Around the 10th gen or so, Intel seems to be juicing up their cpus in order to look competitive with Ryzen cpus.

And Intel has done this sort of thing in the past, just not to the extent of what is going on now.

This problem has just gotten way worse since. The current 13th/14th gen cpus will be degraded at stock settings because Intel has ridiculously high power limits. The default limits are already very high and the 'extreme' ICCmax for 150W TDP 13th/14th gen cpus is 400A is clearly crazy high. The average pc builder or gamer is not going to know that leaving the settings at default will degrade their cpus permanently in a few short months.

Recently Nvidia pushed back by telling users with Raptor Lake cpus to contact Intel after getting "out of video memory" errors.
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/...t-intel-support
And even worse, it looks like the Raptor Lake cpus have degraded in a few months to a point where crashing occurs.
https://www.lowyat.net/2024/320284/gamers-r...-cpus-en-masse/

Sad to see how Intel sunk to to the level where they are putting the blame on mobo manufacturers for not enforcing limits LOWER than their own specs for long term reliability.

intel is history.
Zen is da future.

Yes...and I have to downvolt + limit power for my 14700k to prevent high temperature...cilaka

In fact AMD CPU and GPU now is the best performance/price. If not because of Intel's good marketing...

This post has been edited by Duckies: Apr 15 2024, 03:12 PM

If You live long enough....

Crazy Power consumption, High temperature, slow = AMD.
Bulldozer... fx-8350...

AMD is the New Intel.
Intel now is the Old AMD.


Decided to olff-load intel....
( shorting NVIDIA moment is coming )

big reduction in performance? Or generally not noticeable?

The 14700 is not a bad cpu, its just that Intel wants to win and be no. 1 at everything at any cost it seems. Lowering the PL1/PL2/Icc is not going destroy performance, its still going to be good and generate alot less heat.

Not noticeable when I did benchmarking but the temperature reduction is a lot. From going over 100c and gets thermal throttled before the manual tuning to around 90c after tuning. And this is with AIO some more.

Exactly but the problem is general consumer don't know or won't know about these things...they just want to use it out of the box and seeing this kind of temperature will scare the shit out of them. In fact it scares the shit out of me the first time I saw the temperature also.

This post has been edited by Duckies: Apr 15 2024, 03:33 PM

Time to buy AMD stock or better to top up NVDA?

Whoever buys i9 purely for games really got more money than sense. Its more of a HEDT CPU and if you want proper gaming CPU go for i7 which doesnt seem to be affected.

Anyways both teams are not being honest with their power draws of course Intel is much worse simply because their silicon quality allows Kskus to draw more power than spec but its also mobo maker fault for actually pushing the CPU beyond reasonable limits when removing power limiters.

Its basically Ksku CPU is a car without brakes and then certain particular mobo makers removing RPM limiter too. What happens? The car will go as fast as it physically can until it crashes, the same goes for an unlimited CPU too, it figuratively crashes.

Will it degrade the CPU? Yes eventually but unless your running 24/7 at the max turbo limit constantly it shouldnt die so soon. Games typically dont even run CPU to its max capacity unless theres some weird missmatch combo to hit a hard CPU bottleneck.

You use O11 fish tank case sure will easily overheat coz these cases have pisspoor airflow. Get a Lancool3 with the same parts inside and temps will be much different

Buy ARM or Qualcomm stocks. Their CPU destroys both X86 in terms of power efficiency. ARM is the future.

Fish tank case more cantik At first I want to for O11 Vision some more...that 1 the airflow lagi teruk

You traded performance for looks so dont complain lar

In fish tanks you cannot push to the max so its really a balance of keeping temps in check just for the looks. For such usage I would prefer nonK CPU less temp headaches.

This post has been edited by babylon52281: Apr 15 2024, 05:52 PM

Read the Tom's Hardware news properly. 4096W is not Intel official power limit. 253W is for 13900K and 14900K. Motherboard vendors pushing too much performance on already "overclocked" chips.

You don't need power limit removed to get the most out of their chips too.


https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-co...-14900k/18.html

It can be tuned to be very efficient too.


This post has been edited by TristanX: Apr 15 2024, 07:26 PM

Haha it's not the best but certainly not the worst. In fact can still put 7 case fans + 3 fans for AIO ma

Also don't really need to push the CPU to the max since game nowadays are heavily on GPU itself...so can maintain balance between temperature and performance for the CPU already cukup makan

This post has been edited by Duckies: Apr 15 2024, 09:50 PM

actually AMD GPU is the one with best price/performance ratio, but CPU wise it's a tie with Intel. Intel still slightly edges out in lower tier ones.
I went Intel because 7950X and 7950X3D were more expensive than 13900K...and all X670 mobos costed both arms and a left nut

Whether or not the i9 is overpowered for games is beside the point. The user might be using for other programs other than games.
There are more reports that 13th and 14th gen get degraded from the factory settings even under normal use.
"However, despite all the power they wield, gamers in South Korea were returning them en masse, all because of a problem arising through the fighting game Tekken 8......
Other reports point to a combination of a 13900K or 14900K with and the top-tier RTX 4090 inducing crashes in-game, just a few months after being assembled or paired together."

I wasn't referring to to THW about the official power limit. Intel's early review sample NDA document said >253W for PL1/PL2 and about 400A for icc-max for their 'extreme profile'. Even the default 253W stock limit seems to be in overclocking territory for 125W tdp chips.

There is way too many reports of instability/chips degraded for 13/14th gen cpus, and some of them happening even after setting stock Intel power limits.
The Zen 4 cpus seems to do better in apps other than gaming but the big difference is in long term stability and reliability. Being abit slower is a ton better than unusable unstable cpu thats prematurely degraded.

Degradation happened at 4096W I guess. The damage already done. Won't fix the issue even when they go back to stock limits.

I have bad experience with Ryzen 7 1700 and 5900X. No issue with 2700X and 3900X. For AMD setups, never buy it at launch. We will be beta testers due to not enough testing. Bugs will still be present. 5900X being my worst and I used it for one year. You can get potato chips if you are unlucky.



One of the cases...
https://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=5022425

This post has been edited by TristanX: Apr 16 2024, 10:35 PM

For some reason, double posted.

This post has been edited by TristanX: Apr 16 2024, 10:36 PM

Don't worry , be happy.. I think more and more mobo maker will include something like Intel DEFAULT setting to help users trobleshoot their PC issue(if any).
Since, Asus already Introduce "Intel Baseline Profile option " in their latest BIOS..it is a positive move, I think..

although u have to choose between Stability or Performance ..
https://twitter.com/9550pro/status/1781481593972129929

p/s: IMHO, I think even gen 12nd and some of the non-K might also face similar issue. (that's just my personal thought, don't quote me please).

This post has been edited by hashtag2016: Apr 20 2024, 01:35 PM

So far no stability issues with my PL2 unleashed nonK 12700F. Been running for 1.5 years with my Asrock B660M PG Riptide mobo. In games it doesnt really hit its maxed turbo power limit so Im still contemplating if to do BCLK OC to hit 12700K speeds.

And the one gets fooled by them both, is the consumers themselves. This is just how these companies play the market.

u mean Intel purposely release shit product to Let AMD Lead the Market?

also like how Tesla produce less value Higher priced EV compare BYD to let it grow bigger?

Im glad i went with amd am5

Considered getting 12/13th gen i5 1X400 chip...

But the no upgrade path after 14th gen made me reconsidered.

am5 got its own problem as well

For me..hvnt encountered any..

I think it is a good feature lah.. although not everybody need to use it..
At least if sb think their build got some stable issue even without turn on XMP, then they can straight forward turn on this switch .
and if the problem still persist, then they can straight forward go to claim warranty(this only just my opinion) , no need to gaduh with the PC shop or any Seller..

Anyway, we still need to wait the officer investigation result from intel, to see if they find anything interesting..

This post has been edited by hashtag2016: Apr 21 2024, 08:21 PM

Futureproofing is fallacy. Recall the AM4 300series to 400series issues and also their limited growth (no PCIE4, no USB 3.2) by todays standards even if you can technically still "upgrade" with newer CPU.

AM5 1st gen is held back by limited DDR5 speeds. This will fast gets old as DDR5 tech matures and speeds goes over 10k.

Do not buy for something you think might happen future, just buy for the best today.

This post has been edited by babylon52281: Apr 21 2024, 10:21 PM

Not sure what XMP gotta do with it. Whether Ksku or nonK both can run XMP at default settings (with right mobo), and the issues are more towards people running their CPUS way over default power limit settings due to their mobos auto set to OC mode when detect Ksku installed.

XMP is memory overclocking.. it may or may not cause some of the stability issue.
To rule that out ,of course , we need to turn XMP off while troubleshooting stable issue.

For people who think their cpu is fine, of couse they can do whatever they want on their own pc..

ARM and RISC-V isn't too far behind

If both AMD and Intel keep making mistake they will become history

ARM maybe, but RISC-V, tired of YT headline RISC-V is the future for many years already.
seems like only intel make mistake while AMD make money.

AMD mistake is keeping AM5 prices too f**king high, HUB recently did a review and their basement budget Mobos are basically all crap so you cannot do a budget build with AM5 either, which is why AM4 is still hanging around and not getting replaced as it was supposed to be. This is a failure from product marketing POV.

And for a fabless maker, they also failed to prioritise software side of the CPU leading to systems being less stable (DOCP/EXPO, CCD priority) than Intel build (who still has to run a fab business). In that regards, heck even Nvidia has better grip on their various software ecosystems for other uses of their GPU.

Both have their faults and surprising it is Apple, another fabless brand, that is showing how to design CPU hardware with their superb M2 Ultra, with near flawless software integration. And then there is ARM...

Apple, ARM > Intel, AMD

All you AMD & Intel fanbois can balik rumah cry

not an AMD & intel fan boi
this year ARM laptop from qualcomm will hit the market (again), see how it goes.

i like macOS, but i dont like apple.

Never had an Apple product whatsoever and never figured I will ever need one but I can appreciate their innovations to push electronics design boundaries down to the CPU arch itself. I just dont agree Apple pricing for such innovations.

their logic is to control hardware and software.
last time hardware depend on others, now they able to control/design it.
apple aside, on windows x86_64 still better than ARM and RISC-V.

It is a roller coaster ride.

Precisely, Apple Silicon is using AMRv8 architecture, it's part of the ARM family,

ARM can be designed and produced without much restriction like x86, even if AMD got brought up by other corp they cant continue to produce Zen like AMD.

not to mention Top500 supercomputer top 1st place was once using ARM processor made by fujitsu.
Amazon AWS server now use their own AWS graviton cpu also using ARM too.

Qualcomm just need to get their things done and need mass adoptions from big software vendor, get more game developers support and produce binary that works with the cpu without emulation.
it will take years, but probably worth the wait and x86 cpu will become secondary choice and slowly become thing in the past.

it's inevitable, then the consumer market will have cpu made by various vendors, not just AMD/Intel anymore.

for now. microsoft is currently betting on snapdragon x elite for their Windows on ARM. snapdragon x elite does look promising.

however, x86-64 may not be going anywhere soon despite the rising popularity of RISC-based instruction set architectures (ISAs).

the reason why windows still requiring x86-64 (for now) is because they have a lot of legacy codes that are dependent on x86 ISA. many wizards we use in windows today can be dated back to win95. this is why x86-64 hangs around for so long -- backwards compatibility for the past 20+ years. hell even intel 8086-based software can run on modern x86 CPUs with little tweaking. people may attribute better efficiency to ARM, but it really matter not on the difference in ISAs, but how CPU vendors are pushing at which direction while designing their CPUs. for so long both AMD and Intel been pushing towards high performance (both of them compete in high performance computing while having a lower priority on battery life), while Qualcomm and Apple have been pushing for efficiency (both of them compete in mobile space and therefore having handful of experience on low power operations).

a good read of RISC vs CISC if you're into a bit of technicality: https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-o...-doesnt-matter/
if u don't already know, x86-64 is CISC-based while ARM and RISC-V are RISC-based

i agree with you. lets see how SD X Elite fare against intel/amd on laptop and its performance against M3 SoC.

then again, it still limited to laptop/mobile.
power user still depend on high end desktop.

Windows on ARM have been tried before and failed (see Windows RT). Mainly coz no backwards portability of current vast Windows software library to ARM, so those who buys Windows ARM PC were disappointed they cannot run their usual softwares.
For Windows ARM to be success they need to have easy portability or majority ARM compatible softwares ready from Day1.

In short, qualcomm just need to butt in to kick both x86 player awake, just remember what happened to the high end cpu still in quad fcking cores when AMD still underdog

PC space need competition, duopoly is bad

qualcomm is overated, wait for Malaysia 1st AI chip...B.I.J.A.K. (Business Intelligence Job Analytics Keystone)



(just kidding...)  

This post has been edited by hashtag2016: Apr 23 2024, 06:39 PM

Its not that easy. Still limited to process nodes. Why would Intel and AMD push power usage up to 90-95C depending on cooling? Its physical limitations. Die shrinks becoming increasingly more difficult as well. Unless someone comes out with a new material for the processors.

They should design better architecture then, node shrink can only improve thermal and power efficiency,
One of the issue is lack of optimization, your program take longer time to complete instead of running efficiently,

A lot of programs already shifted their load to gpu, eg web canvas, 3d rendering, font rendering already runs on gpu, video playback, image post processing filters, etc, they're much faster on gpu and freed a lot of resources.
Better coded program would use both CPU and gpu, but it's very rare 😕

Last major breakthrough is Sandy Bridge. Its been a while. Today, Intel is still behind when comes to the hardware. They still able to keep up. Just with a lot more power.

There are candidates for new materials. Like 100Ghz nanocarbon I think. I think no one able to get it stable.

Lots of things to consider too. Now we have a lot of hackers cracking it. Security patch usually nerfs the processors.

Arguably Alderlake is also a major breakthru being the 1st consumer big.little hybrid X86 CPU, next breakthru would be Lunarlake with proper tiled design desktop CPU.

refer: https://www.igorslab.de/en/intel-releases-t...ty-issue-update

13th and 14th Generation K SKU Processor Instability Issue Update
Intel® has observed that this issue may be related to out of specification operating conditions resulting in sustained high voltage and frequency during periods of elevated heat.
Analysis of affected processors shows some parts experience shifts in minimum operating voltages which may be related to operation outside of Intel® specified operating conditions.

While the root cause has not yet been identified, Intel® has observed the majority of reports of this issue are from users with unlocked/overclock capable motherboards.
Intel® has observed 600/700 Series chipset boards often set BIOS defaults to disable thermal and power delivery safeguards designed to limit processor exposure to sustained periods of high voltage and frequency, for example:
– Disabling Current Excursion Protection (CEP)
– Enabling the IccMax Unlimited bit
– Disabling Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB) and/or Enhanced Thermal Velocity Boost (eTVB)
– Additional settings which may increase the risk of system instability:
– Disabling C-states
– Using Windows Ultimate Performance mode
– Increasing PL1 and PL2 beyond Intel® recommended limits
Intel® requests system and motherboard manufacturers to provide end users with a default BIOS profile that matches Intel® recommended settings.

Intel® strongly recommends customer’s default BIOS settings should ensure operation within Intel’s recommended settings.
In addition, Intel® strongly recommends motherboard manufacturers to implement warnings for end users alerting them to any unlocked or overclocking feature usage.
Intel® is continuing to actively investigate this issue to determine the root cause and will provide additional updates as relevant information becomes available.

Intel® will be publishing a public statement regarding issue status and Intel® recommended BIOS setting recommendations targeted for May 2024.

This post has been edited by hashtag2016: May 2 2024, 02:00 PM

Intel's current problems are alot more serious than the teething problems AMD had with Ryzen. The early Ryzens had memory incompatibility/instability with took some bios updates to resolve. The 5000 series had the USB dropout issue. Now Intel probably has more memory incompatibility/instability issues than Ryzen putting aside the problems with voltage/power.

Someone at chiphell took the time to organise testing of hundreds of intel 13/14th gen cpus and found very poor stability at auto out of the box settings. If 5/10 13th gen and 2/10 14th gen managed to pass, its a clear sign that its complete garbage and not just a few bad apples.
https://wccftech.com/only-5-out-of-10-core-...ability-issues/

Performance takes a hit as expected with Intels baseline bios fix - "This is reported to be up to -30% in multi-threaded applications and up to -15% in games which is quite big".
Hardware unboxed ran gaming benchmarks with the new bios fix and the performance hit was 10%-20%. IIRC 20% was the perf hit for low 1% fps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdF5erDRO-c&t=520s


And then you have to consider Intel's current issues with the Meltdown bug. The last downfall patch supposedly had a big performance hit on older cpus, up to 39%.

This post has been edited by imbibug: May 4 2024, 11:33 PM

AMD do sell lowest binned of garbage chip as well ... not to mention there is also EXPO problem with Ryzen

From my experience with both platform, memory OC / stability definitely is better on Intel than AMD.



This post has been edited by stella_purple: May 5 2024, 07:30 AM

Nope. Last year, AMD was even worse.



Kills itself and the mobo! Fire hazard!

This post has been edited by TristanX: May 5 2024, 09:43 AM

AMD fanbois conveniently forgot that their Ryzen had its own CPU failure before Intel did?
https://www.lowyat.net/2023/299165/amd-ryze...800x3d-burnout/

I just love how in that previous case was Intel fanbois pissing on AMD and today we have AMD fanbois pissing on Intel. Well guess what guys from both camps, both AMD & Intel have their share of hardware design failures. Its to be expected when humans are to design things that are billions in scalar and even the best human effort will still have that 0.001% failure which WILL HAPPEN considering how many CPUS they sell.

So to those fanbois from both camps just chill out, any issue that are under warranty will he resolved thru RMA, its not end of the world for you. And once you have calmed down here is a good read for you guys
https://hwbusters.com/freestyle/are-you-sti...cle-is-for-you/

To be fair, I don't think 7800X3D cases affect much people, since it was very expensive by that time, not many people bought it ,and the problem was solved fast .
The intel issue affect more widely, and cause more 'brain' damage, although it seems not deadly so far..

p/s: I think people already given Intel special vip treatment, not may posts was created. if this intel inccident were happen on AMD, cannot imaging how many posts and threads will be created from those angry users..

This post has been edited by hashtag2016: May 9 2024, 03:42 AM

most people in here give intel special treatment only
out of this circle u will see a lot of criticisms on how intel is handling the situation and the criticisms are warranted.

they were the one who let mobo vendors loose in an attempt to gain upper hand on fps regardless of it consuming 300+W...then kpkb about mobo vendors when chips started degrading. a few years ago they said unlocking power limits was in-spec and wasn't counted as overclocking during an interview with anandtech. the unlimited PLs have been here for years now.

don't forget this new "intel baseline profile" has a legitimate performance hit across all workloads.

conversely, if this incident happens on AMD, I predict the hoo haas will still be lesser than intended simply because many people still regard them as underdogs. whataboutism will be brought into the conversation. all in all both sides also gt fanboys. better just buy what suits you best.

"intel baseline profile" no more, say hello to "Intel Default Settings"
seems that , the beta bios that provided "intel baseline profile" is taken down from gigabyte website.

-----
Intel Issues Official Statement Regarding 14th and 13th Gen Instability, Recommends Intel Default Settings
by Gavin Bonshor on May 8, 2024 10:05 AM EST
https://www.anandtech.com/show/21389/intel-...efault-settings

---
Intel Issues New Statement Regarding 13th, 14th Gen Core i9 Instability Issues
The new statement addresses the consumers, and not the motherboard vendors.
BY JOHN LAW MAY 9, 2024
https://www.lowyat.net/2024/322056/intel-ne...-13th-14th-gen/

This post has been edited by hashtag2016: May 9 2024, 04:37 PM

Brother, 7800X3d is in the same segment & just as pricy or even less than 13900K & 14900K lar. It didnt affect many bcoz AMD failed to sell as much due to pricing topkek fail. That itself has failed potential buyers at the front gate. In terms of percentage users failure then it could mean that more percentage of AMD users were affected compared to Intel.

AMD problem did NOT solve fast. It took them many burnt CPUS & a whole month to come out with a non buggy Agesa bios to set it back to baseline voltage.

So stop trying to defend them fanboi. Each of them when there is hardware failure they are responsible. When mobos overspec the CPU mobo makers are responsible.

U can have ur own different opinion on the matter or the product. (this is what's forum exist for)
but suka suka shout out fanbois this fanbios that, it is not nice...

Seems that intel will pulish a officer announcement this month, so they do know how serious the issue is.

p/s: I only mention the that x3d burning issue after sb had mention about it , although it is simply unrelated issue to the topic.

This post has been edited by hashtag2016: May 10 2024, 11:51 PM

amd one was do or die... since it burn out.
inhell gonna affect for life..

amd one is worse, it may turn into fire hazard





This post has been edited by stella_purple: May 11 2024, 02:51 AM

i think, overclock kaw-kaw

thats why....

The whole stability mess would have been mitigated had Intel actually tried to compete with AMD's X3D chips by not brute forcing clock speeds just to eke out that tiny little performance advantage (so it can look good on presentations)
IMHO the LGA1700 platform is a weird place; while the 12th gen chips are legitimately good, the 13th gen chips feels like a 12th gen chip with mostly minor improvements, and the 14th gen is just a pure waste of sand. It really speaks volume about Intel's platform 'longevity' especially when you consider Arrow Lake will come on a new platform/socket

I really wish both AMD/Intel didn't lock themselves in an all out performance war and they should start designing desktop chips will efficiency in mind - those 5.5-6+ GHz clock speeds are sort of unsustainable and reminds of the Netburst era where little emphasis is put on efficiency. Especially when you consider most x86 chips are clocked way beyond the efficiency point which leads to excessive power consumption. Yes I know you can power tune those CPUs or even use Eco mode but then the hivemind only wanted longer performance bars at any cost so they are more than happy to oblige

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 12:50 PM

Probably not noticeable outside of very heavy, multithreaded workloads (in games it will be fine)

Yup, same goes to AMD as well with their '95C Tjmax' temperatures

On the other hand, the whole power limit mess has been already happening for about a decade or so, according to Hardware Unboxed:


Yes, you can tune Intel chips to very efficient levels, but the same goes to AMD as well (it's even better when you consider you can just use 105W Eco mode on the BIOS for the Ryzen 9 chips and you'll have very little performance loss outside of synthetic benchmarks with a significant uplift in efficiency)
That being said however it just kind of proves that modern x86 CPUs are massively tuned for performance with very little regard in efficiency

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 08:02 AM

From a ISA point of view, both x86 and ARM are quite performant and efficient (there is a common myth that x86 is 'inefficient' because of the legacy bloat), and ISA doesn't really mean much where's there's no native apps to run. Back in the 1990s there are plenty of RISC ISAs that outperformed x86 significantly like DEC Alpha and yet x86 prevailed due to the large library of software written. I know binary translation/dynamic recompilation will help but this will introduce a performance overhead
Modern CPUs these days are so complex from the architectural standpoint that the ISA doesn't mean much anymore

Ultimately, implementation matters (there's also the economic/business side that needs to consider), not ISA - there's also a YouTube channel that talks about semiconductor design and manufacturing that goes deep dive in CPU architectures:
https://www.youtube.com/@HighYield

https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-o...-doesnt-matter/

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 08:05 AM

Probably for the better, but this just makes the 14th gen K CPUs look like a rebranded 13th gen and even more of a waste of sand

Tk-maxx, U.K

No PCIe 4? Not that much of a problem for most GPUs unless you are talking something about RX6400/6500XT with their nerfed PCIe x4 interface. Even the mighty 4090 only loses about 2% performance on PCIe 3.0 x16:


On the SSD side of things there's not much difference between PCIe 3.0 and 4.0 either for gaming

USB 3.2? That's more or less belong to the 'nice to have' territory rather than must haves, and even that can be done with a PCIe card if you really need one

? Depending on where you live you can get a B650 board that will happily run a 7950X at full power, here's one for USD109:
https://www.microcenter.com/product/664700/...atx-motherboard

The problem with most of these boards are the fact that they simply fail at pricing them right - I mean why bother buying those boards where the HDV will happily outperform them at the same price, if not lower? Perhaps it may work better for those who only uses 65W chips or even the 7800X3D, but that kind of defeats the point of AM5, so that's why HUB more or less advised users to stay away from them
AM4 is still very viable and there's really nothing wrong with that especially with their X3D chips that will still happy perform quite well compared with modern Intel equivalents

Software side is tricky, but let's not forget that Intel/Nvidia has their fair share of software/driver issues

I mean, the M2 Ultra is a very expensive chip in terms of cost and transistor budget - it had what, 100 billion transistors which is much closer to something like AMD's MI300A than most consumer hardware (Nvidia's AD103 only has around 76 billion transistors). Flawless software integration isn't hard to do with Apple as they have much more R&D budget to spend with a highly vertically integrated ecosystem (this is the nice part of a walled garden)
Sure AMD/Intel can design those chips but why bother selling them at the consumer market where they can make vastly more selling them as a HPC/AI chip as the consumer market is fundamentally a low margin business

Again, ISA doesn't matter, see above post, and is not like standard ARM cores are a gold standard in performance/efficiency

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 08:48 AM

Unless Snapdragon X actually eats up market then no - the whole thing about ARM/RISC-V will take over x86 almost reminds on the age old sentence [insert year] will be the year of the Linux desktop

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 08:56 AM

To be fair to AMD/Intel, it's really not hard to match Apple in terms of peak performance/efficiency in mobile chips, but what Apple dominates is the performance at low/mid power range which matters a lot more in real world as it's very unlikely for most modern workloads to utilize peak performance for any long period of time, due to power/heat constraints

This is sometimes why synthetic benchmarks like Cinebench/Geekbench can be misleading on power constrained devices as those only measure peak performance, but not sustained performance which is a lot more important (most x86 CPUs tend to focus a lot on peak performance, due to the fact on desktops they can be run at an indefinite period as long as the power/heat budget allows) idea

I really wish Intel didn't can their Y series chips that early though, as those chips could really become Apple M series competitor if they kept on iterating on it

There's also the very large, captive markets that require x86, like government/education/corporate/manufacturing sectors that often uses specialized, in-house software and are not COTS, and cannot be ported to ARM easily, even if those software had their source codes available

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 03:04 PM

It will be quite interesting to see where Strix Point and Lunar Lake headed, pretty excited to see what x86 can offer in the next few years
That being said though, the X Elite chips are promising, but compatibility, pricing and availability will make or break this chip

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 01:07 PM

...more like core design, really
Apple cores are specifically targeting high IPCs, so they can clock them lower relative to x86 incumbents to achieve high single threaded performance with excellent efficiency. This is why Apple cores tend to be quite large and wide compared to your garden variety x86 chips. One of the downsides is that they are often 'inefficient' in terms of SoC/die size and transistor budget, so it is very expensive to make, and this partly explains why Apple charges very high prices for RAM/storage upgrades for their hardware, presumably that they can subsidize the cost of manufacturing those SoCs

Of course x86 cores can be 'fatter and wider' to increase performance without increasing clock speeds to stratospheric heights, but that's not going to be cheap to make, and note that AMD/Intel will need to cater to vastly different markets and use cases ranging from cheap laptops to multimillion dollar supercomputers as opposed to Apple where their targeted audience and software ecosystems are much more focused and locked down

Those are speculations of course, so correct me if I'm wrong


Simply put, the enthusiasts wanted longer performance bars on benchmarks so there is an all out performance war with very little regard to efficiency

The big problem with modern CPUs right now isn't really the CPU core itself, but rather the memory subsystem, as the improvements on CPUs are vastly outclassing the improvements on memory speeds/bandwidth which leads to memory bottlenecks, and moving data between the CPU and memory isn't exactly power efficient either. This is why you have things like memory on package (like Apple chips/upcoming Lunar Lake CPUs) and die stacking like what AMD does to their X3D lineup of CPUs


That's why you have things like chiplets, backside power delivery such as PowerVia (could be revolutionary) and new chip packaging/interconnect methods to make further die shrinks possible

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 01:58 PM

Lunar Lake is mobile only though

There's also Arrow Lake with PowerVia backside power delivery

Usually it's often multithreading that often causes lots of security loopholes, that's why Intel is rumored to remove them in Arrow Lake chips, and replacing them with rentable units (if the rumors are correct)
That being said though it's very unlikely for your regular machine to get hacked using CPU vulnerabilities unless you do a lot of *ahem* stuff, or you fail to do the bare basics of computer security

Alder Lake would like a word with you though, but yeah x86 is going to be a lot more exciting in the next few years

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 01:50 PM

You almost forgot the Ryzen 3000 boost clock bug which AMD was able to fix in the ABBA version of their AGESA

and that is what apple is doing extremely right, and at times their low power operation performance is rivaling AMD/Intel high end CPUs which are using 4-5x more power for the same operation. their M4 has just been released recently, with MT performance closing in a 13700K, and ST performance obliterating many, if not all, modern x86 CPUs. a BASE M4 is doing that? at 5x less power? node advantage + SME aside, cannot dismiss what Apple has been doing and they're definitely putting more pressure on AMD/Intel. ESPECIALLY INTEL.

M2/M3 era has already seen the chip performing faster than x86 counterparts in a number of applications such as in Adobe apps, DaVinci Resolve and Handbrake. new M4 era will be another eye opener similar to M2.

with M4 being released this early, Qualcomm is shitting themselves too. I mentioned I had faith previously on X Elite but things do change fast within a month. X Elite is due for >1 year now. after their shoddy X Plus reveal a few weeks ago, rough rumors are saying they're in a very messy situation rn. we'll see how Qualcomm handles this.

hence why x86 is living for backwards compatibility to cater for relic systems. been so long since 8086 era.

however, it really isn't x86 fault for the "slowness" simply because it's just an ISA. a good uarch (microarchitecture, or simply CPU design) will yield great results. Apple has greatly improved their uarch to gain higher frequency, as well as shoving in ARM SME into it, even with small IPC gain (and still yield ~25% improvement over M3).

Mind you, the Snapdragon X series is about 1 year late, and it seems like Qualcomm is sort of sandbagging right now (heck even the original intent for Qualcomm to acquire Nuvia was to compete in servers, not laptops)

That being said though I'm not sure how x86 incumbents can compete with it though (perhaps wider core designs and decoding/execution units, but that's not exactly cheap to implement without potentially cannibalizing much more lucrative markets)

But yeah, that's the nice part of having practically unlimited R&D and transistor budget to play with

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 03:13 PM

Lol fanbois & haters kena burn by the truth so you folks dont like it, well tough. Yes you can voice your opinion but to do that and conveniently ignore that others have opinion is just meant your a fanboi.

Intel will release an official reply, just as AMD did with their own CPU burn case, that is given.

Stop with the pissing posts then maybe people will have respect what you say.

Both sides CPU have issues when pushed too far le. This is what happens when zero efficiency and both sides ramp up the power game then make worse allow users to go even further.

ARM & RISC V FTW!

This post has been edited by babylon52281: May 11 2024, 03:41 PM

Nah not on GPU, maybe only 4090 can fully utilise the x16 on a Gen4 bandwidth. It is for M2 SSD and even if you dont see much benefits today, DS will allow faster drives to load world details with less latency meaning a less laggy gaming experience.

Its the saying that few years ago people might not see the need for >8GB VRAM on GPU but oh boy isnt that an issue for more & more todays games. If games world building becomes bigger & more detailed, it will sooner need to load direct from SSD at faster pace.

You can also has inefficient ARM cores either if you clocked them to the moon, note that power scales linearly with frequency, and a factor of 2 with voltage
This is why high clock speeds can be a bad thing if the process node or the architecture are not built for it (even Intel admits it on their slide deck, see their flat-ish curves on the power scaling chart):

https://download.intel.com/newsroom/2022/cl...nalyst-deck.pdf

But then for some reason, despite the huge advances in x86 efficiency we still have ridiculously inefficient chips because both Intel/AMD practically clocked them up to near unsustainable levels (I mean, why does 5GHz+ ULV mobile chips and 6GHz+ desktop chips exist?)

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 04:10 PM

? Find one game that actually makes use of high speed I/O then - even games like Rift Apart (which claims to utilize disk I/O heavily) will do just fine on a SATA SSD, and considering the very long dev times for AAA titles I think your machine will be long out of date before you need a faster SSD to run the game
People here are vastly overestimating the I/O requirements for disks in modern titles

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 04:14 PM

Anyway let's get back to the topic, we're getting a bit derailed there - the original topic is Intel's 14th gen stability issues, not a discussion between ISA and power efficiency

Fully agree with you, without being tied to X86 legacy, Apple could wipe the slate with a new CPU design and they clearly showed what real modern CPU uarch could do current manufacturing process. Both Intel/AMD X86 will need some newfangled complex & expensive SOC layout or exotic materials to push speeds higher and all that just to match even current M3/M4 that is made on the same matured process.

chocobo7779
I dont fully agree on the reason why Apple charges that much, while yes their CPU SOC is much larger the cost to make is not exponentially like what you pay. Apple charges waterfish prices simple bcoz its an Apple. And for the sheer volume their CPU costing per unit isnt that all much different as these will be inside iphones too.