• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

14th Gen "Raptor Lake Refresh"

KompuKare said:
Well, that is the traditional means of getting the media to follow the line PR wants.

A Rtings like review site - only ever review retail units bought with their own money - would be nice but with computer hardware having those launch-day reviews simply too important.
Click to expand...
Right, its why mainstream reviewers should be taken with a grain of salt.

Steve (HUB) talks about how he's been talking about this for years many times over..... does anyone who watches his channel regular remember talking about this even once? He talks about Intel's power consumption often enough but never in the context of it being out of norms let alone unhealthy for the CPU, never, and in a way still doesn't, even here he talks about 253 watts for the primary power state of the CPU as being perfectly reasonable if not even a little low, he does that purely because he can see the reduction in performance and his ONLY concern is AMD dominating the CPU bar charts and that's why he's been happy to go along with it over the years instead of actually questioning it.

And that's the mentality of these people, they DO have an agenda, they believe that agenda is for the right reasons, so its ok, and they may be for the right reasons but its a bias none the less and it has nothing to do with "being on the side of consumers"

These people have an activists mindset, there is nothing neutral about them.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Steve (HUB) talks about how he's been talking about this for years many times over..... does anyone who watches his channel regular remember talking about this even once? He talks about Intel's power consumption often enough but never in the context of it being out of norms let alone unhealthy for the CPU, never, and in a way still doesn't, even here he talks about 253 watts for the primary power state of the CPU as being perfectly reasonable if not even a little low, he does that purely because he can see the reduction in performance and his ONLY concern is AMD dominating the CPU bar charts and that's why he's been happy to go along with it over the years instead of actually questioning it.
Click to expand...
My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I think in that section of the recent podcast he was referring to the inconsistency between the motherboards (in their power/performance settings) and the lack of meaningful definition of what is actually stock and not stock from Intel themselves.

They'll even allow you to run non-K CPUs power unlimited (which was the only form of CPU 'overclocking' that they supported officially) and they might have the same stability problems as the K CPUs, it is just that few users buy them for high-end Z boards. At least when the 11400/11400F had this ability, it was explained that this had an impact on the cooling and the motherboard because of how power hungry Rocket Lake is/was.

So, in that context, he would be right, they have been talking about it for awhile (at least since 11th gen):
www.youtube.com

Intel B560 is a Disaster: Huge CPU Performance Differences, Power Limit Mess

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/hardwareunboxedJoin us on Floatplane: https://www.floatplane.com/channel/HardwareUnboxedBuy relevant products ...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

He wasn't concerned about stability or the overall power usage, just that you can buy a CPU + motherboard and get a totally different level of performance.
 
humbug said:
Right, its why mainstream reviewers should be taken with a grain of salt....

...And that's the mentality of these people, they DO have an agenda, they believe that agenda is for the right reasons, so its ok, and they may be for the right reasons but its a bias none the less and it has nothing to do with "being on the side of consumers"

These people have an activists mindset, there is nothing neutral about them.
Click to expand...

So exactly what is Steve's [HUB] bias?
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
TLDR?
Click to expand...

Mobo manufacturers have been setting lower AC/DC loadline values because it's basically underclocking the CPU to look good in benchmarks. This comes at the cost of stability and Intel recommend much higher values than are being set (Intel also say AC/DC should be the same, which is almost never the case with current OOB settings. My Z790 Dark Hero for example is 0.42/0.98 with LLC4). This is most likely the reason for poor out of the box stability with certain CPUs.

To make this work they've also been turning off 'Current Excursion Protection'. They're also running unlimited ICC MAX which Intel say should never exceed 400A, which could have led to some degradation and thus the cause of instability in previously stable CPUs.
 
Last edited:
Adrianr said:
Mobo manufacturers have been setting lower AC/DC loadline values because it's basically underclocking the CPU to look good in benchmarks. This comes at the cost of stability and Intel recommend much higher values than are being set (Intel also say AC/DC should be the same, which is almost never the case with current OOB settings. My Z790 Dark Hero for example is 0.42/0.98 with LLC4). This is most likely the reason for poor out of the box stability with certain CPUs.

To make this work they've also been turning off 'Current Excursion Protection'. They've also running unlimited ICC MAX which Intel say should never exceed 400A, which could have led to some degradation and thus the cause of instability in previously stable CPUs.
Click to expand...


Thanks for that. I do appreciate the content by BZ but I often find that my gnat like attention span has fluttered on long before he gets to any point at all........
 
0121danwilliams84 said:
I own 1 AM5 system and have used 3 and all of them have given me issues. Have a Z790 motherboard now and that has just worked. Maybe I got unlucky, but I tested a few AMD boards and they all had boot/ram issues and my Gigabyte X670E Master was unusable (I owned 2 of them and both were terrible.)
Click to expand...

I've used a 12900k and now a 13900k in my Maximus Hero Z690 board, no issues. Also have a 7950X3D running on a x670e Hero, no issues. Both worked out of box with defaults/XMP/EXPO with 100% stability. I've since tuned both for extra performance, though this is classed as overclocking.

Both are very mature platforms and have been well tested. If you have any issues it's likely PEBCAK, or you bought RAM not on QVL list for your motherboard, or you have faulty hardware and it's time to RMA.
 
Although the QVL can help to avoid issues - I've largely found XMP/EXPO to be pretty hit and miss whether Intel or AMD, there are just far too many combinations of CPU, motherboard and RAM and other factors like the quality of BIOS implementation, how good the memory controller is, etc. I was actually pleasantly surprised with my 14700K/Z790 setup when XMP just took first time.
 
Last edited:
Dave2150 said:
I've used a 12900k and now a 13900k in my Maximus Hero Z690 board, no issues. Also have a 7950X3D running on a x670e Hero, no issues. Both worked out of box with defaults/XMP/EXPO with 100% stability. I've since tuned both for extra performance, though this is classed as overclocking.

Both are very mature platforms and have been well tested. If you have any issues it's likely PEBCAK, or you bought RAM not on QVL list for your motherboard, or you have faulty hardware and it's time to RMA.
Click to expand...
I have always used RAM on the QVL, just to try and avoid any compatibility issues. I think it's more like faulty hardware (especially relating to the Gigabyte X670E Master.)

I have an ASRock B650-I Lightning board as well and ram on the QVL list and as soon as you try to use XMP it just fails to boot (with the latest bios.)

So, not had a lot of luck to be honest. But, like yourself, I have also had periods of no issues whatsoever with past systems, and that makes it seem like the platform is all stable in general.

I can see AM5 obviously works amazingly for many, but I needed something to just work and gave up and switched to Intel for that reason.

I am sure I could have got equally unlucky there and ended up blaming Intel if that didn't work, but then I wouldn't be able to use any brand ha. :cry:
 
Last edited:
LtMatt said:
This has been tested on a 7950X and a 7800X3D vs a 13900K, with 96GB of memory running at 6400Mhz on each system.
7950X 12 seconds
7800X3D 11 seconds
13900K 28 seconds.

Click to expand...
I usually got about 20 minutes if I was lucky on the Aorus Master. That was returned though and something failed, as it started off with a fairly quick boot. The replacement had memory issues and my AsRock board won't run the QVL XMP.
 
Dunno about 96GB RAM but my 14700K w/ Z790 Aorus Master and 32GB 6000MT DDR5 boots between 10 and 17 seconds depending on what mood Windows 11 is in and/or whether I disable stuff so it is in a more optimal state :(

Lenovo Legion Go is quite impressive albeit a bit different to a desktop system - nominally about 5 seconds from power button to fully loaded desktop but with a bit of tweaking I've had it down to 2! (again though depends on what mood Windows 11 is in :( ).

Windows 8 absolutely slays Windows 7/10/11 for system boot times.
 
Last edited:
Adrianr said:
Mobo manufacturers have been setting lower AC/DC loadline values because it's basically underclocking the CPU to look good in benchmarks. This comes at the cost of stability and Intel recommend much higher values than are being set (Intel also say AC/DC should be the same, which is almost never the case with current OOB settings. My Z790 Dark Hero for example is 0.42/0.98 with LLC4). This is most likely the reason for poor out of the box stability with certain CPUs.

To make this work they've also been turning off 'Current Excursion Protection'. They're also running unlimited ICC MAX which Intel say should never exceed 400A, which could have led to some degradation and thus the cause of instability in previously stable CPUs.
Click to expand...

It’s mainly a V/F issue and not following load line specs. CEP is just there help you not crash at the expense of performance. Easy to test yourself with setting different CEP thresholds and creeping past them. Performance takes a dump but system doesn't blue screen.

But all these issues are only a problem now because Intel is pushing the chips close to max tolerances to remain competitive. Once MTL wasn’t going to be good enough and desktop got scrapped, it was yeeting rpl to get something out there.

They also failed to implement DLVR which would have eliminated this issue altogether but another misstep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom