Superior Stability by GIGABYTE BETA BIOS with Intel Baseline on Z790/B760 Motherboards (2024)

woohoo, adhering to Intel specs and lose up to 30% of MT perf / 10% ST perf, basically making i9 perform the same as i7

Intel should just reduce the prices of their CPU by 100usd, making i9 cost the same as current i7

nguyenwoohoo, adhering to Intel specs and lose up to 30% of MT perf / 10% ST perf, basically making i9 perform the same as i7

Intel should just reduce the prices of their CPU by 100usd, making i9 cost the same as current i7

I think you fell for clickbait because the difference is less than 10% MT and no change in ST perf in the original article with the QS sample. Even at the 125W spec there's still no change in ST performance so I'm not sure where you're getting your 10% from. PL1=PL2=253W is still the advertised Intel spec for a 13900K.

azraelSo now it''s a feature to adhere to the official specs?

Hah, indeed.

_Under2World_So basically the whole instability drama was just because MB manufacturers were overclocking the CPU’s on their own.

You haven't been paying attention. Intel is entirely responsible for this situation, they allowed MIBs to overlock the CPU's because at Intel Baseline, thier CPUs slower and use more power than AMD.

napataI think you fell for clickbait because the difference is less than 10% MT and no change in ST perf in the original article with the QS sample. Even at the 125W spec there's still no change in ST performance so I'm not sure where you're getting your 10% from. PL1=PL2=253W is still the advertised Intel spec for a 13900K.

You didn't read the article, the Intel Baseline Spec is 125W PL1 and 188W PL2, not PL1=PL2=253W.

The 14900K can use way more than 125W in games, thus gaming performance also takes a hit.

_Under2World_So basically the whole instability drama was just because MB manufacturers were overclocking the CPU’s on their own.

Motherboard and add in board (AIB) manufacturers strictly follow the directions of the CPU and GPU companies. This is Intel's fault.

nguyenYou didn't read the article, the Intel Baseline Spec is 125W PL1 and 188W PL2, not PL1=PL2=253W

But you did not specify Baseline as you said "Intel spec". PL1=PL2=253W is the default official Intel spec, not the baseline one. You're also complaining about performance loss so I didn't think you were talking about the Baseline spec as it's nonsensical to complain about this. It's like complaining a 7950x loses a bunch of performance when you put it in ECO mode.

To quote the 12900K review from TPU:

"Processor Base Power" is a vague "typical" power draw value at an undisclosed Intel workload that's definitely "optimized" to return the desired 125 W value. It's interesting that the i9-12900K, i7-12700K and i5-12600K all run at the same 125 W value in this special workload despite their completely different performance characteristics. "Maximum Turbo Power" is the real limit, the maximum amount of power the processor can draw at stock settings for an indefinite duration of time.

For the i9-12900K, this is 241 W. Unlike past generations of processors that were constrained by the Tau time value to hold maximum power draw, or PL2, Alder Lake processors now run at maximum power draw indefinitely if the load demands it and as long as the processor doesn't hit the thermal limit of 105°C. This is done without inventing a new system; Intel simply tweaked the PL1 and PL2 values and set them both to 241 W, which effectively means the processor can run at 241 W all the time as long as it doesn't overheat. The "125 W" limit now only exists on paper and in marketing documents.

This is how Intel wants these CPUs to run.

_Flarenah, it may be just a hype, why would anyone first ignore even the intel "Perf" spec to damage consumer CPUs and than offer the "Base" spec to care for the involved CPUs aferwards?
totally insane, right?
btw the picture is from 2021 ... but Intel let the board makers just ignore all specs ... and "tada" surprise it did hurt some CPUs

The problem with those specs are the massively high AC LL values which if have to be applied along with the other spec will kill the performance very badly.

What's particularly frustrating about this fiasco, is that Intel's main claim over the competition is the 'stability' of its platforms presumably due to the perceived higher quality engineering of its products. I'm still dumb struck that Intel is still in business but market perceptions and emotions have the tendency to keep brands alive that otherwise should be defunct.

The very fact that Intel would risk the operation of its customer's PCs in order to beat the competition in benchmarks is so not the kind of company anyone should be buying from.

persiziThe problem with those specs are the massively high AC LL values which if have to be applied along with the other spec will kill the performance very badly.

That sounds 100% true, but the point i wanna make is that Gigabyte and others are WAY below the "Perf" spec of 1.1mO. And that i think a CPU spending its lifetime inside the intel "Perf" spec will probably never degrade that much that it would need to be forced into the intel "baseline" spec to run stable EVER. And im confident that´ll be true even with PL1=PL2 253W
but it´s just me

Gigabyte's "Baseline" Gaming Stability BIOS Option Turns Intel 14th & 13th Gen Core i9 CPUs Into Core i7, -30% Multi-Thread & -10% Gaming Performance

The title says everything. Intel is letting motherboard makers to push those chips too hard. It's good for marketing, but it shouldn't be happening.

You know, in a normal world, you would think that if a CPU is rated for 125w, then by god it should never ever use no more than that out of the box (emphasis "out of the box", no tweaking).
Guess we cant have something so simple.

Oh and another thing, think of the first time pc builder, "oh this cpu is rated at 125w, then I should get a cpu cooler rated at 150w tdp, that should do it :) ".