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

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
4,058
My question is why did Intel remove the raid ROM from the b560 when it was on the B460? Every Intel board going back 10+ years I own had RAID available.
Software solutions work better in this price segment. Windows storage spaces performs identically with better recovery and maintenance options and so the the various Linux options.
 

ep0x73

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
2,574
But with Intel, there's hardly any supported CPUs (relatively speaking). There should be PLENTY of room (compared to AMD). Plus, the B460 board supports the same processors that the B560 would support.
exactly so it would appear Intel just wanted everybody to buy the more expensive Z series if they wanted RAID
 

ep0x73

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
2,574
Software solutions work better in this price segment. Windows storage spaces performs identically with better recovery and maintenance options and so the the various Linux options.
Eh, not a fan of storage spaces, Intel RST is so easy, you can simply slip a disk out and rebuild if one fails and RST supports TRIM, does storage spaces which is more a pool vs RAID?
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
4,058
Eh, not a fan of storage spaces, Intel RST is so easy, you can simply slip a disk out and rebuild if one fails and RST supports TRIM, does storage spaces which is more a pool vs RAID?
Storage spaces has come a long way, it does support the fast rebuilds as well as Trim and various other optimization commands. Performance wise it’s better in some worse in others but it about evens out.
 

ep0x73

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
2,574
Last I checked storage spaces you need more than 3 disks? If you wanted to put two SSD's in a raid 1 mirror would it work?
 

sleepeeg3

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
5,030
I disagree. It's not clickbait.

This is 100% intel's fault for not enforcing standards. Either the standard is set with the mobo manufacturer that the TDP limits are either set by default or not. It's not even that there are limits at all. There should never be this wild difference in performance. That would make your product look inconsistent. Intel has allowed too much leeway with the mobo manufacturers and this is the by product.

Intel could have fixed all of this by forcing limits by default but easily changed with settings. Problem solved.
This sounds like the opposite of the argument for overclocking and AMD. Intel buyers getting too used to having locked chips? This forum used to be about [H]ard overclocker's comparison page - what happened?
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
28,448
This sounds like the opposite of the argument for overclocking and AMD. Intel buyers getting too used to having locked chips? This forum used to be about [H]ard overclocker's comparison page - what happened?

What happened is "Turbo boost." Gone are the days when you bought a lower end CPU and overclocked it to the moon.* Now just about every last drop is squeezed out of them using complicated algorithms out of the box and they are pre-binned from the factory to meet certain performance numbers.



* My personal favorite was overclocking a Celeron E1200 from 1.6Ghz to 3.2Ghz on a budget board. Made me feel like an overclocking hero.
 
Top