Yeah, right Intel. You’ve been a willing participant in this practice since your TDPs have become an almost meaningless marketing term rather than a technical one. This confuses me because what did you expect motherboard manufacturers to do? If you have constraints, clearly communicate those requirements with your vendors. You built the switches, described the modes.
While the root cause has not yet been identified, Intel® has observed the majority of reports of this issue are from users with unlocked/overclock capable motherboards.
Oh please. Do better. Emphasis is mine.
How can they have constraints? Some chips can only take a fraction of a percent increase before going to shit, while others can get 30%. Its the silicon lottery.
That’s precisely the problem, motherboard manufacturers hoping your CPU won the lottery and can do the +30%. The solution is to tune for the CPUs that’s maxed out of the box.
Reviewers have been complaining about this for years.
Intel publishes recommendations but lets the manufacturers do what they want because it makes their CPUs look more competitive with AMDs, while getting to blame the motherboards when it inevitably becomes a problem. AMD actually specifies maximums and minimums because they don’t want people to see their CPUs as unstable, especially when they are ahead of Intel with stock settings.
A motherboard should never overclock by default. Never. If the user wants overclock, they should enable it themselves. It’s an issue dating back two decades, there’s an Old New Thing blog post from Raymond Chen about it where he goes into how they were getting a lot of nonsense bug reports. Turns out some PC shops were shipping prebuilts running right at the edge of stability so once the chips degraded it started crashing random apps. Blog post
That’s interesting, I’ve basically flipped flopped every build I’ve done, but I don’t recall AMD having specific restrictions on my last build. It was akin to intels I thought at the time.
They’re not for you. If you want to pump 500W into your CPU, AMD will gladly let you do so. But you did so with your own understanding of the risks.
Those specifications are for motherboard manufacturer defaults. Defaults should always be sane and safe. 14th gen Intel motherboards are shipping with no power limit and increased turbo boost durations out of the box. Those can work, but requires really good cooling that the motherboard have no way of knowing if their users will 100% of the time have watercooled PCs.
People have been “fixing” those Intel CPUs by underclocking them where they should always have been in the first place. That shouldn’t be underclocking, that should be the stock reference setting.
Ah, so a parallel would be out of the box OC graphic cards then? Amd provides the right limitations for it to be stable under most conditions while Intel says up to 30% even though 80% would reach 10% boost for example?
GPUs I imagine have the advantage of pairing chips vs mobos being roll of the dice silicon.
This reminds me of some video I watched on Intel’s current or last gen procs and how they had all these claims, said they beat Intel, and had all these BS graphs and stuff and they got caught.
I learned I can’t believe anything they say from that video. Here’s reinforcement.
