Intel has presented a decisive demand to motherboard vendors following their acknowledgement of the instability issues that plague 13th and 14th generation Raptor Lake CPUs.
The ongoing narrative concerning Intel’s controversial stance on its open-door policy regarding the enforcement (or lack thereof) of “default” BIOS settings appears to be evolving. Recently, Intel issued a press statement deflecting any responsibility for the selective aggressive pushing of unlocked 13th and 14th generation Intel Core processors by motherboard manufacturers.
This push involved setting absurd power limits, which led to increased power consumption, temperatures, and notably, frequency, resulting in enhanced performance.
Unsurprisingly, it has become evident to consumers that substantially increasing your CPU’s current draw leads to accelerated silicon degradation. This issue has dominated discussions on forums for months but recently kicked up a notch when Korean gamers couldn’t play Tekken 8.
Facing the consequences of Intel’s hands-free approach, Intel is now imposing a default baseline power limit profile on LGA 1700 motherboard manufacturers. Ironically, this mandate will reduce your CPU’s PL2 limit to a mere 188 watts.
Interestingly, Intel has introduced “Performance” and “Extreme” power profiles, each designed to push your CPU’s PL2 limit to 253 watts.
The significant reduction in power limits for Intel’s new baseline profile is expected to result in a notable performance decrease. For instance, processors like the Intel Core i9-13900K / 14900K initially come with 253-watt limitations for both PL1 and PL2.
However, many motherboard vendors opted to further increase these limits or offer an unlimited power option in their default BIOS configurations, which is what caused this whole mess.
Restricting the processor to a mere 188 watts, well below supposed base specifications, will inevitably lead to decreased performance. Recent comparisons conducted by Hardware Unboxed using Intel’s newly imposed baseline power profiles with the Core i9-14900K processor revealed performance drops ranging from 1% to as high as 7%
But this was merely in comparison to an unlimited power limit versus the true baseline of 253 watts across both PL1 and PL2 for the “extreme” unlocked processors.
Gigabyte implemented an even more restrictive Intel baseline preset, mirroring Intel’s demand for a 125W PL1 and 188W PL2 baseline, this resulted in a heightened performance hit versus an unlimited limit but most importantly versus the 253 watt profile.
In Cinebench 2024, there was an observed 18.2% performance decline in multi-core performance when comparing between ASUS’ 253/253W baseline to Gigabyte’s 125/188W profile.
The shift from an unlimited power limit to 253 watts resulted in a noticeable decrease in gaming performance, a decline that becomes even more pronounced under the newly mandated “Default” requirement.
For example, Cyberpunk 2077 exhibits a 5-7% performance drop across various graphical settings when comparing Intel’s actual default specification to what they aim to impose as the new “default.”
Consumers are getting a free reduction in performance, simply because the supposed performance level of their processors were more or less falsified from the very beginning.
Intel has supposedly offered three power limit modes, with motherboard manufacturers frequently choosing to utilize Intel’s “extreme profile” since the 9th Generation of Core CPUs (Coffee Lake), as reported by Benchlife.
If this information holds true, Intel has never actively discouraged motherboard vendors from incorporating such extreme profiles into their motherboards or even making them the default out-of-the-box configuration.
Undoubtedly, Intel has benefited from this misconception regarding what truly constitutes a “stock” configuration, a practice that is unethical and potentially illegal. Allowing and promoting a supposed “Extreme” profile as the default has undoubtedly skewed performance tests and reviews for many years.
Fortunately, until now, there haven’t been widespread reports of unstable or degraded silicon reaching such levels, from the 9th generation until now.
Intel’s deception warrants serious consideration for a class-action lawsuit, as it essentially solidified a false narrative in regards to the performance of its CPUs compared to the competition, all thanks to covertly promoted power plans pushed by motherboard manufacturers.
However, Intel’s deceit surfacing can ultimately benefit everyone. By mandating that all motherboard manufacturers enforce their genuine default profile, Intel is providing a legitimate out-of-the-box performance metric. This ensures that users and reviewers alike have the means to confidently assess Intel’s CPUs across various motherboards, establishing a level playing field moving forward across three different power limits.
Feel free to utilize the heightened profiles within your motherboard’s BIOS, sacrificing your CPU’s longevity with intense power and voltage curves as you please. However, I can’t help but speculate whether Intel will also choose to employ their 125/188W “default” baseline specifications for comparison with upcoming CPUs like Arrow Lake.
Yes. Absolutely.
Intel’s marketing department has developed a reputation for bending reality, often showcasing unrealistic or exaggerated performance estimates for its processors. It’s wise to exercise caution when evaluating any “benchmark” or “performance comparison” released by a corporation’s PR department, regardless of the circumstances.
Notably, Intel stands out as the only company, to my knowledge, that consistently marketed processors of the same architecture as having increased instructions per clock (IPC) throughout all of Skylake’s numerous rebrands, from the 6th Generation until the 10th.
Moreover, the company has chosen not to address patches for its insecure processors which have had a significant drop in IO performance with security mitigations applied. Intel’s own marketing and self-performance evaluations are often viewed with skepticism and deemed laughable by many observers.
It’s rather ironic that the company, whose products seemingly operates with three secretive power plans that consumers don’t actually know about, pushing motherboard manufacturers to leverage “Extreme” power limits, attempted to criticize its main rival, AMD, for selling what they dubbed as “snake oil” under the guise of their “Core Truths” marketing campaign.
Intel was well aware of these issues for quite some time, but it was convenient for them to maintain the status quo to ensure better reviews. They’re only now considering changes due to consumer backlash as their relatively new Intel Core processors have been used and abused without their knowledge or consent and have severely degraded, causing stability issues.
Intel’s next generation Arrow Lake represents a new microarchitecture, with a brand new processing node, rather than being a mere rebrand of a previous generation such as Raptor Lake was to the 12th Generation Alder Lake.
With heightened efficiency and a significant decrease in Raptor Lake’s multi-core capabilities, Arrow Lake is certainly poised to deliver remarkable performance improvements, even without Hyper-Threading.
Recent leaks indicate that Intel’s next generation may be somewhat underwhelming, showing only marginal gains in single-core performance. However, the multi-threaded prowess of Arrow Lake is expected to outshine Raptor Lake by a considerable margin, with performance enhancements ranging from 7% to 13% based on leaked information.
Arrow Lake’s multi-threaded performance was compared to Raptor Lake with a PL1+PL2 rating of 253W, now that Intel’s default baseline mandates a PL1 of 125W and a PL2 of 188W, Arrow Lake’s multi-threaded performance will surpass these expectations effortlessly.
This shift towards a Intel “baseline” will inevitably make Arrow Lake appear much more favorable compared to previous generations in Intel’s own marketing as this whole ordeal has been a win-win for Intel as they’ve seemingly shifted the blame towards motherboard manufacturers while also enhancing their own products moving forward.
