News Intel finds root cause of CPU crashing and instability errors, prepares new and final microcode update

[TheHerald]

Yes, I obviously saw that. The point is they had to make special accommodations for both LGA1700 and AM5.

What I find funny about this is how a thinner AM5 IHS, like @thestryker wants, would create an even worse hot spot and a correspondingly greater need for an offset bracket. I wish we could see AM5 IHS-thinning data for both water block and conventional heatpipe-based heatsink, because as much as thinning helps water blocks, I could imagine it might produce worse results on at least some heatpipe-based coolers.


My bias? You probably think everyone is biased who doesn't see the world exactly the same as you. Maybe you're the one who's biased?

Oh, and get ready for when Arrow Lake has a major hot spot issue from its CPU cores being all scrunched up together in a corner. If they're reusing other chiplets from Meteor Lake, here's what we should expect the layout to look like:

​

​

I'll be sure to remind you of the aspersions you cast upon AM5, when this comes to light and people start making special bracket for Arrow Lake!

But that's the thing, I didn't say ANYTHING about noctua HAVING to make a special cooler cause am5 is a failure. YOU guys did for the lga 1700. Don't you still get it? Have you ever seen me, the anti amd guy supposedly, saying anything about the offset? No, I haven't.

 

[TheHerald]

Let's see you spin your way out of this, @TheHerald !

Spin what? Man you are goddamn crazy.

 

[bit_user]

I don't recall Wendell ever identifying his sources of information. Feel free to find out if you want to support your stance.

In this video, Level 1 Techs analyzed failure data from "thousands of systems already deployed in the data center around the W680 chipsets".

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzHcrbT5D_Y

​

He says these are from game servers belonging to two different games companies, but he doesn't name them. So, I guess we don't know whether either is Alderon Games. However, he does go into details about how they're configured.

• [12:51] "they use SuperMicro; one of them uses Asus and the Crash rate is pretty similar between these two "
• [13:28] "fully 50% of the systems deployed for both companies with either one of these processors to within one percentage Point are experiencing the same stability issues"
• [13:37] "even disabling ecores has not fully resolved the issue"
• [13:41] "for one of these companies the error rate also seems to be going up over time on the server side"
• [15:04] He quotes one of the datacenter operators as saying: "we had really good luck with the 12900 K based systems that we had and we always had good luck with the Xeon. Something just isn't right with the 13900 K and 14900 K. We already replaced a lot of customer 13 900k systems with 14 900k systems and the issues don't seem to be fully resolved. We've been steering customers toward 7950 X systems."
• [15:29] "We talking one of the game developers about this they said I think I'm going to lose about $100,000 in Lost players from their multiplayer server crashes."
• [17:41] "the two populations of systems were a little different the one provider uses dual dim configurations and that seemed to suffer a lot. The single dim configurations seem to work a little better. The 2x 48 gig dims versus the 4x 32 gig dims opt for 2x 48 gig dims every time.
• [18:01] "the most stable configuration for testing YC cruncher 24 hours at a time on the Linux side was definitely configuring a Max multiplier of 53 and configuring the ddr5 speed to 4200. for the 4 dim configuration 5200 was fine for single dim."
• [18:24] (discusses testing setup & procedures; crash behavior)
• [18:58] "one of the first things that I did in setting up both machines for both providers was to fully update the BIOS to whatever was current as of June 25th 2024"
• [19:13] "in the end ddr5 4200 and disabling ecores were the most drastic things that positively impacted stability but mostly disabling ecores didn't have as much impact as making the memory Run Dog slow"

So, that's what I associated with Alderon Games. It actually could be, but L1Techs didn't say which two companies provided him with access to the "thousands of game servers" with "about half of these CPUs having some kind of issue".

IMO, it'd be more damning if neither of these were Alderon Games. In fact, if one of them were, you'd think he would have highlighted the 100% failure rate. Maybe the reason they weren't included is that they had already switched to AMD by that point?

I'm suggesting he's an angry developer who saw an opportunity and ran with it. I have no doubt they saw some failures and that it created a negative experience for them. I also have no doubt some of them likely were due to Intel's CPU problem.

First of all, the CEO of the company is the one publicizing this issue. CEOs don't usually take up causes for no good reason, because they have a friggin' company to run.

Secondly, it's not like they're anti-Intel, because otherwise they wouldn't have used Intel CPUs in their game servers to begin with. It sounds to me like, after everything they went through trying to troubleshoot the issue with Intel, he finally decided to get his ducks in a row and go public. It clearly wasn't a rash decision and I don't see what he had to gain, personally or professionally, by doing it. He was already getting a free supply of replacement CPUs from Intel, but had switched to AMD by the time he went public.

https://alderongames.com/intel-crashes
​

When their claimed experience doesn't line up with any of the other reporting on the situation that makes them the outlier who isn't to be taken at face value.

So, we're talking about the gaming laptops, here? What other data do you have on Raptor Lake HX laptops, other than what Intel said?

If they ran them outside of specifications in some fashion that ended up killing them that isn't really on Intel now is it?

Ah, okay. So, if a gaming laptop crashes because it was designed to max TDP, now we're back to victim blaming?

IMO, it's plausible Intel is trying to weasel their way out of the laptop CPU failures, because they're well aware of how much more expensive this is. I can believe they're trying to avoid having to underwrite machines running with too much power, if that's what ultimately makes the difference.

I still think you're throwing a red herring, by trying to use the comments about laptops to discredit the reports of server failures.

I find the data quite compelling that what really makes the difference is the workload and not manufacturing variations, but I've also made it clear that even manufacturing variations wouldn't let Intel off the hook.

You're free to believe or not believe whatever you like, even if it's akin to a flat earth version of reality. I think you're trying to set an impractical standard of evidence, simply because you do not want to believe the truth. Believe whatever you like.

 

[thestryker]

@bit_user Your petty passive aggressive digs and insults while acting holier than thou are childish and quite frankly pathetic.

 

[bit_user]

...

Stay classy, bro.

I get why you're so upset: the data I quoted paints a pretty clear picture that most (or all) Raptor Lake silicon should be susceptible to the problem, which paints a really damning picture of Intel, because that means they should've been able to find it in low-level verification.

What I'm not sure about is quite why you find this narrative so threatening. I'm pretty sure you don't work for Intel, so what gives?

BTW, just to clarify my point about "flat earth", which I think is probably what triggered you, was as an example of what people can believe, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, once they've made up their mind - not that I'm saying your belief is that extreme. However, I started out by saying I think there's not enough public evidence to know how big the problem could've become and yet you clearly seem to have made up your mind on that. It's obviously then an impossible task for me to convince you otherwise.

So, essentially all I meant by that was to point out that it's neither possible nor my goal to actually change your mind. The way you were talking suggested you thought otherwise.

 

[TheHerald]

Ok, 100% of intel chips are affected. Now what? What is the point or the goal?

 

[bit_user]

Ok, 100% of intel chips are affected. Now what? What is the point or the goal?

That's a little further than I was going. I draw a distinction between "susceptible" and which proportion will likely fail within their useful life.

What I took issue with was the suggestion that this issue is overblown, when I think we don't really have enough data to say what the real world failure rate would've been. That's where this started out.

The follow-on question was one of whether this should've been detected by Intel, had they done a reasonable job of design verification, similar to what they've done in the past. This is perhaps a more relevant question, because it suggests that something more systemic could be at fault. It's nothing more than a suggestion though. I hope we'll one day get more insight into this story.

I think the key thing for Intel is not to have similar issues with their new CPUs. If this was a one-off occurrence, then it could simply go down in the annals of tech history like the FDIV bug. If this performance is repeated, I expect the market will not be very forgiving.

 

[TheHerald]

That's a little further than I was going. I draw a distinction between "susceptible" and which proportion will likely fail within their useful life.

I said affected. Which means exactly that, susceptible.

What I took issue with was the suggestion that this issue is overblown, when I think we don't really have enough data to say what the real world failure rate would've been. That's where this started out.

Well if 100% are affected by only 5% are going to fail then yes, the issue is overblown.

The follow-on question was one of whether this should've been detected by Intel, had they done a reasonable job of design verification, similar to what they've done in the past. This is perhaps a more relevant question, because it suggests that something more systemic could be at fault. It's nothing more than a suggestion though. I hope we'll one day get more insight into this story.

The QC of every single company after covid from my experience has been horrible. EVERY company. And I buy a LOT of hardware. Multiple super expensive motherboard (700$ +) come faulty out of the box. Same with super expensive laptops. Intel isn't immune to it, sure.

 

[bit_user]

Well if 100% are affected by only 5% are going to fail then yes, the issue is overblown.

First, I never said it wasn't overblown, but I also think we can't say it was!

Second, I'm not sure even a 5% failure rate would be overblown, from a PR standpoint, a partner-relations standpoint, and a financial liability standpoint. However, I don't want to debate this, because that 5% figure is fictitious.

The QC of every single company after covid from my experience has been horrible. EVERY company. And I buy a LOT of hardware. Multiple super expensive motherboard (700$ +) come faulty out of the box. Same with super expensive laptops. Intel isn't immune to it, sure.

Thanks for sharing. I've not had any real problems with anything purchased in the last 4 years, except for when my work laptop's CPU fan failed (replaced under warranty).

 

[TheHerald]

hanks for sharing. I've not had any real problems with anything purchased in the last 4 years, except for when my work laptop's CPU fan failed (replaced under warranty).

A whole line of super high end 2 dim mobos that are meant to be used for super high memory ocing....were capped at 5.200mhz ddr5 because 1 of the 2 dim slots is faulty. Again, not 1 motherboard, every single motherboard of that model produced for about 6 months. Said company admitted the issue at first, but then went ahead and deleted the post so customers were **cked. They replaced mine with surprise surprise a faulty model again.

The same company, on another model of their mobos, well they were just casually catching fire. Literally. They placed one of their capacitors or something the wrong way. Again, super high end model (600$+).

A different company, all of their mobos come with the m2 socket basically not properly glued to the pcb, making it just hang there on the air. It's hard to explain, I might take a picture later and show you.

And I can keep on going about laptops with known issues that are still produced to this day etc. In my experience all this crap started at - after covid.

 

[Moonstick2]

The QC of every single company after covid from my experience has been horrible. EVERY company. And I buy a LOT of hardware. Multiple super expensive motherboard (700$ +) come faulty out of the box. Same with super expensive laptops. Intel isn't immune to it, sure.

It's a matter of scale though. For example, all software is always buggy, sometimes appallingly so. Out of array accesses and failure to test with invalid data are common. When it's an obscure niche piece of software used by a fraction of a fraction of the working population or a driver for one specific make of device it doesn't matter so much. When it causes a global outage that costs $10 billion you lose half your share price and get called up to explain yourself to Congress.

Is Intel's Vmin Shift Instability bug as bad as Crowdstrike? No. Is it worse than you and whoever else getting a few faulty motherboards that otherwise hasn't caused much of a detectable blip in the wider world.? Yes, by a lot. CEOs losing $100,000s probably give short shrift to people claiming an issue is overblown.

Ok, 100% of intel chips are affected. Now what? What is the point or the goal?

I would say Intel learning that this isn't an "overblown" issue that can be swept under the carpet, move along, nothing to see here. Then they're more likely to improve their production processes and stop cutting possible corners to avoid anything similar, or more importantly worse, happening in the future. Much like the public pushback against their botched handling of the FDIV bug resulted in a lot more use of formal verification. FDIV more arguably was overblown in terms of impact, but who knows what serious bugs got stopped by formal verification afterwards that otherwise might not have?

Intel CEO Andrew Grove at the time: “the kernel of the issue we missed…was that we presumed to tell somebody what they should or shouldn’t worry about, or should or shouldn’t do.”

 

[YSCCC]

A whole line of super high end 2 dim mobos that are meant to be used for super high memory ocing....were capped at 5.200mhz ddr5 because 1 of the 2 dim slots is faulty. Again, not 1 motherboard, every single motherboard of that model produced for about 6 months. Said company admitted the issue at first, but then went ahead and deleted the post so customers were **cked. They replaced mine with surprise surprise a faulty model again.

The same company, on another model of their mobos, well they were just casually catching fire. Literally. They placed one of their capacitors or something the wrong way. Again, super high end model (600$+).

A different company, all of their mobos come with the m2 socket basically not properly glued to the pcb, making it just hang there on the air. It's hard to explain, I might take a picture later and show you.

And I can keep on going about laptops with known issues that are still produced to this day etc. In my experience all this crap started at - after covid.

Those assemble quality check have nothing related to what Intel missed in the 13/14th gen, and also that doesn’t make the Intel miss in low level QA any more acceptable than it is.

And step back and assume it’s all COVID’s fault. Don’t you think all those defects as well as this Intel sega need to be condemned and punished and make them rectify whatever culture after covid is leading to this mess? It’s not like “hey everybody is doing BS and sell for a ton, so we should accept that BS products are fine and we pay our money for them anyway”

 

[TheHerald]

And step back and assume it’s all COVID’s fault

I didn't say it is COVID's fault. I said that's when I noticed a sudden huge drop in QC. Covid might have been the excuse for companies, don't know.

Don’t you think all those defects as well as this Intel sega need to be condemned and punished and make them rectify whatever culture after covid is leading to this mess?

Not anymore than it needs to be condemned and rectified with every other company. Especially since they have great RMA and they are willing to replace the faulty parts, there is nothing to see here.

It's just that for some weird reason (and we all know what that reason is) intel just gets blamed non stop by everyone for everything. This very thread is a prime example, you yourself claimed that Noctua HAD to make a special intel version cause of that severe IHS bent problem, while completely neglecting that noctua did the same for AMD.

Obviously people have a hatred for Intel and they get biased against them. It's actually such a widespread issue that even content creators are calling it out, that unless they make "intel sh*t, amd good" videos they don't get as many clicks. To the point that they can't even make the content they want to make without getting hate comments and death threats.

 

[bit_user]

Obviously people have a hatred for Intel and they get biased against them.

I don't hate Intel. If the exact same series of events played out and were handled (or not) in the exact same way by AMD, instead of Intel, I think my position would be the same.

I think people sometimes brush away opinions they don't like as "fanboyism" or "haters", when maybe they should look at them more seriously.

 

[TheHerald]

I don't hate Intel. If the exact same series of events played out and were handled (or not) in the exact same way by AMD, instead of Intel, I think my position would be the same.

I think people sometimes brush away opinions they don't like as "fanboyism" or "haters", when maybe they should look at them more seriously.

Of course you do. You just proved it with the whole Intel ihs problem and noctua being forced to make a cooler specifically for Intel. You just showed that you wouldn't react the exact same way if it was AMD, cause you didn't with the cooler situation.

 

[bit_user]

Of course you do. You just proved it with the whole Intel ihs problem and noctua being forced to make a cooler specifically for Intel.

Criticizing something doesn't mean you hate it. I'm pretty sure you know that, which makes it even more damning that you'd try to pretend otherwise.

You just showed that you wouldn't react the exact same way if it was AMD, cause you didn't with the cooler situation.

You didn't read what I posted, then. I said Noctua had to make special accommodations for both sockets. I then went on to point out that you shouldn't attack AM5 for needing an offset bracket, because Arrow Lake is going to be in the same boat. There's nothing contradictory or inconsistent about that.

Quit clowning around, please.

 

[TheHerald]

You didn't read what I posted, then. I said Noctua had to make special accommodations for both sockets. I then went on to point out that you shouldn't attack AM5 for needing an offset bracket, because Arrow Lake is going to be in the same boat. There's nothing contradictory or inconsistent about that.

That was after I dragged your feed to the fire. See the moment YCCC brought up that "noctua had to make a special intel cooler" - instead of you correcting him and saying they had to do that for AMD as well, you just agreed with him (by liking his post). That's obvious bias. You even replied to me about Intel only getting Good instead of Excellent without the special HBC version, which also applies to freaking AMD yet you ignored it! Come on man.

 

[YSCCC]

I didn't say it is COVID's fault. I said that's when I noticed a sudden huge drop in QC. Covid might have been the excuse for companies, don't know.


Not anymore than it needs to be condemned and rectified with every other company. Especially since they have great RMA and they are willing to replace the faulty parts, there is nothing to see here.

It's just that for some weird reason (and we all know what that reason is) intel just gets blamed non stop by everyone for everything. This very thread is a prime example, you yourself claimed that Noctua HAD to make a special intel version cause of that severe IHS bent problem, while completely neglecting that noctua did the same for AMD.

Obviously people have a hatred for Intel and they get biased against them. It's actually such a widespread issue that even content creators are calling it out, that unless they make "intel sh*t, amd good" videos they don't get as many clicks. To the point that they can't even make the content they want to make without getting hate comments and death threats.

Ah ha here comes the pointless finger pointing.

The noctua response was since you said ihs bending is normal and always the case, so the coolers are curved and already factored the bending in, so it’s a non issue, and my respond was just that the bending is exceeding the norm and hence they have to make the HBC to make it work well as intended, AKA, the degree of bending is excessive and so the flat AIOs that worked for prior generations have difficulties cooling it efficiently due to thermal paste thickness.

Of course AMD offset is a thing we know early on, but nobody says that the dies offsetting is the norm and that the cooler baseplates have considered that and it isn’t an issue or the offset is a gimmick made by the YouTubers or so.

See where the issue is? The thing is, for a monolithic die as the ADL and RPL cpus, there is an oversight on bending of ihs and some of the reports shows even the PCB have slight bending after intensive use (which I believe is extreme case). It still works as long as the thermal throttling is doing well, and does minimal impact on real world production time. And early on, sites like Igor’s lab have tested with simple washer mod, to relieve the pressure a bit, the temperature behaviour is improved vastly with no loss in other performance. The contact frames are a later thing to come by.

As I said before, this is a minor issue which I actually accepted as I upgrade to 14900k, using a $10 TR frame and the center p cores don’t have the weird thermal spikes as the 12700KF, all good and cool, but then the degradation issues crop out, although being the lucky one that my own 14900k still survives well, having to update 3 bios since July and redial in like 20+ settings and use hwmonitor and some stress tests to observe any weird voltage issues or performance issues still crop up is bad enough to have one condemn Intel. These type of stuffs shouldn’t come ever

 

[bit_user]

That's obvious bias.

You need to make arguments based on technical merit, without resorting to calling people biased, haters, or fanboys. That amounts to an ad hominem attack, which is not allowed. If there's any confusion on this point, feel free to ask a mod.

As for that particular exchange, I didn't read the entire back-and-forth, but tried to correct inconsistencies that I noticed. I might have missed some, but instead of trying to look at what I didn't respond to, you should focus on what I actually did say, which I think was accurate.

 

[TheHerald]

The noctua response was since you said ihs bending is normal and always the case, so the coolers are curved and already factored the bending in, so it’s a non issue, and my respond was just that the bending is exceeding the norm and hence they have to make the HBC to make it work well as intended, AKA, the degree of bending is excessive and so the flat AIOs that worked for prior generations have difficulties cooling it efficiently due to thermal paste thickness.

Of course AMD offset is a thing we know early on, but nobody says that the dies offsetting is the norm and that the cooler baseplates have considered that and it isn’t an issue or the offset is a gimmick made by the YouTubers or so.

See where the issue is? The thing is, for a monolithic die as the ADL and RPL cpus, there is an oversight on bending of ihs and some of the reports shows even the PCB have slight bending after intensive use (which I believe is extreme case). It still works as long as the thermal throttling is doing well, and does minimal impact on real world production time. And early on, sites like Igor’s lab have tested with simple washer mod, to relieve the pressure a bit, the temperature behaviour is improved vastly with no loss in other performance. The contact frames are a later thing to come by.

As I said before, this is a minor issue which I actually accepted as I upgrade to 14900k, using a $10 TR frame and the center p cores don’t have the weird thermal spikes as the 12700KF, all good and cool, but then the degradation issues crop out, although being the lucky one that my own 14900k still survives well, having to update 3 bios since July and redial in like 20+ settings and use hwmonitor and some stress tests to observe any weird voltage issues or performance issues still crop up is bad enough to have one condemn Intel. These type of stuffs shouldn’t come ever

I said IHS bending isn't an issue. And Noctua (which you brought into the conversation) agree that it's not an issue, that's why they rated their standard cooler as GOOD even for extreme cases of bending. The same GOOD rating that the AM5 got when used without an offset. So Noctua or any other cooler company didn't have to do absolutely nothing more for Intel than they have to do for AMD, period. Yet you are claiming that the issue is so severe that Noctua went out of their way for Intel. In the meanwhile im running the CPU on a Standard cooler for 3 years. Obviously, you are just wrong.

Since you never left your 14900k auto out of the box you didn't have to update any bios or redo any settings. That's like pretty obvious isn't it? You are just making a big deal out of nothing.

 

[bit_user]

I said IHS bending isn't an issue. And Noctua (which you brought into the conversation) agree that it's not an issue, that's why they rated their standard cooler as GOOD even for extreme cases of bending. The same GOOD rating that the AM5 got when used without an offset.

As I said, you are failing to consider that people don't buy a NH-D15 cooler for merely "good" cooling performance. Anything less than "excellent" should be considered a fail. That's why they went to the trouble of making custom adaptations for each CPU.

In the meanwhile im running the CPU on a Standard cooler for 3 years. Obviously, you are just wrong.

Or your clamping pressure is less.

 

[YSCCC]

As I said, you are failing to consider that people don't buy a NH-D15 cooler for merely "good" cooling performance. Anything less than "excellent" should be considered a fail. That's why they went to the trouble of making custom adaptations for each CPU.


Or your clamping pressure is less.

He just disagree on anything not pro Intel, it is practically fine to some point with his LM Tim, and others use normal paste and seen improvements using washers or the contact frame. He just chose to ignore that I literally said a few times that it is an oversight but not a real big issue, and that is non cpu functional critical (running 85c peaks in all cores vs 99C in the center don’t make much difference in reality), but no denial that they had then bending over the normal ihs curvature, which is a MINOR oversight, and I only get upset of the 13/14th gen after the degradation got detailed and need to do all those extra tunings to get back the performance and hopefully the service life. Which of course the herald will ignore and claim it’s just hatred and non Intel issue as he like.

 

[Moonstick2]

See the moment YCCC brought up that "noctua had to make a special intel cooler" - instead of you correcting him and saying they had to do that for AMD as well, you just agreed with him (by liking his post).

I said IHS bending isn't an issue.

That's not what happened though. What happened was YCCC mentioned having worsening cooling from their processor due to IHS bending and you called them a liar. YCCC reiterated that they'd seen increased bending and you responded with a post that refused to acknowledge that increased bending with time happens. YCCC pointed out that Noctua have a cooler version to account for this increased deformation so it is real, and called it a minor issue anyway. But you went off on one with a narrow interpretation of the term "have to", saying it's all Intel hate and Noctua have to do the same thing for AMD, and everybody who won't join in saying so is biased.

Except it's not exactly true to say it's the same thing. Noctua's extensive article talks a lot about LGA1700 deformations and how they can become permanent, with a chart showing the change, happening in as little as over three months of usage at the full (Intel spec?) ILM pressure. But when YCCC said theirs deformed in a year, you called them a liar.

Meanwhile for AMD, there's no mention at all of any permanent deformation. It's contact performance stays the same with time. So when you keep saying "they had to do the same for AMD as well", it's not really true at all. They say

With the offset mounting, having its contact pressure centralised over the CCDs enables the standard version to perform mostly on par with or even slightly better than the specialised LBC variant that usually benefits little from an offset mount.

[the standard version] provides the best results on AMD AM5 with the offset mounting as well as on Intel LGA1700 with the included 1mm shim-washers unless the CPU has become permanently deformed from long-term use with full ILM pressure.

i.e. for AM5 you get the best results with standard + offset and don't gain anything with LBC, whereas with LGA1700 you get the best results with standard + shims, unless your CPU has become permanently deformed from (Intel spec?) ILM pressure, in which case you now need the HBC version for the best results.

So basically yes, they did 'have' to create a special version to improve performance for deformed Intel CPUs that even the shims can't account for, whereas they pretty much admit that the LBC for AM5 is pointless when you can use the standard with the offset.

 

[TheHerald]

As I said, you are failing to consider that people don't buy a NH-D15 cooler for merely "good" cooling performance. Anything less than "excellent" should be considered a fail. That's why they went to the trouble of making custom adaptations for each CPU.


Or your clamping pressure is less.

But your argument applies to both Am5 and lga1700, so why are you even making it?

 

[TheHerald]

That's not what happened though. What happened was YCCC mentioned having worsening cooling from their processor due to IHS bending and you called them a liar. YCCC reiterated that they'd seen increased bending and you responded with a post that refused to acknowledge that increased bending with time happens. YCCC pointed out that Noctua have a cooler version to account for this increased deformation so it is real, and called it a minor issue anyway. But you went off on one with a narrow interpretation of the term "have to", saying it's all Intel hate and Noctua have to do the same thing for AMD, and everybody who won't join in saying so is biased.

Except it's not exactly true to say it's the same thing. Noctua's extensive article talks a lot about LGA1700 deformations and how they can become permanent, with a chart showing the change, happening in as little as over three months of usage at the full (Intel spec?) ILM pressure. But when YCCC said theirs deformed in a year, you called them a liar.

Meanwhile for AMD, there's no mention at all of any permanent deformation. It's contact performance stays the same with time. So when you keep saying "they had to do the same for AMD as well", it's not really true at all. They say




i.e. for AM5 you get the best results with standard + offset and don't gain anything with LBC, whereas with LGA1700 you get the best results with standard + shims, unless your CPU has become permanently deformed from (Intel spec?) ILM pressure, in which case you now need the HBC version for the best results.

So basically yes, they did 'have' to create a special version to improve performance for deformed Intel CPUs that even the shims can't account for, whereas they pretty much admit that the LBC for AM5 is pointless when you can use the standard with the offset.

Nobody denies that the CPU bents. It does the moment you place it into the socket. What I called him on about was his temps worsening cause of benting. My CPU is majorly bent probably since it's sitting in it's socket for 3 years. Still no change in temperatures and I'm using a normal standard cooler.

No, on AM5 you get the best results with offset + LBC. According to gamersnexus review actually, on amd the standard version even with an offset is worse than the HBC with an offset or the LBC with an offset.

In fact, ill willing to bet money, a standard G15 on a 14900k (no matter how bent it is or you think it is) will be able to cool more watts than an LBC g15 on a 7950x. That says all that needs to be said about whos IHS is a failure but no, let's keep talking about Intel's ihs issue when they casually cool 100 watts more than amd's IHS. Yeah, you all sound likevery unbiased individuals, I swear.

And now let's actually check what that noctua article you linked ACTUALLY says.

That users with deformed LGA1700 cpus will gain 1-2C by going for the HBC over the standard option . For brand new lga 1700 cpus that even drops to 0.5C!!! LOL, yeap, goddamn Intel with their deformation issues forcing noctua to create a special cooler. For 1C drop. So yes, im sure our friend YCCC noticed that 1c increase in temperatures over a year and was forced to buy a different mount to get that performance back. Goddamn you intel.