News Intel finally announces a solution for CPU crashing errors — claims elevated voltages are the root cause; fix coming by mid-August

[bit_user]

I've no idea about the exact number - but I'd assume everyone that was pushing 1.4v into their soc.

So, you have no evidence that it was a common problem? If not, then why are you drawing an equivalence to this issue with Raptor Lake?

 

[bit_user]

For starters, look how AMD, which to you looks so much better because they supposedly don't do microcode updates, fixed their overvoltage issues just recently...

AGESA isn't exactly the same thing as microcode, but I guess it's a fair point as we don't even know what @sjkpublic thinks it encompasses.

 

[TheHerald]

So, you have no evidence that it was a common problem? If not, then why are you drawing an equivalence to this issue with Raptor Lake?

What the heck do you mean by common man? I have no evidence that the Intel is a "common" problem either cause first of all, "common" isn't really measurable.

What difference does it make how many people were affected though? The agesa allowed amd chips to push 1.4+ volts into the soc just by enabling xmp and it turned the cpus into handgrenades.

 

[bit_user]

Yeah, it's not like amd pushes 15 microcode updates with every new generation to fix their crap.

Intel issues plenty of updates that include, among other things, mitigations for security vulnerabilities. The way they're delivered differs from AGESA, as it can be loaded during the OS boot process.

As I've said, this mindless intel bashing needs to stop but it won't.

I think that poster was just unaware of industry standard practices around firmware updates. They saw discussion of Intel updating microcode and were simply unaware that everyone dose it.

 

[bit_user]

What the heck do you mean by common man? I have no evidence that the Intel is a "common" problem either cause first of all, "common" isn't really measurable.

First, the amount of people claiming to experience the Raptor Lake degradation is already orders of magnitude more than the handful who stepped forward with burnt 7800X3D CPUs.

Second, L1Techs cited sources at big PC OEMs who claimed they expect 10% to 25% of (presumably K-series i9's, but maybe also i7's?) will need to be replaced.

Show us any evidence of how many people encountered the problem of AMD's. If you truly don't know, then you really shouldn't make assumptions.

What difference does it make how many people were affected though?

It makes all the difference in the world! If it was only ever a handful of individuals, then it's effectively a non-issue.

 

[TheHerald]

Intel issues plenty of updates that include, among other things, mitigations for security vulnerabilities. The way they're delivered differs from AGESA, as it can be loaded during the OS boot process.


I think that poster was just unaware of industry standard practices around firmware updates. They saw discussion of Intel updating microcode and were simply unaware that everyone dose it.

Yeah, I'm sure that user has made similar comments on the amd agesa threads. Should I check?

 

[TheHerald]

First, the amount of people claiming to experience the Raptor Lake degradation is already orders of magnitude more than the handful who stepped forward with burnt 7800X3D CPUs.

Second, L1Techs cited sources at big PC OEMs who claimed they expect 10% to 25% of (presumably K-series i9's, but maybe also i7's?) will need to be replaced.

Show us any evidence of how many people encountered the problem of AMD's. If you truly don't know, then you really shouldn't make assumptions.


It makes all the difference in the world! If it was only ever a handful of individuals, then it's effectively a non-issue.

Of course as an absolute number intel has a bigger issue, but that's because there are vastly more intel chips out in the wild?

 

[bit_user]

Of course as an absolute number intel has a bigger issue, but that's because there are vastly more intel chips out in the wild?

If you don't know that the scale is even proportional, then you shouldn't treat it like it is.

There is one aspect of that problem we can compare with Intel's Raptor Lake issue, which is how quickly AMD diagnosed the root cause and turned around a fix.

 

[TheHerald]

If you don't know that the scale is even proportional, then you should treat it like it is.

The scale doesn't matter. I mean let's say for the sake of argument the intel issue is affecting 40% of Intel users vs only 3% for amd users. Does it really matter? It was down to pure luck that their mobo didn't supply 1.4 vsoc. Maybe they didn't buy fast enough ram, maybe they didn't enable xmp etc.

 

[das_stig]

and will Intel honour long term warranty on the cpu's if issues arise in say 5 years' time as nobody will know what damage has been caused or just walk away saying EOL cpu, thanks for the cash, now how about you buying our new shiny cpu?

 

[thestryker]

So, you have no evidence that it was a common problem? If not, then why are you drawing an equivalence to this issue with Raptor Lake?

It was a problem in literally every single motherboard that could change SoC voltage/run EXPO because AMD gave the wrong guidance (or maybe no guidance). No matter how you look at it the amount of people impacted is a fraction of Intel's as they sell so many more CPUs than AMD does. Though I think the point is that it was a catastrophic problem which was out of the consumer's hands and could kill hardware albeit a significantly simpler one to solve.

 

[Amdlova]

The scale doesn't matter. I mean let's say for the sake of argument the intel issue is affecting 40% of Intel users vs only 3% for amd users. Does it really matter? It was down to pure luck that their mobo didn't supply 1.4 vsoc. Maybe they didn't buy fast enough ram, maybe they didn't enable xmp etc.

Dude just stop... We see your point
This will be mislead as user error and they will send new stickers and everyone will be happy.

 

[NinoPino]

The scale doesn't matter. I mean let's say for the sake of argument the intel issue is affecting 40% of Intel users vs only 3% for amd users. Does it really matter? It was down to pure luck that their mobo didn't supply 1.4 vsoc. Maybe they didn't buy fast enough ram, maybe they didn't enable xmp etc.

But what is your point ? You continue to revolve the discussion on AMD giving a trollage sensation in a "ou de trollage" way.
This Intel problem is extremely severe and not comparable with others, not only from AMD but also not comparable with others from Intel for some reasons.
The severity of the problem because the CPUs degrades progressively causing a LOT of headaches to the users.
The fact that it involves two generations of CPUs (13 and 14).
The fact that users reports instability issues to Intel support forums from 2023 with 139k but the first real reaction of Intel happened only months and partially blaming motherboards.
The fact that, to be impacted, are the enthusiasts and power users that most probably was Intel afficionado.
Some users that never ever thinked of jump to competition are now thinking of buy AMD or already done.
Never existed a worst moment for Intel to do a similar mistake considering the hard pressure from AMD.
Economically it is very impacting because of the high value of the products and because every RMA must be honored replacing defective CPUs with new one that have the exact same problem and potentially are subject to a new RMA. Users will wait another month for the fix that will lead to other burned CPUs. A disaster.
The Intel image with power users and professionals is severely impacted.

In all of this, users that minimise the severity of the problem and reviewers that ignore it are only hurting because do not push Intel to quickly solve the problem.

Imho, if reviewers had promptly re-benchmarked the affected CPUs with suggested baseline when Intel published it, than Intel would have been much faster in finding a solution and have not waited another month.

 

[ottonis]

I suspect that microcode may not be the "root cause" of anhanced degradation but rather an easy way for intel to ameliorate the symptoms of a much deeper problem.

First of all it needs to be checked, whether undervolted CPUs have been suffering from similar degradation problems as well. If yes, then too high of voltage may not be the root cause. Given the millions of gen 13 and gen14 iCore CPUs that Intel has sold, there should be a sizeable number of users out there that have undervolted their CPUs.
What do the crash reports say about such configured systems?

 

[NinoPino]

---

I suspect that microcode may not be the "root cause" of anhanced degradation but rather an easy way for intel to ameliorate the symptoms of a much deeper problem.

First of all it needs to be checked, whether undervolted CPUs have been suffering from similar degradation problems as well. If yes, then too high of voltage may not be the root cause. Given the millions of gen 13 and gen14 iCore CPUs that Intel has sold, there should be a sizeable number of users out there that have undervolted their CPUs.
What do the crash reports say about such configured systems?

Obviously, undervolt means less heat and less power. Less heat and less power are always beneficial for a CPU, so it is expected that undervolted CPUs are less affected by degradation. In the end, this does not prove nothing.

 

[-Fran-]

The amount of hot takes could make Hell look like a cold place. Holy cow xD

So, in that same good spirit, have mine: my suspicion here is Intel is trying to only reduce the universe of explicit symptoms so they don't get screwed with a high volume of RMAs on a soon-to-be-EOL'ed line of CPUs. Kind of like someone with a deep cut and you just give them enough pain killer to make them numb to the pain, but the bleeding is still happening. This is the best they can do short of accepting it's a hardware defect and being forced to do a recall (the FTC would love to have a word if that was the case, for sure).

Why do I think this? Well, money obviously.

Regards.

 

[ottonis]

---

Obviously, undervolt means less heat and less power. Less heat and less power are always beneficial for a CPU, so it is expected that undervolted CPUs are less affected by degradation. In the end, this does not prove nothing.

Correct, less voltage and less power mean less heat, which is always beneficial, so one would expect to see LESS reports of CPU degradation symptoms.
However, should there be are ANY such reports in undervolted CPUs, this would strongly indicate that the root cause is much more deeper than just faulty microcode and microcode-related overvolting.

 

[Peksha]

The scale doesn't matter. I mean let's say for the sake of argument the intel issue is affecting 40% of Intel users vs only 3% for amd users. Does it really matter? It was down to pure luck that their mobo didn't supply 1.4 vsoc. Maybe they didn't buy fast enough ram, maybe they didn't enable xmp etc.

Man, calm down. The problem of burned out 7800x3ds occurred on specific Asus boards for specific users, and they were quickly corrected.
Stop writing nonsense about this incident further

 

[phitinh81]

Man, calm down. The problem of burned out 7800x3ds occurred on specific Asus boards for specific users, and they were quickly corrected.
Stop writing nonsense about this incident further

He sided. Can't stop him from padding himself, can u

 

[usertests]

I can't wait to see what happens when 13th and 14th gen hits the refurbished market.

What's stopping you from considering a 13600K? Not enough power?

13600K is affected by this though? Only pure Alder Lake should be unaffected and the microcode problem can affect even low-power Raptor Lake (not mobile).

 

[DrDocumentum]

Maybe this Intel statement is just reputation damage control and they still don't know what the issue is or can't fix it?

The time they had for diagnosis has been more than enough on my opinion for the resources that Intel has. Or it's just now that the issue is so big that they started to look into it...

Looking at this from the outside. People that got their CPUs degraded can't be reversed to an undegraded status. I have a 13900k that suffered from degradation as after using the system sporadically for 9 months unstability started. I manually configured the power, current and temp limits on the BIOS and also applied an small undervolt. The system is completely stable now. But clearly there was some damage induced previously and that CPU would never go back to be as it was when new and can't also RMA it because under the manually configured parameters works fine (Intel's defaults).

So, a new microcode is just a preventative measure to avoid more damage to accumulate to the point the CPUs gets returned under warranty period only.

I blame for this to Intel as they didn't do enough to ensure that motherboard manufacturers adhere to the design parameters for their CPUs and at the same time they allowed this because their (non under spec overclocked) benchmarks allowed them to sell more CPUs over AMD.

My workload time was impacted about 10% due performance degradation after the manual configuration. I feel scammed.

 

[TheHerald]

Maybe this Intel statement is just reputation damage control and they still don't know what the issue is or can't fix it?

The time they had for diagnosis has been more than enough on my opinion for the resources that Intel has. Or it's just now that the issue is so big that they started to look into it...

Looking at this from the outside. People that got their CPUs degraded can't be reversed to an undegraded status. I have a 13900k that suffered from degradation as after using the system sporadically for 9 months unstability started. I manually configured the power, current and temp limits on the BIOS and also applied an small undervolt. The system is completely stable now. But clearly there was some damage induced previously and that CPU would never go back to be as it was when new and can't also RMA it because under the manually configured parameters works fine (Intel's defaults).

So, a new microcode is just a preventative measure to avoid more damage to accumulate to the point the CPUs gets returned under warranty period only.

I blame for this to Intel as they didn't do enough to ensure that motherboard manufacturers adhere to the design parameters for their CPUs and at the same time they allowed this because their (non under spec overclocked) benchmarks allowed them to sell more CPUs over AMD.

My workload time was impacted about 10% due performance degradation after the manual configuration. I feel scammed.

Every cpu gets degraded just by using it. No cpu will be as good as new after even 1 day of usage. Everyone's cpu is degraded no matter what cpu they are using.

 

[DrDocumentum]

Every cpu gets degraded just by using it. No cpu will be as good as new after even 1 day of usage. Everyone's cpu is degraded no matter what cpu they are using.

Yest but (maybe) on 8-10 years period. Not in 9 months.

 

[TheHerald]

Yest but (maybe) on 8-10 years period. Not in 9 months.

It degrades every day man.

 

[DrDocumentum]

It degrades every day man.

Under your logic, all Intel customers need to purchase a new CPU every month to replace the degraded one?