Puget's numbers kind of vindicate that by showing 11th gen was even worse and AMD clearly benefitted from their "underdog", "cult favorite" status.
It would be nice if we could be rid of most of this noise so we could get down to what truly matters.
Unless you do a very thorough timeline, you might be confused. But go dig into the last 6 months and you'll see that Intel has either no idea or are absolutely muddying the waters. Neither of these cognitive conclusions should result in Intel looking anything but half rate purveyors of silicon.
Obviously Intel messed up badly, and those settings shouldn’t result in this behavior, but maybe this will convince system integrators to have more reasonable defaults in the future.
In a top end system, we’re already sitting in territory where our GPU is our benchmark, do we really need to default to giving the cpu so much power?
Intel trying to pass the buck is as much of a problem as the CPU's themselves really, because now you can't trust them.
Intel programming the voltage curves wrong is on them, but that doesn't matter if the motherboards aren't going to run the CPUs according to specification out of the box. Intel calling out mobo vendors for their stupid defaults was justified and very much needed.
Incidentally, there is no such thing as a "baseline". Intel separately specifies an "Extreme Config" for applicable SKUs (the i9s), but otherwise there is only the one set of specifications.
The fact you are talking about "baseline" suggests you did not actually consult the specifications published by Intel, just like the mobo vendors who put out so-called "Intel Baseline Profiles" before they got chastised again for not actually reading and obeying the specs (and arguably they still don't).
[1]: https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products/plat...
[2]: https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/design/products/plat...
[1]https://community.intel.com/t5/Processors/June-2024-Guidance...
Yeah, you still haven't read the specifications.
Please read the fucking specifications if you are going to partake in discussions concerning specifications.
Extreme is "incomplete" because those specifications apply and only apply to Raptor Lake i9 SKUs. "Baseline" is incomplete and not recommended because "baseline" does not exist in the specifications.
What's more, "performance" also does not exist in the specifications per se. Most of it is actually the specifications copied verbatim, except for PL1 which is 125W for the concerned SKUs according to specification and actually noted as such by Intel in that chart.
The chart also excludes other important information, such as the PL2 time limits (56 seconds for the SKUs in the chart), the max core voltage rating of 1.72V, and AC/DC load lines and associated calibration.
Again: Please read the fucking specifications. You are contributing to the media sensationalism and emotional chest thumping, which is all worthless noise.
The defects of Zen 4 are random manufacturing defects, so most of them are detected by Puget after assembling and testing their systems, before selling them to customers.
On the other hand, most of the Raptor Lake defects happen after some time after selling them to the customers, which implies some kind of wearing mechanism, which either can affect any Raptor Lake CPU or perhaps only CPUs that have some kind of latent defects.
Because the Raptor Lake defects happen after some time, it is likely that their number will continue to raise among the already sold systems and the same statistics recomputed after some months might show a higher number of Raptor Lake defects than now.