It does demonstrate how much air coolers have progressed. Back in the Bulldozer age you needed watercooling to cool a 200W CPU, now an air cooler can do it with ease.
i mean thats only a power efficiency issue. Intel is scapegoating them. All mobos are within intel spec. Except now that theres the degradation issue nothing is within intel spec because even intel doenst know what it is.
Rack mount boards from providers like supermicro who care about platform stability more than performance in datacenters running EXACTLY the configuration intel says you should for longest CPU life are hitting this.
I have an 13700k ES2 sample that i use in my daily system that i bought around dec 2022. I initially tried to emulate a 13700k's stock clock which required around 1.45v back then.
The system slowly and gradually degraded and i had to reduce clocks and voltage over the years, its so bad that it currently cant run its 4.9ghz stock clock without a voltage bump. To be fair its ES2 silicon and silicon quality is definitely worse than retail.
I currently run it at 1.35v at 5.1ghz and a 5.0ghz step down on its worst core, and that has not degraded since then. Pretty sure intel just did a oopsie like me and pumped too much voltage in.
That failure rate is insane for CPU’s. Now I wonder if the other partner Wendell spoke to will come out. Seems Intel is offering no support on this in addition to no answers.
So all the 13th generation failures can be ignored because yours has not failed? Seems to me there is a problem with this reasoning. Especially after Intel has now identified a clear fault and is releasing a microcode fix for it.
I got a 14900K replaced for these issues, and it took 6 weeks from opening the case to getting the replacement. In the interim, since I couldn't have a box that was down, I was forced to buy another intel processor (which I got the extended warranty on) and went through 5 of them trying to get stable while the one was undergoing RMA.
In the end I went with an AMD 7950x3D chip, and an AMD board (swapped out the intel stuff completely as I had extended warranties) and all is 100% perfect - the AMD runs games flawlessly, and has zero stability issues.
I started my RMA for my 14900K yesterday. I chose the cross ship option. They said they will contact me for credit card details. How long is it supposed to take for them to send me the credit card link?
They call you for the credit card info, and that should be within 24 hours - that is, providing they have the processor in stock. In my case they didn't so they delayed a few days then wrote saying they couldn't do it.
Actually, it's not better than a 7950x3D - an 7950x3D is within 1% of a 14900K on CB23 - and you don't have any problems "yet" - keyword being "yet". I didn't have issues until I did, with each of the 6 processors, and so yeah, I was confident too at one point - at many points - and was proven wrong each time.
3rd parties are now asserting that it's not a matter of if, but rather a matter of when.
Ok, if you say so man. 7950x3D cannot be directly measured against an intel mid-range chip (which the 13600K is, at best - middle of the line).
Clock speeds and 3D vcache aren't the only variables between them. Keep doing your research - and actually get an amd rig so you can test them against one another.
You'll need it anyway, once your intel shits the bed. Which should be anyday now.
Right. Ok, well if that's what you need to tell yourself. Wow. What an amazing processor you have - one that is rated lower than the others. Binned lower. And will eventually fail.
Dog on amd all you want - bottom line is it's better than your processor, which has fewer cores, and has a systemic issue that will cause it to flake.
I mean you freely admit you've never run a 7959x3D, so you're just making things up right? You have no fiirsthand experience with both - in fact have never tried a 14900K or KS - so you don't really KNOW you're just reading all the stuff, deciding to take what you want about your chip and ignoring anything said bad about it, right?
Bonjour, je viens sur le tard mais je possède un I9 13e gen et les problèmes sont rapidement apparus. La CM a été endommagée et je ne peux plus utiliser mes 4 rams DDR5 6400Mhz, c'est arrivé par paliers, aucuns soucis au début puis, seulement 2 rams et maintenant, il faut couper le xmp et fonctionner à 4800mhz. J'ai attendu les maj des constructeurs de CM mais sans succès et c'est logique. Aucuns codes ne pourrait réparer des circuits brûlés, le pire est de taper la question à Co-Pilot qui sera d'accord avec vous. Donc, je vais le faire remplacer mais ma CM aussi. Inutile de vous dire que j'ai été très déçu et que j'ai perdu beaucoup de temps dans mon travail. Je confirme aussi que la garantie a été étendue mais le mal est fait, faites-le changer si vous en possédez un ou un de 14e gen. Mon I9 12900KF sur une autre tour ne pose aucuns problèmes pour info.
I stare at my CPU cores all day so i’ll throw this in:
13600k, i noticed about 2 months ago the very first core will cease activity completely. sometimes a restart will fix it but never for long. I’ll play a modern game and all cores will be active except that first core. i was hoping that update last week would help…
hmm interesting and worrying... running 13600k here too... same performance as the 14600k but was a fair bit cheaper so I just went 13600k... didn't need to update the bios either to get it running (did update it after though) but I guess I will keep an eye on the cores more than usual...
I went 12900k because microcenter. The 7000 series CPUs were having issues with RAM and expo, i bought a 12900k instead as it was best value for the money, and now 13th and 14th gen in a dumpster fire. I feel like I got just about the best actually stable CPU on the planet right now.
Considering the sample size of CPUs with errors from AMD is like 1% of the data as per the Wendel video, I can only assume that whatever issue is happening with expo is being blown out of proportion.
Just leaving this here to prevent people from panicking.
Yeah im just noticing that with the microcenter AM5 bundles back around late 2023 seemed to have issues. I wasnt sure what exactly caused it. It seemed like the RAM sucked but people who replaced the RAM still had the issue. Was it the mobo? Sure but it happened on multiple mobos. It was suspected by some it was the 7000 series' memory controller. There also were people who couldnt hit 6000 MT on their RAM but then theyd struggle with 5600, and eventually 5200 and eventually 4800, as if THEY were experiencing degradation.
The systems were very similar to the jayztwocents video on memory issues with AM5.
I wished them the best and bought intel, wanting something stable. Good thing it was a 12th gen....
As I said, on Wendell's video, which he spent 4 months on, there were like what, 4 errors on the database that were AMD? From thousands? Sure, AMD population is smaller than Intel population, but it's not insignificant to have almost zero representation on the error front.
I mean, the 12900k is a pretty good pick. I have one. But data doesn't seem to suggest there's an actual issue with AMD systems. Ddr5 6000 was never a guarantee given that max supported speeds are 5600 I think? Or 5200? Something similar to what Intel supports officially on the 12900k. Xmp/expo is overclock.
Well why would you buy a system with DDR 6000 memory if you dont plan to use it? And if you seriously lose performance without it, uh, then maybe AMD aint all its cracked up to be?
Intel only officially supports DDR5 4800 on Alder Lake CPUs and only DDR5 5600 on raptor lake CPUs. AMD only officially supports DDR5 5200 on Zen4 CPUs.
XMP and EXPO are both memory overclocking technologies. I don't think there is any guarantee on any of these that they will run fine above those memory speeds.
Except performance goes to crap on AMD if you dont and most benchmarks online tend to enable XMP. People dont buy those systems just to run them at stock. Or if they do, they're losing more performance on the AMD side. Intel CPUs at least dont lose a ton of performance from lower RAM speed.
Read some reviews of AM5 users sometimes. Dig into the negative ones. A lot of them talk about not being able to run expo stably and the issue getting worse over time.
Heck remember when jayztwocents switched back to intel? Same issues basically.
I think the whole 7000 series has a memory controller issue honestly.
Also, yeah, you're insufferably annoying. Blocked. Not arguing with an admitted member of the "AMD defense force."
I had both 12th gen and 13th gen at the same price point (I needed better single core performance), I said: "Let's get e-cores they are the new kid on the block".
From what I've reading here it mostly affects the higher end, I'm crossing my fingers.
It is a sad state of PC hardware naming schemes where an AMD 7250U is a Zen 2 APU release under the Zen 4 7000 series naming scheme. Because calling the 7250U a 4650U would be "confusing", so instead, AMD will mislead them into thinking that a 2020 CPU is a new one in 2023.
Yeah, that one is a really weird one. Idk what they should do with the naming convention, but it's definitely not something that would fit in the 4000 series either. Ddr5 and rdna igpu would make it weird there too
Yeah my parents wanted me to get them a laptop and my head was spinning trying to figure out which cpu is newer/faster... they're clearly doing this to confuse customers into buying old slow chips
My 13600K just runs shit hot. Had to feed it as little power as possible and hope it doesn't crop up in occasional instability. I feel like I got a dus model after being very satisfied with a 6700K and 2600K in the past
My 136k runs soo hot, and last month my mobo just up and went crazy, the dreaded going verify issue. Windows reinstall couldn't fix it, no amount of troubleshooting could fix it, had to grab a new mobo and all is well now except for the heat.
Wendell does mention cores sometimes going on vacation in one of the videos (but those videos and this post are more about i9s, but I guess it's just significantly more prelevant on them?)
Yeah, they mention that happening too. I'm thinking they fucked up the system agent or the voltage is killing that part. System Agent has the IMC and PCIe stuff (they mentioned downcloking memory and NVMe issues, which is PCIe) as well as controlling the communication between the cores.
that is one of the issues Wendell from LevelOneTechs discovered, that cores may just stop working and disable themselves in Linux, not entirely sure if that applies to windows but it sounds super similar. might want to RMA your CPU.
Intel clearly has no idea what the issue is and how to fix it. They can't very well discontinue their entire product line because some cpus are failing faster than expected. It is cheaper to replace those that break (assuming they actually do) and just ride things out until whatever the god awful name of their next gen line goes on sale and hope the issue didn't get ported to the new architecture.
The problem is selling shitty hardware with an equally shitty warranty. At least in some regions slightly longer warranty on electronics is mandatory (e.g. EU is 2 years, which is still pretty low for an expensive electronic item IMO). Many people will buy a computer/CPU expecting it to last many years. Even doing a lot of gaming and other stuff I only buy new CPU/setup every ~3 years now, and I always keep the last 1-2 builds for other uses... I'll prob be getting an AMD cpu for my next as in my mind it has a lower change of failure in the longer term when out of warranty... a first in quite a while.
My guess is they've simply binned the CPUs too aggressively to the point where months of natural silicon degradation (instead of decades) is enough to make them unstable, that they know exactly what the issue is by now and that they're trying to mitigate the problem through a combination of delaying the instability a couple of years through tuning and replacing already degraded CPUs with later production batches. The proper solution would probably be to recall and replace ALL 13900K/14900K CPUs, which they're trying to avoid.
I think they know what the problem is and assessed it's not fixable so they hope to sit out the controversy until their new architecture launches and 13th and 14th gen processors become old news.
You can sit out a controversy if only consumers are involved. People have a memory like a sieve. You cant sit out a data centers trust. Which is where it has landed. When data centers start charging extremely large amounts of money for support (nearly 10 fold vs competition and older intel chips) and start recommending a competitor the damage is enormous. It can take years to regain trust and then even longer for a company to switch.
Honestly data centers have been recommending EPYC over Xeon for a couple of generations now. There are a few niche applications where Xeon still makes sense over Epyc but with this issue it now seems like AMD has Intel beaten in nearly every cpu product segment.
AMD is now around 25%, up from basically 0% 6 years ago. That's a tremendous swing when the hardware cycle for servers takes a long time to shift momentum.
Oh absolutely they do. But in Q1 2024, AMD's market share for server CPUs rose to 23.6%, that's up from 18% a year earlier. That's a MASSIVE swing in just a year. Intel's in trouble.
Intel just like Nvidia's secret silver bullet is their software ecosystem they develop around their products.
What? Seriously, what? AMD and Intel mostly sell x86 CPUs. Any piece of software that runs on a Xeon will run on an Epyc as well. And they have some really good libraries and involvement in many open source projects, but anything they produce can also be run on AMD hardware.
That's hyperbole. Just because something can technically run doesn't mean it's any good or economically viable to run it.
You can technically play your games on your cpu. Why install a gpu at all in your system? Because it would give you a horrifically bad experience.
Amd is barely a blip in developing libraries and ecosystems while intel is an old hand at it. See how much intel contributes to Linux. Intel has no incentive to optimize it's software efforts for amd
And yet when running Intel developed libraries on AMD hardware on Linux they perform just as well, or better, than on Intel hardware. See Embree, or SVT-AV1, or openVINO. Phoronix has plenty of benchmarks on those. Which libraries are you talking about exactly?
Separate accelerators are an entirely different thing though.
Ehh no that's exaggerating and falsifying a lot. Even with core deficits Intel's own libraries perform better on their own silicon. Check how embree and openvino perform with amx then without.
This is rather disingenuous. You are either an INTC employee or a bagholder, either way you should really disclose before spouting such utter bs.
Which software lib with this miracle optimisations are you talking about?
You are talking about offloading accelerators without even talking about Xilinx? AMD is way ahead on the ML game (MI300x), networking (Pensando/solarflare), FPGA game (Xilinx) and GPUs compared with Intel.
Where is this miraculous software bs you are talking about. Give specifics.
It doesn't mention whether Sapphire Rapids is affected or not. The game servers they are talking about are modified desktop systems, which are basically irrelevant for data centers.
This won't affect data center trust in a slightest. Using PC-level CPUs in data centers is pretty much limited to dedicated game servers providers, which is so small part of data center landscape that can be (and usually is...) ignored. Rest of the world sits on unaffected Xeons, EPYCs and sometimes Amperes.
I know that Intel had issues with QC, they fired entire QA team during Sapphire Rapids development which resulted in massive delays and Sapphire Rapids having 500+ bugs that required way more iterations than previous CPUs.
Since then they rebuild QA department and QA processes, so hopefully it will history.
Even though I think Intel screwed up pretty hard here, let's not ignore the fact that it hasn't landed in data centers because 13900K and 14900K are not server-grade CPUs, and I'm pretty sure the problem is non existent on Xeon CPUs (which have a lot more relaxed freq/voltage curves - reliability is everything).
Go watch the linked videos from Wendell and the one with GN and Wendell. Servers use 13900k and 14900k in some circumstances, and this likely will erode trust in enterprise situations.
Even then I'm not sure "waiting for it to blow over" is going to help as much as they think. Since this is a degradation problem, it's not like day 1 or even week 1 reviews of 15th gen will be able to definitively say if Intel's fixed it. While the average consumer probably doesn't care, I imagine a lot of people and businesses who follow this kind of news or were burned by this bug will think twice about going for Intel again right after, especially if AMD has a strong offering in zen 5.
I'm not saying Intel's going under because of this or anything, but it'll probably be hurting their bottom line and market share for a few generations at least.
My concern here is that these failure rates are actually incredible for a set of chips that are only a few months old. This is a very small amount of time.
Intel, and OEMs, have assuredly ran engineering sample chips for enough time to have ran into these issues themselves. And even if by some modern miracle, they in fact missed this for the entirety of the 13000 series testing, and the 14000 series testing, they already knew about this issue from the 13900ks that were in the wild. I refuse to believe that Intel hasn't been fully aware of this situation for at least a year now.
So what's the difference between all of the testing that Intel did prior to even creating the ES chips, then the actual ES chip testing, and the production run of chips that fails so frequently as these?
Well if you're a cynical person... you'd say that they ran into these issues and hit the send button anyways. But i'll wait to see how this unfolds first.
Usually engineering samples(ES) have lower clocks until the very end of qualification cycle, so full speed ES are only tested for a short amount of time. That's why they probably missed it. So I assume that single core boost is a culprit, voltage should be really high to boost up to those crazy 6Ghz numbers so the silicon simply degrades. That's probably another reason why wasn't caught by OEMs - they don't play much, they test various loads and transients, but not a prolong single/two core high load.
And that's why most of the time setting max clock to 5.3 will help since core is still working but can't' consistently reach those higher clocks. And since it's already degrading, it will degrade even more quite fast since that part of the silicon would have bigger leakage current and thus will require more juice to run at that 5.3 the it would previously be necessary.
TL:DR I think intel has created a time bombs with those 13900-14900K* SKUs
P.S. That also explains why 12900s and 1(3-4)700s don't have this issues.
Usually engineering samples(ES) have lower clocks until the very end of qualification cycle, so full speed ES are only tested for a short amount of time
there are separate lifecycle validation things that happen where the limits are quantified with accelerated aging, they aren't estimating lifespan based on 6 months with engineering samples. That's just not data that's usually made public (by anyone).
Rumor says that there was a Comet Lake production release qualification report in a big Intel leak a few years ago. Supposedly, it contained hard data about Intel's expectations reliability and assumed temperature and duty cycle in end-user systems.
I used to tell people that hitting 100°C in parallel batch jobs was fine -- Intel's thermal design guide says throttling in heavy workloads is normal and expected, engineers who know what they're doing set the thermal throttling point to 100°C for a reason, and Intel engineers have repeated all of this in public interviews.
After hearing those rumors, I no longer tell people this.
Could also just be a plain old manufacturing issue. The samples get the OK, they tell the fab to ramp up production, and some piece of hardware on the line fails in a way that causes defective output between the samples and actual production runs
Then it will not be a long term issue and would not affect both generations since manufacturing issue would be noticed and fixed in a new batches with a new stepping. And don't forget that 2 have 2 generation of basically the same chip affected but not a less strained 1x700 brothers.
And yeah, it's always a manufacturing issue + correct binning. Not all chips are the same, some are better, some are worse and there're a lot of tears how much better or worse a chip can be. It can be perfect but have slightly bigger current leak which will result in slightly bigger power draw, slightly bigger temps and thus faster degradation.
Issue can also be a bad thermal probe location so actual hot spot have much bigger temps then boosting algorithm thinks it is and thus it pushes itself over the limit and leads to faster degradation
They know exactly what the problem is. Their stability testing is not good enough for right on the edge clockspeeds. This is exactly what overclockers have already always experienced when overclocking chips right to the stability edge. You often randomly find your testing is inadequate and the chip is unstable.
The difference is you can just reduce the clockspeeds slightly and all is well. Intel can’t exactly reduce the spec clockspeed of the 13900K and 14900K that would cause all sorts of outrage and bad pr.
They know exactly what the problem is. Their stability testing is not good enough for right on the edge clockspeeds. This is exactly what overclockers have already always experienced when overclocking chips right to the stability edge. You often randomly find your testing is inadequate and the chip is unstable.
Nah, there is a difference between inherent hard to track down instability and degradation.
It seems to me from how this behaves. Like there is actual degradation with time and usage going on. Not that the CPUs are just tuned with to little margin in the V/F tables from stock. Which would be entirely fixed by microcode tuning.
Since this also happens with power limited system like Wendell was talking about. It seem Raptor Lake has a voltage threshold that is not safe, even in "low power" scenarios.
Generally Intel's stance and their own tuning for the last 10 years is that it is total chip power that is dangerous, not voltage. So a voltage that is "safe" with the chip pulling 100W is not safe when the chip pulls 200W and so on.
So in other words the boosting algo is designed around allowing MUCH higher voltages when just a few cores are loaded. Voltages that are not considered safe during all chip load.
But it may turn out that these voltages used during boost are not safe period for RPL, and starts degrading the chip even if total chip power is fairly low and just a few cores are loaded.
Voltage is safe for 100W but not 200W has never ever been a thing. What happens on the intel stuff is it is degrading just like any chip overclocked to the edge. Just their stability testing is too short or simple to find this at the factory.
If your chip is crashing at a vfd curve at 200W but not at 100W it’s more likely its unstable at that voltage when actually allowed to run that voltage at the higher power setting.
Voltage is safe for 100W but not 200W has never ever been a thing.
It is exactly how modern boost algorithm works. The safety is dictated by power limits, not voltages. A single RPL P core can use voltages for single core boost, that can never be hit in all core workload. Because it would push the chip power draw above the current limit for the whole chip dictated by Intel.
I think you’re misunderstanding something. A chip can only be unstable because it doesn’t have enough voltage not because it’s drawing too high power.
When you set a higher power limit and it becomes unstable, that is because the higher power limit actually allows the chip to run at a higher point in the vfd curve instead of throttling to the lower voltage/clockspeed because of the power limit.
I think you’re misunderstanding something. A chip can only be unstable because it doesn’t have enough voltage not because it’s drawing too high power.
I think you are missing what I'm talking about. I am talking about how modern boost algorithms are designed and tuned.
When you set a higher power limit and it becomes unstable, that is because the higher power limit actually allows the chip to run at a higher point in the vfd curve instead of throttling to the lower voltage/clockspeed because of the power limit.
We are talking about Intel design philosophy here and how they determine what is safe. We are talking about how they derive these tables, and how they are determined safe.
I'm talking about the fact that Intel has fucked up their modeling and testing. And that they are using voltage levels at the top range of the voltage tables. That are not safe in any load scenario. Because every chip has a voltage level, where permanent damage starts to occur if it's powered on.
If degradation is occuring, this is what Intel has gotten wrong and not tuning. They have not tuned it wrong, they have determined the safe voltages wrong.
Yes they have now run the chips in the usual safety margins that overclockers ride on the edge of. That is why the chips are outright unstable or degrades quickly. Intel’s stability testing and binning would never be as precise as overclockers tuning their chips individually.
The problem is it will pass prime95 for a day but after a while will eventually become unstable. You can't test for effects like elevated temps over an extended time. Presumably all you can do is very high temps over a shorter time period to try to emulate but it's
not the same.
Yes this is what overclockers experience when overclocking to the limits. The chips usually degrade a little bit initially. But we can usually just lower the clocks slightly and it’ll run for years that way.
Intel can’t exactly lower the clocks of their 13900K and 14900K after the fact and not be sued for false advertising lol.
Anything that runs this hot is just gonna fail over time. Anytime I have tried to overclock a cpu, even after running fine on prime95 for a day, eventually started getting unstable (like after a year) which resulted in me having to revert and hence why I don't overclock anymore.
My 14900k build, even underclocked, is unstable and crashes. Intel just sucks.
Yeah what I'm saying is if they're having so many issues with 13th and 14th gen they could just cancel them, go back to alder lake, and release a new 16 p core version of the 12900k to match the 13900k/14900k. Might be lower clock speeds, but at least it'll be stable.
The main reason Intel went to P+E is that they can't add more P-cores. The ring bus latency increases with the number of nodes, and a monolithic design with 16 P-cores would be incredibly slow.
If you read this far, you should've read the rest of the thread to know I meant a 16 E CORE model to MATCH THE 13900k/14900k. The idea of it being a more stable alder lake CPU with lower clock speeds that doesn't have whatever went wrong with raptor lake in particular.
P-cores are like large bus stops in the street in Intel's
ring-based architecture. You can only have so many of them before they cause a traffic jam. So Intel resorted to adding E-core clusters which are like small subway entrances that hardly hinder the whole traffic situation.
Even if you took the best Raptor Lake+ silicon and made a CPU with 16 14900KS P-core equivalents running at 6.2GHz with perfect stability, the performance would be subpar due to ring latency.
Yeah I read your second post again and made an edit. As I said the 12th-gen e-cores actively hindered the overall performance in many cases, and adding e-cores would make that worse.
Besides the main performance indicator is actually the clock speed and IPC of the p-cores, not the e-cores.
They know exactly what it is. They just want to fix it before they say anything because they know if they say something before fixing it then their stock price will nosedive. We can't have that, because capitalism.
Is it really because of Intel or all those mainboard manufacturers that shipped the boards with increased power limits?
For example on Asus B760i, my core i5 13500 cpu was using 140w also requiring a more expensive CPU to cool. Now with the intel recommended settings it's up to 65W (which also corresponds to the TDP).
In Cinebench r23, the score decreased from 20300 to 14500..
For me this is also a scam of the MB manufacturers to get better performance while keeping the CPU overclocked all the time....
You will probably miss this in the mass of replies but I had a i9 14900hx lenovo legion 5i and the thing was interesting in terms of issues usb ports didn't work provided power but no connection next the cpu was using around 150w or so with about 30k on r23 multi now I had a few random launch issues as in I couldn't launch a game period the lenovo app after 10 minutes of being on, and the single core test was about 1600 quite odd in r23 anyway i updated the bios and low and behold it's maxing the cpu out at around 70w or so netting 15-16k on r23 down from 30k both tests plugged in funnily enough unplugged the score was slightly better and single core seemed to fail completely in the test so I belive intel know that their is a major issue with these CPUs especially hx ones and the solutionis limit wattage with bios revisions, I now have a replacement 14900hx legion 5i which performs fine overall no real issues great temp full load 90 degrees Celsius thought the experience I had with my first 5i is concerning and as to if that happens with my replcement one is the question stability as is seems great but I believe the issues are deeply rooted and simply limiting these great CPUs is the solution which makes the amd the go to.
I have the same questions. I got a Legion i9, and it gave me nothing but trouble. It slowed down a lot, it just wouldn’t work sometimes. Sent it back, and got a new one. I got a few more days on my warranty, and I’m worried that I might need to send it back anyway.
Does anybody know if I should send it back and get a refund?
"Defective" is a function of statistics, the T in MTBF means time, which is a nexus to the causal issue of degradation that is alleged here. The fact that these CPUs are having issues at this stage of their 'product life', already makes 13th/14th gen an outlier in their history. Time will only increase the area under the curve... the fact we're observing it now means it's only going to get worse.
Intel's latest mitigation for RL/RLR is to reduce speeds and voltage. This is known since day 1 of experimenting with melted sand to reduce the rate of degradation in silicon microprocessors. A+B = enough of a conclusion for me to make a best guess and feel good about having turned down max turbo on my 13900HX from day 1, because 4.3ghz was enough to max out the cooling for the 90C thermal throttle point and 100W turbo long power on this laptop, and save 10-15W in most games while not affecting fps at all (due to the weaksauce 4060 being enough for 60fps that being enough for me & what I play).
Well, here's a repair shop owner claiming that i7s and laptop skus, at least those that are just the cpu and not the whole soc, have the same issues/symptoms: https://youtu.be/Z2p3MpPgKAU?t=309 (yt translated captions are kinda bad but you can get the gist of it)
I think it could affect the HX mobile cpus eg., 13980hx and 14900hx being based off RL and RL-R? They see less TDP than their Desktop counterparts so the issue would likely take much longer to appear based on some theories of the root cause.
Desktop chip like i5, i7 13th or 14th gen isn't affected either, it just people over exaggerating the story which is BS, especially youtube content creator who makes money from youtube.
Desktop chip like i5, i7 13th or 14th gen isn't affected either, it just people over exaggerating the story which is BS, especially youtube content creator who makes money from youtube.
Disagree. I don't always buy them but several times it has saved me a thousand dollars when a motherboard needs to be replaced or the case gets a dent in it.
You are an outlier. Consumer Reports has touched on this topic multiple times and they also state it isn't worth it. They leverage data from thousands of owners. Most don't have any issues and the companies are the ones that profit.
Buddy,here is a example ,you are spending 850$(Rs 71,192) on laptop then buying something like i don't how how much a warranty cost but maybe 15k under? , is kinda of fine as you will get back that next month even the amount of laptop.ylu can use emi to make it easier .
About warranty it saves you from alot spending headache,like for eg i had faulty GPU and I thanked God for having warranty lmao other i couldn't handle expense(bought for 21k)
It's higher than that - I went 6 i9's 14900K/14900KS, to have 6 fail. Estimates by professional benchmarkers say 2 in 10 i9's don't suffer the issue - but it happens over time, so it's likely those chips will fail too, it's just a matter of when.
I swapped out my system with an AMD 7950x3D chip which runs games smooth as butter, and has 0 stability problems. Best decision I ever made.
Happened to me, close to $3000 USD worth of 14th Gen chips have failed in builds I did. I will be switching to AMD for the next gen releases but may use Intel in the future if the newer gen chips are fine. Intel always severed me well in the past but became costly for me this 13th and 14th Gen as I only deal with direct die which voids all warranty.
I dont think this comes down to the core design per say. I think its more that they have overtuned these chips to a point where there is no margin anymore. The high power draw will also cause them to degrade past the very small margin they have.
Its like the CPUs are deliviered with an overclock from factory that is on the absolute edge of stability. The first few runs with prime runs stable so you think its good to go. But then you run in to these niche scenarios where it will crash anyway because you left almost zero margin for error. And with time your cpu will also degrade. So after a few months, your previously stable system will start crashing on you.
I have a 13900k and my system has been less stable recently but I also bloated the fuck out of my own OS installing way more background software than I need.
I don't load my system heavily most of the time but so far it's been reasonably stable gaming.
However I'm legitimately concerned now and might try to swap if reinstalling doesn't solve my issues. I also have a metric shit ton of IO In my system and a lot of ram (two dimm system). This might exacerbate any issues and stability and time are very important to me.
I wonder if Intels issue is as bad on ddr4 as it is on ddr5.
My take after watching L1 tech is that the IMC may be the culprit.
Wendel mentioned that sometimes the cpu falls to half speed before crashing and that he has no idea why.
My guess is something goes wrong with the imc and your effective Memory Transfers halve.
This would explain why the cpu is still consuming full power and running at full clock speed but performance is halved - you'd be bandwidth starved by 50% before the crash.
I'm pretty sure it's not RAM related - although, not 100% certain.
My experience with it was the chips started out fine, then slowly, over time they became less and less stable until they were useless.
As they degraded I'd tweak the bios reducing the clock or turbo behavior, and that would help for awhile, then eventually even that wouldn't work anymore.
On a couple of the chips I set intel's defaults for power (PL1 and PL2) as well as other things like disabling core features, and the chips eventually degraded even with the settings day one.
I'm pretty sure that the problem has to do with the chips power handling - in theory, the MB manufacturer should be able to send the intel chip any amount of power, and the chip "should" throttle according to temp and load - well, there is a known bug in that code, which intel says isn't the root cause but a contributing factor.
Since the chips work right initially, and fail over time, there is something in them that's being degraded by normal operation to the point they consistently fail.
I think a memory controller failing is indicative of a larger systemic issue in the chips.
That said, you might also be right - as there was a wide variation of possible memory clock speeds and chips I tried. I have 192gb of 5600mhz RAM, and on one I was able to run stable (for awhile) with 5600mhz, and on all the other 5, I had to downclock memory to be compatible. So something with the chips determines their memory clock ability - and that seems to degrade too. So like initially I could run 5600mhz, but as time went on, part of what would help stability is to lower the effective RAM clock. Of course it only did for a short period of time before the chip degraded further, but it did help for awhile.
Nutshell, I'm really technical (I'm a cloud solutions architect) so I know my way around computers and never did figure out the root cause of it. For awhile, before the stability issues were widely known, I seriously doubted myself and my ability to put together a stable box. For awhile I thought it was something I was doing that caused them to flake. But it turns out it's just an issue with the chips themselves.
I put together the AMD replacement after exchanging my intel setup, and the AMD machine has been perfect since first boot. I've tweaked it along the way for better performance, and it's been a champ - runs at faster clock speeds than rated for, and so far, has never, even once been unstable.
In the end I feel kind of redeemed knowing intel has a root issue and it wasn't me that caused myself the headaches - but knowing what I know now, I would have gone AMD to begin with. Even if intel chips were stable, AMD has superior gaming tech. My 7950x3D benchmarks out 1% slower than the 14900K when it ran right (before it degraded) and AMD is 10-15% faster in games due to the 3D vcache. So if I had known, I would have chosen AMD to begin with even if intel worked right.
I'm in a similar boat. Over the course of my careers I've encountered two bad processors. One was an old Pentium 3 that I believe Intel had a recall on because they were faulty and the other was a 5800X. I refused to believe it was the CPU at first. I spent a lot of time on GPU driver issues and potential GPU issues given the "GPU Out of Memory" errors I was getting and the texture corruption in games.
Then one day I booted into Linux and immediately after logging in to a console I was greeted with a very unhappy kernel complaining about hardware issues of all kinds followed by a kernel panic and upon reboot a fairly corrupted root volume.
At that point I knew the CPU was hosed so I drove to MicroCenter and got a 14900K to replace the now marginal/dead 13900KF. I've had no problems since.
I'm really bothered by the fact that I'm going to have to replace the 14900K in X number of months as it too goes bad due to this undisclosed issue. I also can't wait for my partner's CPU to go bad.
He's going to be so excited when I tell him he gets to spend another $500+ on a CPU that will eventually die or another $1000 to swap back to AMD.
In any case, I'm likely going to jump back to AMD even after the bad taste the 5800X left in my mouth when the 9000 series processors come out in a few months.
Yeah, I had been intel for at least a decade before the 14900K/KS issue converted me back to AMD. When I had an AMD prior it has minor compatibility issues (they hadn't quite worked out intel compatibility) although I don't remember the exact generation chip it was. It was an alienware back when they weren't owned by dell - if that gives you any kind of reference.
I bought a legion go, and that's what planted the seed to give up entirely on intel and move to AMD. I had extended warranties through MC for the board, and CPU, so when the legion came up and ran perfectly over time, I was like, hm, maybe there's something to this ryzen thing.
I kept fighting with the intel rigs while my legion just sat there and purred like a kitten - so eventually, I'm like, well even though it's a complete PITA I'm going to tear the mainboard out of my PC, replace it with the best AMD board and CPU I can find, reformat everything (went from intel RST to AMD RAID anyway, so reformat was required), and just see. It couldn't be any worse, and after 6 intel chips, I was just over it. Completely over it.
I think I went through the 6 intel processors as I run load tests for my work - they max the CPU on the box for hours at 100%. With the i9 14900K/KS, I think the load they're under speeds the degradation; they seem to flake faster when they run hard. I know of several people that went a few months before they saw any kind of issue, but for me it was a matter of a few weeks per each processor before they catastrophically failed.
Even though it costs more to swap out the mainboard for an AMD box, when the time comes, it's a wise investment right now. Maybe intel will figure their shit out, and perhaps long term that won't be the answer. But as it stands one can be pretty certain a 14900K/14900KS failure is not a matter of if, but rather a matter of when.
I think every manufacturer has their issues - and I think every generation takes awhile to iron out. So it doesn't surprise me you had issues at some point previously. I think anything cutting edge runs that risk - AMD had problems with overvoltage when they released the 7000 series and had to get mainboard manufacturers to lower standard voltage as chips were burning up. So CPU issues aren't necessarily unique to intel. But at this point in time, with where each of the vendors are at, I think AMD the far safer choice.
I've run my AMD box at 100% for hours upon hours, and no issues. I left it run idle for 3 weeks while I traveled to europe from the US, and came back to it still running my open programs - so there had been no reboot, blue screen, or other flake behavior while I was gone.
So while I'm just one person and it's anecdotal - when the time comes, I recommend you, and your partner pony up a little more and go team red - unless something substantial comes out from intel that's definitive and somewhat proven. It'll take time to prove it actually solves the issue but the only way I'd keep an intel rig is if there were a 100% certain fix, and that some time had passed to prove that rigs weren't borking still.
Wish I had better news but I literally pulled my hair out trying to get a stable intel box and now that they've discontinued 12th gen processors, you can't buy a stable intel box at the consumer level anymore. So in my mind there just aren't many options.
Hopefully your rig doesn't degrade too much, too soon, and it buys time for intel to figure their shit out. But don't hold your breath.
went from intel RST to AMD RAID anyway, so reformat was required
Why did you go with motherboard RAID a 2nd time, right after running face-first into one of the big problems with it? IIRC even Windows has a built-in software RAID layer these days, although the last time I looked it seemed impossible to use for the boot volume, unfortunately.
It doubles the effective throughput of the drive - so it's read/write speed is 14800MB/sec / 12700MB/sec rather than the 7400MB/sec / 6350MB/sec. It gets 2x the iops per sec.
Intel's RST wasn't the problem per se, it was the intel chip. RAID in and of itself isn't bad, as long as the processor works.
Windows does have RAID, but it does not double the drive speed like hardware RAID does.
The problem I was referring to with motherboard RAID is the difficulty of assembling the array on another platform. Although, for RAID 0 you already have single points of failure, and anyway someone of your background presumably understands the nature of RAID 0 and has good backups and a practiced restore procedure.
Windows does have RAID, but it does not double the drive speed like hardware RAID does.
IANA windows user, but I found this report that Storage Spaces can get throughput gain from RAID 0, although it might require manually specifying stripe layout. That person reports less-than-perfect scaling with 4 drives, but at 19 GB/s they might be running into memory bandwidth limits or exposing a bottleneck in the benchmark tool.
Ah, I see what you mean. Well, afaic, mb raid is acceptable as I don't plan on swapping boards often. One of the advantages to the AMD rig is the AM5 is nowhere near end of life, so I have upgrade paths that will preserve the volume.
I do have practiced backup procedures - I have 2 NAS arrays and backup system images to them regularly (nightly). I have a full weekly and incremental daily. I also store most of my data on onedrive which syncs with the NAS array as well. One NAS is RAID0, one NAS is RAID5, and they mirror one another, so pretty decent protection overall.
I'm not familiar with storage spaces much, other than in the server space - but you may well be right that the memory or PCI bus is the limit. With 4 gen 4 NVME drives, you'd be using 16 PCI lanes, and then whatever for the USB hubs and video card, so most certainly some kind of PCI arbitration would be in play.
My RAM drive gets 38000MB/sec, so not sure RAM would be the bottleneck. I guess it depends on if he has DDR5 and what memory speed his clock runs at. But you may be right, that it's a limiting factor too.
The nice thing about the mb RAID is it's completely abstracted away from the OS - and windows is funky about stripe sets that aren't in storage spaces - in that the volumes have to be dynamic - and I've never had good luck with dynamic volumes. The strangest issues crop up from them - for example, oculus won't run on a non-basic boot volume. So mb RAID lets you keep basic drives while still maintaining RAID.
In any case I did consider OS level RAID and when I weighed the pros and cons, I figure the MB RAID is preferable. In the end, one deciding factor was that reformatting a machine isn't a big deal with my backups - so I reinstalled going intel to AMD because of the hardware abstraction layer being different between the CPUs - I didn't want phantom drivers left over from intel. But if the AMD board has to be swapped out the RAID volume will auto-configure providing I use the same chipset - and if not, then a reformat isn't the end of the world. I can restore anything I need from backup, and recall the installed programs by looking at the backup's Program Files and Program Files (x86).
My RAM drive gets 38000MB/sec, so not sure RAM would be the bottleneck. I guess it depends on if he has DDR5 and what memory speed his clock runs at. But you may be right, that it's a limiting factor too.
The potential issue is that when you have 70-100 GB/s of memory bandwidth, there is a very limited budget for the number of memory-to-memory copies in the storage layer and filesystem. IDK about RAM drives on Windows, but I think tmpfs on linux just uses the regular disk cache but doesn't back it with anything, so there's less of that overhead than any disk-based storage not accessed with O_DIRECT. When Wendell of L1T was trying to get maximum throughput out of an NVMe ZFS pool, he ran into that bottleneck and had to work with the ZFS upstream to reduce it. Maybe it was discussed in here?
Potentially, CPU vendor RAID can line up the chakras so that the PCIe controller unstripes the data as it comes over the bus from multiple disks.
Also, AMD is cheaper - and if you want a board on a budget, get the asus x670e-a as it doesn't really forfeit much for a better price point.
The x670e-e has some easy options for x3D tuning (you just say load x3D profile) that isn't on the e-a, but the 7950x3D performs pretty well out of the box anyway.
The 13900K isn't equivalent to a 7950x3D, it's more comparable to a 14900K, or a 14700K per cores and clock speeds. In cinebench, my 7950x3D scores within 1% of a 14900K I had before switching from intel to AMD.
When exchanging my intel 14900K and 790 board for the 7950x3D AMD chip and x670 board, I got a $230 refund.
The 7950x3d and 7900x3d can have scheduling issues in because there are 2 dies in the package but only one has access to the 3d cache. If your cpu isn't those, you are likely getting your money's worth with just a memory overclock
I recommend the asus x670e-e board, and a 7950x3D chip. If you go that route, let me know, and I'll help you configure the setup to get the most out of it. There are some settings for the x3D part that can be tweaked to get better performance.
In cinebench, the 7950x3D tests out within 1% of the best 14900K score I got before the chip tanked, and in games, the x3D chip accelerates them - so they categorically benchmark out between 10% and 15% faster than the intel equivalent.
Yeah, I bought my 7950x3D at microcenter with the extended warranty, so if I want to upgrade later it's just a matter of taking the chip back and paying the difference.
That said, the next gen isn't benchmarking out super significantly better than the current gen - and will be less so where as the x3D chips don't support PBO - so I may or may not upgrade.
That's what I thought when I got it - that by getting the better bin, it wouldn't be a problem. But I went through 3 14900K's, and 3 14900KS'es to all have them destabilize after running fine for awhile.
I even put in a new 14900KS, and set all the stability settings exactly as intel recommended, and still had the chip flake after a little while of running.
It was super frustrating too, as they'd run well at first - run OCCT successfully across a wide variety of tests - and then, one day randomly, they'd just tank. OCCT would fail to load, or would fail immediately in tests - and I had changed nothing.
I still have a brand new 14900K processor sitting here as it was replaced via RMA - and I'm afraid to do anything with it as as soon as I apply power, it's going to flake. So I'm waiting on intel to get their shit together so I can gift it to my daughter. But until they do, it'll sit here unused, as I don't want to pass the cursed chip to her and have her go through what I went through.
That's so frustrating. Even just going through 1 RMA must be annoying. Did you see the comment further down about it possibly having to do with specific game runtimes? Any of the games you play?
FWIW I've had a 13700K since April and it's been pretty solid. Could always trade you for the 14900k....... Nah jk I use my PC for work so can't really have it crashing on me
tbh the warranty is probably wasted, either they recall, you get an auto-warranty or you just have to document the crashes so you can point to that when it fails.
its more likely with such a high failure rate to just allow it to go to class action lawsuit. Not everybody will apply. Much like the xbox360 redring and ps2 disc read error
you dont necessarely need to apply. When HP lost their class action lawsuit over insufficient cooling in DV9000, i got the motherboard replaced free of charge despite not being part of the lawsuit.
I had one of those POSes and I'm pissed that I was never able to get in on the class action. I had both the hinges break and the overheating issue and I babied it. I replaced it with a T400... Whose hinges also broke.
If it’s a silicon defect, it will affect all chips that share silicon, so SKUs between and including 13600 to 13900KS and 14600 to 14900KS. The chips that are pushed harder are more likely to fail first, so that would be i9s, but i7s and i5s wouldn’t be immune.
They are degrading over time. And it affects the highest SKU to the largest degree. That does not point towards a inherent silicon issue.
Rather that implies there is a problem with the highest turbo states and the voltages set. Most likely the low core turbo since this is happening in power limited scenarios as well. And that is also where the most absurd voltages are applied, albeit just to a few cores.
That then degrades the CPU and it potentially becomes unstable in any turbo state.
True, just curious on the "how much" part. i9s in the past have been more Xeon than desktop chip, but to be fair the last time I paid attention the model numbers started with a 9, so I admit I'm definitely out of the loop on Intel silicon.
Server chips are different to laptop ones. May not have the same bugs. The 14nm Intel chips had problems with AVX burning out...but only on xeon variants.
Yeah makes sense. However my laptop is critical for my work and I had rewards to spend so it really didn't cost much. One of those times where better be safe than sorry.
The issues both seem to pertain to the usage of the Oodle decompression library from RAD game tools causing corruption of game files. I want to also add that there might be issues with anti cheat like Easy Anti Cheat and Intel CPU’s.
I've recently switched to 14700k and started getting errors with VAC in CS2, it also tends to happen a few hours into playing it, I wonder if it's related as I had a 12700K before with no issue.
The root cause is that the CPU is causing problems. However, it’s worth trying to figure out what exactly can be used to replicate the problem.
the root cause is something someone else pointed out, and any overclocker worth their salt could point it out too. the turbo boost algorithm is hitting the 2 preferred cores with massive amounts of voltage in short spikes. someone recorded 1.6v for a really short duration. this is killing the CPUs slowly.
Oodle decompression is somehow modifying the game files in place when trying to decompress them. I find this unlikely as Oodle is designed to simply read the game files and should have no ability to modify the actual files themselves.
If they were using normal file read function calls then you'd be right, but they might be use a memory mapped file, in which case it does seem possible that the CPU accidentally modifies some of the memory and then Windows writes it back to disk
Yeah, I assume they’re not just using file read calls for something as specialised as that. However I don’t think it would sense to write decompressed data back to disk just to delete them later when the game finishes or whatever.
It’s just incredibly bad for performance. Pretty much the only time it would/should be written back to disk is when the application memory starts getting paged in general, but that is handled separately because of its performance problems.
This is interesting. If the errors are consistent and not causing BSODs, maybe there are just a few instructions that are impacted and those can be mitigated in software or microcode
I’d also add that UE5 has oodle built in. This is probably causing it to be far more apparent and is why we’re seeing it more and more often.
Of course, there’s still stability issues outside of gaming that still need to be sorted. I recommend anyone using these CPU’s and gaming, however, to use XTU and drop the clocks down a bit to prevent this from occurring.
yeah I'm thinking the same, I currently run a I9-9900k was looking to get into a I7-14700KF for the ddr5 and overall mobo upgrades, but most stories I can find are about the I9's of both gens not really big on the I7 or KF series at all.
im bouta ask something stupid, but I was looking to get a 14700 KF, i've heard alot of the crashing is really prone to the I9's but what's about the I7's?
The fallout from this will be huge since literally every buyer is affected - even those who have no problems at all
will see their resale value tank and have every right to be angry.
I hope AMD goes on the offensive with this saying Intel's solution to the problem is to trust them on LGA1851 and their teething issues with a new motherboard and chip architecture.
They don't need to. Read the article. This company has switched entirely from Intel to AMD. And this is just a single company going public about it. That and it could back fire on AMD if AMD has issues in the future or people remember when AMD cpus essentially exploded not that long ago from incorrect bios power settings.
Yeah people really love to not remember things lol.
People say wait till amd next gen, amd legit can screw up and have it's own issues in the next gen. Honestly with two companies constantly trying to over power the other it's eventually gonna lead to issues like this that their hardware can't handle but still push it to be the best but failing in the process. It's gonna be a cycle so people should get use to it
My understanding is Intel and MB makers didn't have clear communication on the right speeds of these cpus and getting fucked over. The original default settings were not actually the “stock” settings, from what I understand, or at least not what was recommended by intel, Intel fuck up here not giving clear communication guess that happens when you try to keep everything hush hush. The only ones not affected yet are those who purposely underclocked or undervolted their CPUs from the very start.
My question is if it affects 13 and 14 how did they not address it in the 14th gen? If they knew about something failing and false advertising it doesn't couldn't they be sued??
For me i bought the 13th gen ks chip in feb 2023. In july started having stability issues and installation errors. Only thing fixed it was de clocking all p cores to 5.5 ghz. So far no issues. But it is defective right now.
Intel has put out statements that it’s aware of issues and that they are investigating them currently. They’ve also not found the root cause of it. What else are they supposed to message to the world? They can’t as well speculate on the cause of the issue.
That this issue was going on with the 13900K chips which launched over two years ago and only just now is getting the spotlight pretty much underscores this point.
They already said they were investigating the issue few months ago and said eTVB contribute to the issue but it wasn't the root cause. You are just not reading that news
Never been happier to have my build based around the 7800X3D. There was a moment where I was considering going with a 13600K and I'm so glad I didn't. These failure rates are nuts.
So, it also effects 13600k? Because they're literally the same chip, the only differences are the number of enabled cores and voltage/frequency. Like others said, degredation can still occur in lower SKUs, just not as fast.
No, there has been no degradation on lower-end SKU's. This has always been about the top end chips only, the everything else has been fine. I don't get the downvotes or the histrionics, you can look at all the reporting and see that for yourself.
Anecdotally, there is. In any case, this isn't something you can dismiss easily. You can argue it's due to high voltage in higher SKUs but then how would you explain degredation in server CPUs?
You're assuming that simply because only the 13900/14900 chips are affected now. A quick perusal of this thread alone will show you that some people have noticed issues with the 13600 as well. At this point, there's no reason to believe this issue is confined to just the top end of the line up.
I have a 7950x3D with the 3D vcache, and it runs games smooth as butter. I went through 6 14900K/14900KS intel chips before I switched to AMD though - wish I wouldn't have wasted 6 months on a completely unstable platform.
AMD is 100% rock solid - but my message here is even dual CCD AMD chips chew games up and eat them for breakfast, with 0 issues.
I fought the 6 intel chips for over 6.5 months - each one would be stable 3 weeks to 1 month, then start having issues, and I'd set all kinds of bios settings as recommended, and they'd eventually degrade to unusable no matter what settings were used.
On 2 of them, I set the intel conservative settings for power and core behavior, as per intel's recommendations on the first boot with the new CPU. Even then, both I did that with degraded and became unusable.
Note that all the compatibility settings cripple the chip, to where AMD is clearly faster all around - and even if an intel runs at full clock speed which is known to damage it, AMD is 10-15% faster in games due to the x3D vcache the 7950x3D has.
I think I went through the intel chips so fast (1 mo each roughly) as I run load tests for work, which pegs the CPU at 100% for several hours. I think the more load, and heat, the intel chips generate the faster they degrade.
I finally switched to AMD as I mentioned, and all issues have gone away. I can run the AMD at 100% for a day or longer, no issues - it maintains great performance.
And, just minutes ago, I was running first descendant glass smooth hours with no issues whatsoever - to get an intel chip to run a game of that caliber for hours without a crash? Pretty impossible.
The intel chips stuttered a lot in games, and I had to tweak video settings in games when they did work to run smoothly as I have a 5k monitor. I think likely due to the 3D vcache, I have no such issues with the AMD - it's smooth on defaults including raytracing and ultra settings (4080 video card).
So I dunno - I thought it was user error for awhile on my part, but it turns out no matter how I went about it the chips flaked, and that there are known issues per intel. They even say they're aware of bugs in the thermal management code that could cause some of this - but that even those aren't the root issue of the problem, the bug is a contributor.
Bottom line, I use my PC for work and gaming, and I can't afford to dink around with computers that are flaky all the time. So swapping the intel board and cpu out for AMD tech was the right choice for me. I didn't have time to wait on intel to come up with a real fix, and with the failure rate, I had no idea how many processors I'd have to go through to actually prevent the issue - if I even could.
I suspect the 'stable' chips are still suffering issues, just at a slower degradation rate than I saw. Not everyone pegs their CPU at 100% for a long time. So if it is thermal and throttle, then it progresses slower on machines that don't run as hard. They are still degrading though - so personally, I think EVERY 13900K, 14900K/KS/KF, 13900K/KS/KF, 14700K/KS, and 13700K/KS, at a minimum, suffer from this bug - and that reports of people who are stable are temporary, until they've run their PC enough to see the issue.
So every manufacturer has their issues - AMD came out with core voltage specs with the 7000 series processor that was shorting chips and burning boards/sockets. They had to get the mainboard manufacturers to reduce core voltage levels. They did that though, quite awhile ago, and so AMD is stable right now. Intel just hasn't gotten there yet. In theory intel chips should be able to accept any power level and work right - but clearly they don't, so until intel figures it out, I'm going with the known stable platform right now, which is AMD.
That's not to say AMD won't mess things up and be in the same boat as intel with their new series of processors - however, with time, probably both issues with intel, and any issues that come up with AMD will be resolved. Intel chips will likely require RMA - and AMD has the voltages figured out, so they will probably be stable from day one in the 9000 series. But it's a gamble when you adopt newer tech no matter what.
Anyway, probably typed more than I should have, but this really sucked for me, and if I can save someone, I mean anyone, the headache of an intel build right now, I owe it to them to let them know AMD is the way to go for now.
I’ve never liked Intel in general and never bought them except for a couple laptops that I really liked but didn’t have AMD variants. Ryzen conveniently released right at the time I decided to build my first real gaming PC so I’ve never had to think about going team blue. Not to say I won’t switch if necessary but so far AMD hasn’t done anything to displease me, while Intel seems to have some BS going on every 2 years
14900KS on 3 months of heavy use with the proper bios settings and tweaks. Zero issues. One game crash (Helldivers 2) which is a game known for its bad optimization. All other multicore tasks just fine.
in a few days the 9700x is going to be one of the fastest processors on Earth and then in 2 years you're plugging in a Zen6 x3d and you're set up for another 3-4 years CPU-wise
You can either believe Alderon Games' "nearly 100%" claim, or you can believe Level1Tech's (Wendell's) claim of "50%" in his video, or you can believe neither. Up to you.
I just bought a new i9 13900kf from an Intel official distributor in my country. Within a week games started crashing and I got blue screens. Just a week after the return window closed my computer is bricked and only blue screens when booting windows.
I am going through rma now. Hoping at minimum to try a new CPU, but this has permanently removed Intel as a potential future option for me.
This is interesting timing, I've worked with at least 3000+ computers and I've never had a CPU fault in the past.
Just recently I ordered a Dell AIO that came with a Intel® Core™ i5 14500. It worked for a few days and then completely died, it booted up fine with a replacement CPU.
I went with whatever the server provider reccomended because they had a lot of stock of 14900ks. There was a 'no one gets fired for buying intel stability feeling. There was also a 'the 13900ks are broken but don't worry it was fixed in 14900k.
I haven't had to RMA a single CPU in my life before this. Now we are talking about RMAing 100-200+
For gaming servers, we have a lot of capacity idle a lot of the time and we spread our game servers to not max out CPU usage. It's not like these servers were running 24/7 at max CPU usage like benchmarks.
Nobody, anywhere is running these CPUs a 100% for weeks.
2 flaws with that assumption.
First, people do run their productivity CPUs at 100% 24/7. For example I've been encoding my whole video library to AV1 recently. Terabytes of videos. CPU has been running 24/7 for MONTHS and that's why I briefly considered an Intel CPU, but I was lucky enough to have seen the warning signs and went for an AMD CPU instead.
There are other uses too, video rendering, compilation and iteration, server workloads and countless other use cases. Just because you don't do it doesn't mean it isn't done.
Second, he also noted that it'll just happen slower for people who don't run it 24/7 and this is not speculative, silicon degradation and electro migration are well known, there is a mathematical formula explaining the scientific phenomenon where load time is just one of many variables. ( Electromigration ~~ k1 * Load Time * Current Density * ek2 * Voltage * Thermodynamic Temperature )
We also know that sometimes even brand new CPUs will start showing signs practically immediately.
There is no hyperbole here, just investigative work into understood science. He's just lacking the tools the professionals have to investigate it, but the scientific foundations of his investigation are solid.
This isn't into question, the only thing remaining into question is the root cause and it is what they stated in the video.
Why are 13th and 14th gens degrading so much more rapidly than any other silicon that came before it? What is the root cause of that early degradation?
Same, i bought it pre launch date and it still is working fine. Tried out several games and apps that crashes other people and it still runs solid. I am using contact frame too, PL1=PL2 at 253W, 5.8 2 pcore, 5.5 all pcore, 12 of my ecores at 4.6 with clock incrementally decrease to 4.3 for 16 ecore.
Sounds like it's only a matter of time for your rig -but defo not the time to start overclocking, in fact prob the time to move to the Intel vs Mobo default settings to try and save the chip from itself
The goal for reporting this type of stuff is to ask intel to step up and remove the one year limited warrenty and setup a no questions asked RMA / refund for this.
There are benchmarks we have narrowed down where we can get a defective box that can crash in the first 10 minutes if it has a problem, however because the failures are in so many different areas it doesn't work for everyone.
I would just say keep calm. You would have noticed by now if you would have been affected unless your CPU is degenerating by time but that is something you can't test today.
Are there supposed to be new BIOS updates releasing this week or next week? I read somewhere that new microcode was hitting by mid July but my ASUS mobo only has the BIOS from the end of May
Since not all BIOS's have the latest microcode, on the linux side we grab the latest microcode update and apply it at a Operating system level, but on windows it's not easy to do that and can be done automatically.
13600k has no risk of getting a failure because i7/higher sombhat the risk.
I'm running 13600k and wouldn't I experience failure!? defective!?, no that risk is very low, temperature is more dangerous than failure on a processor if you use your brain this time.
From my experience, there is absolutely NO problem with 13600k, neither all cores nor risk of a failure, wn failure comes rather immediately than six months later.
Everyone stop with your failure about intel cpu because it's not true, NOT all processors have the same problem with failure, intel can actually release new cpus that are updated to fix a failure, You might be unlucky and get a cpu with just failure but that risk is still small. gpu has higher risk than cpu.
I build computers so I know what I'm talking about.
learn something about cpu... it can be a cpu batch that can have failure or not,
I recommend that you who have problems, try with the benchmark and keep an eye on all cores with mhz/temperatures, test with different settings. not all cpu are from the same year.
Remember... regardless of what's causing these failures... every RL CPU is defective from the factory, the DLVR (a new per-core voltage regulator that was claimed to reduce overall power use by 10-20%) is fused off in every single CPU
Despite being there in the silicon that we all paid for.
Over the last 3–4 months, we have observed that CPUs initially working well deteriorate over time, eventually failing. The failure rate we have observed from our own testing is nearly 100%, indicating it's only a matter of time before affected CPUs fail.
this statement by the devs is quite strong and telling.
and CLEARLY CLEARLY shows degradation.
needless to say, but NO ONE should buy any intel cpu, until this issue is properly adressed at least with a full extended warranty program for the effected cpus.
it is also insane, that this is going on so long without any answer from intel.
on the upside with server providers running w680 boards also being heavily effected just the same, there is certainly more pressure for intel to properly address this problem, instead of maybe just trying to shove the problem under the carpet, like asus tends to do and hope, that people will just forget about with the new launch of cpus.
Electromigration ~~ k1 * Load Time * Current Density * e^(k2 * Voltage * Thermodynamic Temperature)
So servers with highest SKUs with 24/7 uptime fail first. Then heavy users of highest SKUs and then gradually other groups. Silicon quality also matter as it represents voltage margin to instability.
datacenters are also very hot environments to begin with, and in fairness we don't know how this vendor has configured their systems. TVB=off may be a particularly bad choice in a hot datacenter environment.
I'm more just curious why if "100% of units fail" then why Intel didn't notice it in validation. Something about how their systems are configured or their test environment has to be otherwise different.
I'm more just curious why if "100% of units fail" then why Intel didn't notice it in validation.
Degradation issues are hard to catch in general, and even harder to catch in limited time between first full clocks engineering samples and product release. Those issues are not Intel-specific, my 5900x degraded too after ~2-3 years of use, Intel just oopsed significantly harder this time with degradation times measured in low months.
Stock. Chip was purchased on release, was low binned and got used quite a bit for single/low thread tasks, so it was a combination of a few unfortunate factors in the end, and not a widespread issue. It still works perfectly while being limited to 4.55 GHz from its default 4.9 GHz boost (probably would work higher, i just dont care at this point, 9000 series are soon enough).
I've had 0 issues on my Intel CPU so far. But when I built an AMD machine it was completely unstable no matter what I did. Tried multiple kits of RAM, all kinds of config changes in bios, nothing fixed it.
If AMD could actually fix their stability I might consider them.
The business claiming Intel is selling "50% defective chips" are trying to use consumer-grade hardware for server hosting and claiming its defective.
this is complete and utter nonsense.
the one difference between server chips and desktop chips is.... well on the intel side missing ecc support on the desktop chipsets, BUT the w680 boards do have ecc support with the intel chips.
so the left over difference is? that's right it doesn't exist.
the cpus should be stable. amd cpus are stable. intel cpus are broken. they are broken for the average customers and they are broken for people running gaming servers.
and just fyi, your desktop system should be as stable as a server.....
and in regards to your instability, have you considered a doa cpu or board, or memory? you know... the first thought, that comes to mind when a system has issues assumingly right from the start....
overall the data is clear, that amd cpus have no stability problem overall, intel cpus do and a massive one.
and stop believing nonsense like: "using desktop cpus in a server environment is using it wrong".
it is like apple propaganda of "you're holding it wrong" all over again, only in this case the manufacturer isn't trying to blame the user, only you are...
I remmeber just a month ago in this sub i got downvoted to hell for pointing out CPUs can degrade over time. Now everyone is up in arms about CPUs degrading.
a cpu run at stock should be stable for its entire lifetime.
it degrades a tiny bit as expected, which is why a stock chip has a added voltage above what it is stable at, so after 5+ years it still is perfectly stable, despite requiring a tiny bit more voltage at that time then.
and cpus can degrading beyond that if overclocked hard.
it can also happen, that a cpu run at stock for some freaking reason degrades rapidly and becomes unstable very rarely.
now the intel issue is cpus AT STOCK, that should be designed to run 24/7 for 10 years perfectly stable with their stock power and voltage and the tiny expected degradation is taken care of with the more than needed voltage at day one, actually shitting themselves with rapid degradation it seems.
so again important to keep in mind, that a cpu shouldn't degrade at stock to the point of being unstable. it is designed to be run for its entire life stable with the voltage curve it has.
so intel chips degrading within a few months from fully stable to completely unstable and failed is an impressive level of burning though a chip degradation wise....
a fascinating situation and certainly glad i don't have a new intel cpu lol :D
let's hope everyone is gonna be taken care of with those garbage chips.
maybe they are waiting for the next desktop generation of cpus to launch, then at the same point, throwing out a NON FIX massive further power limit through the bios on the 13th and 14th gen chips
and then they can replace the broken 13th and 14th chips with their new potetnially not breaking generation at least...
so yeah intel might know exactly what is going on, but is keeping it quiet is indeed a very good possibility.
sth, that asus quite clearly has done with the asus x570 dark hero motherboard often not starting at all, unless you hard power cycle, by switching the psu off and on again.
in case you're bored, here is the BIGGEST thread in regards to comments and views on asus support forum ever about this issue:
100% got ignored, despite it seeming quite clear, that they figured the issue out.
so just replacing a few boards, and the replacement board might have the issue again, or it will reapear in the replacement board in a few months on the replacement board.
also the thread is locked now by asus CONVENIENTLY as they changed the forum a bunch :D
so yeah intel pulling sth similar certainly makes sense.
One YouTuber was informed by people supposably in the know, is that the problem is a design flaw with the I/O hub on the CPU die. Visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtjJ5NRLSv8 for the story. If this is correct then Intel's best fix would be to fix the problem and let buyers exchange the defective CPU with a redesigned/corrected CPU. The other option is for Intel to reimburse all affected with all costs incurred. At a minimum that would be the CPU, the motherboard to support that CPU (what else would it be good for?), and the RAM specific for that build. For the most part, all other components can be used on a different build (some exceptions apply). If they want to remain silent and a class action suit is started, then that opens the door to a wide range of reimbursements. That could include lost productivity, time spent dealing with instability problems, loss of company reputation if problems blamed on their product was actually the fault of Intel's defective product. The cost of reimbursable losses could be substantial, way more than the cost of providing corrected CPUs to the consumers.
Why do I feel that it's more of a Windows problem -once I turned off c-states and disabled the Windows game bar I haven't had a game crash in months. It's like once every 2 months now where as before I was getting constant crashes.
The game bar starts in windows then it starts communication in event viewer distributed com I forget what then it times out and you get a crash. Disabled that and were good for now
im glad i didnt goto this current generation even amd cpus are failing too my 5900x hasnt died on me at all and its still going strong so im glad i didnt jump the gun with ether version
this whole topic is so strange, i have 13900k which i put a 360 AIO on b/c i wanted it to be quiet (bequiet hehe) and i dabbled with overclocking as well, it never crashed during cinebench runs
What I did understand the procesors can run fine but degrade with time during use... Also some motherboard manufacturers rolled out bios update that doesn't fix problem but delays further degradation by undervolting CPU (lowering overall performance by ~9%)
We don't have a single working 13th or 14th gen intel CPU Company wide, and this even includes developer laptops, servers we have pre-bulk purchased for a year from various providers etc. No one on the team has even been doing any overclocks with these either.
Just because I say 100% fault rate for us, doesn't mean the real fault rate for the general public might be lower, but whatever we ran into was 100%.
The workload specific to what we need for our game to work seems ideal for finding these problems.
Most people will just get random crashes and likely blame it on windows etc and not actually know their CPU is degrading.
Wife told me to go look for a gaming laptop so we can be in same room to play GW2 together (my gaming system w/4090 is in my home office..) - all the ones I've looked at were Intel 13/14th gen, I'm glad I haven't pulled the trigger yet.
Does anyone know if this affects the "Intel U7-155H 14th gen processor"?
I'm wondering if I should return my machine I just purchased and find something with an AMD cpu instead...
If the issue is really degradation, it means Intel was really pushing the hardware their fab could produce too hard here. Intel seems more concerned with remaining on top by whatever means it takes, including pumping insane wattage into its fragile circuitry.
So no, it doesn't really make sense that a w680 board would be doing anything to push the limits of those chips.
They even dropped the ram speeds to abysmally slow and still didn't solve issues.
You are perhaps correct in that just the nominal specs for the CPUs may be so pie in the sky that even run so conservatively run, that many of them didn't win the silicone lottery enough to be able to withstand even nominal usage without rapid degradation
its hitting server companies too, because many of them will skip xeon's and go with consumer chips depending on what customers want. server chips are great, but consumer chips are still king for fastest single threaded performance, so many server OEMs are letting customers pick 13900k and 14900k CPUs instead of xeons because of the cheaper price.
Servers do tend to be rougher on chips since data centers want 100% utilization at all times, but that also means that consumer chips will fail at a slower rate than server chips since consumers don't put as much load.
It wouldn't be the first time that Intel has been behind in terms of process node (22nm was long for its time and 14nm was even longer), so they should know how to squeeze the most out of a process node. This really just points towards a design defect than anything and not necessarily a manufacturing defect.
Somebody elsewhere speculated it's the ring bus that's degrading. That's would explain why non-overclocked in-server chips are still failing, and it seems consistent with the amount of memory and I/O errors in particular these chips are experiencing. It's also one of the components that intel pushed particularly hard in 13th+14th gen - 12th gen runs it at 4.1 GHz; 13th and 14th at 5.0 GHz if I've googled that correctly.
I have zero data and insufficient expertise to validate this hypothesis to be clear; but it sounded plausible when I heard it...
I think the thought is that if that were the case, if they were degrading that fast at modest power levels, then we would expect to see a lot more killed instantly or very quickly when pushed on consumer boards.
1 Pcore running 6GHz only pulls \~60W. So you can totally wreck the CPU with voltage without even reaching the power limit as long as the voltage is high enough.
is this whats happening then? the CPUs turbo algorithm is hammering the CPU with so much voltage for short durations, and its causing degradation?
I remember this happening with the 2nd and 3rd gen sandy/ivy bridge chips, but it happened after long term overclocks had been left applied and they were then no longer stable at stock speeds and voltages anymore. this is essentially intel trying to push its own product so hard that they are degrading themselves with an extended long term overclock.
but then, why is it exclusive to 13900k/ks and 14900k/ks? you would think this would also affect other K series CPUs like the 12900k and the 700 too, unless they aren't getting the massively aggressive 1.6v shoved into them.
anyways, at least its fully limited to raptor lake stuff, so if you got a 12 series chip, or a rebadged 12 series chip, you should be fine, at least for now.
Can you weigh in on what's a safe voltage in this case? I was really hoping that limiting both the PL and ICC Max would keep the voltage in a more reasonable range, it certainly keeps the CPU much cooler. E.g my current Vcore is between 1.35v and 1.4v during average game/operation loads. On very high loads it droops down to 1.18v - 1.2v.
correct, some boards especially gigabyte ones were pushing insanely high voltages during single core workloads, buildzoid documented this on his channel.
the brands of the boards that were having issues in servers according to Wendell were Asus and Supermicro. asus i could see doing some stupid shit, but supermicro usually plays it super safe and by the spec.
It’s voltage and current per core. Same degradation as overclockers have always dealt with before. We didn’t get chips clocked out of the factory like what an overclocker would have done before the latest 13th and 14th gen chips.
and if you disable the non 3d cache ccd on the 7950x3d it gets even worse for intel. Yes i know thats technically a stupid thing to do, but so is the way intel is abusing the 13900k/s and 14900k/s.
Can't you just Process Lasso a given game to the x3d and non-x3d cores depending on what performs better? Way easier and more efficient. Still dumb that you have to do that though
You can and you should, Lasso all non-gaming crap (Windows processes, browsers, Discord, Steam etc) to non-X3D CCD, Lasso the game to the X3D CCD, and let it riiiiip.
It's possible. But remember the 12th gen 12900K was built on the same Intel 7 node.
If it was as simple as the chips being pushed too hard then we should've seen at least some kind of statistical bump for the 12900K. Instead Wendell's evidence is indicating there wasn't any perceptible increase until the 13th and 14th gen parts when things simply went off the rails entirely.
It's also interesting how the errors aren't really localizing to any one part of the die. On some chips it's memory controllers, on others it's P cores, on others it's E cores, on some it's evidenced in the cache. Some have issues with decompression, some crash, some have hardware failures, others appear fine yet are silently corrupting storage drives.
Just theorycrafting but it's just as theoretically possible a modification done to the IMCs could've instituted new errata, since Intel tweaks the IMCs every generation and Raptor Lake saw the usual memory clock frequency bump over Alder Lake to indicate something was changed.
If it was as simple as the chips being pushed too hard then we should've seen at least some kind of statistical bump for the 12900K.
Intel 13th has the new internal voltage regulator (DLVR) so it could be the case that intel got too greedy with performance and allow voltage to get ooh
Ohh, I forgot entirely about that! It was really swept in under the rug, only heard about it well after launch too. Intel intentionally kept it disabled on the 12900K too, but it has it.
They've got form for this, the Pentium 4 was pushed and pushed to the limit and then they added a second core because it wasn't hot enough.
Intel got very lucky when their Israel division was found to have been working on what would become the Core line.
What you're looking for are stories on Netburst vs. Banias. Netburst was the architecture for the Pentium 4 and Banias was the initial release of Pentium-M which would lead to Core.
The first page of this review:-
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dothan-netburst,1041.html
An interview with a VP who was overseeing Banias (first two pages):-
A short history on Banias, how it grew out of the ashes of Pentium III and Tinma:-
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1083/2
The reason Intel was paying Dell was because the Pentium 4 was so bad and AMD had a clear lead over them.
AMD hit 1 GHz first and I believe it caused Intel a deep psychic wound. The goal for Intel became clock speed over everything else, to win the Gigahertz "war", and it almost killed the CPU division.
In the back ground of all this was RDRAM, which was doing Intel no favours whatsoever due to the cost and performance.
It's amusing because back then the Prescott P4s were derisively named "Preshot" because they went over 100W. At the time, the thought of a CPU requiring 100W was unthinkable.
December 2023 my previous system 12600k(asus z680md4)+ 32gb 3200 ddr4 system age 2 years) had repetitive out of video memory errors in unreal engine 5 game(satisfactory) . Thought that that was graphics card (4060) error. Tried spare gpu 6600xt and that crashed without errors. The problem was solved partially by limiting the fps. The final straw for the old system was when i had to work at home and in my work applications( cad/bim memory heavy) the objects were shifted out of coordinates during ifc export process. My work rig is 13700kf asus z790p ddr5 5600(sk hynix) rtx A2000 12gb system age 1 year ) and that had same problem with work applications and the solution was to disable XMP. For safety i am running latest bios (PRIME Z790-P BIOS 1661) intel default with pl1 125 and pl2 188w and virtualisation disabled(caused stutters/mouse problems). Upgraded personal rig is 7800x3d asus strix b650-A, 32 gb ddr5 6000(running jedec 4800 looking to upgrade to ecc udimm ram for absolute stability) 7600xt/4060 and the system is stable for all my applications.
I don't use Reddit that often but when I googled Intel defective chips the first thing that showed up under Reddit said it only affects a small subset of chips but the failure rate is 50% and climbing with age how does that equate to a small subset of chips
A youtuber claims, that it affected 50% of chips from a certain batch of 210 systems. The global scale is unknown and chips manufactured to certain date seems to be unaffected.
That with the fact that another server company is charging in $1000 up charge just for these chipsets lead me to believe it's much larger than a small subset of chips
Judging from your reply you didn't watch the actual Level1tech's video you just watched gamer Nexus. Gamer Nexxus was an overview while his actual video shows the graphs and charts the numbers are bigger than 210 that was just the server side
Well most of the video video did talk about the server failures how are you ignoring the thousands of gaming computer crash reports That they also went over
I bought a 13900k last year intending to build a new pc but a number of medical issues of cropped up which have caused me problems with assembling it. I have it still in the original box unopened, should I be concerned? I knew I would be having heat issues and was intending to underclock the thing in undervolt it as necessary. But should I just be looking to sell this thing new before opening it and get something else? I really can't afford to start completely from scratch with this and due to my disabilities I have a hard time building and disassembling PCs compared to how I was 5 years ago.
So even to send it in after seeing problems with it would be difficult. What would you do if you were in my situation because I do intend to build this PC within the next month.
I was looking for top of the line gaming and top of the line editing and everything else. And my disabilities now it's not exactly the most top of the line cuz I had to wait so long to put it together. I got a lump sum amount of money recently last year that's what let me get a really good GPU CPU the whole shebang. I went a little overboard maybe more than what I needed but I figured I wouldn't have to update it for a much longer time.
I bought it last year August or September, who's going to accept that return I know Newegg won't. And to sell it I'm going to lose money on it for sure. Plus who's buying a 13,900k right now? There was a time if you had something new in the box you could get relatively close to new in the box price with the 13900 and the 14900s I don't think so.
Spectre and Meltdown unfortunately had very little industry impact as people kept buying Intel. Our org's "lesson" was "well, the old CPUs have the problem so we have to do a whole Intel-based server refresh!"
No one cared about Spectre and Meltdown because those were academic exploits. No one had actually coded and released public malware that have affected millions of users. Meltdown was an OS-level patch, but Spectre outlines possible exploits in speculative execution.
It was a whole lot of "it could happen" but 6 years later, you'd think someone would try to use these exploits to hit servers that still use older CPUs.
I mean we have had a whole lot of hacked businesses in the past couple years.. Microsoft had a big hack, we just had a big hack of one of the biggest car dealer management software vendors, we had a big hack of Sony
Meltdown's OS-level patch came with quite a hit to performance, but 8-20% with the average on the lower side wasn't noticed in most cases, and it didn't affect the market for future Intel chips.
Intel has been mostly quiet about this, makes sense that game devs are running out of patience and moving entirely to AMD. Intel hasn't even provided any real guidance on where they are at with the investigation.
Physically swapping the servers over. That's a ton of work and cost. They have to buy a bunch of AMD mobos/CPUs and then pay people to systematically change them all. It would be a huge project and is not something to be taken lightly.
sucks big-time for Intel, hope they get it together, don't want AMD going complacent as they're kinda winning the race this generation, healthy competition is always good for us consumers
I know right, I wanted a 14500 for decent multicore and speed, since in my country it's cheaper than even the 7600, and AMD's been sitting that series on 6 core since the 1600.
Seems like it'd be a bad choice even if I plan to sit it on 65w.
I'm a bit out of the loop. But isn't this limited to those CPUs that can push 200-300W or more?
I wouldn't worry about buying a 65w chip, personally. It seems fairly likely that those high-end chips are failing because of the sheer wattage being pushed through them.
Also it seems like almost everyone having issues with the chips have super high end cooling. It's almost like when the chips are kept cool but still pulling that amount of power, something in the boost algorithm is letting it get out of control. I know the i7's aren't effected as much but my 13700K under a NH-D15 has never had any issues.
Keep in mind we dont know if they are using PL2 limits for short duration which could also be effecting it. Unless you manually set PL2, its almost always whatever the default spec intel issues is. Even if they are running 125W for long duration, PL2 is like 252w for 28 or 56 seconds. That's long enough to saturate the chip with heat in weak areas.
You can still exceed safe voltages without pushing the whole package power usage to those limits. If you have a single core boosting, you can easily be under the max TDP for the whole processor but still running unsafe voltage on that core.
Both the Wendell's and GN's + Wendel videos stress that they have contacts with companies that use these in servers, on server boards with much lower power limit, and the issues remain.
They also talk about the randomness of the issue, it's not just the P cores that have the most juice flowing through them failing, in some cases disabling the e-cores or lowering memory speed mitigates the crashing.
The damage is well beyond done. This company alone will take years to trust intel and switch back, if they ever do. If this issue is big, then all companies are in the same boat. It is mentioned that Fortnite also has issues.
I just read about this now. Was considering purchasing an i5 14500. It is considerably faster than my 10700k, and inexpensive, and much lower power usage.
my 13900k @ 5.8 all core has been solid since day one but I went deep tweaking all the voltages, VF curve, soc voltages and made sure the core voltage didn't ever go over 1.375v MAX and its been solid. UE5 games run fine and shaders all loads fine.
If I left my Asus bios to default it would think pumping nearly 1.5V into a stock cpu under load is normal.. which is a complete joke..
unchecked power profiles and insane voltages has not helped this issue..
Same here. 13900KF - 5.8 on 2 cores and 5.6 all core. Not a single issue and I compile code very often, so all core tasks and 100% utilization on daily basis. I believe one of their fabs got contaminated at some point in 2023 so they have defective chips in stores selling to customers now, which is a really big problem.
It seems that early chips manufactured in 2022 or early 2023 are fine. So Intel either contaminated one of their fabs or added new one, which is defective. Either way, it seems that it started happening to chips manufactured from certain date. My guess is second half of 2023. Intel should really investigate serial numbers of all failing chips and track it down to certain fab and manufacturing date. Then they should publish their finding and recall all of these chips. Releasing gimped BIOSes won't solve issues these chips have and it will only reduce performance for people, who have unaffected chips.
I can't even count the hours I spent trying to troubleshoot the crashes on my two machines with these after I built them and before the stories starting coming out.
Imagine having teams of developers spending day and night coding your game to fix crashes that were not even caused by mistakes made in your code. I can feel the same way with these troubleshooting nightmares. I wish you the best of luck!
Oh I can only imagine the ripple effects of this....I didn't even think of the game devs in the same boat until the stories starting making their way out. Mobo manufacturers to I'm sure, with Intel first trying to throw them under the bus saying it was the manufacturers' power profiles causing the issue.
Same, I nearly RMAd my GPU thinking that was the problem. Put the claim in but never sent it off... Worst feeling in the world after building a brand new PC
Done with Intel. Ryzen and Radeon for my gaming needs and Mac for work. For my gaming needs Radeon cards are more than enough and decently priced unlike GimpVidea...I know they rule in AI but for my limited use cases like messing around occasionally in SD a 3060 is enough. It's 2024, I don't want my computer eating more power than my circular saw, why should I want that? Why should I be forced to use a car's engine radiator to cool down a stupid CPU in 2024? Why should I have to deal with stability issues and hardware failures after paying top dollar for this shite? Screw them. Time for these companies to take the some L's as usually it's only us, the consumers taking L's.
It might be fine, but from my own experience id reccomend returning it. We don't know how long intel will take to fix this problem and if you will be effected.
There are tests you can run with ycruncher and 7zip decompression tests ,though I would like to see a page or write up by someone like Wendell to cover all the bases.
I am expecting this to turn into a class action law suit, and in 10 years, after I have upgraded twice (using AMD), intel will send me a 10$ gift card that I can't even use in my region.
Class actions end up with a lot of 'Sorry we sold you a broken CPU, here is your $5 check.'
Sorry your servers were crashing, here is a $2 credit for the ten thousand hours of downtime.
I don't understand...how long did they think they'd keep doing this before people figured out there's a problem? And the silence about the whole thing doesn't help. Was selling some 13/14 series i9s in the short term really worth the damage to a brand already damaged from years of "14nm++++" and tons of security vulnerabilities? Intel was the default choice for so long and in a few years they've managed to turn the significance of "Intel Inside" upside down.
No company wants to come out and say there is a problem, however ultimately a recall / refund / RMA program would definately bring a lot of good will and people might consider buying intel CPUs again. If you handle it poorly, people are just not coming back.
Seeing how two common errors for this are GPU and NVMe related, I wonder if the core of the issue is the PCIe system on the chips? Would explain why the power profile fix hasn't actually solved the problem, as that would've never been truly impacted by an overclock normally.
[I'm not sure how reliable this guy is, but he stated it's a problem with the IO hub](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtjJ5NRLSv8). Apparently there's a design flaw with the IO on the 13900k and 14900k (something about it not being directly connected to the CPU?). I didn't fully understand it and he didn't go into a ton of detail, but I think it could explain the NVME errors.
I do have some AMD systems that are unstable, but for us the CPUS we happened to buy from AMD might have a 0.01% failure rate compared to the 99-100% failure rate for intel for us.
Some of it comes down to luck, maybe if you purchased the 7950X3D chip that exploded due to a motherboard problem you wouldn't feel so great LOL.
There are major problems where most companies are afraid to talk about this right now to avoid damaging their relationship with Intel. As a indie game company that got massively burned by this, we just want to encorage intel to offer refunds and RMAs. We have server providers who can't even get RMAs.
These issues affect servers too, with (presumably) locked down power limits. I saw that Buildzoid asked Wendell to provide the power limit and load line specs on those server boards. He says he’s working on it last I checked.
I just bought a new i9 13900kf from an Intel official distributor in my country. Within a week games started crashing and I got blue screens. Just a week after the return window closed my computer is bricked and only blue screens when booting windows.
I am going through rma now. Hoping at minimum to try a new CPU, but this has permanently removed Intel as a potential future option for me.
I'm having the exact same issues described in this article. I have a 13th gen Intel CPU, but the thing is that it's not an i9, it's an i5-13400. Is this possible?
Use CPU-Z and then look at "Revision". If it's B0 then your CPU is a true 13th-gen Raptor Lake. If it's C0 then it's actually a 12th-gen Alder Lake CPU, which doesn't have this issue.
Well, looks like due to finally having competition, both AMD and Intel are pushing the chips very close to/above safe limits (see 7800X3D saga).
And the motherboard vendors make it even worse by removing power limits and using unreasonable voltages
I have a friend who has crashing with AMD. I told him maybe it was the RAM overclocking. In any case, we need repeatable tests with the defective units.
Nearly 100% failure? and you guys are taking this claim seriously?
This is a small studio with a couple dozen employees, so you'd expect large studios to come out with much worse issues and similar failure rate. Where are they? Intel would go bankrupt if that was the case.
Anecdotally, I've been using a 13th gen mobile CPU for over a year with 0 issues, and I often push the CPU to 100% all core utilization for an extended period.
Come on, people, this comment is valid and shouldn't be down-voted so as to disappear into oblivion. He has a healthy skeptical view on the issue and should be considered and discussed in this thread as well. It's too important to ignore this take.
This is what should be written in the headline but typical garbage journalists gonna do everything to scare people and gain more attention for their clicks and views. i5 and i7 isn't affected by those instability or random issues.
Intel's looking into instability in all 13th and 14th Gen K SKUs.
https://community.intel.com/t5/Processors/June-2024-Guidance-regarding-Intel-Core-13th-and-14th-Gen-K-KF/m-p/1607807
Wendell's videos talk about 13900 and 14900 K SKUs because that's what his contacts use and have data on.
Thanks. Perhaps my question was dumb but I genuinely hadn’t seen this mentioned before. It definitely sounds like they pushed those generations too hard. Reminiscent of certain Pentium 4 models.
It’s been a big thing this year, around February it came out that Intel chips are not stable in unreal engine games and then Nvidia came out and announced VRAM errors are erroneously reported and the cause is Intel cpu failures.
I tend to gloss over Intel related articles because all of the PCs in my house are running Ryzen 5000 series chips for now. That’s unfortunate though, I would like both products to be competitive. Hopefully this problem does not continue into the next generation.
This is actually insane. I wonder if this is the cause of a lot of people getting weird errors in Tekken 8 I've been seeing others have that I haven't been having on my AMD CPU (Polaris something, I had a few on launch but they patched it). In the GN video they say it can even show up as video driver errors when it's actually the CPU.
Can anyone give me some info on how these issues with these CPUs starts? I have been experiencing crashes that didnt used to happen during games which I kind of just attributed to my GPU undervolt becoming less stable.
Most of the time the error is some dxgi error or something when games crash.
Honestly it just feels intel is going the Nvidia way. With each generation of cpu/gpu just requiring more power to get the performance leap. Even with what new architecture they are claiming it’s made on, everything seems to be just requiring more wattage. When Apple debut the M1, that was really innovation. Bring used in iPads to MBs bring so efficient with lower power consumption. I believe ARM is way for the future if intel still keep this up.
it is surprise that crashing issue including server cpu. which mean defective problem may on nano tech side and not the too aggressive frequency and voltage. it show intel nano tech may worst than samsung a lot. the issue may very serious not about the performance is about stability and product life. that why intel switch to TSMC.
but here may another possibility, it may caused by core design no the nano tech and intel still not found the reason, so intel next gen cpu may have same issue. i think we should skip 15 gen cpu then observe the situation then consider 16 gen cpu.
It was pretty obvious from the beginning when talking about motherboard power plans. Its rated for it but its not capable of it anymore? hmmm.... maybe its degradation. ofc nobody involved with intel is gonna say that because intel is a sack of shit throwing the mobos under the bus.
Just a reminder. In July 2017 I bought an i7 7700K, that cpu is shortest top of the line Intel has ever had as very soon the i7 8700K replaced it. one year later W11 announced being not compatible to Kaby Lake. Why?? flawed CPU design. So yeah, IMHO Intel sales flawed CPU's acknowledging so.
I remember hearing many anecdotes of 13th series failing last year, especially from users who had non-gaming workloads that would keep CPUs at 100% for long durations. So much so, that people were advising to go for 12th gen instead.
In India, temps can go higher and you've to account for that when looking at the temps in reviews.
strangedell123@reddit
I am a bit out of the loop. I know of the problem itself, but is it only the i9s or does this problem also affect i7 and below??
Same-Location-2291@reddit
So far it appears to be limited to 13900(k,s,f) and 14900(k,s,f) chips.
DEVVN_HENDRYXX@reddit
Question, what about laptop processors, like hx?
Reactor-Licker@reddit
Some 13700Ks and 14700Ks as well, but much less failure rate.
shrimp_master303@reddit
Well they both definitely have an issue with motherboard makers using insane default bios settings.
YeshYyyK@reddit
I know I'm in the minority, but I would rather not have such power/voltage hungry CPUs and take the efficiency gains,
let people overclock like before if they want by buying oversized cooler
spazturtle@reddit
It does demonstrate how much air coolers have progressed. Back in the Bulldozer age you needed watercooling to cool a 200W CPU, now an air cooler can do it with ease.
YeshYyyK@reddit
did you read the link?
https://www.reddit.com/r/sffpc/comments/12ne6d7/a_comparison_of_gpu_sizevolume_and_tdp/
TophxSmash@reddit
i mean thats only a power efficiency issue. Intel is scapegoating them. All mobos are within intel spec. Except now that theres the degradation issue nothing is within intel spec because even intel doenst know what it is.
lightmatter501@reddit
Rack mount boards from providers like supermicro who care about platform stability more than performance in datacenters running EXACTLY the configuration intel says you should for longest CPU life are hitting this.
1soooo@reddit
I have an 13700k ES2 sample that i use in my daily system that i bought around dec 2022. I initially tried to emulate a 13700k's stock clock which required around 1.45v back then.
The system slowly and gradually degraded and i had to reduce clocks and voltage over the years, its so bad that it currently cant run its 4.9ghz stock clock without a voltage bump. To be fair its ES2 silicon and silicon quality is definitely worse than retail.
I currently run it at 1.35v at 5.1ghz and a 5.0ghz step down on its worst core, and that has not degraded since then. Pretty sure intel just did a oopsie like me and pumped too much voltage in.
mountaingoatgod@reddit
Yeah, the voltage pumping through the 13 and 14 gen chips can be insane
kamikazecow@reddit
An anecdote of just one here but I started getting vram errors on my 12700k recently….
resetallthethings@reddit
Reports throughout and even the most recent stuff indicates 12th Gen is unaffected and even 12900k has the lower, expected AMD failure rates
Fisionn@reddit
Out of vram errors is exactly the kind of problem the 13900K and 14900K are having.
LittlebitsDK@reddit
running 13600k here.... fairly new but this is worrying... hopefully it goes free... *knocks on wood*
getgoingfast@reddit
So is it fair to say non-K version be like i9 14900 or 13900 have no issues whatsoever?
Same-Location-2291@reddit
No. It's suspected to be all versions of those SKUs so far
getgoingfast@reddit
Interesting, so far I only see reports of unlocked "K" version. Did you find any known reported cases of crash on non-K (S,F)?
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
We have had devs with i7 laptops experience similar issues just at a lower more rare failure rate. It's entirely possible it can effect more CPUs.
Tuna-Fish2@reddit
The problem seems to only occur at the peak ST boost clocks. i7 and below boost lower, so they don't tend to hit it.
britzsim@reddit
need a guide.
how to sue intel? i have been burned bad
Real-Human-1985@reddit
That failure rate is insane for CPU’s. Now I wonder if the other partner Wendell spoke to will come out. Seems Intel is offering no support on this in addition to no answers.
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
Failure on cpu is very rare and I have 13600k that runs perfect without any issues.
So no, gpu have higher rate of Failure then cpu.
Real-Human-1985@reddit
Don’t say stupid shit.
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
Then why 13600k is not failed yet? Because there is no issues at all, anything working like it should.
No degrade, no heat issues, no failure, no blue screen, no crash, nofing. Because it works like thw way it should.
13th has low failure chance, otherwise i would have one failed... learn!
SnooObjections357@reddit
So all the 13th generation failures can be ignored because yours has not failed? Seems to me there is a problem with this reasoning. Especially after Intel has now identified a clear fault and is releasing a microcode fix for it.
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
Like i said, this issue is connected to motherboard.
theredc0met87@reddit
Spoken like a PR rep from Intel. You should work for Boeing with its 737 Max debacle.
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
You should get jail.
theredc0met87@reddit
No. You and your team at Intel should. Releasing subpar enthusiast grade CPUs that fail prematurely is the definition of a sham.
AMD is pushing out their new CPUs on 5nm lithography while Intel is still on 10nm. Why? Didnt the US government write Intel a blank check recently?
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
Thats why intel is better then amd/nvidia in gpus.
madscribbler@reddit
I got a 14900K replaced for these issues, and it took 6 weeks from opening the case to getting the replacement. In the interim, since I couldn't have a box that was down, I was forced to buy another intel processor (which I got the extended warranty on) and went through 5 of them trying to get stable while the one was undergoing RMA.
In the end I went with an AMD 7950x3D chip, and an AMD board (swapped out the intel stuff completely as I had extended warranties) and all is 100% perfect - the AMD runs games flawlessly, and has zero stability issues.
cemsengul@reddit
I started my RMA for my 14900K yesterday. I chose the cross ship option. They said they will contact me for credit card details. How long is it supposed to take for them to send me the credit card link?
madscribbler@reddit
They call you for the credit card info, and that should be within 24 hours - that is, providing they have the processor in stock. In my case they didn't so they delayed a few days then wrote saying they couldn't do it.
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
I dont have any issues with 13600k 😂 with is better then 7950x3d lol.
My 13600k has insane 5000mhz on all cores 😂 temps never go above 72c with deepcool ag620 double fan tower 300w.
13600k is so damn fast, no issues anf no failure.
madscribbler@reddit
Actually, it's not better than a 7950x3D - an 7950x3D is within 1% of a 14900K on CB23 - and you don't have any problems "yet" - keyword being "yet". I didn't have issues until I did, with each of the 6 processors, and so yeah, I was confident too at one point - at many points - and was proven wrong each time.
3rd parties are now asserting that it's not a matter of if, but rather a matter of when.
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
All cores on 13600k is on 5600mhz 1.4v with 72c
So yes, 13600k is better then 7950x3d because 13600k is like 13900k/14900k in perfomance.
madscribbler@reddit
Ok, if you say so man. 7950x3D cannot be directly measured against an intel mid-range chip (which the 13600K is, at best - middle of the line).
Clock speeds and 3D vcache aren't the only variables between them. Keep doing your research - and actually get an amd rig so you can test them against one another.
You'll need it anyway, once your intel shits the bed. Which should be anyday now.
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
13600k is high end chip because it has close same perfomance ad 13900k.
madscribbler@reddit
Right. Ok, well if that's what you need to tell yourself. Wow. What an amazing processor you have - one that is rated lower than the others. Binned lower. And will eventually fail.
Dog on amd all you want - bottom line is it's better than your processor, which has fewer cores, and has a systemic issue that will cause it to flake.
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
It seems you cant read, there IS ZERO ISSUES WITH 13600K and 13600K is ranked 17 and 7950x3d ranked 23 lol 😂😂😂
madscribbler@reddit
I mean you freely admit you've never run a 7959x3D, so you're just making things up right? You have no fiirsthand experience with both - in fact have never tried a 14900K or KS - so you don't really KNOW you're just reading all the stuff, deciding to take what you want about your chip and ignoring anything said bad about it, right?
Try actually working with them all.
Real-Human-1985@reddit
According to Wendell he found only 4 AMD crash reports out of thousands.
yflhx@reddit
Intel apparently offered to swap 13900K to 14900K to fix the issues (it didn't fix the issues).
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
Change to 13600k will fix the issue because 13600k has no issues.
DocumentOk1428@reddit
Bonjour, je viens sur le tard mais je possède un I9 13e gen et les problèmes sont rapidement apparus. La CM a été endommagée et je ne peux plus utiliser mes 4 rams DDR5 6400Mhz, c'est arrivé par paliers, aucuns soucis au début puis, seulement 2 rams et maintenant, il faut couper le xmp et fonctionner à 4800mhz. J'ai attendu les maj des constructeurs de CM mais sans succès et c'est logique. Aucuns codes ne pourrait réparer des circuits brûlés, le pire est de taper la question à Co-Pilot qui sera d'accord avec vous. Donc, je vais le faire remplacer mais ma CM aussi. Inutile de vous dire que j'ai été très déçu et que j'ai perdu beaucoup de temps dans mon travail. Je confirme aussi que la garantie a été étendue mais le mal est fait, faites-le changer si vous en possédez un ou un de 14e gen. Mon I9 12900KF sur une autre tour ne pose aucuns problèmes pour info.
quantumRichie@reddit
I stare at my CPU cores all day so i’ll throw this in: 13600k, i noticed about 2 months ago the very first core will cease activity completely. sometimes a restart will fix it but never for long. I’ll play a modern game and all cores will be active except that first core. i was hoping that update last week would help…
HonestlyJustStfuDC@reddit
What do you use to keep an eye on the cores and what they’re individually doing?
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
13600k has no issues, I have and I corfirm there is NO ISSUES WITH IT.
quantumRichie@reddit
i can’t post screenshots if you think i’m lying
LittlebitsDK@reddit
hmm interesting and worrying... running 13600k here too... same performance as the 14600k but was a fair bit cheaper so I just went 13600k... didn't need to update the bios either to get it running (did update it after though) but I guess I will keep an eye on the cores more than usual...
VampiroMedicado@reddit
I bought a cheap 13400F (from a 10400F), I'm afraid to open the task manager now 😭
De_Vermis_Mysteriis@reddit
I just built a new system last month and everyone thought I was crazy going with the 12900k instead of the 14900k.
I needed a new system NOW, and the early reports of the 14 series deaths steered me away really fast. Plus killer deals on the 12 gens.
Now I can just chill for the next few years and wait out the storm with a core system that's plenty capable for quite awhile still.
JonWood007@reddit
I went 12900k because microcenter. The 7000 series CPUs were having issues with RAM and expo, i bought a 12900k instead as it was best value for the money, and now 13th and 14th gen in a dumpster fire. I feel like I got just about the best actually stable CPU on the planet right now.
the_dude_that_faps@reddit
Considering the sample size of CPUs with errors from AMD is like 1% of the data as per the Wendel video, I can only assume that whatever issue is happening with expo is being blown out of proportion.
Just leaving this here to prevent people from panicking.
JonWood007@reddit
Yeah im just noticing that with the microcenter AM5 bundles back around late 2023 seemed to have issues. I wasnt sure what exactly caused it. It seemed like the RAM sucked but people who replaced the RAM still had the issue. Was it the mobo? Sure but it happened on multiple mobos. It was suspected by some it was the 7000 series' memory controller. There also were people who couldnt hit 6000 MT on their RAM but then theyd struggle with 5600, and eventually 5200 and eventually 4800, as if THEY were experiencing degradation.
The systems were very similar to the jayztwocents video on memory issues with AM5.
I wished them the best and bought intel, wanting something stable. Good thing it was a 12th gen....
the_dude_that_faps@reddit
As I said, on Wendell's video, which he spent 4 months on, there were like what, 4 errors on the database that were AMD? From thousands? Sure, AMD population is smaller than Intel population, but it's not insignificant to have almost zero representation on the error front.
I mean, the 12900k is a pretty good pick. I have one. But data doesn't seem to suggest there's an actual issue with AMD systems. Ddr5 6000 was never a guarantee given that max supported speeds are 5600 I think? Or 5200? Something similar to what Intel supports officially on the 12900k. Xmp/expo is overclock.
JonWood007@reddit
Well why would you buy a system with DDR 6000 memory if you dont plan to use it? And if you seriously lose performance without it, uh, then maybe AMD aint all its cracked up to be?
the_dude_that_faps@reddit
Intel only officially supports DDR5 4800 on Alder Lake CPUs and only DDR5 5600 on raptor lake CPUs. AMD only officially supports DDR5 5200 on Zen4 CPUs.
XMP and EXPO are both memory overclocking technologies. I don't think there is any guarantee on any of these that they will run fine above those memory speeds.
JonWood007@reddit
Except performance goes to crap on AMD if you dont and most benchmarks online tend to enable XMP. People dont buy those systems just to run them at stock. Or if they do, they're losing more performance on the AMD side. Intel CPUs at least dont lose a ton of performance from lower RAM speed.
https://youtu.be/qLjAs_zoL7g?feature=sharedhttps://youtu.be/qLjAs_zoL7g?feature=shared
The point is you're "well ackshullying" me and its kind of fricking annoying.
the_dude_that_faps@reddit
Unless you buy x3d ;)
https://youtu.be/XW2rubC5oCY?si=lqK6iZPQx5ofqqF7
I have no idea what "well ackshullying" is, but good luck with that.
JonWood007@reddit
You still run the risk of issues and degradation if you buy AM5. After researching the issue significantly I decided to avoif the whole socker.
And because 12th gen was cheap, I bought that instead.
So feeling pretty good right now.
Also, it means youre being obnoxiously contrarian.
the_dude_that_faps@reddit
Source for that?
Also, nice goalpost move.
Nah, just countering FUD
JonWood007@reddit
Read some reviews of AM5 users sometimes. Dig into the negative ones. A lot of them talk about not being able to run expo stably and the issue getting worse over time.
Heck remember when jayztwocents switched back to intel? Same issues basically.
I think the whole 7000 series has a memory controller issue honestly.
Also, yeah, you're insufferably annoying. Blocked. Not arguing with an admitted member of the "AMD defense force."
JonWood007@reddit
Yeah I went 12900k due to microcenter deals. Totally glad I was too poor to afford 13th/14th gen about now....
aminorityofone@reddit
or just go to the company that doesnt have these issues
VampiroMedicado@reddit
I had both 12th gen and 13th gen at the same price point (I needed better single core performance), I said: "Let's get e-cores they are the new kid on the block".
From what I've reading here it mostly affects the higher end, I'm crossing my fingers.
input_r@reddit
13400 is actually Alder Lake so you're in the clear
s00mika@reddit
Not all of them are.
VampiroMedicado@reddit
It's a nice day to get scammed by marketing then
Stennan@reddit
It is a sad state of PC hardware naming schemes where an AMD 7250U is a Zen 2 APU release under the Zen 4 7000 series naming scheme. Because calling the 7250U a 4650U would be "confusing", so instead, AMD will mislead them into thinking that a 2020 CPU is a new one in 2023.
Bluedot55@reddit
Yeah, that one is a really weird one. Idk what they should do with the naming convention, but it's definitely not something that would fit in the 4000 series either. Ddr5 and rdna igpu would make it weird there too
Ants_r_us@reddit
Yeah my parents wanted me to get them a laptop and my head was spinning trying to figure out which cpu is newer/faster... they're clearly doing this to confuse customers into buying old slow chips
AryanAngel@reddit
Do you run RPCS3 by any chance?
quantumRichie@reddit
nope
catinterpreter@reddit
My 13600K just runs shit hot. Had to feed it as little power as possible and hope it doesn't crop up in occasional instability. I feel like I got a dus model after being very satisfied with a 6700K and 2600K in the past
Chance-Corner3670@reddit
Same here! Hot as the ☀️. I had a mobo or windows issue last month and I'm starting to think the CPU might have played a part.
Honestly I want it to fail, warranty a new one in box, sell and grab a 7800x3d, guess it's time to go fully red team.
Chance-Corner3670@reddit
My 136k runs soo hot, and last month my mobo just up and went crazy, the dreaded going verify issue. Windows reinstall couldn't fix it, no amount of troubleshooting could fix it, had to grab a new mobo and all is well now except for the heat.
I think our chips are fucky too.
demonstar55@reddit
Wendell does mention cores sometimes going on vacation in one of the videos (but those videos and this post are more about i9s, but I guess it's just significantly more prelevant on them?)
quantumRichie@reddit
Hmmm i gotta check that out, Even the efficiency cores seem to lose activity, flatlining.
demonstar55@reddit
Yeah, they mention that happening too. I'm thinking they fucked up the system agent or the voltage is killing that part. System Agent has the IMC and PCIe stuff (they mentioned downcloking memory and NVMe issues, which is PCIe) as well as controlling the communication between the cores.
Oottzz@reddit
Maybe apply some new thermal paste gonna solve that issue? Worth to give that a try imo.
asineth0@reddit
that is one of the issues Wendell from LevelOneTechs discovered, that cores may just stop working and disable themselves in Linux, not entirely sure if that applies to windows but it sounds super similar. might want to RMA your CPU.
Sylanthra@reddit
Intel clearly has no idea what the issue is and how to fix it. They can't very well discontinue their entire product line because some cpus are failing faster than expected. It is cheaper to replace those that break (assuming they actually do) and just ride things out until whatever the god awful name of their next gen line goes on sale and hope the issue didn't get ported to the new architecture.
SiscoSquared@reddit
The problem is selling shitty hardware with an equally shitty warranty. At least in some regions slightly longer warranty on electronics is mandatory (e.g. EU is 2 years, which is still pretty low for an expensive electronic item IMO). Many people will buy a computer/CPU expecting it to last many years. Even doing a lot of gaming and other stuff I only buy new CPU/setup every ~3 years now, and I always keep the last 1-2 builds for other uses... I'll prob be getting an AMD cpu for my next as in my mind it has a lower change of failure in the longer term when out of warranty... a first in quite a while.
f3n2x@reddit
My guess is they've simply binned the CPUs too aggressively to the point where months of natural silicon degradation (instead of decades) is enough to make them unstable, that they know exactly what the issue is by now and that they're trying to mitigate the problem through a combination of delaying the instability a couple of years through tuning and replacing already degraded CPUs with later production batches. The proper solution would probably be to recall and replace ALL 13900K/14900K CPUs, which they're trying to avoid.
cemsengul@reddit
Yeah the proper solution would be to take back all 13900k and 14900k processors and upgrade everyone to 15th gen but they can't afford it.
constantlymat@reddit
I think they know what the problem is and assessed it's not fixable so they hope to sit out the controversy until their new architecture launches and 13th and 14th gen processors become old news.
aminorityofone@reddit
You can sit out a controversy if only consumers are involved. People have a memory like a sieve. You cant sit out a data centers trust. Which is where it has landed. When data centers start charging extremely large amounts of money for support (nearly 10 fold vs competition and older intel chips) and start recommending a competitor the damage is enormous. It can take years to regain trust and then even longer for a company to switch.
pmjm@reddit
Honestly data centers have been recommending EPYC over Xeon for a couple of generations now. There are a few niche applications where Xeon still makes sense over Epyc but with this issue it now seems like AMD has Intel beaten in nearly every cpu product segment.
AsheAsheBaby@reddit
Doesn't Xeon still have a pretty good market share though?
puffz0r@reddit
AMD is now around 25%, up from basically 0% 6 years ago. That's a tremendous swing when the hardware cycle for servers takes a long time to shift momentum.
pmjm@reddit
Oh absolutely they do. But in Q1 2024, AMD's market share for server CPUs rose to 23.6%, that's up from 18% a year earlier. That's a MASSIVE swing in just a year. Intel's in trouble.
HellsPerfectSpawn@reddit
XEON had a nearly 80% market share with questionable power to performance efficiency vis a vis the competition.
That won't be the case with the Granite Rapids and beyond chips.
Intel just like Nvidia's secret silver bullet is their software ecosystem they develop around their products. Without that all hardware is just sand.
Kryohi@reddit
What? Seriously, what? AMD and Intel mostly sell x86 CPUs. Any piece of software that runs on a Xeon will run on an Epyc as well. And they have some really good libraries and involvement in many open source projects, but anything they produce can also be run on AMD hardware.
HellsPerfectSpawn@reddit
That's hyperbole. Just because something can technically run doesn't mean it's any good or economically viable to run it.
You can technically play your games on your cpu. Why install a gpu at all in your system? Because it would give you a horrifically bad experience.
Amd is barely a blip in developing libraries and ecosystems while intel is an old hand at it. See how much intel contributes to Linux. Intel has no incentive to optimize it's software efforts for amd
Albos_Mum@reddit
Intel's optimisation-related tactics against AMD are documented by folk such as Agner and are a lot less serious than they once were.
HellsPerfectSpawn@reddit
They don't need to do that anymore as going forward they will have custom hardware accelerators in silicon.
Kryohi@reddit
And yet when running Intel developed libraries on AMD hardware on Linux they perform just as well, or better, than on Intel hardware. See Embree, or SVT-AV1, or openVINO. Phoronix has plenty of benchmarks on those. Which libraries are you talking about exactly?
Separate accelerators are an entirely different thing though.
HellsPerfectSpawn@reddit
Ehh no that's exaggerating and falsifying a lot. Even with core deficits Intel's own libraries perform better on their own silicon. Check how embree and openvino perform with amx then without.
That is just the tip of the iceberg though.
kedstar99@reddit
This is rather disingenuous. You are either an INTC employee or a bagholder, either way you should really disclose before spouting such utter bs.
Which software lib with this miracle optimisations are you talking about?
You are talking about offloading accelerators without even talking about Xilinx? AMD is way ahead on the ML game (MI300x), networking (Pensando/solarflare), FPGA game (Xilinx) and GPUs compared with Intel.
Where is this miraculous software bs you are talking about. Give specifics.
rezaramadea@reddit
So, Turin will lose to Granite Rapids?
HellsPerfectSpawn@reddit
Maybe maybe not. Hard to say with unreleased products.
It just needs to be in the ball park, then Intel's ability to flood the market and it's software ecosystem will do the rest.
letsgoiowa@reddit
Dropping, but yes it's the tremendous majority. Intel has the capacity that AMD does not.
HellsPerfectSpawn@reddit
XEON has nothing to do with the consumer side though
jmlinden7@reddit
Apparently certain overclockable XEONS are also affected but those are a fairly niche product
s00mika@reddit
Does this affect the actual Xeons tho?
aminorityofone@reddit
read the article
s00mika@reddit
It doesn't mention whether Sapphire Rapids is affected or not. The game servers they are talking about are modified desktop systems, which are basically irrelevant for data centers.
aminorityofone@reddit
and now you have your answer. same if you watch the level1techs video and the gn video
s00mika@reddit
My question wasn't answered.
aminorityofone@reddit
It was, there is no news outlet reporting xeon cpus having the issue. SO that is the answer.
s00mika@reddit
So your point about "data centers losing trust" is irrelevant
aminorityofone@reddit
they use 13900k and 14900k as well with server grade motherboards, or you can continue to not read the article and watch the 2 videos on it.
s00mika@reddit
You need to watch the video, he states that they are using workstation boards.
MDSExpro@reddit
This won't affect data center trust in a slightest. Using PC-level CPUs in data centers is pretty much limited to dedicated game servers providers, which is so small part of data center landscape that can be (and usually is...) ignored. Rest of the world sits on unaffected Xeons, EPYCs and sometimes Amperes.
VenditatioDelendaEst@reddit
You don't think it will join with other evidence and cause people to be suspicious that Intel has a systemic QC problem?
MDSExpro@reddit
I know that Intel had issues with QC, they fired entire QA team during Sapphire Rapids development which resulted in massive delays and Sapphire Rapids having 500+ bugs that required way more iterations than previous CPUs.
Since then they rebuild QA department and QA processes, so hopefully it will history.
Raiden_Of_The_Sky@reddit
Even though I think Intel screwed up pretty hard here, let's not ignore the fact that it hasn't landed in data centers because 13900K and 14900K are not server-grade CPUs, and I'm pretty sure the problem is non existent on Xeon CPUs (which have a lot more relaxed freq/voltage curves - reliability is everything).
mcbba@reddit
Go watch the linked videos from Wendell and the one with GN and Wendell. Servers use 13900k and 14900k in some circumstances, and this likely will erode trust in enterprise situations.
s00mika@reddit
Those game servers are practically irrelevant.
BroodLol@reddit
This would make sense if this only affected individual consumers, but servers/data centers with these chips are having the same issues.
JunkKnight@reddit
Even then I'm not sure "waiting for it to blow over" is going to help as much as they think. Since this is a degradation problem, it's not like day 1 or even week 1 reviews of 15th gen will be able to definitively say if Intel's fixed it. While the average consumer probably doesn't care, I imagine a lot of people and businesses who follow this kind of news or were burned by this bug will think twice about going for Intel again right after, especially if AMD has a strong offering in zen 5.
I'm not saying Intel's going under because of this or anything, but it'll probably be hurting their bottom line and market share for a few generations at least.
ThermL@reddit
My concern here is that these failure rates are actually incredible for a set of chips that are only a few months old. This is a very small amount of time.
Intel, and OEMs, have assuredly ran engineering sample chips for enough time to have ran into these issues themselves. And even if by some modern miracle, they in fact missed this for the entirety of the 13000 series testing, and the 14000 series testing, they already knew about this issue from the 13900ks that were in the wild. I refuse to believe that Intel hasn't been fully aware of this situation for at least a year now.
So what's the difference between all of the testing that Intel did prior to even creating the ES chips, then the actual ES chip testing, and the production run of chips that fails so frequently as these?
Well if you're a cynical person... you'd say that they ran into these issues and hit the send button anyways. But i'll wait to see how this unfolds first.
dkhavilo@reddit
Usually engineering samples(ES) have lower clocks until the very end of qualification cycle, so full speed ES are only tested for a short amount of time. That's why they probably missed it. So I assume that single core boost is a culprit, voltage should be really high to boost up to those crazy 6Ghz numbers so the silicon simply degrades. That's probably another reason why wasn't caught by OEMs - they don't play much, they test various loads and transients, but not a prolong single/two core high load.
And that's why most of the time setting max clock to 5.3 will help since core is still working but can't' consistently reach those higher clocks. And since it's already degrading, it will degrade even more quite fast since that part of the silicon would have bigger leakage current and thus will require more juice to run at that 5.3 the it would previously be necessary.
TL:DR I think intel has created a time bombs with those 13900-14900K* SKUs
P.S. That also explains why 12900s and 1(3-4)700s don't have this issues.
capn_hector@reddit
there are separate lifecycle validation things that happen where the limits are quantified with accelerated aging, they aren't estimating lifespan based on 6 months with engineering samples. That's just not data that's usually made public (by anyone).
VenditatioDelendaEst@reddit
Rumor says that there was a Comet Lake production release qualification report in a big Intel leak a few years ago. Supposedly, it contained hard data about Intel's expectations reliability and assumed temperature and duty cycle in end-user systems.
I used to tell people that hitting 100°C in parallel batch jobs was fine -- Intel's thermal design guide says throttling in heavy workloads is normal and expected, engineers who know what they're doing set the thermal throttling point to 100°C for a reason, and Intel engineers have repeated all of this in public interviews.
After hearing those rumors, I no longer tell people this.
Mindestiny@reddit
Could also just be a plain old manufacturing issue. The samples get the OK, they tell the fab to ramp up production, and some piece of hardware on the line fails in a way that causes defective output between the samples and actual production runs
dkhavilo@reddit
Then it will not be a long term issue and would not affect both generations since manufacturing issue would be noticed and fixed in a new batches with a new stepping. And don't forget that 2 have 2 generation of basically the same chip affected but not a less strained 1x700 brothers.
And yeah, it's always a manufacturing issue + correct binning. Not all chips are the same, some are better, some are worse and there're a lot of tears how much better or worse a chip can be. It can be perfect but have slightly bigger current leak which will result in slightly bigger power draw, slightly bigger temps and thus faster degradation.
Issue can also be a bad thermal probe location so actual hot spot have much bigger temps then boosting algorithm thinks it is and thus it pushes itself over the limit and leads to faster degradation
nero10578@reddit
They know exactly what the problem is. Their stability testing is not good enough for right on the edge clockspeeds. This is exactly what overclockers have already always experienced when overclocking chips right to the stability edge. You often randomly find your testing is inadequate and the chip is unstable.
The difference is you can just reduce the clockspeeds slightly and all is well. Intel can’t exactly reduce the spec clockspeed of the 13900K and 14900K that would cause all sorts of outrage and bad pr.
Zednot123@reddit
Nah, there is a difference between inherent hard to track down instability and degradation.
It seems to me from how this behaves. Like there is actual degradation with time and usage going on. Not that the CPUs are just tuned with to little margin in the V/F tables from stock. Which would be entirely fixed by microcode tuning.
Since this also happens with power limited system like Wendell was talking about. It seem Raptor Lake has a voltage threshold that is not safe, even in "low power" scenarios.
Generally Intel's stance and their own tuning for the last 10 years is that it is total chip power that is dangerous, not voltage. So a voltage that is "safe" with the chip pulling 100W is not safe when the chip pulls 200W and so on.
So in other words the boosting algo is designed around allowing MUCH higher voltages when just a few cores are loaded. Voltages that are not considered safe during all chip load.
But it may turn out that these voltages used during boost are not safe period for RPL, and starts degrading the chip even if total chip power is fairly low and just a few cores are loaded.
nero10578@reddit
Voltage is safe for 100W but not 200W has never ever been a thing. What happens on the intel stuff is it is degrading just like any chip overclocked to the edge. Just their stability testing is too short or simple to find this at the factory.
If your chip is crashing at a vfd curve at 200W but not at 100W it’s more likely its unstable at that voltage when actually allowed to run that voltage at the higher power setting.
Zednot123@reddit
It is exactly how modern boost algorithm works. The safety is dictated by power limits, not voltages. A single RPL P core can use voltages for single core boost, that can never be hit in all core workload. Because it would push the chip power draw above the current limit for the whole chip dictated by Intel.
nero10578@reddit
I think you’re misunderstanding something. A chip can only be unstable because it doesn’t have enough voltage not because it’s drawing too high power.
When you set a higher power limit and it becomes unstable, that is because the higher power limit actually allows the chip to run at a higher point in the vfd curve instead of throttling to the lower voltage/clockspeed because of the power limit.
jaaval@reddit
Voltage drop depends on current. So in effect the voltage the chip gets is smaller with higher power consumption.
jmlinden7@reddit
Chips can also become unstable if the voltage is too high, although that is a less common failure mode
nero10578@reddit
That’s only possible if the high voltage causes high temperatures which cause instability.
jmlinden7@reddit
High voltage itself can cause instability directly, by not fully turning off transistors
nero10578@reddit
Hasn’t happened once in all my years of overclocking.
Zednot123@reddit
I think you are missing what I'm talking about. I am talking about how modern boost algorithms are designed and tuned.
We are talking about Intel design philosophy here and how they determine what is safe. We are talking about how they derive these tables, and how they are determined safe.
I'm talking about the fact that Intel has fucked up their modeling and testing. And that they are using voltage levels at the top range of the voltage tables. That are not safe in any load scenario. Because every chip has a voltage level, where permanent damage starts to occur if it's powered on.
If degradation is occuring, this is what Intel has gotten wrong and not tuning. They have not tuned it wrong, they have determined the safe voltages wrong.
nero10578@reddit
Yes they have now run the chips in the usual safety margins that overclockers ride on the edge of. That is why the chips are outright unstable or degrades quickly. Intel’s stability testing and binning would never be as precise as overclockers tuning their chips individually.
jucestain@reddit
The problem is it will pass prime95 for a day but after a while will eventually become unstable. You can't test for effects like elevated temps over an extended time. Presumably all you can do is very high temps over a shorter time period to try to emulate but it's not the same.
nero10578@reddit
Yes this is what overclockers experience when overclocking to the limits. The chips usually degrade a little bit initially. But we can usually just lower the clocks slightly and it’ll run for years that way.
Intel can’t exactly lower the clocks of their 13900K and 14900K after the fact and not be sued for false advertising lol.
haloimplant@reddit
Lowering performance is probably a way to fix it, but it's a marketing nightmare
jucestain@reddit
Anything that runs this hot is just gonna fail over time. Anytime I have tried to overclock a cpu, even after running fine on prime95 for a day, eventually started getting unstable (like after a year) which resulted in me having to revert and hence why I don't overclock anymore.
My 14900k build, even underclocked, is unstable and crashes. Intel just sucks.
boomstickah@reddit
Perhaps there is no good fix hence their silence
JonWood007@reddit
They could cancel it and release a 12950k with 16 p cores to make up for it.
Raiden_Of_The_Sky@reddit
I don't think they'll release a CPU with 16p cores until they go away from ring bus. They went for E-cores for a reason.
JonWood007@reddit
Yeah what I'm saying is if they're having so many issues with 13th and 14th gen they could just cancel them, go back to alder lake, and release a new 16 p core version of the 12900k to match the 13900k/14900k. Might be lower clock speeds, but at least it'll be stable.
poorlycooked@reddit
The main reason Intel went to P+E is that they can't add more P-cores. The ring bus latency increases with the number of nodes, and a monolithic design with 16 P-cores would be incredibly slow.
JonWood007@reddit
If you read this far, you should've read the rest of the thread to know I meant a 16 E CORE model to MATCH THE 13900k/14900k. The idea of it being a more stable alder lake CPU with lower clock speeds that doesn't have whatever went wrong with raptor lake in particular.
poorlycooked@reddit
Looks like you didn't understand what I meant.
P-cores are like large bus stops in the street in Intel's ring-based architecture. You can only have so many of them before they cause a traffic jam. So Intel resorted to adding E-core clusters which are like small subway entrances that hardly hinder the whole traffic situation.
Even if you took the best Raptor Lake+ silicon and made a CPU with 16 14900KS P-core equivalents running at 6.2GHz with perfect stability, the performance would be subpar due to ring latency.
JonWood007@reddit
If you still don't understand what I meant I'm not arguing with you. It should be clear by now I meant E CORES, NOT P CORES.
poorlycooked@reddit
Yeah I read your second post again and made an edit. As I said the 12th-gen e-cores actively hindered the overall performance in many cases, and adding e-cores would make that worse.
Besides the main performance indicator is actually the clock speed and IPC of the p-cores, not the e-cores.
JonWood007@reddit
Ok so that's a fair point then if alder lake had a design flaw that made that impossible.
Raiden_Of_The_Sky@reddit
They couldn't because you can't do 16p cores on neither Alder Lake nor Raptor Lake (and likely on all future consumer-grade Intel CPUs).
JonWood007@reddit
Oh I meant e core. Ya know, same core count as 13900k/14900k. Thought that was clear.
Dull_Wasabi_5610@reddit
You mean the intel nevada huston niagara cofee teabag cpus? Or better said i7 x17450ukxh comes out?
Life_Cap_2338@reddit
They know the reason. why no action from them probably due to the financal impact to the company are to high. They have shareholder to answer for.
Cheeze_It@reddit
They know exactly what it is. They just want to fix it before they say anything because they know if they say something before fixing it then their stock price will nosedive. We can't have that, because capitalism.
moscu1@reddit
Is it really because of Intel or all those mainboard manufacturers that shipped the boards with increased power limits?
For example on Asus B760i, my core i5 13500 cpu was using 140w also requiring a more expensive CPU to cool. Now with the intel recommended settings it's up to 65W (which also corresponds to the TDP).
In Cinebench r23, the score decreased from 20300 to 14500..
For me this is also a scam of the MB manufacturers to get better performance while keeping the CPU overclocked all the time....
Dream_Delusion@reddit
Is this limited to the top end cpus like i9 or is the i7 also affected ? Like the 13700HX
kurdiii@reddit
Does it affect 13th gen i9 laptop chips as well?
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
Yes we have several laptops that have failed with the same crashes. It's just slightly more rare then the desktop CPU faults.
ROXs42Ba@reddit
So everybody that has a 13900hx are cooked?
Ok_Ground5895@reddit
You will probably miss this in the mass of replies but I had a i9 14900hx lenovo legion 5i and the thing was interesting in terms of issues usb ports didn't work provided power but no connection next the cpu was using around 150w or so with about 30k on r23 multi now I had a few random launch issues as in I couldn't launch a game period the lenovo app after 10 minutes of being on, and the single core test was about 1600 quite odd in r23 anyway i updated the bios and low and behold it's maxing the cpu out at around 70w or so netting 15-16k on r23 down from 30k both tests plugged in funnily enough unplugged the score was slightly better and single core seemed to fail completely in the test so I belive intel know that their is a major issue with these CPUs especially hx ones and the solutionis limit wattage with bios revisions, I now have a replacement 14900hx legion 5i which performs fine overall no real issues great temp full load 90 degrees Celsius thought the experience I had with my first 5i is concerning and as to if that happens with my replcement one is the question stability as is seems great but I believe the issues are deeply rooted and simply limiting these great CPUs is the solution which makes the amd the go to.
Deep_Insurance6095@reddit
Ohhh man yesterday I ordered legion 5i with i9-14900HX and 4070. What should I do now?
Legomaster1197@reddit
I have the same questions. I got a Legion i9, and it gave me nothing but trouble. It slowed down a lot, it just wouldn’t work sometimes. Sent it back, and got a new one. I got a few more days on my warranty, and I’m worried that I might need to send it back anyway.
Does anybody know if I should send it back and get a refund?
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
no, intel does not sell defective cpus, that risk is rare with just the processor is very small but it can happen.
13600k works great and no defect has been detected, no bugs but it rolls.
the conclusion: No, intel doesn't sell defective ones, then I got one. lying is a bad thing about something you know nothing about. think about it!
AnyAsparagus988@reddit
pack it up boys, one of the cpus is not defective (yet) so none of the others can be either! iron-clad logic.
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
Because some are not defective. Not all cpu is effected.
AnyAsparagus988@reddit
OK, you're contradicting yourself now, because you said:
So are some defective or does intel not sell defective cpus?
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
Because they are not defective, voltage is not part of defective, defective cpu cant be fixed, while voltage can be fixed.
I already know intel has voltage issue but I never told noone.
AnyAsparagus988@reddit
blue screening and not working is not defective? lmao
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
Blue screen can be many reasons and not only cpu. Psu,cpu,ram,mobo can create blue screen.
JamieH21@reddit
Just because it works great now doesn't mean it always will, it might degrade slower than the higher end cpu's.
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
I dont have any issues with 13600k all cores are working.
And my 13600k dont degrade then I would have seen it. If you have issue, change settings for cpu.
PushrodBob@reddit
13600K would take longer to produce the same issue anyway as it runs a FAR lower voltage than the i9's do.
The main issue is i9 and i7 chips because they operate at much higher voltages, for both peak and average.
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
My 13600k is 1.5v with 5600mhz on all cores with tem 72c.
I told many times 13600k has no failure or issues, chance of failure is very low, I had half year, there is no sign of failure or defective.
13600k is close same 13900k is perfomance.
Läs för fan! Hur svårt är det?
Havocking1992@reddit
Až ti to začne padat tak si dej facky z obou stran a přijď se sem omluvit.
Lt_Muffintoes@reddit
Guys I think we found UBM's reddit account
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Hey Lt_Muffintoes, your comment has been removed because it is not a trustworthy benchmark website. Consider using another website instead.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
bennyg111@reddit
"Defective" is a function of statistics, the T in MTBF means time, which is a nexus to the causal issue of degradation that is alleged here. The fact that these CPUs are having issues at this stage of their 'product life', already makes 13th/14th gen an outlier in their history. Time will only increase the area under the curve... the fact we're observing it now means it's only going to get worse.
Intel's latest mitigation for RL/RLR is to reduce speeds and voltage. This is known since day 1 of experimenting with melted sand to reduce the rate of degradation in silicon microprocessors. A+B = enough of a conclusion for me to make a best guess and feel good about having turned down max turbo on my 13900HX from day 1, because 4.3ghz was enough to max out the cooling for the 90C thermal throttle point and 100W turbo long power on this laptop, and save 10-15W in most games while not affecting fps at all (due to the weaksauce 4060 being enough for 60fps that being enough for me & what I play).
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
Still no issues with 13600k, because there is none, not all cpu is effected then I would i have one.
I can corfirm there is no issues with 13600k, because I have one
oleyska@reddit
You really do not understand statistics do you ?
if 25% is already failing is indicative of selling defective cpu's.
just no other way to say it.
eyebeeam@reddit
quite sure it does, my i9 13980HX never was stable.
MoonStache@reddit (OP)
Likely the developer Wendell from Level1 referenced in the video here.
nithrean@reddit
This story seems huge to me. Failure rates at 50%???
I just paid for a longer warranty for my laptop since it isn't very old.
pmjm@reddit
Your laptop is likely unaffected, the issue seems to be relegated to the flagship desktop skus.
AbstractQbit@reddit
Well, here's a repair shop owner claiming that i7s and laptop skus, at least those that are just the cpu and not the whole soc, have the same issues/symptoms: https://youtu.be/Z2p3MpPgKAU?t=309 (yt translated captions are kinda bad but you can get the gist of it)
robotboredom@reddit
Does that mean it affects the 13th gen i9-13900HX laptop CPU? (alienware m16 r1)
AbstractQbit@reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1e251xi/comment/ld42pyq
robotboredom@reddit
thx
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
13600k has no issues and not effected by this
Esoteric1776@reddit
I think it could affect the HX mobile cpus eg., 13980hx and 14900hx being based off RL and RL-R? They see less TDP than their Desktop counterparts so the issue would likely take much longer to appear based on some theories of the root cause.
classifiedspam@reddit
Sorry, what is a SKU?
pmjm@reddit
Acronym for "stock keeping unit", in this context it basically refers to an individual product line.
classifiedspam@reddit
Thank you!
htx1114@reddit
Usually pronounced "skew"
no_salty_no_jealousy@reddit
Desktop chip like i5, i7 13th or 14th gen isn't affected either, it just people over exaggerating the story which is BS, especially youtube content creator who makes money from youtube.
no_salty_no_jealousy@reddit
Desktop chip like i5, i7 13th or 14th gen isn't affected either, it just people over exaggerating the story which is BS, especially youtube content creator who makes money from youtube.
shroudedwolf51@reddit
Gameplay pro-tip: Don't waste your money on extended warranty. It doesn't do anything to benefit you and never has.
nithrean@reddit
Disagree. I don't always buy them but several times it has saved me a thousand dollars when a motherboard needs to be replaced or the case gets a dent in it.
Belgarath_Hope@reddit
You are an outlier. Consumer Reports has touched on this topic multiple times and they also state it isn't worth it. They leverage data from thousands of owners. Most don't have any issues and the companies are the ones that profit.
RekoULt@reddit
Buddy,here is a example ,you are spending 850$(Rs 71,192) on laptop then buying something like i don't how how much a warranty cost but maybe 15k under? , is kinda of fine as you will get back that next month even the amount of laptop.ylu can use emi to make it easier .
About warranty it saves you from alot spending headache,like for eg i had faulty GPU and I thanked God for having warranty lmao other i couldn't handle expense(bought for 21k)
madscribbler@reddit
It's higher than that - I went 6 i9's 14900K/14900KS, to have 6 fail. Estimates by professional benchmarkers say 2 in 10 i9's don't suffer the issue - but it happens over time, so it's likely those chips will fail too, it's just a matter of when.
I swapped out my system with an AMD 7950x3D chip which runs games smooth as butter, and has 0 stability problems. Best decision I ever made.
AnyAmoeba7526@reddit
Happened to me, close to $3000 USD worth of 14th Gen chips have failed in builds I did. I will be switching to AMD for the next gen releases but may use Intel in the future if the newer gen chips are fine. Intel always severed me well in the past but became costly for me this 13th and 14th Gen as I only deal with direct die which voids all warranty.
Low_Key_Trollin@reddit
Glad I cheaped out and went w a 12700k in my recent build
Kodrokos@reddit
You dodged a bullet dude. I bought 14 900 K and I’ve had this and many other games I’ve tried playing crashing nonstop
Low_Key_Trollin@reddit
Damn what a bummer, especially after dropping over $500 on a chip. I’m guessing your next chip will be amd x3d?
JonWood007@reddit
Same, 12900k microcenter bundle buyer here.
AHrubik@reddit
12 series may be affected too. 12,13,14 are all related designs.
JesusIsMyLord666@reddit
I dont think this comes down to the core design per say. I think its more that they have overtuned these chips to a point where there is no margin anymore. The high power draw will also cause them to degrade past the very small margin they have.
Its like the CPUs are deliviered with an overclock from factory that is on the absolute edge of stability. The first few runs with prime runs stable so you think its good to go. But then you run in to these niche scenarios where it will crash anyway because you left almost zero margin for error. And with time your cpu will also degrade. So after a few months, your previously stable system will start crashing on you.
GladiatorUA@reddit
There is no indication of that
randylush@reddit
And 12 has been out for longer. 12 owners probably in the clear
AHrubik@reddit
If you watched the GN/Wendel video they are tracking a small sample of it so it might be.
QuinQuix@reddit
I have a 13900k and my system has been less stable recently but I also bloated the fuck out of my own OS installing way more background software than I need.
I don't load my system heavily most of the time but so far it's been reasonably stable gaming.
However I'm legitimately concerned now and might try to swap if reinstalling doesn't solve my issues. I also have a metric shit ton of IO In my system and a lot of ram (two dimm system). This might exacerbate any issues and stability and time are very important to me.
I wonder if Intels issue is as bad on ddr4 as it is on ddr5.
My take after watching L1 tech is that the IMC may be the culprit.
Wendel mentioned that sometimes the cpu falls to half speed before crashing and that he has no idea why.
My guess is something goes wrong with the imc and your effective Memory Transfers halve.
This would explain why the cpu is still consuming full power and running at full clock speed but performance is halved - you'd be bandwidth starved by 50% before the crash.
madscribbler@reddit
I'm pretty sure it's not RAM related - although, not 100% certain.
My experience with it was the chips started out fine, then slowly, over time they became less and less stable until they were useless.
As they degraded I'd tweak the bios reducing the clock or turbo behavior, and that would help for awhile, then eventually even that wouldn't work anymore.
On a couple of the chips I set intel's defaults for power (PL1 and PL2) as well as other things like disabling core features, and the chips eventually degraded even with the settings day one.
I'm pretty sure that the problem has to do with the chips power handling - in theory, the MB manufacturer should be able to send the intel chip any amount of power, and the chip "should" throttle according to temp and load - well, there is a known bug in that code, which intel says isn't the root cause but a contributing factor.
Since the chips work right initially, and fail over time, there is something in them that's being degraded by normal operation to the point they consistently fail.
I think a memory controller failing is indicative of a larger systemic issue in the chips.
That said, you might also be right - as there was a wide variation of possible memory clock speeds and chips I tried. I have 192gb of 5600mhz RAM, and on one I was able to run stable (for awhile) with 5600mhz, and on all the other 5, I had to downclock memory to be compatible. So something with the chips determines their memory clock ability - and that seems to degrade too. So like initially I could run 5600mhz, but as time went on, part of what would help stability is to lower the effective RAM clock. Of course it only did for a short period of time before the chip degraded further, but it did help for awhile.
Nutshell, I'm really technical (I'm a cloud solutions architect) so I know my way around computers and never did figure out the root cause of it. For awhile, before the stability issues were widely known, I seriously doubted myself and my ability to put together a stable box. For awhile I thought it was something I was doing that caused them to flake. But it turns out it's just an issue with the chips themselves.
I put together the AMD replacement after exchanging my intel setup, and the AMD machine has been perfect since first boot. I've tweaked it along the way for better performance, and it's been a champ - runs at faster clock speeds than rated for, and so far, has never, even once been unstable.
In the end I feel kind of redeemed knowing intel has a root issue and it wasn't me that caused myself the headaches - but knowing what I know now, I would have gone AMD to begin with. Even if intel chips were stable, AMD has superior gaming tech. My 7950x3D benchmarks out 1% slower than the 14900K when it ran right (before it degraded) and AMD is 10-15% faster in games due to the 3D vcache. So if I had known, I would have chosen AMD to begin with even if intel worked right.
Lessons learned the hard way.
safrax@reddit
I'm in a similar boat. Over the course of my careers I've encountered two bad processors. One was an old Pentium 3 that I believe Intel had a recall on because they were faulty and the other was a 5800X. I refused to believe it was the CPU at first. I spent a lot of time on GPU driver issues and potential GPU issues given the "GPU Out of Memory" errors I was getting and the texture corruption in games.
Then one day I booted into Linux and immediately after logging in to a console I was greeted with a very unhappy kernel complaining about hardware issues of all kinds followed by a kernel panic and upon reboot a fairly corrupted root volume.
At that point I knew the CPU was hosed so I drove to MicroCenter and got a 14900K to replace the now marginal/dead 13900KF. I've had no problems since.
I'm really bothered by the fact that I'm going to have to replace the 14900K in X number of months as it too goes bad due to this undisclosed issue. I also can't wait for my partner's CPU to go bad. He's going to be so excited when I tell him he gets to spend another $500+ on a CPU that will eventually die or another $1000 to swap back to AMD.
In any case, I'm likely going to jump back to AMD even after the bad taste the 5800X left in my mouth when the 9000 series processors come out in a few months.
madscribbler@reddit
Yeah, I had been intel for at least a decade before the 14900K/KS issue converted me back to AMD. When I had an AMD prior it has minor compatibility issues (they hadn't quite worked out intel compatibility) although I don't remember the exact generation chip it was. It was an alienware back when they weren't owned by dell - if that gives you any kind of reference.
I bought a legion go, and that's what planted the seed to give up entirely on intel and move to AMD. I had extended warranties through MC for the board, and CPU, so when the legion came up and ran perfectly over time, I was like, hm, maybe there's something to this ryzen thing.
I kept fighting with the intel rigs while my legion just sat there and purred like a kitten - so eventually, I'm like, well even though it's a complete PITA I'm going to tear the mainboard out of my PC, replace it with the best AMD board and CPU I can find, reformat everything (went from intel RST to AMD RAID anyway, so reformat was required), and just see. It couldn't be any worse, and after 6 intel chips, I was just over it. Completely over it.
I think I went through the 6 intel processors as I run load tests for my work - they max the CPU on the box for hours at 100%. With the i9 14900K/KS, I think the load they're under speeds the degradation; they seem to flake faster when they run hard. I know of several people that went a few months before they saw any kind of issue, but for me it was a matter of a few weeks per each processor before they catastrophically failed.
Even though it costs more to swap out the mainboard for an AMD box, when the time comes, it's a wise investment right now. Maybe intel will figure their shit out, and perhaps long term that won't be the answer. But as it stands one can be pretty certain a 14900K/14900KS failure is not a matter of if, but rather a matter of when.
I think every manufacturer has their issues - and I think every generation takes awhile to iron out. So it doesn't surprise me you had issues at some point previously. I think anything cutting edge runs that risk - AMD had problems with overvoltage when they released the 7000 series and had to get mainboard manufacturers to lower standard voltage as chips were burning up. So CPU issues aren't necessarily unique to intel. But at this point in time, with where each of the vendors are at, I think AMD the far safer choice.
I've run my AMD box at 100% for hours upon hours, and no issues. I left it run idle for 3 weeks while I traveled to europe from the US, and came back to it still running my open programs - so there had been no reboot, blue screen, or other flake behavior while I was gone.
So while I'm just one person and it's anecdotal - when the time comes, I recommend you, and your partner pony up a little more and go team red - unless something substantial comes out from intel that's definitive and somewhat proven. It'll take time to prove it actually solves the issue but the only way I'd keep an intel rig is if there were a 100% certain fix, and that some time had passed to prove that rigs weren't borking still.
Wish I had better news but I literally pulled my hair out trying to get a stable intel box and now that they've discontinued 12th gen processors, you can't buy a stable intel box at the consumer level anymore. So in my mind there just aren't many options.
Hopefully your rig doesn't degrade too much, too soon, and it buys time for intel to figure their shit out. But don't hold your breath.
VenditatioDelendaEst@reddit
Why did you go with motherboard RAID a 2nd time, right after running face-first into one of the big problems with it? IIRC even Windows has a built-in software RAID layer these days, although the last time I looked it seemed impossible to use for the boot volume, unfortunately.
madscribbler@reddit
It doubles the effective throughput of the drive - so it's read/write speed is 14800MB/sec / 12700MB/sec rather than the 7400MB/sec / 6350MB/sec. It gets 2x the iops per sec.
Intel's RST wasn't the problem per se, it was the intel chip. RAID in and of itself isn't bad, as long as the processor works.
Windows does have RAID, but it does not double the drive speed like hardware RAID does.
VenditatioDelendaEst@reddit
The problem I was referring to with motherboard RAID is the difficulty of assembling the array on another platform. Although, for RAID 0 you already have single points of failure, and anyway someone of your background presumably understands the nature of RAID 0 and has good backups and a practiced restore procedure.
IANA windows user, but I found this report that Storage Spaces can get throughput gain from RAID 0, although it might require manually specifying stripe layout. That person reports less-than-perfect scaling with 4 drives, but at 19 GB/s they might be running into memory bandwidth limits or exposing a bottleneck in the benchmark tool.
madscribbler@reddit
Ah, I see what you mean. Well, afaic, mb raid is acceptable as I don't plan on swapping boards often. One of the advantages to the AMD rig is the AM5 is nowhere near end of life, so I have upgrade paths that will preserve the volume.
I do have practiced backup procedures - I have 2 NAS arrays and backup system images to them regularly (nightly). I have a full weekly and incremental daily. I also store most of my data on onedrive which syncs with the NAS array as well. One NAS is RAID0, one NAS is RAID5, and they mirror one another, so pretty decent protection overall.
I'm not familiar with storage spaces much, other than in the server space - but you may well be right that the memory or PCI bus is the limit. With 4 gen 4 NVME drives, you'd be using 16 PCI lanes, and then whatever for the USB hubs and video card, so most certainly some kind of PCI arbitration would be in play.
My RAM drive gets 38000MB/sec, so not sure RAM would be the bottleneck. I guess it depends on if he has DDR5 and what memory speed his clock runs at. But you may be right, that it's a limiting factor too.
The nice thing about the mb RAID is it's completely abstracted away from the OS - and windows is funky about stripe sets that aren't in storage spaces - in that the volumes have to be dynamic - and I've never had good luck with dynamic volumes. The strangest issues crop up from them - for example, oculus won't run on a non-basic boot volume. So mb RAID lets you keep basic drives while still maintaining RAID.
In any case I did consider OS level RAID and when I weighed the pros and cons, I figure the MB RAID is preferable. In the end, one deciding factor was that reformatting a machine isn't a big deal with my backups - so I reinstalled going intel to AMD because of the hardware abstraction layer being different between the CPUs - I didn't want phantom drivers left over from intel. But if the AMD board has to be swapped out the RAID volume will auto-configure providing I use the same chipset - and if not, then a reformat isn't the end of the world. I can restore anything I need from backup, and recall the installed programs by looking at the backup's Program Files and Program Files (x86).
VenditatioDelendaEst@reddit
The potential issue is that when you have 70-100 GB/s of memory bandwidth, there is a very limited budget for the number of memory-to-memory copies in the storage layer and filesystem. IDK about RAM drives on Windows, but I think tmpfs on linux just uses the regular disk cache but doesn't back it with anything, so there's less of that overhead than any disk-based storage not accessed with
O_DIRECT. When Wendell of L1T was trying to get maximum throughput out of an NVMe ZFS pool, he ran into that bottleneck and had to work with the ZFS upstream to reduce it. Maybe it was discussed in here?Potentially, CPU vendor RAID can line up the chakras so that the PCIe controller unstripes the data as it comes over the bus from multiple disks.
PickleTortureEnjoyer@reddit
Well hot diggity dog, I sure am glad I saw this. Was just about to settle on either a 13900k or 14900k. 😮💨
Austin24077@reddit
I was just about to buy 14900 this week. I’ll wait until next gen I suppose.
madscribbler@reddit
Also, AMD is cheaper - and if you want a board on a budget, get the asus x670e-a as it doesn't really forfeit much for a better price point.
The x670e-e has some easy options for x3D tuning (you just say load x3D profile) that isn't on the e-a, but the 7950x3D performs pretty well out of the box anyway.
siazdghw@reddit
Not in this performance segment. AMD recently increased Zen 4 prices according to PCpartpicker history.
The current prices for the 13900k is $399 while the 7950x3D is $591. Board prices, good Z790 boards are cheaper than good x670 and x670e boards.
madscribbler@reddit
The 13900K isn't equivalent to a 7950x3D, it's more comparable to a 14900K, or a 14700K per cores and clock speeds. In cinebench, my 7950x3D scores within 1% of a 14900K I had before switching from intel to AMD.
When exchanging my intel 14900K and 790 board for the 7950x3D AMD chip and x670 board, I got a $230 refund.
lemmeguessindian@reddit
Do we have to tune all amd cpu? Is there a guide ?
_zenith@reddit
You really don’t need to. Only if you care to get the very most out of your hardware will you need to do this.
It will work just fine straight out of the box, on default settings
CatsAndCapybaras@reddit
The 7950x3d and 7900x3d can have scheduling issues in because there are 2 dies in the package but only one has access to the 3d cache. If your cpu isn't those, you are likely getting your money's worth with just a memory overclock
madscribbler@reddit
I recommend the asus x670e-e board, and a 7950x3D chip. If you go that route, let me know, and I'll help you configure the setup to get the most out of it. There are some settings for the x3D part that can be tweaked to get better performance.
In cinebench, the 7950x3D tests out within 1% of the best 14900K score I got before the chip tanked, and in games, the x3D chip accelerates them - so they categorically benchmark out between 10% and 15% faster than the intel equivalent.
UsedSquirrel@reddit
9xxx is coming out this month, so 9950X3D can't be that far off.
madscribbler@reddit
Yeah, I bought my 7950x3D at microcenter with the extended warranty, so if I want to upgrade later it's just a matter of taking the chip back and paying the difference.
That said, the next gen isn't benchmarking out super significantly better than the current gen - and will be less so where as the x3D chips don't support PBO - so I may or may not upgrade.
robmafia@reddit
since you're gaming, why did you choose a 7950x3d over the 7800x3d?
truly_moody@reddit
14900KS failing is surprising since that's supposed to be a better bin too
madscribbler@reddit
That's what I thought when I got it - that by getting the better bin, it wouldn't be a problem. But I went through 3 14900K's, and 3 14900KS'es to all have them destabilize after running fine for awhile.
I even put in a new 14900KS, and set all the stability settings exactly as intel recommended, and still had the chip flake after a little while of running.
It was super frustrating too, as they'd run well at first - run OCCT successfully across a wide variety of tests - and then, one day randomly, they'd just tank. OCCT would fail to load, or would fail immediately in tests - and I had changed nothing.
I still have a brand new 14900K processor sitting here as it was replaced via RMA - and I'm afraid to do anything with it as as soon as I apply power, it's going to flake. So I'm waiting on intel to get their shit together so I can gift it to my daughter. But until they do, it'll sit here unused, as I don't want to pass the cursed chip to her and have her go through what I went through.
AMD ftw! Love my AMD rig.
truly_moody@reddit
That's so frustrating. Even just going through 1 RMA must be annoying. Did you see the comment further down about it possibly having to do with specific game runtimes? Any of the games you play?
FWIW I've had a 13700K since April and it's been pretty solid. Could always trade you for the 14900k....... Nah jk I use my PC for work so can't really have it crashing on me
tavirabon@reddit
tbh the warranty is probably wasted, either they recall, you get an auto-warranty or you just have to document the crashes so you can point to that when it fails.
aminorityofone@reddit
its more likely with such a high failure rate to just allow it to go to class action lawsuit. Not everybody will apply. Much like the xbox360 redring and ps2 disc read error
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
13600k has no cpu failure. I had it since februari and no issues.
13600k is perfect chip for good prices, I have never heard about cpu failure in sweden because there is none.
Go buy 13600k because I can say there is no issues.
Strazdas1@reddit
you dont necessarely need to apply. When HP lost their class action lawsuit over insufficient cooling in DV9000, i got the motherboard replaced free of charge despite not being part of the lawsuit.
nubbinator@reddit
I had one of those POSes and I'm pissed that I was never able to get in on the class action. I had both the hinges break and the overheating issue and I babied it. I replaced it with a T400... Whose hinges also broke.
ericswpark@reddit
HP = Hinge Problems
Strazdas1@reddit
I had one of the hinges break but i assumed it was my own fault since it did after i dropped it.
sockpuppetinasock@reddit
From what I've seen/read, this affects mostly K/KF SKUS. At least that's what the info presented by Wendell is based on.
If true, it only affects a very small set of 13/14th Gen chips. Unfortunately that also happens to be the chips die hard Intel fans are buying.
cluberti@reddit
They focused heavily on the i9 as well - unsure how much this would impact lesser chips.
clicata00@reddit
If it’s a silicon defect, it will affect all chips that share silicon, so SKUs between and including 13600 to 13900KS and 14600 to 14900KS. The chips that are pushed harder are more likely to fail first, so that would be i9s, but i7s and i5s wouldn’t be immune.
robotboredom@reddit
Does that mean it affects the 13th gen i9-13900HX laptop CPU?
clicata00@reddit
Likely possible since they use the desktop dies
Zednot123@reddit
They are degrading over time. And it affects the highest SKU to the largest degree. That does not point towards a inherent silicon issue.
Rather that implies there is a problem with the highest turbo states and the voltages set. Most likely the low core turbo since this is happening in power limited scenarios as well. And that is also where the most absurd voltages are applied, albeit just to a few cores.
That then degrades the CPU and it potentially becomes unstable in any turbo state.
cluberti@reddit
True, just curious on the "how much" part. i9s in the past have been more Xeon than desktop chip, but to be fair the last time I paid attention the model numbers started with a 9, so I admit I'm definitely out of the loop on Intel silicon.
robotboredom@reddit
Does that mean it affects the i9-13900HX laptop CPU?
nithrean@reddit
I would rather it more likely be covered and I had rewards points to spend so it was only about 20 dollars for 3 years.
bigvalen@reddit
Server chips are different to laptop ones. May not have the same bugs. The 14nm Intel chips had problems with AVX burning out...but only on xeon variants.
nithrean@reddit
Yeah makes sense. However my laptop is critical for my work and I had rewards to spend so it really didn't cost much. One of those times where better be safe than sorry.
UpsetKoalaBear@reddit
The issues both seem to pertain to the usage of the Oodle decompression library from RAD game tools causing corruption of game files. I want to also add that there might be issues with anti cheat like Easy Anti Cheat and Intel CPU’s.
Apex Legends
War Thunder
Sea of Thieves
Halo Infinite
Warhammer Darktide
Battlebit Remastered
Rust
And probably more have all also had frequent issues here with game corruption issues and all have both EAC and Oodle decompression.
PowerfulDisaster2067@reddit
I've recently switched to 14700k and started getting errors with VAC in CS2, it also tends to happen a few hours into playing it, I wonder if it's related as I had a 12700K before with no issue.
chubbysumo@reddit
the root cause is something someone else pointed out, and any overclocker worth their salt could point it out too. the turbo boost algorithm is hitting the 2 preferred cores with massive amounts of voltage in short spikes. someone recorded 1.6v for a really short duration. this is killing the CPUs slowly.
Die4Ever@reddit
If they were using normal file read function calls then you'd be right, but they might be use a memory mapped file, in which case it does seem possible that the CPU accidentally modifies some of the memory and then Windows writes it back to disk
UpsetKoalaBear@reddit
Yeah, I assume they’re not just using file read calls for something as specialised as that. However I don’t think it would sense to write decompressed data back to disk just to delete them later when the game finishes or whatever.
It’s just incredibly bad for performance. Pretty much the only time it would/should be written back to disk is when the application memory starts getting paged in general, but that is handled separately because of its performance problems.
randylush@reddit
This is interesting. If the errors are consistent and not causing BSODs, maybe there are just a few instructions that are impacted and those can be mitigated in software or microcode
UpsetKoalaBear@reddit
I’d also add that UE5 has oodle built in. This is probably causing it to be far more apparent and is why we’re seeing it more and more often.
Of course, there’s still stability issues outside of gaming that still need to be sorted. I recommend anyone using these CPU’s and gaming, however, to use XTU and drop the clocks down a bit to prevent this from occurring.
Bluedot55@reddit
It sounded like GN had some ideas about the root cause, so they may be looking into that
Farfolomew@reddit
This is the second video I've not had good vibes from this Wendel guy. I'll likely stay clear of future vids.
AzurePrower@reddit
I have an i9-13900KF. Programs crash on their own without reason occasionally. Is it too late for my CPU for the up coming BIOS fixes?
GodRamos@reddit
Was planning to upgrade my i7-12700K to I7-14700KF on my Asus Z690. Now I'm having second thoughts.
worried4lyfe@reddit
yeah I'm thinking the same, I currently run a I9-9900k was looking to get into a I7-14700KF for the ddr5 and overall mobo upgrades, but most stories I can find are about the I9's of both gens not really big on the I7 or KF series at all.
any updates on your side tough?
GodRamos@reddit
Waiting for the microcode updates and more answers from Intel. Will look at the data and then decide. But still it seems risky atm.
fla56@reddit
go AMD, i am never going back
Diuranos@reddit
So many my friends have 13 and 14gen Intel CPU and they told me no problem at all 3d work, games as well,
Neofarm@reddit
They're amateur. It will take 5 times as long for problems to pop up.
worried4lyfe@reddit
so being an amateur makes your CPU last longer?
Great thanks for this 100% factual extended hardware duration!
PotentialAstronaut39@reddit
Degradation takes time when you don't run your CPU at 100% 24/7.
It just takes longer to arrive at the same results.
worried4lyfe@reddit
im bouta ask something stupid, but I was looking to get a 14700 KF, i've heard alot of the crashing is really prone to the I9's but what's about the I7's?
asikuna@reddit
I just built a brand new PC 3 weeks ago with a 14900KS… don’t tell me I need to return my parts…
Infinite-Passion6886@reddit
Hello, how is your CPU ?
asikuna@reddit
I actually returned mine for a Ryzen 7900X after Chrome kept crashing due to a single thread failing.
Can’t say I’ve had less headaches with AMD though, just different ones not related specifically to chip failure.
scannerJoe@reddit
The fallout from this will be huge since literally every buyer is affected - even those who have no problems at all will see their resale value tank and have every right to be angry.
imaginary_num6er@reddit
I hope AMD goes on the offensive with this saying Intel's solution to the problem is to trust them on LGA1851 and their teething issues with a new motherboard and chip architecture.
aminorityofone@reddit
They don't need to. Read the article. This company has switched entirely from Intel to AMD. And this is just a single company going public about it. That and it could back fire on AMD if AMD has issues in the future or people remember when AMD cpus essentially exploded not that long ago from incorrect bios power settings.
Furyo98@reddit
Yeah people really love to not remember things lol.
People say wait till amd next gen, amd legit can screw up and have it's own issues in the next gen. Honestly with two companies constantly trying to over power the other it's eventually gonna lead to issues like this that their hardware can't handle but still push it to be the best but failing in the process. It's gonna be a cycle so people should get use to it
lightmatter501@reddit
AMD read their OEM partners the riot act over that.
Regular_Tomorrow6192@reddit
Feeling pretty happy l sold my 14900k months ago.
Furyo98@reddit
My understanding is Intel and MB makers didn't have clear communication on the right speeds of these cpus and getting fucked over. The original default settings were not actually the “stock” settings, from what I understand, or at least not what was recommended by intel, Intel fuck up here not giving clear communication guess that happens when you try to keep everything hush hush. The only ones not affected yet are those who purposely underclocked or undervolted their CPUs from the very start.
My question is if it affects 13 and 14 how did they not address it in the 14th gen? If they knew about something failing and false advertising it doesn't couldn't they be sued??
xxxshabxxx@reddit
For me i bought the 13th gen ks chip in feb 2023. In july started having stability issues and installation errors. Only thing fixed it was de clocking all p cores to 5.5 ghz. So far no issues. But it is defective right now.
fla56@reddit
Move to AMD
Intel Needs to Say Something: Oxidation Claims, New Microcode, & Benchmark Challenges (youtube.com)
xxxshabxxx@reddit
Apparently amd has its own set of issues with compatability and software/drivers. My temp fix is still ok for now gonna definitely rma the chip woon.
fla56@reddit
2/2
You’ve literally surrendered 10% perf when the chip was whipped even at max clocks by the 7800x3d
xxxshabxxx@reddit
Maybe but when jay2cent switched back to intel for computability and drivers support i still made the right decision
fla56@reddit
2/2
What issues, be specific…
xxxshabxxx@reddit
Go watch the video on his channel i cant remember and not gonna type everything on reddit.
fla56@reddit
(212) I switched back to AMD... and I have no regrets. - YouTube
Hi, this is Jay's latest video, he's just ditched his deadly Intel rig and switched back to AMD
Looks like it's just you left bud
xxxshabxxx@reddit
Lol thats fine im in the process of rmaing my cpu.
fla56@reddit
Er no, he looks like a plonker now because turns out his replacement system is going to die
fla56@reddit
Nonsense
There are zero significant issues with AMD
Sell your Intel shares and stop shilling please
shalol@reddit
>No word from Intel >Rumors start spreading >Intel ends up having to make a statement anyways
Why are companies PR teams always like this?
bankkopf@reddit
Intel has put out statements that it’s aware of issues and that they are investigating them currently. They’ve also not found the root cause of it. What else are they supposed to message to the world? They can’t as well speculate on the cause of the issue.
MathematicianHot9346@reddit
Intel shouldn't message no more to the world just "we have overclocked to hell these CPU-s by factory and this caused the degradation, sorry"
leafbelly@reddit
Intel has made statements. They say it's due to "baseline settings" that some motherboard manufacturers are using.
Strazdas1@reddit
because in 9/10 cases the step two (rumours start spreading) never happens.
Kougar@reddit
That this issue was going on with the 13900K chips which launched over two years ago and only just now is getting the spotlight pretty much underscores this point.
no_salty_no_jealousy@reddit
They already said they were investigating the issue few months ago and said eTVB contribute to the issue but it wasn't the root cause. You are just not reading that news
fak3g0d@reddit
I'll just stick with single-CCD Ryzen CPUs until I hear something crazy bad about them
RandomGuy622170@reddit
Never been happier to have my build based around the 7800X3D. There was a moment where I was considering going with a 13600K and I'm so glad I didn't. These failure rates are nuts.
Aurailious@reddit
7800X3D was my very first AMD CPU. Looks like that was a really good choice for many reasons.
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
Still 13600k is better choice, 14cores
Lt_Muffintoes@reddit
If intels marketing department had more budget they would have given you a 14900k
Neraxis@reddit
my 4800h on a laptop was extremely good with the mobile 2060 Rtx. The only time it suffered was dealing with horribly optimized unity games.
bwat47@reddit
I'm still rocking a 5800x3d and I think it'll be a few years before I think about upgrading
LoopCat_@reddit
Haven't see that the 13600k listed anywhere as impacted.
siuol11@reddit
Ya'll are bad at reading, this impacts only i9 chips. If you had bought a 13600k you would be in the clear.
Sipas@reddit
So, it also effects 13600k? Because they're literally the same chip, the only differences are the number of enabled cores and voltage/frequency. Like others said, degredation can still occur in lower SKUs, just not as fast.
siuol11@reddit
No, there has been no degradation on lower-end SKU's. This has always been about the top end chips only, the everything else has been fine. I don't get the downvotes or the histrionics, you can look at all the reporting and see that for yourself.
puffz0r@reddit
No, there's data on increased failures in i7s as well.
Sipas@reddit
Anecdotally, there is. In any case, this isn't something you can dismiss easily. You can argue it's due to high voltage in higher SKUs but then how would you explain degredation in server CPUs?
puffz0r@reddit
No, there's data on increased failures in i7s as well.
RandomGuy622170@reddit
You're assuming that simply because only the 13900/14900 chips are affected now. A quick perusal of this thread alone will show you that some people have noticed issues with the 13600 as well. At this point, there's no reason to believe this issue is confined to just the top end of the line up.
JonWood007@reddit
laughs in 12900k
madscribbler@reddit
I have a 7950x3D with the 3D vcache, and it runs games smooth as butter. I went through 6 14900K/14900KS intel chips before I switched to AMD though - wish I wouldn't have wasted 6 months on a completely unstable platform.
AMD is 100% rock solid - but my message here is even dual CCD AMD chips chew games up and eat them for breakfast, with 0 issues.
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
13600k beats 7950x3d in games, I dont have any issues with 13600k and no failure.
IT RUNS SUPER smooth and better then amd cpus runs.
elliotborst@reddit
Did you make any posts about it? 6 failures is crazy.
madscribbler@reddit
Many posts.
I fought the 6 intel chips for over 6.5 months - each one would be stable 3 weeks to 1 month, then start having issues, and I'd set all kinds of bios settings as recommended, and they'd eventually degrade to unusable no matter what settings were used.
On 2 of them, I set the intel conservative settings for power and core behavior, as per intel's recommendations on the first boot with the new CPU. Even then, both I did that with degraded and became unusable.
Note that all the compatibility settings cripple the chip, to where AMD is clearly faster all around - and even if an intel runs at full clock speed which is known to damage it, AMD is 10-15% faster in games due to the x3D vcache the 7950x3D has.
I think I went through the intel chips so fast (1 mo each roughly) as I run load tests for work, which pegs the CPU at 100% for several hours. I think the more load, and heat, the intel chips generate the faster they degrade.
I finally switched to AMD as I mentioned, and all issues have gone away. I can run the AMD at 100% for a day or longer, no issues - it maintains great performance.
And, just minutes ago, I was running first descendant glass smooth hours with no issues whatsoever - to get an intel chip to run a game of that caliber for hours without a crash? Pretty impossible.
The intel chips stuttered a lot in games, and I had to tweak video settings in games when they did work to run smoothly as I have a 5k monitor. I think likely due to the 3D vcache, I have no such issues with the AMD - it's smooth on defaults including raytracing and ultra settings (4080 video card).
So I dunno - I thought it was user error for awhile on my part, but it turns out no matter how I went about it the chips flaked, and that there are known issues per intel. They even say they're aware of bugs in the thermal management code that could cause some of this - but that even those aren't the root issue of the problem, the bug is a contributor.
Bottom line, I use my PC for work and gaming, and I can't afford to dink around with computers that are flaky all the time. So swapping the intel board and cpu out for AMD tech was the right choice for me. I didn't have time to wait on intel to come up with a real fix, and with the failure rate, I had no idea how many processors I'd have to go through to actually prevent the issue - if I even could.
I suspect the 'stable' chips are still suffering issues, just at a slower degradation rate than I saw. Not everyone pegs their CPU at 100% for a long time. So if it is thermal and throttle, then it progresses slower on machines that don't run as hard. They are still degrading though - so personally, I think EVERY 13900K, 14900K/KS/KF, 13900K/KS/KF, 14700K/KS, and 13700K/KS, at a minimum, suffer from this bug - and that reports of people who are stable are temporary, until they've run their PC enough to see the issue.
So every manufacturer has their issues - AMD came out with core voltage specs with the 7000 series processor that was shorting chips and burning boards/sockets. They had to get the mainboard manufacturers to reduce core voltage levels. They did that though, quite awhile ago, and so AMD is stable right now. Intel just hasn't gotten there yet. In theory intel chips should be able to accept any power level and work right - but clearly they don't, so until intel figures it out, I'm going with the known stable platform right now, which is AMD.
That's not to say AMD won't mess things up and be in the same boat as intel with their new series of processors - however, with time, probably both issues with intel, and any issues that come up with AMD will be resolved. Intel chips will likely require RMA - and AMD has the voltages figured out, so they will probably be stable from day one in the 9000 series. But it's a gamble when you adopt newer tech no matter what.
Anyway, probably typed more than I should have, but this really sucked for me, and if I can save someone, I mean anyone, the headache of an intel build right now, I owe it to them to let them know AMD is the way to go for now.
elliotborst@reddit
Thanks for the write up, this is such a strange issue, it’s weird that it’s really only coming to light now when the 13900 has been out for a while.
frzned@reddit
Game devs didnt want to speak up. Players who has problem blame it on their gpu, especially amd users.
How many people do you think understand wattage and clockspeed.
Jelly_Mac@reddit
I’ve never liked Intel in general and never bought them except for a couple laptops that I really liked but didn’t have AMD variants. Ryzen conveniently released right at the time I decided to build my first real gaming PC so I’ve never had to think about going team blue. Not to say I won’t switch if necessary but so far AMD hasn’t done anything to displease me, while Intel seems to have some BS going on every 2 years
koas12@reddit
does this happen to laptop chips like i9 14900hx?
Neat-Clerk-9474@reddit
Are they dying on linux also? Or is its just Microsoft update pushing microcode?
letsgolunchbox@reddit
14900KS on 3 months of heavy use with the proper bios settings and tweaks. Zero issues. One game crash (Helldivers 2) which is a game known for its bad optimization. All other multicore tasks just fine.
fla56@reddit
sure, but where will you be in 12 months on that overpriced room-heater lol
jokes apart sorry but you are on borrowed time:
Intel Needs to Say Something: Oxidation Claims, New Microcode, & Benchmark Challenges (youtube.com)
Forbin3@reddit
I just bought a 14700kf two weeks ago…
Well shit, I hope it does not fail.
fla56@reddit
return it before regretting it lol
CLOnaX@reddit
Yep. I did the same thing. But I will return it tomorrow without opening the box.
IIWhiteHawkII@reddit
O.O Literally me with my 13700k laying on the desk in front of me, waiting for other PC components to arrive and guessing, yay or nay.
fla56@reddit
return before you regret it
in a few days the 9700x is going to be one of the fastest processors on Earth and then in 2 years you're plugging in a Zen6 x3d and you're set up for another 3-4 years CPU-wise
pcfarrar@reddit
Return it all and get Zen 5 in 2 weeks.
skilliard7@reddit
Zen 3 and Zen 4 were both notoriously unstable for months after launch. It might not be worth the risk.
Gippy_@reddit
Return it if you can and get a 12900K. You'll lose around 5% performance but at least you'll avoid this dumpster fire.
IIWhiteHawkII@reddit
Is defect guaranteed or i have a chance? I can easily change it by the warranty any time, or exchange for another product but I'd give it a try.
Gippy_@reddit
You can either believe Alderon Games' "nearly 100%" claim, or you can believe Level1Tech's (Wendell's) claim of "50%" in his video, or you can believe neither. Up to you.
Mycroft_Cadburry@reddit
I just bought a new i9 13900kf from an Intel official distributor in my country. Within a week games started crashing and I got blue screens. Just a week after the return window closed my computer is bricked and only blue screens when booting windows.
I am going through rma now. Hoping at minimum to try a new CPU, but this has permanently removed Intel as a potential future option for me.
fla56@reddit
hopefully this is the time when the lie 'no one got fired for buying Intel' gets put to bed
good luck with your new AMD system, i personally have never looked back
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
Please let us know if Intel Rejects the RMA. Rejecting RMAs for defective products that they know is defective is totally not okay.
homingconcretedonkey@reddit
This is interesting timing, I've worked with at least 3000+ computers and I've never had a CPU fault in the past.
Just recently I ordered a Dell AIO that came with a Intel® Core™ i5 14500. It worked for a few days and then completely died, it booted up fine with a replacement CPU.
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
I went with whatever the server provider reccomended because they had a lot of stock of 14900ks. There was a 'no one gets fired for buying intel stability feeling. There was also a 'the 13900ks are broken but don't worry it was fixed in 14900k.
I haven't had to RMA a single CPU in my life before this. Now we are talking about RMAing 100-200+
fla56@reddit
Sorry to hear this Matt but surely the lesson for us all is, 'don't buy Intel any more'
Intel Needs to Say Something: Oxidation Claims, New Microcode, & Benchmark Challenges (youtube.com)
Xetrill@reddit
I wonder how we are doing. My 13900K which I bought in Nov 2022 is perfectly fine.
Was I lucky or did I do something to inadvertently avoid the issue?
The only thing coming to mind, would be that I use a contact frame. So, is it related to the bending?
fla56@reddit
Sounds like lucky for now but doomed -or perhaps you're running at v low specs eg DDR5 5200 and Intel clockspeeds vs mobo default turbo?
Either way 13th and 14th gen high-end are gone across the board, I would move to AMD
Intel Needs to Say Something: Oxidation Claims, New Microcode, & Benchmark Challenges (youtube.com)
Locker_@reddit
Do you run it at 100% at all times?
Xetrill@reddit
No, nobody is. But nothing of this sort was claim by Wendell or Alderon Games here.
PotentialAstronaut39@reddit
That's exactly what he's claiming in that video at that timestamp:
https://youtu.be/oAE4NWoyMZk?t=566
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
For gaming servers, we have a lot of capacity idle a lot of the time and we spread our game servers to not max out CPU usage. It's not like these servers were running 24/7 at max CPU usage like benchmarks.
Xetrill@reddit
He was being hyperbole to make a speculative point.
Nobody, anywhere is running these CPUs a 100% for weeks. And not even remotely for gaming workloads.
Just think what 100% means. 32 cores peaked.
PotentialAstronaut39@reddit
2 flaws with that assumption.
First, people do run their productivity CPUs at 100% 24/7. For example I've been encoding my whole video library to AV1 recently. Terabytes of videos. CPU has been running 24/7 for MONTHS and that's why I briefly considered an Intel CPU, but I was lucky enough to have seen the warning signs and went for an AMD CPU instead.
There are other uses too, video rendering, compilation and iteration, server workloads and countless other use cases. Just because you don't do it doesn't mean it isn't done.
Second, he also noted that it'll just happen slower for people who don't run it 24/7 and this is not speculative, silicon degradation and electro migration are well known, there is a mathematical formula explaining the scientific phenomenon where load time is just one of many variables. ( Electromigration ~~ k1 * Load Time * Current Density * ek2 * Voltage * Thermodynamic Temperature )
We also know that sometimes even brand new CPUs will start showing signs practically immediately.
There is no hyperbole here, just investigative work into understood science. He's just lacking the tools the professionals have to investigate it, but the scientific foundations of his investigation are solid.
This isn't into question, the only thing remaining into question is the root cause and it is what they stated in the video.
Why are 13th and 14th gens degrading so much more rapidly than any other silicon that came before it? What is the root cause of that early degradation?
Xetrill@reddit
You are hilarious. You must be trolling this way to unhinged.
exsinner@reddit
Same, i bought it pre launch date and it still is working fine. Tried out several games and apps that crashes other people and it still runs solid. I am using contact frame too, PL1=PL2 at 253W, 5.8 2 pcore, 5.5 all pcore, 12 of my ecores at 4.6 with clock incrementally decrease to 4.3 for 16 ecore.
I think our batch of cpu just binned better.
ag3601@reddit
Luckily I am still on 9900k, just waiting for the new ryzen 9950x.
retroland74@reddit
Me on intel core i5 10600kf happy really stable
fla56@reddit
Well no one else is buddy
Intel Needs to Say Something: Oxidation Claims, New Microcode, & Benchmark Challenges (youtube.com)
Hot_Piece_Of_Garbage@reddit
Your upgrade will be tremendous!
Sosowski@reddit
I have a 13900K in my main workstation but had no issues so far.
What do I run to test if it's affected? I gues there's a chance I got lucky, but would like to be safe before warranty runs out.
fla56@reddit
Sounds like it's only a matter of time for your rig -but defo not the time to start overclocking, in fact prob the time to move to the Intel vs Mobo default settings to try and save the chip from itself
Intel Needs to Say Something: Oxidation Claims, New Microcode, & Benchmark Challenges (youtube.com)
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
The goal for reporting this type of stuff is to ask intel to step up and remove the one year limited warrenty and setup a no questions asked RMA / refund for this.
There are benchmarks we have narrowed down where we can get a defective box that can crash in the first 10 minutes if it has a problem, however because the failures are in so many different areas it doesn't work for everyone.
cp5184@reddit
Maybe try running cinebench15? Dunno.
Oottzz@reddit
I would just say keep calm. You would have noticed by now if you would have been affected unless your CPU is degenerating by time but that is something you can't test today.
joeygreco1985@reddit
Are there supposed to be new BIOS updates releasing this week or next week? I read somewhere that new microcode was hitting by mid July but my ASUS mobo only has the BIOS from the end of May
fla56@reddit
soon but this isn't going to fix the issue, it's actually hardware degradation
Intel Needs to Say Something: Oxidation Claims, New Microcode, & Benchmark Challenges (youtube.com)
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
Since not all BIOS's have the latest microcode, on the linux side we grab the latest microcode update and apply it at a Operating system level, but on windows it's not easy to do that and can be done automatically.
Impossible_Leek_1677@reddit
13600k has no risk of getting a failure because i7/higher sombhat the risk.
I'm running 13600k and wouldn't I experience failure!? defective!?, no that risk is very low, temperature is more dangerous than failure on a processor if you use your brain this time.
From my experience, there is absolutely NO problem with 13600k, neither all cores nor risk of a failure, wn failure comes rather immediately than six months later.
Everyone stop with your failure about intel cpu because it's not true, NOT all processors have the same problem with failure, intel can actually release new cpus that are updated to fix a failure, You might be unlucky and get a cpu with just failure but that risk is still small. gpu has higher risk than cpu.
I build computers so I know what I'm talking about.
learn something about cpu... it can be a cpu batch that can have failure or not,
I recommend that you who have problems, try with the benchmark and keep an eye on all cores with mhz/temperatures, test with different settings. not all cpu are from the same year.
i guarantee 13600k will work without problems.
PermaDerpFace@reddit
Damn I got talked into going Intel over AMD, and then a 13700 over a 12700. In hindsight, not so good.
bennyg111@reddit
Remember... regardless of what's causing these failures... every RL CPU is defective from the factory, the DLVR (a new per-core voltage regulator that was claimed to reduce overall power use by 10-20%) is fused off in every single CPU
Despite being there in the silicon that we all paid for.
NUM_13@reddit
I5 13600k owner here. Am I fucked?
reddit_equals_censor@reddit
this statement by the devs is quite strong and telling.
and CLEARLY CLEARLY shows degradation.
needless to say, but NO ONE should buy any intel cpu, until this issue is properly adressed at least with a full extended warranty program for the effected cpus.
it is also insane, that this is going on so long without any answer from intel.
on the upside with server providers running w680 boards also being heavily effected just the same, there is certainly more pressure for intel to properly address this problem, instead of maybe just trying to shove the problem under the carpet, like asus tends to do and hope, that people will just forget about with the new launch of cpus.
capn_hector@reddit
yeah seeing individual cpus progress through the stages of failure in a controlled environment is different from log splunking.
I wonder if they were failing from the start or is this something that's increased over time?
nonium@reddit
Electromigration ~~ k1 * Load Time * Current Density * e^(k2 * Voltage * Thermodynamic Temperature)
So servers with highest SKUs with 24/7 uptime fail first. Then heavy users of highest SKUs and then gradually other groups. Silicon quality also matter as it represents voltage margin to instability.
capn_hector@reddit
datacenters are also very hot environments to begin with, and in fairness we don't know how this vendor has configured their systems. TVB=off may be a particularly bad choice in a hot datacenter environment.
I'm more just curious why if "100% of units fail" then why Intel didn't notice it in validation. Something about how their systems are configured or their test environment has to be otherwise different.
asdfzzz2@reddit
Degradation issues are hard to catch in general, and even harder to catch in limited time between first full clocks engineering samples and product release. Those issues are not Intel-specific, my 5900x degraded too after ~2-3 years of use, Intel just oopsed significantly harder this time with degradation times measured in low months.
Texaros@reddit
Was that a overclocked 5900x?
Or was it at stock settings??
asdfzzz2@reddit
Stock. Chip was purchased on release, was low binned and got used quite a bit for single/low thread tasks, so it was a combination of a few unfortunate factors in the end, and not a widespread issue. It still works perfectly while being limited to 4.55 GHz from its default 4.9 GHz boost (probably would work higher, i just dont care at this point, 9000 series are soon enough).
skilliard7@reddit
I've had 0 issues on my Intel CPU so far. But when I built an AMD machine it was completely unstable no matter what I did. Tried multiple kits of RAM, all kinds of config changes in bios, nothing fixed it.
If AMD could actually fix their stability I might consider them.
reddit_equals_censor@reddit
this is complete and utter nonsense.
the one difference between server chips and desktop chips is.... well on the intel side missing ecc support on the desktop chipsets, BUT the w680 boards do have ecc support with the intel chips.
so the left over difference is? that's right it doesn't exist.
the cpus should be stable. amd cpus are stable. intel cpus are broken. they are broken for the average customers and they are broken for people running gaming servers.
and just fyi, your desktop system should be as stable as a server.....
and in regards to your instability, have you considered a doa cpu or board, or memory? you know... the first thought, that comes to mind when a system has issues assumingly right from the start....
overall the data is clear, that amd cpus have no stability problem overall, intel cpus do and a massive one.
and stop believing nonsense like: "using desktop cpus in a server environment is using it wrong".
it is like apple propaganda of "you're holding it wrong" all over again, only in this case the manufacturer isn't trying to blame the user, only you are...
literally only you!
Strazdas1@reddit
I remmeber just a month ago in this sub i got downvoted to hell for pointing out CPUs can degrade over time. Now everyone is up in arms about CPUs degrading.
reddit_equals_censor@reddit
i don't know what you were writing,
but in regards to cpu degrading.
a cpu run at stock should be stable for its entire lifetime.
it degrades a tiny bit as expected, which is why a stock chip has a added voltage above what it is stable at, so after 5+ years it still is perfectly stable, despite requiring a tiny bit more voltage at that time then.
and cpus can degrading beyond that if overclocked hard.
it can also happen, that a cpu run at stock for some freaking reason degrades rapidly and becomes unstable very rarely.
now the intel issue is cpus AT STOCK, that should be designed to run 24/7 for 10 years perfectly stable with their stock power and voltage and the tiny expected degradation is taken care of with the more than needed voltage at day one, actually shitting themselves with rapid degradation it seems.
so again important to keep in mind, that a cpu shouldn't degrade at stock to the point of being unstable. it is designed to be run for its entire life stable with the voltage curve it has.
so intel chips degrading within a few months from fully stable to completely unstable and failed is an impressive level of burning though a chip degradation wise....
a fascinating situation and certainly glad i don't have a new intel cpu lol :D
let's hope everyone is gonna be taken care of with those garbage chips.
Mysterious_Focus6144@reddit
If they came out and said it was an unfixable hardware problem, they'd have to deal with the ensuing chaos.
If they came out and lie, it might come back to bite them later.
The best option is just to remain silent and feign ignorance until they figure out something.
reddit_equals_censor@reddit
maybe they are waiting for the next desktop generation of cpus to launch, then at the same point, throwing out a NON FIX massive further power limit through the bios on the 13th and 14th gen chips
and then they can replace the broken 13th and 14th chips with their new potetnially not breaking generation at least...
so yeah intel might know exactly what is going on, but is keeping it quiet is indeed a very good possibility.
sth, that asus quite clearly has done with the asus x570 dark hero motherboard often not starting at all, unless you hard power cycle, by switching the psu off and on again.
in case you're bored, here is the BIGGEST thread in regards to comments and views on asus support forum ever about this issue:
https://rog-forum.asus.com/t5/previous-forum/asus-dark-hero-startup-issue/td-p/813987
100% got ignored, despite it seeming quite clear, that they figured the issue out.
so just replacing a few boards, and the replacement board might have the issue again, or it will reapear in the replacement board in a few months on the replacement board.
also the thread is locked now by asus CONVENIENTLY as they changed the forum a bunch :D
so yeah intel pulling sth similar certainly makes sense.
Secondary-Son@reddit
One YouTuber was informed by people supposably in the know, is that the problem is a design flaw with the I/O hub on the CPU die. Visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtjJ5NRLSv8 for the story. If this is correct then Intel's best fix would be to fix the problem and let buyers exchange the defective CPU with a redesigned/corrected CPU. The other option is for Intel to reimburse all affected with all costs incurred. At a minimum that would be the CPU, the motherboard to support that CPU (what else would it be good for?), and the RAM specific for that build. For the most part, all other components can be used on a different build (some exceptions apply). If they want to remain silent and a class action suit is started, then that opens the door to a wide range of reimbursements. That could include lost productivity, time spent dealing with instability problems, loss of company reputation if problems blamed on their product was actually the fault of Intel's defective product. The cost of reimbursable losses could be substantial, way more than the cost of providing corrected CPUs to the consumers.
GreatMultiplier@reddit
Why do I feel that it's more of a Windows problem -once I turned off c-states and disabled the Windows game bar I haven't had a game crash in months. It's like once every 2 months now where as before I was getting constant crashes.
The game bar starts in windows then it starts communication in event viewer distributed com I forget what then it times out and you get a crash. Disabled that and were good for now
billyhatcher312@reddit
im glad i didnt goto this current generation even amd cpus are failing too my 5900x hasnt died on me at all and its still going strong so im glad i didnt jump the gun with ether version
Swimming-Ad-6383@reddit
My laptop has a i5 12450H max 45 Watt is it safe ?
ohgodchaos@reddit
this whole topic is so strange, i have 13900k which i put a 360 AIO on b/c i wanted it to be quiet (bequiet hehe) and i dabbled with overclocking as well, it never crashed during cinebench runs
pokrzywnik@reddit
What I did understand the procesors can run fine but degrade with time during use... Also some motherboard manufacturers rolled out bios update that doesn't fix problem but delays further degradation by undervolting CPU (lowering overall performance by ~9%)
Shinra_Luca@reddit
Do I need to be worried abt my 12700k as well or we good?
NeroClaudius199907@reddit
100% defective rate is insane
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
We don't have a single working 13th or 14th gen intel CPU Company wide, and this even includes developer laptops, servers we have pre-bulk purchased for a year from various providers etc. No one on the team has even been doing any overclocks with these either.
Just because I say 100% fault rate for us, doesn't mean the real fault rate for the general public might be lower, but whatever we ran into was 100%.
The workload specific to what we need for our game to work seems ideal for finding these problems.
Most people will just get random crashes and likely blame it on windows etc and not actually know their CPU is degrading.
Emotional_Two_8059@reddit
I don’t doubt there is an issue with 13th and 14th gen, but can you please check your power source? xD
100% failure rate is insane
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
These power sources are in different countries and different datacenters and houses.
cp5184@reddit
Nobody was ever fired for buying intel...
Karthanon@reddit
Wife told me to go look for a gaming laptop so we can be in same room to play GW2 together (my gaming system w/4090 is in my home office..) - all the ones I've looked at were Intel 13/14th gen, I'm glad I haven't pulled the trigger yet.
Cavorkian@reddit
Does anyone know if this affects the "Intel U7-155H 14th gen processor"?
I'm wondering if I should return my machine I just purchased and find something with an AMD cpu instead...
mekkyz-stuffz@reddit
Does it affect quicksync as well?
Mysterious_Focus6144@reddit
If the issue is really degradation, it means Intel was really pushing the hardware their fab could produce too hard here. Intel seems more concerned with remaining on top by whatever means it takes, including pumping insane wattage into its fragile circuitry.
resetallthethings@reddit
The info coming out indicated it's not just wattage.
The server ones that are failing are limited to 125 in enterprise boards/different chipsets that prioritize stability
Mysterious_Focus6144@reddit
The server chip might consume relatively lower wattage but could still be pushing the limits of Intel's silicon, no? in terms of voltage or whatnot.
resetallthethings@reddit
It's not server chips, it's 13900/14900ks
So no, it doesn't really make sense that a w680 board would be doing anything to push the limits of those chips.
They even dropped the ram speeds to abysmally slow and still didn't solve issues.
You are perhaps correct in that just the nominal specs for the CPUs may be so pie in the sky that even run so conservatively run, that many of them didn't win the silicone lottery enough to be able to withstand even nominal usage without rapid degradation
chubbysumo@reddit
its hitting server companies too, because many of them will skip xeon's and go with consumer chips depending on what customers want. server chips are great, but consumer chips are still king for fastest single threaded performance, so many server OEMs are letting customers pick 13900k and 14900k CPUs instead of xeons because of the cheaper price.
Mysterious_Focus6144@reddit
Could it be that even being at the server baseline is already pushing these chips?
Note that Intel is trying to keep up in performance despite being several nodes behind.
Duraz0rz@reddit
Servers do tend to be rougher on chips since data centers want 100% utilization at all times, but that also means that consumer chips will fail at a slower rate than server chips since consumers don't put as much load.
It wouldn't be the first time that Intel has been behind in terms of process node (22nm was long for its time and 14nm was even longer), so they should know how to squeeze the most out of a process node. This really just points towards a design defect than anything and not necessarily a manufacturing defect.
emn13@reddit
Somebody elsewhere speculated it's the ring bus that's degrading. That's would explain why non-overclocked in-server chips are still failing, and it seems consistent with the amount of memory and I/O errors in particular these chips are experiencing. It's also one of the components that intel pushed particularly hard in 13th+14th gen - 12th gen runs it at 4.1 GHz; 13th and 14th at 5.0 GHz if I've googled that correctly.
I have zero data and insufficient expertise to validate this hypothesis to be clear; but it sounded plausible when I heard it...
Antici-----pation@reddit
I think the thought is that if that were the case, if they were degrading that fast at modest power levels, then we would expect to see a lot more killed instantly or very quickly when pushed on consumer boards.
buildzoid@reddit
1 Pcore running 6GHz only pulls \~60W. So you can totally wreck the CPU with voltage without even reaching the power limit as long as the voltage is high enough.
chubbysumo@reddit
is this whats happening then? the CPUs turbo algorithm is hammering the CPU with so much voltage for short durations, and its causing degradation?
I remember this happening with the 2nd and 3rd gen sandy/ivy bridge chips, but it happened after long term overclocks had been left applied and they were then no longer stable at stock speeds and voltages anymore. this is essentially intel trying to push its own product so hard that they are degrading themselves with an extended long term overclock.
but then, why is it exclusive to 13900k/ks and 14900k/ks? you would think this would also affect other K series CPUs like the 12900k and the 700 too, unless they aren't getting the massively aggressive 1.6v shoved into them.
anyways, at least its fully limited to raptor lake stuff, so if you got a 12 series chip, or a rebadged 12 series chip, you should be fine, at least for now.
DrWhiteWolf@reddit
Can you weigh in on what's a safe voltage in this case? I was really hoping that limiting both the PL and ICC Max would keep the voltage in a more reasonable range, it certainly keeps the CPU much cooler. E.g my current Vcore is between 1.35v and 1.4v during average game/operation loads. On very high loads it droops down to 1.18v - 1.2v.
asineth0@reddit
correct, some boards especially gigabyte ones were pushing insanely high voltages during single core workloads, buildzoid documented this on his channel.
bill_cipher1996@reddit
😂 look to who you replyed
deegwaren@reddit
to whoms'td've
asineth0@reddit
lmaooo i just noticed
Mr_That_Guy@reddit
Seems kinda weird to tell a guy about his own channel lol
asineth0@reddit
didn’t notice who i was replying to lol
capn_hector@reddit
"buildzoid's existential nightmare"
TechnoRanter@reddit
I guess that's one way of complimenting someone lol
Sadukar09@reddit
/r/irlsmurfing moment.
GladiatorUA@reddit
Consumer boards, not workstation/server ones.
asineth0@reddit
the brands of the boards that were having issues in servers according to Wendell were Asus and Supermicro. asus i could see doing some stupid shit, but supermicro usually plays it super safe and by the spec.
robmafia@reddit
but you have heard of him...
havoc1428@reddit
you are aware of who you just responded to... right?
nero10578@reddit
It’s voltage and current per core. Same degradation as overclockers have always dealt with before. We didn’t get chips clocked out of the factory like what an overclocker would have done before the latest 13th and 14th gen chips.
Albos_Mum@reddit
There was that 1.13Ghz Pentium III that was literally an unstable factory OC.
lordofthedrones@reddit
I badly wanted one to overvolt.
secretqwerty10@reddit
and they seem to be failing, with the 7800X3D beating the 13900K and 14900K in gaming
No_Share6895@reddit
and if you disable the non 3d cache ccd on the 7950x3d it gets even worse for intel. Yes i know thats technically a stupid thing to do, but so is the way intel is abusing the 13900k/s and 14900k/s.
letsgoiowa@reddit
Can't you just Process Lasso a given game to the x3d and non-x3d cores depending on what performs better? Way easier and more efficient. Still dumb that you have to do that though
Shadow647@reddit
You can and you should, Lasso all non-gaming crap (Windows processes, browsers, Discord, Steam etc) to non-X3D CCD, Lasso the game to the X3D CCD, and let it riiiiip.
Skitzo_Ramblins@reddit
You guys really pay for cpu affinity changer gui lmfao
Shadow647@reddit
I pirated it, wygd ¯\(ツ)/¯
Skitzo_Ramblins@reddit
sysinternals process manager does the same
Shadow647@reddit
and so does Windows' own Task Manager, the difference is that Process Lasso can do it (almost) fully automatically.
ShakenButNotStirred@reddit
You can set core affinity in task manager
Skitzo_Ramblins@reddit
exactly so wtf
ShakenButNotStirred@reddit
So I'm not sure why you brought up paying for it?
AFAICT no one was suggesting doing that
Skitzo_Ramblins@reddit
someone else in the thread literally said they pirated it when process explorer does the same thing
Standard-Potential-6@reddit
Yep, you can use systemd cgroups to do the same on Linux, or isolcpus= and a (Windows or Linux) VM.
Kougar@reddit
It's possible. But remember the 12th gen 12900K was built on the same Intel 7 node.
If it was as simple as the chips being pushed too hard then we should've seen at least some kind of statistical bump for the 12900K. Instead Wendell's evidence is indicating there wasn't any perceptible increase until the 13th and 14th gen parts when things simply went off the rails entirely.
It's also interesting how the errors aren't really localizing to any one part of the die. On some chips it's memory controllers, on others it's P cores, on others it's E cores, on some it's evidenced in the cache. Some have issues with decompression, some crash, some have hardware failures, others appear fine yet are silently corrupting storage drives.
Just theorycrafting but it's just as theoretically possible a modification done to the IMCs could've instituted new errata, since Intel tweaks the IMCs every generation and Raptor Lake saw the usual memory clock frequency bump over Alder Lake to indicate something was changed.
lefty200@reddit
Nope. Raptor lake was done on "Intel 7 Ultra": https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/7_nm_lithography_process#Intel_7_Ultra
Mysterious_Focus6144@reddit
Intel 13th has the new internal voltage regulator (DLVR) so it could be the case that intel got too greedy with performance and allow voltage to get ooh
Kougar@reddit
Ohh, I forgot entirely about that! It was really swept in under the rug, only heard about it well after launch too. Intel intentionally kept it disabled on the 12900K too, but it has it.
RephRayne@reddit
They've got form for this, the Pentium 4 was pushed and pushed to the limit and then they added a second core because it wasn't hot enough.
Intel got very lucky when their Israel division was found to have been working on what would become the Core line.
shendxx@reddit
Is there any article i can read about How intel division Making core2duo saving from Pentium 4 fiasco
All i can remember intel is paying OEM to not use AMD Chips despite how terrible Intel cpu
RephRayne@reddit
What you're looking for are stories on Netburst vs. Banias. Netburst was the architecture for the Pentium 4 and Banias was the initial release of Pentium-M which would lead to Core.
The first page of this review:-
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dothan-netburst,1041.html
An interview with a VP who was overseeing Banias (first two pages):-
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/interview-mooly-eden,1864.html
A short history on Banias, how it grew out of the ashes of Pentium III and Tinma:-
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1083/2
The reason Intel was paying Dell was because the Pentium 4 was so bad and AMD had a clear lead over them.
AMD hit 1 GHz first and I believe it caused Intel a deep psychic wound. The goal for Intel became clock speed over everything else, to win the Gigahertz "war", and it almost killed the CPU division.
In the back ground of all this was RDRAM, which was doing Intel no favours whatsoever due to the cost and performance.
Gippy_@reddit
It's amusing because back then the Prescott P4s were derisively named "Preshot" because they went over 100W. At the time, the thought of a CPU requiring 100W was unthinkable.
Now we have 300W consumer desktop CPUs lmao
safrax@reddit
Or when the P4s melted motherboards. That was fun.
sparcnut@reddit
Back in the day, I just figured that P4 = "Piss Poor Performance Processor".
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Hey HotSurfaceDoNotTouch, your comment has been removed because it is not a trustworthy benchmark website. Consider using another website instead.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Far1021@reddit
My experience with intel system
December 2023 my previous system 12600k(asus z680md4)+ 32gb 3200 ddr4 system age 2 years) had repetitive out of video memory errors in unreal engine 5 game(satisfactory) . Thought that that was graphics card (4060) error. Tried spare gpu 6600xt and that crashed without errors. The problem was solved partially by limiting the fps. The final straw for the old system was when i had to work at home and in my work applications( cad/bim memory heavy) the objects were shifted out of coordinates during ifc export process. My work rig is 13700kf asus z790p ddr5 5600(sk hynix) rtx A2000 12gb system age 1 year ) and that had same problem with work applications and the solution was to disable XMP. For safety i am running latest bios (PRIME Z790-P BIOS 1661) intel default with pl1 125 and pl2 188w and virtualisation disabled(caused stutters/mouse problems). Upgraded personal rig is 7800x3d asus strix b650-A, 32 gb ddr5 6000(running jedec 4800 looking to upgrade to ecc udimm ram for absolute stability) 7600xt/4060 and the system is stable for all my applications.
Far1021@reddit
*z690-m d4
bgswiss97@reddit
I don't use Reddit that often but when I googled Intel defective chips the first thing that showed up under Reddit said it only affects a small subset of chips but the failure rate is 50% and climbing with age how does that equate to a small subset of chips
deusXex@reddit
A youtuber claims, that it affected 50% of chips from a certain batch of 210 systems. The global scale is unknown and chips manufactured to certain date seems to be unaffected.
bgswiss97@reddit
That with the fact that another server company is charging in $1000 up charge just for these chipsets lead me to believe it's much larger than a small subset of chips
bgswiss97@reddit
Judging from your reply you didn't watch the actual Level1tech's video you just watched gamer Nexus. Gamer Nexxus was an overview while his actual video shows the graphs and charts the numbers are bigger than 210 that was just the server side
bgswiss97@reddit
Well most of the video video did talk about the server failures how are you ignoring the thousands of gaming computer crash reports That they also went over
SavantConiseur@reddit
looks like I was be put optioning intel
OldMan316@reddit
I bought a 13900k last year intending to build a new pc but a number of medical issues of cropped up which have caused me problems with assembling it. I have it still in the original box unopened, should I be concerned? I knew I would be having heat issues and was intending to underclock the thing in undervolt it as necessary. But should I just be looking to sell this thing new before opening it and get something else? I really can't afford to start completely from scratch with this and due to my disabilities I have a hard time building and disassembling PCs compared to how I was 5 years ago.
So even to send it in after seeing problems with it would be difficult. What would you do if you were in my situation because I do intend to build this PC within the next month.
ZealousidealCycle257@reddit
What's the use of the pc you are making?
OldMan316@reddit
I was looking for top of the line gaming and top of the line editing and everything else. And my disabilities now it's not exactly the most top of the line cuz I had to wait so long to put it together. I got a lump sum amount of money recently last year that's what let me get a really good GPU CPU the whole shebang. I went a little overboard maybe more than what I needed but I figured I wouldn't have to update it for a much longer time.
puffz0r@reddit
just return it
OldMan316@reddit
I bought it last year August or September, who's going to accept that return I know Newegg won't. And to sell it I'm going to lose money on it for sure. Plus who's buying a 13,900k right now? There was a time if you had something new in the box you could get relatively close to new in the box price with the 13900 and the 14900s I don't think so.
gburdell@reddit
This kind of hubris reminds me the Spectre and Meltdown response. It will not go over well. I expect some of the top brass to get fired.
letsgoiowa@reddit
Spectre and Meltdown unfortunately had very little industry impact as people kept buying Intel. Our org's "lesson" was "well, the old CPUs have the problem so we have to do a whole Intel-based server refresh!"
Gippy_@reddit
No one cared about Spectre and Meltdown because those were academic exploits. No one had actually coded and released public malware that have affected millions of users. Meltdown was an OS-level patch, but Spectre outlines possible exploits in speculative execution.
It was a whole lot of "it could happen" but 6 years later, you'd think someone would try to use these exploits to hit servers that still use older CPUs.
puffz0r@reddit
I mean we have had a whole lot of hacked businesses in the past couple years.. Microsoft had a big hack, we just had a big hack of one of the biggest car dealer management software vendors, we had a big hack of Sony
letsgoiowa@reddit
We still had to patch regardless for compliance reasons, which resulted in very serious performance problems.
Standard-Potential-6@reddit
Meltdown's OS-level patch came with quite a hit to performance, but 8-20% with the average on the lower side wasn't noticed in most cases, and it didn't affect the market for future Intel chips.
Agreed with regard to all the rest!
lovely_sombrero@reddit
Intel has been mostly quiet about this, makes sense that game devs are running out of patience and moving entirely to AMD. Intel hasn't even provided any real guidance on where they are at with the investigation.
SomeoneBritish@reddit
What does “game devs are moving to AMD” mean?
Specialist-Hat167@reddit
Not sure what moving from Intel would require devs to change? Same x86 so idk what OP is on about.
puffz0r@reddit
They are also changing their work laptops to amd, there were reports of compiler errors and memory corruption on coding projects
Warskull@reddit
Physically swapping the servers over. That's a ton of work and cost. They have to buy a bunch of AMD mobos/CPUs and then pay people to systematically change them all. It would be a huge project and is not something to be taken lightly.
Specialist-Hat167@reddit
A developer is not in charge of any of that buddy. They write code.
Whole IT teams exist dedicated to the infrastructure side of tech.
Warskull@reddit
"Game devs" is often used to refer the the studio/company as a whole. Which given the context is almost certainly what people are talking about.
Levalis@reddit
Game servers often use consumer chips instead of Xeon. They noticed high failure rates. They are considering replacing the servers with AMD hardware.
seigemode1@reddit
it should have been the right move to switch regardless. AMD's offerings are straight up better when in a low power configuration.
Mysterious_Focus6144@reddit
My bet is they know the issue can't be resolved with a simple microcode update.
aminorityofone@reddit
that is strongly hinted at in the GN video
DoughNotDoit@reddit
sucks big-time for Intel, hope they get it together, don't want AMD going complacent as they're kinda winning the race this generation, healthy competition is always good for us consumers
-WingsForLife-@reddit
I know right, I wanted a 14500 for decent multicore and speed, since in my country it's cheaper than even the 7600, and AMD's been sitting that series on 6 core since the 1600.
Seems like it'd be a bad choice even if I plan to sit it on 65w.
Skrattinn@reddit
I'm a bit out of the loop. But isn't this limited to those CPUs that can push 200-300W or more?
I wouldn't worry about buying a 65w chip, personally. It seems fairly likely that those high-end chips are failing because of the sheer wattage being pushed through them.
Zone15@reddit
Also it seems like almost everyone having issues with the chips have super high end cooling. It's almost like when the chips are kept cool but still pulling that amount of power, something in the boost algorithm is letting it get out of control. I know the i7's aren't effected as much but my 13700K under a NH-D15 has never had any issues.
resetallthethings@reddit
This was initial thoughts. The recent stuff from Wendell and this developer is on enterprise level boards that are only running 125 watt power limits
Gidrovlicheskiy@reddit
Keep in mind we dont know if they are using PL2 limits for short duration which could also be effecting it. Unless you manually set PL2, its almost always whatever the default spec intel issues is. Even if they are running 125W for long duration, PL2 is like 252w for 28 or 56 seconds. That's long enough to saturate the chip with heat in weak areas.
resetallthethings@reddit
Highest reported hotspot from Wendells info was less the. 80c
Mr_That_Guy@reddit
You can still exceed safe voltages without pushing the whole package power usage to those limits. If you have a single core boosting, you can easily be under the max TDP for the whole processor but still running unsafe voltage on that core.
ClearTacos@reddit
Both the Wendell's and GN's + Wendel videos stress that they have contacts with companies that use these in servers, on server boards with much lower power limit, and the issues remain.
They also talk about the randomness of the issue, it's not just the P cores that have the most juice flowing through them failing, in some cases disabling the e-cores or lowering memory speed mitigates the crashing.
-WingsForLife-@reddit
Hmm, you're probably right, though I kind of keep cpus for quite a bit so I'm having second thoughts, I'll wait for more information I suppose.
Foreign-Lynx6286@reddit
isnt 14500 just a 13500 which is alder lake and fine?
no_salty_no_jealousy@reddit
i5 and i7 isn't affected by those instability issues, it just the i9K and KS. You will be fine with i5-14500 as long you didn't OC RAM.
poorlycooked@reddit
It's cheaper for a reason. The performance is quite a bit off the 7600 since it's Alder Lake-based.
ChickenNoodleSloop@reddit
14500 doesn't seem to be affected to the same level
Shibes_oh_shibes@reddit
I don't think they will be complacent as long as they have less than 50% of the market in x86.
aminorityofone@reddit
The damage is well beyond done. This company alone will take years to trust intel and switch back, if they ever do. If this issue is big, then all companies are in the same boat. It is mentioned that Fortnite also has issues.
jcoffin1981@reddit
I just read about this now. Was considering purchasing an i5 14500. It is considerably faster than my 10700k, and inexpensive, and much lower power usage.
LoCk3H@reddit
my 13900k @ 5.8 all core has been solid since day one but I went deep tweaking all the voltages, VF curve, soc voltages and made sure the core voltage didn't ever go over 1.375v MAX and its been solid. UE5 games run fine and shaders all loads fine.
If I left my Asus bios to default it would think pumping nearly 1.5V into a stock cpu under load is normal.. which is a complete joke..
unchecked power profiles and insane voltages has not helped this issue..
deusXex@reddit
Same here. 13900KF - 5.8 on 2 cores and 5.6 all core. Not a single issue and I compile code very often, so all core tasks and 100% utilization on daily basis. I believe one of their fabs got contaminated at some point in 2023 so they have defective chips in stores selling to customers now, which is a really big problem.
deusXex@reddit
It seems that early chips manufactured in 2022 or early 2023 are fine. So Intel either contaminated one of their fabs or added new one, which is defective. Either way, it seems that it started happening to chips manufactured from certain date. My guess is second half of 2023. Intel should really investigate serial numbers of all failing chips and track it down to certain fab and manufacturing date. Then they should publish their finding and recall all of these chips. Releasing gimped BIOSes won't solve issues these chips have and it will only reduce performance for people, who have unaffected chips.
psinsyd@reddit
I can't even count the hours I spent trying to troubleshoot the crashes on my two machines with these after I built them and before the stories starting coming out.
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
Imagine having teams of developers spending day and night coding your game to fix crashes that were not even caused by mistakes made in your code. I can feel the same way with these troubleshooting nightmares. I wish you the best of luck!
psinsyd@reddit
Oh I can only imagine the ripple effects of this....I didn't even think of the game devs in the same boat until the stories starting making their way out. Mobo manufacturers to I'm sure, with Intel first trying to throw them under the bus saying it was the manufacturers' power profiles causing the issue.
Thank you!!
obiray@reddit
Same, I nearly RMAd my GPU thinking that was the problem. Put the claim in but never sent it off... Worst feeling in the world after building a brand new PC
Basic_Friend8444@reddit
Done with Intel. Ryzen and Radeon for my gaming needs and Mac for work. For my gaming needs Radeon cards are more than enough and decently priced unlike GimpVidea...I know they rule in AI but for my limited use cases like messing around occasionally in SD a 3060 is enough. It's 2024, I don't want my computer eating more power than my circular saw, why should I want that? Why should I be forced to use a car's engine radiator to cool down a stupid CPU in 2024? Why should I have to deal with stability issues and hardware failures after paying top dollar for this shite? Screw them. Time for these companies to take the some L's as usually it's only us, the consumers taking L's.
Bfedorov91@reddit
Sweet... got 2 days to return my 14700kf to amazon lol
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
It might be fine, but from my own experience id reccomend returning it. We don't know how long intel will take to fix this problem and if you will be effected.
Bfedorov91@reddit
Yeah $400 is too much of a gamble.
Uhhh... now do I risk returning my motherboard to newegg to switch to amd...
RedTuesdayMusic@reddit
Hard not to feel a sense of schadenfreude after people basically invented justification for going Intel post Ryzen 3xxx.
N0SF3RATU@reddit
So I got an i9 gen 13. What should I do to 'test' my CPU if I'm not a super tech person
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
There are tests you can run with ycruncher and 7zip decompression tests ,though I would like to see a page or write up by someone like Wendell to cover all the bases.
N0SF3RATU@reddit
Cheers. I guess this is early days. I'll wait for smart folks to dumb it down further
the_nin_collector@reddit
I am expecting this to turn into a class action law suit, and in 10 years, after I have upgraded twice (using AMD), intel will send me a 10$ gift card that I can't even use in my region.
Pretty much how equifax played out for me.
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
Class actions end up with a lot of 'Sorry we sold you a broken CPU, here is your $5 check.'
Sorry your servers were crashing, here is a $2 credit for the ten thousand hours of downtime.
asineth0@reddit
class action lawsuits for to make lawyers rich, not for you and me to get what we’re owed.
letsgoiowa@reddit
Class actions should reimburse for the full cost of the product IMO.
PastaSaladTosser@reddit
I don't understand...how long did they think they'd keep doing this before people figured out there's a problem? And the silence about the whole thing doesn't help. Was selling some 13/14 series i9s in the short term really worth the damage to a brand already damaged from years of "14nm++++" and tons of security vulnerabilities? Intel was the default choice for so long and in a few years they've managed to turn the significance of "Intel Inside" upside down.
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
No company wants to come out and say there is a problem, however ultimately a recall / refund / RMA program would definately bring a lot of good will and people might consider buying intel CPUs again. If you handle it poorly, people are just not coming back.
Theswweet@reddit
Seeing how two common errors for this are GPU and NVMe related, I wonder if the core of the issue is the PCIe system on the chips? Would explain why the power profile fix hasn't actually solved the problem, as that would've never been truly impacted by an overclock normally.
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
Because the CPUs degrade over time the problem can definately be hard to track and can move to a different area when we re-check later.
ThePizzaReturns@reddit
[I'm not sure how reliable this guy is, but he stated it's a problem with the IO hub](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtjJ5NRLSv8). Apparently there's a design flaw with the IO on the 13900k and 14900k (something about it not being directly connected to the CPU?). I didn't fully understand it and he didn't go into a ton of detail, but I think it could explain the NVME errors.
gravballe@reddit
And yet people will keep claiming amd is unstable 😅
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
I do have some AMD systems that are unstable, but for us the CPUS we happened to buy from AMD might have a 0.01% failure rate compared to the 99-100% failure rate for intel for us.
Some of it comes down to luck, maybe if you purchased the 7950X3D chip that exploded due to a motherboard problem you wouldn't feel so great LOL.
Minute_Path9803@reddit
Should be a class action lawsuit against them!
How they are getting away with this is murder.
Matt_AlderonGames@reddit
There are major problems where most companies are afraid to talk about this right now to avoid damaging their relationship with Intel. As a indie game company that got massively burned by this, we just want to encorage intel to offer refunds and RMAs. We have server providers who can't even get RMAs.
YeshYyyK@reddit
I know I'm in the minority, but I would rather not have such power/voltage hungry CPUs and take the efficiency gains,
let people overclock like before if they want by buying oversized cooler
obiray@reddit
The problem is, this is how Intel advertised them and used their benchmarks as a sales point.
Years ago overclocking wasn't the standard or sale point. The CPU would sell as default and it was up to the buyer to overclock at their own risk
YeshYyyK@reddit
yeah that's okay, fix it in the next iteration, you can also advertise better efficiency
I guess the jump in performance has to be big enough where you're comfortably beating the previous gen while also consuming like >25% less power
I don't know what a "reasonable" maximum would be, but maybe <200W?
Intel is now overclocking them by default and taking their own risk, I suppose
Austin24077@reddit
I was just about to pull the trigger on 14900. Damn. Guess I’ll wait until next gen.
mi7chy@reddit
Seems drastic to replace. Wonder if they tried setting power limit?
Reactor-Licker@reddit
These issues affect servers too, with (presumably) locked down power limits. I saw that Buildzoid asked Wendell to provide the power limit and load line specs on those server boards. He says he’s working on it last I checked.
skilliard7@reddit
you shouldn't be using a 13900k consumer grade CPU on a server...
resetallthethings@reddit
Correct
125 watt power limits to be exact
SkillYourself@reddit
ASUS W-series has the same issue as their high-end Z/H boards. They pushed out new BIOS with boosted load lines and limited ICCMax last month.
Farfolomew@reddit
Agreed, I'm quickly learning on this site that some of the most interesting and useful comments are ones I have to click the EXPAND button on to read.
aminorityofone@reddit
watch the GN video and the Wendel video. It is clear its not a power setting.
Mycroft_Cadburry@reddit
I just bought a new i9 13900kf from an Intel official distributor in my country. Within a week games started crashing and I got blue screens. Just a week after the return window closed my computer is bricked and only blue screens when booting windows.
I am going through rma now. Hoping at minimum to try a new CPU, but this has permanently removed Intel as a potential future option for me.
YoloSwagglns@reddit
Does anyone know if Sapphire Rapids would be affected by this?
crosspacelayer@reddit
I'm having the exact same issues described in this article. I have a 13th gen Intel CPU, but the thing is that it's not an i9, it's an i5-13400. Is this possible?
Gippy_@reddit
Use CPU-Z and then look at "Revision". If it's B0 then your CPU is a true 13th-gen Raptor Lake. If it's C0 then it's actually a 12th-gen Alder Lake CPU, which doesn't have this issue.
So C0 is what you're hoping for.
Bevier@reddit
My laptop is label as a 13500K, Rev C0.
Jackpot!
Thank you for the info!
crosspacelayer@reddit
It's a B0... Is there anything I can do to help or am I screwed?
Gippy_@reddit
Unfortunately, no one has found a solution that works 100%. The videos from Level1Techs and GamersNexus covers this.
Emotional_Two_8059@reddit
Well, looks like due to finally having competition, both AMD and Intel are pushing the chips very close to/above safe limits (see 7800X3D saga). And the motherboard vendors make it even worse by removing power limits and using unreasonable voltages
-KingDuken@reddit
... So, who's looking forward to Nvidia's consumer CPUs?
TravelingGonad@reddit
I have a friend who has crashing with AMD. I told him maybe it was the RAM overclocking. In any case, we need repeatable tests with the defective units.
NewRedditIsVeryUgly@reddit
Nearly 100% failure? and you guys are taking this claim seriously?
This is a small studio with a couple dozen employees, so you'd expect large studios to come out with much worse issues and similar failure rate. Where are they? Intel would go bankrupt if that was the case.
Anecdotally, I've been using a 13th gen mobile CPU for over a year with 0 issues, and I often push the CPU to 100% all core utilization for an extended period.
Farfolomew@reddit
Come on, people, this comment is valid and shouldn't be down-voted so as to disappear into oblivion. He has a healthy skeptical view on the issue and should be considered and discussed in this thread as well. It's too important to ignore this take.
onlyslightlybiased@reddit
It's almost as if mobile and desktop cpus aren't the same
r_z_n@reddit
Degradation issues sounds like? What specific SKUs are experiencing this? Has anyone else gone public about this yet?
letsgoiowa@reddit
Degradation combined with actual hardware issue sounds like. Even lower power limit locked boards for W-series are still getting rekt.
Real-Human-1985@reddit
13900 and 14900 K/KS/KF
no_salty_no_jealousy@reddit
This is what should be written in the headline but typical garbage journalists gonna do everything to scare people and gain more attention for their clicks and views. i5 and i7 isn't affected by those instability or random issues.
Asgard033@reddit
Intel's looking into instability in all 13th and 14th Gen K SKUs. https://community.intel.com/t5/Processors/June-2024-Guidance-regarding-Intel-Core-13th-and-14th-Gen-K-KF/m-p/1607807
Wendell's videos talk about 13900 and 14900 K SKUs because that's what his contacts use and have data on.
LamentableFool@reddit
Damn it. After years I finally upgraded from 4th gen Intel to 13900k and they have unprecedented failures.
garfieldevans@reddit
Same exact situation for me
r_z_n@reddit
Thanks. Perhaps my question was dumb but I genuinely hadn’t seen this mentioned before. It definitely sounds like they pushed those generations too hard. Reminiscent of certain Pentium 4 models.
Real-Human-1985@reddit
It’s been a big thing this year, around February it came out that Intel chips are not stable in unreal engine games and then Nvidia came out and announced VRAM errors are erroneously reported and the cause is Intel cpu failures.
They seem to be degrading over time.
r_z_n@reddit
I tend to gloss over Intel related articles because all of the PCs in my house are running Ryzen 5000 series chips for now. That’s unfortunate though, I would like both products to be competitive. Hopefully this problem does not continue into the next generation.
everyonehatescp3@reddit
i really have no clue on this but shoutout to everyone who's involved with analysis and testing in any shape of form
Cold-Recognition-171@reddit
This is actually insane. I wonder if this is the cause of a lot of people getting weird errors in Tekken 8 I've been seeing others have that I haven't been having on my AMD CPU (Polaris something, I had a few on launch but they patched it). In the GN video they say it can even show up as video driver errors when it's actually the CPU.
sacred_ace@reddit
Can anyone give me some info on how these issues with these CPUs starts? I have been experiencing crashes that didnt used to happen during games which I kind of just attributed to my GPU undervolt becoming less stable.
Most of the time the error is some dxgi error or something when games crash.
tinix0@reddit
Out of VRAM errors seems to be a common way this manifests, but it could be anything.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Hey thehighshibe, your comment has been removed because it is not a trustworthy benchmark website. Consider using another website instead.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
G4m3boy@reddit
Honestly it just feels intel is going the Nvidia way. With each generation of cpu/gpu just requiring more power to get the performance leap. Even with what new architecture they are claiming it’s made on, everything seems to be just requiring more wattage. When Apple debut the M1, that was really innovation. Bring used in iPads to MBs bring so efficient with lower power consumption. I believe ARM is way for the future if intel still keep this up.
DeathDexoys@reddit
R/ Intel should blame this on Mobo vendors /s
Acrobatic_Age6937@reddit
this doesn't sound like it's purely a hardware issue. If your product only works 100x better than a known defective one it would still be trash.
karatekid430@reddit
Those are CPUs? I thought they were space heater heating elements.
Dependent_Big_3793@reddit
it is surprise that crashing issue including server cpu. which mean defective problem may on nano tech side and not the too aggressive frequency and voltage. it show intel nano tech may worst than samsung a lot. the issue may very serious not about the performance is about stability and product life. that why intel switch to TSMC.
Dependent_Big_3793@reddit
but here may another possibility, it may caused by core design no the nano tech and intel still not found the reason, so intel next gen cpu may have same issue. i think we should skip 15 gen cpu then observe the situation then consider 16 gen cpu.
kindaMisty@reddit
Ringbus / IMC degradation. Possible electromigration within the traces
nerd_-_-@reddit
i have the i7 13700hx on laptop it never caused me any issue literally does whatever its supposed to.
TophxSmash@reddit
It was pretty obvious from the beginning when talking about motherboard power plans. Its rated for it but its not capable of it anymore? hmmm.... maybe its degradation. ofc nobody involved with intel is gonna say that because intel is a sack of shit throwing the mobos under the bus.
NewKitchenFixtures@reddit
That is blunt enough that it may get Intel’s attention.
Would be nice to find more precisely what the issue is. With nano probes and an electron microscope I’d think it would eventually be identifiable.
Or at least I’ve seen some amazing vendor tear downs for bugs.
WHY_DO_I_SHOUT@reddit
I think the necessary tools are out of reach for tech press. You need state-of-the-art stuff for chips manufactured on nodes this advanced.
dsinsti@reddit
Just a reminder. In July 2017 I bought an i7 7700K, that cpu is shortest top of the line Intel has ever had as very soon the i7 8700K replaced it. one year later W11 announced being not compatible to Kaby Lake. Why?? flawed CPU design. So yeah, IMHO Intel sales flawed CPU's acknowledging so.
bctoy@reddit
I remember hearing many anecdotes of 13th series failing last year, especially from users who had non-gaming workloads that would keep CPUs at 100% for long durations. So much so, that people were advising to go for 12th gen instead.
In India, temps can go higher and you've to account for that when looking at the temps in reviews.
imaginary_num6er@reddit
Should be reworded as “has been” selling defective 13-14th Gen CPUs. With lower-end 14th gen being binned 13th gen, they may have the same issues too
tupseh@reddit
Are the lower skus problematic as well? I thought it was mostly an i9 problem?
JonWood007@reddit
I heard i7s are having issues as well.