Intel CPUs Are Crashing and It's Intel's Fault: Intel Baseline Profile Benchmark

Between security issues and power problems Intel has gotten really good at removing performance after launch to make their new parts look good.....

They will fall further behind if they can't correct this and FAST.

Intel should lower the turbo clocks by 10% thus cutting 21% of the power draw . Issue gone .

Jaystwocents already did a vid on this and was putting the blame on the MB manufacturers.
But now it seems like Intel is the EKWB of the CPU market.

Guess Jay is gonna have to do another vid on this subject since GamerNexus is busy nailing EKWB butt
to the wall.

Gee what a surprise, money grubbing, greedy, bottom of the barrel companies trying to scam and out and out lie to customers, just so they can get there end of quarter millions of dollars bonuses.

Great: Intel now has to spend an hour tending to some gamer-troublemakers and ytubers who can't read the instructions for a motherboard or CPU.

Crinkles said:

Great: Intel now has to spend an hour tending to some gamer-troublemakers and ytubers who can't read the instructions for a motherboard or CPU.

Click to expand...

Somebody didn't read the article before commenting.

ScottSoapbox said:

Somebody didn't read the article before commenting.

Click to expand...

But reading's hard....

Great article as always, Steve.

I’ve been on the side of blaming MB manufacturers for violating specs, but the quote below was really damning for Intel:

Guy Therien: Even with those values, you're not running out of spec, I want to make very clear – you're running in spec, but you are getting higher turbo duration.
We're going to be very crisp in our definition of what the difference between in-spec and out-of-spec is. There is an overclocking 'bit'/flag on our processors. Any change that requires you to set that overclocking bit to enable overclocking is considered out-of-spec operation. So if the motherboard manufacturer leaves a processor with its regular turbo values, but states that the power limit is 999W, that does not require a change in the overclocking bit, so it is in-spec."

Click to expand...

I think Intel and their partners both have skin in this, but it’s really hard not to point mainly at Intel when they make statements like the one above.

Crinkles said:

Great: Intel now has to spend an hour tending to some gamer-troublemakers and ytubers who can't read the instructions for a motherboard or CPU.

Click to expand...

As a "Gamer-Troublemaker", whatever the hell that means. Maybe Intel should do a better job at making sure that MB manufactures, and the public understand the power limits of there CPUs.
And by the way, why are Gamers trouble makers?
Because they discover a problem with a product?
If it wasn't for gamers pushing the hardware to the limits, you would still be running 486 machines
So instead of knocking people down, you should be thanking them.
Cause I don't see you contributing in any meaningful way other than trolling the subject matter

Superconductor said:

"...they're caught in a lie and we have the receipts." AND "This is our speculation" (later in the article) makes for some interesting reading.

Click to expand...

Picking words from two different paragraphs, referring to two different things. Good one.

Classic case of Intel Arrogance and Intel fooling itself.

Does anyone expect anything different from the "Modern Day" Intel??

Never had any problems with my i7 14700k and ASUS ROG Strix Z790H board and I`ve been rocking it for more than six months now in different scenarios: games, apps and some prime95 for stress testing. ASUS overclocked! Maybe I`ve been lucky, but it would be interesting to see just how many people had these issues. Certainly enough to make Intel sweat, but then again it`s not a problem with the CPUs, but with overclocking. And that`s a shady territory, partly because it depends on your individual cooling quality. I`m not here to defend Intel, I get that they wanted to pump up the numbers and they`re mostly going to blame the customer, but I don`t see this as big as Nvidia incompetence when designing 4090 cables, because nobody fried his CPU yet.

GREAT article Steven! I've been complaining about this since I bought my 10850K. Asus allows the CPU to do pretty much whatever it wants and the thermal loads become ridiculous. It required a lot of BIOS tweaking to keep my CPU temps and fan speeds reasonable.

I can already see the reviewers on the next round of Intel CPU's.

"Intel Core Ultra Review: The Performance now, but we'll be back in six months for the real results".

Isn't it at least interesting that Asus and Gigabyte have the reputation for making high quality motherboards and the others are known to make cheap boards with cheap and substandard components? Fits perfectly with the results of the CineBench test shown first.

Intel does not escape scot-free here, but some motherboard manufacturers have to stop turning out low-priced inferior product. And these high-end Intel CPUs consume ridiculous amounts of power!

As far as I am concerned, MSI has rarely made quality products. Why? Some of you may not remember that MSI produced and sold 486 motherboards with fake cache modules installed in the cache memory sockets. A few of these boards were tested by running benchmarks, first as-is from the factory, then replacing the fake cache with real cache chips. What do you think the results showed.

I have an Omen gaming laptop, and I wonder if any of this also applies to HX CPUs.
Since last November, I have seen one of the common problems of those K CPUs.
I have gone from gaming to a sudden black screen and system reboot.

But it has only happened 3 times, so I can't say for sure it is CPU related.

LetTheWookieWin said:

Great article as always, Steve.

I’ve been on the side of blaming MB manufacturers for violating specs, but the quote below was really damning for Intel:



I think Intel and their partners both have skin in this, but it’s really hard not to point mainly at Intel when they make statements like the one above.

Click to expand...

You can easily argue that changing power limits alone isn't out of spec, as the CPU itself will still stick to it's default values, just for longer. The combination of increasing power limits while removing protections, having weird loadline settings and increasing current limits are causing issues, because the CPU is going over "what's possible" mentioned in the same interview.
Also things changed quite a bit from when that interview was made, at the time the main talk was motherboard manufacturers changing boost duration and power limits, while now we're talking about changing current limits, loadline settings and removing protections.

Intel should've been controlling those things better on default setting, so they are obviously at fault there, but I don't see the logic of ignoring that MB are going well over the limit on default. For me this is the same as when MB were blasting Zen CPUs with way more voltage than necessary. AMD should've done better, but it's still on the MB to not do stupid **** on the defaults.

For me both Intel and AMD should tone the power consumption down on their high-end options, this thing of pushing the CPUs to the limits out of the box, and having motherboards push it even further is dumb and a waste of power anyway.

As a PC technician who builds Rigs for my clients I've been using AMD in most of my builds in the last years without knowing this lmao...seems like I was taking the right choice avoiding Intel's scammy behavior
Since I touched my first computer back when Win Vista was shitting the world I've always rooted for Intel's I was an Intel fanboy and despite AMD like low tier-quality CPUs but after the pandemic shortages I went with Ryzen to give it a try and oh boy! They're processors are great . Since the launch of Ryzen Intel has been struggling trying to keep their boat afloat but I see with this article they're trying by any means necessary to keep up AMD on those charts lol even at the stake of their own clients investment, well that's F up, another reason yet to keep going strong with AMD and stay as away as possible from INTEL'S MESS.

Basically, Intel allowed mobo manufacturers to do pretty much what they wanted with power parameters on those CPUS, so they just did what they were told they could do (see the quotes in the article)!
In the end, IMHO, it's Intel's responsability to define limits and allow manufacturers to play WITHIN these limits. They are manufacturing the CPUs and defining the specs, not Asus or MSI or Gigabyte. If Intel says "it's within specs", people understand just that: it's within specs, so nothing serious can/should happen, or did I misunderstand something?
All in all, it's not looking good for Intel. CPUs that consume twice as much power compared to AMD, for the same performance, or about the same, and now this...
A little competition might be positive for innovation, but when it gets to this, you would be excused to think it goes a little too far.

scavengerspc said:

I have an Omen gaming laptop, and I wonder if any of this also applies to HX CPUs.
Since last November, I have seen one of the common problems of those K CPUs.
I have gone from gaming to a sudden black screen and system reboot.

But it has only happened 3 times, so I can't say for sure it is CPU related.

Click to expand...

I was about to get an OMEN cuz they look great
With the same K CPU but 8 generation, wonder if past generations still have the same issues as today's.

I look forward to reviews of the 15th Gen Intel CPU's with these new baseline benchmarks.

Yeah this is some madness. It does indeed seem to be bunk to be like "Well, here's some RECOMMENDED limits, but nothing is outside the limits, do whatever." Some of these boards may have still shipped pre-overclocked, but then at least the buyer would know it's overclocked and not "Well, what the hell, it's not oustide of allowed specifications." And the gamers would continue to overclock if they wish, just being aware they are indeed overclocking, not just running an "extended" profile or whatever.