Intel Statement on Stability Issues: "Motherboard Makers to Blame"

[dgianstefani]

It seems there is a lot of confidence here.

Could you please provide the said 'marketing uses materials' from Intel showing 'They did not tweat any of these settings besides PL1 = PL2' ?

Intel are pretty thorough showing exactly what settings were used. To the point of also running memory at officially supported speeds (5600 MT), not the 8000 MT etc these chips are capable of.

Intel® Core™ (14th Gen) Desktop Processors - 2 | Performance Index

edc.intel.com

It absolutely isn't, Intel themselves on numerous occasions claimed all of this is perfectly normal, this was years ago mind you :

Talking TDP, Turbo and Overclocking: An Interview with Intel Fellow Guy Therien

www.anandtech.com

View attachment 345566

It's factually incorrect to say they weren't aware of what was going on and this why I believe they likely even encouraged it.

Intel was well aware of what motherboard makers were doing, possibly even incentivize them, they allowed for these deviations on purpose so their CPUs perform better than they would have otherwise did. They're not fooling anyone, the reason they let this happen is obvious.

What is speculation is this part. Not the comment that Intel is aware of what motherboard makers were doing.

In fact, the vast majority of those benchmarks on that page do not use PL1=PL2. Each time the configuration is a little different and it's very clearly stated. E.g. some have Intel APO enabled.

For example, the second entry in the list.

What is also notable is that these performance claims are in line with TPU testing, which uses Intel spec. So there isn't any reason, in my mind, to imagine for drama's sake, that Intel is running a bunch of other parameters outside of spec, but not stating that.

 

[Vya Domus]

What is speculation is this part.

Read the answer he gave again and very carefully.

He assured us it's all within spec, so obviously if having these absurd power limits out of the box are in spec it's actually an understatement to say they incentivized motherboard makers to do this, they probably had to do it, because it's in spec after all lol.

 

[dgianstefani]

Read the answer he gave again and very carefully.

He assured us it's all within spec, so obviously if having these absurd power limits out of the box is in spec it's actually an understatement to say they incentivized motherboard makers to do this, they had to do it, because it's in spec after all lol.

"Workstation level" motherboards can support multiple CPUs with more than a hundred cores in total. It's not absurd to have a "999 W" power limit that is "in spec" in those cases.

This news post thread is specifically regarding 13th and 14th generation K series processors, not ambiguous models/boards.

 

[chrcoluk]

from what i know the asus and gigabyte have different power (but stable) limits in place... the gigabyte ones have quite the substantial performance hit..
the asus one also have a performance hit but not as much as gigabyte... now is the chance for amd to gain more sales in the time being

Asus power limits dont match the baseline values. What their reason is for trying to keep it above what intel said is would be interesting to know, or if its just a mistake from them.

 

[Vya Domus]

"Workstation level" motherboards can support multiple CPUs with more than a hundred cores in total. It's not absurd to have a "999 W" power limit that is "in spec" in those cases.

For the last time, read what is actually being said. In his question he said "consumer or workstations". And no, 999W is pretty absurd even for HEDT.

 

[chrcoluk]

It seems that Gigabyte for some reason applied the PL of the non-K 14900 to the 14900K. EDIT: Nope, not even that, it is just some weird value.
Also, speaking of "scam" since Intel decided for the 12 gen+ K series PL1=PL2, they should just have labeled the 14900K as 253W TDP.

It matches the value posted in the other thread, to me it looks like Asus got it wrong.

Should be 188/125.

Also it seems based on HUB's demonstration both vendors have not made the baseline the default, it needs to be selected.

 

[Crackong]

Intel are pretty thorough showing exactly what settings were used. To the point of also running memory at officially supported speeds (5600 MT), not the 8000 MT etc these chips are capable of.

That isn't the answer to my question.
I was asking if your have any proof that 'ANY' of the mentioned setting aren't tweated in 'ANY' of the Intel marketing claims.

or afterall it is just your own 'Speculation' ?

Please keep in mind that, Intel themselves didn't reveal the PL1 settings in the 14900KS performance index anymore.
Does that mean it stayed at the 'Default 150W' ?

Everyone and their dog knew Intel tweaked that PL1 to the maximum to the point that it hurts their marketing if revealed.

It matches the value posted in the other thread, to me it looks like Asus got it wrong.

Should be 188/125.

Also it seems based on HUB's demonstration both vendors have not made the baseline the default, it needs to be selected.

And Gigabyte had their voltage set wayyy too high.

It seems like there is nobody from Intel actually govening the 'baseline' values

 

[londiste]

It matches the value posted in the other thread, to me it looks like Asus got it wrong.

Should be 188/125.

Also it seems based on HUB's demonstration both vendors have not made the baseline the default, it needs to be selected.

It should not be 188/125. And both got baseline wrong.
Intel has pretty nice documents with specifications.

13th Generation Intel® Core™, Intel® Core™ 14th Generation, Intel® Core™ Processor (Series 1) and (Series 2), and Intel® Xeon™ E 2400 Processor Datasheet, Volume 1 of 2

This describes all publicly disclosed specifications including electrical characteristics, mechanical, and component functionality, a list of major features, a functional description, and an architectural overview.

www.intel.com

4.4 Processor Line Thermal and Power Specifications, Table 17. Package Turbo Specifications (S/HX/S Refresh/HX Refresh-Processor Lines) - page 98
14900K is S, 8P+16E Core 125W - Tau 56, PL1 125, PL2 253.
Extreme config is Tau 56, PL1 253, PL2 253, basically power limit at 253W. Pretty sure Extreme should not be the default thing either way.

Edit:
14900KS is S, 8P+16E Core 150W - PL1 = PL2 = 253W
Extreme config PL1 = PL2 = 320W
If you bought a KS model it is reasonable enough to expect the buyer to understand what they are getting into

 

[dgianstefani]

It matches the value posted in the other thread, to me it looks like Asus got it wrong.

Should be 188/125.

Also it seems based on HUB's demonstration both vendors have not made the baseline the default, it needs to be selected.

I know you're talking about baseline spec.

Found this datasheet pdf which is quite comprehensive and easier to navigate than the web based one.

Useful data.

13th Generation Intel® Core™, Intel® Core™ 14th Generation, Intel® Core™ Processor (Series 1) and (Series 2), and Intel® Xeon™ E 2400 Processor Datasheet, Volume 1 of 2

This describes all publicly disclosed specifications including electrical characteristics, mechanical, and component functionality, a list of major features, a functional description, and an architectural overview.

www.intel.com

Please keep in mind that, Intel themselves didn't reveal the PL1 settings in the 14900KS performance index anymore.
Does that mean it stayed at the 'Default 150W' ?

Everyone and their dog knew Intel tweaked that PL1 to the maximum to the point that it hurts their marketing if revealed.

Seems pretty clear to me reading the datasheet what the PL1 values are. If you want to speculate Intel are not following their own spec that's your perogative.

It should not be 188/125. And both got baseline wrong.
Intel has pretty nice documents with specifications.

13th Generation Intel® Core™, Intel® Core™ 14th Generation, Intel® Core™ Processor (Series 1) and (Series 2), and Intel® Xeon™ E 2400 Processor Datasheet, Volume 1 of 2

This describes all publicly disclosed specifications including electrical characteristics, mechanical, and component functionality, a list of major features, a functional description, and an architectural overview.

www.intel.com

4.4 Processor Line Thermal and Power Specifications, Table 17. Package Turbo Specifications (S/HX/S Refresh/HX Refresh-Processor Lines) - page 98
14900K is S, 8P+16E Core 125W - Tau 56, PL1 125, PL2 253.
Extreme config is Tau 56, PL1 253, PL2 253, basically power limit at 253W. Pretty sure Extreme should not be the default thing either way.

Yep, extreme profiles are only for the i9 and the KS I believe.

You posted the datasheet a minute before I finished my post lol.

 

[Crackong]

Seems pretty clear to me reading the datasheet what the PL1 values are.

So 320W.
And why is that PL1 = 320W not listed on the performance index page as the same as the 14900k datapoint?

It is pretty obvious that Intel didn't list all of their settings on the marketing material.
Therefore you cannot draw a line that none of those settings were tweated when Intel did those performance claim tests at #70

 

[chrcoluk]

I know you're talking about baseline spec.

Found this datasheet pdf which is quite comprehensive and easier to navigate than the web based one.

Useful data.

13th Generation Intel® Core™, Intel® Core™ 14th Generation, Intel® Core™ Processor (Series 1) and (Series 2), and Intel® Xeon™ E 2400 Processor Datasheet, Volume 1 of 2

This describes all publicly disclosed specifications including electrical characteristics, mechanical, and component functionality, a list of major features, a functional description, and an architectural overview.

www.intel.com

View attachment 345575


Seems pretty clear to me reading the datasheet what the PL1 values are. If you want to speculate Intel are not following their own spec that's your perogative.


Yep, extreme profiles are only for the i9 and the KS I believe.

You posted the datasheet a minute before I finished my post lol.

Yep my reply is based on the igorslab baseline spec image.

You reposted it here.

Intel Statement on Stability Issues: "Motherboard Makers to Blame"

Intel Spec limits, not motherboard defaults. I want to ask. By Intel Spec Limit do you mean PL1 = 253W ? Since it is the performance Index listed on Intel's own website.

www.techpowerup.com

The perf column matches the other link people are posting, but baseline is lower. Also matches the document you linked as well. Even perf isnt pl1=pl2, its 253/125 instead of 188/125 for baseline.

 

[dgianstefani]

Because your datasheet is outdated for the KS model

Is it?

What is the point you are trying to make?

So 320W.
And why is that PL1 = 320W not listed on the performance index page as the same as the 14900k datapoint?

??? What are you on about?

 

[Vya Domus]

All of this discussion is meaningless because at the end of the day Intel is still putting out purposely vague information in their statement :

• Increasing PL1 and PL2 beyond Intel recommended limits

"Recommend" is not a clear specification, it means nothing. It's also recommended you don't throw your PC in the ocean or set it on fire, etc.

 

[dgianstefani]

All of this discussion is meaningless because at the end of the day Intel is still putting out purposely vague information in their statement :



"Recommend" is not a clear specification, it means nothing. It's also recommended you don't throw your PC in the ocean or set it on fire, etc.

Ah, It's meaningless.

Righto.

The specifications seem pretty clear to me if you aren't interested in playing word games.

 

[Crackong]

Is it?

What is the point you are trying to make?

I retracted that comment like 30 sec after posting, you are sure very nervous and keep hitting your F5, I will give you credit for that.

 

[Vya Domus]

If it was so clear why couldn't they just say the exact values ? Why say "recommend limits" lol.

 

[chrcoluk]

So looks to me based on igorslab baseline spec image, and the document @dgianstefani posted that perf spec is 253/125 and baseline spec is 188/125.

 

[dgianstefani]

If it was so clear why couldn't they just say it ? Why say "recommend limits" lol.

They do just say it.

Have a look at the datasheet.

What other companies do with Intel products is up to them.

If I buy a car and tune the engine until it explodes, is this the fault of the car manufacturer?

I retracted that comment like 30 sec after posting, you are sure very nervous and keep hitting your F5, I will give you credit for that.

Are you speculating again?

 

[Vya Domus]

Have a look at the datasheet.

And are those values "recommend" or what ?

It's pretty obvious through the varying implementation of the baseline "spec" on motherboards that no one seems to know what that is.

 

[Solid State Brain]

AFAIK, the power limits assume that the CPUs remain below thermal specifications (mainly the temperature at the center of the IHS, which isn't easily measured). They can be lower or higher than what Intel "recommends", depending on how well the CPU is cooled. Other operating parameters like current and so on are not as flexible, which is clear by reading the notes in the datasheet.

 

[64K]

They do just say it.

Have a look at the datasheet.

What other companies do with Intel products is up to them.

If I buy a car and tune the engine until it explodes, is this the fault of the car manufacturer?


Are you speculating again?

Not the same thing. In this case it would be more accurate to say that you bought a car from a dealership that tuned the engine to the point that it ruined the engine after a while. The car manufacturer wouldn't be liable but if they knew this dealership was doing that and said nothing month after month wouldn't it make them at least complicit on some level?

 

[Heiro78]

So 320W.
And why is that PL1 = 320W not listed on the performance index page as the same as the 14900k datapoint?

It is pretty obvious that Intel didn't list all of their settings on the marketing material.
Therefore you cannot draw a line that none of those settings were tweated when Intel did those performance claim tests at #70

I've seen this a couple times and maybe I don't know better. But what is tweated?

 

[Crackong]

??? What are you on about?

The fact that you keep posting contradicted materials and misleading us.

at #37 you posted Ignor's table and claimed it was Intel's default
at #57 #70 you acted like PL1=PL2 is okay but still off-spec
at #84 , all the sudden you act like PL1 = PL2 is in spec

You are so convoluted and confused, just like the motherboard manufacturers right now.

I will make it simple.
What should be the 'baseline' setting, for 14900KS?

125/188 ?
150/320 ?
320/320 ?

Pick one.

 

[dgianstefani]

Not the same thing. In this case it would be more accurate to say that you bought a car from a dealership that tuned the engine to the point that it ruined the engine after a while. The car manufacturer wouldn't be liable but if they knew this dealership was doing that and said nothing month after month wouldn't it make them at least complicit on some level?

Maybe.

I don't know how the Intel/motherboard manufacturer relationship works.

From what I understand everyone just buys Intel chipsets, takes advantage of Intel reference designs/software etc., but is essentially releasing their own products.

 

[Crackong]

I've seen this a couple times and maybe I don't know better. But what is tweated?

I don't know either.
Intel did not post it on their performance index.