Intel B560 is a Disaster: Huge CPU Performance Differences and a Power Limit Mess

Nanochip

Posts: 25   +21
Shouldn’t the title be changed to “Budget” Intel B560 boards are a disaster?

The title suggests that the whole platform itself is bad, but according to you, this isn’t so for all of B560. Instead, from a sample size of only 3, it appears that the sub $140 market might be problematic in terms of the dramatic difference in performance.
 

BSim500

Posts: 792   +1,736
"This is the situation we’re faced with when recommending locked Intel CPUs on budget B560 motherboards"
Steve, the only honest advice to give is "If you own a working PC, put your wallet back in your pocket and wait until DDR5". The ridiculously short 6-month lifecycle vs 12th Gen Alder Lake, plus the ongoing power issues, plus fake upgrade lock-out of "No Comet -> Rocket Lake on B460" = the entire 11th Generation "Rocket Lake" has been a complete dud from the start.

Anyone using an 8th-10th Gen CPU / 300-400 chipset is hardly missing anything simply waiting a few more months. It's just a shame that AMD have stuffed their own 5000 CPU prices up (even before the shortages / scalping) of 5600X's to over +200% higher than what 1600AF / 2600 were sold at) and there's no real budget competition anymore. And yes, we very definitely need a new honest way of rating CPU's based on power consumption vs the lame "well technically, TDP isn't power usage" copout that's become virtually meaningless when base clocks have had to drop to 2.5GHz to "make the maths work".
 
Last edited:

mrtraver

Posts: 488   +246
I'm enjoying these in-depth motherboard articles. Even as a fairly experienced builder and user, I did not realize how TPD limits could impact performance so much, nor know how to remove those limits.

One question - for the $200 price of the Tomahawk, wouldn't you be better off getting a cheaper Z590?
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 249   +369
Shouldn’t the title be changed to “Budget” Intel B560 boards are a disaster?

The title suggests that the whole platform itself is bad, but according to you, this isn’t so for all of B560. Instead, from a sample size of only 3, it appears that the sub $140 market might be problematic in terms of the dramatic difference in performance.


Honestly considering how much power intel's i7/i9 parts consume even at stock with unlocked power limits, its no surprise that sub $120 Motherboards struggle.

The issue the reviewer had was default power settings, that are simply going by intel's spec. For the most part is nothing more than a bios change to correct the issues. The big issue was with the boards VRM limitations, and when a CPU needs 140w+ that just requires a more expensive board.

Buy the board for your needs. Even the worst B560 reviewed here is totally fine with the power limit unlocked for the i5 chip that would no doubt be paired with it.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 518   +862
Such a shame too since the 11400F really is one of the more solid alternatives for budget builds, however if you take into account that you need a 200+ dollar motherboard to really get the benefits then you might just as well spend that extra towards a budged AM4 A520 or B550 motherboard and a 5600x

If the final price ends up being about the same there's no reason *not* to go with 5600x instead.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,446   +3,596
Such a shame too since the 11400F really is one of the more solid alternatives for budget builds, however if you take into account that you need a 200+ dollar motherboard to really get the benefits then you might just as well spend that extra towards a budged AM4 A520 or B550 motherboard and a 5600x

If the final price ends up being about the same there's no reason *not* to go with 5600x instead.
Well cosnidering the 5600x runs about $370 right now on newegg it's STILL cheaper to go intel.

But if you look at MSRP, the 5600x is a $300 part. The 11400F is $175. With a $180 gigabyte board shown here to perform OOB perfectly you're looking at $355. Even if there are decent $55 motherboards out ther for the 5600x (big doubt here) you're not going to get the equivelant feature set and ports out of a $55 motherboard. And those cheaper boards will still run a 11400 or 11700, you just need to adjust the TDP limits up.

AMD royally FUBARd the 5600x's price. If you REALLY want the best budget option, grab a 3500x for $134 from aliexpress and combine it with a A520-B550 motherboard.
 
Last edited:

Irata

Posts: 1,431   +2,311
I think a big part of the problem have been reviewers. On one hand, you test CPU on power unlocked high end boards turning a 65W or 125W CPU into one that consumes twice as much. Still in the specs, it will show (65W) or (125W) next to the CPU in the specifications or comparison charts - I‘d say pick one or the other but not both. It‘s either a 65W CPU that (surprise, surprise) performs like one unless you spend $$$ on expensive mainboards and ‚plumbing‘ or if you do the latter, it‘s a 125W+ CPU that performs as reviewers advertise but considering the necessary (expensive) components it may no longer be the budget choice reviewers are so highly recommending.

So if you want to bash someone like you mention in your video, bash all reviewers that put up with the mixing of official spec advertising vs. out of spec performance.

After all, many poor users followed the advice, got the budget gaming CPU pick, coupled that with budget parts and got nowhere near the expected performance.

The „out of the box“ experience is only one if it‘s consistent across all boards and price tiers.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,446   +3,596
I think a big part of the problem have been reviewers. On one hand, you test CPU on power unlocked high end boards turning a 65W or 125W CPU into one that consumes twice as much. Still in the specs, it will show (65W) or (125W) next to the CPU in the specifications or comparison charts - I‘d say pick one or the other but not both. It‘s either a 65W CPU that (surprise, surprise) performs like one unless you spend $$$ on expensive mainboards and ‚plumbing‘ or if you do the latter, it‘s a 125W+ CPU that performs as reviewers advertise but considering the necessary (expensive) components it may no longer be the budget choice reviewers are so highly recommending.

So if you want to bash someone like you mention in your video, bash all reviewers that put up with the mixing of official spec advertising vs. out of spec performance.

After all, many poor users followed the advice, got the budget gaming CPU pick, coupled that with budget parts and got nowhere near the expected performance.

The „out of the box“ experience is only one if it‘s consistent across all boards and price tiers.
Shouldnt the blame rest on intel for making this so damn confusing in the first place? Why are 2.9 and 4.4 sustained clocks both considered "in spec" in the first place?

Intel should be bashed for being utterly incapable fo setting their own standard. AMD would get raked over the coals for this, look what a big deal people made over the ryzen 3000 boost debacle, and that was 50-100 mhz, imagine if there was a 1ghz+ boost difference.
 

Ren128

Posts: 15   +10
AMD royally FUBARd the 5600x's price. If you REALLY want the best budget option, grab a 3500x for $134 from aliexpress and combine it with a A520-B550 motherboard.

Its actually worst if you realise that 5600x is really a 5600 but AMD just put "x" there to make the price look bit more reasonable. Why do I say that? If you look at all previous 600x series CPUs (1600x, 2600x & 3600x) they are all 95w but 5600x is 65w.

At one stage you could buy 10th gen Intel 10-core for only $A20 more than 5600x here in Australia, but it seems prices are falling for 5000 series, don't know if its due to better supply vs. demand or competition from Intel?
 

nodfor

Posts: 57   +90
The content is nice, giving helpful info and advice but the title is not
Calling something a disaster that can be solved via a few clicks, is an exaggeration
Also all reviewers suggest an aftermarket cooler, and for good reason, this not something new that running at 125 tdp will improve perfomance and to do that you need an aftermarket cooler.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,431   +2,311
Shouldnt the blame rest on intel for making this so damn confusing in the first place? Why are 2.9 and 4.4 sustained clocks both considered "in spec" in the first place?

Intel should be bashed for being utterly incapable fo setting their own standard. AMD would get raked over the coals for this, look what a big deal people made over the ryzen 3000 boost debacle, and that was 50-100 mhz, imagine if there was a 1ghz+ boost difference.
Of course Intel should be bashed, but they can only do this if reviewers keep supporting it.

And they do - boards following Intel‘s official specs are not recommended, so why use / quote them ?
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,446   +3,596
I wonder how H510 fares performance wise.
Probably worse, given it doesnt support memory overclocking and has a restricted DMI link compared to the other chipsets.

My rule of thumb has been to always avoid the lowest end chipsets, the H series from intel or the A series from AMD. Its just not worth the hassle.
Its actually worst if you realise that 5600x is really a 5600 but AMD just put "x" there to make the price look bit more reasonable. Why do I say that? If you look at all previous 600x series CPUs (1600x, 2600x & 3600x) they are all 95w but 5600x is 65w.

At one stage you could buy 10th gen Intel 10-core for only $A20 more than 5600x here in Australia, but it seems prices are falling for 5000 series, don't know if its due to better supply vs. demand or competition from Intel?
AMD's X series has been awful for awhile now. The 3600x and 3600xt only existed as "fanboy editions" for people to shove moe money at AMD. They apparently learned that only that version should exist. The 3500x was the only good price point X series, but wasnt available until recently.

Prices on 5000 series fluctuate. Three weeks ago the 5800x was available at MSRP, and the 5600x was $320 in the USA, now its back to $500 and $379. Intel 11th gen prices have also been bounding off the walls lately.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,446   +3,596
Of course Intel should be bashed, but they can only do this if reviewers keep supporting it.

And they do - boards following Intel‘s official specs are not recommended, so why use / quote them ?
Well, should reviewers use the base specs from intel, the specs that ship out of box, or the maximum specs for performance when reviewing? Comments sections cant make their mind up on the issue either.

If an official spec has that much leeway in it it has failed at being a proper spec. "in spec" doesnt mean anything now, and that is a serious issue for non techies looking at possibly buildign their own PCs. It makes the process more confusing for both them and us.

EDIT: grammar
 
Last edited:

Irata

Posts: 1,431   +2,311
Well, should reviewers use the base specs from intel, the specs that ship out of box, or the maximum specs for performance when reviewing? Comments sections cant make their mind up on the issue either.

If an official spec has that much leeway in it it has failed at being a proper spec. "in spec" doesnt mean anything now, and that is a serious issue for non techies looking at possibly buildign their own PCs. It makes the process more confusing for both them and us.

EDIT: grammar
They can use either but in either case I would appreciate consistency.

Gamers‘ Nexus tests at official specs, so if they show ‚65W‘ next to the CPU that is correct. I personally prefer this approach as it shows customers the performance they are guaranteed to get even with cheaper boards and cooling and without having to get lucky by having a good bin and the right board (so PBO should also be disabled). Like I said, it‘s only an ‘out of the box‘ experience if you get that experience consistently out of most boxes. And if you have customers buying OEM systems based on these benchmarks it certainly is nit at all the out of the box experience for them - far from it.

If otoh a reviewer decides to tests CPU completely unlocked and at full blast, ignoring official specs, they should imho not use these official specs anywhere as that is misleading.

Some sites like TPU actually show multiple values, I.e at official settings, fully unlocked, with various boost options and give temp and power consumption figures for each. This involves a lot more work for the reviewers, so may not be possible for everyone. Perhaps different test platforms for low/mid and higher end CPU would be a compromise.
 
Last edited:

Raendor

Posts: 21   +16
Running 11700 on asus b560-I rog without issues. Always boosts ti 4.8-4.9 Ghz depending on the core while power limit is set to 150 (never broke 100 in real-life gaming workload).

If one pairs a **** board with terrible vrm - it’ll throttle, so why is this a shocker? You said yourselves that even on these it is within specs. Don’t pretend that if you put an amd cpu in terrible cheap board it’ll run great. The article is full of bias.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,810   +1,964
TechSpot Elite
Just opened Newegg and it's $299 new, with a USED one for $372, which is kind of funny.

Good catch, I just added a $299.99 5600x to my shopping cart and it hasn't disappeared yet. Not interested as it's overkill for performance and cost for what I have, but it's the first decent current-gen part I could use that's available at list price since October.
 
Last edited:

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 720   +616
Stop wasting time and effort on Vomit Lake. As Moore Law's is Dead, said, "it's a steaming pile of sh!t". I would rather continuing using my ancient Ivy Bridge rig than waste money on this crap. It offers nothing over Rocket Lake and just diverted resources from Alder Lake and Tiger Lake.

My new Zen rig is purring like a kitten and rock solid.
 

sreams

Posts: 165   +254
Well cosnidering the 5600x runs about $370 right now on newegg it's STILL cheaper to go intel.

But if you look at MSRP, the 5600x is a $300 part. The 11400F is $175. With a $180 gigabyte board shown here to perform OOB perfectly you're looking at $355. Even if there are decent $55 motherboards out ther for the 5600x (big doubt here) you're not going to get the equivelant feature set and ports out of a $55 motherboard. And those cheaper boards will still run a 11400 or 11700, you just need to adjust the TDP limits up.

AMD royally FUBARd the 5600x's price. If you REALLY want the best budget option, grab a 3500x for $134 from aliexpress and combine it with a A520-B550 motherboard.

Is AMD running into demand issues? If not, the price is just fine.
 

flee2020

Posts: 14   +15
Rocket Lake is the end of the road for Intel's 14nm process. Everything is maxed out and it shows. 11th Gen processors are fussy about the platforms they are installed in as they exert higher demands on them. So if you get a cheaper one, be prepared for performance degradation.