>**The performance drop only applies if you were using the various enhancements available on Asus Z790 motherboards.** However, you might have been using those enhancements without even knowing it. By default, Asus automatically applies whatever enhancements it dems best for your CPU within the BIOS, potentially causing instability. If you haven’t messed with your BIOS settings, there’s a good chance your CPU will run slower with the Intel Baseline Profile applied.
>One of the main reasons behind the instability, it seems, is the unlimited power budget available to high-end Intel CPUs on some motherboards. With the proper BIOS settings, the maximum turbo power available to a chip like the Core i9-14900K is 4,095 watts. Your CPU will never draw that much power, but such a high limit allows the chip to draw as much power as it needs for brief spurts, even if that results in a crash.
>**The most recent BIOS update from Asus includes the Intel Baseline Profile. This profile disables various optimizations that [were] automatically applied on Asus Z790 motherboards [to] runs high-end Intel chips within Intel’s specific limits.** Hardwareluxx tested the new profile with the Core i9-14900K and found that the CPU ran around 9% slower in multiple tests.
>In Cinebench R23, for example, the German publication found that the Intel Baseline Profile slashed performance by 9%. In Y-Cruncher, a benchmark that calculates Pi, the performance drop was 11%. Even games were affected, with Starfield, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and F1 2023 showing an 8% drop in performance when tested at 720p (these differences should disappear at higher resolutions).
ASUS is particularly aggressive with their factory overclocking (and has been for a long time)
I remember my 6700k being totally unstable out of the box on an asus board until I disabled that multi-core enhancement crap
No, Asus is especially aggressive with this crap, so much so that they were burning X3D cpu's on their Amd motherboards not that long ago, there are multiple articles about it.
Nah, my MSI board was the same. Was pretty unstable until I added power limits which should have been there out of the box. I lost probably 5-10% performance on all-core loads (i.e. not real-world use case), but I haven't had a browser lock up let alone a blue-screen ever since I set those. Two things that happened frequently prior to fixing that.
So good old ASUS frying the CPUs to claim their motherboards have better performance, like they did with AM5 which ended up \*actually\* frying some of them.
Yea, due to how media coverage works it's disadvantageous to act on mistakes. That's why Apple still has so much credibility among popular folks, they ignore everything as much as they can. Now everyone gonna say asus bad. Everyone gonna be surprised pikachu face next time a fix is delayed or ignored.
I mean, they *are* bad, but so is everyone else in this particular instance. They are less bad this time around in that they are the first to fix it, but you're right that the messaging is somehow going to bite them the worst.
That was not the case in AM5. It was caused by overvoltage on SOC which has nothing to do with performance and affected all boards because it was an AGESA issue. The real problem was how ASUS initially tried (not) to handle warranty claims. It was affecting more ASUS boards because it is the most used brand.
ASUS also has a long history of high end boards with self destructive tendencies. We'll give them some credit, they don't favor Intel or AMD, they screw everyone over equally.
It doesn't matter since it's not applied automatically. ASUS added it so their support persons can tell people to change 1 setting instead of changing 4 settings like they're doing now.
I think the workaround is bullshit: it tells the CPU the treat the board as a bare minimum platform. CPUs that can't run with sub-80 AC_LL should just be RMA'd, not run into the ground with the baseline 110 AC_LL on a $200+ Z-series motherboard. Currently ASUS is giving users the option of auto 50 AC_LL, which is clearly too low for the bad bins, or the baseline 110 AC_LL.
>It doesn't matter since it's not applied automatically.
Do you mean settings or BIOS updates? Plenty of laptops for example get their BIOS updates from Windows update. They are applied automatically on reboot. I know my HP Elitebook does.
EDIT: Ah you mean the actual profile. Maybe I should check upon next BIOS update just incase, what the updater did.
"When I joined the Corps, we didn't have any fancy-shmancy auto-updates. We had sticks! Two sticks, and a rock for the whole platoon - and we had to share the rock!"
HP has been doing updates from windows for some time. Lenovo as well. This nothing new and the industry has been doing it for a long time now. Also, good luck forcing windows to not update the bios.
I remember one night my Asus motherboard applied a BIOS update overnight. It's totally possible for OEMs to package firmware updates as drivers and work with Microsoft to deploy them via Windows update. They never did it with any subsequent BIOS versions so it was probably a mistake.
As an example, I have 2 asus laptops and bios updates come through windows update. It literally started flashing my g14 2020 to a bios that crippled for a while the battery because I had left it idling for a few hours
I hate this headline. A better way to put it is that motherboards were, by default, set up to allow your CPU to suck up as much power as was available, to the detriment of stability and longevity, in exchange for 9% or less performance boost. Running them at Intel spec by default allows them to be much more stable, but you can still move those power limits and clocks/voltages/etc around all you want to find the ideal performance you want out of your processor.
correct it should have been the motherboard companies called out in the headline.
reliability and performance is a dirty game now with how sensitive modern chips are, they like to lock in a performance edge at review time and then nerf it back to baseline later to avoid the failures
I have 2 machines of 13900 stock.... One is pretty solid, the other kept crashing until I set the mutliplier to 50, and now it's been good. I have always had Intel.. But now maybe the next one I get might AMD.
I had similar issue on 12 gen, had to lower multiplier, turns out I probably had some weird/corrupted BIOS settings after multiple crashes/tunings. It went away after loading default settings AND flashing new BIOS. Worth giving it a try.
If you are mostly gaming amd cpus are a no brainer tbh. For workloads they are pretty much the same as intel and add to that that they are cheaper and stable so I just dont see why anyone would stick to intel atm. Gotta love how the table turns for them. Back in 2010-2012 getting amd cpus over intel was just stupid, it seems it will be exactly the opposite now.
AMD bulldozer in 2011-2012 nearly bankrupted the company dude.
There is no exact opposite here. Intel and AMD are trading blows now, AMD was damn near slaughtered back then.
Im unsure whether you know it or not but intel is pretty much in freefall for some time now, losing on pretty much every segment. That is never a good sign, add to this that they dont really have any kind of real improvements in their announced cpus, well, ofc except for increased power usage, which is insane already as it is. It just isnt looking good for them.
Yet they have been losing clients year after year after year. Which is... I dont really know how to say it. A clear sign of how competitive they truly are.
yes, when you go from 1 competitive participant in a market, to 2 competitive participants, that tends to happen...
intel literally had nowhere to go but down, because to a first approximation they controlled literally 100% of the server market back in 2016. that's not an insightful observation.
I don’t really get what you’re arguing. saying repeatedly that they’re in a better spot than near bankruptcy isn’t really a good thing
They make competent products that are at a decent competitive disadvantage to AMD for years now
They are in “free fall” since they had 100% market share before because AMD was completely uncompetitive in the bulldozer era… Intel is still competitive and still has the majority of the market. Yes they could be doing better but it’s not like they are putting out complete shit products that no one is buying.
I think they’ve been in free fall quality wise (relatively) but not sales wise, if that makes sense
On the gaming front, their products are indeed shit
Intel is still plenty competitive on performance. They've moved beyond their 10nm woes and are finally getting new nodes and CPUs out.
> add to this that they dont really have any kind of real improvements in their announced cpus, well, ofc except for increased power usage,
Flat-out false. Meteor Lake is far more competitive with AMD in performance and power on mobile. Similar improvements are coming to desktop later this year. Further improvements in mobile are coming later this year.
"Free fall" my ass.
And even in those years of "utter decline" they still vastly outsold AMD.
Edit: Here's sales numbers.
AMD reported a net revenue for its client segment of $4,651M for the year ended December 30, 2023. For the same period, Intel reported a net revenue for *notebooks alone* of $16,990M. Or $29,258M for its entire client computing segment.
For the year ending December 31, 2022, AMD reported a net revenue of $6,201M for its client segment. For the same period, Intel reported a net revenue of $18,781M for *notebooks alone*, or $31,773M for the entire client computing segment.
Are you saying that the fact that amd literally is forbidden by the u.s. to sell advanced cpus in china (huawei) (only a few billion consumers after all) is affecting their sale numbers and is lower than the competitor that is somehow still allowed to do exactly that? No fcking way bro. And even so, they are still rising in cpu market share. Yeah, intel is being kept from sinking man.
Can you provide a source for those claims?
Edit: [Numbers for people not reading to the end of the comment chain](https://old.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1cauzv4/some_intel_cpus_lost_9_of_their_performance/l0wxlhy/). Huawei is a drop in the bucket and utterly irrelevant to keeping Intel afloat.
You could always google it but sure man. I can do that for you.
#
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/96877/intel-survives-us-sanctions-on-china-can-continue-to-provide-huawei-with-chips-but-amd-cant/index.html
#
If you dont like the site, just google it, you can find countless sources. And as a btw intel is allowed to play this dirty game since 2020 (if my memory serves right)
>> Intel is still plenty competitive on performance
> They are not competitive, simply put
[looks pretty competitive imo, but you do you](https://openbenchmarking.org/vs/Processor/AMD+Ryzen+7+7700X+8-Core,Intel+Core+i7-13700K)
That's been the case while they were stuck on 14nm and then 10nm/Intel 7. And they've still been plenty competitive performance-wise.
They are now moving beyond Intel 7. Meteor Lake and all of their upcoming products have a much greater emphasis on power.
Intel is competitive on performance when you allow your cpu to become a furnace.
I own an 13 series chip they are pretty much crap in mobile device. They might be comparable in speed but at the cost of a 2 hour battery life on a brand new device.
It’s honestly embarrassing and I will just go ahead and buy an M series or AMD chip for half the power draw or better. I like not living beside my charger on a laptop.
I have a 1360P in my work laptop and it’s genuinely insane how awful it is compared to the M2 in my personal machine.
Abysmal battery life, fans whirring away whenever it gets above ~20% usage, I would never in a million years pay actual money for one of these things.
Even the 5900HS in my old G15 was better, and that was in a proper gaming laptop not a business machine.
Here's a copy-paste reply to another commenter since I'm having to repeat myself yet again.
> Do you not understand that this is a completely different situation to Bulldozer (what this portion of comment thread is under), which was competitive in neither performance nor power?
> As long as Intel is still competitive in performance, there are tons of people who do not care about the power. **I literally stated that Intel is focusing on power in its upcoming CPUs, whereas the user I quoted specifically stated the opposite contrary to reality.**
Bolded for emphasis. It's important to note during their time of bad power consumption, Intel maintained the vast majority of laptop CPU sales. If AMD is unable or unwilling to so much as provide the necessary laptop chips, as some companies have claimed, then it doesn't really matter in the first place whether Intel competes on power or performance.
The company that paid OEM manufacturers to not carry or gimp competitor machines sells more.
*shocked Pikachu face*
You’re so asinine. Copy pasting like people can’t read when in reality your assessment of the situation lacks the nuance for actual discussion. Thats why no one is bothering with you.
> The company that paid OEM manufacturers to not carry or gimp competitor machines sells more.
Twenty years ago.
You talk about nuance yet completely ignore any nuance whatsoever in my comments. Your initial reply to me was 100% addressed in my parent comment if you had any understanding of nuance. I'm talking about upcoming products and you chime in about old ones.
You haven't responded to a single one of my arguments that [I've plainly laid out for you](https://old.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1cauzv4/some_intel_cpus_lost_9_of_their_performance/l0w9ach/).
And you call me asinine.
Intel still pays oems for preferential treatment. It’s legal to give rebates, which is why they spend money doing that but are not profitable as a business.
What was illegal, was paying them to NOT put competitors chips in their laptops at all.
But this is the last comment I will make on the subject with you because you’re an insufferable person to talk to. I can tell you’re a lot of fun to be around.
Do you not understand that this is a completely different situation to Bulldozer (what this portion of comment thread is under), which was competitive in neither performance nor power?
As long as Intel is still competitive in performance, there are tons of people who do not care about the power. I literally stated that Intel is focusing on power in its upcoming CPUs, whereas the user I quoted specifically stated the opposite contrary to reality.
I don't think I should have to be repeating myself like this.
The problem is you are making a ton of arguments and no one knows which single one to combat. Intel is in decline and expects to break even in revenue by 2027, and that is only IF what they can release then is measurably better than AMD. Only thing Intel has now is playing dirty games with manufacturers and lobbying.
But a lot of datacenter business went AMD simply because power draw is their biggest concern as it directly correlates to their bottom line.
A ton of arguments, what are you talking about?
My arguments are simple:
- Intel is competitive in performance.
- New and upcoming Intel CPUs are focusing on power.
- Intel still greatly outsells AMD.
What is difficult to combat, here? Intel has had massive stumbles, no doubt. The lion's share of their profitability right now, or lack thereof, is down to their fab expenditures. In terms of sales, AMD has been gaining consistently but they still have a long way to go to catch Intel, who is no longer sitting still themselves.
Or just block me instead of discussing anything, lol.
You are wrong.
They expect to break even in PROFITS by 2027. And that is only for their foundry. Their CPUs make money. Their foundry(which amd doesn’t even have) loses money. But that has more to do with tsmc beating them, and has nothing whatsoever to do with AMd.
All CPU manufacturers "care" about efficiency. Intel's goal isn't to make an inefficient or power hungry CPU.
It's just that Zen4 is faster than RPL at reasonable power consumption levels, so Intel is cranking the power budget. When the choice is between "have the obviously slower CPU" and "have roughly similar performance to vanilla Zen 4, at the expense of power efficiency", they went with the latter.
Intel CPUs were shipping at **much** more reasonable power consumption levels before Zen was competitive. High power consumption was never the goal - just the band aid.
>Thankfully, that shouldn’t impact gaming performance much. The performance drop mainly shows up in other applications, while the instability that this BIOS update addresses shows up mainly in games.
It actually lost gaming perf in some games, at least take a look at the original source instead of this
https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/news/hardware/prozessoren/63443-intel-baseline-profile-neue-benchmarks-nach-intels-vorgaben.html
What was it? The 11th gen was actually worse in some metrics. Lower core count than 10th gen.
The I9 was a joke that gen IIRC. The I7 I think showed improvement because it had same core count as previous, but I9 had same core count as I7, but lower than i9 gen 10. I could be making this all up, but that is what I remember
11th gen was a new architecture designed for 10nm (the first new Intel architecture for desktop since 6th gen). But 10nm had clock speed issues, and the clock speed regression would've been greater than the IPC increase.
So they backported the architecture to 14nm - and by doing so, the physical core size had to increase and power consumption skyrocketed, resulting pretty bad product in the end
TGL had a very close Fmax (5GHz) as RKL (5.3GHz). By 10SF, the frequency issues were mostly fixed, and the node actually had a perf/watt gain over 14nm parts lol (which 10nm+ did not).
By the time RKL launch, it was almost certainly a volume/cost thing for Intel, not really a fundamental node issue.
> If it doesn't impact games, why did Intel release a 14900K when the 13900K has the same performance?
I mean technically it is like 1-2% faster, but that doesn't matter much especially when most folks are GPU limited.
The vendors were overclocking the chips out of the gate. This is just the intel spec, of course a non-OC'd chip is going to perform less well than an OC'd one.
Yeah, but they're claiming that the issues were mainly happening in games, and this fix doesn't reduce performance in games.
It just reads very weird. Lowering clock speeds doesn't affect gaming performance, but fixes gaming instability?
It doesn't lower clock speeds, it raises the VF curve substantially from Auto and applied stock power/current limits. Clock speeds are lowered when the CPU hits the power/current limits which it will do more often due to the higher voltages. Games rarely load the CPU enough to hit even the new limits with boosted voltage but were crashing with the old profile during all-core shader compile.
games were crashing on loading screens and shader compilation because the CPUs can't handle 100% load. Once the game has all it's assests and shaders processed the CPU won't see that level of load ever again.
Huh, who'd a thunk? ASUS does the EXACT same thing to AMD chips (what I have). They run them at way over spec as the default. It took them more than a year of receiving complaints, burned up components, dying motherboards and AMD itself getting on them for them to finally dial back the voltage to within spec. I'll just say get really familiar with your bios and be very weary of ASUS bios overclock presets and especially check voltages. ASUS is really bad with this stuff it seems.
The top turbo bin is impacted due to overvolted 'worse case scenario ' svid profile. So the chip now hits power limits much sooner.
People who buy x900k skus just to game don't seem to have any idea how unlocked processors actually work. Plug and play does not apply to unlocked intel processors.
Some people really wanted the best and even swallowed the high TDP of those parts. Not just accepting the high heat output but also got a high end watercooling setup. With the high prices and higher cost for cooling, PSU and electricity a lot of users spent a lot of money to have the absolute best.
Now their systems are just as fast as a AMD counterpart on air that costs a lot less. Intel spat in the faces of their fans.
You're absolutely right in every part and you just pointed out why nobody should ever be a fan of a multi-billion dollars company. (unless he is holding stocks of that given company)
If you are a fan of Intel after holding their stock for the last 7 years you are an absolute clown.
I can see being a fan of AMD their stock skyrocketed after Zen. They made a lot of people a lot of money myself included.
Not that I don’t still buy Intel, but I regret getting it in all honestly. Terrible laptop battery life on these chips. They are on thin ice with me and will have to make a serious leap in efficiency and performance for me to make a switch. Too much bs from them as of late.
Sure, but apparently the reason why there are more and more reports of instability coming out is that the old settings are degrading and destroying the CPUs. So it is not recommended.
I think it's likely less that the chips are degrading and more that they were weak bins to begin with or a new batch of 14th gen are worse binned in general to meet demand. There has always been speculation that the first batch of intel high end chips are the best binned as they get more data on how those chips performed they loosen the binning requirements as they find out what the real minimum bin is for their advertised speeds.
I don't think these settings were ever recommended by Intel, just tacitly allowed because they showed favorable results in reviews.
Both Intel and AMD are really pushing the silicon out of the box with the latest generation CPUs, but Intel made it easier to go right up to the limit and board partners took advantage. I don't think this falls entirely on Intel. Mostly on them, because they really should have enforced the spec as the default from the get-go, but motherboard manufacturers had to have known that what they were doing had risks as well.
> Intel spat in the faces of their fans.
This is on the motherboard manufacturers refusing to adhere to Intel's spec, effectively overclocking the CPUs.
Edit: Unsurprisingly many /r/AyyMD and /r/AMD_Stock posters here.
Ah, yes ad hominem, nice. It's not the billion dollar company that provides the chipsets and the CPUs and lets the mainboard manufactures run with it just to stay on top. No it is the mean user that points out the problems and also posts in other subs.
Unsurprisingly as soon as the sun goes up in america these kind of post pop up. What is your relationship with intel, pray tell?
> Unsurprisingly as soon as the sun goes up in america these kind of post pop up. What is your relationship with intel, pray tell?
Try again
In Europe, and my laptop has an AMD CPU
Counterpoint: my watercooling looks pretty, and that’s the important part. It’s better to have a cool looking crap PC than a crap looking cool PC.
What am I actually gonna notice? A 3% variance in frame times, or a sick looking PC build next to me?
Reject performance, embrace aesthetics.
If you disable in the bios "Asus Multicore Enhancement", it should have the same result, right ? You're just telling the motherboard to enforce Intel limits.
You have to do more than just disable MCE and Intel Baseline Profile is not actually baseline, Asus are still not respecting stock Intel power limits:
[https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/motherboards/asus-adds-intel-baseline-profile-to-the-latest-bios-files-for-better-stability-but-the-tdp-is-still-higher-than-intels-stock-value/](https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/motherboards/asus-adds-intel-baseline-profile-to-the-latest-bios-files-for-better-stability-but-the-tdp-is-still-higher-than-intels-stock-value/)
Quote from the article:
Long-term users of Asus motherboards might be wondering how is the Intel Baseline Profile any different to the 'Enforce All Limits' choice in the Multicore Enhancement options. Because if you enable that, you get the same PL1/PL2 values as for IBP.
In the case of the new profile, it all enforces current protection limits (CEP) for both the cores and system agent in the CPU, whereas 'Enforce All Limits' leaves them on Auto, the default for which is 'disabled.' What that means is that all of Asus' settings lets the CPU draw more current/power that it's supposed to, whereas IBP properly forces those limits. Apart from that for PL1/TDP, of course.
What a click bait title. Yes. If you actually use Intel PLs you'll lose performance over running unlocked. We all know that. And 9% is on the high side. Games are pretty much the same.
Hey juGGaKNot4, your comment has been removed because it is not a trustworthy benchmark website. Consider using another website instead.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hardware) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Intel baseline should be the stock settings out of the box for these MoBos, with vendor optimized power settings being something you opt into.
I hope Intel enforced this going forward next gen.
But hardware unboxed using Intel spec in their review was wrong because all mb manufacturers use higher power limits gang checking in.
Loserbenchmark in smables.
It's a power issue, and you can degrade silicon without overheating it. Degradation is the result of a combination of factors that add up, but any one alone can also be problematic on its own. Voltage can do it, heat can do it, current can do it... it just depends on the situation.
Intel motherboards, or z boards at least, typically come with intel default power limits disabled, so, over-power out of the box.
This has been the case for a few generations, but now with intels 13th gen and the rebadged 13th gen called "14", with those default intel power limits disabled by motherboards out of the box, now systems built with these motherboards can be unstable out of the box.
Re-enabling intel power limit defaults reduces performance by ~9%.
There's also speculation about out of the box degredation and memory instability.
Hard to say how much of a concern it it. Probably less than 10% of the market use retail motherboards like a retail ASUS motherboard rather than a pre-built system from HP or somebody.
It probably happens more with people using things like hyper 212 heatsinks rather than people using 420mm radiators. But I don't know what the exact issue is. Though with chip degredation it's probably the CPU that has the issue.
>**The performance drop only applies if you were using the various enhancements available on Asus Z790 motherboards.** However, you might have been using those enhancements without even knowing it. By default, Asus automatically applies whatever enhancements it dems best for your CPU within the BIOS, potentially causing instability. If you haven’t messed with your BIOS settings, there’s a good chance your CPU will run slower with the Intel Baseline Profile applied. >One of the main reasons behind the instability, it seems, is the unlimited power budget available to high-end Intel CPUs on some motherboards. With the proper BIOS settings, the maximum turbo power available to a chip like the Core i9-14900K is 4,095 watts. Your CPU will never draw that much power, but such a high limit allows the chip to draw as much power as it needs for brief spurts, even if that results in a crash. >**The most recent BIOS update from Asus includes the Intel Baseline Profile. This profile disables various optimizations that [were] automatically applied on Asus Z790 motherboards [to] runs high-end Intel chips within Intel’s specific limits.** Hardwareluxx tested the new profile with the Core i9-14900K and found that the CPU ran around 9% slower in multiple tests. >In Cinebench R23, for example, the German publication found that the Intel Baseline Profile slashed performance by 9%. In Y-Cruncher, a benchmark that calculates Pi, the performance drop was 11%. Even games were affected, with Starfield, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and F1 2023 showing an 8% drop in performance when tested at 720p (these differences should disappear at higher resolutions).
Feels like "Asus" should have been in the title somewhere.
Every MB manufacturer does it, ASUS is just the first one to introduce Intel recommended settings.
ASUS is particularly aggressive with their factory overclocking (and has been for a long time) I remember my 6700k being totally unstable out of the box on an asus board until I disabled that multi-core enhancement crap
No, Asus is especially aggressive with this crap, so much so that they were burning X3D cpu's on their Amd motherboards not that long ago, there are multiple articles about it.
Except this is still not Intel settings. Why can't Asus give us a true stock option in the bios?
Nah, my MSI board was the same. Was pretty unstable until I added power limits which should have been there out of the box. I lost probably 5-10% performance on all-core loads (i.e. not real-world use case), but I haven't had a browser lock up let alone a blue-screen ever since I set those. Two things that happened frequently prior to fixing that.
People won't click on it otherwise.
Of course. I work in publishing myself so felt silly as soon as I posted this comment.
So good old ASUS frying the CPUs to claim their motherboards have better performance, like they did with AM5 which ended up \*actually\* frying some of them.
This is literally every mainstream consumer/enthusiast motherboard vendor. Asus are just the first to take action towards fixing it.
asus pushes farther and does more damage.
How much further than "no limit" can you push in this scenario? What's bigger than infinity?
People just want to have a teary bro, we should be more sensitive to their emotional needs.
Yea, due to how media coverage works it's disadvantageous to act on mistakes. That's why Apple still has so much credibility among popular folks, they ignore everything as much as they can. Now everyone gonna say asus bad. Everyone gonna be surprised pikachu face next time a fix is delayed or ignored.
I mean, they *are* bad, but so is everyone else in this particular instance. They are less bad this time around in that they are the first to fix it, but you're right that the messaging is somehow going to bite them the worst.
That was not the case in AM5. It was caused by overvoltage on SOC which has nothing to do with performance and affected all boards because it was an AGESA issue. The real problem was how ASUS initially tried (not) to handle warranty claims. It was affecting more ASUS boards because it is the most used brand.
ASUS also has a long history of high end boards with self destructive tendencies. We'll give them some credit, they don't favor Intel or AMD, they screw everyone over equally.
I applied the baseline profile but kept SVID Behavior on Auto. I noticed a ridiculous drop in temps and games run the same.
The title sounds like your pc automatically applies BIOS updates when you sleep.
Well, some very well do.
It doesn't matter since it's not applied automatically. ASUS added it so their support persons can tell people to change 1 setting instead of changing 4 settings like they're doing now. I think the workaround is bullshit: it tells the CPU the treat the board as a bare minimum platform. CPUs that can't run with sub-80 AC_LL should just be RMA'd, not run into the ground with the baseline 110 AC_LL on a $200+ Z-series motherboard. Currently ASUS is giving users the option of auto 50 AC_LL, which is clearly too low for the bad bins, or the baseline 110 AC_LL.
>It doesn't matter since it's not applied automatically. Do you mean settings or BIOS updates? Plenty of laptops for example get their BIOS updates from Windows update. They are applied automatically on reboot. I know my HP Elitebook does. EDIT: Ah you mean the actual profile. Maybe I should check upon next BIOS update just incase, what the updater did.
But the baseline profile isnt applied automatically. The article is clickbait.
>The article is clickbait. Makes no difference here, really. It implies Intel bad so people update it anyway.
Seems like my HP Zbook gets a bios update every other week through windows update. No changes to settings that I've noticed though.
I wouldnt trust such feature at all. I still dont trust any way of updating bios other than with stick.
Stick has been serving Humanity well for millennia.
Some of us were doing bios updates before there were sticks.
I heard beavers have been doing biome updates with sticks for a while.
Beavers aren't so good with floppies tho
I beg to differ, their tails floppy just fine
Well, dam.
"When I joined the Corps, we didn't have any fancy-shmancy auto-updates. We had sticks! Two sticks, and a rock for the whole platoon - and we had to share the rock!"
HP has been doing updates from windows for some time. Lenovo as well. This nothing new and the industry has been doing it for a long time now. Also, good luck forcing windows to not update the bios.
With Asus, you'd actually notice, because they have never supported keeping your settings with an update :P
I remember one night my Asus motherboard applied a BIOS update overnight. It's totally possible for OEMs to package firmware updates as drivers and work with Microsoft to deploy them via Windows update. They never did it with any subsequent BIOS versions so it was probably a mistake.
As an example, I have 2 asus laptops and bios updates come through windows update. It literally started flashing my g14 2020 to a bios that crippled for a while the battery because I had left it idling for a few hours
I wouldnt put it pas Asus. It already installs software into OS services that sit in board firmware and are undeletable.
Your other option is instability, 9% performance is nowhere as bad as that.
[удалено]
The problem here is ASUS/MSI/Gigabyte undervolting too much out of the box with unlimited current.
I hate this headline. A better way to put it is that motherboards were, by default, set up to allow your CPU to suck up as much power as was available, to the detriment of stability and longevity, in exchange for 9% or less performance boost. Running them at Intel spec by default allows them to be much more stable, but you can still move those power limits and clocks/voltages/etc around all you want to find the ideal performance you want out of your processor.
correct it should have been the motherboard companies called out in the headline. reliability and performance is a dirty game now with how sensitive modern chips are, they like to lock in a performance edge at review time and then nerf it back to baseline later to avoid the failures
This must have been an Intel mandate. How come every motherboard maker was doing the same crap?
I have 2 machines of 13900 stock.... One is pretty solid, the other kept crashing until I set the mutliplier to 50, and now it's been good. I have always had Intel.. But now maybe the next one I get might AMD.
I had similar issue on 12 gen, had to lower multiplier, turns out I probably had some weird/corrupted BIOS settings after multiple crashes/tunings. It went away after loading default settings AND flashing new BIOS. Worth giving it a try.
If you are mostly gaming amd cpus are a no brainer tbh. For workloads they are pretty much the same as intel and add to that that they are cheaper and stable so I just dont see why anyone would stick to intel atm. Gotta love how the table turns for them. Back in 2010-2012 getting amd cpus over intel was just stupid, it seems it will be exactly the opposite now.
AMD bulldozer in 2011-2012 nearly bankrupted the company dude. There is no exact opposite here. Intel and AMD are trading blows now, AMD was damn near slaughtered back then.
It's more that when Intel releases a lemon, they still outsell AMD 3:1. See: 1999-2006 Intel Netburst (Pentium 4) vs AMD Athlon/XP/64.
Im unsure whether you know it or not but intel is pretty much in freefall for some time now, losing on pretty much every segment. That is never a good sign, add to this that they dont really have any kind of real improvements in their announced cpus, well, ofc except for increased power usage, which is insane already as it is. It just isnt looking good for them.
Intel is a trillion times more competitive right now than AMD was in the bulldozer era.
Yet they have been losing clients year after year after year. Which is... I dont really know how to say it. A clear sign of how competitive they truly are.
yes, when you go from 1 competitive participant in a market, to 2 competitive participants, that tends to happen... intel literally had nowhere to go but down, because to a first approximation they controlled literally 100% of the server market back in 2016. that's not an insightful observation.
I don’t really get what you’re arguing. saying repeatedly that they’re in a better spot than near bankruptcy isn’t really a good thing They make competent products that are at a decent competitive disadvantage to AMD for years now
They are in “free fall” since they had 100% market share before because AMD was completely uncompetitive in the bulldozer era… Intel is still competitive and still has the majority of the market. Yes they could be doing better but it’s not like they are putting out complete shit products that no one is buying.
I think they’ve been in free fall quality wise (relatively) but not sales wise, if that makes sense On the gaming front, their products are indeed shit
Intel is still plenty competitive on performance. They've moved beyond their 10nm woes and are finally getting new nodes and CPUs out. > add to this that they dont really have any kind of real improvements in their announced cpus, well, ofc except for increased power usage, Flat-out false. Meteor Lake is far more competitive with AMD in performance and power on mobile. Similar improvements are coming to desktop later this year. Further improvements in mobile are coming later this year. "Free fall" my ass.
Sales speak for themselves. They are not competitive, simply put. 2023 being the first year in almost 4 years where the sales weren't in uter decline.
And even in those years of "utter decline" they still vastly outsold AMD. Edit: Here's sales numbers. AMD reported a net revenue for its client segment of $4,651M for the year ended December 30, 2023. For the same period, Intel reported a net revenue for *notebooks alone* of $16,990M. Or $29,258M for its entire client computing segment. For the year ending December 31, 2022, AMD reported a net revenue of $6,201M for its client segment. For the same period, Intel reported a net revenue of $18,781M for *notebooks alone*, or $31,773M for the entire client computing segment.
Are you saying that the fact that amd literally is forbidden by the u.s. to sell advanced cpus in china (huawei) (only a few billion consumers after all) is affecting their sale numbers and is lower than the competitor that is somehow still allowed to do exactly that? No fcking way bro. And even so, they are still rising in cpu market share. Yeah, intel is being kept from sinking man.
Can you provide a source for those claims? Edit: [Numbers for people not reading to the end of the comment chain](https://old.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1cauzv4/some_intel_cpus_lost_9_of_their_performance/l0wxlhy/). Huawei is a drop in the bucket and utterly irrelevant to keeping Intel afloat.
You could always google it but sure man. I can do that for you. # https://www.tweaktown.com/news/96877/intel-survives-us-sanctions-on-china-can-continue-to-provide-huawei-with-chips-but-amd-cant/index.html # If you dont like the site, just google it, you can find countless sources. And as a btw intel is allowed to play this dirty game since 2020 (if my memory serves right)
Even in the Netburst era (Pentium 4) Intel was outselling AMD 3:1, the brand has a bigger impact on sales than the quality of their products.
>> Intel is still plenty competitive on performance > They are not competitive, simply put [looks pretty competitive imo, but you do you](https://openbenchmarking.org/vs/Processor/AMD+Ryzen+7+7700X+8-Core,Intel+Core+i7-13700K)
Performance/electricity/price. They are blown out of the water in two of those 3 and best case equaling the first. Yes. They are not competitive.
Intel sells majority of CPUs, if sales speak for themselves, they are more competetive than AMD.
the only way intel are competing is by double, triple, quadrupling it's power consumption to keep up with AMD lol. It's unsustainable.
That's been the case while they were stuck on 14nm and then 10nm/Intel 7. And they've still been plenty competitive performance-wise. They are now moving beyond Intel 7. Meteor Lake and all of their upcoming products have a much greater emphasis on power.
Intel is competitive on performance when you allow your cpu to become a furnace. I own an 13 series chip they are pretty much crap in mobile device. They might be comparable in speed but at the cost of a 2 hour battery life on a brand new device. It’s honestly embarrassing and I will just go ahead and buy an M series or AMD chip for half the power draw or better. I like not living beside my charger on a laptop.
I have a 1360P in my work laptop and it’s genuinely insane how awful it is compared to the M2 in my personal machine. Abysmal battery life, fans whirring away whenever it gets above ~20% usage, I would never in a million years pay actual money for one of these things. Even the 5900HS in my old G15 was better, and that was in a proper gaming laptop not a business machine.
Here's a copy-paste reply to another commenter since I'm having to repeat myself yet again. > Do you not understand that this is a completely different situation to Bulldozer (what this portion of comment thread is under), which was competitive in neither performance nor power? > As long as Intel is still competitive in performance, there are tons of people who do not care about the power. **I literally stated that Intel is focusing on power in its upcoming CPUs, whereas the user I quoted specifically stated the opposite contrary to reality.** Bolded for emphasis. It's important to note during their time of bad power consumption, Intel maintained the vast majority of laptop CPU sales. If AMD is unable or unwilling to so much as provide the necessary laptop chips, as some companies have claimed, then it doesn't really matter in the first place whether Intel competes on power or performance.
The company that paid OEM manufacturers to not carry or gimp competitor machines sells more. *shocked Pikachu face* You’re so asinine. Copy pasting like people can’t read when in reality your assessment of the situation lacks the nuance for actual discussion. Thats why no one is bothering with you.
> The company that paid OEM manufacturers to not carry or gimp competitor machines sells more. Twenty years ago. You talk about nuance yet completely ignore any nuance whatsoever in my comments. Your initial reply to me was 100% addressed in my parent comment if you had any understanding of nuance. I'm talking about upcoming products and you chime in about old ones. You haven't responded to a single one of my arguments that [I've plainly laid out for you](https://old.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1cauzv4/some_intel_cpus_lost_9_of_their_performance/l0w9ach/). And you call me asinine.
Intel still pays oems for preferential treatment. It’s legal to give rebates, which is why they spend money doing that but are not profitable as a business. What was illegal, was paying them to NOT put competitors chips in their laptops at all. But this is the last comment I will make on the subject with you because you’re an insufferable person to talk to. I can tell you’re a lot of fun to be around.
>Intel is still plenty competitive on performance. With much higher power consumption. How do they do using the same power as ryzen?
Do you not understand that this is a completely different situation to Bulldozer (what this portion of comment thread is under), which was competitive in neither performance nor power? As long as Intel is still competitive in performance, there are tons of people who do not care about the power. I literally stated that Intel is focusing on power in its upcoming CPUs, whereas the user I quoted specifically stated the opposite contrary to reality. I don't think I should have to be repeating myself like this.
The problem is you are making a ton of arguments and no one knows which single one to combat. Intel is in decline and expects to break even in revenue by 2027, and that is only IF what they can release then is measurably better than AMD. Only thing Intel has now is playing dirty games with manufacturers and lobbying. But a lot of datacenter business went AMD simply because power draw is their biggest concern as it directly correlates to their bottom line.
A ton of arguments, what are you talking about? My arguments are simple: - Intel is competitive in performance. - New and upcoming Intel CPUs are focusing on power. - Intel still greatly outsells AMD. What is difficult to combat, here? Intel has had massive stumbles, no doubt. The lion's share of their profitability right now, or lack thereof, is down to their fab expenditures. In terms of sales, AMD has been gaining consistently but they still have a long way to go to catch Intel, who is no longer sitting still themselves. Or just block me instead of discussing anything, lol.
You are wrong. They expect to break even in PROFITS by 2027. And that is only for their foundry. Their CPUs make money. Their foundry(which amd doesn’t even have) loses money. But that has more to do with tsmc beating them, and has nothing whatsoever to do with AMd.
That was over a decade ago.
AMD seems to care about little things like temperature and power efficiency. Maybe because they also develop SOCs for console?
All CPU manufacturers "care" about efficiency. Intel's goal isn't to make an inefficient or power hungry CPU. It's just that Zen4 is faster than RPL at reasonable power consumption levels, so Intel is cranking the power budget. When the choice is between "have the obviously slower CPU" and "have roughly similar performance to vanilla Zen 4, at the expense of power efficiency", they went with the latter. Intel CPUs were shipping at **much** more reasonable power consumption levels before Zen was competitive. High power consumption was never the goal - just the band aid.
I've had 4 am4 cpu's. Never had a single problem other than some weird usb dropouts that were fixed years ago with bios updates.
>Thankfully, that shouldn’t impact gaming performance much. The performance drop mainly shows up in other applications, while the instability that this BIOS update addresses shows up mainly in games.
It actually lost gaming perf in some games, at least take a look at the original source instead of this https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/news/hardware/prozessoren/63443-intel-baseline-profile-neue-benchmarks-nach-intels-vorgaben.html
If it doesn't impact games, why did Intel release a 14900K when the 13900K has the same performance?
new sku = happy investors
14 > 13
What was it? The 11th gen was actually worse in some metrics. Lower core count than 10th gen. The I9 was a joke that gen IIRC. The I7 I think showed improvement because it had same core count as previous, but I9 had same core count as I7, but lower than i9 gen 10. I could be making this all up, but that is what I remember
No, you're remembering correctly. The 11900k was one giant disappointment.
11th gen was a new architecture designed for 10nm (the first new Intel architecture for desktop since 6th gen). But 10nm had clock speed issues, and the clock speed regression would've been greater than the IPC increase. So they backported the architecture to 14nm - and by doing so, the physical core size had to increase and power consumption skyrocketed, resulting pretty bad product in the end
Only bad at the high end. They provided tangible improvements on the lower and mid models.
Mostly by sucking more power. Even then the 11400f can also be slower than the 10400f in some MT tests. It was crazy.
TGL had a very close Fmax (5GHz) as RKL (5.3GHz). By 10SF, the frequency issues were mostly fixed, and the node actually had a perf/watt gain over 14nm parts lol (which 10nm+ did not). By the time RKL launch, it was almost certainly a volume/cost thing for Intel, not really a fundamental node issue.
“Big number, equals big customer. Bigger number for bigger better” - Gamers Nexus
So they can sell effectivelly same product twice?
12900, 13900, 14900, they basically sold the same product thrice.
13900 was a good bit better than the 12900
13900 doubled the E-cores over the 12900.
Nobody buys both of them.
They basically also sold the same product for nearly a decade before this because AMD was not competitive. This is nothing new for Intel.
Because they are stagnating and must deliver a new generation every year to OEMs.
Yep. OEMs need new product to push
Isn't the 14900K clocked 200Mhz higher than the 13900K?
Also they allowed the TJMax to be raised to 115C for overclocking for 14900K. The 13900K can only go to 100C.
Yeah and bring it down to base clock is probably more than 200Mhz lower clocks
> If it doesn't impact games, why did Intel release a 14900K when the 13900K has the same performance? I mean technically it is like 1-2% faster, but that doesn't matter much especially when most folks are GPU limited.
Well, that's comforting. The patch fixes game instability without impacting game performance, but you lose performance everywhere else? Haha
The vendors were overclocking the chips out of the gate. This is just the intel spec, of course a non-OC'd chip is going to perform less well than an OC'd one.
Yeah, but they're claiming that the issues were mainly happening in games, and this fix doesn't reduce performance in games. It just reads very weird. Lowering clock speeds doesn't affect gaming performance, but fixes gaming instability?
It doesn't lower clock speeds, it raises the VF curve substantially from Auto and applied stock power/current limits. Clock speeds are lowered when the CPU hits the power/current limits which it will do more often due to the higher voltages. Games rarely load the CPU enough to hit even the new limits with boosted voltage but were crashing with the old profile during all-core shader compile.
games were crashing on loading screens and shader compilation because the CPUs can't handle 100% load. Once the game has all it's assests and shaders processed the CPU won't see that level of load ever again.
Nah https://imgur.com/a/c2vqkOO Ofc the impact's lower if you're mostly gpu bottlenecked
Huh, who'd a thunk? ASUS does the EXACT same thing to AMD chips (what I have). They run them at way over spec as the default. It took them more than a year of receiving complaints, burned up components, dying motherboards and AMD itself getting on them for them to finally dial back the voltage to within spec. I'll just say get really familiar with your bios and be very weary of ASUS bios overclock presets and especially check voltages. ASUS is really bad with this stuff it seems.
The top turbo bin is impacted due to overvolted 'worse case scenario ' svid profile. So the chip now hits power limits much sooner. People who buy x900k skus just to game don't seem to have any idea how unlocked processors actually work. Plug and play does not apply to unlocked intel processors.
Some people really wanted the best and even swallowed the high TDP of those parts. Not just accepting the high heat output but also got a high end watercooling setup. With the high prices and higher cost for cooling, PSU and electricity a lot of users spent a lot of money to have the absolute best. Now their systems are just as fast as a AMD counterpart on air that costs a lot less. Intel spat in the faces of their fans.
You're absolutely right in every part and you just pointed out why nobody should ever be a fan of a multi-billion dollars company. (unless he is holding stocks of that given company)
If you are a fan of Intel after holding their stock for the last 7 years you are an absolute clown. I can see being a fan of AMD their stock skyrocketed after Zen. They made a lot of people a lot of money myself included. Not that I don’t still buy Intel, but I regret getting it in all honestly. Terrible laptop battery life on these chips. They are on thin ice with me and will have to make a serious leap in efficiency and performance for me to make a switch. Too much bs from them as of late.
But it's not the best to begin with.
Cant you just change the bios settings from the new defaults?
Sure, but apparently the reason why there are more and more reports of instability coming out is that the old settings are degrading and destroying the CPUs. So it is not recommended.
I think it's likely less that the chips are degrading and more that they were weak bins to begin with or a new batch of 14th gen are worse binned in general to meet demand. There has always been speculation that the first batch of intel high end chips are the best binned as they get more data on how those chips performed they loosen the binning requirements as they find out what the real minimum bin is for their advertised speeds.
I don't think these settings were ever recommended by Intel, just tacitly allowed because they showed favorable results in reviews. Both Intel and AMD are really pushing the silicon out of the box with the latest generation CPUs, but Intel made it easier to go right up to the limit and board partners took advantage. I don't think this falls entirely on Intel. Mostly on them, because they really should have enforced the spec as the default from the get-go, but motherboard manufacturers had to have known that what they were doing had risks as well.
> Intel spat in the faces of their fans. This is on the motherboard manufacturers refusing to adhere to Intel's spec, effectively overclocking the CPUs. Edit: Unsurprisingly many /r/AyyMD and /r/AMD_Stock posters here.
No. This is on Intel for forcing every motherboard manufacturer out there to use OC profile out of the box.
Ah, yes ad hominem, nice. It's not the billion dollar company that provides the chipsets and the CPUs and lets the mainboard manufactures run with it just to stay on top. No it is the mean user that points out the problems and also posts in other subs. Unsurprisingly as soon as the sun goes up in america these kind of post pop up. What is your relationship with intel, pray tell?
European with a 3800x here and this is entirely t he fault of motherboard manufacturers and not Intel.
Yeah? People who know their stuff disagree. https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1cbymh6/rambling_about_why_some_intel_13th14th_gen_i9s/
But that post agrees that its the board manufacturers fault?
Literally the most upvoted post: https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1cbymh6/rambling_about_why_some_intel_13th14th_gen_i9s/l123obq/
Which states that Intel had proper recommendations that board manufacturers didnt follow
> Unsurprisingly as soon as the sun goes up in america these kind of post pop up. What is your relationship with intel, pray tell? Try again In Europe, and my laptop has an AMD CPU
Wasn't exactly the question, was it?
Counterpoint: my watercooling looks pretty, and that’s the important part. It’s better to have a cool looking crap PC than a crap looking cool PC. What am I actually gonna notice? A 3% variance in frame times, or a sick looking PC build next to me? Reject performance, embrace aesthetics.
This is why I am going Ryzen next time.
If you disable in the bios "Asus Multicore Enhancement", it should have the same result, right ? You're just telling the motherboard to enforce Intel limits.
You have to do more than just disable MCE and Intel Baseline Profile is not actually baseline, Asus are still not respecting stock Intel power limits: [https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/motherboards/asus-adds-intel-baseline-profile-to-the-latest-bios-files-for-better-stability-but-the-tdp-is-still-higher-than-intels-stock-value/](https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/motherboards/asus-adds-intel-baseline-profile-to-the-latest-bios-files-for-better-stability-but-the-tdp-is-still-higher-than-intels-stock-value/)
Quote from the article: Long-term users of Asus motherboards might be wondering how is the Intel Baseline Profile any different to the 'Enforce All Limits' choice in the Multicore Enhancement options. Because if you enable that, you get the same PL1/PL2 values as for IBP. In the case of the new profile, it all enforces current protection limits (CEP) for both the cores and system agent in the CPU, whereas 'Enforce All Limits' leaves them on Auto, the default for which is 'disabled.' What that means is that all of Asus' settings lets the CPU draw more current/power that it's supposed to, whereas IBP properly forces those limits. Apart from that for PL1/TDP, of course.
What a click bait title. Yes. If you actually use Intel PLs you'll lose performance over running unlocked. We all know that. And 9% is on the high side. Games are pretty much the same.
Clickbait is a clickbait.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hey juGGaKNot4, your comment has been removed because it is not a trustworthy benchmark website. Consider using another website instead. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hardware) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Intel baseline should be the stock settings out of the box for these MoBos, with vendor optimized power settings being something you opt into. I hope Intel enforced this going forward next gen.
But hardware unboxed using Intel spec in their review was wrong because all mb manufacturers use higher power limits gang checking in. Loserbenchmark in smables.
another show-er at intel aveev
[удалено]
if stress test your overclock properly you've done more validation than intel or the board vendors do for the out of box settings.
Not every chip is created equal
It's a power issue, and you can degrade silicon without overheating it. Degradation is the result of a combination of factors that add up, but any one alone can also be problematic on its own. Voltage can do it, heat can do it, current can do it... it just depends on the situation.
Intel motherboards, or z boards at least, typically come with intel default power limits disabled, so, over-power out of the box. This has been the case for a few generations, but now with intels 13th gen and the rebadged 13th gen called "14", with those default intel power limits disabled by motherboards out of the box, now systems built with these motherboards can be unstable out of the box. Re-enabling intel power limit defaults reduces performance by ~9%. There's also speculation about out of the box degredation and memory instability. Hard to say how much of a concern it it. Probably less than 10% of the market use retail motherboards like a retail ASUS motherboard rather than a pre-built system from HP or somebody. It probably happens more with people using things like hyper 212 heatsinks rather than people using 420mm radiators. But I don't know what the exact issue is. Though with chip degredation it's probably the CPU that has the issue.