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

[mitch074]

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

It still crashes rather predictably - I'm not sure what's best : a machine that runs properly except if you push it too much and it goes boom, or one that may, or may not, work, in whatever situation you put it in.

 

[bit_user]

are entry level 13th/14thh gen chips also affected by such stability/durability issues? I was thinking of upgrading my 9th gen intel i5 to something like a 13400f or 14400f-would it be a good idea to do so? Is there a risk that these chips might fail prematurely?!

Those are both i5's. Intel has mentioned them, but I've heard no anecdotal evidence of these failures happening in Raptor Lake i5's. Even then, it would probably just apply to the "K" models.

 

[DeathRabit]

are entry level 13th/14thh gen chips also affected by such stability/durability issues? I was thinking of upgrading my 9th gen intel i5 to something like a 13400f or 14400f-would it be a good idea to do so? Is there a risk that these chips might fail prematurely?!

Watch this

View: https://youtu.be/eUzbNNhECp4

In short i5 have lower VID voltages for boost that will probably will make the unaffected.

But if upgrade platform go for AM5 due AMD not pushed they chips so hard on stock and this point they are safe bet if you do not want have death CPU after 2-3years, also only 2 weeks left to new AMD line up release.

 

[35below0]

are entry level 13th/14thh gen chips also affected by such stability/durability issues? I was thinking of upgrading my 9th gen intel i5 to something like a 13400f or 14400f-would it be a good idea to do so? Is there a risk that these chips might fail prematurely?!

No. 13/14th gen i9 suffer the most but i7 are also affected. Almost no 13/14600K affected.
The non-K 500 and 400 are fine.

Even a 14900K could be safe if used with a budget motherboard but it's hard to know which motherboard to trust because they all overdo it.
The ones that DON'T, get knocked in reviews. Even here on TH a motherboard running "only" stock Intel performance will have that listed as a con.

If you're thinking of using a 14700K or 14900K down the road, you may be taking a chance. But if all you want is a sensible 13/14 400 or 500, you're probably making the best choice. The price is lower and while the performance is also lower, the 14500 is quite a fast chip. 14400 doesn't have so many cores but it's also fast.

I have a 12100 and IT is also pretty damn fast. It's slower in benchmarks but in general use and gaming it's amazing for it's price.

If you want to make sure you avoid instabilities, get a z690 motherboard while they're still available because those don't seem to be involved in any instability.
Bonus if you get a DDR4 motherboard too, because you can keep your RAM.

 

[bit_user]

I have a 12100 and IT is also pretty damn fast. It's slower in benchmarks but in general use and gaming it's amazing for it's price.

I had to go with the i5-12600. Definitely not such a good deal, but it's the max configuration of that die. I used to lament that Intel didn't refresh the 6P+0E die with Raptor Cove, but I guess it turned out to be something of a blessing.

 

[35below0]

I had to go with the i5-12600. Definitely not such a good deal, but it's the max configuration of that die. I used to lament that Intel didn't refresh the 6P+0E die with Raptor Cove, but I guess it turned out to be something of a blessing.

That 600 is no slouch. The i3-12100 is good value but it still loses out to the 12600 in a straight fight. I would not regret it, though i'd prefer the 13th gen 600.


The important question is where do you draw the line? If the line is low enough a 12100 clears it, then there's no reason to waste money on a faster CPU.
On the other hand, if a user is often waiting on progress bars, and seconds or minutes of waiting makes a difference, then why cheap out on a slower CPU?

Get the one that clears the "line" and no more, i say.
I bought the 12100 because it was cheapest Core CPU available, and all it had to do was outperform a 3rd gen i5 3570K
Brother, it can keep pace with a 13600K in many scenarios. Good little CPU.

 

[Peksha]

are entry level 13th/14thh gen chips also affected by such stability/durability issues? I was thinking of upgrading my 9th gen intel i5 to something like a 13400f or 14400f-would it be a good idea to do so? Is there a risk that these chips might fail prematurely?!

It's rebranded Alder Lake packages, not native Raptor Lake

 

[bit_user]

The important question is where do you draw the line? If the line is low enough a 12100 clears it, then there's no reason to waste money on a faster CPU.

Heh, the line was drawn for me, at the i5-12500. That was the cheapest CPU that supports ECC memory on W680 motherboards. So, I just stepped up one notch to the i5-12600.

 

[bit_user]

It's rebranded Alder Lake packages, not native Raptor Lake

Heh, no. It's not that simple. Here's a table showing which die is used by which Spec Codes for the i5-13400F:

Spec Code	Die	Stepping
SRMBG	Raptor Lake	B0
SRMBN	Alder Lake	C0

Here's the same info for the i5-14400F:

Spec Code	Die	Stepping
SRN3R	Alder Lake	C0
SRN47	Raptor Lake	B0

You can find this information and the corresponding Ordering Codes on ark.intel.com.

 

[Peksha]

Heh, no. It's not that simple. Here's a table showing which die is used by which Spec Codes for the i5-13400F:

​

​

Spec Code	Die	Stepping
SRMBG	Raptor Lake	B0
SRMBN	Alder Lake	C0

Here's the same info for the i5-14400F:

​

​

Spec Code	Die	Stepping
SRN3R	Alder Lake	C0
SRN47	Raptor Lake	B0

You can find this information and the corresponding Ordering Codes on ark.intel.com.

It seems they wrote here that they can be both Alder and Raptor. However, according to the Intel specification, they are a clone of Alder in size L2=1.25MB P-core, and 2MB E-cores, TDP, Turbo frequency 4.6/3.3, memory frequency 4800, etc. Only uncore frequency L3 is not specified... What a mess

 

[rluker5]

Finally someone that recognize the problem!


All liars also on Intel's forum.
And let us know, why instability disappear when you replace only the CPU ?

So what evidence of degradation by electromigration is there again? A CPU that is unstable in a configuration (mind you every CPU is unstable in some configurations, too low volts, improper mounting or improper cooling for example) isn't proof. A CPU losing stability over time isn't proof, it is evidence as degradation has that same symptom, but without a cause the evidence isn't sufficient.
I could claim degradation because Windows updated their power saver power plan to more favor e-cores and the fps drops more on power saver vs balanced power plans at the same power consumption where 6 months ago it didn't. This is an example where such a claim would be wrong because electromigration has nothing to do with a change in performance.

An interesting note with improper cooling: I've used liquid metal on a delidded CPUs for over a decade. At times I've exposed those CPUs to very high volts benching overclocks. Eventually the high volts would lead to the oxidation of the liquid metal and parts of the silicon die would be bare and dry. I would find his out after trying to diagnose weird malfunctions like unstable cache, pcie lanes (particularly in SLI), I/O, etc. Eventually I would pull the CPU, check the liquid metal and find dry spots under the IHS and a reapplication of liquid metal always fixed the problem. My daughter still has the first and most severe suffering CPU, my old 4770k that I put on lm on feb 2014 and it still runs 4.2GHz at 1.1v daily and I have no indication that it won't still do 4.8 at 1.4v.
The IHS bending and causing cooling issues is more likely than silicon degradation imo.
Edit: cooling issues under the IHS that is.

 

[Silas Sanchez]

I don't think electromigration is the culprit, i.e that Silicon degradation is a real thing yet, unless Intel or the fabs seriously screwed up, the whole design process is suppose to take it into account. People keep saying the heat makes it worse, but this claim itself has been derived from a general model which itself isn't really applicable to a CPU in the realworld and again the problem should be taken into account with the whole design process. Observe, AMD aint having any issues. Electromigration has always been one of those theoretical things that takes years and years to show up, that desktop CPUs should be able to run near 10years at full chat, 20years casual use etc. Either way it will take professional forensics to really test this hypothesis. Never gonna happen.

But we have cpus now with god knows how many interconnects sitting at 95-100C for hours on end each day every week like its normal, so I'm not taking any chances and have taken measures to deal with a potential CPU failure. A guesstimate is that these new cpus may be good for 5-7years full chat, which is sad as historically CPUs were largely considered the most reliable part of the system.

What else is there besides abuse (poor design & implementation)? Temperature cycling? Some kind of alteration of Dopant impurities in the transistor?

 

[Silas Sanchez]

I just yesterday returned the i9-14900KF and my Gigabyte motherboard. Absolutely going with the Ryzen™ 9 9950X as soon as it releases.

Why would you even consider Intel? did you not do your research? The very first thing I noticed when researching Intel vs AMD was Intel draws ALOT more power (like 80watts) just for one percent gain over AMD. That told me straight away Intel are running their product way past the optimal part of the performance curve and are pushing it too hard, just so they can have that "6Ghz" printed on the box. Haha, look where it got them.

 

[Heiro78]

The problem is overclock and to fixing it is simple if CPU is not already burned.

In the video that Level1Techs put out, they were investigating xeon motherboards where they do not overclock any of the 13th and 14th gen chips. The crashes persisted. So it's not only an overclocking issue from what we know so far.

 

[bit_user]

It seems they wrote here that they can be both Alder and Raptor. However, according to the Intel specification, they are a clone of Alder in size L2=1.25MB P-core, and 2MB E-cores, TDP, Turbo frequency 4.6/3.3, memory frequency 4800, etc. Only uncore frequency L3 is not specified... What a mess

Right. @thestryker and I have been wondering about that. If you happen to get one of the Raptor Lake versions, do you just get some "bonus" specs, like extra L2 cache? Or did they actually go out of their way to hold back that version to match the Alder Lake version as closely as possible? Maybe someone has at least benchmarked both versions.

I think it's funny that TechPowerUp noticed the discrepancies, but still believes they were testing a Raptor Lake. However, if you look at the CPU in their headline image, the Spec Code on it is SRMBN, which is the version based on Alder Lake silicon. So, it's no surprise their version featured the smaller L2 caches.

Intel Core i5-13400F Review - Force of Efficiency

The Intel Core i5-13400F is only $200, but comes with six Performance Cores and four E-Cores, bringing the total thread count to 16. Performance is good, as expected, but what's even more impressive is the energy efficiency as confirmed by the detailed testing in our review.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[danny009]

I don't remember having CPU problems like 10 years ago, I just had to purchase them put into slot & play. It was simple.

Keep buying that iphone 999 every year guys!

 

[NinoPino]

So what evidence of degradation by electromigration is there again? ...

I never talked of electromigration, but if you like it, no problem.

...
The IHS bending and causing cooling issues is more likely than silicon degradation imo.
Edit: cooling issues under the IHS that is.

If the problem was so simple, Intel have addressed immediately and the new CPUs were not impacted.

 

[NinoPino]

In the video that Level1Techs put out, they were investigating xeon motherboards where they do not overclock any of the 13th and 14th gen chips. The crashes persisted. So it's not only an overclocking issue from what we know so far.

Sorry, I expressed badly, my take is that Intel sell factory overclocked processor.
Intel pressed by competitor did a step too long.

 

[35below0]

Sorry, I expressed badly, my take is that Intel sell factory overclocked processor.
Intel pressed by competitor did a step too long.

That's an easy answer to a complicated problem. I don't think you solved anything.

 

[35below0]

Heh, the line was drawn for me, at the i5-12500. That was the cheapest CPU that supports ECC memory on W680 motherboards. So, I just stepped up one notch to the i5-12600.

On the subject of the 12100, one thing i have to say is that as the years go by, it WILL start to lose steam before a 12500 or 12600 or 13600K.
That is something to keep in mind when considering a "weaker" CPU.

It's no good throwing money on a more expensive CPU than you really need, just like it's pointless to buy 64Gb of RAM if you're never going to use more than 32Gb. Not that anyone in this thread has done something like that... Anyway it's rude to point fingers.

That said, if you want a PC that will last a very long time, perhaps you should overbuy it a little bit. Both AMD and Intel offer a wide spread of CPUs and buying one or two tiers above your needs is not automatically a bad idea.

That i5-3570K my i3-12100 replaced ran for 12 years. And it still runs Windows 7 and games perfectly fine. If i had bought a cheaper CPU, that would not have been possible.
I doubt the 12100 will still perform well 12 years from now.


Sorry, this was off topic. But i wanted to point out that a nice value chip is just that, nice. But it's not going to stay as nice for very long.

 

[tamalero]

Return them and order a Ryzen 9950x .You will have to wait a bit though.& you can thank me later

let's hope that the AMD boards and AGESAs on launch are stable.

 

[tamalero]

I don't remember having CPU problems like 10 years ago, I just had to purchase them put into slot & play. It was simple.

Keep buying that iphone 999 every year guys!

There has been a lot of cpu issues in one way or another, mostly not stable but we've had some where AMD and INTEL chips could return wrong math on certain very specific commands in each one. There was a Pentium 4 that did always had issues with some calculations, giving incorrect results too.
Then we had SPECTRE, and similar.

 

[Heiro78]

Sorry, I expressed badly, my take is that Intel sell factory overclocked processor.
Intel pressed by competitor did a step too long.

Gotcha, now I understand ya. Their previous baseline was already pushed beyond the truly stable baseline that would normally have existed.

 

[bit_user]

On the subject of the 12100, one thing i have to say is that as the years go by, it WILL start to lose steam before a 12500 or 12600 or 13600K.
That is something to keep in mind when considering a "weaker" CPU.

Well, it replaced a machine that I used for 10 years (Sandybridge i7-2600K - and no, I didn't get it new). I'm not planning on getting 10 years out of this one, but I wasn't planning on keeping the old one for that long, either.

It's no good throwing money on a more expensive CPU than you really need, just like it's pointless to buy 64Gb of RAM if you're never going to use more than 32Gb. Not that anyone in this thread has done something like that... Anyway it's rude to point fingers.

I didn't think the old machine would need more than 8 GB, but then I upgraded it to 16 GB about 4 years ago and sure glad I did!

This time, I got 64 GB. Why??? Because it doesn't support memory overclocking and I'm using its iGPU, where memory speed is actually relevant (and also, less bandwidth is left over for the cores). The only way to increase performance beyond baseline DDR5-4800 is to use lower CL RAM and dual-rank memory. With DDR5, the smallest dual-rank DIMMs are 32 GB and you'd better run a pair of them to fill out the full 128-bit datapath!

Sorry, this was off topic. But i wanted to point out that a nice value chip is just that, nice.

The H0's die has a smaller ring bus for lower latency and better efficiency. Cooling is a little harder (smaller die -> less contact area with heat spreader), but still not bad, since it doesn't clock very high. These were among the reasons I didn't step up to a bigger die.

 

[bit_user]

There has been a lot of cpu issues in one way or another, mostly not stable but we've had some where AMD and INTEL chips could return wrong math on certain very specific commands in each one. There was a Pentium 4 that did always had issues with some calculations, giving incorrect results too.

Huh. Source?

The only major chip bug I could think of, within the past 15 years or so, was the Phenom TLB (?) bug, I think. AMD released a workaround that cost some performance, I've read.

I guess Haswell's TSX/HLE was another example, but since that was a new ISA extension, it's not like you'd lose that much by it being disabled. It was rather more annoying when microcode updates started rolling out that quietly disabled it in Skylake and newer CPUs, since those processors were shipping for years with it enabled. In this case, it worked as advertised, but got disabled due to side-channel attack vulnerabilities it introduced.

Then we had SPECTRE, and similar.

Yeah, mitigations were (functionally-speaking) like a chance for Intel and AMD to slow down their old CPUs, in order to help keep the upgrade treadmill running. On machines where I don't use a web browser or run anything other than carefully-vetted code, I disable all mitigations.