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

[TheHerald]

Do you know what electromigration is?

Intel does, AMD does, they have been designing complex electronically dense circuits for decades. Do you genuinely believe that they will not adapt the paper designs that they fabricate/present for fabrication to minimise the effects of electromigration?

There is always a minimal amount of damage and yes pushing for the last possible bit of clock speed will exacerbate the problem BUT ITS A KNOWN PROBLEM, run within specs and the device will last years, run slightly out of spec and it should last a little bit less… run excessively out of spec… BOOM.

The problems being discussed in the thread should not be happening. ICs do last for many years, look at your lcd tv, your washing machine, your car, your Casio watch and if run in spec they should and will continue to do so.

For intel, something has gone wrong, whether it is a design bug, a power implementation bug .. whatever.. Intel has a problem that needs addressing.

Arguably chips like the “ks” chips encourage people to push the operational envelope for those devices… push it just a little harder… little more V, make a little more available power to draw… rinse and repeat… and it’s fun getting the extra speed. A new chip shouldn’t be approaching the margins out of the box, they never used to. It was a user’s choice to push the chip into its danger zone.

I think you haven't followed the conversation. Guy was complaining that his cpu isn't as good as new after 9 months of running it completely out of specs. I said that's "normal".

 

[-Fran-]

...or the Intel disinformation machine is running in top gear.

I'd love to see some investigative journalism on that. For people skilled in detecting these disinformation networks, I'll bet it wouldn't be that hard to pick apart whatever Intel might be doing.

Funny you mention that for two interesting things:

1.- nVidia has already gone on record to say "it's Intel's fault" and no one put much weight to that because, well, nVidia shenanigans and understandable, but hey, that was a very strong lead and a very real problem for people; hence why nVidia had to say it, right?
2.- On the similar "nVidia shenanigans" tangent: it's already been proven nVidia has hired actors to act as spokespeople (or whatever you want to call them, really) in forums and other public places trying to sway opinions and create bias. This is an oldie that I'll always remember, for sure.

My underlying point is that, much like nVidia, it would not surprise me Intel has done this as well, in some capacity (point #2).

In hindsight, there's more signs for the Intel problems: many reported RAM instability issues early on Intel platforms, but I'm sure most people just assumed "bad RAM" or "XMP at fault".

Regards.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

I think you haven't followed the conversation. Guy was complaining that his cpu isn't as good as new after 9 months of running it completely out of specs. I said that's "normal".

Running out of specs is not normal.
Goods are designed to work to a specified level, they are produced and the upper bounds of their performance decides what bin they go into. (I’m sure you know this but it bears saying). So, for a hypothetical wafer… chip A runs to 3.5 units, chip B runs to 3 units.. some idiot on YouTube says you can overclock B to match the performance of A… just boost the power, boost the volts… you degrade B and it no longer meets its design spec functionality.

If I never overclock I have every expectation that it will function as designed, I have not run it out of its specified limits, degradation will take a few fractions of a unit off the top of the clock but I didn’t encounter that zone because I didn’t over clock it so I should never see it, to get there I need to run it out of spec.

A box fresh cpu might over clock a little more than a 1year old cpu but it should run to its specs. If it doesn’t and hasn’t been overclocked it needs to be sent back under RMA.

There is the bathtub model of failures, some will always fail early, very few in comparison with the massive numbers made. Then there is a nice long stable flat line where there are fewer failures followed by an increase in the number of failures as they get old. This model is remarkably consistent over all product categories… cars, toothbrushes, beer pumps, aeroplanes.. whatever.

His chip should be in the flat stable bathtub bottom stage.. that it can’t/doesnt run in spec indicates a problem.

 

[emike09]

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

13600K? Not enough power for sure. Not a fan of E-Cores. 6P+8E would be moving to the same performance for a lot of money. Also, PCI-e lanes and a more powerful platform that will last longer before I want to upgrade again. I do a lot in AE and Premiere Pro, as well as 3D rendering in various apps. Need the CPU power. And I game on the same rig. I considered a 14900k, but I'm still not really upgrading that much, with the exception of single-thread performance and more modern featureset. I like the idea of being able to buy into a high end platform like X299, get a mid-range CPU, and upgrade the CPU years later for a fraction the price.

 

[bit_user]

13600K? Not enough power for sure. Not a fan of E-Cores. 6P+8E would be moving to the same performance for a lot of money. Also, PCI-e lanes and a more powerful platform that will last longer before I want to upgrade again. I do a lot in AE and Premiere Pro, as well as 3D rendering in various apps. Need the CPU power. And I game on the same rig. I considered a 14900k, but I'm still not really upgrading that much, with the exception of single-thread performance and more modern featureset. I like the idea of being able to buy into a high end platform like X299, get a mid-range CPU, and upgrade the CPU years later for a fraction the price.

I hate to say it, but everything you're saying tells me you should be looking at AM5.

 

[TheHerald]

Running out of specs is not normal.
Goods are designed to work to a specified level, they are produced and the upper bounds of their performance decides what bin they go into. (I’m sure you know this but it bears saying). So, for a hypothetical wafer… chip A runs to 3.5 units, chip B runs to 3 units.. some idiot on YouTube says you can overclock B to match the performance of A… just boost the power, boost the volts… you degrade B and it no longer meets its design spec functionality.

If I never overclock I have every expectation that it will function as designed, I have not run it out of its specified limits, degradation will take a few fractions of a unit off the top of the clock but I didn’t encounter that zone because I didn’t over clock it so I should never see it, to get there I need to run it out of spec.

A box fresh cpu might over clock a little more than a 1year old cpu but it should run to its specs. If it doesn’t and hasn’t been overclocked it needs to be sent back under RMA.

There is the bathtub model of failures, some will always fail early, very few in comparison with the massive numbers made. Then there is a nice long stable flat line where there are fewer failures followed by an increase in the number of failures as they get old. This model is remarkably consistent over all product categories… cars, toothbrushes, beer pumps, aeroplanes.. whatever.

His chip should be in the flat stable bathtub bottom stage.. that it can’t/doesnt run in spec indicates a problem.

But it does work (that's what he said) fine when he using the intel defaults
He encounters problems when running the out of the motherboard settings, and God knows what that is

 

[TheHerald]

Funny you mention that for two interesting things:

1.- nVidia has already gone on record to say "it's Intel's fault" and no one put much weight to that because, well, nVidia shenanigans and understandable, but hey, that was a very strong lead and a very real problem for people; hence why nVidia had to say it, right?
2.- On the similar "nVidia shenanigans" tangent: it's already been proven nVidia has hired actors to act as spokespeople (or whatever you want to call them, really) in forums and other public places trying to sway opinions and create bias. This is an oldie that I'll always remember, for sure.

My underlying point is that, much like nVidia, it would not surprise me Intel has done this as well, in some capacity (point #2).

In hindsight, there's more signs for the Intel problems: many reported RAM instability issues early on Intel platforms, but I'm sure most people just assumed "bad RAM" or "XMP at fault".

Regards.

Would it surprise you if amd has done it as well? It would surprise me. Amd fans are doing the shilling non stop for 0$, amd doesn't need to spend any money on this 😁

 

[DrDocumentum]

Im just using your own statements. You said the CPU is stable with intel default settings. Which means that beforehand you weren't using the intel default settings. You were probably running it unlimited and allowed it to draw up to what, 350+ watts? As an IT guy you saw your CPU pull 350 watts and thought that's fine, what could possibly happen? Isn't it obvious to you, with your 30 years of experience, that the chip will die under these circumstances? No?

Default motherboard settings was configured before. All vendors doing the same. Same Z690 boards used on 12900K without degradation.

That default Bios values where endorsed by Intel because they allowed the 13900k to be the performance king over AMD. All reviews and benchmarks sold the CPU with those parameters. Only after massive degradation was reported, Intel started to promote the "Intel defaults" where was those "Intel defaults" parameters before this issue arised?

Clearly if those parameters existed Intel keep them as hidden as possible to avoid losing the crown.

Now, Intel is reporting that the issue is with the eTVB voltage algorithm, so their own product was degrading by itself. And you keep saying that this degradation is somewhat "normal" because customers where applying too much voltage? Be serious.

 

[TheHerald]

Default motherboard settings was configured before. All vendors doing the same. Same Z690 boards used on 12900K without degradation.

That default Bios values where endorsed by Intel because they allowed the 13900k to be the performance king over AMD. All reviews and benchmarks sold the CPU with those parameters. Only after massive degradation was reported, Intel started to promote the "Intel defaults" where was those "Intel defaults" parameters before this issue arised?

Clearly if those parameters existed Intel keep them as hidden as possible to avoid losing the crown. Now, Intel is reporting that the issue is with the eTVB goltage algorithm, so their own product was degrading by itself. And you keep saying that this degradation is somewhat "normal"? Be serious.

The default settings on a 12900k won't get you to 350 + watts. First of all because you can't cool a 12900k at those wattages, and second of all it doesnt use that power cause it hits clock limits. But a 13900k due to how easy it is to dissipate the heat can casually hit 300 watts even on air coolers.

Man I'm not here to defend intel but when you have as you claimed 30 years of IT experience you didn't realize that your cpu running at 300 + watts ain't normal and you are killing the chip? I have no idea about cpus, I'm not in the it department but the first thing I did on my 14900k was to stop it from boosting to 400 watts cause it was obvious it's going to kill the chip.

And no, not all reviews and benchmarks endorse these settings. I can point you to many that refused to do a review with unlimited power. Igorslab for example said it's freaking dumb to run like that and he didn't. He did his review with a power limit. Reviewers are just trying to clickbait with these "400w" and fire thumbnails.

 

[DrDocumentum]

The default settings on a 12900k won't get you to 350 + watts. First of all because you can't cool a 12900k at those wattages, and second of all it doesnt use that power cause it hits clock limits. But a 13900k due to how easy it is to dissipate the heat can casually hit 300 watts even on air coolers.

Man I'm not here to defend intel but when you have as you claimed 30 years of IT experience you didn't realize that your cpu running at 300 + watts ain't normal and you are killing the chip? I have no idea about cpus, I'm not in the it department but the first thing I did on my 14900k was to stop it from boosting to 400 watts cause it was obvious it's going to kill the chip.

And no, not all reviews and benchmarks endorse these settings. I can point you to many that refused to do a review with unlimited power. Igorslab for example said it's freaking dumb to run like that and he didn't. He did his review with a power limit. Reviewers are just trying to clickbait with these "400w" and fire thumbnails.

I readed and saw many reviews before buying the 13900k. The vendors (AMD too) said that those power values where fine and that the CPU would push it as high as possible while there was enough thermal headroom because the CPUs where designed that way and would not be any reliability problem. That was the truth.

Then releasing the 14900K and the KS versions where more of the same argument.."the CPUs are designed to work at those power and temperature levels*.

So, to me that default values vendors configured on their Bioses where according Intel's own statements. Why would I change that behavior manually if the vendor is saying that the CPUs where designed to work at those stress levels?

 

[TheHerald]

I readed and saw many reviews before buying the 13900k. The vendors (AMD too) said that those power values where fine and that the CPU would push it as high as possible while there was enough thermal headroom because the CPUs where designed that way and would not be any reliability problem. That was the truth.

Then releasing the 14900K and the KS versions where more of the same argument.."the CPUs are designed to work at those power and temperature levels*.

So, to me that default values vendors configured on their Bioses where according Intel's own statements. Why would I change that behavior manually if the vendor is saying that the CPUs where designed to work at those stress levels?

I don't think intel has ever said that their chips are fine working at 300 or more watts. It's not even the default settings. The first time you booted into the bios to enable xmp didn't your mobo give you the option to remove all power limits? Most mobos I've tried give you 3 options, 125w, 250w and no limits. You probably went for the no limits option. That is not meant to be used daily, that's just to post some nice benchmark numbers.

There isn't any reason to have any cpu at more than 200w. Neither intel nor amd. The performance really doesn't scale. Going from 200 to 300w will give you 5%. Same crap with gpus, dropped my card from 450 down to 320w, can't even measure a performance difference.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

The default settings on a 12900k won't get you to 350 + watts. First of all because you can't cool a 12900k at those wattages, and second of all it doesnt use that power cause it hits clock limits. But a 13900k due to how easy it is to dissipate the heat can casually hit 300 watts even on air coolers.

Man I'm not here to defend intel but when you have as you claimed 30 years of IT experience you didn't realize that your cpu running at 300 + watts ain't normal and you are killing the chip? I have no idea about cpus, I'm not in the it department but the first thing I did on my 14900k was to stop it from boosting to 400 watts cause it was obvious it's going to kill the chip.

And no, not all reviews and benchmarks endorse these settings. I can point you to many that refused to do a review with unlimited power. Igorslab for example said it's freaking dumb to run like that and he didn't. He did his review with a power limit. Reviewers are just trying to clickbait with these "400w" and fire thumbnails.

I promise I’m not digging at you. That you know enough about bios/efi to confidently change the parameters means you have an advantage over the person who goes to (insert your local general electronics retailer here) and buys a retail PC.

They don’t necessarily know what to adjust, others will be scared to break it. The result.. they run their cpu at max power and what you avoided they encounter.

At release the “intel defaults setting” wasn’t generally available. The extra performance was the takeaway from the reviews (given by the voltage/power boost assuming adequate cooling).

The cpu market and the motherboard market sells on speed features and reliability (never again will I buy asrock features.. good speed, ok features, reliability… vrm go BOOM). At the start of AMD 7000 motherboard manufacturers went for speed.. processors got hot, AMD said don’t.. problem disappeared. Intel have gone for speed, motherboard makers have pushed recommendations from Intel to the limits… sure they got the speed crown, the price is cpu errors. A bios update (intel default settings) hasn’t fixed the root cause, problems are still being seen.

The person who is scared to even look at the uefi is going to be less comfortable updating the damn thing especially given the threat that he/she could brick it.

 

[DrDocumentum]

I don't think intel has ever said that their chips are fine working at 300 or more watts. It's not even the default settings. The first time you booted into the bios to enable xmp didn't your mobo give you the option to remove all power limits? Most mobos I've tried give you 3 options, 125w, 250w and no limits. You probably went for the no limits option. That is not meant to be used daily, that's just to post some nice benchmark numbers.

There isn't any reason to have any cpu at more than 200w. Neither intel nor amd. The performance really doesn't scale. Going from 200 to 300w will give you 5%. Same crap with gpus, dropped my card from 450 down to 320w, can't even measure a performance difference.

They said that to the reviewers when they where asked for those power values.

My MB don't expose what you are saying. That configuration is way more buried on submenus. And the "enforce all limits" was in place. I have the same Asus that Jay2Cents made a tutorial on YT when this degradation drama started. I configured it manually following their recommendations to protect the CPU:

View: https://youtu.be/HIubZYwBfPc?si=YDweongvHFkAzVOl

 

[TheHerald]

I promise I’m not digging at you. That you know enough about bios/efi to confidently change the parameters means you have an advantage over the person who goes to (insert your local general electronics retailer here) and buys a retail PC.

They don’t necessarily know what to adjust, others will be scared to break it. The result.. they run their cpu at max power and what you avoided they encounter.

At release the “intel defaults setting” wasn’t generally available. The extra performance was the takeaway from the reviews (given by the voltage/power boost assuming adequate cooling).

The cpu market and the motherboard market sells on speed features and reliability (never again will I buy asrock features.. good speed, ok features, reliability… vrm go BOOM). At the start of AMD 7000 motherboard manufacturers went for speed.. processors got hot, AMD said don’t.. problem disappeared. Intel have gone for speed, motherboard makers have pushed recommendations from Intel to the limits… sure they got the speed crown, the price is cpu errors. A bios update (intel default settings) hasn’t fixed the root cause, problems are still being seen.

The person who is scared to even look at the uefi is going to be less comfortable updating the damn thing especially given the threat that he/she could brick it.

Oh I get all that, but the person you are describing shouldn't be building his own computer, and for sure as hell shouldn't be using unlocked chips on unlocked z mobos right? Cause if I'm not mistaken the big percentage of affected cpus are i9s and i7s mostly unlocked parts running with no restrictions.

Regardless of the issue at hand, those unlocked chips have been around for ages. It's not just a rpl thing. I remember my gigabyte gaming 7 z370 was feeding 1.5 sa voltage just by enabling xmp on my 8700k. A lot of trivial things like xmp can kill your chip if you have no idea what the heck you are doing.

Even on my 12900k which is supposedly safe, if I try to enable xmp (7600 ram) Im fairly confident my chip will immediately and severely degrade cause the mobo will probably try to give it 1.6volts. I can try tommorow morning just for science.

 

[TheHerald]

They said that to the reviewers when they where asked for those power values.

My MB don't expose what you are saying. That configuration is way more buried on submenus. And the "enforce all limits" was in place. I have the same Asus that Jay2Cents made a tutorial on YT when this degradation drama started. I configured it manually following their recommendations to protect the CPU:

View: https://youtu.be/HIubZYwBfPc?si=YDweongvHFkAzVOl

Are you sure the very first time you tried to get into the bios it didn't ask you to choose your power limits? All the mobos I've tried (asus apex, msi unify x) had me set my limits before anything else.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

unlocked chips on unlocked z mobos right? Cause if I'm not mistaken the big percentage of affected cpus are i9s and i7s mostly unlocked parts running with no restrictions.

And if the SI has used unlocked processors and quality *cough* ASUS motherboards, set XMP to on as recommended by Linus tech tips and Gamers Nexus in their secret shopper videos…..

 

[thestryker]

To complement:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYfBxmBfq7k


This statement from Intel definitely doesn't pass the sniff test.

Regards.

PS: Do not give clicks to that FrameChasers fella, please. He is a big Asmongold wannabe.

Did you actually watch Buildzoid's video?

He doesn't in any way suggest that what Intel is saying is wrong. He tossed out some humor with regards to TVB, but also says repeatedly he doesn't know what exactly Intel is changing. There's a lot of talk about runaway voltages especially under lower power/heat due to the way the VF curves effectively work.

 

[DrDocumentum]

Are you sure the very first time you tried to get into the bios it didn't ask you to choose your power limits? All the mobos I've tried (asus apex, msi unify x) had me set my limits before anything else.

Nope, mine is the Asus TUF Z690. The Bios settings are the same as the ROG strix shown by Jay2Cents.

BTW I gave one of my 12900K to my son. He uses it 90% for gaming and with the MB "AI overclock" function enabled. Zero issues.

 

[punkncat]

I think you're taking liberties with the facts. There were no fires, as in someone's PC going up in flames.

Also, let's please try to avoid false-equivalences, here. As I've pointed out, only a handful of such incidents are known to have happened and AMD quickly added protections to safeguard against it.

Ah yes, sorry, they got so hot that they both took scorch marks and came desoldered as they "burned out" , not caught fire, ruining both the CPU and in many cases the motherboard as well. Thanks for the correction and I did add a comment to the original post indicating my mistake.

In spite of one word being a bit of taking liberty, it doesn't change the fact that the situation had to be corrected by AMD just as this situation will have to be corrected by Intel. I feel pretty confident that a company with their lineage of fine products and history as well as market cap will make this right one way or the other.

Also, I am not trying to "fanboi" one over the other, just mention to point out that both of these manufacturers are trying really hard not to be Icarus.

I am going to post this here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiTngvvD5dI&t=12s


Steve - "oh, there is a fire, I can smell it"

The Verge, who I don't like to quote for various reasons also has an article indicating burn/scorch/fire damage to both CPU and motherboard.

It appears my wordplay may not have missed the mark by that much.

 

[Taslios]

Well I'd argue a drop is not a drop is not a drop. Dropping performance by 50% isn't the same as dropping performance by 2%

Honestly we are all speculating right now because we have no idea what the microcode will do. It may be negligible.

However if the microcode limits the speed of the chips to say max boost of 5.5 ghz while intel's marketing said 5.8 ... will people be happy or will there be lawsuits for false advertising? I ask specific to boost clocks because the "fixes" that are going around the interwebs right now basically cut max frequency and thus overall performance often times by more than just a few %.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

microcode limits the speed of the chips to say max boost of 5.5 ghz while intel's marketing said 5.8 .

Just looked at a couple of uk suppliers and Amazon
The component suppliers list the base speed as the cpu rating and quote the boost as 6GHz
One says boost upto 6GHz
Amazon advertises the 14900k as an upto 6GHz cpu at 125W, no mention of base speed or higher power requirements for speed.

Upto is an evil get out clause.

 

[Taslios]

Just looked at a couple of uk suppliers and Amazon
The component suppliers list the base speed as the cpu rating and quote the boost as 6GHz
One says boost upto 6GHz
Amazon advertises the 14900k as an upto 6GHz cpu at 125W, no mention of base speed or higher power requirements for speed.

Upto is an evil get out clause.

sadly true

 

[Peksha]

Are you sure the very first time you tried to get into the bios it didn't ask you to choose your power limits? All the mobos I've tried (asus apex, msi unify x) had me set my limits before anything else.

I can confirm that there were no warnings on Gigabyte motherboards (my example is the aorus z790 xtreme) - they are just going to add this in a new BIOS update Also on the msi z790 itx there were no warnings either, instead there was a dialog for selecting the power of your cooler (at that time I had an Arctic lf2-420).
The irony is that my ex 13900KS did not run reliably on both of these boards with bios-factory settings. It even got to the point that Gigabyte did not have a configuration for KS - everything had to be installed and configured manually, including ICCMAX...
I just switched to AM5)

 

[punkncat]

Are you sure the very first time you tried to get into the bios it didn't ask you to choose your power limits? All the mobos I've tried (asus apex, msi unify x) had me set my limits before anything else.

As an owner of two MSI Unify boards, neither of them "asked" me to set any limits. It came defaulted to standard settings and no XMP. The option was there in Easy Mode to change if I wanted to but the boards never prompted for that reaction or setting.

 

[bit_user]

Would it surprise you if amd has done it as well? It would surprise me. Amd fans are doing the shilling non stop for 0$, amd doesn't need to spend any money on this 😁

Just because people are fact-checking you doesn't make them AMD fans.

If somebody makes claims about AMD that don't align with logic or available data, I would also point that out.