Yeah, tREFI and tRFC are the 2 settings that lead to data corruption with ram if you don't know the hell you are doing. These 2 are linked, tRFC is how long each pause takes and tREFI is how INfrequent the pauses are. So you drop trfc as low as possible and set trefi as high as possible for the lowest latency but - again, you need to know what the heck is going on
And this is why forums are..... popcorn worthy but seldom more than that.
Never said it's not user created. What I'm saying is that it is highly ironic having a PC that constantly crashes and bsods while arguing how you care about your PC's stability.
Intel claims mobile versions are not affected. With the way this has evolved however, I'm still mildly concerned. I have a 13900HX in my new laptop (This all blew up right after I received it) and I'll be more than a little miffed if I have to RMA it. Outside of the potential CPU issues it's a tight little rig.
Intel actually said that mobile chips have an issue, but it is not the excess voltage issue.
Absolutely, tribalism draws the forums into a state where what is said becomes meaningless. He who shouts loudest wins.
IIRC, Intel claims it's normal software/hardware incompatibilities with no action on their part forthcoming. Not the most reassuring statement. I have had zero of these types of incompatibilities and the claimed crashes over the past say, 30 years? And this is a cross dozens of systems and several operating systems and their various versions over the years. That's not to say I've never had a crash, I have. Those crashes were always afaik the direct result of something I did. Regardless, until Intel says otherwise I plan to use my system as intended. If it craps the bed then so be it. I will expect Intel/Dell to make any issues right and if they do not then I will simply vote with my wallet next time around. It's really all I can do.
Just FYI as it's bugging me: "Recall" does not mean "replace". It means to remove, fix, or replace. A microcode update sent to all systems with affected processors is a recall.
100% agree with what you say here, but to live up to my username, the first responsibility of a company is to the law. Fiduciary duties are a lower standard of care than the duty to obey the law.
“As with the Sale of Goods Act, under the Consumer Rights Act all products must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described.
I don't disagree. Unfortunately, as mentioned here by others, this durability is limited to the warranty period. I really hate the "engineered obsolescence" and disposable culture we're in now, but unfortunately it's what the law allows.
Yep, And they will replace the ones that have failed. The rest will merely receive a microcode update and, legally, only be replaced if within the warranty period for manufacturing defects. Unless Intel or a jury decide otherwise.
You can yawn all you want, but the focus everyone has on "the fiduciary duty is the highest duty of care under the law" encourages even our lawmakers to ignore the self evident fact that everyone has citizenship and law-abiding duties. And to thus excuse bad behavior if it was in the interests of a corporation.
Am I the only one that's here giggling at the pun? Just me? Yep yep yep, gonna juuust see myself out right now...
Yes, this is the warranty period. But even under this: 1) A microcode update that keeps it function for 5 or 6 years without fault is "repairable", and 2) It looks like no one is entitled to a replacement until the processor "breaks down".
You didn’t comment on the “As described” section. If the update reduces performance it is not as sold. Break down doesn’t matter in that case.
I mean, there's the whole concept of "lies of omission."
This makes choosing a Ryzen chip really easy. Why would anyone throw dice on a chipset/motherboard combo with a company that will not stand by those already stung by their mistakes. Do they have a fix? Is it permanent? Are we waiting for the other self destruct shoe to drop? Buh Bye!
You clearly don't understand what you wrote then. You made a bunch of generalized assumptions about who buys parts, how they use them and what their reaction is. You're also ignoring that the top of the stack is the least sold part so by sheer volume of sales one would expect to have heard many stories from lower SKUs as well if all were equally affected.
If it was unsafe at idle you'd have a lot more parts slagging themselves just by the nature of your supposed hypothesis here. Your arguments keep getting more ridiculous and detached from reality the more you post.
It's not a matter of defending Intel, and I've said repeatedly they've botched the response and need to assure customers. It's a matter of not liking when someone is spreading unproven nonsense because they have an axe to grind.
But in this case, a replacement with the same CPU would not solve the performance gap with what advertised.
How is a microcode update changing the description of the product? They aren't making limits to what they had described the product as, they are actually rectifying (with the microcode update) a mistake that caused the product to operate out of its original description.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram