News Intel says 13th and 14th Gen mobile CPUs are crashing but not due to the same bug as desktop chips — chipmaker blames common software and hardware...

[bit_user]

No matter what damage is done to Intel, you can be sure their profits and stock will soar and they will only get bigger.

Uh, why are you so sure? This could have serious financial implications for the company, which would definitely be reflected in their near-term share price.

This is just a little hiccup and serves as entertainment but has no real purpose in life besides sharpening my wits.

I wouldn't make light of problems affecting so many users and concerning so many others.

So it just adds to the mountain of suspicion I already have that you just cant trust anyone, assume anything, and you have to actually prove your purchase works and assume it doesn't.

The nasty thing about accelerated degradation is that it could take months to surface, no matter how intensive your testing.

Only Intel has even the possibility of detecting premature aging before it actually causes errors, but this would necessarily involve tracking numerous electrical parameters or even shaving test samples and analyzing them under an electron microscope. I would've assumed their normal testing of a new process node would incorporate such steps, but maybe not so much.

This problem has strengthen by mindset that they are guilty until proven innocent.

I hope you don't mind buying 3-4 year old model CPUs, then. That's the only point when we know such a problem doesn't exist.

I now feel so lucky that all of my recent Intel silicon, both at home & at work, is Gen 12. It wasn't by choice, mind you.

Sad but thats what we have to do to protect ourselves in age where everything is skyrocketing in cost.

Uh, what? CPU costs haven't really gone up since 3 years ago. Rocket Lake launched in March of 2021, with the i9-11900K having a MSRP of $539. The i9-14900K is currently selling for $548. The rumored street price of the Ryzen R9 9950X is only $500!

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Except for the fact that no lab has found a single thing yet. Not to mention Intel making official statements that turn out to be a lie can have legal ramifications for them.

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

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oAE4NWoyMZk&pp=ygUMZ2FtZXJzIG5leHVz

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeubeCIwRw&t=1426s&pp=ygUMZ2FtZXJzIG5leHVz

Yes the independent lab tests are currently ongoing so it’s not definitive, but oxidation is the only theory currently available that explains both high power and low power Intel processors failing. It’s obviously not frequency or voltage related otherwise the 13000T series low power processors would not be affected, yet they are.
Wendel at level1techs has been in contact with Intel’s biggest customers who are claiming a 25% failure rate of their 13th gen processors, and Intel replacing them with 14th gen equivalents only for those to become unstable in time as well. Basically the available evidence suggests but does NOT prove the problem to be some sort of fault during manufacturing.

 

[bit_user]

Wendel at level1techs has been in contact with Intel’s biggest customers who are claiming a 25% failure rate of their 13th gen processors,

In the video you linked, he claimed his sources at OEMs told him "10% to 25%" - and I assume that's an extrapolation out to the end of their respective warranty terms (it was left very nebulous). No way the problem is already that bad, or else the negative publicity around this would be overwhelming.

 

[thestryker]

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

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oAE4NWoyMZk&pp=ygUMZ2FtZXJzIG5leHVz

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeubeCIwRw&t=1426s&pp=ygUMZ2FtZXJzIG5leHVz

Yes the independent lab tests are currently ongoing so it’s not definitive, but oxidation is the only theory currently available that explains both high power and low power Intel processors failing. It’s obviously not frequency or voltage related otherwise the 13000T series low power processors would not be affected, yet they are.
Wendel at level1techs has been in contact with Intel’s biggest customers who are claiming a 25% failure rate of their 13th gen processors, and Intel replacing them with 14th gen equivalents only for those to become unstable in time as well. Basically the available evidence suggests but does NOT prove the problem to be some sort of fault during manufacturing.

Yes... nothing you linked has any proof of anything at all beyond there being failures which we all know about. If it was oxidation the only way it would only affect B0 die is if it was a problematic machine that never manufactured anything else.

However that would still mean that Intel's statement is a lie. If Intel makes an official statement, as they have here, and it turns out to be a lie shareholders can absolutely sue them and would very likely win. That's an extremely. dangerous game for them to be playing.

 

[bit_user]

Yes... nothing you linked has any proof of anything at all beyond there being failures which we all know about. If it was oxidation the only way it would only affect B0 die is if it was a problematic machine that never manufactured anything else.

Raptor Lake is made on a modified Intel 7 process node. So, it could be something about the layers, alloy formulation, or other parameters of the manufacturing process that differ. Plus, if Intel re-tasks machines between (even slightly) different processing nodes, I'm guessing it's not done frequently.

However that would still mean that Intel's statement is a lie. If Intel makes an official statement, as they have here, and it turns out to be a lie shareholders can absolutely sue them and would very likely win. That's an extremely. dangerous game for them to be playing.

They qualifiers like:

"Based on our in-depth analysis of the reported Intel Core 13/14 Gen desktop processor instability issues ..."
​

If it later turns out that the mobile products are affected, they can always turn around and claim that such failures didn't represent a significant number of the samples they analyzed. It might indeed be true that most of the warranty-returns they investigated were faulty for other reasons. That doesn't mean 0% of them failed due to degradation, in which case that % should increase over time.

To be clear: I'm not saying Intel is (knowingly) lying about this. I just think it's still early to say, and I'm not convinced either way.

 

[thestryker]

Raptor Lake is made on a modified Intel 7 process node. So, it could be something about the layers, alloy formulation, or other parameters of the manufacturing process that differ. Plus, if Intel re-tasks machines between (even slightly) different processing nodes, I'm guessing it's not done frequently.


They qualifiers like:

​

"Based on our in-depth analysis of the reported Intel Core 13/14 Gen desktop processor instability issues ..."​

​

If it later turns out that the mobile products are affected, they can always turn around and claim that such failures didn't represent a significant number of the samples they analyzed. It might indeed be true that most of the warranty-returns they investigated were faulty for other reasons. That doesn't mean 0% of them failed due to degradation, in which case that % should increase over time.

To be clear: I'm not saying Intel is (knowingly) lying about this. I just think it's still early to say, and I'm not convinced either way.

If it's process node related they'd instantly be caught in the lie I'm not sure how you don't see that.

 

[bit_user]

If it's process node related they'd instantly be caught in the lie I'm not sure how you don't see that.

Because it's clearly influenced by the operational parameters of some SKUs, given that some products based on the B0 dies are clearly much less affected, if at all. Perhaps they don't yet have a robust model for determining the exact rate of degradation for different SKUs.

Look, I'm not saying I actually know anything. I'm just not convinced. Maybe you are, and that's fine. We can disagree on this. With time, I'm sure we'll gain more clarity into this issue and the scope of its impact.

 

[thestryker]

Because it's clearly influenced by the operational parameters of some SKUs, given that some products based on the B0 dies are clearly much less affected, if at all. Perhaps they don't yet have a robust model for determining the exact rate of degradation for different SKUs.

Look, I'm not saying I actually know anything. I'm just not convinced. Maybe you are, and that's fine. We can disagree on this. With time, I'm sure we'll gain more clarity into this issue.

The only thing I'm convinced of is the danger to Intel monetarily if they're lying is greater than the benefit they get from this statement.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Yes... nothing you linked has any proof of anything at all beyond there being failures which we all know about. If it was oxidation the only way it would only affect B0 die is if it was a problematic machine that never manufactured anything else.

However that would still mean that Intel's statement is a lie. If Intel makes an official statement, as they have here, and it turns out to be a lie shareholders can absolutely sue them and would very likely win. That's an extremely. dangerous game for them to be playing.

Why are you always black and white in thinking. I made a plethora of qualifiers making clear the oxidation theory was not proven and that current evidence points towards oxidation. New evidence could point toward something else entirely, and consensus is required before the problem can be “proven”. This is standard operating procedure. Yet, you ignore half the words I write and assume I’m being disingenuous. This is like the 3rd time I have commented on something only for you to blow it out of proportion.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

The only thing I'm convinced of is the danger to Intel monetarily if they're lying is greater than the benefit they get from this statement.

Based on actual experience being a shareholder to a well established multi-national company that flat out lied to their shareholders for 2 years, all I can tell you is the class action lawsuit went no where because it is actually very difficult to prove beyond a doubt malicious intent.

 

[thestryker]

Why are you always black and white in thinking. I made a plethora of qualifiers making clear the oxidation theory was not proven and that current evidence points towards oxidation. New evidence could point toward something else entirely, and consensus is required before the problem can be “proven”. This is standard operating procedure. Yet, you ignore half the words I write and assume I’m being disingenuous. This is like the 3rd time I have commented on something only for you to blow it out of proportion.

It's not "black and white" thinking when we're talking fact and fiction. You quite literally said you trust independent lab's findings over what Intel says when there have been none. Nobody has determined anything beyond there being problems with at least some RPL B0 die.

The only person ignoring what's being said here and blowing things out of proportion is you.

Based on actual experience being a shareholder to a well established multi-national company that flat out lied to their shareholders for 2 years, all I can tell you is the class action lawsuit went no where because it is actually very difficult to prove beyond a doubt malicious intent.

You don't have to prove "malicious intent" at all the bar is materially false statements that negatively impact the company value. I'm not sure what your circumstance was, but it clearly isn't this.

 

[mikeebb]

My most recent computers are built on 10th & 11th gen Intel. For the most part, rock-solid; any crashes or lockups have clearly been software-triggered. Stuff happens a little more often in the laptop, but it has less RAM than the desktop which could contribute. Both running Windows 11 happily (and Linux Mint in the desktop). Reports of problems with the current-gen stuff are troubling, though I probably won't be in a position to upgrade for at least another year or 2.

 

[SyCoREAPER]

This generation of hardware from all parties (Intel, AMD, Nvidia) deserves its own TV Show. Title screen;

 

[bit_user]

This generation of hardware from all parties (Intel, AMD, Nvidia) deserves its own TV Show.

IMO, that's a false equivalence.

 

[SyCoREAPER]

IMO, that's a false equivalence.

That was about as helpful as asking for directions and me telling you it's within 100 miles 😭

How isn't it s mess?

AMD had that CPU that was burning holes in itself and even into the Motherboard.
Also GPU heatsink design flaw.

Nvidia has/had the 12VHPWR-gate. Now apparently paste issues.

Intel, mobile and desktop CPUs with issues now?


With everyone having issues, how isn't this a SS?

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

It's not "black and white" thinking when we're talking fact and fiction. You quite literally said you trust independent lab's findings over what Intel says when there have been none. Nobody has determined anything beyond there being problems with at least some RPL B0 die.

The only person ignoring what's being said here and blowing things out of proportion is you.

You don't have to prove "malicious intent" at all the bar is materially false statements that negatively impact the company value. I'm not sure what your circumstance was, but it clearly isn't this.

Okay guy, you have lost the plot. You are arguing for arguments sake. Do you get a kick out of being like this? Get a job and get a life lol. And please, waste all your money in court losing every case because your arguments can’t pass the burden of proof. The gall you have to even attempt to refute my actual experience is dumbfounding. Only a countless billions of dollars was lost between all the shareholders, but no, I and the thousands of other shareholders must be wrong and you, in your ‘infinite’ wisdom must be right.

 

[bit_user]

How isn't it s mess?

AMD had that CPU that was burning holes in itself and even into the Motherboard.
Also GPU heatsink design flaw.

Nvidia has/had the 12VHPWR-gate. Now apparently paste issues.

Intel, mobile and desktop CPUs with issues now?

That's basically what I thought you were going to say. If one issue affects 100 users, another affects 1000, and another affects 100,000, putting them all in the same list distorts some issues, to make them seem worse than they are, while other issues are made to seem much less severe.

With everyone having issues, how isn't this a SS?

Deal with each issue separately, because they truly have nothing to do with each other.

Also, I think it's not helpful to catastrophise. That's just my opinion.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain. If you disagree, I respect that as well.

 

[bit_user]

You don't have to prove "malicious intent" at all the bar is materially false statements that negatively impact the company value. I'm not sure what your circumstance was, but it clearly isn't this.

I think "malicious intent" was a poor choice of words, but I think it's necessary to show that the company was aware of the truth and made a conscious decision to issue a false or misleading statement inconsistent with those facts.

Note that, with civil lawsuits, the burden of proof isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt". From what I understand, it must merely be shown to be more likely than not that the defendant is guilty.

 

[thestryker]

Okay guy, you have lost the plot. You are arguing for arguments sake. Do you get a kick out of being like this? Get a job and get a life lol. And please, waste all your money in court losing every case because your arguments can’t pass the burden of proof. The gall you have to even attempt to refute my actual experience is dumbfounding. Only a countless billions of dollars was lost between all the shareholders, but no, I and the thousands of other shareholders must be wrong and you, in your ‘infinite’ wisdom must be right.

Ah yes childish insults and an inability to understand language how wonderful you are.

I quite literally said your circumstance isn't this one not that your circumstance didn't happen.

Unlike you I actually know how the law works with regards to shareholder class action rights.

What you have to prove is simply that they intended to deceive as opposed to being negligent or making poor business decisions. In this circumstance if Intel knows what the problem is and purposely puts out a false statement neither negligence or poor business decisions apply.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

I think "malicious intent" was a poor choice of words, but I think it's necessary to show that the company was aware of the truth and made a conscious decision to issue a false or misleading statement inconsistent with those facts.

Note that, with civil lawsuits, the burden of proof isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt". From what I understand, it must merely be shown to be more likely than not that the defendant is guilty.

Yes but “more likely than not” is a slippery road of spending a lot of money in appeals court with the chance of dismissal with prejudice, IE shareholders end up deeper in the hole and cannot bring a new suit. One thing I have learned during this case is that there is a big difference between what should happen in law and how law actually plays out. My attorney told me “the reality of law is nothing how most people, thanks to Hollywood, think it works. Never enter litigation without knowing your suit is a sure thing, otherwise you will be rag dolled through procedure and appeals for years before any form of closure can be found. Anything other than a sure thing is an exercise in monetary attrition.”

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Ah yes childish insults and an inability to understand language how wonderful you are.

I quite literally said your circumstance isn't this one not that your circumstance didn't happen.

Unlike you I actually know how the law works with regards to shareholder class action rights.

What you have to prove is simply that they intended to deceive as opposed to being negligent or making poor business decisions. In this circumstance if Intel knows what the problem is and purposely puts out a false statement neither negligence or poor business decisions apply.

In principle yes, in practice…only successful in a minority of cases.
Honestly I wish it was like you said.

 

[SyCoREAPER]

That's basically what I thought you were going to say. If one issue affects 100 users, another affects 1000, and another affects 100,000, putting them all in the same list distorts some issues, to make them seem worse than they are, while other issues are made to seem much less severe.


Deal with each issue separately, because they truly have nothing to do with each other.

Also, I think it's not helpful to catastrophise. That's just my opinion.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain. If you disagree, I respect that as well.

I think you're trying to make too much of a connection. The only connection they share is that it was a PR disaster for those companies regardless of the number affected and a blow to consumer confidence.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

I think you're trying to make too much of a connection. The only connection they share is that it was a PR disaster for those companies regardless of the number affected and a blow to consumer confidence.

It is how the pr disaster is handled …

Amd enforced limits on the chips and got the word out within days/weeks.

Nvidia - the fuss with a connector that should never have been released seems to have died down. The reason for shouldn’t have been released, it could be misconnected causing an increase in resistance and then heat thus melting the plug. It was not fit for purpose.

Intel are keeping tight lipped. No solution to the degradation has been suggested beyond the reduce power stuff from months ago. They haven’t come forth with further information.

In the mean time armchair quarterbacks speculate, pontificate and have their 5 minutes of fun guessing at the root cause.