News Game publisher claims 100% crash rate with Intel CPUs – Alderon Games says company sells defective 13th and 14th gen chips

[bit_user]

I'm also apparently fairly good at tuning, so I was looking on Ebay for some unstable chip deals.
None to be found, not even that many 14900xx for sale.
I've got some real good deals on problematic GPUs that I got going, where are the i9 deals?
I must not be fast enough. If Intel isn't taking a significant number of RMAs they must be out there.

Intel used to be honoring warranty claims on them. We only just recently heard they're starting not to, but maybe that's still not on 100% of the RMAs. Like, if you don't have the receipt or didn't buy from an authorized reseller, or bought an OEM/tray part. Those technically don't have warranty coverage, but returns might've been rare enough that they'd take them anyway and only now started to get picky?

Just be a little patient. I'm sure there will be deals to be had. I think it's a mighty gamble, because you don't know how much more they'll degrade, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[Nyara]

After literally ordering an i9-14900KF yesterday and receiving it today along with a GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS PRO X, I am absolutely horrified. Afraid to put together the build.

Despite being a shameless Intel fanboy for over 15 years, I'm thinking I should I return both and buy a Ryzen 9 7950X3D.

...Though another part of me wants to press my luck and hope I received some good quality silicon.

Ugh.

If you use it like an i7 in terms of clocks, voltage and power limit, it should run fine, otherwise I would return it.

 

[bit_user]

I'm thinking I should I return both and buy a Ryzen 9 7950X3D.

You know that Zen 5 (Ryzen 9000) launches in about 2 weeks, right? I'm not trying to give you advice on your Intel CPU, but if you decide to switch to AMD, you should probably give Zen 5 a little thought.

 

[TerryLaze]

I see a massive class action lawsuit in Intel's future regarding these 13th and 14th gen issues.

They would need to proof that this happens with nothing more than the specs that are stated in the datasheet for the given CPU.
It will never happen.

A class action against mobo makers though that didn't state that they where using out of spec settings, that would be a lot more doable.
Especially after they changed into stating it after the issues started,

 

[helper800]

No it is not. 100x times fewer takes you into negative numbers. If you take it at face value, if Intel crashes 100 times, 100x fewer takes you into -9900 crashes for amd.

That coming from a developer, you know - people writing code - just yikes.

This is incorrect. Let me break it down for you: One hundred means 100. "Times” is generally used as a common language expression for multiplication. “Larger” means the multiplicand will be above the fraction line. “Fewer” means the multiplicand will be below the fraction line. So, “One hundred times fewer” means you use “1/100” as a multiplicand. Do I need to be any more specific? Just because you do not like the terminology that does not mean such words do not have a mathematical expression.

 

[TheHerald]

This is incorrect. Let me break it down for you: One hundred means 100. "Times” is generally used as a common language expression for multiplication. “Larger” means the multiplicand will be above the fraction line. “Fewer” means the multiplicand will be below the fraction line. So, “One hundred times fewer” means you use “1/100” as a multiplicand. Do I need to be any more specific? Just because you do not like the terminology that does not mean such words do not have a mathematical expression.

Man, the word "fewer" directly refers to the original value. If the original value is let's say 100, saying something is 2 times fewer means it's 2 times fewer than the original value, which is 100. It's really not correct to say x times slower / fewer / less whatever.

 

[TerryLaze]

This is incorrect. Let me break it down for you: One hundred means 100. "Times” is generally used as a common language expression for multiplication. “Larger” means the multiplicand will be above the fraction line. “Fewer” means the multiplicand will be below the fraction line. So, “One hundred times fewer” means you use “1/100” as a multiplicand. Do I need to be any more specific? Just because you do not like the terminology that does not mean such words do not have a mathematical expression.

But only IF you translate it into a multiplicand out of your own accord, they should have used one from the beginning.

Whatever the amount of failure rate is, one time fewer would already be 0.

"Time(s) " is the amount in question, 100 times fewer would multiply the original amount by 100. It is generally used as a common language expression for multiplication because you multiply by full values, by "the whole thing" , three times a whole apple and so on.
Three times the failure rate of, whatever it is, would be 300% and three times the failure rate less would be -300%

 

[helper800]

Man, the word "fewer" directly refers to the original value. If the original value is let's say 100, saying something is 2 times fewer means it's 2 times fewer than the original value, which is 100. It's really not correct to say x times slower / fewer / less whatever.

Who says that it is incorrect? What appeal to authority are you referring to? To my understanding, it is not incorrect to use such language, just that specific language is not used often so it is seen as improper. This is a misconception.

 

[TheHerald]

Who says that it is incorrect? What appeal to authority are you referring to? To my understanding, it is not incorrect to use such language, just that specific language is not used often so it is seen as improper. This is a misconception.

Common sense says it is incorrect. Again, "times" refers to a 100% multiplication of the original value. Just flip the "fewer" with "more" and figure it out. 100 times more means you take the original value, and you increase it by 100 times. So in reverse, 100 times fewer means you take the original value and you decrease it 100 times. This is really elementary school level math.

 

[mitch074]

Reminds me of the Pentium III 1.13 GHz... Intel, furious that AMD beat them to the GHz barrier, pulled out a 1.13 GHz chip - whose every sample failed to compile the Linux kernel.
It was announced in great fanfare, but after testing by Toms and others, was pulled from market and we got nothing new from Intel until early P4's.

 

[TheHerald]

Reminds me of the Pentium III 1.13 GHz... Intel, furious that AMD beat them to the GHz barrier, pulled out a 1.13 GHz chip - whose every sample failed to compile the Linux kernel.
It was announced in great fanfare, but after testing by Toms and others, was pulled from market and we got nothing new from Intel until early P4's.

Come on now lad. Was the 7800x 3d burning itself and the mobo caused b AMD being furious Intel was beating them?

 

[bit_user]

They would need to proof that this happens with nothing more than the specs that are stated in the datasheet for the given CPU.
It will never happen.

That's what their server datapoints should provide. There was this other article, where people found it on Supermicro W680 boards - and those don't support overclocking.

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...h-gen-intel-cpu-instability-also-hits-servers
​

Plus, the burden of proof for a civil lawsuit is 51% - not the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard needed for a criminal conviction.

 

[TerryLaze]

That's what their server datapoints should provide. There was this other article, where people found it on Supermicro W680 boards - and those don't support overclocking.

​

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...h-gen-intel-cpu-instability-also-hits-servers​

​

Plus, the burden of proof for a civil lawsuit is 51% - not the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard needed for a criminal conviction.

Pro WS W680-ACE - Tech Specs｜Motherboards｜ASUS Global

Intel® W680 LGA 1700 ATX motherboard, DDR5, PCIe 5.0, 2.5 Gb, SlimSAS, enhanced power and cooling solutions

www.asus.com

"Supports Intel® Extreme Memory Profile (XMP)"
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/extreme-memory-profile-xmp.html
"Intel® Extreme Memory Profile (Intel® XMP) lets you overclock "
The memory controller is integrated in the CPU....

Plus, the burden of proof for a civil lawsuit is 51% - not the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard needed for a criminal conviction.

How would that change anything?!
Does that mean that if it happens in 51% of the CPUs they have a case?!
Do they only have to proof the existence of the CPU but not the fact that it crashes? (So half the story has to be proven)

 

[bit_user]

Pro WS W680-ACE - Tech Specs｜Motherboards｜ASUS Global

Intel® W680 LGA 1700 ATX motherboard, DDR5, PCIe 5.0, 2.5 Gb, SlimSAS, enhanced power and cooling solutions

www.asus.com

"Supports Intel® Extreme Memory Profile (XMP)"

I specifically said "Supermicro" and you link to & quote from an ASUS board? That's low, even for you.

How would that change anything?!
Does that mean that if it happens in 51% of the CPUs they have a case?!

No, it means jurors only have to deem it more "probable than not" that the CPU failures were due to a product defect and not misuse.

 

[TerryLaze]

I specifically said "Supermicro" and you link to & quote from an ASUS board? That's low, even for you.

The article doesn't mention supermicro, the L1 video doesn't mention supermicro and only says that in the datacenter most systems are deployed with a motherboard based around the w680 chipset.
They do show supermicro in the video but they don't say anything about datacenters only using supermicro, they say they use w680 in general.
Just because supermicro was the first result he found when googling w680 doesn't mean anything.
Actually the one and only example he gave from a system that crashed hard was this.
Oh, look, weirdly it says asus right there!

That's low even for you!

 

[rluker5]

After literally ordering an i9-14900KF yesterday and receiving it today along with a GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS PRO X, I am absolutely horrified. Afraid to put together the build.

Despite being a shameless Intel fanboy for over 15 years, I'm thinking I should I return both and buy a Ryzen 9 7950X3D.

...Though another part of me wants to press my luck and hope I received some good quality silicon.

Ugh.

I have a 13900kf , bought it at release and have seen 0 degradation and have had stability issues only when I have undervolted it too far, clocked it too high, or when I have tightened my ram too much or tried to run it too fast. It runs at lower power at the same clocks and at higher clocks now than when I got it because I have gotten better at tuning it. People who own i9s aren't fire selling them on ebay.

The worst thing you can do for your chip in terms of degradation is to set it to Intel failsafe settings where your chip will draw 1.6v peaks per hwinfo. I've seen it on my chip and it is still fine. Some people delid their i9s, direct die cool them and run high clocks with high voltages and I don't hear any of them claiming they degraded their CPUs or burned them out and regret it. They are the canary in the coal mine, not some small time game dev companies trying to run their setups like mining rigs.

The whole instability issue seems to have a lot more evidence against degradation than for it, but do check your volts and pare them back if they are too high. There are some chips that are unstable at motherboard stock settings and sometimes those settings may be troubling, for example I'm running stock, XMP right now and my IMC VDD (memory controller voltage) is currently 1.563v which is uncomfortably high. I will probably go back to a bios save after work where I keep it under 1.4v without a stability loss.

 

[mitch074]

Come on now lad. Was the 7800x 3d burning itself and the mobo caused b AMD being furious Intel was beating them?

That wasn't a CPU bug, and it was fixed by firmware - the CPUs still worked as advertised after patching. The PIII 1.13 was a dud of an overclocked piece made only to make Intel look good and instead ridiculed them.

 

[TheHerald]

That wasn't a CPU bug, and it was fixed by firmware - the CPUs still worked as advertised after patching.

It wasn't a bug, mobos were feeding high SOC voltages to the cpu to make faster ram stable. Probably because AMD was furious Intel was beating them, so they allowed ram speeds that cause overvoltage and permanent damages to the cpu and the mobo.

 

[TerryLaze]

That wasn't a CPU bug, and it was fixed by firmware - the CPUs still worked as advertised after patching. The PIII 1.13 was a dud of an overclocked piece made only to make Intel look good and instead ridiculed them.

It wasn't a bug, mobos were feeding high SOC voltages to the cpu to make faster ram stable. Probably because AMD was furious Intel was beating them, so they allowed ram speeds that cause overvoltage and permanent damages to the cpu and the mobo.

It was a defective thermal protection device that would just burn out at above 1.5V leaving the CPU unprotected from the auto overclock causing them to blow up.
This could have been a limited event wit a small batch of these devices just being sub par, or it could have been AMD cheaping out, going with the cheapest option for the design so it could be in all of their CPUs of that gen.

This is what people are trying to manage on the intel CPUs as well, make it boost to oblivion, but instead of blowing up intel just crashes.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/a...use-identified-expo-and-soc-voltages-to-blame

Our sources also added further details about the nature of the chip failures — in some cases, excessive SoC voltages destroy the chips' thermal sensors and thermal protection mechanisms, completely disabling its only means of detecting and protecting itself from overheating. As a result, the chip continues to operate without knowing its temperature or tripping the thermal protections.

AMD's modern chips often run at their thermal limits to squeeze out every last drop of performance within their safe thermal range — it isn't uncommon for them to run at 95C during normal operation — so they will automatically continue to draw more power until it dials back to remain within a safe temperature. In this case, the lack of temperature sensors and protection mechanisms allows the chip to receive more power beyond the recommended safe limits. This excessive power draw leads to overheating that eventually causes physical damage to the chip, like the bowing we've seen on the outside of several chip packages, or the desoldering reported by Der8auer.

 

[mitch074]

It was a defective thermal protection device that would just burn out at above 1.5V leaving the CPU unprotected from the auto overclock causing them to blow up.
This could have been a limited event wit a small batch of these devices just being sub par, or it could have been AMD cheaping out, going with the cheapest option for the design so it could be in all of their CPUs of that gen.

This is what people are trying to manage on the intel CPUs as well, make it boost to oblivion, but instead of blowing up intel just crashes.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/a...use-identified-expo-and-soc-voltages-to-blame

It was spec'ed for 1.25V, and safe values were determined to 1.35 V and later locked in firmware at 1.3V, so it was definitely running out of spec.
My PIII example could not compile a Linux kernel while running at base specs with low temps.
Edit : typo

 

[TerryLaze]

It was spec'ed for 1.25V, and safe values were determined to 1.35 V and later locked in formware at 1.3V, so it was definitely running out of spec.
My PIII example could not compile a Linux kernel while running at base specs with low temps.

Yup, the whole intel k lineup is running out of spec as well but it still doesn't blow up.

 

[hotaru251]

This is what people are trying to manage on the intel CPUs as well, make it boost to oblivion, but instead of blowing up intel just crashes.

except wendel has confirmed that even non oc & pretty conservative settings still has issues.
& again 12th gen has no issue even when run at high voltages and stuff.

if that was the actual issue Intel would of came out by now about it & just hard coded a limit to prevent that.

AMD's was literally just a failed protection which was quickly fixed via patch to MB bios & you lost no performance or anything (as again it was just a bug in protection limit not an actual CPU issue)

 

[TheHerald]

except wendel has confirmed that even non oc & pretty conservative settings still has issues.
& again 12th gen has no issue even when run at high voltages and stuff.

if that was the actual issue Intel would of came out by now about it & just hard coded a limit to prevent that.

AMD's was literally just a failed protection which was quickly fixed via patch to MB bios & you lost no performance or anything (as again it was just a bug in protection limit not an actual CPU issue)

That is wrong. All the bios update did was limit the voltage allowed for the SOC. Which also limits how fast you can run your memory. There was nothing about failed protection or anything of the likes.

 

[rluker5]

It seems there is a common issue with these recently reported crashes. Mismatching sub z690 vrm w680 boards with consumer hardware and i9k chips, pretending it is enterprise grade server hardware and having instability with not the most compatible hardware. Like that company that tried using AMD gaming graphics cards for professional AI workloads.

I thought Wendell knew something about servers. Just because you call it that, like a Minecraft server, doesn't mean it is the same thing.

 

[Greg7579]

In Dec 2023, I built a high-end rig with 96GB (2x48) GDDR5 ram, i9 14900K, ASUS Z 790 Maximus Dark Hero Motherboard and ASUS Strix 4090. No issues.