Hacker News Reader

Comment by jtriangle | Hacker News Reader

They didn't pull those numbers out of thin air, those were intel's specs when those boards were designed. They are, obviously, dangerous specs to run a chip at, hindsight being 2020 and all.

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.

View on HN

There is nothing "on spec" about 4096W power limits and using the single-core clock multiplier for multi-core boost, among other deviations.

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.

The issue is intel guidelines are basically nonsensical and contradictory. What they claim is "recommended" settings is basically three separate sets of options, with no clear indication which is the actual so-called baseline. Which was probably done entirely on purpose as to faciliate blame slinging.

Intel's specifications are readily available[1][2] to the public. If you can't understand them that's your problem, not Intel's.

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...

This it not what I am referring to. I am referring to the chart posted in their official community post, most recently in June [1]. The chart is labelled "Intel Recommendations: 'Intel Default Settings'" (sic). Notice how "Baseline" is incomplete, and so is "Extreme". Also notice a bunch of notes saying "Intel does not recommend baseline" included on their "recommendations" chart. There's more of little gotchas like that if you pay attention. Also note that this chart has been quietly revised at least once as I have a version from back in April that was less stringent and less guarded with notes than it is now.

[1]https://community.intel.com/t5/Processors/June-2024-Guidance...

>Notice how "Baseline" is incomplete, and so is "Extreme".

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com