The main mechanic is to lower frequency & voltage in order to meet a max temperature target.That one I admit I didn't know about, but . . . it looks like all it does is affect CPU duty cycle, which isn't the AMD approach.
TVB is not just about higher clocks, it enables lower voltage for a given clock target based on temperature. It also lowers max clocks based on temperature by limiting max turbo ratios for a given temperature threshold.All they seemed to have done is upped turbo limits a bit and given the CPU a very short period of time in which it can hit those boost clocks provided thermal limits haven't already been hit.
Reaching the maximum operating temperature activates the Thermal Control Circuit (TCC). When activated the TCC causes both the processor IA core and graphics core to reduce frequency and voltage adaptively. The Adaptive Thermal Monitor will remain active as long as the package temperature remains at its specified limit. Therefore, the Adaptive Thermal Monitor will continue to reduce the package frequency and voltage until the TCC is de-activated.
The Adaptive Thermal Monitor does not require any additional hardware, software drivers, or interrupt handling routines.
Thermal Velocity Boost does two things.
- First, it decreases the operating voltage if the CPU temperature is below the TjMax.
- Two, it opportunistically increases the clock frequency above the Turbo Boost 2.0 and 3.0 frequencies if the CPU operates below a part-specific temperature threshold. This threshold is usually 70 degrees Celsius on desktop CPUs.
in 2020, Intel opened up the TVB configuration to motherboard vendors. The feature is named OverClocking Thermal Velocity Boost, or OCTVB for short.
The easiest way to think of OCTVB is limiting, or clipping, the maximum allowed CPU ratio based on the CPU operating temperature. The hotter the CPU, the more you clip the CPU ratio. OCTVB is based on the by core usage Turbo Ratio configuration. For each number of active cores, you can define two temperature points, each with a unique number of “down-bins’. A down-bin is essentially the number of ratios you want to drop.
My only input to this, is that Intel has lied about so many things that I don't trust anything they say. That includes all the quotes in the links below this.The main mechanic is to lower frequency & voltage in order to meet a max temperature target.
TVB is not just about higher clocks, it enables lower voltage for a given clock target based on temperature. It also lowers max clocks based on temperature by limiting max turbo ratios for a given temperature threshold.
Quotes from the links I already provided you with:
That is it! Trust has been broken and not just with Intel.My only input to this, is that Intel has lied about so many things that I don't trust anything they say.
I thought about that too.Lol poor Steve. Immediately after he posts this video news breaks that Intel is enforcing that all mobo makers must roll out a BIOS that enforces "Default" default settings of PL1=125W and PL2=188W for LGA1700 boards (equivalent to the Gigabyte numbers he shows in the video). So all his benches are technically unlocked from out of the box settings expected after May 31.
The main mechanic is to lower frequency & voltage in order to meet a max temperature target.
TVB is not just about higher clocks, it enables lower voltage for a given clock target based on temperature. It also lowers max clocks based on temperature by limiting max turbo ratios for a given temperature threshold.
Quotes from the links I already provided you with:
So someone wanting to undervolt to reduce temps and slightly increase ST boost needs to override the limits and disable CEP?In fact, the opposite is now true, aggressive undervolting with CEP enabled will lead to lower performance. Add the enforced power and current limits, and most new CPUs should do just fine.
Is ASROCK/MSI (DDR5/DDR4 mobos I have) gonna help me stay in compliance with the above table or do I need to arrange a consultation session with an overclocking expert or freelance mobo repair/power delivery technician?
The reason we don't see reviewers hammering Intel non stop for this disaster is they are part of it. They let Intel had their cake and eat it; Market lower tdp CPU while they were consuming absolutely crazy amounts of power and giving nice benchmarks. Now it's all starting to crash in slow motion and imo reviewers need to see more critical of their own role in this dirty game.
r/whatcouldpossiblygowrongSo what does this mean for the customer?
Basically everything stays the same. The specifications for the K models remain as they were before and as we used them in the tests. This also applies to the KS models with PL1 = PL2.
Basically, the question of the instability of the processors remains unanswered. A baseline profile wasn't the solution. As long as you stick to the "Intel Default Settings" in your motherboard settings, there shouldn't be any problems, according to Intel. Whether the mainboard manufacturers have implemented all of these in case of doubt is of course another matter.
Gigabyte already pulled the bios. HardwareLUXX said it was using AC/DC LL of 1.7 mOhm instead of the recommended 1.1 mOhm.Hold on to your trousers, they may have actually guessed right!
The reason we don't see reviewers hammering Intel non stop for this disaster is they are part of it. They let Intel had their cake and eat it; Market lower tdp CPU while they were consuming absolutely crazy amounts of power and giving nice benchmarks. Now it's all starting to crash in slow motion and imo reviewers need to see more critical of their own role in this dirty game.
Gigabyte already pulled the bios. HardwareLUXX said it was using AC/DC LL of 1.7 mOhm instead of the recommended 1.1 mOhm.
This is a press release so I am not convinced this is Intel's final answer. Probably just sweating bullets Steve or another reviewer will use that 188W PL2 in their next video. 💀 Making it damage control with reviewers until they sort things out entirely. If Intel sticks to this as the official statement, or this IS the official statement? Then LOLZ!
EDIT: It's starting to feel a lot like -
How much more do we need? 😵💫 Every PC reviewer, website, and forum and their social media accounts all have content about it. GN has not jumped on it feet first like Bruce Lee, only because they have been investigating the EK disaster. I am certain with this still being a circus they will have their own input soon. It is too big a SNAFU not to.Like I commented before, I'm impressed by the lack of (more) reaction from communities.
Intel is getting confident that they can get away with no consequences.
I wonder how they got to being this way...Intel is getting confident that they can get away with no consequences.
How much more do we need? 😵💫 Every PC reviewer, website, and forum and their social media accounts all have content about it. GN has not jumped on it feet first like Bruce Lee, only because they have been investigating the EK disaster. I am certain with this still being a circus they will have their own input soon. It is too big a SNAFU not to.
Maybe they got something cooking. Just waiting for the final Intel statement to blast thembig Intel story that they are missing out on.
Maybe they got something cooking. Just waiting for the final Intel statement to blast them
He's done that already, referring everyone to HUB for now.I would imagine he wants to do his own testing for any full video that he releases about this. Otherwise it'll probably get mentioned in a news roundup video.