Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
There's multiple things going on above so can we be clearer what exactly are we looking at? Do Intel even list it as TDP any more? I think that is replaced by Processor Base Power (PBP = PL1?) but otherwise is the same definition. Either way, it is not power consumption! Max Turbo Power (MTP = PL2?) is the highest sustained value you expect to see. Still, these are power limits. Want to put in a "200W" cooler, you can, and it'll limit. While enthusiasts might cry at that thought, that's how pretty much mass market systems run, with a lower sustained power limit. Cooler is minimally PBP, not MTP. Historically on Intel CPUs, highest power is seen when running workloads similar to Prime95 or Linpack. This doesn't apply to AMD in my experience and other workloads may be worse case.I find any CPU above 200W a mistake for a home PC. If popular coolers can't handle them, then something isn't right. Ryzens generally stop before 200W (170-180W for 16 cores without OC). X3D is pure magic with that gaming performance at ~120W. The 265K has a maximum TDP of 250W, but in motherboard reviews, I could barely see it passing 190W, and in games, it's ~150-170W max. I have no idea how Intel calculated it, given its high TDP in general specs. If you unlock limits, then it can pass 250W, but it's possible to keep it at lower wattage and still overclocked to the max (which is ~5.6GHz P/~5GHz E cores).
What do you mean by "first one"? The whole top line of the table? If I'm reading it right, a retail buyer running updated 24H2 with a bios released at or after launch should not be affected. Some of those are arguably a bit subjective too.For example, the first one still happens on Win 11 26100.2605, microcode 0x114, and the latest firmware kit, and they said it was fixed some updates ago.
What do you mean by "first one"? The whole top line of the table? If I'm reading it right, a retail buyer running updated 24H2 with a bios released at or after launch should not be affected. Some of those are arguably a bit subjective too.
The list seem to primarily address the unexpected performance seen by pre-release reviewers. When reviewers get around to retesting, the change will be the most interesting. Especially if gaming isn't as bad as launch reviews make out, that could help Intel out going forwards. Reviewers might have testing fatigue by the time the Jan release comes out, and I wonder if some will wait for that rather than test what we have today.
I'm trying to make sense of this. Intel said the power module was not pushed until retail date. That means all seeded reviewers before launch would have been missing that, since they got early access. Also mobo bios on release date would almost certainly be out of date too. To have it ready to ship to customers it would have been manufactured weeks in advance. Any updates since then would have to be applied. It isn't clear what was the first "reasonable" bios, and was that made available to reviewers by the mobo manufacturers in time? From Intel's version, that might not have been the case.Maybe they fixed it compared to the pre-release, but most reviewers already got the somehow fixed version. So only "leakers" who work with manufacturers could really show any problems based on old versions that shouldn't even be shown in public.
I'm trying to make sense of this. Intel said the power module was not pushed until retail date. That means all seeded reviewers before launch would have been missing that, since they got early access. Also mobo bios on release date would almost certainly be out of date too. To have it ready to ship to customers it would have been manufactured weeks in advance. Any updates since then would have to be applied. It isn't clear what was the first "reasonable" bios, and was that made available to reviewers by the mobo manufacturers in time? From Intel's version, that might not have been the case.
I'm not suggesting any site retest using old versions. The ones that had early access still have their original testing data. That can easily be compared to testing today, with latest bios and other updates. That's what is interesting to me. How much did Intel shoot themselves in the foot by messing up the launch reviews? Is it enough to improve the perception for gaming?
Another case of we're looking at things differently. From my personal perspective, what I want to know is how does ARL perform when it is working as expected. If the "fix" didn't, then others will also see it and Intel can have another go at it, but I'm not so interested in that.It doesn't matter when they released what. What matters is that they claim that something was fixed, but it's not.
Isn't 0x114 available now, just without the other update expected in Jan?