News Intel Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake CPUs are unaffected by crashing issues — Vmin Shift Instability issue only impacts 13th and 14th Gen CPUs

The real question is why should we trust that there won't be other issues should have been caught and fixed before release?

If Intel had just been better at accepting RMAs and had extended its warranty earlier, I could be confident that I'd be covered if there was an issue. Intel's behavior and financial issues makes me way less likely to consider Intel for my upgrades next year.
 
The semiconductor designs are on a complexifying treadmill, and also, perhaps, the old guard has retired/left and some expertise was lost ?

That such a problem could happen at Intel is not reassuring at all, but complexity has drawbacks. And for me noone in the semiconductor industry is immune to this.
 
The real question is why should we trust that there won't be other issues should have been caught and fixed before release?

If Intel had just been better at accepting RMAs and had extended its warranty earlier, I could be confident that I'd be covered if there was an issue. Intel's behavior and financial issues makes me way less likely to consider Intel for my upgrades next year.

It’s always the most fickle of people that like to boast of their choices. Sadly they’re merely trying to justify their decisions to themselves by convincing others of why they did what they did. All your reasoning is based on rumors and hearsay beginning with a handful of stories of RMA issues perpetuated by trolls and modern tech news outlets with juicy leaks FOMO.
 
No company will deliver products or services that’s flawless consistently. The problem is how they choose to handle the situation at that point. The fact that Intel knew of the issue, sat and deny it for more than 1.5 years, and finally admitting because the noise is growing out of proportion. This is bad handling of a severe issue. For them to now call out that the crashing issue is only limited to 13 and 14 gen Intel processor is a clear attempt to isolate the problem and minimise impact on their processor sale. But this is an insensitive statement because it’s clear a lot of their customers are still experiencing system crashes using the affected CPUs and Intel is not recalling but relying on BIOS update or user initiated RMA process that somehow may get rejected.
 
It’s always the most fickle of people that like to boast of their choices. Sadly they’re merely trying to justify their decisions to themselves by convincing others of why they did what they did. All your reasoning is based on rumors and hearsay beginning with a handful of stories of RMA issues perpetuated by trolls and modern tech news outlets with juicy leaks FOMO.
Were those accusations against Intel rumors and hearsay? If so, why is Intel acknowledging that it’s an issue now? Like in their statement, the spokesperson clearly acknowledge there are issues with 13th and 14th gen Intel CPUs, that started with the rumors and hearsay. Unhappy customer tends to make the most noise. If for example you paid 500 bucks for a high end CPU that’s great at benchmarks, but crashes when running games, I don’t think you will be a happy customer to be honest. Fortunately for me, I stuck on to my my Alder Lake CPU as I was not convinced spamming E-cores is meaningful to my workflow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atomicWAR
>Were those accusations against Intel rumors and hearsay?

It's not a binary "good/bad" CPU issue. Not all RPL CPUs are bad, but some. The rumormongering is about how much is "some." One bloke gets on reddit and says MY CPU BLOWS UP! and it gets magnified manifold.

13th-gen CPUs have been around for two years. 14th-gen is almost a year. Both have a track record. You can peruse on public forums like reddit to see how many "bad CPU" are reported.

https://google.com/search?&q=raptor+lake+instability+report+reddit

From cursory manual scan, there's a lot of teeth-gnashing and anxiety, and rightfully so, but precious few actual reports of "bad CPUs." The rational conclusion to draw is that "some" equates to a small percentage.

My gauge is that 13900K/14900K are most at risk, within that small percentage. 13700K/14700K are substantially less so, and 13600K/14600K's risk is even smaller still.

Reddit is a valid metric, because its population are by and large regular consumers, which mirrors people here. If you were a server shop with intensive 24/7 use, then you'd use a more rigorous test method.

Second, there's a distinction between people with existing RPLs, and people thinking of buying RPLs. Assuming that the fix is conclusive--and there is no reason to think that Intel is lying--then people buying RPLs now, and immediately applying the microcode fix, would have zero risk.


>The real question is why should we trust that there won't be other issues should have been caught and fixed before release?

Both AMD and Intel have a long track record of making CPUs. Their track records show that all CPUs can have issue post-release--to wit, AMD's Sinkclose vulnerability--and the vast majority of those issues can be fixed or mitigated with a microcode patch. The Intel RPL degradation--more correctly, accelerated degradation, as all CPUs degrade over time--is an outlier. The possibility of something like it to happen again is infinitesimally small.

Now, you can say, well, no matter how small the possibility is, I just don't trust Intel anymore, and I won't buy any of its CPUs from now till forever. This is known as cutting off your nose to spite your case, because your future CPU options are then cut by half. People who think like this are fanboys and idiots.
 
>Intel has spent over a year denying that there were issues...

Incompetence doesn't equate to malfeasance. Intel is in turmoil right now. I'm not surprised that it isn't the most responsive to customer concerns, or product issues.

Paying for a CPU is different than paying for a service. A CPU is likely the most reliable component out of all PC components, the present Intel fiasco notwithstanding. You don't need to have a "responsive" company for after-sale support. You don't need after-sale support, period. The only thing you need is warranty service if the part is bad. No matter Intel's dithering, the fact is that you can now RMA the part for 5 years, from 3 years. If anything, you should feel more assured about the buy.
 
Given the nature of the problem facing Raptor Lake it makes sense that it wouldn't affect future products. I get why they're stating it's not a problem, but people who don't believe them aren't going to believe this and those who do likely already realized it.
Intel has spent over a year denying that there were issues and decided to blame motherboard vendors instead of microcode when they first acknowledged the issue.
This should tell you how low the failure rates were more than anything else. Intel also had to actually step through to find the issues going on. It makes sense that motherboard manufacturers ignoring power settings might have had something to do with it. If this changes default behavior across the industry going forward I'd call this initial focus a net positive for consumers.
They have rejected RMAs that should have been accepted...
This is undoubtedly true, but they also very likely accepted many as well.
... and didn't analyze the failures when they did accept them.
We don't know what their process is, but I'm assuming for most of the time this issue had been going on the failure rate was low enough they used their standard RMA analysis policy.
If they had done an analysis of the earliest failures and determined that they had a voltage issue, this wouldn't have been a problem.
This is unlikely given how long it has taken them to narrow down the first fix. It may have been resolved faster, but it has taken them months to figure out even that much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KyaraM
I like how Buildzoid has been analyzing the excessive overvoltage leading to premature degradation and related by being motherboard setting undervolting by introducing excessive vdroop instability issue.

He's been measuring using external monitoring equipment and seeing what his motherboards are doing with the different microcodes and settings.

A much more scientific approach than the qualitative speculations and fud spreading so common elsewhere. I wonder what happened to make technical analysis in a seemingly technical community so rare?

High voltage may lead to degradation and low voltage may lead to instability seemed like things that were so well known that one didn't have to state them. Now it seems like many refuse to believe these in hopes of something else.
 
It’s always the most fickle of people that like to boast of their choices. Sadly they’re merely trying to justify their decisions to themselves by convincing others of why they did what they did. All your reasoning is based on rumors and hearsay beginning with a handful of stories of RMA issues perpetuated by trolls and modern tech news outlets with juicy leaks FOMO.
People don't understand that there are hundreds or even thousands of RMAs done daily, but the 2 stories on reddit (which btw, nothing really happened anyways and the rmas went through) are all that's needed to call intel bad at RMA.

Either that, or it's the usual amd bias everyone has.
 
They have rejected RMAs that should have been accepted and didn't analyze the failures when they did accept them.
What do you mean by that? Can you be more precise? Is there any other company that has rejected RMAs that shouldn't have? AMD for example. Or is it just an intel thing?

Just so you know, intel is known for how fast their RMA is for more than 10 years. There is the likelihood the current situation put more pressure on their support logistics - that's understandable, but saying they flat out deny rmas, come on now. There are hundreds of complaints about RMA process for every single company.
 
Last edited:
Intel has confirmed that thanks to their new architecture, the company's next-generation Core Ultra 200 Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake CPUs aren't affected by the Vmin Shift Instability issue.

So, It basically means they admit that it IS architecture issue that causes the degradation🙄
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinoPino
The semiconductor designs are on a complexifying treadmill, and also, perhaps, the old guard has retired/left and some expertise was lost ?

That such a problem could happen at Intel is not reassuring at all, but complexity has drawbacks. And for me noone in the semiconductor industry is immune to this.
Yes, reminds me of an Einstein saying from long ago;
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Hence why AMD's non hybrid architecture for AM5 SKUs is a winner today.
 
Every owner of a computer with a Intel CPU is or will be affected by the mess.

Regardless if CPU is faulty or not, the resale value of the system has taken a hit since only the well informed knows enough of the issue to just wanting to avoid the bad ones.
 
Intel has confirmed that thanks to their new architecture, the company's next-generation Core Ultra 200 Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake CPUs aren't affected by the Vmin Shift Instability issue.

So, It basically means they admit that it IS architecture issue that causes the degradation🙄
Why would it be architecture and not the known cause of Vmin shift (aka degradation) that is excessive voltage?

Here's an explanation that isn't just some leap based on the semantics of a statement:


The motherboard companies weren't allowed to undervolt the Vid of the power and thermally limited i9s at "stock" to achieve more performance.

The motherboard companies, to a varying degree, applied an effective undervolt that increases with higher load by setting "stock" vdroop very high.

The vdrooped voltage under quickly applied heavy loads could lead to instability due to being too low and the low load voltage due to the positive voltage offset needed to counteract the excessive vdroop could lead to degradation due to being too high. Especially with the higher voltages needed for the higher single/double core boosts.

Intel also apparently has a proactive Vid request algorithm that tries to compensate for excessive vdroop (and considers LLC settings in this) that isn't perfect and often over and/or undercompensates for vdroop which compounds the problem of high voltage induced Vmin shift. And with less vdroop this algorithm makes less adjustments and compounds the problem less. It is reactionary.

The amount of vdroop "enhancement" depends on the motherboard manufacturer and the particular motherboard with Gigabyte and Asus being worse and I've heard MSI is better and has less vdroop and lower peak volts.

If one reduces this vdroop "enhancement" with LLC settings and lowers the loaded volts to what they were stable with before, then the excessive low use volt problem goes away and the volts stay closer to what the CPU needs at different loads, clockspeeds and temps.

The same can be said for basically all CPU architectures for the last decade.

And the deviations from the needed volts to the CPU are caused by motherboard VRM configurations (which you are stuck with) and their VRM settings which you can often change.
 
Why would it be architecture and not the known cause of Vmin shift (aka degradation) that is excessive voltage?

Here's an explanation that isn't just some leap based on the semantics of a statement:


The motherboard companies weren't allowed to undervolt the Vid of the power and thermally limited i9s at "stock" to achieve more performance.

The motherboard companies, to a varying degree, applied an effective undervolt that increases with higher load by setting "stock" vdroop very high.

The vdrooped voltage under quickly applied heavy loads could lead to instability due to being too low and the low load voltage due to the positive voltage offset needed to counteract the excessive vdroop could lead to degradation due to being too high. Especially with the higher voltages needed for the higher single/double core boosts.

Intel also apparently has a proactive Vid request algorithm that tries to compensate for excessive vdroop (and considers LLC settings in this) that isn't perfect and often over and/or undercompensates for vdroop which compounds the problem of high voltage induced Vmin shift. And with less vdroop this algorithm makes less adjustments and compounds the problem less. It is reactionary.

The amount of vdroop "enhancement" depends on the motherboard manufacturer and the particular motherboard with Gigabyte and Asus being worse and I've heard MSI is better and has less vdroop and lower peak volts.

If one reduces this vdroop "enhancement" with LLC settings and lowers the loaded volts to what they were stable with before, then the excessive low use volt problem goes away and the volts stay closer to what the CPU needs at different loads, clockspeeds and temps.

The same can be said for basically all CPU architectures for the last decade.

And the deviations from the needed volts to the CPU are caused by motherboard VRM configurations (which you are stuck with) and their VRM settings which you can often change.
We are still unsure about if the excessive voltage is the real, only killer or reason for the degradation.

Assuming it is the real and only cause, and not the power or ring bus defect as some random rumours hinted, when intel designed the VID to be that high for RPL, they can have the power to mandate the board partners to use the specified LLC, and enforce the intel spec profiles to be default, much like how they reacted since late July. They didn't.

A lot of RPL users are in socket upgrade using the Z690 boards since ADL, which is supposedly unaffected under the LLC and vdroop "problem", and intel is surely aware of everyone using "dangerous LLC" before they even release the RPL SKUs, it would be easy to enforce all Z790 boards to use what they deemed to be safe, and issue advisory on the "potential dangerous LLC", either not recommend/ said that old boards with a list being incompatible, or required to have specific bios settings to rectify it before it would even be moved to a compatible list, much like how the QVL list done be board partners. They didn't do so.

Instead, they do release the CPU, saying it's compatible with all existing LGA 1700 Z6xx series boards, with mandatory bios update (which still defaults to the high vdroop LLC, no Vcore max cap, and unsafe microcode and TVB behaviour to get those extreme voltages out). Hack AMD can ask the board partners to use the default AMD settings on their boards, don't tell me intel can't.

As you've said, "The same can be said for basically all CPU architectures for the last decade.", but it only happens to be disasterous to RPL lineup, which is just an indicator that they've gone too far, too high voltage for the frequency and too close to the danger zone so that what used to be a non-issue, it is safe even with the Tick cycle ADL but not the refined tock cycle RPL, is intel's problem more so than board partner problem.

Imagine it is your brand new toyota, which the newest engine requires a specific formula of 0W-10 engine oil to be run safely, but for marketing reason they didn't even publish "if you don't use our factory oil, it will wear down soon", so ppl buying random 0W-10 oils and have the engine break in a year, guess is that the oil maker or Toyota fault?
 
We are still unsure about if the excessive voltage is the real, only killer or reason for the degradation.

Assuming it is the real and only cause, and not the power or ring bus defect as some random rumours hinted, when intel designed the VID to be that high for RPL, they can have the power to mandate the board partners to use the specified LLC, and enforce the intel spec profiles to be default, much like how they reacted since late July. They didn't.

A lot of RPL users are in socket upgrade using the Z690 boards since ADL, which is supposedly unaffected under the LLC and vdroop "problem", and intel is surely aware of everyone using "dangerous LLC" before they even release the RPL SKUs, it would be easy to enforce all Z790 boards to use what they deemed to be safe, and issue advisory on the "potential dangerous LLC", either not recommend/ said that old boards with a list being incompatible, or required to have specific bios settings to rectify it before it would even be moved to a compatible list, much like how the QVL list done be board partners. They didn't do so.

Instead, they do release the CPU, saying it's compatible with all existing LGA 1700 Z6xx series boards, with mandatory bios update (which still defaults to the high vdroop LLC, no Vcore max cap, and unsafe microcode and TVB behaviour to get those extreme voltages out). Hack AMD can ask the board partners to use the default AMD settings on their boards, don't tell me intel can't.

As you've said, "The same can be said for basically all CPU architectures for the last decade.", but it only happens to be disasterous to RPL lineup, which is just an indicator that they've gone too far, too high voltage for the frequency and too close to the danger zone so that what used to be a non-issue, it is safe even with the Tick cycle ADL but not the refined tock cycle RPL, is intel's problem more so than board partner problem.

Imagine it is your brand new toyota, which the newest engine requires a specific formula of 0W-10 engine oil to be run safely, but for marketing reason they didn't even publish "if you don't use our factory oil, it will wear down soon", so ppl buying random 0W-10 oils and have the engine break in a year, guess is that the oil maker or Toyota fault?
I am using a Z690 motherboard since ADL with a drop in RPL upgrade and the higher clocks lead to higher voltages - shocker. They were still too high with the 12700k I used to have. And I didn't know that Intel ran constant telemetry on all of the systems out there. You state Intel was "surely aware" when nobody else was until a while after the 14th gen Raptor refresh was released.

And how would you change the bios for all of the motherboards already out there and rewrite the signed contracts to mandate specific LLC settings and hardware? How about issuing an advisory that Asus and Gigabyte motherboards should not be used as they have potentially unstable and degrading default settings? People already own them. Would that be better or worse to consumers than what Intel has already done?

As far as giving people exact instructions, many will assume that anything unmentioned must be safe. Like if Intel were to say that a core voltage of 1.55v must not be exceeded, many will think 1.55v 24/7 must be safe.
What would happen to a Ryzen subject to that? They both use silicon and copper. If some non official guy like me recommends to reduce vdroop via LLC(which increases load voltage applied) then reduce load voltage back to what was stable then that is a different matter as people don't expect some internet rando to have perfect official instructions.

As far as this issue being disasterous to RPL, have the percentage of degradation failures been worse than of Zen 2 degradation? Some reason people remembered how to deal with those.
 
Hack AMD can ask the board partners to use the default AMD settings on their boards, don't tell me intel can't.
They can definitely ask. That doesn't mean board partners will comply. As is the case with AMD. Actually on AMD platforms board partners have taken cheating to the next level

Im quoting a small part from a huge article and the link to the full article. Power reporting deviation present in HWINFO on amd cpus

Since at least two of the largest motherboard manufacturers, still insist on using this exploit to gain an advantage over their competitors despite being constantly asked and told not to, we thought it would be only fair to allow the consumers to see if their boards are doing something they're not supposed to do. The issue with using this exploit is, that it messes up the power management of the CPU and potentially also decreases its lifespan because it is running the CPU outside the spec, in some cases by a vast margin. Also, it can cause issues when this exploit goes undetected by a hardware reviewer, since both the performance and the sofware based power consumption figures will be affected by it.

Basically amd motherboards missreport the power the CPU is using (since amd cpus don't have their own telemetry, they rely on the SVID on the mobo) in order to make the CPU think it has headroom to boost higher. This has been the case at least since zen 2.



What would happen to a Ryzen subject to that?
Too soon man. We all know what happens to a ryzen.

9234b5.jpg

Funny thing is everyone will tell you it's fixed, even though it's not. All the "fix" does is prevent XMP from going above 1.25 vsoc. But that wasn't the main problem in the first place, the problem was the CPU instead of protecting itself - it literally cooked itself and the motherboard. And it still does. But don't worry, problem is fixed, let's focus on intel's rmas now 😆
 
  • Like
Reactions: rluker5
I am using a Z690 motherboard since ADL with a drop in RPL upgrade and the higher clocks lead to higher voltages - shocker. They were still too high with the 12700k I used to have. And I didn't know that Intel ran constant telemetry on all of the systems out there. You state Intel was "surely aware" when nobody else was until a while after the 14th gen Raptor refresh was released.

And how would you change the bios for all of the motherboards already out there and rewrite the signed contracts to mandate specific LLC settings and hardware? How about issuing an advisory that Asus and Gigabyte motherboards should not be used as they have potentially unstable and degrading default settings? People already own them. Would that be better or worse to consumers than what Intel has already done?

As far as giving people exact instructions, many will assume that anything unmentioned must be safe. Like if Intel were to say that a core voltage of 1.55v must not be exceeded, many will think 1.55v 24/7 must be safe.
What would happen to a Ryzen subject to that? They both use silicon and copper. If some non official guy like me recommends to reduce vdroop via LLC(which increases load voltage applied) then reduce load voltage back to what was stable then that is a different matter as people don't expect some internet rando to have perfect official instructions.

As far as this issue being disasterous to RPL, have the percentage of degradation failures been worse than of Zen 2 degradation? Some reason people remembered how to deal with those.
Higher clocks leads to higher voltages, sure, but consumers and coporate clients rely on Intel to spec it correctly so that it don't self destruct or degrade in reasonble time

It is not only asus and MSI, it happens across the board, MSI isn't immune, so does Asrock, and other like even uses server boards and clock+use ram speed lower than what consumer does. Yet the degradation is still there.

Why it will not be able to change the bios outhere is a puzzle to me, do you forget when we do in socket upgrade, we need to wait for a UPDATED BIOS release before the board can even recognize the new CPU? If intel did correctly assess the chip, and that it is unsafe to run at the aggressive LLC and power limit which essentially everyone and their dog is using, I can't understand why they do not advise the board partners about that and at least advise them not to do so, if they don't they should release a note/ news that some bios maynot be compliant and may need to do certain tunings for safety, at least for the biggest board vendors. They did none of the above, and yet they don't even found out/admit it's voltage and VID issues or faulty eTVB code without enough safeguard.

Given advise to ppl isn't that hard, just give two instructions, cap the vcore supply to 1.55v max, AND set sustained vcore below 1.4v is not difficult isn't it? if you gave such warnings that old boards without safe bios might harm it in the future, I don't see why the boarad partners won't rush out a new, safe bios with correct LLC and voltage settings implemented. It's all excuses.

As for the degree of disaster compared to Zen 2 or other CPU gens, none have any numbers yet. But this is the only time, from both Intel and AMD, we have seen a widespread frustration, even with coporate customers. individual DIYers are more likely to complain out of their arrogance, but coperate users? Game developers? they need to be extra frustrated about the issue to come out and speak, risking their own discount/offers from the largest CPU maker in the world.


They can definitely ask. That doesn't mean board partners will comply. As is the case with AMD. Actually on AMD platforms board partners have taken cheating to the next level

Im quoting a small part from a huge article and the link to the full article. Power reporting deviation present in HWINFO on amd cpus

Since at least two of the largest motherboard manufacturers, still insist on using this exploit to gain an advantage over their competitors despite being constantly asked and told not to, we thought it would be only fair to allow the consumers to see if their boards are doing something they're not supposed to do. The issue with using this exploit is, that it messes up the power management of the CPU and potentially also decreases its lifespan because it is running the CPU outside the spec, in some cases by a vast margin. Also, it can cause issues when this exploit goes undetected by a hardware reviewer, since both the performance and the sofware based power consumption figures will be affected by it.

Basically amd motherboards missreport the power the CPU is using (since amd cpus don't have their own telemetry, they rely on the SVID on the mobo) in order to make the CPU think it has headroom to boost higher. This has been the case at least since zen 2.




Too soon man. We all know what happens to a ryzen.

9234b5.jpg

Funny thing is everyone will tell you it's fixed, even though it's not. All the "fix" does is prevent XMP from going above 1.25 vsoc. But that wasn't the main problem in the first place, the problem was the CPU instead of protecting itself - it literally cooked itself and the motherboard. And it still does. But don't worry, problem is fixed, let's focus on intel's rmas now 😆
They can advise ppl to steer away from the exploits no? did Intel did that all along?

More funny for mocking for melting and burning of the X3D, if it is not fixed, did you see anymore burnt out CPUs from the issue since the fix? while RPL degradation "clickbaits" are coming up every now and then showing how their 14900k and KS degraded to a point they can't open UE5 games or install NV driver. How funny is that.


Edit: By the way, while we don't know how this disaster affected Intel, but apparently they have to said what in this news to try rensure the clients that "it is safe this time, trust", while AMD didn't maybe Intel buyers are all paranoia while AMD buyers are all fans? Trying to defend Intel being doing really bad in 13th and 14th gen is actually not putting off fire, but fueling it for consumers
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinoPino
hey can advise ppl to steer away from the exploits no? did Intel did that all along?

More funny for mocking for melting and burning of the X3D, if it is not fixed, did you see anymore burnt out CPUs from the issue since the fix? while RPL degradation "clickbaits" are coming up every now and then showing how their 14900k and KS degraded to a point they can't open UE5 games or install NV driver. How funny is that.


Edit: By the way, while we don't know how this disaster affected Intel, but apparently they have to said what in this news to try rensure the clients that "it is safe this time, trust", while AMD didn't maybe Intel buyers are all paranoia while AMD buyers are all fans? Trying to defend Intel being doing really bad in 13th and 14th gen is actually not putting off fire, but fueling it for consumers
What do you mean "have I seen any more burned x3ds"? I haven't seen any burned x3ds or any degraded RPLs.

Of course the issue isn't fixed, cause the issue isn't the CPU degrading. The issue is the CPU has no protections leading it to immolating with over 1.25 vsoc, a thing that should never happen and it cannot be fixed by software updates. Putting a limit on the vsoc provided automatically isn't a fix to the underlying problem, the problem being the CPU has no protections and it catches fire and burns itself and your motherboard. It literally freaking melts, which is absurd don't you think?

It's like having a car blowing up when going over 100km/h. A software update that caps it to 99km/h doesn't really fix the issue, does it?