I completely agree with this but the fault lies with intel. They are not really promoting their non k chips, they arent even sending samples for review. I don't get why, since theyd easily be winning the highest efficiency if they just sent a single non k sample and everyone (hopefully??) would stop talking about how far behind they are in efficiency when in fact they are leading out of the box, and not by a small margin. I really don't get it.
Warranty and life expectancy are not the same. Do you expect all your belongings to break when they reach the end of their 1 year warranty?
If you are referring to OEMs then that responsibility falls on them, whether it’s a laptop or PC. Intel has no information on OEM purchases.
I think we are on cusp of not needing a OC, out of the box we are already close to peak, all CPUs bins are different, however, board partners are already pushing the out of box limits.
OEMs like Dell and HP are covered by different types of agreements. Not sure about Asus, but I'd imagine they can absorb the initial cost of this with not much problem.
What is the reject rate on 13th and 14th gen Intel chips though? It seems that many are assuming and stating 100% when it may be low enough per the agreement your old company had to just offer replacements.
I've only heard of that with AMD chips but it wouldn't surprise me if Intel did it as well.
If you are worried then you can alleviate that worry by doing something about it.
Perhaps, but only perhaps. Enthusiast-level boards often have features and overkill-solutions to somewhat non-existing problems, but I am not sure they're manufactured to a higher level of quality. Maybe the most obvious is higher grade capacitors. The quality level of midrange boards (manufacturing-wise) is astonishing with extremely low failure rate.
As long as the "silicon lottery" exists, I think overclocking will be here to stay. My rationale is that AMD caught flak for advertising boost speeds in Ryzen 5000 that many CPUs would rarely ever reach, or at least sustain for more than a few milliseconds at a time. So, they learned they had to be more conservative in what boost speeds they'd advertise, which means incorporating bigger margins. That means that a top-quality part should still have room to stretch its legs, over and above the specified frequencies.
According to the lead architect Zen:
I got a 13900k at the end of 2022, and overclocked it to the hairy edge of stability. That said, I manually set the voltage at 1.35 and even with extreme llc profile I've never seen excursions past 1.4. I've been running that chip pretty hard all this time, and I haven't seen any undesirable behavior.
I never said I expect them to break. I'm saying the company expects a big percentage of them to actually do break, that's why it's not financially viable or lucrative to give you a bigger warranty.
This.
It's a fair point that the issue is not listed in the breakouts for each chip in the list of the Best CPUs for Gaming—I've added that.
It is good news but indeed feels like more of a publicity stunt and late damage control action if they did indeed reject tens, hundreds, or more of RMA claims based on this issue, which is why the class action lawsuit prospect has started and discovery is under way.
Because their boost power consumption isn't really that low, and it more than likely can't show significant performance especially in single thread workloads or games etc. to claim they are the best..
It likely will be a death sprial to Intel, say in 3 years anyone got unstable CPU, be it really OC to death or the degradation get denied RMA, this will haunt them back, also it doesn't help that the RPL is literally the LAST Core i9 series in history and that it will be a stinky last...
Boost power cosunmption is 106w (for 54 seconds) for T and 219w for the non k. Both way lower than the competition, even for those 54 seconds.
I would guess that the primary issue with a greater than three year warranty for processors is that Intel/AMD don't make the older processors that long. So if a person gets a warranty replacement after 3 years it will be a new processor of another generation. This will likely require that the person buys a new motherboard, which isn't going to result in a happy customer. So Intel/AMD end up shelling out for a new processor and still have an unhappy customer.
It's not that they necessarily know they'll break, but there's always a risk the failure rate will tick up higher than they expect - this Raptor Lake issue being the perfect example. Except, in the case of Raptor Lake, the issue is so bad that Intel had to step up to save its reputation. But, if it had been less severe, then maybe they wouldn't have offered the warranty extension and would be really glad the warranty was only 3 years.
Thanks, Paul! I would really appreciate it, if you could re-test Raptor Lake with Intel's microcode patch, once it's released. Please also adhere to their official guidelines for what settings people should use to avoid premature CPU failure.
I'm also seeing:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram