News Intel's CPU instability and crashing issues also impact mainstream 65W and higher 'non-K' models — damage is irreversible, no planned recall

[thestryker]

Either way, I've not seen direct x number of units sold info so I'm curious.

Canalys (had to go look up the name), and whoops I'd misread the chart that was just Q4 so the overall volume is significantly higher. Keeping in mind this should also be just the OEM market so the retail numbers are undoubtedly a lot different. I'd expect AMD has a much higher percentage of the boxed CPU sales volume.

https://nitter.poast.org/Canalys/status/1767437346960707670?lang=en&mx=2

I went looking for their yearly roundup, but they didn't do the CPU volume breakdown for yearly just overall system shipments. They cited 247 million total sales in the PC desktop/notebook market for the year.

https://www.canalys.com/newsroom/global-pc-market-Q4-2023

Mercury Research also does the overall market percentage reporting in terms of shipments and revenue. I've never seen what their data is specifically based on as they don't self publish any reports. Anandtech has the only collection of their overall data I've seen: https://www.anandtech.com/show/21392/amd-hits-record-high-share-in-x86-cpus-in-q1-2024

 

[Taslios]

Thanks!

 

[thestryker]

Intel believes less than 10%.... Alderon Games has experienced ~50% and expect ~100%

A solitary indie game company should hardly be used as any sort of basis for statistics.

As a consumer we should all be hoping that Intel is more correct than Alderon Games. Intel digging their own grave or having to have mass layoffs be it their own arrogance or inability to accept they are no longer #1 in all things is still a bad thing for us the consumer.

Intel is undoubtedly more correct than the hyperbole coming out of an angry indie studio. That doesn't excuse the way they've handled this at all, and it definitely goes back to the era where they cut engineering for profits. They've been playing fast and loose for over a decade and consumers have born the brunt of it. It's a ridiculous situation but so long as the majority of their business is "safe" I expect the minimum and nothing more.

 

[Taslios]

A solitary indie game company should hardly be used as any sort of basis for statistics.

Intel is undoubtedly more correct than the hyperbole coming out of an angry indie studio. That doesn't excuse the way they've handled this at all, and it definitely goes back to the era where they cut engineering for profits. They've been playing fast and loose for over a decade and consumers have born the brunt of it. It's a ridiculous situation but so long as the majority of their business is "safe" I expect the minimum and nothing more.

The only thing that gives Alderon games any credence is Wendel and the other devs stuff he reported and then the info Warframe and a few other larger developers have shared.

I agree.. If Intel is lying there are some major major issues above and beyond the other handling of this. I don't expect they are. But they also seem to indicate that there are multiple causes so they may be telling a version of the truth but not the whole of the truth.

The financial reports from the OEMs will probably tell us more. Time will tell all.

 

[Mattzun]

At the moment, a lot of people are blaming their random crashes on one of the normal causes like a badly coded game or driver. If they have one weird crash per month, they probably won't even look for a solution.

Alderon games seems to have a way of detecting problems that are actually due to a bad CPU.

I wonder how many CPUs are going top be recognized as defective when gaming companies start putting in exception handling that recognizes a probable CPU defect and pops the appropriate "Blame your CPU" warning.

It would be even more interesting if NVidia updates their error messages and not just an FAQ

 

[Taslios]

At the moment, a lot of people are blaming their random crashes on one of the normal causes like a badly coded game or driver. If they have one weird crash per month, they probably won't even look for a solution.

Alderon games seems to have a way of detecting problems that are actually due to a bad CPU.

I wonder how many CPUs are going top be recognized as defective when gaming companies start putting in exception handling that recognizes a probable CPU defect and pops the appropriate "Blame your CPU" warning.

Part of me finds it at least a little bit hilarious that the out of Vram issue only happened on Geforce...

had it happened only on Radeon people would have never looked past it and AMD would still be being blamed for Intel's issues.

 

[graham006]

Maybe you don't run it hot very often, and that's the critical factor?

I don't. I have provided adequate cooling with a somewhat expensive Noctua air cooler.
Just sharing my experience. I don't have any issues and I have pretty good GB6 and CB24 scores.

 

[graham006]

Yeah, you're stable now, but will you be tomorrow or the next day? That sucks having that in the back of your mind every time you use your PC. Any little hiccup you'll wonder if the degradation has started.

This computer has been playing games, doing AI training (on CPU for now) and basic office apps for my LLC. Just haven't had any problems. I don't think I will have any problems. I sold my old Core i5 to a friend who installed it in his PC build and he's good as well.

This is a minor issue that people are blowing up for whatever reason.

 

[graham006]

Have you ever stressed your CPU for long time periods ?
Have you ever done real stress tests to check stability (Minutes of Cinebench does not mean your system is stable) ?

Yes. I did a one hour Cinebench run. Of course, after that amount of time the CPU does have some slight thermal throttling but was fine otherwise. I NEVER stress my CPU like that (one hour with all cores going full-bore) in actual real-life. I did do some RESNET50 training on this CPU and it worked fine. It took an hour to train from the CIFAR10 image dataset However, since I have a GPU, it really isn't necessary to do ML training on the CPU now since GPU is about 12 times faster than CPU.

The CPU is good so far. The CPU I sold seems to be doing fine. People just need to adequately cool their processors (I am using a somewhat high-end Noctua air cooler), and apply BIOS patches and don't perform needless stress tests over and over.

 

[TheHerald]

runs with a lot less power

Well see that's the part that you don't get and why you think people will switch to AMD in droves. They don't run with a lot less power. In fact amd chips need a lot more power to hit the same performance as intel. It's basic physics, when intel offers 14, 16 and 20 cores for the same price amd offers 6,8 and 8 with 3d cache, you are not going to win an efficiency or a performance battle.

Take the 13700 for example. The closest (cheaper) price competitor is the 7700x, there is. 20-30$ between them. Then you got the 7800x 3d at 380$. Both of them are incredibly slow in MT performance, and they remain slower after you cap the 13700 to some insane reasonable power limits, like let's say 125w. So unless you are willing to spend a lot more to go for the 7950x, or are willing to put up with the laughable 6+6 configuration of the 7900x, you are out of luck, intel is literally the only option.

I wish amd offered more MT performance at reasonable prices (or without the 6+6 compromise) but they don't, so I'm forced to buy intel

 

[YSCCC]

A solitary indie game company should hardly be used as any sort of basis for statistics.

Intel is undoubtedly more correct than the hyperbole coming out of an angry indie studio. That doesn't excuse the way they've handled this at all, and it definitely goes back to the era where they cut engineering for profits. They've been playing fast and loose for over a decade and consumers have born the brunt of it. It's a ridiculous situation but so long as the majority of their business is "safe" I expect the minimum and nothing more.

The indie game company is getting some codes to say at least that triggered the issue to be appearing and crashing due to that, note that such code under the X86 architecture only crash on RPL processors predominantly 13900k and 14900k platforms, not the AMD parts, as such it is a design flaw on intel side. Such CPU, outside of what the code of those UE 5 engine games likely won't be degraded enough to cause an issue like BSOD on stock frequencies where intel will admit as a failed CPU, IMO intel's figure is likely a lot underrated as not everyone at this time running such demanding codes showing the issue, and even so, most OEM users won't even know it's CPU issue, "I open the game, it crash every now and then, file support to HP/Dell, they called me to troubleshoot a dozen times, still crashing, but since I can still watch youtube, just leave the game and blame the coding" <--- in such case intel won't even know that CPU was faulty, so their figures are likely much lower than OEMs who actually used the CPUs and need to trouble shoot them like the said indie game company.

IMO any component for a company using 10+ machines over a year keep failing and was resolved once another brand is used is a big red flag for design flaw

and even assuming intel's figure is correct, only 10% was damaged, with their release date being at least a year ago and only admit it's intel's issue till now, guess how many have already spent extra money to replace the CPU for their use? be it job related usage or hard core gaming geeks, those who buys i9s are those who need that PC a lot, if you go 1 month+ with it having crashing left and right without replacement, one more than likely already get something else to move on already and that broken i9 was just sitting around, or even disposed of, now you offer RMA on that part and expect customer confidence to come back?

 

[YSCCC]

Well see that's the part that you don't get and why you think people will switch to AMD in droves. They don't run with a lot less power. In fact amd chips need a lot more power to hit the same performance as intel. It's basic physics, when intel offers 14, 16 and 20 cores for the same price amd offers 6,8 and 8 with 3d cache, you are not going to win an efficiency or a performance battle.

Take the 13700 for example. The closest (cheaper) price competitor is the 7700x, there is. 20-30$ between them. Then you got the 7800x 3d at 380$. Both of them are incredibly slow in MT performance, and they remain slower after you cap the 13700 to some insane reasonable power limits, like let's say 125w. So unless you are willing to spend a lot more to go for the 7950x, or are willing to put up with the laughable 6+6 configuration of the 7900x, you are out of luck, intel is literally the only option.

I wish amd offered more MT performance at reasonable prices (or without the 6+6 compromise) but they don't, so I'm forced to buy intel

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-13700k

Intel's 300W Core i9-14900K: CPU Review, Benchmarks, Gaming, & Power | GamersNexus

CPUs Intel's 300W Core i9-14900K: CPU Review, Benchmarks, Gaming, & Power October 18, 2023 Last Updated: 2023-12-07 Meet the new 14900K, same as the old 13900K The Highlights The 14900K has 8 performance cores, 16 efficient cores, and 32 total threadsIt’s impressively disappointing how similar...

gamersnexus.net

At least from those figures shown here, the max power consumption of AMD is half of what the intel draws, not to say now with all those intel spec enforced, RPL won't perform nearly as fast but still drinks a lot more power.

Maybe YOU need that every single MT performance and so you are forced to buy intel, but for mass market, already a lot is changing to AMD, companies around are starting to notice such crashing issues and the supporting cost related, when that cost becomes huge, AMD though maybe slower in MT but much faster in X3D chips for cache heavy workload like gaming will eat it's market, I chose 14900k also back then due to the MT performance I needed for batch photo/video editing as well as software optimization on those traditionally preferrs intel offerings, but the pain in the every now and then tweaking will make myself at least to go AMD next time around, at least they don't give me those annoyance.

At the end of the day we will see how the next quarter performance of both companies will do, Overall, from Anadtech May, 2024
"Intel remained the dominant force in client PC sales in the first quarter of 2024, with a 79.4% market share, leaving 20.6% for AMD"
Currently it's a 8:2 dominance, we will see if the AMD will surge pass intel in a year. I am not sure in your locality but here in asia there are already a ton of prebuilt companies telling customers if you insist to buy intel, beware of those burning itself issues with RMA denied and suggest one to buy AMD offerings instead.

One more note: intel don't even want to halt new RPL sales until that microcode fix lands, so right now there are still those who don't follow tech news putting their brand new intel CPU in who knows what version bios in their new board and cooking it. that's as counter intuitive as I can imagine

 

[TheHerald]

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-13700k

Intel's 300W Core i9-14900K: CPU Review, Benchmarks, Gaming, & Power | GamersNexus

CPUs Intel's 300W Core i9-14900K: CPU Review, Benchmarks, Gaming, & Power October 18, 2023 Last Updated: 2023-12-07 Meet the new 14900K, same as the old 13900K The Highlights The 14900K has 8 performance cores, 16 efficient cores, and 32 total threadsIt’s impressively disappointing how similar...

gamersnexus.net

At least from those figures shown here, the max power consumption of AMD is half of what the intel draws, not to say now with all those intel spec enforced, RPL won't perform nearly as fast but still drinks a lot more power.

Yes, but the performance is also half to go alongside that. So someone with a 13700k doesn't just have the option to go for a 7700x just because he got a refund, cause his performance will be halved. If he cared about the power draw / efficiency he would have limited his 13700k to 125w anyways - since it would still be faster than the 7700x.

Maybe YOU need that every single MT performance and so you are forced to buy intel, but for mass market, already a lot is changing to AMD, companies around are starting to notice such crashing issues and the supporting cost related, when that cost becomes huge, AMD though maybe slower in MT but much faster in X3D chips for cache heavy workload like gaming will eat it's market, I chose 14900k also back then due to the MT performance I needed for batch photo/video editing as well as software optimization on those traditionally preferrs intel offerings, but the pain in the every now and then tweaking will make myself at least to go AMD next time around, at least they don't give me those annoyance

The companies - meaning server providers etc. aren't changing to the midrange 6 and 8 core parts that the mass market purchases,.

 

[YSCCC]

Yes, but the performance is also half to go alongside that. So someone with a 13700k doesn't just have the option to go for a 7700x just because he got a refund, cause his performance will be halved. If he cared about the power draw / efficiency he would have limited his 13700k to 125w anyways - since it would still be faster than the 7700x.


The companies - meaning server providers etc. aren't changing to the midrange 6 and 8 core parts that the mass market purchases,.

ONLY the multi thread is halfed in some applications, and for most apps out there other than synthetics, they don't differ that much. For most stuffs outside of rendering, AMD ryzen is on par or even faster, e.g. games, the 14900k @253W don't perform as fast as a 7800X3D @125W just for example, and only for those extreme multithreaded apps the RPL showed the lead, also, no matter how fast a CPU is, a flawed design getting it unstable in long run is a flawed product, if Intel get a full recall and you still think the 13700k is the best option for you, nobody points a gun at you to ask you to return it and get an AMD, for those who can't bear the trouble since it's launch, they have no choice but bear with their spent money, that's the difference.

The companies are changing to the mass market stuffs as well as the server side stuffs, companies purchases a lot of notebook and desktop for office use for obvious reasons and that is a HUGE market.

But that's my last comment on the performance arguement in this, in consumer desktop market 7950X is on par if not faster than the 14900K, while 14900K have to worry about self frying and when it crashes, it crashes, one CTD on an app can easily cost more time to re-do than a CPU at 50% speed, since if you click a rendering job, it estimates 4 hours, you likely won't come staring at the monitor and go to do something else, just to come back found it got BSOD or CTD. And seems that the mass action lawsuit will show us how many of intel customer base is "unreasonable cry babies", maybe the judge will be one also to ended up forcing them for a full recall, we will see

https://forums.tomshardware.com/thr...and-instability-issues.3850840/#post-23310846

 

[TheHerald]

ONLY the multi thread is halfed in some applications, and for most apps out there other than synthetics, they don't differ that much. For most stuffs outside of rendering, AMD ryzen is on par or even faster, e.g. games, the 14900k @253W don't perform as fast as a 7800X3D @125W just for example, and only for those extreme multithreaded apps the RPL showed the lead, also, no matter how fast a CPU is, a flawed design getting it unstable in long run is a flawed product, if Intel get a full recall and you still think the 13700k is the best option for you, nobody points a gun at you to ask you to return it and get an AMD, for those who can't bear the trouble since it's launch, they have no choice but bear with their spent money, that's the difference.

The companies are changing to the mass market stuffs as well as the server side stuffs, companies purchases a lot of notebook and desktop for office use for obvious reasons and that is a HUGE market.

But that's my last comment on the performance arguement in this, in consumer desktop market 7950X is on par if not faster than the 14900K, while 14900K have to worry about self frying and when it crashes, it crashes, one CTD on an app can easily cost more time to re-do than a CPU at 50% speed, since if you click a rendering job, it estimates 4 hours, you likely won't come staring at the monitor and go to do something else, just to come back found it got BSOD or CTD. And seems that the mass action lawsuit will show us how many of intel customer base is "unreasonable cry babies", maybe the judge will be one also to ended up forcing them for a full recall, we will see

https://forums.tomshardware.com/thr...and-instability-issues.3850840/#post-23310846

Well see that's the point I'm making, you getting a refund cause your 13700 is crashing doesn't leave you with a lot of options, cause the only thing you can buy with that money is a 7700x. A part that is half as fast in those rendering applications you just mentioned.

That's why I insist an actual fix is much better than a recall or a refund. A refund means we still have to pay with our money to buy something as fast as the intel chip we just got a refund for.

 

[YSCCC]

Well see that's the point I'm making, you getting a refund cause your 13700 is crashing doesn't leave you with a lot of options, cause the only thing you can buy with that money is a 7700x. A part that is half as fast in those rendering applications you just mentioned.

That's why I insist an actual fix is much better than a recall or a refund. A refund means we still have to pay with our money to buy something as fast as the intel chip we just got a refund for.

No, a recall is for those out there, you can still use it, or if you feel unsafe, get something else, it is one of the options offered to the clients, not ok, we only refund.

Assuming it can be fixed and is actually fixed in the coming microcode, the CPUs out there have suffered some degradation to whatever degree by chance, those can still die right after warranty or mess up your randering, a proper recall, is to replace all those out there with a replacement which fixed the issue, or those who don't want to bother, get their money back. why you have to always pick a single part and thinks I demand that refund is only option for recall? it is always WHY NOT BOTH, they are legally liable to get the fixed stuffs and compensate those who suffered. And mind you, an actual fix could be just impossible

 

[TheHerald]

No, a recall is for those out there, you can still use it, or if you feel unsafe, get something else, it is one of the options offered to the clients, not ok, we only refund.

Assuming it can be fixed and is actually fixed in the coming microcode, the CPUs out there have suffered some degradation to whatever degree by chance, those can still die right after warranty or mess up your randering, a proper recall, is to replace all those out there with a replacement which fixed the issue, or those who don't want to bother, get their money back. why you have to always pick a single part and thinks I demand that refund is only option for recall? it is always WHY NOT BOTH, they are legally liable to get the fixed stuffs and compensate those who suffered. And mind you, an actual fix could be just impossible

Man saying how do you know your cpu isn't half cooked already and will die just outside warranty applies to everything. How do you know your x3d isn't half scorched due to the increased voltages and will die just outside warranty? Well, you don't I guess. Did amd recall every single chip that might have half burned already? No.

Did anyone ever ask for amd to recall ALL their cpus cause they might have degradated due to soc voltage? No.

 

[TheHerald]

I know that cpus are supposed to last for a decade at least, but then have you ever wondered why don't intel and amd offer a 5 or 10 year warranty? Maybe they are indirectly telling us that no, they won't last that long. So your cpu dying outside warranty is normal, both amd and intel are literally telling you they can't guarantee that it will work after 3 years.

 

[YSCCC]

Man saying how do you know your cpu isn't half cooked already and will die just outside warranty applies to everything. How do you know your x3d isn't half scorched due to the increased voltages and will die just outside warranty? Well, you don't I guess. Did amd recall every single chip that might have half burned already? No.

Did anyone ever ask for amd to recall ALL their cpus cause they might have degradated due to soc voltage? No.

Lol the X3D failure is never as widespread than intel, and you know they just pulled all their Zen 5 back out for some QC issues? did intel do that? no, AMD did, AMD acted quickly and fixed the X3D, not 2 years later with dozens of threads in intel community forum saying their 13900k being unstable is your issue, not theirs, problem discovered, and fixed, meanwhile Intel? even System integrators have been very frustrated and come out complain, last time some few months ago the bios update supposedly fixed the degradation issue and they still reject those unstable CPUs, cause it is "your MB destorys it, ask Asus or others", now just after Wendell and all tech tubers came out, and this new miracle microcode fix comes out, how can that be compared?

and X3D burning is a very quick, direct melting issue, it either burnt out, or don't really degrade, intel meanwhile is in electron migration slow depth, so it degrade over months, not smoked out, and THAT is making it live shorter, and problem is that the DENIED they have any problem since RPL released 2 bloody years ago, which in electronics timescale is forever. If they announce they found the issue and rectify in first half year? Fine no recall needed, but only admit at end of life cycle while denied a ton of RMA? probably not, you don't need to be a fan and argue with me, let the mass lawsuit judge decide, as long as I've used Intel for 30+ years this is the worst PR and quality they have ever made.

And also as per price/performance, you do know that intel platform only last for 2 gens, while AM5 will stick around double that time? that alone makes upgrading at low cost a lot easier when your rendering need arise.

 

[YSCCC]

I know that cpus are supposed to last for a decade at least, but then have you ever wondered why don't intel and amd offer a 5 or 10 year warranty? Maybe they are indirectly telling us that no, they won't last that long. So your cpu dying outside warranty is normal, both amd and intel are literally telling you they can't guarantee that it will work after 3 years.

It is just time they will likely have stock to replace, outside those years they don't keep old stock for warranty, period, not that it can't be guaranteed to work, but guaranteed to have replacable stock.

And you know what? if Intel don't get kicked hard, be ready for future generations where you are the one affected and get kicked around with denied RMA.

 

[TheHerald]

Lol the X3D failure is never as widespread than intel, and you know they just pulled all their Zen 5 back out for some QC issues? did intel do that? no, AMD did, AMD acted quickly and fixed the X3D, not 2 years later with dozens of threads in intel community forum saying their 13900k being unstable is your issue, not theirs, problem discovered, and fixed, meanwhile Intel? even System integrators have been very frustrated and come out complain, last time some few months ago the bios update supposedly fixed the degradation issue and they still reject those unstable CPUs, cause it is "your MB destorys it, ask Asus or others", now just after Wendell and all tech tubers came out, and this new miracle microcode fix comes out, how can that be compared?

and X3D burning is a very quick, direct melting issue, it either burnt out, or don't really degrade, intel meanwhile is in electron migration slow depth, so it degrade over months, not smoked out, and THAT is making it live shorter, and problem is that the DENIED they have any problem since RPL released 2 bloody years ago, which in electronics timescale is forever. If they announce they found the issue and rectify in first half year? Fine no recall needed, but only admit at end of life cycle while denied a ton of RMA? probably not, you don't need to be a fan and argue with me, let the mass lawsuit judge decide, as long as I've used Intel for 30+ years this is the worst PR and quality they have ever made.

And also as per price/performance, you do know that intel platform only last for 2 gens, while AM5 will stick around double that time? that alone makes upgrading at low cost a lot easier when your rendering need arise.

Ah really? So the amd chip either instantly died the moment you booted into windows or NOTHING happened to it? You don't believe that, do you?

It doesn't matter how amd handled it, I'm asking a very simple question. If I used my amd chip for a week, or a month, or a couple of months with the 1.4v soc are you telling me NOTHING happened to it? Okay, then I can claim nothing happened to your intel chip, just update the bios mid August and you are fine.

And no, just because you keep the same socket doesn't mean upgrading is cheaper. Example, the 5800x 3d launched at 450$. It wad cheaper for me to buy a brand new b660 and a 12700f (total cost 446$ at the time) then to stick with my old b350 and spent 450$ for the 3d.

 

[TheHerald]

It is just time they will likely have stock to replace, outside those years they don't keep old stock for warranty, period, not that it can't be guaranteed to work, but guaranteed to have replacable stock.

And you know what? if Intel don't get kicked hard, be ready for future generations where you are the one affected and get kicked around with denied RMA.

They don't need to have stock of the exact same cpu to replace. No company has the exact same model. There are psus with 10 years of warranty, they won replace your psu with the same model 10 years down the line. They will either refund or give you something of similar quality.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

I know that cpus are supposed to last for a decade at least, but then have you ever wondered why don't intel and amd offer a 5 or 10 year warranty

All companies… well almost all, seasonic seems to be an exception, warrant for as long as they need to in order to look good.. 3 years seems reasonable, better than a year.

When I was designing systems no internal test system was built using antistatic precautions. We wanted them to fail. They were abused and where they failed we addressed weaknesses.. retest repeat.

V6 of our computer was the first issued as operationally safe to use. Sensor interfaces were versions 4 and 5.

Handed to manufacture ALL static precautions were implemented, we did everything to break them in test but in manufacture the components were cosseted, protected.

I saw one failure of note.. temp testing. Running to 80C was fine but when I chilled them down to -50C a power supply on the pc board failed. Inspection by me revealed that 2 inductors were not soldered.. ho hum, I’d missed them.

 

[YSCCC]

Ah really? So the amd chip either instantly died the moment you booted into windows or NOTHING happened to it? You don't believe that, do you?

It doesn't matter how amd handled it, I'm asking a very simple question. If I used my amd chip for a week, or a month, or a couple of months with the 1.4v soc are you telling me NOTHING happened to it? Okay, then I can claim nothing happened to your intel chip, just update the bios mid August and you are fine.

And no, just because you keep the same socket doesn't mean upgrading is cheaper. Example, the 5800x 3d launched at 450$. It wad cheaper for me to buy a brand new b660 and a 12700f (total cost 446$ at the time) then to stick with my old b350 and spent 450$ for the 3d.

Lol you getting mad for no reason, just picking the single models fitting your arguement don't make it valid, if you go to TOTL, intel price advantage goes away you know?

And how they handle any issue IS all that important, they deny any responsibility until now, where it gone so bad not only DIY geeks, but service providers come out and complain, that alone is all that matters. AMD can go bad, but they act quick and replace it, so it is solved, RPL? ppl complained and RMAed since 13900k, I even read in intel community where they have cases ppl eventually gave up on the back and forth RMA and buy a 14900k, tought it have ironed out the issue and bad luck strike again. THAT is not ok and a full recall or other compensation is needed to teach them a hard lesson, not "ar we will now honor all the RMA".

I am pretty confident MY own 14900K is fine since I undervolt it since day 1 with all those power limit set manually and used contact frame, but that is me being lucky and tweaked it from day 1, not any other man that didn't coincidentally did it.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

It doesn't matter how amd handled it, I'm asking a very simple question. If I used my amd chip for a week, or a month, or a couple of months with the 1.4v soc are you telling me NOTHING happened to it? Okay, then I can claim nothing happened to your intel chip, just update the bios mid August and you are fine.

Some chips went to silicon heaven, the magic blue smoke left the chips. Some chips survived. The time scale between the problem becoming apparent and a root cause being identified was short.

The bios updates went out quickly and the big problem was cured. Limits were applied. Motherboard manufacturers had exceeded the limits. There was no fault in the chips as manufactured.

All went quiet and other than forums referring back to the incident to create a false equivalency it isn’t heard of.

Any subsequent failures I’d guess were covered by RMA and no, we don’t know how many of the early chips are still in circulation and we don’t know how much residual damage may have been done.
That we don’t hear of subsequent problems tells us that it was handled well.