Intel reportedly demands all board partners implement Intel Default (Baseline) Profile by May 31 — company hopes to fix issues with some Core i9 chips

News
By
published

Soon all LGA1700 boards should have BIOS updates incorporating Intel's default power recommendations.

Core i9-14900KS
(Image credit: Intel)

Intel has pulled the shot clock on its motherboard partners to end 13th and 14th Gen instability. Intel is requesting all system integrators and board manufacturers implement a new Intel default profile, including Intel's default power and voltage settings, by the end of the month, according to saraba1st.com and Igor's Lab.

Beware: This information comes from sources other than Intel, so until we get an official confirmation from Intel directly, take this information with a healthy dose of salt. That said, there have been several confirmations of this new information from multiple sources (including Igor Lab's own source), so there's a good chance this information is legitimate.

This new change is excellent news for 13th and 14th Gen processor owners and means that Intel has found an effective way to neutralize instability for all affected users. Intel's new default profile request is confirmation that Asus and Gigabyte's recent BIOS updates incorporating Intel's "baseline" profiles were successful.

Intel's default profile should incorporate the CPU manufacturer's previous recommendations to restore stability. This not only includes power limit changes but also keeps all of Intel's CPU-specific performance and power features enabled, including Current Excursion Protection, ICCMax Unlimited Bit, Turbo Velocity Boost, and Enhanced Turbo Velocity Boost, to name a few. Intel discovered that many of its board partners purposefully deactivated some of these features to gain an extra edge in performance.

Regarding power limits, Intel has specified that it does not recommend increasing PL1 and PL2 beyond its recommended limitations. Intel has also recommended that its board partners not push beyond 400 amps through ICCMax. These changes will improve stability and reduce performance and power consumption as a result. We can also expect the new default profiles to take advantage of these recommended settings. This will stop board makers pushing the PL1 and PL2 limits to 4,096 watts and 512 amps out of the box, which has been the case for years.

Intel is requesting all board makers use the new Intel default profile out of the box. This should rectify issues for everyone, including less experienced PC users. We expect all LGA1700 motherboards to have new BIOS updates with the new profile by May 31st.

See more CPUs News
Aaron Klotz
Aaron Klotz
Contributing Writer

Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

65 Comments Comment from the forums
  • TerryLaze
    Admin said:
    Intel is putting an end to 13th and 14th-gen instability
    Out-of-the-box instability...the instability is still going to be there because forcing baseline as default doesn't mean that they forbid other profiles and mobo makers will have the old profiles as "mobo maker" "optimized" "gaming" "Xtreme" whatever profile.
    The only difference is that the user will have to make a choice making it clear to them that they are running overclock with possible instability being expected.

    All this assuming that the report is correct in the first place.
    Reply
  • phitinh81
    "This new change is excellent news for 13th and 14th Gen processor owners" remarkable journalism. Inevitable performance hit from such mitigation is great news nowadays. If this happens in server CPU market, lawsuits will lineup.
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    should of always been that way.

    "technically" even using a MB's default bios (their version) is overclocked and can void a warrenty if u admit to using it.

    TerryLaze said:
    The only difference is that the user will have to make a choice
    which is not intels fault then.

    Stability (even if slower) is most users concern.
    Issue isn't that you can't OC but it should never be default.

    and even now its better to manually tune your OC than use a vendors options. Not used an intel cpu in a while but i know PBO/ryzen master makes this simple even for people who wouldnt know hwo to do so in bios.
    Reply
  • Alvar "Miles" Udell
    It's not a performance hit if the performance was obtained through what is technically overclocking. Requiring baseline out of the box should also help standardize reviews as it should nullify each board's overclocking settings.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    hotaru251 said:
    which is not intels fault then.

    Stability (even if slower) is most users concern.
    Issue isn't that you can't OC but it should never be default.

    and even now its better to manually tune your OC than use a vendors options. Not used an intel cpu in a while but i know PBO/ryzen master makes this simple even for people who wouldnt know hwo to do so in bios.
    I was only commenting on the "eradication" of stability, it's not going to be gone, it just wont be automatically applied.
    Reply
  • ohio_buckeye
    Should have always been this way. Baseline config out the box, and then the other options with an explanation, here's what x, y and z do. Use at your own risk.

    On the other hand, you wonder if intel was happy to let them essentially overclock the cpus to try to keep pace with AMD until they realized there were potential issues.
    Reply
  • thisisaname
    I wonder how much slower they will be once the default is implemented.
    Reply
  • thisisaname said:
    I wonder how much slower they will be once the default is implemented.

    The perf drop is there.

    In testing conducted by Uniko's Hardware, it looks like Gigabyte takes a very aggressive approach when following Intel's official baseline spec for the Core i9 series.

    The power limits are reduced to 125W (Long Duration), 188W (Short Duration), 249A (1.7m Ohm ADDC Load-Line). So the difference is (Long/Short/IccMax):
    Gigabyte AUTO Profile: 4096W/4096W/Unlimited
    Intel Extreme Config (150W): 320W320W/400A
    Intel Extreme Config (125W): 253W/253W/400A
    Intel Standard Config (150W): 253W/253W/307A
    Intel Standard Config (125W): 125W/253W/307A
    Gigabyte BaseLine Profile: 125W/188W/249ASo what was the performance impact like when running the "Intel BaseLine" default BIOS settings?

    In multi-threaded workloads, the Intel Core i9-13900KF was tested and it saw a drop of almost -30% from the "Auto" settings to the "BaseLine" settings:
    Core i9-13900KF (Gigabyte Auto): 40,021 (100%) CB R23Core i9-13900KF (Gigabyte Base): 28811 (71.9%)https://i.imgur.com/hfzgAPk.jpeg
    https://i.imgur.com/XZex49Y.png
    Reply
  • rluker5
    hotaru251 said:
    should of always been that way.

    "technically" even using a MB's default bios (their version) is overclocked and can void a warrenty if u admit to using it.


    which is not intels fault then.

    Stability (even if slower) is most users concern.
    Issue isn't that you can't OC but it should never be default.

    and even now its better to manually tune your OC than use a vendors options. Not used an intel cpu in a while but i know PBO/ryzen master makes this simple even for people who wouldnt know hwo to do so in bios.
    Intel CPU tuning has a LOT of dials to turn and can be more complicated and confusing.

    Here's how I see the stability problem that some are facing, and it isn't anything new that you haven't seen with other CPUs from the past:

    I didn't need to for stability, but I undervolted with load line calibration set to minimize vdroop and it does a better job of keeping undervolted high clocks stable during benches. (I use LLC 6 on Asus which is second from minimum vdroop)
    Otherwise my chip would thermal throttle. And if you undervolt, you have to keep the volts still high enough to keep the chip from crashing. The most likely place for this is when vdroop can drop it 10s to 100s mv under loads in the 300w+ range. Motherboards weren't ready for that much power consumption. Also my chip needs increasingly more volts, relative to the volt/frequency curve set by Intel/Asus, the higher the p-cores get over 5.4 ghz. This efficient limit frequency number likely changes from chip to chip. Personally I have a ramp of added millivolts on my per point voltage offset for frequencies above 5.4GHz.

    If you combine the two characteristics: 1. Motherboard's power delivery allowing too much vdroop at "default" settings at the (until 13th gen) extreme power draw of 300w+, and 2. CPUs that are designed to run past their efficiency limits and need more volts vs their volt/frequency curve the higher their clocks are past their efficiency limits, you have a compounding scenario pushing affected CPUs into a situation that the cores are not getting enough volts for the clocks they are running and crash.

    But by addressing these issues one may find their CPU getting light single core volts over 1.5v which I think is too much for daily use. The volts can be capped at 1.5v if your chip needs that much for your desired top clocks, and if your chip needs more then maybe you should weigh potential issues vs the rewards of keeping the single clocks that high.

    If you look at the common fixes noted so far they seem to be different ways of addressing this. Power limiting limits vdroop. The Intel failsafe SVID behavior FLOODS the CPU with volts. Jufes has a recommended fix of limiting your few core boost to all core boost if you have problems which avoids the out of efficiency range clocks as much as possible.

    The problem doesn't seem that bad, Just balancing that CPUs need enough volts for their clocks and they run cooler and have less vdroop at lower voltages. But the bios gives you a ton of options and having heterogeneous cores doesn't help the confusion.

    extra note:
    Also having a profile for gaming that turns off HT and maybe some e-cores isn't a crime. You can always reboot to get all of those threads and heat back whenever you want. My CPU gets really efficient with HT and 8 E-cores off and at or under 5.4ghz all P-core. And gaming performance at least matches stock with the same memory settings. Best case scenario SVID with -135mv on cores, cache at LLC 6 efficient. I totally recommend anybody with RPL try HT off and see what it gives you. You don't need to have it off all of the time, it is your CPU after all, run it how you want. I also can add 300MHz to the P-cores with HT off vs what I can do with it on if you want to try that route to see what is possible with yours.
    Reply
  • CmdrShepard
    Alvar Miles Udell said:
    It's not a performance hit if the performance was obtained through what is technically overclocking.
    And if this was just about stock CPUs I would agree.

    However, Intel MARKETED and SOLD the K SKUs for OVERCLOCKING.

    So in that case, it is a quite legitimate performance hit, just like every microcode security patch has been eating into performance claims you based your buying decision on and paid for.

    That said, I wonder what effect will this have? 90% of users don't update BIOS anyway, and even if they do they'd have to enter it to select new baseline profile.
    Reply