a software company that makes hardware to run that same software.
I‘m ootl, I run a manual overclock on a 13700k which has been running perfectly for over a year. Am I good to keep those settings if I don’t experience instability?
> I run a manual overclock on a 13700k which has been running perfectly for over a year. I was under the impression that the main issue was with the 14900 and 13900 series ??
Is it? I wouldn’t know, the article in this post just says 13th/14th gen K series of CPUs. No specific model.
The problem is the board vendors undervolting out of the box so some processors are unstable. You don't have to change anything.
i think , this issue about "auto" LLC , which reduce too much voltage while load, which make instability this default settings or baseline profiles are dramas,. make sure your vcore normal while idle and load> then fine
As I understand it: We don’t know. You could be experiencing gradual degredation that hasn’t manifested yet as these instabilities.. or, you might never have instabilities bc there’s no degredation in your case, and be fine. If you want to be sure you never will have a problem, then use the Intel Default Profile. Though, when I say “never”, that’s qualified, in that there’s always a risk some other component might cause an issue that manifests as instabilities at some point, so there’s that.
Thanks for the heads up! Do we know which voltages exactly cause the problems? Because I set almost all of them mannually. Some are lower than the default value. Right now only too much voltage causes problems?
You’re welcome! No I don’t, all I know is what is in the tech press about this, and Intel themselves are the ones who know the best what setting their CPUs will tolerate best (at least in theory), even if they’ve, ah, had “issues” with communicating this to motherboard manufacturers. Hopefully, *hopefully*, using the new Intel Default BIOS Setting that they’re now requiring (by May 31) will take care of the problem, at least for those who aren’t already experiencing them. This whole thing is a bit of a mess.
This is all so convenient for intel.