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

Irata

Posts: 1,442   +2,323
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.
And AMD CPU will run perfectly fine in a reasonably priced board like a € 87 MSI B450 Tomahawk Max II. Want PCIe 4 - you can e.g. get an MSI B450 A Pro for € 80 right now, so even cheaper. That‘s the advantage of needing less power.

 

Gimp65

Posts: 23   +30
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.
Real question is why buy intel in the first place. I get it if AMD is sold of ofc, otherwise it has to some very niche things like workloads that make use of AVX or something. Everything else is in AMD's favor. Also no boards should ever cause throttling like this, its awful.
 

McMurdeR

Posts: 278   +263
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.

But most consumers won't read the reviews, or know about the few clicks - and they shouldn't have to. This stuff should just work out of the box. I think it's pretty bad actually.
 
I Can't see any future of these intel processors, its a nightmare for the system builders. I got one 9100t for low power and minimal heat. Barely hits 40w full system, idle 12 14w.
 

CommonSenseTech

Posts: 103   +94
Intel is hitting the end of the line just as Apple M-series SOCs are getting warmed up; hard to see why anyone would want a clunky, buggy, trouble-prone and hot-running PC when Apple's got integrated systems at low cost with superior power consumption and price-performance ratio.
 

zulu53

Posts: 20   +6
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.
Yes if they were labeled as such with the full explanation that this meant the the performance could be up to 35% less. But (unlike cars say) this explanation must be explicit so as to answer the question - how low end is this budget board. For boards most everyone thinks less functionality in terms of connectivity - The author here is correct NO ONE thinks that the core functionality (CPU speed) is being compromised. For the simple reason that the cost for the vendor of the budget vs expensive board is the same (here 125W power is the same). The vendors are trying to help INTEL by helping them improve the mpg without telling the buyer that it is compromising their performance. INTEL CPUs are not as energy efficient as AMD' at the same performance level. Intel are using the motherboards power spec to hide this: I.e .they measure power consumption instead of measure energy efficiency and ask buyers to assume the performance of the CPU under overpowered conditions is the same as under under-.powered conditions. This author has just proven that this assumption is a lie
 

zulu53

Posts: 20   +6
Is AMD running into demand issues? If not, the price is just fine.
No. AMD is running into SUPPLY issues; so the price is FAIR. The demand is exceeding the supply so prices MUST rise per the Supply&Demand law. Are AMD or Newegg or Amazon increasing their profit per cpu because the price is rising (I.e. has it risen higher than it should have if it was based on supply/demand only)? Yes. Profit is made or rising demand to compensate for the fact that losses are made on falling demand: you can't drop the price fast enough). Economics 101. Will this change soon - no. Read articles on world wide chip shortages. Read articles on Covid control measures and their severe (20%) restriction on manufacturing of chips and transporting and distribution of chips.
 

zulu53

Posts: 20   +6
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.
I think you missed the point. The INTEL spec for their B560 chipset means that vendors can and do put out motherboards where the combination of Intel CPU and Intel chipset mean a variable performance of the combination (I.e) Intel based computer (variable by 35%). It has always been assumed before that the vendor (Intel) would be putting out a combination that would give the maximum performance - I.e. the performance of the computer is the important purchase criteria. In the new world where in addition to performance some people are looking at energy efficiency, INTEL decided (without telling anyone) that they would vary the energy consumption of an INTEL based computer by varying the power available to the CPU using the chipset to do it. Thus one could choose a low power computer or a high power one based on the choice of motherboard. Some bragging rights - "I have an i5 computer that beats an AMD Ryzen 5 for power consumption" while completely hiding the this was achieve by lowering performance.
 

zulu53

Posts: 20   +6
I would presume that this variable power spec will apply to all future Intel chipsets. Means more work you in carrying out yoour reviews and recommendations for the budget "computer (CPU/MB) and performance per $. Now you will have to test the computer performance and not just use one MB and vary the CPU. You will need to do multiple MB and vary the CPU for each. Say 3 price levels of MB and 4-5 different chip - so 3x as many tests. All because INTEL want to appear to be more energy efficient than AMD.
 

zulu53

Posts: 20   +6
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.
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.
The key should be summarized like this. IGNORE the power consumption - all CPU's should be "unlocked" for power. Use the consumption numbers as a means to decide how much to spend on the PSU and the performance you want based on the CPU cooling that you can afford. All CPU/MB combos should have the same performance if PSU power exceeds needs and cooling keeps the CPU to 70deg. The CPU should never be the bottleneck for performance since it is so expensive. It is now with INTEL putting out multiple power level specs.
 
Accorind to your review with unlocked power limit the 11700 barely any slower in the cheapish Asrock B560 Pro4 than in the almost double priced MSI B560 Tomahawk.

So I would have liked to see in this test the following 2 graphs: how the 11400F behaves with these motherboards with unlocked power limit in CineBench and in Shadow of the Tomb Raider too. Also how the 11700 behaves in these cheaper boards in gaming with unlocked power limit, SOTTR in your expamle. So we could know if the the cheapish Asrock B560 Pro4 board is enough for the 11400 to be fully utilized.

Though it is an informative article it is slightly incomplete.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,590   +3,413
TechSpot Elite
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.
The bias is in people like you not acknowledging that there is a problem. The 11400 is not an high end CPU so it should not need an expensive board. Many Intel boards, even in the Z series, are known to have really bad VRMs that throttle and these OEMs need to be called out on their BS.

A 35% difference is way too much to ignore. I've never seen such a huge gap in performance between boards. And it grows to 50% with an 11700... that's just criminal.

Thank you Steve for showing us these incredibly huge issues.
 

azicat

Posts: 70   +61
I appreciate the feature article, but I don’t think this is a new issue. Default PL1, PL2, and Tau settings on intel B-series boards have been all over the place for a while. As you mentioned, it’s usually a simple setting in BIOS such as selecting the right CPU cooler profile, or manually choosing your PL.

As an example, MSI had completely different PL1/2 limits across their B460 range, and which corresponded with their pricing. https://wccftech.com/intel-comet-la...ock-msi-h470-b460-h410-motherboards-detailed/

(Perhaps what you’re saying is that these specs are too obscure?)

I think the take home message for Intel shoppers is to ignore the TDP spec, and to make tuning choices via motherboard power delivery specs and cooler choice.

(Postscript: maybe this is only being discussed now because no one seems to have done any in-depth reviews of B-series boards previously? I couldn’t find any Harbour Box B460 comparisons when shopping for mine - only the single comparison with a Z490.)
 
Last edited:

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,490   +1,088
So according to Techspot it’s Intels fault that motherboard manufacturers are not following Intel’s standards? Yeah I don’t agree, it’s motherboard manufacturers that should be “blamed” for their implementations. And also I don’t care. These boards are better and more consistent than Ryzen first gen boards and you had nothing but praise for those as they were cheap, just like these ones are now. It’s still better value to buy a decent B560 with an 11400F than a Ryzen 5600X on a B550 board. Personally I’d pick Ryzen but I am an enthusiast and value is not my priority.

Ok so you’ve got your weekly hate piece out on Intel. Anytime for coverage on Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition? I’m only asking because everyone on the internet knows Techspot despises Nvidia but this new Metro experience is an almost flawless RTX experience and I want to read an article written through gritted teeth.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,442   +2,323
So according to Techspot it’s Intels fault that motherboard manufacturers are not following Intel’s standards? Yeah I don’t agree, it’s motherboard manufacturers that should be “blamed” for their implementations. And also I don’t care. These boards are better and more consistent than Ryzen first gen boards and you had nothing but praise for those as they were cheap, just like these ones are now. It’s still better value to buy a decent B560 with an 11400F than a Ryzen 5600X on a B550 board. Personally I’d pick Ryzen but I am an enthusiast and value is not my priority.

Ok so you’ve got your weekly hate piece out on Intel. Anytime for coverage on Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition? I’m only asking because everyone on the internet knows Techspot despises Nvidia but this new Metro experience is an almost flawless RTX experience and I want to read an article written through gritted teeth.
If you looked at Techspot‘s Intel board reviews, they are usually recommending *against* boards that follow Intel‘s specs.

For them „out of the box experience“ is one that ignores Intel‘s official - and I might add advertised - specs. Should motherboard makers be blamed if they don‘t run a 65W CPU like the i7-10700 at 215W permanently ?

I think Anandtech summed this up nicely in their 10700 vs 10700k review:

Intel lets motherboard manufacturers determine how long a system can turbo for, and what that budget is. Intel encourages motherboard manufacturers to over-engineer the motherboards, not only for overclocking, but for non-overclockable CPUs to get the best performance for longer. This really messes up what the ‘default out-of-the-box performance’ should be if different motherboards give different values. The trend lately is that enthusiast motherboards enable an unlimited turbo budget, and the user building their system just has to deal with it.

This means that users who buy the Core i7-10700 in this review, despite the 65 W rating on the box, will have to cater for a system that will not only peak around 215 W, but sustain that 215 W during any extended high-performance load, such as rendering or compute. We really wished Intel put this 215 W value on the box to help end-users determine their cooling, as without sufficient guidance, users could be hitting thermal limits without even knowing why. At this point, 'Intel Recommended Values' for turbo time and budget mean nothing outside of Intel's own OEM partners building commercial systems.
 

Ludak021

Posts: 445   +305
This could be:
MSIs fault, Asrocks fault, <insert partner name here> fault etc, not intels fault. Intel didn't make those boards did they now? Besides, all of them offer standard following Intel spec, it's just that some offer more, some less.
You can blame intel for intel stuff, but this one is not on them. You don't blame AMD because XFX 590 thiccboy is done badly do you, Steve? 450B Tomahawks with 4 phases, among the others, you didn't blame them for scatchy VRMs did you Steve?
That's why some of us truly think you are an AMD shill.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,442   +2,323
This could be:
MSIs fault, Asrocks fault, <insert partner name here> fault etc, not intels fault. Intel didn't make those boards did they now? Besides, all of them offer standard following Intel spec, it's just that some offer more, some less.
You can blame intel for intel stuff, but this one is not on them. You don't blame AMD because XFX 590 thiccboy is done badly do you, Steve? 450B Tomahawks with 4 phases, among the others, you didn't blame them for scatchy VRMs did you Steve?
That's why some of us truly think you are an AMD shill.
The difference here is that you are quoting individual examples of what you consider poorly implemented products (what‘s wrong with the B450 Tomahawk‘s VRM, btw, it even handles a 2700x and 3950x just fine with good VRM temps).

What Steve was taking offense to is the the lacking uniformity of out of the box experience with Socket 1200 boards due to the ‘do as you please‘ specs Intel sets.

I am quite positive that he would complain the same way if he saw a 30% performance difference for Ryzen depending on which board they tested.

Not sure if you can call him an AMD fanboy when he strongly supports factory overclocking of Intel CPU as a default. It seems he feels that Intel should make up their minds what uniform power settings mainboard makers need to support per default in order to adhere to Intel specs.

Edit: I am not accusing anyone at Techspot of being either brand‘s fanboy. Imho, I find they are being neutral. Just want to make that clear. My issue is with things I see as being inconsistent but that‘s just my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Ludak021

Posts: 445   +305
My issue is him accusing intel of what is not intels fault. That's not my opinion, that's a fact.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,442   +2,323
My issue is him accusing intel of what is not intels fault. That's not my opinion, that's a fact.
So Intel gives clear guidelines to mainboard manufacturers which power settings they should have per default (I.e. one setting) that assures a mostly uniform performance across brands and models? And those correspond at least closely to the officially marketed values ?

Then there shouldn‘t be a problem, should there ?
 

Ludak021

Posts: 445   +305
So Intel gives clear guidelines to mainboard manufacturers which power settings they should have per default (I.e. one setting) that assures a mostly uniform performance across brands and models? And those correspond at least closely to the officially marketed values ?

Then there shouldn‘t be a problem, should there ?
The guidelines are being respected, they are minimal and every board he tested respects them. Like I said, some go further, some don't. His issue is with his expectations. Every CPU in his test achieved performance that was advertised by Intel. Before these new B chipset boards, every non-K CPU was locked completely on non Z motherboard and would behave like the worst case scenario in his review. His review isn't news really. These boards were reviewed before his rant.

edit: obviously "the problem" started when he promptly removed i5 11400 and put i7 into a cheap mobos and it did cause issues after prolonged periods of time and the CPU/mobo drop the boost clocks to cool VRMs or CPU or both. But the test used will probably never be used by a person buying i7 $450 CPU and the cheapest mobo they could find. That same person can buy ryzen 5000 and put it in the cheapest "AB" mobo they could find and they would have some issues at some point.
You all gave AMD benefit of the doubt when boost clocks started to be an issue, which AMD then resolved by pushing AIBs to push BIOS updates. Yet, no mercy for Intel here, even when they are not at fault.

PS. Intel guarantees speeds that are printed on the box of the cpu, on the cpu itself and in BIOS(UEFI) by default. Boost speeds are a bonus feature :D
 
Last edited:

HardReset

Posts: 1,109   +688
edit: obviously "the problem" started when he promptly removed i5 11400 and put i7 into a cheap mobos and it did cause issues after prolonged periods of time and the CPU/mobo drop the boost clocks to cool VRMs or CPU or both. But the test used will probably never be used by a person buying i7 $450 CPU and the cheapest mobo they could find.
And why not? You would expect to get at least nearly advertised performance from CPU on any board that supports CPU, right? Usually lower end motherboards lack "useless" features. Well, VRM is not so useless in this case but that's something not very visible on spec lists.

I admit, there were some issues with AMD boost feature too but 35% difference using Same CPU on different is just way too big figure.
PS. Intel guarantees speeds that are printed on the box of the cpu, on the cpu itself and in BIOS(UEFI) by default. Boost speeds are a bonus feature :D
You're right. But. Using same CPU there should not be major differences between motherboards that support that CPU, right? That's problem here. It's more about motherboard and less about CPU. It basically makes people to buy CPU's that run way slower they expect from looking reviews.

Edit: And if it's Intel's fault? Basically it is. Intel could give minimum boost clocks that motherboard must achieve with stock cooling on certain environment. Otherwise motherboard should not be said to officially support that CPU. But yeah, Intel just guarantee only base clock so it's not Intel's fault :D
 

Ludak021

Posts: 445   +305
Not to quote all your text,

They did behave up to spec. Performance difference starts with PL times and for how long which mobo can hold them. I get it that all boards say that they support all CPUs and so on, and they do, again, boost clocks are not guaranteed. Not by Intel, not by AIBs or anyone.
Users can just ask or read a review before buying a motherboard. Also, some of the boards on test were almost twice the price. Is it realistic to expect a $100 board to behave the same as $200 one? This was never the case.

I wouldn't touch H or B series boards anyway. If did, it would be for someone else's build that they want on the cheap, and I would go with a decent B board, and an i5 or i3, not i7 or god forbid i9.
I mean, new bios updates are going to be released during the year. There are decent B boards so you can avoid the cheapest ones entirely (vote with your wallet) and so on.
I honestly doubt that i5 11400 buyer will have any issues with any of those boards. Steve said as much himself before he swapped i5 for an i7 to cause all the (significant) performance differences. To me that's just fine, but not realistic for end users.
Not realistic is also this fake outrage. It's not like someone got scammed. Most people here wouldn't buy Intel anyway in any circumstances (there are forums where people wouldn't buy AMD...), it's bias all over, justified or not.

PS. I do wonder how much can MSI Tomahawk MAX (4 phase VRM) can take from ryzen 5950x (or 3950x) ... ;)
 
Last edited:

Irata

Posts: 1,442   +2,323
PS. I do wonder how much can MSI Tomahawk MAX (4 phase VRM) can take from ryzen 5950x (or 3950x) ... ;)
Oh, you don‘t need to wonder - it gets the same performance on the B450 Tomahawk vs. the B550 version. Techspot ran a test with the 3950x (that consumes more than the 5950x) on B350 vs 450 vs 550 and there were no thermal issues with the B450 Tomahawk.

Note: I have no idea what your problem wrt the B450 Tomahawk‘s VRM is as it seems to do a very fine job. I

 

HardReset

Posts: 1,109   +688
Not to quote all your text,

They did behave up to spec. Performance difference starts with PL times and for how long which mobo can hold them. I get it that all boards say that they support all CPUs and so on, and they do, again, boost clocks are not guaranteed. Not by Intel, not by AIBs or anyone.
Users can just ask or read a review before buying a motherboard. Also, some of the boards on test were almost twice the price. Is it realistic to expect a $100 board to behave the same as $200 one? This was never the case.
Yeah, they do match specs but that is only because Intel does not specify all necessary specs. Most people are not experts and way Intel and AIB's do this is just misleading.

Yes, $100 board should be as fast as $200 board using same CPU. There is very much allowed to be difference in specs, overclocking etc but not CPU speed itself. Notice that Intel does not spec boost clocks as overclocking. That is: all boards that support CPU should meet minimum requirements for boost clocks. You say that Intel does not specify them and so it's not Intel's fault. I say it is Intel's fault because Intel should specify them.

I wouldn't touch H or B series boards anyway. If did, it would be for someone else's build that they want on the cheap, and I would go with a decent B board, and an i5 or i3, not i7 or god forbid i9.
I mean, new bios updates are going to be released during the year. There are decent B boards so you can avoid the cheapest ones entirely (vote with your wallet) and so on.
I honestly doubt that i5 11400 buyer will have any issues with any of those boards. Steve said as much himself before he swapped i5 for an i7 to cause all the (significant) performance differences. To me that's just fine, but not realistic for end users.
Not realistic is also this fake outrage. It's not like someone got scammed. Most people here wouldn't buy Intel anyway in any circumstances (there are forums where people wouldn't buy AMD...), it's bias all over, justified or not.
Most people expect to get same CPU speed with even cheaper motherboard. They don't expect to get all features more expensive boards offer. That's difference here.
 

Ludak021

Posts: 445   +305
Oh, you don‘t need to wonder - it gets the same performance on the B450 Tomahawk vs. the B550 version. Techspot ran a test with the 3950x (that consumes more than the 5950x) on B350 vs 450 vs 550 and there were no thermal issues with the B450 Tomahawk.

Note: I have no idea what your problem wrt the B450 Tomahawk‘s VRM is as it seems to do a very fine job. I


"Regular" tomahawk pro has a beast (12 phase) VRM, tomahawk MAX has a 4 phase VRM. They are completely different boards.

edit: I made a mistake with "regular tomahawk" there is no such thing, I was thinking of MSI B450-A PRO series..

As for the link, performance isn't even tested. But thanks, I now know that CPUs work.

@HardReset: boards with less "stuff" usually come with less of "everything". Quality of VRMs is important even if you are not going to overclock.

"I say it is Intel's fault because Intel should specify them."

well obviously, but it is not so. (forgive me people, I have never gotten used to multi quotes. It's not me disrespecting anyone here :) I hope...)
 
Last edited: