• 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.

Intel B560 is a Disaster

Joxeon said:
It would have been better presented as an informative video showing what settings need to be changed to unlock the TDP on budget boards which seem to have these turned off by default rather than the "OMG your losing 30% performance" as its only a setting just like XMP which most users are capable of entering the bios and enabling so long as they know about it.
Click to expand...
It's kind of a grey area, if there is a high-end CPU in the board (unlikely, but eh) then even changing the settings won't save you.

As an advocate for buyers, I think he has a point that this whole thing is a mess. XMP is very well established and cheap boards don't crap out with < 3600 memory, but this power PL1/PL2 is a different story because of the impact on performance and VRMs. The low-end boards are unsuitable for running a 11700 or 11900, at least if the intention is to match what performance is seen in reviews. The B550 boards don't generally have this problem with high-end CPUs, because the gap in their power usage to achieve apparently 'stock' performance isn't so extreme.
 
Tetras said:
It's kind of a grey area, if there is a high-end CPU in the board (unlikely, but eh) then even changing the settings won't save you.

As an advocate for buyers, I think he has a point that this whole thing is a mess. XMP is very well established and cheap boards don't crap out with < 3600 memory, but this power PL1/PL2 is a different story because of the impact on performance and VRMs. The low-end boards are unsuitable for running a 11700 or 11900, at least if the intention is to match what performance is seen in reviews. The B550 boards don't generally have this problem with high-end CPUs, because the gap in their power usage to achieve apparently 'stock' performance isn't so extreme.
Click to expand...
As I said earlier it's likey something that could be solved with a simple bios fix by manufacturers on the low end boards which unlock the power limits by default as they have done with the better B560s and while the VRM on the cheapest boards are not great they still just about do the job in the unlikely situation someone decides to pair a low board with a higher end CPU even Some of the msi x570 boards can't handle high core count CPUs and throttle and they're supposed to be the high end board.

Personally I think it's more of a mess that some users of AMD boards have been plagued by USB disconnecting issues for 5 months before a fix arrived and some are still waiting.
 
Last edited:
1, Boards run at stock settings unless you change them.
2, High end chips need non budget boards.
3, That's some seriously dubious facial hair. What are you? A Village People tribute act?
 
Grim5 said:
Asrock products are crap and always have been
Click to expand...
Nah. ASRock produce some great motherboards, some mediocre motherboards and some crap motherboards, like every manufacturer. Their better ones are as good as anything out there. Certainly at least as good as overrated, overpriced Asus junk, that's for sure. They also tend to be more pro-consumer than the rest and do things to draw the ire of AMD and Intel when they want things locked down. For example, they were the ones who discovered and implemented overclocking for non-K Skylake chips, allowing locked CPUs to be overclocked. They've also provided BIOS updates for most of their AM3 300-series motherboards to allow Zen 3 CPUs to work on them, which is something AMD refused to make official despite the 300-series and 400-series chipsets being the same thing. So only people who bought something like an X370 Taichi back in 2017 get to live the dream of riding it all the way through to the end of the socket, as God intended.
 
Intel £150 to £200 boards are crap, AMD boards in that price range are excellent so there is no excuse for it.
 
It, as the video suggests, is all down to Intel's having a very odd method of stating their 'tolerances' and 'expected behaviour' for their chips.
So if you choose a non-Z mobo, then either you pay a premium to have it unlocked, or.... you find a method to unlock it yourself, and hope the board can cope, some can, and some can't as has been demonstrated.
If you picked a locked processor, say 11700, and a cheap board, you need to hope you have a good combo, or the ability to unlock it, or the necessity to unlock it.
Else you will lose so much performance, it is frankly obscene.

Although people might think this is click baity, it is only this sort of presentation that will make Intel make things in future that are pleasant for everyone.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The title is clickbait. The more expensive B560 motherboards break official specs by configuring TDP past spec. This has been done for years. It used to be called MCE. The cheaper motherboards will stick to spec unless you manually change settings.

Also if you look at the results of the £110 B560 PRO4 with a Core i7 11700 with MCE on,it basically only boosts 100MHZ less than the B560 Tomahawk.


T.
Click to expand...

the B560 pro4 is perfectly alright to be honest and your right you need to manually change the settings

which to be honest is something anyone building there own pc should be reading up on before they start



is he sponsored by MSI ? boycot them myself but forgoten the reason now thats a true grudge
 
newuser said:
1, Boards run at stock settings unless you change them.
2, High end chips need non budget boards.
3, That's some seriously dubious facial hair. What are you? A Village People tribute act?
Click to expand...

1. They don't. That was their point, they run at certain settings, some of which are simply unsuitable, and lose 30% potential perf.
2. the 11700 non-k and 11400 non-k is what they were testing, they are not remotely high end chips.
3. Yes it is.

The wide 'spec' Intel allow is shameful, they made a massive thing of saying the boards were now able to do x and y, and whist this is true, you need to spend almost more on the board than the chip you put in it, to get it to do x or y.
B560 is an utter mess at the low end.
 
Destination said:
The wide 'spec' Intel allow is shameful, they made a massive thing of saying the boards were now able to do x and y, and whist this is true, you need to spend almost more on the board than the chip you put in it, to get it to do x or y.
B560 is an utter mess at the low end.
Click to expand...
You only need to spend more on a board if you want it to run above the power limit of of the box, if you don't mind setting it yourself then the cheaper boards are no problem.
 
Destination said:
B560 is an utter mess at the low end.
Click to expand...

It's not really though, and if you are building your own system then you should know what you are doing if you want to run your CPU 'out of spec' or also known as overclocking. :D

I've had literally no issues with any B560 boards, other than Gigabyte and that is fixed with a BIOS update, running the 10400F/11400(F) at 125w (and beyond) with something like a Be Quiet! Pure Rock Slim (~£20) and making sure you don't have an oven for a case. Obviously if you buy the very cheapest B560 board then of course you are going to get a worse VRM solution and less features, but ~£100 is more than enough.
 
Joxeon said:
You only need to spend more on a board if you want it to run above the power limit of of the box, if you don't mind setting it yourself then the cheaper boards are no problem.
Click to expand...

the asrock was one toggle button on the tuning utility simples

and its the easy way to set the fan curves so all good
 
And the B560 story continues but this time with Asrock!

Out of Spec!
image-2021-05-26-134038.png
 
They used the cheapest ASRock B560 which had no VRM heatsinks which cost £75. Why have they ignored the ASRock B560M Pro4 which is £90,and has a 6+2 phase VRM with 50A power stages:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asro...200-ddr4-micro-atx-motherboard-mb-180-ak.html

It has decent looking heatsinks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIo1nk83_wQ


They literally had tested the ATX version of it a week ago! ;)

Instead they tested the similarly priced MSI B560M Pro4 which is a worse motherboard in terms of VRMs,has no heatsinks,etc and recommended it? Sure the MSI B560M PRO which is £90 and has no heatsinks was OK with a Core i7 11700 which is an achievement in itself. However,they ignored the similarly priced ASRock B550M Pro4. It reminds me of the B350/B450 ASRock Pro4 motherboards for AM4 which reviewers seemed to ignore.
 
Last edited:
Fact is this is about false advertising and misleading consumers because Asrock’s B650M HDV board does not even meet Intel’s own minimum specifications according to HU.
This board stats support for 125W CPU’s such as the 11600, 11700 and 11900 series, but it runs these at 65W stock and manual tuning limits it to 100W, although this board didn’t even run at that either, thus false advertising.
 
Last edited:
They are testing B560 motherboards around $110 and below. The MSI B560M PRO is $105:
https://www.newegg.com/msi-b560m-pro/p/N82E16813144447

The ASRock B560M Pro4 is only $8 more:
https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813157978

I don't understand why they CBA to test when they tested the slightly more expensive ATX version which has the same VRM. It has the best VRM and heatsinking of the sub £100 B560 motherboards. Then they proceed with the line of needing more expensive motherboards closer to £150.

oP5r4Aa.jpeg


That is their previous video with the ATX version,which has the same VRM/heatsink combination but costs another £10~£20 more. It runs a Core i7 11700 with unlocked power limits fine(apparently) so a Core i5 11600K should be easier to run!

It's almost like they are not testing any of the cheaper B560 motherboards which have heatsinks.

AdoredTV tested the ASRock B560 Steel Legend:
https://adoredtv.com/asrock-b560-steel-legend-motherboard-review-z590-performance-at-half-the-price/

That is sub £130 and apparently can run a Core i9 10900K mostly fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom